Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Cameron

Cohen's mystery third client is Sean Hannity

69 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, zenwalk said:

It certainly gives motive to the groveling of  Trump's shoeshiner-in-chief at Fox. Hopefully Fox may begin to see it's not a terribly bright business move branding themselves with the corrupt kakistocrats of Trump and Friends.

That's not going to happen. It's all about the ratings. There are enough people willing to consume this distasteful product. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zenwalk said:

It certainly gives motive to the groveling of  Trump's shoeshiner-in-chief at Fox. Hopefully Fox may begin to see it's not a terribly bright business move branding themselves with the corrupt kakistocrats of Trump and Friends.

I thought of that, but Hannity was far right before Trump first showed himself on the political stage. Fox is no more likely to move left than CNN will move right, so nothing in this, at least so far as I can see, is going to change Fox’ bent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cameron said:

HUH?

It is Cohen's motion to stop the government from using the documents seized from Cohen.

It was their argument to the judge on Friday that Cohen had about 10 other clients, not only Trump, whose attorney/client privilege could be violated.

But they were unable to name one.

This morning, they said there were three, Trump, Broidy and a client whose name they didn't want to disclose.

The names of clients are not privilged.

I didn’t say they were privileged Cameron; I simply asked a question.  The 3rd client was Hannity; so what?  Do you see a value to either side’s case in knowing that Hannity is a client?  I don’t want to miss something obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FatBoy said:

That's not going to happen. It's all about the ratings. There are enough people willing to consume this distasteful product. 

Are there though? After a time even Nixon's staunchest backers gave it up. I doubt the polls favoring Trump. Those folks don't watch the news for the most part and their support for Trump is what they used to say about GWH Bush's popularity: his support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Fox is leaving Great Britain for example. So its ratings are  not unassailable.  Once consensus turns the end comes quickly. Watergate is the perfect example. That took years but when it happened, it happened good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

I thought of that, but Hannity was far right before Trump first showed himself on the political stage. Fox is no more likely to move left than CNN will move right, so nothing in this, at least so far as I can see, is going to change Fox’ bent.

Trump isn't "right" though.  He isn't anything but corrupt.  At some point even Rupert gets that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

I didn’t say they were privileged Cameron; I simply asked a question.  The 3rd client was Hannity; so what?  Do you see a value to either side’s case in knowing that Hannity is a client?  I don’t want to miss something obvious.

I'm not sure I believe your last statement there, MOTR.  :D

Without regard to anybody's case, OBVIOUSLY there are some conflict of interest issues here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cameron said:

I'm not sure I believe your last statement there, MOTR.  :D

Without regard to anybody's case, OBVIOUSLY there are some conflict of interest issues here.

The exposure of Tokyo Rose Hannity as being part of the circulatory system of the corrupt administration is very helpful for the necessary context as to why he is such an unflinching supporter of Trump. Now if we could find out why Trump is similarly an unflinching supporter of Putin we'd be getting somewhere. It's the same thing really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cameron said:

I'm not sure I believe your last statement there, MOTR.  :D

Without regard to anybody's case, OBVIOUSLY there are some conflict of interest issues here.

I feel like arguing, at least until a ball game comes on, so I’ll ask; how?  Hannity is not a news person.  He’s nothing more than a far right talking head. He certainly doesn’t hide his bias, however “fair and balanced” Fox claims to be. If Trump ever did stand in Times Square and shoot someone, Hannity would boast of how god a shot Trump was, so where’s the conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

The exposure of Tokyo Rose Hannity as being part of the circulatory system of the corrupt administration is very helpful for the necessary context as to why he is such an unflinching supporter of Trump. Now if we could find out why Trump is similarly an unflinching supporter of Putin we'd be getting somewhere. It's the same thing really.

You’re starting to sound like a bumper sticker Zen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

I feel like arguing, at least until a ball game comes on, so I’ll ask; how?  Hannity is not a news person.  He’s nothing more than a far right talking head. He certainly doesn’t hide his bias, however “fair and balanced” Fox claims to be. If Trump ever did stand in Times Square and shoot someone, Hannity would boast of how god a shot Trump was, so where’s the conflict?

The ball game was postponed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

You’re starting to sound like a bumper sticker Zen.

The bumper sticker would be a long one. Tumultuous times make for simple choices. You're either for 'em or agin' 'em. 

Edited by zenwalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

I feel like arguing, at least until a ball game comes on, so I’ll ask; how?  Hannity is not a news person.  He’s nothing more than a far right talking head. He certainly doesn’t hide his bias, however “fair and balanced” Fox claims to be. If Trump ever did stand in Times Square and shoot someone, Hannity would boast of how god a shot Trump was, so where’s the conflict?

I don't get the relevance of any of that.

You don't get to decide different standards for people depending on whether you like them or not or whether you think they are biased, etc. 

Tune in to Rachel Maddow and she'll explain it.  :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Cameron said:

I don't get the relevance of any of that.

You don't get to decide different standards for people depending on whether you like them or not or whether you think they are biased, etc. 

Tune in to Rachel Maddow and she'll explain it.  :D

 

I watched  CNN earlier and lost IQ points.  I can’t risk losing more to either Fox or MSNBC.

Edited by MiddleOfTheRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

Are there though? After a time even Nixon's staunchest backers gave it up. I doubt the polls favoring Trump. Those folks don't watch the news for the most part and their support for Trump is what they used to say about GWH Bush's popularity: his support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Fox is leaving Great Britain for example. So its ratings are  not unassailable.  Once consensus turns the end comes quickly. Watergate is the perfect example. That took years but when it happened, it happened good.

Fox claims viewership is up 20% for the Laura Ingraham show since the David Hogg incident.

If they are correct, when the hoopla is over, the sponsors will come back. That's just business. Sad but true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

Fox claims viewership is up 20% for the Laura Ingraham show since the David Hogg incident.

If they are correct, when the hoopla is over, the sponsors will come back. That's just business. Sad but true. 

MSNBC's ratings are up 30% so we'll see. Fox is on the wrong side of history this time and it's a question of when rather than if they finally lose their geriatric viewership. As I noted they closed down operations in Great Britain so belt tightening is going on.

Edited by zenwalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zenwalk said:

MSNBC's ratings are up 30% so we'll see. Fox is on the wrong side of history this time and it's a question when rather than if they finally lose their geriatric viewership. As I noted they closed down operations in Great Britain so belt tightening is going on.

Hopefully you're right. We could use a little more objectivity in all news media. It's hard when you have a troglodyte occupying the White House. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

Hopefully you're right. We could use a little more objectivity in all news media. It's hard when you have a troglodyte occupying the White House. 

As my wife will tell you, I'm rarely right. The biggest problem with cable news (and they are the media problem) is that they don't have to observe the same rules mainstream TV does because people pay for cable content. This problem with cable won't go away until all media has to play by the same rules.

Edited by zenwalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

As my wife will tell you, I'm rarely right. The biggest problem with cable news (and they are the media problem) is that they don't have to observe the same rules mainstream TV does because people pay for cable content. This problem with cable won't go away until all media has to play by the same rules.

The other problem is the 24/7 news cycle. They have to fill the air time, so anything goes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

The other problem is the 24/7 news cycle. They have to fill the air time, so anything goes. 

That's true but that's an easy one. They could fill the time reporting news instead of with talking heads. 

Edited by zenwalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zenwalk said:

That's true but that's an easy one. They could fill the time reporting news instead of talking heads. 

Or they could show F-Troop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right wingers like Fox, left wingers like every other cable news. Who cares. As for the Whitehouse, doesn’t matter who occupies it. The partisans of his party will not back the other party. Even if impeached, if not removed from office, they’ll stick with him, if they think he will weather the storm. Slick Willie is proof of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cameron said:

I'm not sure I believe your last statement there, MOTR.  :D

Without regard to anybody's case, OBVIOUSLY there are some conflict of interest issues here.

Just like WBAL's Jayne Miller w/ Janet Bledsoe with the States Attorney's office after the 2015 riots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, johnpolitics said:

Just like WBAL's Jayne Miller w/ Janet Bledsoe with the States Attorney's office after the 2015 riots.

Of course Miller should have disclosed it, but she didn't take anybody to court to hush it up.

With Hannity, I now want to lnow, "Hush what up?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cameron said:

Of course Miller should have disclosed it, but she didn't take anybody to court to hush it up.

With Hannity, I now want to lnow, "Hush what up?"

 

She didn't admit it until she was confronted by WBAL management after the police Union found out.  Miller is no different than Hannity because neither has ethics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnpolitics said:

She didn't admit it until she was confronted by WBAL management after the police Union found out.  Miller is no different than Hannity because neither has ethics. 

That's simply false.  :rolleyes:

Miller's relationship with Bledsoe and WBAL"s knowledge of it were reported in 2012: 

https://www.reddit.com/r/baltimore/comments/34fvoa/will_wbal_jayne_miller_relationship_with_sao/

http://www.citypaper.com/blogs/the-news-hole/bcp-blog-22003-20140620-story.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0