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..
He should be fired for pretending to be a journalist. He rants about the Dear Leader's henchmen being investigated. Then it turns out he has dealings with one of the henchmen. That's some journalistic integrity! I'm stating the obvious but, more evidence Fox is pure propaganda, not news.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
I think the reason Hannity was mentioned was to give the judge something that isn't other client names.
I think Hannity is hiding something yuge. He went to Cohen because he would not have to pay any money to hush something up, and there would be no signed paperwork--same as Trump/Stormy. Cohen is getting paid by outside sources--there are no home loans used to pay for hushing. What is being hushed for Hannity is something that is unexpected. The sources of Cohen's money will be much more devastating.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
The claim is there are more than two clients of Cohen. Hannity denied any kind of formal client attorney relationship existed.
I think the reason Hannity was mentioned was to give the judge something that isn't other client names.
I don't follow. The court ordered Cohen's team to provide a list of clients with the implication that these are the people with attorney client privilege in any review of the seized documents. There's no one else whose correspondence will be privileged in review and there's no obvious advantage in making up a third name if he only had two clients.
Not Foolish wrote:
That's foolish. Do you really think it is a good idea for a lawyer to try to make a fool of the judge in this manner?
Sorry, but your idea is absolute rubbish.
Hannity denies having any kind of attorney-client relationship with Cohen. It seems like the judge has been made a fool.
I imagine we'll find out if it is lies from Hannity at some point.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Not Foolish wrote:
That's foolish. Do you really think it is a good idea for a lawyer to try to make a fool of the judge in this manner?
Sorry, but your idea is absolute rubbish.
Hannity denies having any kind of attorney-client relationship with Cohen. It seems like the judge has been made a fool.
I imagine we'll find out if it is lies from Hannity at some point.
Trump claimed he didn't have an attorney-client relationship for the Stormy Daniels situation.
Reasonable Ralph wrote:
The only reason that I visit this thread anymore is to see Flagpole post:
"Mueller is coming.
The Clown is done"
Ah...that is a very good reason indeed.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Bombs away on Hannity's head wrote:The sources of Cohen's money will be much more devastating.
Cohen has run so sloppy they could get a search warrant. So, maybe the sloppiness includes shell companies that wash money. That's still might not be a crime. Or, what's a few hundred thousand to a Mercer or Devos?
And then, there is always Presidential pardons to wash it all away.
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).
I'm sure you agree that the name had to at least be made known to the court. You can't claim attorney-client privilege unless you know who the client is. But how the name was made public was quite dramatic.
You can read the legal reasoning for making the name public in the court transcript. It looked like the judge was going to agree to keep it under wraps until a media lawyer spoke up from the gallery and asked to be heard. I don't remember what he said but the argument sounded impressive to a non-lawyer like me. I guess the judge found it convincing because after that she directed the name to be disclosed.
I wish I could have been in that court room when the name was read out loud. It must have been quite a scene.
Fat hurts 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).
I'm sure you agree that the name had to at least be made known to the court. You can't claim attorney-client privilege unless you know who the client is. But how the name was made public was quite dramatic.
You can read the legal reasoning for making the name public in the court transcript. It looked like the judge was going to agree to keep it under wraps until a media lawyer spoke up from the gallery and asked to be heard. I don't remember what he said but the argument sounded impressive to a non-lawyer like me. I guess the judge found it convincing because after that she directed the name to be disclosed.
I wish I could have been in that court room when the name was read out loud. It must have been quite a scene.
Here's one take on the Hannity situation from someone who seems to know about this stuff:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-law/DiscoGary wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm sure you agree that the name had to at least be made known to the court. You can't claim attorney-client privilege unless you know who the client is. But how the name was made public was quite dramatic.
You can read the legal reasoning for making the name public in the court transcript. It looked like the judge was going to agree to keep it under wraps until a media lawyer spoke up from the gallery and asked to be heard. I don't remember what he said but the argument sounded impressive to a non-lawyer like me. I guess the judge found it convincing because after that she directed the name to be disclosed.
I wish I could have been in that court room when the name was read out loud. It must have been quite a scene.
Here's one take on the Hannity situation from someone who seems to know about this stuff:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-law/
Here’s a quick and dirty of how this all transpired. The next phase of the Cohen payment investigation included some discovery of Cohen’s dealings or relationships which are relevant to the investigation. Think of this as peaking the onion until as much as is needed to get pertinent details. Cohen’s lawyer effed this one up BIG TIME.
They volunteered that several clients might be relevant which then defaulted to him having to reveal the names. His attorney read the first two (including Trump) our loud then said they would hand over the third in an envelope for the sake of keeping the client’s name private. This request directly contradicts the action of saying that client was revelant to begin with. There are no exceptions - and that is what the said CNN lawyer also disputed. Cohen’s team messed this up. They either did not understand the procedures or were simply giving the relevant info but didn’t want to catch public flack for revealing the name. Rest assured based on this that Hannity’s dealings with Cohen are relevant, otherwise Cohen’s lawyer wouldn’t have brought up the relationship to begin with.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Not Foolish wrote:
That's foolish. Do you really think it is a good idea for a lawyer to try to make a fool of the judge in this manner?
Sorry, but your idea is absolute rubbish.
Hannity denies having any kind of attorney-client relationship with Cohen. It seems like the judge has been made a fool.
I imagine we'll find out if it is lies from Hannity at some point.
No. It seems like you have made yourself the fool.
Hannity refuses to use the word "client" because he thinks it suits his interests. Cohen claims Hannity as a client because he thinks it answers the judge's question. And the only fool in the room is you.
Of course, your source is authored by a Republican, Andrew C. McCarthy. A very partisan Trumper. Now read this article about McCarthy's quality journalism.https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-andrew-c-mccarthy-so-sure-trump-hasnt-obstructed-justice
DiscoGary wrote:
Here's one take on the Hannity situation from someone who seems to know about this stuff:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-law/
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
I write just fine. Your comprehension skills are the ones that appear to be subpar. The politician was some dirtbag from CT, I believe. As far as the Framers go, they were really, really smart. And would indeed be horrified by what a liberal mess this country has become. Open borders? States like CA, RI, MA and others flouting federal immigration law? Welfare for noncitizens (don't think for a minute it doesn't happen)? Repeal the Second Amendment? Didn't I just hear a former Supreme Court justice recommend that??? Maybe not, maybe I'm imagining the mess that the progressives and the far left have created through the eight years prior to 2016. But I doubt it, unless I'm in some kind of LSD induced bizarro world from the '60s.
FTFY. Yes, you write just fine.
Tips for others:
1) The only way you can flaunt the law is if you print it out and pin it to your hat or something. The verb meaning "to openly disregard [a law]" is flout.
2) Any part of the Constitution can be repealed, including a previous amendment to it. It's happened before.
3) Open borders? Hardly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/us/politics/us-vetting-system-already-robust-before-travel-ban-report-finds.htmlp.n. wrote:
2) Any part of the Constitution can be repealed, including a previous amendment to it. It's happened before.
That requires 2/3rds of the House AND the Senate to propose a change, then 3/4ths of States must ratify it. The president has no role in a constitutional change.
Here is a guy who actually knows about this stuff. Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano. Here he is on Fox News telling Hannity, oops.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNTSQuzFMlM
DiscoGary wrote:
Here's one take on the Hannity situation from someone who seems to know about this stuff:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-law/
BREAKING!!!!
The walls around Trump are continuing to collapse. The quality of the walls was equal to what Trump was willing to pay for them—paper walls instead of solid concrete.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/us/politics/karen-mcdougal-american-media-settlement.html
p.n. wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
I write just fine. Your comprehension skills are the ones that appear to be subpar. The politician was some dirtbag from CT, I believe. As far as the Framers go, they were really, really smart. And would indeed be horrified by what a liberal mess this country has become. Open borders? States like CA, RI, MA and others flouting federal immigration law? Welfare for noncitizens (don't think for a minute it doesn't happen)? Repeal the Second Amendment? Didn't I just hear a former Supreme Court justice recommend that??? Maybe not, maybe I'm imagining the mess that the progressives and the far left have created through the eight years prior to 2016. But I doubt it, unless I'm in some kind of LSD induced bizarro world from the '60s.
FTFY. Yes, you write just fine.
Tips for others:
1) The only way you can flaunt the law is if you print it out and pin it to your hat or something. The verb meaning "to openly disregard [a law]" is flout.
2) Any part of the Constitution can be repealed, including a previous amendment to it. It's happened before.
3) Open borders? Hardly. . .l
Ouch!
Comey family are hillary lovers!!!!
That’s hilarious!!!!!
Fat hurts 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).
I'm sure you agree that the name had to at least be made known to the court. You can't claim attorney-client privilege unless you know who the client is. But how the name was made public was quite dramatic.
You can read the legal reasoning for making the name public in the court transcript. It looked like the judge was going to agree to keep it under wraps until a media lawyer spoke up from the gallery and asked to be heard. I don't remember what he said but the argument sounded impressive to a non-lawyer like me. I guess the judge found it convincing because after that she directed the name to be disclosed.
I wish I could have been in that court room when the name was read out loud. It must have been quite a scene.
I definitely agree the court needed to know. I just still am not sure about why it had to become public.
By the way, to Trumpers, this should show you that not only am I not a partisan hack (for if I were I would ONLY be gleeful about Hannity being outed) but that I also do not know everything nor think I do.
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm sure you agree that the name had to at least be made known to the court. You can't claim attorney-client privilege unless you know who the client is. But how the name was made public was quite dramatic.
You can read the legal reasoning for making the name public in the court transcript. It looked like the judge was going to agree to keep it under wraps until a media lawyer spoke up from the gallery and asked to be heard. I don't remember what he said but the argument sounded impressive to a non-lawyer like me. I guess the judge found it convincing because after that she directed the name to be disclosed.
I wish I could have been in that court room when the name was read out loud. It must have been quite a scene.
I definitely agree the court needed to know. I just still am not sure about why it had to become public.
By the way, to Trumpers, this should show you that not only am I not a partisan hack (for if I were I would ONLY be gleeful about Hannity being outed) but that I also do not know everything nor think I do.
It will be about the money. Where did it come from? Not one of Cohen's three clients paid him any money.
