OK. But whether or not there would be good reason for the speculation, it’s a good rationale for Hannity.
The base isn’t against all abortions. They’re happy that their mistresses and daughters can get them. They just don’t want anyone else to have the option.
IAAL.
Privilege really can work both ways. In the case of a private attorney, for instance, consider:
Potential client walks into a lawyer’s office and says “I’m being charged with a crime. I have an alibi, that I was in the arms of my best friend’s wife, but I don’t want that information to get out.”
Attorney says “I’m a tax lawyer. I don’t do this kind of stuff. Here. Sign this non-representation agreement saying you know I’m not your lawyer.”
Potential client signs it and walks out.
Their discussions are covered by the attorney-client privilege, even though the person is clearly not a client in the regular sense of the word.
Although if the leperchaun gave Cohen “10 bucks”, he clearly has paid him and is his client.
Not if this panic is causing him to say stuff that actually hurts his self interests. There’s no good rationale for that, when he should know better.
And really, he had plenty of time to prepare. It’s not like the raid happened last night.
Your question was “why would Hannity desire attorney client privilege so much if his dealings with Cohen were clean and beyond reproach?” My response was that even if his dealings with Cohen were clean and beyond reproach, he might still desire attorney client privilege because he (correctly) assessed that if it got out that he was a Cohen client there would be considerable speculation that his dealings were not clean and beyond reproach.
It sounds like you basically agree with this and are now making some other point.
I’m not familiar with Shannon Vavra or Axios, but this was interesting: https://www.axios.com/lawyers-trump-organization-michael-cohen-jason-greenblatt-allen-weisselberg-ca74f846-45fd-4223-ab47-9551ff153a41.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic
Vavra reports that Cohen’s role in the Trump Organization is secondary to two other lawyers who haven’t been mentioned much.
Mueller has already subpoenaed Trump’s business records, so he presumably knows whatever there may be to know about these two guys. Sorting through their records may take a lot more time. Rolling Cohen may not signal the coming end of our long national nightmare.
<< post shortened etc. mine>>
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 (minus the kidnapping).
If anyone wants a laugh, check out the law school that Michael Cohen went to:
It’s the only law school in the country where the alumni organization bothers graduates for contributions of half-smoked packs of cigarettes.
I was positive he went to the University of American Samoa Law School.
Then you best be fine with her coming to visit your grave in a long, black veil.
My guess is that the response would be : “So long as he appoints judges to the Supreme Court who oppose Roe v. Wade, his personal life is none of our business.”
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?
Cohen was trying to list as many clients as possible in order to bolster his argument that he needed to be able to review the evidence. So he would be motivated to stretch the definition of client as much as possible.
Not necessarily. Sean Hannity is a Big Name Celebrity and Very Influential Guy. Such people get freebies that ordinary people don’t get, especially from hanger-on types like Cohen.
My default assumption is that he was facing some of the same sort of sexual harassment allegations as Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly – Faux Noise seems to be a locus for that sort of thing – and was employing Cohen to “fix” the problem for him.
Are we sure that Trump University didn’t have a law school? 
And the highest number they could grunt out is three?
(Bolding mine)
As we’ve learned, attorney client privilege doesn’t include obfuscation of the client’s existence. I don’t think anybody here would care much if Hannity asked Cohen some legal questions. But that contradicts Cohen’s argument that having him as a lawyer would cause embarrassment. That I find both hilarious and telling.
You can be revealed as a lawyer’s client without privilege being violated, so he shouldn’t have expected that his identity would be kept secret.
Your point is well taken, but it’s a point that is kind of silly when you think about it. Let me know if you disagree with any of the following:
-
Cohen has a reputation for doing sleazy things for his clients.
-
The best way to prevent speculation about you being sleazy is to not have someone like Cohen as your attorney.
-
In spite of the above, Hannity used Cohen as an attorney. He wants this to stay confidential very badly. Because of the above.
-
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? And why so much concern about privilege, when by his own admission he’s not really his lawyer? "
You feel like his rationale for being extremely cagey about his relationship with Cohen is sound, and all because of the inevitable public reaction. I say it would only be “sound” if we presume Hannity had no other choice but to have Cohen as his lawyer. Like Cohen was a thing that just happened to him, like herpes happens after you unknowingly sleep with an infected person.
My thought is that if Hannity’s is this focused on secrecy, it likely means Cohen was providing a service to him of value that far exceeded any reputation-based risks Hannity was worried about. What was that service, is what enquiring minds want to know. Occasional advice about real estate doesn’t past the smell test.
Well, yeah, Cohen’s a fixer, not a day to day lawyer.
This.