(04-17-2018 09:03 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If a client comes to me and asks me to help them break the law that is privileged and I cannot reveal it unless they are going off to kill somebody or some **** like that.

Now, now, now, now, you're parsing words now aren't you. Cohen is likely to be accused of not being asked to help them break the law, but of actually breaking the law in cahoots with his client.

(04-17-2018 01:55 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 10:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 08:50 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 08:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 04:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  An investigation of what? Bottom line is that all any of us can do is guess at this point. But it seems really difficult to figure out how raiding Cohen's office is a step toward figuring out how to keep "the Russians" from interfering in our future elections.

JHFC...it has nothing to do with Mueller or the Russians! Why can't you guys ******* understand that? That's why it was referred to the FBI, DOJ and NY State. Good grief Owl.

But what about Prague? You libturds peed your pants over the weekend telling us about Cohen and Prague. Do you now admit that was fake news and that Mueller misled you again?

You keep on harping on this to me, and I honestly had not heard one thing about Prague and Cohen until last night. I didn't even know it was in the Dossier. And accordingly, I've not heard a peep from Mueller about Prague so it's kind of hard to say he misled me some way.

And the reporting I saw last night was that despite Cohen's denial, he's yet to provide any factual evidence that he was truly in LA with his son. And in fact, his passport waving episode with Hannity meant nothing. McClatchy says they have two sources that say Cohen went into the Czech Republic through Germany where a passport would not have been needed. Also, when I traveled to Austria and Romania in 2007, Romania did not even stamp my passport when I entered, but Austria did. So again, the passport waving incident is likely meaningless.

But with all this, neither you nor I know whether or not Cohen went to Prague. And that also has absolutely nothing to do with Cohen's suspected illegal activities relating to Daniels, Bank fraud, etc. which is what's being reported this raid was about.

You are not very well informed. Especially to make the **** sure arguments you make on here. Honestly, if I were you I would not volunteer what I didn’t know until “last night”.

And what arguments would they be? Keep in mind, this thread is about Cohen and Hannity in relation to the FBI raid. It has, at least not as of yet, been about anything related to Mueller, Russia or the Steele Dossier. But no, I have not read all the Dossier. Sue me.

FULL DISCLOSURE

Democrats hate America

(04-17-2018 02:36 PM)green Wrote:  

FULL DISCLOSURE

Well well well. Disclosed. Another big nothing burger. Dems are going to starve to death on the menu they are serving up.

(04-17-2018 02:36 PM)green Wrote:  

FULL DISCLOSURE

I’ll wait to watch on Rachael Maddow tonight.

Calling him a friend is not the same as saying he's given him legal advice. Especially when Cohen (or his attorney) is saying he's a client.

LOL. There's a difference between calling him a 'friend' and disclosing a fiduciary relationship. Look you guys don't care what the fact based media says anyway. But still

BWAHAHAHAHA.

PRO FORMA

oh damn... legal experts up on this *****!

I don't think it's a fireable offense...at least not with what we know just yet.

(04-17-2018 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. There's a difference between calling him a 'friend' and disclosing a fiduciary relationship. Look you guys don't care what the fact based media says anyway. But still

BWAHAHAHAHA.

I believe I read a number of post by you that stated you had friends that were Atty's. Now maybe I'm confusing you with someone else but even so answer this question truthfully.

Have you ever asked them legal advice or something in confidence? If so would you call them your atty or a friend?. Now put that friend in front of a judge with the same question that was asked in this case.

If your friend did not want to give up what you two talked about I'm 100% sure he would refer to you as his client ...

When he came to you he would probably say friend. There might be more to this but the way I read it....

a friend was asked or helped out another friend and to keep that in confidence and in legal standing not only is he your friend but atty also.

Of course if its about politics its no longer about common sense...party before all. That my take and I probably haven't watch his show three times in 10 years. Or any news/politic show on Fox 15 times in the last 3 years and thats combined shows

(04-17-2018 03:53 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  oh damn... legal experts up on this *****!

Lol
Do you get double points if you banged an attorney that looks like stormy (when she was young of course)

Asking for a friend

(04-17-2018 04:04 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. There's a difference between calling him a 'friend' and disclosing a fiduciary relationship. Look you guys don't care what the fact based media says anyway. But still

BWAHAHAHAHA.

I believe I read a number of post by you that stated you had friends that were Atty's. Now maybe I'm confusing you with someone else but even so answer this question truthfully.

Have you ever asked them legal advice or something in confidence? If so would you call them your atty or a friend?. Now put that friend in front of a judge with the same question that was asked in this case.

If your friend did not want to give up what you two talked about I'm 100% sure he would refer to you as his client ...

When he came to you he would probably say friend. There might be more to this but the way I read it....

a friend was asked or helped out another friend and to keep that in confidence and in legal standing not only is he your friend but atty also.

Of course if its about politics its no longer about common sense...party before all. That my take and I probably haven't watch his show three times in 10 years. Or any news/politic show on Fox 15 times in the last 3 years and thats combined shows

Dude, if I just talked to a relative or a buddy who was a lawyer, that doesn't make me a CLIENT

Lets review. Michael Cohen claimed in an open court proceeding that

1) Person X was a CLIENT
2) Person X specifically asked them to fight for HIS attorney-client privilege
3) Person X was Sean Hannity

Sean Hannity claims

1) Cohen wasn't his lawyer
2) If he was his lawyer, he provided him with VALUABLE consideration (e.g. legal services) for free

Seems to me someone is lying here. Pick your hammer.

This Russia collusion/meddling investigation definitely hasn't gone off the rails.

(04-17-2018 06:28 PM)Kronke Wrote:  This Russia collusion/meddling investigation definitely hasn't gone off the rails.

It hasn't. Don't you worry... Mueller is working on that. This is another set of prosecutors.

(04-17-2018 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. There's a difference between calling him a 'friend' and disclosing a fiduciary relationship. Look you guys don't care what the fact based media says anyway. But still

BWAHAHAHAHA.

Yeah. The difference is called ‘a bill’.

(04-17-2018 03:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I don't think it's a fireable offense...at least not with what we know just yet.

It's definitely worth firing over. At least in the press of yore.

But lets face it. They don't fire these people anymore for outright bias or coordinating talking points with political campaigns via email...so I guess its no surprise.

The crappy journalistic and ethical standards of the left-leaning press raise my hackles...and I am consistent in this case when its reversed. I would have let him go.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(04-17-2018 06:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Dude, if I just talked to a relative or a buddy who was a lawyer, that doesn't make me a CLIENT

Legally speaking tom, when do you become a client?

(04-17-2018 06:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 04:04 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. There's a difference between calling him a 'friend' and disclosing a fiduciary relationship. Look you guys don't care what the fact based media says anyway. But still

BWAHAHAHAHA.

I believe I read a number of post by you that stated you had friends that were Atty's. Now maybe I'm confusing you with someone else but even so answer this question truthfully.

Have you ever asked them legal advice or something in confidence? If so would you call them your atty or a friend?. Now put that friend in front of a judge with the same question that was asked in this case.

If your friend did not want to give up what you two talked about I'm 100% sure he would refer to you as his client ...

When he came to you he would probably say friend. There might be more to this but the way I read it....

a friend was asked or helped out another friend and to keep that in confidence and in legal standing not only is he your friend but atty also.

Of course if its about politics its no longer about common sense...party before all. That my take and I probably haven't watch his show three times in 10 years. Or any news/politic show on Fox 15 times in the last 3 years and thats combined shows

Dude, if I just talked to a relative or a buddy who was a lawyer, that doesn't make me a CLIENT

Lets review. Michael Cohen claimed in an open court proceeding that

1) Person X was a CLIENT
2) Person X specifically asked them to fight for HIS attorney-client privilege
3) Person X was Sean Hannity

Sean Hannity claims

1) Cohen wasn't his lawyer
2) If he was his lawyer, he provided him with VALUABLE consideration (e.g. legal services) for free

Seems to me someone is lying here. Pick your hammer.

Again no one has to be lying because like you said just because you asked your friend for advice on a legal question you wouldn't consider him your atty. Your friend the atty might have a different view of that if going through the same thing that's going on here. With attorney-client privilege Michael Cohen would not have to answer and questions about his "client" if he is called before grand jury. If not he could be compelled to answer any question asked of him about Sean Hannity, the friend. About any personal or private things in any file he has.

I don't know the reason both gave the answers they gave but no matter what you think...it doesn't mean either is lying. Now with your hate for anything on FOX...I understand why you can't see that.

As I said I dont watch FOX or watch or listen to Sean Hannity or CNN or any other dealing with politics. Hell I'm not even a republican. I lean right and I lean left on about the same amount of issues and I voted that way many times.

Maybe thats why I can see where both could be telling the truth. The law gives them both that right.