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

[cytg111]

Im no Hannity fan, and I do hate our excessively generous tax policy towards landlords.

That being said, when are we going to investigate Rachel Madcow?

You know she has to be up to no good.

Hahahahahaha .. cause both sides, right? Hahahahahahaha

 

[pcgeek11]

There you go with your emotions again. The article is calling Hannity out on his own standards. I dont think military veterans is welfare queens. CNN dont think veterans is welfare queens.... Hannity though, think they are. That. Is. The. Whole. Point. Hypocrisy.

Nope. Show me a quote or a link where Hannity said Military Vets are welfare queens.

 

[pcgeek11]

While I agree this isn't welfare.

Military guys are some of the worst when it comes to money for nothing, I know quite a few military guys and always hear them talking to their buddies about disability. Hey remember you pricked your finger over seas thats worth 10%, that knee injury you had before you joined they didn't know about, thats worth 30%. Apparently its pretty easy to get, the 2 I know the best, both got 50% and the one didn't have a single goddamn thing wrong with him from his time in the service. The other had a valid complaint but he still gamed the system to get a higher percent.

There are always some that take advantage of everything.
Money for nothing? Have you ever been in the military?

Disability isn't that easy to get. Harder to get than SS Disability. At least in my experience, but then I have been retired from the Navy for 25 years.

Next I'll be hearing how my retirement pay is welfare LOL.

 

[FelixDeCat]

lol and why is this?

Who knows what she is up to. Im sure we will find out - one day.

 

[skull]

There are always some that take advantage of everything.
Money for nothing? Have you ever been in the military?

Disability isn't that easy to get. Harder to get than SS Disability. At least in my experience, but then I have been retired from the Navy for 25 years.

Next I'll be hearing how my retirement pay is welfare LOL.

Its money for nothing when you cheat to get it, the one guy tried to tell me I deserve it I served my country. I'm like bullshit I was there when you signed up dick you signed up for yourself not for your country.

One of my customers a vietnam vet was telling my guy how to cheat and get 10% for hearing. I've heard about a lot of guys abusing the military disability benefit and a lot of them are young guys that get $1000/month for life. The guys I've questioned about it they all say so what every one does it we've earned it.

Guys abusing disability versus legitimate retirement big difference.

 

[cytg111]

Nope. Show me a quote or a link where Hannity said Military Vets are welfare queens.

Another strawman? Did not see that coming.

 

[cytg111]

Who knows what she is up to. Im sure we will find out - one day.

As she is persistently spanking Hannity in the ratings game... Do you have any doubt that Fox has done opposition research into her character? Show me some colors dude.

 

[cytg111]

Its money for nothing when you cheat to get it, the one guy tried to tell me I deserve it I served my country. I'm like bullshit I was there when you signed up dick you signed up for yourself not for your country.

One of my customers a vietnam vet was telling my guy how to cheat and get 10% for hearing. I've heard about a lot of guys abusing the military disability benefit and a lot of them are young guys that get $1000/month for life. The guys I've questioned about it they all say so what every one does it we've earned it.

Guys abusing disability versus legitimate retirement big difference.

In the grand scheme of things 10% is peanuts. I get the dishonesty thing and I agree .. yet on the other hand I also know that the line gets blurry when you are living paycheck to paycheck.

 

[Brainonska511]

Who knows what she is up to. Im sure we will find out - one day.

We should investigate you for poaching rhinos with a flamethrower. We don't have any proof at the moment, but I'm sure we'll find something when we start an "investigation" since you must be up to something...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hannity says that the "shell companies" are in fact real companies. Anyone have any evidence that they are not?

Shell companies are "real" legal corporations. Did you not know that? It's not anywhere near the point, but yeah they are real and in his case to hide his identity in whatever he's doing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

In the particular case of Hannity and his real estate holdings, I believe he is right to go through shell corporations.

I think two things need to be set as distinct but touching in effect. IMO Hannity is indeed nefarious and wholly lacking in qualities most of us see as properly human in modern society. The other thing is his right to be safe in his person and property regardless of my believing he is a scoundrel.

If Hannity has been shown to have used shell corporations to protect him from illegal actions then suspicion is confirmed and he ought to pay the penalty under law.

But

This was the tipping point for me as to why it makes damned good sense to use shell corps. There was a bit on reddit reporting that an NRA official's home was vandalized. I thought that was pretty awful but the majority of commentators were thrilled, using Florida as justification for taking delight in the act. Well, no. The act is the thing and was abhorrent, an example of critters delighting in their hate.

So back to Hannity. People hate him. I mean beyond dislike or disdain. He's orders of magnitude beyond some guy and his home. If people knew he owned property some of the "enlightened" would destroy because they can.

That's the thing about people, not "humans" in the Dune sense. They are still animals that delight in destruction and Hannity would be wise to remain nameless in his dealings if they are proper. If not then hopefully he is held accountable.

 

[Thebobo]

So back to Hannity. People hate him.

/raises hand

He has always been a dick even back in the Hannity and Colmes (rip) days.

 

[NTMBK]

Sean Hannity’s real estate venture bought houses through a property dealer who was involved in a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently obtain foreclosed homes, according to records reviewed by the Guardian.

In 2012, a shell company linked to the Fox News host bought 11 homes in Georgia that had been purchased by the dealer, Jeff Brock, following foreclosures. Brock transferred the properties to corporate vehicles that sold them on to the Hannity-linked company at a profit.

Brock pleaded guilty in 2016 to federal charges of bank fraud and conspiracy for his role in an operation to rig foreclosure auctions between 2007 and 2012. He was sentenced to six months in prison and had to pay more than $166,000 in fines and restitution.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...property-dealer-jeff-brock-fraud-foreclosures

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

/raises hand

He has always been a dick even back in the Hannity and Colmes (rip) days.

Not saying otherwise, but that's why I made a distinction between being a horrible person and lawful rights. I would like to see the back of him but if someone became "righteous" and acted contrary to the latter? No way I could support that.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

At least Hannity is living up to the Republican ideal. Trashing everyone who uses any form of government assistance while using it to enrich himself to the tune of millions upon millions.

The American dream is alive and well.

 

[thilanliyan]

nm

 

[Moonbeam]

The other thing is his right to be safe in his person and property regardless of my believing he is a scoundrel.

If Hannity has been shown to have used shell corporations to protect him from illegal actions then suspicion is confirmed and he ought to pay the penalty under law.

I understand and support the moral values behind your thinking here. I believe we are talking here about the One Ring. Let me state the issue in another way: In this world humanity is asleep, concerned with what is useless, all that which flatters the ego. Here comes a man like Hannity who is not only a scoundrel but a dangerous threat to his nation as a purveyor of psychotic notions that infect millions of people and threaten a more ancient enlightenment, one of the crowning achievements brought to courtesy of our forefathers at a time and environment where they had become exceptionally and unusually awake. And in the present day there is a person we’ll call Hay, who for unknown reasons has become sufficiently awake himself, to see not only that Hannity is a scoundrel but an immensely dangerous threat and this doesn’t arise out of some conditioned opinion but is objectively real.

But in the world of mechanical sleepers, no laws or practices exist that prevent Hannity from continuing right along destroying the nation, that he protected from consequence because humanity generally speaking is sound asleep. Thus does it become moral to allow a single person who is destroying his own people to continue to do so when it can be seen to be so by people with sound moral belief simply because action to prevent it would be illegal?

 

[HomerJS]

Big deal it isn't welfare. That is a stupid article and misrepresents the truth.

I have a VA Mortgage Guaranteed Loan and so do the majority of military veterans. Do you consider military veterans welfare queens too.

Its laughable your concern about the article misrepresenting the truth while Hannity goes on the air with outright lies.

 

[brandonbull]

As she is persistently spanking Hannity in the ratings game... Do you have any doubt that Fox has done opposition research into her character? Show me some colors dude.

Not sure how you define "persistently spanking" but she doesn't. She just beat him in March and the numbers are close.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/21/hannity-maddow-ratings/

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...y-to-be-most-watched-cable-news-host-in-march

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But in the world of mechanical sleepers, no laws or practices exist that prevent Hannity from continuing right along destroying the nation, that he protected from consequence because humanity generally speaking is sound asleep. Thus does it become moral to allow a single person who is destroying his own people to continue to do so when it can be seen to be so by people with sound moral belief simply because action to prevent it would be illegal?

Hannity is all you say and likely more than we can know. He should not stand unchallenged. No, he, "himself"- that is his nature, deserves all the opposition that can be had. But knowing this does not relieve me of a larger obligation- to become a liar to myself if I adopted his tactics "for the greater good". That leaves me with limits on what I can embrace, and if something is mitigating a specific instance, not the man himself, then should it remain unspoken?

Tell me old friend, what should I be? Whatever I do, I approve of in others. What should I do otherwise? Being imperfect but knowing that without despising myself is to be aware of my humanity. That leaves an obligation of self-awareness and the realization that we fallibility is not a failing, only the desire to give in to it as justification.

I am that I am, warts and all. To be better than oneself is merely a desire to embark on a journey to a better inward place. Above all, enjoy the ride

 

[cytg111]

Not sure how you define "persistently spanking" but she doesn't. She just beat him in March and the numbers are close.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/21/hannity-maddow-ratings/

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...y-to-be-most-watched-cable-news-host-in-march

Does that invalidate the point about opposition research?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's curious we don't hear much criticism of Hannity from people who previously seemed to be so concerned about ethics in gaming journalism.

Why might that be?

 

[Zorba]

While I agree this isn't welfare.

Military guys are some of the worst when it comes to money for nothing, I know quite a few military guys and always hear them talking to their buddies about disability. Hey remember you pricked your finger over seas thats worth 10%, that knee injury you had before you joined they didn't know about, thats worth 30%. Apparently its pretty easy to get, the 2 I know the best, both got 50% and the one didn't have a single goddamn thing wrong with him from his time in the service. The other had a valid complaint but he still gamed the system to get a higher percent.

Yeah, I work with a ton of veterans and the way the play disability is insane. I have one co-worker whose wife got 25% for depression, even though she worked in an office in SoCal her whole time in the service (and depression tends to show up in your early twenties). Several other that were injured, but now completely fine that are over 75%. There needs to be some massive reform to the disability system.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, I work with a ton of veterans and the way the play disability is insane. I have one co-worker whose wife got 25% for depression, even though she worked in an office in SoCal her whole time in the service (and depression tends to show up in your early twenties). Several other that were injured, but now completely fine that are over 75%. There needs to be some massive reform to the disability system.

Don't know the extent of abuse but presume it could be high - most doctors aren't going to be super hardcore about trying to disprove someone who claims to have disabilities, especially someone who's leaving military service. Honest people aren't going to game the system (I didn't go seeking out a 'disability' code even though I had various injuries during my service which are making themselves more pronounced here a couple decades later) and I would lose respect for someone going in and claiming a phantom disability at the end of their service, or playing up the severity of one they did legitimately have.

Getting back to the point of the thread however (and leaving aside the question of "journalistic ethics" and whether the first part of that applies to Hannity, it's pretty obvious he doesn't feel the second part applies in any event), merely having real estate handled via shell company for privacy or legal reasons doesn't seem inappropriate. I could see where his celebrity status (such as it is) could turn a routine real estate transaction into a complete circus so that would be one reason to use a shell company. Nor does using government housing benefits which are widely available to the public generally such a FHA backed loan (presuming he qualifies).

 

[brandonbull]

Does that invalidate the point about opposition research?

Who cares? Do you think Madcow and Insanity are reputable sources of information?