Michael Cohen and related issues Master Thread

[Anonymous]

Another nothingburger ........ but liberals latch on to anything and then let their imagination run riot.

Just look at the posts in the first few pages of this thread and the rampant, wild speculation on what services Hannity must have retained Cohen, without one iota of support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As you folks wet your pants with this “revelation,” the rest of us will wait for the evidence or proof that Hannity’s connection to Cohen is anything nefarious or unethical. He has just stated on his radio show that he has never had him on retainer, he never represented Hannity in any court filings, and any dealings he had with him did not involve a third party.

I think this will go down as another instance of news that gets liberals all worked up in a hot mess, but turns out to be a nothing burger.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As you folks wet your pants with this “revelation,” the rest of us will wait for the evidence or proof that Hannity’s connection to Cohen is anything nefarious or unethical. He has just stated on his radio show that he has never had him on retainer, he never represented Hannity in any court filings, and any dealings he had with him did not involve a third party.

I think this will go down as another instance of news that gets liberals all worked up in a hot mess, but turns out to be a nothing burger.

It’s very odd that Cohen didn’t want to reveal that hannity is his client. If it was, for example, that hannity was seeking legal advice about purchasing an apartment in nyc that hardly seems worth invoking the judge’s ire with a refusal to name hannity as the client. Generally, the identity of one’s counsel is not a big deal. So, then we have to ask, why the desperate desire to conceal the relationship.

And, as others have said, if hannity is saying that Cohen is not his attorney, then no privilege attaches.

What I heard is that Hannity requested his name not be disclosed. Why, you ask? Look at the $hit storm going on with liberals. I wouldn’t want that either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions for lawyers on this thread:

Can trump claim attorney-client privilege for all communications with cohen? Doesn't he need some sort of retainer in some case? Why did the prosecutor not asks for a list of cases where trump and cohen have attorney-client privilege? This privilege cannot be open ended, can it be?

A retainer isn't necessary. But all communications with a lawyer are not necessarily for the purpose of seeking legal advice.

So what established an attorney-client relationship and what establishes the boundary of that relationship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another nothingburger ........ but liberals latch on to anything and then let their imagination run riot.

Just look at the posts in the first few pages of this thread and the rampant, wild speculation on what services Hannity must have retained Cohen, without one iota of support.

Some of us know what Michael Cohen has been known for and what the Fox newsroom has been known for and can add one and one together. Pardon us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another nothingburger ........ but liberals latch on to anything and then let their imagination run riot.

Just look at the posts in the first few pages of this thread and the rampant, wild speculation on what services Hannity must have retained Cohen, without one iota of support.

The are still “hoping for change.” Sad, really. You can just smell their desperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As you folks wet your pants with this “revelation,” the rest of us will wait for the evidence or proof that Hannity’s connection to Cohen is anything nefarious or unethical. He has just stated on his radio show that he has never had him on retainer, he never represented Hannity in any court filings, and any dealings he had with him did not involve a third party.

I think this will go down as another instance of news that gets liberals all worked up in a hot mess, but turns out to be a nothing burger.

Yeah, I'm sure Michael Cohen was just doing something innocent, like helping Sean pay off a parking ticket. It's all a big coincidence that Cohen's other two clients (Trump and Broidy) were paying off "adult entertainers" who were their mistresses. All a big misunderstanding. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daaaaaaaaaaaaamn. This is huge.

How does Fox react? Did Fox even know?

Does Hannity apologize to his audience, take a "planned vacation," or go into nuclear meltdown tonight on his show?

Why is this an issue at all?

Hannity was offering opinions on Cohen without disclosing that he was up to his neck, personally, in the situation.

Illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another nothingburger ........ but liberals latch on to anything and then let their imagination run riot.

Just look at the posts in the first few pages of this thread and the rampant, wild speculation on what services Hannity must have retained Cohen, without one iota of support.

Some of us know what Michael Cohen has been known for and what the Fox newsroom has been known for and can add one and one together. Pardon us.

You are making HUGE assumptions. And, you know what they say about that..........

Speculate away. The rest of us will come back and laugh at you later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another nothingburger ........ but liberals latch on to anything and then let their imagination run riot.

Just look at the posts in the first few pages of this thread and the rampant, wild speculation on what services Hannity must have retained Cohen, without one iota of support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another nothingburger ........ but liberals latch on to anything and then let their imagination run riot.

Just look at the posts in the first few pages of this thread and the rampant, wild speculation on what services Hannity must have retained Cohen, without one iota of support.

Some of us know what Michael Cohen has been known for and what the Fox newsroom has been known for and can add one and one together. Pardon us.

It’s still speculation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another nothingburger ........ but liberals latch on to anything and then let their imagination run riot.

Just look at the posts in the first few pages of this thread and the rampant, wild speculation on what services Hannity must have retained Cohen, without one iota of support.

Some of us know what Michael Cohen has been known for and what the Fox newsroom has been known for and can add one and one together. Pardon us.

You are making HUGE assumptions. And, you know what they say about that..........

Speculate away. The rest of us will come back and laugh at you later.

True this.

[Anonymous]

We lawyers know darn straight well how clear it is when the attorney-client relationship begins. There is no doubt. And this case shows why that rule is so important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daaaaaaaaaaaaamn. This is huge.

How does Fox react? Did Fox even know?

Does Hannity apologize to his audience, take a "planned vacation," or go into nuclear meltdown tonight on his show?

Why is this an issue at all?

Hannity was offering opinions on Cohen without disclosing that he was up to his neck, personally, in the situation.

Illegal?

Was Hannity providing positive election coverage of DJT during the campaign in exchange for free legal services? That's an in-kind donation and is an FEC violation. So yeah, it's illegal.

Or was Hannity being blackmailed by someone within the DJT campaign? Again, that's against the law.

So it's very curious: Cohen claims Hannity is a client and such documents/communications should be shielded from government review; meanwhile, Hannity claims he wasn't a client and therefore his communications are outside the scope of the government seizure.

Who's lying? Either Hannity or Cohen are lying. There is no other explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another nothingburger ........ but liberals latch on to anything and then let their imagination run riot.

Just look at the posts in the first few pages of this thread and the rampant, wild speculation on what services Hannity must have retained Cohen, without one iota of support.

Some of us know what Michael Cohen has been known for and what the Fox newsroom has been known for and can add one and one together. Pardon us.

You are making HUGE assumptions. And, you know what they say about that..........

Speculate away. The rest of us will come back and laugh at you later.

Or the joke may very well be on you.