Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Flagpole wrote:

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/

Even though that article was written by a conservative Trump supporter, I do have the same view on this currently. I recognize that I am not a lawyer and might change my mind if more info comes to me that suggest otherwise.

Then check this post out that replied to DiscoG.

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.

Follow the money wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

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.

I don't doubt that this is all criminal, and I expect Hannity had some untoward business dealing with Cohen. I'm just not sure I needed to know that Hannity was one of Cohen's clients just yet. Hannity is a horrible person, so perhaps he deserves this, but I like to follow the law even if breaking it might benefit me.

Flagpole wrote:

Follow the money wrote:

It will be about the money. Where did it come from? Not one of Cohen's three clients paid him any money.

I don't doubt that this is all criminal, and I expect Hannity had some untoward business dealing with Cohen. I'm just not sure I needed to know that Hannity was one of Cohen's clients just yet. Hannity is a horrible person, so perhaps he deserves this, but I like to follow the law even if breaking it might benefit me.

I think the point might be that the money to pay for things was obtained illegally. It is odd for an attorney to have clients who do not sign agreements, do not pay them anything, yet makes deals for them. Cohen works for Trump, and he helps out however Trump tells him too.

Flagpole wrote:

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/

Even though that article was written by a conservative Trump supporter, I do have the same view on this currently. I recognize that I am not a lawyer and might change my mind if more info comes to me that suggest otherwise.

Read my post - Cohen’s lawyer is responsible for the name release. He was not forced to disclose that relationship, but since he did the default proceeding is to reveal the name, otherwise the legal teams and judge could not make a proper determination of the relationship’s relevance. The judge gave Cohen’s lawyer the option to reveal the name in the letter, on the condition that Stormy’s team and involved government agents would also have to see the name. Cohen’s lawyer kept pushing his luck and then the discussion was opened to others’ input and then he got his a$$ handed to him on precedence established in previous cases. No exceptions are to be made in the name reveal process, that Hannity is a rich and famous person has no bearing on the proceeding.

Remember, Cohen’s lawyer could have easily avoided this by not referring to that relationship as potentially relevant. That he did either means 1) Hannity’s relationship to Cohen is irrelevant meaning Cohen’s lawyer doesn’t know what he’s doing or 2) Hannity’s relationship to Cohen is indeed relevant to the case. I’ll go with the latter. Either way - crazies like Gary should not be blaming the Deep State for this one, it’s all on Cohen’s team. As for Hannity, I dont feel bad, he befriended the wrong people. Btw - is there any doubt Hannity would be made Trump’s new chief of staff immediately after being separated from FOX?

IN the news today, oh boy.

Trump allies press Rosenstein for files on conduct of officials in Russia and Clinton probes

A private meeting came just days after a warning that House Republicans could impeach the deputy attorney general if he does not meet GOP demands.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-allies-press-rosenstein-in-private-meeting-in-latest-sign-of-tensions/2018/04/18/ae2e2fd6-433b-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html

Good evening! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine PM?

Fascism. What's next? Cancel the November elections?

Trump's Minons wrote:

IN the news today, oh boy.

Trump allies press Rosenstein for files on conduct of officials in Russia and Clinton probes

A private meeting came just days after a warning that House Republicans could impeach the deputy attorney general if he does not meet GOP demands.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-allies-press-rosenstein-in-private-meeting-in-latest-sign-of-tensions/2018/04/18/ae2e2fd6-433b-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html

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.

Flagpole wrote:

... I want a clear cut answer on what is legal here.

That the judge asked for the names of the other clients to be revealed indicates that there is an act, to acts, in the case that are deemed illegal. That would be the reason the judge asked for the names to be public. There is something the judge is aware of that has not been made public as of yet.

Criminal Acts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

... I want a clear cut answer on what is legal here.

That the judge asked for the names of the other clients to be revealed indicates that there is an act, to acts, in the case that are deemed illegal. That would be the reason the judge asked for the names to be public. There is something the judge is aware of that has not been made public as of yet.

That is likely true. I hope it is all above board. I shed no tear for Hannity, and I think it is hilarious that he is the third client, especially since Hannity wanted it to remain private.

Anyone else notice that Cohen walks like a gorilla?

More winning. Obamacare is no longer a Republican campaign issue. DiscoGary, and pals, what do you have to say about that? The wall is dead. Repealing Obamacare is dead.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop-spending-health-care-ads_us_5ad7859ee4b03c426daac0ee

Criminal Acts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

... I want a clear cut answer on what is legal here.

That the judge asked for the names of the other clients to be revealed indicates that there is an act, to acts, in the case that are deemed illegal. That would be the reason the judge asked for the names to be public. There is something the judge is aware of that has not been made public as of yet.

If the judge knows something, then she/he would know whether or not Cohen was playing them a fool as soon as the name was spoken in court. True? False? Neither?

I ask because my crackpot theory is he used a name, any name, that wasn't someone far more damning. Clearly I'm not a lawyer.

Flagpole wrote:

Anyone else notice that Cohen walks like a gorilla?

It would seem that Cohen has been broken. He is disenchanted with what he has done for Trump. He may well flip in the Mueller Investigation.

The word is that his phones were tapped, and his emails were intercepted, for months. That word comes from Fox legal analyst, Andrew Napolitano. Watch the Fox News video and here him say it at the 30-50 second point.

Trollminator wrote:

Remember, Cohen’s lawyer could have easily avoided this by not referring to that relationship as potentially relevant. That he did either means 1) Hannity’s relationship to Cohen is irrelevant meaning Cohen’s lawyer doesn’t know what he’s doing or 2) Hannity’s relationship to Cohen is indeed relevant to the case.

3) Use any name as a way to get out of the box they were put in by referring to a third relationship.

I am certainly not a lawyer, so feel free to post 1001 reasons why his lawyer would never use an irrelevant name to close the matter of the "third relationship."

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Remember, Cohen’s lawyer could have easily avoided this by not referring to that relationship as potentially relevant. That he did either means 1) Hannity’s relationship to Cohen is irrelevant meaning Cohen’s lawyer doesn’t know what he’s doing or 2) Hannity’s relationship to Cohen is indeed relevant to the case.

3) Use any name as a way to get out of the box they were put in by referring to a third relationship.

I am certainly not a lawyer, so feel free to post 1001 reasons why his lawyer would never use an irrelevant name to close the matter of the "third relationship."

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.

Disenchanted wrote:That word comes from Fox legal analyst, Andrew Napolitano. Watch the Fox News video and here him say it at the 30-50 second point.

We're relying on a guy whose job it is to promote the Dear Leader 24/7/365?

I'll pass...

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.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Remember, Cohen’s lawyer could have easily avoided this by not referring to that relationship as potentially relevant. That he did either means 1) Hannity’s relationship to Cohen is irrelevant meaning Cohen’s lawyer doesn’t know what he’s doing or 2) Hannity’s relationship to Cohen is indeed relevant to the case.

3) Use any name as a way to get out of the box they were put in by referring to a third relationship.

I am certainly not a lawyer, so feel free to post 1001 reasons why his lawyer would never use an irrelevant name to close the matter of the "third relationship."

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.