Sean Hannity May Have Committed a Federal Crime On Live TV That Could Land Him 20 Years In Prison
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by berniesandersmittens (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Political Dig
Fox News host and Trump apologizer Sean Hannity on his show Wednesday night advised witnesses in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation to “follow Hillary Clinton’s lead” and destroy their personal phones before handing them over to prosecutors.
Hannity’s comments followed a report by CNBC that Mueller’s team had asked witnesses in its probe to turn over their personal phones for examination of encrypted messaging apps, like WhatsApp, Dust and Signal.
The right-wing host criticized Mueller’s “pitbull” team for the tactic of demanding that witnesses turn over phones and all encrypted apps, along with the messages and emails within them.
“Maybe Mueller’s witnesses, I don’t know,” Hannity said on air. “If I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton’s lead, delete all your emails and then acid-wash your emails and hard drives on the phones, then take your phones and bash them with a hammer to little itsy bitsy pieces, use BleachBit, remove the sim cards and then take the pieces and hand them over to Robert Mueller, and say, Hillary Rodham Clinton, this is equal justice
Hannity’s advise to witnesses to destroy evidence could amount to “witness tampering,” which is a federal crime
Read more: https://politicaldig.com/sean-hannity-may-have-committed-a-federal-crime-on-live-tv-that-could-land-him-20-years-in-prison-watch/
Too much to hope for, but 20 years in jail would be too lenient for this asswipe
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)This is fairy on the head of the pin kinda stuff. No one is going to prosecute him for political commentary in a journalistic setting.
unblock
(56,198 posts)just because he's advising criminal witness/evidence tampering for the benefit of a political ally doesn't make that advice political commentary.
nor is foxnews a journalistic setting. as they say themselves, they're in the entertainment business. it may be topical, but it's not journalism.
that said, you're probably right that he's quite likely to escape criminal liability for this, just as donnie will escape criminal liability for his public calls for espionage and for his public calls for violence against protesters and heckler. that probably has more to do with prosecutors feeling the need for a much stronger case when going against a celebrity who can afford a strong legal team.
in other words, privilege.
that doesn't make it any less of a crime, though.
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)I would not be willing to put any money on there being a conviction due to the fact that the odds are at least one right-wing nut job would be on the jury.
unblock
(56,198 posts)But I agree that any defense lawyer would find ways to play up the celebrity and paint it as an ordinary if provocative part of normal topical tv entertainment.
Which is exactly why a prosecutor likely wouldn't bother unless the gas a very strong case. You're right, it only takes one fan to leave the jury without a unanimous verdict.
SCantiGOP
(14,719 posts)No way this would be a crime. I will take any wager and give you 10-1 odds that nothing ever comes of this.
Quit the straw-grasping.
unblock
(56,198 posts)Whether or not it is a crime is a different question.
SCantiGOP
(14,719 posts)Physically assaulting a government official is a crime, and there are even special provisions about the President.
If I went on TV and said, "I wish someone would slap Trump in the face" would that be a crime?
Hannity was not seriously trying to induce anyone to commit a crime.
unblock
(56,198 posts)Which is irrelevant to the alleged crime in this case. The question is whether Hannity attempted to caused or induce the destruction of evidence or altering of testimony.
The mere attempt to do so is a crime, whether or not anyone actually destroys evidence or altered their testimony (which would be a different crime).
The question is whether hannity's support and encouragement for this rises to the level of "cause" or "inducement". We can disagree on that point, but it would be a crime if it did.
As to your hypothetical, yes, making a public wish for violence against a specific target is a crime. Whether it gets prosecuted is another question. Most likely it wouldn't, unless someone acted on that wish, especially if they cited your statement as a motivator. In the case of the president, you might get a visit from the secret service, in any event.
onenote
(46,142 posts) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to--
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to--
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release,, 2 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The bolded language was ignored in the article cited in the OP.
unblock
(56,198 posts)does that necessarily mean, effectively, to pay someone?
or it it enough to try to wrongly convince someone that destruction of evidence is legal or at least "equal justice"?
onenote
(46,142 posts)The unanimous Supreme Court decision in Arthur Anderson v. US (2005) suggests a somewhat narrow reading, which would make it less likely that a prosecutor is going to go after Hannity.
Nitram
(27,749 posts)Prosecuting Hannity for this would be very IFFY.
unblock
(56,198 posts)But I do think his celebrity is a big advantage for the defense.
Nitram
(27,749 posts)unblock
(56,198 posts)he clearly is recommending and endorsing and approving of destruction of evidence.
There's scarcely a difference between this and an iver "go ahead and destroy the evidence."
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)Not particularly well done commentary perhaps... but clearly miles away from witness tampering or obstruction.
The comment clearly had little to nothing to do with what witnesses should do with their phones. It was commentary on what he thinks Clinton got away with. It was the latest variation on what Giuliani was doing when he said that they wanted to "Clinton treatment".
nor is foxnews a journalistic setting. as they say themselves, they're in the entertainment business. it may be topical, but it's not journalism.
From a quality standpoint, you are no doubt correct (falling short on "entertainment too"
... but there isn't a court in the country that wouldn't consider them part of the press.
Pepsidog
(6,365 posts)Trump or if they discussed it. Maybe a criminal conspiracy there to witness tamper. Rattle that block head asshole a little bit.
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)That's how you deal with the likes of Hannity and his ilk.
aggiesal
(10,806 posts)He's not advising them to follow HRC's example, only that
"If" he had a chance to advice them, he would advise them to follow HRC's example.
It's subtle, but likely to get him off.
irisblue
(37,513 posts)
jayschool2013
(2,611 posts)In September 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation made public documents relating to its now-closed investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for government business, posting them to its public document platform known as The Vault.
At the time of the document dump, both Clinton’s then-presidential campaign rival Donald Trump and the news media picked up on what seemed to be a salacious detail: that at some point in the past, an aide had used a hammer to destroy Clinton’s old mobile devices. The document underlying that tidbit of information stated that “[Clinton aide Justin] Cooper did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton’s old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.”
That sentence, pulled from a 47-page document, made it into one of now-President Donald Trump’s famous Twitter tirades against a Department of Justice’s Special Counsel-led investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which has swept up some of Trump’s circle of associates with indictments.
According to FBI documents, investigators determined a total of thirteen devices were associated with Clinton’s two phone numbers and personal email domain, eight of which she used during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. The FBI requested that all thirteen devices be handed over, but Clinton’s attorneys informed the FBI that they were “unable to locate any of these devices,” so the bureau was unable to examine them. Another Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told FBI agents that the whereabouts of Clinton’s unwanted devices would “frequently become unknown.”
irisblue
(37,513 posts)
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)Hannity was advocating destroying evidence of current or recent contacts, not eliminating duplication.
While many of us might toss an old phone in a drawer after getting an upgrade, a public official is likely to have technicians verify a full transfer to their new device and then decommission the old one to avoid potential leaks.
Doesn't sound like they had a problem getting her current phone, just the ones she was no longer using. Also worth noting that the 30k messages on the device Huma and Anthony shared were duplicates of ones previously turned over.
jayschool2013
(2,611 posts)However, the Fox-addled brain logic tells you this:
1. Dems are evil
2. Hillary is a Dem
3. Hillary aides smashed a phone or two
4. Because they're Dems, they did it for evil purposes
5. Lock her up
It's really quite simple, you see.
exboyfil
(18,359 posts)Not we don't know where they are.
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)In a 32+ year career I've used at least 10 discrete PC's. Other than the current one, I couldn't give any info on what happened to any of the old ones. Hopefully they were decommissioned according to DoD guidelines.
Makes me wonder if that could be why IT techs took the 5th. Didn't want to admit to taking shortcuts on disposal.
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)even 'entertainers' can be arrested and prosecuted for going to far. I am not a lawyer or a prosecutor but to my mind, telling potential witnesses to destroy evidence seems to me as 'going to far'.
riversedge
(80,813 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Those apps are exactly what trumps campaign used to 'hide' their little 'secrets'.
47of74
(18,470 posts)
mgardener
(2,360 posts)It will clash with his skin and hair color??????
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)we found out that Sean Hannity was a client of Michael Cohen, he never disclosed this fact until it was discovered at a recent court hearing.[FOOTNOTE SOURCE] Furthermore, a report has come out alleging that Sean Hannity speaks to President Trump nearly every weeknight.[FOOTNOTE SOURCE]
New York Times - Sean Hannity Is Named as Client of Michael Cohen, Trump’s Lawyer Video
USA Today - Report: President Trump and Sean Hannity talk nearly every weeknight
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
underpants
(196,502 posts)Hannity and his crowd either don't know that or purposely don't mention it.
duforsure
(11,885 posts)From Hannity , trump and others has become a common trend now. Being a law and order candidate supporter , and the illegitimate president and his lacky's show everyone how incredibly arrogant, and incompetent they are. Ghouliani has put himself in a position (a Circus Clown) also to be looking at time also as a co-conspirator, along with many in the White House. They are incriminating themselves , and once they get their devices, the cover up will blow up against them too. They probably already know everything they have had on their phones and devices, so they're walking into a nightmare if they been deleting anything. More charges.
CTyankee
(68,202 posts)HenryWallace
(332 posts)"may have"
Any banner which ends with "?"
So & so, "destroys" opposition!
C Moon
(13,643 posts)Trump is GUILTY of treason and other crimes.
And yet, they continue to support him.
Plain and simple: they aren't Americans.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)They are openly, blatantly admitting they think he is guilty, if this is what he is advising. Unbelievable.
It's like if there was a Fox News back in Nixon's day and one of their hosts suggested on the National airwaves that Nixon erase all his tapes, rip them up and stomp on the recorders and then smugly hand them over.
33taw
(3,343 posts)
mwooldri
(10,818 posts)So no FCC rules. But whether New York State law applies I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
mwooldri
(10,818 posts)Yup, he won't be doing any time for what he said.
However it is false equivalency. Hannity is calling for evidence to be wiped. Hillary's team did not wipe evidence.
Schedule
(29 posts)Lock him up
NOMOGOP
(87 posts)to respond on this clowns Facebook page. He is running as a Republikkkkan whose main concerns are "education & health care affordability". He apparently wants the majority to have neither.
joel t. sprecher
sauk city, wi. 53583
SayItLoud
(1,774 posts)with this type filthy POS.
Nitram
(27,749 posts)I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton's lead..."
defacto7
(14,162 posts)Does Hannity think they have something to hide?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)No one knows WTF he's talking about, but obviously they both are working from the same playbook.
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)In this case, to the thousands of emails that she supposedly had deleted a couple weeks after they were subpoenaed. The software used was reportedly "bleachbit" - but the process is supposedly sometimes referred to as "acid washing"
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)But, then, I never heard of covfefe, either.
kmla
(4,047 posts)Right next to his hip and happening Members Only jacket.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It's a reference back to the "bleach bit" thing which he (and Trump?) calls "acid wash" for some reason.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)dlk
(13,248 posts)Javaman
(65,714 posts)that's part of the game to turn the heat up on fucking morons like hannity. to make him shit his pants then he will spill the beans.
hannity if anything is a self serving coward opportunist.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)and let the idiots think that works.
Vinca
(53,994 posts)onenote
(46,142 posts)According to that article, Hannity violated 18 USC 1512, which the author claims makes it unlawful to cause or induce any person to:
"b) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
c) Alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding"
That language actually appears as paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of 18 USC 1512. That subsection is expressly limited to circumstances where a person "knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person" in order to cause (or attempt to cause) the actions described (withholding, altering, mutilating, etc.). It simply cannot be shown that Hannity used intimidation, threats etc to persuade witnesses or potential witnesses to trash their phones. Any doubt about this is resolved by the Supreme Court's unanimous 2005 decision in Arthur Anderson v. US, which adopted a very narrow reading of 18 USC 1512 and, in particular, the "corruptly persuades" provision.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)orchestrated legal, above board operation that helps make this happen.
MFM008
(20,042 posts)Him anyway.
He's figured out another tool of mass distraction.
Expect one every time he needs a change of
Topic.
