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.
Pretty dumb thing to ask a liberal like Koppel. Did he actually expect Koppel to say anything other than something negative?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Hannity might not have known, in his own mind, whether he was a “client” or not in any meaningful sense of the word.
Click to expand...
From the filing:
For at least three other clients that we have identified in the period of 2017 to 2018, the
work was more direct legal advice or dispute resolution–more traditional legal tasks. All of
these clients are individuals. One of these legal clients is Donald J. Trump. Another legal client
is Elliot Broidy. The third legal client directed Mr. Cohen to not to reveal the identity publicly.
Click to expand...
Repeat:
The third legal client directed Mr. Cohen to not to reveal the identity publicly.
Sean Hannity is the client whose identity Michael Cohen wanted kept secret - CBS News
Click to expand...
Hannity knew, and was seeking to avoid disclosure as he was railing against the raid.
 
First of all, I am not “you right-wingers”.

Secondly, The Democrats support abortion, contraception, ridiculous notions of feminism, so-called gay “marriage”, scandal regarding climate science, and previously stem cell research.

The GOP is the best overall for Catholics, minorities, the poor, women and GLBTQ folks.
 
dvdjs said:
Hannity knew, and was seeking to avoid disclosure as he was railing against the raid.
Click to expand...
I think he should have as well, just for the sake of his audience. But I don’t blame him for protesting the raid or wanting his privacy protected. But he’s a public figure. Another person would not, in my mind, be deserving of any adverse comment at all. I think they would be right in demanding confidentiality. But Hannity is a famous man with a following. For their sake, he should have said it right away.
 
dvdjs said:
Perfect response, if you were aiming to illustrate putting ideology above facts.
Click to expand...
I was aiming to illustrate that it’s stupid to ask an ideological arch-enemy what he thinks of you in public or privately. Hannity should have known Koppel would put him down.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I think he should have as well, just for the sake of his audience. But I don’t blame him for protesting the raid or wanting his privacy protected. But he’s a public figure. Another person would not, in my mind, be deserving of any adverse comment at all. I think they would be right in demanding confidentiality. But Hannity is a famous man with a following. For their sake, he should have said it right away.
Click to expand...
According the judge, the disclosure was mandatory. Hannity’s failure to disclose his COI in the reporting missed the mark. More to the point I was making, this follwoing remark contradicts known facts.
Ridgerunner said:
Hannity might not have known, in his own mind, whether he was a “client” or not in any meaningful sense of the word. Given his description of the conversation or conversations, he might not have been sure whether there actually was anything in Cohen’s office documenting anything related to him.
Click to expand...
 
Ridgerunner said:
I was aiming to illustrate that it’s stupid to ask an ideological arch-enemy what he thinks of you in public or privately.
Click to expand...
Skipping over the merit of what he said, and going directly for the ideological arch-enemy stuff.
As I said, this illustrates Koppel’s point perfectly: some people elevate ideology over the truth.
 
You compared Laura Ingram to Howard Stern the other day. Why were insulting her as unwomanly? How dare you compare her to a man even though in your opinion you think they are both flamethrowing shock jocks.

I hope you realize how ridiculous the above statement is and now hopefully you realize how ridiculous it is was to think i was calling Comey unmanly because i thought his words similar to something you would hear from Joy Behar on her show.

https://forums.catholic-questions.o...h-promise-to-fight-stalinist-forces/481914/29
 
7_Sorrows said:
40.png
Metis1:
I have not said at any point that Trump is guilty of any criminality, so why are you implying otherwise? Some here may have, I don’t know, but not I.
Click to expand...
because right now most everyone on the left believes President Trump is guilty of
probably no less than 25 things relating to business, marriage, his character, Russia, and the list goes on and on.
Click to expand...
Only people on the left can rightly say what people on the left believe.
 
dvdjs said:
According the judge, the disclosure was mandatory. Hannity’s failure to disclose his COI in the reporting missed the mark. More to the point I was making, this follwoing remark contradicts known facts.
Click to expand...
Go ahead and quote from a reliable source where the judge said disclosure of Hannity’s identity was “mandatory” upon Hannity. Clearly she did make it mandatory upon Cohen.

And what Hannity’s subjective state of mind might have been does not “contradict known facts”.
 
Ridgerunner said:
And what Hannity’s subjective state of mind might have been does not “contradict known facts”.
Click to expand...
The fact as stipulated in court was that Hannity made the request that his association Cohen not be disclosed. That is incompatible with him not knowing that he was a client in the sense related to the recovery of documents from the office.
Ridgerunner said:
Clearly she did make it mandatory upon Cohen.
Click to expand...
The judge made the disclosure mandatory on Cohen. Hannity knew of it, but discussed that matter without disclosing his direct persona involvement. That breeches most anyone’s sense of ethics.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
dvdjs:
According the judge, the disclosure was mandatory. Hannity’s failure to disclose his COI in the reporting missed the mark. More to the point I was making, this follwoing remark contradicts known facts.
Click to expand...
Go ahead and quote from a reliable source where the judge said disclosure of Hannity’s identity was “mandatory” upon Hannity. Clearly she did make it mandatory upon Cohen.

And what Hannity’s subjective state of mind might have been does not “contradict known facts”.
Click to expand...
The issue here is an ethical one. While I don’t think Hannity is bound by any kind of journalistic ethics, because he’s just a song and dance man who makes a lot of noise for money, it certainly brings into question his personal ethics. He’s been an attack dog over Cohen, and all the while there was a pretty glaring conflict there. Whatever the nature of the legal relationship (and we’ve gone from “I never got invoices” to a sort of Saul Goodman-esque “I may have slipped him ten bucks” in pretty short order), 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?
 
dvdjs said:
The fact as stipulated in court was that Hannity made the request that his association Cohen not be disclosed. That is incompatible with him not knowing that he was a client in the sense related to the recovery of documents from the office.
Click to expand...
Not incompatible at all. He knew he had talked to Cohen. He didn’t know what, if anything, Cohen had in the way of office notes about it. He didn’t want it made public if there was. That’s not incompatible.

And besides, what stipulation are you talking about? Hannity making the request is a request, not a stipulation.
dvdjs said:
Hannity knew of it, but discussed that matter without disclosing his direct persona involvement. That breeches most anyone’s sense of ethics.
Click to expand...
This is not comprehensible to me. Are you saying Hannity acted “unethically” by not disclosing to the public that he had had conversations with Cohen about some legal matter? “Unethically” according to what? What standard, whose standard, did he violate?
 
niceatheist said:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top