Jump to content
IGNORED

Faux News Spews; I Need Booze


Destiny

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, JMarie said:

It’s a story about a stellar high school student who doesn’t want to go to college.

I'd like to know his definition of the word "stellar".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 590
  • Created
  • Last Reply
14 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I'd like to know his definition of the word "stellar".

Here's more from the article

Quote

This story is from the Wall Street Journal: “Why an Honors Student Wants to Skip College and Go to Trade School — As worries about student debt rise, states and businesses increasingly push faster, cheaper paths to the workplace; parents are stumped.

“Raelee Nicholson earns A’s in her honors classes at a public high school south of Pittsburgh and scored in the 88th percentile on her college boards. But instead of going to college, Ms. Nicholson hopes to attend a two-year technical program that will qualify her to work as a diesel mechanic. Her guidance counselor, two teachers and several other adults tell her she’s making a mistake. ‘My dentist told me to (work on cars) as a hobby, but she kept telling me with my potential I should really go to college.’

What wasn't mentioned was the possibility of doing community college before a four-year college, or getting scholarships, which could make tuition at a four-year college less than a vo-tech school.  And if she really wants to be a diesel mechanic, why isn't she already in vo-tech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The very pompous, arrogant, fame-seeking James Comey, he can't get enough of himself, his media blitz is in full swing, and it's not going well for him."  Apparently this is Breaking News!

Most of the hour was the usual mishmash of Comey/Mueller/FISA/emails paranoia, followed by a segment of CNN's supposed ineptitude:  clips talking about excerpts from Comey's book detailing prostitutes and pee, clips covering Trump's description of Haiti and African countries as (where's that poop emoji when I need it?), and Anderson Cooper's interview with Stormy Daniels juxtaposed with an episode of Jerry Springer.

He then trashed Robert DeNiro for portraying Mueller in an SNL skit.  But at least he didn't whine about the non-existent relationship he might or might not have with Michael Cohen.

On tomorrow's show:  Mark Levin, That Loud Woman Judge Jeanine, Kellyanne Conway, Alan Dershowitz (I hope he snaps at Hannity again!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Is Sean Hannity a journalist or not? Here’s why it matters."

Spoiler

Sean Hannity is one of America’s most famous TV personalities, a conservative opinion-slinger who regularly attracts more than 3 million viewers to his nightly prime-time Fox News show while also hosting a daily syndicated radio program.

But lately a kind of Talmudic question has swirled around Hannity: Is he a journalist? And if not, what is he?

The question is probably irrelevant to Hannity’s loyal fans, who tune in for his reliably fierce defense of President Trump. But its importance rose anew on Monday when attorneys for Michael Cohen, the president’s beleaguered lawyer, revealed that Hannity was also one of Cohen’s clients, a fact Hannity never mentioned to his audience while denouncing a federal investigation into Cohen. (Hannity says he merely consulted Cohen and was never a client.)

This news caused the old journalist-or-not? question to resurface because of the implications for Hannity’s ethical obligations. Journalists are bound to recuse themselves from a story in which they have a personal stake, or at least to disclose their relationship with a person they’re covering or commenting about. Even Fox acknowledged it was blindsided by Hannity’s Cohen connection.

The ethical obligations of a talk-show host, however, are considerably less fixed.

Fox News often says there is a clear line between its news side — the province of journalists such as Shepard Smith and Bret Baier — and its opinion side, represented by Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Jeanine Pirro. Its representatives bristle when the distinction isn’t made clear.

But Fox isn’t keen on declaring the latter group to be “journalists.” Asked repeatedly on Wednesday whether Fox considered Hannity a journalist, a network spokesman declined to answer directly. She would only allow that Hannity is “an opinion talk-show host.”

The reluctance reflects, in part, the internal debate — one insider describes it as “a war” — between Fox’s opinion and news sides. The friction spilled into public view last month when Smith told Time magazine that “some of our opinion programming is there strictly to be entertaining.” Hannity took exception, tweeting in response that Smith “is clueless about what we do every day” and that his show “breaks news daily.” (Ingraham similarly objected, saying her team “does real reporting.”)

But Hannity has played both sides of this game, as the occasion suits.

“I never claimed to be a journalist,” he told the New York Times in 2016 when asked about his close association and friendship with Trump. But in another interview with the Times last year, he said, “I’m a journalist. But I’m an advocacy journalist, or an opinion journalist.”

When a Boston Globe columnist named Michael Cohen (a different Michael Cohen) criticized him in 2016, he was back on the other side. “I’m not a journalist,” he tweeted. “I’m a talk host.”

In his shot at Smith last month, Hannity flipped again. “Hannity breaks news daily,” he tweeted. “Warrant on a Trump assoc, the unmasking scandal, leaking intel, Fisa abuse, HRC lawbreaking, dossier and more REAL NEWS!”

In fact, Hannity conducts interviews with newsmakers and convenes panels of talking heads just like many TV journalists. He frequently criticizes the mainstream news media, saying his own “reporting” is a more accurate account of events. One of his guests, former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, praised his commentary by comparing him to CBS News legend Edward R. Murrow.

As such, journalists at the network said they were angry and disappointed by Fox’s decision not to discipline Hannity this week over the Cohen controversy. They said another employee would very likely have been suspended or fired for not disclosing such a relationship with someone they’ve reported on.

Whether he’s a journalist or not, experts agree Hannity had an obligation, if only as a broadcaster, to disclose his involvement with Cohen.

“He has an audience, and he is bound as a broadcaster to be transparent with them,” said Susan King, a veteran TV journalist who is now dean of the University of North Carolina’s journalism school. “He owes it to his audience to let them know when he is talking about something that impacts him directly.

King declines to apply the J-word to Hannity. She calls him “a provocateur whose medium happens to be radio and TV.”

But Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the American Press Institute, said Hannity would very likely meet the legal definition of a journalist. “He doesn’t actually get to decide that,” said Rosenstiel, the co-author of the book “Elements of Journalism.” “You can say you’re a kumquat, and the courts will decide if you walk or talk like a journalist, you will legally be a journalist. You’re talking about someone who conducts interviews, does exposes, breaks news and [is involved in] all the nomenclature of news.”

Ultimately, he said, Fox and Hannity depend on keeping their audience’s trust, and so it doesn’t matter what Hannity is called. “It’s not in Fox’s interest to have someone keeping things from its audience. If you’re hiding something, you’re no longer putting your audience first.”

There can be a debate about whether Shamity is a journalist or not, but he is definitely one thing: an a-hole full of hot air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a scintilla of original thought in tonight's Hannity -- the entire hour was spent obsessing about Comey.  Why aren't viewers getting bored with all of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JMarie said:

Not a scintilla of original thought in tonight's Hannity -- the entire hour was spent obsessing about Comey.  Why aren't viewers getting bored with all of this?

You know how kids always like you to read them the same story over and over again and never seem to tire of it? Well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Former assistant to Fox TV host Laura Ingraham sues, alleging pregnancy discrimination"

Spoiler

For nearly 16 months, Karolina Wilson worked as a personal assistant for Fox TV host Laura Ingraham. Wilson handled Ingraham’s scheduling, oversaw her travel arrangements, responded to emails and even worked with Ingraham’s household staff.

Her job, she said, kept her in constant contact with Ingraham via phone or email, sometimes seven days a week and sometimes late into the night or early morning.

“I think things were going very well. Laura is a very demanding person who is not easily satisfied, but I always satisfied her and she was always happy with my work. She never complained to me about anything. I was tired. It was a lot, but I loved that kind of work. That’s why I do it,” Wilson said in an interview.

Then in March 2017, Wilson, now 28, announced that she was pregnant with her first child. And that, according to a lawsuit filed in D.C. Superior Court, is when things began to become difficult, with the ultimate result that she lost her job.

Wilson is suing Ingraham and her company, Ingraham Media Group, alleging pregnancy discrimination under the District’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its Family and Medical Leave Act.

Ingraham, through her attorney, has denied the allegations.

Wilson alleges that the conservative talk show host became hostile toward her once she became pregnant and then fired her on her first day back from maternity leave. Ingraham allowed Wilson to remain with the company for about three weeks so that Wilson could eventually collect unemployment insurance. During that time, Wilson alleges, the company refused to set up a private space for her to pump breast milk at office in Northwest Washington, and she had to go to her car in a nearby garage.

“I had no lunch breaks. I pumped when I found a minute, here and there, making sure I wasn’t interfering with anything that was on the schedule,” Wilson said.

Ingraham, a mother of three, declined to comment on the lawsuit. But Ingraham’s attorney, Betty S.W. Graumlich, said in an emailed statement that “Ms. Wilson’s claims are wholly without merit as our filed defenses to the Complaint make abundantly clear. We look forward to litigating this case vigorously.”

According to recent court filings from Ingraham, she and her company reject Wilson’s statements that her work before her pregnancy was “extremely efficient.” They also said it is not true that Ingraham became hostile toward Wilson after learning of her then-assistant’s pregnancy.

In court papers, Ingraham said she did not know Wilson needed a place to pump breast milk. Ingraham, the filing states, denies “that they were aware that [Wilson] needed a breast-feeding accommodation or a place to pump and therefore deny the allegations made.”

Ingraham’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the claim that Ingraham’s company violated the District’s Family and Medical Leave Act, arguing instead that Wilson was not eligible because, in part, Ingraham’s company had fewer than 20 employees. A hearing is scheduled for May 11 in front of Judge John M. Mott of the D.C. Superior Court.

Wilson also alleges in the lawsuit that Ingraham initially offered only one week of maternity leave. Wilson said she told the company that she needed more time and that Ingraham offered her three weeks. Ingraham’s company then allowed her to remain off for eight weeks, on condition, Wilson said, that she still work from home.

The lawsuit alleges that Wilson “felt pressured to commit to working from home only two or three weeks after the birth of her child,” her attorneys, Linda Correia and Lauren Khouri, wrote.

Wilson worked for Ingraham until going into labor on Aug. 6, 2017, two weeks earlier than her due date. According to the lawsuit, on that date, Wilson notified Ingraham’s nanny that she was going to the hospital and asked the nanny to alert Ingraham. The lawsuit alleges that Ingraham sent Wilson a text that morning “wishing her luck” and then text messages with various assignments.

According to the lawsuit, the texts read, in part: “Pls just have someone take over the nanny interviews which are critical. Just make sure [the nanny] has everything. Need that exercise equip person to come fix etc.”

Wilson returned to work on Oct. 9, 2017. A day later, the chief executive of Ingraham’s company called Wilson into his office and told her that she was fired and that the person who filled in during her maternity leave would take over, according to the lawsuit. Ingraham allowed Wilson to work through Oct. 31.

“I was treated unfairly. I hope this never happens again. I think pregnancy and bringing a child into this world is a beautiful thing. It shouldn’t be tarnished with hostility,” Wilson said.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sean Hannity isn’t a leader. He’s just a fan of powerful Republicans."

Spoiler

Sean Hannity is exactly where he wants to be, despite the questions of conflicts of interest raised by the revelation this week that he is also a client of President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen. His relationship with Trump is so tight that one presidential adviser says Hannity “basically has a desk” in the Oval Office.

Hannity isn’t the first conservative media personality to gain the ear of a president. Unlike most before him, though, his role is not that of kingmaker but of loyalist. Fealty to people and power, not to ideas or policies, has defined Hannity’s career — which makes Trump the perfect partner for him.

All right-wing media personalities modulate to some extent, but they also have a core approach that sets them apart. Tucker Carlson, now that he’s lost the bow tie, is defined by his patently populist rhetoric and his criticism of interventionist foreign policy. Ann Coulter, who has perfected the art of Trump-era trolling, marries vicious insults to an unshakable nationalist and racist agenda. Rush Limbaugh is known for exaggerated egotism and imperviousness to criticism. Glenn Beck is famous for his conspiratorial chalkboards, nutty morning-zoo antics and teary, quasi-religious passion.

Hannity’s affect — embattled and aggrieved — and the fervor and repetitiveness with which he regurgitates the party line, however regularly it changes, has always most defined his programs. Not as clever or easygoing as Limbaugh, not as emotive or earnest as Beck, in place of an issue that deeply moves him, Hannity has snark, anger and a reflexive anti-liberalism that keeps audiences coming back. 

For all that, though, Hannity is a megaphone, not an independent voice. He would never, as Beck did, refuse to support the GOP presidential nominee or apologize for “helping tear the country apart.” Nor does he have Coulter’s red line on immigration, which led her to slam Trump as “a shallow, lazy ignoramus ” when she thought he had gone wobbly on the Wall. 

Hannity has always attached himself to powerful men, constantly scanning for another set of coattails to ride. First came Newt Gingrich, the Georgia congressman who led the Republican Revolution of 1994. Hannity, who was hosting a radio show out of Atlanta after being booted from a Santa Barbara, Calif., station for virulently anti-gay remarks, served as emcee for Gingrich’s election night victory party. Then came Roger Ailes, who plucked Hannity out of obscurity to host a show — working title: “Hannity and LTBD (Liberal to be Determined)” — on his new cable network when it launched in 1996. (The liberal wound up being Alan Colmes, who played the hapless lefty foil to Hannity’s tough-talking conservative until 2009.)

Fox News made Hannity a national figure. During the talk radio boom of the early 2000s, his radio program went coast to coast; he was broadcast live for hours a day, five days a week. His shows became the stomping grounds of national politicians, conservative leaders and the lucky few listeners who could get their calls on air. And while the recent sexual harassment scandals that rocked Fox forced out his patrons, Ailes and co-president Bill Shine, they also ousted Bill O’Reilly, who had been the centerpiece of the network’s weeknight prime-time lineup. That left room for Hannity, whose predictable but star-powered program is now the top-rated show on cable news , drawing an average of 3.3 million nightly viewers in February and earning him nearly $30 million a year.

But does he have power? 

*** *** *** ***

After the 2012 election, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) joined a bipartisan push for immigration reform. Hannity stood in his corner. Declaring that he had “evolved” on immigration, he came out in support of Rubio’s legislation, calling it “the most thoughtful bill” on the issue that he had ever seen. He even held an hour-long town hall with Rubio, giving the senator a chance to make his pitch to the Fox News audience.

Not out of principle, though. As the New York Times reported in early 2016, Rubio had met with Ailes and Rupert Murdoch to persuade them to back his bill. They agreed — and soon Hannity was making the case for reform. 

Until he stopped. The Republican base’s harsh and total rejection of any attempt at immigration reform dismantled Rubio’s support — and once that happened, Hannity flipped, as well. Soon he was devoting an hour to “The Cost of Amnesty,” slamming the Senate immigration bill and lamenting that “only Washington can screw something up this bad.” He warned that Congress would never actually tighten immigration laws after allowing undocumented immigrants to get legal status. By the summer of 2013, it was evident that, at least on immigration, Hannity wasn’t a leader. He was a right-wing weathervane. 

Contrast that with Limbaugh. While Hannity was hosting Gingrich’s after-party in 1994, Limbaugh was being toasted as a “Majority Maker” and made an honorary member of the incoming class of Republican lawmakers. Hannity was invited to celebrate the victory; Limbaugh was credited with making it happen.

Limbaugh has a reputation for wielding power over politicians. In 1992, he spoke so favorably of Pat Buchanan that George H.W. Bush, caught in a tough reelection campaign, invited Limbaugh to stay over in the White House. In 2009, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele publicly dismissed Limbaugh as an “entertainer” whose rhetoric was “incendiary” and “ugly.” Within a few days, Steele was issuing apologies. Fear of Limbaugh was such that in 2012, when he slurred Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute,” GOP candidates stuck in a heated presidential primary race refused to denounce him. 

Hannity has no such record. Republican politicians aren’t afraid of him — former House speaker John Boehner (Ohio) called him “nuts,” and Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.) suggested that he doesn’t support constitutional principles. Neither seems to have felt any pressure to apologize.

There is no policy issue on which Hannity has emerged as influential. The one area where he stands out is in his fervor for proclaiming Trump’s greatness and pushing conspiracy theories about the White House’s adversaries. That’s not as small-bore as it may seem: Hannity plays an important role in Trump World. All political leaders need outside sources to bolster their claims — it’s one reason authoritarian systems have state-run media. Even a philosophy as free-floating and fact-light as Trumpism benefits from outside evidence, and Hannity serves as a fairly mainstream source that the president can cite to bolster his outlandish claims. And so it’s Limbaugh, not Hannity, who’s bordering on irrelevance these days. 

*** *** *** ***

Trump and Hannity have a natural affinity. They share New York roots (Trump in Queens, Hannity in Long Island ), and they both marinated in the city’s raucous media landscape of confrontational radio talk shows and titillating tabloids.  

Both dwell in the world of conspiracies. Early this decade, they bonded over their interest in false claims that President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States, which Trump spread on Hannity’s show (and elsewhere on Fox). As the Trump campaign heated up in 2016, Hannity emerged as “the media’s top conspiracy theorist,” as Vox dubbed him. For weeks last year, he propagated the strange conspiracy that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was somehow responsible for the death of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, which naturally piqued Trump’s interest. (Hannity stopped talking about the story after public outrage and pressure on advertisers threatened to engulf the network.)

But the two share more than interests (and lawyers). Their relationship blossomed when Trump, building his profile as the nation’s leading birther before the 2012 election, became a regular on Fox. Once Trump announced his candidacy in 2015, Hannity became a staunch defender, marking him as an outlier at the network in the days when the nomination seemed wide open. Hannity understood something that most Fox News hosts wouldn’t realize until Megyn Kelly asked Trump a tough question in the first Republican primary debate: Fox News viewers weren’t on Fox News’s side. They were on Trump’s — and Hannity’s. 

As the campaign developed, Hannity increasingly mirrored Trump’s grandiose self-descriptions and petty insults. He lauded the “artistic beauty” of Trump trolling the press and defended the nominee in the heat of the “Access Hollywood” controversy, slamming Trump’s Republican critics as “wimps” and “babies.” He even appeared in a campaign ad endorsing Trump, violating Fox News’s ethics rules. 

The sycophancy only dialed up once Trump became president. Hannity praised a Trump Twitter missive as “one of the most brilliant, strategic, doubt-inducing, mind-messing tweets in the history of mankind” and cooed that one of Trump’s speeches was “delivered perfectly: the right tone, the right cadence, the right pitch.” And throughout all this, he served as an informal adviser to Trump, burnishing a reputation as an insider, a man with the president’s ear.  

Or more accurately, the president’s eye. Television is one of Hannity’s natural advantages over Limbaugh, who quit TV in 1996 to focus on radio. Trump is a devout consumer of television, especially Fox News, but there’s no sense he’s an avid listener of talk radio. Sure, he appears on it from time to time, a habit dating back to his days on “The Howard Stern Show.” But television is the medium Trump devours, and Hannity has a prime-time spot on his favorite network.  

They should be able to coexist this way indefinitely. Trump is not a man of consistent positions; Hannity’s consistency rests in deference to power. As Trump’s star rose, Hannity increasingly molded himself in Trump’s image, even forging ties with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. That dogged loyalty, rather than devotion to some higher set of values, makes Hannity the perfect avatar for both Trump and Trump’s Republican Party. He may not be a power broker, but Hannity nonetheless finds himself the ultimate insider.

Shamity is truly the sycophant-in-chief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It turns out that Hannity owns more than the one shell company that @AmazonGrace posted about above. He has ties more than 20 shell companies, many of which he is the hidden owner. He has a veritable real estate empire. He bought up foreclosed single family housing at a discount, and used Ben Carson's support to amass part of his property collection last year. No wonder he and the presidunce get along so well. Birds of a feather...

 Michael Cohen case shines light on Sean Hannity's real estate empire

Quote

When Sean Hannity was named in court this week as a client of Donald Trump’s embattled legal fixer Michael Cohen, the Fox News host insisted their discussions had been limited to the subject of buying property.

“I’ve said many times on my radio show: I hate the stock market, I prefer real estate. Michael knows real estate,” Hannity said on television, a few hours after the dramatic hearing in Manhattan, where Cohen is under criminal investigation.

Hannity’s chosen investment strategy is confirmed by thousands of pages of public records reviewed by the Guardian, which detail a real estate portfolio of remarkable scale that has not previously been reported.

The records link Hannity to a group of shell companies that spent at least $90m on more than 870 homes in seven states over the past decade. The properties range from luxurious mansions to rentals for low-income families. Hannity is the hidden owner behind some of the shell companies and his attorney did not dispute that he owns all of them.

Dozens of the properties were bought at a discount in 2013, after banks foreclosed on their previous owners for defaulting on mortgages. Before and after then, Hannity sharply criticised Barack Obama for the US foreclosure rate. In January 2016, Hannity said there were “millions more Americans suffering under this president” partly because of foreclosures.

Hannity, 56, also amassed part of his property collection with support from the US Department for Housing and Urban Development (Hud), a fact he did not disclose when praising Ben Carson, the Hud secretary, on his television show last year.

Christopher Reeves, Hannity’s real estate attorney, said in an email he would “struggle to find any relevance” in Hannity’s property holdings, which he said were highly confidential.

“I doubt you would find it very surprising that most people prefer to keep their legal and personal financial issues private,” said Reeves. “Mr Hannity is no different.”

Spokespeople for Hud and Fox News declined to comment on the record.

The real estate holdings linked to Hannity are spread across more than 20 shell companies formed in Georgia. Each of the companies uses a variant of the same name, which combines the initials of Hannity’s children. Public records show the companies have bought up dozens of properties in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Vermont.

Among the most valuable are two large apartment complexes in Georgia that Hannity bought in 2014 for $22.7m. The developments are in the cities of Perry and Brunswick, which have higher poverty rates and lower median incomes than the US averages. One- and two-bedroom units in Hannity‍‍‍’s apartment complexes are available to rent for $735 to $1,065 per month, according to brochures.

The Georgia purchases were funded with mortgages for $17.9m that Hannity obtained with help from Hud, which insured the loans under a program created as part of the National Housing Act. The loans, first guaranteed under the Obama administration, were recently increased by $5m with renewed support from Carson’s department.

Hannity, who is reportedly paid $36m per year for his television and radio shows, was criticised this week following Cohen’s court hearing, after it became clear he had defended Cohen and Trump on the air without disclosing that he also consulted Cohen for legal services.

He also declined to note his financial interest when he hosted Carson on Fox News last June for a discussion about Hud and housing. Hannity praised privatisation plans pushed by Trump and Carson.

“I know you’ve done a good job,” Hannity told Carson.

Hannity complained during the discussion that home ownership in the US was at a 51-year low – a false claim he has made several times on air – and criticised the state of public housing.

“I like the idea of them owning the place,” Hannity said of people who receive housing assistance. “Well, that’s the real ideal,” said Carson.

The shell companies used to buy the properties are registered to the offices of Henssler Financial, a wealth management firm outside Atlanta. Bill Lako, a principal at the firm, has appeared on Hannity’s radio show as an expert on money issues.

Lako recently wrote an article for the show’s website berating Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating ties between Trump’s 2016 election campaign and Russia, without noting his ties to Hannity. He did not respond to an email.

When Lako appeared on Hannity’s radio show last month, Hannity disclosed that he was a Henssler client. He joked to Lako that the company took him on as a “charity case” when he worked in Georgia, but “now I’m the best client you have”.

The Georgia mortgages supported by Hud were guaranteed as part of a program aimed at protecting investors such as Hannity who buy rental apartment buildings. The government promises to cover losses if borrowers default on their mortgages. Borrowers pay an insurance premium to Hud in return. Bigger loan guarantees are available if the building houses low-income families.

Paperwork relating to the agreements with Hud, which was filed to county authorities, named Hannity as the principal of the shell companies used to buy the apartment complexes and to borrow the funds. Hannity personally signed several of the documents. A Hud source said Hannity was identified in non-public filings as the 100% owner of the apartment complexes.

Late last month, Hannity’s mortgages were replaced with loans for $22.9m that were rewritten with Carson’s Hud and a new bank. There was no indication that Carson was personally involved in the process. Carson does, however, have the authority to allow Hannity from 2019 to convert the rental complexes into condominiums for sale, which could be lucrative for the television host.

The shell companies used to buy the properties are limited liability companies (LLCs). Like in most states, they are not required to disclose their owners to Georgia regulators. LLCs are popular among well-known figures such as Hannity who wish to keep their business arrangements private.

But the Guardian obtained records in which Hannity signed deeds and other documents on behalf of four of the LLCs, sometimes being named as principal or manager. Four more of the shell companies have owned properties in which public records say Hannity or members of his family have lived.

Hannity also uses a separate company with a similar name to handle contracts relating to his syndicated radio show, according to records filed in two federal court cases. Georgia records say Hannity was chief executive, chief financial officer and secretary of this company before Lako took over the titles during 2016.

In other cases, only the relevant LLC’s name and a contact at Henssler Financial were identified in the real estate paperwork, meaning that it could not be confirmed whether Hannity was the hidden owner.

The list of properties bought by the Hannity-linked companies includes multimillion-dollar homes used by Hannity. It also features single-family units priced as low as $50,000 in relatively poor suburbs. In at least two cases, batches of homes were bought simultaneously at a discount, after they were repossessed by banks from their previous owners in foreclosure proceedings.

The entire portfolio connected to Hannity comprises at least 877 residential units, which were bought for a total of just under $89m. Another seven properties bought by the companies over recent years have subsequently been sold on for more than $4m, according to public records.

When Hannity this week stressed that his business relationship with Cohen related to real estate, he pointedly denied that it involved any financial settlements with other people.

Cohen previously arranged for a $130,000 payment to Stephanie Clifford, the pornographic actor known as Stormy Daniels, who alleged she had sex with Trump. Cohen also helped Elliott Broidy, a prominent Republican fundraiser, pay $1.6m to a woman who said she had become pregnant during an affair.

Hannity said he had only “occasional brief conversations” with Cohen. He made varying statements about whether Cohen was compensated, initially stating that he had not been billed but later saying: “I might have handed him 10 bucks.”

In footage unearthed this week that was broadcast on Fox News in January last year, Hannity mentioned having discussed an unidentified $2bn property venture in Dubai with Cohen.

“I said, ‘I’m interested in that deal myself,’” said Hannity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Oliver bought more "Catheter Cowboy" ads, this time on Hammity's show: "John Oliver wants to educate Trump, so he bought ads on Sean Hannity’s show"

Spoiler

John Oliver plans to air a series of Trump-mocking public service announcements — in which a cowboy explains basic concepts to the president — on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show this week, in hopes Trump will see them and avoid a nuclear crisis.

If you’re not familiar with the Catheter Cowboy ads, Oliver introduced them on “Last Week Tonight” in February last year. They’re parodies of actual ads in which a cowboy hawks pain-free catheters to Medicare patients. Oliver periodically runs them during the TV-obsessed president’s favorite Fox News shows, so that Catheter Cowboy can inform the president of facts such as “Frederick Douglass is dead,” and “other people exist.”

In the latest ad, Oliver told his viewers Sunday, the cowboy will address the international Iranian nuclear agreement, which Trump has threatened to pull out of by May 12.

The deal, struck in 2015 between Iran and several rival nations including the United States, suspended economic sanctions against the theocracy in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program — including regular inspections to make sure its government has stopped trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Before previewing the new Catheter Cowboy ad, Oliver devoted nearly his entire program last night to discussing Trump’s often fallacious criticisms of the deal — in particular his claim that Iran can simply start developing nuclear weapons again when parts of the deal expire in 10 years.

As The Washington Post’s Fact Checker has written, Trump has ignored a clause in the deal that permanently bars Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In Oliver’s PSA, set to air in Washington during Hannity’s program this week, the cowboy delivers a somewhat simpler message to the president.

The spot begins as a shot-for-shot re-creation of a 2015 ad opposing the Iran deal,  in which an American family sits down at a dinner table and abruptly disappears in a nuclear explosion.

Instead of a nuclear fireball, this time the Catheter Cowboy intrudes on the family, wearing the same plaid shirt and leather vest from his Medicare days.

“Hey there, Donald, sorry to interrupt your supper,” he says, addressing the camera while the family stares at his back. “I’m here to tell you the Iran deal may not be perfect, but it helps restrict Iran’s ability to start making a bomb for at least 10 years.

“If you blow up the deal, that turns into zero years. And if I’ve learned one thing from all these years of cowboying and cathing, it’s that 0 is way less than 10.”

He holds up two posters, a ‘0’ and a ’10,’ to reinforce the message. He then holds up a third card displaying the face of Trump’s new national security adviser, John Bolton, who founded the nonprofit that made the original dinner-table ad in 2015.

“Also, do you really want to listen to a guy with a mustache like this?” the cowboy says. “Don’t do it, Donald. Don’t do it. Hey, does anyone smell gas?”

“Oh my god, the stove!” says the wife at the table, at which point the house explodes in a fireball, as in the original.

Oliver despaired that the ad may not do much good. He noted that Trump has surrounded himself with opponents of the Iranian nuclear deal — including Hannity, who once said it would lead to a “modern-day Holocaust,” and who The Post reported is a close confidant of the president, besides hosting one of his favorite shows.

But, Oliver told his viewers, sending a cowboy to speak to Trump between segments of Hannity was as close to influencing the president as he could come.

“It will presumably confuse a lot of people,” the host said. “I’m not saying it’s going to change anything, but at least we will know that we tried.”

The videos are embedded in the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where would these poor blighted communities be without Hannity's intervention??  Thank goodness he stepped in to help!

 

https://www.hannity.com/media-room/sean-hannity-responds-to-latest-fake-news-attack/

(If you go to his home page, there's a survey on whether Comey should be indicted.  It's currently 94.96% in favor of indicting)

Quote

It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly need such investment and in which, I am sure, those attacking me have not invested their money. The fact is, these are investments that I do not individually select, control, or know the details about; except that obviously I believe in putting my money to work in communities that otherwise struggle to receive such support.

I have never discussed with anybody at HUD the original loans that were obtained in the Obama years, nor the subsequent refinance of such loans, as they are a private matter. I had no role in, or responsibility for, any HUD involvement in any of these investments. I can say that every rigorous process and strict standard of improvement requirements were followed; all were met, fulfilled and inspected.

The LLC’s are REAL companies that spend real investment money on real properties.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, JMarie said:

I believe in putting my money to work in communities that otherwise struggle to receive such support.

Support? Support? Preying on the poor and disadvantaged you mean. 

37 minutes ago, JMarie said:

The fact is, these are investments that I do not individually select, control, or know the details about;

In other words, you're claiming you give other people your money to play around with and don't ask questions as to what they're doing with it and you just sit back and look at your growing bank account? That's rather suss, don't you think? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No mention of the secret property grab on tonight's Hannity.  Part of the hour was devoted to Macron and the special dinner that Melania planned all by herself.  Sebastian Gorka and Dan Bongino were on, but they seem to be regulars, and can't be considered guests (at least in my book).  Ainsley Earhardt, from Fox and Friends, stopped by to plug her new Christian memoir, which is pretty remarkable since her last book came out only last October, she has a two year old, and she's on a three hour daily program.  

Not an interesting show.  No Tomi Lahren, no Hannity Hotline, and no originality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks as always, @JMarie, for doing what most of us couldn't stomach. I see that you've gotten your new title. I love it! Well deserved and appropriate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Destiny locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.