Well, maybe not time travel, but time reassignment
“You can’t fight against the past. It already happened.”
by Ryan Nelson
Sean Hannity and Donald Trump are arguing that events in the past shouldn’t have happened the way they did. Specifically, two major events involving the FBI:
1. Results from the Hillary Clinton email investigation by the FBI that found no legal fault in her actions.
2. The F.B.I.’s original application for a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
Mr. Hannity, who seems to be the loudest voice in Donald Trump’s head right now, has forgotten one major flaw in his, and subsequently, The White House’s, narrative: these events happened in the past, and other events in the past do not corroborate Hannity and Trump’s assertions.
Changing the past is a difficult tightrope to walk because Sean Hannity’s story needs not only to jibe with events in the past, his assertions also need to be confirmed by events in the present, and finally, and most difficult of all, if his story is true, there would be confirmation yet to come that would confirm the Hannity and Trump narrative.
Hannity and Trump know that if they can get enough people to believe (a) the FBI was in cahoots with Hillary Clinton to let her off the hook in her email investigation and (b) the FBI wasn’t completely honest with the FISA Court, then they have a case against the legitimacy of the Russia Investigation.
Mr. Hannity’s narrative cannot be true. It does not make sense logically.
Sean Hannity and Donald Trump have recently come in to a scary sync on their accusations of corruption at the FBI. It’s almost like Sean Hannity it telling Donald Trump what to do through this nightly broadcasts.
The keystone of Hannity and Trump’s counter-narrative to the Russian Investigation hinges on one thing: the FBI as a corrupt entity that favors democrats (specifically Hillary Clinton) and hates Donald Trump.
Hannity and Trump are arguing that events in the past shouldn’t have happened the way they did. They would like to change the past so it fits with their current narrative.
There is one major problem here. No one can change the past.
To be fair, there is some legal logic in Mr. Hannity’s argument. If the FBI is shown to have favored Mrs. Clinton in her email investigation, then it might follow that the FBI would behave negatively toward her political opponent, Donald Trump.
If the FBI is capable of bias toward Donald Trump, then, again, according to Hannity, the FBI would be capable of accepting a “phony, bought and paid for” (Sean Hannity) Russian Dossier to offer fake evidence of Russian Collusion with the Trump Campaign.
If this is all true, then the information gathered from the FISA warrant is inadmissible as evidence in court. Any information about other criminal activity resulting from the Carter Page warrant would also be inadmissible. The Russia Investigation would be over.
This legal theory is called Fruit of the Poison Tree. Any evidence found as a result of illegal (warrantless) searches is inadmissible in court, even if the evidence is found to be true.
To me, this sounds like logical reasoning. Mr. Hannity (*gulp,* as I swallow my pride)… has a point. Unfortunately for Mr. Hannity, events in the past need to corroborate Mr. Hannity’s story. They do not.
Also, if Mr. Hannity’s mirror narrative of the Russia Investigation is true, then news breaking currently will support his allegations. They do not.
Finally, if, and this is a BIG if, Sean Hannity’s story is right, things will be released in the future that confirm his accusations. They will not. Because the past and the present do not confirm his story, neither will the future.
Sean Hannity knows his conspiracy theories won’t ever really be solved. He uses this to his advantage, as his theories can never be technically proven or disproven. This is a hallmark of conspiracy theories.
Let us delve in to the many ways Sean Hannity’s Theories on Hillary Clinton and the Russia Investigation cannot be true.
I will start with the giant obvious fact that doesn’t hold water in Sean Hannity’s narrative: Hillary lost. I would sit watching Mr. Hannity’s show and think to myself. “But she lost, right?”
Let’s put this in perspective: most people did not believe Trump would win, including Hillary Clinton, the FBI, the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump himself. In Fire and Fury by Micheal Wolfe, Mr Trump is quoted speaking to longtime friend Roger Ailes before the election in aniticipation of his imminent loss:
“I don’t think about losing because it isn’t losing. We’ve totally won.”
Fire and Fury
This material may be protected by copyright.
Why would Mrs. Clinton and the FBI put all the effort into removing Trump (through the Russia Investigation, which was started by the FBI before the election) from office before the election if they believed he would not win? Additionally, to make Hannity’s story true, both Clinton and the FBI would have had to know the future about how the Trump Investigation would play out to make the decisions they made leading up to and during the 2016 election. Does that make sense?
Following Hannity’s logic, the Clinton’s campaign, Russia, and the FBI were colluding to help Hillary Clinton win the election while simultaneously planning for her defeat. Does that make sense? To take the steps they are accused of taking by Hannity, the FBI would have had to have known Trump would win. They did not.
Like many a movie villain, Mr. Hannity has been caught monologuing, assigning motive to people’s actions retroactively. My future posts will deal with how Hannity’s mirror narrative stack up against events occurring right now. (They don’t)