If you have any doubt that Sean Hannity is a bigot whose only interest in the Eric Garner or Ferguson case is how he can denigrate African Americans, check out his hideous behavior toward Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton as she tried to explain her position on the issues raised in the police killings of unarmed Michael Brown and Eric Garner.
Norton repeatedly tried to explain to Hannity that she was uninterested in the particulars of the Ferguson case because, she said, she wanted to focus on the larger issues it raised. “My view is that wherever you stand on, whether it’s racism, whether who struck John, we are losing the big picture. The big picture and the reason I think young people are in the streets is because of the stops, the stops on the street for people who happen to be black, often, that it has become routine. This is a opportunity for a conversation between police departments and their own communities. And that is what I am hoping come out of this, not more who struck John and the evidence.”
Conversation? Hannity could not have cared less about conversation. His only goal seemed to be to vilify the Congressional Black Caucus for having spoken out in protest of the Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson who had shot and killed Michael Brown.
Ignoring what Norton said and what she wanted to talk about, Hannity kept badgering about the Ferguson evidence in order to belittle her. “Let me explain to you what the grand jury heard because that’s called evidence. …Why would people in Congress, lawmakers, advance what is clearly, based on the evidence, a lie?”
Hannity's implication was plain: The CBC, including Norton, were ignoring the truth in order to play the race card. It struck me as a classic case of projection.
I so wish Norton had called him out on that. But instead, she said, “Now, is your problem that you couldn’t get any of them to come on to explain themselves? ‘Cause I didn’t do any of that and I didn’t say any of that.” Again, Norton tried to explain her concern.
And again Hannity tried to demean Norton. “No, the truth isn’t your concern?” Hannity asked in his bullyboy voice. “Evidence isn’t your concern?”
“People who have other concerns – have them on your show!” Norton shouted.
As if he hadn’t been condescending enough already, Hannity “asked” if the “lesson to be learned” from Ferguson was that people “shouldn’t rob stores, intimidate clerks, fight for cops’ guns and charge at them like football players with their heads down.” He all but said the lesson was that African Americans shouldn’t get too uppity. Because let’s not forget that in April, Hannity was promoting lawlessness and violence against law enforcers by white rancher Cliven Bundy who just happened to turn out to be a major racist.
Norton said that the “larger lesson” was the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they police.
Now, you would think that would be something Hannity could get behind. But again, he tried to humiliate. He said scornfully, “I hope you’ll take the time to read evidence in the case before you talk about the case. I think it would be helpful.”
Norton reiterated that she hasn’t talked about the case but the larger issues raised by it – facts that the supposedly fact-loving Hannity refused to acknowledge.
“Don’t put what you want to put on me on me, ‘cause I’ll come right back at you,” Norton shouted.
“You can come back at me all you want,” Hannity said patronizingly. “Maybe you should read laws before you pass ‘em and maybe you should read about the case’s evidence before you comment on it.”
Or here’s an idea. Maybe Hannity should listen to what his guest is saying instead of just trying to racially smear her.
You need to listen to the interview. She was not interested in the facts of the case. She did not care about that at all. All she wanted to do was spew her lies and promote racial strife and hatred. She admitted that she didn’t care about the facts of the case. She said she did not care about it.
She didn’t want to answer any real questions. Well it doesn’t work that way.
16 of 18.
Everybody else— EHN is a veteran of the leadership of the Civil Rights movement in the ‘60s, and like most of those folks in Congress, is unfailingly even-tempered and reasonable. I have seen her many, many, many times, and this is the only time I’ve ever seen her lose her cool.
Still, when this pig over and over tried to bait her into talking about her colleagues’ — not hers — use of “Hands up, don’t shoot” so he could shriek at her about it, she refused to take the bait and stuck to the things she wanted to talk about and had been led to believe she would be able to talk about.
As you already should know, Fox News is not interested in trying to “give you both sides”. They have never had such an interest. Their goal is to promote a hard right wing agenda, and to push any GOP politicians as far over to the right as they can. Having a non-right wing voice on the network is intended not as a way to understand another point of view but to find a way to dismiss it. It is extremely rare that Fox News or frankly any other commercial channel has a truly left-wing voice on it. Not someone like Alan Colmes or Kirsten Powers, but a real left wing voice like Amy Goodman, or Norman Solomon or Dean Baker or Joshua Frank. Please tell me when any of those names have been on Fox News, as this would be great information for all of us to have.
As you also know, Holmes Norton did begin to answer Hannity’s derisive questions, but he failed to allow her to complete her answers without cutting her off with nasty comments. Is that your definition of Fox News giving you both sides? And is that why you believe Holmes Norton said she “didn’t care about the facts” when she said no such thing? Is it possible you were unable to listen to what she was saying because Hannity was repeatedly talking over her?
I’m also unclear as to your point in discussing the midterm election. Your narrative doesn’t actually work in any case. It’s not a matter that “the left just lost an election” or “are desperate to come up with a distraction”. In the case of the former, only 1/3 of the electorate showed up to vote, which meant that the angrier right wing voices were able to overwhelm the majority of more moderate voices in the country. We’ll see how those angry voices do in a presidential election in 2016. Based on what we’ve seen over the past 10 years, I wouldn’t want the right wing to start doing a victory dance just yet. As to your latter unfortunate statement, the racial issues and strife were not suddenly stirred up by the left. These are ongoing issues that have plagued this country for a very long time. If you are unclear about that, please take some time to actually research the issue. You could take a community college course and learn a few things about this matter, and it may help you present a much more understandable argument than from just listening to angry right wing radio voices and Fox News.
If you’re curious as to what race had to do with both deaths here, you might want to look into the history of killings of black and other minorities by police – particularly when those people were unarmed. There is an unfortunately broad history of this that continues right up to this day. We continue to have incidents of this happening, all the way up to the moment. Again, if you were to actually do some research, you might learn something about this matter. It is puzzling to need to remind someone that right wing AM radio hosts and Fox News pundits are rarely aware of these issues, and many of them have never completed enough schooling to be considered proficient in most areas.
Your depiction of what Eleanor Holmes Norton wanted or didn’t want is very odd. The reality is that she was asked to come on Sean Hannity’s program to give her opinion on the current situation. She attempted to do so, but was repeatedly cut off by an extremely rude and dismissive host. The annoyance you were hearing had to do with the way Hannity was speaking to her and refusing to allow her to proceed. He only wanted to hear statements that would follow his carefully pre-arranged script – a script in which she would have no voice. When she instead offered an actual position that would require Hannity to think about the issue for a moment, he lost his temper and had a tantrum on the air. Holmes Norton did what she could to deal with him, but there is a limit for all of us in the amount of abuse it is fair to expect anyone to endure. As you correctly note in your final line “It doesn’t work that way.” You should let Hannity know that. Barring that, you might want to educate yourself on this issue before opining on it again without the facts to support your statements.
that the facts don’t matter to her. She is just trying to promote her agenda of racial hatred and divisiveness.
She admitted that she didn’t care about the facts.
Listen carefully to what she had to say. Sure she was annoyed that someone would even ask her about the facts. You can see that she was clearly annoyed. She wanted a forum where she could just spew out any lies that she wanted to and no one would ask any questions. Well it doesn’t work that way.
“At lest Fox had her on the program. They still give you both sides.”
Yeah Warner, SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE THEY DO.
And I’m Pope Francis I.
By the way, WHERE THE HELL DID YOU LEARN TO SPELL?
In Foxie land where dumb is king,
When Sean is on here’s what we say:
When you spew right wing views
And your friends all hate Jews,
That’s A Moron,
When you lie with such glee,
With an IQ of three,
That’s A Moron,
Bells will ring ting-a-ling-a-ling, ting-a-ling-a-ling,
And your friends will salivate,
Hearts will play tippy-tippy-tay, tippy-tippy-tay,
Don’t peddling hate pay so great,
When the spin makes you croak,
Like a nut-zoid on coke,
That’s A Moron,
When you bitch and you moan, like a paranoid clone,
When you rally your troops with your big piles of poop,
‘Scu-za me, can’t you see, here in reality,
That’s A Moron, That’s A Moron, That’s A Moron!