Sean Hannity sucker punches Juan Williams

Juan Williams Bill O'Reilly Muslim

Oh, sure, it was a figurative sucker punch, but it left poor Juan’s head spnning nonetheless.

Hannity reeled off a list of Eric Cantor’s outrageous comments about raising the debt ceiling and asked for William’s response. When Juan finished ripping Cantor, Hannity unleashed the sucker punch and told him that the comments all came from Senator Barack Obama back in 2006, not Eric Cantor in 2011.

The best part is the stunned look on Williams’ face at the very end of the clip.

This post was last modified on July 20, 2011

Juan WilliamsSean Hannity
editor:

View Comments (90)

    • agree sesail....esp since it was fox, who went to bat for him, when he was fired from his npr job! i cannot watch 'the five,' because of him and some others...i'm tired of so-called fair and balanced...i want conservative news...

  • Let's call a spade a spade (oops!): Juan Williams is now the only guy on Earth to have BOTH Sean Hannity and Jon Stewart piss on him...quite an accomplishment for the Fox News Washington Generals star.

  • "Contrary to popular belief, many trolls are actually quite intelligent. Their habitual attacks on forums is usually a result of their awareness of the pretentiousness and excessive self-importance of many forum enthusiasts. As much as people may hate trolls, they are highly effective - their actions bring much of the stupidity of other forum users out into the great wide open".
    From the Urban Dictionary. It's FUN being a troll!

    • I dunno man, Ive seen more of your posts than just this one. Maybe if you picked up a real dictionary, instead of copying and pasting from Urban dictionary we would take you seriously. Its like watching someone try to defend a point with a "Cut n paste" from wikipedia.. Funny, but mostly just sad.

    • I’ve been fishing democratic trolls for a couple years – I do not find them intelligent in the least…I find them to be obnoxious, peevish and contradictory for the sake of contradiction. Very rarely, if ever, does a troll actually make a substantive argument – their main purpose is to annoy and circumvent discussion.

      Trolls most always start their rants by insulting those on the forum – especially the “regulars” thus causing disruption of the main focus. Trolls use all forms of cliché and innuendo in order to stir things up and evade confrontation through ridicule and deflection.

      Trolls are “never” wrong – those they attack are the idiots and must be shown the “light” – however, the bulbs are usually pretty dim in that the troll never substantiates anything with fact – just simply hits and runs.

      Trolls appear to have some sort of psychosomatic disorder going on (perhaps narcissism?) where they have to have the center of attention – regardless of the conversation –and facts. As long as the troll throws out some anti conservative blurb (be it one they made-up or read from the talking points pamphlet) they feel they are “winning” and having so much fun putting the conservatives in their place.

      Trolls have a tendency of upping the ante when they are ignored by increasing the velocity and nastiness of their insults so they can become the center of attention once more. Trolls appear to be very sad and lonely people.

      No, trolls are not highly intelligent – a highly intelligent person would debate and or discuss issues with clarity, and show respect to their opponent regardless of differing opinions or political views. A highly intelligent person would argue their points based upon fact and refrain from innuendo and insult – and most importantly, concede when they are proven wrong.

  • Juan Williams--he's paid by Fox to be the jungle bunny Washington Generals, while Hannity/Bair/Steve Hayes are the Globetrotters, just flat slam-dunkin' his ass. The poor guy is a liberal Tom...but it's worth every penny of Juan's 2MM salary to get smoked. Ya' gotta admire Sean--he's got serious gangsta' and can do whatever he wants with Amos 'n Andy Juan.

      • That's just why they do it. Next time, tell him his race card has been denied due to overuse. Or that the race program has been discontinued, and there are no plans to reinstitute it. Or just to stop the BS.

      • I kinda like it when they crawl out of their slime pit, now and then. It helps us remember that troglodytes like this are still around and that we need to be constantly vigilante. Besides that, they make me laugh at their complete lack of any recognizable intelligence.

        • Your entire post in short describes all that I feel about this issue and what I have been trying to tell people who don't seem to understand that this type of speech just cannot go without a challenge.

          • @KimmyQueen, I wanted to reply, but I've been extremely busy last night and today. Remodeling my home, you know.

            Challenge that kind of speech, ridicule that kind of speech, never, but NEVER restrict ANY speech. I am SOOO glad that, although IHTM hides the unpopular comments, they do not remove them. Sites that have "moderators" disgust me, most of those are lefty sites and it is quite revealing that they want to "approve" your comments before they post them.

            I have tried, but just can't seem to find where, in the first amendment, that it states that only speech, religion and associations that are approved by someone are protected.
            I actually believe that it is not possible for anyone or anything to offend me. I get irritated and angry, quite often, but I can't think of a time, as an adult, that I have been offended. However, I will NEVER, NEVER advocate for the restriction of ANY speech. Challenge and ridicule that which I disagree with, YOU BETCHA!!!

            Therefore, Senior Mitch Hoops IS A BOOB and deserves ALL of the vitriol that we can spew at him!

          • I do think that there is a line that when crossed, one must make a decision to restrict such language without necessarily restricting the person or other similar speech that does not necessarily cross the line all the time. Don't know if that makes sense. Some speech can and does lead behavior that can be detrimental to the well being of others or lost of their lives, for example. It is just important to monitor it, also sometimes these sites on the open internet can, by mistake or otherwise, be accessed by children. All in all I am just stating that we need to use common sense.

            With that said though yes speech like this does have to be challenged it cannot go without notice. The answer to that kind of speech is MORE speech.

          • Not sure if I follow or agree with all that you said, but I am sure that your last sentence is right on the money. As always, Kimmy, you get a thumbs up from me.

            More, not less is the answer.

          • Who the heck is giving us thumbs down? and for what reason...? :-/.

            In any case, it goes to the answer to this question: Would it be appropriate to give a certified and protected time frame and location to someone who says "Let's kill ALL _(whichever group)_____"? Sure I can stand next to the person and state "No, we really shouldn't be killing all ____(whichever group)_____" for sure, however not sure if that would be enough. That is all that I am saying, that is an extreme example of course, but I guess that is my point when the speech is extreme AND detrimental to human's lives.

            Like the as*h*le Maher who talks all kind of crap, I am not talking about that stuff but I do speak against it, but if he were to say "Let's kill all conservative women", as an example, I guess I have a serious problem with that and that in my opinion shouldn't be allowed.

            In my mind I am thinking Hitler when he was talking his mess, had someone paid attention and nipped it perhaps lives could have been saved... *shrugs*

          • You know, the one we suspect to be Olivia’s BF.

            Translation:
            You know, the one we suspect to be Olivia’s Beard.

  • I'll probably get more than a few big red "thumbs down" for this....but regardless, while I like Sean Hannity, and think it's hilarious that he bated Williams into this....that is one of the most unprofessional things I've seen. No journalist (or anyone for that matter) should tell an outright lie to someone as a way to trap the person into giving an certain answer, and then springing the truth on him in the end. There were probably more subtle ways Sean could have coaxed the dialogue out of Juan Williams still getting him to disagree with Obama's earlier position, without telling him the quotes were from Eric Cantor while fully knowing they in fact were Obama's.

    Ok I'm off my horse....regardless of the lack of journalistic morals, it's still hilarious.

    • "No journalist (or anyone for that matter) should tell an outright lie to someone as a way to trap the person into giving an certain answer, and then springing the truth on him in the end."

      You mean like the police, the FBI or say, senate investigative committees?
      Unlike you, I don't like Sean Hannity at all, I don't think he could argue his way out of a wet paper bag, but people like Juan Williams(Marxists) will lie, cheat and steal to achieve their goal and I think we all know what their goal is. I don't have any problem with trapping vermin, especially if you can use their own words to do it. Williams should make himself better informed if he wants his lies to continue to be believed.

    • Is Sean a journalist... or is he a commentator...? He comments about the news but I don't think he qualifies as a journalist. :-/ Now as for this being bad or unprofessional for ANYONE to do, do not know about that. I think that Juan walked into that rather easily and Sean was trying to make a point. I think if anything it is legitimate.

  • Um, Uh I don't uh really need that um thing, bu, bu, but without it I um, err hav trouble with uh my uh mouth keeping up with my err huge an, an an, and fast uh intelligence.

    @Kimmy, I uh have missed you um toooo. Please oh, oh please...DON"T TELL UM, UH THE WOOKIE.

  • Uh, uh you uh rightwing sycophants are umm ALWAYS taking thing err out of uh context. I uh made that umm statement when uh uh there was a um Republicannnnnn in the uh White House an, an, an, and you you you are uh trying to just uh confuse the um American err people with the uhhhh facts. The umm people are uh not concerned with ummm facts, they are uh more interested in uh uh Congress and the um Office of the uhh, uhh President finding ways to umm uh come together an, an, an, and stick it to the umm oil companies and the uhh private jet owners and the um um rich folks who are uh taking from them without uh making ANY uhh sacrifice.

Related Post
  1. Bin Laden death photos show “brains hanging out of the eye socket.” Cool.
  2. Chris Matthews to become spokesman for NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association)?
  3. James Cameron goes to the Amazon, bores the hell out of natives