Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

DiscoGary wrote:

I thought it was strange that Hannity's name would be released as a Cohen client, and it turns out that the judge violated the normal procedure for keeping that information sealed until the client had a chance to make the case for why their name should not be revealed.

Well in this case the judge was going to keep Hannity's name under seal, but then CNN's lawyer Robert Balin argued on behalf of the press that it should be revealed, and the judge decided to do it. Well SHAZAYAM! How about that? Nothing partisan or corrupt about this process huh.

Will this CNN lawyer Balin have his office raided? What? You're asking why we would raid his office? Simple, to find out if he's committed any crimes! That's how investigations work I'm told because we can't find crimes without investigations ... duh! We have no charges, so we better raid him right now, take all his crap, and reveal all his clients and make them answer for all their legal dealings they had with Balin.

That's how our country works now, so let's get to it.

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/04/17/report-attorney-for-cnn-and-nytimes-convinced-judge-to-publicly-name-sean-hannity/?dg

Flagpole wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

I guess that now, Hannity should be fired because he had dealings of some kind with an attorney whose office was raided, despite any evidence of wrongdoing by either. As at least one Democratic lawmaker has demanded. Guilt by association it appears, even though no ones been deemed guilty of anything. And I'm not a fan of Hannity by any stretch. The framers would be horrified by the level this country has sunk to since its founding.

The lawmaker (Gerry Connolly) didn't "demand" it. He just said Fox "should" fire him. Big difference between a demand and saying "I think he deserves to be fired".

Firing Hannity is not out of the question. What he has done is a clear violation of journalists not providing "full disclosure". Hannity says he is not a journalist, and I AGREE with that, but at the same time his show says "News" in it, and he claims often to have unnamed sources, so he likes to behave in part like he is a journalist. Even as a commentator, he should have revealed that he had a relationship with Cohen before defending him so and having him on his show 10+times.

Not sure if Hannity will be fired...we need more info more than likely or sponsors to start leaving in droves which I don't believe they will do just yet.

Fat hurts wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Well of course we all know that the Globe, being a liberal bastion in the media world, must have got it wrong. I mean, they run all kinds of articles on Trump that have turned out to be fake, they must, of course do the same when reporting about things on the left. Also consider that the Boston FBI office was shown to be the most corrupt in the country, and its of no surprise to me that anyone associated with it caries a "taint". I was pretty much indifferent to Mueller, till now. I'll be very interested to see the fallout.

I doubt that the Globe actually got it wrong. Their reporting was probably mischaracterized. But all news organizations do get things wrong. The legit ones will admit it when they do.

Let me know if actual motions get filed. Until something like that happens, there will be no fallout because there is no story.

You were indifferent to Mueller, but you sure were hoping somebody would find something. You were hoping so hard that you jumped at this non-story. You have to learn how to distinguish fact from fiction and reality from hearsay.

Trollminator wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Yep...a ridiculous comment from him now, and it just shows his pattern of not telling the truth. I mean, he was peddling the notion that that wasn't really him on the Access Hollywood tape too. He will not admit to anything.

When the sh!t his the fan (and it will), I am going to cancel any meetings with clients for the day, have a couple brews and probably go get a Robert Mueller tattoo on my back. Can't decide yet if it will just be on my shoulder blade or full back.

Either this one:

https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5a95bc075c509c53ae79253b/master/w_768,c_limit/t-Mueller-Vs-Trump.jpg

Or this one:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2017/05/170518_ASSESS_Mueller.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg

I resisted getting inked when I was serving, but a Mueller tattoo is possibly in the cards.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

The lawmaker (Gerry Connolly) didn't "demand" it. He just said Fox "should" fire him. Big difference between a demand and saying "I think he deserves to be fired".

Firing Hannity is not out of the question. What he has done is a clear violation of journalists not providing "full disclosure". Hannity says he is not a journalist, and I AGREE with that, but at the same time his show says "News" in it, and he claims often to have unnamed sources, so he likes to behave in part like he is a journalist. Even as a commentator, he should have revealed that he had a relationship with Cohen before defending him so and having him on his show 10+times.

Not sure if Hannity will be fired...we need more info more than likely or sponsors to start leaving in droves which I don't believe they will do just yet.

In political speak..........."should" and "demand" are pretty much one and the same. Personally, I don't watch him and doubt anyone is going to be willing to fire him for something with no credible allegations. He apparently says that his interactions are not as a client, but more on real estate advice. Whatever that means. In any event, the very fact that his name has come up seems to me a violation of privacy.

Flagpole wrote:

4) So far, I agree that it seems odd that Hannity's name had to come out. I look forward to hearing or reading some legal reason for it. I believe in the rule of law, so if there is a legal reason his name had to be made public, then I will go with that, but until I learn what that is, I agree that his name should have been kept private (even though it couldn't happen to a nicer guy).

The surprise naming of Mr. Hannity took place after several minutes of back and forth among government representatives, members of Mr. Cohen’s legal team and Judge Wood.

Before the name was revealed, Mr. Ryan argued that the mystery client was a “prominent person” who wanted to keep his identity a secret because he would be “embarrassed” to be identified as having sought Mr. Cohen’s counsel.

Robert D. Balin, a lawyer for various media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN and others, interrupted the hearing to argue that embarrassment was not a sufficient cause to withhold a client’s name, and Judge Wood agreed.

DiscoGary wrote:

I thought it was strange that Hannity's name would be released as a Cohen client, and it turns out that the judge violated the normal procedure for keeping that information sealed until the client had a chance to make the case for why their name should not be revealed.

Well in this case the judge was going to keep Hannity's name under seal, but then CNN's lawyer Robert Balin argued on behalf of the press that it should be revealed, and the judge decided to do it. Well SHAZAYAM! How about that? Nothing partisan or corrupt about this process huh.

Will this CNN lawyer Balin have his office raided? What? You're asking why we would raid his office? Simple, to find out if he's committed any crimes! That's how investigations work I'm told because we can't find crimes without investigations ... duh! We have no charges, so we better raid him right now, take all his crap, and reveal all his clients and make them answer for all their legal dealings they had with Balin.

That's how our country works now, so let's get to it.

Monkeys typing wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

4) So far, I agree that it seems odd that Hannity's name had to come out. I look forward to hearing or reading some legal reason for it. I believe in the rule of law, so if there is a legal reason his name had to be made public, then I will go with that, but until I learn what that is, I agree that his name should have been kept private (even though it couldn't happen to a nicer guy).

From the NY Times:

The surprise naming of Mr. Hannity took place after several minutes of back and forth among government representatives, members of Mr. Cohen’s legal team and Judge Wood.

Before the name was revealed, Mr. Ryan argued that the mystery client was a “prominent person” who wanted to keep his identity a secret because he would be “embarrassed” to be identified as having sought Mr. Cohen’s counsel.

Robert D. Balin, a lawyer for various media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN and others, interrupted the hearing to argue that embarrassment was not a sufficient cause to withhold a client’s name, and Judge Wood agreed.

I'm not a lawyer, so waiting for DiscoGary to explain the legal precedent for the "embarrassment defense" that he thinks was violated.

Fat hurts wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Well of course we all know that the Globe, being a liberal bastion in the media world, must have got it wrong. I mean, they run all kinds of articles on Trump that have turned out to be fake, they must, of course do the same when reporting about things on the left. Also consider that the Boston FBI office was shown to be the most corrupt in the country, and its of no surprise to me that anyone associated with it caries a "taint". I was pretty much indifferent to Mueller, till now. I'll be very interested to see the fallout.

I doubt that the Globe actually got it wrong. Their reporting was probably mischaracterized. But all news organizations do get things wrong. The legit ones will admit it when they do.

Let me know if actual motions get filed. Until something like that happens, there will be no fallout because there is no story.

You were indifferent to Mueller, but you sure were hoping somebody would find something. You were hoping so hard that you jumped at this non-story. You have to learn how to distinguish fact from fiction and reality from hearsay.