Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Sean Hannity, Michael Cohen Connection Almost Breaks the Internet…But is it a Nothingburger?

Sean Hannity, Michael Cohen Connection Almost Breaks the Internet…But is it a Nothingburger?

I guess privilege doesn’t matter if you’re Hannity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnKYzoqASsw

Oh boy. I admit my jaw dropped when I saw that Fox News host Sean Hannity is the third client of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s attorney,

Social media erupted and Twitter-lawyers came out in full force to spin the narrative to their liking. After all, Cohen appeared on Hannity’s show a few times like in the featured image. Here are some of the best ones.

Professor Jacobson made this point earlier: “Contrary to what a lot of reporters are tweeting, it doesn’t matter that Hannity never retained Cohen in a matter, signed a retainer, or paid attorney’s fees. He still was, for legal purposes, a client if he consulted even informally for legal advice.

BUT THAT DOES NOT MATTER! Apparently, privilege doesn’t count if you’re Sean Hannity or Trump. Some people even think that Cohen must have “fixed” something for Hannity.

As people speculated, Hannity released statements and addressed it on his radio show:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It’s BS it’s another way the Left is trying to get rid of Fox, one player at a time. And the judge is in on it

    JOHN B in reply to gonzotx. | April 17, 2018 at 8:26 am

    Mueller and friends are making a statement to every attorney in the USA. If you dare to represent President Trump, we will destroy you.

    The goal (already successful) is to prevent President Trump from having any legal advice or protection.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | April 16, 2018 at 7:10 pm

Something (a lot of things) rotten in the laws then – if just asking advice is considered “lawyer’s client.”

“If there is no glove-fitted hand giving the invoice, then they must acquit.”

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | April 16, 2018 at 8:11 pm

    That Lady Judge Married George Soros.

    Now we know just what flavor of Treason she has committed.

    “George Soros Judge Demands All Cohen Records Placed In Federal, Searchable, Database…”

    The Lady Judge Kimba Wood (cough cough) “who is making decisions in the case against President Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen, is the same person who officiated George Soros wedding. Go figure.

    …Wood demanded, in open court, that attorney Michael Cohen state -on the record- the names of his clients….. Then, moments later, in a decision about the seized records taken by the FBI during their raid last week, Judge Wood demanded all of the Cohen records be transferred into a federal database so they could be searched, reviewed, categorized and then leaked more efficiently to the media.”

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/04/16/george-soros-judge-demands-all-cohen-records-placed-in-federal-searchable-database/

      unreliable source but this one rings true

      Once again the Left is rolling over Republicans and the law and the response from the afflicted is always the same: Whine and whimper. No one cane make Cohen, or anyone else say a thing they do not want to. The correct answer to the question is, “None of your effin’ business…..your Honor!

        amwick in reply to MarkS. | April 17, 2018 at 7:23 am

        TY Mark. Seems to me that is the appropriate response to much of what is going on with liberal courts and their myriad injunctions against the executive branch. This is the season of overreach.

So the information that was seized from Cohen’s office is leaking out already? I’m shocked, I tell you…

The judge MADE Cohen tell her the name of the client that want his privacy in public, NOT in her chambers

    Milhouse in reply to gonzotx. | April 17, 2018 at 4:11 am

    That’s right. Why on earth should she have allowed him to keep it secret? Since when does anyone have a right to keep the existence of a lawyer-client relationship secret?

      rdmdawg in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 9:25 am

      How about if I revealed to the world that you’ve been seeing a top sexual dysfunction doctor in the Washington D.C. area. Surely you have no ‘right’ to privacy regarding your health either.

      Anyway, the identities of Cohen’s other clients is in no way material to the case.

        Ragspierre in reply to rdmdawg. | April 17, 2018 at 9:56 am

        Revealing that information and it’s implications would depend on how you came by it.

        If you observed Milhouse entering the offices of the clinic, no issues. Just as with anyone entering an attorney’s office.

        But health information is protected legally. Ever hear of HIPAA?

        The issue of Cohen’s other clients became a central issue when his lawyers raised them as a means of suppressing the use of information from his files.

          rabidfox in reply to Ragspierre. | April 18, 2018 at 1:51 pm

          HIPPA just means that it will be easier for a bureaucrat to search the data base for medical information on you since doctors are now required to submit all their patient information to the government. Then there is this client/attny privilege thing…since the judge has order ALL of the information from the Cohen raid to be put into a searchable government data base it means that NO information is safe from government review. I hope you like your new lefty overlords.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | April 18, 2018 at 10:04 pm

          No. What you said is a falsity. HIPAA makes it VERY hard for anyone to obtain your medical information, say as in a lawsuit.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 11:38 am

      Cohen was arguing that he has clients, other than Trump and that the DOJ seizure violated their right to privacy through anonymity. The state was arguing that Cohen had no other clients at that time. To settle this conflict, the judge requested information as to the identity of Cohen’s other clients. This is legitimate. when Cohen objected to producing this information in open court, as it would render the privacy argument moot, the judge should have adjourned to chambers and heard that evidence in private. If, after nearing the evidence, the judge then decided that there was some compelling interests for this information to be presented in open court, it could have been so at that time. Instead, the judge had already decided that, even if Cohen had other clients, they had no right to privacy with regard to their status as clients of an attorney, as she identified NO compelling interest in such disclosure.. Once the cow has been let out of the barn, a successful argument that the barn door should not be opened is both moot and useless.

      Very poor jurisprudence was shown here. Or, the judge wanted to disclose information pertaining to the identity of Cohen’s other clients.

        Barry in reply to Mac45. | April 17, 2018 at 2:05 pm

        “…the judge should have adjourned to chambers and heard that evidence in private.”

        Exactly. She didn’t because she doesn’t give a damn about the very law she represents.

      puhiawa in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 2:17 pm

      Since the beginning of time. I have signed NDA re the clients identification with penal clauses between $500K-$5M.

regulus arcturus | April 16, 2018 at 7:21 pm

Judge Kimbo Slice was making a determination about “clients” with respect to Cohen’s assertion that he had multiple, versus government’s claim of 1 (Trump).

Is there a less public way she could have acquired that info, other than demanding it in open court?

Vindictive is a good description of her actions here, and I would think that impacting unrelated third parties (Hannity) would draw some fire.

I know it will go nowhere, but if I was these 3 people I would sue everyone involved with taking the records, and all court procedures, for 100’s of millions of dollars for each person, for violation on each person’s 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights, user color of law. At a minimum I would attempt to use the system ad the punishment.

    regulus arcturus in reply to starride. | April 16, 2018 at 7:27 pm

    If I were Hannity I would absolutely go after the judge.

    There may be an interesting angle here, but waiting for more info.

    Valerie in reply to starride. | April 16, 2018 at 11:17 pm

    There is also invasion of privacy, which is a tort that brings big bucks.

    Milhouse in reply to starride. | April 17, 2018 at 4:14 am

    And you would be denied, with sanctions.

      Tory in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 11:42 am

      We get it, dear, in all its intellectually vapid justification…you believe that attorney-client privilege is a fluid concept to be manipulated on ideological whim blah blah blah. Please stop embarrassing yourself with the borderline comical effort to justify a nullification of what you know to be illicit. Be a curmudgeon, if that is your inclination, but please stop wasting patience with commentary that is absurdly pontifical.

The fact that the FBI can raid an attorney is bad enough. THen, we start to hear about other clients of the attorney … this is just insane stuff.
Every single person involved in this – agents, judges lawyers, cops – everyone who had anything to do with this raid and the subsequent dissemination of this illegally obtained information really needs to serve long sentences at hard labor. Every single person.

This is crazy obama stuff

From Ace comments

This judge and this whole NY thing is a total farce. Wow. Damage is being done that cannot be undone. This is explicit , systemic judicial rabbit-hole stuff. The rule of law is being unraveled in real time.

    stl in reply to RobM. | April 16, 2018 at 8:42 pm

    Seesions clearly needs to go, but who would replace him that would actually take a stand? Look how Holder/Lynch protected O and H and we cant get anybody to defend the president? Horowitz is doing a better job than ANY republican. Also too bad Trump pissed on Cruz. I’ve always thought they should have worked together but Trump wouldn’t have it.

The dismantling of our government and rule of law continues, the damages done by Obama, especially, to this once great Nation might never be recovered from.

The left has become so dangerous to our way of life, and to our country. Even if Trump wins these battles against him, our nation has lost biggly.

G. de La Hoya | April 16, 2018 at 8:10 pm

I think it’s time that we start seeing client lists across the board and the reasons why services were required. Oh wait, this isn’t Cuba, Russia, or … is it? 😉

At this point, why do his clients even matter?

All of this should be under seal and a gag order.

As for Daniels, looks like simple greed. But these days you have to fake a cause.

Just a crazy thought, but does anyone remember when we thought the Clintons were protected from investigation because of all the entangled lawyers?

Just one step closer to a evolution. That is all that is left whet there is no more rule of law.

Federal Judge Says Attorney Client Privilege Does Not Matter If You Are Sean Hannity to Embarrass.. I’d file an immediate appeal for recuse of Kimbra among other Federal violations

Walker Evans | April 16, 2018 at 9:47 pm

Mac, I’ve been ready for just that for some time. There was a brief respite when Her Royal Corruptness failed in her bid to become our Fuhrer but it didn’t take very long to understand that the Progressives were not going to accept the decision of the ignorant voting public.

A couple of thousand more rounds of 556 would be good if it is a really protracted fight but I don’t expect that; it is unlikely the Left will be able to hire enough dedicated merc’s for that scenario. [Do it themselves? Not likely!] If the lunatics decide to come after us openly it should be over in a couple of weeks. If they try a pincers encirclement and are sneaky enough it could last for several months but I would expect the same outcome; the Gun Lobby (i.e. us) is simply too large for them to swallow whole.

They’re all crooks*. Judges worst of all. They enable the crooks at every level.

*OK, some exceptions. Not enough.

Henry Hawkins | April 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm

Hannity will never get reelected now. Oh, wait..

I’m still waiting for the actual lawyers to inform us what legal basis the judge had for doing this in an open court. I’m curious just how much of a thin illusion this privilege always was. I like to read about history.

    Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | April 17, 2018 at 4:21 am

    You should better ask what basis anyone ever had for expecting this not to be done in open court. Justice is always done in open court, why should this be any different? What privacy was breached? Hannity didn’t want it known that he’d consulted Cohen; so what? Since when did any client ever have a right to keep that fact secret? People are just making up a right that nobody ever thought existed until this morning.

      Because Hannity was not a party to the court case and was not being represented in any capacity, pro-bono or otherwise? Because if it is a grand jury that sought the information, that information would normally be covered by grand jury secrecy rules? When I say I am not a lawyer, I do not do it for the purpose of having you laugh at me for wondering why other people are acting like attorneys are ordered by judges to divulge the names of their clients as a routine matter of everyday business. Oh, if this is the case, please, this is exactly what I wish to know, because I’d never heard of it before.

      But go ahead and laugh, it is your right.

        Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | April 17, 2018 at 7:11 am

        Sorry, I’m not laughing, I’m just wondering why you think there is any expectation of privacy about the fact that you’re a lawyer’s client. I’ve never heard of such a thing until yesterday when suddenly everyone is outraged about this. To the best of my knowledge attorney-client privilege covers communications between you and your lawyer, not the fact that s/he is your lawyer in the first place.

          I’m not claiming that is “privileged” in the strict sense of the law. However, that information was not “public”, particularly since Mr. Cohen was Hannity’s lawyer – at least if Hannity himself is to be believed – in the most narrow, most strict sense imaginable, which was, Hannity sought legal advice which was offered, and taken, for free.

          I would expect Hannity’s name to come out if there was a good reason to. I see none, at all. And furthermore, this is essentially: you show up in court, and the judge asks you to list ALL your clients, whether or not they personally have anything to do with the matter at hand. THAT is proper? I understand that it is legal and permissible, but is this common? Frequent? Routine? You know, and I don’t, that is why I ask.

          johnny dollar in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 10:41 am

          It may not be covered by the attorney client privilege.
          However, there is no logical reason that the names of Cohen’s other clients needed to be stated in open court, or anywhere else for that matter.
          The judge’s apparent insistence that Hannity’s name be disclosed is more than a little odd, since it does not appear to have any relevance to the underlying request before the court at the time; namely, an effort to have a “special master” appointed to monitor the search of attorney records.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 11:19 am

          Lots of information is not publicly known until it comes up, simply because nobody’s had occasion to make it known. When it comes up in the course of a court’s proceedings, it becomes public knowledge. There’s no reason to shut the court down to hear utterly non-confidential information just because a lot of people never heard it before. That Hannity had consulted Cohen about some legal questions was not secret, it just wasn’t known because nobody had ever asked. Now it became relevant to know who Cohen’s clients were, so the judge asked for the names. Why would she close the court for that?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 11:30 am

          And furthermore, this is essentially: you show up in court, and the judge asks you to list ALL your clients, whether or not they personally have anything to do with the matter at hand.

          What do you mean by not having to do with the matter at hand? The matter at hand was Cohen’s assertion that his papers included privileged communications with his clients, especially ones in whom the prosecutors had no legitimate interest; therefore all his clients, whose alleged privilege he claimed to be protecting, became directly relevant.

          You seem to have forgotten what the hearing was about. Cohen went to court saying “Judge, they seized all this stuff and are about to read it, but there’s privileged client communications in there, so they can’t do that.” And the government replied, “Clients? What clients? As far as we know you haven’t got any, so how could anything here be privleged.” Cohen insists, “I do too have clients. Lots of them. And we’ve been writing a lot to each other, so all those files are privileged.” To which the government says “We don’t believe you. Who are these supposed clients?” “Well, there’s three. Trump, this other guy, and then there’s someone who’d rather stay anonymous.” “We don’t believe you. Who is this person, and how much privileged correspondence have you had with him?” And it turns out it’s Hannity, and not very much. Hardly any, in fact. So the judge tells the prosecutors “Fine. If you come across Hannity’s name on anything, don’t read it. Next.”

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 2:18 pm

          And the judge could have very simply retired to chambers for 5 minutes to get the disclosure.

          Problem solved.

          Just because it is not illegal does not make it right. The law, the judge, should bend over backwards to protect the innocent from even a hint of impropriety.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2018 at 4:13 am

          But why should she have? There’s no expectation of privacy, and nothing improper, in the fact of having consulted a lawyer.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | April 18, 2018 at 8:13 pm

          Because it was the right thing to do Milhouse.

          And apparently, that is what she was going to do, proving the point, until she was talked into not doing so by CNN.

          There is no need, none whatsoever, to disclose anyone else unrelated to whatever is going on (nefarious bullshit itself). No need to unfairly taint them.

          This is simple. Quit hiding behind legal. You know this is true.

It becomes more and more clear every day of how the Clinton’s and their ilk are above the law while Trump and other real conservatives are not allowed the law. Worst of all is how the Republicans sit in the corner quivering like a neutered dog just back from the vet terrified to do anything other than to make useless noises. The rule of law is now dead in this country. The Clinton’s and Obama killed it and the Republicans abetted by their absence of a spine that is allowing all this to happen. What ever happened to men who had courage in this country or has the snowflake generation invaded the Republican party?

Im struggling to understand what possible relevance any of this has? So what if Cohen only has one client? If he is a lawyer and practicing law what does it matter?

Also, if I was Hannity I would be nervous about being labeled as a Trump lawyer client as anyone should be simply because of the dangers to ones health and safety that will come from liberals…deranged liberals hows hatred will be fuelled even further by this.

And lets not kid ourselves…if is a very dangerous time to be a conservative right now because liberals hatred is no longer being contained OR even policed it appears.

One final note…didnt this judge also have some involvement in the Michael Mann lawsuit where she refused to apply SLAP to his law suite and effectively forced Mark Steyn to defend his right to free speech (to call out Mann for his serial lying)???

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | April 17, 2018 at 7:13 am

    The relevance is that the fewer clients he has, and the less legal work he has done for them, the less likely it is that there is much (or any) privileged material in what was seized.

      mailman in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 8:11 am

      I wasn’t aware that one had to have 2 or more clients before they could be considered real lawyers.

      But thats not really the point though is it. The point is, what possible relevance is revealing names in public court have for the case?

      I would be very concerned having my name released in to the wild simply because we have seen just how dangerous and unhinged liberals have become as their hatred has been deliberately stoked by the democrat media machine.

        Milhouse in reply to mailman. | April 17, 2018 at 9:40 am

        You don’t have to have any clients to be a real lawyer, but you do in order to have privileged material. The fewer clients you have, the less likely that papers found in your office contain privileged communications with those clients. The client’s name was revealed in open court simply because there was no reason not to. It’s not privileged, and until yesterday nobody thought it was.

          mailman in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 10:04 am

          I think you are talking yourself in circles on this. Everyone capable of rubbing two brain cells together is aware that Cohen is a “real” lawyer. Seems your inability to run two brain cells together is letting you down as expected.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | April 17, 2018 at 10:34 am

          Nobody is challenging the fact that Cohen is a real lawyer.

          You’d need another brain cell to take this ride.

        Ragspierre in reply to mailman. | April 17, 2018 at 10:02 am

        You’d perhaps be surprised to learn that a great many “real lawyers” never have a client, and never have a practice of law.

        There are about a million ways for an attorney to make a good living without ever having a client.

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | April 17, 2018 at 7:20 am

    One final note…didnt this judge also have some involvement in the Michael Mann lawsuit where she refused to apply SLAP to his law suite and effectively forced Mark Steyn to defend his right to free speech (to call out Mann for his serial lying)???

    No, how could she possibly have? That case is nowhere near New York.

    snopercod in reply to mailman. | April 17, 2018 at 8:00 am

    You may be thinking of DC Superior Court judge Natalia Combs-Greene who was involved in the Mann case. But there’s this: Judge Kimba Wood was Hillary’s personal pick for Attorney General:

    On Bill Clinton entering the White House, Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno.

    Source: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mumbo-jumbo-beginners-mark-steyn/
    Both of Hillary’s choices, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood withdrew their names when t was discovered that that they employed illegal aliens as housekeepers. “Laws are for the little people”, even in 1993.

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/04/16/sean-hannitys-confusing-explanation-michael-cohen/

A rather good disambiguation there.

Seanenen is nothing if not “inconsistent” on this matter.

Also, the circumstances and incidents of just when an attorney/client relationship arises is a much discussed…and disputed…subject in legal ethics.

Any competent attorney has a CYA letter…what I call a “dust off” letter…we use to make clear to a party that we are NOT accepting their representation. It’s intent is basically to do two important things…

1. make it clear to the rejected client that they DON’T have a lawyer, so they understand the need to continue the search, and

2. remove any ethical question about the possibility that an attorney/client relationship exists, or even the possible confusion on the subject by the rejected client.

As an aside, there are other times when a/c goes out the door BESIDES the fraud/crime doctrine; when a client makes a bar complaint, or when either the client or the attorney sues the other.

All of which are totally and facially reasonable.

The idea that the existance of an attorney/client relationship is “confidential” is simply bizarre.

Nor can it be a “secret”. At all points in time, my IOLTA trust account (where I hold money as trustee for my clients) is subject to an audit by the State Bar Of Texas, for instance.

If I write a letter to another party on behalf of a client, that letter is not “protected” by any doctrine in the law.

When I file any pleading, that is public information, per force.

    That’s nice. Now, could you kindly inform us non-lawyers under which circumstances a judge should ask for the names of clients the lawyer is not representing in court?

    If it is no more complicated than the Cohen side asking that Hannity’s name be left out (for reasons of irrelevance), the judge took this as Cohen “representing” Hannity in her courtroom, then please say so and we can all move on. Otherwise, the appearance remains that a judge can ask for all the clients you represent but have not taken a fee from, have not made a pleading for, and so on and so forth.

      Ragspierre in reply to JBourque. | April 17, 2018 at 1:12 pm

      “That’s nice. Now, could you kindly inform us non-lawyers under which circumstances a judge should ask for the names of clients the lawyer is not representing in court?”

      When, as here, lawyers are making an argument that other clients’ information is implicated. It’s what lawyers call a “sword AND shield” argument. You get one, but not both.

      Here, the lawyers were making an argument (pretty unnecessary) that “other clients” information was not germane to the information obtained under the warrant(s). The judge had a right to press them about WHO those clients might be. Suppose, for instance, that the “other” client was a T-rump holding company instead of Sean Hannity.

      My reading of this is that the attorneys for Cohen stepped in it. They opened the door.

        Should have said so several hundred words ago, but thank you nonetheless.

        As for whether it was a “T-rump” holding company, well, apparently that company not being named in the search warrant shouldn’t bother my sweet little head. I’ll stop pestering the lawyers and hope next time, the pertinent information about the legal process comes first and not dead last.

    johnny dollar in reply to Ragspierre. | April 17, 2018 at 11:08 am

    Whether or not the identity of other clients was covered by the attorney client privilege, the fact remains that Hannity’s identity was not relevant to any issue then before the Court: The request by Cohen’s attorney to have a “special master” appointed to monitor the seizure of attorney files.
    As far as I know, Hannity is not accused of any crime, and has nothing to do with Cohen alleged wrongdoing, whatever it may be.
    The judge’s insistence on divulging his identity seems to me to be a gratuitous effort to embarrass anyone connected with Cohen.

If what the link provides ie true, the disclosure is an ethical violation.
https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/youraba/201403article11.html

Comment on Rule 1.6

[15] A lawyer may be ordered to reveal information relating to the representation of a client by a court or by another tribunal or governmental entity claiming authority pursuant to other law to compel the disclosure. Absent informed consent of the client to do otherwise, the lawyer should assert on behalf of the client all nonfrivolous claims that the order is not authorized by other law or that the information sought is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable law. In the event of an adverse ruling, the lawyer must consult with the client about the possibility of appeal to the extent required by Rule 1.4. Unless review is sought, however, paragraph (b)(6) permits the lawyer to comply with the court’s order.

What law did the judge refer to for disclosure?

The problem is that judges and other officers of the court are expected to weigh the value of bringing things into the court and court records. I’m this case, the issue at hand was whether or not Cohen had other clients whose privileged documents may have been swept up in the raid. Aside from this one point, this other client would have absolutely no part in the court proceedings. Their documents wouldn’t be admissible in court since they weren’t part of the subpoena, weren’t supposed to be seized in the raid, and weren’t accidentally disclosed by Cohen during discovery. So, the only issue here is whether there IS another client. Who they ARE is immaterial aside from sensationalism. So, now the judge is supposed to weigh the value of exposing this other client’s name, a person who is not a party to this case and who hasn’t been accused of any crime. The value of allowing them to name the client in private: all the information necessary to come to an informed decision is known to the court. The additional value of forcing them to name the client in open court: the newspapers asked her to and it will expose the unrelated, legal, and private dealing of a non-party. A judge is supposed to use their judgement on these things and look at the compelling interests. The only compelling interest I can see here is that the press is happy, she’s further sensationalized the case, and caused a private citizen unnecessary difficulties. As can be seen by all the idiots who now “know” that Hannity MUST have been paying off women and are spreading this rumor everywhere. Her decision was a very poor one.

    johnny dollar in reply to Crabtree. | April 17, 2018 at 11:28 am

    Very well expressed.
    It seems like the judge went out of her way to embarrass Cohen’s other clients, for no apparent legitimate reason.

    I like your answer better than “Why not?” as expressed by others. …Anyway, in absolute seriousness, thank you to you and ‘Willow’ for citing the other side. Besides, I bet when attorneys are audited by the state bar, the state bar doesn’t publish their client lists on a public website, to address one example used on this thread..

    Ragspierre in reply to Crabtree. | April 17, 2018 at 1:23 pm

    “The additional value of forcing them to name the client in open court: the newspapers asked her to and it will expose the unrelated, legal, and private dealing of a non-party. A judge is supposed to use their judgement on these things and look at the compelling interests. The only compelling interest I can see here is that the press is happy, she’s further sensationalized the case, and caused a private citizen unnecessary difficulties. As can be seen by all the idiots who now “know” that Hannity MUST have been paying off women and are spreading this rumor everywhere. Her decision was a very poor one.”

    This is al patent bullshit you contrived. There isn’t a shred of support for any of it in reality.

      mailman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 17, 2018 at 1:59 pm

      You haven’t got a fucking clue what reality is fuck face.

        Ragspierre in reply to mailman. | April 17, 2018 at 3:39 pm

        I know you’re a soccer hooligan who posts about the U.S. from the UK, and you have the brains of a postage stamp and the vocabulary of a public loo.

      paracelsus in reply to Ragspierre. | April 17, 2018 at 3:09 pm

      @ Ragspierre,
      you really do enjoy seeing how high a negative number you can receive, don’t you?.
      You are the veritable definition of a troll.
      People should not respond to you as you take great delight wasting their time, as well as taking up a lot of column space, employing ad hominems, and using language associated only with the great unwashed.

        Ragspierre in reply to paracelsus. | April 17, 2018 at 3:36 pm

        Like a lot of other things and words, you have no concept of what a “troll” is, obviously.

        If you have something intelligent to contribute, you might give that a try.

      rabidfox in reply to Ragspierre. | April 18, 2018 at 2:09 pm

      There have already been calls to Hannity to be fired and Fox News reviewed Hannity’s relationship with Cohen in light of further employment. Fortunately they decided that there was nothing illegal about the Hannity/Cohen relationship and dropped the whole thing. So, yes, Hannity has already had trouble as a result of this woman’s deliberate war on conservatives.

        Ragspierre in reply to rabidfox. | April 18, 2018 at 9:58 pm

        There are calls for Hannity to be fired continually.

        Nobody suggest that anything Hannity did was “illegal”. It was decidedly dishonest.

Maybe the judge even knew already. The big donor client was already known. How did that happen?

This judge appears to using the standard of “current client” for determining which seized records are privileged, hence the claim “most of those records won’t be privileged.” That’s totally wrong. Even if Cohen has zero clients now retained records from past clients are still privileged.

Rags, this is the second time recently you’ve said my entire argument is bullshit but failed to specify what I’m wrong about. Last time, you couldn’t even point out a single specific fact I got wrong. So, this time, please, tell me exactly what I’ve gotten wrong about this. That judges have to weigh the relative value of every decision they make? That they generally try to minimize damage to non-parties? Can you see any value in revealing this in open court that I missed? Is there a negative to keeping the name private that I haven’t seen? What, exactly, is bullshit, Vinnie?

    Barry in reply to Crabtree. | April 17, 2018 at 2:27 pm

    Simple enough, if it is damaging to Trump, or any Trump supporter, then Ragspusy will be for it.

    The “judge” could have simply left out any clients not involved with the legal issues at hand by meeting in chambers to get the names.

    That is a standard that should be upheld. There is no need to disclose clients publically. There wasn’t here.

    The “judge” doesn’t give a damn.

    Ragspierre in reply to Crabtree. | April 17, 2018 at 3:34 pm

    I was specific in what I called you out on. It was total bullshit.

    Don’t try the game of deflect and “Golly, I’m innocent” with me, please.

In this cade think client identity is a confidentiality issue, not a privilege issue.

Authorities support the view that under Model Rule 1.6(a) a lawyer may not voluntarily reveal the identity of a client where the relationship is not generally known. See, e.g., Paul R. Tremblay, Migrating Lawyers and the Ethics of Conflict Checking, 19 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 489 (2006).

Sigh. “In this case I believe ….”

So that’s a “I got nothing but insults” from you, then? Ok, that’s fine. It just means I get to ignore you from now on, which is a bit of a pity. Like I said last time, I enjoyed a couple of discussions with you in the past where you had actual arguments to make. Sadly you seem to have devolved into this. Please don’t take any future lack of a response from me as agreement or acquiescence, it just means I no longer care about you or what you say.

    Ragspierre in reply to Crabtree. | April 17, 2018 at 4:31 pm

    Ragspierre | April 17, 2018 at 1:23 pm

    “The additional value of forcing them to name the client in open court: the newspapers asked her to and it will expose the unrelated, legal, and private dealing of a non-party. A judge is supposed to use their judgement on these things and look at the compelling interests. The only compelling interest I can see here is that the press is happy, she’s further sensationalized the case, and caused a private citizen unnecessary difficulties. As can be seen by all the idiots who now “know” that Hannity MUST have been paying off women and are spreading this rumor everywhere. Her decision was a very poor one.”

    This is al patent bullshit you contrived. There isn’t a shred of support for any of it in reality.
    ————————————————

    That very specifically calls out your bullshit. That you CAN’T deal with that challenge is evident.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend