Jump to content
Jordan Washington chats with Bobby for Burnt Ends ×

Michael Cohen Investigation

DanTheHorn

By DanTheHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chooky
Chooky

Now we go live to Rudy Guliani:

Chooky
Chooky

Ms. Bechard is deeply distressed that someone has revealed that she allowed a gelatinous, half-amphibian half-man thing caterpillar across the bedroom on its belly like a walrus, bellowing like a dyin

Chooky
Chooky

If it's revealed he lied I'm as positive about anything that Brisket Goth wouldn't hesitate even a second to call him a pants on fire doo doo head. But what's fascinating here is your sudden into

DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14060

Posted
Posted

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8637

Posted
Posted
Just now, DDD Dad said:

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.

 

Cool - so Cohen’s attorneys had no good faith basis using you to prop up their claim about privilege. Smart. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2222

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

 

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

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.

 

 

And this is why you shut the fuck up.  No privilege for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14060

Posted
Posted (edited)

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).

Edited by DDD Dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

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.

 

So Cohen lied to the federal judge? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 17983

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Hannity might be blowing his privilege.

Just by saying "attorney-client" doesn't automatically make the discussion privileged.

You also don’t need to pay the attorney to be covered by the privilege.  That said, there’s a good argument that Hannity was not a client or seeking to become a client.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8637

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Please tell me the hearing is still ongoing and someone will play Hannity's admission. 

The hearing is now still ongoing. Trump’s attorneys arguing for last 15 min or so that even a Special Master couldn’t protect privilege here [citation needed] and Trump’s team wants 1st review themselves. It’s umm not likely going to work out that way 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

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.

 

Fixed with implied emphasis quotes 

4597179?size=476x268&region=us

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14060

Posted
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

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 me.  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.

Don't harsh my lulz, brah

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

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.

Next up, "To be frank, we were conspiring to commit crimes.  Was that wrong?" 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 31567

Posted
Posted

On  Shep Smith's show the news broke.  Someone got hold of Hannity's PR flack:

 

Quote

“We just spoke with his publicist here at Fox News who says that he says they’ve been friends for a long time, he never denied that he he was his lawyer, that he did some legal work along the way, and that’s the extent of that,” Smith reported.

What a clusterfuck.  Highly entertaining as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5551

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Pods said:

Another long instrumental. Sean is just killing time. 

Listening to CNN and one of the "strategists" was saying she was texting with Sean right then and there while he was on the radio. Bizarre priorities. 

Edited by SmokeyTheBear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...