Michael Cohen and his lawyers went to court in New York City yesterday. The hearing was to figure out certain things about Cohen’s “law practice” which seemed to consist of himself, a surreptitious tape recorder, millions of dollars from God knows where, and a Trump campaign email account. One of the big priorities of Monday’s hearing was figuring out A) if Cohen was an actual lawyer with actual legal work or if he was just a shady political fixer hiding behind a law degree and B) ifCohen had any other clients besides Donald Trump and the conservative anti-choice Republican Party official who paid his Playmate $1 million-plus in hush money after she had an abortion.
As it turns out, Cohen had one other client: Sean Hannity. The same Sean Hannity who has been railing against Robert Mueller, the FBI and the Department of Justice for a year now. The same Sean Hannity who never disclosed to his employers or his viewers that he had a conflict of interest while “reporting” on any story involving his fake-lawyer/fixer. Apparently, when Hannity’s name was revealed in court, there were audible gasps in the gallery and in the media-room link-up. After everyone lost their minds about Hannity using Denture Don’s mob lawyer/fixer, Hannity made the effort to distance himself from Cohen, telling his radio audience that he had “brief discussions” with Cohen and “Michael never represented me in any matter. I never retained him in the traditional sense of retaining a lawyer. I never received an invoice from Michael.” Hannity also claimed that there was no “third party” involved in his discussions with Cohen, meaning that Hannity wasn’t out there, using Cohen as a middle-man to pay off hookers, Playmates and porn stars. Hannity also released this statement on Twitter:
Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective. I assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third-party.
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.
Real estate, huh? Real estate legal issues aren’t really a sexy headline grabber like “Playmate” and “abortion,” but it’s worth saying this too: Trump has been up to his eyeballs in shady real estate deals for decades, and so the idea that Hannity went to Trump’s lawyer/fixer on the issue of “real estate” doesn’t placate me whatsoever that this sh-t doesn’t stink to high heaven, even if Hannity is telling the truth. Also: if what Hannity says is true and that he never received a bill and never considered Cohen his actual lawyer, then what Cohen told the court was a lie. Basically, this is a gigantic clusterf–k.
As for the rest of the hearing, Trump’s new lawyer argued that all of Cohen’s files belonged to Trump, basically, and that the files should go back to Trump, who will assess which files can be released to the court. The judge was like “nah.” There will be additional hearings, but basically the files are not going back to Trump and Cohen. Some sort of special master or “taint team” will likely be appointed to go through the files to decide what is privileged and what is not.
It was revealed Monday in a court hearing that Michael Cohen had done secret legal work for Fox News host Sean Hannity, who asked that his name not be disclosed. Here are six times the commentator defended Cohen https://t.co/Yrp0wOpppc pic.twitter.com/MkNKQm12Jf
— POLITICO (@politico) April 16, 2018
Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.
I was following the Twitter thread yesterday of the reporter in the courtroom, and when Hannity’s name was tweeted as the third client, I laughed out loud at my desk.
Me too! It was one of the few times on the internet where I typed LOL and actually meant it.
I gasped. It’s almost too perfect.
Hannity is lying out of both sides of his ass. In one quote he says he “paid Cohen $10 bucks or so one time or another”, and another quote he says he “never got a bill” for “advice”. Pick a lane, Douchebag!
Also, have you seen this article? Our Great Fixer got into a subpar law school that accepts 80% of it’s applicants. Yup, that’s some brain trust ya got there Cheetolini: https://forward.com/fast-forward/398890/michael-cohen-went-to-worst-law-school-it-accepts-80-of-applicants/
I was watching CNN and anxiety coloring in one of those adult coloring books when it broke and the anchor was practically peeing herself with glee every time she said Sean Hannity. It seriously made my day. I was able put down the colored pencils and enjoy the broadcast for a while.
Ohh Aang I hope you find those colouring books helpful!
Snazzy they are great for anxious energy. Between coloring and Tai Chi I might survive until 2020.
I love those adult coloring books! I’ve been using them a lot lately
I gasped audibly enough for my kid to ask me what was wrong. Then I laughed.
I like the detailed dot-to-dots and then you can color them afterwards :-).
The freewheeling nature of the coloring books make me *more* anxious (does this color go well next to this color? should I be using shades of blue or maybe green??) so instead I have been doing paint by numbers. There are some great kits on Amazon, they take me about 2-3 months to complete. I sit and paint while I listen to podcasts and the news, helps lessen the stress.
@Aang I was watching that live on CNN, too. A funny moment 🙂 There was a lot of schadenfreude going on.
So many questions about this shady crap.
It was just…perfection.
I gasped and then may have cackled/laughed with happiness.
I did an honest-to-god spit take. I didn’t know those actually happened in real life.
Someone also tweeted that in addition to the gasps in the courtroom, someone uttered an audible ‘holy shit’, which I think is beautiful.
LOL I wanna buy that person a beer.
I laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes. Hannity hoped to stop the investigation to save his own sorry arse.
It feels like one of those moments when the true villain is unmasked, and I had an inkling they were guilty during the whole movie. Or they wrestle the criminal to the ground and rip off the ski mask.
I love this. Every moment makes me smile.
I have despised Hannity since his talk show on NYC’s AM stations. About 35 or 30 years. He is a Bloated Tick, sucking did the people who lose when his guys are in power. And my husband and I have always thought he is a pervert of some kind.
Twitter Rumor is sexual harassment is what Cohen “fixed.”
Lol first of all privileged communication does not belong to the client. Just as I can never give my clients in therapy their files, I don’t know any lawyer that thinks files belong to their clients. So I laughed at that.
Other than that is anyone surprised by the number of people caught in this web? Cause I think I reached my threshold and more shenanigans happen.
0 days since our last nonsense.
Actually, the privilege does belong to the client but any actual materials related to the communications or work belongs to the attorney. The client privilege is over whether or not third parties can see those materials in cases that don’t involve the lawyer seeking payment for the bill or criminal actions like the one being investigated.
I came here to say that. The client owns the privilege but a court can see the documents but other parties cannot.
Even the circumstances in which a court can see them are limited: lawyer seeking payment of a bill; lawyer defending charges of malpractice from that particular client; investigations of criminal wrong-doing involving the lawyer & client.
Agree lightpurple what I was referring to was where there is a claim. The court can see the documents to determine if they are privileged.
But I practice in Australia so the law around privilege may be slightly different (although I agree with the circumstances you outlined).
Right but not the physical docs and materials don’t. Same thing in our field where the client consents to where we can share info but the docs belong to our agency. It seems like they were trying to argue that the physical docs should be turned over to trump and they would “sort it out”.
I only know of Hannity from a mention or two on this site. I know he wasn’t charged with anything yesterday, can you please tell me why is this a big deal and so funny too?
He is like the #1 guy on Fox News defending the president/Cohen about any and everything that’s gone on in the past year. He is supposed to be an unbiased journalist and now we find out he’s actually been in bed with Trump this whole time.
I see. He’s a hypocritical joke who’s credibility is toast, and now everyone knows. From what I’ve read, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. Thanks, Nene’s Wig:)
Since O’Reilly left he is the number one personality at Fox “News”. He’s in daily communication with Trump.
I don’t watch Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News, but I saw some very recent clips where he was discussing three big tree charts with people’s photos on them:
The Clinton Crime Family
The Comey Crime Family
The Mueller Crime Family
That gives you an idea of what he has been earnestly pushing to his audience. He’s following Trump’s twitter rampages, claiming all of them are crooks and should be locked up in jail. Yes, he really thinks Comey and Mueller have committed crimes and that’s why they are pursuing the innocent Trumpster and Cohen.
Trump frequently talks to Hannity on the phone, possibly every day. Trump used to often complain that the fake media should interview Hannity to get the truth about his innocent orange self.
Wonder who is working on a tree chart of The Cohen Crime Family, with his “three clients” on it.
In Canada, the client owns the privilege and has a right to documents created before and during the retainer which were the subject matter of the retainer.
Plus the issue of a retainer or payment would not be determinative of whether a solicitor-client relationship exists.
And in Canada, the scope of solicitor-client privilege covers who your clients are, so the information as to Hannity’s identity would have been sealed and a non-publication order issued for any client who is not the subject of the investigation.
So many interesting differences in the way this works in New York!
The judge actually gave Cohen’s lawyer the option of writing the name of the hire client (Hannity) on a piece of paper if he preferred, but for some reason he decided to just say the name out loud. I don’t know if the judge would have just read the name into the court record anyway, though.
It was pretty obvious that Cohen’s team was just trying to claim that Cohen was indeed practicing law because he had three clients. Their goal was to get it all declared within client-attorney privilege. So they threw Hannity to the wolves in pursuit of that goal. Doesn’t seem to have changed anything except for Hannity.
The tossing under the bus has begun.
@jwoolman, it was actually Robert Balin, a media attorney who represents NYT, AP, and others, who objected and argued that the identity of the 3rd client was a legitimate matter of public interest and should be provided publicly rather than under seal. Judge Wood agreed, which is the only reason we know Hannity is Client #3. We owe Mr. Balin our thanks.
Karma, baby.
I’m thinking there’s some quid pro quo between Cheeto and Hannity, with Cohen as the intermediary. Money may have not been the currency — more like, “you preach to my Trumpian base, and I’ll have my fixer clean up that little mess you got yourself into”.
Just a theory.
I think Trump definitely has some kind of thing going on with Faux News aka fox. Can you imagine if Obama publicly praised, hired and took advice from CNN? Republicans would go nuts. How does this not raise red flags with anyone or be considered inappropriate?
I’m assuming your question is rhetorical because since red flags and impropriety have ceased to matter in the GOP-deplorable universe.
As least the judges in these matters so far seem to get it.
to go further, can you imagine how Hannity would react/cover it if it came out that Rachel Maddow had ties to one of Obama’s lawyers who was under investigation?
Fox “News” would lose their sh*t with Hannity leading the way.
That is exactly what I was thinking. Lol had a few Trumpsters get angry yesterday when I tweeted my theory at Hannity. Will be interesting how this all plays out.
BINGO!!
Definitely – it’s been going on since the campaign, I’m sure.
Heads would literally have exploded had Obama done this. Or even a fraction of the crap they’ve pulled.
Punkymomma I think there may be messes.
For a brief moment, there were rumors about Hannity and sexual harassment, but they disappeared. Why would he hire a thug like Cohen?
It can’t be for legitimate reasons.
You’re right magnoliarose – here’s an interesting article from the woman who said Hannity invited her twice back to his hotel room before and after her guest appearance on his show. She declined his invitation and he behaved rather badly….https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/sean-hannity-sex-harassment_us_58fd5c6ee4b00fa7de153d2b
Was laughing all afternoon watching Twitter as the Trumpets screamed on behalf of Hannity that Attorney-Client privilege was being murdered. If their was no attorney-client relationship, there is no attorney-client privilege.
Thanks for that explanation because I was wondering if Hannity never retained Cohen as a lawyer was there attorney-client privilege. Also, it has been reported that Cohen played tapes of conversations for others to hear (those not talking on the tape). Does that negate the attorney-client privilege?
It doesn’t negate the privilege, it violates it.
Thanks.
The man denied Cohen was his attorney so either he is accusing Cohen of lying to the court or he’s declaring that any communications Cohen has is fair game and can be released since “he is not a client.” Hannity screwed himself with that tweet.
Let that be a lesson to all. If you have a court case, let it play out in court. Don’t $hit tweet all over Twitter. It may be used against you.
“Michael never represented me in any matter. I never retained him in the traditional sense of retaining a lawyer. I never received an invoice from Michael.”
I cannot get over this sentence. Apparently since he never received an invoice (probably a lie) and he wasn’t retained in the “traditional” sense, it doesn’t really count. Jaysus. Is there some new, little known way to retain legal counsel that I am unaware of? Did they frigging communicate by blinking at at each other? Morse code? Semaphore?
Meanwhile, 45 supporters are screaming “See??? Fake news! He didn’t REALLY use him”.
It’s definitely weasely. I know it’s fiction but I remember an episode of Better Call Saul where Saul was giving Kim, I think, advice and asked for a dollar so that it would be covered by privilege. Seems like the same sorts of shenanigans may have occurred, lol.
It was the other way around, Saul gave Kim a dollar and she became his lawyer
When Saul was introduced in Breaking Bad he had Walter and Jesse stuff $10 (or something) into his pocket so that he could advise them as their attorney. IIRC they had Saul tied up at the time. 😂😂
Oh, so this is why Hannity’s story shifted so fast to him tossing a $10 at Cohen every now and then. That had sounded so weird to me, but maybe he was trying to establish a client-attorney relationship. Ooh, Sean Hannity, you have indeed been a bad boy.
The only thing I can think of is that I have several lawyer friends and I have needed advice on a situation or two and asked for their advice. I never retained them as a lawyer nor did they provide any service, paid or unpaid, other than advice. So that is what I believe this situation is, although I could be wrong.
Why would Cohen call him a client then if Hannity wasn’t? I’m sure your lawyer friends would not name you as a client. I’m not calling you out Swack, I’m trying to figure out why Cohen would lie knowing it could be proved (e.g. phone records, emails).
@browniecakes – I have no idea why Cohen would call him a client as I would not expect my lawyer friends to name me as a client for simply giving me advice. I think Cohen is maybe protecting someone else for the simple reason he discussed this person with Hannity and has it recorded somewhere or in some other type of written communication. Therefore if Hannity is a client these tapes/communications are privileged (in Cohen’s mind). Just my thoughts on it.
I think it means that Cohen either wrote stuff down he and Hannity discussed or he has tapes that they got in the sweep of him and Hannity talking. Calling Hannity a client might have been an effort to try and exert privilege for those conversations later. If it’s just two guys shooting the breeze about illegal stuff, totally usable in the investigation.
“I never received an invoice” translation I just handed him a briefcase full of cash.
He just waived his privilege away by saying that. A lot of attys on Twitter were commenting on that.
It started with a low giggle punctuated by silence as I read the reporter’s tweets, and built to gentle giggles as I processed the news before I graduated to all-out laughter so loud it woke m kids from their naps.
I was on a cloud yesterday. You know there’s more to come in this whole sordid mess.
Last night on CNN Don Lemon waa trying to stop himself from laughing when he said the other client was Sean Hannity.He just smiled
Didn’t Hannity say at some point he was not divulging anything about Cohen as that was client/lawyer privileges ? Right after he claimed that Cohen was not his lawyer.
I might have heard that wrong. Any way, something smells like desperate bullshit. 🙂
Yes, he did. And then there is the whole sordid ethical problem of him using his job to attack Mueller on the topic of the raid of Cohen’s office without divulging to his employer or his audience that he was involved with Cohen. But ethics aren’t encouraged at Fox.
None of the Fox News crew are journalists, so ethical behavior isn’t necessarily expected. I guess. I never watch Fox and only know this creepy dude from Celebitchy.
Hannity’s explanation is that he is not a news reporter but an entertainer, therefore did not have to reveal it (at least is what I read).
Fox is classified as entertainment rather than news. Really. They claimed that category gave them a lot of freedom to say whatever they wanted, since it was for entertainment purposes rather than informational purposes.
Obama didn’t let them into a press event at one point because he said they weren’t really a news outfit. I had thought it was just a funny burn, but he probably was actually referring to their established description as entertainment rather than news.
(wrong spot)
Lol – I had a suspicion that Hannity was involved in a big way and that he will go down when Trump does…
Is Hannity a criminal or has that just not been proven, yet?
Real estate issues? BS. Hannity is a FOX news slug, and the channel has a history of sexual abuse and harassment scandals and lawsuits. Hannity might be another on the list
When I first heard Hannity was involved with Cohen, I immediately thought of all the sexual harassment claims made against Fox. Michael Cohen may have directed Hannity towards another lawyer who could help him for some serious legal matters. The “real estate” discussions sounds like a cover for something else.
Exactly. Hannity is such a liar, and he’s lying now too! lol. That’s what liars do. They lie. But man, this was fun. Made my day yesterday! I was working and I keep MSNBC on, but muted, got so busy I wasn’t on twitter or anything. I look up, see his face hanging on my wall, and ‘breaking news” and I’m like, maybe he finally popped during one of those rants and he’s dead! But no, it was way better.
Real estate issue..as in, “What property can I sell off to get cash for an NDA?”
More like, “Michael Cohen, can you take out a home equity loan and direct the proceeds to someone for me?”
consider also that Hannity is one of the highest (if not THE highest) paid “commentator” on news television. He makes something like $36million a year.
he could go to ANY lawyer, but he chose 45’s fixer for “advice on real estate”?!
sure, Jan(nity).
I think that’s likely. The other 2 clients hired him to dole out hush money, why else would he have gone to him, of all people?
Hannity wants it both ways..”I wasn’t a client…but I want attorney client privilege.” Such a cretin.
I want to apologize to the writers and showrunners of Veep, Scandal and House of Cards. I have accused them I don’t know how many times of jumping the shark with their storylines, shady characters, WTF moments, neverending cliffs. I tought they were unrealistic but turns out they were far, far away from the real dumpster fire that is present-day politics.
Right? Can you imagine that court room yesterday? This is definitely a tv show.
Shonda could not imagine that. Even Olivia would have been shocked.
that is why I cannot watch VEEP anymore. It is too close to home when before i thought it was so amusing and so totally not happening in real life in a country like the USA.
Joe Scarborough was saying this morning that this whole courtroom scene was like a finale of a TV show or movie. He said it reminded him of the end of the movie “Crash”, which is a point well taken. If only there was an Olivia Pope character to inject some female bad ass-ness into this clusterfuck. And I can’t wait for VEEP to start again. I’m thinking about rewatching it.
I was rewatching the third season this weekend. Honest to God, the prrimary debate scene when Selena forgets what the three R’s of her immigration platform is straight-out of a 2016 GOP debate.
IKR? what does one do when real life is stranger than fiction ever could be?
Can someone lend me some pearls? I’ve clutched mine into oblivion.
LOL! Maybe Suckabee Sanders will lend you hers.
They’re probably so tainted by lies that they’d burn holes in your skin.
It is with a sad heart I announce I will be in the hospital….
For an ass reattachment because I laughed mine off.
HAHAHAHAH thank you for this
lol
Hahaha! Everyone’s on fire this morning…..
lmao
you win the comment of the day!
OH.MY.GOD!!!! I’M. DYING!!!!😂🤣😂👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
now I am going because you killed it!!!
OMG!! Comment win! I may have to steal this one!!
So Hannity, a $36 million per year media personality, is involved with Cohen somehow, when he could afford any other (real, competent) attorney in the country! Ha! Also, now that a media heavy is exposed as a Trump inner circle figure, does this finally vindicate Celebitchy for running articles about politics? Without the sewer line of Putin propaganda pouring out lies via famous–dare I say, celebrity– FOX news personalities, Trump would never have gained power.
Exactly. Hannity had the money to hire a competent attorney, not this putz. He obviously needed someone who was a fixer.
yes, THIS. I mentioned this above. dude’s got resources for the best, no-conflict-of-interest lawyers.
he went to Cohen because he wanted something “off the books” with (what he thought would be) no record of advice. something he didn’t want to take to his on-retainer lawyers. if he truly wanted “real estate” advice, that’s something you ask a real estate lawyer, not a fixer.
too bad Cohen sold him out, and likely has tapes/notes.
Yup…and Michael Cohen basically got his law degree from a cereal box:
https://forward.com/fast-forward/398890/michael-cohen-went-to-worst-law-school-it-accepts-80-of-applicants/
On a purely mean superficial note, Hannity seems to also use the same makeup artiste as 45, they both have that orange look about them. The guy just oozes GOP white male entitlement, and u just know he’s got a few paid off playmates/porn stars in his closets.
Sounds like the press are going to be enjoying covering this story about him.
I think a LOT of the legitimate press LOATHES this guy, so yeah, there’s gonna be a lot of laughs and schadenfreude.
I remember seeing Olbermann talking about running into Hannity at a baseball game and how Hannity acted all friendly and such, that his act on Fox was just that – his act. Olbermann wasn’t having it or anything to do with that tool.
Was the “real estate” advice along the lines of, “Can I get ten times the value of a property via a shady foreign deal? Hook me up?”
If we believe SH, then why did MC’s legal team spend so much time trying to protect the third client’s identity? Three clients in two years is a topic in itself.
At least the legal team got their “brilliant” lawyer client to show up, instead of hanging out on the sidewalk with “friends”.
Money laundering comes to mind.
I had one of my best days last week when Cohen was raided by the Feds. Yesterday was an equally good day when Hannity’s name was BLURTED OUT LOUD in the courtroom (not under seal).
We desperately need an insider who can be the direct conduit for CB. Who are the posters who live in NYC and DC who can get fake journalism badges and sit in what’s becoming the greatest shitshow on earth?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Hahahahahhahaha I have several journalist friends and Im in NYC. They do sports journalism although one was an editor for s major newspaper a few years ago. i wonder if we can use his connects.
I laughed so loud when this story broke!
Hearings are open to the public, unless the judge says no. However for big cases, you’d have to show up early just to get a seat. If you can’t go, you can always check out the transcript from the Clerk (yep just like the library).
When Hannity first said he only had a few casual conversations with Cohen and that Cohen had never represented him in legal matters, I could believe that could be true. Both Cohen and Hannity are good friends of Trump so it’s not really odd that Trump might refer Hannity to Cohen or that they may have met socially. It doesn’t make sense that Hannity would go to him for serious legal advice simply because Cohen doesn’t really practice law. It’s not unusual for people to get a law degree and just use it as background for doing something else.
If the first story was true, it would be ethical to not mention his limited experience with Cohen as a disclaimer. It’s pretty funny, though! People had trouble muffling their laughter in the courtroom.
But Hannity seems to be changing his story to claim client/Attorney privilege. Possibly he doesn’t understand the limitations of that concept. A lot of people incorrectly think just having a lawyer in the room makes conversations privileged.
Love that judge, though. She doesn’t put up with any nonsense.
When I heard Kimba Wood, I blinked fast. I had to go google her. The name plopped me right back into the 90’s and sure enough, same judge I was having the 90’s flashback to. NO ONE could have made this stuff up.
Yep the name was familiar and sure enough, Nanny Gate.
Regarding the judge — Rachel M and a person in the courtroom have pointed out that were it not for an attorney representing several major news outlets, Wood was ready to take the third party’s name under seal.
That attorney (Mr. Balin), spoke up and provided arguments for why the public had a right to know, is the mostly unsung hero from yesterday’s proceedings.
Isn’t he repping WaPo and CNN (ie: American’s “right to know” in a legal scope?)
He represented the press’ interest in the case. Technically he represents five news organizations, including AP. NYT, ABC and CNN. Not sure what the fifth one is, but his professional description on the firm’s Web site indicates he’s represented a lot of well-known publications and outlets.
Had he not spoken up, the judge was ready to accept a sealed envelope, and we’d likely not know who mystery client is.
Did anyone listened to Morning Joe this morning? I get the feeling Joe is afraid that his name may popped up in this mess. At one time he was very happy to be In the loop with 45. This morning Jo was upset that S Hannity’s name was revealed. Another thing, why were the lawyers fighting so hard to keep SH name from being revealed. Something smells to higher up, eg the Dotard. He SH must be peeing his pants today because of all the colluding he did with the Dotard.
I actually know someone who works on Morning Joe. Interesting theory. Wonder if anything will turn up!
I’m Canadian, so our law may be different, but in Canada, the name of your client is part of the scope of the privilege, so unless your client consents (or you are ordered to do so by the Court), you cannot tell people who your clients are. So, here, unless Hannity was a subject of the investigation, his privilege would not have been waived by the Court and his identity would have been provided under seal and a publication ban issued in respect of it. This would provide the prosecutor with the information they needed to assess which documents are privileged but at the same time protect the solicitor-client privilege of an innocent client. So an order to disclose in open court (without the client being given an opportunity to appeal) would be almost unheard of for us.
“De minimus…” that’s a funny phrase. Can we use it to describe Trump’s hands?
Or other things?
“I never received an invoice from Michael.”
Yeah, people don’t usually issue invoices for a suitcase stuffed with cash. Hypocritical moron.
So Sean Hannity has been going off the rail and reporting on the Mike Cohen story since it broke. But Hannity never thought to disclose that he was Cohen’s client or that he had any relationship with him. Conflict of interest MUCH? So Is Fox News going to release a statement?
Faux News won’t do jack s***. They are so far up Frump’s a****** that Hannity’s complete lack of journalistic ethics won’t even be noted down.
The things that happen these days only highlight John oliver’s brilliance you were talking about in the other post. Reality nowadays is so absurd and entertaining that no fiction writer and no comedy writer could possibly beat it. Everyday there’s a plot twist.
How can a so-called lawyer only live off 2 clients? Also why does Hannity insists that he never was a client of Cohen’s but Cohen names him as 1 of his client? I wonder who Hannity had Cohen paid off to keep a sex affair quiet.
Really Cohen is as an actual “lawyer” as Hannity is an actual “journalist”. Zero credibility as the people they represent.
If you want a real time play by play of the proceedings, read this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/ambiej/status/985921334185287680
That was very informative.
Hannity’s “real estate” claims are a load (obviously, as it’s Hannity). Real estate = money laundering and shady payments. Cohen is not a real estate lawyer. If Hannity needed actual real estate advice, he’d use an actual real estate lawyer. Cohen has to be the conduit between Trump and Hannity, and informs Hannity’s stupidity on his stupid show. John Barron or John Miller or David Dennison aka Trump needed a channel to Hannity and vice versa and Cohen was the guy. The really stupid guy these other stupid guys used for all this stupidity. Also, how much says Hannity had Cohen pay off a woman (women? men?) to go away…he’s had harassment rumours circle his smug, stupid ass already.
The press is messing up what the judge ruled yesterday. CNN is reporting that she rejected the restraining order, but allowed the Dotard and Cohen to review the documents to see what the FBI can and can not see based on “attorney client” privilege and that she will have both sides argue as to whether or not it’s privileged. MSNBC on the other is reporting that the judge rejected Cohen and the Dotard’s request to see the documents. Why is MSNBC reporting that the judge rejected the Dotard’s request when it was clear that she ordered the FBI turn over the documents to Cohen and his lawyers?
I’m surprised that Trump hasn’t just hired Sean Hannity and Fox News as his director of communications. Let’s be real, they do his PR.
I think Hannity is outright lying. I don’t think Cohen would have named him as a client unless Cohen knows there are docs or audio tapes in his confiscated materials.
I think there is more to come out about Hannity.
100 percent agree. Hannity is going to be nailed when-if the documents come out,