The time now is 21 Oct 2018 2:53 pm
Hannity

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AgTimes Boards Forum Index -> News & Politics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KeithDB
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 12258
Location: Indianapolis

PostPosted: 16 Apr 2018 4:47 pm 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

From the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:

"Journalists should: Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts." https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Bet with the same facts and a CNN journalist Hannity would say this was violated.
_________________
"The middle of nowhere just got a lot more interesting."
http://brendahiatt.com/brendas-books/teen-fiction/starstruck/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
KeithDB
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 12258
Location: Indianapolis

PostPosted: 16 Apr 2018 6:33 pm 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

This may be some of the most inept attorning I have ever seen. Let's walk through the sequence here.

1. On Friday Cohen's attorneys say he represents lots of clients unrelated to this investigation who may have had attorney/client privileged stuff seized. This is presented as a travesty.

2. The judge naturally asks who they are. Cohen's attorneys dumbly look at each other and say they don't know. The judge asks how many there are. Cohen's attorneys dumbly look at each other and say they don't know. The frustrated judge asks why their client isn't there to answer these questions.

3. The judge (understandably) orders Cohen's attorneys to have a list of all his clients to the court by today (Monday) at 10:00 am. The judge further notes this list is NOT attorney/client privileged. That's correct. Communications between attorneys and clients are privileged, but the mere existence of a relationship normally is not. The judge further orders that Cohen be present to answer any necessary questions for a hearing at 2:00.

4. At 10:00 Monday Cohen's attorneys turn in the "list." It turns out that "lots" means three current clients. Two are already known. Trump and the big wig GOP fund raiser Elliott Broidy, both benefiting from Cohen drafted hush agreements for affairs. As to the third Cohen's attorney advise the judge they asked him, but he did not authorize the release of his name. They ask the judge to rule in their favor even though they won't support their claims with this evidence.

5. Think about this. The 10:00 filing invites the judge to ask who the one person was. If it was a lot more, not so much, because it would be too lengthy to answer in open court. But just one practically begs the judge to ask who it is.

6. So the judge asks who it is. The following conversation occurs (note: I am paraphrasing, this is not word for word, but captures the essence of it):

Quote:
Cohen Attorney: There is one other client, your honor.

Judge: Who is it?

Cohen Attorney: He has not authorized us to release his name and we believe it protected by the attorney/client privilege.

Judge. I saw that in your brief. You are wrong. It is not protected by the attorney/client privilege. Who is it?

Cohen Attorney: Even if not privileged why does the court need to know?

Judge: The court, and the government, needs to know who the clients are so when the evidence is reviewed it can be determined whether there is even a potential attorney/client privilege.

Cohen Attorney: Oh, yea. Your honor, we do not wish to disclose that and the client does not authorize us to do so.

Judge: That doesn't matter. Who is it?

Cohen Attorney: We do not want to answer that.

Judge: I am directing you now to say who it is.

Cohen Attorney: The client is Sean Hannity.


Since then Hannity has (of course) tried to distance himself from Cohen. He stated he never retained or received a bill from Cohen, but may have asked him informally for some legal advice some time. It's very questionable that would (if true) create an attorney/client relationship.

So let's talk the level of stupid here.

Stupidity #1: Not withdrawing the motion. It was going to lose anyway (and did). It created huge risks, like this, that blew up in their faces.

Stupidity #2: To the extent Hannity is telling the truth (which is questionable) why assert just one additional unknown attorney/client relationship that would practically beg the judge to ask who it is? Just go with the other two.

Of course, Hannity could be lying. Perhaps the communications with Hannity were quite sensitive. Skip the whole affair possibility. What if the discussions included how Hannity could circumvent campaign law to donate more to Trump? That would explain why they would want that privileged.

Cohen is a dumbass. I just didn't expect him to hire such flaming dumbasses to represent him.
_________________
"The middle of nowhere just got a lot more interesting."
http://brendahiatt.com/brendas-books/teen-fiction/starstruck/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
kellypo
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 08 Sep 2001
Posts: 5792
Location: Houston

PostPosted: 16 Apr 2018 8:40 pm 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Drain the swamp.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Amador
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Posts: 9539
Location: PA

PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018 12:28 am 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

You know Keith ... it's sad, but you are horribly predictable.

Here you have a lawyer attempting to protect privileged conversations. I sure as hell expect my lawyer would do the same.

The government grabbed everything he had. Let's assume for your sake that some of it is criminal ... I am thinkng that not all of it is. So, you appear to be okay with the government seizing lawful privileged information without any protestations or penalty. Sad ... politics and partisanship over freedom and constitution.

I think it's a good thing... nm
_________________
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/24/judge-jeanin...ump-speech

Parents ... the worst thing to happen to youth sports.

Empty vessels make the most noise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
KeithDB
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 12258
Location: Indianapolis

PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018 8:09 am 
Post subject: Re: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Amador wrote:
You know Keith ... it's sad, but you are horribly predictable.

Here you have a lawyer attempting to protect privileged conversations. I sure as hell expect my lawyer would do the same.

The government grabbed everything he had. Let's assume for your sake that some of it is criminal ... I am thinkng that not all of it is. So, you appear to be okay with the government seizing lawful privileged information without any protestations or penalty.


Yes, I'm fine with it if the government secures a legitimate probable cause search warrant. That's the requirement of our Constitution you mention. I practiced law for over 21 years knowing that's how it works. I understand that being a lawyer can't make one immune to search warrants, and I understand that if it did, the abuses that would follow.

In my 21+ years of practicing law I obviously was never hit with a search warrant. Neither was any attorney I know. I heard of such things, like you did, in the news. It's rare, but it does happen and the only reason you are raising a stink about it is because it's Trump's lawyer. So we can see where the "politics and partisanship" his manifesting itself here.

However, I have represented clients hit by search warrants seizing something else that is supposed to be confidential, that being medical records. I have taken the call from the panicked client that the federales are there with a veritable alphabet soup of bureaucratic misery, with agents from the FBI, the DEA, the IRS, the DHHS IG, and so on, who have just arrived with a search warrant and an 18 wheeler or two to haul off every medical record, every billing record, every hard drive, every thumb drive (you get the idea). I leaped into action, sliding down the elevator cables to my lawyer-mobile to race to the scene.

In other circumstances I have advised clients they might be hit by such search warrants, and advised them what to do if it happens. When I did that, I did so knowing that those communications, while privileged, might still be discovered anyway (if for no other reason than the client could waive the privilege).

In every circumstance the search warrants were legit, the agents involved consummate professionals.

What's more, and I have been trying to say this to all of you about Cohen, by the time the search warrant happened they had my client dead to rights. We would generally discover that a bit later when, as part of discovery, we received the underlying search warrant application and affidavit.

Before they raided Cohen they likewise already had Cohen dead to rights. The search warrant was to just cross t's and dot the i's.
_________________
"The middle of nowhere just got a lot more interesting."
http://brendahiatt.com/brendas-books/teen-fiction/starstruck/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Amador
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Posts: 9539
Location: PA

PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018 3:28 pm 
Post subject: Re: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

KeithDB wrote:
It's rare, but it does happen and the only reason you are raising a stink about it


No, I haven't "raised a stink." I didn't start this thread. I have a single post in this thread of yours (now 2).

KeithDB wrote:
because it's Trump's lawyer.


Really? Laughing Whatever you say ... I've been consistent in saying that criminals should feel the full force of the law and that it should be equitable/just/blind. You on the other hand are acutely selective in anything related to Trump. Tell us, would you have said thing one about this but for the fact that it is Trump's lawyer and it fits the loony conspiracies of the tin hat adorned left?

KeithDB wrote:
So we can see where the "politics and partisanship" his manifesting itself here.


Think

Yes ... yes we can.

So sad to see you don't care about our civil liberties.

https://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitution-101-signup/
_________________
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/24/judge-jeanin...ump-speech

Parents ... the worst thing to happen to youth sports.

Empty vessels make the most noise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
KeithDB
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 12258
Location: Indianapolis

PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018 3:57 pm 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Quote:
So sad to see you don't care about our civil liberties.


Our civil liberties do not include immunity from search and seizure when a valid probable cause warrant has been issued. This is true if you are not attorney, or if you are an attorney.
_________________
"The middle of nowhere just got a lot more interesting."
http://brendahiatt.com/brendas-books/teen-fiction/starstruck/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Amador
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Posts: 9539
Location: PA

PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018 8:35 pm 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Just because you sieze it doesn't make it legal ... but you know, whatever ...

I don't know if what happened here is or is not, I'm just not so blinded by hate and partisan politics that i am unable to consider that sometimes justice isn't applied fairly, correctly or legally. For me, justice is not the tool of my politics ... unlike others.

I would wager today that records regarding Hannity are not within the scope of the warrant or any investigation ... I also bet he's not alone.

Watch and see that the government will not and should not get free reign on this material.
_________________
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/24/judge-jeanin...ump-speech

Parents ... the worst thing to happen to youth sports.

Empty vessels make the most noise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
KeithDB
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 12258
Location: Indianapolis

PostPosted: 17 Apr 2018 8:55 pm 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Quote:
Just because you sieze it doesn't make it legal ... but you know, whatever ...


Well no. As I actually said (and you dishonestly left out) the seizure must be pursuant to a legitimate search warrant.
_________________
"The middle of nowhere just got a lot more interesting."
http://brendahiatt.com/brendas-books/teen-fiction/starstruck/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
kellypo
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 08 Sep 2001
Posts: 5792
Location: Houston

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018 10:27 am 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Amador, of course not all things obtained during a search are covered by the warrant. There is lots of law out there on how that is handled. E.g. you have a warrant to search for drugs and find a dead Hannity, I mean body. The FBI is using teams to go through the data obtained to carve out items that are privileged. But you seem to be concluding that because it was Trump’s lawyer’s office that was raised it is by definition a violation of the attorney-client privilege. On that you are wrong on well established law.

I’d be more open to the allegation that Keith or anyone else doesn’t care about civil liberties if the right didn’t pick and choose the ones they care about. For example, the one person, one vote Constitutional right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
KeithDB
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 12258
Location: Indianapolis

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018 10:39 am 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

That is correct. If the "Taint Team" reviews specific materials and finds they are 1) subject to attorney/client privilege and 2) not the subject of an exception to that privilege (e.g. the crime/fraud exception), then those materials will be returned to Cohen without the investigatory team seeing them.

That's how it works. Courts have found that to be a reasonable approach to handling such things. The judge in this case did too.
_________________
"The middle of nowhere just got a lot more interesting."
http://brendahiatt.com/brendas-books/teen-fiction/starstruck/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Amador
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Posts: 9539
Location: PA

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018 1:00 pm 
Post subject: Re: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

kellypo wrote:
But you seem to be concluding that because it was Trump’s lawyer’s office that was raised it is by definition a violation of the attorney-client privilege. On that you are wrong on well established law.


I never made that an argument. Keith is the one with the Trump fixation. At this point, I'm inclined to believe that the government executed a legal warrant ... though it's disconcerting that they may be allowed to hoover and review everything even outside of the scope of the warrant.

As for my objection, it is simply that I'm disgusted that any lawyer would berate/mock another lawyer for attempting to protect privileged information.
_________________
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/24/judge-jeanin...ump-speech

Parents ... the worst thing to happen to youth sports.

Empty vessels make the most noise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
KeithDB
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 12258
Location: Indianapolis

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018 1:18 pm 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Quote:
it's disconcerting that they may be allowed to hoover and review everything even outside of the scope of the warrant.


Well see, in order to see if it is outside the scope of the warrant they have review it. I mean, duh.

Quote:
As for my objection, it is simply that I'm disgusted that any lawyer would berate/mock another lawyer for attempting to protect privileged information.


LOL, I will defend any lawyer making a legitimate defense of attorney client privilege that is well founded in law. What I mocked these dumbasses for was for advancing a futile motion that risked exposing unprivileged information about a client. The judge told them on Friday the client names were not privileged. With this knowledge on Monday they:

1. Did not withdraw a futile motion to render the question moot, risking the exposure of a high profile name associated with the attorney who did not want his name out there.

2. Including that high profile client in the numbers of clients (totaling only three) even though (at least by said client's claim) whether an attorney/client relationship existed was dubious.

3. Practically begged the judge to ask who this one supposed client's name in open court by identifying just one supposed client that was not already known.

These guys could have protected Hannity's name and they were just dumb about it.

For that ridiculous compilation of dumbassery, I do mock them. They are morons.
_________________
"The middle of nowhere just got a lot more interesting."
http://brendahiatt.com/brendas-books/teen-fiction/starstruck/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Amador
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Posts: 9539
Location: PA

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018 1:20 pm 
Post subject: Re: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Amador wrote:
As for my objection, it is simply that I'm disgusted that any lawyer would berate/mock another lawyer for attempting to protect privileged information.


Though I still am no fan, I appreciate what Dershowitz says here,

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/14/602443856/alan-dershowitz-on-cohen-raid

In that "part of the problem" thread should be included those that abuse the law for political interests. It gives me hope to see people leave the profession that may use our courts as a weapon to advance their political agenda.
_________________
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/24/judge-jeanin...ump-speech

Parents ... the worst thing to happen to youth sports.

Empty vessels make the most noise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
KeithDB
AgTimes Legend


Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 12258
Location: Indianapolis

PostPosted: 18 Apr 2018 1:27 pm 
Post subject: Hannity
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Dershowitz is entitled to opinion on what he thinks the law should be. His ideas may be meritorious.

What matters for this case, today, are not some lawyer's views of what the law should be, or pet legislation he proposed. It's about what the law is.

The lawyers and the judge in this case deal with the reality of the law as it is today. Cohen's attorneys, if they are competent (haven't seen much evidence of that) need to make their recommendations and decisions based on that.
_________________
"The middle of nowhere just got a lot more interesting."
http://brendahiatt.com/brendas-books/teen-fiction/starstruck/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AgTimes Boards Forum Index -> News & Politics All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum