Jump to content

Hannity admits he didn't believe Trump's election fraud lies.


Recommended Posts

While testifying under oath at the Fox Dominion trial, Fox news Sean Hannity admitted, under oath, that he never believed trump's claims of election fraud. Yet, that didn't stop the Fox News host from featuring fraud proponents with wild, unproven allegations on his show. 

as I've said here on many occasions, there is absolutely no evidence of voter fraud widespread enough to of changed the elections outcome, nor any evidence of voter fraud viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law. 

yet most Republicans, many on this forum, to this day still push this unsubstantiated narrative as if it were gospel.... It's the height of stupidity.

 

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://thehill.com/homenews/3785645-sean-hannity-admits-in-deposition-he-didnt-believe-trump-voter-fraud-claims/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjv5Ym8ydn8AhUHLUQIHUphD94QFnoECAgQAg&usg=AOvVaw09fBfbCdA4L62oxVHiIGeY

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

While testifying under oath at the Fox Dominion trial, Fox news Sean Hannity admitted, under oath, that he never believed trump's claims of election fraud. Yet, that didn't stop the Fox News host from featuring fraud proponents with wild, unproven allegations on his show. 

as I've said here on many occasions, there is absolutely no evidence of voter fraud widespread enough to of changed the elections outcome, nor any evidence of voter fraud viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law. 

yet most Republicans, many on this forum, to this day still push this unsubstantiated narrative as if it were gospel.... It's the height of stupidity.

 

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://thehill.com/homenews/3785645-sean-hannity-admits-in-deposition-he-didnt-believe-trump-voter-fraud-claims/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjv5Ym8ydn8AhUHLUQIHUphD94QFnoECAgQAg&usg=AOvVaw09fBfbCdA4L62oxVHiIGeY

Someday those here who defend Trump's NUMEROUS LIES will be reduced to the same class of id iots who believed Joe McCarthy until the spell of HIS CULT was broken.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's get a little more specific here:

Quote

Hannity’s Aug. 31 deposition lasted more than seven hours, according to court records. He was asked specifically about a Nov. 30, 2020 episode in which Powell claimed that Dominion “ran an algorithm that shaved off votes from Trump and awarded them to Biden” and “used the machines to inject and add massive quantities of votes for Mr. Biden.” Dominion had previously warned Fox reporters and producers that audits and reviews had found no evidence of fraud or miscounting of votes in the election. Hannity aired Powell’s attack on Dominion “despite knowing it was false, and knowing it was coming,” the company said in one court filing, while Pirro “hosted Powell and endorsed her statements.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/12/05/rupert-murdoch-deposed-dominion/

It doesn't appear possible to get the actual deposition for full context but let's take WaPo's word for what's there.

Hannity said he didn't believe Sydney Powell's claim Dominion was using an algorithm to shave off votes. Nevetheless he asked her a question and she gave an answer as tends to happen in interview situations. Unless somebody can link us to the actual deposition we don't know what the follow up questions in the interview were.

I was reading that this particular interview happened the evening following the day Powell had been dumped from Trump's legal staff. 

Contrary to what the OP would like you to believe Powell's contention of an algorithm scam in the voting machines was not the only allegation of dirty doggery in the 2020 election

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

 

Contrary to what the OP would like you to believe Powell's contention of an algorithm scam in the voting machines was not the only allegation of dirty doggery in the 2020 election

I just love it when MAGA cultist fools try and tell me what I want you to believe.... You can wrap all your speculated "dirty doggery" with a bow.... It won't change the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of voter fraud widespread enough to of changed the elections outcome, nor any evidence of voter fraud viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Contrary to what the OP would like you to believe Powell's contention of an algorithm scam in the voting machines was not the only allegation of dirty doggery in the 2020 election

WTH is "dirty doggery"?

No one cares about ALLEGATIONS. NOT HAVING EVIDENCE of FRAUD is why Trump et al LOST 60+ court challenges to the CERTIFIED VOTE COUNTS.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

 

Contrary to what the OP would like you to believe Powell's contention of an algorithm scam in the voting machines was not the only allegation of dirty doggery in the 2020 election

THAT is the heart of the lie. 
Every time you people make one of your BS claims, we prove that it’s false. And instead of trying to prove that you’re telling the truth, you pivot to some other false claim. 
 

NOWHERE, ANYWHERE, in the entire United States, was even one single precinct’s results found to be fraudulent. Forget about a state’s results being wrong… forget about a county being wrong, or a small town… you ldiots couldn’t even overturn the results of one single precinct anywhere in the entire nation. 
 

It’s all bullshlt, you’re full of bullshlt, DT is full of bullshlt, and Joe Biden is President. Har-dee-har-har… you guys got your asses kicked, and we kicked your asses again in the midterms. How do you like dem apples, losers?

Edited by Rebound
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rebound said:

THAT is the heart of the lie. 
Every time you people make one of your BS claims, we prove that it’s false.

Well that's never actually happened and you know it. You've never disproven any claim of mine and I doubt you ever will.

Generally what you do is you make some ridiculous claim of your own as you did above. Somehow in the twisted mind of prog that becomes an example of you producing superior evidence.

Never actually happened. Not in this reality.

My claims were as followed.

As far as we know Hannity only claimed at one point in his 7 hour deposition he did not believe Sydney Powell's allegation an algorithm in the election software changed votes. That's true. Read the WaPo quote you were given.

I also stated my opinion the OP would like you do believe Hannity's claim was he didn't believe there was any skullduggery anywhere in the 2020 election. If he is contending that it's false. And that contention of a falsehood is true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Well that's never actually happened and you know it. You've never disproven any claim of mine and I doubt you ever will.

Generally what you do is you make some ridiculous claim of your own as you did above. Somehow in the twisted mind of prog that becomes an example of you producing superior evidence.

Never actually happened. Not in this reality.

My claims were as followed.

As far as we know Hannity only claimed at one point in his 7 hour deposition he did not believe Sydney Powell's allegation an algorithm in the election software changed votes. That's true. Read the WaPo quote you were given.

I also stated my opinion the OP would like you do believe Hannity's claim was he didn't believe there was any skullduggery anywhere in the 2020 election. If he is contending that it's false. And that contention of a falsehood is true.

 

Stop your nonsense. 
1) Was the 2020 election “stolen” from Trump? Yea or no?

2) If “Yes,” then what is your exact evidence, since, as I’ve pointed out, the 2020 Presidential outcome has not been overturned in one single precinct anywhere in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

I also stated my opinion the OP would like you do believe Hannity's claim was he didn't believe there was any skullduggery anywhere in the 2020 election. If he is contending that it's false. And that contention of a falsehood is true.

 

But you've completely FAILED to substantiate ANY part of ^this OPINION. ANYONE CAN WRITE ANY WORDS THEY WANT HERE. Means NOTHING without EVIDENCE.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

But you've completely FAILED to substantiate ANY part of ^this OPINION. ANYONE CAN WRITE ANY WORDS THEY WANT HERE. Means NOTHING without EVIDENCE.

You have no evidence supporting the contrary to what I claim. And if that's what you want to call "whataboutism" I'm fine with it.

You can be forgiven though because one doesn't necessarily have to offer evidence to an opinion. We know you never do. It's purely voluntarily. Rational argument with examples the other party is expected to know about or if he doesn't should look it up are fine. That's all you ever use - if that. The contention of "rational argument" rarely applies with you.

Also the first and most important part of my two claims was supported by the Washington Post quote I offered referencing a 7 hour deposition by Hannity. Neither you nor the OP have offered any better support for your contention that Hannity's disbelief in voter fraud is not limited to a contention by Sydney Powell of a crooked algorithm in the vote counting software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and hey, I can't remember if it was you or the other half of R&R that was critiquing my use of the neologism "Clicky." Doesn't matter. It's the same thing.

I know what cliquey means. That isn't what I meant, either by definition or pronunciation. I wasn't talking about any kind of cabal or group of people. I was talking about a term.

"Clicky" to me is a relative of clickbait. It's a word or phrase that's facile and easy to click on digitally or mentally but when you stop to think about what is actually being said it doesn't really mean much or serve any kind of useful purpose. The prog tendency to constantly redefine terms to mean whatever they want at the moment is "clicky." Terms like "whataboutism" are "clicky." The claim that if you mention Nazism you've lost the argument is "clicky." A Nazi comparison is often valid.

"Clicky" is my word with my definition. It's OK to do that by the Prog example. You guys do it all the time. BTW "Prog" is also "clicky" and I'm fine with it. If you want to know what that means feel free to ask.

"Clicky" sounds like and means exactly what I want it to. If you were unsure about what I meant you should have asked rather than push your own idea that what you wanted to believe I was thinking was some sort of new truth.

 

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Oh and hey, I can't remember if it was you or the other half of R&R that was critiquing my use of the neologism "Clicky." Doesn't matter. It's the same thing.

I know what cliquey means. That isn't what I meant, either by definition or pronunciation. I wasn't talking about any kind of cabal or group of people. I was talking about a term.

"Clicky" to me is a relative of clickbait. It's a word or phrase that's facile and easy to click on digitally or mentally but when you stop to think about what is actually being said it doesn't really mean much or serve any kind of useful purpose. The prog tendency to constantly redefine terms to mean whatever they want at the moment is "clicky." Terms like "whataboutism" are "clicky." The claim that if you mention Nazism you've lost the argument is "clicky." A Nazi comparison is often valid.

"Clicky" is my word with my definition. It's OK to do that by the Prog example. You guys do it all the time. BTW "Prog" is also "clicky" and I'm fine with it. If you want to know what that means feel free to ask.

"Clicky" sounds like and means exactly what I want it to. If you were unsure about what I meant you should have asked rather than push your own idea that what you wanted to believe I was thinking was some sort of new truth.

 

 

Yes or No: Was the 2020 election stolen?

What is the proof?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence is mounting against Fox - it’s easier to say who didn’t tell them the whole thing was a hoax than who did at this stage. I suspect some humble pie may be publicly consumed before the trial happens in April. America’s leeway on free speech about public figures is generally a good thing but there have to be limits. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2023 at 2:21 PM, CrakHoBarbie said:

While testifying under oath at the Fox Dominion trial, Fox news Sean Hannity admitted, under oath, that he never believed trump's claims of election fraud. Yet, that didn't stop the Fox News host from featuring fraud proponents with wild, unproven allegations on his show. 

as I've said here on many occasions, there is absolutely no evidence of voter fraud widespread enough to of changed the elections outcome, nor any evidence of voter fraud viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law. 

yet most Republicans, many on this forum, to this day still push this unsubstantiated narrative as if it were gospel.... It's the height of stupidity.

 

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://thehill.com/homenews/3785645-sean-hannity-admits-in-deposition-he-didnt-believe-trump-voter-fraud-claims/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjv5Ym8ydn8AhUHLUQIHUphD94QFnoECAgQAg&usg=AOvVaw09fBfbCdA4L62oxVHiIGeY

It wasn't too long ago that leftist degenerates were saying there is absolutely no evidence of voter fraud at all. 

What I'VE said on multiple occasions is, "give it time; the truth will make its way through the filth & lies eventually" and it has already started. ;) 

Edited by Deluge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

It wasn't too long ago that leftist degenerates were saying there is absolutely no evidence of voter fraud at all. 

What I'VE said on multiple occasions is, "give it time; the truth will make its way through the filth & lies eventually" and it has already started. ;) 

There isn't, no it won't, and no it hasn't.

image.jpeg.6f3261073ce3383a7e75f0c744d37af7.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There isn't, no it won't, and no it hasn't.

image.jpeg.6f3261073ce3383a7e75f0c744d37af7.jpeg

Easy there, Milhouse. 

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/decision-2022/dozen-ballots-found-santa-cruz-mountains/3077205/

Now, let's talk about how stupid your last remark was: On a scale of 1 to 10, no, on a scale of 8 to 10, 8 being highly stupid and 10 being soul eating stupid, how stupid was your last remark? I give it a 9. How about you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Easy there, Milhouse. 

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/decision-2022/dozen-ballots-found-santa-cruz-mountains/3077205/

Now, let's talk about how stupid your last remark was: On a scale of 1 to 10, no, on a scale of 8 to 10, 8 being highly stupid and 10 being soul eating stupid, how stupid was your last remark? I give it a 9. How about you?

Honestly, are you a believer in Krakens too?  When will Trump be back in the White House now?  It was September 2021 the last I heard, right?

One to two dozen mail in ballots.  Ballots that, being mail in, would typically favour the Democrats.

But hey, keep hoping.  Everything come to those who wait, right?

I'm glad you can scale stupid.  You're probably going to need to .

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Deluge said:

It wasn't too long ago that leftist degenerates were saying there is absolutely no evidence of voter fraud at all. 

 

Allow me to refresh your memory... There has not been proof of any fraud widespread enough to of made a difference, nor evidence of fraud viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Allow me to refresh your memory... There has not been proof of any fraud widespread enough to of made a difference, nor evidence of fraud viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law. 

Yet. 

What did I say earlier? I said give it time. The truth will make its way through the filth and lies and it has already started. 

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/decision-2022/dozen-ballots-found-santa-cruz-mountains/3077205/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Yet. 

What did I say earlier? I said give it time. The truth will make its way through the filth and lies and it has already started. 

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/decision-2022/dozen-ballots-found-santa-cruz-mountains/3077205/

I said: "Proof of any fraud widespread enough to of made a difference, or evidence of fraud viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law".  Are you so dimwitted that you have concluded that "dozens" of ballots swayed the election?

Edited by CrakHoBarbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Honestly, are you a believer in Krakens too?  When will Trump be back in the White House now?  It was September 2021 the last I heard, right?

One to two dozen mail in ballots.  Ballots that, being mail in, would typically favour the Democrats.

But hey, keep hoping.  Everything come to those who wait, right?

I'm glad you can scale stupid.  You're probably going to need to .

Krakens don't exist. What does exist is discarded ballots. 

Give it time, my friend. I'm sure we'll be revisiting more sh*t like this in the passing weeks and months. ;) 

Edited by Deluge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...