Why Won’t Sean Hannity Defend Trump against Impeachment Under Oath?

Yesterday, the Republicans released their list of requested witnesses for the public impeachment hearings this week. The list includes:

  • Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s business partner
  • Hunter Biden
  • Alexandrea Chalupa, the DNC consultant who conducted oppo research on Manafort [corrected] via non-official sources
  • Undersecretary of State David Hale, who gave a private deposition the details of which have not yet leaked
  • Tim Morrison, the NSC staffer who was on the Trump call but has said (in part because saying anything else would implicate him criminally) nothing he heard was a problem
  • Nellie Ohr, whom Nunes falsely accuses of assisting with the Steele dossier, but who collected oppo research on Trump based off leads which were in turn based off open source research
  • Kurt Volker
  • The whistleblower
  • The whistleblower’s sources

I’m amuses me they think Volker will help them, as it reflects their inability to process information as it has come in. In his testimony, Volker made a concerted effort to spin what happened in the least damaging way for Trump. He based much of that defense on the then-operative understanding that Trump had never mentioned Burisma in his conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky, thereby suggesting that that improper request never got beyond Rudy Giuliani to the President. But we now know that Trump did explicitly invoke Burisma in the call, but that it got redacted out by John Eisenberg and others. That is, precisely the detail that Volker used to exonerate the President has now been overtaken by events. Volker will likely spend part of his public testimony backtracking off the stances Republicans believe help the President.

While I assume Schiff will accept the request to call witnesses he himself has asked for depositions, Schiff has already ruled out calling Hunter Biden or the whistleblower.

Still, the most telling part of this list is that the most loyal defender of the President, Sean Hannity, is not on it.

It is now clear that Hannity is a key player in this information operation (unsurprisingly, given what we know about his efforts to coordinate Paul Manafort’s defense). Unlike John Solomon, Hannity’s personal implication in the slimy nest of legal conflicts that the President calls legal representation seem to have ended when Michael Cohen got busted. Unlike Rudy, Hannity’s status as a journalist should protect him from legal liability.

So there’s no reason — besides the fact he’d be under oath — why he shouldn’t be willing to testify about the several key events he played a part in.

For example, Marie Yovanovitch testified that she understands during a period when Hannity was attacking her personally, someone close to Mike Pompeo called Hannity and asked him to either substantiate the charges or stop.

THE CHAIRMAN: And did you ever find out when, you know, the allegations were being made or the attacks were being made by Donald Trump, )r., or Rudy Giuliani, did you ever find out what the Secretary of State’s position, whether the Secretary of State was going to defend you or not, apart from the refusal by the Secretary to issue a statement in your defense?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: What I was told by Phil Reeker was that the Secretary or perhaps somebody around hjm was going to place a call to Mr. Hannity on FOX News to say, you know, what is going on? I mean, do you have proof of these kinds of allegations or not? And if you have proof, you know, telI me, and if not, stop. And I understand that that call was made. I don’t know whether it was the Secretary or somebody else in his inner circle. And for a time, you know, things kind of simmered down.

THE CHAIRMAN: I mean, does that seem extraordinary to you that the Secretary of State or some other high-ranking official would call a talk show host to figure out whether you should be retained as ambassador?

MS . YOVANOVITCH: Wet 1 , I ‘m not sure that’ s exactly what was being asked.

THE CHAIRMAN: Well , they were aski ng i f what basi s they was Hannity one of the people criticizing you?

MS. Y0VANOVITCH: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: 5o some top administration official was going to him to find out what the basis of this FOX host was attacking you tor?


THE CHAIRMAN: And did you ever get any readout on what the result of that conversation was?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: No, I didn’t, although I was told that it did take place.

Then later in the same deposition, Yovanovitch described how, in an appearance on Hannity’s show, the President pivoted from a question about Russia to focus on Ukraine, which the Ambassador thought might also be targeted at her.

[Dan Goldman] Are you also aware that on the night of April 25th that President Trump went on Sean Hannity’s show and discussed Ukraine?

A Yes. He was asked a question about Russia and he answered by responding about Ukraine.

Q And what was your reaction to that?

A Well, you know, I mean, I was concerned about what this would all mean.

Q In what way?

A Well, obviously, for me personally, not to make it all about me, but for me personally. But also, what does this mean for our policy? Where are we going?

In response, Hannity issued two angry denials on Twitter, not under oath, then linked to a (!!!) now debunked John Solomon piece, as if that did anything but confirm he was part of an information operation.

If Hannity wants to clear his name, surely he’s willing to do so under oath? While there, he can also explain why he keeps bringing Solomon, Joe DiGenova, and Victoria Toensing on his show, and why he doesn’t disclose that the latter two are working for mobbed up Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash.

Hannity has repeatedly hosted Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing, lawyers for Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash.

According to a Media Matters database, diGenova has appeared on Hannity’s show at least 37 times in 2018 and 2019. His partner Toensing has appeared on Hannity’s show at least 20 times during the same period.

Additionally, Hannity has hosted conservative writer John Solomon over 100 times in 2018 and 2019. Solomon, now a Fox News contributor, is also a client of Toensing and diGenova, and he coordinated with personal Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani to inject his Ukraine disinformation into the media.

More importantly, when testifying under oath before the impeachment inquiry, Hannity can explain why Rudy’s Ukrainian grifters, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were setting up an interview between him and Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in Vienna, where Firtash has been bankrolling this entire influence operation.

While questions in Washington swirl around Shokin’s role in this controversy, Giuliani, Parnas, Fruman had specific plans for the former Ukrainian official up until the day of their arrest. According to those four sources, they told others they were headed to Vienna to help with a planned interview the next day: Shokin, they said, was scheduled to do an interview from the Austrian capital with Sean Hannity.

Through a spokesperson, Hannity said that “we never reveal our sources, potential sources, or persons they may or may not request to interview. Sean Hannity takes the first amendment seriously.”

He might even be able to explain whether, in Attorney General Barr’s visit to Rupert Murdoch’s home the night the grifters got arrested trying to flee the country (and so the night before Hannity was supposed to interview Shokin), he tipped off Hannity not to get on any planes?

Sean Hannity is a far more central fact witness on events associated with the impeachment than Biden, Archer, Chalupa, or Ohr. He’s one of Trump’s most loyal fans, so if there’s a defense of the President to be made, surely he’s willing to make it … under oath.

And yet, either Republicans aren’t willing to risk Hannity’s reputation, or Hannity is unwilling to repeat his claims denying involvement under oath.

100 replies
  1. OldTulsaDude says:

    Sean Hannity, at least as quoted by the Wahington Examiner in 2016, denies being a journalist: “I’m not a journalist! I’m a talk radio host,” he said on his radio show, explaining that he’s not in the business of asking “gotcha” questions like “people in the media” who go to “their parties in New York and [Washington] D.C. and Los Angeles, and out there lecturing everybody about how interviews ought to be done.”

    • P J Evans says:

      For someone who’s “not a journalist”, he sure spends a lot of time pushing the GOP-T view of the universe.

      • Cthulhu says:

        He’s not a journalist, nor a “host” (Well, he might be, I’m not aware if he as parasites or not). He’s a propagandist.

  2. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Hannity would detest being subject to cross examination by people for whom he is not the chief breadwinner. They might show inadequate fealty to him.

  3. sharl says:

    First, some trivial business – a typo, I assume:

    I’m amuses they think Volker will help them,…

    Second, thanks for pulling all this Hannity stuff together in one post. I’ve been seeing your regular enthusiastic references to him on Twitter lately, and while I vaguely recalled seeing his name pop up several times in various depositions and whatnot over the past 18 or so months, this one stop resource is helpful, and much appreciated.

    • bmaz says:

      Why are inconsequential typos (if this even is one) notable?

      Is it a serious thing that affects something in context in the main post, or naw, just trying to be a grammar scold?

      • sharl says:

        She seems to be a stickler for even such minor details, at least in my observation, hence I took the trouble to mention it. It won’t hurt my feelings one bit if it goes ignored.

        You seem to be in a bit of an uncharacteristic snit today, based on your comments here. I hope all is well, or will become well if not.

        • bmaz says:

          A “snit”, and you wonder if I am “well”? Thanks for the concern, troll. You seem to be a bit of an uncharacteristic troll today, I hope all is well on your end.

        • bmaz says:

          Also, too, “Shari” please tell me what I have been wrong about that you think is “snittish”. I will be waiting, because all I have done is try to make sure that facts and law are recognized. What do you have?

          • Sky Woman says:

            I actually would describe it as snarky and notice that most of your comments to others run along that line.

        • P J Evans says:

          Generally, here, corrections are only mentioned if they may affect the understanding of the post. Spelling isn’t usually a problem.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            Shirley, bzam is correct that inconsequential typos aren’t relevant to the discussion, commiting about them burdens the threat.

            Me, I’m wondering how rebuilding the outside bbq went, what with holidays and the post-season games coming up. Priorities are important.

            • sand says:

              An overzealous attention to grammar can interrupt the flow of a good sentence, creating a writing style up with which discerning readers simply will not put.

              However, correct spelling helps to avoid misunderstandings, especially when the topic of a piece is as impotent as this one is.

  4. Mitch Neher says:

    Sean Hannity will not testify in Trump’s defense because . . .

    Sean Hannity has always relied upon Trump to tell Sean Hannity the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    How else is Sean Hannity supposed to know what the blazes the truth is or even might be?

    Eenie, meanie, minnie, Moe?

  5. Bay State Librul says:

    The “real” Republican list of witnesses to testify:

    Morty and Helen Seinfeld
    George’s parents Frank and Estelle,
    Uncle Leo,
    Jacopo “J.” Peterman,
    David Puddy,
    Rabbi Glickman,
    Keith Hernandez and of course
    George Steinbrenner

    I rest my case.

  6. Sandwichman says:

    Is “Hannity under oath” an oxymoron? (rhetorical question) I’m sure he would invoke some kind of first amendment journalist/source/client privilege/immunity if subpoenaed by the majority. The minority would never risk submitting their prime propagandist to cross examination.

  7. Rugger9 says:

    Isn’t Hannity the chickenhawk that owes Bill Maher a waterboarding session at IIRC was for $1000 per second that Hannity could take it to be given to a charity of Hannity’s choice? I mention this because Hannity is a classic example of a bully, and indeed was outed by Franken in his book (Lying Liars…) that followed his Rush Limbaugh expose. During the Shrub years when waterboarding (which I should point out we executed Japanese officers for ordering in WWII) was being downplayed as torture, and Hannity on his show said he’d allow himself to be waterboarded for charity and Maher took him up on it. It’s been over a decade and Hannity chickened out.

    Just like now.

    • quebecois says:

      I think it was Charles Grodin in may 2009 that asked Hannity if he would be waterboarded because O. North did it while training. Hannity said that he’d do it for charity. Ten long years…

  8. Rugger9 says:

    OT but also weird: Mulvaney’s wanting to join Bolton staffer Kupperman’s suit against the WH as reported in the NYT and carried for free at Raw Story in a couple of places. My take is that like the JDAs, Individual-1 wants a mole to report about the case against him and the Palace.

    Bolton for his part is not amused, and he’s quite willing to buck the minions and I-1 himself if TPM’s report is correct that he ordered restoring the Ukrainian aid before resigning.

    As a chaser, TPM is also reporting about a second call with Zelensky that the Palace is releasing a “transcript” of on Tuesday. Maybe I missed something but I thought there was only one Ukraine call under investigation, and I don’t trust the Palace to release any information that would be considered gospel until independently fact-checked. Maybe Individual-1 found his sharpies hidden by Mulvaney, given how busy he was on Twitter today, but I also think anything he says or his minions barf out will be held against him by the impeachment inquiry.

    • Vicks says:

      I believe that a first call was mentioned in the context that is was odd to claim that the purpose of the now infamous (on supposedly second) call was to congratulate Zelensky when that call had already been made.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Presumably, the timing of second ‘transcript’ is to distract from Congressional hearings, muddy waters, whine about victimization, and give Hannity et al a crie de coeur for another few news cycles.

      It’s more and more striking that the bulk of Trump’s antics are to generate sound bytes and propaganda, as well as destabilize institutional structures. If this analysis is correct, and Hannity/Murdock matter. A lot.
      So why no testimony…?

  9. Wm. Boyce says:

    Hannity is the hypocrite’s hypocrite; a multi-millionaire real estate investor who has used government loan programs to further enrich himself whilst gorging on working people’s rents. It may have been the Times that looked into this, can’t remember, but Mr. Hannity feeds like a hog at the trough of government largesse.

  10. Vince says:

    I just can’t stop laughing.

    For weeks Racist Donnie and his Brownshirts have been wailing about closed-door hearings, a lack of transparency, and that the hearings should be public so the American people can see them. Now that there will be public hearings, and somebody musta told Racist Donnie what’s in the released transcripts, he is now screaming:

    “They shouldn’t be having public hearings!”

  11. jaango says:

    Today’s politics is dismal, at best. Anytime a ‘credentialed’ Journalist lowers himself or herself to engage in outright propaganda, demonstrates that the political gutter is getting much larger, despite our national history for such behavior.

    And my thanks for making this Republican list readily available.

  12. Joseph Wilson says:

    Sean Hannity is not the sharpest tool in the shed, reflected in the moniker (attributed to Jon Stewart) Lumpy, a la Clarence Rutherford. I am curious to know who writes Hannity’s monologues, skillfully choreographed with photos, memes and chyrons — all for maximum propagandistic effect. He’s your typical horse running down a railroad track.

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Nice observation from EW. It may well be that – but for disclosure – Trump never intended to aide Ukraine at the expense of his BFF Vlad. https://twitter.com/emptywheel

    Rather, Trump might have intended to keep moving the goal posts by always asking for one more favor, though. He could thereby corrupt Ukraine’s new leader, and prevent him from gaining a better hold on power to better defend his country from Russian attack. For that, Vlad might have given him another biscuit and a rub behind the ear.

  14. Rugger9 says:

    OT but hilarious. DJTJr and trophy GF Kim G (it’s hard to keep track of who is propping up whom) was chanted off the stage at UCLA by the RWNJs of Turning Point USA. The video embedded

    Why would Junior dumb enough to alienate his supporters and why would KG jump in like that to make it worse? Individual-1 prevailed in the Electoral College by the slimmest of margins and cannot afford to lose any support at all. I can see how Faux News will try to spin this as liberals behaving badly but these TPA trolls network pretty well.


    • J. H. Frank says:

      They’re not “his supporters,” they’re the rebranded far alt-right that are angry that Trump isn’t hurting non-whites as much as he said he would.

      There’s an ugly internecine brawl between the pro-Trump and “Trump hasn’t gone far enough” elements of the former alt-right.

      (See also Milo’s leaked audio damaging Richard Spencer, the various firings at TPUSA, etc.)

  15. foggycoast says:

    the whole “under oath” thing is pointless. 1) these assholes generally see that consequences for defying laws mostly does not exist. the consistent refusal to honor subpoenas with impunity is evidence of that. 2) who’s going enforce it? DOJ….pffft not likely. 3) the impeachment hearings, trial and likely Trumps term in office will be long over before appeals on those charges are ever adjudicated.

    until a major figure does a perp walk these fuckers will simply lie to congress, because they’ll can get away with it.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Lying to Congress or under oath generally is a major felony with a five-year statute of limitations. Ask Scooter Libby. Similar penalties exist under state law. Plenty of time to impose consequences, but only a Democratic administration would impose them. So get out the vote.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Concur as well, and perhaps one of the things we will see is a more direct legal standard about subpoenas where compliance is no longer an option. A law at least, in the same idea how the equal protection of the laws implied in the 5th Amendment was made explicit in the 14th.

    • bmaz says:

      Hi Foggycoast. This is not a smart take. False statements and perjury are extremely serious crimes, and get charged, prosecuted and convicted on all the time. It is an incredibly important concept, and should never be so blithely dismissed. Did you stop, for even a second, to recognize that you are making that statement in a post about the trial of a man so charged? What about Michael Cohen? Why do you think Gordon Sondland hustled to cure his testimony? And, no, “perp walks” do not accomplish squat, and calling for them is lame.

      • foggycoast says:

        I resopect your POV and experience but: bmaz, Cohen was pre-Barr so irrelevant to my comment. Don jr. blatantly lied about material information as did others. Where’s the charges against him? earl, surely you’re not going to use a 45 year old example as reference to what’s going on today. this cabal laughs at that. nope, me thinks you’re blinded by the expectation of justice being meted out by those on the side of the criminality.

        I’d like to agreed that the liars will be brought to justice but it’s too easy to see that until someone is behind bars these thugs will continue to snicker at the naivete. These folks may be in a corner but right now they own the building.

        • bmaz says:

          It is still a horribly uninformed take. And there is no “pre-Barr” exception in the various US Code statutes and opinion precedent. This is not a helpful view on the actual law.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The “cabal” is not the only one laughing. To stop it, you might first read the comments. Bmaz is giving you, for example, facts, law, and practice, not his point of view. I would then buy a new calendar. Mr. Libby’s conviction was twelve years ago. Bmaz could cite any number of convictions since then. Mr. Stone’s might be in his near future.

          • foggycoast says:

            you’re right about that. i was thinking of the watergate crew, colson, mitchell, etc. and, i’m not disagreeing on the law. i WANT it to be enforced here. stone would certainly be a conviction that would help. the law is one thing. what’s going on now relies also in large part on public opinion and what people are seeing has yet to show any real teeth so the public, i fear has no visceral sense that these folks will suffer real consequences. onward…

    • Rugger9 says:

      Concur, as Peter King was a proud member of the Batsh&t Brigade leading the way on Freedom Fries and other anti-Muslim grandstanding efforts. A real piece of work, but if even he sees it is time to go that’s big trouble for the GOP. His LI seat was pretty damn safe for team Red (on so many levels, right, Vlad?).

  16. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Good read: “[M]ore than 370 political candidates, foreign governments, businesses, corporate groups, religious groups, charities and other entities have held events at President Donald Trump’s properties since the 2016 election.”


    And here, reporting on a global model Russia uses to win friends and influence people: How Russia Meddles Abroad for Profit: Cash, Trolls and a Cult Leader

    From the NYT, reprinted here for easier access: https://bt24news.com/africa/how-russia-meddles-abroad-for-profit-cash-trolls-and-a-cult-leader/

    • Molly Pitcher says:

      The NYT article is so infuriating and depressing at the same time. I feel w are living in Orwellian times.

  17. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Democracy – and all forms of governments – are disposable commodities for dedicated neoliberals following the path of Milton Friedman. The wealthy few expect to buy whatever government they need and to discard the rest – forcefully, if necessary. Ask Evo Morales or Dilma Rousseff.

    Starting in the Reagan era, so-called conservative think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, developed a league table that ranks “economic freedom.” Rankings are based on the curious priority that absolute “freedom” to make money – and to externalize the cost of doing it – is more important than any other possible social need.

    Quinn Slobodian concludes that’s an excuse to ringfence economic power, to immunize it from criticism or attack. Jamie Dimon, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg probably think that’s the least the academy can do for them. Non-billionaires, however, recognize the need to make provision for jobs, education, and healthcare, old-age pensions, safe food and drugs, and occasional peace, goodwill toward women.


    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      For billionaires like Bezos and Zuck, resistance to politicians like Sanders and Warren is not about keeping more of their money. They want it all, true, and enough is never enough, but they could never spend a tenth of what they already have.

      The real issue is that they want to keep what their outsized pocketbooks buy them – politicians, legislators, presidents, campaign platforms, government policies, labor and environmental legislation, trade deals, the terms by which government regulates their business, and more. In other words, gubmint. It’s why they should be taxed much more heavily.

  18. CaliLawyer says:

    Sucks that BoJo spiked the UK report. It would be great to get a clearer picture of the types of influencers Putin targets, although we’ve all got suspicions. I’ve wondered about Hannity for a while on here.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      BoJo is withholding a potentially explosive report on the contemporary role of Russian money and influence peddling in the UK – on the spurious basis that inter-agency sign-offs would take too long.

      Boris Johnson and his Conservative party are lying by omission and defrauding the electorate, the government, and the crown. But Boris is so happy to lie to your face that the omission bit seems anti-climactic.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Similar to the NHS bus run around during the first Brexit vote, BoJo and the Tory government will conveniently forget about this after the election. I wonder if there is a pattern here….

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Not to mention that it would be nice to compare the template Vlad uses in the UK with the ones he uses elsewhere, like the US, Hungary and Poland. And to compare whether he uses the same or similar cut-outs, or whether, like a professional hit man, he uses new tools for each job.

  19. Rugger9 says:

    Speaking of RW has-beens, I see Dana Loesch is still plugging Super Beets drink powder and for about the last month or so I see Bill O’Lielly plugging the Great American Wealth Project to “mint millionaires”. Wingnut welfare at its finest.

  20. Tom says:

    I hope the Democrats don’t overlook the importance of visual aids to their viewing public as they organize the impeachment hearings. Folks watching at home should be able to see a map of Europe and eastern Russia that shows the size of Ukraine, the extent to which it bulges towards the West, and the importance Putin places upon expanding his control over its government and resources. They should also be shown those areas of Ukraine that have been seized and occupied by Russia, such as Crimea, as well as those areas where Russia-backed insurgents are active. Ukrainian casualty figures should be displayed, military and civilian, as well as scenes of damaged and destroyed towns and infrastructure. Also, viewers should be able to see the weapons used in the fighting and what the Ukrainians are up against, as well as what military aid the U.S. has supplied. In particular, viewers should see the Javelin anti-tank missile in action so they’ll understand its importance to the Ukrainians and why President Zelensky mentioned it specifically in his July 25th phone call with Trump.

    There are many Americans of Slavic heritage or even birth who have no reason to feel kindly disposed towards the Putin regime and who would be in favour of strongly backing Ukraine. When presented in this way, the viewing public should have a better understanding that President Trump’s bribery and extortion tactics with President Zelensky were not just part of what some of Trump’s defenders have tried to frame as the normal negotiating tactics that take place between heads of state, but rather was an attempt to hijack funding approved by Congress in order to help secure him another term as President so as to avoid prosecution for his earlier obstruction of justice and other offences, even at the risk of allowing a struggling democracy and ally to be undermined and consumed by Putin and his gangsters by withholding vital military aid.

    • Tom says:

      Many commentators have stressed the importance of the American public hearing the testimony of the witnesses, but TV is above all a visual medium.

  21. Vince says:

    Former Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley is claiming Racist Donnie should not be impeached, because his plot involving bribery and extortion against Ukraine was not successful. Gee, I guess Haley wants to let a whole bunch of people out of prison because they were convicted of attempted murder, attempted rape, attempted bank robbery, attempted arson, and attempted embezzlement.

    Absolutely unbelievable how far RightWingers will contort and whore themselves to try and defend Racist Donnie. She took an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution NOT act like a fascist supporter of Dear Leader.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Nikki seems intent on becoming the next GOP president. She will have to reckon with the much more ruthless Baby Dick, Liz Cheney. Actively supported by daddy, she has already climbed to become the number three Republican in the House.

      • Vince says:

        I was surprised to see Cheney chastise the Neanderthals that were trying to demonize the decorated military folks who were testifying in front of congress.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Liz Cheney is an ardent foe of anything to the left of Genghis Khan, she will do Democrats no favors. But she knows the constituency that might take her to the Oval Office and defends it. She also expects to have to pick up the pieces after Trump trashes the place, and the Dems flail at it owing to internal disputes and continued disruptions from a GOP Senate.

        The Dems could do a stellar job of picking up the pieces post-Trump. They’ll need the Senate for most repairs, but they can stop much of the putrefaction by controlling and staffing the executive branch.

    • fikshun says:

      Yeah, she’s either angling for the Republican nomination should Trump be impeached or she’s just saying loyal/provocative things to get publicity for her book.

      • Marinela says:

        Or she is just a disgusting deplorable enabler. Without the enablers, the faulty leaders could not possibly survive. She is trying to have it both ways, and banking everybody is part of their cult.

  22. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Bolivian leftist, Evo Morales, the country’s longtime and first indigenous president, was forced to leave office a few days ago. He left owing to the aftermath of a disputed election and his abandonment by police and military authorities, traditionally loyal to the right. It is an outcome the American CIA often actively helps bring about. MI-6, too.

    With that background, the press continues to normalize. The UK Guardian’s headline today reads: “Former Bolivian leader granted asylum by Mexico after quitting.” Yesterday’s headline was more reticent, “Morales resigns after election dispute,” although the quitting reference was added to a subheading. A more accurate headline might read, “after being forced out in a coup.

    Oddly, today’s headline has already been edited, deleting, “after quitting.” The subheading now says: “Ex-president claims he is victim of coup as unrest spreads and fears grow about political chaos.” Great minds think alike.


    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The Guardian seems schizophrenic in its headlines about Morales. Its prominent front page listing today includes “after quitting” in the headline. It’s absent when you click through to the full article – which time-pressed readers do not do.

      As it’s harder to track the often changing front page than the full article, it’s as if the Guardian wants to have its objective cake and eat its propaganda, too.

    • Vince says:

      What the hell is with the OAS, claiming there were “clear manipulations” in the election results without a shred of evidence? They just accepted the RightWing propaganda that the election results were “frozen”, and then when restarted Morales was ahead as gospel. An election observer from the European parliament who was present stated that the ‘Quick Count’ was at 84% with Morales more than 8 points ahead, and the only remaining districts to be counted were the rural and mountain areas which would be very heavily pro-Morales, when the Official Count started to come in so they merely switched the DISPLAY to the Official Count so there would not be any confusion. The RightWingers bitched so much that they switched the DISPLAY back to the Quick Count until it hit 100%, and then switched the DISPLAY to the Official Count. No “manipulations”.

      • Vince says:


        It’s more than obvious now that this was a coup at the hands of the Racist Donnie administration. They clearly had their canned talking points ready, but Marco Rubio jumped the gun and started claiming the election was fraudulent BEFORE the first vote was counted. What an incompetent boob.

  23. e.a.f. says:

    Perhaps Hannity isn’t being called because although he is very good at making accusations and flapping is gums, he isn’t that good at answering questions under duress. Putting Hannity under oath and subjecting him to questioning, he cannot control, may not turn out well for any one. He may not be able to with stand questioning. Why risk that.

Comments are closed.