The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: edpc on April 23, 2018, 09:41:03 am
-
Fox News host Sean Hannity is linked to shell companies which have spent at least $90 million on hundreds of homes across America, and he had help building his property empire from the federal housing department.
This is according to a report by The Guardian, which said it reviewed public documents to identify Hannity as the beneficial owner of shell companies which own more than 870 properties ranging from luxury mansions to cheap rentals. Those purchases were made over the past decade.
The report raises ethics questions for Hannity, who did not disclose any commercial relationship with the U.S. Department for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) when interviewing Ben Carson, its secretary, on his highly-popular Fox News show.
http://www.newsweek.com/sean-hannity-net-worth-fox-news-host-linked-shell-companies-bought-90-million-896645 (http://www.newsweek.com/sean-hannity-net-worth-fox-news-host-linked-shell-companies-bought-90-million-896645)
-
Among the most valuable are two large apartment complexes in Georgia that Hannity bought in 2014 for $22.7m. The developments are in the cities of Perry and Brunswick, which have higher poverty rates and lower median incomes than the US averages. One- and two-bedroom units in Hannityâ€â€â€â€™s apartment complexes are available to rent for $735 to $1,065 per month, according to brochures.
The Georgia purchases were funded with mortgages for $17.9m that Hannity obtained with help from Hud, which insured the loans under a program created as part of the National Housing Act. The loans, first guaranteed under the Obama administration, were recently increased by $5m with renewed support from Carson’s department.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/apr/22/michael-cohen-sean-hannity-property-real-estate-ben-carson-hud?CMP=share_btn_tw (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/apr/22/michael-cohen-sean-hannity-property-real-estate-ben-carson-hud?CMP=share_btn_tw)
Unknown if the units come furnished with a $31K dining room set.
-
So he invests?
-
Are you the designated Hannity basher @edpc ?
-
He is following Mark Twain's advice: Invest in Real estate, their not making any more of it.
-
Are you the designated Hannity basher @edpc ?
Sure, why not.
You're the designated fluffer around here, anyway. I realize it's not newsworthy on the scale of Melania's electric enamel, but someone was going to post it. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Ah yes. Investing in real estate companies with an LLC is now a criminal enterprise using "Shell Corps". If only we had Communism so that everything could be equal, outrages like this could be a thing of the past.
-
... but someone was going to post it. *****rollingeyes*****
Actually somebody already did post it if you were paying attention......where is was mocked for the piece of shit wealth envy story it is....
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,313262.msg1664410.html#msg1664410 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,313262.msg1664410.html#msg1664410)
-
Fox News host Sean Hannity is linked to shell companies which have spent at least $90 million on hundreds of homes across America, and he had help building his property empire from the federal housing department.
Hannity is a orange boot licking Piece of Trash. Plenty else to bash him on besides how he invests his money.
-
How can anyone be in the residential real estate business and NOT have some association with the federal government? It would be nearly impossible since the federal government regulates virtually every aspect of real estate from the financing, to construction standards, to subsidizing tenants, to EPA regulating where things can be built, to the labor department and OSHA, etc.
We ought to admire anyone who can navigate these waters and succeed. Instead, Hannity is made out to be some sort of crook. America has become a place where successful people must watch their backs because through some sort of twisted logic, they have become the enemy.
-
And?
-
The Dems are setting the bar very, very low and it isn't a bar they will want to limbo under.
-
How can anyone be in the residential real estate business and NOT have some association with the federal government? It would be nearly impossible since the federal government regulates virtually every aspect of real estate from the financing, to construction standards, to subsidizing tenants, to EPA regulating where things can be built, to the labor department and OSHA, etc.
We ought to admire anyone who can navigate these waters and succeed. Instead, Hannity is made out to be some sort of crook. America has become a place where successful people must watch their backs because through some sort of twisted logic, they have become the enemy.
Hear hear!
-
Actually somebody already did post it if you were paying attention......where is was mocked for the piece of shit wealth envy story it is....
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,313262.msg1664410.html#msg1664410 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,313262.msg1664410.html#msg1664410)
So, I guess @corbe gets my 'Hannity bashing' crown. I'll pout about it later.
-
How do we know this is true?
-
So he invests?
Investing is one thing...having the HUD Secretary...the guy who just approved the increase in your mortgages as a guest on your show and now fully disclosing the relationship is another thing entirely.
He's totally shooting his credibility in the foot between this and not letting his viewers know about his relationship with Cohen while railing against people criticizing Cohen on his nightly show.
-
How can anyone be in the residential real estate business and NOT have some association with the federal government? It would be nearly impossible since the federal government regulates virtually every aspect of real estate from the financing, to construction standards, to subsidizing tenants, to EPA regulating where things can be built, to the labor department and OSHA, etc.
We ought to admire anyone who can navigate these waters and succeed. Instead, Hannity is made out to be some sort of crook. America has become a place where successful people must watch their backs because through some sort of twisted logic, they have become the enemy.
@massadvj IMHO none of this would have been a problem had he just simply shown some integrity...unlike the Dems and their incestuous relationships with politicians that they try to hide...and simple been up front and gotten the particulars of his relationship with Cohen and Carson out of the way where his business dealings are concerned.
As it stands now he looks no better than the people he likes to criticize. In some ways he's done this to himself.
The only question now is will he step up and say yes I should have been more forthright or will he just scream witch hunt on a twitter tirade and commentary on his show nightly?
-
How can anyone be in the residential real estate business and NOT have some association with the federal government? It would be nearly impossible since the federal government regulates virtually every aspect of real estate from the financing, to construction standards, to subsidizing tenants, to EPA regulating where things can be built, to the labor department and OSHA, etc.
We ought to admire anyone who can navigate these waters and succeed. Instead, Hannity is made out to be some sort of crook. America has become a place where successful people must watch their backs because through some sort of twisted logic, they have become the enemy.
The state of our current political wars are at warp 10 and we’re witnessing the fog of war in the age of internet. Pick a side and hold on, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.
-
Investing is one thing...having the HUD Secretary...the guy who just approved the increase in your mortgages as a guest on your show and now fully disclosing the relationship is another thing entirely.
He's totally shooting his credibility in the foot between this and not letting his viewers know about his relationship with Cohen while railing against people criticizing Cohen on his nightly show.
Who gives a shit. You didn't listen to him before because you hated him. Sean giving a full accounting of his investment portfolio wouldn't change that in the least.
This issue is nothing but wealth envy from the economically illiterate who wake up everyday with one mission on their agenda......finding something to be outraged about.
-
:odrama:
-
Who gives a shit. You didn't listen to him before because you hated him. Sean giving a full accounting of his investment portfolio wouldn't change that in the least.
This issue is nothing but wealth envy from the economically illiterate who wake up everyday with one mission on their agenda......finding something to be outraged about.
:amen: :beer:
-
While it may be perfectly legitimate to criticize Sean Hannity for being a pom-pom waver for Trump, this report is clearly a hit piece, delivered by a left-wing former news magazine now relegated to online status, via The Guardian (a left-wing British publication), which in turn appears to have received the story from Media Matters (David Brock's bottom-feeding, Soros-funded fever swamp).
Link: https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/04/18/last-year-hannity-mentioned-kidding-around-yesterday-michael-cohen-about-real-estate-deal/219985 (https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/04/18/last-year-hannity-mentioned-kidding-around-yesterday-michael-cohen-about-real-estate-deal/219985)
-
Who gives a shit. You didn't listen to him before because you hated him. Sean giving a full accounting of his investment portfolio wouldn't change that in the least.
This issue is nothing but wealth envy from the economically illiterate who wake up everyday with one mission on their agenda......finding something to be outraged about.
:thumbsup:
-
Ooops...sorry corbe . I really have to stop posting post-java!
Edit:
I don't know whether to thank edpc or to curse him now. Truly, it remains to be seen. But.... I had stopped watching or listening to Sean Hannity previously. But.... much like it happened when the idiot left launched their assault on Rush Limbaugh over the Sandra Fluke/Slut episode, I have renewed my fan-ship and am watching Sean again.
It's another constant in the universe these days. Anything the left bashes....
I just L U V.
So, thanks a lot, edpc!!!!
-
Investing is one thing...having the HUD Secretary...the guy who just approved the increase in your mortgages as a guest on your show and now fully disclosing the relationship is another thing entirely.
HUD did not create mortgages for Hannity's properties. HUD insured some of the mortgages on some of the properties, which is unavoidable for anyone in real estate these days.
-
While it may be perfectly legitimate to criticize Sean Hannity for being a pom-pom waver for Trump, this report is clearly a hit piece, delivered by a left-wing former news magazine now relegated to online status, via The Guardian (a left-wing British publication), which in turn appears to have received the story from Media Matters (David Brock's bottom-feeding, Soros-funded fever swamp).
Link: https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/04/18/last-year-hannity-mentioned-kidding-around-yesterday-michael-cohen-about-real-estate-deal/219985 (https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/04/18/last-year-hannity-mentioned-kidding-around-yesterday-michael-cohen-about-real-estate-deal/219985)
:amen: Jean Hannity is entitled to invest his money as he sees fit and I can't see how it's anyone else's business how he does it.
-
Investing is one thing...having the HUD Secretary...the guy who just approved the increase in your mortgages as a guest on your show and now fully disclosing the relationship is another thing entirely. He's totally shooting his credibility in the foot between this and not letting his viewers know about his relationship with Cohen while railing against people criticizing Cohen on his nightly show.
@txradioguy
The part I don't get is the article saying Sean "owns" "shell companies". Is this supposed to mean he "created fake companies" so his name wouldn't be listed as "owning" these companies??
-
@txradioguy
The part I don't get is the article saying Sean "owns" "shell companies". Is this supposed to mean he "created fake companies" so his name wouldn't be listed as "owning" these companies??
Shell Companies is Liberal trigger speak for LLC's.
-
Shell Companies is Liberal trigger speak for LLC's.
That’s true. I remember those flaming liberals at Breitbart, Fox News, Washington Times, and others talking about the Clinton Foundation shell companies in 2016.
-
@txradioguy
The part I don't get is the article saying Sean "owns" "shell companies". Is this supposed to mean he "created fake companies" so his name wouldn't be listed as "owning" these companies??
The implication here is that Hannity is a crook. Merely for benefiting from real estate investments that he has made. Much like everything the left comes up with...it's all BS, IOW.
This is according to a report by The Guardian, which said it reviewed public documents to identify Hannity as the beneficial owner of shell companies which own more than 870 properties ranging from luxury mansions to cheap rentals. Those purchases were made over the past decade.
-
Tom Fitton: Sean Hannity Targeted by Deep State with Illegal Leaks from HUD After Michael Cohen Raid
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/tom-fitton-sean-hannity-targeted-by-deep-state-with-illegal-leaks-from-hud-after-michael-cohen-raid/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/tom-fitton-sean-hannity-targeted-by-deep-state-with-illegal-leaks-from-hud-after-michael-cohen-raid/)
-
@txradioguy
The part I don't get is the article saying Sean "owns" "shell companies". Is this supposed to mean he "created fake companies" so his name wouldn't be listed as "owning" these companies??
Creating a LLC for these type of investments (especially at the level we are talking about) is completely normal and financially prudent. It really isn't 'hiding ownership' per-say as ownership of the LLC can be discovered.
The only way this could be legally questionable is to shuffle expenses to avoid payment. Such as creating an LLC shell to hold the debt > move the ownership > bankrupt the LLC holding the debt- shielding the company & screwing the creditor(s). But that doesn't seem to be implied here.
-
That’s true. I remember those flaming liberals at Breitbart, Fox News, Washington Times, and others talking about the Clinton Foundation shell companies in 2016.
Oh puhleeze. You're actually attempting to compare this leftist BS to the Clinton Foundation???
-
Here I am, again forced to defend Sean Hannity, so bleep you all for that; if you had Sean's wealth and invested in rentals, would you advertise that you owned rental property and then sit back and wait for one or more of your tenants to sue you for some BS claim just to try to get a portion of your dough because tbey knew you were rich? No, me neither.
-
Oh puhleeze. You're actually attempting to compare this leftist BS to the Clinton Foundation???
I do believe he is.
-
Don't get me wrong I have no problem with his investments or the fact he's trying to make money and live well...hell that's the American dream...my issue is that since he's a public figure he his a higher obligation to be transparent about these things if he's going to speak about them nightly to a national audience.
-
I do believe he is.
You would, since we can see you’re day drinking.
-
Don't get me wrong I have no problem with his investments or the fact he's trying to make money and live well...hell that's the American dream...my issue is that since he's a public figure he his a higher obligation to be transparent about these things if he's going to speak about them nightly to a national audience.
What..really?...Sean had no obligation to divulge all his financial interests and investments..
-
That’s true. I remember those flaming liberals at Breitbart, Fox News, Washington Times, and others talking about the Clinton Foundation shell companies in 2016.
LOL. Your boat is sinking on ya and all you can find to bail is that shit? Better abandon ship.
-
You would, since we can see you’re day drinking.
I also remember when you used to be funny. What happened?
Step up you game son! :cool:
-
Don't get me wrong I have no problem with his investments or the fact he's trying to make money and live well...hell that's the American dream...my issue is that since he's a public figure he his a higher obligation to be transparent about these things if he's going to speak about them nightly to a national audience.
Buy low, sell high. Nothing wrong with it at all. However, it’s funny how he bemoaned the Obama economy and has managed to do quite well in it, given many acquisitions were in 2013. He also says quite a bit about his tax situation on his show. He never fails to mention how much he pays and purposely overpays to avoid audits. Suddenly, his finances are nobody’s business. OK.
-
Here I am, again forced to defend Sean Hannity, so bleep you all for that; if you had Sean's wealth and invested in rentals, would you advertise that you owned rental property and then sit back and wait for one or more of your tenants to sue you for some BS claim just to try to get a portion of your dough because tbey knew you were rich? No, me neither.
A good rule of thumb is just to remove the name and defend the facts. I find Hannity one of the most annoying pundits, but the simple facts are far more normal, ethical, and less dramatic than the media is spinning it.
If something further comes up, like he was using these LLCs to dump debt off or hide investors, that's different.
But for now, this is just a normal business transaction and is as dumb as saying he bought groceries but failed to disclose this when interviewing the FDA head.
-
What..really?...Sean had no obligation to divulge all his financial interests and investments..
@mystery-ak
If he is going to have say...the head of the financial institution who set up the shell corps he was buying the properties through...yes he does.
If he's got a relationship with a lawyer being excoriated by the likes of Mueller and this stupid investigation...and he goes on the air railing about deep state this and deep state that where Cohen is concerned...yes he does.
If the head of HUD authorized the increase in his mortgage on some of those properties to the tune of roughly $17 million dollars...yes he does.
Otherwise it smacks on the surface of quid pro quo.
-
Buy low, sell high. Nothing wrong with it at all. However, it’s funny how he bemoaned the Obama economy and has managed to do quite well in it, given many acquisitions were in 2013. He also says quite a bit about his tax situation on his show. He never fails to mention how much he pays and purposely overpays to avoid audits. Suddenly, his finances are nobody’s business. OK.
Exactly.
-
Suddenly, his finances are nobody’s business. OK.
They aren't anyones business..all this info was leaked by the government to attack Hannity...so he made good investments...so what, congrats to him.....
-
@mystery-ak
If he is going to have say...the head of the financial institution who set up the shell corps he was buying the properties through...yes he does.
If he's got a relationship with a lawyer being excoriated by the likes of Mueller and this stupid investigation...and he goes on the air railing about deep state this and deep state that where Cohen is concerned...yes he does.
If the head of HUD authorized the increase in his mortgage on some of those properties to the tune of roughly $17 million dollars...yes he does.
Otherwise it smacks on the surface of quid pro quo.
He is a private citizen and is under no obligation to tell you or me about his investments.
-
They aren't anyones business..all this info was leaked by the government to attack Hannity...so he made good investments...so what, congrats to him.....
And he could have sucked all the air out of all of this if he'd been up front when he had these people on his show.
Then there would have no there "there".
-
LOL. Your boat is sinking on ya and all you can find to bail is that shit? Better abandon ship.
Standing on dry land, basking in the sun and your crimson countenance for such an obvious falsehood.
-
They aren't anyones business..all this info was leaked by the government to attack Hannity...so he made good investments...so what, congrats to him.....
My point being, he blabs about them conveniently.
-
Don't get me wrong I have no problem with his investments or the fact he's trying to make money and live well...hell that's the American dream...my issue is that since he's a public figure he his a higher obligation to be transparent about these things if he's going to speak about them nightly to a national audience.
Right. An openly Right Wing Trump supporter needs to let us know he is a slumlord, so we can hate on him some more, but I cannot find one post from you about the now defunct Podesta Group funneling money from Russia and hiding it in an artwork collection over the last couple years. That doesn't matter though. It's not like they worked for governments or guided public policy.
Don't get me wrong. I am glad you are fighting the good fight against an openly Right Wing Trump supporter. Real Estate investing is a dirty corrupt business full of crooks after all.
-
And he could have sucked all the air out of all of this if he'd been up front when he had these people on his show.
Then there would have no there "there".
Still none of your business...and a lot of people here are playing right into the hands of those who leaked all this info..
-
He is a private citizen and is under no obligation to tell you or me about his investments.
He's a public figure who interviews the very people he's doing business with.
He's dancing on the line of ethical journalism.
https://www.rtdna.org/content/rtdna_code_of_ethics (https://www.rtdna.org/content/rtdna_code_of_ethics)
-
Still none of your business...and a lot of people here are playing right into the hands of those who leaked all this info..
As a journalist/reporter myself for two decades this IS my business...and his actions...like those of some of the smarmy faux journalists on the left make ALL of us look bad.
-
He's a public figure who interviews the very people he's doing business with.
He's dancing on the line of ethical journalism.
https://www.rtdna.org/content/rtdna_code_of_ethics (https://www.rtdna.org/content/rtdna_code_of_ethics)
He's not a journalist. He is an opinion commentator......but don't let your Trump rage get in the way of facts.
-
He's dancing on the line of ethical journalism.
Well, he vacillates between being a journalist and not - similar to whether he’s a Cohen client or not.
Hannity has shifted in recent years on that point. “I never claimed to be a journalist,†Hannity told The New York Times in 2016 when asked about his informal advising of then-candidate Trump. The next year, Hannity referred to himself in a Times magazine profile as an “opinion journalist†or “advocacy journalist.†He said last month that his show “breaks news daily†in response to colleague Shep Smith characterizing Fox News’ prime-time lineup as entertainment.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/sean-hannity-cohen-attorney-trump-527897 (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/sean-hannity-cohen-attorney-trump-527897)
-
Well, he vacillates between being a journalist and not - similar to whether he’s a Cohen client or not.
Exactly. Depending on what day it is he's either tweeting about how he reports real news...or that he's not a journalist he's a "talk host".
-
What..really?...Sean had no obligation to divulge all his financial interests and investments..
Exactly. Sean is not an elected official or a politician. He is under no obligation for such ""transparency"" about his personal investments.
This BS reeks of the same inane crap thrown at Ted Cruz during the primary.... that he was somehow dishonest for having a wife that works at (Gasp!!!)...Goldman Sachs.
-
Well, he vacillates between being a journalist and not - similar to whether he’s a Cohen client or not.
Hannity has shifted in recent years on that point. “I never claimed to be a journalist,†Hannity told The New York Times in 2016 when asked about his informal advising of then-candidate Trump. The next year, Hannity referred to himself in a Times magazine profile as an “opinion journalist†or “advocacy journalist.†He said last month that his show “breaks news daily†in response to colleague Shep Smith characterizing Fox News’ prime-time lineup as entertainment.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/sean-hannity-cohen-attorney-trump-527897 (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/16/sean-hannity-cohen-attorney-trump-527897)
So you took that to mean that Hannity is a straight news source. Excellent. I can see now why you are now going to stop listening to him today. Guess you will have to watch Rachael Maddow for your news from now on. I don't think she invests in rentals.
-
Exactly. Depending on what day it is he's either tweeting about how he reports real news...or that he's not a journalist he's a "talk host".
Right. He is such a blight on your pure profession. Thank God Chuck Todd is around to try and save it.
-
As a journalist/reporter myself for two decades this IS my business...and his actions...like those of some of the smarmy faux journalists on the left make ALL of us look bad.
What the hell does his personal real estate investments have to do with journalism??? Methinks you are over-reaching here due to your distaste for Hannity. Let it go.
-
This BS reeks of the same inane crap thrown at Ted Cruz during the primary.... that he was somehow dishonest for having a wife that works at (Gasp!!!)...Goldman Sachs.
Wanna guess who said Cruz was owned by Goldman? Hint - the same guy who subsequently hired three former Goldman guys - Bannon, Cohn, and Mnuchin.
-
Wanna guess who said Cruz was owned by Goldman? Hint - the same guy who subsequently hired three former Goldman guys - Bannon, Cohn, and Mnuchin.
Yeah... but that same guy was only responding to the tabloid BS thrown out by the leftist asses that were trashing Cruz. The same leftist asses that are now trashing Hannity. Don't try to turn this thread into a Bash 'that same guy' thread...lol.
-
Exactly. Sean is not an elected official or a politician. He is under no obligation for such ""transparency"" about his personal investments.
This BS reeks of the same inane crap thrown at Ted Cruz during the primary.... that he was somehow dishonest for having a wife that works at (Gasp!!!)...Goldman Sachs.
He is a public figure.
There are ethics codes in journalism that he has danced right up to the line of if not stepped over them.
It matters.
-
He is a public figure.
There are ethics codes in journalism that he has danced right up to the line of if not stepped over them.
It matters.
So.... let me get this straight. In you view...Sean has stepped over the ethics line by not blasting his personal real estate transactions (and a few off the cuff/record questions he may have asked his friend Cohen) all over the airways... for the sake of ""transparency""??? AS IF... even IF he had done so, he would not still be under assault and attack from the idiot left... and all others that choose to bash him?
Nope.
You're wrong on this one, hon. Sorry.
Right is right and truth is truth. You're pushing some BS here.
-
So you took that to mean that Hannity is a straight news source. Excellent. I can see now why you are now going to stop listening to him today. Guess you will have to watch Rachael Maddow for your news from now on. I don't think she invests in rentals.
I used to listen to talk radio quite a bit while on the road between accounts. At some point in the mid 2000s, it became one long show from 9AM-6PM. They cover the same subjects, say the same things, and had similar sycophant callers. Hell, even the advertisers are the same. I’d rather listen to a Soviet era numbers station. It’s less monotonous.
I’ve watched that Maddow dude exactly twice in my life and both times were very entertaining. The first time, I was flipping through the election coverage throughout election night, 2016. The second time, she was waving around an old Trump tax return.
-
He is a public figure.
There are ethics codes in journalism that he has danced right up to the line of if not stepped over them.
It matters.
LOL. Right. That's why your "profession" is as respected as slip and fall lawyers and squeegie guys.
(https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/rla07-0907-squeegees-3.jpg)
You are the gift that keeps on giving on this thread.
-
Let's run down where this could be a problem (so far not accused.)
1. Did he use his connections with Carson or anyone in the government to curry special favors?
2. Did he use the shell company to dump off debt or hide sources of income that would not normally be allowed in these transactions?
3. Did any of these transactions provide any direct financial benefit to someone in the government- skirting disclosure rules?
4. Was any of this used to funnel money to candidates (or from candidates) during an election cycle?
5. Did he use connections and/or influence from players in the government to block out competitors to these properties?
6. Did he use government influence to get properties condemned or seized through eminent domain so he could buy them for personal or business gain.
So far, none of these have been charged. I'm sure we can think of more, but that's how this could have crossed the line.
But for now, this is just a normal, mundane financial transaction that happen every day.
-
Don't try to turn this thread into a Bash 'that same guy' thread...lol.
You must’ve missed the memo in the opening comments. I posted the thread because I’m the Hannity basher. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Let's run down where this could be a problem (so far not accused.)
1. Did he use his connections with Carson or anyone in the government to curry special favors?
2. Did he use the shell company to dump off debt or hide sources of income that would not normally be allowed in these transactions?
3. Did any of these transactions provide any direct financial benefit to someone in the government- skirting disclosure rules?
4. Was any of this used to funnel money to candidates (or from candidates) during an election cycle?
So far, none of these have been charged. I'm sure we can think of more, but that's how this could have crossed the line.
But for now, this is just a normal, mundane financial transaction that happen every day.
Don't forget number 5. Sean had sexual relations with Carson for financial favors. I don't know about anyone else, but that what I think happened.
-
LOL. Right. That's why your "profession" is as respected as slip and fall lawyers and squeegie guys.
How dare you. The squeegee kids of Baltimore are young entrepreneurs and have been for decades. Just ask Wiley A. Hall III.
But then, in January 1985, then-City Council President Clarence H. Du Burns introduced a bill, at the request of the police commissioner, that would outlaw squeegee kids. Police said the practice was unsafe and that many motorists had complained about them. The bill would give officers authority to arrest repeat offenders.
I tried to explain in a column back then that this was a very sad idea, that there were kinder, gentler ways of ensuring the kids' safety.
I pointed out, for instance, that each police district had a youth service officer and that the department could have asked the officers to take the squeegee kids in hand and show them safer outlets for their entrepreneurial spirit, chores for the elderly or something.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-07-25/news/1991206111_1_squeegee-kids-dressed-kid-kids-safety (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-07-25/news/1991206111_1_squeegee-kids-dressed-kid-kids-safety)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7iTKl3f1tRgye7JtcuABOxu2aesTgccRoJttbnTfBu4RB3j-D)
-
@RoosGirl
The person in the water seems to have had a change of heart. Either that, or they’re terrified of the oncoming bats.
-
Wanna guess who said Cruz was owned by Goldman? Hint - the same guy who subsequently hired three former Goldman guys - Bannon, Cohn, and Mnuchin.
Actually it was Ron Paul before the Primaries....
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268399-ron-paul-on-cruz-hes-owned-by-goldman-sachs (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268399-ron-paul-on-cruz-hes-owned-by-goldman-sachs)
But don't let that get in the way. Keep bashing Trump.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7iTKl3f1tRgye7JtcuABOxu2aesTgccRoJttbnTfBu4RB3j-D)
That should be the new TBR header.
-
Actually it was Ron Paul before the Primaries....
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268399-ron-paul-on-cruz-hes-owned-by-goldman-sachs (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268399-ron-paul-on-cruz-hes-owned-by-goldman-sachs)
But don't let that get in the way. Keep bashing Trump.
Trump picked right up on the refrain soon after.
"I know the guys at Goldman Sachs. They have total, total control over him. Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton," Trump said of Cruz, whom the real estate mogul also called a "total fraud" and "the biggest liar I've ever seen."
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-goldman-sachs/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-goldman-sachs/index.html)
-
You must’ve missed the memo in the opening comments. I posted the thread because I’m the Hannity basher. *****rollingeyes*****
Yeah...but.... Hannity is not the same guy as that same guy you mentioned (which is the guy I was referring to there). Is he.
I call your roll and up the ante! *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes***** *****rollingeyes*****
-
Trump picked right up on the refrain soon after.
That's called smart politics. Remember Willie Horton? Bush didn't dig that gem up on his own. It was Algore.
-
While I rarely watch Sean Hannity as I find all the talking head shows to be a waste of time, this thread shows why Conservatives continue to lose ground. He certainly isn't perfect, nobody is, but he is a strong voice for most conservative causes. He undermines the globalist and socialist agenda of the left on a daily basis. For all his faults he is one of the biggest voices keeping the left from completely owning the public narrative.
So here we have so called (or at less self professed) conservatives condemning him because 1) he has investments, 2) some of those investments are in real estate, and 3) the loans for those properties are insured by HUD. BTW, the lender decides whether they want you to take out this insurance and I'd wager most people on this board have or have had a govt insured mortgage.
Heck one of you even thinks the HUD Secretary personally signed off on these loans. How effin stupid can a person be?
-
That's called smart politics. Remember Willie Horton? Bush didn't dig that gem up on his own. It was Algore.
At least he didn’t put Horton in charge of federal prisons after he was elected.
-
Trump picked right up on the refrain soon after.
"I know the guys at Goldman Sachs. They have total, total control over him. Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton," Trump said of Cruz, whom the real estate mogul also called a "total fraud" and "the biggest liar I've ever seen."
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-goldman-sachs/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-goldman-sachs/index.html)
Right. He saw it published elsewhere and repeated it. He's known for that.
-
Right. He saw it published elsewhere and repeated it. He's known for that.
It also didn't help Cruz out that the FEC was looking into those loans at the time.
-
Right. He saw it published elsewhere and repeated it. He's known for that.
Because it was the ‘tree falls on n the woods’ scenario. Ron was irrelevant in 2016 and his son Rand had just dropped out of the race days before that article. Nobody heard it.
-
Because it was the ‘tree falls on n the woods’ scenario. Ron was irrelevant in 2016 and his son Rand had just dropped out of the race days before that article. Nobody heard it.
That makes total sense. I bet that pissed him off when Trump got the credit for the slur...lol.
-
It also didn't help Cruz out that the FEC was looking into those loans at the time.
Which was also asinine. Memory fails.... but wasn't the main loan with GS taken out using his own benefits (401k?)? It was a secured loan, IOW. Right? And for that the SEC was investigating? Yet another case of Obama using the government against his opponents...since all the lefties in government did his bidding even without him having to ask.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7iTKl3f1tRgye7JtcuABOxu2aesTgccRoJttbnTfBu4RB3j-D)
Those neckless figures should off themselves. They can’t do a damn thing right, anyway.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/kGTYlDYiif2W0ZiWME2L.w--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0yNDQ7dz0yNjQ-/http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/24/assets/images/pendle2.jpg.cf.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/LLG.NnOrbylrXLEWzWItmw--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD01NTM7dz00MDA-/http://www.safetysign.com/images/source/medium-images/E2200-crush-hazard-sign.20161030.png.cf.png)
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/687uHQJrliKBFCw7GD6Jvw--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD01NTI7dz00MDA-/http://images.mysafetysign.com/img/lg/S/electrocution-hazard-crane-warning-sign-s2-0034.png.cf.png)
-
Meanwhile there's a story about the Obama's Chicago house, being owned by a "Trust"
Any interest in that story, at HBR (Hannity Bashing Room) "conservative hub?"
-
Here are some for leftists and those that support their agenda.
(http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/legacy.images/smosh-pit/062011/warning-fails-21.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/91/47/7c/91477ce2317cf3cf376fb6742dbbf553.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lG2az5ut9w0/TNLcn0QBtvI/AAAAAAAAVr4/TeZWahGKYbE/s800/stupid_warning_labels_640_22.jpg)
-
Meanwhile there's a story about the Obama's Chicago house, being owned by a "Trust"
Any interest in that story, at HBR (Hannity Bashing Room) "conservative hub?"
@truth_seeker
Its not surprising that the communists will try to make an issue of it. However, it is disheartening that so called conservatives jump on board.
-
While I rarely watch Sean Hannity as I find all the talking head shows to be a waste of time, this thread shows why Conservatives continue to lose ground. He certainly isn't perfect, nobody is, but he is a strong voice for most conservative causes. He undermines the globalist and socialist agenda of the left on a daily basis. For all his faults he is one of the biggest voices keeping the left from completely owning the public narrative.
So here we have so called (or at less self professed) conservatives condemning him because 1) he has investments, 2) some of those investments are in real estate, and 3) the loans for those properties are insured by HUD. BTW, the lender decides whether they want you to take out this insurance and I'd wager most people on this board have or have had a govt insured mortgage.
Heck one of you even thinks the HUD Secretary personally signed off on these loans. How effin stupid can a person be?
Scrolling through the thread, only one person has gone against Hannity on here, and it was solely for the issue of proper disclosure, none of the things you claim.
-
@truth_seeker
Its not surprising that the communists will try to make an issue of it. However, it is disheartening that so called conservatives jump on board.
Sean would be proud of you Briefers that defend that low life with such passion.
-
Meanwhile there's a story about the Obama's Chicago house, being owned by a "Trust"
Any interest in that story, at HBR (Hannity Bashing Room) "conservative hub?"
A "Trust" sounds reliable and friendly. A "Shell Corp" sounds evil and mysterious. Of course no one here cares about that, or the fact that DNC muckity mucks owns his house in Georgetown.
-
There are people that identify as a Republican who get plenty of well-deserved criticism here, when they say or do something hypocritical. Three that come to mind are McCain, Graham, and Romney. Someone should really update the list of who we are and aren’t allowed to touch. :nono:
-
Sean would be proud of you Briefers that defend that low life with such passion.
Defending a lowlife? I havent tried to defend you so you'll have to be more clear.
Because you can't mean Hannity, because he's not a lowlife.
-
There are people that identify as a Republican who get plenty of well-deserved criticism here, when they say or do something hypocritical. Three that come to mind are McCain, Graham, and Romney. Someone should really update the list of who we are and aren’t allowed to touch. :nono:
@edpc
Touch whoever you want. Just drop the leftist whining when you get feedback for jumping on Hannity for taking out a mortgage or making real estate investments.
-
Scrolling through the thread, only one person has gone against Hannity on here, and it was solely for the issue of proper disclosure, none of the things you claim.
@AbaraXas
Uh huh, the topic of the thread is his real estate investments and HUD insured mortgage. You wanna try again?
-
Meanwhile there's a story about the Obama's Chicago house, being owned by a "Trust"
Any interest in that story, at HBR (Hannity Bashing Room) "conservative hub?"
So why didn't you post it? You seemed far more eager to come here and thumb your nose at other members than to raise flags on that story.
-
There are people that identify as a Republican who get plenty of well-deserved criticism here, when they say or do something hypocritical. Three that come to mind are McCain, Graham, and Romney. Someone should really update the list of who we are and aren’t allowed to touch. :nono:
No body gives a shit whether you like Sean or not. The problem is digging through a mans investments and trying to turn it into a scandal even though it is legal as hell and plenty of people do it.
It's Commie talking point bullshit of the first order, especially when the peanut gallery making an issue of this hasn't said word one about the Podestas funneling Russian money into the US and hiding it in an art collection.
-
Meanwhile there's a story about the Obama's Chicago house, being owned by a "Trust"
Any interest in that story, at HBR (Hannity Bashing Room) "conservative hub?"
I guess I missed you posting the article here on TBR so we could discuss it.
Oh yeah...that's right...
-
Scrolling through the thread, only one person has gone against Hannity on here, and it was solely for the issue of proper disclosure, none of the things you claim.
@AbaraXas at least you can see that.
-
No body gives a shit whether you like Sean or not. The problem is digging through a mans investments and trying to turn it into a scandal even though it is legal as hell and plenty of people do it.
It's Commie talking point bullshit of the first order, especially when the peanut gallery making an issue of this hasn't said word one about the Podestas funneling Russian money into the US and hiding it in an art collection.
:amen:
-
Sean would be proud of you Briefers that defend that low life with such passion.
Since I can't ping you.....(for some reason)....
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,313268.msg1664594.html#msg1664594 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,313268.msg1664594.html#msg1664594)
-
No body gives a shit whether you like Sean or not. The problem is digging through a mans investments and trying to turn it into a scandal even though it is legal as hell and plenty of people do it.
It's Commie talking point bullshit of the first order, especially when the peanut gallery making an issue of this hasn't said word one about the Podestas funneling Russian money into the US and hiding it in an art collection.
Oh, please. Sean did not want to be identified as a client of Cohen, but he was, by Cohen’s lawyer. Sean himself made the point to say the majority of the advice was for real estate. Why wouldn’t he believe people would start looking into public records to see if it had any validity? He didn’t have to disclose the nature of the advice, but he did. Now, he can’t squawk about someone finding easily obtainable information.
-
Oh, please. Sean did not want to be identified as a client of Cohen, but he was, by Cohen’s lawyer. He made the point to say the majority of the advice was for real estate. Why wouldn’t he believe people would start looking into public records to see if it had any validity? He didn’t have to disclose the nature of the advice, but he did. Now, he can’t squawk about someone finding easily obtainable information.
Yeah...but the difference is.... attempting to paint him as a crook due to that advice or those investments is dishonest. And beneath anyone but a G-damned leftie, IMO. Just sayin....
-
Yeah...but the difference is.... attempting to paint him as a crook due to that advice or those investments is dishonest. And beneath anyone but a G-damned leftie, IMO. Just sayin....
Fair enough, but who is doing that here?
-
Fair enough, but who is doing that here?
The implication behind the article is that Hannity is dishonest, and possibly a crook and did something unethical, if not illegal. It's a "gotcha" piece.
Do you deny that? Really?
-
The implication behind the article is that Hannity is dishonest, and possibly a crook and did something unethical, if not illegal. It's a "gotcha" piece.
Do you deny that? Really?
(https://www.emojibase.com/resources/img/emojis/apple/x1f47c.png.pagespeed.ic.d2IjV3gUvN.png)
-
The implication behind the article is that Hannity is dishonest, and possibly a crook and did something unethical, if not illegal. It's a "gotcha" piece.
Do you deny that? Really?
The article is, but the members aren't. Just the opposite.
-
(https://www.emojibase.com/resources/img/emojis/apple/x1f47c.png.pagespeed.ic.d2IjV3gUvN.png)
Lol! Hey, mind if I steal/use that?
I'm into the halo effect.
-
The article is, but the members aren't. Just the opposite.
@AbaraXas
So when a member condemns Hannity for the loan or implies it was obtained illegally thats actually the member condemning the article?
-
@AbaraXas
So when a member condemns Hannity for the loan or implies it was obtained illegally thats actually the member condemning the article?
No one has done that in the comments on the article.
-
No one has done that in the comments on the article.
Got any bridges for sale.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/240/samsung/137/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing_1f923.png)
-
@AbaraXas
So when a member condemns Hannity for the loan or implies it was obtained illegally thats actually the member condemning the article?
I said members - plural, as in membership as a whole. The implication was it was a widespread attack by membership. I'm not going to judge the whole group based on one statement by one person in the course of a conversation.
-
Got any bridges for sale.
Got any certain comment you can show to back up your silly disruptive claim?
-
Got any bridges for sale.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/240/samsung/137/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing_1f923.png)
You supplying a link to the comment would be easier.
-
I said members - plural, as in membership as a whole. The implication was it was a widespread attack by membership. I'm not going to judge the whole group based on one statement by one person in the course of a conversation.
@AbaraXas
Well if you're gonna argue the meaning of IS then I'm gonna have to call my attorney.
-
You supplying a link to the comment would be easier.
@AbaraXas @txradioguy
Don't even bother responding to me. Its obvious neither of you has an ounce of integrity.
-
A "Trust" sounds reliable and friendly. A "Shell Corp" sounds evil and mysterious. Of course no one here cares about that, or the fact that DNC muckity mucks owns his house in Georgetown.
Not Georgetown.....but the Kalorama neighborhood. ^-^
-
@AbaraXas @txradioguy
Don't even bother responding to me. Its obvious neither of you has an ounce of integrity.
So you've got nothing...got it. Should have just admitted that from the start.
-
No, I am not a communist and I don't harbor any ill feelings toward rich people PROVIDING they obtained their wealth within the confines of the law, it's the American Way. With that being said by dislike for the 2 head Trump cheerleaders, Hannity and Rush, is off the scale. Reprobates both. Flame on.
-
So you've got nothing...got it. Should have just admitted that from the start.
@txradioguy
Aren't you the guy who thinks the Secretary of HUD signs off on all loans.
BWHAHAHAHAAAHHAAAAAAAA
-
No, I am not a communist and I don't harbor any ill feelings toward rich people PROVIDING they obtained their wealth within the confines of the law, it's the American Way. With that being said by dislike for the 2 head Trump cheerleaders, Hannity and Rush, is off the scale. Reprobates both. Flame on.
@corbe
So what law did Hannity break? Do you think he should have to prove his innocence?
Or is this simply a political hit job with the intent of forcing him off the air and silencing a conservative voice?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
I said members - plural, as in membership as a whole. The implication was it was a widespread attack by membership. I'm not going to judge the whole group based on one statement by one person in the course of a conversation.
Um.... where did you get that.
My very first words were...
The implication behind the article ....
What the hell?
-
@AbaraXas @txradioguy
Don't even bother responding to me. Its obvious neither of you has an ounce of integrity.
So you can't supply a citation for your accusation. Gotcha.
-
Um.... where did you get that.
My very first words were...
What the hell?
See as post by another member just above yours calling this place "Hannity Bashing Room" and attacking the membership.
-
The implication behind the article is that Hannity is dishonest, and possibly a crook and did something unethical, if not illegal. It's a "gotcha" piece.
Do you deny that? Really?
My question was specific to the board commentary.
-
@corbe
So what law did Hannity break? Do you think he should have to prove his innocence?
Or is this simply a political hit job with the intent of forcing him off the air and silencing a conservative voice?
Inquiring minds want to know.
They (meaning the left) will never force him off the air. They (meaning the left) will only increase his support and his base via these BS attacks. (See: NRA membership, Chick-fil-a, Limbaugh increased support).
-
My question was specific to the board commentary.
Oh. Mine was not.
-
See as post by another member just above yours calling this place "Hannity Bashing Room" and attacking the membership.
OH! Ok...lol.
Nevermind.
-
@txradioguy
Aren't you the guy who thinks the Secretary of HUD signs off on all loans.
BWHAHAHAHAAAHHAAAAAAAA
Nope I'm not. I never said her personally signed off on the loans. He has the approving authority for increasing the mortgage limit on the type of loans that Hannity had.
The Guardian noted that Carson was not personally involved in any of Hannity’s dealings but does have the power to allow Hannity to convert rental complexes into sellable condos.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/384366-hannity-hud-shell-companies-report (http://thehill.com/homenews/media/384366-hannity-hud-shell-companies-report)
That IS a potential conflict of interest and could be perceived as a quid pro quo.
I never said anything Hannity did was illegal.
I said...and I'll say it again...he's bordering on crossing ethical journalistic guidelines by not being transparent about his relationship with some of the people he has as friendly guests and his off camera involvement with them.
I don't care about the money side...how he set up his LLC's or any of that.
I care about the journalism and ethical side of what he did. That's it that's all.
That's you making that huge leap of equation to what I actually said versus what you heard...because you feel some urge to defend Hannity at all costs whether he was wrong or not.
-
@AbaraXas @txradioguy
Don't even bother responding to me. Its obvious neither of you has an ounce of integrity.
HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!
that's rich coming from you. :silly:
-
@corbe
So what law did Hannity break? Do you think he should have to prove his innocence?
Or is this simply a political hit job with the intent of forcing him off the air and silencing a conservative voice?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I never insinuated or implied that Hannity broke any laws, if I was a fan of his I would probably believe this recent revelation is another political hit job trying to silence him, but he is a public figure reaching out to millions nightly to peddle his BS, so as far as I'm concerned~He's fair game, just like any other pundit on TV or Radio, whether they preach from the Right or left.
-
I never insinuated or implied that Hannity broke any laws, if I was a fan of his I would probably believe this recent revelation is another political hit job trying to silence him, but he is a public figure reaching out to millions nightly to peddle his BS, so as far as I'm concerned~He's fair game, just like any other pundit on TV or Radio, whether they preach from the Right or left.
Something the DJT Fanboys are ignorant to is the concept between legal and ethical.
I doubt Hannity broke any laws but he is showing himself to be just as sleazy as his orange master.
-
Something the DJT Fanboys are ignorant to is the concept between legal and ethical.
I doubt Hannity broke any laws but he is showing himself to be just as sleazy as his orange master.
So now a real estate loan is considered sleazy.
wow how far we've come
-
Oh. Mine was not.
Fine, then to answer your question, I assume any article I read has a bias and/or an agenda. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some factual content worth reading and discussing. In fact, there are some blatant hit piece articles posted, just so they can be picked apart and lampooned.
-
Something the DJT Fanboys are ignorant to is the concept between legal and ethical.
I doubt Hannity broke any laws but he is showing himself to be just as sleazy as his orange master.
I don't even think this is sleazy.
It is rather mundane in the investment world- just written to appear sinister.
I listed 5-6 ways this could have/be off the rails legally- so far none of which have been implied by this.
-
I never insinuated or implied that Hannity broke any laws, if I was a fan of his I would probably believe this recent revelation is another political hit job trying to silence him, but he is a public figure reaching out to millions nightly to peddle his BS, so as far as I'm concerned~He's fair game, just like any other pundit on TV or Radio, whether they preach from the Right or left.
@corbe
See I don't see a purpose in airing every detail of their personal life. If its criminal, ok thats fine. If its something completely legal and normal then really what is the purpose.
Except of course as part of an effort to silence conservative voices. I guess the current effort to get Ingraham failed so now they are back to Hannity.
-
Fine, then to answer your question, I assume any article I read has a bias and/or an agenda. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some factual content worth reading and discussing. In fact, there are some blatant hit piece articles posted, just so they can be picked apart and lampooned.
Fair point. But.... I'm still going to start watching Hannity again....
due to this latest assault by the left....lol.
I'm funny that way.
-
Fair point. But.... I'm still going to start watching Hannity again....
due to this latest assault by the left....lol.
I'm funny that way.
OK, but keep in mind this ‘assault’ is a self-made problem. We only know about this because Sean took advice from a lousy attorney from the law school equivalency of Lincoln Tech. Cohen’s lawyer named him in open court. Sean disclosed the advice was ‘almost exclusively’ related to real estate. Of course it was going to be investigated.
Saying ‘almost exclusively’ is the same as commercials for cheap products that claim ‘virtually indestructible.’ It’s destructible. So, don’t be surprised if the other info eventually comes out. He’s basically challenged people to find it, with his statements.
-
OK, but keep in mind this ‘assault’ is a self-made problem. We only know about this because Sean took advice from a lousy attorney from the law school equivalency of Lincoln Tech. Cohen’s lawyer named him in open court. Sean disclosed the advice was ‘almost exclusively’ related to real estate. Of course it was going to be investigated.
Saying ‘almost exclusively’ is the same as commercials for cheap products that claim ‘virtually indestructible.’ It’s destructible. So, don’t be surprised if the other info eventually comes out. He’s basically challenged people to find it, with his statements.
Well, he probably felt compelled to say 'something' about it, considering all the negative press and unethical implications that were coming out from Cohen "naming" him as a client. It's a domino effect in progress here... just as intended, designed and orchestrated by those out to "get Trump" and anyone associated with him or in support of him.
-
Sean Hannity defends real estate holdings, says he helps communities that 'badly' need investment
by Katelyn Caralle
| April 23, 2018 12:00 PM
Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday slammed reporters for noting his vast real estate holdings in several states, and said he has invested in areas of the country that desperately need help.
“It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly need such investment and in which, I am sure, those attacking me have not invested their money,†Hannity said in a statement.
Hannity's investments were revealed as part of the criminal investigation into President Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen's own lawyers revealed that Hannity is one of his clients, and the Guardian reported that Hannity is connected to shell companies that own tens of millions of dollars of property in seven states.
The Guardian suggested Hannity had some sort of supportive relationship from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But Hannity said he has no control over where his money was invested.
“The fact is, these are investments that I do not individually select, control, or know the details about; except that obviously I believe in putting my money to work in communities that otherwise struggle to receive such support,†Hannity said in his statement.
“I have never discussed with anybody at HUD the original loans that were obtained in the Obama years, nor the subsequent refinance of such loans, as they are a private matter,†Hannity said. “I had no role in, or responsibility for, any HUD involvement in any of these investments. I can say that every rigorous process and strict standard of improvement requirements were followed; all were met, fulfilled and inspected."
“The LLC’s are REAL companies that spend real investment money on real properties,†Hannity said.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sean-hannity-defends-real-estate-holdings-says-he-helps-communities-that-badly-need-investment (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sean-hannity-defends-real-estate-holdings-says-he-helps-communities-that-badly-need-investment)
-
Sean Hannity defends real estate holdings, says he helps communities that 'badly' need investment
by Katelyn Caralle
| April 23, 2018 12:00 PM
Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday slammed reporters for noting his vast real estate holdings in several states, and said he has invested in areas of the country that desperately need help.
“It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly need such investment and in which, I am sure, those attacking me have not invested their money,†Hannity said in a statement.
Hannity's investments were revealed as part of the criminal investigation into President Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen's own lawyers revealed that Hannity is one of his clients, and the Guardian reported that Hannity is connected to shell companies that own tens of millions of dollars of property in seven states.
The Guardian suggested Hannity had some sort of supportive relationship from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But Hannity said he has no control over where his money was invested.
“The fact is, these are investments that I do not individually select, control, or know the details about; except that obviously I believe in putting my money to work in communities that otherwise struggle to receive such support,†Hannity said in his statement.
“I have never discussed with anybody at HUD the original loans that were obtained in the Obama years, nor the subsequent refinance of such loans, as they are a private matter,†Hannity said. “I had no role in, or responsibility for, any HUD involvement in any of these investments. I can say that every rigorous process and strict standard of improvement requirements were followed; all were met, fulfilled and inspected."
“The LLC’s are REAL companies that spend real investment money on real properties,†Hannity said.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sean-hannity-defends-real-estate-holdings-says-he-helps-communities-that-badly-need-investment (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sean-hannity-defends-real-estate-holdings-says-he-helps-communities-that-badly-need-investment)
He's not helping his case any. This is one of those times now that it's out...that the less said by him and the more that is said through a Fox spokesperson is better.
-
So now a real estate loan is considered sleazy.
wow how far we've come
It can be. Take a look at some of the indictment counts against Manafort for bank fraud. Cohen may also have a problem, given he paid Daniels with an equity loan.
-
I have no problems at all with hannity doing this, nothing wrong with it at all.
I think the Cohen thing is completely different, but in this case he is free to invest his money however way he wants and doesn't need to divulge to his viewers, unless he spins his narrative to increase his money.
The Cohen situation was completely different because he was releasing stories on how its a completely travesty etc against american values, law etc without telling his viewers its his mate.
For me though hannity is just another media shill anyway, Another Millionaire mainstream media guy who has picked his side and will lie and create controversy to his viewers to rile them up and gain more views, which in turn makes him richer.
Gone are the days way a TV presenter is simply their to outlay the facts and let the viewers decide for themselves.
-
It can be. Take a look at some of the indictment counts against Manafort for bank fraud. Cohen may also have a problem, given he paid Daniels with an equity loan.
@edpc
Seems its lying on the loan paperwork (aka fraud) thats the problem and not the loan. Keep stretching though, all these gyrations are doing a really good job of making Hannity look like an evil capitalist and nor hurting your credibility at all.
-
That IS a potential conflict of interest and could be perceived as a quid pro quo.
I never said anything Hannity did was illegal.
So you are saying it was illegal before it was legal?
-
@edpc
Seems its lying on the loan paperwork (aka fraud) thats the problem and not the loan. Keep stretching though, all these gyrations are doing a really good job of making Hannity look like an evil capitalist and nor hurting your credibility at all.
A distinction without a difference, considering the loans in question were for real estate.
The new indictment accuses Manafort and Gates of dramatically understating their income on federal tax returns filed from 2010 through 2014. The pair is also accused of bank fraud totaling more than $20 million tied to three loans Manafort applied for in connection with various homes he owns.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/22/mueller-adds-new-tax-bank-fraud-charges-against-manafort-gates-422335 (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/22/mueller-adds-new-tax-bank-fraud-charges-against-manafort-gates-422335)
Also, I was specifically mentioned Manafort and Cohen in response to your comment about loans used for sleazy purposes. I never suggested Hannity did anything criminal with his acquisitions. Talk about a reach and credibility problem. The way you’re thrashing around, we should put you in a pool and have forum laundry day.
-
A distinction without a difference, considering the loans in question were for real estate.
The new indictment accuses Manafort and Gates of dramatically understating their income on federal tax returns filed from 2010 through 2014. The pair is also accused of bank fraud totaling more than $20 million tied to three loans Manafort applied for in connection with various homes he owns.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/22/mueller-adds-new-tax-bank-fraud-charges-against-manafort-gates-422335 (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/22/mueller-adds-new-tax-bank-fraud-charges-against-manafort-gates-422335)
Also, I was specifically mentioned Manafort and Cohen in response to your comment about loans used for sleazy purposes. I never suggested Hannity did anything criminal with his acquisitions. Talk about a reach and credibility problem. The way you’re thrashing around, we should put you in a pool and have forum laundry day.
@edpc
No difference between taking out a loan and committing bank fraud?
wowza, that literally leaves me speechless. Time to go work on my kayak cause I got no more words.
-
@edpc
No difference between taking out a loan and committing bank fraud?
wowza, that literally leaves me speechless. Time to go work on my kayak cause I got no more words.
There’s no difference between a sleazy real estate loan and bank fraud on a mortgage. You seem a little thick, so be sure you alternate strokes with the paddle, or you’ll just go in circles.
-
@edpc
No difference between taking out a loan and committing bank fraud?
wowza, that literally leaves me speechless. Time to go work on my kayak cause I got no more words.
Don't let your heart be troubled. There is a lot of crazy double talk being argued by the devout haters.
-
Sean's response on his website.....
It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly need such investment and in which, I am sure, those attacking me have not invested their money. The fact is, these are investments that I do not individually select, control, or know the details about; except that obviously I believe in putting my money to work in communities that otherwise struggle to receive such support.
I have never discussed with anybody at HUD the original loans that were obtained in the Obama years, nor the subsequent refinance of such loans, as they are a private matter. I had no role in, or responsibility for, any HUD involvement in any of these investments. I can say that every rigorous process and strict standard of improvement requirements were followed; all were met, fulfilled and inspected.
The LLC’s are REAL companies that spend real investment money on real properties.
https://www.hannity.com/media-room/sean-hannity-responds-to-latest-fake-news-attack/ (https://www.hannity.com/media-room/sean-hannity-responds-to-latest-fake-news-attack/)
-
Sean's response on his website.....
It is ironic that I am being attacked for investing my personal money in communities that badly need such investment and in which, I am sure, those attacking me have not invested their money. The fact is, these are investments that I do not individually select, control, or know the details about; except that obviously I believe in putting my money to work in communities that otherwise struggle to receive such support.
I have never discussed with anybody at HUD the original loans that were obtained in the Obama years, nor the subsequent refinance of such loans, as they are a private matter. I had no role in, or responsibility for, any HUD involvement in any of these investments. I can say that every rigorous process and strict standard of improvement requirements were followed; all were met, fulfilled and inspected.
The LLC’s are REAL companies that spend real investment money on real properties.
https://www.hannity.com/media-room/sean-hannity-responds-to-latest-fake-news-attack/ (https://www.hannity.com/media-room/sean-hannity-responds-to-latest-fake-news-attack/)
And if he'd been up front about that before it came out he consulted Cohen and before his interviews with Ben Carson it would be a big nothing burger now.
-
And if he'd been up front about that before it came out he consulted Cohen and before his interviews with Ben Carson it would be a big nothing burger now.
Personally, I'm amused by the fact he believes so much in investment in these communities, he takes steps to not select, control, or know details about it. I thought the 'Cohen is not my attorney, but I have privilege' thing was funny. He's outdone himself.
-
And if he'd been up front about that before it came out he consulted Cohen and before his interviews with Ben Carson it would be a big nothing burger now.
It's a nothing burger now because he didn't do anything. He doesn't have to divulge anything about his private life if he doesn't want. Would you like to know about his sex life too? It might not be illegal, but it might be a conflict of interest in your mind somehow. How about how he disciplines his kids? Could be illegal in some states.
Where does it stop?
-
And if he'd been up front about that before it came out he consulted Cohen and before his interviews with Ben Carson it would be a big nothing burger now.
It's a big nothing burger as it stands right now. Some people here insist on making mountains out of mole hills.
-
It's a big nothing burger as it stands right now. Some people here insist on making mountains out of mole hills.
I will say again that he has come dangerously close to crossing journalistic ethical laws and he should have been transparent about his relationships. As a public media figure he owes that to his viewing audience.
What credibility he has has been forever stained.
-
I will say again that he has come dangerously close to crossing journalistic ethical laws and he should have been transparent about his relationships. As a public media figure he owes that to his viewing audience.
What credibility he has has been forever stained.
I STRONGLY disagree with that assessment but you are free to make it never-the-less.
-
I will say again that he has come dangerously close to crossing journalistic ethical laws ....
Maybe you can write a letter to Jayson Blair and see if he will cover journalistic ethics in his next NY Times piece. If he is too busy check and see if Janet Cooke at WaPo can do it.
-
I will say again that he has come dangerously close to crossing journalistic ethical laws and he should have been transparent about his relationships. As a public media figure he owes that to his viewing audience.
What credibility he has has been forever stained.
I disagree. I had stopped watching him on Fox but plan to resume now. He doesn't owe his viewing audience a damned thing... and he sure as HELL doesn't owe those that are not, were not and never would be his viewing audience a damned thing.
It's up to the individual to choose to watch Hannity or not to watch Hannity. Nothing is "owed".
-
I STRONGLY disagree with that assessment but you are free to make it never-the-less.
You're free to do that...but you're still wrong. I'm looking at this as someone with almost 30 years in the business civilian as well as military journalism. TV...Print and Radio.
I still believe in journistic ethics and integrity.
Sad to see that some.people are so willing to cast them aside because the excise is either "the other side does it so why shouldn't we" or because "Sean is on our side so it's ok".
Rush Limbaugh at least had enough integrity and honesty (at the time) to stop talking about certain subjects he's previously railed against when they showed a distinct conflict of interest with his personal life.
-
I disagree. I had stopped watching him on Fox but plan to resume now. He doesn't owe his viewing audience a damned thing... and he sure as HELL doesn't owe those that are not, were not and never would be his viewing audience a damned thing.
It's up to the individual to choose to watch Hannity or not to watch Hannity. Nothing is "owed".
It's owed. He's a public figure. Fox News has built their whole empire on news and commentary you can trust.
He owes his audience honesty... integrity and transparency.
Otherwise he has nothing.