F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

a reply to: amazing

Sean Hannity
‏Verified account @seanhannity
2h2 hours ago

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.

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,

Sean Hannity
‏Verified account @seanhannity
39m39 minutes ago

What part of Michael and I never discussed anything that involved any third party is so hard to understand?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Hannity released an official statement saying he was not a client. He never officially retained Cohen as a lawyer and never received any bills or made any payments.

Maybe Hannity should sue Cohen for defamation then.

Oh, wait. That would mean discovery, and stuff.

a reply to: amazing

Hannity's current claim is that he asked about generic real estate law. You can have a conversation with a lawyer without it being privileged if it's a generic question. Once it becomes specific to your situation, a whole different set of rules apply. Basically a lawyer will tell you that they're a lawyer, but they're not your lawyer so they won't answer something specific.

Hannity may or may not be aware of any of this. It seems Cohen felt Hannity was asking for specific advice though. Or potentially, Cohen was acting as a back channel for Trump/Hannity and trying to cover all the communications under privilege.

This could require the court to make a decision on if Hannity was a client or not since Cohen and Hannity can't seem to agree.

a reply to: Aazadan

I don't see why the court would care. Unless there is documentation involved.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan

I don't see why the court would care. Unless there is documentation involved.

Aside from the supporting or undermining the "I have clients claim so everything is privileged" the courts dont care as it has nothing to do with the reason they are in court.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No. Sorry. The fake news b.s. is done.
Sinclair's concerted effort to hype the trump rhetoric that echoed across the land was real.

Don't derail the thread by trying to make it about Obama.

Regarding blindness, this is very very bad . I can see that plain enough.

originally posted by: Xcathdra


In an effort to deceive the courts Mueller referred it to SDNY so it appears to be an unrelated criminal investigation. Apparently the warrant cited documents from 2011 and 2013.

That begs the question as to why the FBI seized everything, including items not on the warrant.

SDNY has had a Grand Jury empaneled for months investigating Cohen. That was made clear in court filings.

How did Mueller deceive the courts?

What did the FBI seize that was not included in the Warrant?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hannity released an official statement saying he was not a client. He never officially retained Cohen as a lawyer and never received any bills or made any payments.

Maybe Hannity should sue Cohen for defamation then.

Oh, wait. That would mean discovery, and stuff.

Maybe.. If defamation occurred...

In this case it did not.

Also you may want to research the legal definition of defamation because what Cohen did doesnt even remotely come close.

a reply to: Xcathdra

All I did was point out that non payment didn't mean there was no contract between a lawyer and potential client.

a reply to: soberbacchus


Here is a novel idea. Why dont you quote MY ENTIRE POST, which places what you quoted into context?

It was a hypothetical.

If you cant extend the courtesy then why bother posting? Soely to create drama or what?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I wouldn't want to be named as a client of Cohen's if I wasn't. It's a lie!

Apparently, Hannity didn't want to be named either. According to Cohen.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Then that means your argument and fake media hypocrisy is done as well then. I love it when you have your own argument thrown back in your face and you all of a sudden move goal posts to excuse and hide the hypocrisy.

Either way you are still wrong - it is not corruption.

a reply to: knoxie

Sounds like the headlines I see online at the grocery store.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Scrubdog

As for Rosenstein and his letter he already put Manafort on double secret probation by issuing a classified memo letting Mueller investigate crimes outside the letter.

There was obvious overlap with Manafort secretly working for a corrupt Ukranian Leader to further Putin's agenda and Russian interference. That is made clear in how even weeks before the election the same people, Manafort, Gates, the british Lawyer and the Ex FSB guy were still discussing payments via the same contract they got paid on to help Putin's friend in Ukraine before he was deposed.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

All I did was point out that non payment didn't mean there was no contract between a lawyer and potential client.

Correct. It spoke to my point.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

I wouldn't want to be named as a client of Cohen's if I wasn't. It's a lie!

Apparently, Hannity didn't want to be named either. According to Cohen.

Sure.. however its not defamation.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Overlap so much it fell outside Muellers jurisdiction... lol ok.


The crimes associated with Manafort and Gates occurred back in like 2005 to 2014. No connection to TRump.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Slander then.

A lie about being Cohen's client is not good for Hannity's reputation. Else, why so vehemently deny it?

But he won't do it. Discovery. And stuff.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You're probably right there probably isn't anything involving Hannity in those records.
Which really just reduced the client base by a third.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus


Here is a novel idea. Why dont you quote MY ENTIRE POST, which places what you quoted into context?

It was a hypothetical.

If you cant extend the courtesy then why bother posting? Soely to create drama or what?

LOL

Thanks for editing your prior post to sound hypothetical before this response.

T&C discourages quoting entire posts when they are lengthy. I prefer to quote relevant parts when I have a question about something.