(04-18-2018 10:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]"Gorgeous George"
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1992/...ous-george
Are they talking about Curious, Webb, or Steph? You decide.
When my niece was little, there was a brief period when she was not all that clear on whether Curious George and her Uncle George were different people.
She graduates from college in three weeks. She is my only niece, and I'm her only uncle.
(04-19-2018 06:38 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]To me the more interesting issue is that Cohen only has 3 clients (granted Trump takes up most of his time). You're saying 1 of the 3 is someone he only gives out occasional legal advice to? Either Cohen is an idiot to even mention Hannity is a client of his, or Hannity is lying.
(04-17-2018 09:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]This one is a kicker: apparently the US Attorney and DOJ argued that since Cohen doesnt have a "lot" of clients, there should be no privilege. Sorry, this is a jaw-dropper....
Apparently, one of Cohen's strategies might have been to inflate his "client" list from 2 to 3 by including Hannity in order to make his practice look bigger on paper.
I guess that having one client take up 99.9% of your work makes it easier to argue that you are a business associate of that client and not an attorney at law, so therefore the attorney-client privilege may not exist (or at least it is circumstantial evidence that it should not exist) per the government's arguments. Under my understanding (at least according to Tanq's extensive explanation of clients & attorney-client privilege), it is very possible that Cohen is utilizing whatever legal advice given over cocktails to Hannity as a basis to include Hannity as a "client" for the means of this search warrant. The use of the word client during Cohen's hearing is misleading since Hannity was never represented by Cohen at any point, but was more of a prospective client or non-client who only requested limited legal advice that was protected under attorney-client privilege.
It seems very dubious to me that Cohen would reach back to include Hannity on his client list if the extent of the interactions really was just verbal advice given over $10 cocktails. As Tanq said, if you are a lawyer, everyone and their brother likes to ask you random legal questions and strictly speaking any conversation that deals with details of a specific situation is covered by attorney-client privilege no matter how informal the setting and regardless if the attorney was compensated. This makes me think...surely Cohen has given happy hour legal advice to other people so why was Hannity the only guy included? The conspiracy theorist in me says that Hannity agreed to be included on a client list and play along with Cohen's legal strategy as a favor to Trump/Cohen. He might have been the only willing participant in this type of gambit since most other people would run the other direction from the train wreck that is Cohen.
As long as we are speculating, I also,think that Cohen is trying to inflate his client list as a defense against the loss of the ACP. A dubius defense against a dubius invasion.
i know of at least one Rice grad attorney with a single, big client. i would think he would get ACP. And what about in house counse? if you work for ABC corp, and they are your only client, does ACP attach?
The governments allegation of 'few clients, less ACP protection' is BS. OO'e example about in-house counsel shows that entirely.
I think Cohen 'expanded' his list because of a poorly drafted question: they asked him who his clients are. ACP expands to beyond the specific term of art of 'client'.
(04-19-2018 06:38 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]To me the more interesting issue is that Cohen only has 3 clients (granted Trump takes up most of his time). You're saying 1 of the 3 is someone he only gives out occasional legal advice to? Either Cohen is an idiot to even mention Hannity is a client of his, or Hannity is lying.
You neglect a third option: Cohen understands that ACP extends to non-clients, and Hannity fit that bill.
If a court asked me to provide a client list, with the specific aim of reading client files, the issue at the focus is privilege.
I would very much mention people who were prospective clients, but not clients, in order to try and preserve the ACP that extends to the non-clients.
I have a couple of questions.
1) What is the real conflict here? I can see where an attorney who engaged in discussion of legal issues on an informal basis over a period of time might consider the other party to be a client, when there was no official engagement and the other party did not see it as a client relationship. "Client" is a term that does not necessarily have to be defined in precisely the same way in all contexts. I can think of situations where Cohen might think of Hannity as a client, or even be required to think of him as a client under certain provisions of the Canons of Ethics, but Hannity might reasonably not think of himself as a client.
2) What difference does it make? Does our perception of either Cohen or Hannity change in any material way if the answer to the question, "Is Hannity a client of Cohen's?" changes from yes to no?
Maybe I'm missing something, a possibility I freely acknowledge because I really haven't followed this too closely. If so, what is it?
Witch hunts usually get their witch, so I've decided a long time ago that they are very likely to hang something on Trump in the end, partly because, whether justified or not, I expect they will stay at it until they do. That being the case, I've pretty much lost interest in the day to day.
(04-18-2018 11:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of millennials who can vote but have no memory of george working for the Clintons.
To borrow a concept from the gun debate, if even one voter is unaware of George's past involvement with the Clintons, that is too many.
(You are probably correct about some younger people. I was familiar with Pierre Salinger as a journalist on ABC for years before I know he had worked for JFK.)
The difference is between something which is public knowledge and something intentionally concealed. From George's Bio at ABCnews.com:
"Stephanopoulos joined ABC News in 1997 as an analyst for "This Week." Prior to joining ABC News, he served in the Clinton administration as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/george-stephan...?id=133369
Granted, he has abjectly failed to tattoo "Former Clinton (Crooked Hillary's Husband!) Advisor" on his forehead.
Hannity failed to disclose that he was directly involved in a story he was reporting/commentating on. Basic journalism 101.
If it turns out George was secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign while reporting on it, he should absolutely lose his job.
(04-19-2018 09:36 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2018 10:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]"Gorgeous George"
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1992/...ous-george
Are they talking about Curious, Webb, or Steph? You decide.
When my niece was little, there was a brief period when she was not all that clear on whether Curious George and her Uncle George were different people.
She graduates from college in three weeks. She is my only niece, and I'm her only uncle.
"Remember that time crazy Uncle George grabbed too many balloons and floated away? Or that time he got his bugle stuck down an ostrich's throat?"
(04-19-2018 10:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I have a couple of questions.
1) What is the real conflict here? I can see where an attorney who engaged in discussion of legal issues on an informal basis over a period of time might consider the other party to be a client, when there was no official engagement and the other party did not see it as a client relationship. "Client" is a term that does not necessarily have to be defined in precisely the same way in all contexts. I can think of situations where Cohen might think of Hannity as a client, or even be required to think of him as a client under certain provisions of the Canon of Ethics, but Hannity might reasonably not think of himself as a client.
2) What difference does it make? Does our perception of either Cohen or Hannity change in any material way if the answer to the question, "Is Hannity a client of Cohen's?" changes from yes to no?
Maybe I'm missing something, a possibility I freely acknowledge because I really haven't followed this too closely. If so, what is it?
Witch hunts usually get their witch, so I've decided a long time ago that they are very likely to hang something on Trump in the end, partly because, whether justified or not, I expect they will stay at it until they do. That being the case, I've pretty much lost interest in the day to day.
Some feel that Hannity is an *evil* person for not disclosing his supposed clientship with his viewers.
Your point #1 --- +1000.
Some here dont agree with that in the effort to excoriate Hannity.
As for point #2 -- I think that if Hannity was truly a client and subjectively was a client, to the extent that significant representation occurred, yeah, he probably should have disclosed that when commenting to his viewers. I just dont see the predicate existing here on what has been described.
(04-19-2018 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]if you work for ABC corp, and they are your only client, does ACP attach?
In practice, that's often a tough question. There are two principles in conflict:
- Attorney-client privilege doesn't go away just because the client is also the attorney's employer.
- The in-house employee's communications aren't all privileged just because the employee is a lawyer.
There are many, many cases that have had to apply those principles in particular situations and decide which documents and communications are privileged and which are not. It's a tough call.
(04-19-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2018 11:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of millennials who can vote but have no memory of george working for the Clintons.
To borrow a concept from the gun debate, if even one voter is unaware of George's past involvement with the Clintons, that is too many.
(You are probably correct about some younger people. I was familiar with Pierre Salinger as a journalist on ABC for years before I know he had worked for JFK.)
The difference is between something which is public knowledge and something intentionally concealed. From George's Bio at ABCnews.com:
"Stephanopoulos joined ABC News in 1997 as an analyst for "This Week." Prior to joining ABC News, he served in the Clinton administration as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/george-stephan...?id=133369
Granted, he has abjectly failed to tattoo "Former Clinton (Crooked Hillary's Husband!) Advisor" on his forehead.
Hannity failed to disclose that he was directly involved in a story he was reporting/commentating on. Basic journalism 101.
If it turns out George was secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign while reporting on it, he should absolutely lose his job.
By meeting with a guy previously and generally talking about very general legal matters. That is quite a stretch to "fail[] to disclose". Using that rubric, how many other people that Hannity meets at parties or at lunch every day shall he have to disclose every night?
Interesting the the line you draw to Hannity/Cohen is "directly involved" when, per Hannity, nothing substantive was ever discussed.
The line you draw to a person that had essentially co-ownership of the Clinto war room is that he must now rise to the level of "secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign" to be dinged.
Very good and artful line drawing, even though they are amazingly unbalanced in their application.
(04-19-2018 11:10 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]if you work for ABC corp, and they are your only client, does ACP attach?
In practice, that's often a tough question. There are two principles in conflict:
- Attorney-client privilege doesn't go away just because the client is also the attorney's employer.
- The in-house employee's communications aren't all privileged just because the employee is a lawyer.
There are many, many cases that have had to apply those principles in particular situations and decide which documents and communications are privileged and which are not. It's a tough call.
It really isnt tough. The in-house attorney's client *is* the company. Period.
The normal rule of "*in the course of legal representation*, : a) anything the attorney says, advises, or provides the client; and b) anything the client says or provides to the lawyer, is privileged" then applies. Period.
(04-19-2018 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2018 11:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of millennials who can vote but have no memory of george working for the Clintons.
To borrow a concept from the gun debate, if even one voter is unaware of George's past involvement with the Clintons, that is too many.
(You are probably correct about some younger people. I was familiar with Pierre Salinger as a journalist on ABC for years before I know he had worked for JFK.)
The difference is between something which is public knowledge and something intentionally concealed. From George's Bio at ABCnews.com:
"Stephanopoulos joined ABC News in 1997 as an analyst for "This Week." Prior to joining ABC News, he served in the Clinton administration as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/george-stephan...?id=133369
Granted, he has abjectly failed to tattoo "Former Clinton (Crooked Hillary's Husband!) Advisor" on his forehead.
Hannity failed to disclose that he was directly involved in a story he was reporting/commentating on. Basic journalism 101.
If it turns out George was secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign while reporting on it, he should absolutely lose his job.
By meeting with a guy previously and generally talking about very general legal matters. That is quite a stretch to "fail[] to disclose". Using that rubric, how many other people that Hannity meets at parties or at lunch every day shall he have to disclose every night?
Interesting the the line you draw to Hannity/Cohen is "directly involved" when, per Hannity, nothing substantive was ever discussed.
The line you draw to a person that had essentially co-ownership of the Clinto war room is that he must now rise to the level of "secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign" to be dinged.
Very good and artful line drawing, even though they are amazingly unbalanced in their application.
Um, no. Again, journalism 101. His involvement with Bill Clinton's campaign is public record. You are free to draw your own conclusions about his work based on that. Even sports talk radio guys say things like "full disclosure, Bill and I were both on Smith's staff back in the day".
You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.
(04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.
Well, I think we are all answering this based upon the Canons of Ethics for attorneys, with which I believe those of us discussing this are all quite familiar. I'm not sure what are the ethics rules for news commentators or opinion pundits. Based upon what I've seen, I would be inclined to conclude that there are none.
(04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2018 11:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of millennials who can vote but have no memory of george working for the Clintons.
To borrow a concept from the gun debate, if even one voter is unaware of George's past involvement with the Clintons, that is too many.
(You are probably correct about some younger people. I was familiar with Pierre Salinger as a journalist on ABC for years before I know he had worked for JFK.)
The difference is between something which is public knowledge and something intentionally concealed. From George's Bio at ABCnews.com:
"Stephanopoulos joined ABC News in 1997 as an analyst for "This Week." Prior to joining ABC News, he served in the Clinton administration as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/george-stephan...?id=133369
Granted, he has abjectly failed to tattoo "Former Clinton (Crooked Hillary's Husband!) Advisor" on his forehead.
Hannity failed to disclose that he was directly involved in a story he was reporting/commentating on. Basic journalism 101.
If it turns out George was secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign while reporting on it, he should absolutely lose his job.
By meeting with a guy previously and generally talking about very general legal matters. That is quite a stretch to "fail[] to disclose". Using that rubric, how many other people that Hannity meets at parties or at lunch every day shall he have to disclose every night?
Interesting the the line you draw to Hannity/Cohen is "directly involved" when, per Hannity, nothing substantive was ever discussed.
The line you draw to a person that had essentially co-ownership of the Clinto war room is that he must now rise to the level of "secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign" to be dinged.
Very good and artful line drawing, even though they are amazingly unbalanced in their application.
Um, no. Again, journalism 101. His involvement with Bill Clinton's campaign is public record. You are free to draw your own conclusions about his work based on that. Even sports talk radio guys say things like "full disclosure, Bill and I were both on Smith's staff back in the day".
You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.
Are you a journalist? I never took Journalism 101. I really don't consider most journalists very hung up on ethics.
(04-19-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2018 11:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of millennials who can vote but have no memory of george working for the Clintons.
To borrow a concept from the gun debate, if even one voter is unaware of George's past involvement with the Clintons, that is too many.
(You are probably correct about some younger people. I was familiar with Pierre Salinger as a journalist on ABC for years before I know he had worked for JFK.)
The difference is between something which is public knowledge and something intentionally concealed. From George's Bio at ABCnews.com:
"Stephanopoulos joined ABC News in 1997 as an analyst for "This Week." Prior to joining ABC News, he served in the Clinton administration as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/george-stephan...?id=133369
Granted, he has abjectly failed to tattoo "Former Clinton (Crooked Hillary's Husband!) Advisor" on his forehead.
Hannity failed to disclose that he was directly involved in a story he was reporting/commentating on. Basic journalism 101.
If it turns out George was secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign while reporting on it, he should absolutely lose his job.
Directly involved? How so? Am I missing something?
(04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2018 11:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of millennials who can vote but have no memory of george working for the Clintons.
To borrow a concept from the gun debate, if even one voter is unaware of George's past involvement with the Clintons, that is too many.
(You are probably correct about some younger people. I was familiar with Pierre Salinger as a journalist on ABC for years before I know he had worked for JFK.)
The difference is between something which is public knowledge and something intentionally concealed. From George's Bio at ABCnews.com:
"Stephanopoulos joined ABC News in 1997 as an analyst for "This Week." Prior to joining ABC News, he served in the Clinton administration as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/george-stephan...?id=133369
Granted, he has abjectly failed to tattoo "Former Clinton (Crooked Hillary's Husband!) Advisor" on his forehead.
Hannity failed to disclose that he was directly involved in a story he was reporting/commentating on. Basic journalism 101.
If it turns out George was secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign while reporting on it, he should absolutely lose his job.
By meeting with a guy previously and generally talking about very general legal matters. That is quite a stretch to "fail[] to disclose". Using that rubric, how many other people that Hannity meets at parties or at lunch every day shall he have to disclose every night?
Interesting the the line you draw to Hannity/Cohen is "directly involved" when, per Hannity, nothing substantive was ever discussed.
The line you draw to a person that had essentially co-ownership of the Clinto war room is that he must now rise to the level of "secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign" to be dinged.
Very good and artful line drawing, even though they are amazingly unbalanced in their application.
Um, no. Again, journalism 101. His involvement with Bill Clinton's campaign is public record. You are free to draw your own conclusions about his work based on that. Even sports talk radio guys say things like "full disclosure, Bill and I were both on Smith's staff back in the day".
You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.
I guess that any journalist should never have any conversation with any attorney about any even generalized legal matter in any social setting whatsoever using that ethics regime.
I guess Im lucky to hell im not to be a journalist with that type of restriction.
(04-19-2018 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2018 11:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of millennials who can vote but have no memory of george working for the Clintons.
To borrow a concept from the gun debate, if even one voter is unaware of George's past involvement with the Clintons, that is too many.
(You are probably correct about some younger people. I was familiar with Pierre Salinger as a journalist on ABC for years before I know he had worked for JFK.)
The difference is between something which is public knowledge and something intentionally concealed. From George's Bio at ABCnews.com:
"Stephanopoulos joined ABC News in 1997 as an analyst for "This Week." Prior to joining ABC News, he served in the Clinton administration as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/george-stephan...?id=133369
Granted, he has abjectly failed to tattoo "Former Clinton (Crooked Hillary's Husband!) Advisor" on his forehead.
Hannity failed to disclose that he was directly involved in a story he was reporting/commentating on. Basic journalism 101.
If it turns out George was secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign while reporting on it, he should absolutely lose his job.
By meeting with a guy previously and generally talking about very general legal matters. That is quite a stretch to "fail[] to disclose". Using that rubric, how many other people that Hannity meets at parties or at lunch every day shall he have to disclose every night?
Interesting the the line you draw to Hannity/Cohen is "directly involved" when, per Hannity, nothing substantive was ever discussed.
The line you draw to a person that had essentially co-ownership of the Clinto war room is that he must now rise to the level of "secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign" to be dinged.
Very good and artful line drawing, even though they are amazingly unbalanced in their application.
Um, no. Again, journalism 101. His involvement with Bill Clinton's campaign is public record. You are free to draw your own conclusions about his work based on that. Even sports talk radio guys say things like "full disclosure, Bill and I were both on Smith's staff back in the day".
You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.
I guess that any journalist should never have any conversation with any attorney about any even generalized legal matter in any social setting whatsoever using that ethics regime.
I guess Im lucky to hell im not to be a journalist with that type of restriction.
Nobody is shocked he is partisan. But he is probably no more of a hack than some people you admire and trust.
Tell us, are you a journalism prof?
(04-19-2018 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-18-2018 11:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]There are a lot of millennials who can vote but have no memory of george working for the Clintons.
To borrow a concept from the gun debate, if even one voter is unaware of George's past involvement with the Clintons, that is too many.
(You are probably correct about some younger people. I was familiar with Pierre Salinger as a journalist on ABC for years before I know he had worked for JFK.)
The difference is between something which is public knowledge and something intentionally concealed. From George's Bio at ABCnews.com:
"Stephanopoulos joined ABC News in 1997 as an analyst for "This Week." Prior to joining ABC News, he served in the Clinton administration as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/george-stephan...?id=133369
Granted, he has abjectly failed to tattoo "Former Clinton (Crooked Hillary's Husband!) Advisor" on his forehead.
Hannity failed to disclose that he was directly involved in a story he was reporting/commentating on. Basic journalism 101.
If it turns out George was secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign while reporting on it, he should absolutely lose his job.
By meeting with a guy previously and generally talking about very general legal matters. That is quite a stretch to "fail[] to disclose". Using that rubric, how many other people that Hannity meets at parties or at lunch every day shall he have to disclose every night?
Interesting the the line you draw to Hannity/Cohen is "directly involved" when, per Hannity, nothing substantive was ever discussed.
The line you draw to a person that had essentially co-ownership of the Clinto war room is that he must now rise to the level of "secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign" to be dinged.
Very good and artful line drawing, even though they are amazingly unbalanced in their application.
Um, no. Again, journalism 101. His involvement with Bill Clinton's campaign is public record. You are free to draw your own conclusions about his work based on that. Even sports talk radio guys say things like "full disclosure, Bill and I were both on Smith's staff back in the day".
You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.
I guess that any journalist should never have any conversation with any attorney about any even generalized legal matter in any social setting whatsoever using that ethics regime.
I guess Im lucky to hell im not to be a journalist with that type of restriction.
Hannity admitted to requesting ACP with Cohen. How frequently does talking to someone at a cocktail party about "generalized legal matter(s)" include the non-attorney party explicitly asking for ACP?
Remember, Hannity has admitted to asking Cohen about legal questions regarding real estate, which is something Hannity has said he prefers to invest in, instead of markets. So it also wasn't just general legal information, he admits he was looking for specific advice. And then, when he was told he was going to be named as a client of Cohen, requested that Cohen's lawyer not disclose his name. So Hannity knew where he stood before his name was released in court.
I keep going back to the fact that Hannity requesting ACP explicitly means he can't really play dumb about not knowing he was becoming a "client" of Cohen. His explicit request means that he had an understanding that what he was asking Cohen about was privileged to only himself and Cohen.
If journalists started doing the same thing at cocktail mixers - asking for ACP about personal legal affairs - then yeah, they would either have to disclose that when they reported on those attorneys, avoid asking those things at cocktail parties, or cover a different beat.
(04-19-2018 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2018 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ](You are probably correct about some younger people. I was familiar with Pierre Salinger as a journalist on ABC for years before I know he had worked for JFK.)
The difference is between something which is public knowledge and something intentionally concealed. From George's Bio at ABCnews.com:
"Stephanopoulos joined ABC News in 1997 as an analyst for "This Week." Prior to joining ABC News, he served in the Clinton administration as the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/george-stephan...?id=133369
Granted, he has abjectly failed to tattoo "Former Clinton (Crooked Hillary's Husband!) Advisor" on his forehead.
Hannity failed to disclose that he was directly involved in a story he was reporting/commentating on. Basic journalism 101.
If it turns out George was secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign while reporting on it, he should absolutely lose his job.
By meeting with a guy previously and generally talking about very general legal matters. That is quite a stretch to "fail[] to disclose". Using that rubric, how many other people that Hannity meets at parties or at lunch every day shall he have to disclose every night?
Interesting the the line you draw to Hannity/Cohen is "directly involved" when, per Hannity, nothing substantive was ever discussed.
The line you draw to a person that had essentially co-ownership of the Clinto war room is that he must now rise to the level of "secretly advising the Hillary Clinton campaign" to be dinged.
Very good and artful line drawing, even though they are amazingly unbalanced in their application.
Um, no. Again, journalism 101. His involvement with Bill Clinton's campaign is public record. You are free to draw your own conclusions about his work based on that. Even sports talk radio guys say things like "full disclosure, Bill and I were both on Smith's staff back in the day".
You and Owl69 are correct in that no one is shocked Hannity is a partisan hack, the situation is causing more amusement than outrage. But the lines of ethics or at least professionalism are pretty clear that he should have disclosed something or just not covered it.
I guess that any journalist should never have any conversation with any attorney about any even generalized legal matter in any social setting whatsoever using that ethics regime.
I guess Im lucky to hell im not to be a journalist with that type of restriction.
Hannity admitted to requesting ACP with Cohen. How frequently does talking to someone at a cocktail party about "generalized legal matter(s)" include the non-attorney party explicitly asking for ACP?
Interesting. Is this a rhetorical question, or one that I can answer without a quacking about my supposed "I am an attorney and know everything about everything" issue?
Well, since it was asked --- it happens a lot. On average, if the party is over 25 people in size, almost typically a certaintly. I.e. *that* is the reason I bring it up.
But please feel free to ignore that. You ostensibly have to this point, so why stop.
Quote:Remember, Hannity has admitted to asking Cohen about legal questions regarding real estate, which is something Hannity has said he prefers to invest in, instead of markets. So it also wasn't just general legal information, he admits he was looking for specific advice.
Wow, so the guy I talked with two weeks ago about the the pros and cons of the structures of REITS, or, depending on the number of investors, whether an limited partnerships with a general partner being an LLC is preferable to certain types of holdings is in a dilemna now. Guess I need, per Lads admonishment, to get on phone and tell him he's a client now. Lad, I hate to tell you generalized legal knowledge applied to particular industries is not automatically and magically 'specific advice'.
Quote:And then, when he was told he was going to be named as a client of Cohen, requested that Cohen's lawyer not disclose his name. So Hannity knew where he stood before his name was released in court.
So informing him the day before court that he was going to be named is now the magic ingredient in the special elixir. Got it. It used to be ACP == client, but I am glad we have actually changed that tune now.
Quote:I keep going back to the fact that Hannity requesting ACP explicitly means he can't really play dumb about not knowing he was becoming a "client" of Cohen. His explicit request means that he had an understanding that what he was asking Cohen about was privileged to only himself and Cohen.
Ooops, spoke too soon. I am still looking for your citation to the fact that ACP == client. You havent bothered to provide one. You still havent satisfactorily explained the literally thousands of people that have asked me that question at parties yet, either.
Quote:If journalists started doing the same thing at cocktail mixers - asking for ACP about personal legal affairs - then yeah, they would either have to disclose that when they reported on those attorneys, avoid asking those things at cocktail parties, or cover a different beat.
I would say you probably dont go to a lot of parties with attorneys in attendance. Or perhaps you should ask journalists to act like no other person in United States would.
My suggestion is to actually find something with a little more 'client weight' in it, and I'd agree with you. Problem is you have a real challenge to pigeonhole what we know into you preconceived 'nail Hannity' mode. Problem is what we do know really doesnt come that close to what you seemingly want to believe.