Jump to content

Michael Cohen Investigation


DanTheHorn

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

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

“Aaaaand we’re back from break.  To clarify my earlier comments, the only conversations I’ve had with Michael Cohen were purely to satisfy my romantic fantasies of having a lawyer talk dirty to me in legalese.  No actual advice was provided.  Only fake advice and, to be clear, only for the purposes of indulging my unusual fetish.  We’ll be right back after this extended commercial break.”

Edited by BrickHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you imagine the Trumpkin heads exploding if Hillary's lawyer had records subpoenaed, and it turned out that the "lawyer" only had two other clients -- John Podesta and, say, Don Lemon at CNN?

We'd see murder boards about "media conspiracies and coverups" on Hannity for YEARS.

Look, I hate this president.  I think he's awful for the country, for the world, and for humanity.  But, thank God, at least now it's getting laugh-out-loud fucking funny.  Seriously, the Keystone Kops are pointing and laughing at these clowns.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like he is wanting to make it really clear that Cohen didn't pay off anyone on behalf of Hannity. All other data points to him are unimportant. And that could fuck Cohen/Trump over. Delicious.


Is there a Mrs Hannity he needs to talk to before he fesses up perhaps?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Hannity arguably waived *any* privilege claim by Hannity/Cohen by virtue of a subject matter waiver and telling everyone on air about the subject of their alleged attorney/client relationship. 

And this.  The privilege can be waived by publicly discussing the subject matter of the advice.  Hannity may have done so or is doing so right now.  I gotta say, the collective quality of all of the legal advice the Trumpkins have gotten seems to be on par with that of a first year Aggy Law School grad recovering from a traumatic brain injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:

And this.  The privilege can be waived by publicly discussing the subject matter of the advice.  Hannity may have done so or is doing so right now.  I gotta say, the collective quality of all of the legal advice the Trumpkins have gotten seems to be on par with that of a first year Aggy Law School grad recovering from a traumatic brain injury.

i don't think that the trump people are getting bad advice, exactly. it's just that they are all ignoring it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i don't think that the trump people are getting bad advice, exactly. it's just that they are all ignoring it

I'll be honest....my palate isn't discriminating enough to distinguish between these different flavors of stupid.  They're both so overpowering that all you can taste is "STUPID!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Can you imagine the Trumpkin heads exploding if Hillary's lawyer had records subpoenaed, and it turned out that the "lawyer" only had two other clients -- John Podesta and, say, Don Lemon at CNN?

We'd see murder boards about "media conspiracies and coverups" on Hannity for YEARS.

Look, I hate this president.  I think he's awful for the country, for the world, and for humanity.  But, thank God, at least now it's getting laugh-out-loud fucking funny.  Seriously, the Keystone Kops are pointing and laughing at these clowns.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 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?

You have to meet the elements of att client privilege to assert the privilege. Can’t do that without identifying a client.   Cohen refused to do so even under seal.  He made his own bed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions for lawyers:

If we are to assume what Hannity says is true - that he only had "brief discussions" with Cohen "about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective" - then the assumption is Hannity is the ONLY person to legally interact with Cohen in this way?  That Cohen didn't have these kind of interactions with other friends/colleagues?   

I guess Cohen had to consider Hannity a client because the FBI has emails or taped recordings of their conversations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Being required to disclose the client list has nothing to do with whether or not any of those clients is suspected of criminal wrongdoing.  It's based on a couple of things:

1 - if you assert the privilege as to communications with some persons, then you need to show that those persons are indeed clients.

2 - the identity of a client is generally not privileged information.

So, if someone subpoenas Brisket's files, I can assert the privilege as to my atty-client communications.  I would say to to the court "I represent ABC enterprises, Bob's plumbing, Ed's taco joint, and the government of the State of New Hampshire."  Then, the court will know that communications with such folks MAY be privileged.

The fact that it's being required here is because a court found probable cause for the subpoena to issue in the first place, and that bar is HIGH when it's an attorney's office being subpoenaed (as has already been discussed).  It makes me nervous when that happens, but it's also appropriate that the bar is high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Being required to disclose the client list has nothing to do with whether or not any of those clients is suspected of criminal wrongdoing.  It's based on a couple of things:

1 - if you assert the privilege as to communications with some persons, then you need to show that those persons are indeed clients.

2 - the identity of a client is generally not privileged information.

So, if someone subpoenas Brisket's files, I can assert the privilege as to my atty-client communications.  I would say to to the court "I represent ABC enterprises, Bob's plumbing, Ed's taco joint, and the government of the State of New Hampshire."  Then, the court will know that communications with such folks MAY be privileged.

The fact that it's being required here is because a court found probable cause for the subpoena to issue in the first place, and that bar is HIGH when it's an attorney's office being subpoenaed (as has already been discussed).  It makes me nervous when that happens, but it's also appropriate that the bar is high.

Thanks, I didn't know that about #2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Translation: see my post above. If preliminary injunction is granted in part, it would almost certainly be to assign the review to a Special Master

So she hasn't denied it...but she hasn't granted it.  Sounds like she's trying to figure out how to grant it in part, or how to grant it with some specific restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Are  you kidding? Ratings will be the best he's ever had.

Assuming they even know about it. I still wont watch that show, and they won't learn about it on Foxnews.com. The cover right now is about a stripper storming the courthouse. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...