(04-17-2018 08:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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. But think what you will....

I still dont understand why Hannity being a client is such earth-shattering news or subject to this level of speculation.....

(04-17-2018 08:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

(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....

(04-17-2018 09:53 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  Apparently Cohen doesn't send invoices to anyone: "Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees." Hannity goes on to say he may have given Cohen "tens of dollars" at some point. It seems clear that whatever the interaction was, it was minor (far from being Hannity's personal attorney), but I still think it makes Hannity look bad from a journalistic viewpoint (maybe I am dumb for thinking he does anything related to journalism).

(04-17-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 08:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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. But think what you will....

I still dont understand why Hannity being a client is such earth-shattering news or subject to this level of speculation.....

Three big reasons: Hannity has been discussing Cohen and reporting on him without disclosing his close, personal connection of him being Hannity's personal lawyer. That's a major conflict of interest and it should have been disclosed to his viewers since he may have ample reasons to not want Cohen's office raided, which would obviously color how he covers the news.

Quote:Hannity has been one of Trump's biggest and loudest supporters, and since Hannity and Trump make up 2/3 of Cohen's clients, this provides some speculation that perhaps they tried to use attorney client privilege to shield conversations.

And finally, as mentioned above, Hannity is a huge mouth piece for the admin right now - rather coincidental that he shares a lawyer with Trump.

(04-17-2018 09:53 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  Apparently Cohen doesn't send invoices to anyone: "Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees." Hannity goes on to say he may have given Cohen "tens of dollars" at some point.

(04-17-2018 10:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 08:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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. But think what you will....

I still dont understand why Hannity being a client is such earth-shattering news or subject to this level of speculation.....

Three big reasons: Hannity has been discussing Cohen and reporting on him without disclosing his close, personal connection of him being Hannity's personal lawyer. That's a major conflict of interest and it should have been disclosed to his viewers since he may have ample reasons to not want Cohen's office raided, which would obviously color how he covers the news.

And in my situation above, none of the people I would 'shut my mouth' on would realize the fact that this has occurred. They have no reason to suspect it. 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. Cmon man....

Quote:Hannity has been one of Trump's biggest and loudest supporters, and since Hannity and Trump make up 2/3 of Cohen's clients, this provides some speculation that perhaps they tried to use attorney client privilege to shield conversations.

And finally, as mentioned above, Hannity is a huge mouth piece for the admin right now - rather coincidental that he shares a lawyer with Trump.

Interesting that my outrage at the raid on Cohen is pooh-poohed as based on nothing but speculation, yet that is entirely what your construct is based on.

From what Hannity's response was, I am positive in my own mind as to what transpired. And I have laid it out here.

Edited to add: just read your your last post : [emily latella mode on] Never mind [/emily latella]

Edited further: it very well could be that Cohen 'served as an attorney for Hannity' -- that line is not set in black and white. The sole issue is if, in the attorney's mind, enough transpired to warrant that line being crossed. As I said, more than one friend of mine has earned that label in my mind due to the amount/level of stuff that has transpired. They may not realize it.

I recently had to correct someone with whom I had had a conversation with, since he was telling a third party what the content of that discussion was. I had to make an aside telling him that I considered those conversations to be privileged and he should be careful about relating to anyone what the contents were. To be honest, it was somewhat uncomfortable, but at the end of the day the friend thanked me for that further advice.

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.

(04-16-2018 03:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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?

(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.

(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-15253597.html#pid15253597

(04-17-2018 12:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What we are saying (at least I am) is that no consideration of politics should have entered into the decision. Period. It did. Explicitly. Per Comey's own words. Did you not understand that?

But asking for a non-political based consideration would have been like hoping for a non-political based decision not to charge Hills in the first place.

But for some, I surmise, hoping for objective and non-political use of the DOJ and Federal intelligence apparatus (let alone politicization of IRS functionality) is too much. Got it.

(04-17-2018 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 12:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What we are saying (at least I am) is that no consideration of politics should have entered into the decision. Period. It did. Explicitly. Per Comey's own words. Did you not understand that?

But asking for a non-political based consideration would have been like hoping for a non-political based decision not to charge Hills in the first place.

But for some, I surmise, hoping for objective and non-political use of the DOJ and Federal intelligence apparatus (let alone politicization of IRS functionality) is too much. Got it.

I agree with this general sentiment. If that sentiment had held true, Comey would not have released the information to the public, as there would have been no reason to do so. I assume you agree with that?

Perhaps there needs to be an extra level of review added in to make sure that, should politics/public opinion either play a conscious or unconscious role in the decision-making process, it is at least identified.

(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-15253597.html#pid15253597

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.

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.

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.

(04-17-2018 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

(04-17-2018 02:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

Lad, when I try to talk to a geologist on geology, at least I know that he has far more experience than me in that arena. I dont think I have ever used the "Im a lawyer and know all" that you seemingly want to peg me with.

In terms of the legal world, yep, I know quite a fing bit more than the average Joe. TFB. In some areas quite a fing bit more Lad.

I guess if that expertise runs against neophyte Lad-world, I guess it's 'a bit old and worn out.' As for me playing the "I'm a lawyer and know all comment", kindly GFY.

Quote: 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.