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

Anonymous wrote:

One of these have an NDA with Hannity?

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Sean Hannity hard pressed for cash? Why would he hire a third-rate lawyer?

Because Cohen is willing to do things that other lawyers won’t do. Other lawyers have a sense of self-preservation and won’t jeopardize their license to practice law. Cohen is willing to violate the law and legal ethics to push the interests of his clients.

I expect the NY Bar to revoke Cohen’s license to practice very soon.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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?