See my [29], where I advised whomever Hannity advised to do the same thing Hannity advised.

Are you just determined to remain an uneducated prig who lacks the ability to reason? If Hannity was any random uninvolved moron on a chat board such as yourself and simply spewing the same bullshit you are, you'd have a point, but he's not so you obviously don't.

Since Sean Hannity speaks with the President of the United States on a well-known regular basis and was also identified by Michael Cohen, his lawyer, as one of his three clients, which exclusive list of three also includes Hannity's phone buddy a.k.a. the President of the United States, that makes him more than just an uneducated blowhard on a blog who keeps insisting that the First Amendment "freedom of speech" means that one can say whatever one wants whenever one wants and to whomever one wants.

You are assigned to report me to Mueller, inasmuch as our buddy Impaulasible refused to do it.

Since you're not a witness, subject, nor target of the investigation, it is the height of ignorance to believe you'd even be remotely relevant to Mueller, but the fact that Sean Hannity holds that distinction, it is beyond ignorant to suggest that Hannity's status is the same as your own.

Maybe Hannity and I can be cellmates!!! I'm looking forward to it!

I have no doubt you and Hannity would enjoy each other, old man, but I have a better idea for your consideration: Maybe you could grow a few brain cells and they could be "cellmates"... something the entire board could look forward to! :)

See my [29], where I advised whomever Hannity advised to do the same thing Hannity advised. You are assigned to report me to Mueller, inasmuch as our buddy Impaulasible refused to do it.

Maybe Hannity and I can be cellmates!!! I'm looking forward to it!

Believe it or not, there is NO LAW against Hannity advising people to destroy their electronic gadgetry!!

Yes, there is law (plural). Do you not understand the fact that Sean Hannity is under investigation and is "phone buddies" with the President of the United States who is also under investigation?

Of course, you and Kick will assure me that there surely IS such a law.

We frequently attempt to educate morons who post lies borne out of stupidity. You're welcome.

probably in 'Obscurity County', WI, or maybe in 'Outer Mongolia', but the fact remains that there is NO SUCH U.S. federal law!

The fact remains that you generally don't know what your talking about.

18 U.S.C. Section 1512 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure §?1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(b) 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.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1512.html

FYI, Stucki: Just because you're not aware of "law," "a law," or "laws"... as frequently appears to be the case... in no way whatsoever should be interpreted or construed that "law" does not exist. :)

So you read the entire article front to back and completely missed one of the concepts and then jump to a false conclusion that has nothing to do with my comment?

No, Don, I didn't completely miss "one of the concepts" as there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in CW's article that suggests "Big Money Democrats"... your meaningless bullshit term... would "take advantage of women voting for other women because they are women." The jumping to a false conclusion was all your handiwork, as per your usual.

At least you are consistent.

As long as you choose to troll the author whining like a little bitch for free advertisement and consistently projecting your fabricated bullshit onto his articles, you can naturally expect that people might respond to your consistent trolling, your consistent whining and begging, and your consistent fabricated bullshit.

TS is so right you too, Don, when he says "be careful what you wish for." Were I the author of a blog with a self-admitted troll who interjected his bullshit near daily into my articles while begging for free advertisement, I would definitely devote a few sentences to that crap.

Look, you've got something to say. You want the focus solely to be on it. More power to you. So as I suggested, perhaps you should set up a blog and write about precisely what you want to? ~ CW

Of course, my sentences wouldn't be so nice as these. What part of that is at all confusing? :)

No one gives a damn about what you suggest. Sean Hannity, however, is under investigation and knows other criminals also under investigation. Investigators care quite a bit about what he says and does.

But continue to argue another point entirely, proving your inability to stick to the actual argument or even understand it. But probably you're just trying to redirect, something repubs/conserves now appear to do absolutely reflexively.

Re "You don't get away with telling people to destroy evidence . ."

Nonsense, I'm betting you (he) DOES 'get away with it, and I'll publically announce to you and God and the whole world that I ALSO advise the people in question, whoever in hell they are, to destroy not only their cellphones, but their whatever 'pads', their computers, their photos, their emails, and every document and/or record they own, and I urge you to contact Mueller and make him aware that I did so. My youngest kid makes all those things for Apple, and I'm sure they would appreciate all the new business.

I would love to be the test case to let the SCOTUS rule on it, but I'm smart enough to know Mueller would just laugh at you, but if I'm wrong, you be sure and let me know what he says.

It's not a matter of hacking. Hannity was telling people to try to destroy "phone calls" that might be of interest to Robert Mueller's investigation. The only reason to destroy them would be because they incriminate the person who made the call.

Separately, you have zero idea about whether such an incitement would work or not work and that's not the point anyway. Just like you don't get away with "trying" to rob a bank and getting caught, thereby "failing" to rob the bank, you don't get away with telling people to destroy evidence even if the other party doesn't destroy the evidence.

It may be Hannity will slither out of trouble on this - we'll see. But it certainly makes him look GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!

Re the free speech right being "non-absolute". The key to that would be the nature and the degree of the "incitement"

The old "Fire in the crowded theater" thing would incite fear in the crowd, beyond their control, regardless of any other considerations, due to the "self-preservation" thing inherent in all living creatures.

Me suggesting offhand that my neighbor go rob the local 7-11 would definitely NOT amount to a comparable level or degree of "incitement" of anything, not fear, not greed, not nothin'!

If Hannity suggested you or I go trash our cell phones we'd laugh at him. (Actually only you, 'cause I don't have a cell phone.) If his suggestion doesn't "incite" you or me, there's no reason to assume it would "incite" the people in question, regardless of whether or not they are guilty of hacking or whatever.

"Remember, we're not discussing Hannity "destroying evidence", nor Hannity doing anything, except talking. You know, that old "1st amendment" thing that you Dems/Libs all hate."

1) First of all, we ALL don't "HATE" it.

2) Secondly, you are WRONG, as both you and Michale have both been told repeatedly in the past that the First amendment right to free speech is NOT an absolute one.

3) The relevant concept is: Incitement, which in criminal law is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred.

4) The degree to which incitement is protected speech is determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected.

For example: Incitement to riot is illegal under U.S. federal law.

Oh stop it. You know full well that if a liberal commentator had suggested that Hillary incinerate her hard drives in June 2013, he (or she) would have been indicted as a co-conspirator in the Banghazi witch-hunt.

Do how's the weather on your side of the political divide? Cloudy, with a chance of Stormy, I imagine.

Remember, we're not discussing Hannity "destroying evidence", nor Hannity doing anything, except talking. You know, that old "1st amendment" thing that you Dems/Libs all hate.

I think there are laws against destroying evidence during an active investigation but I'm not a lawyer. But I think it's clear that it's not a matter of "destroying electronic gadgetry" but rather a matter of destroying what's on the "electronic gadgetry". But maybe in republican-land those distinctions are too challenging to grasp.

[17] Kick: Yes, I was thinking the phone calls and txts may well still be on servers, if not on the phones, since the point of the apps is to make them disappear. If they're recoverable I'm sure Mueller will recover them.

[20] TS: "Smartphone Moms" - not bad!

"Sean Hannity party to . . destruction of evidence . ."

Believe it or not, there is NO LAW against Hannity advising people to destroy their electronic gadgetry!!

Of course, you and Kick will assure me that there surely IS such a law. probably in 'Obscurity County', WI, or maybe in 'Outer Mongolia', but the fact remains that there is NO SUCH U.S. federal law!

Smartphone Moms

Well connected, educated, upwardly mobile married women many of whom drive SUVs to work and soccer practice, but you can only make a catch phrase so long before it becomes wordy like this sentence.

And based on history regarding FBI and the iPhone incident, we know Trump will be squarely on the side of law enforcement. After all, he is the "law and order candidate," and it was Trump who declared on Twitter that we should "boycott all Apple products until such time as Apple gives cellphone info to authorities..."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-boycott-apple-until-they-help-fbi-access-shooter-n522031

Why would he change his mind now, particularly since he claims he's done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide. ;) /sarcasm off

The funniest part about Hannity instructing the witnesses to destroy the phones is his apparent ignorance about how data is stored. They can destroy the phones all they wish, but techs can still pull the data and/or the encoding. There's not a whole lot of encryption that can't be broken. It either takes some time or the decryption key. No worries there. :)

Forgot to add: Mueller knows :)

Speaking of Michael Cohen, it was only a matter of time before the news caught up with Ivana Marie Trump a.k.a. "Ivanka."

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/391029-ivanka-trump-connected-cohen-with-russian-offering-to-help-facilitate

Consider the fact that Ivana Marie knew all of this and see if the word "feckless" doesn't come to mind. :)

It would be great if Hannity would be deposed in that little matter. Good times.

Sean Hannity - party to obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and witness tampering(?).

Hannity is not kidding. He is under investigation... has been for quite a while. Remember the three people Michael Cohen listed as his clients when he attempted to claim attorney-client privilege on the multiple millions of documents seized... Sean Hannity was one them. There's a reason for that. :)

A Cambridge Analytica director apparently visited Julian Assange in February last year and told friends it was to discuss what happened during the US election, the Guardian has learned.

Cambridge Analytica and WikiLeaks are already subjects of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but the revelations open up fresh questions about the precise nature of the organisations’ relationship.

"the revelations open up fresh questions about the precise nature of the organisations’ relationship." -- I'll say!

Sean Hannity - party to obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and witness tampering(?).

not at the olympics. hope solo embarassed herself and our nation after our quarterfinal loss to sweden.

Even the greatest of franchises can't win them all... as Solo is "bombing" at the box office. ;)

Great. The Big Money Democrats will get back in control by taking advantage of women voting for other women because they are women?

I read the article front to back and didn't see anything remotely like the ridiculous scenario you are describing; I'm therefore inclined to conclude that you're one of those men "taking advantage of" men voting for other men because they are men, and you're simply projecting your own BS onto the author. :)

not at the olympics. hope solo embarassed herself and our nation after our quarterfinal loss to sweden.

JL

From your keyboard to God's ears.

Cue the pathetic whining in unison of Donald Trump and his ilk.

BONUS MONEY SAVER: They can take out their t-shirts with the choice nouns like the "C" word and the "P" word and just cross out Hillary's name and write in Nancy's.

Neil M is so right about this. :)

i say this as i prepare to watch a world cup in which the USA will not participate.

Winning! Not. Trinidad and Tobago.

Grieve not, kind sir, since the United States Women's National Team is the reigning women's World Cup champion, and though our great ladies may not win them all, they have indeed won the World Cup and will... I would wager... continue to represent America proudly while the men take a seat.

the lionization of the white suburban "soccer mom" is not just what's wrong with the sport, it's what's wrong with the country. so there.

Grieve not, kind sir, rather allow yourself to at least concede that the women are winning! ;)

From your keyboard to God's ears.

@CW,

the concept of soccer as the sport of the white, middle-class suburbanite is not just harmful to the country, it's harmful to the sport. i say this as i prepare to watch a world cup in which the USA will not participate. in just about every other country in the world, futbol is the most democratic of team sports - all it takes is a ball, a patch of dirt and four random objects to mark goalposts. before he was discovered, pele ran barefoot through the streets kicking a sock stuffed with rags. our soccer parents have to pay thousands of dollars to enroll in "academies" in order to get noticed. the lionization of the white suburban "soccer mom" is not just what's wrong with the sport, it's what's wrong with the country. so there.

JL