Connect with us

The Swamp

Bill Maher-Linked Company Sued For Racial Discrimination Involving Maher Saying The N-Word

Published

on

A media company that counts HBO talk show host Bill Maher as an investor is being sued for racial discrimination by a fired black employee who objected to Maher’s use of the N word. The company also faces a wrongful termination charge in the lawsuit.

Shonitria Anthony was an African-American employee at ATTN: Inc., a Los-Angeles based viral video-making company in which Maher invests. Maher promoted the company in videos and in The New York Times, and even called the company “the next generation’s Huffington Post.”

But Maher’s own behavior created a massive disturbance at the company that has led to a racial discrimination lawsuit. Maher used the N-word on his HBO program in a segment with Republican Senator Ben Sasse.

Trending: Democrats Move to Ban Trump Supporters From Joining the Military and Holding Federal Jobs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prqM4Q9zQFE

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Deadline reports on the saga of Shonitria Anthony: “She was hired in October 2016, and about eight months before Maher used the N-word on his HBO show Real Tine with Bill Maher. The Monday after the episode aired, Anthony led a meeting of her African-American co-workers, and they agreed that “ATTN must do more than their belated apology to address the issue.” The group was concerned about the company’s “continued partnership with Maher” and “that there were no persons of color in upper management” — the latter statement ATTN says is not true. In a subsequent meeting with upper management, the suit alleges, their “responses and actions … were mechanical and lacking sincerity.”

Anthony tried to rally her African-American co-workers, the suit says, but “ATTN began to treat Anthony differently.” Upper management “began to avoid internation with Anthony,” and “ATTN criticized Plaintiff’s communication with her co-workers.” The suit says that on August 3 “ATTN terminated Anthony’s employment claiming lay-off. and that the company was moving in a different direction.”

The day after Anthony was let go from ATTN, a trade publication story noted that half of the company’s staff was laid off and that the remaining employees were shifted to video production.”

Deadline excerpt ends

Maher is also dealing with fallout from a Big League Politics report on his unpublished 1987 book “What I’ve Learned About Women,” in which he made shocking claims about unsolicited kissing and genital touching.

Big League Politics reported:

Big League Politics exclusively obtained a copy of this 118-page manuscript, which he decided not to go ahead and publish.

  • Maher tells men to kiss women without asking permission.
  • Maher says that touching a woman unsolicited with an erect penis on the dancefloor is “the highest compliment a man can give to a woman’s sexuality.”
  • Maher tells men that “No” has multiple possible meanings in “female” language and advises men to run “red lights” put up by women.
  • Maher advises men to “Liberate the yes inside that no” after a rejected kiss.
  • Maher tells men not to ask women what they like in bed.

Maher writes about “The Female Predicament,” which he defines as: “The Female Predicament is basically the contradiction a woman has between possessing the same urges and needs as a man, yet simultaneously bearing the responsibility of being the one to put them in check…”

“Now, if all this seems manipulative and sounds like gameplaying – read on,” Maher writes at the end of one chapter…

Big League Politics has been in contact with Maher’s representation but so far has not received comment from the comedian’s handlers about his shocking statements.

The Swamp

What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?

Trying to make sense of a messy situation.

Published

on

Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.

A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”

As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.

This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”

In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.

Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.

“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”

If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.

Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.

So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending