Michael Cohen and related issues Master Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q about client #3/Hannity.
I have no horse in this race, but I have a solid question...

What is yet source material (as close as we are able to see) of a mention of client 3.

What I know:
It’s in material related to Cohen’s criminal investigation, and this info was released by Judge Kimba Wood.
Hannity is saying he isn’t a client.
But there is a client #3 X’d out and then Judge Wood reveals the name. And Hannity goes, he’s not my lawyer but he’s a longtime friend. (So maybe Hannity is full of BS, maybe not.—he probably is)

again, my big question is I’d like to know more about the context in which the words, ‘client 3’ appears.

And again, I’m not pushing for an answer either way. There’s just some missing link in how this is all being presented.

Cohen's attorney presented Judge Wood with Hannity as "client 3"

It isn't any more complicated than that.

Surrounding context?
Attorney didn’t stand up there and say, “client 3, your honor.”

[Anonymous]

Cohen argued that the FBI seized documents and communications that were subject to the attorney-client privileged. His attorney represented to the Court that the materials related to at least three clients, Trump, Broidy and a third client who had refused to allow his identity to be released to the Court. Judge Wood pointed out that Cohen had miscited cases in arguing that the identity of Client 3 could not be disclosed and was prepared to allow counsel to submit the identity under seal so that it wouldn’t be released to the public. At this point, counsel for CNN and the NYT objected and made the argument that disclosure was in the public interest — courts are increasingly hesitant about sealing records of proceedings. Wood agreed and Hannity’s name was revealed in open court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cohen argued that the FBI seized documents and communications that were subject to the attorney-client privileged. His attorney represented to the Court that the materials related to at least three clients, Trump, Broidy and a third client who had refused to allow his identity to be released to the Court. Judge Wood pointed out that Cohen had miscited cases in arguing that the identity of Client 3 could not be disclosed and was prepared to allow counsel to submit the identity under seal so that it wouldn’t be released to the public. At this point, counsel for CNN and the NYT objected and made the argument that disclosure was in the public interest — courts are increasingly hesitant about sealing records of proceedings. Wood agreed and Hannity’s name was revealed in open court.

I was pp. this makes sense. I had not heard the full context of why we were even seeing anything about client 3 before it was revealed (then the focus was all on the revelation).

So..does Cohen have only 3 clients, or were there only 3 clients whose info was party of the seizure? (Did fbi sieze all files?). And if he does have just three..that is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cohen argued that the FBI seized documents and communications that were subject to the attorney-client privileged. His attorney represented to the Court that the materials related to at least three clients, Trump, Broidy and a third client who had refused to allow his identity to be released to the Court. Judge Wood pointed out that Cohen had miscited cases in arguing that the identity of Client 3 could not be disclosed and was prepared to allow counsel to submit the identity under seal so that it wouldn’t be released to the public. At this point, counsel for CNN and the NYT objected and made the argument that disclosure was in the public interest — courts are increasingly hesitant about sealing records of proceedings. Wood agreed and Hannity’s name was revealed in open court.

I was pp. this makes sense. I had not heard the full context of why we were even seeing anything about client 3 before it was revealed (then the focus was all on the revelation).

So..does Cohen have only 3 clients, or were there only 3 clients whose info was party of the seizure? (Did fbi sieze all files?). And if he does have just three..that is crazy.

Just 3. 2 and a half, If Hannity is to be believed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cohen argued that the FBI seized documents and communications that were subject to the attorney-client privileged. His attorney represented to the Court that the materials related to at least three clients, Trump, Broidy and a third client who had refused to allow his identity to be released to the Court. Judge Wood pointed out that Cohen had miscited cases in arguing that the identity of Client 3 could not be disclosed and was prepared to allow counsel to submit the identity under seal so that it wouldn’t be released to the public. At this point, counsel for CNN and the NYT objected and made the argument that disclosure was in the public interest — courts are increasingly hesitant about sealing records of proceedings. Wood agreed and Hannity’s name was revealed in open court.

Why was counsel for CNN and NYT even there? Representing the “public interest”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cohen argued that the FBI seized documents and communications that were subject to the attorney-client privileged. His attorney represented to the Court that the materials related to at least three clients, Trump, Broidy and a third client who had refused to allow his identity to be released to the Court. Judge Wood pointed out that Cohen had miscited cases in arguing that the identity of Client 3 could not be disclosed and was prepared to allow counsel to submit the identity under seal so that it wouldn’t be released to the public. At this point, counsel for CNN and the NYT objected and made the argument that disclosure was in the public interest — courts are increasingly hesitant about sealing records of proceedings. Wood agreed and Hannity’s name was revealed in open court.

Why was counsel for CNN and NYT even there? Representing the “public interest”?

https://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/hannity-cohen.php

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cohen argued that the FBI seized documents and communications that were subject to the attorney-client privileged. His attorney represented to the Court that the materials related to at least three clients, Trump, Broidy and a third client who had refused to allow his identity to be released to the Court. Judge Wood pointed out that Cohen had miscited cases in arguing that the identity of Client 3 could not be disclosed and was prepared to allow counsel to submit the identity under seal so that it wouldn’t be released to the public. At this point, counsel for CNN and the NYT objected and made the argument that disclosure was in the public interest — courts are increasingly hesitant about sealing records of proceedings. Wood agreed and Hannity’s name was revealed in open court.

Why was counsel for CNN and NYT even there? Representing the “public interest”?

Yep.
https://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/hannity-cohen.php

I am a lawyer with an old school journalism degree. And I HATE Hannity.

This is sensationalism. And Judge should have sealed name of client #3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cohen argued that the FBI seized documents and communications that were subject to the attorney-client privileged. His attorney represented to the Court that the materials related to at least three clients, Trump, Broidy and a third client who had refused to allow his identity to be released to the Court. Judge Wood pointed out that Cohen had miscited cases in arguing that the identity of Client 3 could not be disclosed and was prepared to allow counsel to submit the identity under seal so that it wouldn’t be released to the public. At this point, counsel for CNN and the NYT objected and made the argument that disclosure was in the public interest — courts are increasingly hesitant about sealing records of proceedings. Wood agreed and Hannity’s name was revealed in open court.

Why was counsel for CNN and NYT even there? Representing the “public interest”?

Yep.
https://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/hannity-cohen.php

I am a lawyer with an old school journalism degree. And I HATE Hannity.

This is sensationalism. And Judge should have sealed name of client #3.

She would have been happy to accept it otherwise, but the attorney decided to blurt it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cohen argued that the FBI seized documents and communications that were subject to the attorney-client privileged. His attorney represented to the Court that the materials related to at least three clients, Trump, Broidy and a third client who had refused to allow his identity to be released to the Court. Judge Wood pointed out that Cohen had miscited cases in arguing that the identity of Client 3 could not be disclosed and was prepared to allow counsel to submit the identity under seal so that it wouldn’t be released to the public. At this point, counsel for CNN and the NYT objected and made the argument that disclosure was in the public interest — courts are increasingly hesitant about sealing records of proceedings. Wood agreed and Hannity’s name was revealed in open court.

Why was counsel for CNN and NYT even there? Representing the “public interest”?

Yep.
https://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/hannity-cohen.php

I am a lawyer with an old school journalism degree. And I HATE Hannity.

This is sensationalism. And Judge should have sealed name of client #3.

She would have been happy to accept it otherwise, but the attorney decided to blurt it out.

Oh well. Live by sensationalism, die by sensationalism.

[Anonymous]

Trump lawyer goes on CNN to raise concern about Cohen flipping because of fear of being raped by black men. MAGA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump lawyer goes on CNN to raise concern about Cohen flipping because of fear of being raped by black men. MAGA!

Sekulow?

[Anonymous]

Jay Goldberg

[Anonymous]

Why would Cohen drop his defamation lawsuits regarding the Steele dossier? Too busy with other issues? Knows he wouldn't win? Trying not to be questioned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would Cohen drop his defamation lawsuits regarding the Steele dossier? Too busy with other issues? Knows he wouldn't win? Trying not to be questioned?

Because Cohen WAS in Prague and the truth is an unbeatable defense in a defamation suit. And now that the Feds have all his papers Cohen wouldn't be able to hide things during discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would Cohen drop his defamation lawsuits regarding the Steele dossier? Too busy with other issues? Knows he wouldn't win? Trying not to be questioned?

Prevailing theory is he cannot afford to shoot himself in the foot with depositions and evidence that might blow his criminal case, much less demonstrate that the libel claims are baseless.