Posted on 04/16/2018 12:04:41 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
An unnamed client of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's longtime personal attorney, is Fox News host Sean Hannity.
The revelation came after U.S. District Court judge Kimba Wood ordered Cohen to disclose the name in a court hearing on Monday.
In an earlier court filing Monday morning, lawyers for Cohen refused to identify the recent client — one of three people Cohen represented between 2017 and 2018. The lawyers also refused to identify the names of other past clients.
Lawyers for Cohen — whose business records were seized by FBI agents April 9 — said the then-unnamed client had told Cohen not to disclose his name and that they believed Cohen had a duty not to disclose it.
They also said that if Cohen's clients, other than Trump, were publicly revealed, it is "likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Don’t be surprised if Hannity is not fired by Fox. That’ll leave Lou Dobbs as the only real Trump supporter on Fox,
LOL. This “investigation” is a joke.
Savage was hysterically ripping Hannity on his show about this just now.
I guess I was wrong according to other posters. I may be thinking about Divorce law and making sure your ex does not use your lawyer.
Not in my state: Both the New York Court of Appeals (NY's highest court) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have repeatedly held that in the absence of special circumstances, a client's identify and fee arrangement are not subject to the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., Shargel v. United States,742 F.2d 61, 62-63 (2nd Cir. 1985)("We have consistently held that client identity and fee information are, absent special circumstances, not privileged");Jacqueline F. v. Segal, 47 N.Y.2d 215, 219 (1979)("Only those communications made in confidence to an attorney for the purpose of seeking professional advice are afforded the stature of privileged communications. For this reason, it has been generally stated that inasmuch as a client's identity is not relevant to advice proffered by an attorney, such communication is not privileged*** Justification for the same result has also been predicated upon the theory that the identity of a client must be disclosed to ensure that there exists an attorney-client relationship during the course of which privileged communications may be made").
Go UFKC yourself.
“remarkably different than the John Edwards case where third parties made payments to Edward’s mistress to keep her quiet during the campaign.”
It actually doesn’t matter. What matters if there is a non-campaign reason for the payment.
Protecting the Trump commercial brand is the reason.
I'll check the podcast out tomorrow.
If Fox fires Hannity, they will lose all of their conservative audience. Ingraham doesn’t cut it and Tucker gets on a lot of folks nerves. If Hannity is fired, watch a new station be born.
What if the Stormy affair never happened? I’m not convinced it did. There are no papers that Trump signed. Only what Cohen, the lifelong Democrat, produced. And then there is my post right above this. Cohen may have been an insurance policy and since there is no collusion and people like Hannity are hot on the trail, they may have cashed it in.
The story is the raiding of Cohen's files, looking for anything, and the effort to illegally disclose his other clients (utterly unrelated to the Russian investigation). If Hannity were to disclose this fact before the sham investigators did, he would be helping them in their anti-Constitutional efforts.
Hannity is under no duty to disclose any connection between himself and any story that he comments on. No such duty exists, even for news reporters. SOMETIMES, attorneys need to disclose these connections, but usually these connections are ignored. Try checking out the courthouse in a rural county someday. Everyone in the area uses the same 2-3 attorneys, and any case before the local judge usually has such connections between parties and the few available attorneys. No crimes exist for allowing even those representations to move forward... but Hannity is not an attorney, and you know that. You're just trolling, and getting schooled.
If that is the case then what business does the judge have forcing Cohen's lawyers to reveal the names of people he has had random conversations with? And why are the judge and Cohen's lawyers referring to Hannity as a client?
My God, I never went to Law School but how is any of this legal? The disregard for the rule of law is shocking and is setting a very bad prescient.
How did the media get ahold of this. Cohen might have been ordered to disclose to the court, but it should have been in camera. This is disgusting. I’ve been well and happily out of legal stuff for years, and I still want to hurl over this.
If he was not a client of Cohen’s, which he has stated, what would he have had to disclose? And if he were a client of Cohen, why should he disclose it?
So, if I use a lawyer to challenge the IRS on my taxes, then I should disclose that if a friend uses that lawyer in a divorce?
Your post co-mingles things that have nothing to do with each other.
The driving force behind Hannity is that he is pro-Trump, believing Trump to be the closest currently to his primary idol, Ronald Reagan, among those who ran for President and were electable.
There is no issue whatever in regard to Hannity occasionally using Cohen as a legal consultant. That is all he did. Hey, Cohen, legally, what is your opinion on x or y?
Would such a thing influence YOU, if you were already an open Trump supporter, to somehow slant your opinions in favor of Trump/Cohen? Therefore somehow in detriment to others, such that you were obligated to talk about your legal consults with Cohen? Be honest.
Hannity heralds his beliefs/slants already. He is a commentator who wears his views on his sleeve. Which views have absolutely nothing to do with Cohen.
You’re raising an irrelevancy, then to compound the error, twisting it.
Sean can start planning how he is going to spend the money the govt is going to fork over.
Sean probably had a Parking Ticket or two and brought in legal counsel to help him navigate the complexities of the legal system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.