|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||0d 23h 6m 54s|
>NEW YORK (AP) -- A legal fight over what should happen to records the FBI seized from President Donald Trump's personal attorney took a surprise twist Monday when the lawyer, Michael Cohen, was forced to reveal in court that he had also secretly done legal work for Fox News host Sean Hannity.
>The disclosure came as Cohen's attorneys tried to persuade a federal judge in New York to delay prosecutors from examining records and electronic devices seized in the raids on the grounds that many of them are protected by attorney-client privilege.
>U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood said in hearings Friday and again on Monday that if Cohen wanted the court to declare that the some of his files were protected because of attorney confidentiality rules, he would have to divulge the names of the clients he's worked with since 2016 election.
>One was, of course, Trump himself. Another was Elliot Broidy, a Trump fundraiser who resigned from the Republican National Committee on Friday after it was revealed that he paid $1.6 million to a Playboy Playmate with whom he had an extramarital affair. The Playmate became pregnant and elected to have an abortion.
>With Cohen by their side on Monday, lawyers initially resisted revealing the name of the third client for privacy reasons.
>But Wood pressed on.
>"I understand he doesn't want his name out there, but that's not enough under the law," she said.
>Cohen's lawyers did not detail the type of legal work he did for Hannity.
>But on his radio show, Hannity said Cohen was never involved in any matter between him and any third party.
>"Michael never represented me in any matter," Hannity said. "I never retained him in any traditional sense. I never received an invoice. I never paid a legal fee. I had brief discussions with him about legal questions where I wanted his input and perspective."
>Hannity, an outspoken supporter of Trump, has been a fierce critic of special counsel Robert Mueller, who is looking into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
>Monday's hearing in New York began with an appearance by porn actress Stormy Daniels, who was swarmed by photographers and nearly fell as she was hustled into the courthouse, a scene that captured the sensational atmosphere around the case.
>The April 9 raid on Cohen sought information on a variety of matters, including a $130,000 payment made to Daniels, who alleges she had sex with a married Trump in 2006.
>At issue is exactly who gets to look at Cohen's seized documents and devices before they are turned over to prosecutors. Attorneys for Cohen say they want first crack. Trump's lawyers say they also want some form of prior review. Another option is to set up a "special master" who will vet the material to determine what is protected and what isn't; that is the Cohen team's second choice.
>Prosecutors, who say they raided Cohen's office, home and hotel room as part of an undisclosed crime related to his personal business dealings, prefer the ordinary procedure of reviewing the documents with a panel of prosecutors unrelated to the investigation - a so-called "taint team."
>At stake is an investigation that could uncover the inner workings of Trump's longtime fixer and image protector. People familiar with the probe told The Associated Press that agents were seeking bank records, records on Cohen's dealing in the taxi industry, Cohen's communications with the Trump campaign and information on payments made in 2016 to two women who say they had affairs with Trump, former Playboy model Karen McDougal and the porn star Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
>Lawyers for Cohen filed papers Monday saying investigators "took everything" during the raids, including more than a dozen electronic devices. They said that prosecutors had already intercepted emails from Cohen and executed the search warrants only after discovering that there were no emails between Trump and Cohen.
>One of Trump's lawyers, Joanna Hendon, asked the judge to block prosecutors from studying material seized in the raid until Cohen and the president have both had a chance to review those materials and argue which are subject to the "sacred" attorney-client privilege.
>"The seized materials relating to the President must be reviewed by the only person who is truly motivated to ensure that the privilege is properly invoked and applied: the privilege-holder himself, the President," Hendon wrote in court papers filed Sunday.
>Wood adjourned the hearing Monday without making a ruling. As a first step, the judge said the government should put the documents in a searchable database to determine which should come under review.
>Trump, who was in Florida on Monday, said all lawyers are now "deflated and concerned" by the FBI raid on Cohen.
>"Attorney Client privilege is now a thing of the past," he tweeted Sunday. "I have many (too many!) lawyers and they are probably wondering when their offices, and even homes, are going to be raided with everything, including their phones and computers, taken. All lawyers are deflated and concerned!"
>Hannity says that he has never hired Cohen, never kept him on retainer, etc etc to emphasize that he was never ever Cohens client during his radio show today
>Immediately follows that up with "all I ever did was ask him a few legal questions about certain situations the details of which should be protected under attorney client privilege"
This guy man
Cohen had to identify his clients to the court. It was only three. Hannity was one of them.
Hannity not disclosing this relationship with his viewers is such a hilarious example of how much theater Hannity's show is, and what little regard he has for his audience or the truth.
>Hannity not disclosing this relationship with his viewers is such a hilarious example of how much theater Hannity's show is, and what little regard he has for his audience or the truth.
Hey no shit, he's the right's version of Trevor Noah.
Now please explain how this excuses forcing a lawyer to disclose information about his clients?
Picture if we just raided every lawyer's office when the prosecution wanted more information on a defendant. Or a judge just ordered every defendant's lawyer to just give up information that would help the plaintiff.
That's literally what happened here but people are treating this like a team sport and not like a massive overreach of the judiciary. Hannity being a scumbag isn't news and you would know that if you remembered his coverage of the Iraq war; a judge ordering a defendant to make a plantiff's case for them is.
>Now please explain how this excuses forcing a lawyer to disclose information about his clients?
Presumably the judge who ordered him to disclose that has an excuse for it.
The thing is Hannity has maintained this whole time that he was simply an outside observer and that he was reporting objective facts but in reality there's a very good chance that Cohen was relaying Hannity talking points to discredit Trump's accusers and to push narratives that Trump wants on the public. Now that the veil is gone and we can see that it's possible Hannity may be implicated in whatever Cohen has been up to this whole time.
This explains why Hannity's been so rabid about the Russia investigation. He knew Mueller would go after everyone around Trump. If Cohen went down for helping Trump, Hannity could be collateral damage. So he used his show to try to influence people against the investigation which could potentially ensnare him.
I'm sure he and his followers will cry "deep state conspiracy" and swear his innocence once his dirty laundry is aired.
>claim Cohen has been under invstigation for months, only raid Cohen's office under nonspecific pretense of investigation not related to the probe once a needed a word/referral from the probe to actually conduct the search and obtain confidential attorney-client commmunications that may or may not be relevant to investigation, comes through
>"How do we know what's relevant to our investigation and what's not"
>"guess we'll just have to look through all of it lol"
>"oh no, oh jeeze, people are leaking every bit of what we're investigating to the press regardless of whether or not it's criminal.
>"Oh well lol"
>"I don't understand why they just don't want to cooperate with us and why people take an issue with Mueller and the probe, and this 'separate investigation'. Must be because they're guilty."
>"Surely the judge signing off on it is proof enough of it's validity, it's not like the FBI got caught lying to FISA judges once already and knowingly used info Steele had leaked to the press himself to use as independent verification of events presented as a false pretense of said events happening separately from both Steele and the FBI's actions"
>"Better just trust the investigation. Wouldn't want them to come after you, right? :)"
>Except there's more to it. Hannity has been on a warpath about this being an investigation that needs to be stopped in its tracks, but it may well have been from a position of self interest than principle.
And? This isn't a question if Hannity is a dirtbag or not. Whether he's dishonest or not is different from the question if this was the right thing to do.
Guess what, being dishonest on Fox News isn't a felony.
>Presumably the judge who ordered him to disclose that has an excuse for it.
What excuse would that be? There is no circumstance where a judge can force a lawyer to disclose information about an unrelated client.
>The thing is Hannity has maintained this whole time that he was simply an outside observer and that he was reporting objective facts but in reality there's a very good chance that Cohen was relaying Hannity talking points to discredit Trump's accusers and to push narratives that Trump wants on the public. Now that the veil is gone and we can see that it's possible Hannity may be implicated in whatever Cohen has been up to this whole time.
Except Hannity isn't on trial, plus this doesn't actually implicate him on anything other than having Cohen as a lawyer.
Furthermore, you can't make your lawyer implicate you against his will, that's a violation of the fifth amendment if you have contracted him for representation.
It's cute how you think it's okay to violate multiple laws just because it hurts someone you hate. It would be adorable even if you worthless lemmings weren't everywhere, determined to destroy our legal system by ignoring extremely important facets of it.
This would be part of the proceeding to determine if ACP actually applies.
The law protecting ACP specifies it's null and void if the attorney or client uses it to cover up crimes before the court. Information that is incriminating that is transmitted in this was is inadmissible, but the court may determine that using a third party other than the prosecutors.
In this case Judge Wood appears to be doing exactly that.
>There's your key word. It's the courts job to determine that
Incorrect, are you insane? The court doesn't decide if someone is or isn't unrelated, you would create so many witch hunts if the court could just finger every person related another person in question and boom; they're suddenly on trial. At least google how this process works.
public_education/resources/law_rela ted_education_network/how_courts_wo rk/cases.html
If you want to put someone on trial you first have to bring a case against them. You can't drag people into cases about related people. What shithole dictatorship do you live in where a king or a general can just point to an audience and declare that anyone his finger aims at gets shot? Because that's basically what you're advocating for.
>null and void if the attorney or client uses it to cover up crimes before the court.
There has to be evidence of said crimes that it applies specifically to the ACP being invoked. I.E- crimes allegedly occurring between Trump and Cohen does not mean that Hannity's ACP gets dumped as well.
Names yes. Communications, no.
But hey, it's truly amazing how many legal barriers you can over come when you have an army of sympathetic sycophantic goons ready to selectively leak information to the press on your behalf. Just a happy coincidence, dontchathink?
>The law protecting ACP specifies it's null and void if the attorney or client uses it to cover up crimes before the court.Information that is incriminating that is transmitted in this was is inadmissible, but the court may determine that using a third party other than the prosecutors.
Exactly, but there's the rub of the matter, if you read the transcript: the judge ordered him to produce the "client list". Which is 100% against ACP because there was no determination if it applied here or not.
Which then comes down to: can you trust the transcription that came from Maddow? I really fucking hope there's more to the story because that's sketchy as fuck.
>No, but as part of the proceedings the judhe can require the attorney to release the names of his clients.
Actually that's a grey area as well.
The only reason Hannity is related to this case is because Cohen is on trial.
Hannity being a ponce aside, the whole thing just sucks and was a terrible call on the judge's part.
>I'll claim they have an army of sycophants leaking information to establish a narrative
>when I'm called on it I'll try and deflect and bring up some other example
You have no point, you have no critical thinking ability, you are doing more harm than good to your cause
Go back to your echo chamber where you can post all the misleading infographics you want and have people agree with you
>If she did, and considering the amount of reporting and oversight that's a rather large if, she can lose her job. There's accountability here.
Okay, but that doesn't mean all decisions are lawful in the future.
It's an appeal to authority fallacy to simply claim "Well she can lose her job, she's a judge. That's why her decision was lawful." That's not the point people are making here. There isn't any legal precedent for what was ordered here and in fact there may have been a serious legal issue for ordering that it happened. Is that precedent now? If not, did the judge act lawfully?
You don't seem to have an argument other than "It's fine shut up."
Are you even going to address the concerns it raises over ACP and if it was procedurally correct to have his client's name disclosed in that manner? You can get a mistrial on a procedural basis without any laws being broken, too.
So you think having his client's name exposed to the public under duress was fine? You think that was a good call?
You're going to have to justify yourself on that one, first.
> I'm pouting out that there's consequences to get making a bad call.
Then you have to explain what this has to do with anything we're talking about, because the fact that there might be consequences for her doesn't actually justify or explain if the call was a good one or not.
>One of Trump's lawyers, Joanna Hendon, asked the judge to block prosecutors from studying material seized in the raid until Cohen and the president have both had a chance to review those materials and argue which are subject to the "sacred" attorney-client privilege
Hillary literally did this with her emails. She decided what the FBI needed to see and deleted the rest
u/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498& context=clr (This is about where and when ACP applies)
The tl;dr is that, even if Hannity is lying and he DID contract Cohen for paying for hookers and blow, that still doesn't mean the judge can order the Lawyer to give up information about his client. Can he say that he had business dealings with Hannity? Sure, but can he say he represented him? That seems to be a massive grey area, as the fact he represented him wasn't part of the hearing, Hannity is not on trial, and there is no case brought against him. Furthermore, even if Hannity is telling the truth and never had an agreement with Cohen except on the basis of real estate, he still sought out him for legal advice and therefore is protected as one of his clients.
So the judge either didn't think it was a big deal, or did it to publicly shame Cohen's clientele. The way you look at it is irrelevant because the end result is the same. Unless the second circuit court has some bizarre exception that makes it "OK" that simply wasn't brought up during the proceedings, then there's nothing else to discuss about it. It was at the very least a terrible call that doesn't seem to have any precedent in legal basis.
Also this is in the context for 2nd circuit law, so you have to keep in mind that it's different there than it would be in other circuits, but that doesn't mean any of the core tenants are suddenly gone. It's silly to think that it is that different to begin with.
>Also if it took tou ten minutes to google an ironclad proof that the judge broke the law i seriously doubt it's valid, or at the very least we'd be seeing it on Fox by now.
This is not an argument. You're again saying "Well if anything bad had happened Fox would be reporting on it now so I guess nothing bad happened."
Again, this is appealing to authority. Firstly you're relying on Fox News to be competent, and secondly you're relying on them to be experts on anything.
I'm appealing to common sense. It does not logically follow that your proof, that you have found after five minutes on Google, is valid, when no one else has found or mentioned it in a nationally televised federal court case.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd have to go all the way through your deluge of links for that.
I'm saying I don't believe you.
>Hannity has had a business relationship with Cohen for an undisclosed amount of time
>We don't even know the extent of the relationship or what Cohen did for Hannity, (Protip: Covering up an affair based on Cohen's track record)
>Never said anything about it
>Spent every night defending Cohen
The absolute best case scenario for the right wing is this just shows how unethical Hannity is. In not revealing the massive conflict of interest he had while shilling for Cohen and Trump.
page took 0.0169 seconds to execute