Last night, Sean Hannity went full National Enquirer with a “bombshell” about Bill and Hillary Clinton that even Fox News wanted nothing to do with. And even the star of his two-part, 17-minute interview shot down almost all the salacious details Hannity hyped.
Fox News refused to vouch for Hannity's Clinton "bombshell"
Hannity opened his show last night with a Fox News Alert:
HANNITY: A bombshell new report by the National Enquirer details how Bill and Hillary Clinton allegedly used the services of a political fixer for over a decade. It’s a story you’ll only hear tonight on Hannity.
This “bombshell” bumped interviews with Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, and campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, who came later in the show.
HANNITY: The National Enquirer, after a 16-month investigation, describes how the man they call “Mr. Fixit” helped the Clintons cover up their various scandals. …This man’s story is particularly compelling because the magazine alleges that, back in 1994, it agreed to drop a story about Bill Clinton in exchange for special access to Roger Clinton’s wedding, featuring his then-pregnant girlfriend, a deal offered to them by Mr. Fixit himself.
Really? That’s the bombshell? Somebody working for the Clintons bargained with the National Enquirer over a story that may or may not have been true and gave a reporter “special access” (whatever that means) to the wedding of Bill Clinton’s brother?
We’re supposed to care about this, why? Because 20 years later Hillary Clinton might do something to control her media coverage? And in the meanwhile, we should ignore how Donald Trump threatens to sue or bans or whips up dangerous anger at reporters as casually as Hannity puts on his American flag lapel pin?
Hannity went on to quote the National Enquirer’s vetting of the story, before he got to this:
HANNITY: Now, we did reach out to Hillary Clinton, her campaign and former president Bill Clinton’s office multiple times, and neither, shockingly, provided us with a statement. It is important to note that Fox News cannot independently verify the story.
In other words, Hannity was going strictly with the Enquirer’s version of events. As if in anticipation of criticism, Hannity cited some stories the paper got right. Most famously, probably, John Edwards’ “whole love child scandal,” as Hannity put it. “So people attack it, but they have a pretty good track record,” Hannity said.
Guest Jeff Rovin, the now-identified “Mr. Fixit,” called the former Enquirer editor, David Perel, “a journalist’s journalist.”
Nobody mentioned current Enquirer CEO David Pecker's friendship with Trump. From Think Progress:
Donald Trump has a close relationship with National Enquirer CEO David Pecker. The Enquirer has endorsed Trump and ignored the numerous stories about Trump that would seem to be tabloid fodder. Instead, it has relentlessly promoted Trump’s candidacy.
Also not mentioned? Rovin’s history as an editor for the now-defunct Weekly World News. If you don’t recognize the name of the Supermarket tabloid, Media Matters explains:
The Weekly World News was best known for ridiculous and outrageous front-page headlines, including; “Clinton Hires 3-Breasted Intern,” “Alien Backs Clinton,” “Alien In Slammer After Fistfight With Bill … Over Hillary,” and “Hillary Names Bigfoot As Her Running Mate.”
But we did get this:
ROVIN: Look, the The New York Times has become the Enquirer, the Enquirer has become The New York Times.
Not surprisingly, Hannity didn’t challenge a word. He must have been too eager to get to the smears.
Hannity's attempt to say the Clintons had an open marriage fails, too
HANNITY: So your job was to help hide their scandals. And the degree to which – you’re saying they had an open marriage. You’re talking about hookers. You’re talking about dirty tricks, buying off journalists and much more. Why don’t you give us specifics.
ROVIN: …Let me qualify that by saying … one of the reasons I wanted to come on your show was to put things in a little less hyperbolic way, perhaps.
Less hyperbolic, indeed. When Hannity asked about the “open marriage,” Rovin said, “Look, if screaming is to be taken as validation, there were harsh words behind closed doors that we all heard.”
Hannity's claim the Clintons tried to "destroy" Monica Lewinsky also fizzles
Rather than note that one of his own big bombshells had just – well, bombed, Hannity went on to the next one. That didn’t work out so well, either:
HANNITY: And their effort was to destroy Monica Lewinsky. Destroy her.
ROVIN: That was the original concept. And I have to say that as this proceeded, because the president kept insisting there was nothing there. And, ultimately and, again, this may sound strange, to his credit, he’s the one who put the kibosh on using any of this material.
There's no proof Rovin did anything untoward on behalf of the Clintons
So we’re 0 for 2 here. No open marriage, no effort to destroy Lewinsky. But Rovin did tell us it was an “open secret in our circles” that Hillary Clinton was having an affair with Vince Foster. And that there was an “order to intervene with the press for at least a half hour after he committed suicide.”
To which I say, so what? In the first place, “open secret” is not exactly proof but even if it’s true, why does it matter in 2016? Secondly, why wouldn’t a White House try to “intervene” for a short period of time after a top, close aide commits suicide? Not that Hannity noted any of that, of course.
Hannity did ask if Rovin would let the media, the public and/or journalists see his source materials. “I’d have to think about that,” Rovin said.
Hope sprang eternal for Hannity:
HANNITY: Did anyone pay to get a story killed?
ROVIN: …We’ll find out tomorrow but I don’t think so.
… What would happen is, if we got wind of a story from the tabloids, chances were pretty good it would end up in one of the mainstream newspapers or magazines. Now, we would then contact one of those people and say, “This isn’t true. Don’t run it. Here’s –“
Hannity interrupted, so we never got the rest. But it’s pretty clear that what happened is that the White House would deny the story and it would be “diluted” because the White House denial cast doubt on it and the mainstream press probably didn’t have access to the same sleazy source the Enquirer did or else didn’t give it the same credibility.
Near the end, even Rovin suggested that this was nothing unique to the Clinton White House. “It’s a stinking business,” he said. But, he added, “It’s absolutely necessary for everyone."
Watch it below, from the October 24, 2016 Hannity show, via Media Matters. One place you won’t be able to watch this interview is on FoxNews.com. This “bombshell” that took up the first third of the Hannity show is not there.
UPDATE: Business Insider's Oliver Darcy reports:
From frustrated Fox Newser: "Wallace does a great job [at debate]...helps give us more credibility, then Hannity does this garbage"
— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) October 25, 2016
I’m not even clear what this was all about. It sounded as if the Enquirer had done a story about this guy Rovin, not by him, and Rovin wasn’t all that happy about it. And the Enquirer filled in all the details itself and Rovin didn’t even know what was going to be in the story.
And Rovin himself didn’t make the accusations about the really nasty stuff. The Vince Foster thing was just, he freely admitted, gossip among lower-level White House staff. Well, duh. The rumor mill is even more ridiculous in politics than it is in show business, and the show biz rumor mill is flat-out nuts.
I wish somebody in responsible media would interview this guy and find out what this is all about and what he kept trying to say that Hannity wouldn’t let him say.
This was extremely peculiar.
The Stop Hannity Express says the only bombshell coming is the naming of names in the sexual harassment lawsuit involving certain Foxies. The Trainee is NOT the only one chasing skirts.
NOTE TO HANNITY
May your broadcasting career come to a sudden halt. #cablekarma. Take Trumpster’s plane and fly to Ireland-permanently.
Don’t sell yourself short, Sean. In terms of credibility, Fox and the NE are about the same . . .
.
For example, they mention the Clinton camp is encouraged by more registered Democrats casting early ballots in Nevada. That’s potentially bad news for Clinton Fox sniffs:
“But such numbers are open to interpretation, including how many Democrats in those two states voted for Clinton.”
On the other hand, when pondering registered Republicans casting early ballots in Florida Fox does an amazing 180 and has no such reservations they’re anything but votes for Trump:
“Early Florida numbers showed about an equal number of Democrats and Republicans had requested a record 3.1 million early ballots, compared with 2008 when Republicans led 49-to-32 percent and President Obama still won the state.
However, registered Republicans now have a slight lead — 1.8 percentage points — in the nearly 1 million ballots received by Friday."
Another transparent (and comical) example of Fox crap reporting is sourcing a political science professor, Kendra Stewart, as observing all of the good news regarding early balloting coming from the Clinton campaign is actually bad news for Hillary because it will convince Hillary supporters their votes aren’t needed, suppressing her vote. Huge surprise they had to go to obscure College of Charleston to dig up Dr. Stewart’s encouraging (for Trump) viewpoint. I guess Larry Sabato was busy with a bubble bath. ;^)
Here’s all the “Early voting suggests tight race in key states despite Clinton camp boast” bulls—t should you care to read it in its entirety:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/early-voting-suggests-tight-race-in-key-states-despite-clinton-camp-boast/ar-AAjlZnk?OCID=ansmsnnews11