MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle interviewed Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday, and even as their conversation went to air, Ruhle was already making excuses for the presidential candidate and her consistent inability to give clear answers about any of her policies. Ruhle told fellow MSNBC host Chris Hayes, “One could watch and say she didn’t give a clear and direct answer. And that’s okay, because we’re not talking about clear and direct issues.” WATCH: Ruhle: "One could watch and say she didn't give a clear and direct answer. And that's okay, because we're not talking about clear and direct issues." Embarrassing. pic.twitter.com/gxsNDzRXAV — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 25, 2024   Harris became the Democratic Party’s candidate — largely by default — when President Joe Biden was effectively forced out of the contest by prominent members and large-dollar donors within his own party. But since leap-frogging to the top of her party’s ticket — despite never winning a single primary vote on her own merits — Harris has rarely taken questions, and even more rarely, attempted to answer them. Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here! Her attempts on Wednesday appear to have fallen flat, judging from Ruhle’s rapid attempts to run cover for her, and several video clips of her answers suggested that she was delivering more of the same rambling, unintelligible non-answers that have marked her tenure as vice president. When asked how she intended to fight price gouging — which she has promised to do despite having no evidence that it is actually happening — without implementing Soviet-style price controls, she pivoted. “So, just to be very frank, I am never going to apologize for going after companies and corporations that take advantage of the desperation of the American people,” Harris said, but made no real move to answer the question. Instead, she rambled some more about disasters like weather-related events or the COVID pandemic and repeated her promise to prevent price gouging. “Yes, I’m going to go after them, yeah, I’m going to go after them, and that’s part of a more comprehensive plan on what we can do to bring down the cost of living, including housing, including the everyday needs of the American people,” she continued. WATCH: Kamala fails to explain how she plans on tackling "price gouging" without implementing price controls. That's exactly what her plan is — Venezuelan style price controls. pic.twitter.com/zcboNd9mTU — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 25, 2024 Ruhle’s interview, as MSNBC’s Public Relations team noted when they announced it, marked Harris’ first solo network appearance since becoming the candidate. She did one pre-recorded interview with friendly CNN anchor Dana Bash, but her running mate Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) had been by her side for that. Prior to landing the interview, Ruhle argued on comedian Bill Maher’s show that it didn’t matter whether or not Harris ever answered any real policy questions, arguing that what truly mattered was that she was not former President Donald Trump.

Dolly Parton solidified herself as the queen of country music years ago. She’s inspired droves of women to pursue their dreams and head to Nashville to be a star. Dolly also made many friends in the music business, including Billy Ray Cyrus. He thought so much of her when his daughter, Miley, was born, that he made a special request. Believe it or not, Dolly Parton is Miley Cyrus’ godmother, but it gets better. The pair are related. It’s A Distant Connection During an interview with Access Hollywood, Dolly and her sister, Rachel, learned Ancestry discovered the connection between the Patron and Cyrus families. They are actually seventh cousins, once removed, connected by John Brickey of Virginia. John is Dolly’s sixth great-grandfather and Miley’s seventh great-grandfather. It’s a mouthful, but it’s exciting. “Is that true? That’s amazing!” Dolly asked. “I’m sure she’ll get a kick out of that, but it doesn’t surprise me because she does feel like family.” Dolly has known Miley since she was a baby, and they have always shared a special bond. They have even covered each other’s songs. Dolly sings a mean Wrecking Ball and Miley’s Jolene is incredible. Miley loves having Dolly in her life and recently shared her appreciation for her godmother with W Magazine. “Dolly’s been like a mother to me,” Miley said, “I was just reading this fax that she sent me two Mother’s Days ago. Dolly wrote to me to say: ‘How much do I love you? As much as my heart can hold and as far as my arms can reach.’ It gets me choked up. I just love her so much. Last Christmas, she gave me a whole mannequin, done in her proportions and wearing her outfit. It’s so major.” This story’s featured image is by Kevin Winter/Getty Images for The Recording Academy. The post Dolly Parton & Goddaughter Miley Cyrus Surprised To Learn They’re ACTUALLY Related appeared first on InspireMore.

'I would be a target

Can the United States Naval Academy (USNA) continue to use race in admissions decisions, even though the U.S. Supreme Court expressly forbade the use of race in college admissions last year in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC? I believe the clear answer is no, as I have argued in a forthcoming law review article. The Supreme Court’s holding should apply to all the military service academies. But that’s the issue being litigated at trial before a federal district court judge in Baltimore this week. That’s because the military service academies were not parties to the lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and not subject to the ruling from last year. So, it’s an open legal question.    In this first of three opinion editorials, I will discuss the legal arguments of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The second will discuss the written and oral testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness. And the third will discuss the government’s written and oral expert presentation.  No matter which side prevails at trial, the losing side will, no doubt, appeal. Background The military service academies, which include the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Military Academy (frequently referred to as West Point), and the U.S. Air Force Academy produce only 18% of all officers in the uniformed services. The bulk of military officers enter the service either via a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program at their college or university or through a direct commissioning program. Once on active duty, all officers are assigned tasks and are eligible for promotion based on their comparative performance. Graduates of the military service academies do not have a “leg up” on non-academy graduates in terms of promotion or job placement.  In the Navy, 60% of senior officers are non-Naval Academy graduates. I received a direct commission as an officer in the Navy in 1992, and retired as a captain in 2022 after 30 years of service on active duty and the reserves.  And since the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Students for Fair Admissions applied to all colleges and universities (with the exception, for now anyway, of the service academies), and they can no longer use race in admissions, college students in ROTC and direct-commissioning programs are not products of race-based admissions programs.  Today, 82% of all military officers receive their commission from ROTC or direct commissioning programs. The Plaintiff’s Arguments Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) is a voluntary membership organization formed for “the purpose of defending human rights and civil liberties, including the right of individuals to equal protection under the law.” They are represented in this case by the law firm of Consovoy McCarthy. Two members of SFFA are the aggrieved parties. Both are 23 years of age. One member is white and the other is Asian. Each secured a nomination from his congressman but was denied admission to the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA).  They, and others similarly situated, want to apply again, but won’t unless the USNA is prohibited from using race in the admissions process, as they believe they were discriminated against because of their race. The legal arguments by SFFA are straightforward. After recounting the holding in the Supreme Court’s decision in Harvard/UNC cases, the plaintiffs argued in their written brief that the USNA has violated their clients’ constitutional right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment by using race during the admissions process. They contend that the USNA’s “overt racial preferences” throughout the admissions process are not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest, and as such, do not satisfy the strict scrutiny standard that courts must apply in such cases. In support of their argument, SFFA notes that the academy’s “focus on race plays out across all areas of its admissions policy,” and that the “magnitude of those racial preferences is stunning.” They note that a Diversity Task Force created by the Chief of Naval Operations in 2020 recommended that the Navy deemphasize “the use of standardized academic tests” in order to “improve minority representation” in the officer corps to “reflect relevant national demographic percentages.” And even though the USNA denies the use of actual quotas, the plaintiffs point out the uncanny year-over-year demographics of the incoming classes to show that they are indeed involved, at the very least, in racial balancing. For the class of 2025, the USNA enrolled 1,183 midshipmen, 672 of whom were white, 79 of whom were black, and 115 of whom were Asian. For the class of 2026, the USNA enrolled 1,184 midshipmen, 676 of whom were white, 75 of whom were black, and 117 of whom were Asian. According to a Government Accountability Office report on race and admissions at the USNA, “the Academy makes offers of appointment to the majority of qualified minorities to achieve the Chief of Naval Operations commissioning goals for minorities.” If that isn’t government-speak for a quota, it’s hard to see what is. According to SFFA’s complaint, racial preferences are “determinative for hundreds of applicants each year.” And because “skin color can be – and often is – a decisive factor for successful applicants … race is a ‘positive’ factor for some Academy applicants, it is [also] a ‘negative’ factor for others.” This “positive” versus “negative” factor language is key, as it is one of the prongs of the legal analysis in the Supreme Court’s decision finding that Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The overall goal of the Academy’s racial balancing is to make sure that the student body “reflects our country” and reflects “the racial composition of its enlisted corps,” according to SFFA. That “goal is tantamount to a declaration that the Academy will never stop using race in admissions,” since the demographic makeup of society and the enlisted force is “constantly changing.” This utopian quest for “statistical parity going forward” lacks “a logical end point,” quoting from Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions. The lack of a logical end for the use of race in admissions by colleges and universities was a major factor in the court’s decision to end the use of race in admissions. The plaintiffs characterize the USNA’s reasons for using race in admissions into two propositions: (1) that racial preferences enhance the military’s internal functioning and military readiness, and; (2) that racial preferences enhance the military’s functional capacity by fostering internal confidence within the ranks and bolster external legitimacy, which increases societal trust and recruitment efforts. SFFA rejects both arguments, calling them “naked appeals to deference.” They argued that the USNA views “sailors and Marines primarily as members of racial groups, rather than individuals.” The underlying “assumption of the Academy’s argument is that sailors view their peers and superiors foremost in terms of race, rather than in terms of their ability or character traits like loyalty, devotion, or selflessness.” As to the USNA’s claim that statistical parity between the officer corps and enlisted corps is necessary to “foster trust between the enlisted corps and its leaders,” SFFA argues that the USNA “has never provided evidence to support that assertion, and indeed, all available evidence says otherwise.” SFFA argued that there are “reams of evidence showing that trust between sailors at sea or Marines on the battlefield is formed through performance, and that servicemembers in war zones are more concerned with the leaders’ competency than with their skin color.” They likewise rejected the USNA’s argument that racial preferences make Navy units “more effective at accomplishing their missions,” noting that there is no evidence to support that claim. With respect to the USNA’s arguments that an officer corps must reflect the makeup of the general population and the enlisted ranks or else suffer from “external legitimacy” and a lack of “societal trust,” SFFA argues “that notion is both un-American and devoid of any evidentiary support.” The USNA asserts that if they could not use racial preferences in admissions, it would harm their recruiting efforts. SFFA notes, however, that even at the “apex of the Academy’s use of racial preferences,” the Navy is suffering from a recruiting crisis that is “unprecedented” in modern times, thus undercutting the academy’s recruiting argument. One of the major reasons junior officers are leaving the military, according to in-depth surveys, is that “non-merit factors in admissions and promotions” has infected the officer corps. To drive the point home, SFFA notes that nine out of 10 respondents to these surveys said that “more officers would stay [in] if the military was more of a meritocracy.”  The USNA’s Arguments At the outset, the USNA admits that it uses race and ethnicity as a factor in the admissions process, but that it does so in a way that is both constitutional and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. The government asserts that the “military’s interest in building a diverse officer corps is integral to ensuring national security.” The government claim that the quest for a diverse officer corps is “both distinct and measurable,” in “stark contrast to the universities’ admissions policies at issue in [the Harvard/UNC cases].” The USNA argues that its use of race in admissions is “narrowly tailored,” that it treats each “candidate as an individual,” that its use of race is a “nondeterminative factors,” that the process is “holistic,” that “race is not used as a negative” or part of a quota. As such, there is “no available, workable alternative.” The USNA’s arguments are unpersuasive and circular. The USNA notes, without irony, that of the five steps in the admissions process, “at four limited parts of the admissions process, USNA may consider race or ethnicity.” In other words, in 80% of the admissions process, the USNA uses races to inform its admissions decision. First, race or ethnicity can be a factor in deciding whether to send a potential candidate a “letter of assurance” for admission to the academy. Second, board members who evaluate candidates to the USNA use a score called the “Whole Person Multiple” (WPM). Race or ethnicity can be a factor where the highest WPM scores are very close, yet the USNA decides to select a “slightly lower WPM … over the qualified candidate with a slightly higher WPM after an in-depth review of their entire record.” The USNA asserts that the use of race or ethnicity in these circumstances is only one of many “nondeterminative factors” that “inform” its decisions. Third, the head of the USNA (called the superintendent) may nominate up to 50 candidates in any given year.  Race or ethnicity can be one of the factors considered by the superintendent. Fourth, if the USNA has not reached its authorized class size by the end of the admissions process, the academy may consider race or ethnicity “in extending offers to additional appointees.” The USNA asserts that although “military interests” do not “always trump other considerations,” courts have given great deference “to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest.”  The government asserts four reasons why a diverse officer corps is vital to the national security of the United States. First, it fosters cohesion and lethality. Second, it aids in the recruitment of top talent. Third, diversity increases retention. And fourth, diversity in the officer corps “bolsters its legitimacy in the eyes of the nation and the world.” The USNA asserts that those reasons, and the goal of diversity in the officer corps, are subject to meaningful judicial review. The claim that a court can examine whether race riots have occurred since the Navy made an effort to diversify their officer corps. A court should also “carefully consider” the views of senior military leadership, who opine that achieving diversity is a national security imperative.  Third, a court should examine feedback from current servicemembers’ surveys about the importance of unit cohesion and command climate. And finally, a court can examine the “demographic data” to determine whether the Navy “officer corps reflects the diversity of the nation as a whole.” The USNA claims that it “seriously considered race-neutral alternatives,” but that “there currently are not available, workable alternatives that would suffice to produce the benefits of a diverse Navy officer corps.” The USNA claims to have increased outreach, marketing, added extra points to candidates from low socio-economic backgrounds, prioritized first-generation status, and even considered changing or eliminating standardized test scores. The USNA asserts that it does not intend to use race and ethnicity as a factor in its admissions process indefinitely. It recognizes that there must be an “end point,” but then fails to identify any such end point in its brief before the court. My Take The USNA uses races and ethnicity in its admissions process. That violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, unless USNA’s use of these factors is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. The compelling government interest the USNA claims is that national security demands that the United States have a racially and ethnically diverse officer corps.  Its briefs artfully avoid the fact that the service academies as a whole only produce 18% of the officer corps in the United States military, and that 60% of senior officers in the U.S. Navy did not graduate from the USNA. The academy does not argue, must less show, why a college that produces a statistical minority of officers to the entire U.S. military and a minority of senior officers in the Navy must use race in its admissions, or how doing so bolsters the national security interests of the United States. The government’s brief does not argue, nor could it with any credibility, that graduates of the military service academies are better officers than officers produced via ROTC or direct commissioning programs. The latter two of which, since they are college-based or college graduates, are barred from using race in its college admission decisions. Noticeably absent from the academy’s brief is the argument that the Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions has weakened the national security of the country since colleges and universities across the country are now forbidden from using race in admissions. The government’s claim that the USNA’s use of race and ethnicity in the admissions process is nondeterminative and narrowly tailored is belied by the fact that race and ethnicity is used in four of the five steps in the admissions process. Finally, the academy’s two-paragraph argument that it does not intend to use race and ethnicity indefinitely is wholly unpersuasive, when read in the context of its entire brief. If, as the academy claims, it’s important to have an officer corps that reflects the “diversity of the nation as a whole,” and the demographics of the nation are constantly changing (which they are), then there is no logical end point at which the USNA will stop tweaking the composition of the officer corps at the academy by race. The post U.S. Naval Academy on Trial for Unconstitutional Use of Race in Admissions (The Legal Arguments: Part 1 of 3) appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Looking for some Thanksgiving traditions your family should do? Read on because you'll love to know that there are simple yet meaningful traditions a family should do. These little habits will surely provide a meaningful opportunity to reflect and become more grateful this holiday season. Use this as an inspiration to get started with a new practice in your family. I bet that you would love the idea of having new memories to keep and tradition that you can do year after year. 12 Thanksgiving Traditions Every Family Should Do Thanksgiving isn’t all about the food or the football games. My favorite part of the holiday is the memories we make from Thanksgiving traditions our family takes part in every year. Not every family has these memory makers in place, so I thought I would compile my list of favorite Thanksgiving traditions for your family to try out this holiday season!   1. Give Thank You Cards/Gifts To Your Loved Ones image via the dating divas There’s no better way to celebrate Thanksgiving than to show gratitude via a simple token like a thank you card or a little thank you gift.   2. Do A Secret Service For A Family Member image via the dating divas Secret acts of service never get old. Have fun doing little kindnesses for a spouse, sibling, or parent with these adorable DIY Scratch Off Service Tickets.   3. Gratitude On A Roll | Fill in a basket of rolls with a secret note attached to each roll about how thankful you are to have such person in your life. That’s like filling your loved ones’ bellies and hearts in one go.   4. Serve Others Together With Your Loved Ones image via pbcfoodbank Take time this holiday to give back to those a little less fortunate this Thanksgiving. Volunteer at a food bank or shelter to make sure others have a happy holiday as well.   These DIY table settings are absolutely stunning for Thanksgiving! https://t.co/7WmkBAxpKc pic.twitter.com/b19ItC7ei3 — Homesteading (@HomesteadingUSA) November 5, 2016   5. Snap Photos With The Whole Gang image via deseret news Use this opportunity while the whole family is together to capture some snapshots during your Thanksgiving celebration.   6. Thankful Pumpkins image via kelly elko Create your own thankful pumpkins where you can doodle and preserve all the things you’re thankful for today and years to come.   7. Create A Cornucopia image via chica and jo Celebrate a bountiful harvest with this edible cornucopia! Make sure to unleash your best baking skills since the whole family is sure to savor this beautiful and tasty edible cornucopia.   8. Watch Old Home Videos image via kristal family Reminisce and remind yourself of good times past while watching old home movies. You’ll get a kick out them and you just might find some more reasons to be thankful this year.   9. Decorate With Cherished Family Photos image via feels like home Instead of stocking up on leaves and pumpkins this year, use family photos as decorations to drum up some nostalgia. Yay or Nay? Thanksgiving Table Setting! ???????????? A photo posted by Homesteading (@HomesteadingUSA) on Nov 25, 2014 at 8:57am PST 10. Try Out These Thankful Walnuts image via craftberry bush Give each guest a thankful walnut with a special message inside. Leave them natural-looking or dress them up with a little gold leaf.   11. Personalized Thankful Booklets image via golden moments Prepare lined notecards to pass out to each guest with their name printed at the top. Have each guest write their gratitude on their notepads and snap a photo to add to the notecard. Keep the note cards around to repeat each year so they will eventually have an entire booklet of gratitude.   12. Play Thanksgiving Themed Games image via ars technica Thanksgiving can leave one feeling a little heavy with all the rich, traditional foods prepared so, lighten things up with some of this fun, Thanksgiving-themed games!   Still up for another Thanksgiving tradition? Then, check out this video from Parade Magazine: Most of us may already have our own Thanksgiving tradition we practice each year. Like, in my homestead, I encourage my grandkids to create personalized thank you cards. This way, they are able to creatively express their gratitude to everyone in the family. A simple practice that is sure to leave a lasting impact!   Did you enjoy my list of  Thanksgiving traditions every family should do? Let me know in the comments section below what you thought of my Thanksgiving traditions list.   Looking for the best place you can visit with your family this holiday? Click here.   Follow me on instagram, twitter, pinterest, and facebook!

Wednesday's Final Word

While the pro-Kamala networks have eagerly shared "resurfaced" or "unearthed" videos that show J.D. Vance talking about childless cat ladies or childless teachers brainwashing the kids, they can't locate videos of Kamala Harris chanting "down, down, with deportation" or agreeing that prostitution should be decriminalized. MRC's Jorge Bonilla joins the show to discuss the latest blatant double standard. One side is meant to be damaged, and the other is to be protected. Bias by omission is a forceful tool, as it was in the 2020 campaign. The media would prefer to position Harris as favoring a bipartisan deal as if she was a centrist on deportation, when she's demonstrated that she is not. Kamala Harris granted an interview to Wisconsin Public Radio this week, and one of the questions was on abortion, where Harris insisted she was in favor of scrapping the filibuster to reinstate Roe v. Wade. Jorge underlines there are serious leftist plans to remove obstacles to packing the Supreme Court, federalizing election rules, and passing gun confiscation. We learned on Wednesday that both Trump and Harris have agreed to individual "town hall" interviews on Univision, Trump on October 8 and Harris on October 10. The interviewer in each is Enrique Acevedo, who Jorge notes was strongly attacked on the left for a calm interview allowing Trump to speak without perpetual interruption. Univision has unsurprisingly offered soft interviews to both Biden and Harris. Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

Days after suggesting that it wasn’t necessary for Kamala Harris to sit down for an interview and answer policy questions, MSNBC tasked their resident late-night AWFUL, Stephanie Ruhle, with doing precisely that. Sitting down with Harris and attempting to get substantive answers on policy. She got half the job done: the sitting down part. The interview opens with a plea, from Ruhle to Harris, to give the voters what amounts to a policy elevator pitch. Harris responded with a word salad that ended with affordable housing. Harris makes sure to immediately work "hopes", "dreams", and "aspirations" into her first word salad, in response to Ruhle's first soft toss of a question. pic.twitter.com/TyGPrm89xi — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 25, 2024 Ruhle took another pass at the question, at which point Harris fired off a succession of talking points against Trump: Second question, @SRuhle marvels: “Over the last four years, there have been tremendous economic winds and you’ve just laid out a big plan, but still polling shows that most likely voters still think Donald Trump is better to handle the economy. Why do you think that is?” pic.twitter.com/n9HcpUSVD2 — Brent Baker ?? ?? (@BrentHBaker) September 25, 2024 Within a round of questions on taxes and tariffs where Harris largely avoided providing substantive answers, Ruhle asked an uncomfortable question regarding the Teamsters’ non-endorsement, which Harris also ducked: Harris avoids answering the question about the Teamsters' refusal to endorse. pic.twitter.com/D0ptyrQm2k — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 25, 2024 Ruhle asks Harris about price controls. Harris provides a clear answer, which is to double down: Harris's response to the price controls question seems very price control-adjacent pic.twitter.com/ZfJeNuHJ9w — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 25, 2024 On immigration, Ruhle revives “cats and dogs”. Harris offers to revive mass amnesties: Immigration: Kamala offers to revive both the failed border bill and "comprehensive immigration reform" pic.twitter.com/QT6qzYq0HU — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 25, 2024 At long last, a tough question: McDonald’s. MSNBC’s @SRuhle gets tough: “Your opponent almost everyday seems to be talking about this. So I just want to ask you yes or no. At any point in your life have you served two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun?” Giggle time. pic.twitter.com/iDfDMK6Yf2 — Brent Baker ?? ?? (@BrentHBaker) September 25, 2024 Of course, there is an obligatory question on abortion, framed as an economic issue- the one issue guaranteed to elicit a response out of Harris: in this case, the ProPublica Abortion Hoax. Also, the trust question: Ruhle makes sure to work an abortion question into this interview on economy. pic.twitter.com/0SHhiwe6Vt — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 25, 2024 Afterwards, there was the usual obnoxious round of self-congratulation and back-patting that is typical of MSNBC. Ruhle glowingly called Harris “a great interview.” RUHLE: "She's a great interview. I sat down with her for 25 minutes. You might not have liked all her answers, but she had one for every single question." pic.twitter.com/WefuFOJbsj — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) September 25, 2024 As I mentioned at the outset, Ruhle accomplished half her mission, which was to ask questions. Some friendly, some with a slight degree of difficulty, but there was never a serious challenge of anything Harris said. Unfortunately for viewers expecting clarity, Harris didn’t offer a substantive answer beyond her talking point set-pieces. That much was evident from the very first question, wherein Harris worked “dreams”, “aspirations”, and “middle class” into her very first answer. It went downhill from there. As anticipated, sitting the vice president was the proud recipient of a warm tongue bath from the Regimiest of all Regime Media outlets, which will no doubt he hailed as a groundbreaking interview by the usual crowd of Regime propagandists.

Friends don’t let friends invite Robert De Niro to their movie premieres.Director Francis Ford Coppola learned that lesson the hard way this week. The Hollywood icon debuted “Megalopolis,” his audacious new film starring Adam Driver and Jon Voight, before select IMAX audiences nationwide Monday.Coppola introduced the film personally via a livestream Q&A prior to the screening featuring longtime pals De Niro and director Spike Lee. Neither is involved with the project, but both share long, personal ties with the director.The event was meant to honor both Coppola and his latest film, but De Niro and Lee turned the event into a Trump roast.They took turns torching the GOP favorite and demanding audiences vote against him come Nov. 5. If you’ve heard De Niro speak over the past seven-plus years, you know exactly what he said.Different day. Same script. Yawn.He’s done this shtick before. Team Apple edited the anti-Trump comments from his 2023 speech on behalf of the studio’s “Killers of the Flower Moon” event. Silly Apple. The company wanted the focus to remain on the movie, not the costar’s political obsession.The actor raged against Trump anyway (and Apple for telling him what NOT to say).At this point, De Niro needs to be given the Hannibal Lecter treatment at public events. Tied to a gurney. Face covered in a protective mask so he can’t spout his Trump rhetoric. Or, if you have a movie to promote, keep De Niro in front of the camera where he belongs.Amazing abortionQuick: What's the biggest issue facing America today? Unchecked immigration? The disappearing middle class? Rising crime?Wrong! It's that we're not having enough abortions.At least according to Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence. The “Silver Linings Playbook” star shared why she’s voting for the “amazing” Kamala Harris come November.“I know that she will do whatever she can to protect reproductive rights. That’s the most important thing, is to not let somebody into the White House who is going to ban abortion.”Except Trump has been clear and vocal about not supporting a nationwide abortion ban. We won't hold our breath for a fact-check, as the pro-choice movement relies heavily on this kind of fuzzy thinking. How else can a fetus simultaneously be a "clump of cells" and a developing baby — all depending on how the mother feels about it?Lionsgate presents ... Robohack!Lionsgate is giving AI a try.The studio announced it will incorporate AI technology “to develop cutting-edge, capital-efficient content creation opportunities.”That sounds like something an AI bot might write, but the bigger picture couldn’t be more obvious. AI tech can save Hollywood major money. And, in the case of Lionsgate, there’s never been a better time for just that.The studio’s list of summer clunkers includes “The Crow,” “Borderlands,” and, most likely, “Megalopolis.” The expensive saga is expecting to open $4-8 million this weekend. The film’s budget is estimated at $120 million.The first two Lionsgate films capped out at a horrifying $9 million and $15 million each, respectively.The AI announcement may rankle some Hollywood insiders. Others realize it’s only a matter of time before they sign up, too.Christmas jeer“Red One” has a distinct “Jingle All the Way” vibe. Or is it “Fred Claus"?We get a bevy of new Christmas movies each year, most of which make classics like “Elf” and “Christmas Vacation” shine even brighter by comparison.Next up? “Red One,” and the buzz is already making us wish we got coal instead. It’s the movie that reportedly went way over budget because star Dwayne Johnson preferred not to arrive on set as planned. A lot.Johnson and Chris Evans play reluctant partners trying to save a kidnapped Ol’ St. Nick (J.K. Simmons).The trailer looks like the kind of glossy, high-tech film that snuffs out any semblance of Yuletide glee. We’ll reserve judgment for the finished movie, hitting theaters Nov. 15. If it’s as clunky as feared, watching “Die Hard” will bring that seasonal cheer back in a hurry.Junket jailbreakMovie journalists are as mad as hell, and they’re not gonna take it anymore.The latest sign? Multiple journos boycotted a Johnny Depp-led press soiree after time constraints turned their face time into a tiny, embarrassing window. Previously, more than 100 entertainment scribes signed an open letter protesting the dearth of chances to query actors in recent months.They have a point. This reporter often is given the chance to participate in “virtual” press junkets where the publicists can screen out any question deemed “inconvenient.”Now, if only political journalists reacted with equal horror when VP Kamala Harris stiff-arms them on the daily.