Do you understand the difference between an interview and a fluff piece? Apparently not.
Salon dot com characterized the interview as a fluff piece as well. Regardless, your characterization does not make it so. From the actual interview, quote:
"HANNITY: Well let me let me give the details. Debbie Wesson Gibson says she was 17 when you spoke to her high school civics class and asked her out on several dates and it did not progress her words beyond kissing according to the Washington Post let's stay on her. Did that happen?"
Explain to all of us how asking the direct question did an event actually occur qualifies as a "fluff piece" question.
You are so intent on the destruction of both Moore and Hannity the pursuit of that goal inhibits your ability to engage in intellectual honesty. To illustrate this point, another quote from the Hannity interview:
"HANNITY: But do you remember ever going on a date with her? She said that you asked around out on the first of several dates but nothing progressed beyond kissing.
MOORE: I don't remember specific dates. I do not and I don't remember if it was that time or later. But I do not remember that."
The above represents exactly why I came to the conclusion following this interview Moore was finished. Hannity asked a very clear and precise question, did Moore remember going on a date with a seventeen year old girl. Moore responded he didn't recall any dates as if Hannity had asked for specifics on when this was supposed to have happened.
Answer this question with intellectual honesty. Who is to blame for Moore's response?
According to the lunatic left, in regard to the question Hannity should lose his sponsors, he should lose his show, FOX News should be removed from the airways. But none of those assertions rise above the level of being either blindly partisan or myopically absurd.
And speaking of blindly partisan:
So it was obvious from the get-go that his intention was to generate sympathy for Moore. A pity he failed... not a surprise, just a pity.
Again, if you would bother to account for Hannity's clear and easily understood rational for conducting the interview, you would be able to understand Hannity's sympathy was for the precept innocent until proven guilty. But I understand, to the lunatic left any Republican accused of any amoral or illegal act is immediately required to hang his head and disappear while any Democrat accused or even proven to have committed an amoral or illegal act is allowed to sneer at the camera, deliver a lie equivalent to "I did not have sex with that woman," and continue along as if nothing happened. What a crock.
Oh, wait, it gets worse:
Perhaps if Moore were at all capable of generating sympathy, Hannity wouldn't have have set such a daunting task ahead of himself.
And if liberals embraced reason as opposed to emotion, the mere fact it was a woman who leveled a charge would not be enough to prove the charge. But hey, who cares about the truth when you can whip people into a frenzy with the Two Minutes Hate?
And in a court of law, it will. In the court of public opinion, which all public figures find themselves judged daily, not so much.
The court of public opinion is reflected in the vote. Which is why Hillary lost, because in spite of what liberals told themselves she wasn't god after all.
He conducted an interview poorly.
In your opinion. Oh, and Salon dot com. But your opinion doesn't make it so.
Big difference. As you just pointed out, he had his agenda -- and he failed.
You are ignoring his agenda in favor of what you want the narrative to be.
