SEAN HANNITY'S CALL TO ARMS

A few weeks ago Sean Hannity, on his Fox Network program, declared war on the fascist, liberal, Hollywood establishment. He announced that he has assembled a high-powered legal team to move against all those who, for years, maligned and slandered him and did so with the intent of silencing all conservatives and, in particular, Fox Network, the only media organization that reports fairly and truthfully about President Trump and his stellar, multiple accomplishments.

Using his usual foils and sounding boards, Newt Gingrich and Mishcelle Malkin, Hannity castigated the alt-left, listed Trump’s many underappreciated early triumphs and bemoaned the effort to boycott and destroy conservative outlets. All of this motivated, Hannity maintained, by the fascist left’s rage and disbelief at the outcome of the election.

Apparently, Hannity views with great alarm the toppling of Fox icon Bill O’Reilly and the universal revulsion of sponsors who fled his program. It would seem the adversities suffered by that dignitary have nothing to do with blatant sexual harassment but stem from malicious and false accusations by the left.

More recently, Hannity has asked his loyal following to go to war on behalf of the President who is under assault by five ominous factions of our society; the “Dark State”, the “out-of-control” liberal media, the vengeful Democratic Party, turn-coat Republicans like John McCain and Lindsay Graham and the “Never Trump” movement within the Republican establishment such as the New Republic and the Washington Standard.

By “Dark State” Hannity refers to those currently or recently in government who recognize the national danger posed by Trump and who, putting the country’s interest above party loyalty, “leak” his transgressions to the public or otherwise try to counter his self-serving, tyrannical agenda.

Out-of –control media describes any publication or news- airer that unmasks Trump’s lies, discloses the mushrooming scandals of his administration, replays his inconsistent and constantly shifting sound bites and fails to laud the incredible accomplishments of his first 100 days.

Only by coming out and fighting for the values embodied by Trump and the programs promised by him, for which they voted, can the faithful ensure that America will be made safe and great again.

As a final flourish of his alternative reality, Hannity laments the passing of that giant figure of journalistic integrity, Roger Ailes, whom he credits with enabling him to hold forth on Fox, so that fair and balanced reporting will prevail and the Trump gospel proclaimed.

Trump's War on the Press

President Trump has threatened to end daily press briefings because the media "beats up" on his spokespersons who, in his estimation, are lovely people. Sean Hannity of Fox, taking his cue from the President (or perhaps it's the other way around), urges the President to end the briefings because the "fake" media dissects everything that is said (as opposed to swallowing it?) and uses the information to spin conspiracy theories, gain exposure and enhance its own public image.
Hannity's rationale for discontinuing what has been an American tradition for nearly a century, is that the President no longer needs the press given his access to social media and, in particular, his ability to get his message out on Twitter.
How can this so-called journalist be so ignorant of the time-honored and sacrosanct role of the press as a vital cog in our democratic structure? The press does not exist to serve the needs of presidents but rather to hold them to account and to inform the body politic of the actions and pronouncements of those charged with carrying out the will of the people.
This is an ominous turn of events. First the media is vilified and defamed. Now, there seems to be a movement to silence the press by cutting off its sources of information. Our democracy is in greater peril than it has ever been.

The "Leak" of President Trump's Tax Return

Rachel Maddow, on her television program, disclosed that two pages of President Trump's 2005 federal income tax return had been released by some unknown source. Her guest, a tax expert, speculated that it might have been leaked by Mr. Trump himself to divert attention from other embarrassing disclosures including the lack of evidence for his baseless charge of wire-tapping by his predecessor and the investigation of ties between his campaign and Russian hackers who interfered in the recent election.
Today, during an interview with Tucker Carlson on the Fox network, President Trump labeled the release of his return a crime though he hastened to add that it did not reveal any adverse information about him. Tonight, on Fox, Sean Hannity, in furtherance of his campaign to disparage career civil servants, called the release of the tax return a felony and urged a criminal investigation to uncover and prosecute the leaker. His guest, Newt Gingrich, concurred and denounced the presumed felons within the IRS.
What all of the accusers overlooked, or ignored, is that the tax return is clearly stamped "Client's Copy" (as could be seen when Ms. Maddow held it up to the camera). Since client copies are not filed with the IRS it seems indisputable that no one at IRS was the source of the leak. Indeed, what seems compelling is that either the "client", Mr. Trump, or his tax preparer had to be the source of the disclosure.

In a World Where Hacking is Good and Leaks about Hacking are Bad

Trump and his supporters are very sensitive and much offended whenever the subject of  Russian hacking is raised. That unprecedented incursion into the conduct of an American election is no big deal because, they argue, there is no proof that the Russians penetrated voting machines and actually changed how ballots were recorded or tallied. Besides, the information about Clinton was true, so there is no reason to complain about its disclosure. As the Trumpites see it, the focus of the press on this historic breach constitutes an unjustified assault upon the legitimacy of the president's election.

While the absence of vote count manipulation is not disputed, the real concern, which has not been measured, is the extent to which, if at all, the disclosure of hurtful information about the Clinton campaign may have influenced the way citizens voted. Given the closeness of the election in many key states, even a small shift in voter sentiment driven by the Russian leaks could well have altered the outcome. Obviously, Trump and his minions believed the hacked information was significant as demonstrated by their incessant invocation of that material in the course of the campaign.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and leaks from US government sources suggest the likelihood that Trump aides conspired with the Russians to affect the election, the Republicans are in full throat decrying the dastardly practice of disclosing information without authorization and, perhaps, in violation of law. Never mind that the information may be true, that the Trump campaign may have broken laws and time-honored precedents in bargaining for Russian assistance by among other things,  promising relief from sanctions in exchange for that assistance. Now the authenticity of the information is unimportant. The only thing that matters is the manner in which it was obtained. Thus, Republicans demand an investigation, not into Russian meddling but into who in the intelligence community made public the existence of evidence pointing to the involvement of the Trump campaign with the Russian hackers or those directing them.

Can one cite a better example of the old adage, "it all depends on whose ox is being gored"

President Trump and the Courts

Re "White House: Judge Did Not Chide Trump" (front page, Feb. 10):
To his credit, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch expressed, though rather mildly, his displeasure with President Trump's disparagement of the judiciary. Typically, Donald Trump's first reaction was to accuse Senator Blumenthal of lying when he quoted Judge Gorsuch and to raise the issue of the senator's past fabrication of military service. When it was established that Judge Gorsuch had, indeed, made the quoted comments, the president's next tack was to deny that the comments were directed at his demeaning of jurists and the judicial process. Now, a spokesman for Judge Gorsuch has confirmed that the judge was addressing the president's tweets when he described himself as demoralized and disheartened.
So, once again, President Trump has demonstrated his disregard for the truth and his knee-jerk response to criticism by levying personal attacks and offering disingenuous explanations. This president, almost daily, provides proof of his lack of judgment, veracity and presidential demeanor. What's to come can only be imagined.


Gerald Harris

The Trump Inaugural

Granted Trump was not yet born when the expression "America First" described a movement which was sympathetic to fascism, isolationist and smacked of anti-Semitism, so he can't be expected to have learned, first-hand, its ominous undertone. What is troubling, however, is that his adoption of that credo, and its invocation as a theme of his inaugural address, demonstrates either his ignorance of history or, worse, a willful conveyance of a hateful philosophy.
It is of little comfort that Trump may use the concept not to call up its original connotation, though it does, but rather to describe his vision of an America that would elevate self-gain and close-mindedness over traditional values of generosity and openness which underlie this country's greatness.

Trump, Russia and Sanctions

Although Russia's unprecedented and dangerous meddling in the US election has been proven to the satisfaction of most open-minded Americans, Trump continues to express doubt and claims to be awaiting the findings of his own investigative team (probably the same team that looked into Obama's citizenship and "found things they can't believe").
While many suggest that Trump's reluctance to confront Russian misconduct is driven by his economic entanglement with Kremlin figures, I believe his principal motivation is his egotistical concern that his election may be seen as having been aided (and tainted) by Russian hacking thus, once again, putting petulant pride before national interest.
Most Republicans, true to form, are attempting to divert attention from Trump's unseemly stance by attacking President Obama, accusing him of imposing weak sanctions after waiting too long to act.