Here’s a breakdown of everything that happened to Kellyanne Conway in February:

The Bowling Green Massacre (February 2)

In an interview with Chris Matthews, Conway uses a fabricated massacre to justify the immigration ban.

The Bowling Green Massacre Response (February 3)

The day after the interview, Conway claims she misspoke.

On @hardball @NBCNews @MSNBC I meant to say “Bowling Green terrorists” as reported here:
https://t.co/nB5SwIEoYI

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) February 3, 2017

However, the Washington Post finds this isn’t the case, as Conway had referred to the “Bowling Green massacre” three times before.

Credibility Dispute with CNN (February 6)

CNN reportedly declines the White House’s offer to have Conway appear on Jake Tapper’s “State of the Union,” due to “serious questions about [Conway’s] credibility,” according to the New York Times. Conway refutes this claim on Twitter, but is quickly called out by CNN’s PR account.

. @KellyannePolls was offered to SOTU on Sunday by the White House. We passed. Those are the facts.

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) February 6, 2017

Mika Brzezinski, co-host of “Morning Joe,” tweets a response that suggests MSNBC also declines Conway appearances.

.@CNNPR @KellyannePolls you are not the first.

— Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) February 6, 2017

The Jake Tapper Interview (February 7)

Conway appears on Tapper’s other show, “The Lead.” The interview garners Tapper acclaim for his relentless grilling. At one point in the interview Conway seems to admit her boss is a liar. The interview also gives the internet Tapper’s resting bitch face:

the look on jake tapper’s face while talking to kellyanne conway… pic.twitter.com/NiQtNSh8Rt

— Nicole Cairns (@nicoleindc) February 7, 2017

The Ethics Violation (February 9) 

On “Fox & Friends,” Conway endorses Ivanka Trump’s Nordstrom clothing line–a violation of an executive branch regulation that prohibits employees from promoting the private gain of friends.

This prompts two members of the House Oversight Committee to send a letter to the White House and the Office of Government Ethics asking for recommendations for disciplinary action against Conway. According to POLITICO, the OGE’s website crashes due to traffic that same day. Later that day, Sean Spicer in a press briefing says Conway was “counseled” for her comments. This causes some controversy within the White House.

The SNL Sketch (February 12)

Presented without comment:

The Michael Flynn Interview Pt. 1 (February 13)

In an MSNBC interview, Conway claims that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn enjoys the “full confidence of the president” despite reports that revealed Flynn lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his communications with Russia’s U.S. ambassador. Flynn resigns later that day.

The Michael Flynn Interview Pt. 2 (February 14)

Conway is interviewed by Matt Lauer the morning after Flynn’s resignation. Lauer grills Conway on the timeline of Flynn’s resignation and Trump’s trust in Flynn. At one point, a frustrated Lauer tells Conway that she isn’t making sense.

The White Nationalist Twitter Account (February 14)

After her Lauer interview, Conway tweets “I serve of the pleasure of @POTUS. His message is my message. His goals are my goals. Uninformed chatter doesn’t matter.”

A Twitter account named “Lib Hypocrisy” responds, praising Conway’s “strength and resiliency” and expressing love for her. Conway subsequently retweets the praise while responding that she loves them back. It is discovered that “Lib Hypocrisy’s” bio includes the hashtags #Nationalist and #WhiteIdentity.

Conway tells Buzzfeed News that she wasn’t the one who retweeted the account, and that someone else has access to her account.

The Office of Government Ethics (February 14)

The OGE responds to the House Oversight Committee’s letter by sending a letter of their own to the White House ethics official, recommending that the White House take disciplinary action against Conway.

“Morning Joe” Ban (February 15)

The “Morning Joe” hosts officially ban Conway from their show because they believe she has lost her credibility.

The Spicer Leaks (February 15)

CNN’s Dylan Byers reports that five sources believe the person who has been leaking stories about Trump’s frustration with Spicer is Conway. They say Conway is doing this place the blame of the administration’s troubles on Spicer and to earn a “lasting place in the President’s inner circle.”

Sidelined (February 22)

You may have noticed there is a week-long gap between this controversy and the last one. Apparently, that was the White House’s intention as, according to CNN Money, the White House sidelined Conway because comments she made during appearances on multiple shows were “off message.”

When the news of the “sidelining” comes out, Conway refutes these claims and says she was invited to shows but wanted to focus on other pieces of her “portfolio.”

Merriam-Webster (February 23)

At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Conway says she doesn’t identify with being a feminist because “[modern-day feminism] seems to be very anti-male, and it certainly is very pro-abortion.” The Merriam-Webster Twitter account then tweets this in response:

’Feminism’ is defined as “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” https://t.co/Zjf7CAPUjL

— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) February 23, 2017

Misconduct Complaint (February 24)

The Washington Post reports that 15 law professors specializing in legal ethics filed a professional misconduct complaint against Conway, who is a member of the D.C. bar.

The Couch (February 27) 

Presented without comment:

Kellyanne Conway photographed making herself comfortable on Oval Office couch https://t.co/4qeNGFjJWdpic.twitter.com/978aeedbxM

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) February 28, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Kellyanne Conway and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Month appeared first on Law Street.

Jennifer Lopez is currently locked in a pretty nasty legal battle with her first ex-husband, Ojani Noa. Noa, who was married to the actress and singer for eleven months in 1997-1998, is in possession of a number of salacious home videos featuring J-Lo. He wants to release them, but she doesn’t want them to see the light of day. Now, they’re stuck in a seemingly interminable legal battle over the issue.

J-Lo’s people have been fighting the release of the tapes for approximately six years now. According to Noa, they contain personal incidences like J-Lo arguing with her mother over gambling. But what appears to have garnered the most attention is the fact that Noa is claiming that he’s in possession of a sex tape of the two of them from their honeymoon. Noa’s business partner Ed Meyer told In Touch:

There is revealing video of her with a lack of clothing and in sexual situations, especially in the hotel footage from the honeymoon.

While J-Lo’s team has been fighting Noa’s team in court for six years, the videos have been kept closed under court order. But J-Lo’s lawyers recently withdrew from the case during arbitration. According to Meyer, that resulted in a loophole that will allow them to release the videos. But Noa and Meyer don’t plan on just releasing the videos, they also plan on profiting from them. Meyer has said: “We are going to produce a DVD and also have a streaming release of the J.Lo home video footage.” It’s seemingly not just about the money, though. Meyer has implied that the attempted release of the videos are in some way vindictive and personal, stating: “The videos contain salacious material and are going to shock her fans. We have unfinished business.”

While the release of celebrity sex tapes, or celebrity nude pictures, have become sadly the norm, the threatened release of J-Lo’s sex tape, as well as other aspects of her private life are still horrifying. While Lopez’s marriage to Noa clearly didn’t have a happy ending, that does not entitle him, or his business partner, to exploit her private life and shame her for her sex life with Noa. Regardless of Meyer and Noa’s plans, Lopez’s team will probably continue to attempt to block the release of the video–we’ll see if they’re ultimately successful.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post J-Lo vs. Her Ex-Husband: Former Couple in Court Over Sex Tape appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Ross Harris was indicted on September 4 by a grand jury on eight counts for the murder of his 22-month-old son, who was left in a hot car. The public anxiously waited for this verdict after Harris became public enemy number one after the incident in June. Cobb County District Attorney Vic Reynolds stated that he will decide over the next three weeks whether to seek a mandatory life sentence or the death penalty in this case. If Reynolds does seek the death penalty, it will be for the malice murder charge, which alleges that Harris, who has claimed his son’s death was an accident, premeditated the child’s killing.

There has been much debate over the outcome and potential sentence of punishment that Mr. Harris will receive. Some believe these charges are way too severe, considering there may still be a possibility that the death of Harris’ young son was in fact an accident. In my opinion, this all comes down to just how ethical the death penalty really is? The death of a 22-month-old baby is tragic, and what is even more heartbreaking is that this seems to be becoming the norm. I was reading the news today, and several newspapers have created sections in which ‘hot car baby deaths’ are featured. It is clear that enforcing the death penalty as a deterrent just does not work.

In the twenty-first century, I honestly believe if we were to live by the saying ‘an eye for an eye’ we would be living in chaos. In order to lead by example, as a country that punishes individuals who commit heinous crimes, we should rise above just killing them off by an injection. It costs more money to keep an individual on death row than it does to place them in prison on a life sentence. An eye for an eye means that equal amount of suffering should be received, and I ask you, do you really think a quick lethal injection can compare to some of the horrific murders and rapes these victims suffer? Would it not make more sense to sentence these individuals to life sentences in prison, forcing them to acknowledge what they have done, while being punished by depriving them of any normal life they once had? What I think a lot of people fail to understand is that although these individuals can be sentenced to death row, they will spend years awaiting their actual death while money is wasted on them sitting in a cell.

With ironic timing, after three decades on death row, this week 50-year-old Henry McCollum and his brother were released from prison in North Carolina due to DNA evidence after serving a sentence for the rape and murder of a female in 1983. As expected, social media jumped at the chance to voice their opinions on this case, and the death penalty in general. Many believe that if someone commits such a heinous crime they should also suffer, whereas others argue that killing them via the death penalty is the easy way out. I have done a lot of research in the use of DNA to exonerate individuals. The Innocence Project is an organization that dedicates itself to cases exactly like this in the hope of overturning wrongful convictions. The flaw with the death penalty is the fact that in most cases, with an absence of evidence or lack of investigative material, it is close to impossible to be 100 percent sure of conviction. The risk that an individual can be sentenced to death, and then be proven innocent is way too high to warrant any ethical justification for this form of punishment.

As a country that bases itself on a constitution that protects the rights of the people and forbids cruel and unusual punishment, I struggle to see how sentencing someone to die by lethal injection for a crime that cannot be supported with 100 percent guaranteed proof is not in itself a contradiction of what we stand for. By sentencing Harris to death, I do not see how that can compare to the suffering of a young baby in a hot car. It is controversial to compare the suffering of ways to die for both the victim and the perpetrator, but I actually think the death penalty can sometimes be an easy way out.

Justice for victims who have lost their lives due to crime demands that their perpetrators be punished and made to understand and take responsibility for their actions. I am still unsure about where I stand in terms of rehabilitation for these types of criminals, but I genuinely feel like (and for this you can blame my criminology background and psycho analytic personality) if we do not try to understand why these things happen and why people do the things they do, we will not be able to prevent any harm done to us in the future, and more importantly to the next generation that will live in this exact same era of punishment.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Luigi Caterino via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Death Penalty is the Easy Way Out appeared first on Law Street.