The Twittersphere is blowing up with outrage over Wednesday’s Hannity present, the place–should you consider the hype–host Sean Hannity informed witnesses in Particular Counsel Robert Mueller‘s investigation to destroy proof earlier than being pressured to show over supplies to Mueller’s crew. Hannity talked about numerous strategies of doing so, together with wiping onerous drives and bodily damaging gadgets [see the video above beginning around the 3:00 mark].

Media retailers and attorneys are having a area day with this.

So, might the favored Fox Information host get in bother with the legislation for recommending such issues?

In fact not, as a result of it didn’t occur. As President Donald Trump would possibly say, it’s Faux Information.

Right here’s what Hannity actually stated:

Clearly, Hannity was referring to what Clinton’s crew has been accused of doing to allegedly disguise or destroy proof associated to her e-mail investigation. His preface, “If I suggested them to comply with Hillary Clinton’s lead,” clearly makes the “recommendation” that follows purely hypothetical, in addition to sarcastic. His level, whether or not one agrees with it or not, is that if Clinton and her crew can escape an investigation by allegedly destroying proof, Mueller shouldn’t have an issue if Trump’s crew does the identical factor.  He wasn’t critically saying anybody ought to do that, he was principally saying, “What’s good for the goose is sweet for the gander.”

Later within the present, when Hannity referenced this once more, he even stated he was kidding and not likely advising individuals to do that, however critics are conveniently leaving that half out.

For these desirous to accuse Hannity of encouraging crimes or occasion being responsible of 1 himself, sarcasm isn’t towards the legislation.

[Image via Fox News screengrab]