Sean Hannity linked to shell companies that spent $90M on property

[UberNeuman]

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Fox News host Sean Hannity is linked to a group of shell companies that have spent $90 million buying hundreds of homes across the U.S through the help of foreclosures and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Guardian reported Sunday.

More than 870 homes in seven different states have been purchased over the past decade, ranging from large mansions to rentals for low-income families, according to the newspaper.

For some of the mortgages, Hannity reportedly obtained funding from HUD under the National Housing Act loan program, which was first guaranteed under President Obama’s administration.

Secretary Ben Carson’s department recently increased Hannity’s original $17.9 million mortgage for purchases in Georgia by an additional $5 million, records obtained by the Guardian show.

Hannity did not disclose his cooperation with HUD when he had Carson on his show last June, the Guardian noted.

\oh, Lumpy - you did it again! lol.

 

[shortylickens]

So like, at what point should I start investing in companies that produce torches and pitchforks?

 

[Commodus]

At this rate Hannity has so many conflicts of interest they're going to need to call in UN peacekeepers.

My question: is there a point at which Fox finally comes to its senses and fires Hannity? I'd say "if it turns out he killed someone," but I suspect they'd still be more worried about Trump throwing a temper tantrum than having a murderer on their staff.

 

[pcgeek11]

Is it illegal or do you just not like it?

 

[Jaskalas]

Hannity reportedly obtained funding from HUD under the National Housing Act loan program, which was first guaranteed under President Obama’s administration.

!@#$, now you've proven that Hannity was secretly working for Obama this whole time!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Is it illegal or do you just not like it?

It’s incredibly unethical for him to be having the access to the admin he does while benefiting in this way to the tune of tens of millions and not disclosing it when he has these people on his program so he can publicly lick their balls.

But at least he isn’t wearing tan suits. Then there’d be outrage.

 

[pcgeek11]

So, you don't like it.

I don't know what a "town suit" is.

 

[trenchfoot]

I'm thinking FOX understands that since O'reilly got his ass canned, the only other guy that was willing to debase himself as low as O'reilly was Hannity. If FOX gets rid of Hannity they're going to have to cultivate another male (females are obviously verboten from that particular spot) to take his place and they haven't got one sitting in the bullpen waiting around to prove that they can spin facts into bullshit and sell it better than O'Reilly or Hannity ever could.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So, you don't like it.

I don't know what a "town suit" is.

Tan suit. Autocorrect blows.

It’s not about liking or disliking. It’s about him using his platform to promote an agenda that is benefiting him personally. That in itself wouldn’t even be an issue if he didn’t have direct, personal access to the administration in the way he does.

This is the same man who railed against Stephanopoulos for not disclosing he had donated to the Clinton Foundation when he did a segment on it. He ran wild with it as some major scandal. So why is he not held to the same standard he holds others? He’s had Carson on to discuss HUD many times to praise him quite literally.

It’s just another example of the rank hypocrisy of the right.

 

[cytg111]

Is it illegal or do you just not like it?

Why are you so emotional all the time?

 

[pcgeek11]

Tan suit. Autocorrect blows.

It’s not about liking or disliking. It’s about him using his platform to promote an agenda that is benefiting him personally. That in itself wouldn’t even be an issue if he didn’t have direct, personal access to the administration in the way he does.

This is the same man who railed against Stephanopoulos for not disclosing he had donated to the Clinton Foundation when he did a segment on it. He ran wild with it as some major scandal. So why is he not held to the same standard he holds others? He’s had Carson on to discuss HUD many times to praise him quite literally.

It’s just another example of the rank hypocrisy of the right.

First I don't see anything wrong with Stephanopoulos donating money to whomever he wants. It is a free country and none of my business within the law.

The same holds true for Hannity.

I don't see the issue as long as they are within the guidelines of the law.

 

[pcgeek11]

Why are you so emotional all the time?

How is that question emotional?

You must be projecting.

 

[cytg111]

How is that question emotional?

You must be projecting.

We are operating in reported news and assertions of objective facts while you do your usual "or do you just not like it?" - rutine. - thus emo speak.
Talk about projecting.

 

[skull]

Is it illegal or do you just not like it?

For someone that likes saying fake news you sure ignore a whole lot of bullshit from your "real news".

 

[KMFJD]

I'm thinking FOX understands that since O'reilly got his ass canned, the only other guy that was willing to debase himself as low as O'reilly was Hannity. If FOX gets rid of Hannity they're going to have to cultivate another male (females are obviously verboten from that particular spot) to take his place and they haven't got one sitting in the bullpen waiting around to prove that they can spin facts into bullshit and sell it better than O'Reilly or Hannity ever could.

 

[urvile]

The world tends to work this way though right? The donald was able to get into real estate in new york due to his fathers connections and money. Hannity is getting rich off the taxpayers dime. Actually the latter is different from the former but the principal is the same. We have similar scandals where I live all of the time. Especially centered around politicians using taxpayers money to fly them and their families all over the country. It makes the news.

And if the politician cannot talk their way out of it they repay the money. Then it goes away. You need to discover apathy people.

 

[urvile]

It's not what you know. It's who you know. Or where you have previously worked, where you went to school etc. I just got a new job because I have worked for the same company as several people that work for my new employer. One of them was in my interview.

That was important to them because they know what I know but they also know what I don't know. If you want to make money just become the blind mouthpiece for a bunch of fucktards. You can have this advice for free. Next time it costs.

Yep.

 

[brycejones]

First I don't see anything wrong with Stephanopoulos donating money to whomever he wants. It is a free country and none of my business within the law.

The same holds true for Hannity.

I don't see the issue as long as they are within the guidelines of the law.

How is that question emotional?

You must be projecting.

Lordy

 

[zinfamous]

First I don't see anything wrong with Stephanopoulos donating money to whomever he wants. It is a free country and none of my business within the law.

The same holds true for Hannity.

I don't see the issue as long as they are within the guidelines of the law.

the guideline of their position is ethics. It's fine for any of them to do it, if they consider themselves journalists, as long as they disclose these conflicts to the audience. This is extremely important.

Simply claiming that this doesn't bother you all that much is a naive assertion that you simply do not care that self-described journalists are actually lying to you. It is no other way. Deny deny, defend your stubborn belief, but your blaissez acceptance of the dissolution of these established standards means that you are part of the problem.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

First I don't see anything wrong with Stephanopoulos donating money to whomever he wants. It is a free country and none of my business within the law.

The seem holds true for Hannity.

I don't see the issue as long as they are within the guidelines of the law.

You same to be missing the key word in my comments. It’s not illegal. It’s unethical. Fox already smacks of the Trump admins own personal propaganda network. This is part of the reason why.

 

[MrSquished]

the guideline of their position is ethics. It's fine for any of them to do it, if they consider themselves journalists, as long as they disclose these conflicts to the audience. This is extremely important.

Simply claiming that this doesn't bother you all that much is a naive assertion that you simply do not care that self-described journalists are actually lying to you. It is no other way. Deny deny, defend your stubborn belief, but your blaissez acceptance of the dissolution of these established standards means that you are part of the problem.

you expect a rightie to understand the concept of ethics? you have such high naive hopes my dear

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At this rate Hannity has so many conflicts of interest they're going to need to call in UN peacekeepers.

My question: is there a point at which Fox finally comes to its senses and fires Hannity? I'd say "if it turns out he killed someone," but I suspect they'd still be more worried about Trump throwing a temper tantrum than having a murderer on their staff.

That happens when their black ink turns to red.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans mooching off the government.

 

[fskimospy]

First I don't see anything wrong with Stephanopoulos donating money to whomever he wants. It is a free country and none of my business within the law.

The same holds true for Hannity.

I don't see the issue as long as they are within the guidelines of the law.

Clearly Hannity sees a problem with Stephanopoulos donating money to whoever he wants yet doesn't apply that same standard to himself. That seems incredibly dishonest, doesn't it?

 

[Jaskalas]

...to take his place and they haven't got one sitting in the bullpen waiting around to prove that they can spin facts into bullshit and sell it better than O'Reilly or Hannity ever could.

They already have Tucker for that.