Skip to main content

The Media Needs to Stop Hyperventilating… Hannity Did Not Tell Russia Probe Witnesses to Commit a Crime


The Twittersphere is blowing up with outrage over Wednesday’s Hannity show, where–if you believe the hype–host Sean Hannity told witnesses in Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s investigation to destroy evidence before being forced to turn over materials to Mueller’s team. Hannity mentioned various methods of doing so, including wiping hard drives and physically damaging devices [see the video above beginning around the 3:00 mark].

Media outlets and attorneys are having a field day with this.

So, could the popular Fox News host get in trouble with the law for recommending such things?

Of course not, because it didn’t happen. As President Donald Trump might say, it’s Fake News.

Here’s what Hannity really said:

Clearly, Hannity was referring to what Clinton’s team has been accused of doing to allegedly hide or destroy evidence related to her email investigation. His preface, “If I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton’s lead,” clearly makes the “advice” that follows purely hypothetical, as well as sarcastic. His point, whether one agrees with it or not, is that if Clinton and her team can escape an investigation by allegedly destroying evidence, Mueller shouldn’t have a problem if Trump’s team does the same thing.  He wasn’t seriously saying anyone should do this, he was basically saying, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

Later in the show, when Hannity referenced this again, he even said he was kidding and not really advising people to do this, but critics are conveniently leaving that part out.

For those eager to accuse Hannity of encouraging crimes or event being guilty of one himself, sarcasm isn’t against the law.

[Image via Fox News screengrab]

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under:

Follow Law&Crime: