**President Trump 2018 Thread**

[RockRaines]

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.

I think his default setting is lie first.

[Balta1701]

I think his default setting is lie first.

If this was a complete nothingburger then Hannity played this totally wrong. He had Cohen's lawyers fighting tooth and nail to prevent his name from ever coming up, to the point where the whole courtroom was waiting for the unmasking of client 3 and they built it up to the point they generated gasps. If his statement that he was never represented by Cohen was true, then Hannity should have just released him from any stated or implied attorney-client privilege, at which point they could have simply said "we talked about real estate" and if the documents backed that up then his name doesn't come up in this again. They could have just declared "he wasn't really acting as a lawyer" and given up those rights, then every document is released and there's plenty to clear his name. Instead they made it look like they had something they were desperate to hide. Their own actions don't support the statement he released.

 

Furthermore, this is also true:

@PalmerReport

Sean Hannity is a wealthy man who can afford any attorney he wants. Michael Cohen is a terrible attorney, because he?€™s really a fixer instead. Hannity knew that. No way in hell was Hannity using Cohen for legitimate legal advice. Whatever it was about, it?€™s going to be ugly ????

[Big Hurtin]

I think his default setting is lie first.

Case in point

 

In one fell swoop, Hannity:

 

1 Says Cohen lied to a federal court about being his lawyer

2 Says any docs about him the feds seized aren't privileged

3 Makes himself a witness for Mueller

4 Revealed an undisclosed on-air conflict of interest

5 Contradicts what he said on the radio

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/sta...987306925387776

 

 

[Soxbadger]

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

[Texsox]

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

 

I know a couple lawyers who only work at the law part time. Their other legitimate business interests occupy most of their time. What it does is potentially offer privilege, which we are learning may not be iron clad.

 

"Sean Hannity did not have legal relations with that man"

 

Post of the Month worthy

[StrangeSox]

The Sean Hannity news could not be funnier

 

[Dick Allen]

I know a couple lawyers who only work at the law part time. Their other legitimate business interests occupy most of their time. What it does is potentially offer privilege, which we are learning may not be iron clad.

 

 

 

Post of the Month worthy

Hannity wants it both ways. He thinks his conversations with Cohen should be privileged, but he's not his lawyer.

 

Whatever is going on, it's been one of the better episodes of The Apprentice ever.

[G&T]

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

 

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.

[Balta1701]

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.

A 5 minute conversation with an attorney on something they have expertise on can absolutely be considered something subject to attorney-client privilege, especially if it was in a setting such as when Cohen was appearing on his show.

 

But on the other part of this you are correct that, if this was a 5 minute conversation, Hannity can waive those rights and allow his short conversations with Cohen about real estate to become available for review. If there is nothing there, then he can act like there is nothing there, and he acted like there's way more in there than a couple short conversations.

[Soxbadger]

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.

[bmags]

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.

 

Yeah I have no idea but it certainly seemed to me to be more like you are saying. Cohen wanted to inflate his client list to make him seem more legitimate, so he chose Hannity whom he's loosely provided legal guidance to because he thought he'd be a team player (my analysis).

[Soxbadger]

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.

[G&T]

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.

 

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.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

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.

[G&T]

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.

 

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:

 

Third, Ryan said the client had personally contacted Cohen and his team over the weekend to request that their name not be shared and that Cohen appeal any decision by the court to reveal his name.

 

Link. Similarly phrased here.

 

I agree that Cohen is stupid and this might all be nothing, but it doesn't add up right now.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

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.

[southsider2k5]

I thought that you had a pay an attorney to be considered a client? (barring obvious pro bono work) Am I wrong about that?

[Soxbadger]

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

 

Over the years, the courts have provided several definitions of the attorney-client

privilege. Judge Wyzanski provided the seminal definition in United States v. United Shoe

Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950):

The [attorney-client] privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the

privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the

communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his

subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a

lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was

informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers © for the

purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal

services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the

purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been

(a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.

[Balta1701]

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.

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.

[Soxbadger]

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.

[Balta1701]

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.

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.

[G&T]

Yeah...this is totally looking like nothing: Sean Hannity’s Ties to Two More Trump-Connected Lawyers

Edited April 17, 2018 by G&T

[Soxbadger]

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.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

 

[G&T]

Those are actually legitimate lawyers, so Im not sure why its shocking that people in the same circle have similar lawyers.

 

Actually I find totally predictable that they are using the same lawyers.