Michael Cohen and related issues Master Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seth Abramson nails it again:

In one fell swoop, Hannity:

1 Says Cohen lied to a federal court about being his lawyer
2 Says any docs about him the feds seized aren't privileged
3 Makes himself a witness for Mueller
4 Revealed an undisclosed on-air conflict of interest
5 Contradicts what he said on the radio

8 always think there's something not right about Hannity. Can't wait for all the documents to come out !!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There you have the Republican ideology in a nutshell: as long as it’s not something that will land you in jail, who cares about whether it’s ethical? Ethics, schmethics- that’s for losers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

So in other words, speculation.

The FBI has been reading Cohen’s communications for months. I hope non-client Hannity wasn’t hasnt not been seeking legal advice lately.

Without a warrant?

[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.

Still speculation. You have no idea of any of that has been done, and you claim that Mueller has had Cohen's records for months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There you have the Republican ideology in a nutshell: as long as it’s not something that will land you in jail, who cares about whether it’s ethical? Ethics, schmethics- that’s for losers!

Yep, losers like Hillary.

Sorry, but liberals telling me that it's unethical doesn't make it unethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Record of birth in HI during that time was not a birth certificate. Next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There you have the Republican ideology in a nutshell: as long as it’s not something that will land you in jail, who cares about whether it’s ethical? Ethics, schmethics- that’s for losers!

Not even landing in jail is a deterrent anymore, since they can just get a pardon from the Don.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Record of birth in HI during that time was not a birth certificate. Next?

Embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you.

[Anonymous]

Subtle reminder that Hannity made 36 million last year. He lives next to Rupert Murdoch on Long Island Sound in a massive waterfront mansion. He's the highest paid cable news personality in the entire world.

He can afford any attorney he wants.

He chose the same fixer as Donald Trump for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Record of birth in HI during that time was not a birth certificate. Next?

The color of the sky is a liberal conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

So in other words, speculation.

The FBI has been reading Cohen’s communications for months. I hope non-client Hannity wasn’t hasnt not been seeking legal advice lately.

Without a warrant?

You figured it out! Wow, your gonna bust this story wide open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

So in other words, speculation.

The FBI has been reading Cohen’s communications for months. I hope non-client Hannity wasn’t hasnt not been seeking legal advice lately.

Without a warrant?

You figured it out! Wow, your gonna bust this story wide open.

^^^ You’re

[Anonymous]

The FBI already has Cohen dead to rights. They’ve been monitoring his comms for months,which means they had a warrant. Now they want to see what else he was up to and with whom. That now includes the Trump organization. Watch out Don, Don Jr and Ivanka. The walls are coming tumbling down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FBI already has Cohen dead to rights. They’ve been monitoring his comms for months,which means they had a warrant. Now they want to see what else he was up to and with whom. That now includes the Trump organization. Watch out Don, Don Jr and Ivanka. The walls are coming tumbling down.

Did they?

[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.

Libel doesn’t mean what you seem to think. Expressions of opinion don’t give rise to an action for defamation, assuming Hannity’s reputation is susceptible to being injured. Plus he’s a public figure. So suck it, moron.