Sean Hannity

Latest news on sean hannity

Hannity ignored Coleman ballot challenges to accuse Franken of "stealing an election"

On the December 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity asserted that in the Minnesota Senate recount, challenger Al Franken (D) "has been trying to challenge ballots that are clearly for [incumbent Sen.] Norm Coleman [R]," adding, "That is stealing an election." Subsequently, Hannity aired several examples of ballots that the Franken campaign has contested and said to former Rep. John Kasich (R-OH): "I'm gonna put up on the screen -- and I want Al Franken to sue me, because for him to challenge these ballots that are so clearly, you know, for Norm Coleman, I think it shows that he's trying to steal the election." However, Hannity did not display any of the published examples of ballots that the Coleman campaign has challenged that appear to be marked for Franken or another candidate besides Coleman. Later, former Hillary Clinton campaign adviser Kiki McLean said to Hannity: "Sean, I'd like to know that you actually spent the time looking at the ballots that Norm Coleman has tried to have dismissed. Have you?" She also said: "My question to you is have you reviewed all the ballots that Norm Coleman has tried to throw out?" Hannity replied: "I've reviewed a number of them, but I don't see any that are this obvious." But Hannity again did not show his viewers any of the ballots Coleman has challenged. As Media Matters for America has noted, a Minnesota Public Radio article, originally published November 19, provided some examples of ballots that the Coleman campaign has challenged along with reporting on the reason for the challenge: The Coleman campaign challenged this ballot [on November 19], arguing the voter didn't intend to vote for Franken, because of the small dot inside the bubble next to Dean Barkley's name.

Savage on the Mumbai attacks: "Should the tribal areas in Pakistan be wiped out and the rats killed in there once and for all?"

During the November 26 broadcast of The Savage Nation, host Michael Savage discussed the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, that had started earlier that day and said, "[T]he question to you is, what should the U.S. government do right now? Should the U.S. military be deployed? Should the tribal areas of Pakistan be wiped out and the rats killed in there once and for all? Should we nuke the tribal areas in Pakistan's wild-man region and wipe out the terrorists once and for all?" Later, responding to a caller's assertion that "[W]e need to exterminate them like rats," Savage said, "Yeah, we know where they're coming from. ... [T]hey're in the tribal areas of western Pakistan. What the heck do we have nuclear weapons for? What are tactical nuclear weapons for but to wipe out an enemy? The enemy lives there -- kill them and their families, and show them that the terror they inflict on the West will come home to roost and will be inflicted on them." Savage later added, "[T]here's no question that entire region needs to be annihilated and stripped off the earth." As Media Matters for America has noted, Savage has previously advocated attacking other countries. On the October 29, 2007, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Savage played the song "Everybody's Dixie" by recording artist Bobby Horton, and said: "Yee-haw! This is the America -- this is the America that those Islamic-fascist, robe-wearing, throwback bums have never seen!" Savage repeatedly said, "Let's bring it on! Bomb Iran, bring our boys home now!," and then demanded, "Get every hunter in America armed to the teeth!" He continued: "Throwback bastards! I'm so sick of them! I'm so sick of the brainwashing about Islam and Muslims and the Koran! Shove it! Shove it all! I'm sick of it!" Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show. From the November 26 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation: SAVAGE: They have set a landmark hotel, the Taj [Mahal] hotel, on fire. Screams can be heard in the background. Enormous clouds of black smoke are rising from the century-old edifice on Mumbai's waterfront. The fact of the matter is, India is at war, only you don't know it. And the question to you is, what should the U.S. government do right now? Should the U.S. military be deployed? Should the tribal areas of Pakistan be wiped out and the rats killed in there once and for all? Should we nuke the tribal areas in Pakistan's wild-man region and wipe out the terrorists once and for all? Is this a result of Bush's weakness? Is this a result of Bush's catering to Islamic fanatics? Is this a result of the FBI saying you cannot use the word "Islamic" in relationship to terrorism? Is this a result of Obama's weakness? Is this a result of the financial meltdown? Is this connected in some way to the threat against the New York subway system that we heard about earlier today? Is this retaliation for the pirate attack? Is this some way related to anything other than more of the same, which is Islamic madness against the world? Mad Islamic fanatics taking it out on Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, anybody but the fanatics. Is this a result of anything other than insanity? I will open up the lines to you on The Savage Nation. [...] CALLER: We in the Western world and the United States -- I don't see how we're gonna win this, because we do not have the guts, we don't have the stomach to do the things it takes to be violent enough, to fight fire with fire and give these -- I mean, basically, we need to exterminate them like rats, and we're so worried about -- SAVAGE: Yeah, we know where they're coming from, we know they're coming out of the -- the training, at least, is probably coming out of the area where Osama bin Laden is hiding. If we can believe our intelligence agencies -- of course, we have no real knowledge as to whether they're really intelligent intelligence agencies -- they're in the tribal areas of western Pakistan. What the heck do we have nuclear weapons for? What are tactical nuclear weapons for but to wipe out an enemy? The enemy lives there -- kill them and their families, and show them that the terror they inflict on the West will come home to roost and will be inflicted on them. Why must we sit here waiting for the New York subways to go up in flames? CALLER: Yes, sir, but what are we gonna do? Instead of what you just said, what we're gonna do is we're gonna cut our nuclear arsenal. [...] SAVAGE: The only way to defend ourselves against these fanatic Islamists is with strength. Not with hand-wringing, not with the United Nations, but with a strong and swift attack on the tribal regions of western Pakistan. Now, I will not quibble with you as to whether they should be with nuclear -- that is, tactical nuclear weapons, which are limited in their scope and limited in their power -- or with cluster bombs or with weapons I'm not even aware of. But there's no question that entire region needs to be annihilated and stripped off the earth.

Ignoring sergeant-at-arms' security concerns, Levin said of "Stretch" Pelosi's need for "big military jet": "She wants a really, really big one"

On the November 24 broadcast of his radio show, while discussing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) use of military planes to travel between Washington, D.C., and her home district in California, Mark Levin remarked, "[S]he's gotta have a big military jet. I mean, she's the first woman speaker. She wants a really, really big one. Remember this? And if she doesn't get it, well then that's sexual discrimination." Levin also claimed that Pelosi "fought like hell for [an] extra big military jet so she could take her staff, and her staff's staff, and her relatives, and her friends -- have a grand old party on that jet." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, the House sergeant-at-arms -- who is responsible for the security of House members -- said that the larger military plane is necessary for "security purposes." In a February 8, 2007, statement, made in response to GOP allegations at the time that Pelosi "desire[d] a luxury taxpayer-funded Pelosi One to ferry her family and friends," House sergeant-at-arms Wilson Livingood said: As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency. In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker [Dennis] Hastert [R-IL] and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue. McClatchy Newspapers noted on October 31 of this year that the House sergeant-at-arms "requested a larger military aircraft" for Pelosi, and also reported that the Bush administration first "authorized the speaker of the House of Representatives ... to fly on military planes when they're available for official business." During his November 24 broadcast, Levin also smeared Pelosi over her physical appearance, stating that he calls her " 'Stretch,' given her multiple facelifts." He added: "Do you think eyes bulge out like that? Do you think that's a natural look? No. She spent a fortune for that look. She loves it. Now, the rest of us recoil at it, but she apparently likes it." As Media Matters documented, on the April 5, 2007, broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, Levin similarly said of Pelosi: "You could bounce a dime off her cheeks. The woman has had so many facelifts, isn't it obvious to everybody?" From the November 24 broadcast of ABC Networks' The Mark Levin Show: LEVIN: Now, Nancy Pelosi, or as we call her, with all due respect, "Stretch," given her multiple facelifts. Mark, what do you mean? Why do I have to explain this every time? Do you think eyes bulge out like that? Do you think that's a natural look? No. She spent a fortune for that look. She loves it. Now, the rest of us recoil at it, but she apparently likes it. You know, we gotta get that Levin off the air as fast as we can, he is so -- Anyway, anyway, here we -- the outcry over the automakers' corporate jets. Remember that? AP: "After being skewered by Congress and lampooned on NBC's Saturday Night Live, the CEOs of Detroit's three automakers may end up making the return trip to Washington by car, as they seek a federal bailout." Now, this is fascinating to me. I'm not into all this populist crap. I don't care if they fly jets or not. I just don't want to subsidize them; it's none of my business otherwise. But maybe they can hitch a ride with Pelosi. Doesn't she have a big military jet? Why is it that these politicians can live like kings and queens? And nobody gives a damn. She fought like hell for extra big military jet so she could take her staff, and her staff's staff, and her relatives, and her friends -- have a grand old party on that jet. Does anybody know how much that jet costs? I don't have the foggiest idea. Does anybody know how much the staff on that jet costs? The pilot, the co-pilot, and all the rest -- I don't have an idea, do you? No. Where's Brian Ross of ABC News? How come he's not tracking that down? Now, we all have to tighten our belts; we're all gonna have to sacrifice. We gotta cut the CO2s, except if you're speaker of the House. You'll spit out as much CO2 as you want. Yeah, I know, only in America. [...] CALLER: Hey, Mark, I just wanted to fill you in on one thing. I was interested in your statement about wondering how much it costs to fly Nancy from D.C. to San Francisco. LEVIN: This would be "Stretch" Pelosi, yes. CALLER: Yes, yes. So, I did some googling, and I came up with just a fuel price alone of $32,500 dollars. LEVIN: Really? CALLER: Yep. That's no -- no oil, no people -- LEVIN: Well, let me ask you a question. CALLER: Yeah. LEVIN: Let me ask you a question. Are there any solar panels on this plane? CALLER: No, I don't believe there are. I'm surprised. Maybe "The One" will figure that out. LEVIN: And any wind power on this plane? Other than the tailwind? CALLER: No, no, I think it's only her wind power. LEVIN: That would be methane. CALLER: Yes. LEVIN: Any other -- any other kind of non-carbon dioxide-type fuel that they might use on this plane? CALLER: No, no, all just dead dinosaurs. LEVIN: All right, my friend, thank you for your call. Now, if Mike's accurate, that's 32 grand, and that's just for starters. So, it seems to me, if the executives of the Big Three are going to be using car vans now -- caravans, rather -- to come to Washington, why shouldn't Stretch? She can pick up some other losers along the way. I can just see it now. I mean, she is in San Francisco, she's got a long way to go before she gets to Washington. They can carpool, these leftists. They can, you know, teach us by example. But no, she's gotta have a big military jet. I mean, she's the first woman speaker. She wants a really, really big one. Remember this? And if she doesn't get it, well then that's sexual discrimination.

Hannity baselessly blamed Democrats, CRA for financial crisis

On the November 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity claimed that federal regulations are responsible for the current economic crisis, baselessly asserting that "[t]he federal government and the Democrats ... forced these banks, through the Community Reinvestment Act, to make these risky loans," adding, "The risky loans started the subprime mortgage crisis, which impacted all these financial institutions, which needed government bailouts." As Media Matters for America has documented, the assertion that the financial crisis was caused by banks lending irresponsibly to comply with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is widely discredited. According to housing experts, the vast majority of subprime loans were made by independent lenders not covered by the CRA, which applies only to depository institutions, such as banks and savings and loan associations. During the broadcast, Hannity asserted of new regulations that might attach to efforts to solve the economic crisis: "[I]f we're going to go into this era of government regulation, let's just stand back and see how we got here. The federal government and the Democrats, they forced these banks, through the Community Reinvestment Act, to make these risky loans," leading to the need for government bailouts of financial institutions. Hannity concluded: "In other words, government caused that problem." In fact, legal and financial experts on housing issues dispute Hannity's conclusion. A study released earlier this year by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Moreover, Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, stated in a March 2008 speech that "studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households" [emphasis added]. And University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified before the House Financial Services Committee in February, saying: "More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts." From the November 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: Hey, Dick, let me -- let me raise this question with you here. First of all, the left and a lot of Obama supporters are very resentful at the high numbers of Clinton operatives that are now in the camp. That's issue No. 1. You've got the problem of Bill's ethics. That's question No. 2. You've got all these leaks. The Obama people seem to be resentful that it's coming as soon as the Clinton speculation began here. And then on top of it here, you know, I think it reveals their real inexperience. And they disagree on Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and on Russia. These are big issues. DICK MORRIS (Fox News political analyst): Put it simply, Sean -- put it simply, Sean, Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee for president until Barack Obama challenged her. The basis of his challenge was that he didn't agree with her foreign policy. Now he just appointed her to run foreign policy. If that isn't cynical, I don't know what is. HANNITY: All right. So could we put that together, then, with the economic plan? I mean, his entire campaign on economics was he was going to tax the rich. "Read my lips, I'm going to raise taxes on the rich." He's backed off that. So how do we interpret this, that he said anything to get elected? MORRIS: Yeah, I think that's true, and I think he's adjusting to economic realities, but let me just do an overview with this thing, because the events move so quickly. The era of the free-market consensus began in 1989 and ended in 2008. And we're now into a new era where the consensus will be at least government regulation and perhaps government management, and that's the era Obama is in. He won't raise taxes on the rich, because he doesn't have to. He's allowed to have a deficit as large as he wants. HANNITY: But Dick, well, let's examine this a little bit -- MORRIS: A trillion-dollar deficit. No economic discipline, no fiscal discipline. And he'll pass his entire liberal agenda under a new tag, calling it the stimulus package. HANNITY: All right, but if we're gonna go into this era of government regulation, let's just stand back and see how we got here. The federal government and the Democrats, they forced these banks, through the Community Reinvestment Act, to make these risky loans. The risky loans started the subprime mortgage crisis -- MORRIS: Right. HANNITY: -- which impacted all these financial institutions, which needed government bailouts. In other words, government caused that problem. Government trade policy, energy policy, CAFE economy standards, safety standards, they caused the problems in Detroit. So now we're going to double down on the very root cause of our economic decline -- MORRIS: But Sean -- HANNITY: -- by including government more? MORRIS: Yeah, that's exactly what we're going to do. And it's wrong in the way that you articulate it, but let's be honest about the long-term nature of this problem. Fifteen years ago, the total debt owed by everybody in the world to everybody in the world was equal to the global gross domestic product. They were the same number. Now it's four times as much. That extra debt is like heroin that we've been taking, and our whole economy has been based on it. And we're going cold turkey now to get out of the debt. If we don't, we'll never cure this problem. HANNITY: But I'll tell you -- MORRIS: What the fiscal stimulus package is, is methadone to ease the pain. HANNITY: A hundred and seventy-five billion was his original proposal. Now they're up to $700 billion, and if you read, you know, Bloomberg today -- and I'll get into this when we get back -- $7 trillion we're going to be on the hook for. We can't afford this. But more with Dick Morris after the break.

Ignoring Coleman's ballot challenges, Hannity claimed Franken is challenging ballots in MN to "litigate his way into the Senate seat"

On the November 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, while discussing the Minnesota Senate race between Democratic candidate Al Franken and incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, which is now in a recount, co-host Sean Hannity said of Franken: "I have all of these different ballots that he's questioning that clearly are Norm Coleman ballots, clearly, and he's questioning them because he's trying to litigate his way into the Senate seat." However, in claiming that Franken is "trying to litigate his way" into the Senate through ballot challenges, Hannity is ignoring a central fact: as of November 24, Franken and Coleman have challenged nearly the same number of ballots. According to the office of the Minnesota secretary of state, as of 8 p.m. CST on November 24, Coleman had challenged 1,400 ballots, while Franken had challenged 1,401 ballots. Additionally, while Hannity said Franken is challenging ballots that "clearly are Norm Coleman ballots," he did not mention that Coleman is challenging ballots that appear to be marked for Franken, as Media Matters for America documented. The Bemidji Pioneer reported on November 22: Franken recount attorney Marc Elias waved copies of 10 southeastern Minnesota ballots, citing them as examples of frivolous Coleman challenges. Most of the ballots showed the voter marked the oval next to Republican John McCain's name in the presidential race, and then picked Democrat Franken in the Senate contest. Coleman recount observers apparently challenged the ballots because they thought a voter would not pick both McCain and Franken. But Elias said that in his view each of the ballots was "a textbook example of how to fill out an optical scan ballot." When a reporter handed Coleman Campaign Manager Cullen Sheenan copies of two of the ballots, even he agreed it looked like Franken was the voters' choices. From the November 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: There's a very important runoff December 2nd in the state of Georgia. If Al Franken -- and I argue -- and I have all of these different ballots that he's questioning that clearly are Norm Coleman ballots, clearly -- MORRIS: Right. Right. HANNITY: -- and he's questioning them because he's trying to litigate his way into the Senate seat. And my question is: So, if Saxby Chambliss doesn't win in Georgia, this gives them their magic number of 60. MORRIS: Yeah. The Republican Party is dead at that point. It has no role at all to play because you won't have 60. You'll have 60 votes in the Senate for the Democrats. And I've been pushing very, very hard for a group called GOPTrust.com that is running $1 million of ads in Georgia to elect Chambliss and defeat the Democrat. Now, in the last couple of days, some of the liberals have lashed back at me, claiming that somehow I'm getting paid by this group, but the fact is that all they've done is buy ads on my website, like they buy ads in The New York Times. And I'm no more in cahoots with them than The New York Times is. And this has all been fully disclosed in their disclosure statements. But I won't be intimidated by those groups. It is crucially important that every American who cares about the free enterprise system go online as soon as this show is over and [co-host] Alan [Colmes] makes his announcement, and get online to GOPTrust.com and give Chambliss the money he needs to win. Your whole future depends on it. COLMES: But are you fundraising for Chambliss by doing that? MORRIS: Yes, darned right I am, and give to Chambliss, too. When the whole future of the country is at stake on this, darned right I'm fundraising for him.