Michael Cohen and related issues Master Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 317, requires broadcasters to disclose to their listeners or viewers if matter has been aired in exchange for money, services or other valuable consideration.

Violation is a felony.

This is a reach, Skippy.
George Stephanoupoulis is more guilty of that than Hannity.

[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.

You don't have pay your lawyer to get the privilege. But Hannity did say something about leagal advice and a real estate deal. That would be a routine matters for any lawyer and not something to try to hide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The apparent Trump supporters here are ridiculous. NONE of us know why Hannity spoke to/used Cohen, but SOMEONE’S statements aren’t adding up. Neither of these people has credibility - Hannity or Cohen. But Cohens attorney just stated in Federal Court that Hannity is Cohen’s *client*.

Is legality the sole thing Trump supporters care about? Not to mention there may very well be something illegal but we don’t know. Just because “libruls” can’t prove illegality in the 2 hours since this news came to light doesn’t mean Hannity is a beacon of truth and ethics and good judgment, not that everything done between these 2/3 is strictly legal.

We are mocking you for your nutty speculation.
And, we will come back to laugh at you when this is all cleared up.

What will you say if something illegal or embarrassing for Hannity turns up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 317, requires broadcasters to disclose to their listeners or viewers if matter has been aired in exchange for money, services or other valuable consideration.

Violation is a felony.

This is a reach, Skippy.
George Stephanoupoulis is more guilty of that than Hannity.

Then call the FBI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 317, requires broadcasters to disclose to their listeners or viewers if matter has been aired in exchange for money, services or other valuable consideration.

Violation is a felony.

This is a reach, Skippy.
George Stephanoupoulis is more guilty of that than Hannity.

Really, because what didn't Stephanopoulos disclose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't have pay your lawyer to get the privilege. But Hannity did say something about leagal advice and a real estate deal. That would be a routine matters for any lawyer and not something to try to hide.

It seems to me that Hannity's statement blows attorney-client privilege sky high.

[Anonymous]

Now Fox is scrambling.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/383423-shep-smith-addresses-elephant-in-the-room-that-hannity-is-cohens-third-client

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith described Sean Hannity being the third client of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, as the “elephant in the room” during his Monday afternoon program.

Smith is the first Fox News anchor to mention the link on air.

“Of course, for us, the elephant in the room is that Sean Hannity is said, according to court documents, to have been a third client of Michael Cohen,” Smith told viewers. “There’s a statement at the 'Hollywood Reporter' supposedly from Hannity that says, ‘We’ve been friends a long time. He did some legal work for me.’

“Hannity’s producers are working to contact him,” Smith continued. “Since it's now part of the story we’ll report on it when we know the rest of it. A lot of people here know his number so we’ll get on that in just a second.”

The revelation that Cohen has worked for Hannity came after a federal judge in New York ordered that Cohen’s unnamed third client be identified during a hearing on Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s still speculation

DP here. Of course it's speculation! So what? Some facts may come out sooner or later. You'll still say it's nothing or Clinton did the same thing.

You can speculate all you want but it makes y'all look like uneducated, spiteful fools. Have at it.

Really, birther?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 317, requires broadcasters to disclose to their listeners or viewers if matter has been aired in exchange for money, services or other valuable consideration.

Violation is a felony.

This is a reach, Skippy.
George Stephanoupoulis is more guilty of that than Hannity.

Really, because what didn't Stephanopoulos disclose?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/14/media/george-stephanopoulos-apology/index.html

[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?

That wasn't the question.

But, to answer your new question, no that's not illegal. Just unethical. Folks should stop listening to Hannity because he's untrustworthy.

Liberal goalz. Won't work. Hannity fans are of the bulldog type. Good luck with that.

Mueller, once again, has nothing. The goal is to create a media sh*tstorm.

You people keep saying Mueller has nothing. Meanwhile Trump and his lawyer are soiling themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now Fox is scrambling.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/383423-shep-smith-addresses-elephant-in-the-room-that-hannity-is-cohens-third-client

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith described Sean Hannity being the third client of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, as the “elephant in the room” during his Monday afternoon program.

Smith is the first Fox News anchor to mention the link on air.

“Of course, for us, the elephant in the room is that Sean Hannity is said, according to court documents, to have been a third client of Michael Cohen,” Smith told viewers. “There’s a statement at the 'Hollywood Reporter' supposedly from Hannity that says, ‘We’ve been friends a long time. He did some legal work for me.’

“Hannity’s producers are working to contact him,” Smith continued. “Since it's now part of the story we’ll report on it when we know the rest of it. A lot of people here know his number so we’ll get on that in just a second.”

The revelation that Cohen has worked for Hannity came after a federal judge in New York ordered that Cohen’s unnamed third client be identified during a hearing on Monday.

Exactly how is this “scrambling?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That wasn't the question.

But, to answer your new question, no that's not illegal. Just unethical. Folks should stop listening to Hannity because he's untrustworthy.

Liberal goalz. Won't work. Hannity fans are of the bulldog type. Good luck with that.

Mueller, once again, has nothing. The goal is to create a media sh*tstorm.

You people keep saying Mueller has nothing. Meanwhile Trump and his lawyer are soiling themselves.

Are you still believing that Cohen went to Prague?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't have pay your lawyer to get the privilege. But Hannity did say something about leagal advice and a real estate deal. That would be a routine matters for any lawyer and not something to try to hide.

It seems to me that Hannity's statement blows attorney-client privilege sky high.

I don't know that the client's opinion matter, since the client would not be expected to know what is privileged. Cohen said he is a client in court, that would seem to make it so.

[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.

Of course, Hannity is totally innocent! That's why he kept it a big secret that he was Cohen's client.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like accuse the POTUS not being born in the USA?