Friday, June 09, 2017


Hannity’s explanation of Trump’s demand for loyalty from Comey is a laugher

Whenever I am in my car I listen to KTRH. Depending on the time, I listen to Michael Berry, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

I’ve always liked Hannity. He’s not the bombastic buffoon that Rush Limbaugh is. But on Wednesday he pulled a real laugher, only it wasn’t funny.

Hannity, as usual, was trying to defend Trump. That’s fine. This time, he was trying to defend Trump’s demand for loyalty from FBI Director James Comey. His explanation was that Trump was demanding loyalty to the Constitution of the United States and not to himself.

Loyalty to the Constitution? Come on now, let’s get real! Any moron would know that Trump was demanding that Comey be loyal to him rather than to the Constitution.

Hannity must take us all for fools. Why on earth would Trump demand loyalty to the Constitution when Comey had already sworn to that as he took the Oath of Office?

I do not think Trump’s demand was illegal, but it was certainly inappropriate. The President can and should demand loyalty from his White House staff, but not from such government officials as the Attorney General and the director of the FBI.

The Trump camp strongly denies that the President ever asked Comey for his loyalty. Marc Kasowitz, Trump’s private lawyer, says “The President also never told Mr. Comey, ‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty’ in form or substance.” But that’s beside the point. What’s at issue here is Hannity’s absurd attempt at explaining away an inappropriate alleged act.

Maybe most of Hannity’s followers believe the laugher he pulled. If so, that’s sad. Shame, shame on Sean for thinking we are all so stupid as to buy his lame-brained loyalty explanation.

1 comment:

bob walsh said...

Assuming Comey is being truthful (not necessarily a safe assumption) the whole "personal loyalty" thing is creepy to me. When I hear it I am reminded of the Nazi SS, who swore personal loyalty to Hitler, not to the German government.