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

[boomerang]

From the article in the OP:

No, no, no. Somebody writing an article where they make a statement does not make it true no matter how much it feeds one's agenda.

A shell company is typically thought of as one that only passes money through it and actually conducts no other business. They are thought of by many uneducated people to be used for nefarious purposes which of course the author of the article had implied. With great success too.

I'm asking this question because we've got the usual frothing and gyrating going on based on words in an article that are unsupported. I'd thought I'd start with the shell company allegation. So again, who has actual evidence that these companies are set up for purposes other than legal endeavors?

 

[fskimospy]

No, no, no. Somebody writing an article where they make a statement does not make it true no matter how much it feeds one's agenda.

A shell company is typically thought of as one that only passes money through it and actually conducts no other business. They are thought of by many uneducated people to be used for nefarious purposes which of course the author of the article had implied. With great success too.

I'm asking this question because we've got the usual frothing and gyrating going on based on words in an article that are unsupported. I'd thought I'd start with the shell company allegation. So again, who has actual evidence that these companies are set up for purposes other than legal endeavors?

So in other words you’re trying to ask people to prove a negative.

Before hysterically ranting like this you have an easy task ahead of you: if you can show they are used for other legitimate business then they aren’t shell companies.

You need to stop and think about these things.

 

[soundforbjt]

No, no, no. Somebody writing an article where they make a statement does not make it true no matter how much it feeds one's agenda.

A shell company is typically thought of as one that only passes money through it and actually conducts no other business. They are thought of by many uneducated people to be used for nefarious purposes which of course the author of the article had implied. With great success too.

I'm asking this question because we've got the usual frothing and gyrating going on based on words in an article that are unsupported. I'd thought I'd start with the shell company allegation. So again, who has actual evidence that these companies are set up for purposes other than legal endeavors?

Did you miss the part where his lawyer didn’t dispute it?

 

[zerocool84]

No, no, no. Somebody writing an article where they make a statement does not make it true no matter how much it feeds one's agenda.

A shell company is typically thought of as one that only passes money through it and actually conducts no other business. They are thought of by many uneducated people to be used for nefarious purposes which of course the author of the article had implied. With great success too.

I'm asking this question because we've got the usual frothing and gyrating going on based on words in an article that are unsupported. I'd thought I'd start with the shell company allegation. So again, who has actual evidence that these companies are set up for purposes other than legal endeavors?

So yes, multiple outlets calling them shell companies but it doesn't fit "your" definition so it can't be true.

Here's another one calling them shell companies.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...y-real-estate-ben-carson-hud?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[boomerang]

Did you miss the part where his lawyer didn’t dispute it?

So, your feeling is that these companies are in place for nefarious purposes?

 

[cytg111]

So, your feeling is that these companies are in place for nefarious purposes?

pcgeek? Is that you?

 

[soundforbjt]

So, your feeling is that these companies are in place for nefarious purposes?

That’s not for me to decide, but they are definitely shell companies.

 

[boomerang]

So yes, multiple outlets calling them shell companies but it doesn't fit "your" definition so it can't be true.

Here's another one calling them shell companies.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...y-real-estate-ben-carson-hud?CMP=share_btn_tw

Typically one outlet says something that is then mimicked by other outlets. For example, have you seen the videos where news stations use the exact same wording?

The point I'm making is that the article(s) implies that these companies are in place for nefarious purposes but there is no explanation to back that up. Forming a company to invest in real estate is not unlawful and in actuality may be very wise. The IRS, tax laws and the like may actually dictate that it be done.

 

[fskimospy]

Typically one outlet says something that is then mimicked by other outlets. For example, have you seen the videos where news station use the exact same wording?

The point I'm making is that the article(s) imply that these companies are in place for nefarious purposes but there is no explanation to back that up. Forming a company to invest in real estate is not unlawful and in actuality may be very wise. The IRS, tax laws and the like may actually dictate that it be done.

I know if I were a competent lawyer and someone accused my client of creating multiple ‘nefarious’ companies I would dispute it.

Why do you think his lawyer did not? Is he incompetent?

 

[boomerang]

That’s not for me to decide, but they are definitely shell companies.

Excellent, a very reasoned response. It's important to understand that shell companies have been around for a long time and that they have very legitimate uses. Famous people often use them for investment purposes. They can name them anything they wish.

I myself had a shell company at one time when I decided to have a self-directed IRA. In order to start it, I first had to apply for a TIN from the IRS. They were very much aware of the existence of the shell company, its purpose and its activities. While I chose not to invest in Real Estate, that was most definitely one of a slew of investments I could have pursued.

 

[soundforbjt]

Typically one outlet says something that is then mimicked by other outlets. For example, have you seen the videos where news stations use the exact same wording?

The point I'm making is that the article(s) implies that these companies are in place for nefarious purposes but there is no explanation to back that up. Forming a company to invest in real estate is not unlawful and in actuality may be very wise. The IRS, tax laws and the like may actually dictate that it be done.

Please quote from the article that backs your claim of inferred nefarious purposes.

 

[boomerang]

Please quote from the article that backs your claim of inferred nefarious purposes.

There is none. People who are not very worldly read the term 'shell corporation' and are triggered into thinking that there is something going on that is unlawful. It's a term used to elicit a reaction and it obviously works very well. The articles linked to, the articles quoted, the thread itself, and the responses from some of the usual suspects here back that up.

The left hates Sean Hannity. That is not shocking in the least. The name of any conservative political commentator could be inserted in his place and the sentence would still be true. To fuel the hate, articles are written in a manner to perpetuate it. People have a choice whether to buy into the hype or not. Here, most buy in.

Every day brings one, two, three or more articles that are posted with the intent of keeping these same people stirred up. No real thought is put into the subject of the articles, it's just the same drumbeat of our tribe good, their tribe bad. The idea that Sean Hannity has to declare that he has a business relationship with x, y, or z is so ridiculous that's it's beyond laughable. Once again, insert whatever well known conservative you wish in that prior sentence. They all fit the bill.

Here's the bottom line. I don't really give a shit. But that doesn't mean that it isn't absolutely amazing to me that day after day after day after day, more fuel is thrown on the fire and that so few ever come to the realization that they are being manipulated.

This subforum is a laugh a minute for me. I don't really want to scuttle the entertainment value and I hold no ambitions that I could even do so but willful ignorance and acquiescence towards the manipulation just doesn't seem like something the self-professed smartest people in any room would subscribe to. But, here it all is right out in the open for all to see. I can only guess a need is being fulfilled.

I've had my say. Everyone may now return to their regularly scheduled programming.

 

[fskimospy]

So in other words boomerang’s logic is this: nobody said this, including the article, but I imagine other people might think this thing I just made up in my head therefore I’m going to rant about how irrational everyone else is.

Lol. This guy is a comedy goldmine.

 

[skull]

So in other words boomerang’s logic is this: nobody said this, including the article, but I imagine other people might think this thing I just made up in my head therefore I’m going to rant about how irrational everyone else is.

Lol. This guy is a comedy goldmine.

I think hes got a point here. Generally when you say shell companies it has a bad connotation to it like say using it for money laundering. In this instance its typical in real estate like boomerang is saying just to shield owners. Even small time real estate investors do it because tenants are nuts and they don't want a disgruntled tenant showing up at their personal house. I'd say all these articles saying shell companies are being misleading, they sound like legit real estate companies to me.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I think hes got a point here. Generally when you say shell companies it has a bad connotation to it like say using it for money laundering. In this instance its typical in real estate like boomerang is saying just to shield owners. Even small time real estate investors do it because tenants are nuts and they don't want a disgruntled tenant showing up at their personal house. I'd say all these articles saying shell companies are being misleading, they sound like legit real estate companies to me.

I think it depends on your personal experience and background. I hear it and all I think is someone obscuring their own activities. That can be for nefarious reasons or ones that are completely benign.

 

[Moonbeam]

They are thought of by many uneducated people to be used for nefarious purposes which of course the author of the article had implied. With great success too.

Not necessarily. They are thought by many people to be used for nefarious purposes because they often are. That the purpose can be legitimate does not change that fact. You are focused on implications when you might want to look at inferences. The inference of illegality is often the actual case.

 

[paperfist]

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.

You've never seen Water's World?

 

[fleshconsumed]

I agree with Glenn. It’s very similar to how people blame politicians for our dysfunctional politics. It’s not the politicians, it’s the voters. Maybe Fox serves to make a bad situation worse but the primary driver of Fox and right wing media in general is not media desperate to lie to its viewers, it’s viewers desperate to be lied to.

So sure, right wing media is more than happy to lie to its consumers. After all, it’s hard to think of a business that has more contempt for its customers than right wing media; it’s just that the consumers aren’t just okay with it, they are actively seeking to be lied to.

On one hand yes, it would be nice if consumer was smart enough to see through lies and deceit.

On the other hand, in no way shape or form does it absolve FOX of willfully peddling lies to the public. I see it similar to tobacco companies lying to the public and using their influence to fund scientific studies in their favor. Sure, people could dedicate tons of their time to do their own homework and find studies linking smoking with cancer, but not everyone does, and not everyone can. As a result thousands and thousands of people died from smoking believing false tobacco company claims. FOX, much like tobacco companies, is doing irreparable harm to American society, and what sucks, no one is going to hold them responsible for it because we value freedom of speech so much and because proving willful lie that resulted in damage to the fabric of society is going to be impossible in a court of law.

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

That makes no sense.

I don't even know what "emo speak" means.

 

[pcgeek11]

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

You have never seen me say "Fake News".

 

[cytg111]

There is none. People who are not very worldly read the term 'shell corporation' and are triggered into thinking that there is something going on that is unlawful. It's a term used to elicit a reaction and it obviously works very well. The articles linked to, the articles quoted, the thread itself, and the responses from some of the usual suspects here back that up.

The left hates Sean Hannity. That is not shocking in the least. The name of any conservative political commentator could be inserted in his place and the sentence would still be true. To fuel the hate, articles are written in a manner to perpetuate it. People have a choice whether to buy into the hype or not. Here, most buy in.

Every day brings one, two, three or more articles that are posted with the intent of keeping these same people stirred up. No real thought is put into the subject of the articles, it's just the same drumbeat of our tribe good, their tribe bad. The idea that Sean Hannity has to declare that he has a business relationship with x, y, or z is so ridiculous that's it's beyond laughable. Once again, insert whatever well known conservative you wish in that prior sentence. They all fit the bill.

Here's the bottom line. I don't really give a shit. But that doesn't mean that it isn't absolutely amazing to me that day after day after day after day, more fuel is thrown on the fire and that so few ever come to the realization that they are being manipulated.

This subforum is a laugh a minute for me. I don't really want to scuttle the entertainment value and I hold no ambitions that I could even do so but willful ignorance and acquiescence towards the manipulation just doesn't seem like something the self-professed smartest people in any room would subscribe to. But, here it all is right out in the open for all to see. I can only guess a need is being fulfilled.

I've had my say. Everyone may now return to their regularly scheduled programming.

Nope nope nope nope... This That is what YOU are telling your self to be true cause it is the only way to justify your position. If by chance you are born with genetics capable of empathy then I gather you allready know, somewhere, that your foundation is both lacking and cracking. Wake the fuck up dude.... going by the off chance you are not on the payroll and/or on mission from the_donald...

 

[cytg111]

That makes no sense.

I don't even know what "emo speak" means.

If someone else pays her, is she then a hooker to me? The Donald wants to know...

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

Neither Hannity nor Stephanopoulos are journalists, we all knew this already. So your argument is BS.

Shrug

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

Unethical in your opinion and you don't like it. Got it.

 

[Indus]

LOL Dan Rather is one but we already know what conservaterrorists did about him.