[robroys woman]

Nothingburger. Why do I care who Cohen’s clients are? Why should I care who Hannity’s attorney is?

[babble-on]

Would you care in an alternate universe if Maddow went on TV night after night railing about how Hillary’s lawyer was being treated unfairly, and then it turned out Maddow had the same lawyer and never mentioned it?

[daler]

"Why do I care who Cohen’s clients are?"

I don't.

But I'm beyond enraged that some asshat leftist hack Clintonite judge thinks she (and the rest of the world) has a right to know.

[ealgeone]

It’s an attempt at deflection by the LEFT. It’s what they do.

[dware]

Y'all do realize that, while yes, Trump is the catalyst, the fact is that this isn't JUST about Trump. What is happening in DC right now is nothing short of scorched earth punishment against Conservatives for not falling in line in November, 2016. This is an all out war against Conservatism, and those waging that war (certainly not Conservatives - for some reason, we seem content to let them destroy us) will stop at nothing until Conservatism is wiped clean from the face of the earth.

Time to wake up to that reality, folks.

[ManHunter]

And when was the last time a federal judge compelled an attorney to disclose the identity of a client who is neither a target nor a subject of an investigation? You can bet your ass that the judge already knew and wanted it to be public, despite the fact that Hannity had nothing to do with the as-yet-undisclosed “crime” that Cohen has committed.

I would’ve asked Dershowitz, “What’s the nature of YOUR relationship with any of the people involved in this nonsense? Shouldn’t you disclose that information?”

[SoFloFreeper]

Big nothingburger. I agree.

Funny how the media isn’t reporting the apparent connection between the federal judge and George Soros.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Why should I care who Hannity’s attorney is?

Apparently, this "proves" that Fox News works for Trump and helped him steal the election by pretending to be neutral journalists. Or something...

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

It’s outrageous isn’t it, they’re taking the most miniscule things and blowing them up to ridiculous heights. I was reading Huffington all the regressives absolutely frothing at the mouth “WE GOT HIM!” Got him for WHAT? For talking to a lawyer? Is this now illegal in the world of regressive land?

[L,TOWM]

We want our journalists to be objective, even if we agree with them, right? Or if something might interfere with their objectivity, we would want to know that, right? In my world, Hannity reporting on things related to somebody with whom he has had personal dealings is called a “conflict of interest”.

Put another way... If Rachel Maddow was found to have used an attorney that is now on Mueller’s staff, and then speaks glowingly of Mueller’s team, wouldn’t you have wanted to know the existence of the business relationship in that case? I know I would; it can help me evaluate the spin I am being provided by the propagandists. It’s why somebody like Cramer is supposed to mention that he owns a stock he discusses if he owns it; to mitigate the conflict of interest.

Agreeing with Douche-awitz on this one.