(04-15-2018 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 01:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz
The FBI is supposed to not let political considerations affect their decisions, right?
This isn’t new news. But did you actually read the quote?
Yes, I read the quote.
Here it is, in case you miss d it:
In his book, "A Higher Loyalty," Comey expresses a similar sentiment, writing, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls."
But Why is this not new news? When did Comey say before that his decision was based on political considerations?
The FBI is supposed to be this apolitical organization, going where the evidence takes them, and making decisions without regard for political or personal considerations.
There was a big article in the NYTimes or Post about Comey a few months ago that we discussed on this sub, and it included this information in it. It painted Comey as a conflicted figure who tried to do what he felt was right and unbiased, and who ended up making decisions that had consequences he didnt forsee.
Your comment doesn’t make a lot of sense. Comey didn’t say that politics played into giant decision of continuing with the investigation - he said he wanted to be transparent with the American people because of the potential issues associated with concealing the restart to the investigation.
Are you actually criticizing Comey for being transparent with the Americans public?
He said he wanted to keep Clinton from becoming an illegitimate President.
So his decision was based on two things:
1. Clinton was going to be the President
2. He wanted to protect her from charges of illegitiamacy.
He was not trying to be transparent with the American People. Transparency is not what the FBI does. He was trying to help Clinton.
(04-15-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 01:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz
The FBI is supposed to not let political considerations affect their decisions, right?
This isn’t new news. But did you actually read the quote?
Yes, I read the quote.
Here it is, in case you miss d it:
In his book, "A Higher Loyalty," Comey expresses a similar sentiment, writing, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls."
But Why is this not new news? When did Comey say before that his decision was based on political considerations?
The FBI is supposed to be this apolitical organization, going where the evidence takes them, and making decisions without regard for political or personal considerations.
There was a big article in the NYTimes or Post about Comey a few months ago that we discussed on this sub, and it included this information in it. It painted Comey as a conflicted figure who tried to do what he felt was right and unbiased, and who ended up making decisions that had consequences he didnt forsee.
Your comment doesn’t make a lot of sense. Comey didn’t say that politics played into giant decision of continuing with the investigation - he said he wanted to be transparent with the American people because of the potential issues associated with concealing the restart to the investigation.
Are you actually criticizing Comey for being transparent with the Americans public?
He said he wanted to keep Clinton from becoming an illegitimate President.
So his decision was based on two things:
1. Clinton was going to be the President
2. He wanted to protect her from charges of illegitiamacy.
He was not trying to be transparent with the American People. Transparency is not what the FBI does. He was trying to help Clinton.
What a strange interpretation of that situation.
He was 100% trying to be transparent - there is no way telling the American people that she was back under investigation helps Clinton. Please explain how that would help Clinton during the election.
He wanted to avoid the situation where, should Clinton have won, the FBI announces Post-election that she was back under investigation. That would have been an epic cluster because Comey and the FBI would have been accused of keeping the reopening under wraps to help Clinton avoid scrutiny during the election.
(04-15-2018 02:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2018 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]This isn’t new news. But did you actually read the quote?
Yes, I read the quote.
Here it is, in case you miss d it:
In his book, "A Higher Loyalty," Comey expresses a similar sentiment, writing, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls."
But Why is this not new news? When did Comey say before that his decision was based on political considerations?
The FBI is supposed to be this apolitical organization, going where the evidence takes them, and making decisions without regard for political or personal considerations.
There was a big article in the NYTimes or Post about Comey a few months ago that we discussed on this sub, and it included this information in it. It painted Comey as a conflicted figure who tried to do what he felt was right and unbiased, and who ended up making decisions that had consequences he didnt forsee.
Your comment doesn’t make a lot of sense. Comey didn’t say that politics played into giant decision of continuing with the investigation - he said he wanted to be transparent with the American people because of the potential issues associated with concealing the restart to the investigation.
Are you actually criticizing Comey for being transparent with the Americans public?
He said he wanted to keep Clinton from becoming an illegitimate President.
So his decision was based on two things:
1. Clinton was going to be the President
2. He wanted to protect her from charges of illegitiamacy.
He was not trying to be transparent with the American People. Transparency is not what the FBI does. He was trying to help Clinton.
What a strange interpretation of that situation.
He was 100% trying to be transparent - there is no way telling the American people that she was back under investigation helps Clinton. Please explain how that would help Clinton during the election.
He wanted to avoid the situation where, should Clinton have won, the FBI announces Post-election that she was back under investigation. That would have been an epic cluster because Comey and the FBI would have been accused of keeping the reopening under wraps to help Clinton avoid scrutiny during the election.
He wasn't trying to help or hurt Clinton in the election, since it was a sure thing. He was trying to help Clinton avoid the appearance of being an illegitimate president.
At no point was he trying to do anything for the American people - it was for Clinton.
Chris Christie, this morning on
This Week with George Stephanoupoulous (ABC) made the point that taking any action based on political polls is beyond the scope of what the FBI is supposed to do. Comey specifically mentions that if the polls were different, his actions may well have been different.
In his book, "A Higher Loyalty," Comey expresses a similar sentiment, writing, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president,
my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore
greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls."
bolding mine.
Comey explicitly makes the connection that the polls drove his decision. No real getting around that one. So, he specifically states that there would be selective enforcement and/or actions based on political poll results. Awesome job there Comey.
And explicitly to the benefit of a supposed Clinton Presidency.
This passage was amazing to me. There is no qualm about making Trump to appear as an illegitimate President, not just by Comey but from all we know from fab team of Stzoh, his booty call(from the texts), McCabe (from the IG report), and the General Counsel of the FBI James Baker, who was reportedly removed for leaking classified national security information concerning the Trump administration to the media. I mean, being removed as General Counsel and transferred to the Deputy Chief Counsel for the department of 'no specified duties or function' desk is pretty illuminating, and intriguing.
Lad, and you *really* wonder why there is such an antagonism towards the FBI, DOJ, and Comey from some who may not see eye to eye with you in your political stances and probable vote for President 2016?
This whole situation is both amazing and appalling, to the nth degree of both.
Wait, what?!?! Sean Hannity is Cohen's other client?
Which porn star did he have an affair with?
Or was it another abortion for impregnated playmate thing?
(04-16-2018 02:01 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]Wait, what?!?! Sean Hannity is Cohen's other client?
Which porn star did he have an affair with?
Or was it another abortion for impregnated playmate thing?
Why didn't intern cross your mind?
Whatever shred of integrity Hannity had before this is now gone. He has been a lapdog for the conservative front runners for quite a while (which whatever, it was blatant but on par with other commentators), but why on Earth would you seek legal advice from Cohen when you are supposedly a journalist. Yuck!
Journalists should never seek legal help? (head scatching mode on...).
(04-16-2018 06:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Journalists should never seek legal help? (head scatching mode on...).
I think the question is why did Hannity choose Cohen? What expertise or other unique trait did Cohen have that other, likely more qualified, attorneys did not have, especially for a person where money is no option.
Regardless of why, still very unethical of a journalist to report and offer opinion on a subject multiple times without disclosing the relationship.
(04-16-2018 06:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Journalists should never seek legal help? (head scatching mode on...).
It is odd that Hannity decides to seek out legal advice knowing that Cohen's primary job is being Trump's personal lawyer.
This likely has nothing to do with Trump or Cohen's alleged criminal enterprise, but it seems dumb of Hannity to get involved with Trump's circle. He looks stupid and lost any sort of objectivity people might have reserved for him. I presume you could give him some benefit of the doubt if this interaction happened early in the campaign (pre-primary or perhaps earlier) when Trump was still a yuge longshot, but it's not like Cohen is some mastermind trial lawyer or university scholar (or has any distinctions at all outside of working for Trump).
I suspect it is more Hannity needing some legal nuances explained to him, so that he can address them on air, and Cohen was convenient.
I would presume good journalists would make sure they had the facts straight before they went on the air with an opinion. You know, like CNN.
If I were a journalist, and wanted to opine on (for example) attorney-client privilege, I might ask Tanqtonic for a primer before I went on air. Doesn't mean I committed a crime, or raped a woman, or needed to pay off a Russian or two.
Just a couple of months ago, i went to an attorney for advice, and got it. Had nothing to do with being a sleaze.
I'm sure its all innocent etc., but just looks bad at this point for Hannity. How many thousands of other lawyers could he have sought advice from?
I'm just trying to figure out why Hannity says Cohen isn't his lawyer, and Cohen in court under oath says the opposite. But then again, Hannity's background is as shaky as Trump so he's another you can believe never to be telling the truth.
In a sports analogy, Hannity's weak sauce of a response reminds me of the denials you would get from Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, etc., when they were denying their steroid use. No sensible person believes him. Cohen has all of 3 clients, and 1 of the 3 claims he's not really a client, just someone who gets occasional legal advice before he goes on the air?
If the only thing that comes out of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory mass hysteria of the last year is that Sean Hannity goes away, it will have all been worth it!
(04-17-2018 06:10 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just trying to figure out why Hannity says Cohen isn't his lawyer, and Cohen in court under oath says the opposite. But then again, Hannity's background is as shaky as Trump so he's another you can believe never to be telling the truth.
In a sports analogy, Hannity's weak sauce of a response reminds me of the denials you would get from Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, etc., when they were denying their steroid use. No sensible person believes him. Cohen has all of 3 clients, and 1 of the 3 claims he's not really a client, just someone who gets occasional legal advice before he goes on the air?
It could be (and has happened to me before) that the level of advice I have given in my mind 'crosses the line' where I need to shut up with respect to the third parties (i.e. enough has happened that I need to regard that recipient of helpful information as a client with regards to the legal ramifications). And, the person with whom I have engaged is not aware that in my mind the attorney/client relationship has been established by that passage of information/advice/helpful onesie-twosie action.
From the perspective of the attorney in that case (in this case me) it is far easier to classify that as having that relationship without the formalities of telling the 'client' (which would be awkward at best....) (By the way Bob, since you have asked so many times for free advice-provided a sample document, I think I need to formally inform you that we have an attorney/client relationship... and by the way, please make sure you sign the engagement letter...). With some relationships it is best to regard it as having reached that level from the attorney's view -- much safer.
But I am*sure* someone with Cohen's pedigree would never think that.... [sarcasm off]
But think what you will....
I still dont understand why Hannity supposedly being a client is such earth-shattering news or subject to this level of speculation. It is kind of stupid in its immateriality, tbh.
(04-16-2018 11:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect it is more Hannity needing some legal nuances explained to him, so that he can address them on air, and Cohen was convenient.
I would presume good journalists would make sure they had the facts straight before they went on the air with an opinion. You know, like CNN.
If I were a journalist, and wanted to opine on (for example) attorney-client privilege, I might ask Tanqtonic for a primer before I went on air. Doesn't mean I committed a crime, or raped a woman, or needed to pay off a Russian or two.
Just a couple of months ago, i went to an attorney for advice, and got it. Had nothing to do with being a sleaze.
But would you hire Tanq and claim attorney-client privilege for that encounter? An encounter that is not offering legal advice to you, but really consulting services. If that was the case, Fox would have likely paid the legal fees for Cohen's consulting services.
Now that Hannity is denying even having Cohen as his lawyer, despite Cohen and Cohen's lawyer saying that he was a client, and one who didn't want to be named, seems really odd. If it was just a primer on subject matter, they really screwed the pooch by not being forthright from the start.
And OO, when you went to the attorney for advice, was it on a legal matter you were personally involved with? Or was it to get a primer on a legal matter you weren't personally involved with? You're spot on that having an attorney and discussing legal issues with them is not an immediate admission of anything - be that guilt, sleaze, or perfect innocence.
Don't say mass hysteria. It's real!!! It's real!!!! But we have to wait quietly for the end of the of the investigation to see it Kind of like not staying up late on Christmas Eve trying to see Santa...
Not a fan of Hannity, nor do I watch his show. But some of the conclusions jumped to here and elsewhere are pretty lame.
It does seem odd that Cohen and Hannity are at odds over whether or not SH is a client. I think Cohen is making a long reach in order to try and keep the ACP in tact.
Doesn't matter The leaks will start today or tomorrow.
(04-17-2018 12:17 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure its all innocent etc., but just looks bad at this point for Hannity. How many thousands of other lawyers could he have sought advice from?
If he knows Cohen and is comfortable with Cohen, why should that make a hill of bean's worth of difference?
I mean, some people actually seek advice from riff-raff like me......
(04-17-2018 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Now that Hannity is denying even having Cohen as his lawyer, despite Cohen and Cohen's lawyer saying that he was a client, and one who didn't want to be named, seems really odd. If it was just a primer on subject matter, they really screwed the pooch by not being forthright from the start.
Perhaps you should consider my post above.
And as for 'not wanting to be named', my first rule on attorney/client issues is that I will not even name my clients, unless: a) a judge tells me to; or b) I have explicit permission from the client to identify them, and I also tell them in what manner I identify them.
Many attorneys do not think that the privilege goes that far; but it is what I personally practice. And at least a fair number of attorneys do the same in my experience.