Hannity tells probe witnesses to "delete your emails" and "acid wash your HDD". - Polidicks

Of course it's poorly construct, most of what Hannity says is poorly constructed because he takes the most simplistic and naive view possible and runs with it.

And now you understand why I say that Hannity is playing stupid games and deserves to win stupid prizes. I am not categorically stating that anyone saying "hey lol you should delete your emails before Mueller sees them, guys" on TV with a wink and a laugh track is never acceptable and is always a felony. It's all about context, and Hannity in particular is up to his tits in conflicts. He is in frequent direct contact with the President and his show has been promoted by the President on his Twitter feed; he claims journalistic credentials for perceived legitimacy when it suits him and he skitters away from the label whenever he's called out for more dubious shit; they even share(d) the same hobby lawyer who's now under investigation for money laundering, bank fraud, and all sorts of other stuff including Russia.

That's not really what he said, though? I think that's my main contention. He said, "Hey, remember when Hillary did X, Y, and Z? She got away with it, so why don't these people do the same thing?" His point is to say how Clinton got away with stuff, not advise anyone to actually do the same. It's a classic claim of hypocrisy. It's like saying, "Since your group did X and got away with it, then I should be able to as well, right?" He even specifically refers to the programs used by Hillary.

Sick. A new rock bottom. "It's just a prank bro!" attempted as a legitimate argument.

I don't why you keep bothering with these pedantic argument, sgman We know you're not interested in fair representation, you just want to diminish arguments against the right by playing semantics and overtaking the conversation so you can feel like you did a good job by being distracting.

OK, thanks for your contribution.

I actually somewhat agree with Sgman91 here. But it's definitely a terrible joke if it was a joke, considering it isn't unthinkable that someone involved might actually be convinced to really do it, and also considering that Hannity should know that he's currently under more scrutiny than usual, and also considering that he's using the sarcasm to paint a false picture of the Mueller investigation as an unjust attempt to frame Trump. And still, it's definitely a possibility that he's actually trying to encourage people to do this and masking it as a joke, since we know for a fact that he's fairly intimately involved in the situation.

Sounds to me like he's making fun of Hillary, to be honest.

This doesn't mean they're guilty of treason, but boy howdy it sure looks like they think they're guilty of something

Break the platter, obviously. It's literally as easy as cutting a credit card.

If its a glass platter, but many harddrive have a metallic platter, which are hard as fuck to break

You'd also probably want a stand-in replacement drive, so I'd recommend manually copying everything you already have sans the "scrubbed" data

When a known target of an investigation into a criminal network whose crimes perjury, false statements, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, witness intimidation, bribery, and destruction of evidence goes on national TV "jokingly" telling witnesses to erase and destroy all electronic evidence and devices that could be incriminating against them (particular when this comment comes on the back of his learning that investigators have been able to crack the "encrypted" communications his people have been using to coordinate and communicate with each other), why the hell should we accept his defense that he's just being cheeky? This isn't a matter of liking Hannity or not. It's a matter of concern for the rule of law. His thin defense that he's just "being sarcastic" is refuted by the fact that his criminal associates are actively attempting to interfere with evidence and witness testimony. If this was a joke: nobody is laughing. Why the fuck are you? Your continued unwillingness to acknowledge the corruption and criminality of this cabal of traitors is, frankly, disgusting.

All sgman has done is take literal quotes and look at what they mean. You guys have decided to be comfortable taking a big ol logical leap towards hannity advising for this behavior when honestly it just sounds like he's frustrated Hillary did get away with it, fully well knowing it won't work the same in the current investigation. Point your pitchforks somewhere productive, guys. Can't believe I'm sitting here defending sgman rn but you guys are fucking rabid when it comes to even a drop of dissenting opinion in your waters

It wasn't even a joke? Did you watch the video? It was an attempt to attack the Hillary investigation through sarcasm. Honestly, come back down into reality from your tower of raging hatred. Nothing in your entire post has anything to do with whether it's actually a legitimate defense or not. You're just convinced he's a bad guy, and therefore we must take the most damaging possible interpretation, even if it doesn't make any sense in the context of his statement. Why would he conclude the section by saying that these witnesses would get punished, unlike Clinton, if he were trying to encourage them to do those things?

Yeah, utilities like this already exist. I'm pretty sure just using rsync or something similar would work because it only copies the files/directory trees rather than doing a block-level copy of the harddrive. Though you'd still have to be really careful not to screw it up if you were doing anything incriminating, as even if you're not just cloning the platter you'd still have to put in thought as to whether other programs on your computer might've saved references to the data you've deleted which might, in turn, be just as incriminating as the data itself. As a thought experiment, you download an incriminating file with your browser and later delete it, then do a file-level clone of the drive to ensure you have the same system minus any deleted data which might've been hanging around. But then investigators seize your harddrive clone and look through your browser cache and find a cached copy of the incriminating file there. You still go to jail.

1) Hillary didn't "get away" with anything, and he knows it. Hillary is a distraction, and his continued bullshitting about her emails, Benghazi, etc are knowingly and intentionally untrue. He is spinning false narratives to distract, misinform, and outrage his viewership in order to turn up the heat on the criminal investigation he finds himself a potential target of. That's it. He's not "frustrated about Hillary," he is willfully deceiving and riling up his base in order to save his own ass, and to protect his criminal associates. 2) Please explain to me how, "we should not believe that it's 'just a joke' when a propagandist target in a criminal investigation into a network of corruption in which key members have already been caught and charged with perjury, false statements, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and destruction of evidence is publicly broadcasting that any witnesses with incriminating evidence should obliterate it before its seized," is a "big ol' logical leap?

1) OK? 2) How about you read what I've already written? The context of the statement makes no sense at all as a literal encouragement to destroy evidence. He concludes by saying that they won't get away like Hillary did.

He's clearly being facetious with regard to a supposed republican narrative that Hillary had special treatment and that these people wouldn't get that same treatment.

You're honestly hopeless, man. You can (and likely will) continue to parrot that "he's just being sarcastic" until you're blue in the face, but here are the facts of the matter: 1) Hannity is a subject of the criminal investigation he's telling people to destroy evidence in 2) Hannity is specifically directing people to destroy digital evidence in relation to emails and encrypted messaging apps, immediately after learning that Mueller's team has been able to crack these supposedly secure communications and is now making criminal charges in relation to the contents of them 3) Hannity was in communication with a major target in the investigation over one of these encrypted messaging apps, Jullian Assange 4) If witnesses and/or targets heed Hannity's instructions to irrevocably destroy evidence and communications that could be incriminating, his defense that "he's just being sarcastic" could theoretically offer him a greater legal strategy fighting against witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and destruction of evidence charges than the incriminating material (and charges arising from it) that has been destroyed might reasonably afford him. It's a fuckin' STRATEGY, you mook. He is telling witnesses and targets to destroy evidence, knowing that he is potentially incriminating himself in doing so, because he wagers that the plausible deniability of a "sarcastic" on air comment from the Trump Propaganda Machine will be easier to defend himself and his associates against than the evidence that is nakedly describing how to destroy. The level to which you're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to the most openly corrupt cabal of criminals in the history of the United States is disappointing beyond words. Fine: you don't like them. Stop offering apologetics and rationalizations for their corrupt and criminal behavior.

Unlike you, I've actually present his own words and argued how they demonstrate that it was sarcasm. You're the one "parroting" your conspiratorial narrative, not me. Taking people at their clear intentions isn't "extending the benefit of the doubt." It's called being honest.

If someone took his advice, Trump would probably just pardon him. Saying b-but Hillary did it.

I completely disagree. He's using his propaganda platform to broadcast instructions to witnesses and targets, to rationalize to Cult 45 why those instructions and obstructive actions are justifiable, and establishing plausible deniability to build a defense around if the instructions are carried out. Ya'll need to stop passing this shit through the filter of day-to-day politics, because nothing about this situation is "politics as usual." This is a criminal network working in cooperation to obstruct, discredit, and derail a colossal federal investigation into their crimes. The first question we need to be asking when something like this occurs is: how would this strategy benefit their objective?

Fox's whole platform is facetiousness. They spend each segment making light of serious issues so that they can make their viewers not take them seriously so they can continue the idea that liberals are too sensitive and serious. Fox News is conservative propaganda, there is no doubt. Hannitys show specifically probably being the worst example of it, using buzzwords and whataboutisms on a regular basis. He probably talks about Hillary everyday, and recently they've been on about the ~unfair treatment~ of Hillary so they can discredit and smear the current ongoing investigation. (Using Trump's recent pardons as an example of Justice). You can read into it as deep as you want but at the end of the day it was Hannity doing what Hannity does. Using egregious whataboutism and facetiousness to drive drive in his platform of making the investigation look unfair. I'm sure Hannity would get a kick out of it if someone did take his advice but I don't think he's sending out a message to the troops that the gig is up. I hate Hannity as much as you do and I'd love to see him in prison but I think you're trying too hard to find a deeper meaning. You wanna talk about a Fox News controversy that no one's talking about? Donald Trump Jr. has been seen dating an active Fox host. Which to me represents a blatant disregard for journalistic impartiality. (Surprise surprise)

There is something very meta about being semantic about the word semantics.

I agree with OvB and Sgman91, it's very clear to me that Hannity isn't literally giving instructions to those under investigation, but rather pointing out a perceived double standard in how Hillary's email situation was treated (the classic "b-but Killary!). The people under investigation are not complete morons, and I'm sure they don't need Hannity to go on live television to tell them to wipe their shit. I've had the misfortune to have listened to a lot of these conservative talk shows growing up (thanks dad!), and they operate on facetiousness just like this. It always irks me when they get quoted out of context like this, too, because it just gives right-wingers ammo to turn around and go "Ha! Look at those stupid liberals!"

BDA, why am I the only person who gets called a "mook" for disagreeing with you?

A lot of people call you stupid other than BDA. And its not because people like bullying you. Its because you say stupid shit like: Stop playing victim and actually back your points without whining like a crybaby when someone calls you out.

I'm not going to respond to pure insults. When people respond with an argument, I respond back.

Sean has a long history of being a dishonest, conniving snake that I'd sooner believe this is an actual strategy he's cooking up to get people to destroy evidence under the cover of satire than "it's just a joke about hillary guys, stop being conspiracy nuts"