Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE
(Video Credit: MSNBC)
The House Select Committee has set their sights on Fox News host Sean Hannity over innocuous texts he sent to former Trump chief-of-staff Mark Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and are demanding in a letter that he cooperate with their investigation… or else.
Hannity texted Meadows the evening of Jan. 5, “Im very worried about the next 48 hours.”
In the committee’s letter, they lamely and unconstitutionally asked Hannity, “With the counting of the electoral votes scheduled for January 6th at 1 p.m., why were you concerned about the next 48 hours?”
The leftist inquisitors have in their possession thousands of documents including information turned over to them by Meadows. He has since ceased cooperating with the panel because their bias is evident and the obvious outcome of the investigation was preordained by Democrats bent on persecuting Republicans and former President Donald Trump. Meadows has refused to comply with a subpoena issued by the committee and has subsequently been held in contempt of Congress.
The Committee is seeking information from Sean Hannity.
Chair @BennieGThompson and Vice Chair @RepLizCheney request Hannity answer questions about matters including communications between Hannity and the former President, Mark Meadows, and others in the days surrounding Jan 6th. pic.twitter.com/wXtOGSsneg
— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) January 4, 2022
“Our nation cannot let anything like January 6th ever happen again,” the letter informed Hannity. “Thus, we write today to seek your voluntary cooperation on a specific and narrow range of factual questions.”
The letter contends that the panel has “dozens of text messages” that Hannity sent to Meadows and others in former President Trump’s orbit concerning the 2020 presidential election.
In the letter, Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MI) and Vice-Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) wrote that they are seeking “voluntary cooperation on a specific and narrow range of factual questions” and are not asking for “information regarding any of your broadcasts, or your political views or commentary,” ostensibly because they respect the First Amendment.
One message to Meadows that was sent on Dec. 31, 2020, read, “We can’t lose the entire WH counsels office. I do NOT see January 6 happening the way he is being told. After the 6th. [sic] He should announce will lead the nationwide effort to reform voting integrity. Go to Fl and watch Joe mess up daily. Stay engaged. When he speaks people will listen.”
The committee is now demanding to know exactly why Hannity was concerned.
By going after Sean Hannity, the January 6th Committee is showing just how desperate they are.
It’s time to end this sham witch hunt and focus on issues that matter to the American people!
— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) January 5, 2022
Hannity also texted Meadows the day before the riot, “Pence pressure. WH counsel will leave.”
“What communications or information led you to conclude that White House Counsel would leave?” the letter goes on to enquire. “What precisely did you know at that time?”
Hannity reportedly texted Meadows, “…Ask people to peacefully leave the [C]apit[o]l.”
They also want to know what Hannity said to Trump in “non-privileged communications,” claiming they are “directly relevant to our investigation.”
Then the committee zeroed in on a Hannity text to Meadows and Jordan on Jan. 10, “Guys, we have a clear path to land the plane in 9 days. He can’t mention the election again. Ever. I did not have a good call with him today. And worse, I’m not sure what is left to do or say, and I don’t like not knowing if it’s truly understood. Ideas?”
“Please identify for the Select Committee the name of your counsel,” the letter then goes on to request. “We will work closely with that person as soon as possible to schedule a time for a transcribed interview with the Select Committee, and would be pleased to discuss any specific concerns you and your counsel may have.”
It’s almost like the Corrupt J6 Committee is going after everyone Trump needs to win again in 2024.
It’s Banana Republic stuff…
— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) January 4, 2022
Appearing on CNN just before the committee’s letter went public, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) commented concerning Hannity: “We’ve asked him to cooperate with us as a fact witness out of his sense of patriotism, and we hope he will respond because we have so many of these texts and pieces of evidence indicating that he was outside of his role as a press person acting as a political operative.”
Hannity’s attorney Jay Sekulow was alarmed over the report that the committee was demanding one-on-one time with his client, “If true, any such request would raise serious constitutional issues including First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of the press.”
“Why would Sean cooperate with them?” Sekulow said to the Daily Beast on Tuesday.
The investigation has been roundly accused of bias with doctored texts and skewed timelines plaguing the credibility of the committee. The attack on Hannity is widely seen as a desperate move on the panel’s part.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Trump blasts Maggie Haberman for spreading fake narrative involving Melania: ‘Not angry at all’ - November 10, 2022
- Tiffany Trump ‘flipping out’, stuck inside evacuated Mar-a-Lago as hurricane changes wedding plans: report - November 10, 2022
- Transgender influencer livid after being thrown in Miami jail with male inmates: ‘Disturbing and dangerous’ - November 10, 2022
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.