It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sean Hannity ID’d as Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen’s Mystery Client

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Dfairlite

Wow, if the tables were turned and this was Maddow and Obama you all would be crying about freedom of the press and getting fed news because Obama was paying for it through his 'lawyer'.

Come now hypocrites see this for what it is. On the surface it is nothing, below the surface it says everything. Also stop trying to 'party' this. This transcends political parties and if you think that either of the Clintons didn't have media spouting for them you have totally denied ignorance. In this case it is just getting shoved into our face.


It's common knowledge that the media had a love affair with Obama and its well documented the guy is seen as a Saint that could do no wrong while spying on allies, numerous drone strikes, toppling legit governments, proxy wars etc.

But the perfect president


Ok. But did Obama have a high-profile member of the media, that acted as his number one apologist and defender, take free legal advice (or paid advice...Hannity has said both) from Obama's personal lawyer, while that media member was reporting on an investigation Obama was a potential target of and dismissing the entire investigation as a conspiracy against the president?

This seems to be a very unique situation that I have not seen comparable to what we have seen in the past.


I don't trust the media or my government so no I'm not surprised nor would I be surprised if Obama did the same thing or worse




posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

Source? Proof other than speculation? That is the difference.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Dfairlite

Wow, if the tables were turned and this was Maddow and Obama you all would be crying about freedom of the press and getting fed news because Obama was paying for it through his 'lawyer'.

Come now hypocrites see this for what it is. On the surface it is nothing, below the surface it says everything. Also stop trying to 'party' this. This transcends political parties and if you think that either of the Clintons didn't have media spouting for them you have totally denied ignorance. In this case it is just getting shoved into our face.


It's common knowledge that the media had a love affair with Obama and its well documented the guy is seen as a Saint that could do no wrong while spying on allies, numerous drone strikes, toppling legit governments, proxy wars etc.

But the perfect president


Ok. But did Obama have a high-profile member of the media, that acted as his number one apologist and defender, take free legal advice (or paid advice...Hannity has said both) from Obama's personal lawyer, while that media member was reporting on an investigation Obama was a potential target of and dismissing the entire investigation as a conspiracy against the president?

This seems to be a very unique situation that I have not seen comparable to what we have seen in the past.


YES he had very many


Nice cherry-picking. If you take my comment in it's entire context, the answer is no. Obama did not.

Please do not be dishonest.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: carewemust

Fire hannity because he talked with a lawyer? LOL they're ridiculous.


I don't get why I should care that Hannity sought legal advice from a lawyer to the president of the United States. I mean the guy was respected enough to be a lawyer to a president why wouldn't he seek his advice or even hire him.

I just don't understand the crime or big deal. I've sought advice from a lawyer without hiring them.

I just feel like this is the democrats tactics of whatever needed to take down trump and also distract us for another 3 years over petty nonsense


Not so much the presidents lawyer but he is his self described fixer...
www.thedailybeast.com...


Well you can be a fixer and still stay within the law. Plus I don't see this as grounds for an fbi raid unless they know something we dont.

Something better happen. We all know fox news defends trump and is conservative



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Dfairlite

Wow, if the tables were turned and this was Maddow and Obama you all would be crying about freedom of the press and getting fed news because Obama was paying for it through his 'lawyer'.

Come now hypocrites see this for what it is. On the surface it is nothing, below the surface it says everything. Also stop trying to 'party' this. This transcends political parties and if you think that either of the Clintons didn't have media spouting for them you have totally denied ignorance. In this case it is just getting shoved into our face.


It's common knowledge that the media had a love affair with Obama and its well documented the guy is seen as a Saint that could do no wrong while spying on allies, numerous drone strikes, toppling legit governments, proxy wars etc.

But the perfect president


Ok. But did Obama have a high-profile member of the media, that acted as his number one apologist and defender, take free legal advice (or paid advice...Hannity has said both) from Obama's personal lawyer, while that media member was reporting on an investigation Obama was a potential target of and dismissing the entire investigation as a conspiracy against the president?

This seems to be a very unique situation that I have not seen comparable to what we have seen in the past.


I don't trust the media or my government so no I'm not surprised nor would I be surprised if Obama did the same thing or worse


But he didn't and to invoke the "but Obama" excuse in this instance is not applicable and illogical.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Dfairlite

Wow, if the tables were turned and this was Maddow and Obama you all would be crying about freedom of the press and getting fed news because Obama was paying for it through his 'lawyer'.

Come now hypocrites see this for what it is. On the surface it is nothing, below the surface it says everything. Also stop trying to 'party' this. This transcends political parties and if you think that either of the Clintons didn't have media spouting for them you have totally denied ignorance. In this case it is just getting shoved into our face.


It's common knowledge that the media had a love affair with Obama and its well documented the guy is seen as a Saint that could do no wrong while spying on allies, numerous drone strikes, toppling legit governments, proxy wars etc.

But the perfect president


Ok. But did Obama have a high-profile member of the media, that acted as his number one apologist and defender, take free legal advice (or paid advice...Hannity has said both) from Obama's personal lawyer, while that media member was reporting on an investigation Obama was a potential target of and dismissing the entire investigation as a conspiracy against the president?

This seems to be a very unique situation that I have not seen comparable to what we have seen in the past.


YES he had very many


Nice cherry-picking. If you take my comment in it's entire context, the answer is no. Obama did not.

Please do not be dishonest.


ok noted
however i learned it from you...



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: howtonhawky

Source? Proof other than speculation? That is the difference.


It is all true that the news stations had a woody for obama..

everything in introverts post fits the obama narrative except for the investigation part.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Dfairlite

Wow, if the tables were turned and this was Maddow and Obama you all would be crying about freedom of the press and getting fed news because Obama was paying for it through his 'lawyer'.

Come now hypocrites see this for what it is. On the surface it is nothing, below the surface it says everything. Also stop trying to 'party' this. This transcends political parties and if you think that either of the Clintons didn't have media spouting for them you have totally denied ignorance. In this case it is just getting shoved into our face.


It's common knowledge that the media had a love affair with Obama and its well documented the guy is seen as a Saint that could do no wrong while spying on allies, numerous drone strikes, toppling legit governments, proxy wars etc.

But the perfect president


Ok. But did Obama have a high-profile member of the media, that acted as his number one apologist and defender, take free legal advice (or paid advice...Hannity has said both) from Obama's personal lawyer, while that media member was reporting on an investigation Obama was a potential target of and dismissing the entire investigation as a conspiracy against the president?

This seems to be a very unique situation that I have not seen comparable to what we have seen in the past.


YES he had very many


Nice cherry-picking. If you take my comment in it's entire context, the answer is no. Obama did not.

Please do not be dishonest.


ok noted
however i learned it from you...


Grow up and learn how to properly converse.

It is this sort of lack of intelligence that brings ATS and it's members in to the gutter.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: carewemust

Fire hannity because he talked with a lawyer? LOL they're ridiculous.


I don't get why I should care that Hannity sought legal advice from a lawyer to the president of the United States. I mean the guy was respected enough to be a lawyer to a president why wouldn't he seek his advice or even hire him.

I just don't understand the crime or big deal. I've sought advice from a lawyer without hiring them.

I just feel like this is the democrats tactics of whatever needed to take down trump and also distract us for another 3 years over petty nonsense


Not so much the presidents lawyer but he is his self described fixer...
www.thedailybeast.com...


Well you can be a fixer and still stay within the law. Plus I don't see this as grounds for an fbi raid unless they know something we dont.

Something better happen. We all know fox news defends trump and is conservative


True but if we extrapolate from the situation that unless they broke the law by breaking in the door then indeed they have some stormy secret stuff...

This goes all the way to the top as far as getting permission to break the confidentiality of the client/lawyer. So either they just broke the justice system or they have some real dirt on the news host and the lawyer.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Dfairlite

Wow, if the tables were turned and this was Maddow and Obama you all would be crying about freedom of the press and getting fed news because Obama was paying for it through his 'lawyer'.

Come now hypocrites see this for what it is. On the surface it is nothing, below the surface it says everything. Also stop trying to 'party' this. This transcends political parties and if you think that either of the Clintons didn't have media spouting for them you have totally denied ignorance. In this case it is just getting shoved into our face.


It's common knowledge that the media had a love affair with Obama and its well documented the guy is seen as a Saint that could do no wrong while spying on allies, numerous drone strikes, toppling legit governments, proxy wars etc.

But the perfect president


Ok. But did Obama have a high-profile member of the media, that acted as his number one apologist and defender, take free legal advice (or paid advice...Hannity has said both) from Obama's personal lawyer, while that media member was reporting on an investigation Obama was a potential target of and dismissing the entire investigation as a conspiracy against the president?

This seems to be a very unique situation that I have not seen comparable to what we have seen in the past.


YES he had very many


Nice cherry-picking. If you take my comment in it's entire context, the answer is no. Obama did not.

Please do not be dishonest.


ok noted
however i learned it from you...


Grow up and learn how to properly converse.

It is this sort of lack of intelligence that brings ATS and it's members in to the gutter.


trufs hurts you mucho

i a done growing so deal with me


the post in question does indeed fit the obama narrative

the post potus had every news outlet cept fox carrying his load...



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I'm not sure what I believe but I'm not making excuses. My main thing is they better find something substantial otherwise I see this as the fbi being biased and a politically motivated tool.

I'm skeptical as everyone should be at this point In the soap opera



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan

I heard an interesting theory from Avenatti.

He thinks that Cohen named Hannity as a client so that privilege can be invoked on documentation which Cohen knows has been gathered. Thinks Avenatti.

Makes sense. Why else name Hannity? Avenatti is pretty sharp.


I figured the same thing, but isn't it up to the team that sorts everything to figure out which documents belong to which case?

Given how organized Cohen seems to be, that work is probably done for them.

What if something (such as a back channel communication between Trump and Hannity) were in those files. Would it be privileged or not?



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky



trufs hurts you mucho

i a done growing so deal with me


I didn't know being a member of this site required experience in dealing with kindergartners.



the post potus had every news outlet cept fox carrying his load...


But that is not the same as what is happening in this instance.

If you lack the ability to discern context, that is not my problem.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI



My main thing is they better find something substantial otherwise I see this as the fbi being biased and a politically motivated tool.


I think I will wait to see what comes of this before I make any assumptions. To do otherwise is illogical.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

so testy you are.

I already told you they are different situations.

Are you able to comprehend my post?

I said the difference is that obama was not under investigation.

So why do you ignore my comments just so you can try to get in a cheap shot?

Lighten up man.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
So much for attorney-client privilege.

One more right we are losing to Government overreach.


I couldn't have said it any better. We'll cross that off our list of rights. I wonder what's next?



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: KnightFire

originally posted by: Metallicus
So much for attorney-client privilege.

One more right we are losing to Government overreach.


I couldn't have said it any better. We'll cross that off our list of rights. I wonder what's next?


double post
edit on 17-4-2018 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: KnightFire

originally posted by: Metallicus
So much for attorney-client privilege.

One more right we are losing to Government overreach.


I couldn't have said it any better. We'll cross that off our list of rights. I wonder what's next?


c'mon, this is CRIMINAL probe of Cohen...."OUR".....rights weren't violated...if for one minute you think that they wouldn't have something on Cohen, and then go and raid his office, home, etc. for something "iffy"......you don't know how the justice department works. unlike our president, they look ahead as to what the consequences would be...good or bad....that pertain to their very public action in such a high profile case....in other words, they're not stupid.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
It looks like Sean Hannity's job at FoxNews is now locked-in and safe, because Democrats (the ones who voted against tax cuts for Americans) are demanding that Fox News fire Hannity.

thehill.com...


Democrats voted for tax cuts for Americans, many times over, including under Obama.

The reason these democrats voted against these tax cuts is that they didn't give middle income and poor Americans big enough tax cuts, instead giving nearly all of it to the top .01%



posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: cosmickat

originally posted by: Cygnis
This is just More bread and circuses.

MOAR BREAD!! MOAR BREAD, We're TIRED of the CIRCUSES!

and not the crappy wonderbread fluff, I want REAL bread, like German Peasant Bread!


Let them eat cake !!!
Chocolate...
2 scoops of ice cream



Lashings of Dijon mustard as well



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join