He looks a little like this.

I wonder why that could be.

Also the tweet about how, if Hannity had worked for a REAL news network, he'd be fired for publicly defending Cohen for months without revealing that he's his lawyer. Good thing Fox ISN'T a real news network. No need for disclosures on conflict of interest...

"YOU may be better than that, but I'm not..."

Your posts seems reflective of your own words.

"there are too many worthless posts on DU..."

I thought irony was more difficult than this. Wrong. Gotcha.

I thought it was dead from the time Trump took office, and the GOP started defending him for all the things they accused Obama of doing or being.

But irony has DEFINITELY been dead ever since Sheriff David Clarke started making fun of Congresswoman's Wilson's HAT. IRONY: Officially Dead.

TrollBuster! I'm glad and grateful that Hannity looked so beaten on his show.. and you reported it.

I don't have a damn tv but I enjoy seeing the reports from those who watch.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I usually only watch the Hannity show (as well as Ingram and Carleson) on nights when they've been hit with something really hard, and I want to see how they deal with it. If they haven't had time to craft a spin, they usually just ignore it.

Carleson was first up, and he pretty much ignored it. He didn't actually rise to his KILLER PANDA BEARS standards, but he did spend a lot of time on a stupid Chic-fillet culture wars story, and a CNN transgender culture wars story. No attempt to defend Hannity..

Then it was Hannity's turn. The best he could do was show an edit reel of all the other cable news hosts repeating his name over and over again. Presumably that was supposed to convince his audience that the other cable news shows were going nuts over nothing. Hah! Nice try.

Then, he got blind sided when he brought on one of his comfort goats, Alan Dershowitz. Instead of coddling him, Dershowitz actually berated him for not disclosing the conflict of interest (in a very polite, and apologetic way).

But my favorite part was where he claimed that it wasn't a bid deal that he was "listed" as "one" of Cohen's clients. THREE NAMES does not constitute a LIST.

Then he claimed that Cohen wasn't really his lawyer. That, of course, is problematic for either him or Cohen, given that COhen's lawyer specifically said that the third client had ASKED not to be identified. I think Hannity wanted everybody to believe that he was blindsided by this, and that he was surprised that Cohen would list him as a client, when all they'd done was have casual conversations. Nope. If Hannity actually DID ask not to be identified...he knew this was coming, and knew he was a client. On the other hand, if he DIDN'T know Cohen considered him a client, and HADN'T asked for his name to be kept secret, then Cohen and his lawyer are in trouble for claiming he did.

Then why all of the secrets? Why say Hannity is a client if no money was paid? Was Hannity paying him or was he paying Hannity a kickback?

...that WOULD qualify as lawyer/client.

For example:
Cohen pays Daniels hush money, but Trump doesn't pay Cohen. (Plausibly deniable link)
Cohen is indirectly compensated by Hannity buying a house from another client of Cohen's at about $130,000 ABOVE market price..., that client (maybe Eliot Broidy) then gives Cohen a $130, 000 brokerage fee etc.

This is basically the way Russian oligarchs launder their money. So, when Hannity claimed he only talked to Cohen about REAL ESTATE advice, my ears perked up. And Hannity went out of his way to parse his statement about never paying Cohen any legal fees, and never getting a bill from Cohen. Of course not. It doesn't work that way. Cohen pays Daniels, Broidy pays Hannity, Hannity buys an over priced house someplace, which he sells to Trump at a reduced price...and so on. Everybody gets paid off, but indirectly.