Soxbadger

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 02:30 PM) Yeah...this is totally looking like nothing: Sean Hannity’s Ties to Two More Trump-Connected Lawyers Those are actually legitimate lawyers, so Im not sure why its shocking that people in the same circle have similar lawyers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 01:56 PM) No, but last week when Cohen was raided, he could absolutely have said "I was briefly a client of Cohen's and I consulted with him regarding real estate". He has specifically talked about this case, after the raid, and this person specifically, on air, without disclosing that he had a private and business relationship with him. That's a clear lie of omission at a point when disclosing that should have been done by any honest member of the press. My guess is the opposite. You don't have a business relationship with Donald Trump's Fixer unless you need a fixer for something, and you don't try to cover it up unless you have a reason to cover it up. Im not going to get into "honest member of the press" or any of that because it is not really relevant. If Hannity discussed something terrible with Cohen, he absolutely under no circumstances should have discussed it at all on air, wherever. I dont care about his "honest member of the press", I would care about keeping him out of jail whatever. Its fun to speculate, but its just speculating without any new evidence. Maybe Ill be wrong, maybe Ill be right. But at first I did think there was something there, but I just dont feel that way anymore.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 01:40 PM) Revealing his name caused embarrassment in no small part because he went as far as he could to hide his name, including a lie of omission while commenting on the case on his programs and having Cohen's attorneys argue to have his name hidden. If he had simply had a conversation about real estate holdings with Cohen as he claims, he could have been forthcoming with that information and avoided the embarrassment. He could have even released the attorney-client privilege, basically saying that in his eyes the person was not functioning as his attorney. You can note that he still has not done so. I disagree. No one wants to be associated with Cohen at this point. If I was Hannity the reason I wouldnt want people to know I was connected to Cohen because I have been harping on the FBI, the raid etc, and now people may question if my motivation was self serving. When Hannity started railing on the FBI, he had no way of knowing that eventually Cohen would be facing federal prosecution. So while he could have easily said "I talked to him about real estate" months/years ago, it was too far down the line to now come clean. We shall see what happens, but my guess is that none of the Hannity stuff is really that important.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 12:53 PM) I thought that you had a pay an attorney to be considered a client? (barring obvious pro bono work) Am I wrong about that? Its not 100% a requirement. An easy example is that if you came in for a consultation and then never hired the attorney, what you talked about would still be privileged. This is from Jenner Blocks Guide (its 452 pages if you want to read it) https://jenner.com/system/assets/assets/894...egeHandbook.pdf

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 12:42 PM) Well the problem I see is that the AC relationship is client based, not attorney based. At some point, according to Cohen's attorneys, Hannity discussed the possibility that his name could be revealed and he said he didn't want that to happen to avoid embarrassment. So either Hannity told Cohen to assert the privilege or he didn't. You are also assuming Cohen's attorneys weren't directly involved in this conversation which is not consistent with the following account of what happened: Link. Similarly phrased here. I agree that Cohen is stupid and this might all be nothing, but it doesn't add up right now. Right the AC relationship is client based. Therefore if Hannity really wanted to protect his interest he should have had an attorney show up to court and object on his behalf when the judge ordered the clients name be revealed. Hannity had no representation at the hearing. If you really did something bad, youd think with 30+mil youd have someone in court, who would file something on behalf of "John Doe a client of Michael Cohen". Its all guessing at this point.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 12:06 PM) Cohen said that Hannity told him not to reveal his name because it would cause embarrassment. So your argument is that Cohen (or his attorney) lied to a judge. If Cohen told his attorney that Hannity was a client and then the attorney told the judge, no one lied to the judge. This happens all the time. And Hannity was right, revealing his name did cause embarrassment. Cohen has no clue what he is doing. From what I can tell he barely has any understanding of being an attorney or how attorney client relationship works. The bottom line is I dont believe anything Cohen says. I think that if there was something really troubling for Hannity, Hannity would have had an attorney there trying to protect his attorney client privilege. Its not like Im some Hannity supporter and I originally did think more was there. Just now Im not so sure.

In other news: http://abc7news.com/politics/supreme-court...-vague/3356124/ Gorusch sides against govt, states that law making it easier to deport immigrants is too vague.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 09:42 AM) But then why did Cohen have to disclose Hannity was a client? The only reason this became an issue is because the FBI must have seized documents related to Hannity. I don't think this could be a 5 minute conversation. Cohen must have kept a file on something. And it can't be a 5 minute recording on a phone call, because he probably wouldn't be considered a "client". Many people in the press try to cozy up to a presidential administration to gain access. There could be any number of journalists (not to mention politicians and business people) that called Cohen to earn brownie points, but none were considered "clients". Something doesn't sit right. Big question I have: why wasn't Hannity prepared for this yesterday? He had no clear messaging and fumbled all day trying to explain it away. There are PR firms that deal with crises like this. If it is truly nothing, and he was only doing this to earn brownie points, then he should have been prepared to deal with the appearance of impropriety that was surely to follow his exposure. I think it's possible there is something to this relationship with Cohen that he didn't want to talk to anyone about and hoped that his name would be kept secret. My answer is Cohen is an idiot and he doesnt understand attorney client privilege nor being a real attorney. So he considered Hannity a "client", even though he really wasnt one. If Hannity really was a client, he shot himself in the foot with all of those statements yesterday.

Just my opinion, but I think that he was talking to Cohen to earn brownie points with Trump.

Based on Hannity's comments, going to say that there is likely nothing there. I cant imagine he isnt smart enough to consult a real lawyer before he talked about it.

Seeing as the only "work" Cohen seems to do as an attorney is hush payments, Im going to guess that is what Hannity was paying him for. Cohen really had to be up to something, because only having 3 clients is absurdly small. Its not like he was general counsel for Trump's business, the business actually has its own real lawyers. (Edit) So some quick research, maybe related to: http://www.newsweek.com/sean-hannity-debbi...fox-news-588881

Irrespective of policy, is this type of malfeasance (if proven true) okay? https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/epa...ress/index.html

QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 11, 2018 -> 01:34 PM) https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/983513779014057984 When did Fox News become the anti-war station... Are other people at Fox saying the same thing or just Carlson? There is definitely something peculiar about the timing. Not to mention the last strike was almost 1 year ago to the day, so definitely reason to be suspicious about whats going on over there.

QUOTE (Whitesoxin2019 @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 05:01 PM) USPS changed the way they deliver from weight-based to that 'length/width/height/girth' system. means it's a helluva lot more expensive to send s*** through USPS. hell it's expensive to send packages using any american company parcel companies, including the USPS. they all make it to where private citizens who want to send like 5 packages in total in december pay hundreds of bucks for sending only 5 packages in contrast to companies who pay pennies on the dollar for sending hundreds of packages (like amazon). go one step further and youll also see that because of the cheaper shipping, amazon is also able to attain a monopoly in the industry. im all for the free market but this is one of those times when gov't needs to step in to stop the cronyism Ever wonder why Amazon can do free shipping but Newegg doesn't? This is why. It's a classic case of government picking winners and losers instead of the free market working. American taxpayers give an $18 billion gift to the post office every year http://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ Usps is a government agency. How could someone ever believe they don't use tax payer money? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Im not sure who said USPS doesnt use Tax payer money. The USPS has stated over and over again that they lose no money fulfilling Amazon's shipments. I cant comment on the anecdotal evidence, but generally speaking someone who buys 10 billion widgets pays less per widget than the person who buys 1. Just like a store like Walmart can sell widgets for cheaper than the local store. Im not sure if you understand the term "cronyism" as no one from Amazon is on Trump's staff or related to his govt. Cronyism would be more akin to appointing Pruitt to EPA, etc. Ive never heard of any claims that Amazon has some sort of access that other companies dont, if anything its the opposite, Amazon is disfavored by the govt as shown by Trump's comments. As for NewEgg, Im sure they have an economic reason for not offering competitive shipping, but again, Amazon shipping is for "Prime" members who pay a monthly premium for the service. That isnt even discussed in your comments about NewEgg. If I order 1 thing from Newegg and pay $5 for shipping, is that not technically cheaper than paying $9+ for a monthly prime membership? Amazon is successful because they created a new model. Not because they are getting some sort of benefit from the US govt.

QUOTE (Whitesoxin2019 @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 04:43 PM) I don't think the Amazon mess is personal. Amazon is becoming too much of a big fish (with unlimited automation potential) that is taking advantage of the USPS and taxpayer money. If this continues amazon will have 90% marketshare, almost all their product from foreign countries and not enough jobs to match the market share. Amazon doesnt take advantage of the USPS. Amazon pays the USPS for a service, just like you or I. And in fact the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act made it illegal for USPS to price parcel delivery below their costs. http://about.usps.com/news/statements/080117.htm The only reason Trump is attacking Amazon is political. If there was someone with a legitimate beef about taxes, it would be states as Amazon can theoretically circumvent state/local taxes. But Amazon now pays taxes in approximately 45 states.

QUOTE (Whitesoxin2019 @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 04:40 PM) Debunk anything I linked. Everything I linked he is responsible for. That's why I linked it. The links are well organized for your bookmarking and viewing pleasure. It was my honor to provide this community with a little bit of numbers. Okay I picked a random link: http://archive.is/5IFem So this article states it had nothing to do with Trump, and had to do with backlog from hurricane season. I legitimately just picked 1 random link and it actually went against your argument that it had anything to do with Trump.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 04:36 PM) So again, what is Trump actually doing and responsible for? A mess of links tells me zero. Tells you how great of an economy he inherited because most economic changes take what 1-2 years minimum to see any impact? Interesting that in none of those links were anything about the last month, DOW going down due to trade war, Amazon going down due to unfounded attacks...

QUOTE (Whitesoxin2019 @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 04:19 PM) The stock market is a prediction of the future. People invest because they believe things will be good going forward. So a high stock market is a vote of faith in the current administration. If you want to say Obama set this up that's fine, but going forward is all Trump, good or bad. Trump's Economics Policy is not just based on his instincts alone; It is actually called "American School of Economics", the economic policies of Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln, which led the United States to the most prosperous state in the world during that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics) Here is a good article on Trump Boosting Business and Economic Growth http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/360...economic-growth Personally I think Trump is holding the economy back. US economy should be booming even more. Really hard to prove, but you can see the negative impact he has on companies like Amazon when he attacks them for political reasons. Not to mention I personally believe hitching our economy to mercantilism is the equivalent of betting on a horse and buggy to beat a car in a race. Possible, but unlikely.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 04:06 PM) Change FBI to CIA and you have JFK. Youre going to have to refresh my recollection on this... Is it that he was upset with the CIA after Bay of Pigs? Because that seemingly is quite different, but maybe there is more. I never have really studied JFK so not someone Im too familiar with the reference.

QUOTE (Whitesoxin2019 @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 03:53 PM) I mean there is negative things on every president, not really a fan of either bush . I think Trump and Obama are/were way better than those two. I don't think Trump degrades America, how is it any different than when Michelle Obama said something along the lines of "This is the first time I was ever proud of my country?" It will probably come down to how you take the message. For someone who was foreclosed, lost their items in a storage locker auction and now works at home depot, "Make America Great Again" comes across the same way when Obama said "Change". I think that misses the main point on the post. Putting Jared and Ivanka in the White House is completely against all US norms. Attacking the judiciary repeatedly, pandering conspiracy theories about the FBI, etc. These are not the actions of a President. If he just deleted his twitter and acted Presidential, it would solve so many problems.

QUOTE (Whitesoxin2019 @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 03:33 PM) Well I know you are smart enough to know the rabbit hole digs deeper than that. There are literally too many lies or deceptions on Trump to take anything to serious. Which is dangerous, because if he really is as bad as some of you make him out to be I will never listen to the media. It's kind of like the boy who cried wolf. If there is something wrong with Trump, it wont be the media or hollywood telling me. I know there are some not so great things about Trump, but I had to figure that out myself. Well I would always suggest you do your own research on anyone and not take someone else's word for things. Most of the "bad" (imo) things Trump has done, are right from his twitter, so you cant really blame that on the media or Hollywood, as that is directly from his mouth. He completely undermines separation of powers and he seems to have little or no interest in actually being "President." He doesnt care about conflicts of interest, he doesnt care about anything but himself. He constantly undermines our system of government, when he has little to no understanding how it actually works. You cant blame the media for Trump trying to give his kids/family jobs in the White House that they are not qualified for. These arent really partisan issues. This isnt what the media or Hollywood says, this is the only conclusion you can come to from reading his twitter feed. I have no problem with someone who disagrees on policy. You think immigrants are bad for the US? You think free trade is bad? Whatever, people can disagree. But I dont think you can reasonably look at how Trump acts and conclude that he is doing good for the US. At the end of the day, what bothers me the most is that he constantly degrades America and its citizens. That somehow America isnt great, when that just isnt true. America is great, but could still be better. /shrugs

QUOTE (Whitesoxin2019 @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 03:28 PM) Ok... you all make it hard to leave this place because you can't use a simple search engine to find a video. Its in the Stossel video as evidence of Trump's mannerisms.

QUOTE (Whitesoxin2019 @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 03:05 PM) It's video proof and worth a watch. But go ahead and pass. I should probably just block you because you bring nothing to the discussion but anger and hatred to anyone with a differing opinion from your own. While I think that a lot of your comments here are way off base. The Stossel video does present evidence that Trump uses the same mannerism when he makes fun of anyone. Impossible to tell intent, but objectively speaking it does present evidence that Trump's actions there were not specifically targeting the handicap. Although you could also argue that in all of those videos he is trying to make his opponent seem handicap... The second part of the segment with the Iraq war was pretty bad though. They specifically quote Trump saying "Yeah, I guess so..." Then it moves towards how "gung ho" he was about the invasion and about how Trump flips his position. Im pretty sure any of the evidence in this video could be used to support whatever opinion the viewer wants. And I feel like Ive seen these type of posts before.

QUOTE (Scoots @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 03:04 PM) Why does it seem like last year was easier to stomach in the moment than this one? At least, that's what it feels like to me. Because it seems many posters thought rebuild meant 1 year and this year theyd be in the playoff hunt. Not sure why, but it really does appear that people thought this team was going to win a lot of games.

Michael Cohen's office has allegedly been raided by the FBI.