Michael Cohen's third client... is SEAN HANNITY
- Thread starter Fro
- Start date
Was just coming here to post that. No wonder Hannity has been so crazy. The dots are being connected now. This one is delicious!
I’m curious as to how and why this should be public?
EDIT: just read it.... I really don’t know why that should have been made public from documents seized .... I certainly don’t want my attorneys name in the open for many reasons.
It just seems on the surface, it would be protected. I guess they can disclose The Who’s of was sued or defended against?
EDIT: just read it.... I really don’t know why that should have been made public from documents seized .... I certainly don’t want my attorneys name in the open for many reasons.
It just seems on the surface, it would be protected. I guess they can disclose The Who’s of was sued or defended against?
Last edited:
I wonder if it was to pay hush money to some woman... seems to be Cohen’s speciality
It normally wouldn't be, but it was stated by Cohen (or his attorney) in open court as part of the legal wrangling over trying to protect attorney-client privileges re: the various documents seized by the feds.
I read it was demanded by the judge and it was asked to keep it private but the judge over ruled it.
Which the judge has a right to do.
Generally, the identity of a client is not by itself privileged information. However, in cases where revealing the identity of a client can result in connecting a name to already revealed information that would have been privileged, or would open the newly named client to legal liability, the name can be withheld. I believe there was a case many years ago where a lawyer was retained by someone who had committed a murder, but was not yet a suspect. I don't recall the details, but he wanted the lawyer to give the cops info on the location of the body or something, out of guilt I believe. Anyway, the government wanted to force the lawyer to name the client. He refused.
I could be mangling the details on that case; it's been a few years. But the lesson is: your name is not protected in general, but there are exceptions depending on circumstances.
I have no idea what to make of this development, but at least it half-way explains the bat-sh!t crazy Hannity 'exposé' Trump was promoting where he talked about the Mueller, Clinton and Comey 'crime families'.
My guess is that Sean Hannity isn't just a Trump shill. He wants the Mueller investigation shut down because digging into Cohen's records may uncover some dirt on him.
My guess is that Sean Hannity isn't just a Trump shill. He wants the Mueller investigation shut down because digging into Cohen's records may uncover some dirt on him.
I’m sure the attorneys on here would love to provide a list of names of their clients to each POTENTIAL client that requests it to avoid this type of thing. It appears the judge has the right but I don’t get it in this case as I don’t see the materiality of the disclosure. The prosecutor argued it was of public interest. That means I should care who my attorneys are representing....
I don't know what the arguments were that were made in court, but I think the relevant point here is that there is no good legal reason to refuse to identify Hannity. Look, if the government was in possession of privileged communications that proved some unnamed guy conspired with Cohen to commit fraud, and they wanted to force Cohen to name who this client was so they could connect that dot and arrest him, yeah, he'd have every right to refuse, and if the judge overruled him, assuming he's an ethical and competent lawyer, he'd spend a night in jail while his attorneys filed an emergency appeal.
But in this case, I don't think he's filling in any blanks for the government. He's not opening Hannity up to any liability. He's just giving the judge more information to make the relevant ruling on.
Now, all that being said, I'm not saying the judge's demand was appropriate. In fact, I'm naturally uncomfortable requiring any lawyer to name any client, even in the most benign circumstances. I'm just saying, this probably wasn't one of those situations where Cohen could legally argue that Hannity's identity should be protected, based on the various exceptions that exist in the law.
But he's much more than that now.
By attacking Mueller and the Mueller investigation without disclosing that a key target of said investigation is his lawyer basically blows up the last remaining iota of journalistic integrity he may have pretended to cling to.
Should be an interesting dinner conversation at the Hannity's tonight.
I wasn’t aware he was attacking Mueller.... I assumed he was against the investigation.... as you laid it out I’d say you are correct. But is anyone surprised? Those shows are so...... you know.
Egg on the face
He's trying to split hairs for PR purposes. Fact is, you don't need to pay someone to form an attorney-client relationship. You don't even need to sign an engagement agreement. Attorney-client relationships can be formed, depending on the state, by something as simple as a genuine conversation seeking legal advice in which the client party has an expectation of confidentiality.
In law school we are taught two things regarding this issue: First, be careful, because an attorney-client relationship can sneak up on you. Second, if you decide not to represent someone, send them a letter formalizing this decision, so they can't come back to you later and claim you are their lawyer.
Also, although this might not apply to Hannity, if someone is a potential client, and they share information with you as part of the process of determining whether or not you will represent them, that information is also protected, even if either or both of you ultimately decline to form a relationship.
All this crap Hannity is spewing now is for public consumption. He doesn't want to admit Cohen is his lawyer. But I guarantee when push comes to shove in court, Hannity will admit that, yes, they have an attorney-client relationship. Not just admit, insist.
I'd say running an investigative report where he determines that there is such a thing as the "Mueller crime family" is attacking him...or at least his integrity. Which, given the topic of this thread is like a guy with leprosy looking at a guy with mild acne saying, 'you look REAL bad'.
just checked Fox News' website - for some reason I can't find anything about this there...
They are covering it on TV.
Will be interesting for media watchers. It's long been reported that there is a growing rift at FNC between the journalists and the
I may actually have to suffer through some of Hannity tonight.
The fact that an attorney represents a certain person is often, very often, not considered to be privileged. Virtually every judge in a litigated matter and every party to a business transaction automatically knows who is representing the scoundrel on the orher side. No big deal unless you're someone like Trump who doesn't know or doesn't care about the normal rules.
Hoosier Hack is upset that Hannity's involved...even though he NEVER watches Fox News! 
Is it ethical for Fox "News" to keep Hannity on the air when he's so involved in this situation? I mean, there's a reason he's so nuts about defending Trump (and probably Cohen, but I don't watch Hannity). He seems to have quite the conflict of interest.
One question I have is whether there's enough nexus between Trump and Hannity that might be established through Cohen to make a case of illegal campaign contributions . . . kinda like the potential for the payment to Daniels by Cohen could end up as a campaign finance law violation.
I'm talking through my hat here and I have no basis for suggesting any charges are due, but the whole "watch Hannity tonight" gibberjabber nonsense indicates a cooperation that is beyond the normal journalist/politician relationship.
Might be nothing . . . likely is nothing . . . but I'd want to have a look at Cohen's files on all this just in case there might be a thread to pull.
Is Fox "News" ethical enough to take a talk show host off the air for that? C'mon Hoops . . . you know better than that.
Breaking: Donald Trump says he doesn't even know who Sean Hannity is...and that maybe he brought him coffee once or twice at Trump Tower....essentially a coffee boy.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
And I’d think a man of God would be disgusted with a lying philandering man with no moral compass. Weird.
You know less about law than you would need to know to make that judgment. For starters, the law requires a rigorous logical analysis to arrive at a conclusion about whether the attorney-client privilege applies; it is not a blanket panacea that precludes any sharing of information ever.
In other words, it is not an article of faith as you apparently would suggest it is.
I know a helluva lot of lawyers. To a man (or woman), they are absolutely not worried or offended by this whatsoever. Everyone knows that a search warrant for an attorney's records is extremely rare, only granted in the face of the strongest possible evidence, and only executed with the most rigorous of safeguards.
You should really stop forming opinions based on what right-wing media is telling you how to think and feel. You are a human being, you have the ability to form your own thoughts. Try it some time.
Similar threads
