Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:03 PM, Mojo Hand said:

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

Expand  

“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
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by SmokeyTheBear
Posted

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. 

Posted

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
Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:11 PM, SmokeyTheBear said:
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?
Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:16 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:18 PM, 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.

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:19 PM, 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

Expand  

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!"

Posted

Meanwhile...... some interesting arguments going on in court.  Trump and Cohen's lawyers are back biting with each other's motives (as they should), but still interesting to hear as it could get bad....

 

Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:17 PM, 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.

Expand  

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?

Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:25 PM, 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?

Expand  

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. 

Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:25 PM, 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?

Expand  

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.

Posted

Judge entertaining idea of Special Master bc of public nature of this case and asks for submissions on “how we go fast” in such a scenario. Not officially ruled on, but almost certainly denied is Trump’s request for first review 

Posted

At this rate, who would be surprised about the revelation that Cohen negotiated a third payout for some chick who had sex with Hannity, became pregnant and had an abortion.  

Not I.

 

Posted

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?

Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:25 PM, 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?

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:30 PM, 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.

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:33 PM, 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

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:24 PM, Buzzrock said:

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

Expand  

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. 

 

Posted
  On 4/16/2018 at 8:28 PM, 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.

Expand  

 



×
×
  • Create New...