pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Reason #1 wrote:
Reason #1. The FBI had Cohen under surveillance for months--phones, texts, emails. They know who the clients are. The judge knows who the FBI thinks the clients are. Lie about it at your own legal risk.
Thank you for explaining it.
So, we've got a guy running around doing sloppy work for at least Trump, Hannity aaaand Elliott Broidy,?
Trollminator wrote:
Cohen’s lawyer filed a letter with the court claiming only 3 relationships involved Cohen providing direct legal advice in the last few years and as such were the only relevant ones. This triggered the mandatory name release, this is standard and no subject to special treatment. There is no way Cohen’s lawyer was going to throw some random name out there given they have documents from the raid that might easily contradict their statement. There are severe consequences for a layer intentionally lying to a judge in court. Cohen’s lawyer put himself in the box. The judge gave them the option to provide the name in the letter IF Stormy’s legal team and government I nvestigators could also see. So it wasn’t actually going to be made public, but Cohen pushed the judge and fvcked it all up.
I must say there are several legal areas where a judge’s call and attourney outmaneuvering can ultimate really weigh on a case. I’m genera though there has been no funny business here, it’s just that the people are famous. Remember Spitzer? His association with that escort was revealed in a similar fashion, through a court proceeding that could not be kept private. Tough luck but it is what it is. Choose the people you associate with wisely. Hannity is a public figure who has found himself on the wrong side of publicity. He’ll live though.
Thanks for posting this.
He would get support for Russia sanctions from both parties and coming down hard on them would make him look good regarding the Russia investigation. It's also the right thing to do.
And yet he doesn't?
Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?
Erfworm wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-decided-to-abandon-plans-for-more-russia-sanctions/ar-AAw2Itf?ocid=spartanntpHe would get support for Russia sanctions from both parties and coming down hard on them would make him look good regarding the Russia investigation. It's also the right thing to do.
And yet he doesn't?
Hhhhhmmmm. Odd. I wonder why Trump behaves this way towards Putin? Probably a nothing burger. Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing nefarious. No collusion.
Flagpole wrote:
I agree with you that this was a result of Cohen's lawyers screwing it up. I also agree that it is likely Hannity has been involved in something bad. I also don't feel bad for Hannity. The line is still blurred here for me on what is legal in this case. Still some contradicting opinions on either side. I'm really just saying I don't know what the right thing here is. Hannity is an ass, and he's in trouble because he associated himself with a low life lawyer, but I want a clear cut answer on what is legal here.
I agree with you, but unless you are ready to study constitutional law, I don't think you will get the clear cut answer you are looking for.
We have a situation where all parties could have proceeded without making Hannity's name public. It didn't hamper the government's work as long as the government knew his name. Whether or not the name was revealed openly did not have any bearing on the case moving forward.
But an attorney who represented several news outlets cited something called the Vingelli standard, which says that the mere name of a person is not protected by attorney client privilege. And in a public hearing, the public generally has a right to know what is going on.
So it seems what you are after is an explanation for why Hannity's right to privacy is less important than the public's right to know. And without expertise in the law it is hard to make a determination.
Therefore, like many things in life, we have to just trust the experts. The only expert who really matters here is the judge and she ruled the way she ruled.
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I agree with you that this was a result of Cohen's lawyers screwing it up. I also agree that it is likely Hannity has been involved in something bad. I also don't feel bad for Hannity. The line is still blurred here for me on what is legal in this case. Still some contradicting opinions on either side. I'm really just saying I don't know what the right thing here is. Hannity is an ass, and he's in trouble because he associated himself with a low life lawyer, but I want a clear cut answer on what is legal here.
I agree with you, but unless you are ready to study constitutional law, I don't think you will get the clear cut answer you are looking for.
We have a situation where all parties could have proceeded without making Hannity's name public. It didn't hamper the government's work as long as the government knew his name. Whether or not the name was revealed openly did not have any bearing on the case moving forward.
But an attorney who represented several news outlets cited something called the Vingelli standard, which says that the mere name of a person is not protected by attorney client privilege. And in a public hearing, the public generally has a right to know what is going on.
So it seems what you are after is an explanation for why Hannity's right to privacy is less important than the public's right to know. And without expertise in the law it is hard to make a determination.
Therefore, like many things in life, we have to just trust the experts. The only expert who really matters here is the judge and she ruled the way she ruled.
Here is another point. Some have observed that Cohen's lawyers got out-maneuvered and this resulted in Hannity's name being exposed. That may very well be true. But Cohen's lawyers were not hired to serve Hannity's interests. They were just doing this as a favor. The thing first and foremost in the minds of Cohen's lawyers was protecting Cohen, not Hannity.
So in part, it's Hannity's fault that his name was revealed. If he was so worried about this he should have retained his own attorney to fight for him in court.
Fat hurts wrote:
So in part, it's Hannity's fault that his name was revealed. If he was so worried about this he should have retained his own attorney to fight for him in court.
When you need an attorney to protect you from your attorney's attorneys are you getting tired of winning?
Fat hurts wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I agree with you, but unless you are ready to study constitutional law, I don't think you will get the clear cut answer you are looking for.
We have a situation where all parties could have proceeded without making Hannity's name public. It didn't hamper the government's work as long as the government knew his name. Whether or not the name was revealed openly did not have any bearing on the case moving forward.
But an attorney who represented several news outlets cited something called the Vingelli standard, which says that the mere name of a person is not protected by attorney client privilege. And in a public hearing, the public generally has a right to know what is going on.
So it seems what you are after is an explanation for why Hannity's right to privacy is less important than the public's right to know. And without expertise in the law it is hard to make a determination.
Therefore, like many things in life, we have to just trust the experts. The only expert who really matters here is the judge and she ruled the way she ruled.
Here is another point. Some have observed that Cohen's lawyers got out-maneuvered and this resulted in Hannity's name being exposed. That may very well be true. But Cohen's lawyers were not hired to serve Hannity's interests. They were just doing this as a favor. The thing first and foremost in the minds of Cohen's lawyers was protecting Cohen, not Hannity.
So in part, it's Hannity's fault that his name was revealed. If he was so worried about this he should have retained his own attorney to fight for him in court.
That's why everyone is crying foul about Hannity, he claims to not have had an attorney-client relationship with Cohen so why is he being brought into this? Everyone needs to pay attention to legal process and technicality now, Cohen is going to be an open book, whether voluntary or through investigation. It's like throwing a rock at a beehive. I think Cohen's lawyer is doing the right thing, he's cooperating and told the truth. BUT he messed up when given the chance to not have to publicly reveal Hannity's name, he should have taken the judge's offer.
Compare this to the Panama leak. A lot of presumably innocent people were named by association because they had accounts there. Does it mean they were evading taxes or $ laundering? Likely not, but they opened accounts and it doesn't look good. Where there is smoke there is usually fire. Doing business with Cohen is like opening a shell company in Panama.
Btw - right to privacy doesn't really legally exist in many respects. Whenever there is an investigative or judicial reason to look into something, the precedence is always uncovering the truth. The way that is done depends on the legal channels. You really only see non-public disclosure when classified information is at play. Here's another great little twist. Hannity, like Trump, is claiming his relationship with Cohen was not meaningful as it pertains to this investigation. That in effect voids any attorney-client privilege as it pertains to the case. So any NDA might be void if it was struck like Stormy's.
Golden Shower in Trump Tower wrote:
Erfworm wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-decided-to-abandon-plans-for-more-russia-sanctions/ar-AAw2Itf?ocid=spartanntpHe would get support for Russia sanctions from both parties and coming down hard on them would make him look good regarding the Russia investigation. It's also the right thing to do.
And yet he doesn't?
Hhhhhmmmm. Odd. I wonder why Trump behaves this way towards Putin? Probably a nothing burger. Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing nefarious. No collusion.
This is why Haley lashed out at his administration. She was told they would bring on more sanctions then Trump walked it back without going through the proper channels and made her look foolish at the UN security meeting.
This is an easy google search folks - it is no secret Trump has craved Putin's attention since 2000. Trump has wanted nothing more than to be an American oligarch. Just look at his tweets over the years, screaming for Putin's attention. His dream was to have a Trump building in Russia and the only way it was going to get done was with Putin's approval and so he has desperately tried to cozy up over the years. Rest assured he will never be objective when it comes to Putin. He wants to be his friend. Trump is putting self interest above the national interest.
Whataboutism and more made-up Hillary conspiracies that have been disproved millions of times. You must be incredibly stupid to keep falling for that crap.
Let me get this right. You guys have talked yourselves into blaming Hannity for the violation of long standing practices of keeping the names of third parties secret in a grand jury hearing?
All legal standards are falling in this scorched earth effort to get rid of Trump.
Have I introduced you guys to a concept I call "Shoveling credibility into the furnace of power"? I'm sure most of you understand it from the context alone. Well, what we're seeing here is the Swamp burning the credibility of our legal system to gain power in the form of throwing out Trump. The problem is that the credibility is consumed and destroyed as it gets converted to power.
This concept applies to everything Liberalism is doing and has ever done. Everything of value is co-opted, converted to power and money, until it is completely consumed. Once its consumed, Liberals find something else of value and shovel into the furnace of power, destroying its credibility (its value).
The Cohen situation is a perfect example of this.
DiscoGary wrote:
Let me get this right. You guys have talked yourselves into blaming Hannity for the violation of long standing practices of keeping the names of third parties secret in a grand jury hearing?
All legal standards are falling in this scorched earth effort to get rid of Trump.
Have I introduced you guys to a concept I call "Shoveling credibility into the furnace of power"? I'm sure most of you understand it from the context alone. Well, what we're seeing here is the Swamp burning the credibility of our legal system to gain power in the form of throwing out Trump. The problem is that the credibility is consumed and destroyed as it gets converted to power.
This concept applies to everything Liberalism is doing and has ever done. Everything of value is co-opted, converted to power and money, until it is completely consumed. Once its consumed, Liberals find something else of value and shovel into the furnace of power, destroying its credibility (its value).
The Cohen situation is a perfect example of this.
Idiot. The Cohen Situation has nothing to do with the Trump Thing. They are completely separate investigations. Also, Hannity said he is not a client of Cohen's. He only bought him coffee, and had a chit-chat. Attorney-client privilege does not apply.
Several posts ago someone asked you what you thought about Republicans dumping Obamacare repeal as a campaign issue. That is now off the table. Wasn't that one of your core reasons for supporting Trump?
FoolGary wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
Let me get this right. You guys have talked yourselves into blaming Hannity for the violation of long standing practices of keeping the names of third parties secret in a grand jury hearing?
All legal standards are falling in this scorched earth effort to get rid of Trump.
Have I introduced you guys to a concept I call "Shoveling credibility into the furnace of power"? I'm sure most of you understand it from the context alone. Well, what we're seeing here is the Swamp burning the credibility of our legal system to gain power in the form of throwing out Trump. The problem is that the credibility is consumed and destroyed as it gets converted to power.
This concept applies to everything Liberalism is doing and has ever done. Everything of value is co-opted, converted to power and money, until it is completely consumed. Once its consumed, Liberals find something else of value and shovel into the furnace of power, destroying its credibility (its value).
The Cohen situation is a perfect example of this.
Idiot. The Cohen Situation has nothing to do with the Trump Thing. They are completely separate investigations. Also, Hannity said he is not a client of Cohen's. He only bought him coffee, and had a chit-chat. Attorney-client privilege does not apply.
If Hannity is not a client (according to Hannity), then why would Cohen's lawyer name him as a client? That is the one part that I do not understand.
FoolGary wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
Let me get this right. You guys have talked yourselves into blaming Hannity for the violation of long standing practices of keeping the names of third parties secret in a grand jury hearing?
All legal standards are falling in this scorched earth effort to get rid of Trump.
Have I introduced you guys to a concept I call "Shoveling credibility into the furnace of power"? I'm sure most of you understand it from the context alone. Well, what we're seeing here is the Swamp burning the credibility of our legal system to gain power in the form of throwing out Trump. The problem is that the credibility is consumed and destroyed as it gets converted to power.
This concept applies to everything Liberalism is doing and has ever done. Everything of value is co-opted, converted to power and money, until it is completely consumed. Once its consumed, Liberals find something else of value and shovel into the furnace of power, destroying its credibility (its value).
The Cohen situation is a perfect example of this.
Idiot. The Cohen Situation has nothing to do with the Trump Thing. They are completely separate investigations. Also, Hannity said he is not a client of Cohen's. He only bought him coffee, and had a chit-chat. Attorney-client privilege does not apply.
Several posts ago someone asked you what you thought about Republicans dumping Obamacare repeal as a campaign issue. That is now off the table. Wasn't that one of your core reasons for supporting Trump?
You think the Cohen thing has nothing to do with Trump and you're calling me an idiot? You have no credibility to burn so you're safe.
If Republicans lose the house it will be because they did not repeal Obamacare and they did not build The Wall ... and they spent like drunken Kennedys.
FoolGary wrote:
Idiot. The Cohen Situation has nothing to do with the Trump Thing. They are completely separate investigations. Also, Hannity said he is not a client of Cohen's. He only bought him coffee, and had a chit-chat. Attorney-client privilege does not apply.
Several posts ago someone asked you what you thought about Republicans dumping Obamacare repeal as a campaign issue. That is now off the table. Wasn't that one of your core reasons for supporting Trump?
Swamp isn't draining. Trump making decisions so he personally profits in office.
Trump isn't working harder than Obama
Forgotten voters, forgotten.
Tax cut for Trump and Trump's club members, not his voters.
Spending with the intention of using debts to cut social programs that harm Trump's voters.
Comically inept administration from someone who claims some kind of business skills.
Trump a foreign policy "globalist."
No wall, maybe some fence maintenance.
I'm tired of all the winning!
Count Chocula wrote:
FoolGary wrote:
Idiot. The Cohen Situation has nothing to do with the Trump Thing. They are completely separate investigations. Also, Hannity said he is not a client of Cohen's. He only bought him coffee, and had a chit-chat. Attorney-client privilege does not apply.
If Hannity is not a client (according to Hannity), then why would Cohen's lawyer name him as a client? That is the one part that I do not understand.
Because Cohen did something for Hannity and no money was exchanged. Trump did not pay Cohen to handle the porn star escapade. The same applies to Hannity. But it appears that this investigation into Cohen has to do with where Cohen got money to "fix" Trump's problem, and whatever he did for Hannity. No contracts were signed. No retainers were paid. No fees were charged. Those are all legal alarm bells. How does Cohen explain the money part of his job of "fixing" things?
DiscoGary wrote:
FoolGary wrote:
Idiot. The Cohen Situation has nothing to do with the Trump Thing. They are completely separate investigations. Also, Hannity said he is not a client of Cohen's. He only bought him coffee, and had a chit-chat. Attorney-client privilege does not apply.
Several posts ago someone asked you what you thought about Republicans dumping Obamacare repeal as a campaign issue. That is now off the table. Wasn't that one of your core reasons for supporting Trump?
You think the Cohen thing has nothing to do with Trump and you're calling me an idiot? You have no credibility to burn so you're safe.
If Republicans lose the house it will be because they did not repeal Obamacare and they did not build The Wall ... and they spent like drunken Kennedys.
It seems that the person you commented to meant that Cohen is on his own for the hush money payments. But you are implicating Trump. Trump claims he knows nothing about the hush payments, and that was not a service Cohen provided for him. You are claiming that Trump is indeed involved, and is at legal jeopardy for something Cohen did Trump had no knowledge of.
DiscoGary wrote:
You think the Cohen thing has nothing to do with Trump and you're calling me an idiot? You have no credibility to burn so you're safe.
If Republicans lose the house it will be because they did not repeal Obamacare and they did not build The Wall ... and they spent like drunken Kennedys.
Gary,
You are reasoning by believing in an obvious charlatan and then attempting to allow him to be above the law.
And then you are convinced the opinions you mirror have some basis in fact.
And then the charlatan is such an idiot the rational world easily concludes he is heavily influenced by the Russian State.
He knows how to communicate to the unwashed masses like an alligator knows how to hunt. He's got that working for him. Nothing else though.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts