Michael Cohen and related issues Master Thread

[Anonymous]

The irony is that Hannity’s rush to distance himself from Cohen substantially undermines the arguments made with respect to the preservation of any assertion of privilege. Simply put, if Hannity is to be believed, there are few if any electronic communications with Cohen. Cohen just got the shiv while appearing before a federal judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. Are you saying that's what he's done or are you speculating?

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

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.

Depends on the definition of client I would think. Show me the cancelled checks from Hannity to Cohen please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can a liberal here actually tell me what Hannity has done that's illegal?

The FBI might be able to tell you after they look at Cohen's files!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One of these have an NDA with Hannity?

His smirk says yes.

The one on the left seems to be about as good as Sean could get.

[Anonymous]

I spilled coffee reading this in twitter: PLOT TWIST: Sean Hannity is actually Micahel Cohen's attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More tweets from Hannity:

In response to some wild speculation, let me make clear that I did not ask Michael Cohen to bring this proceeding on my behalf, I have no personal interest in this proceeding, and, in fact, asked that my de minimis discussions with Michael Cohen,

which dealt almost exclusively about real estate, not be made a part of this proceeding.

“Almost exclusively”. What’s the other part? Sean Hannity makes $36M a year and he gets his legal advice from a guy who just squeaked by at the worst law school in the United States? Not buying it.

Yep, i remember one of the fox fembots going on and on how hannity had never been accussed of any sexual impropriety and that surely if he had been anything like ailes or oreilly it would have come out. Birds of a feather...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can a liberal here actually tell me what Hannity has done that's illegal?

Doing news and interviews with someone who is actually your attorney, but you do not tell the public about the relationship, violates journalistic ethics, but is NOT illegal. Its not illegal to be an unethical journalist. MSNBC had no legal obligation to suspect Keith Olbermann for such a conflict. Fox has no LEGAL obligation to suspect Hannity. I guess the question is if Fox wants to look like an actual journalistic enterprise, with, you know, some ethics, or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can a liberal here actually tell me what Hannity has done that's illegal?

Nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP - so far, none of what liberals here have speculated have come to fruition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

.

if it was just occasional legal advice, they would have said so. Nothing wrong with that and the taint team will remove ut. But they wanted to keep it secret because there is something illegal or embarrassing in the files. Most likely illegal, because if it were just embarrassing legal info, it would still be privileged.

Why would the Taint Team remove it? It’s no longer privileged.

That's my point. It was a hail mary attempt to protect information that Hannity doesn't want out there. And being dumb and desparate, they didn't realize it would only make things worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can a liberal here actually tell me what Hannity has done that's illegal?

Doing news and interviews with someone who is actually your attorney, but you do not tell the public about the relationship, violates journalistic ethics, but is NOT illegal. Its not illegal to be an unethical journalist. MSNBC had no legal obligation to suspect Keith Olbermann for such a conflict. Fox has no LEGAL obligation to suspect Hannity. I guess the question is if Fox wants to look like an actual journalistic enterprise, with, you know, some ethics, or not.

So, nothing illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hannity just tweeted https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/985970632201564161

Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.

So, as I read this, Hannity is waiving any potential privilege and gambling that any communications he had with Cohen are not responsive to the search warrant.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. Are you saying that's what he's done or are you speculating?

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

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.

Depends on the definition of client I would think. Show me the cancelled checks from Hannity to Cohen please.

That’s not how it works. Lawyers can represent for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More tweets from Hannity:

In response to some wild speculation, let me make clear that I did not ask Michael Cohen to bring this proceeding on my behalf, I have no personal interest in this proceeding, and, in fact, asked that my de minimis discussions with Michael Cohen,

which dealt almost exclusively about real estate, not be made a part of this proceeding.

“Almost exclusively”. What’s the other part? Sean Hannity makes $36M a year and he gets his legal advice from a guy who just squeaked by at the worst law school in the United States? Not buying it.

Yep, i remember one of the fox fembots going on and on how hannity had never been accussed of any sexual impropriety and that surely if he had been anything like ailes or oreilly it would have come out. Birds of a feather...

Hannity has a team of hired lawyers due to constant liberal attacks. He damn well should too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One of these have an NDA with Hannity?

His smirk says yes.

The one on the left seems to be about as good as Sean could get.

I can't wait for some liberal to post his name on Twitter with something like this. Libel.