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

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

originally posted by: dawnstar
if hannity is telling the truth, then, by what I am hearing by the tv talking heads, he wasn't a "client" , which makes me wonder why he was brought up in the courtroom as being one, especially when he made it clear that he didn't want to be mentioned.
either cohen is too stupid to know what a client is, or he's hoping that they'll be able to keep the conversations between the two confidential for some reason.

but with no retainer, no billing, it might be a little hard to convince the judge that he was a client. more like one of those friends that every lawyer has that's looking for free legal advice, or maybe a media spokesman looking for clarity of legal issues so he can understand a story better.
or, maybe cohen was a go between between hannity and trump helping to coordinate the echo chamber that seems to exist between fox news, trump's tweets, and other far right soundboards.

Yes hannity today on his show said he has never paid cohen but has on multiple occasions invoked attorney client privilege and then asked cohen legal advice. Sounds like a client to me...also sounds like efforts were made to keep things off record too. One could possibly assume that all the meetings were between them were recorded or at the least noted somewhere by cohen.

So Trump and Hannity share a creepy lawyer. Big surprise. How can these people be so foolish in their transparency. Most likely because they didn't think it would become transparent, or that they could buy/power their way out of exposure... as Trump has done (or at least tried to do) so many times now.

And now we have an extension of the reality-TV media sitting in the highest office in the land... who rails against the media. Insane times.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Hannity has tweeted....albeit a bit late after his previous denials ....that he did in fact get " real estate " advice from Cohen.
But if that is all it was ...why try and deny it...or keep it secret in the first place.
He ( Hannity ) is such a suck up..the shadenfreude is delicious. Uses his platform to preach...then gets caught with his metaphorical pants down ?
Whatever this circus is all about..it is better than Netflix !!

Eta
The alternative facts are streaming thick and fast down Hannity's twitter feed.......like a Golden Shower

No crime here, folks. Don't let that stop you.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: howtonhawky

Not sure what they could investigate him for, honestly. He's not in any position of power, elected office, or anything else. I mean they *could* drum up some manner of "impartial media" case on him but assuming that survived accusations of First Amendment violations the entire news industry would have to be brought up on the same charges.

What if he was being paid to pass along certain "favorable" views of certain candidates, or what if he was paid to pile on dirt on certain organizations that are investigating certain politicians?

Don't get me wrong, I don't really think that hannity used Cohen as a lawyer for a NY minute. I think Cohen needed a name of a 3rd client and reached for a guy he knew who wouldn't complain too loudly and might just play along. So, I do not think that Hannity is an actual client of Cohen, because I don't think Cohen is an actual lawyer. I have yet to hear of him acting like one, he acts more like a mob "fixer" as has been said over and over.

If Hannity had little to nothing to do with Cohen, it's not Hannity's problem. Not really anyway. It's Trump/Cohen's problem bc his tenuous claim to "attorney-client" privilege is made that much more tenuous after you have to lie to the judge about your clients.

But, let's say there is evidence that Cohen has that involves Hannity. Is it too crazy to think that Trump's most radical supporter could also be on the Russian payroll? Remember, Russians are master media manipulators and absolutely believe in State TV, and DO NOT believe in the first Amendment. In fact, just today, it was reported a Russian journalist "feel" from his 5th floor apartment, the same journalist had reported on secret Russian troops in Syria.

So, Russia does like to control media. Who is to say that after having their mitts into the president of the United States, through the money laundering that Trump has been doing for the Russian mob for years (hint, that is why "personal finances, just like "tax returns" are a "red line") why would the Russians leave U.S. media totally up to chance? Why when it would be so easy to buy loyalties?

I am not saying it happened. I am saying it COULD have happened. Fox went from near "anti-Trump" to willingness to lie and sell out the FBI in order to protect Trump, all over a very short course in time. Why? It's not like Trump is a conservative?

This is just more insanity of the type expected when you nominate, and then elect with a minority of voters, an insane person. There were 16 other people on that stage. Most are good people who would have had fairly broad support, or at least normal level of support, whether Rubio, Kasich, Paul, Graham, , all of them decent people who I just disagree with. Instead, you had the least 2 likeable people right down to the end. It is like Republicans WANTED the most hated man in America as their nominee, and they wanted him to "wreck the system" - well, "the system" has kept this nation prosperous and free (though far from perfect) for 200 years, and it will not be brought down by one man.

Client

A person who employs or retains an attorney to represent him or her in any legal business; to assist, to counsel, and to defend the individual in legal proceedings; and to appear on his or her behalf in court.

This term includes a person who divulges confidential matters to an attorney while pursuing professional assistance, regardless of sub-sequent employment of the attorney. This attorney-client relationship is quite complex and extensive in its scope. One of the key aspects of this relationship is confidentiality of communications. A client has the right to require that his or her attorney keep secret any discussion between them during the course of their relationship that pertains to the matters for which the attorney is hired. This protection extends to a person who might have disclosed any confidential matters while seeking aid from an attorney, whether the attorney was employed or not. If, for example, someone is "shopping" for an attorney to handle a Divorce, the person might reveal certain private information to several attorneys, all of whom are expected to keep such communications confidential.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

so, he's gone from, nope not a client to i was consulting him for real estate advice....
did the real estate advice pertain to legal issues? I mean, if I am looking for an apartment and I ask a friend who happens to be a lawyer if he knows of any good apartments for rent, is that protected as attorney client priviledge?

it's just weird that the lawyer is claiming him as a client and he is saying hope, I'm not..

The swamp is finally getting ready to drain

But not in the way Cult45 thought...

😅🤣😅😘

originally posted by: Scrubdog
What if he was being paid to pass along certain "favorable" views of certain candidates, or what if he was paid to pile on dirt on certain organizations that are investigating certain politicians?

Media personalities are paid to skew reports all over the place. Media endorses candidates every year. Again to my initial point, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC... even FOX at times was certainly pushing more favorable views of Hillary Clinton than Trump, so as I said, if they were to accuse Hannity of this, I can only imagine the bloodbath media floodgates that would open.

originally posted by: dawnstar
if hannity is telling the truth, then, by what I am hearing by the tv talking heads, he wasn't a "client" , which makes me wonder why he was brought up in the courtroom as being one, especially when he made it clear that he didn't want to be mentioned.
either cohen is too stupid to know what a client is, or he's hoping that they'll be able to keep the conversations between the two confidential for some reason.

but with no retainer, no billing, it might be a little hard to convince the judge that he was a client. more like one of those friends that every lawyer has that's looking for free legal advice, or maybe a media spokesman looking for clarity of legal issues so he can understand a story better.
or, maybe cohen was a go between between hannity and trump helping to coordinate the echo chamber that seems to exist between fox news, trump's tweets, and other far right soundboards.

There seems to be a disagreement between Cohen and Hannity as to if he was a client or not. To hear Hannity tell it, he asked some generic legal questions about real estate, and that he assumed it would be confidential. However, he never felt he was Cohens client, and never paid for or wanted legal services. He was just asking a lawyer he knew a couple questions, even more casual than a free consultation (which is privileged). Cohen seems to feel he was performing services for Hannity, and doing at minimum a consultation, and depending on what is in the documents more than that so he feels that privilege should apply.

If Hannity is right, then all of Cohens files are open to the court with nothing more than a warrant. If Cohen is right, then there is a significantly higher bar to access those files.

a reply to: dawnstar

Agreed
it is very weird.

For the client /attorney privilege status to be there..then Hannity would have had to paid Cohen a retainer ?
But he has went from " nope ..no there there..to awe ok then..I got a little bit of advice..and I thought it was in confidence " ...just re some real estate mind you....no 3rd party stuff...

he will have a corner office at the WH soon. Maybe Sarah's podium stint

a reply to: cosmickat

No, you don't have to pay a lawyer for privilege to apply. Free consultations are still privileged as is anything done pro bono, not to mention a case based on contingency that you lose.

Basically, if you ask a lawyer for advice about a generic legal situation it's not privileged. If you ask a lawyer for advice about your specific legal situation it is.

So Hannity is claiming he was asking for general advice ("What's the best way to launder money?")
Cohen believes he was asking for specific advice ("What's the best way for me to launder money?")

a reply to: Metallicus

Why should he need to disclose this to you or anyone else?

I feel like his privacy has been violated, but I guess we don't care about that anymore in America. This is just one more reason I don't have social media. Too many people think they need to be in your business. People have a right to a private life...even those in the public eye.

It's his ethical obligation as a journalist. Well, it would be if he was a journalist and didn't work for Fox News where everyone is both a Trump advisor and actively "reporting" on Trump. What's that called when information appears to come from multiple sources but in reality, it's all coming for the same source? I can't quite remember...

a reply to: cosmickat
no, if you go shopping for an attorney and get a free consultation, whatever is said in that consultation is protected..
but, it kind of sounds like it wasn't even this formal...

a reply to: Aazadan

Ok..thank you
Will be interesting to see what all this commotion is actually about...is he or isn't he a client.....and either way does it matter ? By the looks of it so far..either Cohen's counsel or Hannity has put their foot in it.

From this day forward failure to be clued in should be known as " Getting Hannityed "

a reply to: cosmickat

I think Hannity should sue Cohen for slander.

a reply to: Metallicus

Where is attorney-client privilege listed as a right in the bill of rights?

a reply to: Phage

My fav take on this...

It only makes sense in Trump's era ...that a journalist who isn't a journalist..who works for a news station that isn't a news station....gets legal advice from a lawyer who isn't his lawyer.

Yeah he should sue that lying lawyer for dragging him into this mess...I mean what about his unbiased non circular reporting.
It's a travesty

Could it be that Trump has been feeding Hannity talking points through Cohen, and using his attorney-client privilege to shroud the fact that he's the source?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Clear of what?
He just a client. Being a client doesn't automatically make you a criminal.

Hannity isn't being investigated. The only people pushing the idea that sean must be guilty of something is the msn.

This is filler for a slow news day. Or what has been termed fake news. All the msn has been doing is telling us that hannity has a lawyer friend and then giving their (negative) opinion of why. That's not news. It's soap opera.