Connect with us

Fox News’ Hannity To Birther Issue: I Wish I Knew How To Quit You

Published

on

Last night, Fox News’ birther-conspiracy theory pusher Sean Hannity repeatedly told his guests and his audience how he never really believed the birthers. But Hannity, who last night also claimed, birtherism “was never a defining issue for me,” spent most of his show on the Obama birth certificate issue.

For proof of Hannity’s birther-peddling, read, “Coulter: Birther Rumor Discussed Exclusively On Liberal Cable, Not Fox.”

I confess to watching (and tweeting) Hannity a few nights a week while at the gym, so I’d like to thank the good folks at News Hounds for this report and video of Wednesday night’s “Hannity.”

 

The birth certificate “controversy” was not only the lead-off discussion but took up most of the first three segments on Hannity.

First up, Juan Williams. “Why didn’t he just release it earlier, Juan?” Hannity asked.

Then, later in the segment, Hannity moved on to “just ask,” “Why not release his transcripts? Why not release his thesis?” Then, just as Hannity has pretended all along not to fall in with the birthers, he now said, “I don’t care if he does (release the documents). Honestly, that’s not my focus.”

In the next segment, with Monica Crowley and Sandra Smith, Hannity reiterated, “This shouldn’t have taken two years on the certificate” and went on to showcase Trump’s newer demand that Obama release his school records and prove he deserved to get into Harvard and Columbia.

At the end of that segment, Hannity promised, “Coming up, much more on Donald Trump and the birth certificate controversy.” Hmmm, wasn’t the controversy just settled????

Hannity introduced the next segment, this one with Malkin, by again complaining that Obama took so long to produce the birth certificate. To repeat, what Obama just produced is a longer form of the birth certificate he had already produced.

With her typical sourpuss condescension, Malkin sneered about Obama “wagging his finger” over the issue and called him, “Mr. Waggy McFingerwagger at the media and everyone else.” And speaking of wagging fingers, Malkin she went on to wag her own finger at “the left wingers” and “the media” who had found the birther issue a “useful tool” with which to “demonize the right.”

Sure, Michelle, It must have been those liberal activists who somehow infiltrated “fair and balanced” Fox News and got them to discuss birtherism in at least 52 segments since March 2, 2011.

But to her credit, she went on to denounce the whole birther issue and Donald Trump to go with it.

That prompted Hannity to claim, “This wasn’t my issue either, but as time went on, and Donald Trump brought up the issue, it just seemed to me, just release it and it’s over.” Just like it’s over now, I guess!

Even more laughably, Hannity went on to say that now that the birth certificate has been released, “unless anyone comes up with a big smoking gun, it’s not an issue.”

Well, not until later in the show. When it was time for the Great American Panel segment, Hannity announced that the “big issue involving the birth certificate” was the leadoff topic. Once again, Hannity said, “This was never a defining issue for me but I found it odd… All the president had to do is what he did today. Release it, move on and we’re out of the way. Why did he wait so long?”

Guest Fran Tarkenton suggested that it was because Obama wanted the distraction and would probably want to “lose his birth certificate again because we know he doesn’t have any plan to get more jobs, to cut the deficit, in Libya or wherever.”

Guest Alice Stewart, a former Huckabee aide, said, “It should have been done two and a half years ago.”

Rounding out the “fair and balanced” panel of all conservatives was Fox News’ Peter Johnson who mentioned somewhere that he once worked for the former Democratic mayor of New York, David Dinkins. But Johnson has been a GOP footsoldier on Fox News, including during a recent appearance on Hannity where Johnson gushed over Trump’s birther questions as “common sense.” Johnson made no effort to disavow them here. In fact, Johnson suggested the birth certificate was somehow illegitimate, as he said, “My hope, Sean, is that it was released in good faith, that it’s not about victimology… That’s my concern, whether there’s some deeper plan that goes on here.”

So how did “Release-It-And-Move-On” Hannity respond? By planting a thoughtful expression on his face and saying, “That’s an interesting thought.” Then he went on to claim, “I always want to stay on the big issues.” But first, Hannity teased the next segment of the Panel: “the church that Barack Obama, the president and his family attended on Easter Sunday.”

I’m sure Hannity will get to those “big issues” any day now.

Oh, and by the way, it’s not just Hannity. When the news broke that Obama’s long-form birth certificate was available,FoxNews.com let out a dog whistle to birthers by saying the White House had released “what it says (my emphasis) is President Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate.”

(emphasis mine.)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=x2Sg8vuovM0%3Ffs%3D1%26hl%3Den_US

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Published

on

Hours before his attorneys would mount a defense on Tuesday claiming he had not violated his gag order Donald Trump might have done just that in a 12-minute taped interview that morning, which did not air until later that day. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to make that decision, if prosecutors add it to their contempt request.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that the ex-president violated the gag order ten times, via posts on his Truth Social platform, and are asking he be held in contempt. While the judge has yet to rule, he did not appear moved by their arguments. At one point, Judge Merchan told Trump’s lead lawyer Todd Blanche he was “losing all credibility” with the court.

And while Judge Merchan directed defense attorneys to provide a detailed timeline surrounding Trump’s Truth Social posts to prove he had not violated the gag order, Trump in an interview with a local television station appeared to have done so.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

The gag order bars Trump from “commenting or causing others to comment on potential witnesses in the case, prospective jurors, court staff, lawyers in the district attorney’s office and the relatives of any counsel or court staffer, as CBS News reported.

“The threat is very real,” Judge Merchan wrote when he expanded the gag order. “Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”

Tuesday morning, Trump told ABC Philadelphia’s Action News reporter Walter Perez, “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. He’s got no credibility whatsoever.”

He repeated that Cohen is a “convicted liar,” and insisted he “was a lawyer for many people, not just me.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Since Cohen is a witness in Trump’s New York criminal case, Judge Merchan might decide Trump’s remarks during that interview violated the gag order, if prosecutors bring the video to his attention.

Enter attorney George Conway, who has been attending Trump’s New York trial.

Conway reposted a clip of the video, tagged Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, writing: “cc: @ManhattanDA, for your proposed order to show cause why the defendant in 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 should not spend some quiet time in lockup.”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in this New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of “hush money” to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which experts say is election interference.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.