(04-19-2018 08:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 07:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 04:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 01:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  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.

No, what we have here is you seemingly responding to things I don't say and interpreting my comments in ways that you feel you can best respond to. You are hung up on the definition of client, which seems to mean to you someone who receives direct representation or who pays for services. I already provided a source that explicitly discusses the ways in which an ACP can be formed and it provides an explanation of multiple instances in which an ACP can be formed without payment (and you've stated as much). And, as you've ignored, an ACP requires two people - an attorney and a client. And in this case, regardless of payment, the person receiving the counsel would be the client.

You've also never really responded to the fact that Hannity admitted he entered into a verbal agreement with Cohen outside of saying that this happens regularly. I don't see why frequency of an action should be a rationale for removal of personal responsibility to understand what sort of verbal agreement one is entering. Hannity, or anyone else for that matter, who explicitly asks a lawyer for ACP should understand that they are now entering into a verbal agreement that said attorney will keep their conversation in confidence.

Honestly, I think all Hannity deserved was a slap on the wrist from Fox, unless it comes out that his relationship was more significant. I think that you think I think this is a much bigger deal than it is - at this point i'm more shocked at how eager you are to prove how you seem to think slightly perceived conflicts of interests aren't issues.

Lad what I am saying is that what Hannity describes happens literally all the fing time.

Some engineer dweeb who thinks he knows lots of **** because of the episodes of law and order he saw or because he saw some web page thinks he is being ultra smart by saying 'hey lets talk generally but youre an attorney and its privileged."

far easier to nod and say "sounds good sparky" than to actually explain in detail and ad nauseum the real mechanics.

so then a fing awesome and scintillating talk about llcs and interlocking directors and **** happens, after which i give him a referral.

and i never see the guy again and he never bothers following up on the real meat with the referral, since he is obviously the most amazingly sharp cookie in world as he just had a a fantastic insight into a c-minus, just passing the bar level insight into a general question of law.

and i shut my mouth and keep quiet. its easy, since there are so many of these patchwork legal genuises that do this that quite frankly ive fing forgotten about it by the next cocktail.

yet you discount that type of encounter into 'horrors we *must* treat that as being *deeply* involved.' or somefink.

Good for you Lad. Its an idiotic stance. Have fun jousting the real world in your quest to prove with geometric logic that there is an extra key.

and no Lad, i dont have a fing clue how large you think it is aside from the dogged determination to not let the real world intrude on your viewpoint to any great extent.