RiceLad15
Hall of Famer
Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
|
RE: Trump Administration
(04-17-2018 12:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (04-17-2018 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: FYI - it is hard, based on Cohen's lawyers' rationale, for Hannity to play dumb.
Quote: Cohen's lawyers resisted revealing the name of the third client, saying it would be embarrassing and unnecessary. Plus, the client had specifically asked for privacy and requested that they appeal any demand to divulge his name.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-15...id15253597
Again, let make make real world issues intrude.
If I was going to be subpoenaed and asked who all my 'clients' were and who I considered to hold such privilege with, I would tell *everyone* whom I held in that manner (not just the ones who paid.) It goes with the duty to the court an attorney has to be forthright and honest with the court.
And, yes, I am positive some of whom I consider to have an attorney/client relationship, and are unaware of the care I am taking in that consideration, would certainly tell me not to do so or to try keep their name out of it. Especially and even more so with one with a nationally known persona.
And when it was revealed, I can certainly see those people saying "Hell, we were just sharing margaritas and weird ass ideas. I have never employed or used Tanq as an attorney." Which, in their mind is what transpired. See, almost the exact ideas that Hannity has expressed.
Again, Lad, you are falling into the trap of interpreting the world of legal stuff and legal advice when you have no idea what happens in that world. And to be blunt, the media doesnt know the nuances as well. (nor do they fing care, since the nuance typically takes the 'juice' out of a story', which is *not* their best business practice....)
But since you are so focused on excoriating Hannity, please dont let real world considerations dampen that enthusiasm..... Just saying your implication is way the f--k off base here Lad.
Where the heck have I been overly-critical of Hannity? Please point that out. I provided reasons why it made the news and then rightfully chastised him for not disclosing his use of Cohen as a lawyer when reporting on him - that has been my only criticism. I hardly think that is excoriating Hannity.
Also, I understand that I have not operated in the legal world, but your overuse of the "I'm a lawyer, I know all" card is getting a bit old and worn out. I completely understand that you have far more experience in this arena, but that does not mean my opinion of how people act/react in a situation is off base as you suggest.
I did some Googling and found a write-up of a detailed response Hannity gave on his show. I'll take it at face value. Even in Hannity's response he admitted that, when talking to Cohen about legal advice, he confirmed with Cohen that he had attorney client privileges.
So Tanq, politely, take your following comment in post 3507 and eat a big ol' bag of crow.
Quote:I think this is a case where the advice Cohen gave 'crossed the line of being a client' in his mind, yet to Hannity it would seem that they were just chatting. In that case, kind of hard to slam Hannity for a 'conflict' if he never knew of it.
Kind of hard to play the "I'm a lawyer" trump card when a little bit of research clearly shows that Hannity was fully aware that he was entering into a relationship with Cohen by asking for attorney client privileges in defending Hannity. Heck, even Dirshowitz agrees with me.
Quote:Now I have, eight attorneys I use for various things in my life, and in this particular case, you know, I like to have people that I can run questions by. And Michael, very generously, would give me his time, and we’d always say, “Attorney-client? Yeah, good.” And I’d ask him a legal question. And that’s it.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...lient.html
Again, from a legal sense, there is no issue here. But from an ethical sense (as a journalist) and a PR sense, Hannity should probably have asked for some professional legal advice covered by attorney-client privilege from another lawyer. Just not a smart move.
|
|