Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Ann Coulter’

Ann Coulter Blows the Lid Off the ‘Surprising’ Number of Problems with Accusations Against Roy Moore


Reported By Randy DeSoto | December 7, 2017 at 12:22pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/ann-coulter-blows-lid-off-surprising-number-problems-accusations-roy-moore/?

In an op-ed published Wednesday, conservative commentator Ann Coulter sought to counter the prolific misrepresentations by media outlets in their reporting about Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

“It’s hard to disprove accusations from 40 years ago — that’s why we have statutes of limitations — but, despite that, there are a surprising number of problems with the allegations against Moore,” Coulter — a lawyer and former federal court of appeals judicial clerk — wrote in a piece for Breitbart.

“Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren’t ‘multiple accusers.’ There are two, and that’s including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she’s lying,” Coulter highlighted.

As reported by The Western Journal, accuser Beverly Young Nelson’s attorney Gloria Allred has refused to turn over a yearbook she claims was inscribed by Moore in 1977 to a neutral party in order for the handwriting and the date of the ink to be analyzed. The yearbook was presented as proof by Allred at a news conference that Moore and Young knew each other.

Regarding Moore’s other accuser, Leigh Corfman (featured in the Nov. 9 Washington Post story alleging Moore sexually touched her in 1979 when she was 14), Coulter contended her account has problems too.

“The main accuser has gotten a lot of her facts wrong, such as where she was living at the time (she moved to another town 10 days after meeting Moore); the corner where she allegedly met Moore for their liaisons (she named a corner more than a mile away from her house, across a busy intersection); and when she began to get into trouble with boys and alcohol (it was before meeting Moore, not after),” Coulter wrote.

Further, “There’s a lot of room between HE’S A CHILD MOLESTER and THE WOMEN ARE LIARS,” she added.

“They could be misremembering. They could be confusing Moore with someone else. They could be suggestible. They could be delusional. They could have repeated the story to themselves so many times that they believe it,” Coulter said.

As for the other “accusers” who claimed they dated Moore when they were between 16 and 19 and Moore was in his early 30s, Coulter pointed out that comedian Jerry Seinfeld dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein in the 1990s, when he was 39. Therefore, Moore was closer in age than Seinfeld to those he allegedly dated.

Coulter circled back to one of her main concerns with the allegations.

“It was 40 years ago!” she wrote. “But it’s just weeks before the election and that’s the media’s favorite time to produce wild accusations against Republicans.”

The conservative commentator recounted other late-in-the race grenades lobbed against Republican candidates in the past, including an indictment of former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger four days before the 1992 presidential election by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, which seemed to implicate George H.W. Bush in a lie regarding the 1987 Iran-Contra Scandal.

In 2004, CBS’s Dan Rather employed documents easily discovered to be forged to report George W. Bush had shirked his National Guard service during the Vietnam War.

Coulter also contrasted the reporting Moore is receiving for alleged sexual contact in the 1970s versus that given to former Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds, who admitted to having homosexual relations with a 17-year-old congressional page in the 1980s. Studds defended his actions, saying it was a “consensual relationship with a young adult,” according to The Associated Press.

“Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy denounced the ‘witch hunt’ against Studds, saying his critics wanted ‘to torch the congressman for his private life,’” Coulter wrote.

The House censured him, but he was not removed from office, and successfully ran for re-election six more times.

Studds was lionized when he died in 2006 by The Washington Post (“Gay Pioneer“), The New York Times (“First Openly Gay Congressman“), NPR (“Congressional Pioneer“) among other mainstream media outlets.

Coulter, who endorsed Rep. Mo Brooks over Moore in the Alabama Republican primary this summer, concluded her piece by writing, “The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media.”

As reported by The Western Journal, Brooks, who announced last week he had already voted for Moore by absentee ballot, offered a similar rebuttal to the allegations against Moore as Coulter.

“What you have is the mainstream left-wing socialist Democrat news media trying to distort the evidence to cause people to reach the conclusion that Roy Moore engaged in unlawful conduct with a minor and my analysis of the evidence is that is not the case,” Brooks said last week on “The Dale Jackson Show,” a program on Alabama radio station WVNN-AF.

“Most importantly, the media likes to say ‘well, there are nine complainers.’ Seven of them aren’t complainers. In fact, I would be calling seven of those ladies as witnesses on behalf of Roy Moore on the issue of whether he is engaged in any kind of unlawful conduct,” the former prosecutor added.

Brooks continued, “There are only two that have asserted that Roy Moore engaged in unlawful conduct. One of those is clearly a liar because that one forged the ‘love, Roy Moore’ part of a yearbook in order to try to for whatever reason get at Roy Moore and win this seat for the Democrats and there’s a lot more to it as to why I believe that the evidence is almost incontrovertible about whether the yearbook was forged.”

The congressman went on to note that just left one accuser. “Well, that one witness’ testimony is in direct and stark contrast with that of the other seven ladies, who said that he acted like an officer and a gentleman.”

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Yes, Virginia, Immigration Is Turning The Country Blue


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

Hey, Republicans! Did you enjoy Election Night last week? Get ready for a lot more nights like that as immigration turns every last corner of the country blue. 

When Ed Gillespie lost in Virginia, liberals crowed about how they’re winning the war of ideas. The country has thoroughly, emphatically rejected Trumpism!  Republicans, being idiots, played along, arguing only about whether Gillespie’s problem was that he didn’t embrace Trump enough or embraced him too much.

Gillespie’s campaign was fine. No cleverer arguments, community outreach or perfectly timed mailings would have changed the result. Contrary to The New York Times’ celebratory article in last Sunday’s magazine, “How the ‘Resistance’ Helped Democrats Dominate Virginia,” it wasn’t Democratic operative Kathryn Sorenson’s savvy use of Facebook, Google and Eventbrites that carried the day. “The Resistance” didn’t win.

What happened was: Democrats brought in new voters. In 1970, only one out of every 100 Virginians was foreign-born. By 2012, one in nine Virginians was foreign-born.

The foreign-born vote overwhelmingly, by about 80 percent, for Democrats. They always have and they always will — especially now that our immigration policies aggressively discriminate in favor of the poorest, least-educated, most unskilled people on Earth. They arrive in need of a LOT of government services.

According to the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government, compared to just over 40 percent of the general public. Even third-generation Hispanics support bigger government by 58 percent.

Polls show that immigrants are far more likely to support Obamacare and affirmative action than the general public, and are far less likely to support gun rights and capitalism.

It’s one thing not to mention ethnic differences in crime statistics or welfare usage to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings, but if the GOP continues to pretend to see no difference in how different groups vote — while importing millions more foreigners to vote against them — then they should get used to a lot more elections like what happened in Virginia last week.

It’s not as if Republicans are unaware of how demographics can affect elections. They certainly notice when they’re drawing congressional boundaries. We don’t see GOP congressmen saying, No, I don’t mind trading that all-white town for part of a Chicago housing project. Why should I?

Currently, everyone seems to be blaming the total disappearance of the GOP in Virginia on another demographic trend: All those federal workers living in the northern part of the state.

This is a fairy tale, like the one about Proposition 187 turning California blue, or the one about the “complacency of old money” turning Connecticut blue, or the one about a disorganized Republican Party turning Illinois blue. Pay no attention to the millions of Third-Worlders we’ve been dumping on the country!

In the past 40 years, upward of 50 million culturally backward, dirt-poor immigrants arrived in America, and state after state has gone blue, but we’re always told states are flipping to the Democrats for some reason — any reason! — other than immigration.

True, Virginia is home to 322,198 people who are either current or retired federal employees. On the other hand, there are more than 800,000 Virginians who are foreign-born — and that’s not including the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the foreign-born who arrived in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Moreover, in Virginia, “federal employee” is not as Democratic-leaning as it sounds on account of the state’s numerous military bases. Virginia Beach, for example, the largest city in the state, has a higher percentage of federal employees in the workforce than the entire Washington, D.C., metro area. And yet, Virginia Beach still votes Republican in presidential elections and is represented by a Republican in Congress.

Almost 15 percent of Virginians speak a language other than English at home. If we double the number of Virginians who are now employed by, or have ever worked for, the federal government — and assume that none of them work on military bases — that’s still just 8 percent of the population.

The only reason Democrats want a never-ending stream of Third World immigrants is because they know immigrants will help them win elections, allowing The New York Times to write self-congratulatory editorials like this one last week: “Virginia Rejects Your Hateful Politics, Mr. Trump.”

Well, technically, millions of Third-Worlders living in Virginia rejected Trump’s “hateful politics.” But guess what? They also rejected John McCain’s pusillanimous politics and Mitt Romney’s soft-spoken politics.

They were brought in to vote for the Democrats. That’s the real job immigrants are doing that Americans just won’t do.

As Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy wrote for the Roper Center 20 years ago, the 1965 Immigration Act, bringing in “a wave of immigration from the Third World,” will go down in history as “the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”

There isn’t much time on the clock before it’s lights-out for the GOP. And all Republicans can think to do is argue about how quickly to grant amnesty to so-called “Dreamers” and give the Democrats another 30 million voters.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: New Democratic Spin Cycle: Launders Money, Gets Out The Toughest Sleaze!


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

The Democrats have two very different profiles. One is their public face of absolute moral purity. They’re just better people than Republicans. That’s what you’re buying when you walk into the Democratic store: pure virtue. They’ve got nothing else on the shelves. No beef jerky, no wiper fluid, no Gatorade. 

The other profile is reality: In the backroom, where the employees eat lunch, the Democrats and their fat-cat donors are committing unspeakably sleazy and immoral acts. Everyone on the left knows this. That’s why, the moment Harvey Weinstein was exposed as a sexual predator, his reflexive response was not to apologize. Accused of the kind of rapes you’d usually need a gang to commit, he put up a virtue shield by attacking the National Rifle Association.

As we recently discovered, first with Weinstein and then with the Hillary campaign paying for the Russian dossier, the left has an all-new trick that exponentially multiplies the Democrats’ sleaze factor. It used to be that Democrats like Bill Clinton would deploy FOBs — Friends of Bill — like James Carville and Sidney Blumenthal to smear his victims. Now, they run their Watergate-style “ratf—ing” through law firms.

Ronan Farrow writes in this week’s New Yorker that Weinstein deployed a raft of spies to befriend and deceive his accusers in order to collect information that could be used against them. A spy with the Israeli private investigations firm Black Cube used a fake name and fake foundation to meet actress Rose McGowan. Then, pretending to be a deeply sympathetic women’s rights advocate, the agent secretly tape-recorded the actress, hoping to get incriminating evidence against her. At a minimum, this is unspeakably repellent and possibly illegal.

And who hired the spies? Not Weinstein! The law firm of David Boies, prominent Democratic attorney.

Using a law firm as a cut-out between the client — an alleged sexual predator — and the people stealthily recording his accusers has one very useful purpose: It places the spy agency’s work behind the protection of attorney-client privilege.

Boies pretends to be steeped in the ethics of his profession, flying to California to argue against the “hate” of Proposition 8 and rushing to Florida after the 2000 election to defend Al Gore’s rightful claim to the presidency.

But now we find out he’s been harassing and intimidating a rape victim on behalf of his client (the rapist) with private eyes who lie about their identity and motives, wasting hours of the victim’s time with false promises of support for her cause — a cause she has taken up precisely because of her alleged rape by the lawyer’s client. Whether or not this violates any bar association ethical canons, it’s certainly despicable.

Two weeks ago, we found out that the law firm cut-out maneuver was the exact same technique used by Hillary’s campaign to obtain damaging information on Donald Trump from the Kremlin — the infamous Russian dossier. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee shelled out $12 million seeking incriminating information on Trump from Russian government officials.

Just like Weinstein, the Democrats funneled money for a nefarious purpose through a law firm. To wit: The Democrats paid a law firm (Perkins Coie), which paid a private investigations firm (Fusion GPS), which in turn paid a spy (Christopher Steele), and Steele paid Russian government officials for dirt on Trump.

When the media found out that Donald Trump Jr. had taken a meeting with a friend of a friend, because she claimed to have incriminating information from Russia on Hillary, the word “treason” filled the airwaves.

Hillary’s vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine (D- Va.), called Don Jr.’s pointless meeting “potentially treason.”

MSNBC’s favorite former Bush official, lunatic Richard Painter, said anyone who “wanted to help the Russians (disrupt our election process) engaged in treasonous conduct.” Al Sharpton said that the willingness to accept “information to discredit your potential opponent in an American election from Russia — from what is supposed to be an enemy state” — raised the prospect of treason.

If that’streason,” then what is it when the Democrats reach out to the Russians and pass them money for dirt on Hillary’s opponent in a presidential election? Wasn’t that dossier an attempt to discredit her opponent and disrupt the election?

Remember: Don Jr. didn’t seek a meeting with any Russians to get compromising information on Hillary, nor did he receive any. The Russian woman was using the pretense of having dirt on Hillary as a ruse to get a meeting, so that she could lobby Don Jr. on the Magnitsky Act.

Unlike Don Jr., the Democrats didn’t wait to be asked! They paid $12 million, funneled through a law firm, seeking information on Trump from Russian government officials.

But we’re not allowed to mention it because the Clinton campaign and DNC used Weinstein’s money laundering technique.

The attorney-client privilege is intended to ensure that people are completely truthful with their attorneys. It is not supposed to be a shelter for any sordid, and possibly illegal, behavior by liberals. 

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Florida Man Has Fender Bender In Manhattan”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

A man in a Home Depot truck deliberately drove into a bike path in lower Manhattan on Tuesday, mowing down cyclists and pedestrians, crashed into a school bus, then fled the truck, brandishing fake guns and shouting “Allahu akbar!” He was shot by a policeman and taken to the hospital. At least eight people were left dead and many more injured.

Those are the facts, but facts don’t matter. In cases like this, what counts is the spin. The post-Islamic-attack commentary goes more like this … 

So far, the only concrete information we have about the driver is that he was a lone attacker, he is from Florida, and he has recently been living in New Jersey.

In the bubble of your white-skinned privilege, I know you badly wanted this to be a dark-skinned person, a foreigner — the “other” — but you’re just going to have to accept the fact that the driver was a guy from Florida. Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov — just another homegrown terrorist.

Going forward, our most urgent task as a country is to figure out how to defeat Islamophobia. I plan to spend the rest of the week shaming Islamophobes on Twitter and Facebook.

For clarity, immediately after the incident, sources inside the New York Police Department debunked the “terrorism” narrative, saying that it was an incident of road rage between two truck drivers. At a press conference hours later, Police Commissioner James O’Neill refused to confirm whether the suspect had shouted “Allahu akbar” and declined to state the attacker’s name or nationality.

I don’t know why, since he’s from Florida. But the bigotry of Islamophobia doesn’t always pay attention to details.

Contrary to the toxic delusions of Faux News hosts, white men are a BIGGER domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners.

Here’s a recent tally:

Fort Hood massacre, Nov. 5, 2009: Nidal Malik Hasan — VIRGINIA MAN

Boston Marathon bombing, April 15, 2013: Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Anzorovich Tsarnaev — MASSACHUSETTS MEN

San Bernardino slaughter, Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik — ILLINOIS MAN (AND WIFE)

Pulse nightclub massacre, June 12, 2016: Omar Mir Seddique — NEW YORK MAN

Ohio State car and knife attack, Nov. 28, 2016: Abdul Razak Ali Artan — OHIO MAN

Charlottesville car attack, Aug. 12, 2017: James Alex Fields Jr. — OHIO MAN – Oops, no! I mean: WHITE SUPREMACIST, ALT-RIGHT NEO-NAZI James Alex Fields Jr.

Manhattan truck attack, Oct. 31, 2017: Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov — FLORIDA MAN

Although some of these assailants were born elsewhere, “extreme vetting” is not only racist, but most important, it doesn’t work. An intelligence assessment by the Department of Homeland Security in March of this year found that most foreign-born U.S. terrorists become “radicalized” only after living in America for a number of years. Traditional masculinity, whiteness and heteronormativity are the root causes of terrorism.

Chillingly, Tuesday’s attack was predicted by an ad released just a day earlier against Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie. The ad, produced by the Latino Victory Fund, shows a white man in a pickup truck with a Confederate flag and a Gillespie campaign sticker chasing down innocent Hispanic and Muslim children.

We don’t yet know if all the victims of Tuesday’s attack were Mexican children.

The truth is, we are, as Phil Donahue used to say, a deeply racist society. If the perpetrator — again, Florida man Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov — was a person of color, this just proves it. Sayfullo was probably so ground down by Islamophobia that he felt the only option left to him was the event in lower Manhattan. This incident encapsulates the breadth of the battle against racism we have to fight every day in this country.

Perhaps Sayfullo could be faulted for blocking the bikers’ lane, but the rest was the natural reaction to a society where, night after night, Fox News hosts indoctrinate viewers in irrational hatred toward “Islamic extremism.”

Since announcing his candidacy, Donald Trump has done very little to make Muslims feel their space is safe. Immediately after the election, the Southern Poverty Law Center documented 140,849 reports of hijabs being ripped off marginalized Muslim women on college campuses across the nation.

Ironically, Trump wants to end the very “diversity lottery” that allowed Sayfullo to come to this country in the first place! The LAST thing we want to do is alienate members of this community. We need more members of the community to come here, so they can warn us about other members of their community.

New York’s bad-ass governor, Andrew Cuomo, said it best: NEW YORKERS WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED. Ordinary people who don’t have security guards will have to learn to live with the occasional “terrorist attack.” True patriotism is having faith in this country’s ability to respond creatively, with extra airport screening, bollards, closed circuit cameras, check points, heavy policing and fewer public events.

If we truly, as a country, are committed to the American ideal of justice and equality for all, we can’t wait until a crisis happens to build bridges, educate, counteract false narratives and foster peace.

I want to believe that a massive re-education program about white privilege would work. But at this point, we might have sunk too deep into our own Eurocentric entitlement for white people to begin to unpack their privilege.

What I would really like to have, but despair of ever having, is an honest conversation about race, requiring white Americans to sit down and patiently listen to hours and hours of angry denunciations of their privilege.

Perhaps the Latino Victory Fund could lead it.

But unfortunately, we are a nation of cowards. I know it takes balls to say that, but, like Gov. Cuomo, I am all balls.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Weinstein’s Pimps: Revenge Of The Ugly Girls


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

Liberalism is a sexual assault protection racket. Judging by the last week’s news coverage, EVERYONE in the liberal universe — Hollywood, the fashion industry, the media and Democratic politics — knew about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predations and nearly all of them were covering it up.

Liberals circle the wagons to protect fellow liberals. All those sacrosanct laws about rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment are the fire ax behind a glass door: “Break in case of conservative.” Weinstein admitted as much by immediately responding to the accusations against him by offering to donate money to fight the National Rifle Association. (That’s not the thing we’re worried about being cocked and loaded, Harvey.)

According to Ronan Farrow’s comprehensive article in The New Yorker, “(m)ultiple sources” told him how Weinstein bragged that he could use his allies in the press to crush anyone who crossed him.

Longtime editor Tina Brown — ironically, one of Weinstein’s erstwhile clean-up gals — told Charlie Rose: “What I found really unsettling was how many journalists, frankly, were on his payroll. I mean, you know, Harvey would have everyone on his payroll. All the people at the (New York) Post and people in all the tabloids, people writing stuff, entertainment writers, gossip writers.”

I knew the gossip pages were written by PR agents, but I didn’t realize they were written by sexual predators, too. I was curious about exactly who was protecting Harvey and, luckily, I have a Nexis account. The full list would take me well over my word limit, so this column will focus on the tabloid most slavishly devoted to protecting Weinstein’s good name: the New York Post.

Farrow’s sources cited as their proof of how Weinstein could dirty up an accuser the coordinated tabloid attacks on Italian model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez after she reported Weinstein’s assault on her to the police in 2015. According to the detailed, heavily sourced and, apparently, 100 percent accurate account given by Farrow, 22-year-old Gutierrez met Weinstein at a Radio City Music Hall reception. The next day, Weinstein requested that Gutierrez come to his Tribeca office, “as soon as possible,” according to her agent. The moment she walked into his office, Farrow reports, Weinstein “began staring at her breasts, asking if they were real … then lunged at her, groping her breasts and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested.”

Several things happened next.

No. 1:

As she was leaving, Weinstein offered Gutierrez tickets to his show “Finding Neverland” that night, saying he’d be there. But instead of using the tickets, Gutierrez went straight to “the nearest police station.” We know she didn’t attend the show because, when Weinstein called her later to complain that she hadn’t come, she happened to be sitting with Special Victims detectives, who recorded his call.

This is how the New York Post headlined Gutierrez’s non-attendance at “Finding Neverland”:

HARVEY ‘GROPE’ GAL’S BIG SHOW

Attended Weinstein’s Broadway play the day after accusing him (EXCLUSIVE)

— Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Emily Smith and Danika Fears, New York Post, April 1, 2015

The U.K.’s Daily Mail repeated the claim in its headline — citing the Post as its source: Harvey Weinstein model used the $227 ticket he gave her to see his Broadway show the day AFTER she alleged he groped her … ‘despite knowing he would be at the theater’

No. 2:

The next day, Gutierrez wore a police wire to a meeting with Weinstein at the Tribeca Grand Hotel. As she stood intransigently outside his hotel room, Weinstein implored her to come in, promising, “I’m not gonna do anything. I swear on my children.” Thanks to Farrow’s reporting, the taped conversation is now available everywhere.

Key exchange:

Gutierrez: Why yesterday you touch my breast?

Weinstein: Oh, please. I’m sorry. Just come on in. I’m used to that.

Gutierrez: You’re used to that?

Weinstein: Yes, come in.

Gutierrez: No, but I’m not used to that.

Weinstein: I won’t do it again.

Here’s the New York Post’s description of the meeting where Weinstein — according to his admission — grabbed Gutierrez’s breast:

SHE TRIED TO REEL & DEAL (EXCLUSIVE)

Squeezed Harvey for movie role

Stalled grope claim during talks

— Jamie Schram, New York Post, April 3, 2015

No. 3:

The police working the case believed they had more than enough evidence to prosecute Weinstein. Farrow quotes a detective who was actually “involved in the operation,” saying: “We had the evidence.” The source added, “It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.”

Another police source recently told The Daily Beast’s Michael Daly that they’ve convicted subway gropers on far less evidence.

Here is how the New York Post reported the police’s attitude toward the case at the time, quoting not officers “involved in the operation,” but random “law-enforcement sources”:

“Some law-enforcement sources say her allegations will be difficult to prove, since there were no cameras in Weinstein’s office. …

“‘There’s no physical evidence. In a nutshell, there’s no corroboration of her story.’”

— Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Emily Smith and Danika Fears, New York Post, April 1, 2015

No. 4:

The police sting capturing Weinstein’s admission was soon leaked to the press.

The U.K.’s Daily Mail came clean, announcing in its headline: “‘There’s no question he did it’: Harvey Weinstein ‘did not deny groping Italian model in phone sting set up by police’”

Even a radio station in Columbus, Indiana, reported on the police sting.

Not the New York Post! For the first time that week — the day newspapers around the world were bristling with news about Weinstein’s taped, incriminating comments — the Post had zero Harvey Weinstein news.

The Post did briefly mention the operation a few days later at the end of a Jamie Schram article, full of sneering about Gutierrez’s alleged attendance at Weinstein’s play after she was groped (she did not attend), and referring to the model’s “ties to disgraced former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.”

Gutierrez’s “ties” to Berlusconi consisted of her immediately reporting a Berlusconi orgy to the police. She was there, but had not participated.

No. 5:

About a week later, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. decided not to prosecute. The International Business Times reports that, soon thereafter, David Boies, an attorney for the Weinstein Company, contributed $10,000 to Vance’s political campaign. Boies and other Weinstein lawyers, including defense attorney Elkan Abramowitz, have donated a total of about $200,000 to Vance’s political campaigns.

As a police source recently told Daly, “When you say no after a week, it’s not usually over the facts.”

The New York Post’s headline on D.A. Vance’s decision not to prosecute:

It’s ‘grope’ fiction:

DA: No paw rap on Harv as doubts dog model

— Rebecca Rosenberg and Jamie Schram, New York Post, April 11, 2015

This story again repeated the false claim that Gutierrez “wasn’t upset enough by the alleged groping to surrender a primo seat for Weinstein’s new Broadway show — which she attended less than a day after the incident.”

In her interview, Tina Brown explained exactly how Weinstein controlled reporters: “If there was any stirring of a negative story, Harvey would offer them a book contract, a development deal, a consultancy, and they used to succumb. Journalists are often short of money, and they were also very star-struck with the world that Harvey offered, which was movies and Hollywood.”

So what DID the bitter gossip girls get? Did Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Danika Fears or Maria Wiesner end up with phony “consultancies,” “book contracts” or “movie options” with Weinstein’s companies? (Paging the IRS!)

The only other explanation is that the Weinstein-compliant scandal sheets illustrate the oldest primal urge, one even more basic than the compulsion that drove Weinstein: Ugly girls taking their revenge on pretty girls.

Last Weeks Ann Coulter Letter: Media Begging Us For Conspiracy Theories on Las Vegas


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Media Find Las Vegas Shooter’s Motive: He’s White!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: