… and the judge in the case against Michael Milken, prosecuted by Rudy Guliani in the biggest legal win of his career up to that point.
My first thought when I heard that Mueller gave NY the Cohen investigation was to prevent Trump from being able to pardon him, but I haven’t heard anyone suggest that all week, which makes me suspect I’m missing something. Is this possible? (ie. the question about the pardon, not whether I’m missing something which is not only possible but happens regularly 
).
This whole goddamned thing is just such slow-motion fun.
Bloviate? He was in full feces-flinging fettle, comparing the raid to the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin.
We know Assange spoke to a Hannity impersonator as if they regularly spoke and had other clandestine channels. Wonder if that topic was ever discussed with Cohen.
It’s being handled by the New York US Attorney, so it’s still a federal case, not a state one.
Then how is Cohen Trump’s lawyer?
Hiring undocumented people was legal at the time, and unlike Zoe Baird, Wood had paid the required taxes for the nanny.
Hannity is now claiming that he’s been paying Cohen under the table:
So … it was completely trivial but he made sure to that it was covered by privilege and he paid cash of some unknown amount.
I wonder what Mrs. Hannity is doing tonight?
That sounds a lot worse than it actually was.
She paid the required taxes and hired the nanny before it became illegal to hire undocumented immigrants. The NYT article in 1993 said
Baird failed to pay the taxes.
Weird that he never brought this up on his show during any of the many discussions about it.
Boy, his journalistic integrity sure is going to take a hit after this.
Ha, ha ha!
I kill me!
That’s true, but the charges can be filed as either state or federal charges – or even both. (Vox)
Maybe taking him up on his offer to experience waterboarding?
Inquiring minds want to know: why would Hannity desire attorney client privilege so much if his dealings with Cohen were clean and beyond reproach?
I mean, if you knew your contact with an investigation target was 100% innocent, wouldn’t you want light shown on that? Wouldn’t the first thing out of your mouth be “Regardless of whether my situation meets the definition of a true client, I’m sure the prosecution will find that any communications between me and Cohen are not of real interest to this investigation, as it was all run-of-the-mill legal advice. Nothing more, nothing less.” Wouldn’t this be what an innocent person would say?
I think lying is more reprehensible than some kink. Maybe not nauseating …
I can’t stand Hannity, and I’d be perfectly happy if this whole set of circumstances ended up being really bad for him.
But, in my opinion, your post represents a profoundly wrongheaded view of the legal system and the role of lawyers. These rules about confidentiality exist to protect the integrity of the whole system, and the rights of people within it.
The argument that “If you’re innocent and you’ve got nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t worry about it” is wrong. It’s wrong when it’s applied to stop-and-frisk searches on the street; it’s wrong when it’s applied to pretextual car stops; it’s wrong when it’s applied to requests for DNA; it’s wrong when it’s applied to police requests to search your home; and it’s wrong when it’s applied to attorney-client privilege.
And that’s all true even if the person in question is one of the biggest flaming assholes to ever draw breath.
Payment is not required to become a client of an attorney and therefore for communications to acquire the attorney-client privilege, as the case of pro bono legal work and any court-appointed or indigent-client/attorney work demonstrates. This is one of the reasons why there is a disclaimer on websites and radio/tv shows that offer free legal information and questions answered by attorneys, because they want to avoid giving the impression that although basic questions might have been answered, no attorney-client relationship was formed even though no money changed hands.
If Hannity has asked Cohen for legal advice and there was an understanding, implicit or explicit, that the conversation was confidential and there was no other agreement that the conversation did not create an attorney-client relationship, then it is likely that Hannity at the very least was Cohen’s client at one time, if not currently.
All of this is true and yet still we can find Hannity’s response questionable.
The obfuscation regarding whether Cohen was really his lawyer versus some guy who gave him free legal advice. He didn’t pay him “legal fees” but then he admits he might’ve given him 10 bucks at some point. No invoices, no 3rd parties. But he assumed Cohen’s “input and perspective” on things was confidential. Why, though? And how can this be squared with the idea that he wasn’t a client?
Even if Hannity has a perfectly valid, perfectly ethical reason to be tied to Cohen, and he just didn’t want this news to come out for privacy purposes, his response raises more questions that answers. And none of the questions point to guilelessness, sorry. Hannity should’ve consulted with a lawyer before putting this response out there, because it’s going to bite him in the ass.
True. Very true. Very important. Certain rights are guaranteed by law, and they are important and should be granted to everyone. We should not assume guilt because Hannity doesn’t want his communications with Cohen to be reviewed by the court or Mueller.
I am still enjoying watching Hannity contort himself into a human pretzel trying to claim he is not a client AND his communications are privileged, because of reasons. I also agree with you with the face that Hannity’s behavior is unusual enough to cause comment, which I have now done.