Hannity needs to go

[Puffnstuff]

Still waiting on those indictments?

His confirmation bias allows him to ignore such things.

Single lone voice standing up for dirty journalism. Applaud yourself.

And the dumbing down of America continues

Lone Wolf McPlayed?

 

[HomerJS]

His confirmation bias allows him to ignore such things.

Lone Wolf McPlayed?

I find it amazing how much Trump fluffers have been willing to accept the lowing of decency standards.

Imagine the right wing 24x7 outrage if the Negro had this kind of close connection to Rachel Maddow and she didn't disclose it?

Queue up the lesbian barbs.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I find it amazing how much Trump fluffers have been willing to accept the lowing of decency standards.

Imagine the right wing 24x7 outrage if the Negro had this kind of close connection to Rachel Maddow and she didn't disclose it?

Queue up the lesbian barbs.

Scary isn't it? They call evil good and good evil while claiming to be Christians with a desire to uphold the bible while they do everything contrary to what it states.

 

[zinfamous]

Just read her viewership is up 20% now. I'm off to find the stats on rising gun purchases and the huge increase in NRA memberships to share those with you guys. While I'm gone by all means continue the quest to shut down opposing viewpoints because even if the populace thinks they don't want it, you guys know what's best for them - right?

That smell, that totalitarianism smell. Smells like... victory?

so, what does the behavior of observably gaslighted fools circling the wagons around their exposed acolytes have to do with any of this? You think the behavior of these zealots is relevant to the actual truths that are being revealed about their beloved acolytes?

 

[Moonbeam]

what does Cannabidiol have to do with putting trump in power

Conservative Brain Defect

 

[fskimospy]

Just read her viewership is up 20% now. I'm off to find the stats on rising gun purchases and the huge increase in NRA memberships to share those with you guys. While I'm gone by all means continue the quest to shut down opposing viewpoints because even if the populace thinks they don't want it, you guys know what's best for them - right?

That smell, that totalitarianism smell. Smells like... victory?

And yet her advertisers, you know, the people that actually matter to the business don't care.

https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwome.../04/ad-prices-drop-for-ingrahams-program.html

The average price for a 30-second spot on the program ranged from $11,305 to $13,405 for the week of April 9-13. That compares to $12,310 to $14,732 for March 26-30, per Forbes.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the show has averaged only seven minutes of national paid air time for the first three days after Ingraham returned from a week-long break. Before the controversy, Ingraham's show averaged 15 minutes and 5 seconds of national air time.

lol.

 

[Greenman]

Aside from this being a significant conflict of interest issue for Hannity, is there anything else significant here? I'm not discounting the conflict of interest, that's a problem and misleading viewers, but is there anything else here? I'm pretty sure we all knew Hannity misleads his viewers all the time, and that fox news is not an objective source of current events information. Does a story like this actually have the bite to turn away any of his viewers or supporters?

It all pretty much depends on what Cohen did for him. If it's as Hannity say's and he was getting occasional real estate advice, it's not much of a story. If it turns out he was using him to funnel hush money to hookers it will be a huge problem.

Did Hannity say that Cohen was a long time friend when he interviewed him?

 

[soundforbjt]

Just read her viewership is up 20% now. I'm off to find the stats on rising gun purchases and the huge increase in NRA memberships to share those with you guys. While I'm gone by all means continue the quest to shut down opposing viewpoints because even if the populace thinks they don't want it, you guys know what's best for them - right?

That smell, that totalitarianism smell. Smells like... victory?

Opposing view? Yes his being denied from a college was an opposing view from what exactly, please be specific. Have you purchased My Pillows to show your support?

 

[Younigue]

It all pretty much depends on what Cohen did for him. If it's as Hannity say's and he was getting occasional real estate advice, it's not much of a story. If it turns out he was using him to funnel hush money to hookers it will be a huge problem.

Did Hannity say that Cohen was a long time friend when he interviewed him?

It doesn't matter what Cohen did for Hannity. There is impropriety, a lack of "journalistic"/personal integrity and a bias toward someone currently drowning in criminal proceedings.

His viewers are purposeful in their desire to be misled, sure but I would think even they would want to have been made aware of Hannity's relationship with Cohen. Why'd he keep hush about it, while railing against the unfair treatment of Cohen? It's not like his viewers would have even been fazed by the disclosure. He wouldn't have lost a single viewer if he'd revealed his legal relationship with Cohen. Nah, he kept quiet because this is about something his viewers, the law or his family/wife might not approve of.

 

[Blackjack200]

Just read her viewership is up 20% now. I'm off to find the stats on rising gun purchases and the huge increase in NRA memberships to share those with you guys. While I'm gone by all means continue the quest to shut down opposing viewpoints because even if the populace thinks they don't want it, you guys know what's best for them - right?

That smell, that totalitarianism smell. Smells like... victory?

Opposing viewpoints? LMAO. What viewpoints are you even talking about? I defy you present a consistent set of beliefs or ideas about politics that has been advanced by the right wing media that isn't a simple expression of hatred for minorities or the poor, trolling their political counterparts, or indignant whining.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Conservative Brain Defect

Also known as Republican Mind Rot.

 

[glenn1]

It all pretty much depends on what Cohen did for him. If it's as Hannity say's and he was getting occasional real estate advice, it's not much of a story. If it turns out he was using him to funnel hush money to hookers it will be a huge problem.

Did Hannity say that Cohen was a long time friend when he interviewed him?

As someone who doesn't watch/listen to him and would probably disagree with most of what he said, still I say "so what?" Unless there's a law somewhere about funneling hush money to hookers *and* that action was highly relevant to some other far more major crime, then (a) why the need to break attorney/client privilege and (b) more importantly, who the fvck cares whether he's paying hush money to hookers? That's between him, his dick, and his wife/divine entity he prays to.

It doesn't matter what Cohen did for Hannity. There is impropriety, a lack of "journalistic"/personal integrity and a bias toward someone currently drowning in criminal proceedings.

I'm sorry but there's no level of "journalistic integrity" that justifies breaking attorney client privilege any more than it justifies taking away someone's right to not self-incriminate.

 

[fskimospy]

As someone who doesn't watch/listen to him and would probably disagree with most of what he said, still I say "so what?" Unless there's a law somewhere about funneling hush money to hookers *and* that action was highly relevant to some other far more major crime, then (a) why the need to break attorney/client privilege and (b) more importantly, who the fvck cares whether he's paying hush money to hookers? That's between him, his dick, and his wife/divine entity he prays to.

Well if he paid them off in a similar fashion to how Trump apparently paid his off that would possibly make Hannity a co-conspirator in the commission of multiple felonies such as bank fraud, wire fraud, etc. If Hannity were part of the discussions about Trump/Cohen's illegal payoffs he could be part of a criminal conspiracy in those cases as well. That seems important.

I'm sorry but there's no level of "journalistic integrity" that justifies breaking attorney client privilege any more than it justifies taking away someone's right to not self-incriminate.

Huh? Attorney-client privilege only goes one way, from the attorney to the client. Hannity had zero duty to Cohen but he DID have an ethical duty to his viewers to disclose his conflict of interest. Hahaha, not that Sean Hannity cares about ethics.

 

[alien42]

As someone who doesn't watch/listen to him and would probably disagree with most of what he said, still I say "so what?" Unless there's a law somewhere about funneling hush money to hookers *and* that action was highly relevant to some other far more major crime, then (a) why the need to break attorney/client privilege and (b) more importantly, who the fvck cares whether he's paying hush money to hookers? That's between him, his dick, and his wife/divine entity he prays to.



I'm sorry but there's no level of "journalistic integrity" that justifies breaking attorney client privilege any more than it justifies taking away someone's right to not self-incriminate.

according to Hannity's description of their relationship, there is no attorney client privilege. so you want to try that defense one more time?

 

[Greenman]

As someone who doesn't watch/listen to him and would probably disagree with most of what he said, still I say "so what?" Unless there's a law somewhere about funneling hush money to hookers *and* that action was highly relevant to some other far more major crime, then (a) why the need to break attorney/client privilege and (b) more importantly, who the fvck cares whether he's paying hush money to hookers? That's between him, his dick, and his wife/divine entity he prays to.



I'm sorry but there's no level of "journalistic integrity" that justifies breaking attorney client privilege any more than it justifies taking away someone's right to not self-incriminate.

To clarify, I assume it would be huge to Fox and his viewers if he was paying hush money, not a crime at all.
It doesn't seem as though announcing that Cohen was his attorney breaks attorney client privilege.

 

[HomerJS]

As someone who doesn't watch/listen to him and would probably disagree with most of what he said, still I say "so what?" Unless there's a law somewhere about funneling hush money to hookers *and* that action was highly relevant to some other far more major crime, then (a) why the need to break attorney/client privilege and (b) more importantly, who the fvck cares whether he's paying hush money to hookers? That's between him, his dick, and his wife/divine entity he prays to.



I'm sorry but there's no level of "journalistic integrity" that justifies breaking attorney client privilege any more than it justifies taking away someone's right to not self-incriminate.

Its a violation of campaign finance laws. Its the same thing they indicted John Edwards for. You really think Hannity went to Cohen for real estate advice since Cohen is not a real estate lawyer?

 

[Younigue]

As someone who doesn't watch/listen to him and would probably disagree with most of what he said, still I say "so what?" Unless there's a law somewhere about funneling hush money to hookers *and* that action was highly relevant to some other far more major crime, then (a) why the need to break attorney/client privilege and (b) more importantly, who the fvck cares whether he's paying hush money to hookers? That's between him, his dick, and his wife/divine entity he prays to.



I'm sorry but there's no level of "journalistic integrity" that justifies breaking attorney client privilege any more than it justifies taking away someone's right to not self-incriminate.

LOL! There is no attorney client privilege if Cohen isn't his attorney. There's no privilege if they broke the law. Are you confused on this?

Are you suggesting Hannity doesn't owe it to his viewers to disclose the true reason he was so upset about Cohen being nabbed is because potentially illegal information about him may have been seized? I know he delivers the "news" with extreme prejudice and to outright lie but this shows he has no integrity of any kind and neither does he care about his viewers even in the slightest. His main goal... Rape 'em and Keep 'em stupid!

Any way, what's your point exactly? You prefer Hannity to lie to you but not without raping you first. You seem smart and full on psychologically balanced. I believe there's a name for loving your rapist.

 

[glenn1]

To clarify, I assume it would be huge to Fox and his viewers if he was paying hush money, not a crime at all.
It doesn't seem as though announcing that Cohen was his attorney breaks attorney client privilege.

It would be huge to Fox viewers if he was being treated for an STI related to the hooker he paid hush money to, but does that justify revealing the identities of all the patients of the doctor who treated him for it? What if instead of 3 clients this dude had 300 or even 3,000 would you then be OK with effectively doxxing all of them for the "crime" of hiring him as their lawyer? How would you feel if you were one of his clients (god forbid) and then found your name being flashed up on CNN for the world to see and comment upon? I have no love for Hannity or anyone else connected to this lawyer (who seems like a scumbag) but I think the principle that privacy rights should be respected should trump (no pun intended) some momentary schadenfreude about scoring political points on or embarrassing a political rival.

Even if we went with the theory that Hannity was part of a conspiracy with Donald Trump then attorney-client privilege wouldn't apply. IANAL but you lose your right to confidentiality when you invite others to be present or reveal the relevant information to which someone else claimed privilege (e.g. Cohen can't ask Hannity to pay Trump's hush fees and then turn around and claim privilege).

LOL! There is no attorney client privilege if Cohen isn't his attorney. There's no privilege if they broke the law. Are you confused on this?

Are you suggesting Hannity doesn't owe it to his viewers to disclose the true reason he was so upset about Cohen being nabbed is because potentially illegal information about him may have been seized?

He should feel obligated to disclose it. I don't think it goes to the level of something that a court should get involved with to force its disclosure.

 

[SMOGZINN]

As someone who doesn't watch/listen to him and would probably disagree with most of what he said, still I say "so what?"

With all the ties to Trump, and Hannity's extreme defense of Trump, it lends itself to a lot of questions. It certainly begins to look like there is some level of collusion between Cohen/Trump/Hannity.
No matter what else it draws serious question about Hannity's journalistic integrity and that of Fox News in general.

Unless there's a law somewhere about funneling hush money to hookers *and* that action was highly relevant to some other far more major crime, then (a) why the need to break attorney/client privilege and (b) more importantly, who the fvck cares whether he's paying hush money to hookers? That's between him, his dick, and his wife/divine entity he prays to.

Cohen is in New York. Prostitution is illegal in New York. Therefor Cohen paying off prostitutes for Hannity would be illegal. Attorney-Client Privilege is negated in the case that and attorney assisted in illegal activities.
So,
(a) If illegal activity took place there was no attorney-client privilege.
(b) If he is breaking the law then the DA of New York at least should care, as will the Bar Association, and a number of other people.

I'm sorry but there's no level of "journalistic integrity" that justifies breaking attorney client privilege any more than it justifies taking away someone's right to not self-incriminate.

There is no breaking of Attorney-Client Privilege if that privilege did not exist due to illegal activities and apparently until just last night even Hannity was even claiming that attorney-client privilege didn't exist. He said flat out that he did not have an attorney-client relationship with Cohen, which is required for attorney-client to exist. Attorney-client privilege must be positively claimed, denouncing the attorney-client relationship would act as a waiver of any privilege that might exist, something I'm betting a competent lawyer told Hannity which is why we now see Hannity walking that claim back.

 

[Bitek]

When does SHS get her own show?

Hannity is a sock poppet WH spin doctor spokesmen who lies to his audience of what his true motives are.

Megyn Kelly was right when she said Sean wasn't a journalist.

Not this is actually a surprise as he actually repeats that claim himself.

The only shock is that he so unabashedly operates that way.

This just cements the fact that Hannity is as fake as wrestling. If you watch, you are purposely opening your mouth to be fed pure bullshit.

More of a statement of how stupid his viewers are and how low Fox's standards are. No wonder its a sewer of serial molesters and liars.

 

[Jhhnn]

What if instead of 3 clients this dude had 300 or even 3,000 would you then be OK with effectively doxxing all of them for the "crime" of hiring him as their lawyer?

Except that's not reality.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It would be huge to Fox viewers if he was being treated for an STI related to the hooker he paid hush money to, but does that justify revealing the identities of all the patients of the doctor who treated him for it? What if instead of 3 clients this dude had 300 or even 3,000 would you then be OK with effectively doxxing all of them for the "crime" of hiring him as their lawyer? How would you feel if you were one of his clients (god forbid) and then found your name being flashed up on CNN for the world to see and comment upon? I have no love for Hannity or anyone else connected to this lawyer (who seems like a scumbag) but I think the principle that privacy rights should be respected should trump (no pun intended) some momentary schadenfreude about scoring political points on or embarrassing a political rival.

Even if we went with the theory that Hannity was part of a conspiracy with Donald Trump then attorney-client privilege wouldn't apply. IANAL but you lose your right to confidentiality when you invite others to be present or reveal the relevant information to which someone else claimed privilege (e.g. Cohen can't ask Hannity to pay Trump's hush fees and then turn around and claim privilege).



He should feel obligated to disclose it. I don't think it goes to the level of something that a court should get involved with to force its disclosure.

Forgive me I’m short on time today. Trumps Nincompoop lawyer could have revealed it to the judge when court was not packed with reporters. He chose to wait until it was packed.
I’ll agree I don’t see why he had to list his clients but I’ll trust the professionals on why it was asked of him.

 

[Jhhnn]

Forgive me I’m short on time today. Trumps Nincompoop lawyer could have revealed it to the judge when court was not packed with reporters. He chose to wait until it was packed.
I’ll agree I don’t see why he had to list his clients but I’ll trust the professionals on why it was asked of him.

Heh. I figure that the reporters were the first in & the last to leave, right there any time the judge sat down.

Cohen's attorneys raised the issue of privilege wrt his other clients, seeking to have a special master filter the seized evidence before prosecutors could examine it. So the govt asked for a list. Being on such a list would have little significance under normal circumstance & would simply become a matter of public record for the Court.

These aren't normal circumstances.

Trump's lawyers claim that only Trump has the right to filter the material under executive privilege. That won't fly because it's not official govt material in the first place but rather Cohen's.

They're just trying to obfuscate & to drag it out as long as possible. Sometimes that's the best thing for the client.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Trump's lawyers claim that only Trump has the right to filter the material under executive privilege.

Lmao. Naturally, the one who the investigation is surrounding has the only valid right to filter the incriminating evidence.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm noticing that a lot of died-in-the-wool conservative news viewers around here seem blithely unaware of the full disclosure principle that is one of the primary ethical principles of actual journalists. It seems that few, if any of you are aware of this practice? Basically, if the news broadcast is reporting on an entity that is affiliated with the network or individuals employed by the network, then they are duty-bound to disclose that fact. It's simply how this works, and one of the long-standing principles of ensuring public awareness of the material being reported, and possibly conflicts in sourcing.

Watch PBS Newshour maybe. Watch an entire broadcast. Nearly every day, they are going to report on a big energy company or endowment. At the end of each report, if relevant, they will give full disclosure: "[Tyco Baby-Harvesting Mill] is an underwriter of this program."

This is very common and you see it in writing as well in print media. It's a pretty solid barometer that the media that you are consuming is legit. If you never see this, then you are likely being fed a pack of lies. It is no wonder that many conservatives here don't understand the issue of Hannity never disclosing his relationship with his attorney, while defending his attorney and excoriating "the villains arrayed against him!" Any time you see someone here comment that they don't understand this problem, you can take it as a naive admission that they are wholly incapable of discerning actual journalism from the sewer shit that they prefer to digest.