-
Posts
12191 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by DDD Dad
-
-
So I missed the news about Trump walking back the Russia sanctions. Did he give an explanation?
-
27 minutes ago, bad motherfucker said:
JFC! almost everyone posting in this thread needs a fucking net thrown over them and then be placed in a straitjacket.
This really adds to the discussion.
-
Since we lost the last thread back in that other place I thought I'd add one here.
Am now through the first episode of season four (watched Black Museum before starting on S1E1).
Hated in the Nation was superb. Entire History of You was great as well. The one with the social voting was good too.
Any word on if further seasons are planned?
-
Yeah it wasn't the clearest explanation.
The identity of a client might itself be privileged if its mere disclosure would risk revealing confidential communications. If, for example Cohen only handles NDA's for trysts with porn stars (i.e., he doesn't offer legal advice to anyone else for any other reason), then the mere identity of his clients might be privileged.
-
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:
I've never listened to Hannity's radio show before. Is it always just newsbreaks and buffer music?
Seems to be.
-
6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:
Not in a general sense (to the former). I don't think the order compelling the disclosure of his clients implies anything regarding his "clients" other than the finding that the mere disclosure would not, by itself, somehow disclose the nature of any communications between the client and Cohen.
-
4 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:
Thanks, I didn't know that about #2.
See my post below for an example of where the identity of the client might be privileged.
-
Court has denied the TRO as moot.
-
Just now, Buzzrock said:
Question for you as an attorney: does it bother you at all that Cohen is being compelled to disclose his client list? Do you think that implies that there is evidence of serious crimes by Hannity in concert with Cohen?
Not in a general sense (to the former). I don't think the order compelling the disclosure of his clients implies anything regarding his "clients" other than the finding that the mere disclosure would not, by itself, somehow disclose the nature of any communications between the client and Cohen.
-
Dershowitz on with him now.
-
4 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:
Rumor is it's Sean Hannity
Confirmed. Not a rumor. Hannity is talking about it on his radio show. Tweets from reporters in the courtroom broke the story.
There's discussion on this in the Cohen thread.
-
Here he goes again.
The legal questions I had "never involved any issues between me and any third party".
If that's the case, then it sounds like it's a pretty tenuous claim of privilege.
-
I will say this (for the nonlawyers). One need not formally retain a lawyer for communications with that lawyer be privileged. One need not be charged a fee for the communications to be privileged. However, the communications must be made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Hannity said that he would ask Cohen questions for a legal perspective (my paraphrasing, not a direct quote).
If the question was something along the line of, "hey Michael, some guy is accusing me of defamation. Here's what I said and here's what I believe the facts to be. Is that defamation?" I'm pretty sure that would be privileged.
If instead he was just asking background information for purposes of talking about an issue on his show, that's not going to be privileged.
- 3
-
Hannity might be blowing his privilege.
Just by saying "attorney-client" doesn't automatically make the discussion privileged.
He's talking about it as if he talked to Cohen for background information for his show. That's not seeking legal advice (or if it is it's way on the fringe).
-
Michael never represented me in any matter. I never retained him in the traditional sense as retaining a lawyer. I never received an invoice from Michael.
But I have occasionally had conversations with Michael in which I wanted a legal perspective.
-
Here it comes. He's now talking about the hearing.
-
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:
Not really trying to show you up despite the Bartism. Just didn't want to leave the wrong impression with the legal unwashed.
Thank you for the clarification. I realize my reply was classic internet message board deflection.
-
So who are the other 7?
-
Not sure. Can you still get your shake in a bag by request?
-
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:
Au contraire, mon frere. One may actually be tried twice for the same crime by two different states or a state and the federal government. It is grotesque, but it is the law. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/dual-sovereignty-due-process-and-duplicative-punishment-a-new-solution-to-an-old-problem
I'll qualify my answer with the term, "generally." Happy?
Also, from the article, it points out that by violating the statutes of two different sovereigns, a defendant by definition has committed two separate offenses.
I'm not a criminal lawyer and haven't studied the double jeopardy clause since law school, so forgive my flippant and unresearched quick reply.
-
What is NY's double jeopardy trap? The state doesn't allow prosecutions where there have already been federal criminal proceedings?
You can’t be prosecuted twice for the same offense regardless of whether it is state, federal, or local. There would have to be some other chargeable wrongful acts to justify a second prosecution. -
Does anyone think the guy that couldn't turn a profit with a casino business should be dictating Fed policy?
Hell he was probably laundering foreign money back then. Might explain why it went under. -
Just now, jimmyjazz said:
Most Americans seem to think lying about blowjobs is not worthy of removal. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that over half of American married couples have at least one partner commit infidelity.
Not sure what purgury is but I think perjury is certainly worthy of removal. It was of course about much more than a consensual blowjob (and I'll not sidetrack this thread with that discussion), but if you want to keep up a narrative that somehow WJC's impeachment was somehow unjustified to compare against DJT then by all means proceed.
-
New Wes Anderson film?- 1
- 1
Michael Cohen Investigation
in Cloak Room
Posted
See, I told you! The Deep State is out to get Trump!