As he watches his beloved Donald Trump’s election chances slip away, Sean Hannity is ready with a Plan B: impeaching Hillary Clinton.
Hannity's effort is a perfect complement to Trump, who calls Clinton “Crooked Hillary,” threatened to jail her during the second presidential debate, eggs on his supporters as they chant, "Lock her up," and whines that the election is rigged against him.
In his discussion last night with Jeanine Pirro (who was married for decades to a mobster) and Trump toady Kimberly Guilfoyle, Hannity deliberately set about undermining FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over her email server as part of the (rigged) system that will probably (illegitimately) elect Clinton. So, therefore, she should be impeached.
HANNITY: We’ve got collusion. We know that the State Department contacted Hillary’s campaign, gave them a head’s up. We know that the Justice Department gave Hillary’s campaign a head’s up. We know now that the White House was actively involved because the president who said he learned about the e-mails in the press ended up getting e-mails to and from Hillary. Now, I would say, because of everyone’s involvement, we need an outside investigator, we need a grand jury empaneled and there is a possibility, first of all, that if they destroyed those e-mails and they were under subpoena, that’s a crime. That’s called obstruction of justice. So she could get elected and be impeached within days. True or false?
PIRRO: Well you’re right. She could get elected and be impeached. But here’s the problem. You’ve got the Clintons who have their tentacles all over. This is a textbook example of collusion, corruption, and banana republic. You’ve got the Department of Justice, the FBI, the State Department as well as the White House all in agreement just to make sure that Hillary gets in. I mean the deal is everybody is in on the deal except for the American people. You can get the Justice Department or a special prosecutor with grand jury powers to start all over. But here’s the problem. Jim Comey destroyed some of the evidence. Jim Comey allowed for the destruction of some of the evidence.
I don’t know what they did to him, or why he did what he did, but it’s contrary to the law.
HANNITY: What did the president know and when did he know it? …Did Obama influence his attorney general and his State Department [to ensure no charges were brought against Clinton]?
PIRRO: Of course he did.
HANNITY: OK, but that is against the law!
PIRRO: No kidding. …This is a banana republica and we’re the stooges in it!
GUILFOYLE: Well, and it’s the way the Clintons do business.
[…] They were passing out immunity like party favors to everybody.
HANNITY: Why would the FBI ever agree, as part of the deal, to destroy evidence?
PIRRO: Because they wanted to get rid of it, pure and simple. Sometimes the most simple answers are the ones that first come to mind.
GUILFOYLE: Right, common sense, yeah.
HANNITY (gleefully) : So what they didn’t count on is that Wikileaks had all of it.
GUILFOYLE: The problem is, we’re real close to the election here and there’s a strong likelihood she could be the next president. Now what?
HANNITY: Impeach her.
You heard it here, first, folks. This will be Trump’s and, perhaps the Republican party’s response too, if Clinton wins the election.
I hope the Democrats are ready.
Watch it below from the October 14, 2016 Hannity. I’ll have better video later but the relevant segment starts at 20:06 and goes to 26:51.
He now brings in an excerpt from a Russian-hacked email, out of a large trove dumped by WikiLeaks and which we have no way of knowing how it’s been edited or changed. We’ve already had various parts of these releases discredited as actually being misquotes of published articles, and we’ve had an official determination that these dumps are the result of Russian hackers trying to affect our election. This apparently does not concern Daniel, who previously was very concerned about his fear of foreigners affecting this country. But let’s assume for argument that the specific email he’s worried about is a genuine article. If it is, it’s actually a document of inclusion, not racism. The email describes a list of potential VP options, any of whom could be a good choice to hold the office. Identifying their background, ethnicity, etc is not racism – it is simply identifying who is being discussed as a candidate for high office. If the list were about ruling OUT a candidate due to their ethnicity, then THAT would be racism. Compare this to Trump and Daniel’s discussion of the reasons he is afraid of Muslim immigrants and how he wishes to keep them out of the US. One discussion is about bringing people in, the other is about keeping people out. One is about looking forward, the other is about the fear of an Other. I believe it’s easy to determine which approach is truly in racist territory.
Regarding the selectively edited videos purveyed by James O’keefe, there’s a reason why most people ignore them. O’Keefe has a long record of fraud and criminality. He is simply not a credible source, particularly since we have no idea what he’s removed from these tapes – such as the part where the participants are apparently asked to discuss how they would handle a hypothetical situation. But even if we look at the tapes per se, are we really meant to believe that someone showing up outside a Trump rally wearing a Planned Parenthood t-shirt is enough to send Trump supporters into a crazed violent attack? And are we meant to believe that the Chicago riot was solely due to a couple of agitators rather than what we already know was a situation of angry Chicago residents who don’t like Trump’s racism confronting a bunch of Trump supporters who do like Trump’s racism?
If this is truly what Daniel believes will be a solid scholastic support for his unfortunate racial assertions, I don’t know how he believes he would convince anyone, let alone the people who read and post at this site.
How about sending clandestine agitators to Trump rallies to cause violence and blame it on Trump?
The media is 99 percent against Trump. Do you want to win the election in this dirty way? I ask.
I again must recommend that he take some time to really think about these issues and not just post debunked and discredited talking points – particularly when he gets into troubling areas like Eugenics and his unhappy theories about population control.
I also must remind Daniel that making such comments about other racial groups and religions is usually thought of as a form of hate speech. I don’t believe he means to practice that idea, but it’s hard to watch someone repeatedly make these comments without basis in reality.
Daniel doesn’t know that IQ tests do not measure intelligence, but adaptation to society. When you ask someone who never had electricity to point to the filament in a bulb (and that was a real question of the tests immigrants had to pass in Ellis Island before being allowed to enter the country), you do not determine his intelligence, nor his capacity to adapt to your society.
You’ll see that your 6 “sons” by muslim women is largely exaggerated. As for the Internet being the cause of fertility rates decreasing, there is no evidence. In fact, fertility rates have been decreasing way before the Internet, as you’ll see on the same page, and without any relation with walls. Well, before the Internet, it was television that was considered the cause of decrease in fertility rates. But there is a more evident relation with general economic development.
Kevin is not saying that you’re xenophobic yourself. I’m sure you are not, given your admiration for northern european civilization, probably because you identify with it, and that you declare superior with what is an already logically flawed argument : you’re not a neutral observer, you set the standards, and, oh joy, your civilization confirms its superiority by standards of its own setting! Have you ever heard of that story of a very clever scientist, with an IQ going through the roof, dropped in the desert of Namib, rescued by bushmen, who considered him as an incredible idiot for being unable to survive alone in the desert? They had different standards.
Daniel has brought up the still-unsubstantiated notion that “White European Americans have one child on average” and this notion that Muslim families always have more children and “large numbers of sons”. When it is pointed out that this is a fallacy, he simply repeats it and ignores the racist implications of such a statement. One shouldn’t need to point out that Catholic and Mormon families also tend to have larger numbers of children, regardless of their ethnicity. There is a reason he was asked to really think about this, and he appears to not have understood it. There is also a reason he was asked to consider whether his unsubstantiated assumptions would be closer to Trump’s worldview of an America returning to the 1950s to make it “great again”.
Daniel now brings up what sounds like a notion that “the Muslim religion” is “the source of terrorism”. I’m hoping that’s not what he was saying, as it would mean he was condemning an entire religion for the behavior of some extremists trying to commandeer it from everyone else. That’s the mistake made by Glenn Beck and Trump supporters alike. This approach also ignores that there have been many terrorist attacks by people who aren’t Muslim. The Scandinavian terrorist attack from a few years back was an explicitly Christian and anti-Muslim attack. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols made their attack on the Oklahoma City federal building to support their white militia movement. The Bundy attempt at challenging federal authority that Sean Hannity infamously supported was not a Muslim idea. The people who have attacked and killed doctors and staffers at women’s reproductive health centers are not Muslims. I would again strongly urge Daniel to study these issues more carefully before making unfortunate blanket statements like these, as they do not help in anyone’s understanding and they don’t help his argument.
Daniel also ignores that we have plenty of safety checks that our immigration service regularly conduct – something Donald Trump willfully ignores as well when he condemns nearly a whole branch of government workers who are already doing what he insists isn’t happening.
Regarding WikiLeaks and the Russians, Daniel is correct to note that there is some hypocrisy going on here, but he’s gotten the actual roles here backwards. WikiLeaks was never “the friend of the Democrats when Bush invaded Iraq”. WikiLeaks wasn’t even publishing this kind of material when Bush ordered that attack in 2003 – they didn’t start really pushing that stuff until much later in the 2000s. Democrats actually condemned Julian Assange just as loudly as Republicans for what he was doing, particularly in that he was publishing people’s real names and private information without any regard for their safety. It’s true that there have been many on the left who have appreciated Assange’s exposure of government and military malfeasance, but that’s very different from the Democrat Party and Daniel shouldn’t be conflating the two. The Dems are not a left-wing party. They’re much more of a centrist party, with some members a little to the left and some a little to the right. The GOP was once a center-right party but has moved solidly to the right over the past three decades, to the point now that someone like Donald Trump is their nominee, as odd as that has been for the country. I also note that Ronald Reagan’s bellicose behavior toward the USSR in the 1980s was correctly seen as a dangerous approach that could have started a nuclear war. Many people in the USA during the 1980s, including my family, were extremely concerned about his attitude and approach, particularly when Reagan was caught on a live mike joking “I’ve just signed legislation that will outlaw the Soviet Union forever. We start dropping bombs in five minutes.” There’s actually a strong consistency between people being properly concerned about the behavior of the Reagan Administration towards a situation that could nuke the planet, and people being properly concerned about hackers in Russia attempting to influence an election in the USA while Donald Trump cheers them on. That’s not a contradiction – it’s more correct to think of that as common sense.
Daniel’s discussion of the fantasy wall Donald Trump keeps suggesting is truly unfortunate. The notion that it would “protect the coherence of your culture and maintain it Northern European in practice” and the entire strange line that followed it in Daniel’s paragraph is a scary one. I strongly urge Daniel to think about what he just posted there and think about why intelligent people would find that argument to be potentially xenophobic. I’m not saying that Daniel himself is xenophobic – I’m saying that he’s utilizing arguments that would be supported by groups like the KKK and other white supremacy organizations and he may not realize that his discussion here falls right in line with them. It is for that reason that I continue to urge him to spend more time carefully studying these matters and not just make these blanket statements.
What’s not to like??
ISIS is on the run right now, if you’ve been paying attention to international news reports. Their extremist views are not shared even by people in the religion they are trying to commandeer for their own purposes.
Where in the world are you getting this notion that Donald Trump is a safe option for anyone in America? You do realize that Trump has rejected his last national security briefing as relates to Russia, don’t you? Because he believes he knows better since he watches Fox News? Do you seriously think that someone this ill-informed is safe to handle our nuclear codes?
I strongly advise you to take a little more time and think about what you’re recommending here. Those talking points may work on less-informed voters and thinkers, but you’ll need to provide a lot more grounding if you wish to make a case in this forum.
I want to clarify to other poster than Trump is neither a Democrat nor a Republican but a Nationalist so vendettas about what Republicans did to Obama in office are unrelated to my candidate.
Sure, Bill C pulled a bit of a swifty having that airport meeting with Loretta Lynch, but it was only as insurance in case the FBI decided to proceed and handed the case on to the DOJ. He was giving LL cover so she could legitimately recuse herself from any investigation or decision-making on the case. They were thinking ahead to try and avoid even more fuss and bother if and when the senior career employees at the DOJ decided Hills was not to be prosecuted.
It is true that there has also been a flow of undocumented workers who have regularly toiled in agricultural and lower-end employment in many states, but in the decades that’s been going on, we have not seen the explosive situation you are assuming exists. What we’ve seen instead has been a predilection of right wing pundits and politicians to attack these people for cheap points.
There are evident reasons why an appreciable number of white male voters are choosing to vote for Donald Trump, and it isn’t for any complex analysis of mass populations. It’s for a much simpler reason – they hate Hillary Clinton and they hate the Democrats. They have repeatedly been told to hate them and been given false pretenses under which to do so by public right wing figures like Rush Limbaugh for nearly 25 years. In many of their cases, they are frustrated from the loss of income that happened as a direct result of the massive recession from George W. Bush’s disastrous mishandling of the country’s economy. I would note that some of their situations could have been improved over the past few years, had right wing politicians not chosen to obstruct everything they could. (A strong argument could be made that the GOP obstructionism was partly intended to keep this group of voters angry – in the hopes that they would turn on the Dems and bring more votes to the GOP for the next electoral cycle. There’s really no other excuse for the unfortunate way they have treated people on Unemployment Benefits for extended periods of time.)