Trump's personal lawyer names mystery client: Sean Hannity

[skymiles 3]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-lawyer-arrives-in-court-for-showdown-over-seized-documents/ar-AAvVYib

I'm sure it was for tax advice or something like that.

[kallend 1,623]

skymiles

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-lawyer-arrives-in-court-for-showdown-over-seized-documents/ar-AAvVYib

I'm sure it was for tax advice or something like that.

And Hannity denies any formal legal relationship.

Looks like the rats are turning on each other.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,383]

So who has Sean Hannity been banging???

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,396]

>I'm sure it was for tax advice or something like that.

My bet on the progression:

I never used Cohen for anything!

OK so I used him for X but it's not a big deal.

Clinton did it first.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>I'm sure it was for tax advice or something like that.

My bet on the progression:

I never used Cohen for anything!

OK so I used him for X but it's not a big deal.

Clinton did it first.

Oh, okay, what's the big deal?


Okay, sorry, took me a bit. I forgot that you think everything that deals with Trump is evil. Nevermind you guys go ahead and carry on

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

billvon

>I'm sure it was for tax advice or something like that.

My bet on the progression:

I never used Cohen for anything!

OK so I used him for X but it's not a big deal.

Clinton did it first.

Well, it's kind of funny.

On one hand, Hannity claims he was never a client.

Quote

Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees.

On the other, he wants to claim 'attorney - client privilege'

How can one utilize that privilege if one has never been a client?

Note - No link. It's out there, all over the place.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Phil1111 910]

billvon

>I'm sure it was for tax advice or something like that.

My bet on the progression:

I never used Cohen for anything! YES according to Sean

OK so I used him for X but it's not a big deal. Coming

Clinton did it first. Coming

It took an entire afternoon for Cohen to spit out Sean's name. Yet according to Sean there was never a billable second of legal council.

Yeah right.

Alternatively....mmm....ring..ring....ring..ring Hellow " Sean its your bud DT. Listen my lawyer Cohen is in deep doo doo. We need the name of another person for Cohen to name as a client. Sean "well big D if push comes to shove just use mine."

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

I think our posts crossed.

There's a lot of weaseling in Hannity's words.

Hannity claims he wasn't a client 'in the traditional sense'.

So what kind of 'non-traditional' client was he?

Never received an invoice or paid 'legal fees'.

What kind of fees did he pay?
And how did he pay them? Cash? Bitcoin? Paypal F&F? Kinda doubt that last one, it's traceable.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JoeWeber 2,299]

ryoder

So who has Sean Hannity been banging???

I heard it was someone on DZ.com who regularly posts on SC.

[wmw999 2,121]

As (I think) the only woman still posting regularly on SC,



Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ryoder 1,383]

wmw999

As (I think) the only woman still posting regularly on SC,



Wendy P.

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that Hannity's paramour is a woman?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,396]

>On the other, he wants to claim 'attorney - client privilege'

Yep. After Trump blurted out that he didn't know anything about the agreement with Stormy Daniels (and thus demonstrating that attorney-client privilege does not apply) Hannity is not going to make the same mistake.

Which BTW is pretty easy to do. "Yes, I used him as a lawyer for an unspecified reason. No, I don't want to talk about it." Trump, of course, cannot help himself.

[billvon 2,396]

So now we have a hard link between a right wing media leader and the criminal investigation of Trump's lawyer. Not surprising; he's been under investigation several times for sexual harassment and fraud; understandable he'd be calling that sort of lawyer. Sort of a given for the right wing these days.

But let's all imagine what FOX News and their followers here would be saying it if was discovered that there was a link between a Clinton lawyer under criminal investigation and a CNN anchor.

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

***>I'm sure it was for tax advice or something like that.

My bet on the progression:

I never used Cohen for anything!

OK so I used him for X but it's not a big deal.

Clinton did it first.

Oh, okay, what's the big deal?




I suppose you've never heard the expression "Conflict of interest".

Fox should fire him for violating journalistic ethics (yes, I realize that's funny when applied to Fox "News").

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Phil1111 910]

kallend

******>I'm sure it was for tax advice or something like that.

My bet on the progression:

I never used Cohen for anything!

OK so I used him for X but it's not a big deal.

Clinton did it first.

Oh, okay, what's the big deal?




I suppose you've never heard the expression "Conflict of interest".

Fox should fire him for violating journalistic ethics (yes, I realize that's funny when applied to Fox "News").

Yes, funny,
Sean Hannity’s Ethical Mess
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/sean-hannity-is-client-no-3/558167/

[ryoder 1,383]

Phil1111

Yes, funny,
Sean Hannity’s Ethical Mess
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/sean-hannity-is-client-no-3/558167/

From the article:

Yet Hannity then said he “might have handed” Cohen $10 and said, “I want attorney-client privilege on this.” It’s not clear whether that would meet the legal standard to establish an attorney-client privilege.

That made me think of a Hollywood scene.
But I discovered an author on Wapo thought of it before I did: https://www.google.com/search?ei=5PzVWtr1K5GzjwSuloSAAw&q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+Sean+Hannity%E2%80%99s+idea+of+%E2%80%98attorney-client+privilege%E2%80%99+was+right+out+of+%E2%80%98Breaking+Bad%E2%80%99&oq=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+Sean+Hannity%E2%80%99s+idea+of+%E2%80%98attorney-client+privilege%E2%80%99+was+right+out+of+%E2%80%98Breaking+Bad%E2%80%99&gs_l=psy-ab.3...13791.19856.0.20651.25.25.0.0.0.0.104.1321.22j1.23.0....0...1c.1j2.64.psy-ab..2.5.427...0j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i131i67k1j0i131i46i67k1j46i131i67k1j0i10k1.0.51L2r-3M9VM
Here is the scene:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15nfmd

The line comes at 2:50.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[DJL 232]

kallend

******>I'm sure it was for tax advice or something like that.

My bet on the progression:

I never used Cohen for anything!

OK so I used him for X but it's not a big deal.

Clinton did it first.

Oh, okay, what's the big deal?




I suppose you've never heard the expression "Conflict of interest".

Fox should fire him for violating journalistic ethics (yes, I realize that's funny when applied to Fox "News").

Hannity has no obligation in regards to this, he's a news opinion broadcaster not a politician and we all know he's not the only person at Fox in bed with right wing interests.

Edit: I doubt there's any story here except for Hannity to pump it up a bit, dangle a few things and then over the next decade use it as his centerpiece on how the left is corrupting the legal system into political attacks against law abiding Republicans such as himself. Do not feed the Troll.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Phil1111 910]

ryoder

***

Yes, funny,
Sean Hannity’s Ethical Mess
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/sean-hannity-is-client-no-3/558167/

From the article:

Yet Hannity then said he “might have handed” Cohen $10 and said, “I want attorney-client privilege on this.” It’s not clear whether that would meet the legal standard to establish an attorney-client privilege.

That made me think of a Hollywood scene.
But I discovered an author on Wapo thought of it before I did: https://www.google.com/search?ei=5PzVWtr1K5GzjwSuloSAAw&q=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+Sean+Hannity%E2%80%99s+idea+of+%E2%80%98attorney-client+privilege%E2%80%99+was+right+out+of+%E2%80%98Breaking+Bad%E2%80%99&oq=site%3Awashingtonpost.com+Sean+Hannity%E2%80%99s+idea+of+%E2%80%98attorney-client+privilege%E2%80%99+was+right+out+of+%E2%80%98Breaking+Bad%E2%80%99&gs_l=psy-ab.3...13791.19856.0.20651.25.25.0.0.0.0.104.1321.22j1.23.0....0...1c.1j2.64.psy-ab..2.5.427...0j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i131i67k1j0i131i46i67k1j46i131i67k1j0i10k1.0.51L2r-3M9VM
Here is the scene:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15nfmd

The line comes at 2:50.

You're quite the movie junkie arn't you?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

You're quite the movie junkie arn't you?

This one's TV

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,121]

I'm actually a little uncomfortable with all this naming of legal clients in open court. Seems like a huge invasion of privacy to me. That would apply regardless of the person being invaded.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DJL 232]

wmw999

I'm actually a little uncomfortable with all this naming of legal clients in open court. Seems like a huge invasion of privacy to me. That would apply regardless of the person being invaded.

Wendy P.

I agree. This ACTUALLY DID violate confidentiality. Naming him has repercussions that the court should know about very well. I was listening to some of Comey's* interview this morning and one of the aspects he spoke about was that there were real world repercussions for what he did and didn't speak about publicly, the case for collusion was not made public from him because first they didn't know what they had and second it was different from the email issue because that was a part of the national conversation and relevant to the election. He therefore DID discuss the findings on Weiner's lapton because to take no action or not divulge what they had would actually be the action of suppressing the information and covering it up.

Edited: Wrote Mueller when I meant Comey, those crusty white Republicans all look alike.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DanG 1]

You mean Comey, no Mueller.

- Dan G

[kallend 1,623]

DJL

*********>I'm sure it was for tax advice or something like that.

My bet on the progression:

I never used Cohen for anything!

OK so I used him for X but it's not a big deal.

Clinton did it first.

Oh, okay, what's the big deal?




I suppose you've never heard the expression "Conflict of interest".

Fox should fire him for violating journalistic ethics (yes, I realize that's funny when applied to Fox "News").

Hannity has no obligation in regards to this, he's a news opinion broadcaster not a politician and we all know he's not the only person at Fox in bed with right wing interests.

Edit: I doubt there's any story here except for Hannity to pump it up a bit, dangle a few things and then over the next decade use it as his centerpiece on how the left is corrupting the legal system into political attacks against law abiding Republicans such as himself. Do not feed the Troll.

Disagree.

When Hannity goes on day after day defending Trump and Cohen on Fox NEWS, I think he has an obligation to mention his association with Cohen. Lets contrast that with the WaPo, which on EVERY mention it makes of Amazon or Bezos clearly states that Bezos is the WaPo owner.

But, according to Ryan (Cohen's attorney) Hannity would be EMBARRASSED to have his association with Cohen made public.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DJL 232]

DanG

You mean Comey, no Mueller.

Shit, you're right. Will have to edit that.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DJL 232]

Quote

Disagree.

When Hannity goes on day after day defending Trump and Cohen on Fox NEWS, I think he has an obligation to mention his association with Cohen. Lets contrast that with the WaPo, which on EVERY mention it makes of Amazon or Bezos clearly states that Bezos is the WaPo owner.

But, according to Ryan (Cohen's attorney) Hannity would be EMBARRASSED to have his association with Cohen made public.

I think that's just the difference between WP and Fox, as in that they're not in the same ballpark as each other, WP actually wants to be credible source of information. Hannity is an opinion piece and everyone knows it.

I see him milking this just because of the notoriety of being a Right Wing mouthpiece amidst a Presidential investigation. It makes him some kind of dark hat Woodward and Bernstein. Hell, even G Gordon Liddy made a career out of being a Republican bad boy. He's going to sit atop this pile of shit and crow for a very very long time. Believe me, he and Fox have already sat down and mapped out how they're going to handle this because as long as he's in the news it's $$$'s. I'm sure his viewership had a HUGE spike last night.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher