Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on April 16, 2018, 12:51:38 PM
-
LOL - no mention of this on Faux News yet (maybe soon)
Since Cohen seemed to specialize in paying off mistresses I wonder what he did for Hannity
Hannity denying he ever hired Cohen to represent him
-
LOL - no mention of this on Faux News yet (maybe soon)
Since Cohen seemed to specialize in paying off mistresses I wonder what he did for Hannity
Hannity denying he ever hired Cohen to represent him
So what if true? did you get this info from CNN Fake News ?
Is this the missing link to prove Putin bought the USA from trump for $1.99 ?
-
So what if true? did you get this info from CNN Fake News ?
Is this the missing link to prove Putin bought the USA from trump for $1.99 ?
It was nice of you to take a break from sucking Trumps cock to post on this thread
-
LOL - no mention of this on Faux News yet (maybe soon)
Since Cohen seemed to specialize in paying off mistresses I wonder what he did for Hannity
Hannity denying he ever hired Cohen to represent him
Yes, it was on Fox News today. He's not a client dip shit.
https://www.hannity.com/media-room/sean-hannity-on-media-coverage-of-michael-cohen-in-us-district-court-before-judge-kimba-wood/
-
Yes, it was on Fox News today. He's not a client dip shit.
https://www.hannity.com/media-room/sean-hannity-on-media-coverage-of-michael-cohen-in-us-district-court-before-judge-kimba-wood/
Michael Cohen named his as a client in court
Hannity claims he never paid Cohen. That's a good thing since it means neither Cohen or Hannity can claim attorney client privilege.
-
Michael Cohen named his as a client in court
Hannity claims he never paid Cohen. That's a good thing since it means neither Cohen or Hannity can claim attorney client privilege.
Where did he say Hannity was "client"? If there was nothing signed, no payment exchanged or anything else but a conversation there was nothing. Period. I have clients that are attorneys and we talk all the time about certain things. Does that mean I'm their client? No...hell no. Even pro-bono there is an agreement. Plus he claims there was no third party.
-
Now it’s getting interesting but should we really be surprised?
https://twitter.com/realsaavedra/status/986010202506903557?s=21
-
It is testament to just how well President Trump is performing when you have to comb through all these silly, insignificant threads every day.
-
Where did he say Hannity was "client"? If there was nothing signed, no payment exchanged or anything else but a conversation there was nothing. Period. I have clients that are attorneys and we talk all the time about certain things. Does that mean I'm their client? No...hell no. Even pro-bono there is an agreement. Plus he claims there was no third party.
I guess the lawyer hired by Michael Cohen took it upon himself to lie in court today
A lawyer for Michael D. Cohen said in court on Monday that one of Mr. Cohen’s clients was Sean Hannity, the Fox News personality and an ardent defender of President Trump.
Lawyers for Mr. Cohen, the president’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, had sought to keep the identity of one of Mr. Cohen’s clients a secret in a court challenge of an F.B.I. search of Mr. Cohen’s office.
But after several minutes of back and forth between the government and Mr. Cohen’s lawyers, Kimba M. Wood, a judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, ordered that Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, disclose in open court the name of a client in question, who turned out to be Mr. Hannity.
Before Mr. Hannity’s name was revealed in the courtroom, Mr. Ryan had argued that the mysterious client was a “prominent person” who wanted to keep his identity a secret because he would be “embarrassed” to be identified as a client of Mr. Cohen’s.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/business/media/sean-hannity-michael-cohen-client.html
-
It is testament to just how well President Trump is performing when you have to comb through all these silly, insignificant threads every day.
Word.
-
I strongly dislike Hannity but what is the significance of this?
-
I strongly dislike Hannity but what is the significance of this?
Right? Who the heck cares? ::)
-
It was nice of you to take a break from sucking Trumps cock to post on this thread
Epic projection.
-
So what if true? did you get this info from CNN Fake News ?
Is this the missing link to prove Putin bought the USA from trump for $1.99 ?
HOLY SHIT....so its not important to you that Sean Hannity has a MASSIVE conflict of interest in that he has absolutely destroyed Mueller for investigating the president AND also for raiding Michael Cohen's office....WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT HE IS A CLIENT OF MICHAEL COHEN?????????????....as a supposed "newsman" he is supposed to disclose this to the public.....HE DID NOT....
AMAZING......
-
HOLY SHIT....so its not important to you that Sean Hannity has a MASSIVE conflict of interest in that he has absolutely destroyed Mueller for investigating the president AND also for raiding Michael Cohen's office....WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT HE IS A CLIENT OF MICHAEL COHEN?????????????....as a supposed "newsman" he is supposed to disclose this to the public.....HE DID NOT....
AMAZING......
Lol! Now we care about media credibility?!
-
Right? Who the heck cares? ::)
you sure cared about every little thing concerning Obama.....like his golf and his supposed lying...yet no peep out of you with all of Trump's lying and golf...
WHAT A GODDAMN HYPOCRITE....Hannity has been reporting on his lawyer and not disclosing he is a client of the lawyer he has been reporting on....which means he could be biased
WOW!
-
Where did he say Hannity was "client"? If there was nothing signed, no payment exchanged or anything else but a conversation there was nothing. Period. I have clients that are attorneys and we talk all the time about certain things. Does that mean I'm their client? No...hell no. Even pro-bono there is an agreement. Plus he claims there was no third party.
Cohen's lawyer admitted Hannity was the client in open court today.....you guys are so busy licking Trump's balls you've lost touch with reality
-
Lol! Now we care about media credibility?!
You guys are the ones always sucking off FOX news anchors....
-
Epic projection.
yeah, that makes a lot of sense because I'm such a blatant Trump sycophant
-
HOLY SHIT....so its not important to you that Sean Hannity has a MASSIVE conflict of interest in that he has absolutely destroyed Mueller for investigating the president AND also for raiding Michael Cohen's office....WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT HE IS A CLIENT OF MICHAEL COHEN?????????????....as a supposed "newsman" he is supposed to disclose this to the public.....HE DID NOT....
AMAZING......
Of course it never even occurred to them
par for the course for this crowd
-
you sure cared about every little thing concerning Obama.....like his golf and his supposed lying...yet no peep out of you with all of Trump's lying and golf...
WHAT A GODDAMN HYPOCRITE....Hannity has been reporting on his lawyer and not disclosing he is a client of the lawyer he has been reporting on....which means he could be biased
WOW!
Meltdown. Why u mad though?
Stop lying.
This is a stupid, non-issue.
-
Meltdown. Why u mad though?
Stop lying.
This is a stupid, non-issue.
Its always a meltdown when you get caught in another lie...you're supposed to be a mod....GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF, MAN!!!!!
-
Of course it never even occurred to them
par for the course for this crowd
Agreed..their willful ignorance is absolutely bold-faced
-
Agreed..their willful ignorance is absolutely bold-faced
keep in mind that this is the same crowd that constantly cries double standard (without even being able to articulate a definition)
If this were a Democrat POTUS and his personally attorney who was the subject of a criminal investigation and we found out that the same attorney claimed Rachel Maddow, or Lawrence O'Donnell as a client the Trumptards would be losing their fucking minds screaming conflict of interest
-
Its always a meltdown when you get caught in another lie...you're supposed to be a mod....GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF, MAN!!!!!
I asked you before whether you use drugs. You post the most incoherent crap on this board. lol
-
I asked you before whether you use drugs. You post the most incoherent crap on this board. lol
You're becoming like soul crusher...going for the attack to distract that you have no argument
-
keep in mind that this is the same crowd that constantly cries double standard (without even being able to articulate a definition)
If this were a Democrat POTUS and his personally attorney who was the subject of a criminal investigation and we found out that the same attorney claimed Rachel Maddow, or Lawrence O'Donnell as a client the Trumptards would be losing their fucking minds screaming conflict of interest
They just can't be that dumb.....can they????????????????
-
You're becoming like soul crusher...going for the attack to distract that you have no argument
You attacked me fool. lol. You haven't made an argument. You just bang on the keyboard, use all caps, and babble. The only reason I'm even responding to you is I have a few minutes to kill.
-
You attacked me fool. lol. You haven't made an argument. You just bang on the keyboard, use all caps, and babble. The only reason I'm even responding to you is I have a few minutes to kill.
I didn't attack you./..I stated a truth...that you are a hypocrite....how can you not see the massive conflict of interest in terms of Hannity reporting on a central figure under investigation without disclosing he has a relationship with the guy??????..you're just being willfully idiotic...as a mod you're supposed to be on here to moderate the truth
-
HOLY SHIT....so its not important to you that Sean Hannity has a MASSIVE conflict of interest in that he has absolutely destroyed Mueller for investigating the president AND also for raiding Michael Cohen's office....WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT HE IS A CLIENT OF MICHAEL COHEN?????????????....as a supposed "newsman" he is supposed to disclose this to the public.....HE DID NOT....
AMAZING......
....so its not important to you that Robert Mueller has a MASSIVE conflict of interest in that he actually delivered uranium to Russians and is now investigating a supposed Trump/Russia collusion?
SO the "big story" here is that a newsman has the same lawyer as Trump ???
Where is the list of politicians related to news media executives........
-
yeah, that makes a lot of sense because I'm such a blatant Trump sycophant
Just talking about the gay shit. You tend to do that with other posters when they say something queer. Calm down broseph, it's only the Internet.
-
Just talking about the gay shit. You tend to do that with other posters when they say something queer. Calm down broseph, it's only the Internet.
I only use it when the person is gay or when that person is constantly making graphic gay references or sharing his gay fantasies/delusions such as the case with our self appointed "sherif"
Let me know if you find me making any posts like this (note this was the first post in the thread that he started) and you might have a point
Despite all the effeminate frolicking by the Gay Muslim Hussien, he is not invited to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding next month.
Kensington Palace said: 'The Government was consulted on this decision'
Boo Hoo you POS
-
I didn't attack you./..I stated a truth...that you are a hypocrite....how can you not see the massive conflict of interest in terms of Hannity reporting on a central figure under investigation without disclosing he has a relationship with the guy??????..you're just being willfully idiotic...as a mod you're supposed to be on here to moderate the truth
I didn't attack you. I stated the obvious: you post some incoherent stuff on this board. Hence my question about drug use. Maybe it's drunk posting?
You are really obsessed with the whole mod thing.
You don't even know what a conflict of interest is. ::)
-
....so its not important to you that Robert Mueller has a MASSIVE conflict of interest in that he actually delivered uranium to Russians and is now investigating a supposed Trump/Russia collusion?
SO the "big story" here is that a newsman has the same lawyer as Trump ???
Where is the list of politicians related to news media executives........
Or what about Muller interviewing with Trump, asking him for a job as FBI director, then being appointed special prosecutor to investigate Trump after Mueller didn't get hired.
-
Even though it’s a non-issue the left, specifically “Media Matters” (Soros) is making it out to be some kind of “Ah ha” moment. On their Twitter feed they’ve listed Hannitys sponsors to boycott. Like Hannity or not, Him, Levin and Rush have been the ones leading the way to expose (and have done so) Soros, Clinton and Obama.
Here is how I think this will play out. Soros calls for boycotts, some leave. Hannity has waaaaaaaay too many listeners and followers and just like before, they will boycott the businesses and come crawling back......just like before
Incidentally , Laura Ingrams show has had a 20% rise in ratings since the boy child, TV Hogg called for her boycott
-
vaguely similar to the ex telephone number (solecruster) role in respect of the previous white house occupant
Name one thread i ever made about obama that was insignificant?
-
yeah, that makes a lot of sense because I'm such a blatant Trump sycophant
Why did you edit this post? This was not your original response. ???
-
Levin just went through about 30 anchors, etc. from other networks that have worked for Obama, democratic campaigns, handgun control, etc. and could have kept going.
CNN, MSNBC, etc. is going to be one long(as Andre would say) "disclosing relationships" segment from now on.
There is no issue here. Went from Russian collusion to this? lol
-
Levin just went through about 30 anchors, etc. from other networks that have worked for Obama, democratic campaigns, handgun control, etc. and could have kept going.
CNN, MSNBC, etc. is going to be one long(as Andre would say) "disclosing relationships" segment from now on.
There is no issue here. Went from Russian collusion to this? lol
It went from Russia collusion to Trump needs resign after Frankan et al were outed, to Trump is mentally unfit and needs to be removed, to obstruction of justice, to unrelated business dealings, to porn stars and playboy bunnies.
-
Or what about Muller interviewing with Trump, asking him for a job as FBI director, then being appointed special prosecutor to investigate Trump after Mueller didn't get hired.
This too. Mueller should step down from this shoddy investigation.
-
HOLY SHIT....so its not important to you that Sean Hannity has a MASSIVE conflict of interest in that he has absolutely destroyed Mueller for investigating the president AND also for raiding Michael Cohen's office....WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT HE IS A CLIENT OF MICHAEL COHEN?????????????....as a supposed "newsman" he is supposed to disclose this to the public.....HE DID NOT....
AMAZING......
Its always confusing to me what is to be considered in appropriate by conservatives.
-
There is a thing in music radio called "Payola"...It's where bribes are paid to On-Air personnel to guarantee favorable treatment of bands and records.
What Hannity has probably been doing is the very same thing...not necessarily cash changing hands...but some kind of "Quid Pro Quo"....
-
Its always confusing to me what is to be considered in appropriate by conservatives.
How do you feel about the relationships between dems and people in the media?
-
There is a thing in music radio called "Payola"...It's where bribes are paid to On-Air personnel to guarantee favorable treatment of bands and records.
What Hannity has probably been doing is the very same thing...not necessarily cash changing hands...but some kind of "Quid Pro Quo"....
YES
-
There is a thing in music radio called "Payola"...It's where bribes are paid to On-Air personnel to guarantee favorable treatment of bands and records.
What Hannity has probably been doing is the very same thing...not necessarily cash changing hands...but some kind of "Quid Pro Quo"....
What has Cohen gotten in return for answering a few questions?
-
What has Cohen gotten in return for answering a few questions?
A TV "news" host that continuously bashes Mueller and defends Cohen to his followers.
-
A TV "news" host that continuously bashes Mueller and defends Cohen to his followers.
I see. So this would not have happened if Cohen hadn't answered a few questions from Hannity?
-
I see. So this would not have happened if Cohen hadn't answered a few questions from Hannity?
asking me to speculate? The fact is, he had a relationship he didn't disclose, Cohen considered him a client, he didn't want his name released as a client, he defended cohen repeatedly. If this is ok with you, then thats fine. I just wanted to know where conservatives draw the line on ethics
-
asking me to speculate? The fact is, he had a relationship he didn't disclose, Cohen considered him a client, he didn't want his name released as a client, he defended cohen repeatedly. If this is ok with you, then thats fine. I just wanted to know where conservatives draw the line on ethics
What??? You just speculated on what the quid pro quo was. On what facts are you basing your speculation that Cohen agreed to answer a few questions from Hannity in exchange for Hannity bashing Mueller and defending Cohen and his friends?
-
What??? You just speculated on what the quid pro quo was. On what facts are you basing your speculation that Cohen agreed to answer a few questions from Hannity in exchange for Hannity bashing Mueller and defending Cohen and his friends?
The point is, we will never know because he DID receive legal advice for "free"
-
How do you feel about the relationships between dems and people in the media?
???
-
The point is, we will never know because he DID receive legal advice for "free"
If we will never know, then why did you speculate?
-
I just want to know what happened to attorney/client privilege?
And why it's OK for dems to use their media connections to skew public opinion but not conservatives?
-
I just want to know what happened to attorney/client privilege?
And why it's OK for dems to use their media connections to skew public opinion but not conservatives?
Apparently, the person who convinced the judge to make it all public was an attorney for both CNN and the New York Times.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-law/
It violated longstanding, judicially endorsed standards.
In yesterday’s column, I contended that it was outrageous for federal district judge Kimba Wood to direct that talk-radio and Fox News host Sean Hannity be publicly identified as Michael Cohen’s third client. Cohen, whose law practice is, shall we say, less than thriving, is under criminal investigation by the FBI and federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). He claims only three clients. The other two, President Trump and GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy, acknowledge retaining Cohen. Hannity denies ever having had a formal attorney-client relationship with him.
The court’s order that Hannity’s name be disclosed in open court violated longstanding, judicially endorsed standards against identifying uncharged persons in legal proceedings attendant to criminal investigations.
x
Forget about evidence of wrongdoing. There is not even a suggestion that Hannity is involved in any crimes. He is a longtime friend of Cohen’s. He says they’ve had some informal legal discussions about such matters as real estate — and as any lawyer will tell you, informal discussions with non-lawyer friends are common. Hannity insists, however, that he has never retained Cohen to represent him in any legal matter, and has never paid him or received an invoice from him. There is no public evidence to contradict this, and no suggestion that Cohen has previously represented himself as Hannity’s attorney.
There has been no intimation that Hannity has any pertinent information about the activities for which Cohen is under investigation. His only relevance to the probe involves the question of whether there is a factual basis for Cohen to claim that an attorney-client (A-C) relationship with Hannity should prevent investigators from perusing some materials seized by the FBI from Cohen’s office and residences. And since Hannity is not suspected of wrongdoing, even that question appears to be of little importance.
Consequently, there was no reason for Hannity’s name to be revealed publicly. As I observed yesterday, grand-jury proceedings are secret by law. When prosecutors and agents conducting an investigation seek judicial warrants to search, eavesdrop on, or arrest subjects, it is done in ex parte and in camera, not in public hearings. In short, the public does not have the right to know the names of people – whether or not suspected of wrongdoing – who pop up in a criminal investigation.
Monday’s hearing was public. Whether it needed to be is debatable: The matter is under grand-jury investigation and it involves search warrants; neither of those things entails public proceedings. Yet the issue for the court’s consideration was Cohen’s motion to bar the government from reviewing the materials seized, which he filed publicly. It would probably have been better if Judge Wood had held the hearing under seal; she could later have issued a public decision that explained her ruling on the legal question without disclosing client names or any other factual information related to the investigation that may have arisen. The judge instead elected to proceed publicly, but she still should have limited the open-court discussion to argument about the legal issue, retreating in camera for any discussion of client names.
In any event, the prosecutors could easily have handed Cohen’s attorney, Stephen Ryan, a grand-jury subpoena demanding disclosure of the client identities. That would have required Ryan to reveal the identities to the grand jury, but not to the public. Clearly, the prosecutors and Ryan were aware of this: As The Atlantic’s Natasha Bertrand tweeted yesterday, Ryan was prepared to surrender the information to the government under seal.
Apparently, Judge Wood was initially disposed to let that happen. Then, however, the judge allowed Robert Balin, an attorney for the New York Times and CNN, to intervene. Balin, the Times reports, argued that potential embarrassment was not a sufficient reason to withhold the purported client’s name from the public. The judge was somehow persuaded by this frivolous contention. Without providing Hannity any notice and opportunity to be heard on the matter, she directed that his name be disclosed in open court.
The flaw in Balin’s argument is patent. It is true that, if the public has a legal right to know a piece of information, the fact that the information is likely to embarrass someone is not sufficient cause to suppress it. But the public has no right to know the names of people who are relevant to an investigation – even if they are suspected of wrongdoing. Furthermore, even when the government arrests someone or formally accuses someone of a crime in an indictment, the names of uncharged persons are not disclosed. (That is why you see such references as “Cooperating Witness No. 1,” “Unindicted Co-conspirator No. 3,” or “Corporation X” in charging documents.)
Though they apparently chose not to remind Judge Wood of this longstanding policy, government lawyers are well aware of it. The United States Attorneys Manual admonishes that “in all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties.” Unless a person has been formally charged with a crime, not only should the government avoid publicly naming the person; federal prosecutors are further schooled to avoid even an “unnecessarily-specific description.” In other words, while calling Hannity “Client No. 3” would have been proper, even referring to him as “S.H.” would have transgressed the policy. There is no justification for publicizing his full name.
As the manual elaborates, federal courts have held that there is ordinarily “no legitimate government interest served” by publicly naming an uncharged person. That is the case even when charges against the person are being contemplated; a fortiori, there is no excuse for gratuitously embarrassing someone who is suspected of no wrongdoing.
This adds fuel to the fiery contention that, where President Trump is involved, investigations are driven by politics, not law enforcement.
The investigation of Cohen involves the suppression of information about extramarital affairs between high-profile men and women involved in pornography. Cohen’s work for Trump and Broidy, the only other clients he claims, involves non-disclosure agreements for this purpose. It was inevitable, then, that if the third alleged client was identified publicly, there would instantly be media speculation that this client, too, must be entangled in some tawdry sex scandal that he retained Cohen to hush up.
COMMENTS
This is exactly what happened. Surprised while doing his radio show at news that his name had been exposed in court, Hannity, who has been married for 25 years and has two kids, naturally felt the need to beat back the resulting innuendo. When he denied that he had ever retained Cohen in connection with “any matter between me and a third party,” the Times couldn’t contain itself:
The reference to a third party seems to be an allusion to one of Mr. Cohen’s specialties: drawing up confidentiality settlements. The lawyer has acknowledged paying $130,000 to Stephanie Clifford, an adult-film actress known as Stormy Daniels, as part of a nondisclosure agreement to secure her silence before Election Day in 2016. Last week, it came to light that Mr. Cohen had arranged for Mr. Broidy to pay $1.6 million to a former Playboy model, Shera Bechard, who became pregnant during an affair with Mr. Broidy. After the confidential deal became public, Mr. Broidy resigned from his post as a deputy finance chairman of the Republican Party.
Perhaps you think this is poetic justice for Hannity, who is not above using flimsy evidence to lambaste political opponents and Trump critics. But as a very wise federal judge once admonished me, courts “don’t do poetic justice, they do prosaic justice” — the routine, workaday adherence to the principles and standards on which the rule of law depends.
Under that kind of justice, courts protect uncharged people from being identified in public proceedings in connection with criminal investigations. The failure of the court and the government lawyers to enforce that standard just adds fuel to the fiery contention that, where President Trump is involved, investigations are driven by politics, not law enforcement.
Again, this is also the same "judge" that married Soros
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-law/
It violated longstanding, judicially endorsed standards.
In yesterday’s column, I contended that it was outrageous for federal district judge Kimba Wood to direct that talk-radio and Fox News host Sean Hannity be publicly identified as Michael Cohen’s third client. Cohen, whose law practice is, shall we say, less than thriving, is under criminal investigation by the FBI and federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). He claims only three clients. The other two, President Trump and GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy, acknowledge retaining Cohen. Hannity denies ever having had a formal attorney-client relationship with him.
The court’s order that Hannity’s name be disclosed in open court violated longstanding, judicially endorsed standards against identifying uncharged persons in legal proceedings attendant to criminal investigations.
x
Forget about evidence of wrongdoing. There is not even a suggestion that Hannity is involved in any crimes. He is a longtime friend of Cohen’s. He says they’ve had some informal legal discussions about such matters as real estate — and as any lawyer will tell you, informal discussions with non-lawyer friends are common. Hannity insists, however, that he has never retained Cohen to represent him in any legal matter, and has never paid him or received an invoice from him. There is no public evidence to contradict this, and no suggestion that Cohen has previously represented himself as Hannity’s attorney.
There has been no intimation that Hannity has any pertinent information about the activities for which Cohen is under investigation. His only relevance to the probe involves the question of whether there is a factual basis for Cohen to claim that an attorney-client (A-C) relationship with Hannity should prevent investigators from perusing some materials seized by the FBI from Cohen’s office and residences. And since Hannity is not suspected of wrongdoing, even that question appears to be of little importance.
Consequently, there was no reason for Hannity’s name to be revealed publicly. As I observed yesterday, grand-jury proceedings are secret by law. When prosecutors and agents conducting an investigation seek judicial warrants to search, eavesdrop on, or arrest subjects, it is done in ex parte and in camera, not in public hearings. In short, the public does not have the right to know the names of people – whether or not suspected of wrongdoing – who pop up in a criminal investigation.
Monday’s hearing was public. Whether it needed to be is debatable: The matter is under grand-jury investigation and it involves search warrants; neither of those things entails public proceedings. Yet the issue for the court’s consideration was Cohen’s motion to bar the government from reviewing the materials seized, which he filed publicly. It would probably have been better if Judge Wood had held the hearing under seal; she could later have issued a public decision that explained her ruling on the legal question without disclosing client names or any other factual information related to the investigation that may have arisen. The judge instead elected to proceed publicly, but she still should have limited the open-court discussion to argument about the legal issue, retreating in camera for any discussion of client names.
In any event, the prosecutors could easily have handed Cohen’s attorney, Stephen Ryan, a grand-jury subpoena demanding disclosure of the client identities. That would have required Ryan to reveal the identities to the grand jury, but not to the public. Clearly, the prosecutors and Ryan were aware of this: As The Atlantic’s Natasha Bertrand tweeted yesterday, Ryan was prepared to surrender the information to the government under seal.
Apparently, Judge Wood was initially disposed to let that happen. Then, however, the judge allowed Robert Balin, an attorney for the New York Times and CNN, to intervene. Balin, the Times reports, argued that potential embarrassment was not a sufficient reason to withhold the purported client’s name from the public. The judge was somehow persuaded by this frivolous contention. Without providing Hannity any notice and opportunity to be heard on the matter, she directed that his name be disclosed in open court.
The flaw in Balin’s argument is patent. It is true that, if the public has a legal right to know a piece of information, the fact that the information is likely to embarrass someone is not sufficient cause to suppress it. But the public has no right to know the names of people who are relevant to an investigation – even if they are suspected of wrongdoing. Furthermore, even when the government arrests someone or formally accuses someone of a crime in an indictment, the names of uncharged persons are not disclosed. (That is why you see such references as “Cooperating Witness No. 1,” “Unindicted Co-conspirator No. 3,” or “Corporation X” in charging documents.)
Though they apparently chose not to remind Judge Wood of this longstanding policy, government lawyers are well aware of it. The United States Attorneys Manual admonishes that “in all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties.” Unless a person has been formally charged with a crime, not only should the government avoid publicly naming the person; federal prosecutors are further schooled to avoid even an “unnecessarily-specific description.” In other words, while calling Hannity “Client No. 3” would have been proper, even referring to him as “S.H.” would have transgressed the policy. There is no justification for publicizing his full name.
As the manual elaborates, federal courts have held that there is ordinarily “no legitimate government interest served” by publicly naming an uncharged person. That is the case even when charges against the person are being contemplated; a fortiori, there is no excuse for gratuitously embarrassing someone who is suspected of no wrongdoing.
This adds fuel to the fiery contention that, where President Trump is involved, investigations are driven by politics, not law enforcement.
The investigation of Cohen involves the suppression of information about extramarital affairs between high-profile men and women involved in pornography. Cohen’s work for Trump and Broidy, the only other clients he claims, involves non-disclosure agreements for this purpose. It was inevitable, then, that if the third alleged client was identified publicly, there would instantly be media speculation that this client, too, must be entangled in some tawdry sex scandal that he retained Cohen to hush up.
COMMENTS
This is exactly what happened. Surprised while doing his radio show at news that his name had been exposed in court, Hannity, who has been married for 25 years and has two kids, naturally felt the need to beat back the resulting innuendo. When he denied that he had ever retained Cohen in connection with “any matter between me and a third party,” the Times couldn’t contain itself:
The reference to a third party seems to be an allusion to one of Mr. Cohen’s specialties: drawing up confidentiality settlements. The lawyer has acknowledged paying $130,000 to Stephanie Clifford, an adult-film actress known as Stormy Daniels, as part of a nondisclosure agreement to secure her silence before Election Day in 2016. Last week, it came to light that Mr. Cohen had arranged for Mr. Broidy to pay $1.6 million to a former Playboy model, Shera Bechard, who became pregnant during an affair with Mr. Broidy. After the confidential deal became public, Mr. Broidy resigned from his post as a deputy finance chairman of the Republican Party.
Perhaps you think this is poetic justice for Hannity, who is not above using flimsy evidence to lambaste political opponents and Trump critics. But as a very wise federal judge once admonished me, courts “don’t do poetic justice, they do prosaic justice” — the routine, workaday adherence to the principles and standards on which the rule of law depends.
Under that kind of justice, courts protect uncharged people from being identified in public proceedings in connection with criminal investigations. The failure of the court and the government lawyers to enforce that standard just adds fuel to the fiery contention that, where President Trump is involved, investigations are driven by politics, not law enforcement.
Again, this is also the same "judge" that married Soros
Great commentary. Nailed it.
-
I just want to know what happened to attorney/client privilege?
And why it's OK for dems to use their media connections to skew public opinion but not conservatives?
can you give an example
-
What has Cohen gotten in return for answering a few questions?
Well, you see, the implication is that Michael Cohen has done more than answer a few questions.
-
Well, you see, the implication is that Michael Cohen has done more than answer a few questions.
Implication by the mainstream media that he attacks pretty much every day, based on zero evidence.
-
LOL - no mention of this on Faux News yet (maybe soon)
Since Cohen seemed to specialize in paying off mistresses I wonder what he did for Hannity
Hannity denying he ever hired Cohen to represent him
Fox News reported on it the same day. Its a moot point since Hannity isn't under any investigation. ::)
-
Apparently, the person who convinced the judge to make it all public was an attorney for both CNN and the New York Times.
Again, this is also the same "judge" that married Soros
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/51/51fef71b8e46920e047863453cf31adf84ead66e16ed5f2bd295deb30d933fa9.jpg)
-
If we will never know, then why did you speculate?
youre playing games and being dishonest AGAIN...speculation arises because of the disclosure of a SECRET relationship between a person under investigation and a newsperson who has defended said individual and interviewed him on air without disclosing the true nature of the relationship they have.....which YOU KNOW to be a very big breach in ethics in the news community
why are you playing dumb with this??????????????????????????
-
I just want to know what happened to attorney/client privilege?
And why it's OK for dems to use their media connections to skew public opinion but not conservatives?
But according to Hannity its NOT attorney/client privilege because supposedly, Cohen was not his lawyer....HOWEVER
Cohen himself testified that his third client was Hannioty and that Hannity requested his name not be brought out in court as a client of Cohen's....
SO WHO IS LYING???????????
-
But according to Hannity its NOT attorney/client privilege because supposedly, Cohen was not his lawyer....HOWEVER
Cohen himself testified that his third client was Hannioty and that Hannity requested his name not be brought out in court as a client of Cohen's....
SO WHO IS LYING???????????
-
When you want to get in the argument, but you know you don't have anything to say that will change the fact, the person is right
-
When you want to get in the argument, but you know you don't have anything to say that will change the fact, the person is right
Did you not see the highlighted/underlined portion of the quote?
-
can you give an example
Hillarys chances to win.....98.6%
-
Hillarys chances to win.....98.6%
Ok, the polls, probably 99% of the polls were reporting for months out, Hillary was far and away leading. Was the news outlets which likely included Fox, in on some conspiracy to report what the polls were indicating?
-
Ok, the polls, probably 99% of the polls were reporting for months out, Hillary was far and away leading. Was the news outlets which likely included Fox, in on some conspiracy to report what the polls were indicating?
We'll never really know unless someone blatantly gets caught. :(
-
Ok, the polls, probably 99% of the polls were reporting for months out, Hillary was far and away leading. Was the news outlets which likely included Fox, in on some conspiracy to report what the polls were indicating?
Yes, all of the polls were off but predicting a win by 98.6% is quite the propaganda piece.
-
Yes, all of the polls were off but predicting a win by 98.6% is quite the propaganda piece.
Don't forget, the polls weren't configured to factor in the electoral college. So as far as "who will you vote for?" Hillary did win the most votes
-
Don't forget, the polls weren't configured to factor in the electoral college. So as far as "who will you vote for?" Hillary did win the most votes
Doesn’t matter if she did or didn’t. It’s irrelevant, always was.
-
Doesn’t matter if she did or didn’t. It’s irrelevant, always was.
so,,,,, the fact the polls had her leading, and she actually got more votes... doesn't have any bearing on the polls?
-
But according to Hannity its NOT attorney/client privilege because supposedly, Cohen was not his lawyer....HOWEVER
Cohen himself testified that his third client was Hannioty and that Hannity requested his name not be brought out in court as a client of Cohen's....
SO WHO IS LYING???????????
From my dealings with lawyers, and I've had quite a few, even when I spoke to one on the phone without retaining them, they all said what we talked about was protected under attorney client privilege.
-
so,,,,, the fact the polls had her leading, and she actually got more votes... doesn't have any bearing on the polls?
Take your argument back to Costco.
-
Take your argument back to Costco.
another amazing counter argument
-
Don't forget, the polls weren't configured to factor in the electoral college. So as far as "who will you vote for?" Hillary did win the most votes
Not 98.6% of them. ;)
Face it, the media exploded the numbers is killarys favor in order to get her more votes so the sheeple would back her so they could say they coted for the first woman president, just like the media blew up the idea of voting for the first half black president.....wait, they always conveniently left out the fact he was half white and pushed the narrative that he was black.
-
Don't forget, the polls weren't configured to factor in the electoral college. So as far as "who will you vote for?" Hillary did win the most votes
She didn't "win" more votes because there was no popular vote contest. Terrible talking point.
-
youre playing games and being dishonest AGAIN...speculation arises because of the disclosure of a SECRET relationship between a person under investigation and a newsperson who has defended said individual and interviewed him on air without disclosing the true nature of the relationship they have.....which YOU KNOW to be a very big breach in ethics in the news community
why are you playing dumb with this??????????????????????????
What are you babbling about again? Go back and read the exchange. Not sure it will help, but you don't what the heck you're talking about. Again.
-
Take your argument back to Costco.
lol
-
lol
::)
-
What are you babbling about again? Go back and read the exchange. Not sure it will help, but you don't what the heck you're talking about. Again.
using soul crusher's tactics again.....its always babbling when you get caught in hypocrisy
-
Whatever bullshit you people can come up with to avoid actually presenting a coherent political platform.
Of course this should be expected from the party of Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Fredrica "The Mad Hatter" Wilson.
-
Whatever bullshit you people can come up with to avoid actually presenting a coherent political platform.
Of course this should be expected from the party of Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Fredrica "The Mad Hatter" Wilson.
it was proven that Fredricka was right...but what do you care about the truth anyway???????????????
-
it was proven that Fredricka was right...but what do you care about the truth anyway???????????????
Right about what?? lol
-
it was proven that Fredricka was right...but what do you care about the truth anyway???????????????
About what ? Ashtrayvon was a thug.
-
using soul crusher's tactics again.....its always babbling when you get caught in hypocrisy
Did you get your Trumpjob yet considering you can’t waste time on your obamaphone dealing crack and watching porn any more ? :D
-
Did you get your Trumpjob yet considering you can’t waste time on your obamaphone dealing crack and watching porn any more ? :D
This is laughable coming from a deadbeat who owes Uncle Sam money
-
This is laughable coming from a deadbeat who owes Uncle Sam money
Long since paid off slim. I have a credit score over 800