Sean Hannity rails against James Comey, Hillary Clinton and “deep state crime

  • Thread starter Thread starter MonteRCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
And besides, what stipulation are you talking about? Hannity making the request is a request, not a stipulation.
Click to expand...
The letter to court from Cohne’s attorney’s that noted the communication from Hannity.
Hannity was in touch, knew that he was liable to exposure, and wanted to avoid it.
Ridgerunner said:
This is not comprehensible to me.
Click to expand...
Ridgerunner said:
This is not comprehensible to me.
Click to expand...
Hannity reported on a story that in which he was involved and had a personal stake, without disclosing that fact. That is a violation of professional ethics.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
niceatheist:
don’t you think his bosses, coworkers, and most importantly his viewers, have a right to know that the man he’s defending so stridently is his attorney?
Click to expand...
Mildly, but not to amount to much. Hannity had the guy on his show, and in a friendly kind of venue. (even though Cohen, one has to admit, is remarkably sour) I think a person would have to be pretty unobservant to not see that a lot of those talk show people have conversations that continue into commercials or even after the show closes. With the “business shows” one finds oneself wishing one could hear those conversations, since they might be more interesting than the show itself. Cohen is a lawyer. Hannity no doubt has a lot of legal stuff going on all the time. Not odd at all to think there might have been off-camera or even off-show conversations.

so would it have been better if sometime or other Hannity had said to the camera: “Oh, I have asked cohen a few questions myself, about real estate. He’s a sharp guy” (or whatever)? Sure. Important enough to go on and on about it? No.
Click to expand...
But you will admit by not even doing that minimum of disclosure, it raises a lot of questions about the nature of his commentary? I don’t think anyone expects an entertainer like Hannity to be unbiased. He’s paid to be biased. But this is fundamentally about ethics, about someone not abusing the platform they’ve been given in a way to protect their own interests, even if it’s just for “real estate”.
 
If you’d bother to look some things up, you would know that Trump has been found guilty on a number of occasions, such as in 2016 when he was fined for illegal use of campaign funds and also his Trump University fiasco.

On some previous occasions, he was found guilty of defaulting on paying back loans and also for non-payment to subcontractors. This is all a matter of the public record, so why not google that?
 
Ridgerunner said:
I didn’t say some or all of the DOJ are guilty of anything. What I was trying to communicate, but evidently failed in doing, is that the potential is serious and should be seriously investigated. And, of course, never did I say the 'entire DOJ" is corrupt.
Click to expand...
This is what you wrote: “Alternatively it might mean the DOJ was corrupt during that period.” So, how else was I to interpret that?
 
Ridgerunner said:
You’re not one iota better than he is. Remember Jesus and the woman about to be stoned? What’s the one thing you least want known about you? Tell us now, so we can compare.
Click to expand...
You are about a thousand percent right. Wise words, which we would all do to remember every minute of our lives.

I’m not being sarcastic. This is one of the most intelligent (and Christian) things I’ve ever seen here at CAF.
 
I’m still not sure what they are trying to get at here.

Sean Hannity is probably more vocal than any other news commentator on the planet that he is biased is not a journalist.

So if this is some attempt to make him look not objective, both he and his 20 million+ listeners, watchers and readers know it.

Otherwise, is it really so unusual for someone like Hannity and Trump to have connections to the same person?
 
Just understand that the DOJ was and currently is corrupt.
 
Last edited:
I guess you quoted me when you meant address the entire thread. The topic of the thread is a smear campaign on Comey.

It can’t be we can be allowed to smear him but we can’t judge Trump’s actions as being an example of lack of character.

I didn’t stone him or condemn him.

His soul isn’t mine to condemn.
 
F_Marturana said:
I guess you quoted me when you meant address the entire thread. The topic of the thread is a smear campaign on Comey.

It can’t be we can be allowed to smear him but we can’t judge Trump’s actions as being an example of lack of character.

I didn’t stone him or condemn him.

His soul isn’t mine to condemn.
Click to expand...
No smear … merely asking for clarification of some “inconsistencies” … REALLY BIG inconsistencies.
 

click here google you tube mueller

Congressman Jim Jordan has harsh things to say.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Alan Dershowitz on Monday slammed James Comey for leaking memos of his private discussions with President Trump.

Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus, said the former FBI director “demeaned” the bureau by giving the memos to a law professor who then leaked the content of the memos to the New York Times.

“This is a man without courage,” Dershowitz stated on “Fox & Friends.”

He argued that Comey should have spoken up when Trump allegedly pressured him to end the FBI’s investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and also when the president allegedly demanded Comey’s loyalty.

“Instead, he leaked it,” Dershowitz said.
Click to expand...

click here google you tube dershowitz
 
Oh yes, and all those Democrats and Republicans and independents in the DoJ are all going after your Super-Hero, Donald J. Trump. Tell us, do you know them all? most of them? And I betcha believe that Trump & Co are saints that shouldn’t be investigated, right?

I don’t see any group as being saints or demons, so I want investigations to go forth if there’s any suspicion of wrong-doing, regardless of party affiliation.
 
dvdjs said:
And besides, what stipulation are you talking about? Hannity making the request is a request, not a stipulation.

The letter to court from Cohne’s attorney’s that noted the communication from Hannity.

Hannity was in touch, knew that he was liable to exposure, and wanted to avoid it.
Click to expand...
That’s not a “stipulation”. Perhaps you were talking about some other stipulation.

Which ethical canon did he violate? In case you are mistaken, can you share the canon which you believe he violated?
 
There is a difference, though. Comey’s personal life is nothing to me, at least. ;What he did as FBI director or is doing now does concern me because he once had chief law enforcement power in this country and now has the ear of many people and is still very much in the political arena.

Talking about Trump’s former marriages, affairs, and so on, is very different. Those things do not affect me or governance of the country.
 

It came as no surprise to Judge Richard Posner that Robert Mueller botched the counterintelligence actions when he was FBI Director. If you look at what the FBI has been good at, crime fighting, you begin to just wonder how they handle this other task. It may well be that both Robert Mueller and James Comey are good examples of the “Peter Principle.” When it comes to counterintelligence, they may have been promoted to their level of incompetence.

Theoretically speaking, one of the FBI’s core responsibilities is counterintelligence. The FBI lists eight priorities on their website and counterintelligence is second: “Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage.”

Robert Mueller, when he was the FBI Director, had the responsibility of stopping Russian intelligence operations against America. He reigned a full twelve years, from 2001 to 2013, marking the longest tenure of any director apart from Hoover. He had ample opportunity to run American counterintelligence as he saw fit, and even to put in place a foundation, set a culture, and hire the right people, to protect America going forward.

However, Mueller was unable to bring victory to the intelligence department of the FBI. Indeed, Russia’s intelligence services clowned America numerous times.

Mueller’s mindset can clearly be seen in testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on June 13th, 2013. In his opening statement, he listed the FBI’s top priorities: terrorists, homegrown violent extremists, and cybercrime. Counterintelligence didn’t make the top of his list, the bottom of the list, or even get a passing moment during the three hours of testimony. In fact, when Mueller brought up cybercrime, he even listed off what entities may commit cybercrime, but left out state actors and certainly didn’t name Russia……
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t much doubt Mueller is trying to provoke his own firing. His objective is to remove Trump from office. If he can’t do it by way of finding a criminal violation to charge him with, aiding impeachment is all he has. It surely would cause impeachment in the House if Trump fired Mueller at this point.

Mueller has to know that raiding one’s lawyer’s office would infuriate anyone, just as going after one’s financial records would be. Leaking would add to it, of course.
 
dvdjs said:
No I haven’t. I have heard comment that Trump considered having the FBI see if they could prove that there was no tape of the episode in question. That is odd. But if no one cares about Stormy, why would they care about what is on the tape?

More important - if the report on the Prague trip are true - what was the deal with Cohen’s trip and why did he lie about it?
Click to expand...
What I find interesting is that Trump is concerned about Melania having 1% chance of finding out that the tapes exist.

EXIST

Trump is scared that a tape exists. If a tape exists than the episode of the Golden Showers did in fact happen.

That could explain Melania’s distant behavior toward Donald in public. She believes the content of the Dossier. Does she have reason to believe the content?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top