Despite past discussion on his show, Hannity claimed he had "never heard" Coulter call for Clinton assassination
On the July 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity responded to liberal blogger Hart Williams' recent statement that he has "dibs on [conservative radio host] Rush [Limbaugh], as soon as it's legal and lawful to shoot him" by asking, "And what if it was a conservative that said this?" Later in the segment, co-host Alan Colmes cited right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's statement in her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case against Bill Clinton (Regnery, 1998), that the national debate during the Monica Lewinsky uproar should not have focused on whether President Bill Clinton "did it," but rather "whether to impeach or assassinate" him. Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III replied: "I have never heard her say that." Hannity agreed: "I've never heard it, either." However, as Media Matters for America documented, Coulter's comments were discussed on a previous edition of Hannity & Colmes.
In her 1998 book on Clinton, Coulter wrote:
In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he "did it," even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate.
On the August 31, 2006, edition of the show, during a segment with Coulter and Douglas Schoen, chairman of the communications firm Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, Colmes challenged Coulter to distinguish her suggestion that the issue was "whether to assassinate or impeach" Clinton from the film Death of a President (Borough Films), which dramatically portrays the assassination of President Bush. Colmes asked: "I guess it's OK to joke about assassinating a president, but it's not OK to represent it in a dramatic presentation, right?" In response, Coulter asserted that her suggestion came in the context of a description of "the entire history of impeachment, which we got from the British. I explained how we changed it here in America. In Britain ... one of the punishments [for impeachment] was hanging." Hannity was present during the entire interview, and at one point, after Schoen interrupted Coulter, Hannity came to her defense, stating: "Let her finish this thought. Go ahead."
This is not the first time that Hannity has denied Coulter's statement about "assassinat[ing]" Clinton. Indeed, as Media Matters noted, Hannity suggested on the July 6, 2006, edition of the show that she has never "suggested that Bill Clinton should die." During the segment -- which featured Coulter -- Hannity discussed a weblog post by actor Alec Baldwin in which Baldwin expressed his desire to kill Osama bin Laden and have him "land[] on Dick Cheney." Hannity asserted that "we all know Alec Baldwin is unhinged. But if Ann Coulter suggested Bill Clinton should die, as Baldwin suggests, what would the reaction be all over the country? It would be quite different than what we're seeing here, wouldn't it?" Coulter responded: "Yes. It's always frustrating trying to explain the humor in something to liberals, who are humorless."
Beyond her statement regarding Clinton in High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Coulter has repeatedly suggested that certain public figures or journalists should be killed:
- During a January 27, 2006, speech, Coulter said, "We need somebody to put rat poison in [Supreme Court] Justice [John Paul] Stevens' creme brulee."
- Coulter titled her August 30, 2006, column "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln," referring to then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI).
- An August 26, 2002, New York Observer article quoted Coulter as saying, "My only regret with [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
- On the February 7, 2005, edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer, Coulter said, "Would that it were so! ... That the American military were targeting journalists."
Moreover, Media Matters has documented numerous other examples of conservative media figures advocating or musing about the execution of people with whom they disagree.
From the July 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Hart Williams is a liberal blogger who went from porn to politics and is now threatening some of our good friends because he doesn't like what both Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent have said about him and his, quote, "friends and peers." Williams said, unquote, "Now, I've got dibs on Rush, as soon as it's legal and lawful to shoot him. Whoever wants Ted Nugent is welcome to him, but I would prefer that you would call it now, so as to conserve on ammunition. We will need to manage it prudently," end quote. Joining us now from the Media Research Center is Brent Bozell. You know, I know there's a lot of hatred now towards conservatives, Brent. Where could this go legally? And what if it was a conservative that said this, either a blogger or a talk-show host?
[...]
COLMES: And you also -- apparently, didn't it bother you when she said the only question about Bill Clinton is whether to impeach or assassinate? Did that bother you? And did you come forward and speak out about that?
BOZELL: I think it's terrible that you say something like that. I have no question about it.
COLMES: Did you attack Ann Coulter when she said that? Were you on shows like this --
BOZELL: That she -- he should be assassinated?
COLMES: -- saying how bad it was when she said, "The only question about Bill Clinton is whether to impeach or assassinate." Where were you on that?
BOZELL: I have never heard her say that.
COLMES: Really?
HANNITY: I've never heard it, either.
COLMES: That's very convenient.
HANNITY: Anyway, Brent, good to see you, my friend.
BOZELL: Well, don't believe me.
HANNITY: And thanks for being with us.
From the August 31, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Doug, let me tell you -- you know what? The one thing that drives you fellow libs crazy? Although you're not a real liberal.
SCHOEN: I'm a centrist, please.
HANNITY: All right, you're all right, you're not as bad as Alan. Just kidding. It's a joke.
But in all seriousness, it drives you crazy when we talk about being weak on defense, you're appeasers, the NSA program you don't want, the Patriot Act program you don't want, data mining you don't want. You want to close Guantánamo Bay. I think that's weak on the most important issue of our time: our national security. I think the Republicans, if they get that message out, and the president started that today, we will win.
SCHOEN: And I think you're wrong, Sean. And I think you're wrong because the American people see Iraq, which is in the throes of the insurgency and a civil war, Afghanistan, which is plagued by the Taliban taking power in the south, North Korea and Iran both moving towards nuclear programs.
HANNITY: Thanks to Bill Clinton.
SCHOEN: We are less -- we are less secure because of the Bush administration. That's what people are going to vote on.
COLMES: We only have a moment here. You know, I'm tired of hearing that the Democrats don't want the NSA and don't want data mining. They want to do it with warrants. They want to do it constitutionally. The Democrats have never said they don't want that stuff.
Weak on security, when we're not protect our ports, not protecting our borders. The president wants to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. And how can you say that it's Democrats that are weak on security?
But I want to talk to you about this, this movie.
COULTER: Right.
COLMES: Nobody is going to support a movie where you have the president assassinated. But you're the person who said on Clinton, "The only issue is whether to impeach or assassinate." So, Ann, I guess it's OK to joke about assassinating a president, but it's not OK to represent it in a dramatic presentation, right?
COULTER: I always feel like I'm explaining, "Why is a raisin not like an elephant?" to Democrats. Yes, these are different.
SCHOEN: Look, Hillary Clinton --
COULTER: Yes, these are different.
COLMES: Wait, let me get Ann's answer on this.
SCHOEN: Sure.
COLMES: I mean, you joke about assassinating Clinton, that's OK?
COULTER: It wasn't -- I -- OK, I will explain this to anyone who is incapable of reading --
COLMES: That was the joke you made.
COULTER: -- i.e. liberals. In my book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, describing the entire history of impeachment, which we got from the British. I explained how we changed it here in America. In Britain, it was a criminal punishment. You would be -- one of the punishments was hanging. Here it was purely losing your office. At the end of this, I said, you know, something about the effect --
COLMES: You said the only issue is whether to impeach or assassinate Bill Clinton.
SCHOEN: What we need in our politics is bringing people together, ending the kind of division --
COULTER: No, the only question wouldn't be, if we were a decent country.
COLMES: Let Ann talk, and then I'll give you a chance to respond.
SCHOEN: OK.
HANNITY: Let her finish this thought. Go ahead.
COULTER: Right. It's always right at the conclusion.
COLMES: Please, let her respond.
COULTER: I said the only question, if we were a decent country or something to that effect, would be whether to impeach or assassinate, not whether to impeach or not, comparing the British and the American systems.
COLMES: All right, let me --
HANNITY: Context.
COULTER: Come on, that isn't a movie.
COLMES: See I want her to answer, I don't want her to take her mike off. But go ahead, Doug.
Just remember, when making Assassination comments...IOKIYAR (It's OK If You're A Republican)
hahaha.. you kill me! ;-)
This is deception by Media Matters! MM and Alan Colmes owe Coulter an apology for misrepresenting her words.
MM: "[In her book Coulter wrote] that the national debate during the Monica Lewinsky uproar should not have focused on whether President Bill Clinton 'did it,' but rather 'whether to impeach or assassinate' him."
Here's what Coulter actually wrote, everyone (in a book nine years ago, btw):
The "assassinate" thing is a joke. (She jokes a lot, you know.) Kinda like when Al Franken joked that Rove and Libby would be "executed." (Personally, I think neither joke is funny.)
But, either way, MM misrepresented Coulter's quotation.
What are you talking about? Did you even read past the first paragraph? MMFA provided the entire quote, just as you did. There is no misrepresentation. There's not even any difference in meaning between the partial quote and the full quote. Everybody gets that it was supposed to be a joke. That doesn't change the meaning whatsoever.
Did you read the full MMFA post? They provide the full quote:
MMFA: In her 1998 book on Clinton, Coulter wrote:
You could argue about whether or not MMFA misinterpreted Coulter, but they certainly represented the full quote fairly.
But why focus on this one comment by Coulter when she's made even more insanely irresponsible remarks like this one (from an interview with the New York Observer following the publication of Slander)?:
LOL......This is pathetic even by your standards, Mis-Info Guy.
But thanks for providing comic relief for the rest of us, as usual.
I'm getting a bit fed up with the standard right-wing excuse - "It was a joke!" Or their other old standard - "I was quoted out of context!"
The only joke is being a conservative....
COULTER: I said the only question, if we were a decent country or something to that effect, would be whether to impeach or assassinate, not whether to impeach or not, comparing the British and the American systems.
HANNITY: Context.
Aahh, AC was taken out of context. The context of some feeble BS made up at a later time to explain her joke.
I will defend Hannity's remark that he doesn't remember ever hearing Coulter suggest assassination. With his incessant shrieky whining, I don't think Sean hears much of anything, and he doesn't seem to remember things that were said only seconds before.
Gomer,
I think that is a fair criticism of Hannity.
Your bud
Glad to see you made it back from Operation Laundryroom Paintjob.I can take that ribbon off my car now.
Got him on that one.
I hope MMFA documents the response if there is one.
Hannity = paid Liar = Hypocrite
as always on Hannity comments I have to include:
"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?" - Sean Hannity, March 24 1999
"Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reason why we need to be involved militarily. That's number one. And then we go back to Harry Kissinger's test, which is number one, is there a vital U.S. national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?" - Sean Hannity, March 24 1999
"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?" - Sean Hannity March 24 1999
"Sure Milosevic's a bad guy...but that doesn't mean we should go to war...He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Are you saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2000 - and I'm not minimizing death. Its horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers - 2000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?" - Hannity on the O'Reilly factor April 5, 1999
Monknj80, you can't repeat that enough. Shamity is a shameless partisan liar.
It never gets old and is almost theraputic in a way.
If you posted those on hannity.com you'd get banned for "contempt of host," which means "telling the truth" over there...
I may have to give Hannity a pass on this one. Despite their skill at arousing the masses, Hannity and Limbaugh are just not very bright.
I don't know what Bozell's excuse is - he seems fairly quick on the uptake. I guess he can claim ignorance, but I think he is just a dishonest SOB.
I am willing to give Hannity the benifit of the doubt. The man is dumb as the hair on a barbershop floor. He probably heard Coulter and thought she was saying...Sean you are a great American.
Funny!
Watching the video again does anyone notice how hard a time hannity is having reading that qoute?
My name is Hart Williams.
My response to Hannity's little smear (WITH screencaps) is at The Democratic Daily (discussion) or my blog (comments, but rarely discussion).
At TDD it's entitled "Why Seanny Can't Read," but
at Zug it's entitled "Doctor Torquemada, I Presume?"
My original posts were about how hatespeak is leading us to violence, and now, they've satanically reversed the polarities.
Just to clarify:
Now, I know how John Kerry felt a couple of months ago.
Congratulations! You've been Hannitized!
I see, you are allowed context. Anne is not.
Everything you don't like is hatespeak. So you write your own hatespeak but that is ok.
Just so we know the rules you play by.
Fully in context, Ann is an atrocity. Every word she speaks, every breath she takes, offends the remnant of virtue in this universe.
But when all else fails, she can rely on the Feds to bail her out - as in felonious voting excused by having a fan in the FBI to lie for her. A problem even the FBI cannot "fix" for her, however, is the rot attacking whatever character she might once have had - a rot that springs and spreads from her own hateful words.
Hart Williams? Has anyone ever heard of this man? What important constituency does he have with the Democratic establisment? How many prominent Democrats/ Liberals have participated on his blogs? What the man siad is uncalled for and distasteful. But, uless I am simply ignorant, he is not even in the same galaxy as mainstream fidgures as Rush ans Coulter.
Having clicked over and read Hart's self-defense, and the full context of the sound-byte bit that Insanity relied upon, I see little uncalled for. I recommend that everyone with interest in Insanity, or in opposing Insanity, read one of the two links, as well: stopped me from assuming, as would be my wont otherwise, that Hart Williams had made an egregious statement, which would reverberate down the halls of history to haunt liberals forever. In fact, as it turns out, in a fairly reasoned opinion piece indicting the hate-wing Repugnants, he merely portrays the eventual dissolution of our Union, and of our peace.
Quite ironic.
conleytgwinn,
Thanks for reading Hart's actual post. He is well reasoned in his posts and has a sense of humor that causes some of us to roll around on the floor regularly, while others miss it completely.
I appreciate Media Matters for this outline of the same people giving Ann Coulter a free ride on her comments and reasoning (just because the British used hanging for impeachment, we should go to assassination?).
The Democratic Daily is not a high traffic blog but has earned a niche for quality writing and comments. When I go to places like Think Progress and Glen Greenwald's articles, I am constantly apalled by the level of comments following the posts.
We have our moments of being furious with the GOP and where this country is headed. Humor can be a way of alleviating the stress and making a point in a way others might understand better.
In the light of all the ugly, hateful , lame jokes and comments that RW comediens, radio hosts, and politicians have spewed at liberals, I simply cannot find this one - in the context of a reasoned comment about where that hatred is liable to lead us - as outrageous. Risky, sure.
As the saying goes, Go out on a limb, that's where the fruit is.
Hannity picked up on a piece by World Net Daily who completely misrepresented Hart's original post on hate speak. Thanks to Media Matters for highlighting this.
conleytgwinn
As the owner/editor of The Democratic Daily, where Hart's posts are featured, I couldn't agree with you more. Hart's a great writer who gives food for thought. I hope readers here will take the time to read through his writings.
The question is... are people this stupid? Or, is it just okay to be this much of a lying sack-o-sh*t??!! Either way.. if you support this guy...even in the least... you're participating in the downfall of our Democracy.
NEW ELEMENT "Du" DISCOVERED A major research institution (probably funded by a government subsidy) has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Bushcronium". Bushcroniumhas one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. The symbol for Bushcronium is "Du", as the symbol "W" was already taken by Tungsten. Bushcronium' s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons. The "nucular" reaction alluded to below where Du combines with Foxnewsium (Fx) when bombarded by a moron beam yields: Du + m (morons) + Fx = DumFx which is sometimes phonetically pronounced to describe the nature of the isodope produced.
Although Faux Noise is the only “news” element mentioned in the formula, any other “news” element, i.e., CNN, ABC, CBS, WoPo, WSJ, etc., could be used just as well and get the same isodope.
I would like to say that I come up with this witty but overlooked scientific discovery. However, it was sent to me and I know not from where it came. I just want as many citizens as possible to think about it and ponder its message.
COULTER IS THE PARIS HILTON OF NEWS MEDIA. DOING SAYING OUTRAGIOUS THINGS AND GETTING ATTENTION MORE FOR BEING MEAN SPIRITED THEN PROFESSIONAL. MAKES YOU THINK THAT NEWS MEDIA IS IN COMPETITION WITH PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING.
I'd DO PARIS....
COULTER..... HMMM one for the team? Ohh but those man hands and huge adams apple.... yuck... scratch that