Sean Hannity is Michael Cohen's Mystery Client

Just as you cited Reagan and ignored George Sorros?

You mean like when they presented the Steele dossier to a FISA court as if it were a perfectly reputable fact filled document?

I think it's apparent by Wood's own ruling to announce Sean Hannity's identity in open court (when she clearly did not have to and it did not
have any bearing on the issue at hand) where her instincts take her.

It just reinforces left wing prejudices and invites more hate to be heaped on the president without having any real bearing on the Cohen case itself.

The idea that Trump was a Putin puppet has generally been discredited.
That part of Mueller's case against Trump is dead.

The effort by Cohen and Hannity to keep their relationship
private was crushed despite it having zero bearing on the issue at hand.

 

Trump supporters do not care about America, it's all about their Messiah Trump

 

So, it is not possible for someone to know and have friends that belong to different political parties and do their job impartially? She knows Soros. So what? She was appointed by Reagan and has been serving ever since- through different partisan administrations. To claim she's partisan now is ridiculous, when she has shown the ability to do her job through different partisan administrations.

What are you so scared will be uncovered in this investigation that you need to discredit the judge, at this point? She's literally done nothing legally, except listen to Cohen's side on privilege, get his lawyers copies of the evidence seized, and consider his point on a special master.

If I meant something about the FISA, you'd know it, because I would have said it. The fact that even Nunes has admitted the FISA was done according to policy, seems to escape you. But, by all means, continue to beat that dead horse. Just don't beat the horse for me. I know it's dead.

I think it's apparent that the judge doesn't have intentions of playing partisan games and intends to handle the case before her transparently. I fail to see why so many are in a partisan tizzy about Hannity's name coming up. Should Hannity be embarrassed that Cohen is his attorney? If so, why? Hannity has plainly said that he talked legal issues with Cohen casually. Cohen obviously counts those conversations as privileged. Where's the problem?

How is the fact that Cohen is under criminal investigation concerning his personal businesses heaping hate on Trump? Do you think people can't tell the difference between the two, or understand that Cohen may have business interests outside Trump?

Names of clients were never privileged. To pretend some horror has befallen Hannity, because his name was mentioned as a Cohen client is exaggeration, at the very least. Absolutely nothing has happened to Hannity because his name was mentioned. Even calls of journalistic issues of ethics has made not one difference. He hasn't lost his job. He hasn't even been "counseled."

As far as keeping their relationship private, having Cohen on Hannity's show multiple times, where they discussed the fact that they are friends, kills your privacy argument.

You are simply wrong when you state any part of Mueller's investigation is dead. Have you conflated Mueller's investigation with Nunes's House Committee? Because Nunes's investigation is over, prematurely, but over.

 

I think our partisan polarization has gotten to a critical point. We see those that disagree with our political opinions as the enemy, rather than a countryman with different ideas and priorities. Russian active measures amplify that very notion. Usually it takes a war, an attack from outside the country, to pull us together as one, in order to fight the enemy. But, we've been at war for two decades almost. War isn't going to be the uniting force this time. I'm not sure what will be. We have Americans thinking our intelligence agencies and law enforcement is bad and Russia is good. Something is very wrong, and we lack leadership pulling us together. Instead, it is forcing us further and further apart… to the point we have people talking about Civil War and dividing up states.

 

Maybe this was already mentioned but it's being reported that it was CNN, ABC, New York Times, and other media outlets who convinced the judge to release Sean Hannity's name via their lawyer Rob Balin. And it's my understanding that Cohen wanted his clients to remain anonymous. He only named his clients after Judge Wood ordered him to. Maybe it's interesting to note (or maybe not...I don't know) that this occurred prior to Hannity making a statement denying that he retained Cohen's services. So it sounds like Wood was working under the assumption that Hannity was, in fact, a bona-fide client. Now, I have no love for Hannity. In fact, I think his non-disclosure of this relationship with Cohen is unethical from a journalistic viewpoint or least extremely dodgy. And I think he got a little bit of karma here. But, I also have to question Judge Wood's motive for releasing Cohen's client's names. I'm not saying I disagree with it yet. I'm just trying to figure it out where I stand myself.

What do you guys think? Should a judge throw privacy to the wind and reveal names that are unrelated to the legal issue at hand and that (presumably) are not under any suspicion of wrong doing themselves?

 

seems lots of folks on Fox News think Hannity ****ed up

Howard Kurtz:

"Sometimes people in journalism, on the news or opinion side, find themselves covering folks with whom they have had friendships or professional dealings," Kurtz wrote. If the relationship is serious enough, it may require recusal. If not, the best course is being transparent and disclosing it."

Alan Dershowitz:

“First of all, Sean, I want to say that I really think that you should have disclosed your relationship with Cohen when you talked about him on this show,” Dershowitz said. “You could have said that you had asked him for advice or whatever. But I think it would have been much, much better had you disclosed that relationship.”

Judge Napolitano:

“I love him. I’ve worked with him for 20 years. He can’t have it both ways,” Napolitano said. “If he was a client, then his confidential communications to Mr. Cohen are privileged. If Mr. Cohen was never his lawyer, then nothing that he said to Mr. Cohen is privileged.”

Napolitano said that Hannity can’t have attorney–client privilege just by paying for services.

“The attorney–client privilege requires a formal relationship reduced to writing for a specific legal purpose,” he said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...-hannity-over-cohen-he-cant-have-it-both-ways

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...nnity-michael-cohen-coverup-article-1.3937852

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...nity-for-not-telling-viewers-about-connection

 

Yeah, I mean all he had to do was say "I know the guy. I've talked to him about trivial legal matters in the past" or something like that. He could have even downplayed it. But, now he really looks like a tool because he was ranting and raving about how Cohen was wronged without telling people they were more than just acquaintances.

 

I think the attorney for the press, Robert Balin I believe is his name, made a very good case and the judge agreed that the public had the right to know the 3rd client.

 

exactly, Cohen did not even have to call Hannity a client, I wonder what it was he did not want investigators to see, what did Hannity and Cohen talk about

if stuff starts coming up about Cohen that hurts Trump, Trump supporters gonna jump on Cohen like they did Comey

 

You don't understand what an email is... do you?

 

No doubt in his arrogance he assumed that this relationship would never be made public. And, as has been demonstrated several times in this thread, "attorney/client privilege" doesn't mean what people think it does.

 

yep, were all gonna learn the true meaning, including Trump and his clan, the privilege does not mean if your friends with a lawyer all your conversations are protected - especially if crime is involved

 

And she then said she lied, and was fired/quit. And still....

 

Since Trump is not in trouble, but Mueller/Strzok/Comey/all the other liars in the DOJ are in trouble, you might be right.

 

You prove my point. Hannity is under no obligation at all to reveal his personal matters, yet the lefties are so terribly desperate to blame something on someone that they make up "crimes" to blame on innocent people.

 

If Hannity spoke to Cohen for legal advice, and considered becoming a client, that's all that matters. He does not have to become a client, money does not have to change hands, no contract needs to be signed.

If a person needs a lawyer, and meets with a lawyer to interview the lawyer before actually hiring the lawyer, the person needs to be able to speak openly and frankly about his legal issue in order for the person and the lawyer to determine their suitability to the issue. If the person - or lawyer - decides its not a match, and that's the extent of the contact, they never meet again, they still get full attorney client privilege.

The DOJ/FBI lie. They cannot be trusted. That's what all this "investigation" is revealing.

 

you do no know that yet, Trump does seem to be worried from what we are hearing though

 

your right, Hannnity does not have to be ethical and disclose his relationship on the air, but it would of been the ethical thing to do

would of save Hannity some embarrassment had he just disclosed this information

 

1+1=2...

Hannity ISN'T Ethical...

Etc...

 

You would be worried if a corrupt and out of control FBI/DOJ was intent on ruining you, a DOJ/FBI who would lie and make up evidence and leak information and perform illegal raids in order to ruin you.

 

Why? He is a private citizen, his private business is none of your business, or mine. You only pretend to be upset because you hate Trump and like all the haters will abuse the law and morals if it advances your hate.

 

It would be interesting to know if Hannity was talking to Cohen at about the time that Hannity's boss and fellow Fox commentator O'Reilly were being fired
for sexual impropriety ... considering Cohen was an expert on handling those things. Did Trump refer him as a "fixer" to Hannity's problems?

Bet Mrs. Hannity would like to know about that as well.

Funny how Hannnity's own propensity to build conspiracies on loose connections can be used so easily here .... Conspiracy Karma.

 

because people like to get their news from ethical reporters, maybe your an exception to the rule....

you have any disclosures you want to make?

 

if I had committed a crime with my attorney, I would be very upset about whatever my lawyer did to allow this to happen, that is for sure

otherwise I could care less as I would know all the privileged stuff would never see the light of day

 

Well we know she lied, they had tons of contact with Russia lol