# A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 28, 2017, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093 "2017-10-28T20:14:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 201
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4002 "2018-04-17T19:14:35Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > [Michael Cohen, Attorney Definitely At Law](https://i.imgur.com/BiC1TPm.png) That’s hilarious. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![romansperson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/romansperson/32/17100_2.png) [@romansperson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/romansperson)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4003 "2018-04-17T19:18:23Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I actually think its much more mundane. Hannity has tried down play this by saying its “only” real estate and involved no third parties. Presumably this was to say that it was definitely not paying off porn stars. Given the careful wording of this statement, I think its likely that whatever it was did involve real estate. > > Probably the scenario was that Trump had a little get together that involved Cohen and Hannity (and possibly Elliott Broidy). Trump was boasting about some realestate scam he had working, say for example claiming that his hotel was actually an orphanage to get a big tax break. Hannity asked whether he could get in on this kind of action. Cohen says sure, any friend of Donald is a friend of mine. So now Hannity and Cohen realize that when the feds start going over the shady details of Trumps real estate dealings, Hannity’s name is going to come up, so they better get their attorney client privilege set up or Hannity is going down. > > So Hannity needs to distance himself from Cohen or else it will be assumed he has a Stormy Daniels of his own. So he claims that he has no relation to Cohen. But since he still needs attorney client privilege and since all he knows about it is what he’s seen on TV, he pretends they recreated a [scene from breaking bad](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15nfmd) (minus the kidnapping). The only sort of real estate question I could see being asked of Michael Cohen would be something like: _“How can I buy an apartment for my mistress without my name showing up anywhere?”_ But I guess we’ll see! ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4004 "2018-04-17T19:24:17Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Let me know if you disagree with any of the following: > > 1. Cohen has a reputation for doing sleazy things for his clients. > > 2. The best way to prevent speculation about you being sleazy is to not have someone like Cohen as your attorney. > > 3. In spite of the above, Hannity used Cohen as an attorney. He wants this to stay confidential very badly. Because of the above. > > 4. This simplest reason for desire for secrecy is that he doesn’t want people to associate him with sleaze. But then the question this raises is "So why not work with a different lawyer, if being associated the Cohen has such bad optics? At the time Hannity consulted him, he didn’t anticipate that Cohen’s office would be raided and all his files seized. (In addition, it’s also possible he didn’t appreciate the full scale of Cohen’s bagman type work.) Therefore he didn’t foresee this being an issue. [My father is about the most honest person I know, but he once got summoned to a grand jury for some sort of investigation. He had loaned money to someone being investigated. He (my father) freaked out, because he couldn’t tell for certain whether he was himself a target as well or just purely a witness. (The FBI guy told him he was a witness, but apparently they’re allowed to lie about these things.) I’ve forgotten the exact reason he suspected he might be a target. My brother - who was more heavily involved than I was and knew the actual target - told me at the time that their suspicion was that the FBI suspected that my father’s loan to the guy was really part of some money laundering scheme in which he was a knowing participant. In the end, it turned out that he apparently wasn’t a target, and when the real target made some sort of plea deal they told my father that he didn’t need to turn up. But not before my father paid $5K to a lawyer to consult over it. Point being that honest people can sometimes do business with crooks, and this can have a big downside when the hammer falls on the other guy.] ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4005 "2018-04-17T19:30:24Z")
“Honest”? Is it honest to do story after story supporting a lawyer and trashing the investigators looking into him without disclosing to your audience that you are a client of this lawyer? Is that ethical? How would you expect something like this to affect the credibility of this reporter? Should anyone take anything they report again at face value? ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4006 "2018-04-17T19:33:49Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > “Honest”? > > Is it honest to do story after story supporting a lawyer and trashing the investigators looking into him without disclosing to your audience that you are a client of this lawyer? Is that ethical? How would you expect something like this to affect the credibility of this reporter? Should anyone take anything they report again at face value? Again? ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4007 "2018-04-17T19:34:40Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > “Honest”? > > Is it honest to do story after story supporting a lawyer and trashing the investigators looking into him without disclosing to your audience that you are a client of this lawyer? Is that ethical? How would you expect something like this to affect the credibility of this reporter? Should anyone take anything they report again at face value? Uh, it’s Fox… ---
**Author:** ![aurora\_maire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aurora_maire/32/328_2.png) [@aurora\_maire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurora_maire)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4008 "2018-04-17T19:36:29Z")
> [@Anny\_Middon](#): > > Suppose for a moment that Hannity’s side is correct: Cohen was not his lawyer in any formal way, but he did talk over a legal question or two with Cohen and that attorney-client privilege covered those conversations and/or correspondence. > > But then why would Cohen claim that Hannity is one of his three clients? To Cohen, wouldn’t the relationship have to be of some importance to count Hannity as one of the three? How can that be if it were a couple of real estate questions for which he was never paid (except for, maybe, the $10)? > > I’ve know several lawyers over the years and people would go up to them at times asking for free legal advice. They’ve always to my knowledge replied with some variation of “Not my area of expertise, but I can refer you” or “Call my office for an appointment.” But suppose after the second martini one did give a legal opinion to a question. I can’t imagine that if asked to give a list of clients, the person to whom they gave that opinion would be included – even if upon reflection they felt attorney-client privilege existed. > > Here’s the thing – Cohen is an attorney. He very likely gets asked for free legal advice from time to time. Since he gave such advice to Hannity, wouldn’t he have given advice to at least some of these others? If so, why are there only three names on his roster of clients? Or is it, as I surmise, that Hannity was much more than just a casual “client” for whom he answered a couple of unimportant real estate questions? If Cohen’s lawyers just used Hannity to pad their client list, it seems Hannity would be pretty pissed off about that. Especially since they told him they would keep his name out of it. But apparently he’s not mad at them. So why not? Shouldn’t he be foaming at the mouth about lawyers incriminating innocent people who just asked for simple advice about innocuous subjects? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4009 "2018-04-17T19:41:19Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Again? Touche. Although I was responding to someone who seems to desperately want to justify extending endless benefit of the doubt to him regardless of his actions. I read the word “Honest” in one of these posts and near spit my water all over my computer. ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4010 "2018-04-17T19:49:03Z")
Hannity also used Toensing and Sekulow. Sekulow, of course, is Trump’s personal lawyer. As for Toensing, what the hell does this even mean? > [@](#): > > I don’t say who my clients are, sometimes I do, and many times, most of the time, I do not. - [Source](http://thehill.com/homenews/media/383583-sean-hannity-hired-trump-linked-lawyers-last-year) ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4011 "2018-04-17T19:53:19Z")
Journalists have ethics. Hannity is not a journalist. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4012 "2018-04-17T19:54:57Z")
Human beings are supposed to have ethics. Ethics aren’t something that only apply to those with certain careers. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4013 "2018-04-17T20:39:50Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Human beings are supposed to have ethics. Ethics aren’t something that only apply to those with certain careers. “What’s the difference between morals and ethics?” “One is something that regular people don’t have, and the other is something that lawyers don’t have.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4014 "2018-04-17T21:00:47Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > “What’s the difference between morals and ethics?” As the terms are used, I believe morals are overall principles, and ethics are guidelines specific to a profession and the like. Journalists have their own set of ethics. Hannity is not quite a journalist, and his ethical requirements would be a bit different. But it’s hard to see any sort of ethics that would let someone issue strong comments on an issue as if it’s a general principle without revealing that this is something which impacts him personally. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4015 "2018-04-17T21:42:59Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > You can, depending on the circumstances. You don’t have to necessarily pay money to have a privileged attorney/client relationship. Ask somebody with a public defender, or a client of a lawyer working _pro bono_. What I was meaning to say was, either you’re a client or you aren’t. Hannity is saying he is but isn’t. I’m starting to wonder why he would be a client of that low class goon Cohen anyway. Is he also in cahoots with the Russians somehow? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4016 "2018-04-17T21:47:22Z")
> [@Yask](#): > > My guess: > > Hannity never asked Cohen for a single bit of legal advice. Hannity knows Cohen is a shit lawyer only good for gutteral ‘fix-its’. Besides, wealthy, connected Hannity has access to top-tier law firms that wouldn’t hire Cohen as a paralegal’s assistant. Closest they ever came to legal talk was pundit-level bullshitting about legal issues in general, nothing remotely close to Hannity asking for legal advice. > > But… > > Hannity, Cohen and Tump (at least) discussed, coordinated and strategized their attacks on the Mueller probe, from general talking points to fabricated justifications for firing him to the best ways to undercut witness credibility. > > Whether that rises to the legal level of obstruction of justice isn’t on their minds — they know at best it will appear close enough to screw up the works for a long time. And because they never expected these conversations to land in the prosecutors’ laps, they were probably candid as shit and full of faux alpha-male bravado; they know that the tapes will steamroll right past the legal definition of obstruction and into deep, deep shit. > > Going into the hearing, Cohen et al were desperate to keep Hannity out of the proceedings, not from a sense of loyalty, but because he’s the cornerstone of the Fox News arm of their obstruction strategy. > > So Cohen moves to cull all ‘privileged’ communications with ‘other’ clients before the Feds get a look. Alone at best or within chambers/a special master/whatever, it was their hope that by claiming Hannity was a Cohen client — a client that had nothing to do with the Stormy payoff or other financial issues in play — it would be easy to excise every scrap of Cohen–Hannity conversation from the proceedings. > > Cohen hits a wall when the judge wouldn’t let him keep the so-called third party’s name out of it. Given the timing, the whole ‘privilege strategy’ was quickly cobbled together in the first place, and with the enormous spotlight on them there wasn’t a lot of room to surreptitiously coordinate. > > So Cohen is before the judge when she requires the name to be said in open court. He tries to put it off, maybe in chambers, maybe in writing, maybe the goombah fallback of ‘you’d better rethink it because an insta-appeal is in the cards’ but it doesn’t work and oh please oh please shit shit shit don’t make me announce it oh fuck I have to announce it shit shit shit! > > What’s he going to do? Can’t talk to Hannity at the moment and can’t Bugs Bunny his way out of the courtroom. Shit shit shit … can’t name anyone else — there’s no other name in the files that would justify it and shit shit the few names that _might_ work would be blindsided before he got out of the court and he’d get rat fucked for perjury at best. Shit shit, no other choice but to name Hannity and hope that Hannity follows his lead enough to get them out of this jam. > > Hannity does the best he can given his sense of self-preservation and having to wing his response on minimal time and information and zero communication. He senses a need to deflect the appearance of needing Cohen to fix a sex scandal so treads as fine a line as he can. He sure as shit knows that there are no lengthy legal conversations or representations of any sort but his name is all over the files, so he grabs at straws, ending up in an apparently contradictory position from Cohen. > > If my guess is remotely right, then they’re proper screwed. The full gamut of Cohen-Hannity-Trump conversations are going to be in the hands of the Feds. A small handful of Cohen-Hannity conversations might be withheld if they’re lucky, but the motherload is there for the taking. > And this is how Stormy Danials and Michael Avenatti go down in history as saviours of the planet. To steal some words from Trump, _“Many people are saying”_ that Cohen etc are seriously worried because they don’t have a Secret Service to protect them from Putin. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4017 "2018-04-17T21:51:06Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > What I was meaning to say was, either you’re a client or you aren’t. Hannity is saying he is but isn’t. Hannity is Schroedinger’s client. Whether he is or isn’t a client depends on what will benefit him at any particular moment. Mentioning Hannity and journalistic ethics in the same sentence is like taking about the Three Stooges and artistic integrity. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4018 "2018-04-17T21:52:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > As the terms are used, I believe morals are overall principles, and ethics are guidelines specific to a profession and the like. That’s what I said. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4019 "2018-04-17T21:52:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Point being that honest people can sometimes do business with crooks, and this can have a big downside when the hammer falls on the other guy.] Absolutely. I have done some work for people involved in the Russia investigation. I looked back through my records and was very relieved to find out that I had never been paid through the client or any of his LLC’s. — I was paid through the general contractor the client hired. Manafort used construction companies ( paying them from off-shore LLC’s ) as part of his tax evasion scheme. The companies are not named in the indictment but I’m sure I know some of those people. And they aren’t in any trouble - probably. You have to be cautious when you’re dealing with shady clients. If a client accidentally sends you a significant overpayment- return the check, don’t cash it. Otherwise he may ask you to return the difference and this could be construed as money laundering. Another scheme would be for them to give you a deposit on a significant order, change their mind and then ask for most of their their money back, allowing you to keep something for your troubles. Now this really could be completely innocent - but you might find yourself in the position of having to prove it was completely innocent. But there’s a spectrum between completely innocent and partner-in-crime. And you have to be careful and you have to check your greed. Say you have that client that really likes to return expensive stuff and doesn’t mind paying really high restocking fees. Maybe, instead of saying no to the 4th or 5th return, you decide to raise the restocking fees and let him keep doing it. You might be in for some trouble. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4020 "2018-04-17T21:56:23Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Hannity is Schroedinger’s client. Whether he is or isn’t a client depends on what will benefit him at any particular moment. > > Mentioning Hannity and journalistic ethics in the same sentence is like taking about the Three Stooges and artistic integrity. Yeah, some kind of Hannity in a box only clients when being observed, Maybe a bit of Heisenberg too - When measuring the client/not client state of a Hannity there’s a fundamental limit to the amount of precision that can be achieved. For example, the more precisely you measure the client/not client of a Hannity the less precise your measurement of its position. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2018, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093/4021 "2018-04-17T22:26:02Z")
> [@Yask](#): > > My guess: … Hannity, Cohen and Tump (at least) discussed, coordinated and strategized their attacks on the Mueller probe, from general talking points to fabricated justifications for firing him to the best ways to undercut witness credibility. > > Whether that rises to the legal level of obstruction of justice isn’t on their minds — they know at best it will appear close enough to screw up the works for a long time. And because they never expected these conversations to land in the prosecutors’ laps, they were probably candid as shit and full of faux alpha-male bravado; they know that the tapes will steamroll right past the legal definition of obstruction and into deep, deep shit. > … Your theory does seem to explain many otherwise-inexplicable elements of this situation. I just want to emphasize the TAPES aspect (which hasn’t been talked about in depth for a while). A reminder to all that Cohen was in the habit of recording conversations: > [@](#): > > … Cohen often recorded telephone conversations both before and during the 2016 presidential campaign that also could have been scooped up in the FBI raid on his apartment, office and hotel room, sources told CNN. > One source said Cohen played to Trump and some associates conversations that he had with political and media figures during the exploratory part of the campaign. [https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/13/politics/fbi-phone-recordings-cohen-daniels-mcdougal/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/13/politics/fbi-phone-recordings-cohen-daniels-mcdougal/index.html) Nice detail about Cohen playing for Trump conversations Cohen had had with people who apparently had no idea they were being taped. But, yeah. Hannity coordinating with Trump his coverage of the Russia investigation, etc.–quite plausible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=200) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-thread-for-the-mueller-investigation-results-and-outcomes-part-1/800093.md?page=202)