hannity2 txt

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">capt</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">919&nbsp; bad code?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2 is 404</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">12/17 proxy for sleaze? age of trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see main for earlier</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">prolly neglected to routine bs</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bak 2 23</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">i predict game over 10/18/19 pmck</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 3 23</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(239, 243, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">HANNITY (HOST): Now, that is sadly the FBI putting their thumb on the scale of a presidential election. They were indoctrinating and basically training people in Big Tech, they had weekly meetings with them -- oh, that they're going to be victims of a disinformation campaign that never happened.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(239, 243, 247);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And by the way, they did something else in 2016, it was called the Russia hoax. And they did it again in the fall of 2020, with the censorship, disinformation campaign against what was the very real reports about Hunter Biden and his laptop from hell. A laptop, by the way, that your FBI had since December of 2019 and they easily could've verified probably in 48 hours.</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/sean-hannity-served-trump-dojs-kool-aid</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">deep state fbi BS?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">normalizing&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/sean-hannity-pushes-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-tie-her-national-divorce-america-debt</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 2 23</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">hannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/immigration/right-wing-media-outlets-are-endorsing-border-militias-tool-curb-immigration</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 2 23 vaxx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">cALLER: I wanted to thank you for all of your truth and you telling it like it is and explaining things to us that the people that are in charge are supposed to be telling us the truth, but they're not. Example: COVID. You've never sugarcoated COVID. You had told what should have been said to the American people. It was never explained to us the way it should have been. But you always tell, you know, what you know, who you know it from. You bring in experts who know what they're talking about and you're always truthful.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Well, I appreciate your kind words. I will tell you, there was a lot of pressure, Leslie, brought on this show and my TV show, for me to tell people what to do and I refused to do it. In retrospect, I am so grateful that I allowed my common sense to guide me and didn't give in to the pressure.&nbsp; But there was a lot of pressure being brought to bear on me to tell people, "Oh, you've got to get the shot." And I'm like, "I don't believe that's the case. I don't think everybody should."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1 23 an</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conservative pundit Sean Hannity claimed without evidence on Thursday that President Joe Biden and his son Hunter have "hired" Special Weapons and Tactics units to hunt down and destroy their political detractors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">First, Hannity and his guest alleged that the Bidens conducted nefarious business with China. They agreed that there were secret recordings of the two men kanoodling with foreign nationals, and determined that the Bidens acted illegally based on what was left "unsaid" in the supposed clandestine phone calls. LACK OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Next, Hannity stated in a fake Russian accent that Libya may have "real compromising materials" about Hunter. He then transitioned into the Biden-SWAT conspiracy theory.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: 'Is this a game show?' Hannity, Boebert clash in heated debate amid House lawmakers’ House speaker feud</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The amount of money, the sheer amount of money, and a number of countries, and Joe's outright lie about never having discussed this with Hunter are now coming to light. Now there's going to be pushback because they have now hired, you know, SWAT teams and are creating a war room to slander and smear and attack every single solitary person that either reports it or is investigating it," Hannity said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He also accused Biden and Democrats of weaponizing investigations, which is what House Republicans are doing through their congressional committees.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"That's, you know, that's Democratic politics 101. That's who they are. That's what they do. So we have to know this, understand this fully," Hannity continued. "And, you know, I think it's pretty obvious what's going on."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Listen below via Media Matters for America or at this link.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/sean-hannity-vaccines-and-boosters-do-not-work-they-have-told-us</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx vids see comer anno</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/james-comer/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">U.S. Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the Republican chair of the powerful House Oversight Committee is repeatedly pushing a baseless narrative that President Joe Biden, who has served his nation for 50 years, is “compromised.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Chairman Comer, who has promoted the false theory of fraud in the 2020 election, blaming alleged “troubling reports of irregularities and improprieties” on Democrats, has been regularly criticized. He was deemed “a fundamentally unserious, dishonest, laughable caricature,” by Democratic strategist Sam Cornale on Wednesday, and mocked by The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank last year.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“In interviews with Fox News and other public pronouncements, Comer has alleged that the president’s son is responsible for just about everything,” Milbank wrote last year. “Why is fentanyl flowing into the United States? Hunter Biden. Why is President Biden pushing electric vehicles? Hunter Biden. Why isn’t the president tougher on Russian oligarchs? Hunter Biden. Why isn’t the administration pinning the pandemic on a Wuhan lab leak and battling China over currency manipulation? Hunter Biden and Hunter Biden. Why did the United States rejoin the Paris climate accord? Hunter Biden.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Tuesday, Fox News’ Sean Hannity led a highly-criticized interview with Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, and Oversight Chair James Comer that was shockingly filmed inside the U.S. House of Representatives.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: ‘The Deep State’ Wants to ‘Wipe Out the American Cowboy’ Warns GOP Congressman in Conspiracy-Laden Rant (Video)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York University Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert on fascism and authoritarian leaders, responded by declaring, “Americans, I give you…President Murdoch and the coronation of Fox News as state media.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity and the top Republicans were surrounded by dozens of House Republicans, sitting quietly, as the Fox News personality promoted their talking points.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition to posting video, journalist Matt Laslo tweeted, “Hannity noted to the lawmakers (who are obediently sitting and saying nothing which is WILD) that many of the lawmakers in attendance might not make it on TV tonight but they gave up an hour to support the Speaker.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Chairman Comer made news for two remarks (both seen in the clip below): calling Ukraine – which is fighting to protect democracy in Europe and thus around the globe – an “adversary” of the United States, and strongly suggesting President Joe Biden is “compromised.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: Watch: Democrats File Ethics Complaint Against George Santos After GOP Leadership Calls It an ‘Internal’ Matter</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“You know there’s a pattern here with Communist China, with Ukraine, with Russia, with our adversaries across the world,” he told Hannity. “And you look at the bad decisions that Joe Biden makes and this White House makes every day that has a detrimental effect on every American – you wonder, is this President compromised?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity himself has promoted the baseless claim that President Biden may be “compromised.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a December interview with Comer, Hannity, known to have had nightly conversations advising Donald Trump when he was president, concluded with this question: “Do you believe it’s possible Joe Biden is compromised by Russia and China?” Comer dutifully replied, “I fear that he is.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That word, “compromised,” is now being used by Comer and his fellow House Republicans repeatedly against President Biden – and his family.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Monday, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), the former chair of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, a former policy advisor to an anti-LGBTQ hate group, and an alleged co-founder of the Stop the Steal movement, called President Biden, First Lady Dr. Jill Biden, and Hunter Biden, “compromised” – while making false claims about classified documents (and the Biden think tank) that were immediately handed over to the National Archives.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Wednesday, Chairman Comer again baselessly used the word “compromised” against President Biden.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating President Biden’s involvement in his family’s foreign business practices and international influence peddling schemes,” Chairman Comer wrote in an official letter published by ABC News, to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, making an unsubstantiated clam as if it were fact.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The Committee is investigating President Biden’s knowledge of and role in these schemes to assess whether he has compromised our national security at the expense of the American people,” Comer wrote.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ABC News adds that Comer “called the Biden probe a ‘top priority for House Republicans during the 118th Congress.'”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: GOP Congressman From Texas Calls for Defunding Homeland Security</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The American people must know the extent of Joe Biden’s involvement in his family’s shady business deals and if these deals threaten national security and his decision-making as president,” Comer told ABC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Comer wasn’t done using the “compromised” word against President Biden.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“In a letter to the White House counsel today,” Politico on Wednesday reported, “new Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said the committee ‘is concerned that President Biden has compromised (intelligence) sources and methods with his own mishandling of classified documents.'”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Chairman Comer has even set up a microsite on the House Oversight Committee’s website, titled, “Biden Family Investigation.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On it, he alleges, “If President Biden is compromised by deals with foreign adversaries and they are impacting his decision making, this is a threat to national security.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Donald Trump’s tax returns show numerous foreign bank accounts, including in China, and there were reports of real estate deals in foreign countries while he was president, but Republicans ignored that.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Two years into his presidency,” OpenSecrets reported in 2019, “Donald Trump continues to make money from properties and licensing deals in nearly two dozen countries around the world, fanning the flames of concerns that the Trump administration is subject to unprecedented levels of foreign influence.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Trump continued to hold more than $130 million in foreign assets in a revocable trust as his second year in office came to a close, according to OpenSecrets’ analysis of the president’s most recent annual personal financial disclosure released by the Office of Government Ethics last month,” the website, which tracks money in politics, noted. “Trump’s business entanglements continue to leave him with positions, assets, trademarks and other business interests in more than 30 countries.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In November of last year, CNN reported, “The governments of six foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, spent more than $700,000 at then-President Donald Trump’s Washington, DC, hotel over the first two years of his presidency, according to newly released accounting documents.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Watch the videos above or at this link.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/lauren-boebert-hannity/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">an ah 12 22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After the 2020 presidential election, Fox News’ Sean Hannity was more than happy to have attorney Sidney Powell on his show and let her promote the false claim that the election was stolen from Donald Trump. Powell, Fox News, Newsmax TV, One America News (OAN) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani have all faced major defamation lawsuits from Dominion Voting Systems, which many MAGA Republicans falsely accused of helping Democrats steal the election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But when Hannity sat for a deposition on December 21 in connection with Dominion’s lawsuit against Fox News, he was in no hurry to promote the Big Lie. Hannity, under oath, was asked about Powell’s Dominion-related claims and admitted, “I did not believe it for one second.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dominion’s defamation lawsuits against Fox News and others are civil lawsuits, but lying under oath in a deposition is a criminal matter. And legal experts have argued that Hannity, during that deposition, obviously wasn’t about to risk criminal charges. Promoting nonsense on the air to drive ratings is one thing; lying under oath is quite another.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: Sean Hannity — under oath — admits he 'didn’t believe' election lies 'for one second': deposition</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity’s critics on the left, along with Never Trump conservatives, have been slamming the far-right Fox News host for giving Powell a platform in the first place. But Trump loyalists, according to the Daily Beast’s Zachary Petrizzo, are lambasting Hannity for rejecting the Big Lie during that December 21 deposition.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Sean Hannity, once the most important mouthpiece for Donald Trump, seems to be increasingly on the MAGA World outs,” Petrizzo explains in an article published by the Beast on December 29. “And a new revelation that Hannity doesn’t buy the Big Lie isn’t helping. In a just-released deposition surrounding Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit, the Fox News star said he’d never believed — not ‘for one second’ — baseless election fraud claims stemming from the 2020 election. That stance, directly at odds with many of his prime-time segments and the beliefs of many of his closest allies, has put Hannity in an awkward position.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The MAGA Republicans who believe that Hannity has betrayed Trump, Petrizzo reports, include attorney Lin Wood, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, radio host Stew Peters, and Steve Bannon (host of the “War Room” podcast and former White House chief strategist in the Trump Administration).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wood told the Beast that he is “very disappointed” and “unhappy” with Hannity. And Lindell told the Beast, “Sean Hannity is disgusting. He’s a terrible journalist that does not do his job or his diligence…. He doesn’t seem to have any concern over any election problems in the country, and it’s disgusting.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: Supreme Court allows Dominion’s $1.3 billion defamation suit against Mike Lindell to go forward</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another far-right Trump devotee who is attacking Hannity is conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Petrizzo observes, “Bannon wrote that Hannity should face ‘accountability’ for ‘TERRIBLE advice’ to Trump, while Posobiec has taken a series of jabs at the Fox News host, including posting a picture of Hannity alongside CNN host Don Lemon and Michael Avenatti. Trump superfan Bill Mitchell responded to Hannity’s deposition remarks by writing, ‘And just like that, Hannity ends his career.’ Hannity’s also been called a ‘fraud’ by conservative commentators. Far-right radio host Stew Peters has labeled the Fox News host a ‘clown’ following his voter fraud boomerang. ‘He regularly washes and dries Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer’s jock straps,’ Peters told The Daily Beast.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even Trump himself, according to Beast sources, is apparently angry with Hannity. One source in “MAGA World,” Petrizzo reports, told the Beast, “In terms of direct contact with Sean, I think it’s been a while.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Trump adviser, also quoted anonymously, told the Beast, “Hannity was his lapdog for years, but just like everyone else who’s been Trump’s bitch at one point or another, the second Trump finds a reason to throw them in the garbage, he takes it.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: Sean Hannity was 'actively misinforming' Fox News viewers during Sidney Powell interview: columnist</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">an 12 22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren handed down its unanimous decision in New York Times v. Sullivan back in 1964, it established a tough standard that plaintiffs have to meet in defamation lawsuits. Plaintiffs, according to the Warren Court, have to prove “actual malice.” And that is what Dominion Voting Systems is trying to prove in the defamation lawsuits it filed against Fox News, Newsmax TV, One America News (OAN) and others in response to the false claims they promoted about the 2020 presidential election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election to now-President Joe Biden by more than 7 million votes, many far-right MAGA Republicans at Fox News, Newsmax and OAN promoted the false claim that Dominion’s voting equipment was used to help Democrats steal the election — a conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked. Fox News, in response to Dominion’s defamation lawsuit, has maintained that its hosts weren’t saying the claims about Dominion were true, and that they were just asking questions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dominion, meanwhile, is trying to show, in its $1.6 billion lawsuit, that hosts at Fox News acted with actual malice and promoted claims they knew were nonsense. And on Wednesday, December 21, attorneys for Dominion pointed to Fox News host Sean Hannity as an example of someone who knew that the Big Lie was a lie but promoted the claims of Trump attorney Sidney Powell anyway. Powell, who is also facing a defamation lawsuit from Dominion, falsely accused Dominion of helping Democrats steal the election from Trump. Another MAGA Republican who made that false claim and is being sued by Dominion is MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. Dominion has sued former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani as well.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: Supreme Court allows Dominion’s $1.3 billion defamation suit against Mike Lindell to go forward</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reporting for the New York Times on December 21, journalist Jeremy Peters explains, “On November 30, 2020, Sean Hannity hosted Sidney Powell on his prime-time Fox News program. As she had in many other interviews around that time — on Fox and elsewhere in right-wing media — Ms. Powell, a former federal prosecutor, spun wild conspiracy theories about what she said was ‘corruption all across the country, in countless districts,’ in a plot to steal reelection from the president, Donald J. Trump. At the center of this imagined plot were machines from Dominion Voting Systems, which Ms. Powell claimed ran an algorithm that switched votes for Mr. Trump to votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr. Dominion machines, she insisted, were being used ‘to trash large batches of votes.’”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But when Hannity gave a deposition two years later on Wednesday, December 21, 2022 and was under oath, he admitted, “I did not believe it for one second.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to Peters, “The hearing was called to address several issues that need to be resolved before the case heads for a jury trial, which the judge has scheduled to begin in April. Mr. Hannity’s disclosure — along with others that emerged from court on Wednesday about what Fox News executives and hosts really believed as their network became one of the loudest megaphones for lies about the 2020 election — is among the strongest evidence yet to emerge publicly that some Fox employees knew that what they were broadcasting was false.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard established by the Warren Court 58 years ago, defamation is very difficult to prove. An honest mistake doesn’t fit the definition of defamation — the plaintiff has to show actual malice. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin filed a defamation lawsuit against the Times and lost because Palin and her attorneys couldn’t prove actual malice.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: Fox News chief Lachlan Murdoch to be deposed in $1.6 billion dominion defamation case</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The high legal standard of proof in defamation cases makes it difficult for a company like Dominion to prevail against a media organization like Fox News,” Peters notes. “Dominion has to persuade a jury that people at Fox were, in effect, saying one thing in private while telling their audience exactly the opposite. And that requires showing a jury convincing evidence that speaks to the state of mind of those who were making the decisions at the network. In Delaware Superior Court on Wednesday, Dominion’s lawyers argued that they had obtained ample evidence to make that case.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peters adds, “One lawyer for Dominion said that ‘not a single Fox witness’ so far had produced anything supporting the various false claims about the company that were uttered repeatedly on the network. And in some cases, other high-profile hosts and senior executives echoed Mr. Hannity’s doubts about what Mr. Trump and his allies like Ms. Powell were saying, according to the Dominion lawyer, Stephen Shackelford. This included Meade Cooper, who oversees prime-time programming for Fox News, and the prime-time star Tucker Carlson, Mr. Shackelford said.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citing Cooper and Carlson as examples, Shackleford told the court, “Many of the highest-ranking Fox people have admitted under oath that they never believed the Dominion lies.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: Right-wing media outlets continue to rage against Dominion’s defamation lawsuits: report</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">an raw 12 22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday said that former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani was wrong to accuse him of covering up data from Hunter Biden's laptop.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a recent interview with Newsmax, Giuliani claimed that Pompeo had "buried" the laptop's hard drive.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I gave it to Hannity in early 2019, then to John Solomon, then to Mike Pompeo, who also buried it," Giuliani said. "And you should know that now that he’s running for president — and I will tell you the whole story about that at some point. I’ll write it out."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Tuesday, Pompeo told Real America's Voice host David Brody that he could not "make sense" out of Giuliani's claims.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Not much to say," Pompeo told Brody. "I feel bad for Rudy. You know, Sean Hannity, John Solomon, Mike Pompeo: noted leftists. Right? I feel bad. I'll leave it there."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The former secretary of state encouraged Giuliani to write out his grievances.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"I can't — I don't know," Pompeo said. "I have no idea. First, he said I gave them everything and then he kind of said, well, I gave them half. I don't know how to respond other than to say that we never covered up anything that was important to American national security."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"I was the secretary of state," he pointed out. "I'm not sure why Hunter Biden's laptop would have been particularly relevant to my particular role at that time. But if he wants to write it out, I'm happy to respond to something once I can make sense of it."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Watch the video below from Real America's Voice.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://boingboing.net/2022/12/07/hannity-doesnt-know-where-gop-voters-got-the-idea-that-mail-in-ballots-are-bad-while-gingrich-threatens-to-abolish-tiktok.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">// https://boingboing.net/2022/12/09/sean-hannity-has-no-idea-why-republicans-didnt-vote-early-so-heres-a-video-to-help-him-remember.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">huh?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A new montage is highlighting the irony of Fox News hosts' puzzlement over Republican voters' apprehension about early voting and mail-in voting following Georgia Republican Senate hopeful Herschel Walker's runoff defeat.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to HuffPost, the montage was featured on "The Daily Show" with Trevor Noah. In the clip, Fox News hosts Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Brian Kilmeade expressed frustration and concern as they discussed Walker, who was backed by former President Donald Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So, why were Republicans so reluctant? The montage also included contradictory clips that showed the hosts echoing Trump's remarks condemning mail-in voting amid his claims of widespread voter fraud.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: Ex-Fox News editor explains how and why he spiked the Stormy Daniels story weeks before Trump's election</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The clip began with a current remark from Hannity who said, "I think Republicans have been unwilling, for whatever reason, reluctant, resistant to voting early and voting by mail."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He continued, "We're going to bring you a critical warning that the rest of the media mob won't tell you about and that is mail-in voter fraud. It is real."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Then the clip shifted to Ingraham highlighting how her remarks have shifted in wake of the Georgia Senate runoff upset.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"We just have to do better in terms of ballot harvesting and early voting to match the Democrat efforts," Ingraham said. "They want early voting because they want everyone to mail, mail and vote because I think that's going to help Democrats has nothing to do with this virus"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: 'Reefer madness': Fox News freaks out after Joe Biden pardons thousands of federal cannabis convictions</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lastly, the clip featured Kilmeade who recently said, "I think people are going to have to reevaluate the whole approach to early voting, the whole approach to the dropboxes and everything else."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, the montage highlighted that he previously had a completely different perspective. "Putting dropboxes everywhere, being very loose with unrequested ballots, absentee ballots," Kilmeade previously said. The President tweeting that mail drop boxes used for the upcoming election could lead to fraud. Republicans in many states are reluctant."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He added, "They are related, resistant to early voting or voting by mail. Republicans warning about the dangers of mass mail and ballots being sent to here, there everywhere warning about how it would inject more division chaos and opportunity for fraud in our elections."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Watch the video below or at this link.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/herschel-walkers-runoff-defeat-its-time-point-and-laugh-sean-hannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">fox News host Sean Hannity pulled former NFL star Herschel Walker into the race for U.S. Senate in Georgia, served as his campaign’s biggest asset, and bears responsibility for Republicans ultimately failing to oust Sen. Raphael Warnock, who beat Walker in Tuesday’s runoff.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Walker’s loss is another embarrassing defeat for Fox. The network’s influential prime-time hosts heavily promoted four unorthodox first-time candidates for U.S. Senate in the midterm elections — Walker, Blake Masters in Arizona, Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, and J.D. Vance in Ohio — helping them secure the Republican nominations for those races. Vance, the sole victor of the group, ran well behind the rest of his party’s slate in a red state; the other three lost winnable races in swing states, ensuring historic Democratic victories rather than a GOP “red tsunami.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity is a GOP kingmaker with the ear of top party leaders who spent Donald Trump’s presidency advising the White House. He is a relentless propagandist whose singular goal is electing Republican candidates. But when Hannity gets to pick those candidates, the results can be disastrous for his party.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For the last month, Hannity has been laser-focused on helping Walker to victory in the Georgia runoff. The Fox host has preached the importance of the race to his viewers, shielded the candidate from criticism, promoted his political ads, bolstered his fundraising, and savaged his opponent.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Walker has been a fixture on Hannity’s program even as he has hidden from credible journalists. Of Walker’s 12 weekday appearances on Fox since Election Day, 5 came on the host’s show — often, bizarrely, accompanied by Hannity regular Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The odd couple returned to the program on the eve of the runoff, with Graham using the opportunity to thank Hannity’s audience for their donations and promising them “a return on investment tomorrow.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It didn’t turn out that way. And Hannity, who was Walker’s most important press supporter throughout the race, is a big part of the reason why Democrats will have 51 seats in the Senate rather than 50 when it convenes in 2023.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Walker’s introduction to Republican politics came as a regular on Hannity’s show during the 2020 election cycle, when his pro-Trump takes made him a MAGA sensation. Then, after Trump lost and Hannity turned his attention to the 2022 midterms, the Fox host recruited Walker to run against Warnock. In a series of interviews, Hannity urged Walker to seek the Senate seat and pushed other Republicans to support his candidacy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GOP leaders knew from the start that Walker was a terrible candidate whose nomination would make it harder to win the seat. As I noted on the day he announced his candidacy:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Republicans have plenty of reasons to worry about Walker’s chances of winning a general election in a swing state: He’s a first-time candidate who is moving to the state for the race, he’s a conspiracy theorist, and his wife is currently under investigation by state authorities for allegedly illegally voting in Georgia while living in Texas.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And last month, The Associated Press revealed that the candidate has “repeatedly threatened his ex-wife’s life, exaggerated claims of financial success and alarmed business associates with unpredictable behavior.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity endorsed Walker on-air that very night, and his show became ground zero for the campaign. The candidate made 38 weekday Fox News appearances between his August 25, 2021, launch date and Election Day; 19 of them came on Hannity, including a purported town hall that was functionally a televised rally for Walker. With Trump and Fox both behind Walker, the Georgia primary field cleared for him.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But as Hannity was propping up Walker’s candidacy, GOP fears that he hadn’t been fully vetted were being proved correct. Journalists detailed Walker’s history of domestic violence, his previously unrevealed children, reports that he had paid for abortions, his involvement in scams, and his false claims about his academic, business, and military background.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Election Day, Republicans won every statewide election in Georgia with at least 51% of the vote — except for the Senate race. There, Warnock secured a narrow lead that threw the race into a runoff, which he ultimately won.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Walker’s defeat makes his campaign the latest case study to demonstrate the limits of Fox’s influence. Its hosts can get their chosen candidates through the party’s primaries. But the toxic extremists who attract Fox stars' interest are often deeply alienating to normal people, and that is making it harder for the GOP to win elections. Meanwhile, the Fox personalities who wield the most influence over the party are pointing fingers at everyone but themselves.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/despite-fox-news-claims-contrary-voters-are-concerned-about-climate-change</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx many no vid</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite Fox News' claims to the contrary, voters are concerned about climate change</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Special PROGRAMS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CLIMATE & ENERGY</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WRITTEN BY EVLONDO COOPER</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ALLISON FISHER & ILANA BERGER</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PUBLISHED 11/17/22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite Fox News’ claims to the contrary, climate change was among top voter concerns during the recent 2022 midterm elections.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The issue of climate change took center stage during the general election for the first time in 2020. Since then, poll after poll has found that climate change is top of mind for many voters, and exit polls found that it was a key issue for 2022 midterm voters. Even Fox had to briefly acknowledge this reality, though it won’t likely have any material impact on the network’s climate coverage.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CNN’s exit poll found that 71% of voters stated that climate change is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem, while 61% of voters in Fox News’ voter analysis survey were “very/somewhat concerned” about climate change. Regarding whether climate has become a viable election issue, InsideClimateNews suggested that “the political dynamics around climate in the 2022 midterms could stand out as a milestone.” Or as The New Republic summarized:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This year, more “climate voters,” people whose top issue is the climate crisis, showed up to cast ballots than in any other election in U.S. history. Exit polls show that, contrary to conventional Democratic consultant-class wisdom, climate was the top issue for 8 percent of voters, a share surpassed only by “inflation/economy,” immigration, and abortion (the latter two are tied at second place). You’d never guess it from media coverage, but climate and crime were tied for third place. The percentage of voters prioritizing climate had jumped by four points from 2020, the first year that voters were even asked at the polls about “climate” as opposed to “environment.” There are probably several factors behind this impressive showing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Climate could play an important role in the Georgia Senate runoff election, especially among socially marginalized communities that have been bearing the brunt of climate-driven extreme weather events and environmental pollution. In addition to grassroots organizing efforts, Climate Monitor noted that “LCV [League of Conservation Voters] has already launched a new video ad supporting Sen. Raphael Warnock in his runoff election on December 6th. Environmental Voter Project is also already spending in Georgia’s Senate runoff.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This belies Fox News’ attempts to downplay climate change as a concern for voters. This summer, the network, among other right-wing media outlets, cherry-picked data from a Siena College and New York Times poll to claim that Americans did not care about climate change. For example, the July 20 episode of America's Newsroom featured Kellyanne Conway, former White House counselor under President Donald Trump, claiming that President Joe Biden is focusing on climate and the poll shows voters “don't think that he's connected to them in a way that he is listening to them and hearing their concerns.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Video file</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Video CitationFrom the July 20, 2022, edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During the July 24 episode of Fox & Friends Weekend, co-host Pete Hegseth claimed, “They're using the blue checkmark woke brigade to attempt to cudgel the White House to declare a crisis based on 1% of Americans who believe it’s their religion, which could change all of our lives, and change it rapidly, if he caves to groups like this.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">VideoCitationFrom the July 24, 2022, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Weekend&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the months and weeks leading up to the November 8 midterm elections, Fox News continued to downplay voter concerns about climate change. For example, during the September 14 episode of The Story With Martha MacCallum, Fox News correspondent Jacqui Heinrich led off a segment that attacked the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act by using a Gallup poll to claim that “voters are far more concerned with the economy than they are with climate.” Fox News hosted commentator Angela Morabito on the September 27 episode of Fox News at Night, where she claimed that climate change was a “luxury problem” above a chyron that read “Midterm Motivators.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">VideoCitationFrom the September 27, 2022, episode of Fox News at Night</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During the September 30 episode of Hannity, Fox News host Sean Hannity claimed that if the midterms are a “referendum on Joe Biden, the failed climate cult, and their failed policies, and how they’ve wrecked all the progress that we made in the four years under Donald Trump, then they lose.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Video Citation&nbsp; From the September 30, 2022, episode of Fox News' Hannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After rattling off key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, Fox News host Sandra Smith asked her guests during the October 6 episode of America Reports if “Democrats may live to regret the day they pushed clean energy so hard in this moment when we’re not ready for the transition.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Video Citation From the October 6, 2022, episode of Fox News' America Reports</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, after the midterm elections, Fox News had to acknowledge that climate was an important issue for voters. During the November 9 episode of America Reports, Smith briefly bowed to reality when confronted with the results of Fox News’ own survey: “When asked how concerned about climate change voters were, 61% said very or somewhat concerned, 39% not too concerned or not at all concerned,” she said. “Climate change was up there, and it was on the mind of voters when they head to the ballot box. So, is this a missed opportunity for Republicans to have some sort of messaging there for voters who care about this issue?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Video CitationFrom the November 9, 2022, episode of Fox News' America Reports</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite years of climate science denial and obfuscation, Fox News had to face the fact that voters care about climate change. The network will likely continue running interference for the fossil fuel industry, denying or downplaying how climate is driving extreme weather, and undermining the Biden administration's climate and energy policies, because it is less a news outlet and more a key cog in the fossil fuel industry’s disinformation network. Even though the veil of reality may slip on Fox News occasionally, it never stays down for long.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 11 22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">House Republicans appear set on spending the next two years firmly ensconced within the right-wing media bubble, focusing on creating content for its Fox News stars after garnering a slim majority in the midterm elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Thursday morning, just hours after news outlets had projected that Republicans would take control of the lower chamber, Reps. James Comer (R-KY) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) held a news conference detailing what will apparently be the party’s top priority. Their announcement had nothing to do with the issues voters said they cared the most about when they went to the polls, like inflation or abortion rights. Instead, the incoming chairs of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, with the apparent approval of likely Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), promised to be laser-focused on business deals President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was involved in years ago.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As they spoke, the caucus’ official Twitter account was tweeting catchphrases that are incomprehensible to anyone who doesn’t spend a significant amount of time in the right-wing information ecosystem [twt]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">fox News hosts and their fellow travelers have been trying to use Hunter Biden’s business dealings as a cudgel against his father since before he launched his run for president. That fixation ultimately triggered Fox’s obsession and then-President Donald Trump’s first impeachment for corruptly using his power to try to force Ukraine to launch a spurious investigation into the Bidens. The story returned to the fore in the closing weeks of the 2020 presidential election as part of a last-ditch effort by Rupert Murdoch’s outlets to use revelations from the alleged “Hunter Biden laptop” to keep Trump in office. And as Election Day 2022 approached, right-wing outlets were rife with demands for Republicans to use the power they might gain to scrutinize what they term the “Biden Crime Family.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed, Thursday’s event seemed made-to-order for the right-wing press, which rewarded the House Republican leaders with fawning coverage and airtime.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox prime time host Sean Hannity opened his program that night by crowing that “Republicans now have control of the House and soon, for the first time in two years, this administration will finally get their feet held to the fire” before spending several segments purporting to explain how “the big guy himself, Joe Biden” had “ended up using his crack-addicted son as a bag man.” He aired clips from Comer and Jordan speaking at the news conference, then rewarded Comer with an interview, which he concluded by thanking the congressman “for your hard work and your willingness to take on a hard topic.” During the next hour, host Laura Ingraham also touted the event and aired clips before bringing on Jordan.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 922&nbsp; https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/sean-hannity-producer-lynda-mclaughlin-texted-trumps-chief-staff-push-debunked-claims</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Newly released text messages show that the executive producer of Sean Hannity's radio show, Lynda McLaughlin, asked then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows for a meeting with President Donald Trump to share “hard data” that “show[ed] proof of the fraud” being pushed by the White House, Fox News, and the entire right-wing media in the 2020 election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CNN’s Reliable Sources newsletter reported on the text messages, taken from a new book by former January 6 committee staffer (and former congressman) Denver Riggleman; as noted in the block quote below, CNN independently verified the messages as well.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity Producer's Big Ask: In early January 2021, during the politically turbulent time before Joe Biden assumed the office of the presidency, the executive producer of Sean Hannity's radio show sought to meet directly with then-President Donald Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The producer, Lynda McLaughlin, texted Mark Meadows, the former acting chief of staff, with a big ask, claiming she had "hard data" which "show[ed] proof of the fraud" — evidently about the 2020 election. McLaughlin characterized the dubious information as "irrefutable" and wanted to take it straight to Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Mark -- are we able to present our data to POTUS?" McLaughlin asked.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">…</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The messages underscore the intimate relationship that Hannity, his team, and the right-wing media writ large shared with the Trump White House. The cozy relationship exposed in the messages lays bare that in many cases, right-wing media outlets and personalities not only positively covered the Trump White House, but actively worked arm-in-arm with it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For instance, when McLaughlin texted Meadows introducing herself ("Hey it's Lynda from Hannity") and told Meadows she was "rallying the troops," Meadows replied by thanking her for her "wonderful" contribution and connecting her with the Trump-supporting Rep. Jim Jordan. "Jim Jordon [sic] will gladly coordinate with the House team," Meadows texted McLaughlin. "Do you need his contact?"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CNN also reported that “Meadows seemed to stop responding to McLaughlin later in the conversation, after she asked to meet with Trump.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is not the first time McLaughlin has been directly involved in stoking right-wing conspiracy theories of election fraud. In December 2020, McLaughlin, as part of the so-called “Data Integrity Group,'' testified to the Georgia Senate Judicial Subcommittee that the group had proof of votes being taken from Trump and given to Joe Biden.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During the hearing, McLaughlin never revealed her connection to Hannity.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity later lauded his producer for her strong efforts to overturn the election [audio]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;HANNITY (HOST): On December 30th, there is this really incredible group. Lynda McLaughlin works with them, our own Lynda, Data Integrity Group, they actually gave Senate testimony on December 30th about Georgia for example, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Elections. Let's see, the people you have involved in this seem pretty impressive to me. You've got one guy is a data scientist with over a decade experience in a lot of industries, what we have here is fraud that we can prove in this election and then I begin to look at the background and the people, one is a nine-year veteran of the US Navy, worked as an electronic warfare technicians, cryptologic technician whatever the hell that is, Arabic linguist, worked at the NSA as a mission manager, later worked as a CIA contractor at the Counter-terrorism Center. And I'm like, "wow."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On January 2, 2021, the claims were amplified by far-right The Epoch Times and its affiliated NTD YouTube channel.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">McLaughlin appeared in an interview with The Epoch Times, released on its site on January 5, 2021, in which she suggests election fraud occurred in Pennsylvania as well.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Justin Mealey and Dave Lobue, other members of the “Data Integrity Group,” also appeared on Lou Dobbs' Fox Business show on January 5: vid]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the claims from the Data Integrity Group have been debunked.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">All together, this is another example of the close relationship between Fox News personalities and the Trump White House.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 922</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">not sure what to say beyond fox job 1 trash dems; tails you lose? if pandemic still, it is b/c dems failed to fix, or claim lockdn --> perm power tyranny</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SEAN HANNITY (HOST): People on the left are freaking out because Biden claimed the pandemic is over, regarding covid. Pandemic's over. We still have a problem with covid, we're doing a lot of work on it, but the pandemic is over.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Don't viruses mutate, and aren't there some things called new variants? Can anyone say scientifically with any degree of certainty that new variants, more virulent variants aren't possible?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I'm not so sure I'm trusting doctor Joe on anything, or the NIH, or Doctor Fauci, or the CDC, which finally admitted, "We were wrong about those vaccine things we were telling you to take day in and day out."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 9 22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News host Sean Hannity loves to tout the ridiculous lawsuits that Donald Trump’s lawyers keep filing against the former president’s enemies. But when those suits fail — and they almost always do — he either ignores the results or denounces the judge dismissing the lawsuit.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks tossed Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and various other people and entities for purportedly conspiring to undermine his 2016 presidential campaign by tying him to Russia. In dismissing the lawsuit — in part with prejudice — Middlebrooks criticized its application of law and factual accuracy. He even suggested that Trump’s attorneys may face sanctions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The lawsuit had drawn praise on Hannity’s program the night it was initially filed for supposedly having “all the necessary predicates for a racketeering case.” When Middlebrooks dismissed the suit, the Fox host denounced his action as a symptom of a “two-tiered system of justice in this country” that is “undermining faith in our most important institutions.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump is extraordinarily litigious and regularly threatens dubious legal action to garner attention. His ultimatums frequently fall apart in court, when they materialize at all. That trend has continued since Trump left office, with his lawyers repeatedly filing complaints that immediately meet with scorn and derision from the legal community.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Hannity is both a close adviser to Trump and one of his most obsequious supporters, so that history has not dissuaded him from credulously promoting the former president’s legal actions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Fox host has propped up at least three Trump complaints that were tossed by federal judges this year. In addition to the Clinton lawsuit, Hannity’s program touted Trump’s ineffectual complaint against New York Attorney General Letitia James seeking to halt her investigation of his business empire, as well as a class action lawsuit he brought against Twitter, Facebook, and Google over their suspensions of his social media accounts. But in each case, he did not follow up when the cases were thrown out.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Hannity’s program, Trump’s lawyers and family members get softball interviews to lay out the complaints, while the host and his regular legal-issue guests tout their prospects. In some cases, Hannity has even drawn connections between the filings and the conspiracy theories featured on his show.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The “Russiagate” RICO suit</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity’s mood was celebratory on his March 24 broadcast as he announced the action Trump’s lawyers had taken just hours earlier.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Former President Trump filed an explosive lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, Christopher Steele, and others for their role in pushing their years-long Russian conspiracy hoax and lies, laying out evidence of racketeering, a conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood, among other claims,” Hannity said.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“As the lawsuit reads: ‘The defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent Donald J. Trump was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty’ -- which, of course, we expose right here on this program,” he added.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity then turned to Trump lawyer Alina Habba and Fox legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, to discuss the “very valid suit.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It's wonderful when you can actually file a suit that is in the most part proven, which is the situation that I find myself in,” Habba said, before praising Hannity for “calling it out from the beginning.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed, Hannity had spent years helping to concoct the sprawling “Russiagate” conspiracy theories at the heart of Trump’s complaint. But while he was cheering on Trump’s attempt to effectively take Fox monologues before a judge, legal experts were mocking the former president’s complaint and warning that it would go nowhere.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Hannity claimed the lawsuit “has great merit,” then asked Jarrett for his opinion. Jarrett praised the complaint, saying that Habba and her co-counsel had provided “all the necessary predicates for a racketeering case.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This was a criminal enterprise run by Hillary Clinton, approved by Hillary Clinton, the false information disseminated by Hillary Clinton and her cronies,” Jarrett added. “And it's got everything in it, that is necessary to prove the case: obstruction of justice, fraud, conspiracy, theft of trade secrets. The list goes on and on."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[twt]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"I can't wait for discovery and depositions,” Hannity said at the end of the segment, before asking Habba, “I hope we get to that point. You think we'll get there?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We're going to get there,” she replied.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">They are not going to get there.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity reconvened the panel on Friday night following the suit’s dismissal. The host introduced the segment by painting the judge’s action as evidence of the “two-tiered system of justice in this country” that is “undermining faith in our most important institutions” and “shredding our Constitution” before turning it over to his guests.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[vid 9/12]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">habba blamed the suit’s failure on drawing “a Clinton judge … who I had asked to recuse himself but insisted that he didn’t need to; he was going to be impartial.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jarrett also took issue with the ruling, saying, “It appears to me here that this judge in Florida wanted to be both judge and jury. He wanted to be the trier of the fact here. And he simply states and declares that Trump hasn’t stated a cognizable claim under the law. Well, I think he has!”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The suit to stop New York’s Trump Organization probe&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity had already started his Christmas vacation on December 20, 2021, when Trump’s lawyers filed suit against James, seeking to force her to call off the state attorney general probe into the Trump Organization on the purported grounds that she had violated his constitutional rights by bringing the suit due to “political animus.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Hannity’s guest host, Tammy Bruce, filled in in his stead that night. While legal experts had warned the effort was far-fetched, Bruce gave Habba a friendly platform to tout the supposedly “pretty clean and cut” case.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“You can't scrutinize somebody,” Habba claimed. “It's called viewpoint discrimination. It's unconstitutional. The country doesn't allow it, and Letitia James has to be stopped.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A few weeks later, Hannity hosted Trump’s adult son Eric, who brought up the suit.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It's going to stop because frankly we've assembled the best legal, ethical minds, and we're going to sue her for this abuse of power. And that's the only way we can fight back, to sue her for this abuse of power,” Trump said.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We don't have equal justice under the law or application of our laws anymore, and I say that sadly. We're now criminalizing political differences. I say that sadly,” Hannity replied.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A federal judge dismissed Trump’s suit in May.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The class action suit to get back on social media</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“First tonight, President Trump is fighting back against Big Tech and today, he announced a brand-new class action lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, and Google,” Hannity said at the top of his July 7, 2021, program.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Now, with a team of high-powered attorneys, President Trump is now taking aim at what we have discussed at length on this program,” Hannity explained. “That Section 230 protections. Now, it's enjoyed by many Big Tech giants because supposedly they don't involve themselves in editorial. But in reality, they do.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Legal experts scoffed at the class action lawsuits Trump’s lawyers filed, calling them “sure losers” due to the First Amendment protections the platforms enjoy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Hannity called it a “strong case,” and the people he turns to for discussions of legal issues were on board.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Alan Dershowitz, who served as one of Trump’s impeachment lawyers, called it “the most important First Amendment case of the 21st century,” adding, “There are cases, precedents going both ways and no one can predict what the outcome would be.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And Jarrett told Hannity that “the argument that Trump makes in his lawsuit is a compelling one” and that it was “a solid argument to be presented in court.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It wasn’t. A judge dismissed the Twitter lawsuit in May.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 9 22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some of Fox News’ most influential commentators are misconstruing recent remarks from Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, falsely claiming that the Biden administration is preparing for “war” against the Republican Party as Fox continues to push the fallacy that conservatives are being persecuted.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News has relentlessly attacked Harris since she joined President Joe Biden’s ticket in 2020. In addition to a constant stream of racist and sexist remarks, the network has waged a war of manufactured outrage against Harris, either by claiming she was laughing at gas prices — when in reality she was just laughing at a meme — or by inexplicably blaming the vice president for Russia’s violent escalations against Ukraine.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During the September 11 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd asked Harris, “We are now as a nation battling a threat from within. Is the threat equal or greater than what we faced after 9/11?” Harris replied that she had taken an oath to “defend and uphold our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic” and that “we don’t compare the two in the oath, but we know they both can exist.” Harris also noted that she wished that domestic threats were not filtered through “some partisan lens,” but notably did not say domestic threats were more dangerous than the threat of terrorism during and after 9/11.[dan ball Hoe?]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Similarly, during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union on September 11, Clinton reflected on “how important it is to try to deal with extremism of any kind, especially when it uses violence to try to achieve political and ideological goals.” (The network’s obsession with Clinton is well-documented.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It didn’t take long for Fox News to latch on to the narrative that Harris, Clinton, and the Democratic Party writ-large had issued a “declaration of war” against MAGA Republicans.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During his prime-time show on Fox, Jesse Watters falsely claimed that the “Biden White House used this day to politicize the worst terrorist attack in American history and declare war on you.” He then baselessly characterized Harris’ vow to “defend against all enemies foreign and domestic” as a “declaration of war,” saying, “Make no mistake, the Democratic Party, the media, and obviously the FBI have designated the Republican Party as a terrorist group.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 9/12/22]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tulsi Gabbard claimed that the Biden administration and the Democratic Party are “pushing our country to the brink of civil war.” Gabbard also claimed that Harris and others were “demonizing, targeting our fellow Americans as worse than Al-Qaeda terrorists” as a ploy to “hold on to their power.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 9/12/22]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox host Tucker Carlson claimed that Harris’ comments about defending the constitution against domestic enemies amounted to a declaration of war against “you and anyone else in the way of the Biden administration.” Carlson also referred to the January 6 insurrection as an “election injustice protest” and called Todd a “freaking lunatic” for suggesting the United States has a “threat within.” [Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight, 9/12/22]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Hannity, former Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany claimed that Clinton had compared Republicans to terrorists during her appearance on CNN’s State of the Union. “Drawing a comparison between American citizens and the heinous monsters who committed one of the most evil acts in our country's history. That is despicable,” McEnany said. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/12/22]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref 1</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/sean-hannitys-hillary-clinton-obsession-numbers</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx gfx vid</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity’s Hillary Clinton obsession, by the numbers</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During Trump’s presidency, Hannity has mentioned his 2016 opponent on 86% of his episodes</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WRITTEN BY MATT GERTZ</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PUBLISHED 09/10/19&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News host Sean Hannity called his show “the stop-Hillary express” during the 2016 presidential campaign because of its relentless focus on defeating Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. But more than two years after President Donald Trump took office, that train is still running.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity mentioned Clinton on 505 of the 587 episodes of his Fox show that he hosted between Trump’s inauguration and the end of August 2019 -- 86% of the total -- according to a Media Matters review. On 31 additional broadcasts, Hannity did not mention Clinton, but one of his guests did. Altogether, that means that the former secretary of state was mentioned on 91% of the episodes Hannity hosted during that period, a total of 536 editions of the program.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Fox host’s Clinton fixation is largely a reflection of his show’s focus on the dizzying conspiracy theory he constructed to defend Trump from the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity places Clinton at the center of several key strands of that web. In his telling, 1) federal investigators should have been charging Clinton for crimes related to her email server rather than looking into Trump’s associates; 2) some of the attorneys involved in the probe had conflicts of interest because they supported her election; and 3) the investigators ignored the “real” collusion with Russia that she supposedly engaged in through the Uranium One pseudo-scandal and via an anti-Trump dossier that became part of the investigation.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As one might expect given Clinton's recession from the political stage, Hannity’s references to the former candidate decreased in each of the first four months of Trump’s administration. In 2017, he mentioned her in 88% of episodes he hosted in January after Trump’s inauguration, 76% in February, 70% in March, and a mere 39% in April, the lowest total over the course of the study.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In May 2017, however, the figure jumped to 79%, reflecting the host’s response to a spate of damaging stories about Trump and Russia and Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. Hannity’s mentions haven't dropped below 60% in any month since October that year.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hillary Clinton mentions on Hannity's Fox News show</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity also takes every opportunity to lash out at Clinton whenever she speaks publicly. In October 2017, for example, in addition to airing several segments about Clinton’s links to either the dossier or Uranium One, Hannity also criticized Clinton’s comments responding to the Las Vegas mass shooting, her denunciation of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, and her support for NFL players who knelt during the national anthem to protest police brutality.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Fox host’s Clinton obsession generates some truly gob-smacking statistics, including:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity mentioned Clinton on every episode he hosted in nine separate months: June 2017, March 2018, May 2018, June 2018, August 2018, November 2018, December 2018, May 2019, and June 2019.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clinton was mentioned (by Hannity or a guest) on every episode he hosted in 11 separate months -- all the months above plus February 2017 and March 2019.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity referenced Clinton on 60 consecutive episodes that he hosted between April 8, 2019, and July 12, 2019 -- the longest streak we observed. During the same stretch, he mentioned Vice President Mike Pence in two episodes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity mentioned Clinton on every single show he hosted from April 16, 2018, through June 28, 2018 -- a total of 47 consecutive episodes. He then went on vacation, with his show anchored by guest hosts other than a July 4 pretaped special on Trump's accomplishments in which Hannity did not mention Clinton. When he came back from the holiday, Hannity mentioned Clinton in the next 12 episodes.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The longest consecutive streak in which Hannity did not mention Clinton on shows he hosted was five -- from April 26, 2017, through May 2, 2017. His most recent consecutive nights during the study without mentioning her were February 21 and 22 of this year.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When Hannity takes a night off, the “stop-Hillary express” rolls on, as the show typically features the same guests and themes, including the Clinton-focused anti-Mueller conspiracy theory. His guest hosts mentioned Clinton in 63% of their episodes, and she was mentioned in 85% of the episodes they hosted during the period of the study.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Methodology</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Media Matters reviewed transcripts via the Nexis database of every episode of Fox News’ Hannity between January 20, 2017, and August 31, 2019, and coded for whether Hillary Clinton was mentioned, whether Sean Hannity or a guest host moderated the program, and whether Hannity mentioned Clinton. Media Matters reviewed the iQ media video database in cases where Nexis transcripts were unavailable.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">----</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref 2 2015</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/fox-news-promotes-bombshell-book-founder-anti-hillary-clinton-group-cunt-and-writer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News is promoting The Clintons' War On Women as a “bombshell” despite the authors' history of dirty tricks and misogyny. Roger Stone is “America's most notorious political hatchet man” who formed an anti-Hillary Clinton group called “C.U.N.T.” Co-author Robert Morrow has wished death on Hillary Clinton and been visited by the Secret Service, posted bizarre sexual writings about the Clinton family, and called Chelsea Clinton a “slut” who might “have sex one day” with Bill Clinton.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Roger Stone And Robert Morrow Wrote The Clintons' War On Women</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone And Morrow Are Authors Of The Clintons' War On Women, A Book “Designed To Smear The Clintons.” Roger Stone and Robert Morrow are the authors of The Clintons' War On Women, which was released by Skyhorse Publishing on October 13. Veteran Mother Jones journalist David Corn noted that promotional material shows the book goes “real dirty” and is “apparently designed to smear the Clintons -- by depicting Bill as a serial rapist, Hillary as an enabler, and both members of the power couple as a diabolical duo bent on destroying anyone who stands in their way.” [SkyhorsePublishing.com, accessed 10/13/15; Mother Jones, 9/18/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Roger Stone Is A Notorious Republican Dirty Trickster Who Has Smeared The Clintons For Years. Numerous media outlets have referred to Stone as a “dirty trickster.” He has a long history of smearing Hillary Clinton, including forming the anti-Clinton group “C.U.N.T.” (“Citizens United Not Timid”), because he couldn't find the right words for “B.I.T.C.H.” Stone previously worked as a top political aide to Donald Trump's presidential campaign before exiting in August. Stone says he and Trump are “on cordial terms. We talk ... Trump has been my friend for 35 years. He's still my friend.” [Media Matters, 6/5/14; Talking Points Memo, 9/2/15]&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Robert Morrow Is An “Alternative Historian” Who Has Posted Bizarre Sexual Writings About The Clintons And Wished Death On Hillary. Morrow has an extreme history against the Clintons. He has wished death on Hillary Clinton and been visited by the Secret Service; posted bizarre sexual writings about the Clinton family; called Chelsea Clinton a “slut” and imagined how she would “have sex one day” with Bill Clinton; and claimed the Bush and Clinton families were involved in murders. The Tampa Bay Times wrote that Morrow “pretty much devotes his life to hating the Clintons and spreading wild, unsubstantiated allegations about them.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MSNBC reporter Alex Seitz-Wald wrote that Morrow is “well-known to reporters who have covered the Clintons, thanks to his tendency to flood their inboxes with incredible and incredulous fables of the couple's alleged criminal exploits,” while The Daily Beast's Andrew Kirell wrote that “Many political journalists can attest to having received a blaring email from the right-wing author claiming the Clintons forced Chelsea to undergo plastic surgery” to cover up that she's purportedly not Bill Clinton's real daughter. [Media Matters, 9/3/15; Tampa Bay Times, 2/29/08; MSNBC.com, 9/3/15; The Daily Beast, 10/13/15]&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump Promoted Stone And Morrow's Book On Twitter. Trump wrote in an October 14 tweet that linked to the book's Amazon.com page: “The latest book on Hillary--Wow, a really tough one! http://www.amazon.com/dp/151070678X&nbsp; @RogerJStoneJr.” [Twitter.com, 10/14/15]&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News On The Clintons' War On Women: “Bombshell,” “Needs To Be Read”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity Endorses Stone And Morrow's Book: “This I Think Needs To Be Read By Anybody That Thinks Hillary Is A Champion Of Women's Rights.” During an October 13 interview on his Fox News program, Hannity said the “explosive new book completely destroys” the narrative that the Clintons are champions of women's rights. Hannity concluded that the book “needs to be read by anybody that thinks Hillary is a champion of women's rights.” [Fox News, Hannity, 10/13/15]&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity: “It's Really Worth Reading.” Hannity hosted Stone for a later panel discussion about the Democratic presidential debate and introduced his book by stating: “I tell you, it's really worth reading. A lot of interesting information.” [Fox News, Hannity, 10/14/15]&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity Also Hosted Stone On His Radio Show. [The Sean Hannity Show, 10/13/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox & Friends Promoted The Book As A “Bombshell.” During Fox & Friends Sunday, co-host Anna Kooiman promoted “the allegations” from Stone's “bombshell” book that Clinton has “a dark and violent past.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends Sunday, 10/4/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox & Friends Hosted Stone To Push The Allegation That Bill Clinton Sexually Assaulted “Hundreds Of Women ... And Hillary Runs The Cover-Up.” From the October 16 edition of Fox & Friends:&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">STEVE DOOCY (HOST): A brand-new book taking aim at Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy targeting her war on women campaign, even highlighting how she and her husband, Bill Clinton, systematically abused women during their time in the White House. Joining us right now the author of The Clintons' War on Women, Roger Stone. Roger, good morning to you.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ROGER STONE: Steve, great to be with you.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DOOCY: What do we find out about the Clintons in your book?&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">STONE: Hypocrisy. “H” stands for both hypocrisy and Hillary. She says she's an advocate for women and that's true, as long as you're not one of those women unlucky enough to have been sexually assaulted by her husband.&nbsp; It's very much like the Bill Cosby story. If it's sort of one or two women, you might say “well, it's some woman looking for a payday or the limelight.” But this is systematic. There are literally hundreds of women who have been sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton and Hillary runs the cover-up.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DOOCY: What do you mean she runs the cover-up?&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">STONE: Well, she hires Jack Palladino. She hires Anthony Pellicano. She hires Ivan Duda, private detectives and then they take on the mission of silencing these women, lest they get in the way of the Clintons' rise to power. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/16/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Roger Stone's Latest Book Continues His History Of Dirty Tricks</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone Is A “Dirty Trickster” And “America's Most Notorious Political Hatchet Man.” The Miami Herald wrote that “Stone has become America's most notorious political hatchet man.” Numerous outlets have referred to Stone as a “dirty trickster,” including The Weekly Standard, New Yorker, Tampa Bay Times, New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post. [The Miami Herald,10/14/14; Weekly Standard, 1/28/08; New Yorker, 6/2/08; TampaBay.com, 9/16/15; New York Times, 10/22/10; CNN, 5/29/08; Washington Post, 6/16/86]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone's Website Features Quotes Calling Him A “Master Of Right-Wing Political Hit Jobs,” “The High Priest Of Political Hijinks,” And “Master Of The Black Arts Of Electioneering.” The quotes featured on Stone's website come from, respectively, Politico, Weekly Standard, and Scotsman.com. Politico notes that Stone “publicly embraces his image as a dirty trickster.” [StoneZone.com, accessed 10/13/15; Politico, 8/6/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone Became “The Youngest Watergate Dirty Trickster.” A 1985 New Republic profile of Stone reported:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He says he became a Republican at age 12, after a neighbor in Norwalk, Conn., gave him a copy of Barry Goldwater“s ”Conscience of a Conservative." Stone was devastated by Goldwater's defeat, but remained fully devoted to the party, rising through the ranks of youth groups like Teenage Republicans, College Republicans, Young Republicans, and the Young Americans for Freedom. As a 19-year-old student at George Washington University, Stone was the youngest Watergate dirty trickster. On orders from Creep boss Bart Porter, Stone hired Michael McMinoway -- known as “Sedan Chair II” -- to infiltrate the McGovern campaign and report back. Using the pseudonym “Jason Rainier,” Stone made contributions to the New Hampshire McCloskey campaign in the name of supposed left-wing groups like Young Socialist Alliance. He then sent the receipts along with an anonymous letter to The Manchester Union-Leader. He also recommended that Creep hire a fellow student named Theodore Brill, who was subsequently paid $130 a week to spy on “radical groups.” Stone says the ideas for this “kid stuff” -- none of which was actually illegal at the time -- emanated from Charles Colson, and that if he had refused to do it, Creep would have fired him and gotten someone else. [NYTimes.com, 8/22/07]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone Was Heavily Fined For Ethical Violation. The New York Times reported in 2000 that Trump and his associates, including Stone, “have agreed to pay $250,000 in fines and to issue a public apology because they failed to disclose to the state lobbying commission that he had secretly financed newspaper advertisements opposing casino gambling in the Catskills.” Stone reportedly paid $100,000. [New York Times, 10/6/00]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“A Stone-Led Squad Of Pro-Bush Protestors Stormed The Miami-Dade County Election Board, Stopping The” Florida Recount. Benjy Sarlin wrote in The Daily Beast:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The capstone of Stone's career, at least in terms of results, was the “Brooks Brothers riot” of the 2000 election recount. This was when a Stone-led squad of pro-Bush protestors stormed the Miami-Dade County election board, stopping the recount and advancing then-Governor George W. Bush one step closer to the White House. Though he is quick to rebut GOP operatives who seek to minimize his role in the recount, Stone lately has been having second thoughts about what happened in Florida. [Daily Beast, 11/20/08]&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone Established Anti-Hillary Clinton Group Called “C.U.N.T.” In 2008, Stone established the anti-Hillary Clinton 527 group Citizens United Not Timid. The group -- now defunct -- emphasized the acronym by bolding the first letter in each word. The group claimed to “educate the American public about what Hillary Clinton really is.” Stone said also he spent “hours trying to come up with words for B.I.T.C.H. and just couldn't do it.” [Media Matters, 2/20/08; Weekly Standard, 1/28/08]&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone Founded “C.U.N.T.” Because That's The Description He Heard Of Clinton From Males In Bars. The Weekly Standard wrote of Stone's group in 2008:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even among fellow mercenaries, good help can be hard to find. A few nights prior, Stone had been interviewing a sinister Italian gentleman for the front man gig. It was a two-question interview. Stone kicked things off with, “Let me ask you, Angelo: I say 'Hillary Clinton.' Tell me the first word that comes to your mind, even if it's risqué.” "[Special flower]," Angelo immediately replied. To which Stone followed with, “Would you be willing to tell other people you think that?” Angelo assented: “Abso-f'in'-lutely.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With the interview concluded, Angelo excused himself to the restroom, at which time one of Stone's friends asked, “Do you know who that is?” “No,” Stone said, “Who is he? Nice guy.” His friend explained, “He's one of the soldiers of the Lucchese family, has a record as long as your arm. I don't think he's the guy you want.” Advantage: Noodles.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone says Angelo's is a sentiment you regularly hear, particularly from males, if you casually focus-group Hillary Clinton in bars--where this and “all good ideas” are hatched. The operation's genesis occurred when Stone was standing around with friends at a bar, Clinton appeared on television, and someone said “What a [special flower].” Everyone immediately concurred. [Weekly Standard, 1/28/08]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone Referenced “C.U.N.T.” Group In 2015. [Facebook, 8/16/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone Lobs Misogynistic Insults At Women On Twitter. The Sun-Sentinel wrote of Stone:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone on Twitter called [political opponent Judy] Stern's daughter a “self-important, nasty c--,'' Tweeted ”DIE B-TCH!'' to former New York Times editor Jill Abramson, whom he called a “snot-nosed, arrogant, biased liberal -- and all around b-tch'' on Twitter for not reviewing his JFK book, and in another publicly viewable Tweet called actress Sofia Vergara a ”self-centered b-tch.'' [The Sun-Sentinel, 8/16/14]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone: “Hillary Is A Pathological Liar And A Cold Bitch.” [Twitter.com, 4/5/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone: "@ChelseaClinton Is A Total Bitch ? Now There's A Surprise." [Twitter.com, 5/20/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone: “SHAME ! Bill And Hillary Clinton Pimp Their 'Daughter' Out To Media To Defend Their Rampant Corruption.” [Twitter.com, 4/25/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Robert Morrow Wishes Death On Hillary Clinton, Posted Bizarre Sexual Writings About Clintons</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Morrow Hopes For Hillary Clinton's Death. Morrow has written that “The Taliban was created to deal with people like Hillary Clinton”; wondered if “all your sexual fantasies about Hillary Clinton involve 'snuff films?' Probably not good for most of you to answer that question”; and said “I hope Bill Clinton talks Hillary into running in 2016 ... and she loses and or both of them die from medical complications of the campaign trail begging folks to vote for Hillary. That would be nice.” Morrow told a Florida newspaper in 2008 that the Secret Service visited him about his Clinton writings but nothing came of it. [Media Matters, 9/3/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Morrow Has Posted Bizarre Sexual Writings About Hillary Clinton. Morrow has posted bizarre sexual writings about Hillary Clinton, including referencing “my Hillary Clinton blow up doll,” “Clinton's vaginal odor,” when “maggots started coming out of her pussy,” and a “Hillary Clinton Excessive Masturbation Fantasy support group.” [Media Matters, 9/3/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Morrow On Chelsea Clinton: “Slut,” Incest, A Dog. Morrow relayed that someone told him “Chelsea was the slut” in college. Morrow has also compared her to a dog and wondered whether she would “have sex one day” with Bill Clinton. [Media Matters, 9/3/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Morrow Approached Chelsea Clinton And Asked Her: “Has Your Mother Ever Told You That You're The Daughter Of Webb Hubbell And Not Bill Clinton?” [Facebook.com, 10/9/15]&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Morrow Has Posted Outlandish Conspiracies About A Variety Of Topics. Morrow has claimed George H. W. Bush “murdered JFK” and “is a homosexual pedophile”; wrote President “Obama smoked crack with and had a blowjob” with his “gay lover”; and claimed “Jeb Bush murdered Barry Seal. He was a 1980's CIA drug smuggler.” [Media Matters, 9/3/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Morrow Posted Slurs In Online Rants. Morrow has written against “pro-faggot JUDICIAL ACTIVISM” and used the slur “nigger” when complaining about political correctness. [Media Matters, 9/3/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Morrow On Media Matters' Piece About Him: “Everything I Talk About Is True.” Morrow posted a link to a September 3 Media Matters post about him and wrote, “The greatest tweets and Facebook posts of Robert Morrow. Please share and comment!” When someone asked him for a response to Media Matters' criticism, Morrow wrote: “My response? Everything I talk about is true.” [Facebook, 9/3/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Morrow To Media Matters President: “Go Fuck Yourself” For Covering For “Angry Bull Dyke Handler Hillary.” After Media Matters president Bradley Beychok criticized him on Twitter, Morrow responded: “go fuck yourself. You cover for a serial rapist and his angry bull dyke handler Hillary.” [Twitter.com, 9/18/15]&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone Defends Morrow: “Morrow Is An Extraordinary Researcher.” Stone has defended his co-author when asked about his background. MSNBC's Alex Seitz-Wald reported:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone said he met Morrow while promoting his first book, which alleges that former President Lyndon Johnson killed former President John F. Kennedy. “Morrow is an extraordinary researcher,” Stone said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stone added, “He's absolutely an eccentric character, to say the least, but when you double-check his research, it checks out.” [MSNBC.com, 9/3/15]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2022/08/sean-hannity-threatens-to-sue-lying-john-fetterman-for-calling-him-a-liar/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">wapo</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...The eventual rejection of the proposed Super Bowl commercial resulted in “by far” the most successful marketing effort in the company’s history, Hunter said during the deposition. “Nothing’s even close,” he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The online commentator’s video fiercely criticizing the NFL went viral, and the story about the banned Super Bowl ad reached tens of millions of people after it was featured on Fox News’s signature programs, such as “The Sean Hannity Show” and “The Five,” Hunter recounted in the deposition.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Within Daniel Defense, the publicity generated by the rejected Super Bowl ad was seen as a marketing coup that the owners sought to replicate, according to Thomas Carlson, who led the manufacturer’s marketing and communications from 2015 to 2017 and reported to Cindy Daniel, co-owner with her husband and CEO Marty Daniel.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Cindy was always trying to figure out that kind of thing - what kind of PR stunt can we do to get a little more notoriety,” he told The Post.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another key element of the company’s marketing strategy, he added, was to use images of military and tactical units holding Daniel Defense rifles. The AR-style rifles closely resemble their military counterparts, though the military version allows the shooter to fire more than one round with each pull of the trigger....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">escalator for huckabee?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">oddly high soc media rank for geezer? boost by twit? other rw celebs?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">note ~ soc media bias BS mma 7 22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...Out of the top 10 posts with the most interactions that Media Matters analyzed, 6 were from right-leaning Facebook pages</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These 6 posts were from Newsmax, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee, and Fox News, which had 2 posts. Out of these 6 posts, half contained industry talking points or attacked the administrative state and federal agencies that the right has villainized for enforcing lockdowns and vaccine mandates. These reactions and the sources cited in them further demonstrated the decision as a victory for the fossil fuel industry and its conservative allies which helped orchestrate this result to line their pockets and hinder progress on climate action.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Among the top examples from right-leaning pages that contained misinformation was a post from Ben Shapiro with nearly 22,000 interactions that linked to an article from the Daily Wire. The article quoted Heritage Foundation research fellow Daren Bakst, who claimed that the court had rightfully blocked the EPA from overstepping its boundaries and that only Congress can make certain regulatory decisions under the Constitution.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Heritage Foundation has received millions of dollars in funding from Koch-connected organizations, as well as considerable funding from the fossil fuel industry, while outwardly denying the scientific consensus on climate change. The foundation has also played a major role in moving courts to the right, and even created a secretly financed program to train law clerks to elevate its views. According to The New York Times, Heritage helped the Federalist Society compile the lists of potential Supreme Court nominees from which President Donald Trump chose to appoint Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Both justices voted to stifle the EPA. However, the Daily Wire article ignored these connections between the conservative think tank, its financial backers in the fossil fuel industry, and the court’s ruling.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The article also quoted Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who baselessly claimed that the Clean Power Plan would “lead to higher utility bills, job loss and overall increased energy prices.” While these regulations were never implemented, the plan was predicted to have cut electricity bills by 7% and deliver up to $34 billion in health benefits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[twt ben shapiro]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Many of the top 10 posts, particularly those from right-leaning pages, framed the decision primarily as a victory against the EPA’s ability to enforce regulations – or what Mike Huckabee referred to, in a post that received more than 11,000 interactions, as “the reign of tyranny by unaccountable bureaucrats.” A post from Sean Hannity that garnered 14,000 interactions also linked to an article on his website describing the decision as a “blow to climate extremists” and calling to “unleash American energy.”[twt]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The top left-leaning post, which was from historian Heather Cox Richardson and had over 61,000 interactions, provided an overview of several recent and upcoming Supreme Court decisions and pointed out that the court set a precedent in West Virginia v. EPA using legal reasoning that was even rejected by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in 2001. She also highlighted excerpts from Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent pointing out that Congress already delegates power to federal agencies to address issues where it does not have expertise.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another popular left-leaning post about the case from former President Barack Obama, which had over 55,000 interactions, mentioned climate impacts on vulnerable populations and urged Congress to “pass President Biden’s climate and clean energy investments.” Though right-leaning posts received more engagement overall, Richardson and Obama’s posts each had twice as many interactions as the top right-wing misinformation posts.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the top Facebook posts about the ruling from left-leaning pages, which accounted for 3 of the top 10 posts, criticized the decision while highlighting various grievances with how the court came to its decision and what impact the ruling will have on the communities being affected by the climate crisis. [twt]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The only post about the case from an ideologically nonaligned Facebook page in the top 10 came from CNN. It received just over 12,000 interactions and linked to a fairly detailed article putting the decision in the context of urgent calls from scientists to cut emissions and transition away from fossil fuels, and citing the 2021 report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which called the climate crisis a “code red” for humanity.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Although left-leaning and nonaligned pages were vocal about the gravity of the Supreme Court’s decision, the right was was still able to co-opt much of the conversation on Facebook, shifting attention and blame away from the small group of right-wing figures and industry executives who benefit from the ruling to hamstring environmental protections in the face of the worsening climate crisis, leaving the rest of us to grapple with an uncertain future.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">none of the top 10 posts outlined how, as The New York Times puts it, the case “is the product of a coordinated, multi-year strategy by Republican attorneys general, conservative legal activists and their funders, several with ties to the oil and coal industries.” Some only mentioned the court case in passing – for example, a popular post with more than 16,000 interactions from controversial documentarian Michael Moore referenced the case once among a host of other political grievances in a “declaration.”...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/january-6-insurrection/newly-released-text-messages-reveal-just-how-many-people-trump-white-house</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">on Friday, CNN reported on a newly unearthed set of text messages between former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and multiple Fox News hosts, exchanged during the two-and-a-half months between Election Day 2020 and President Joe Biden’s inauguration in January 2021. The texts further reveal the extent to which Fox was integral to Trump’s plot to illegally hold onto power after losing the election. The texts also prove yet again that Fox operates day-to-day as a propaganda arm for the Republican Party, not as a news organization.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Supposed “news” side anchor Maria Bartiromo gave Trump her questions and messaging guidance in advance of an interview</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CNN reported that Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo gave Meadows the questions in advance of her interview with President Donald Trump on the November 29, 2020, edition of her weekend show on Fox News, Sunday Morning Futures. The texts reveal that Bartiromo also provided Trump with explicit messaging guidance and instructions on how to respond to her softball questions, which she intended to help him better make his case that the election outcome was illegitimate. The segment was Trump’s first TV interview since the election, and it aired roughly three weeks after all the major media outlets, including Fox News, had projected Biden as the winner.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bartiromo texted Meadows that morning, hours before the interview with Trump, to claim that “the public wants to know he will fight this,” and that people “want to hear a path to victory” and that “he's in control.” (The entire premise of Bartiromo’s line of questioning was false, because a majority of “the public” had just voted for Biden.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">She then laid out the first question she would ask: “1Q You've said MANY TIMES THIS ELECTION IS RIGGED... And the facts are on your side. Let's start there. What are the facts? Characterize what took place here. Then I will drill down on the fraud including the statistical impossibilities of Biden magic (federalist).” (Based on Bartiromo’s word choice, it is possible that she was referring to a piece from a week earlier in the right-wing site The Federalist, titled “5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms.”)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Surely enough, the interview began exactly with that question: “Mr. President, you have said many times that this election was rigged, that there was much fraud, and the facts are on your side. Let's start there. Please go through the facts, characterize what took place."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">throughout the rest of the interview, Bartiromo provided Trump with a platform to air a litany of lies about the election results, going on for 45 minutes, including his outlandish claims about voting machines being used to change the results. Dominion Voting Systems is currently suing Fox News for $1.6 billion for the network’s role in Trump’s defamation campaign against the voting machine company. Another voting technology firm, Smartmatic, is suing Fox News for $2.7 billion and has also named Bartiromo as a defendant for her role in promoting conspiracy theories that the company played a role in altering the election result.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Separately, ABC News’ chief Washington correspondent, Jonathan Karl, reported last year that Bartiromo had called then-Attorney General Bill Barr in mid-November 2020, complaining to him that the Justice Department had not taken action against supposed voter fraud. “She called me up and she was screaming,” Barr told Karl. “I yelled back at her. She’s lost it.” Fox News denied the reports of Bartiromo’s unprofessional conduct — though this wasn’t exactly convincing, because Bartiromo had publicly stated her hopes for Barr to intervene and help reverse the election results.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity was “at war with” Chris Wallace and Fox’s supposed news side</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another Fox News host who is heavily implicated in the latest texts is Sean Hannity, who was already known to have functioned as Trump’s “shadow” chief of staff and as a constant sounding board for the disgraced former president. Previously released texts had shown that Hannity tried to work on damage control after the failed coup attempt on January 6, and that he had urged the White House to have Trump call off his supporters from attacking the Capitol. (In public, Hannity claimed the attackers were left-wing infiltrators.) Other texts show that Hannity took instructions from Meadows on coordinating get-out-the-vote messaging on Election Day in 2020. The latest revelations demonstrate the extent of Hannity’s efforts to keep Fox News from straying away from the administration’s illegal efforts to cling to power.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On December 6, 2020, Meadows sent Hannity a link to an article in The Hill, highlighting a segment from that morning’s edition of Fox News Sunday in which the show’s then-host Chris Wallace pointedly interrupted Trump’s former secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, after Azar had referred to Joe Biden as “Vice President Biden.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“He's the president-elect, sir,” Wallace replied, repeating that point again in their conversation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In texts to Hannity, Meadows castigated Wallace and Fox, writing, “Doing this to try and get ratings will not work in the long run and I am doubtful it is even a short term winning strategy.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I've been at war with them all week,” Hannity replied.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meadows later asked on December 11, 2020, for Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott’s direct phone number — noting that he wished to avoid making a call to the network’s main switchboard. Hannity asked the next day whether Meadows had gotten through to Fox executives, again declaring, “I’ve been at war with them.” (As it turned out, Meadows had not yet called Scott, as he had been too busy working on the Trump administration’s lame-duck pardons.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Keep in mind that the major news networks had all projected Biden as the winner a month before, on November 7 — and yes, that included Fox. The network, however, undermined its own decision desk’s projections by attempting to subvert the election results nearly 600 times in just the two weeks after the election call.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To the degree that tension existed between the opinion and alleged “straight news” sides at Fox, that conflict has since been resolved by Chris Wallace’s decision a year later to quit the network. Wallace said recently that he had been fine with opinion content on the channel, but he had reached his limit. “When people start to question the truth — Who won the 2020 election? Was Jan. 6 an insurrection? — I found that unsustainable.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity, of course, is still at Fox, where he is launching smear campaigns, parroting Kremlin spokespeople, and helping Trump to continue pushing the Big Lie.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity wrote one cheesy Trump campaign ad — and he may have written yet another one that never aired</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This latest batch of text messages also reveals that Hannity lied last year about the extent of his connections to the Trump campaign — seemingly confirming a story that Hannity had previously described as being “full of shit.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Last year, Wall Street Journal senior White House reporter Mike Bender published a book about the 2020 election and its aftermath, titled Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost. The book revealed that Hannity had actually written a Trump campaign ad, which insiders even referred to as “the Hannity ad” and “the one Hannity wrote.” The specific ad in question was an attack spot that seemed to deploy every anti-Biden talking point at once, referring to him as a “47-year swamp creature” who had “accomplished nothing,” and tying him to the so-called “radical, socialist Green New Deal.” Trump’s campaign staff reportedly ridiculed it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Inside the campaign, the spot was mocked mercilessly, mostly because of the dramatic, over-the-top language and a message that seemed to value quantity over quality,” Bender wrote. The campaign came up with a solution to the problem, by running the ad only during Hannity’s own show on Fox News: “If Trump and Hannity watched the spot on television – and were satisfied enough to stop asking about the commercial – that seemed to be the best result of the ad. The cost of that investment: $1.5m.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity, however, denied the story in very strong terms. “The world knows that Sean Hannity supports Donald Trump,” he told Bender. “But my involvement specifically in the campaign — no. I was not involved that much. Anybody who said that is full of shit.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On December 8, 2020, however, as Hannity and Meadows commiserated via text, Hannity bemoaned that the campaign had not done more on the topic of election fraud during the campaign — including regarding an ad he had written for them.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I was screaming about no ads from Labor Day on,” he wrote. “I made my own they never ran it. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm frustrated.” It is possible here that Hannity may have been referring to yet another campaign ad that he wrote, but which still went unaired.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity’s vulgar denial to Bender of the earlier campaign ad not only reveals that he is a liar, but there’s more. In this instance, he also lied to a news reporter at The Wall Street Journal, the most prominent of the Murdoch media empire’s journalistic front operations and a perpetual doormat for the opinion side. The fact that he would lie to one of his colleagues from another Murdoch publication clearly demonstrates the sense of leverage Hannity has over anyone who thinks they really can report news while working at a Murdoch outlet.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/trump-white-house-told-sean-hannity-what-say-then-he-said-it</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity sought, received, and carried out marching orders from the Trump White House on what to say on Election Day 2020. At a normal news outlet, this would be cause for alarm and would trigger an internal investigation into how often such behavior was going on – but Hannity works for Fox News, which long ago accepted his sidegig as a Republican political operative whose primary loyalty is to Donald Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity’s communications with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows are included in a trove of 2,319 text messages Meadows sent or received between November 3, 2020, which was Election Day, and President Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021. The texts were selectively provided by Meadows to the January 6 select committee and obtained by CNN, which reported on them on Monday.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The texts show Hannity reaching out to Meadows and receiving instructions on what to tell his audience on the afternoon of Election Day. After Hannity asked Meadows about whether Trump would win the chief of staff’s home state of North Carolina, Meadows told Hannity to use his radio show to “Stress every vote matters. Get out and vote.” Hannity responded, “Yes sir[.] On it. Any place in particular we need a push[?]” Meadows wrote back, “Pennsylvania. NC AZ,” then added “Nevada,” to which Hannity replied, “Got it. Everywhere[.]”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity followed through on his pledge to Meadows to exhort his radio audience to the polls in those key states, as The Washington Post’s Philip Bump noted after reviewing that day’s edition of Hannity’s radio show, which airs from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. ET:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I am acting as though and knowing that every single, solitary vote matters,” Hannity said near the top of the show. He added that he was sharing insights after having “been on the phone all day with people all over the country.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A bit later: “Every single vote in every one of these states that I have just mentioned absolutely, positively matters.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And later still: “If you’re going to be voting, you know, please, if you’re online, please don’t say, oh, this is going to take too long. Your vote is necessary. Every vote matters.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bump also noted that three states Hannity mentioned most frequently on that broadcast were Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Arizona – the three states Meadows first indicated to Hannity as priorities.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In short, Hannity appears to have said what the Trump White House told him to say. And there’s no reason to think this was the first time that happened – the exchange between Meadows and Hannity is casual, with no indication from either party that anything untoward was happening.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Such behavior would generally be interpreted by a responsible news outlet as a massive ethical breach. But Fox is a Republican propaganda outlet that has completely given up on enforcing anything resembling rules or journalistic ethics for Hannity, allowing him to moonlight as a key Trump adviser.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity appeared in a promotional video for Trump’s campaign, was revealed as a secret client of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and a back channel between Trump and his embattled associates, spoke at a Trump political rally, and reportedly wrote one of his campaign ads. News reports indicated he was providing the president with political advice and receiving notes on his show in near-nightly conversations, and was so influential at the White House that aides called him “the ‘shadow’ chief of staff.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Through it all, while journalists noted that such behavior would constitute firing offenses at other outlets, Fox stood by their man. At this point, there’s no question that Hannity does Trump’s bidding because that’s what the network wants him to do.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There are no rules for Sean Hannity at Fox News</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">04/17/18 11:28 AM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Presidential adviser reportedly scripted campaign ad</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">06/01/21 10:44 AM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity is a Trump political operative and Fox News doesn’t care</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">01/21/20 4:08 PM EST</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">new</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx twt</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity echoed dangerous Kremlin claim pointing figured about the Russian-Ukrainian war</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News' Sean Hannity speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, Gage Skidmore</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meaghan Ellis March 19, 2022</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News' Sean Hannity added to the conservative misinformation dumpster fire when he attempted to criticize President Joe Biden by echoing claims similar to Russian government officials.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Friday, March 18, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov spoke to a group of reporters where he appeared to share his reaction Biden describing Russian President Vladamir Putin as a "war criminal." Peskov argued that the description is a "personal insult" to the Russian authoritarian.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"We hear and see statements that are actually personal insults to President Putin," Peskov told reporters.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Given such irritability from Mr. Biden, his fatigue and sometimes forgetfulness ... fatigue that leads to aggressive statements, we will not make harsh assessments, so as not to cause more aggression,” Peskov added.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Later that evening, Hannity highlighted Peskov's words on the screen as he echoed similar sentiments saying, “Like I’ve been saying, Biden’s weakness on the world stage is emboldening bad actors all across the globe."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity's segment also came hours after Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov actually praised Fox News for echoing Fussian propaganda. According to Lavrov, Fox News is the only television network focused on presenting an "alternative point of view."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We know the manners and the tricks that are being used by the Western countries to manipulate media,” said Lavrov. “If you take the United States, only Fox News is trying to present some alternative point of view."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For months now, far-right Republican lawmakers and conservative Fox News hosts have had what is being described as a "lovefest" with Russia. Despite their opposition, the Democrats and Biden administration have made it a point to push back against Putin as his military continues its invasion of Ukraine.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NEW</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/flashback-sean-hannity-spent-months-aggressively-defending-president-trump-withholding</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/hannity-speculates-his-call-assassination-has-had-psychological-impact-vladimir-putin</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/free-base-pipe/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx vid twt?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing website made up viral fake claim Republicans like Marco Rubio are now pushing: report</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[Marco Rubio embarrasses himself again by doubling down on false attack of defense secretary]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">David Badash and The New Civil Rights Movement February 10, 2022</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This week Republican lawmakers and voters have had a great time pushing a false claim that the Biden administration is spending tens of millions of dollars to pay for "free crack pipes" for drug abusers. The claim came from a report by the right-wing website Washington Free Beacon, including a quote falsely attributed to an HHS spokesperson, according to The Daily Beast.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It's no surprise The Daily Beast is calling "a lie" made its way to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and a U.S. Senator's Twitter account.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The Washington Free Beacon seemed to take a big leap to assert that free crack pipes would be part of a harm reduction package," The Daily Beast's Roger Sollenberg reports, calling it "a lie rocketed around conservative media."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The report, published Monday and titled “Biden Admin To Fund Crack Pipe Distribution To Advance ‘Racial Equity,’” cited an HHS spokesperson as confirming that a sweeping harm reduction package “will provide pipes” to smoke, quote, “any illicit substance.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Free Beacon's article reads: “A spokesman for the agency told the Washington Free Beacon that these kits will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and ‘any illicit substance.’”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Daily Beast reviewed the email chain between the Washington Free Beacon and HHS. It's unclear how the Free Beacon made the "any illicit substance" claim, given the HHS email specifically states no federal laws would be broken.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In fact, The Daily Beast reports the HHS spokesperson says the Free Beacon “omitted the information shared with him about the grantees needing to comply with federal, state, and local laws—the very language that would prohibit crack pipes.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The damage has already been done. The "free crack pipes" claim is now one more myth in conservatives' false reality.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Arizona far-right Republican U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Lesko made the false claim on the floor of the House of Representatives:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Florida Republican U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, linking to an article literally titled: "Biden administration denies funding programs that hand out crack pipes to prevent infection and promote 'racial equity'" says in a video posted to his Twitter account, "The Biden administration is going to be sending crack pipes and meth pipes, targeting minority communities," a claim he knows is a lie.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News entertainers Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity both made the most of the claim, with The Daily Mail reporting: "Tucker Carlson slams policy to hand out free crack pipes and needles warning it 'will result in addicts shooting up on the streets.'"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The genie is out of the bottle, and no one on the right has any intention or desire to put it back.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2021/08/fox-news-media/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">i am sorry to report I've had more than one conversation with progressives who, despite being savvy and well-read, are under the mistaken impression that Fox News has seen the light and has started to promote the COVID-19 vaccine. I've even witnessed speculation that Rupert Murdoch, who is himself vaccinated, had a come-to-Jesus meeting with the Fox News brass about the wisdom of encouraging their own audience to contract a dangerous disease. And while I always enjoy a cheeky opportunity to tell folks they should be reading my work more, overall, it's distressing to see that people are buying into the myth that Fox News has "pivoted" to being pro-vaccine.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But can you blame folks for believing this? Someone who prides themselves on a responsible, fact-based diet of mainstream media sources like CNN, NBC News and NPR likely got exposed in mid-to-late July to misleading stories hyping an out-of-context clip of Fox News host Sean Hannity saying, "I believe in the science of vaccination" and urging viewers to "take COVID seriously." The clip also got shared widely on social media.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Everyone likes a "scared straight" story, and it just felt good to believe conservatives were on the verge of giving up this anti-vaccination nonsense. Unforutantely, the story was B.S.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As I and reporters who cover right wing media for Media Matters and Vox pointed out at the time, Hannity's show that night was not only bookmarked by two other shows — Laura Ingraham's and Tucker Carlson's — that openly discouraged vaccination, but his supposedly "pro-vaccine" comments came in the middle of a segment that overall portrayed vaccines as dangerous and a threat to freedom. Even in the edited clip, Hannity instructed his viewers to "research like crazy," which is a common anti-vaxx rhetorical trick. As with creationists claiming they want to "teach the controversy," it's a way to seem reasonable while slyly directing people to engage conspiracy theories and suggesting those conspiracy theories are on equal footing, credibility-wise, as scientific fact. As Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times wrote, Hannity was basically "encouraging listeners to expose themselves to the wide variety of anti-vax conspiracy mongering accessible on social media via 'research.'"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But in case there was any doubt, a perusal of Hannity's programming in the weeks since his supposed conversion shows that, actually, Hannity is still largely focused on stoking confusion, spreading misinformation, and portraying vaccination efforts as a liberal conspiracy against his audience. As Media Matters documented on Tuesday, Hannity gave an entire hour of his radio show over to two anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists — men who use phrases like "the demon needle" and "poisonous jabs." Hannity presented them falsely as medical experts to people calling in looking for advice. He also sneered at Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden's chief medical advisor, calling him "flip-flop Fauci" and declaring that his anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists were better experts. The conspiracy theorists discouraged vaccines for young people, implied that dangerous and unproven drugs are superior prevention to the vaccine, and lied about the breakthrough infection rate, implying it's high when it is not.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This in in line with the general approach to the vaccine question on Hannity's show. From the moment that his misleading "pro-vaccine" clip went viral, Hannity has aggressively downplayed the claim that he's promoting the vaccine, declaring two days after the initial clip that, "I'm not urging people to get the COVID-19 vaccine" and "I have never told anyone to get a vaccine." In the past few weeks, he's attacked vaccine passport programs, portrayed vaccine advocacy as "threats coming from Democrats," exaggerated the risks of breakthrough infections, and even claimed that vaccine passport programs are racist against Black people. (In reality, Black people are at a higher risk of dying of COVID-19, which is one reason why aggressive public health measures are necessary.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A visit to Hannity's Facebook page is more of the same. It features a post mocking New York City mayor Bill De Blasio for supposedly playing doctor by instituting a vaccine passport system, Blames undocumented immigrants for the COVID-19 spread when the medical establishment is quite clear that the problem is willfully unvaccinated people, and celebrates Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is selling merchandise mocking vaccine advocates and whose state is paying the price for his idiocy with some of the highest rates of COVID-19 in the country.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Overall, Hannity viewers get a strong message that vaccines are ineffective, dangerous, and getting one is just giving into those damn Democrats. And his firehose of anti-vaccination demagoguery is in line with the rest of Fox News, which continues to take the stance that vaccines are "a menace", ineffective, and that refusing vaccination is a good way to prove one's right wing bona fides.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And yet, this notion that the network has changed its tune has become received wisdom in much of the mainstream media.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Googling "Hannity vaccines" turns up a darkly funny mix of Fox News headlines demonizing vaccination and mainstream media headlines praising Fox News for being pro-vaccination. One of those more recent ones, from Morning Consult, even announces, "Fox News Personalities Started to Promote COVID-19 Vaccines. Viewers Have Taken Notice." The article declares that "some conservative media personalities have gone all in on vaccines," falsely citing Hannity as an example. It credits this supposed shift in messaging for the fact that vaccine "reluctance fell to an all-time low this week among adults who watch Fox News: 27 percent of viewers now say they probably or definitely won't get vaccinated, down from 30 percent the week before and a high of 37 percent in mid-March." That's certainly an improvement, but hard to say if Fox News is really the cause, since their much-ballyhooed "shift" is an illusion propped up to bamboozle the mainstream media and not actually representative of the vaccine-negative messaging their audience actually gets. The comments from his fans on Facebook make quite clear what message they're getting, and it's definitely not that vaccination is good and that unvaccinated people are the cause of the current surge. Instead, it's fear-mongering about the shots, blaming immigrants and not the unvaccinated, and comparing vaccine passports and mandates to Nazi Germany.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As the New York Times reports, fears of the delta variant are also driving a lot of red state Americans to get the shot, clearly deciding that sticking it to the liberals isn't worth getting sick over. The article also points out that "employers and universities have started requiring the shots to return to work and class." Even the phrase "pandemic of the unvaccinated," which is being heavily (and accurately) promoted by the White House and the Centers for Disease Control, likely deserves credit for underscoring to the unvaccinated that it's they, not hated liberals, who are paying the price for listening to Fox News.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So this is probably not a matter of one pro-vaccine Hannity clip in a sea of anti-vaccine messaging changing minds. It's just that even the most devout death cults eventually have some members who start to question the wisdom of sacrificing themselves for some dumb ideology. Let's hope that the number of Fox News fans deciding they have their limits only continues to rise.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/trump-fox-feedback-loop-amplifies-deranged-conspiracy-theory-about-dominion-and-vote</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no twt vid</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News propagandists continue to push fever-swamp fantasies that voting machines switched a large number of votes from President Donald Trump to President-elect Joe Biden, even after election security officials conclusively determined that was not the case, and Trump is amplifying those wildly irresponsible claims to falsely assert that he won the election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With his reelection hopes thwarted at the ballot box, Trump is trying to steal the election if he can and delegitimize it if he can’t, with the help of his sycophants at Fox and Republican leaders.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Those despicable and dangerous efforts originally revolved around baseless allegations of voter fraud committed through mail-in ballots. But as those claims have been shot down in court, Trump and his right-wing media allies have pushed increasingly deranged conspiracy theories about computer systems changing votes to benefit Biden. They have focused in particular on Dominion Voter Systems, which makes software used in voting machines in localities around the country, including some in Georgia and Michigan.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This campaign against the democratic system will not change the results of the election, but it has already resulted in a majority of Republicans believing the election was stolen from Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Thursday, Trump, who has spent the days since the election watching cable news coverage and ranting on Twitter, live-tweeted a segment from the far-right network One America News that claimed that “DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This claim is crazy, false, and apparently based on the “analysis” of an anonymous poster at a pro-Trump message board whose findings were credulously parroted by the Gateway Pundit conspiracy theory blog.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump’s tweet apparently spurred a response from Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council Executive Committee and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council, who said in a joint statement released by the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency that “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history” and that “there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” The signatories include top U.S. cybersecurity officials, state and local elections administrators, and voting machine industry representatives.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even Fox’s “news” side pointed out that Trump’s claim was baseless. Network correspondent Eric Shawn reported on “the president's attacks on Dominion voting machines” during a Thursday night Special Report package, explaining that experts, including cybersecurity officials at DHS, say that what Trump claimed had not happened. He described Trump’s comments as “disinformation.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Fox Business host Lou Dobbs has never allowed facts to get in the way of his adulation for the president and his willingness to champion Trump’s lies. “President Trump is zeroing in on Dominion voting machines," he said, shortly before the CISA statement went out on Thursday evening. “Dominion voting systems used in 28 states across the country including battleground states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After highlighting purported flaws with the Dominion machines identified by Texas elections officials, he asked Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, “How important do you believe the concerns that are being expressed in a number of states about the ability of these machines not to be hacked?” Giuliani replied, “First of all, the machines can be hacked. There's no question about that. Their machines can be hacked.” He added that Dominion was “founded as a company to fix elections. They have a terrible record and they are extremely hackable.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Giuliani went on to claim that he had identified hundreds of thousands of “illegal votes” in Pennsylvania and Michigan that will “overturn the vote” in those states (this will not happen). He concluded, “This was a stolen election.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox prime-time star and Trump operative Sean Hannity also floated the Dominion conspiracy theory, a few hours after federal, state, and local officials and his own network had debunked it. After describing purported flaws with Dominion systems, Hannity referred to a 2017 congressional hearing about cybersecurity of voting machines, airing a comment from an expert about “how you hack a voting machine to cheat” using a “vote stealing program” that, if installed, “could steal elections without detection for years to come.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Now, am I saying tonight this happened with Dominion in this cycle?” Hannity asked after airing that comment. “No. How would I possibly know?” But without further review, he claimed, “there's good reason to not have confidence or not to believe this is fair."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[vid]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">trump cheered the Fox segments for pushing a conspiracy theory that had been debunked by his own government’s cybersecurity experts.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Must see @seanhannity takedown of the horrible, inaccurate and anything but secure Dominion Voting System which is used in States where tens of thousands of votes were stolen from us and given to Biden,” he tweeted shortly after Hannity’s segment. “Likewise, the Great @LouDobbs has a confirming and powerful piece!”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sharing video from Hannity’s segment on Twitter, Trump commented, “These states in question should immediately be put in the Trump Win column. Biden did not win, he lost by a lot!”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By the next morning, the conspiracy theory had made it to Fox & Friends, with George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley falsely claiming that Dominion voting systems switched “thousands” of Michigan votes -- only to be shot down by Steve Doocy of all people, who pointed out that “the software did not affect the vote counts.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trump-Fox feedback loop is powering increasingly unhinged attacks on American democracy. And the longer it goes on, the clearer it becomes that the Murdochs and other network executives either have no control over their hosts, or want them to do exactly what they’re doing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1120 an&nbsp; PA</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">sean Hannity suggests we may have to have a 'do-over' election</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/sean-hannity-tried-to-mock-rep-ilhan-omar-but-only-ended-up-humiliating-himself/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/sean-hannity-hyped-massive-trump-rallies-have-been-linked-covid-19-outbreaks</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1010</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/john-ratcliffe-back-his-bullshit-and-fox-news-loves-it</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">John Ratcliffe, President Donald Trump’s handpicked director of national intelligence, is selectively declassifying documents related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. His politically motivated disinformation campaign puts bolstering the president’s faltering reelection chances above U.S. national security. And he has found eager partners at Fox News. The network’s hosts are lapping up the story and baselessly claiming that it vindicates their conspiracy theories that the federal investigation into Russia’s actions was an anti-Trump witch hunt.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For years, Fox has been trying to delegitimize the voluminous evidence that Russia helped Trump win the 2016 election. Russian President Vladimir Putin personally “ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed” at helping Trump defeat his opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to the U.S. intelligence community. That campaign included a Putin-directed effort to hack and release Democratic emails and an array of interactions between Trump associates and Russians with ties to the Kremlin. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Russian operation led to the successful prosecutions of various close supporters of the president. But for Fox’s propagandists, the real story has been “Obamagate,” the right’s spittle-flecked conspiracy theory postulating that “deep state” elements in the U.S. government dreamed up a Russia “hoax” in order to stop Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump, a Fox obsessive, is an eager “Obamagate” proponent, and over the last few years, he has replaced key figures in his administration with partisan Fox favorites who are willing to use their positions to prop up the network’s unhinged conspiracy theory. He removed Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from the Mueller probe, in favor of William Barr, who has worked to stymie Mueller-related prosecutions while ordering and overseeing a federal criminal probe into the origins of the Russia investigation. He used the same playbook at the top of the intelligence community, ousting Joseph Maguire, whose office had warned of Russian interference in the 2020 election, and subbing in Richard Grenell, a former Fox contributor who used the office to create fodder for pro-Trump conspiracy theorists.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And now Ratcliffe, who replaced Grenell in May after gaining Trump’s favor despite a lack of experience in intelligence because the president liked his anti-Mueller rants on Fox, has levied his own salvo. On Tuesday, he selectively declassified and released two heavily redacted documents: a set of handwritten notes former CIA Director John Brennan took after briefing President Barack Obama in July 2016 and a memo the CIA prepared for the FBI summarizing intelligence. Those documents undergird a Russian intelligence assessment Ratcliffe described in a letter he sent last month to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Fox, unsurprisingly, was given the exclusive on the documents, and it credulously reported that they reveal that Brennan briefed Obama on Clinton’s “purported ‘plan’ to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as ‘a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server’ ahead of the 2016 presidential election.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If Ratcliffe’s aim was to create political ammunition for the president and his Fox propagandists, he succeeded. The story led the network’s website on Tuesday night and was treated as a “bombshell” by Fox’s pro-Trump prime-time and morning hosts, who alleged that it proved that Clinton had “invented the Russia hoax” to deflect attention from her email server. And Trump furiously tweeted about the story on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, demanding arrests for what he baselessly termed had been an attempted “COUP."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is nonsense.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Russia probe did not begin due to anything Clinton did in July 2016. It was initiated based on earlier intel that George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, had disclosed that Russia had political dirt on Clinton. Papadopoulos, a bipartisan Senate report later assessed, was a “potential vector for malign Russian influence” who learned about the Russian hacking campaign from an individual with Russian ties and almost certainly informed the Trump campaign.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The notion that Clinton was secretly scheming to link Trump to Russia to avoid talking about her email server doesn’t meet the laugh test. At the time Brennan was briefing Obama, that hacking campaign was ongoing. WikiLeaks had just released thousands of Democratic National Committee emails, it was widely believed that those emails had been stolen by Russian hackers, and Clinton’s campaign was publicly denouncing Trump for calling on the Russian government to produce her emails while also denying that government’s involvement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ratcliffe’s selective redactions were also deceptive. “Four people familiar with the matter said the Russians’ assessment of Clinton was only one part of a larger intelligence report that was billed as an initial examination of Russian cyberattacks targeting the 2016 election, and was not the reason that it was referred to the bureau,” Politico reported Tuesday. Likewise, Brennan explained to CNN that the notes Ratcliffe released showed him “giving examples of the type of access that the US intelligence community had to Russian information and what the Russians were talking about and alleging.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Moreover, the Russian intelligence assessment Ratcliffe produced had previously been rejected on a bipartisan basis as likely Russian disinformation intended to distract from their hacking of the Democratic National Committee as those documents were released.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This pipeline from the DNI’s office to Fox will continue as long as Trump is president. Ratcliffe is doing exactly what Trump wants him to do, using the power of the director of national intelligence to boost his reelection. And Fox is doing what they always do, serving as a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meanwhile, the Russian effort to help Trump win the 2020 election continues.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rep. John Ratcliffe loves Fox's Russia probe conspiracy theories. He was just confirmed to oversee U.S. intelligence.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">07/29/19 1:02 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Foxification of the intelligence community follows the DOJ script</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">02/21/20 2:04 PM EST</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Obamagate” is just a rebrand of the right’s bogus “deep state” conspiracy theory</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/trumprussia/obamagate-just-rebrand-rights-bogus-deep-state-conspiracy-theory</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">05/18/20 no vids pix</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">last weekend, President Donald Trump unleashed a series of Mother's Day tweets accusing former President Barack Obama of an unspecified crime, referring to it as “Obamagate.” Trump later went as far as to suggest that Obama and the Democratic presidential front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, should be in prison.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, Trump has hardly been clear on what crimes Obama allegedly committed. When a Washington Post reporter asked, Trump responded, “You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers -- except yours.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While the president has not offered details, anyone who has watched Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show over the past three years can recognize that Trump’s “Obamagate” is just an attempted rebrand of the right’s years-in-the-making “deep state” conspiracy theory, sometimes called Russiagate. Media Matters has documented the origins of the conspiracy theory, the role of Attorney General Bill Barr’s politicized Justice Department, and key players in right-wing media who have spread its baseless claims.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What is “Obamagate?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Obamagate” is just another version of the right’s “deep state” conspiracy theory</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to right-wing media, over the last several years government bureaucrats who held their positions during previous administrations comprise a “deep state” that has worked to undermine the Trump administration. This deep state conspiracy theory has evolved into a reflexive defense of Trump in a wide array of circumstances, from the Ukraine scandal that led to his impeachment to his administration’s handling of the coronavirus.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[vid]&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the core allegation made by Trump and his right-wing media allies is that in 2016, the Obama administration and the FBI, led by then-Director James Comey, sought to prevent Trump from becoming president. When that didn’t work, conservative media claim, the Obama administration and FBI officials sought to enact a backup plan to stop Trump in the form of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since 2017, right-wing media have consistently and repeatedly called for retaliatory investigations against a slew of top FBI and Obama administration officials who they view as aiming to end Trump’s presidency, including Obama and Comey. Some Republican politicians have also joined in or at least publicly attempted to sow doubt about the legitimacy of the Mueller investigation. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), and Devin Nunes (R-CA) have each appeared on Fox repeatedly to push deep state conspiracy theories, especially on Hannity, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is conducting his own investigation into the FBI’s Russia probe.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Recent events led to an escalation in “Obamagate”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Attorney General Bill Barr has increasingly politicized the Justice Department in pursuit of Trump’s political goals, and his efforts came to a boiling point recently when the DOJ moved to throw out the case of Trump ally Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty in 2017 to charges of lying to the FBI.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Supposedly vindicated by the attempted dismissal of Flynn’s case, right-wing media are now intensely focused on the January 2017 events preceding Flynn’s FBI interview that ultimately resulted in his guilty plea -- an interview that the right claims was engineered, in part by Obama, to trap Flynn into lying to the FBI.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Recently uncovered documents in Flynn’s case have also served as fodder for right-wing media in claiming that the FBI and Obama administration officials were trying to undermine Trump’s presidency. Newly released transcripts from interviews conducted by the House Intelligence Committee during its Russia probe also have brought accusations from the right against top FBI officials and House Democrats.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On May 13, GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) released what the right is interpreting as a list of people who may have unmasked Flynn’s identity in the transcripts of his December 2016 conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Right-wing media and their allies believe if they can identify who unmasked Flynn and prove that the official (or officials) illegally leaked Flynn’s identity to the press, then that proves the Obama administration tried to sabotage the Trump administration. In reality, the list has little significance and isn’t nearly the bombshell that right-wing media are trying to make it out to be. It is unlikely the original Flynn unmasking is even on the list. [don jr claims biden personally unmasked him in booktv lib priv 10/20?]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While there are some legitimate problems with the FBI’s conduct over the course of the Mueller investigation, Trump and his media allies' efforts to muddy the waters by cherry-picking information to weave complex, self-serving theories will ultimately make any significant reform difficult by further demoralizing an already overly politicized agency.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How the DOJ is being used to carry out the political goals of the deep state conspiracy theory</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bill Barr’s role</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump’s media allies have held Attorney General Bill Barr up as the man who will be able to carry out their retaliatory investigative goals. The attorney general has been trying to undercut any investigation into the president’s connections with Russia during the 2016 election even before he was nominated to his post. Moving to drop the charges against Flynn is only the latest example in a long list of actions Barr has taken to increasingly politicize the Justice Department to help Trump and his allies:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Late 2018: Barr sent a memo to members of the Trump administration detailing his view that Trump’s firing of and later fervent ridiculing of Comey were not obstructions of justice.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">February 2019: Barr was sworn in as U.S. attorney general.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">March 2019: Barr took steps to mislead the public and undercut the conclusions of the Mueller investigation, issuing a summary memo with cherry-picked conclusions before the redacted version of the report was released.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 2019: Barr announced an administrative review into the origins of the Mueller investigation led by John Durham, United States attorney for the District of Connecticut.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">October 2019: It was reported that the Durham review into the origins of the FBI investigation was now a criminal investigation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 2020: Barr moved to interfere in cases close to Trump, including by changing the DOJ’s sentencing recommendations in the Flynn case.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">February 2020: Barr moved to interfere in the Roger Stone case, another criminal case against a close Trump ally, replacing the DOJ attorneys overseeing the case.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 2020: The DOJ attempted to drop charges against Flynn and released documents pertaining to the January 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting that is at the center of the Obamagate conspiracy theory. The judge has not formally dropped the charges and is asking for third party amicus briefs for advice on the situation.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media figures have heaped praise on Barr for going after the “deep state.” They are also doubling down on claims that Flynn was a victim and never did anything wrong.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[vid]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Durham probe’s role</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since October 2019, when he was appointed by Barr, U.S. Attorney John Durham has been leading a criminal inquiry into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. That probe was reportedly expanded again in May. Now, right-wing media are focusing on identifying which Obama administration officials were aware of the calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador, which has become a key question in Durham’s probe.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On April 24, The New York Times reported that Durham was looking into a 2017 column written by The Washington Post’s David Ignatius about Flynn’s call to Kislyak -- revealing that Durham was examining not only the origins of the FBI investigation, but also whether Ignatius’ source was intentionally trying to damage the Trump administration.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The predecessor to the Durham probe, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation into the Mueller investigation, fell short of reaching the right-wing media’s desired conclusion: incriminating Trump’s enemies. But Hannity and others have remained optimistic that Durham, and Barr, will deliver the retaliatory results that they have been looking for.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Key figures involved in pushing the years long deep state conspiracy theory</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News prime-time host Sean Hannity has played an outsized role in the promotion of the “deep state” theory, using his three-hour daily radio show and nightly Fox program as a conduit to hammer the supposed details and call for retaliation against perceived “deep state” operatives. Hannity frequently hosts guests who have been consistent drivers of the “deep state” conspiracy theory since 2016, and his show’s influence on Trump is well-documented.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since leaving office, Obama has remained a frequent target of Hannity’s ire -- for instance, in August 2019, the Fox host said that “it’s time for Obama to be put under oath” about his role in Flynn’s case. And now, Hannity has quickly latched onto the president’s rebranding of Russiagate as “Obamagate.” Last week, Hannity suggested that Obama was sending coded messages “to deep state operatives to go out and do more dirty work."[vid]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jarrett</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal and political analyst and Hannity regular who is known for pushing deep state conspiracy theories about the Mueller investigation. Trump has even promoted Jarrett’s book The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jarrett has regularly called for retaliation against those involved in Obama’s administration and the Mueller investigation; he has described Trump as the real “victim” of Russian collusion; and in March 2018, Jarrett called for Obama to be subpoenaed.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing are a husband-and-wife legal duo who have frequently pushed deep state conspiracy theories on Fox and were implicated along with Rudy Giuliani in trying to dig up dirt on Biden as part of the Trump-Ukraine scandal.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The pair have close ties to Barr going back years and have frequently assured Hannity and others that Trump’s attorney general will successfully carry out the retaliatory aims of the deep state conspiracy theory against Obama and FBI officials. In one example, after Barr announced counter investigations into the Mueller investigation, diGenova reassured Hannity that Barr will “conclude” that “it all started in the White House. Barack Obama knew about this from day one.” In the same appearance on Hannity, Toensing predicted that several Obama officials would be implicated, including Biden and Obama himself. [vid]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Solomon</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">John Solomon is a former opinion columnist and vice president at politics outlet The Hill who was instrumental in pushing the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. He pushed misinformation so often and had so many conflicts of interest that The Hill reviewed his writings, added disclaimers to his pieces on Ukraine, and announced changes in internal policy to avoid similar problems in the future. Solomon became a Fox News contributor in October 2019, and now frequently appears on Hannity. He is also legally represented by Toensing and diGenova, and some of the legal duo’s other clients have ended up as sources for Solomon’s “reporting.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Solomon has demonized the Mueller investigation for years; in 2017, when he was the chief operating officer for Sinclair Broadcast Group’s Circa website, he and his colleague Sara Carter primarily focused on undermining the origins of the Mueller investigation.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2017, Solomon also emerged as a key anti-Mueller figure on Fox News -- especially Hannity -- where he continued to spread misinformation and call for retaliation against Obama and FBI officials. Solomon’s slanted reporting has been a fundamental part of Hannity’s conspiracy theories, and Hannity has called for Solomon to receive the Pulitzer Prize.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sara Carter</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sara Carter is a Fox News contributor who, along with Solomon, has played an outsized role in promoting the deep state conspiracy theory on Hannity’s show over the last several years. In 2018, Carter called the Mueller investigation a “bloodless coup.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Carter has regularly promised that indictments against FBI and Obama officials are imminent, usually basing her information on unnamed sources.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After Barr announced counter-investigations into the Mueller report in 2019, Carter predicted that there are “a number of indictments that are on the way” and claimed that the investigations will “lead all the way back to the White House. … And I’m talking about the Obama administration." [vid]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dan Bongino is a Fox News contributor who frequently appears on Hannity’s show to rail against the Mueller investigation and call for retaliation against FBI and Obama officials, whom he has accused of trying to launch a “coup” to get rid of Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lou Dobbs</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lou Dobbs is a Fox Business host whose sycophantic, pro-Trump commentary makes his show a hot spot for anti-Mueller deep state narratives.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2018, Dobbs called the Mueller investigation an “ideologically inspired jihad” and he has been calling for Obama to be investigated since 2017. Last week, Dobbs accused Obama of orchestrating a plot to “overthrow” Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jeanine Pirro</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jeanine Pirro is a Fox News host and former judge who is known for her extremist rhetoric and for having a close relationship with the president.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pirro has been railing against the Mueller investigation since 2017, when she called it a “fishing expedition” and demanded a “cleansing” of FBI and DOJ officials “who should not just be fired, but who need to be taken out in handcuffs." Since then, Pirro has consistently called for retaliation against various officials in the Obama administration, FBI, and DOJ. Recently, Pirro accused the judge in Flynn’s case of being part of a political conspiracy, claiming that Judge Emmet Sullivan is an “activist judge” and part of “the left coming in” to the justice system.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton has remained a key figure in promoting the right-wing media’s deep state conspiracy theory, arguing for years that the Mueller investigation was a plot to destroy Trump’s presidency.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2018, Fitton called on the president to pardon anyone brought up on charges related to the Mueller investigation, saying that Trump should “just pardon everybody, you know, just have a field day,” including people Fitton admitted may actually be guilty.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fitton has also been trying to link Obama to the deep state conspiracy theory for years. In February 2018, Fitton claimed on Fox News that he “always wondered why President Obama has skated really free from any serious inquiries about his involvement in the Russia investigations.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When the DOJ moved to throw out Flynn’s case, Fitton’s statement at Judicial Watch claimed that “the targeting of General Flynn was a key part of the Obama/Clinton/Deep State coup against President Trump.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Federalist</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ben Domenech, Sean Davis, and Mollie Hemingway</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Federalist and its publisher Ben Domenech, co-founder Sean Davis, and senior editor Mollie Hemingway have also spent years hammering the idea that the Trump administration was the target of a deep state plot that goes all the way to Obama himself.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a recent article summarizing Obamagate, which it calls “the biggest political scandal of our time,” The Federalist referred to the Mueller investigation as an “organized effort by the Obama administration to nullify the results of the 2016 presidential election,” claiming that it was “in effect an attempted coup.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Key officials targeted by the deep state theory</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Barack Obama</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Although it did not originally bear his name, Obama and members of his administration have been the main target of this conspiracy theory as right-wing media try to rebrand the Russia investigation as illegitimate or as a setup by the Obama administration to undermine Trump. Other accusations against Obama have included claims that he was actively enabling Russian interference in the 2016 election and that a “deep state” consisting of Obama-era officials is still working in government and taking orders from the former president.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The deep state theory’s evolution, Obamagate, has focused on a January 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting that has come under criticism on the right because during that meeting, Obama expressed knowledge of Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador. The conspiracy theory generally accuses Obama of having been aware of plans by FBI and DOJ officials to launch an investigation into Flynn and other Trump associates and to destroy Trump’s presidency. Former Obama-era officials have disputed whether Flynn came up at all in the meeting. Regardless, right-wing media allege that Flynn needed to be gone or he’d find out what Obama and his administration had been up to, so the former administration set Flynn up. This theory gained even more traction last week, when House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) released a series of transcripts from the Mueller investigation, including interviews with some Obama-era officials who testified they had no evidence of collusion in the interactions between the Trump campaign and Russia.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Joe Biden</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The former vice president got caught up in the deep state conspiracy theory when right-wing media started accusing Crowdstrike, the company that secured the Democratic National Committee’s servers when they were hacked in 2016 by Russians, of being Ukrainian-owned and helping to falsely accuse Russia of the hack. Neither of these things are true, but right-wing investigations into Ukraine spun off into falsely accusing Biden of trying to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect his son, a scandal which backfired and ultimately led to Trump’s impeachment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Biden also attended the January 5, 2017, Oval Office intelligence briefing and, according to a memo from former national security adviser Susan Rice, Biden stayed behind after the meeting along with Comey and a few others. Right-wing media claim Obama at that point told him about the Flynn-Kislyak calls. The right has been increasingly hammering Biden’s supposed connection to the deep state since he became the presumed Democratic presidential nominee.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sally Yates</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the past, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates has been a right-wing media target for allegedly leaking information to the press and pushing the infamous dossier of opposition research compiled by Fusion GPS’ Christopher Steele, even though she supposedly knew it was full of “Russian lies,” that ultimately led to the wiretap of Trump adviser Carter Page.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yates also attended the January 5, 2017, Oval Office intelligence briefing and was part of the group that was told to stay behind after the briefing by Obama, who then told them about Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador. According to documents released as part of the DOJ’s attempt to drop the case against Flynn, she was surprised that the president knew that Flynn and Kislyak had talked in December 2016. Yates later said she was concerned Flynn was susceptible to blackmail. Right-wing media argue that makes her pivotal in what they view as a setup against Flynn.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Susan Rice</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media often accuse former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice of unlawfully “unmasking” or revealing the identity of American citizens on tapped calls with foreign entities. Trump allies claim that Flynn was unmasked illegally, which supposedly led to him being set up by the FBI. Rice has also been accused of leaking information to reporters toward the end of Obama’s administration.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rice also attended the January 5, 2017, Oval Office intelligence briefing and later wrote in a recently released memo that she and Biden were in attendance after the main briefing when they learned about Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador. Right-wing media have seized on her memo as providing further details about what they were told in the meeting, including that Obama supposedly cautioned Comey and Yates to consider withholding information about Russia from the incoming administration.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James Comey</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media view Comey as a major driver of the FBI corruption that they claim tried to destroy Trump’s presidency, and they falsely accuse him of leaking information to the press. The former FBI director oversaw the start of the investigation into Flynn, which right-wing media argued was illegitimate even before Barr’s DOJ moved to throw it out.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Comey also attended the recently uncovered January 5, 2017, Oval Office intelligence briefing and stayed behind to talk to Obama about Flynn. In court documents, Yates recalled that Comey suggested that Flynn may have violated the Logan Act, a law meant to prevent private citizens from interfering in foreign policy disputes (following DOJ’s move to drop the Flynn case, some conservatives have argued the law should be repealed).&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James Clapper</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Russiagate promoters accuse the former director of national intelligence under Obama of leaking classified information and pursuing illegitimate investigations. The right has also frequently mischaracterized his statement that there was “no evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clapper also attended the January 5, 2017, Oval office intelligence briefing, and recent revelations have now led to speculation from right-wing media that Clapper lied to Congress in July 2017 about whether he personally briefed Obama on the phone calls between Flynn and Kislyak.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Andrew McCabe</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media blame the former deputy FBI director for pushing the Steele dossier along with Comey and allege that he lied to FBI investigators about classified leaks to the media.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In February, the Justice Department moved to drop an investigation ordered by Barr into whether McCabe lied to the FBI, infuriating the right and renewing claims of a DOJ bureaucratic “deep state.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">John Brennan</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media allege that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the origins of the Trump/Russia investigation confirmed that former CIA Director John Brennan lied to Congress about whether the Steele dossier was used in the Obama administration’s intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peter Strzok and Lisa Page</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peter Strzok is a former FBI agent who became a right-wing media target because leaked texts between himself and Lisa Page, a former FBI attorney, allegedly showed an anti-Trump bias in the special counsel investigation. The texts also revealed they were having an affair, which led to vicious attacks from both right-wing media and the president.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to recently declassified documents, Strzok moved to keep the Flynn probe open on January 4, 2017, after it was set to be closed. Right-wing media have characterized this move as interference to illegitimately continue an investigation and said the Logan Act was potentially used as justification.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nellie and Bruce Ohr</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nellie Ohr worked as a contractor for Fusion GPS, the firm that dug up information that led to the infamous Steele dossier. Many on the right point to the fact that her husband, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, is a high-ranking DOJ official as further evidence of the “deep state,” and Hannity has called for retaliatory investigations against both.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Samantha Power</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is one of a handful of officials that right-wing media suspect of leaking sensitive information to the press toward the end of Obama’s presidency and conspiring to stop Trump’s presidency. Like Yates, she has often been accused of illegally unmasking American citizens, especially by Hannity.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rod Rosenstein</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media have previously alleged that former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein knowingly lied to the FISA court to illegally target Trump aide Carter Page by using Clinton’s “phony dossier that was full of Russian lies” without informing the court of its origins or noting that it was unverified. They falsely claim this is vindicated by the Horowitz report.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Trump administration and Fox News are trying to gin up a scandal that would do to the 2020 election what Hillary Clinton's emails did to the 2016 election. There's no reason that anyone has to play along with the deceit.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The short version:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President Donald Trump's handpicked director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe, is selectively leaking documents to pro-Trump outlets, usually Fox News.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These documents relate to Russian interference in the 2016 election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pro-Trump personalities at Fox use the documents to claim that Russian interference was a hoax, usually saying that Hillary Clinton herself ginned up the hoax.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There is no reliable evidence for these claims. To the contrary, a bipartisan Senate committee found numerous ways that Russia interfered -- even more than Robert Mueller uncovered in his investigation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Russia probe began based on intel that Trump 2016 campaign adviser George Papadopoulos has disclosed that Russia had political dirt on Clinton.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">None of this reality is reflected at Fox News, which keeps up talk of "Obamagate" as the election draws near.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Numerous sources have told media outlets that Ratcliffe's redactions were deceptive.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Objectively speaking, there is no reason to be talking about Clinton's emails in 2020. She's not on the ballot, and a multi-year investigation by the State Department concluded in 2019 that there had been no mishandling of classified information.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1119 bibi corruption charges</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-deep-state-conspiracy-is-about-to-go-into-overdrive?ref=scroll</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Deep State Conspiracy Is About to Go Into Overdrive</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">by Ronald Radosh</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The American right has advanced nutty conspiracy theories for decades. But the one we’re about to see play out will make Joe McCarthy look like an amateur.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">IT CAN HAPPEN HERE</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Deep State Conspiracy Is About to Go Into Overdrive</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">note demon term irrational, polariz us vs enemy/traitor</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/is-fox-news-obsessed-with-hate-study-finds-network-uses-this-word-5-times-more-than-its-rivals/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no grafs</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tucker Carlson is a big fan of the phrase 'they hate.' Usually, he's talking about Democrats.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Curd Knüpfer, Freie Universität Berlin and Robert Mathew Entman, George Washington University</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">`Fox News is up to five times more likely to use the word “hate" in its programming than its main competitors, according to our new study of how cable news channels use language.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox particularly uses the term when explaining opposition to Donald Trump. His opponents are said to “hate" Trump, his values and his followers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our research, which ran from Jan. 1 to May 8, 2020, initially explored news of Trump's impeachment. Then came the coronavirus. As we sifted through hundreds of cable news transcripts over five months, we noticed consistent differences between the vocabulary used on Fox News and that of MSNBC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While their news agendas were largely similar, the words they used to describe these newsworthy events diverged greatly.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox and hate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For our study, we analyzed 1,088 program transcripts from the two ideologically branded channels – right-wing Fox and left-wing MSNBC – between 6 p.m. and 10:59 p.m.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Because polarized media diets contribute to partisan conflict, our quantitative analysis identified terms indicating antipathy or resentment, such as “dislike," “despise," “can't stand" and “hate."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We expected to find that both of the strongly ideological networks made use of such words, perhaps in different ways. Instead, we found that Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC. “Hate" really stood out: It appeared 647 times on Fox, compared to 118 on MSNBC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox usually pairs certain words alongside “hate." The most notable was “they" – as in, “they hate." Fox used this phrase 101 times between January and May. MSNBC used it just five times.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To put these findings in historic context, we then used the GDELT Television database to search for occurrences of the phrase “they hate" on both networks going back to 2009. We included CNN for an additional comparison.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We found Fox's usage of “they hate" has increased over time, with a clear spike around the polarizing 2016 Trump-Clinton election. But Fox's use of “hate" really took off when Trump's presidency began. Beginning in January 2017, the mean usage of “they hate" on the network doubled.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">'Us' versus 'them'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So who is doing all this hating – and why – according to Fox News?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mainly, it's Democrats, liberals, political elites and the media. Though these groups do not actually have the same interests, ideology or job description, our analysis finds Fox lumps them together as the “they" in “they hate."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As for the object of all this hatred, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump. Anchors also identify their audience – “you," “Christians" and “us" – as the target of animosity. Only 13 instances of “they hate" also cited a reason. Examples included “they can't accept the fact that he won" or “because we voted for [Trump]."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citing liberal hate as a fact that needs no explanation serves to dismiss criticism of specific policies or events. It paints criticism or moral outrage directed at Trump asinherently irrational.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For loyal Fox viewers, these language patterns construct a coherent but potentially dangerous narrative about the world.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our data show intensely partisan hosts like Hannity and Carlson are more likely than other Fox anchors to use “they hate" in this way. Nevertheless, the phrase permeates Fox's evening programming, uttered by hosts, interviewees and Republican sources, all painting Trump critics not as legitimate opponents but hateful enemies working in bad faith.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By repeatedly telling its viewers they are bound together as objects of the contempt of a powerful and hateful left-leaning “elite," Fox has constructed two imagined communities. On the one side: Trump along with good folks under siege. On the other: nefarious Democrats, liberals, the left and mainstream media.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Research confirms that repeated exposure to polarized media messages can lead news consumers to form firm opinions and can foster what's called an “in-group" identity. The us-versus-them mentality, in turn, deepens feelings of antipathy toward the perceived “out-group."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Pew Research Center reports an increasing tendency, especially among Republicans, to view members of the other party as immoral and unpatriotic. Pew also finds Republicans trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Americans' divergent media sources – and specifically Fox's “hate"-filled rhetoric – aren't solely to blame here. Cable news is part of a larger picture of heightenedpolarization, intense partisanship and paralysis in Congress. [vid "hate & hysteria]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Hannity portrays criticism of Donald Trump as hate-based.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">YouTube/Fox News</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Good business</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Leaning into intense partisanship has been good for Fox News, though. In summer 2020 it was the country's most watched network. But using hate to explain the news is a dangerous business plan when shared crises demand Americans' empathy, negotiation and compromise.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox's talk of hate undermines democratic values like tolerance and reduces Americans' trust of their fellow citizens.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This fraying of social ties helps explain America's failures in managing the pandemic – and bodes badly for its handling of what seems likely to be a chaotic, divisive presidential election. In pitting its viewers against the rest of the country, Fox News works against potential solutions to the the very crises it covers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Curd Knüpfer, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin and Robert Mathew Entman, J.B. and M.C. Shapiro Professor Emeritus of Media and Public Affairs, George Washington University</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This article is republished from The Conversation&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/trumprussia/richard-grenells-flynn-unmasking-noninformation-campaign</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media froth over “Obamagate” and bully press to play along</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WRITTEN BY MATT GERTZ</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PUBLISHED 05/15/20&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, a former Fox News contributor and Republican Party stalwart who was appointed to lead the U.S. intelligence community because of his loyalty to President Donald Trump, provided a document of his own devising to Congress on Wednesday. It promptly leaked to the press. Republicans, including Trump himself, immediately seized on the content in the document as evidence of vast Obama administration malfeasance.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox hosts spent the next two days incessantly declaring that it vindicated their conspiracy theories, turning their attention away from the coronavirus pandemic. And more credible media outlets, buffeted by the partisan claims, responded with a flurry of stories, at times failing to properly contextualize the story.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trumpists have declared Grenell’s document a smoking gun showing that disgraced former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty for lying to the FBI about his calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, was a victim of an Obama administration conspiracy, and Fox is hyping that narrative with wall-to-wall coverage. In reality, the document provides almost no information whatsoever. It is simply a list of senior Obama administration officials who received Flynn’s name after they followed the National Security Agency’s standard process and asked the agency to unmask the identity of an individual generically referenced in an NSA report they were authorized to read. It does nothing to establish that any of the individuals named acted improperly in any way -- or even how many unmaskings were related to the Kislyak calls.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We’ve seen misinformation campaigns, where false or deceptive information is distributed, and disinformation campaigns, when that distribution is done with the full knowledge of its inaccuracy. Grenell is engaged in a noninformation campaign. He deliberately crafted and propagated a data point so vague that it is virtually meaningless on its own. But pro-Trump partisans -- particularly at Fox -- have easily picked up, misread (deliberately or not), and promoted the point, aligining it with their wild assumptions [// Qanon]. Those furious misinterpretations have in turn spurred attention from the mainstream press, driving the conspiratorial thinking into the broader public.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is an intentional plan that corresponds with what the president wants from his director of national intelligence. “Trump hopes enough information will be released by his intelligence appointees to muddy the waters and lend a patina of confusion about what Mr. Obama may have done, according to people familiar with his thinking,” The New York Times reported Thursday. As the president struggles in reelection polling, Trump and his Fox propagandists are using the Flynn story to try to damage the credibility of former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s 2020 opponent.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Grenell’s noninformation campaign is the latest salvo in a years-long campaign by Trump and his Fox propagandists to turn the Russia investigation inside out, presenting the Trump associates who pleaded or were found guilty under its auspices as victims and those involved in carrying out the probe as criminals.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With vast swathes of the federal bureaucracy in the hands of partisans selected for their loyalty to the president, including the DNI and Justice Department, we should expect more of these releases -- and perhaps more dangerous actions -- in the coming months, as Trump’s supporters try to push the political debate away from the ongoing pandemic that has killed more than 80,000 Americans so far in order to secure his reelection.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trumpist defense of Michael Flynn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Michael Flynn is a retired general who served as Trump’s national security adviser during the 2016 presidential campaign, the transition, and the early days of his White House tenure. At various points during that timeline, Flynn was also assigned by Trump to find the Hillary Clinton emails he had publicly asked Russia to procure; was under investigation by the FBI, which was concerned with whether he was serving as a witting or unwitting agent of the Russian government; was illegally acting as an unregistered agent of the Turkish government, for which he was reportedly involved in discussions of a kidnapping plot; and was seeking Trump’s approval for a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia after working as a paid adviser for the group behind the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On December 29, 2016, the day the Obama administration placed sanctions on Russia in response to its interference in the presidential election, Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and urged him that Russia not retaliate for those sanctions. Flynn was fired as Trump’s national security adviser after reports surfaced that he lied to Vice President Mike Pence about those conversations, which opened Flynn up to blackmail from the Russian government. He would later repeatedly plead guilty as part of Mueller’s probe to lying to the FBI about those calls before renouncing that plea last year.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The position on Flynn among Trumpists like Fox host Sean Hannity is that he is an American hero, [started w/ ollie?]that there was no good-faith reason to probe any of his actions during that period, and that anyone involved in such an effort was a participant in the broad-ranging Obama administration conspiracy to take down Trump, which the president terms “OBAMAGATE.” [RECALL EACH TIME HE WRIGGLES OUT OF A LEGIT CHARGE, HE DECLARES HIS RIGHEOUSNESS/VICTIMHOOD, ASCRIBING EACH TO INCREASING DESPERATION BY DEMS, THEY TRIED TO IMPEACH ME ON DAY 1...]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Their argument features Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak in two ways: They argue that the FBI’s interview with Flynn was a nefarious “setup” and suggest that the leak about the conversation from a “senior government official” to The Washington Post’s David Ignatius for his 2017 column, which brought the call into public light, was anillegal attempt to take down Flynn and Trump by someone who had improperly “unmasked” his identity from intelligence intercepts.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Barr’s Justice Department showed last week that the Trump administration is putting the force of the federal government behind Fox’s conspiracy theories when it filed a dubious and virtually unprecedented motion seeking to drop the government’s case against Flynn,[THIS SORT OF SUCCEEDED 7/20, STILL BEING FOUGHT IN CT?] citing the FBI’s interview tactics. And on Wednesday, Grenell tried to use his own power as the director of national intelligence to provide grist in support of the other fork of the Flynn defense.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Unmasking” and what Grenell’s document shows</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that Grenell had declassified [VS POMPEO IG REPORT IS CLASSIFIED?!] and provided to the Justice Department what the paper described as “an Obama-era document related to President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn” and “a list of Obama administration officials who sought to learn the identities of Trump associates swept up in surveillance of foreign officials.” Later that day, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson sent a letter to Grenell and Barr asking for the document. Grenell provided it to the senators on Wednesday, and it was immediately leaked to CBS News’ Catherine Herridge, a former Fox reporter whose work often promotes Republican talking points. Herridge then published the letter on Twitter. (The document did not turn out to be precisely what the Times had reported. It had been generated on May 4, not during the “Obama era,” and dealt solely with cases involving Flynn, not “Trump associates” more generally.)&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In NSA reports derived from the legal surveillance [FISA FBI SCREWUP LATER FOUND?] of foreign targets, analysts anonymize (“mask”) the names of U.S. persons to protect their privacy. It is routine for senior officials to ask the NSA to reveal (“unmask”) those identities in cases where they believe that information is necessary to understand the intelligence. The NSA has a standard procedure for doing this, including a review of the justification of the person seeking the unmasking. For context, Trump administration officials sought and received the unmasking of U.S. persons from the NSA more than 10,000 times in 2019 and nearly 17,000 times in 2018.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The document is a list created at Grenell’s request of several dozen “officials who submitted requests” to the NSA between Trump’s election and the end of January 2017 to unmask an identity which turned out to be Flynn, as detailed in an attached memorandum to Grenell from NSA Director Paul Nakasone. It provides the names of the officials, which include then-Vice President Biden, Cabinet secretaries, and intelligence agency leaders, and the date on which their requests were processed. It is the second version of the document -- as Nakasone detailed, the list was originally provided in alphabetical order but revised to be chronological.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That’s it.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Contrary to the insinuations from the right-wing figures, the document provides no evidence that any single unmasking was related to Flynn’s calls with Kislyak. In fact, the record suggests none of them were the original unmasking that first discovered Flynn had made the call, as that one was done by the FBI from its own intercept, not the NSA’s. Nor does it show that Flynn was in some way targeted -- by definition, unmasking occurs when senior administration officials don’t know the name of an American referenced in an intelligence report.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed, there is no indication in the document that anyone listed behaved inappropriately -- in fact, it makes clear that the Obama-era unmaskings happened by the book. “Each individual was an authorized recipient of the original report and the unmasking was approved through NSA’s standard process, which includes a review of the justification for the request,” it states. It also points out that the NSA cannot confirm that any of the persons who requested the unmaskings eventually saw the information.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Grenell’s noninformation plot</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Grenell is totally unqualified for his post. While previous occupants of his position ran intelligence agencies, he at most was a consumer of their products during a brief stint as U.S. ambassador to Germany. What he brings to the table instead, along with unswerving loyalty to the president, is broad experience in public relations and shaping news cycles, which he honed as a spokesperson for Republican politicians and for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, a strategic communications consultant for domestic and foreign clients, a Fox contributor, and a notably unhinged Twitter troll.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Grenell personally requested, sought revisions to, declassified, and provided the document to Congress in precisely this form, showing precisely what he wanted to become public.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If he wanted the document to include more information -- by for example, including the actual documents for which Flynn’s name was unmasked, or summaries thereof -- it would. Without that, despite the right-wing chorus linking Grenell’s document to Flynn’s Kislyak calls, it doesn’t provide evidence that any single unmasking had anything to do with them. In fact the majority of the unmaskings predate the calls and thus could not be related. Indeed, it doesn’t even indicate that Flynn was a participant in the intercepts used in the intelligence reports in which his name was unmasked, as the New York Times’ Charlie Savage points out:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If Grenell had wanted the document to include less information -- by, for example, limiting the date range to after Flynn’s December 29 calls with Kislyak, which would reduce the list from 39 names to only eight -- it would.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What he produced is a very long list of names that maximized its impact, with no information whatsoever that any of them were involved in something the least bit inappropriate. That is, presumably, exactly what he wanted to do.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Perhaps Grenell has no evidence of wrongdoing, and few or none of the unmaskings reference the Kislyak calls (which is not implausible, as the FBI derived and distributed its own intercepts of the call with no masking as part of their already in-progress counterintelligence probe of Flynn). In that case, he’s declassified and released this information for a political purpose.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Perhaps he does have that evidence, but isn’t releasing it for now so he can continue to dribble documents out and generate more news stories as the presidential election approaches. In that case, he’s withholding that information for a political purpose.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox’s propagandists understand that their role in this noninformation campaign is to fill in the gaps left by the document with feverish, often fact-free speculation. Fox’sTucker Carlson described Flynn’s unmasking as a “domestic spying operation” that was “hidden under the pretext of national security,” and that the Obama administration officials involved are “amoral creeps” who committed “felonies” and should be “punished.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">His prime-time colleague Hannity opened his Monday show by asking, “What did Barack Hussein Obama know and when did he know it? Tonight, we willunravel the biggest abuse of power scandal in American history.” He also attacked Biden for “lying” about the story and claimed on Wednesday that if the officials involved in Flynn’s unmasking don’t face “justice,” “the great American republic will disintegrate before your eyes.” Despite how little information the Grenell document provides, they are convinced that it vindicates their conspiracy theories.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meanwhile, Fox personalities are attacking the mainstream press for not obsessing over the story, with Hannity arguing that this proves they are “Democratic shills.” On Friday, Trump himself picked up that angle, praising the Fox morning show for “covering, supremely, the greatest political scandal in the history of the United States, OBAMAGATE,” while pillorying CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times as “Fake News” for failing to do so.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It’s no coincidence that Trump and Fox are trying to bully the mainstream press into giving the story more attention. They are counting on journalists to repeat the failures of the 2016 election and flood the zone with context-free scandal coverage that dirties up the president’s opponent. That’s the play Trump is calling, and the leaders of the Justice Department and intelligence community are eagerly supporting the effort, and will likely continue dropping noninformation and disinformation until Election Day.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">HANNITY (HOST): If Joe Biden wins, if he has the strength and stamina and mental alertness to do the job, if he implements the extreme agenda that he's now embracing, let me be clear. America as you know it, we know it, will be destroyed. Our entire way of life will be flushed down the drain.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">most extreme socialist agenda i've ever seen</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">7/19/20</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/fox-news-peddled-misinformation-about-the-coronavirus-253-times-in-five-days-study/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A new study finds that Fox News peddled misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic 253 times in only five days. The documented instances included claims which undermined science and faith in experts, as well as demands that schools and businesses reopen at the risk of public health.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Primetime host Laura Ingraham, who has no medical or scientific background whatsoever, led the pack with about a quarter of the claims — 63 total, or just more than 12 per show. Additionally, the network’s “straight news” programs contributed about 35% of the misinformation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The study, published Thursday by media watchdog Media Matters for America, was conducted from July 6 to 10 — the week after a Yahoo News report proclaimed that Fox’s coronavirus coverage had taken a “remarkable turn” for the better:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However haltingly and incompletely, the president’s favorite news outlet has started to acknowledge, across various programs and its news site, that the coronavirus is a far graver threat than even [President Donald] Trump himself will acknowledge.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That report cited two articles on the network’s website and two instances of Fox News personalities Sean Hannity and Steve Doocy making remarks about masks that, while stopping short of endorsements, did not mock them outright.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The article also pointed out that Fox News requires its employees to wear masks at work most of the time. Additionally, the network appears to have canceled a Fox Nation show about the pandemic hosted by coronavirus conspiracy theorist Alex Berenson, though extant episodes remain available.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">new study finds that Fox News peddled misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic 253 times in only five days. The documented instances included claims which undermined science and faith in experts, as well as demands that schools and businesses reopen at the risk of public health.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Primetime host Laura Ingraham, who has no medical or scientific background whatsoever, led the pack with about a quarter of the claims — 63 total, or just more than 12 per show. Additionally, the network’s “straight news” programs contributed about 35% of the misinformation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The data in the Media Matters study flatly contradicts the isolated examples from the Yahoo report. Here is a quick breakdown:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">About half the incidents — 115 claims — challenged scientific consensus and undermined official government recommendations, such as social distancing and masking guidelines.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The Ingraham Angle” was the clear leader of the pack, pushing misinformation 63 times, more than half of which came from Ingraham herself, who undermined science a staggering 21 times in five days.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Fox & Friends” took second place with 45 instances; “Hannity” and “Tucker Carlson Tonight” finished in a dead heat for third, clocking 21 and 20 instances, respectively.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Straight news programs delivered more than a third of the misinformation, led by Martha MacCallum’s “The Story” with 20 claims.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Eight claims defended or endorsed unproven remedies such as hydroxychloroquine, days after the FDA told people not to take it outside of hospitals or clinical trials.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The network politicized the pandemic 63 times, including 51 claims that regulations requiring masks and closing businesses were rooted in politics and 10 false claims linking recent racial justice protests to a surge in new infections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hosts advocated 34 times to disregard public health concerns in favor of reopening the country’s more than 100,000 K-12 schools.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The misinformation and the seeming coordination with official White House talking points has raised alarm among experts.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For instance, in a “Hannity” interview July 10, the last day covered in the study, Trump responded to a question about the nation’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, by saying “he’s made a lot of mistakes.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That interview fed an ongoing White House effort to discredit Fauci, who pushed back by calling such efforts “bizarre.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Ultimately, it hurts the president,” he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Then there is the matter of schools. The network and the administration, including Trump and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, for weeks trumpeted an American Academy of Pediatrics statement advising a measured reopening of schools.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The misinformation’s momentum eventually compelled the academy — together with with the two largest educators’ unions in the country and the School Superintendents Association — to clarify its statement. It now says that reopening “will clearly require substantial new investments in our schools and campuses,” and calls on Congress and the administration “to provide the federal resources needed” to safely educate and care for students.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an earlier Media Matters audit of the cable network, Fox News posted a 20% decline in its coronavirus coverage between March and May.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But this unrelenting misinformation campaign comes amid a massive surge in COVID-19 infections, which has ravaged healthcare resources in Sun Belt states such as Arizona, California, Florida and Texas. In recent weeks, the U.S. has set seven records for daily new cases, topping 68,000 on July 10, the same day which Trump, who said on numerous occasions that the virus would “miraculously” disappear in April, told Hannity that Fauci had “made a lot of mistakes.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now, many states are walking back reopening measures. California closed restaurants, movie theaters and bars. Arizona also shuttered movie theaters and bars, plus gyms and water parks.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On July 13, Fox Business host Lou Dobbs wondered “what in hell is going on” as closures increased. Dr. Marc Siegel, a Fox medical expert, criticized the policies as “not consistent,” “punitive” and “draconian.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, there are some fractures within the network. A study from April showed that viewers of Hannity were more likely to die of COVID-19 than Carlson’s viewers. Now, the two seem neck-and-neck in misinformation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Carlson, who in June broke Hannity’s all-time ratings record, recently claimed there was “no evidence” that masks help constrain the pandemic, in contradiction of guidance from the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity, meanwhile, took the opposite view.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I went to my grocery store every week. Guess what?” the host recently asked. “They wore masks. Nobody at my grocery store, thank God, got coronavirus.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I think they work,” he added.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/trumprussia/richard-grenells-flynn-unmasking-noninformation-campaign</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media froth over “Obamagate” and bully press to play along</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WRITTEN BY MATT GERTZ</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PUBLISHED 05/15/20 2:15 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, a former Fox News contributor and Republican Party stalwart who was appointed to lead the U.S. intelligence community because of his loyalty to President Donald Trump, provided a document of his own devising to Congress on Wednesday. It promptly leaked to the press. Republicans, including Trump himself, immediately seized on the content in the document as evidence of vast Obama administration malfeasance. Fox hosts spent the next two days incessantly declaring that it vindicated their conspiracy theories, turning their attention away from the coronavirus pandemic. And more credible media outlets, buffeted by the partisan claims, responded with a flurry of stories, at times failing to properly contextualize the story.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trumpists have declared Grenell’s document a smoking gun showing that disgraced former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty for lying to the FBI about his calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, was a victim of an Obama administration conspiracy, and Fox is hyping that narrative with wall-to-wall coverage. In reality, the document provides almost no information whatsoever. It is simply a list of senior Obama administration officials who received Flynn’s name after they followed the National Security Agency’s standard process and asked the agency to unmask the identity of an individual generically referenced in an NSA report they were authorized to read. It does nothing to establish that any of the individuals named acted improperly in any way -- or even how many unmaskings were related to the Kislyak calls.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We’ve seen misinformation campaigns, where false or deceptive information is distributed, and disinformation campaigns, when that distribution is done with the full knowledge of its inaccuracy. Grenell is engaged in a noninformation campaign. He deliberately crafted and propagated a data point so vague that it is virtually meaningless on its own. But pro-Trump partisans -- particularly at Fox -- have easily picked up, misread (deliberately or not), and promoted the point, aligining it with their wild assumptions. Those furious misinterpretations have in turn spurred attention from the mainstream press, driving the conspiratorial thinking into the broader public.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is an intentional plan that corresponds with what the president wants from his director of national intelligence. “Trump hopes enough information will be released by his intelligence appointees to muddy the waters and lend a patina of confusion about what Mr. Obama may have done, according to people familiar with his thinking,” The New York Times reported Thursday. As the president struggles in reelection polling, Trump and his Fox propagandists are using the Flynn story to try to damage the credibility of former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Trump’s 2020 opponent.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Grenell’s noninformation campaign is the latest salvo in a years-long campaign by Trump and his Fox propagandists to turn the Russia investigation inside out, presenting the Trump associates who pleaded or were found guilty under its auspices as victims and those involved in carrying out the probe as criminals.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With vast swathes of the federal bureaucracy in the hands of partisans selected for their loyalty to the president, including the DNI and Justice Department, we should expect more of these releases -- and perhaps more dangerous actions -- in the coming months, as Trump’s supporters try to push the political debate away from the ongoing pandemic that has killed more than 80,000 Americans so far in order to secure his reelection.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trumpist defense of Michael Flynn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Michael Flynn is a retired general who served as Trump’s national security adviser during the 2016 presidential campaign, the transition, and the early days of his White House tenure. At various points during that timeline, Flynn was also assigned by Trump to find the Hillary Clinton emails he had publicly asked Russia to procure; was under investigation by the FBI, which was concerned with whether he was serving as a witting or unwitting agent of the Russian government; was illegally acting as an unregistered agent of the Turkish government, for which he was reportedly involved in discussions of a kidnapping plot; and was seeking Trump’s approval for a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia after working as a paid adviser for the group behind the proposal.&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On December 29, 2016, the day the Obama administration placed sanctions on Russia in response to its interference in the presidential election, Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and urged him that Russia not retaliate for those sanctions. Flynn was fired as Trump’s national security adviser after reports surfaced that he lied to Vice President Mike Pence about those conversations, which opened Flynn up to blackmail from the Russian government. He would later repeatedly plead guilty as part of Mueller’s probe to lying to the FBI about those calls before renouncing that plea last year.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The position on Flynn among Trumpists like Fox host Sean Hannity is that he is an American hero, that there was no good-faith reason to probe any of his actions during that period, and that anyone involved in such an effort was a participant in the broad-ranging Obama administration conspiracy to take down Trump, which the president terms “OBAMAGATE.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Their argument features Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak in two ways: They argue that the FBI’s interview with Flynn was a nefarious “setup” and suggest that the leak about the conversation from a “senior government official” to The Washington Post’s David Ignatius for his 2017 column, which brought the call into public light, was an illegal attempt to take down Flynn and Trump by someone who had improperly “unmasked” his identity from intelligence intercepts.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William Barr’s Justice Department showed last week that the Trump administration is putting the force of the federal government behind Fox’s conspiracy theories when it filed a dubious and virtually unprecedented motion seeking to drop the government’s case against Flynn, citing the FBI’s interview tactics. And on Wednesday, Grenell tried to use his own power as the director of national intelligence to provide grist in support of the other fork of the Flynn defense.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Unmasking” and what Grenell’s document shows</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that Grenell had declassified and provided to the Justice Department what the paper described as “an Obama-era document related to President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn” and “a list of Obama administration officials who sought to learn the identities of Trump associates swept up in surveillance of foreign officials.” Later that day, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson sent a letter to Grenell and Barr asking for the document. Grenell provided it to the senators on Wednesday, and it was immediately leaked to CBS News’ Catherine Herridge, a former Fox reporter whose work often promotes Republican talking points. Herridge then published the letter on Twitter. (The document did not turn out to be precisely what the Times had reported. It had been generated on May 4, not during the “Obama era,” and dealt solely with cases involving Flynn, not “Trump associates” more generally.)&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In NSA reports derived from the legal surveillance of foreign targets, analysts anonymize (“mask”) the names of U.S. persons to protect their privacy. It is routine for senior officials to ask the NSA to reveal (“unmask”) those identities in cases where they believe that information is necessary to understand the intelligence. The NSA has a standard procedure for doing this, including a review of the justification of the person seeking the unmasking. For context, Trump administration officials sought and received the unmasking of U.S. persons from the NSA more than 10,000 times in 2019 and nearly 17,000 times in 2018.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The document is a list created at Grenell’s request of several dozen “officials who submitted requests” to the NSA between Trump’s election and the end of January 2017 to unmask an identity which turned out to be Flynn, as detailed in an attached memorandum to Grenell from NSA Director Paul Nakasone. It provides the names of the officials, which include then-Vice President Biden, Cabinet secretaries, and intelligence agency leaders, and the date on which their requests were processed. It is the second version of the document -- as Nakasone detailed, the list was originally provided in alphabetical order but revised to be chronological.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That’s it.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Contrary to the insinuations from the right-wing figures, the document provides no evidence that any single unmasking was related to Flynn’s calls with Kislyak. In fact, the record suggests none of them were the original unmasking that first discovered Flynn had made the call, as that one was done by the FBI from its own intercept, not the NSA’s. Nor does it show that Flynn was in some way targeted -- by definition, unmasking occurs when senior administration officials don’t know the name of an American referenced in an intelligence report.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed, there is no indication in the document that anyone listed behaved inappropriately -- in fact, it makes clear that the Obama-era unmaskings happened by the book. “Each individual was an authorized recipient of the original report and the unmasking was approved through NSA’s standard process, which includes a review of the justification for the request,” it states. It also points out that the NSA cannot confirm that any of the persons who requested the unmaskings eventually saw the information.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Grenell’s noninformation plot</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Grenell is totally unqualified for his post. While previous occupants of his position ran intelligence agencies, he at most was a consumer of their products during a brief stint as U.S. ambassador to Germany. What he brings to the table instead, along with unswerving loyalty to the president, is broad experience in public relations and shaping news cycles, which he honed as a spokesperson for Republican politicians and for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, a strategic communications consultant for domestic and foreign clients, a Fox contributor, and a notably unhinged Twitter troll.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Grenell personally requested, sought revisions to, declassified, and provided the document to Congress in precisely this form, showing precisely what he wanted to become public.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If he wanted the document to include more information -- by for example, including the actual documents for which Flynn’s name was unmasked, or summaries thereof -- it would. Without that, despite the right-wing chorus linking Grenell’s document to Flynn’s Kislyak calls, it doesn’t provide evidence that any single unmasking had anything to do with them. In fact the majority of the unmaskings predate the calls and thus could not be related. Indeed, it doesn’t even indicate that Flynn was a participant in the intercepts used in the intelligence reports in which his name was unmasked, as the New York Times’ Charlie Savage points out:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If Grenell had wanted the document to include less information -- by, for example, limiting the date range to after Flynn’s December 29 calls with Kislyak, which would reduce the list from 39 names to only eight -- it would.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What he produced is a very long list of names that maximized its impact, with no information whatsoever that any of them were involved in something the least bit inappropriate. That is, presumably, exactly what he wanted to do.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Perhaps Grenell has no evidence of wrongdoing, and few or none of the unmaskings reference the Kislyak calls (which is not implausible, as the FBI derived and distributed its own intercepts of the call with no masking as part of their already in-progress counterintelligence probe of Flynn). In that case, he’s declassified and released this information for a political purpose.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Perhaps he does have that evidence, but isn’t releasing it for now so he can continue to dribble documents out and generate more news stories as the presidential election approaches. In that case, he’s withholding that information for a political purpose.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox’s propagandists understand that their role in this noninformation campaign is to fill in the gaps left by the document with feverish, often fact-free speculation. Fox’s Tucker Carlson described Flynn’s unmasking as a “domestic spying operation” that was “hidden under the pretext of national security,” and that the Obama administration officials involved are “amoral creeps” who committed “felonies” and should be “punished.” His prime-time colleague Hannity opened his Monday show by asking, “What did Barack Hussein Obama know and when did he know it? Tonight, we will unravel the biggest abuse of power scandal in American history.” He also attacked Biden for “lying” about the story and claimed on Wednesday that if the officials involved in Flynn’s unmasking don’t face “justice,” “the great American republic will disintegrate before your eyes.” Despite how little information the Grenell document provides, they are convinced that it vindicates their conspiracy theories.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meanwhile, Fox personalities are attacking the mainstream press for not obsessing over the story, with Hannity arguing that this proves they are “Democratic shills.” On Friday, Trump himself picked up that angle, praising the Fox morning show for “covering, supremely, the greatest political scandal in the history of the United States, OBAMAGATE,” while pillorying CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times as “Fake News” for failing to do so.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It’s no coincidence that Trump and Fox are trying to bully the mainstream press into giving the story more attention. They are counting on journalists to repeat the failures of the 2016 election and flood the zone with context-free scandal coverage that dirties up the president’s opponent. That’s the play Trump is calling, and the leaders of the Justice Department and intelligence community are eagerly supporting the effort, and will likely continue dropping noninformation and disinformation until Election Day.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2020/04/study-finds-people-who-watched-sean-hannity-were-more-likely-to-die-from-covid-19/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx many</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Study finds people who watched Sean Hannity were more likely to die from COVID-19</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by Igor Derysh / Salon April 22, 2020</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A new study from the University of Chicago’s Becker Friedman Institute for Economics found that “greater viewership of ‘Hannity’ relative to ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ was strongly associated with a greater number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the early stages of the pandemic.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News host Sean Hannity has been heavily criticized for echoing President Donald Trump’s initial attempts to downplay the threat posed by the new coronavirus. Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson, his colleague at the right-leaning network who has framed the issue in more nationalistic terms, has been credited with convincing the president to take the pandemic seriously.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Carlson warned viewers about the threat posed by the coronavirus from early February, while Hannity originally dismissed the risks associated with the virus before gradually adjusting his position starting late February,” the researchers wrote in the working paper.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The two hosts diverged greatly on the issue in February. While Hannity expressed optimism that “zero people in the United States have died from the coronavirus,” Carlson warned viewers that the virus could kill 1 million people across the country.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The researchers commissioned a poll of more than 1,000 Fox News viewers, which found that Carlson’s viewers were more likely to change their behavior earlier than Hannity’s viewers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We find that Hannity’s viewers on average changed their behavior in response to the coronavirus five days later than other Fox News viewers, while Carlson’s viewers changed behavior three days earlier than other Fox News viewers,” the paper said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The researchers then compared the death rate in counties that favored either host, finding “approximately 30% more COVID-19 cases” in areas that preferred Hannity than those that watched Carlson.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Already by mid-March, we see a statistically significant difference — that there are greater case loads in places that favor Hannity over Tucker,” researcher David Yanagizawa-Drott told The Chicago Tribune. “Then weeks later, we see a similar trajectory increase for deaths.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After Hannity’s “shift in tone,” however, “the diverging trajectories . . . began to revert,” the study said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The researchers argued that their findings were consistent with “misinformation being an important mechanism driving the effects in the data.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Polls have similarly found that Fox News viewers as a whole are far more likely to believe the threat of the virus is exaggerated. Another poll showed that Republicans, in general, were less likely to change their behavior in response to the threat than Democrats.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The attempts by certain Fox News opinion hosts to downplay the virus early in the outbreak came in stark contrast to steps the network’s executives and owners took to protect themselves against the virus.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The selective cherry-picked clips of Sean Hannity’s coverage used in this study are not only reckless and irresponsible, but down right factually wrong,” a spokesperson for Fox News said in a statement. “As this timeline proves, Hannity has covered Covid-19 since the early days of the story. The ‘study’ almost completely ignores his coverage and repeated, specific warnings and concerns from January 27-February 26 including an early interview with Dr. Fauci in January. This is a reckless disregard for the truth.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity likewise defended his coverage of the virus in an interview with Newsweek earlier this month, arguing that his January interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert in the country, showed that his viewers were getting accurate information.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Go to my web site, and you’ll see irrefutable evidence that I have taken this seriously way before most in the media did. I warned in January that it was dangerous because it was highly contagious, but some people were asymptomatic, so it would spread quickly,” he said, though he also argued months later that the flu was “much more dangerous” than the new coronavirus and compared the associated death rate to the murder rate in Chicago.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity’s comments came in response to a letter from 74 journalism professors to Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and CEO Lachlan Murdoch calling on the network to stop spreading “misinformation” about the virus.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The misinformation that reaches the Fox News audience is a danger to public health. Indeed, it is not an overstatement to say that your misreporting endangers your own viewers — and not only them, for in a pandemic, individual behavior affects significant numbers of other people as well,” the letter said. “. . . Inexcusably, Fox News has violated elementary canons of journalism. In so doing, it has contributed to the spread of a grave pandemic. Urgently, therefore, in the name of both good journalism and public health, we call upon you to help protect the lives of all Americans — including your elderly viewers — by ensuring that the information you deliver is based on scientific facts.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2020/04/fox-news-fights-coronavirus-misinformation-lawsuit-first-amendment-protects-false-speec</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News fights coronavirus misinformation lawsuit: First Amendment protects ‘false’ speech</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by Igor Derysh / Salon April 16, 2020</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News has moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Washington state group accusing the network of “deceptive” coronavirus coverage by arguing that the First Amendment protects “false” and “outrageous” speech.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The network’s lawyers said in a motion seeking to dismiss the lawsuit that the “First Amendment does not permit censoring this type of speech based on the theory that it is ‘false’ or ‘outrageous.’ Nor does the law of the State of Washington.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics (WASHLITE) filed a lawsuit in King County earlier this month seeking a court order barring the network from “interfering with reasonable and necessary measures to contain the virus by publishing further false and deceptive content.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The suit accused the network of violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act by “falsely and deceptively disseminating ‘news’ via cable news contracts that the coronavirus was a ‘hoax’ and that it was otherwise not a danger to public health and safety.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The suit specifically cited Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Fox Business host Trish Regan for having “acted in bad faith to willfully and maliciously disseminate false information denying and minimizing the danger posed by the spread of the novel coronavirus.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity downplayed the threat of the coronavirus and argued it was less dangerous than the flu. Regan was fired shortly after accusing Democrats of pushing a “coronavirus impeachment scam.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Though there are numerous examples of Fox opinion hosts downplaying the threat posed by the virus, many legal experts have dismissed the idea that the network could be sued for its coverage of the pandemic. One of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit has since withdrawn from the case.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It’s Constitutional Law 101: the First Amendment protects our right to speak openly and freely on matters of public concern,” Fox News Media general counsel Lily Fu Claffee said in a statement. “If WASHLITE doesn’t like what we said, it can criticize us, but it can’t silence us with a lawsuit.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The network’s 76-page filing, which includes dozens of pages of show transcripts and examples of other media outlets purportedly downplaying the risk of the virus early this year, argues that the hosts “never described the Coronavirus as a ‘hoax’ or a ‘conspiracy,’ but instead used those terms to comment on efforts to exploit the pandemic for political points.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The network’s lawyers argued that Hannity and Regan simply took part in an “intense public debate” over “how serious of a threat” the virus posed, noting that Hannity, in March, urged the elderly and people with compromised immune systems to take “extra, extra, extra caution.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The motion also noted that when Regan wrongly argued that the “flu … can be even more deadly” than the coronavirus, she emphasized that she was “not saying that people should not take [the coronavirus] seriously.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Under the First Amendment and state law, the truth or falsity of this type of speech must be resolved through free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas — not through burdensome litigation seeking to impose legal penalties on political statements that a jury might deem ‘false’ or ‘outrageous,'” the motion said. “In addition, the Complaint also fails because the statements are constitutionally protected opinions. Again, even accepting the Complaint’s characterization of the speech at issue, the Fox commentators were expressing their view on the scientific question of how dangerous the Coronavirus is and how society should respond to it — including what type of governmental action should be taken.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The motion went on to cite CNN and New York Times coverage that compared the coronavirus to the flu, arguing that “If this type of allegedly ‘false’ speech can be censored, then free and open debate on matters of public concern is a dead letter.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The network added that WASHLITE’s bid to get an injunction preventing Fox News from expressing similar opinions in the future is an example of unlawful “extraordinary prior restraint.” The Washington CPA also “does not regulate political commentary … nor is such commentary the type of ‘extreme and outrageous conduct’ covered by the tort of ‘outrage,'” the motion said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Legal experts largely agreed with the network’s position that the lawsuit was unlikely to succeed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Catherine Clark, an attorney for WASHLITE, vowed to respond to the motion and told Variety that the suit “was not about prohibiting free speech, but making sure that news organizations convey accurate information.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Legal culpability aside, media analysts have widely criticized Fox News for putting their viewers at risk by downplaying the threat posed by the virus, which has now killed 26,000 people in the United States.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Fox failed its viewers and the broader public in ways both revealing and potentially lethal,” wrote New York Times columnist Ben Smith.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A letter signed by more than 70 journalism professors around the country criticized Fox News for spreading “misinformation” about the virus.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Viewers of Fox News, including the president of the United States, have been regularly subjected to misinformation relayed by the network — false statements downplaying the prevalence of COVID-19 and its harms; misleading recommendations of activities that people should undertake to protect themselves and others, including casual recommendations of untested drugs; false assessments of the value of measures urged upon the public by their elected political leadership and public health authorities,” the letter said, pointing to a recent poll that found that 79% of Fox News viewers believed the media had overstated the danger posed by the virus.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The network’s competitors have seized on the criticism.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“There are surveys on this, showing a majority of people who get information from Fox still think the virus threat is overblown,” MSNBC host Ari Melber said last week:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">They’re more likely to downplay it even compared to other Republicans. If you don’t get your information from Fox News or online conspiracy theories, you’re less likely to think it’s overblown because it’s not overblown. For Fox viewers, it’s especially perilous. The median age there is 67. That mostly older audience, especially vulnerable if they contract this virus. And as we just showed you, they’ve been told to basically downplay it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read the full Fox News motion below:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News 2020-04-14 Motion … by Igor Derysh on Scribd</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/these-pharmaceutical-companies-are-funding-spread-covid-misinformation-fox</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;04/10/20 4:07 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Many pharmaceutical companies that are conducting ongoing research into COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines are among the top sponsors of the Fox News Channel, a cesspool of medical misinformation, racist fearmongering, and reckless speculation that put vulnerable populations in harm’s way. These companies, many of which are spending millions to research therapies and donate specialized resources that might alleviate the toll of the virus, are undermining their own work by advertising on Fox News, whose coverage of the pandemic has been described as a “genuine public health threat.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here’s a list of these pharmaceutical companies. You can let them know they must stop sponsoring the spread of deadly misinformation during a global pandemic.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GlaxoSmithKline is a U.K.-based global pharmaceutical and vaccine manufacturer and a leading Fox News advertiser. It has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into researching COVID-19 therapeutics and has partnered with the British government and AstraZeneca to set up a testing facility at the University of Cambridge.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The company has run over 3,000 ads on Fox News since January 2019 and recently advertised on shows that have misinformed viewers about COVID-19, including Fox & Friends and The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pfizer Inc.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pfizer is an American biopharmaceutical company and a top Fox News advertiser. The company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to scale up its manufacturing capacity to fight COVID-19 and is running multiple studies into potential therapeutics.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pfizer has run over 2,600 ads on Fox News since January 2019.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Novartis</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Novartis is a Swiss pharmaceutical manufacturer and a Fox News advertiser. The company makes hydroxychloroquine and has promised to donate its entire inventory “not already allocated to existing orders and customers” to combat COVID-19. It also recently established the COVID-19 Response Fund, pledging “$20 million in grants to support public health initiatives.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The company has run nearly 1,900 ads on Fox News since January 2019. In 2020, it has advertised on shows hosted by COVID misinformers such as Maria Bartiromo and Laura Ingraham.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sanofi</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sanofi is a multinational pharmaceutical company, a manufacturer of hydroxychloroquine, and a top advertiser on COVID misinformer Sean Hannity’s prime-time show.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In collaboration with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi is currently testing a prescription medication designed to treat rheumatoid arthritis among COVID patients in New York with the hope that the drug can alleviate fevers and aid patients with oxygen intake.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since January 2019, Sanofi-owned brands have advertised on Fox News over 1,700 times. Besides being a top advertiser on Hannity, Sanofi has paid for programming on shows that have advocated for the premature end to social distancing guidelines, including The Ingraham Angle and Fox & Friends. Previously, Sanofi dropped Bill O’Reilly’s now-defunct prime-time show when he was accused of sexual harassment by multiple women. It remains to be seen if the company will do the same when even more is at stake.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Vanda Pharmaceuticals</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Vanda Pharmaceuticals is a therapeutics manufacturer based in Washington, D.C. It is currently running a clinical study of potential COVID treatments. The company has run 269 advertisements on Fox News since January 2019, including following Sean Hannity’s interview with President Donald Trump in which Trump touted “potential cures” for coronavirus that might benefit Prime Minister Boris Johnson.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bayer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bayer is a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer that also manufactures chloroquine phosphate, and it is a top advertiser on Hannity and Fox News overall. The company has made multiple pledges to donate resources to fight COVID-19 in the U.S. and Spain. It is also paying for the spread of medical misinformation by advertising on Fox News: the company has run over 3,900 ads since January 2019, including 493 since the beginning of 2020. Brands owned by Bayer that run advertisements on the network include Bayer Aspirin, Aleve, Claritin, Dr. Scholl’s and Alka-Seltzer, among many others.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gilead Sciences</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gilead Sciences is a California-based pharmaceutical research and development company that has a forthcoming study of its drug Remdesivir and whether it has therapeutic properties to treat COVID-19. It has run 269 advertisements on Fox since January 2019. This year, the company advertised on shows hosted by coronavirus misinformers, including Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">AstraZeneca</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">AstraZeneca is a multinational biopharmaceutical company that frequently advertises on Fox News. The company is currently researching potential treatments for coronavirus using antibody therapeutics. It has also publicly committed to donating 9 million face masks to health care workers across the world. The company is also a major sponsor of programs spreading COVID-19 misinformation; since January 2019 it has run over 700 advertisements on Fox News, including on Fox & Friends, and The Five.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Takeda</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Takeda is a global pharmaceutical company and a Fox News advertiser that recently announced it is partnering with plasma companies to develop an antibody therapeutic to treat complications associated with COVID-19. It has advertised on Fox 563 times since January 2019 and recently ran ads on The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton, a show that has promoted an approach to COVID-19 that runs afoul of guidance from public health experts.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/sean-hannity-lavishes-praise-sen-ron-johnson-opening-investigation-joe-biden</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">wapo</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://click.e.mediamatters.org/?qs=91a4cb4122de0af505cbbe73314de12ff4a01553c54fdcfce3c50363f29e427e43db487e53f170404e838b0408cc8f35c70243c7a77a7ddd</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/07/its-own-document-fox-news-rips-fox-news-host-sean-hannity/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref $</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Opinions</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In its own document, Fox News rips Fox News host Sean Hannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity on the set of his show on Aug. 7, 2019. (Frank Franklin II/AP)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Erik Wemple&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Media critic</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Feb. 7, 2020 at 12:06 p.m. PST</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Each night, Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity engage in some shallow blather during the “handoff” between their ratings-killing programs. In Thursday night’s version, Hannity told Carlson, “You know the deep-state story is even getting bigger. There’s a whole new one developing. I’ll tell you about it privately.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cute, Hannity....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Democracy Dies in Darkness</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Opinions</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In its own document, Fox News rips Fox News host Sean Hannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity on the set of his show on Aug. 7, 2019. (Frank Franklin II/AP)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Erik Wemple&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Media critic</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">February 7, 2020 at 3:06 PM EST</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Each night, Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity engage in some shallow blather during the “handoff” between their ratings-killing programs. In Thursday night’s version, Hannity told Carlson, “You know the deep-state story is even getting bigger. There’s a whole new one developing. I’ll tell you about it privately.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cute, Hannity.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Just what could this “new” deep-state story be? A clue emerged from a strange sequence of events on Twitter. Marcus DiPaola, who formerly worked at Fox News, posted some tweets about his experience with the network, as well as the front page of an interesting internal document:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp; Here's the front page of the internal Fox News Trump-Ukraine timeline. I'll start tweeting some of the highlights shortly. pic.twitter.com/HWGX5sZUh8</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp; — Marcus J. DiPaola (@marcusdipaola) February 6, 2020</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That’s the title page of a dossier from the so-called Brain Room of Fox News, a long-standing research hive at the network. The full Ukrainian report, obtained by the Erik Wemple Blog, is a document of great candor and thoroughness, 162 pages of events and statements and indictments and hearings that detail every last wrinkle in the Trump-Ukraine story. Its timeline starts in February 2014 — when former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kyiv for Russia — and concludes in December 2019 — when Trump declared that his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, would write up a report about the findings of his Ukrainian investigation. “I hear he has found plenty,” said the president.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Brain Room report bears the name of Bryan Murphy, a senior political affairs specialist at Fox News. It also bears this withering assessment of John Solomon, former opinion contributor for the Hill who is responsible for setting in motion faulty story lines regarding Ukraine: “John Solomon played an indispensable role in the collection and domestic publication of elements of this disinformation campaign.” Another part of the document provides this assessment of Solomon: “Focus on stories from disinformation campaign, non-disclosure of conflicts, use of unreliable sources, publishing false and misleading stories, misrepresentation of sources, and opaque coordination with involved parties.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That says it all. Even as it levels that critique, the Brain Room document discloses that Solomon is a “Fox News contributor.” Indeed, though Solomon appeared as a guest frequently on “Hannity” throughout the Ukraine story, he left the Hill in fall 2019 and was hired as a contributor at Fox News in October.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not only does the research paper pummel Solomon, it cites a statistic that Solomon, over six months in 2019, “published 45 columns aimed at discrediting the Russia investigation, 12 of which focused primarily on Ukraine." Where did that statistic come from?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Media Matters for America! Yes, Media Matters for America, the organization essentially built to take down Fox News. Media Matters for America, the organization routinely slammed on Fox News’s air. Media Matters for America, the organization that essentially forced Glenn Beck from Fox News.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It’s a stunning juxtaposition — one that speaks to the integrity of the Brain Room report. Other faces of the Ukraine issue that surface in the report include Giuliani, the ringleader of Trump’s effort to secure an announcement by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of an investigation into the Bidens, who is described as having: “High susceptibility to disinformation” from key Ukrainian actors, according to the document. Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, a Trump-supporting husband-and-wife legal team, receive this evaluation: “Non-disclosure of financial motives and representation of [Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro] Firtash while spreading false and misleading stories.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Note: Giuliani, diGenova and Toensing appeared on “Hannity” with regularity to take the president’s side on Ukraine. All that explains, perhaps, why Hannity is making noises about a “new” deep state.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Though Fox News isn’t exactly forthcoming about its internal operations, the Brain Room isn’t a state secret. Occasionally network hosts will reference its work, as did Jesse Watters last fall, when he saw a Washington Post headline that he didn’t believe was real: “When I saw the headline afterwards, I forwarded it to our Brain Room because I thought it was an Onion” story, said Watters. There’s a great reverence among employees for the work of the room, as reflected in this comment from former host Kimberly Guilfoyle in June 2017: “Here are some doughnut facts from our Brain Room, so [they] must be true.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A 2011 story in Rolling Stone quoted a network insider as alleging that the Brain Room was where "the evil resides.” And a former network executive told Gabriel Sherman — for his biography of late Fox News chief Roger Ailes — that the room had a “Nixonian” air. That said, Sherman wrote that the “mystique” of the Brain Room faded over time as staffers realized that it was a professional operation designed to fact-check the news. It’s the Brain Room, for example, that feeds all those contextual facts that viewers see on their screens during congressional hearings and other political events.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s no absence of context in the Brain Room’s Ukraine magnum opus. It has everything, including key revelations and charges against Hannity. Here’s the timeline’s entry for March 26, 2019:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp; Melinda Haring, the editor of the UkraineAlert blog at the Atlantic Council and a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, writes in the Washington Post: “The mechanics of the information operation that Poroshenko’s minions pulled off are obvious. Lutsenko used Solomon to get to Hannity to get to Trump, whose Twitter feed set thousands chattering about nonexistent collusion… If a bunch of obscure foreigners few Americans have ever heard of can play Trump so easily, and so obviously, what’s to stop others from doing the same?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp; (387) David Holmes, Political Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, later said, “The barrage of allegations directed at Ambassador Yovanovitch, a career ambassador, is unlike any anything I have seen in my professional career.” (388)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here’s another, absolutely devastating entry:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp; September 26, 2019: John Solomon, Toensing, and diGenova all appear on Hannity again to discuss Shokin’s affidavit, filed at the request of Firtash’s attorneys. At no time during the program does Hannity, Toensing, and diGenova mention who requested the statement nor do they discuss that they are Firtash’s attorneys. Solomon also doesn’t mention that he shares attorneys with Firtash. diGenova says “we’ve known from the very beginning that Mr. Shokin was not a corrupt prosecutor.” (856) Later that night, President Trump tweets a clip of diGenova from Hannity. (857)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More: In an entry for Oct. 9, 2019, the Brain Room document notes that Andriy Derkach, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, had made a specific allegation regarding corruption by former vice president Joe Biden. The Kyiv Post, notes the Brain Room report, called the charge “dubious.” “Hours later, Giuliani appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News and parroted Derkach’s claim. (897).”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an entry that footnotes reporting from the Erik Wemple Blog, the document even tosses shade on how Hannity introduces Solomon on his program:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp; May 14, 2018: The Hill’s editor-in-chief sent out a memo to staff stating that “effective immediately” John Solomon would no longer publish stories under the banner of news but instead would be an “opinion contributor.” (218) Solomon said that the choice to have his writing classified as opinion was his. During his TV appearances, Hannity has often continued to announce Solomon as an “investigative reporter” at The Hill.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What we have here is a journalistic blowout. It is a trouncing of Hannity and his treasured contributor, Solomon — written not by some mainstream media outlet or Media Matters for America, but by Fox News itself. Turns out the network is keeping its best reporting to itself.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a statement to the Erik Wemple Blog, Mitchell Kweit, senior vice president of the Brain Room, said: “The research division of FOX News produces a briefing book for all major stories, which serves as a standing collection of extensive data on major topics for internal use by all those in editorial functions. The Ukraine briefing book is nothing more than a comprehensive chronological account of what every person involved in the Ukraine controversy was doing at any identifiable point in time, including tracking media appearances of major players who appeared on FOX News and in many other outlets. The 200 page document has thousands of data points and the vast majority have no relation to FOX News – instead it’s now being taken out of context and politicized to damage the network.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an interview with the Erik Wemple Blog, DiPaola commended Fox News for the separation between opinion shows and the so-called straight-news side, where he worked as a freelancer for a few months. “It did feel a lot like church and state,” he says. “They separate news from opinion pretty well.” As for the Brain Room timeline, DiPaola says, “I mean, it’s a Brain Room product, it’s meant to be unbiased. It’s evidence that Fox News Channel isn’t all bad. It’s evidence that there are honorable people working at Fox News all day.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And it’s evidence that those honorable people understand the threat “Hannity” poses to any news organization.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read more from Erik Wemple:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity and Fox News have normalized media corruption</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The comical hypocrisy of Sean Hannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Impeachment report hammers the Hill and John Solomon</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">John Solomon leaves behind lasting damage at the Hill</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Giuliani goes full conspiracy theory in insane ‘Fox & Friends’ appearance</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 220</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">, Donald Trump will give his first nationally televised interview with a broadcast network in seven months when he appears on Fox Broadcasting Co. before the Super Bowl. He won't face any tough questions about his abuse of power, obstruction of Congress, or anything else for that matter, because he will be interviewed by Fox News host Sean Hannity, a loyal sycophant with deep ties to his administration.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here's a brief rundown of Hannity's corruption in recent years:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2016: Amid a presidential campaign that saw Hannity actively using his show to boost Trump’s candidacy and promote unhinged conspiracy theories about his opponent, Hillary Clinton, Hannity endorsed Trump in a promotional video for his campaign, leading to a stern statement from Fox.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2017: Hannity triggered an advertiser exodus and internal dismay when he tried to defend Trump against reports linking his campaign to Russian interference in the 2016 election by championing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2018: Profiles in The Washington Post and New York magazine detailed the scope of Hannity’s White House influence and regular conversations with Trump. He was revealed as a secret client of Trump’s longtime lawyer Michael Cohen, a fact the Fox host had not disclosed in his commentary on Cohen’s case. And he appeared on stage and spoke at a Trump political rally on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2019: Hannity was a central figure in the Ukraine disinformation plot that triggered Trump’s impeachment by the House of Representatives.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2020: Documents uncovered by BuzzFeed News showed that Hannity had served as a backchannel between Trump and his associates under investigation during special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox’s message is clear: When the stakes are highest and the spotlight is brightest, the network produces right-wing propaganda, not journalism.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/sean-hannity-and-fox-news-are-up-to-their-hair-plugs-in-the-lev-parnas-affair/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 5/18</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conservatives often bemoan liberal dominance of Hollywood. But since Donald Trump’s election, Fox News’ Sean Hannity has built the closest thing the right wing has to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the wildly successful superhero franchise. Where Marvel’s superheroes fight alien invaders, the stars of the Sean Hannity Extended Universe (SHEU) position themselves as the last bulwark against special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. But while the superheroes of the Marvel Cinematic Universe fight villains like Thanos on their own, Hannity and his compatriots want to go a step further and enlist their audience to support a frightening and anti-democratic response by Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity has cast himself as his series’ Iron Man, the only visionary clear-sighted enough to identify an existential threat. The sprawling team assembled around him includes bankable leads, aging stars seeking new relevance, promising new faces, and ensemble players, all crossing over into each other’s storylines to build common narratives. Their overarching tale is that Mueller’s Russia probe is a “witch hunt,” the result of the fabrications of a shadowy cabal of journalists, Democrats, and “deep state” operatives. The happy ending they seek is the president saving himself by curtailing Mueller’s probe and instead ordering investigations into his political enemies.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For more about Hannity's conspiratorial narrative and the authoritarian endgame he's pushing, see our study reviewing his coverage of the first year of the Mueller probe.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President Trump is simultaneously the audience for this story, the victim who needs to be saved, and, in Hannity’s telling, the potential hero. The SHEU’s proposed solution to the Mueller investigation is in line with the authoritarian model for law enforcement Trump prefers, casting the Justice Department’s function as protecting the president and punishing his enemies. Unlike Marvel fans, Trump is able not merely to watch members of the SHEU on Fox broadcasts, but to break the fourth wall and go on their shows for fawning interviews, highlight particular segments for his Twitter followers, promote their programs and books, and even call on a select few for advice.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That might be a fanboy’s fantasy. But it has real and frightening consequences. The SHEU is reaching out from the Fox News screen and encouraging the president to act on his authoritarian impulses. Hannity and his teammates are preparing their viewers to support Trump no matter what norms he shatters. They have great power, and if Trump takes their advice, they will bear great responsibility.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[vid]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Anti-Mueller conspiracy theories have permeated nearly every corner of Fox. But only the true stalwarts merit inclusion in the Sean Hannity Extended Universe:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A weekly guest spot with the Fox & Friends crew helped turn Trump into a political phenomenon, and he’s remained a loyal viewer throughout his presidency. If you see Trump angrily tweeting about the Mueller probe early in the morning, Steve Doocy, Ainsley Earhardt, Brian Kilmeade, or one of their guests is almost certainly responsible.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lou Dobbs’ cable news career seemed over when his bigoted commentary finally forced CNN to push him out in 2009, but he soon found a new home at Fox Business. Even at Fox, he’s distinguished himself as a shameless pro-Trump sycophant whose calls to not just fire but jail Mueller and the FBI and Justice Department leaders who have defied Trump are genuinely unnerving.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A longtime friend of Trump’s whom he considered for a senior Justice Department position, Jeanine Pirro has a Saturday night program that’s a must-watch for both White House aides and observers hoping to predict Trump’s messaging. She drew attention for her disturbing call for a “cleansing” of the FBI and DOJ and the arrests of top officials she considers insufficiently loyal to the president.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gregg Jarrett spent much of his career as a marginal legal commentator and weekend Fox anchor. But he raised his profile by becoming the go-to analyst for hosts like Dobbs and Hannity, who value having someone with a law degree claim that Trump’s associates are innocent because collusion isn’t a crime and condemn their FBI pursuers for acting like “the old KGB.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jarrett’s a hack, but at least he’s Fox’s hack. Other attorneys regularly called upon to dismiss the investigation include Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow and the husband-and-wife team of Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, who were briefly considered for Trump’s legal team and have represented several figures under Mueller's investigation. All three are mainstays in the right-wing legal community -- and each has done legal work for Hannity.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Once colleagues at the right-wing website Circa News, John Solomon has moved on to The Hill while Sara Carter is a Fox contributor who publishes her reporting at her personal blog. Their slanted reporting based on conservative sources helps fuel anti-Mueller Fox hosts eager for information confirming their dire theories, and it garners the pair regular appearances throughout the SHEU -- and Hannity’s call to award them with Pulitzer Prizes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A former Secret Service agent, Dan Bongino parlayed three failed bids for federal office into a career as a mid-level right-wing pundit, a gig on the National Rifle Association's media operation NRATV, and regular appearances on Fox & Friends and Hannity. Keep an eye on this one -- someone willing to call the Russia probe “an obvious frame job” could go far in this morally bankrupt movement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sebastian Gorka, who joined Fox after being canned from his poorly defined White House job after only seven months, has argued that Clinton should be put to death for treason.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After spending years attacking the ethics of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton now uses his Fox appearances to urge Trump to pardon everyone implicated by the Mueller probe and describe the FBI as “a KGB-type operation.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/report-points-to-trump-1-as-the-ringleader-of-a-global-conspiracy/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"huge" rudy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Report points to Trump, ‘-1,’ as the ringleader of a global conspiracy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by John Stoehr, The Editorial Board December 4, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The House Intelligence Committee released its report Tuesday. In it were phone call records showing frequent contact between Rudy Giuliani and the White House. The records suggest in the most granular detail yet that the president of the United States is the leader of an international criminal conspiracy to defraud the American people.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the call records do more than that. They offer a teachable moment. They provide an illustration, in miniature, of what a conspiracy looks like, and why it’s morally and legally wrong for the head of the world’s oldest democracy to engage in such conduct.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The House Intelligence report does not say Giuliani called Trump. Instead, it says the president’s personal attorney called a number designated as “-1.” Adam Schiff, the panel’s chairman, said his committee is investigating whether “-1” is Trump’s phone. The timing of calls and other strong circumstantial evidence, however, point to him.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Joe Biden announced his candidacy on April 25. Leading up to that date, Giuliani, Lev Parnas and John Solomon were in frequent contact, according to the call logs. Parnas was one of Giuliani’s henchmen. He’s now under federal indictment for campaign-finance violations. Solomon was a reporter for The Hill, a Washington newspaper.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As mentioned in previous editions of the Editorial Board, Parnas, under Giuliani’s direction, connected Solomon to Yuriy Lutsenko. Lutsenko used to be Ukraine’s top prosecutor. He was hugely corrupt, because he was intimately linked to Vladimir Putin. In interviews with Solomon, Lutsenko alleged that Joe Biden, when he was the vice president, tried to shield his son, Hunter Biden, from criminal investigation in Ukraine (a lie) and that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered with the 2016 presidential election (also a lie.) Lev Parnas was deeply involved in Solomon’s “journalism.” He was present at his interviews with Yuriy Lutsenko, according to reporting in Pro Publica.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This we knew. What didn’t know was the timing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On the same day Joe Biden announced his presidential campaign, John Solomon wrote a falsehood-laden column “alleging that Ukraine had planted Russia collusion allegations against the Trump campaign,” according to the Post. “The column also described Biden’s efforts to oust a Ukrainian prosecutor and questioned whether Biden had acted to protect his son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company facing an investigation, as the fired prosecutor has alleged.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Coincidence? Unlikely.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The very same day, April 25, Giuliani received a call from “-1” (i.e., Trump). Giuliani then called Sean Hannity at Fox. A while later, Trump appeared on Hannity’s show to comment on Solomon’s report in The Hill. “That sounds like big, big stuff,” he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It could have been a coincidence, but again, unlikely. As I noted last week, Parnas’ attorney said he met regularly with the “BLT Team,” a name taken from the restaurant where the group convened several times a week on the second floor of the Trump International Hotel in Washington. The BLT team included Parnas, Giuliani, Solomon, attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, and US Rep. Devin Nunes’ chief aide.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Coincidence isn’t the right word to describe a president’s dirty lawyer getting a dirty prosecutor to tell a dirty reporter the president’s Democratic rival is dirty, and then getting a dirty TV host to ask the president to comment on the dirty reporter’s dirt.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The right word to describe all that is conspiracy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Which can be criminal. Paul Manafort, the president’s former campaign chief, is now serving time in federal prison for defrauding the United States. Legally, conspiracy doesn’t require an underlying crime. Prosecutors were only required to show Manafort conspired to “impair or obstruct the lawful function of any part of the government.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I don’t know if the president’s conduct meets a statutory standard. I do think it meets a political one. Trump, as “-1,” is the ringleader of a global conspiracy to defraud the American people of their right to consent to his leadership. There is no such thing as legitimate consent when presidents collude with enemies foreign and domestic to obstruct the free and fair process by which all Americans exercise self-governance.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is a giant of a scandal. It dwarfs Watergate. It boggles the mind of ordinary Americans to contemplate the wide array of seedy underworld characters involved in a vast global conspiracy. (Another side of this involves another dirty former Ukrainian prosecutor who did a favor for a Ukrainian mobster fighting extradition to the US. Dmitry Firtash, the mobster, got Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor, to say Biden was dirty. That won Giuliani’s attention. His friends diGenova and Toensing went to the US Department of Justice to plead with the US attorney general to go easy on Firtash.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As I said, giant.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But these call logs bring the vastness of the conspiracy down to a human scale. Donald Trump talked to Giuliani, who talked to Parnas, who talked to Lutsenko, who talked to Solomon, who talked to Giuliani, who talked to Hannity, who talked to Donald Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">new 1119</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/fox-news-commentator-sean-hannity-appears-to-be-knee-deep-in-trumps-ukraine-scandal-despite-his-profusive-denials</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">RUMPRELIGIOUS RIGHT#METOOGO AD FREE!MAKE A ONE-TIME DONATION</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News commentator Sean Hannity appears to be knee-deep in Trump’s Ukraine scandal — despite his profuse denials</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Image via Screengrab.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by Igor Derysh / Salon November 20, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News host Sean Hannity raved that he never spoke with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about ousted Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch after a third witness confirmed the alleged call to impeachment investigators.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">David Hale, the undersecretary of State for political affairs, testified under oath that Yovanovitch was the victim of a baseless smear campaign led by Rudy Giuliani, the personal attorney of President Donald Trump, which led to her ouster. According to a transcript of the closed-door deposition released Monday, the smears originally stemmed from the conservative columnist John Solomon, who wrote in The Hill that former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko had claimed that Yovanovitch gave him a “do not prosecute list.” Lutsenko later retracted that claim.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hale, the third-ranking official at the department, claimed to impeachment investigators that Hannity had pushed the same narrative on Fox News and that Pompeo had reached out to Trump’s favorite host.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It did come up at some point with the secretary,” Hale said. “I understood that he did call Sean Hannity.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hale testified that Pompeo told Hannity, “I need to see what the evidence is.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The State official added that no one at the department believed the allegations against Yovanovitch, though officials did not act to prevent her ouster.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hale’s testimony is backed up by both Yovanovitch and George Kent, another senior State Department official.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yovanovitch testified at her closed-door deposition that she was told Pompeo “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, tell me, and if not, stop.’”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I understand that that call was made,” she added. “I don’t know whether it was the secretary of somebody else in his inner circle, and for a time, you know, things kind of simmered down.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kent testified under oath that Solomon’s report was “primarily non-truths and non-sequiturs.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kent testified that a top official at the State Department reached out to Hannity but said it may not have been Pompeo.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I believe, to the best of my recollection, the counselor for the department, Ulrich Brechbuhl, reached out and suggested to Mr.Hannity that if there was no proof of the allegations, that he should stop covering them,” Kent said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity previously called Yovanovitch’s testimony “fake news” and claimed that he did not “know anything about this woman.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The host went off on his Fox News show Monday after Hale’s testimony was released.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Report Advertisement</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“So apparently David Hale’s testimony was released a short time ago, and he says in the transcript it was his understanding that Pompeo called me to ask you what evidence you had of allegations regarding Yovanovitch,” Hannity told guest Gregg Jarrett. “Gregg, how many times do I have to say it? We barely mentioned this woman! Four times in passing. No, I never got a call from Secretary of State Pompeo or anybody else. Why would they lie about this?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“You are being smeared,” replied Jarrett, the network’s legal analyst. “Donald Trump has been smeared for three years.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Acyn Torabi</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@Acyn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity addresses David Hale’s testimony by reiterating the same denial and asking “why would they lie about this”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gregg Jarrett says Hannity is being smeared&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The testimony Hannity is denying was given under oath while Hannity’s denials are not</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Embedded video</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even as he called Yovanovitch’s testimony “fake news” earlier this month, Hannity conceded that “her name came up a few times on the show” and that he “did ask one question about a news report if she was involved in something.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It was a question,” he said, “We do news here.” (While his show appears on Fox News, Hannity is a political commentator.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity referenced Solomon’s report, which has not been retracted despite his main source walking back his comments. Solomon was a frequent guest on Hannity’s show. The question Hannity mentioned was to attorney Joe diGenova, who Trump wanted to add to his legal team. DiGenova played his own role in Trump’s Ukraine saga and received an advance copy of Solomon’s reporting linking the State Department’s work in Ukraine to billionaire Democratic donor George Soros.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Shortly after Kent testified publicly, diGenova was back on Fox airwaves pushing the baseless Soros conspiracy theory.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“There’s no doubt that George Soros controls a very large part of the career foreign service of the United States State Department,” he told Fox host Lou Dobbs. “He also controls the activities of FBI agents overseas who work for NGOs — work with NGOs. That was very evident in Ukraine, and Kent was part of that. He was a very big protector of Soros.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Soros’ Open Society Foundations ripped the network for airing diGenova’s conspiracy theory in a letter to Fox News head Suzanne Scott.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It is bad enough that Mr. Dobbs continues to repeat the widely discredited reporting of John Solomon . . . that has been debunked by the U.S. State Department and recanted by Mr. Solomon’s main source,” the letter said, adding that diGenova’s comment was “beyond rhetorical ugliness, beyond fiction, beyond ludicrous. It’s patently untrue; it’s not even possible. This is McCarthyite.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">omg this could finish djt? 10/18/19</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/john-solomon/how-conservative-writer-john-solomon-served-conduit-rudy-giulianis-ukraine-conspiracy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the center of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump lies a disinformation campaign led by his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani that was aided and abetted by conservative writer John Solomon. Through Solomon, Giuliani injected his disinformation campaign straight into the heart of conservative media -- Fox News -- with seemingly full knowledge of at least some at Fox. And eventually, Solomon landed a job at the network.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is now known that Trump blessed Giuliani to run a shadow foreign policy campaign in Ukraine, in which he sought information that would undermine the intelligence community's findings that Russia interfered in our 2016 election to benefit Trump. Giuliani was also trying to dig up dirt to smear former Vice President Joe Biden, a front-runner to challenge Trump in the 2020 election.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Much attention has focused on Giuliani’s actions and the shady cast of characters he worked with, but less has been paid to the right-wing media figures who colluded with the president’s lawyer to make his smear campaign public -- a plan that came dangerously close to succeeding.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What follows is a case study in how right-wing media work hand in hand with Trump cronies to smear his enemies, undermine democracy, and defend the president at all costs.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here’s how it went down.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Key Takeaways</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rudy Giuliani, working with con men and Trump cronies, pursued an “investigation” in Ukraine that he claimed showed both Ukrainian collusion with Democrats in 2016 and evidence that then-Vice President Joe Biden acted corruptly in Ukraine to benefit his son.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In March, Giuliani sent the results of his investigation to the State Department to be investigated and to conservative columnist John Solomon.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The same month, Solomon began publishing a series of columns that mirrored the sourcing and claims Giuliani made in his State Department dossier.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over the next six months, Solomon published 45 columns aimed at discrediting the Russia investigation, 12 of which focused primarily on Ukraine.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During that same time period, Solomon appeared on Fox News or Fox Business at least 72 times.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fifty-one of those appearances were on Hannity, whose host dutifully promoted Solomon’s scoops and wove them into his ever-evolving conspiracy theory that deep state elements in the government have been plotting to overthrow Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On October 5, John Solomon landed a job at Fox.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Key players</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rudy Giuliani -- the president’s personal attorney who has traveled around the globe attempting to dig up dirt on Democrats and discredit the Russia investigation on Trump’s behalf.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman -- two Soviet-born con men with ties to Ukraine who worked with Giuliani to concoct the disinformation campaign and to get the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine fired, reportedly in the hopes of advancing their business interests in the country. The two have since been arrested for campaign finance violations related to making allegedly illegal campaign donations to Republican candidates and committees, as well as a pro-Trump super PAC. They also reportedly worked for Dmitry Firtash.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dmitry Firtash -- a Ukrainian pro-Russian oligarch and former business associate of Paul Manafort who is in Austria fighting extradition to the United States to face charges related to a bribery conspiracy. At the same time Parnas and Fruman were working with Giuliani, the two were reportedly also working on Firtash’s behalf to push for the removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine as part of a plan to install new leadership at Ukraine’s Naftogaz gas company. Part of this plan reportedly would have included Naftogaz paying “Firtash a debt of more than $200 million that Firtash believes he is owed by the company.” NBC reported that while this was happening, Firtash “was playing a key role in the effort by Parnas, Fruman, and Giuliani to hunt for dirt on Donald Trump's political opponents in Ukraine.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova -- two attorneys closely tied to Trump who also worked with Giuliani to support his efforts in Ukraine. The duo are known for their role in bolstering conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation and at one point were considered to join Trump’s personal legal team. The two quietly represent Dmitry Firtash in fighting his extradition to the United States. They hired Parnas as an “interpreter” to work with them on the Firtash case while Parnas was also working with Giuliani.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">John Solomon -- a conservative columnist who until recently was the executive vice president of The Hill. Solomon was the conduit through which Giuliani, Parnas, Toensing and diGenova planted their stories in order to spread their coordinated disinformation campaign through the media.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity -- Fox News host who is close to Trump and worked with Giuliani to make his show an integral part of their media strategy, providing a place where they could sow the seeds of the smear campaign against Biden. Giuliani and Hannity discussed this strategy in January, and Solomon became a staple on Hannity’s prime-time programming.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The plan</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to Parnas, his friendship with Giuliani began two years ago as they were running in similar political circles and attending the same events. In late 2018, Parnas and Fruman began connecting Giuliani to a network of disgraced former and current Ukrainian officials and prosecutors to dig up dirt on Biden and the 2016 election.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The conspiracy theory they concocted went like this: Ukrainian officials worked with Democrats to find dirt on Trump’s one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort in order to damage Trump. They did so, Giuliani claimed, by fabricating the “black ledger” that showed that Manafort had received millions of dollars from the former pro-Russia Ukrainian ruling party that had been recently overthrown. The revelation of this ledger helped force Manafort’s resignation from Trump’s campaign, and Manafort was eventually prosecuted and convicted of a wide range of crimes as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian electoral interference in the 2016 election.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition, according to Giuliani’s conspiracy theory, the Ukrainian Embassy was working with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and in return, the American Embassy and the Obama administration actively blocked investigations in Ukraine that Giuliani claims targeted Democrats’ political allies. As with most conspiracy theories on the right, George Soros is involved in this one too. The theory posits that a Ukrainian good governance, anti-corruption group -- the Anticorruption Action Centre (AntAC) -- was involved in framing Manafort and was corruptly tied to an FBI agent who was investigating Manafort. Giuliani also claims that an investigation into the group was shut down due to U.S. pressure and that the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine provided Ukrainian officials with a “do not prosecute” list that included people linked to AntAC. As a bonus, through the “investigation,” Giuliani claims to have been presented with evidence that then-Vice President Biden acted corruptly by withholding U.S. aid to force the resignation of a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nothing about this conspiracy theory is true. First, there’s no evidence that the infamous “black ledger” was fraudulent, and several payments listed in the document have been confirmed to be accurate. The Intercept reported: “Sergii Leshchenko, a former investigative journalist and reformist member of parliament who helped publicize the off-the-books payments” said that “Giuliani ‘is a liar’ for saying that the black ledger was a forgery. ‘It is a real document, with real signatures,’ Leshchenko said in a telephone interview, explaining that it had been examined by Ukrainian law enforcement experts.” Giuliani seems to have adopted the false claim about the ledger from Manafort, whose legal team has embraced it since 2017 and whom Guiliani has been meeting with to discuss the materials.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As for Giuliani’s claims that investigations into AntAC were dropped due to political pressure,&nbsp; the State Department has called claims of a so-called “do not prosecute” list “complete poppycock.” And an investigation into the group’s handling of foreign aid money was widely believed to be politically motivated retaliation for the group’s anti-corruption work. Finally, while Biden did pressure Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was roundly criticized for blocking corruption investigations, there’s no evidence that he did so to benefit his son. In reality, the push to get the prosecutor in question, Viktor Shokin, fired was a part of an anti-corruption effort by advocates and international supporters of Ukraine. The United States’ well-established position was that ousting Shokin was a critical aspect of anti-corruption measures. The investigation into the energy company whose board included Hunter Biden was long dormant, and Hunter Biden was never the subject of the investigation.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nonetheless, Giuliani says he completed his “investigation” in March and sent his findings to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with the understanding that Pompeo would investigate. (NBCNews.com, however, reported: “A source with knowledge of the events said ... that Pompeo never promised Rudy Giuliani that he would investigate the contents of the envelope or anything related to Ukraine.”) Giuliani also sent the materials to Solomon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NBCNews.com obtained a copy of the documents that Giuliani sent to the State Department in March and reported that they contained “a glimpse of an intricate media strategy to spread the story including segments being placed on Fox News.” NBC said the “documents also show that Giuliani, through conservative writer John Solomon’s columns in The Hill, attempted to tie former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to the liberal donor George Soros as part of a massive conspiracy to take down Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and help Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election.” The materials Giuliani sent included interview notes from interviews he conducted with then-current and former Ukrainian prosecutors that “paint the picture of the narrative that Giuliani has been pushing involving the Bidens.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The media strategy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Giuliani and associates feed story to Solomon</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Around the same time Giuliani sent his packet of materials to the State Department, he also sent the materials to Solomon, who began reporting on its contents through the opinion pages of The Hill without identifying the materials as having originated with Giuliani. Solomon’s writing for some time had focused heavily around trying to discredit the Mueller investigation and the notion that Russia meddled into the 2016 elections to help Trump. On March 20, he published the first of many scoops specifically related to Ukraine’s involvement in this effort. Over the next six months, Solomon published 45 columns aimed at discrediting the Russia investigation, 12 of which primarily focused on Ukraine.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In his reporting, Solomon spelled out Giuliani’s conspiracy theory in detail. For instance:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He reported that Ukrainian officials claimed to have “evidence of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes,” at least some of it related to Biden.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Solomon reported that these officials tried to “deliver their evidence to Washington” but were unable because the American ambassador (Yovanovitch) “blocked” them “from obtaining a visa” to the U.S.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He weaved an elaborate story about Americans working with Ukrainians to dig up dirt on Trump’s one-time 2016 campaign manager Manafort, in order to damage Trump.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He claimed that the infamous “black ledger” that showed Manafort had received millions in undisclosed payments from Ukrainian officials was fabricated and released to damage Trump. He also suggested that in January 2016, Obama’s Department of Justice pressured Ukraine to help the department investigate Manafort in response to Trump’s rise in popularity in the Republican primary race (Manafort did not join the Trump campaign until March 2016).&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He strongly suggested that the Obama State Department pressured Ukrainian officials to drop an investigation into a Ukrainian good governance group linked to Soros because Soros backed Clinton.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He also claimed the U.S. ambassador’s “do not prosecute” list included people related to this organization, and he strained to link the group to the Manafort investigation by claiming that an FBI agent involved in the investigation is tied to the same group.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And, of course, he claimed that Biden withheld a billion dollars worth of U.S. aid to shut down an investigation into Burisma Holdings and Biden’s son Hunter through his position on the company’s board.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Solomon’s reporting relies heavily on the sources Giuliani fed him. In an interview with The Washington Post, Giuliani named three current and former Ukrainian prosecutors as persons he interviewed, specifically former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko, and Nazar Kholodnytsky, head of Ukraine’s Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. Giuliani is also known to have met with a former Ukrainian diplomat named Andrii Telizhenko and is linked to Kostiantyn Kulyk -- Lutsenko’s deputy who was indicted on corruption charges in 2016. Eight of the twelve columns Solomon wrote on the topic featured at least one of these five sources.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At least three of Solomon’s columns feature information meant to undermine the validity of the Russia investigation that may have been leaked from the Ukrainian pro-Russia oligarch Dmitry Firtash’s legal team, which included diGenova and Toensing. Toensing and diGenova have been working with Firtash since at least July -- and indeed Solomon published an entire column in July based exclusively off material and anonymous sources from Firtash’s legal team. They appear to have been involved with his case much earlier than July, though.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Included in the material Giuliani sent to the State Department is a March 26 email from Solomon -- titled “Fwd: Outline of Soros reporting, including embedded documents” -- in which Solomon forwarded a draft of his article before it was published to the same three people working with Giuliani who are also known to have been working with Firtash -- Parnas, Toensing, and diGenova. The column was the first of three that mentioned Firtash, and it attempted to tie AntAC -- and through it Soros -- “to highly visible U.S. actions against the oligarch Dmitri Firtash, a major target of the Soros group, and Manafort.” Solomon repeated the suggestion in his August 7 column on Soros’ “secret 2016 access” to State Department officials. In a fourth column, Solomon reported on an affidavit of a former Ukrainian prosecutor that he exclusively received. The affidavit was prepared “at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash … for use in legal proceedings in Austria.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Solomon brings the conspiracy theory to Fox</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The next stage in the plan involved Solomon taking his “scoop” to Fox News, specifically to Sean Hannity. From March 20 -- when Solomon published his first story on the Ukraine conspiracy theory -- through October 2, Solomon appeared on Fox News or Fox Business at least 72 times. Fifty-one of those appearances were on Hannity, whose host dutifully promoted Solomon’s scoops and wove them into his ever-evolving conspiracy theory that “deep state” elements in the government have been plotting to overthrow Trump. Giuliani also appeared on those networks frequently, clocking in at least 64 appearances on Fox News and Fox Business during that time period. Toensing and diGenova appeared over 75 times on the two networks during this period.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The fact that they were working together on these stories, or -- in the case of Toensing and diGenova -- that they were legally representing Firtash, was certainly not transparent to viewers. In perhaps the most egregious example, on the September 26 episode of Hannity, Hannity hosted Solomon to report on an affidavit he obtained from the disgraced prosecutor Shokin, who claimed he was forced to resign to stop the investigation into the company connected to&nbsp; Hunter Biden. Hannity then hosted diGenova and Toensing to discuss it, and the two hailed the affidavit as proof of their conspiracy theory and declared it would “shoot a hole in” Biden’s defense.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, the affidavit states that it was prepared “at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash … for use in legal proceedings in Austria.” In other words, diGenova and Toensing were part of the legal team that produced the affidavit that Solomon later exclusively obtained, wrote up, and then took to Hannity -- a fact not mentioned by any of them. Giuliani has since repeatedly referenced this affidavit in numerous media appearances to support his claims about Biden’s alleged corruption.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity repeatedly gave clues suggesting he knew the full range of stories Solomon would be reporting. For instance, despite the fact that Solomon’s March 20 column did not mention Biden or corruption, Hannity teased on his radio show that day that “I just happen to have a little birdie telling me in my ear that, well, Joe Biden may have an issue here that is bigger than anything ever alleged about Donald Trump.” On September 23, Hannity and Giuliani admitted to having talked about the Biden Ukraine story as early as January.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The payoff</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Giuliani repeatedly touted and praised Solomon’s “blockbuster” reporting. He has at least twice opined that Solomon should “get a Pulitzer Prize” and has taken to Twitter to sing Solomon’s praises:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity, too, repeatedly praised Solomon’s “great reporting” as he hyped Solomon’s columns. He regularly described Solomon as a “friend” of the program and declared that mainstream news outlets, like The New York Times, “peddled lies, conspiracy theories and hoax[es]” about the Russia investigation whereas Solomon “was right” all along. On April 25, Hannity asked Trump about Solomon’s and others' reporting around the Russia investigation, and the president replied: “These are great reporters. … These are people that should be getting Pulitzers.” Trump added, “These are the ones that should be winning. It sounds like big stuff. It sounds very interesting with Ukraine.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Solomon’s efforts paid off. On October 5, Fox News confirmed that John Solomon had joined the network as a contributor. During his first appearance on Hannity as an official Fox News employee, Hannity said: “John Solomon, welcome to the family. It’s been a long time coming, sir.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx charts</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">REPORT: ACORN OBSESSION: Beck, Hannity obsess over ACORN while virtually ignoring major corruption scandals</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WRITTEN BY MEDIA MATTERS STAFF</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PUBLISHED 09/23/09 4:33 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In light of the recent attention Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have devoted to a supposed corruption scandal involving ACORN, Media Matters for America reviewed the coverage each host has provided on his respective television programs to a selection of well-documented political scandals and instances of corruption by companies that have received thousands of times more money from the government than ACORN has in the past 15 years. Our findings show that both hosts have been obsessed with ACORN, devoting a massively disproportionate amount of attention to the story in comparison to their coverage of controversies involving military contractors that have received billions of dollars in federal contracts and instances of Republican corruption at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Furthermore, since Beck joined Fox News, the amount of attention he has devoted to ACORN has skyrocketed, while his interest in other corruption scandals has remained limited.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Key findings</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Number of times Beck's and Hannity's programs, combined, referenced ACORN, Abramoff, Blackwater, and Halliburton/KBR from May 8, 2006, to September 18, 2009 (NOTE: For the purposes of this study, a “reference” is defined as the specified topic having been mentioned by either a host or a guest on the program being studied.):</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ACORN: 1,502</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH): 62</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Blackwater/Xe: 4</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Halliburton/KBR: 43</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conclusions:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Beck's and Hannity's programs were approximately 35 times more likely to reference ACORN than any of the military contractors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Beck's and Hannity's programs were approximately 24 times more likely to reference ACORN than either Abramoff or Ney.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The numbers are equally shocking for each show individually:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Beck's programs were approximately 50 times more likely to reference ACORN than any of the military contractors and approximately 149 times more likely to discuss ACORN than either Abramoff or Ney.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity's programs were approximately 18 times more likely to reference ACORN than any of the military contractors and approximately eight times more likely to discuss ACORN than either Abramoff or Ney.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What a difference Fox News makes -- after leaving CNN's Headline News and joining Fox in January, Beck's focus on ACORN skyrocketed, while his disinterest in major corruption scandals continued:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">References to ACORN on Beck's Headline News program:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ACORN</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Abramoff/Ney</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Blackwater/Xe</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Halliburton/KBR</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">43</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">7</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">11</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">References to ACORN on Beck's Fox News program:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ACORN</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Abramoff/Ney</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Blackwater/Xe</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Halliburton/KBR</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1,002</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">0</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">0</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">8</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reporting on ACORN, Beck and Hannity claim to be concerned with government waste and corruption</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Beck implores viewers to “take a stand” because "[t]his is clear-cut, unadulterated, taxpayer-funded corruption" at ACORN due to its receipt of government funding. On the September 15 edition of his Fox News program, Beck aired portions of an undercover video at a California ACORN office and stated (from the Nexis database):</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">BECK: I am just asking you this -- please, take a stand. Take a stand. This is clear-cut, unadulterated, taxpayer-funded corruption. You love your children. You love your country just like I do. You must understand that what you've been seeing from ACORN on these tapes this past week isn't compassion, it's corruption!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I'm asking you -- demand a full investigation from your representatives of everybody -- ACORN, all the way to the top, everybody in government, all the way to the top, in your cities, and in our nation. And until that corruption is brought under control, we must quarantine Washington, D.C. -- no legislation must come out of it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity: “The only question that remains is, will this keep ACORN from receiving our tax dollars?” From the September 16 edition of Hannity (from Nexis):</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">HANNITY: Now the employees in five separate ACORN offices have now showed themselves willing to aid and in some cases participate in child prostitution. Now predictably, ACORN is retaliating by attacking the individuals who exposed them and threatening them with lawsuits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the videos, they speak for themselves. The only question that remains is, will this keep ACORN from receiving our tax dollars?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And here with reaction is the author of the best-selling book, “Culture of Corruption,” Michelle Malkin is back with us.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">You know, if you look at the money and follow the money, tens and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to date, Michelle. And if you add the stimulus, you're looking, you know, at potentially $8.5 billion more. So there are -- there is an effort in Congress to stop it. Will it be successful?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MICHELLE MALKIN, “THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION” AUTHOR: Well, it already has, in some measure. And I think that cutting off ACORN from the Census Bureau partnerships was a big first step, and then of course in the Senate cutting off transportation and HUD appropriations money from ACORN and all of its affiliates.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I think that's very important. I called up Senator Mike Johan's office the other day just to clarify and make sure that it's not just ACORN, the national umbrella group, but all of the web of its affiliates and entities under it that are nonprofit, tax exempt and supposedly nonpartisan.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So all these are a good first step. But I think that the next step, Sean, obviously, is to crack open the books and take a look at how the money they currently have been allocated and allocated in the past is being spent. And that's going to be an incredible forensic undertaking. And hopefully it will be bipartisan.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">HANNITY: You talk about these umbrella groups. There's all these groups that would then, you know, sort of subcontract out to ACORN. So it's almost difficult to do the accounting. But the reality is, and I know Governor Tim Pawlenty and I know some others, Richard Shelby was on this morning, and he is working in Washington.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">They're saying they want to find a way to get to the real bottom line dollar figure of how much they are getting and cut off all funds because this is only part of the corruption. I mean it's bad enough every office they went to showed a connection, you know, to some of these scandals. But it goes a lot deeper, doesn't it?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MALKIN: It's systemic. And I'll tell you, ACORN plays a game of throwing its rank and file operatives under the bus and then claiming that these were just the indefensible actions of a few, a handful. That's the phrase that Bertha Lewis and the ACORN brass are using.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Both hosts have largely ignored major scandals involving military contractors that have huge government contracts</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater have received tens of billions of dollars in military contracts and have been connected to major scandals, some even resulting in death. Major controversies concerning work performed by Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown and Root (a Halliburton subsidiary), and Blackwater (now named Xe) broke between 2006 and 2009. According to news reports, Blackwater, Halliburton, and KBR have received a combined total of at least $25 billion dollars in federal contracts since 2001. By comparison, ACORN has received an estimated $53 million in federal funding over the past 15 years, which is an average of $3.5 million per year....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma 819</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump campaign is crediting Hannity with launching a DOJ investigation into the Obama administration, and they’re probably right</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">08/28/19 12:36 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">did mueller antic/ dread rw fox BS attacks? modulated accordingly?!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ailes and atwater used tv to get bush41 electd in a way unprecedented? sorta bypass party? here merge of gop and fox:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For years, Sean Hannity has poisoned the well for special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into the investigation of Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. That effort came to a head when Mueller testified before two House committees, with Hannity effectively dictating the GOP’s strategy in handling Mueller. The night before the hearings, he urged congressional Republicans to focus their attention not on the results of the investigation, but on the investigators. And that’s exactly what many of them did, using questions ripped from Hannity’s program to demand Mueller weigh in on the network’s conspiracy theories.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One House Republican cited Gregg Jarrett, the Fox legal analyst who once argued on Hannity’s show that in light of the Mueller probe, “the FBI has become America’s secret police” like “the old KBG.” Another entered into the record an op-ed he had written for Hannity’s website. Others championed Hannity’s feverish focus on tangential topics like former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s memos, the research firm Fusion GPS and its founder, Glenn Simpson, and the purported political leanings of Mueller’s staff.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and a Hannity regular, devoted much of his opening statement during the afternoon hearing to the Fox host’s twisted theory that the real collusion during the 2016 presidential campaign was between Russia and the Democrats.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Watch this: We put together a full supercut of Hannity and other Fox figures juxtaposed with Republicans during the hearings, and it is utterly uncanny. There can be no more denying the facts: Fox News and the Republican Party have merged.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/heres-the-insidious-role-sean-hannity-played-in-derailing-al-frankens-political-career/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here’s the insidious role Sean Hannity played in derailing Al Franken’s political career</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by Alex Henderson July 22, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The U.S. Senate lost one of its most prominent liberals when Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, dogged by sexual harassment allegations, announced his resignation in December 2017. Some of Franken’s defenders believed the Democratic Party was too quick to throw him under the bus; other Democrats stressed that in light of the #MeToo movement, his resignation was absolutely necessary. Franken’s political downfall is the subject of an in-depth report by the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, who describes — among many other things — the role that Fox News’ Sean Hannity played in the media firestorm.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Franken’s career in the Senate, Mayer notes, was doomed after right-wing talk radio host Leeann Tweeden “accused him of having forced an unwanted kiss on her during a 2006 USO tour.” After that, Mayer adds, seven other women “followed with accusations against Franken; all of them centered on inappropriate touches or kisses.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mayer reports that the former “Saturday Night Live” star’s “undoing began with a photograph, which was released by a conservative talk-radio station on November 16, 2017.” Mayer reports that in the photo, Franken was seen on a military plane “leering at the lens with his hands outstretched toward the breasts of his USO co-star, Tweeden…. Franken’s hands appear to be practically touching her chest, and Tweeden looks to be asleep — and therefore, not consenting to the joke.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Condemnation of Franken, Mayer recalls, quickly came from the liberal-leaning Slate (which called for his resignation in an article) as well as the right-wing media — including Fox News, where Hannity quoted the Slate piece and interviewed Tweeden (who is described by Mayer as “a friend who had been a guest on his show dozens of times”). And the alt-right Breitbart News, Mayer notes, drew attention to Slate’s article as well.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mayer reports, “The media uproar was further heightened by an impassioned personal statement released by Tweeden’s Los Angeles radio station, KABC-AM, which provided her account of the story behind the photograph.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity, Mayer recalls, “exulted when the news broke,” relentlessly attacking Franken on both Fox News and his AM radio show. Hannity described the photo as “disgusting,” saying that the Minnesota senator had been accused of “sexual molestation” — and President Donald Trump, Mayer reports, “joined the fray on Twitter, insinuating that the photograph documented an assault in progress.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mayer is an incredibly thorough reporter, and her New Yorker piece features interviews with women who express a variety of views on Franken’s political downfall. Some of the interviewees Mayer spoke to are more sympathetic to Franken than others.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One of the more sympathetic is attorney Deborah Katz, who has represented sexual harassment victims. Katz has also represented Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her at a party when they were teenagers back in 1982.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Katz, according to Mayer, views Franken as a “cautionary tale for the #MeToo movement.” The attorney told the New Yorker, “The allegations leveled against Sen. Franken did not warrant his forced expulsion from the Senate, particularly given the context in which most of the behavior occurred — which was in his capacity as a comedian….. All offensive behavior should be addressed, but not all offensive behavior warrants the most severe sanction.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref mayer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mayer on franken</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to McIntyre, Hannity wanted to use the photograph in 2007, when it would have derailed Franken’s first Senate bid. But he deferred to Tweeden, who feared that, because she had been a lingerie model, her credibility would be attacked. “To Sean Hannity’s credit, he never said a word about it,” McIntyre told me. (Hannity, through a spokesperson, praised Tweeden as “patriotic” and called Franken “literally insane.”) McIntyre emphasized that Tweeden and KABC-AM deliberately chose not to break the story with Hannity, or on Fox, because they didn’t want it to be tainted with charges of political bias.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There was a history of deep animosity between Fox News’ conservative hosts and Franken. Fox sued Franken over his 2003 best-seller, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” which relentlessly disparages the network and its big star at the time, Bill O’Reilly. It includes a chapter mocking Hannity as, among other things, “an angry, Irish Ape-man.” Franken writes that, after having a greenroom shouting match with Hannity about Rush Limbaugh, in 1996, he “had never in my life hated a person more.” Fox dropped the suit, but O’Reilly reportedly threatened vengeance.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When Andrea Mackris later sued O’Reilly for sexually harassing her while she was a producer at Fox News, she revealed that, in 2004, O’Reilly had told her, “If you cross Fox News Channel, it’s not just me, it’s Roger Ailes”—at the time the head of the network—“who will go after you. . . . Ailes operates behind the scenes, strategizes and makes things happen so that one day BAM! The person gets what’s coming to them but never sees it coming. Look at Al Franken, one day he’s going to get a knock on his door and life as he’s known it will change forever. That day will happen, trust me.” When Tweeden accused Franken, one of his wife’s first thoughts was of O’Reilly’s prediction.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...Tweeden began working through every detail with McIntyre and Baker, and, later, with Hayes. McIntyre also suggested that Tweeden talk to her friend Lauren Sivan, a former anchor for the station, who was one of the witnesses against Weinstein. Sivan had risked her reputation to speak out about Weinstein’s having masturbated in front of her. When Tweeden told her about Franken, Sivan said to me, “the story, it was strange—because they were doing it as a skit.” She sympathized with Tweeden, whom she described as having felt “mocked and humiliated” by Franken. But she wasn’t sure how a public accusation would be received. She suggested that Tweeden take the story to a mainstream outlet, and even gave her the name of a reputable reporter. Instead, Sivan told me, Hayes controlled the process, which she considered a “mistake,” because “it’s a right-wing conservative radio station” and “it seemed like they just wanted to milk the story.” Nevertheless, Sivan said, of Tweeden, “it was absolutely something she wanted to do—I think she hated Franken.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A week before Tweeden went public, Roy Moore, the Republican nominee in a special Senate election in Alabama, was accused of engaging in inappropriate behavior with several teen-age girls, one of whom was fourteen at the time. Moore denied the allegations, and Trump, who had endorsed Moore, stuck by him. But the allegations handed Democrats a wedge issue and put Republicans on the defensive. Hannity was particularly on the spot: having dismissed Moore’s conduct as “consensual” and mere “kissing,” he issued a rare on-air apology.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the same time that the Republican Party was contending with the scandal, Franken was rising in prominence, in part because of his deft cross-examinations of such Trump Administration appointees as Betsy DeVos and Rick Perry. Bystanders applauded when Franken walked into Washington restaurants. His latest book had reached No. 1 on the Times best-seller list. Feminists had welcomed his support of the #MeToo movement, and praised him for drafting a bill to prohibit mandatory arbitration in employment-related cases of sexual harassment and discrimination. The legislation would guarantee women the right to publicly press charges, rather than submit to secret settlements. He was also praised for supporting advanced training for law-enforcement officers who dealt with rape victims.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But along with the adulation came detractors. Several far-right news sites appear to have known about Tweeden’s story shortly before it broke. In Southern California, a gossip Web site, Crazy Days and Nights, was contacted by an anonymous tipster who predicted that Franken was about to get caught in a sex scandal. There was a link to an online message board where someone calling himself Sam Spade was claiming that Franken had “groped” his aunt on a New York City subway in the nineteen-seventies. (Asked about this, Franken joked, “Ah, yes, Aunt Gertrude—I remember her well.”) Archives show that “Sam Spade” separately posted a message saying that he “hoped Al Franken would die a slow painful death.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At 1 a.m. on November 16th, Roger Stone, the notorious right-wing operative, announced, on Twitter, “It’s Al Franken’s ‘time in the barrel.’ Franken next in long list of Democrats to be accused of ‘grabby’ behavior.” After Tweeden’s story was posted, Alex Jones, the extremist radio host, boasted on his show that Stone had told him, in advance, “Get ready. Franken’s next.” Stone told me that an executive at Fox who was friendly with Tweeden had tipped him off.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity exulted when the news broke. Tweeden called in to his radio show live, and Hannity described her as “a longtime friend.” Hannity, who, when Ailes died, celebrated him as one of America’s “great patriotic warriors,” pronounced the Franken photograph “disgusting”—and declared that Franken had been accused of “sexual molestation.” Trump joined the fray on Twitter, insinuating that the photograph documented an assault in progress: “Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twelve minutes after KABC-AM went on the air with the news, Franken’s office got its first press inquiry, and hundreds soon followed. Shelleby, the deputy chief of staff, recalls, “It was bedlam. No one looked into the details. There was no way to catch up.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Franken tried to devise a response, but, he told me, he found it “impossible to explain the context of the goofing around everybody had been doing, so I just said, ‘It was a joke—it wasn’t funny, and I apologize.’ ” His statement was lambasted on social media as hopelessly inadequate. He released a longer, more self-critical apology. But, he told me, “I was in shock, and I wasn’t thinking as clearly as I should have.” He went on, “You feel very trapped. And the press was just reporting it as she said it.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">619 mma</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...HANNITY (HOST): I watch that nine and a half minute press conference and well, God bless our media mob, conspiracy theorists, liars and hoaxers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And I thought it was a great embarrassment to Robert Mueller -- and I will be honest, as I watched him, I got the feeling, watching that, he had neither read the statement, was stumbling over the statement, or didn't remember what he had said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Previously:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity guest John Solomon: "Linguistic experts have told me it didn't look like Bob Mueller was reading his own words" ​</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">‘Unbelievable’: Paul Manafort’s texts with Sean Hannity revealed in court filing</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cody Fenwick</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Texts between former Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort and Fox News host Sean Hannity were released on Friday as a court filing entered in Manafort’s sentencing. Manafort is currently in…</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">basically go between manafort and trump to get pardon?! we have text msg b/c he and his lawyer were violating gag order to keep from skewing witness pool (so they just used hannity to do it for them)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Saturday, there was another mass shooting at a synagogue. A man opened fire inside the Chabad synagogue in Powoy, CA, just outside of San Diego. NBC's Ben Collins and Andrew Blankstein reported that an open letter was posted on far-right forum 8chan in the shooters name, which also took credit for an unsolved arson of a nearby mosque. According to the San Diego County Sheriff, the alleged shooter is now being investigated for that arson as well.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over at Bellingcat, Robert Evans took a deep dive into 8chan, which was also the place where the Christchurch mosque shooter posted his manifesto. Media Matters' Cristina López has previously writtenabout how board users launch harassment campaigns using 8chan. 8chan is also the hub of the QAnon conspiracy theory which has swept pro-Trump media; a number of prominent right-wing figures have amplified that conspiracy theory. And board users absolutely love Sean Hannity.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over at The New York Times, Charlie Warzel wrote about how these mass shootings have become a meme in the far-right internet: "The pattern is eerie: it starts with a crude genealogy of the shooter’s ethnic roots, then a self-aggrandizing Q. and A. with himself, followed by a litany of toxic in-jokes meant to confuse the media and those less savvy in far-right online culture. ... Like the Christchurch massacre, the Poway shooting is not only tailored for the internet but also sickeningly standardized. The digital footprint and manifestoes of these white nationalist terrorists follow a familiar template — one that each shooter fills in with their own hideous details. Indeed, it seems real-world murderous hate crimes have become a message board meme of sorts. And like any online meme, the creation cycle only seems to be accelerating, refining itself and, horrifyingly, increasing in frequency."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Fox News, a guest was linking the rise of anti-Semitism to Trump's permissive rhetoric about the far right, specifically Trump's defense of white nationalists in Charlottesville who chanted "Jews will not replace us." (Trump even doubled down on that characterization on Friday in an interview with Mark Levin.) But as the guest described this, the show suddenly cut to commercial . The guest was invited back on later in the day, but the discussion moved quickly beyond Trump's rhetoric to an assertion that Trump could not possibly be personally anti-Semitic.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News never stopped pushing the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that motivated the Tree of Life shooter. Glenn Beck was on Fox News earlier this month pushing it. And earlier this week, a Fox Nation guest fearmongered about George Soros infiltrating the census, harkening back to when a guest was banned from the network for complaining about the "Soros-occupied State Department."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News spent weeks in May 2017 spreading the conspiracy theories trying to link murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich to WikiLeaks. From Sean Hannity to Newt Gingrich to Steve Doocy, the objective was clear: If there were any possibility that Rich was the source of the emails, then it would not have been Russia. And if it were not Russia, Trump would be cleared of any malfeasance. But now, thanks to Robert Mueller's final report, we finally have proof that it was all a lie.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2017, following Rich's murder, right-wing conspiracy theories arose, asserting that the staffer had provided DNC emails to Wikileaks for publication. There was never a shred of evidence to support this conspiracy theory. No responsible news organization ran with anything close to this. But Fox News did.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This was a transparent attempt to protect Trump from the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid his campaign. After running with the story for days amidst criticism, Fox finally pulled the initial report. Hannity then continued pushing it, stopping only when Rich's family asked him to. Fox News eventually promised an internal investigation into the matter -- and this week marked 700 days since that promise. And still, we've heard nothing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There is no reason to believe that anyone at Fox will be held accountable for their actions. Fox has never cared about the basic ethical standards accepted at most newsrooms. As Media Matters' Matt Gertz explained, "Fox is a propaganda outlet geared toward ensuring the continued dominance of Trump and his movement. The pain of Rich’s family is simply the cost of doing business."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Before perpetrating what’s believed to have been the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in American history, the Tree of Life synagogue shooter posted online,blaming Jewish people in the U.S. “for bringing in an invasion of nonwhite immigrants.” He was specifically referring to the caravans of migrants from Central America that conservative media have focused on as an existential threat to the United States.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The link between conservative media rhetoric and the shooter's words was readily apparent at the time. But instead of course correcting following the massacre, Fox is instead still pushing the conspiracy theory to this day.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity hosted conspiracy theory-monger Glenn Beck, who said the migrant caravans were “directly” funded by “George Soros and others” (Soros is Jewish). Beck further claimed that "American communists in Chicago" are orchestrating the caravans with money from Soros.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The New Republic's Jeet Heer noted that Beck's words were "a straight up articulation of the theory of Judeo–Bolshevism, the ideological pillar of Nazi anti-Semitism." Many others noticed that Beck's words were indistinguishable from those of the Tree of Life shooter.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(While shocking, this was entirely foreseeable for Fox News: Beck made his name at the network in part through anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about George Soros.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It was not just on Hannity, either. On the same night, Lou Dobbs blamed "left-wing money" and "the United Nations" for migrants headed to the border. This is a clear dog whistle for Dobbs' audience, as the Fox Business host, his guests, and others on the network have repeatedly pushed the same conspiracy theory. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, a Dobbs guest was banned from the network after a previously aired show reran in which the guest complained about the "Soros-occupied State Department." Fox has taken no action regarding Beck or Dobbs this week.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A new Navigator Research poll reports that "the Fox News echo-chamber" has created "an alternative reality in American politics," with Republicans who watch Fox News a few times a month or more showing significantly more radical views than those who don't watch the network.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">79% of GOP Fox viewers say that "people within the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies are trying to sabotage President Trump." That's compared to 49% of Republicans who don't watch Fox, 24% of non-Republicans who watch Fox, and 8% of non-Republicans who don't watch Fox.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That's an astonishing divide between Republicans who watch Fox and the rest of the public on the question of whether or not Trump is the victim of a massive "deep state" conspiracy to remove him from office.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox has been feeding this conspiracy to its audience for years. Sean Hannity has led the charge, but many of his colleagues have adopted the same rhetoric.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As the Mueller investigation moves toward its conclusion, the overwhelming support among Fox viewers for the idea that the president is being sabotaged by the FBI and intelligence agencies is seriously concerning. The Fox-GOP infrastructure is already priming the pump for another investigation into the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's email server.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2019/03/fox-news-could-being-trumps-personal-propaganda-network-and-hannity-is-losing-it-report/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News has served as a full-blown propaganda network for President Donald Trump for the first two years of his presidency, but a revolt within the network’s news department is spurring talk of change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman reports that Lachlan Murdoch, the son of Fox-owning media mogul Rupert Murdoch, is not a big Trump fan and is wary of having his network seen as the president’s personal Soviet-style Pravda.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Although the editorial changes that Murdoch is considering making aren’t expected to be too drastic — the network will continue to be a right-wing news network — they’re reportedly still enough to scare Fox News host Sean Hannity into believing it will hurt Trump politically.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Hannity told Trump last year that the Murdochs hate Trump, and Hannity is the only one holding Fox together,” one source tells Sherman.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Additionally, some sources within Fox believe that the Murdochs will try to create some distance between Fox News and the president as part of a larger strategy to sell the network off to another buyer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Everyone thinks they’re going to sell it,” one Fox News anchor tells Sherman. “It’s too small to be independent.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read the whole report here.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3/19</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity even said that parents are in hospitals killing babies in gladiator-style entertainment. Needless to say, that is not happening.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Death panels are back! The previous lie of the year about the Affordable Care Act has returned, with Fox host Mark Levin suggestingthat "Medicare-for-all" will lead to senior citizens being murdered.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Fox contributor is arguing that "Medicare-for-all" would be communists</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">random grab 918 mma</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity: "Secret Service now must do everything within their power" to find anonymous op-ed author</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Video September 7, 2018 10:19 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity calls for "the guy that appointed Mueller," Deputy AG Rosenstein, to be "investigated and prosecuted"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Video September 7, 2018 9:53 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tucker Carlson attacks American diversity&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Video September 7, 2018 9:29 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity falsely claims George Papadopolous wasn't part of Trump campaign following his sentencing</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Video September 7, 2018 6:05 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Abortion opponents were reassured by Kavanaugh's comments on Roe v. Wade</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Blog September 7, 2018 5:36 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity claims the Beto O'Rourke campaign asked for volunteers to transport undocumented immigrants to polling booths. It didn't happen.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Video September 7, 2018 4:45 PM EDT</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News’ Sean Hannity dictated Trump’s national emergency plan — and his next demands are even more frightening</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cody Fenwick</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News host Sean Hannity published an op-ed on Wednesday laying out exactly how he thought President Donald Trump, to whom he serves as an informal adviser, should move forward…</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/fox-news-ceo-bizarrely-rejects-ad-for-anti-nazi-documentary-not-appropriate-for-our-air/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">hannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">January 25th, the FBI arrested Roger Stone and executed search warrants of his residences in Florida and New York. Stone was charged on seven counts of obstruction, giving false statements, and witness tampering as part of the special counsel's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News immediately worked to minimize the importance of Stone's indictment.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The network utilized three forms of defense for Trump's longtime adviser:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Declare the indictments reveal nothing and assert that there's no evidence of collusion.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Criticize the manner in which Stone was arrested. As Chris Hayes, Elliot Williams, and others pointed out, Fox News suddenly cared about potential civil rights violations and a growing police state only when Roger Stone was arrested.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Deflecting by bringing up other officials, like Eric Holder, James Comey, Hillary Clinton, and more.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Matt Gertz wrote of the role that Fox News plays in the Russia probe,"Hannity has primed his audience to reject any conclusions from the Mueller investigation and to support Trump if he fires the special counsel or demands the Justice Department take action against his political foes. If Trump decides to undermine the rule of law by taking such steps, he will have the fervent support of the Fox Host and his viewers."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And we know that Trump was watching the coverage on Fox. Speaking of that, Trump told Face The Nation in an interview airing today, "You have to get rid of the Russia witch hunt."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Also: Jerome Corsi said in an interview this week that Stone is "pressuring me to change my testimony." Meanwhile, Stone's explanation for his witness tampering charge was that he was trying to help Randy Credico.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Finally: Stone during the campaign repeatedly bragged about talking with Trump and senior campaign officials.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/fox-news-sean-hannity-appears-to-have-acted-on-directives-from-newly-revealed-stone-wikileaks-emails/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News host Sean Hannity appears to have acted on directives from emails between President Donald Trump’s longtime political adviser Roger Stone and an intermediary who claimed to have communicated with WikiLeaks.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Twitter, author Kurt Eichenwald points out that, among the details in the indictment of Stone, is a passage about WikiLeaks’ plan to leak emails suggesting Hillary Clinton was seriously ill and Sean Hannity’s focus on Clinton’s health in the following days.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke, neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus,” Stone’s link to WikiLeaks told him via email on August 2, 2016.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Also in the email, Stone’s link to WikiLeaks told him that Wikileaks’ head Julian Assange was planning a document dump in October.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A few days after the email was sent to Stone, Fox News host Sean Hannity began to focus on Hillary’s health, suggesting that she was having “seizures” and had some sort of neurological problem.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Specifically, Hannity focused on a short video clip where Clinton bobbed her head as someone stuck a microphone in her face.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[vid?]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Are there many seizures like that?” Hannity said on the air. “This looks like violent, out of control movements on her part.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Eichenwald thus argues that Hannity may have had strategy information that originated with WikiLeaks and should no longer be on the air with Fox.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read his thoughts below.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;1. As I continue to research the spread of info described in the Stone indictment, it has become clear that @FoxNews needs to explain what role @seanhannity - Cohen's mystery client - had to do with the Russian conspiracy. And why the hell he is still on the air. The key date...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3,234</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1:49 PM - Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twitter Ads info and privacy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1,627 people are talking about this</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;· Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;1. As I continue to research the spread of info described in the Stone indictment, it has become clear that @FoxNews needs to explain what role @seanhannity - Cohen's mystery client - had to do with the Russian conspiracy. And why the hell he is still on the air. The key date...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2...is August 2, 2016, when Corsi sent an email to Stone. In that email, Corsi says that Assange is planning a document dump on October 2 to cause the most damage possible. (Do you Wikileaks fans FINALLY understand what this fraud is?) In preparation of that, Corsi says that....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">719</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1:51 PM - Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twitter Ads info and privacy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">188 people are talking about this</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;· Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Replying to @kurteichenwald and 2 others</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2...is August 2, 2016, when Corsi sent an email to Stone. In that email, Corsi says that Assange is planning a document dump on October 2 to cause the most damage possible. (Do you Wikileaks fans FINALLY understand what this fraud is?) In preparation of that, Corsi says that....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3...'That appears to be the game hackers are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke – neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus..." We do not need any further evidence of collusion - THIS is it. These bastards are....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">661</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1:53 PM - Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twitter Ads info and privacy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">164 people are talking about this</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;· Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Replying to @kurteichenwald and 2 others</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3...'That appears to be the game hackers are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke – neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus..." We do not need any further evidence of collusion - THIS is it. These bastards are....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4...willing to undermine democracy with lies. Drudge picks it up in a few days. Then, EIGHT days after this conspiracy involving Corsi, Stone, Russian hackers, Assange, frigging @seanhannity jumps into the mix. Hillary makes a goofy head movement when someone shoves a mike in....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">616</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1:55 PM - Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twitter Ads info and privacy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">156 people are talking about this</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;· Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Replying to @kurteichenwald and 2 others</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4...willing to undermine democracy with lies. Drudge picks it up in a few days. Then, EIGHT days after this conspiracy involving Corsi, Stone, Russian hackers, Assange, frigging @seanhannity jumps into the mix. Hillary makes a goofy head movement when someone shoves a mike in....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5...her face. (A mic, not a mike) No one looking at that could see it as anything but what it was - physical humor. But, building on Drudge's "she needs to be helped up the stairs" lie, @seanhannity jumps all over this stupid movement to proclaim - JUST LIKE CORSI URGED -...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">555</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1:57 PM - Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twitter Ads info and privacy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">142 people are talking about this</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;· Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Replying to @kurteichenwald and 2 others</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5...her face. (A mic, not a mike) No one looking at that could see it as anything but what it was - physical humor. But, building on Drudge's "she needs to be helped up the stairs" lie, @seanhannity jumps all over this stupid movement to proclaim - JUST LIKE CORSI URGED -...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Eichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@kurteichenwald</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6....That Hillary had a neurological problem. On August 10, eight days after the "lie about her health" email, Hannity says on her show after showing the goofy head movement, "“This looks like violent, out of control movements on her part.” He then goes on to say "seizures...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">535</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1:58 PM - Jan 25, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conservatives Throw a Temper Tantrum</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The loudest outcry came from the right-wing shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh, who claimed that Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama were "portraying standard, ordinary, everyday conservatives as posing a bigger threat to this country than al-Qaeda terrorists or genuine enemies of this country like Kim Jong-Il." Sean Hannity warned his Fox News viewers that “if you have a pro-life bumper sticker on your car, if you have an 'America is overtaxed' bumper sticker, if you have a pro-Second Amendment bumper sticker, they're viewing you potentially as a radical.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In possibly the most deranged interpretation, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin wrote that the report was a “hit job on conservatives” and “one of the most embarrassingly shoddy pieces of propaganda I’d ever read out of DHS. I couldn’t believe it was real….the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a sad sort of irony, Johnson told SPLC that the conservative media personalities who misinterpreted and attacked his report “would have been shocked to know that I personify conservatism. I'm an Eagle Scout. I'm a registered Republican. I'm Mormon. In fact, I was helping the Boy Scouts with a fundraiser when I heard the report being attacked on the news."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Outrage over the report's findings quickly spread to Congress, where several conservative lawmakers demanded the ouster of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Among them was Rep. John Carter, R-Tex., who remarked, "We shouldn't even give her the respect of letting her resign. She should be fired by the administration for accusing honest, American citizens — because of their political beliefs — of being domestic terrorists."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The self-described conservative and Christian non-profit Thomas More Law Center went even further and filed a lawsuit against Secretary Napolitano on behalf a Michigan-based anti-abortion group, claiming the DHS report was all part of a conspiracy between the Obama administration and liberal groups to violate their constitutional rights.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The section of the report that stirred the most controversy referred to “disgruntled military veterans” and cautioned that “rightwing extremists would attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans to boost their violent capabilities.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mma</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Hannity is absolutely furious that Michelle Obama attacked Trump's birther lies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On the eve of the 2018 midterm elections, Sean Hannity said he wasn’t going to campaign for Trump. His employer Fox News said he wasn’t going to campaign for Trump. And yet, that night, Hannity got up on the stage with Trump at the president’s final campaign rally of the election cycle and praised the administration for “promises made, promises kept.” He gestured to the journalists covering the event and called them “fake news.” Fellow Fox News host Jeanine Pirro soon followed him on stage to urge the crowd to vote Republican.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While Fox has halfheartedly disciplined Hannity in the past for his blatantly unethical conduct, the network seems to have finally dropped the charade. As Media Matters’ Matt Gertz explained, Hannity’s close ties to the White House and his role as a Trump confidant have apparently rendered him untouchable by the network.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response to the backlash to Hannity’s appearance at the rally, an anonymous Fox spokesperson released the following statement: “FOX News does not condone any talent participating in campaign events. We have an extraordinary team of journalists helming our coverage tonight and we are extremely proud of their work. This was an unfortunate distraction and has been addressed.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is nonsense, of course. As Media Matters’ Eric Hananoki reported, regardless of what the network says it does or “does not condone,” more than a dozen Fox hosts and contributors raised funds for Republican Party organizations in the first year of Trump’s administration -- continuing a yearslong pattern.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News Was Just Humiliated When Sean Hannity Spoke at a Trump Rally — Contradicting the Network's Promises</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/heres-why-proud-boys-claim-self-defense-when-defending-ring-wing-violence-total-joke</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">amanda m</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When far-right groups like the Proud Boys or Patriot Prayer get into street brawls, they have a go-to rationalization: It was self-defense. The argument is that fringe right-wingers are out there peacefully protesting or attending speeches, and that the violence that often seems to erupt afterward is merely a reaction to leftist provocation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Antifa terrorists attacked us, not the other way around," argues a typical post at the Proud Boys Facebook page, after members of the group were filmed beating up anti-fascist protesters after Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes gave a speech at New York's Metropolitan Republican Club.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conservative media has picked up this talking point and has aggressively defended and promoted far-right groups — who have also gotten into street fights in Portland, Oregon, and Providence, Rhode Island, in the past month — painting them as victims who only engage in violence as a last resort to defend themselves.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On her Fox News show, Laura Ingraham interviewed Joey Gibson, the head of Patriot Prayer, who denied "any intention to get violent" and said the violence in Portland was purely self-defense.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity, on his own Fox News show, put the blame on for these outbreaks of violence on Democratic rhetoric he considers rude, even though none of the figures or incidents he mentioned were anywhere near these events. He explained what happened last week this way: "A bunch of anarchists go to the New York GOP club, Republican club, whatever it happens to be, and they’re committing vandalism, anarchist signs that they’re putting up, etc., and then there’s a confrontation on the street there."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twelve Russian military officers were indicted for hacking into Democrats' computers and disseminating the stolen information to disrupt the 2016 election. The indictment also has references of Infowars host and a then-Breitbart columnist.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But perhaps the most immediately notable part of the indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller's probe is that it directly rebuts the long-simmering right-wing media conspiracy theory about murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich. While the indictment alleges that Russians were behind the hacking (something that intelligence had reportedly concluded long ago), right-wing media have for years -- without any evidence -- pressed the idea that it was actually Rich who did it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity became the ringleader of this effort, relentlessly dedicating his show in May 2016 to the conspiracy theory until pressure from dropped advertisers forced him to stop covering it, even though he promised he was "closer to the TRUTH than ever." Neither Fox News nor Hannity have ever apologized or even explained their botched reports.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now that the office of special counsel Robert Mueller has laid out the actual facts (that Russian hacking came very shortly after then-candidate Donald Trump publicly asked for their assistance), it's time for Hannity to come clean.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But we all know he won't. And neither will Fox News. Newt Gingrich has already refused to apologize. And that's why it's more important than ever for people like you to take action and force Hannity's hand.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That's the only thing that works.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Also: An Infowars host reacted to news of the indictments by screaming out "Thank you Russia." Fox host Lou Dobbs downplayed them, saying they were just based on hearsay. And Hannity said that the indictments were suspicious because of the timing; Hannity, while absurdly and bizarrely claiming that we still don't know who leaked the emails, said that it could be any other country.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fox News is reportedly having trouble selling ads for Sean Hannity's and Laura Ingraham's shows. One Fox News staffer told Vanity Fair's Gabriel Sherman that "The pro-Trump thing isn't working. We can't monetize DACA and the wall and that right-wing shit."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This follows an October 2017 report that Fox News' ad revenue had dropped 17 percent, while revenue for its competitors had remained virtually unchanged.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The toxic conspiracy theories, the pro-Trump propaganda, the racism and sexism and bigotry, and the extreme measures to defend anything that comes out of the White House (including conspiracy theories, racism, sexism, and bigotry) make Fox News unsafe for most advertisers. And whether it's Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham's show, the core issue is that Fox News management, from the Murdochs on down, is not interested in fixing the problem.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Also: Once again, Fox News anchor Shep Smith has debunked a pro-Trump lie spread by Hannity. This same thing keeps happening.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">escalator</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.gq.com/story/spygate-conspiracy-theory-explained</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">escalator</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no many lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Spygate: How Right-Wing Media Creates a Conspiracy Theory Out of Thin Air</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">BY JAY WILLIS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is how conservative media transformed a small news item into a full-blown conspiracy theory that the president (apparently) believes to be true.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The plot goes like this: During the summer of 2016, on the clandestine orders of then-president Barack Obama, the FBI and CIA hatched an ambitious plan to topple the Trump campaign from the inside. In a scandal of unprecedented scope, Democratic politicians commandeered American counterintelligence resources to spy on their primary political opponent and boost Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election. The Russia investigation that has dominated headlines for nearly two years is, in fact, a desperate smokescreen conjured up by terrified Deep State actors to conceal evidence of their own wrongdoing, and to frame the president for heinous crimes he didn't commit.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On May 8, The Washington Post reported on the White House's decision to back the Justice Department's withholding of information from House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, on the grounds that disclosure would expose the identity of "a U.S. citizen who has provided information to the FBI and CIA." The authors added, though, that the individual had been a source of information used by the special counsel's office—and that it was unclear whether Trump knew this "key fact" when his administration chose to side with law enforcement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It didn't take long for him to find out. Almost immediately, the right-wing-media ecosystem began laundering and repackaging this news item, weaving its constituent elements together with Trumpian talking points until a full-blown conspiracy theory worthy of the president's tweets emerged on the other side. This metamorphosis is what would happen if a word cloud sourced from a Trump rally were used in a giant game of telephone—but one in which the gibberish end result were then broadcast as news to hundreds of millions of recipients.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How did this happen?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 10</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Two days after the initial report, citing "the Washington Post's unnamed law-enforcement leakers," The Wall Street Journal publishes an analysis by conservative commentator Kim Strassel. "[W]e might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign." Such a development, she writes, "would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting." Strassel continues (all emphasis mine):</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[W]hen precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is at once cautious and bold, introducing the salacious vocabulary of espionage to a detail about an intelligence source—but only, she clarifies, if the allegations are true. Strassel does not offer a reason for entertaining her hypothetical, other than her characterization of the players' accounts of the investigation as "suspiciously vague."She is, in the classic style of well-compensated public intellectuals filling up column inches, just asking questions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That night, other journalists are happy to offer answers. On Sean Hannity's Fox News show, journalist Sara Carter, citing Strassel, tells listeners of “concern that the FBI actually had a spy within the Trump campaign.” Hannity is dumbfounded: “What? What?” he splutters. "Yes," replies Carter. Blogs like Gateway Pundit kick off the breathless hyperbole category. "Now we know why the Deep State has been working so hard to take down President Trump and the republic," said the post, linking to and block-quoting Strassel. "OBAMA DEEP STATE HAD A SPY INSIDE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN!"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 11</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The baton is passed to Fox News, which syndicates Strassel's article and changes the headline from “About that FBI ‘source’” to “Did the FBI place a mole inside the 2016 Trump campaign?” On Fox & Friends, the president's morning program of choice, Pete Hegseth weighs in, hesitantly at first. "Did the FBI have a spy in the Trump campaign? Just asking the question. There’s an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal about it." Ainsley Earhardt quotes at length from the column before positing that it means the FBI and DOJ had someone "paid to go and spy on President Trump."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh picks up the thread, encouraging the conflation of the FBI and President Obama. Strassel's article mentions Obama only once, and only in passing. But this is Rush Limbaugh, not a major newspaper; he can say things like this without fear of repercussions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When I say “the FBI,” I mean the Obama administration. They infiltrated the Trump campaign with a spy, and while they had that spy implanted, they were unmasking and leaking and obtaining FISA spying warrants and conducting criminal investigations of Trump advisers. This is a big deal...For our purposes, folks, the important thing is that the Obama administration infiltrated the Trump campaign with a spy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The buzz grows louder online. "Did the FBI have a spy in the Trump campaign?" asks Andrew McCarthy, praising Strassel's column as "essential reporting," in a National Review article that published early the next morning. Right-wing blog ZeroHedge makes an affirmative statement—“WSJ: The FBI Hid a Mole in the Trump Campaign”—out of his question. Also citing Strassel, Tucker Carlson refers to a "government spy" and a "mole" sent by "the Obama administration." His guest, NRATV personality Dan Bongino, reveals that he believes there to have been more than one spy, referring to "reporting." He does not elaborate on-air.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 14</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The week begins with lawmakers joining the fray. On Fox & Friends, GOP congressman Ron DeSantis calls for a follow-up investigation into the matter. "I know that we’re actively trying to get the underlying documents that would tell us: Did they spy on the Trump campaign or not?” he asks, implicitly treating the premises of that query as if they were beyond dispute. To Lou Dobbs on Fox Business Network, Matt Gaetz expresses unease with "reports" he'd heard "about potential human intelligence being collected on a rival presidential campaign."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These men are egged on by, among others, Rush Limbaugh, who asserts he knows the identity of the spy that the FBI "put in the Trump campaign," and Hannity, whose radio guest David Limbaugh—Rush's younger brother—opines that "an official policy inserting a confidential source into a presidential campaign" would be "unprecedented" and "worse than Watergate." Like DeSantis, he includes a soft qualifier, though: "If it happened! We have to get to the bottom of it."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 15</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nunes appears on the Fox & Friends set, hinting that the campaign might have been "set up" by the FBI. “I believe they never should have opened a counterintelligence investigation into a political party,” he explains. And although he at first avoids using the word "spy," his hosts are happy to put it in his mouth. Steve Doocy suggests that Nunes's narrative implies that Trump was "framed," while Earhardt adds that "it makes it sound like there was a spy."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some 12 hours later, Hannity is again agape at the "possibility of an FBI mole that was inside the Trump campaign." He runs snippets of the "stunning" Nunes interview, scarcely able to believe his ears. "The powerful tools of intelligence used to spy on an opposition party candidate, and those powerful tools used against Americans?" he muses. "No, that can't happen here."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 16</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Laura Ingraham's show, Rudy Giuliani at once broaches the subject of the FBI "possibly placing a spy in the Trump campaign" while admitting that he doesn't know if the gossip is true. The next morning, on Fox & Friends, he’ll again dip his toes in the water before retreating to solid ground. "That would be the biggest scandal in the history of this town—at least, involving law enforcement," Giuliani warns.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He's intrigued by the possibility, though. "Maybe two spies!" he wonders aloud.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meanwhile, outside the MAGAsphere, a New York Times article helps breathe new life into the conspiracy theory. The authors of that report—an account of the 2016 law-enforcement inquiry into the Trump campaign—note that “at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos.” Referring to the preceding week of innuendo, they characterize this detail as a “politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As noted by USA Today's Brad Heath, FBI guidelines allow agents to use informants, among many other methods of information-gathering, when assessing whether a matter warrants a full criminal investigation. The Bureau's partial reliance on a "source" here isn't especially remarkable.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Furthermore, given their knowledge of the Kremlin's election-meddling efforts, it isn't difficult to understand why the intelligence community might have an interest in a campaign's ties to Russia, regardless of the candidate's political affiliation. Marco Rubio—a man not known for being fond of Hillary Clinton—said as much after reviewing the underlying evidence along with the rest of the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which found no secret political motivation for opening the inquiry. “There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he reasoned in comments cited by the Times. “That’s what they did.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It doesn't matter. One little opening is all it takes. Breitbart, mentioning the May 8 Post story and Strassel's follow-up, proclaims that the Times report "confirmed" that the FBI ran a "spy operation on the Trump campaign that involved government informants, secret subpoenas, and possible wiretaps." (The article itself mentions only the FISA warrant on Page, but the headline's plural form—"wiretaps"—does its job of making things sound especially ominous.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">May 17</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other right-wing outlets aggregating the Times report draw the same conclusions Breitbart did. “FBI officials admit they spied on the Trump campaign,” blares The Federalist, which justifies its assertion with a helpful explanatory aside.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This paragraph [in the Times report] is noteworthy for the way it describes spying on the campaign—“at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos”—before suggesting that might not be spying. The definition of spying is to secretly collect information, so it’s not really in dispute whether a government informant fits the bill.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Note that the write-up does not actually suggest that the FBI "planted" anyone in the campaign. But by setting out an expansive definition of "spying," articles like this one allow other publications—ones that might not so carefully define their terms—to use the word in that more specific (and more nefarious) context.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is the National Review's coverage—assisted by cable news—that finally allows this story to reach the hallways of the Executive Residence. "With the blessing of the Obama White House," writes Andrew McCarthy, again attributing the actions of law-enforcement officials to affirmative decisions of the then-president, the FBI "took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans—Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries."He continues:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Obviously, Russia was trying to meddle in the election, mainly through cyber-espionage—hacking. There would, then, have been nothing inappropriate about the FBI’s opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible not to do so. That’s what counterintelligence powers are for.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is the thrust of his argument, and it is nonsensical. McCarthy seems to assume that counterintelligence investigations "against Russia" and counterintelligence investigations "against the Trump campaign" must be mutually exclusive propositions, and that under no circumstances could a Russia-related intelligence probe look at the activities of Russia-related Trump officials. (His analysis is aided by a gross oversimplification of a key provision of FISA.) It would be "irresponsible," he urges, not to investigate what Russia may have been doing. But by virtue of their affiliation with a politician, everyone on the campaign should be insulated from any attendant scrutiny.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Before his column publishes, McCarthy hops on Fox & Friends to promote it. “There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign,” he says in a strange moment of confidence and timidity. (In a fun, incestuous right-wing-media aside, while listing McCarthy's credentials, F&F co-host Brian Kilmeade adds, "Hopefully a Fox News contributor soon.") Not long afterward, Trump takes to Twitter to express his outrage, shouting out McCarthy by name for a job well done.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Donald J. Trump</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@realDonaldTrump</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI “SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT.” Andrew McCarthy says, “There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.” If so, this is bigger than Watergate!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Law-enforcement pushback begins in earnest. Sources tell CNN that, no, the source was not placed within the Trump campaign. The Times provides even more details about the timeline, affirming that the informant spoke to campaign members only after the FBI learned of their dubious contacts with Russia. "No evidence has emerged," it reiterates, "that the informant acted improperly when the F.B.I. asked for help in gathering information on the former campaign advisers, or that agents veered from the F.B.I.’s investigative guidelines and began a politically motivated inquiry, which would be illegal."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It's too late. Because Donald Trump is president of the United States, the content of his tweets becomes breaking news regardless of its accuracy. "Trump: Justice Department planted spy in 2016 campaign," declares an AP headline that runs, among other places, in The Washington Post and U.S. News & World Report. The body text notes that Trump's "own lawyer" has said that the allegation "might not be true." But for readers inclined to believe what Donald Trump says, or for those who only saw the headline as they scrolled through their social feeds, it might as well have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Epilogue: May 18–20</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The next day, the president tweets again, and again, with grateful acknowledgements for the hard work put in by Fox News personalities Lou Dobbs, David Asman, and Gregg Jarrett.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While Fox & Friends may be Trump's favorite show, Trump's close relationship with Sean Hannity is unparalleled. Hannity and Trump speak before bedtime, and Hannity has been called Trump's unofficial chief of staff. Trump also encourages people to watch Hannity's show. Matt Gertz reviewed everything that Sean Hannity said about Robert Mueller's probe for a year, and found that Hannity has been laying the groundworkfor Trump to use any means necessary to stop the investigation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Also: There is a small, recurring cast of characters that is primarily seen on Hannity, Lou Dobbs Tonight, and Justice with Jeanine Pirro. These are the people who are telling Trump to act on his authoritarian impulses, and who are normalizing extreme, authoritarian actions within Trump's base before Trump does anything.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What Fox News doesn't tell its viewers: Getting no mention on Hannity or elsewhere on Fox News was a report that Saudi and Emirati princes offered assistance to the Trump campaign. Erik Prince (Blackwater founder and brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos) and George Nader, emissary for the princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, were both present at an August 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. Following this meeting, Nader became close with members of the Trump campaign and had multiple meetings with Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/how-right-wing-media-help-trump-spin-lies-about-russia-investigation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2 mtgs gang 8</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">... crucial to view this attempt by the White House to assert the existence of an anti-Trump cabal within the government in context: It's the latest in a series of fraudulent and debunked attemps to push such a claim. Trump’s demand that his investigators be investigated rests on a foundation of lies that was built with the critical assistance of a credulous and complicit right-wing media.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Let’s run through all the major conspiracy theories that brought us to this point.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wiretapping&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The effort by Trump and his defenders to deflect attention from the Russia investigation onto the previous administration started with this early-morning tweet from March 2017:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4:35 AM - Mar 4, 2017</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;144K</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;103K people are talking about this</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twitter Ads info and privacy&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It was a deathly serious allegation for the president to make, and it was completely false. Top Justice Department officials denied the allegation, a DOJ court filing affirmed that there are “no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets,” and the president has not produced any evidence to back up his accusation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Unmasking</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nonetheless, Trump’s defenders in the conservative media contorted themselves to try to prove Trump was right, especially following House intelligence committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes’ March 22, 2017, press conference (which Nunes secretly coordinated with the White House) announcing that “surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Speaking of Nunes, he became the driving force behind the allegation that Obama administration officials had improperly unmasked the identities of Trump associates whose conversations were incidentally captured by intelligence agencies. Once again acting on information provided by the Trump White House, Nunes accused former national security adviser Susan Rice and other Obama officials of abusing the unmasking process. Rice acknowledged that she had requested certain identities, but congressional investigators from both parties saidshe’d done nothing wrong.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The “unmasking” nonsense permeated conservative media and was presented as evidence of an Obama-led conspiracy to undermine Trump as president-elect. Trump himself told The New York Times that he believed Rice had committed a crime.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Secret society”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This was an especially stupid fiasco kicked up by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). The pair went on Fox News to reveal the existence of a text message exchange between two FBI agents sent the day after the 2016 election that referenced a “secret society” supposedly populated by anti-Trump law enforcement officials. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, seized on the message to allege “corruption at the highest levels of the FBI.” Conservative media went absolutely crazy with the “secret society” allegation, holding it up as proof of a “deep state” conspiracy against Trump.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The “secret society” turned out to be nothing more than an inside joke between the two agents.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The White House’s deflection strategy rests on the idea that Barack Obama corrupted law enforcement agencies by directing them to investigate Donald Trump’s campaign as a way of undermining his candidacy. To that end, Republicans and conservatives are invested in demonstrating that Obama actively meddled in politically sensitive law enforcement business, such as the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In February, Johnson’s committee released a report alleging that a text message from an FBI agent stating that Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing” raised “questions about the type and extent of President Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email scandal and the FBI investigation of it.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Once again, conservative media was driven to a frenzy, fueled partially by Trump’s tweet that the “NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!” And, once again, it all turned out to be false -- the text in question referred to presidential briefing materials regarding the investigation into Russian election interference, not Clinton.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FBI hid info from the FISA court&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In February, Nunes’ committee released a memo that, according to the frantic hype that preceded its release, would reveal rampant surveillance abuses committed by intelligence agencies against the Trump campaign. Chief among the alleged abuses was the accusation that the FBI had illicitly obtained a warrant to surveil former Trump aide Carter Page by concealing from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court the political origin of some of the evidence it cited in its application.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing media figures like Sean Hannity called this “Watergate times a thousand” and said the FBI “lie[d] to a foreign intelligence surveillance court.” Trump tweeted that the memo “totally vindicates” him and showed the Russia investigation to be “an American disgrace.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It was a lie -- the political origin of the evidence was indeed disclosed in the FBI application -- and Nunes and his Republican colleagues admitted as much in the days following the memo’s release.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What emerges from all this is a damning picture of a Republican political operation -- involving the White House and key members of Congress -- to concoct blatant falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and a conservative media apparatus that readily absorbs and rebroadcasts that propaganda. At a certain level, behavior like this is to be expected -- these same characters spent all eight years of the Obama administration cobbling together ridiculous conspiracy theories about Benghazi, the former president’s birthplace, and a secret military invasion of Texas.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There is a key difference, however, in all the lying about the Russia investigation. These conspiracy theories are defensive. Most conservative pundits will describe the Russia investigation as a threat to the very fabric of American government; they recognize the extreme danger it poses to Trump’s presidency. Trump himself has no discernible legal strategy. Instead, he’s fighting a public relations campaign and casting himself as the victim of a “witch hunt.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These attacks on the legitimacy of the investigation are the only weapon they have against it. And as the investigation exposes Trump to more and more legal and political peril, the conspiratorial attacks on the Justice Department and the Obama administration become more strident. Trump used to be content to vent on Twitter about the Russia investigation, but now he’s using the weight of his office to give life to an evidence-free accusation of political persecution.&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump relies on the conservative media’s unthinking support as he wages this increasingly unhinged campaign. He needs to hear the hosts of Fox & Friends chirp every morning about how each new phony “bombshell” about the Russia investigation vindicates him. He needs to chat with Sean Hannity every night before bedtime about how Robert Mueller is out to get him. But Trump is only going to get more frustrated as each increasingly elaborate falsehood fails to produce the desired outcome, and that means the coordinated lying and conspiracy-mongering are only going to get worse as the investigation moves forward.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5/18 under investigation?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/fox-news-sean-hannity-and-donald-trumps-bromance-extends-them-chatting-bed-night-report</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Every night the phone rings for Fox News host Sean Hannity from the White House. While the first lady is in her own bedroom down the hall of the executive residence, the bromance between the two men is glowing through the phone as they gush over the president’s latest coverage on the network.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A shocking expose in New York Magazine revealed Sunday the many sources that are intimately aware of the relationship the two men share and how it has crafted the communications strategy for the White House.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"White House staff are aware that the calls happen, thanks to the president entering a room and announcing, 'I just hung up with Hannity,' or referring to what Hannity said during their conversations, or even ringing Hannity up from his desk in their presence," the report outlined.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Early on in the Trump presidency, the morning was spent flipping from cable news shows like MSNBC's Morning Joe to CNN's New Day, which ultimately lead to rage tweeting and an entire day's plans thrown out onto the White House lawn.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It got to the point that they were just like, ‘We need to get him off these channels and onto Fox & Friends or else we’re going to be chasing down this crazy-train bullshit from MSNBC and CNN all day,’” one former White House official told New York Magazine.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thanks to former chief of staff Reince Priebus and press secretary Sean Spicer, however, the team was able to move the president to Fox News. The result has been a happier and more blissfully benighted Trump less likely to ignite World War III after a Chris Cuomo quip. That's not to say that there aren't other problems.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Sometimes on Fox, a lot of stories are embellished, and they don’t necessarily cover the big news stories of the day," explained the current White House official. "When they cover the smaller stories, if that gets the president riled up, then that becomes an issue. Whenever he tweets, all of us do a mad dash or mad scramble to find out as much information about that random topic as possible. We’re used to it in a lot of ways, so it’s part of our morning routine.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To make matters worse, Trump doesn't trust anyone willing to work for him. Instead he flocks to his phone, begging for outsiders to confirm he's right. At the center of those on speed dial, however, is Hannity.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Sean Hannity understands the basic issues of economic nationalism and ‘America First’ foreign policy at a deeper level than the august staff of Jonathan Chait and the f*ckin’ clowns at New York Magazine,” Bannon replied.“Generally, the feeling is that Sean is the leader of the outside kitchen cabinet,” another White House official told New York Magazine.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A White House official explained it as the influence of administration officials are essentially equal to Fox News.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read more of the extensive details of the relationship at New York Magazine.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">trump, dobbs, rudy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">president gets his information from Fox, makes his decisions and tweets accordingly, repeating network talking points minutes after he has heard them, no matter how goofy. In turn, the personalities of Fox have become presidential advisers; former judge and Fox host Jeanine Pirro and attorney, conspiracy theorist and Fox regular Joe diGenova, who was on Trump’s legal team for about a week before conflicts of interest forced him out, remain on the president’s speed dial.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What’s more, Trump “cherishes” Lou Dobbs over at Fox Business, according to The Daily Beast, places him on speakerphone for meetings in the Oval Office and makes sure “he is involved in some of the administration’s more sensitive discussions.” And an insider tells The Washington Post that Fox superstar Sean Hannity is so omnipresent at the White House, “he basically has a desk in the place.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conversely, the president and his minions repeatedly go on Fox programs to bluster and dissemble. In the last week and a half, Trump himself has phoned into his favorite show “Fox and Friends” for a thirty-minute, Grandpa Simpsons-style rant – and threatens to do it again soon. And former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, the latest addition to Trump’s squad of nerve-wracked legal eagles, has appeared on Fox almost as much as those commercials for catheters.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ostensibly, Giuliani’s mission has been to defend his boss against the Stormy Daniels and Russia scandals, and whatever else may soon rear its head when it comes to Michael Cohen, money laundering and other alleged high crimes and misdemeanors. Yet his comments don’t seem to be helping the president’s cause; quite the contrary. This headline from The Onion says it all, “Mueller Poses As Fox News Host To Coax Rudy Giuliani Into Giving Him Testimony On Trump.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/fox-news-and-white-house-created-massive-toxic-bubble-its-about-pop</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/sean-hannity-coordinating-white-house</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Every episode of Fox News’ Hannity follows a fairly basic formula these days: pugnacious cube-headed goon Sean Hannity serves up a monologue devoted almost entirely to the vituperative (and frequently incoherent) slander of President Donald Trump’s political adversaries, and then he lards out the hour with panel discussions featuring a small, rotating cast of like-minded Trump sycophants and the odd sacrificial liberal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Donald Trump’s many scandals have mushroomed, Hannity has been forced to get louder and crazier. Last night’s episode was an especially psychotic exercise in Hannity-brand demonization as he attempted to counterpunch former FBI Director James Comey, who is ramping up a book tour for his forthcoming memoir. You can watch Hannity’s monologue below, in which the host places Comey, the Clintons, and special counsel Robert Mueller as the heads of their respective “crime families.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It’s insane, but it's what Sean Hannity does. What was interesting about last night’s show, however, was the tweet that President Trump posted at 8:48 p.m. EST, 12 minutes before Hannity started:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Donald J. Trump</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@realDonaldTrump</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Big show tonight on @seanhannity! 9:00 P.M. on @FoxNews</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5:48 PM - Apr 11, 2018</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">51.5K</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">33.2K people are talking about this</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twitter Ads info and privacy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Big show! How would Trump know that last night’s Hannity would be a big show? Why would he want everyone to watch this specific episode of Hannity, which featured some of his favorite pundits calling for the heads of top Justice Department officials alongside an elaborate, acid-burned harangue against James Comey and Robert Mueller? What possible explanation could there be?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Well, the obvious and extremely satisfying one is that Trump knew it was coming and this was all one big coordinated attack on the credibility of the Russia investigation. That, at least, was the explanation put forth by well-sourced Trumpworld reporters. We know that Trump is in regular contact with his favorite Fox News hosts/propagandists (some of whom are old friends) and even solicits their input on policy matters. And given that Fox News is absolutely critical to the White House’s PR war against the Russia investigation, it’s not crazy to assume some level of coordination.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity, however, is aghast and insulted that anyone would ever accuse him of such corruption.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sean Hannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@seanhannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;And the answer is “NO” to the Fake news industrial complex @ Potus was not given ANY heads up on my monologue using the “Comey” standard!!!&nbsp; Nice try. https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/984244920293699584 …</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6:48 PM - Apr 11, 2018</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3,871</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“No collusion,” as it were. One should take a moment to note the specificity of Hannity’s denial -- Trump had no advance knowledge of the monologue. What about the rest of the show? If Trump had no idea what was coming, then why was he boosting the program before it aired?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Also, Hannity’s angry denials are not worth the flung spittle that accompanies them. He is so thoroughly compromised by his feral Trump advocacy that nothing he says can be taken at face value. Hannity has admitted to giving Trump advice on strategy and messaging in 2016 and described himself as “a little bit of a liaison” between the Trump campaign and Fox News. He has dinner with Trump frequently. Hannity has no core, no animating philosophy, and nothing of substance to say -- his job is to yell louder than the president's critics.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Hannity would have us believe that he comes by his maniacal Trump boosterism honestly, that he is beyond official influence in his straight-shooting mission to cover the president as an infallible sun god molested by foul heretics and despicable blasphemers. So, I guess denying or admitting coordination doesn’t really matter because his end product is already functionally indistinct from official propaganda. Hannity’s either giving us the official White House line or the line the White House just happens to agree with entirely.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Simon Maloy is Salon's political writer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">also politico</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;If you’re a regular listener of Glenn Beck’s radio show and you wanted to contribute to a political group that would advance the populist conservative ideals he touts on his show, you’d have plenty of reason to think that FreedomWorks was your best investment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But if you’re a fan of Mark Levin’s radio show, you’d have just as much cause to believe that Americans for Prosperity, a FreedomWorks rival, was the most effective conservative advocacy group. And, if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity are who you listen to, you’d be hearing a steady stream of entreaties to support the important work of the Heritage Foundation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The point that people don’t realize,” said Michael Harrison, founder and publisher of the talk media trade publication TALKERS Magazine, “is that (big time political talk show hosts) are radio personalities – they are in the same business that people like Casey Kasem are in – and what they do is no different than people who broadcast from used car lots or restaurants or who endorse the local roofer or gardener.”That’s not coincidence. In search of donations and influence, the three prominent conservative groups are paying hefty sponsorship fees to the popular talk show hosts. Those fees buy them a variety of promotional tie-ins, as well as regular on-air plugs – praising or sometimes defending the groups, while urging listeners to donate – often woven seamlessly into programming in ways that do not seem like paid advertising.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Heritage Foundation pays about $2 million to sponsor Limbaugh’s show and about $1.3 million to do the same with Hannity’s – and considers it money well spent.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We approach it the way anyone approaches advertising: where is our audience that wants to buy what you sell?” Genevieve Wood, Heritage’s vice president for operations and marketing. “And their audiences obviously fit that model for us. They promote conservative ideas and that’s what we do.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Last month, in the midst of a flurry of scrutiny of GOP presidential candidates’ stances on health insurance mandates similar to one included in the 2010 Democratic healthcare overhaul, Limbaugh took to the airwaves to defend Heritage’s past support for such a proposal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The Heritage Foundation to this day says they are being impugned and misrepresented in terms of their advocacy for such a thing,” Limbaugh said, explaining that the venerable think tank “abandoned the idea once they saw it implemented” and realized “it doesn’t work.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Limbaugh, who has been a paid Heritage endorser since 2009, said the reversal did nothing to detract from the “profound … respect for Heritage. Heritage is the gold standard. Heritage was every bit as involved in Reaganism as Reagan was, and nothing’s changed.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Levin, whose endorsement deal with the tea party organizing group Americans for Prosperity started last summer, was similarly protective of his sponsor last year after President Barack Obama singled out the group in making the case that anonymously funded attack ads were distorting the midterm elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Americans for Prosperity is a magnificent organization that people join voluntarily. You. Me,” Levin said on his syndicated radio show. Obama, Levin continued, “wants you to hate Americans for Prosperity. So if he wants you to hate it, then you should embrace it, and promote it, and support it and join it, because it’s effective.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...Beck, lavishing praise on FreedomWorks’s new social network website this year, seemed to acknowledge the blurriness of the line between his show’s content and messages paid for by advertisers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This is a new thing from FreedomWorks and by the way, they are sponsor of this program and I have a commercial to do for them in, well, in just a few minutes. I don’t think they’re going to get one because this is pretty much it,” he said on his show, in a clip that’s posted on his personal website. “But it is something that I believe in, I’m not saying this because they’re paying me to do a commercial in a couple of minutes. This is something that I think is absolutely critical.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To be sure, the hosts’ political perspectives dovetail with those of their endorsees and their paid sponsorships do not preclude them from discussing – or even praising – other groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And the integration of sponsors and their causes into the content of conservative talkers’ shows is not unique to advocacy groups and think tanks, as Beck demonstrated in 2009 when he melded his frequent warnings of impending economic collapse with his promotion of gold, generally, and the precious metals retailer that sponsored his show, Goldline, specifically.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That prompted liberals – led by now-embattled Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner – to accuse Beck and, to a lesser extent, other conservative talk show hosts sponsored by gold retailers, of using misleading fear-mongering tactics “to cheat consumers.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The increased willingness of non-profits to write big checks for such radio endorsements – which appears to have started in 2008, when Heritage paid $1.2 million to sponsor the talk shows hosted by Hannity and Laura Ingraham – seems to be a primarily, if not entirely, a conservative phenomenon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That’s perhaps attributable to the enduring power of talk radio on the right, as well as a newer development, the explosion of grassroots engagement by tea partiers and other newly mobilized Republican activists, which has spurred a competition for grass roots support – and contributions - among conservative groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Heritage estimates that it in each of the past two years, its sponsorships with Limbaugh and Hannity brought in more than 40,000 new memberships starting at the $25 level, while FreedomWorks said that in the three months after its Beck sponsorship started in April 2010, the group saw a huge spike in traffic to its website (which featured a photo of Beck linked to a fundraising appeal), resulting in 50,000 new email sign-ups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Americans for Prosperity wouldn’t divulge any details about its sponsorship of Levin, but board member Art Pope said the endorsement “makes AfP’s position on issues and policies more widely known and it also does attract grassroots activists or potential donors to AfP.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The groups pay the companies that distribute the hosts’ shows, and not the hosts directly, for the endorsements.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While the deals differ, most provide the sponsoring group a certain number of messages or so called “live-reads,” in which the host will use a script, outline or set of talking points to deliver an advertisement touting the group and encouraging listeners to visit its website or contribute to it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/media/fox-news-trump-fire-rosenstein</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">hannity</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing hosts like Sean Hannity get paid to pitch guns as a way to “survive a mass shooting”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Blog ››› October 6, 2017 11:40 AM EDT ››› ERIC HANANOKI</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[vid]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Right-wing radio hosts such as Sean Hannity and Mark Levin have been acting as paid pitch people for a company that promises to help train members on how to use guns to “survive a mass shooting.” Hannity has been especially vocal about the company and used the recent Las Vegas mass shooting to shill for it on his radio program.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) is a pro-gun company that sells membership plans featuring“education, training, and self-defense insurance” for gun owners. It also criticizes attempts to enact gun control laws and publishes Concealed Carry Magazine. The group claims to have over 250,000 members and has attempted to grow its membership over the years through numerous advertising buys with conservative media.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Ben Shapiro are all part of the association’s latest advertising campaign for a “100% FREE Complete Concealed Carry & Family Defense Guide,” which includes tips on “how to survive a mass shooting” and “the safest AND most dangerous places to sit in a restaurant” (the sign-up takes people to a page that urges them to pay for a membership).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The USCCA created dedicated landing pages for each individual host participating in the advertising campaign, including the following identical quote which was cut and pasted for each person:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prior to the Las Vegas shooting, these media personalities did advertisements for the campaign that aired in late September. Here are those ads, along with their dedicated website URL: ?Beck (ProtectAndDefend.com), ?Hannity (DefendFamily.com), ?Levin (DefendThem.com), and ?Shapiro (DefendMyFamilyNow.com) .</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity has continued to tout USCCA as a solution to surviving a mass shooting following the Las Vegas tragedy. During his October 5 radio program, Hannity segued from talking about the mass shooting to introducing “our friends at the United States Concealed Carry Association,” saying, “I’m proud to be associated with them. They have offered a family defense guide. You’re going to learn -- and this is 164 pages -- how to survive a mass shooting. How to detect attackers before they see you.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Previously, Hannity used the shooting at a congressional baseball practice in June to push USCCA membership.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The association, which did not respond to requests for comment, features a Hannity testimonial on its websiteunder the headline: “Why Sean Hannity Joined The USCCA… Hear Why One Of The Most Trusted Conservative Voices In America Is A Proud Card-Carrying Member.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[audio]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity used his October 4 Fox News program to advocate for concealed carry while discussing the Las Vegas shooting. He praised right-to-carry laws and said that “having more citizens that are armed leads to a decrease in violent crime.” He did not mention he’s being paid by a pro-right-to-carry group during the program.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite Hannity’s claim, as The Atlantic noted in June, “academic studies have strongly suggested” that right-to-carry laws “lead to higher rates of violent crime. The latest -- and, at least according to one of its authors, most comprehensive -- was released earlier this month by the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research.” The study concluded, “There is not even the slightest hint in the data that [these] laws reduce violent crime.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Media Matters previously documented that Hannity repeatedly used his Fox New program to push his radio sponsor’s concealed carry agenda without any disclosure about his financial relationship. He similarly used his Fox News program in 2014 to promote the fundraising efforts of the Tea Party Patriots, which sponsored his radio program.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.mediamatters.org/people/ben-shapiro</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hannity is still blaming Obama for things</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The stock market has been more volatile of late, and on Monday had a historic drop of over a thousand points. Sean Hannity immediately blamed the drop on Barack Obama. In fact, Hannity has been blaming Obama for downturns in the stock market for a decade now; Hannity even blamed the market crash of 2008 on Obama. Far-right circles are blaming the stock market troubles on the deep state, and one Fox host arguedthat Trump should take credit for the good of the stock market, but not the bad.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Also: With the retirements of so many Americans in 401ks, it makes sense that the stock market gets a certain amount of coverage. But it is important to also remember that the stock market is not synonymous with the economy as a whole. While the stock market gets lots of television coverage, comparatively little notice is paid to things like Oklahoma schools shifting to a four-day week so that teachers can work at Walmart on Mondays, or ten percent of Amazon's employees in Ohio using food stamps. And as for the stock market swing, it says a lot about how Wall Street wants to suppress the wages of everyday Americans.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Study: Trump supporters spread most of the "junk news"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A new Oxford study shows that most "junk news" on social media is spread by Trump supporters. As Media Matters visiting fellow Melissa Ryan shows, this is a huge structural problem that ends up infecting the entire media ecosystem. Take for example the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag, which research shows was driven both by Russian-linked bots and Trump supporters on social media. That it was trending on social media gave it a push to be covered by mainstream outlets. Nowadays, there often seems to be way too many things for the news to cover; that Trump supporters have figured out a way to game that without the media really understanding how is a huge problem.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CONFERENCES</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">islam conf banner</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One way we do that is through conferences:&nbsp; click here for posts related to our August 2016 conference on Islam, here for photos and videos, and here for our youtube channel</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">LITERARY CAFES</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our past cafes in 2016 were</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">June:&nbsp; Jesse Lee Peterson and his new book&nbsp; ANTIDOTE:&nbsp; Healing America from the poison of victimhood, hate and blame</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jesse Lee Peterson is the most courageous, outspoken critic of the “civil rights” establishment in America today. Raised without his father on a plantation near Tuskegee, Alabama during the Jim Crow era, Peterson has lived a part of America’s history few have experienced. After a spiritual transformation, Peterson founded BOND, a nationally recognized nonprofit organization dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family by Rebuilding the Man.” Peterson is also the founder of The BOND Leadership Academy, a private school in Los Angeles.&nbsp; He’s a radio talk show host, speaker, and the author of SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America, and From Rage to Responsibility. Peterson writes a weekly column for WND.com and appears as a media commentator on Fox News Channel, CNN, and other national TV and radio networks.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Product details</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hardcover: 240 pages</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Publisher: WND Books (November 24, 2015)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jesse Lee Peterson</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4.1 out of 5 stars 105</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Paperback</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">$12.31 Prime</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">From Rage to Responsibility: Black Conservative Jesse Lee Peterson and America Today</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">From Rage to Responsibility: Black Conservative Jesse Lee…</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jesse Lee Peterson</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4.0 out of 5 stars 19</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hardcover</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">$18.90 Prime</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us…</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">David Kupelian</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4.7 out of 5 stars 601</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Paperback</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">$13.38 Prime</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Daniel Horowitz</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4.8 out of 5 stars 38</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hardcover</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">$17.17 Prime</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jesse Lee Peterson</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4.1 out of 5 stars 105</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hardcover</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">57 offers from $1.99</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Black Yellowdogs: The Most Dangerous Citizen Is Not Armed, But Uninformed</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Black Yellowdogs: The Most Dangerous Citizen Is Not Armed, But Uninformed</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ben Kinchlow</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4.8 out of 5 stars 128</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>