SIG, thank you so much! One last clarification though, please: What happens to privilege if the "client" earnestly believes that the "lawyer" is, in fact a lawyer, when in truth they don't qualify as a lawyer for some reason?
There isn't privilege if the person isn't a lawyer from whom the client is seeking legal services.
And a person holding themself out as a lawyer when they aren't licensed to practice law can get in trouble for that.
And exposes himself to civil action brought by the client.
I bet it could be argued by a real lawyer that anything told to the fake lawyer in believed confidence should be considered inadmissible as evidence. Would depend on the circumstances and the presiding judge as to whether that play would work.
And a person holding themself out as a lawyer when they aren't licensed to practice law can get in trouble for that.
And exposes himself to civil action brought by the client.
I bet it could be argued by a real lawyer that anything told to the fake lawyer in believed confidence should be considered inadmissible as evidence. Would depend on the circumstances and the presiding judge as to whether that play would work.
As always, there is an exception for this. The client is the one who holds the privilege, not the attorney (or "attorney"). So if the client reasonably believes that the person who they are talking to is a person authorized to practice law, the privilege may still apply (see section IV.B) (and with a heavy emphasis on "may").
My guess is that Hannity was a witness to trump and Cohen doing illegal stuff and wants to claim privilege so he doesn't have to testify.
Which, of course, is not how privilege works.
Wouldn't Hannity being there actually nullify any privilege that Trump might have otherwise had at that meeting?
It wouldn't remove privilege between Cohen and Trump, but no privilege between Hannity and Trump would exist. So Hannity could be compelled to testify about whatever the meeting was, but not Cohen.
I spoke to two former federal investigators who told me Cohen was introduced to Donald Trump by his father-in-law, Fima Shusterman, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Ukraine who arrived in the U.S. in 1975. Shusterman was in the garment business and owned a fleet of taxicabs with his partners, Shalva Botier and Edward Zubok – all three men were convicted of a money-laundering related offense in 1993. “Fima may have been a (possibly silent) business partner with Trump, perhaps even used as a conduit for Russian investors in Trump properties and other ventures,” a former federal investigator told me. “Cohen, who married into the family, was given the job with the Trump Org as a favor to Shusterman.” (“Untrue,” Cohen told me. “Your source is creating fake news.”)
Shusterman, who owned at least four New York taxi companies, also set his son-in-law up in the yellow cab business. Cohen once ran 260 yellow cabs with his Ukrainian-born partner, the “taxi king” Simon V. Garber, until their partnership ended acrimoniously in 2012. Glenn Simpson, the private investigator who was independently hired to examine Trump’s Russia connections during the real estate mogul’s presidential run, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that Cohen “had a lot of connections to the former Soviet Union, and that he seemed to have associations with organized crime figures in New York and Florida – Russian organized crime figures,” including Garber.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
To step back a minute, the whole thing about the questions regarding privilege and Hannity is basically over how much the FBI might have overreached in their search. Basically, if they we're looking for files on Cohen-Trump but also got files on Cohen-Hannity due to poor record keeping, that would be a problem. Unless Hannity were to, say, publicly announce that Cohen is not his attorney. At which point the FBI having those files is no longer really a legal problem, and all of them are relevant to the investigations. Especially since the Cohen-Brody files seem like money laundering payoff as well.
To step back a minute, the whole thing about the questions regarding privilege and Hannity is basically over how much the FBI might have overreached in their search. Basically, if they we're looking for files on Cohen-Trump but also got files on Cohen-Hannity due to poor record keeping, that would be a problem. Unless Hannity were to, say, publicly announce that Cohen is not his attorney. At which point the FBI having those files is no longer really a legal problem, and all of them are relevant to the investigations. Especially since the Cohen-Brody files seem like money laundering payoff as well.
2018 is such a weird year. Finally Washington is talking about the massive amount of prosecutor overreach that our system has fallen into...because the Republicans are really concerned a criminal might be caught.
To step back a minute, the whole thing about the questions regarding privilege and Hannity is basically over how much the FBI might have overreached in their search. Basically, if they we're looking for files on Cohen-Trump but also got files on Cohen-Hannity due to poor record keeping, that would be a problem. Unless Hannity were to, say, publicly announce that Cohen is not his attorney. At which point the FBI having those files is no longer really a legal problem, and all of them are relevant to the investigations. Especially since the Cohen-Brody files seem like money laundering payoff as well.
Unless whatever Hannity was up to is somehow tied into the stuff the FBI was looking for under their warrant, the taint team will keep it separate.
To step back a minute, the whole thing about the questions regarding privilege and Hannity is basically over how much the FBI might have overreached in their search. Basically, if they we're looking for files on Cohen-Trump but also got files on Cohen-Hannity due to poor record keeping, that would be a problem. Unless Hannity were to, say, publicly announce that Cohen is not his attorney. At which point the FBI having those files is no longer really a legal problem, and all of them are relevant to the investigations. Especially since the Cohen-Brody files seem like money laundering payoff as well.
Having the files is not a legal problem. Using the files would be though
I spoke to two former federal investigators who told me Cohen was introduced to Donald Trump by his father-in-law, Fima Shusterman, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Ukraine who arrived in the U.S. in 1975. Shusterman was in the garment business and owned a fleet of taxicabs with his partners, Shalva Botier and Edward Zubok – all three men were convicted of a money-laundering related offense in 1993. “Fima may have been a (possibly silent) business partner with Trump, perhaps even used as a conduit for Russian investors in Trump properties and other ventures,” a former federal investigator told me. “Cohen, who married into the family, was given the job with the Trump Org as a favor to Shusterman.” (“Untrue,” Cohen told me. “Your source is creating fake news.”)
Shusterman, who owned at least four New York taxi companies, also set his son-in-law up in the yellow cab business. Cohen once ran 260 yellow cabs with his Ukrainian-born partner, the “taxi king” Simon V. Garber, until their partnership ended acrimoniously in 2012. Glenn Simpson, the private investigator who was independently hired to examine Trump’s Russia connections during the real estate mogul’s presidential run, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that Cohen “had a lot of connections to the former Soviet Union, and that he seemed to have associations with organized crime figures in New York and Florida – Russian organized crime figures,” including Garber.
One of President Donald Trump’s longtime legal advisers said he warned the president in a phone call Friday that Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer and close friend, would turn against the president and cooperate with federal prosecutors if faced with criminal charges.
Mr. Trump made the call seeking advicel from Jay Goldberg, who represented Mr. Trump in the 1990s and early 2000s. Mr. Goldberg said he cautioned the president not to trust Mr. Cohen.
Why do they assume Cohen has evidence of Trump committing crimes?
One of President Donald Trump’s longtime legal advisers said he warned the president in a phone call Friday that Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer and close friend, would turn against the president and cooperate with federal prosecutors if faced with criminal charges.
Mr. Trump made the call seeking advicel from Jay Goldberg, who represented Mr. Trump in the 1990s and early 2000s. Mr. Goldberg said he cautioned the president not to trust Mr. Cohen.
Why do they assume Cohen has evidence of Trump committing crimes?
Safe assumption he's committed crimes.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
One of President Donald Trump’s longtime legal advisers said he warned the president in a phone call Friday that Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer and close friend, would turn against the president and cooperate with federal prosecutors if faced with criminal charges.
Mr. Trump made the call seeking advicel from Jay Goldberg, who represented Mr. Trump in the 1990s and early 2000s. Mr. Goldberg said he cautioned the president not to trust Mr. Cohen.
Why do they assume Cohen has evidence of Trump committing crimes?
Because everyone who has dealt with Trump has evidence of Trump committing crimes
One of President Donald Trump’s longtime legal advisers said he warned the president in a phone call Friday that Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer and close friend, would turn against the president and cooperate with federal prosecutors if faced with criminal charges.
Mr. Trump made the call seeking advicel from Jay Goldberg, who represented Mr. Trump in the 1990s and early 2000s. Mr. Goldberg said he cautioned the president not to trust Mr. Cohen.
Why do they assume Cohen has evidence of Trump committing crimes?
We're at the rats each other stage. Now Mueller can simply threaten Cohen into telling the press he's already flipped and he'll flip to save himself, or Mueller was setting this up behind the scenes to catch him in this trap. Either way, Cohen's bridges with Trump and co. are gone.
One of President Donald Trump’s longtime legal advisers said he warned the president in a phone call Friday that Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer and close friend, would turn against the president and cooperate with federal prosecutors if faced with criminal charges.
Mr. Trump made the call seeking advicel from Jay Goldberg, who represented Mr. Trump in the 1990s and early 2000s. Mr. Goldberg said he cautioned the president not to trust Mr. Cohen.
Why do they assume Cohen has evidence of Trump committing crimes?
Because everyone who has dealt with Trump has evidence of Trump committing crimes
Everyone who reads Twitter has evidence of Trump committing crimes.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't believe this specific question was addressed yet:
If someone states explicitly that "I was never [lawyer's] client," does that not sever privilege? I mean, how can Hannity be considered a client if he flatly denies it? Or is it one of those deals where you can't sign away your constitutional rights, even if you want to?
I don't believe this specific question was addressed yet:
If someone states explicitly that "I was never [lawyer's] client," does that not sever privilege? I mean, how can Hannity be considered a client if he flatly denies it? Or is it one of those deals where you can't sign away your constitutional rights, even if you want to?
The privilege can be waived. Even if he was never the client, prospective clients fall under the privilege so if he asked some preliminary questions, it could fall under attorney-client privilege.
I don't believe this specific question was addressed yet:
If someone states explicitly that "I was never [lawyer's] client," does that not sever privilege? I mean, how can Hannity be considered a client if he flatly denies it? Or is it one of those deals where you can't sign away your constitutional rights, even if you want to?
I believe I saw something like the judge saying that Hannity's "I was never a client but I still assert attorney-client privilege" today was not going to fly.
Regardless, just saying something on twitter/tv doesn't really make it legally binding. If they do that while sworn or in legal correspondence that's a different matter entirely.
One of President Donald Trump’s longtime legal advisers said he warned the president in a phone call Friday that Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer and close friend, would turn against the president and cooperate with federal prosecutors if faced with criminal charges.
Mr. Trump made the call seeking advicel from Jay Goldberg, who represented Mr. Trump in the 1990s and early 2000s. Mr. Goldberg said he cautioned the president not to trust Mr. Cohen.
Why do they assume Cohen has evidence of Trump committing crimes?
So this kinda dovetails with a post I was writing anyway but, to explain this, I suggest listening to the interview from the Tuesday April 17 of Pod Save America. It's a really good interview because the guest is great and really goes through a lot of the details from the start on this stuff. It's with Adam Davidson of The New Yorker about his recent piece Michael Cohen and the End Stage of the Trump Presidency.
The most important bit to this point is where he walks through who Cohen is and thus why he knows shit. So basically back in like 2006-2007 (I think that was about the time) the Trumps basically stopped being real estate developers. Mostly because no one would lend them money. This is around when they started just licensing the Trump brand to make money. And they did this all over the world, almost always working with shady ass characters and second-rate oligarchs. A lot of this seeming to involve money laundering and financial crimes because, well, that's what real estate development is a lot of places.
The reason this matters is that Cohen was a dealmaker for the Trumps according to Davidson. That was basically his job. Using connections to make deals for the Trumps to make them money. Which means that Cohen is basically the person not named Trump who knows all about how the Trump organization works and makes it's money. And since all those deals are balls deep in financial crimes, Cohen is privy to all that.
To step back a minute, the whole thing about the questions regarding privilege and Hannity is basically over how much the FBI might have overreached in their search. Basically, if they we're looking for files on Cohen-Trump but also got files on Cohen-Hannity due to poor record keeping, that would be a problem. Unless Hannity were to, say, publicly announce that Cohen is not his attorney. At which point the FBI having those files is no longer really a legal problem, and all of them are relevant to the investigations. Especially since the Cohen-Brody files seem like money laundering payoff as well.
Unless whatever Hannity was up to is somehow tied into the stuff the FBI was looking for under their warrant, the taint team will keep it separate.
Interestingly, the Alantic published a story linking Hannity to 3 other lawyers whose names may be familiar: (All 3 of which are frequently on his program.)
On May 25, 2017, KFAQ, a radio station based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, received a cease-and-desist letter signed by two lawyers for Hannity: Victoria Toensing and Jay Alan Sekulow. Toensing’s signature sits above her name and that of her husband Joseph E. diGenova, the members of diGenova and Toensing LLP, who are identified as “Counsel for Sean Hannity,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Atlantic. Sekulow is also identified in the letter page as a “Counsel for Sean Hannity.”
Interestingly this cease and desist letter involved a guest making comments about Sean being a creep to her:
The letter was sent in response to accusations against Hannity made by the controversial conservative activist Debbie Schlussel. During an appearance on the Pat Campbell show on KFAQ last April, Schlussel said Hannity had been “creepy” towards her and had invited her to his hotel room.
Ultimately it's probably nothing but coincidence and the fact these people all run in the same conservative circles, but the reason for the cease and desist dovetails rather nicely with why other people were using Cohen's unique services.
So there's one thing I still don't understand in all of this, and why him having more than one client matters at all.
If you pass the bar exam you are allowed to practice law correct? Having just one client would be acting in the practice of law, makes you a lawyer. Why does it matter if he has one client or a 100?
Or is it not the issue of how many clients he has, but the fact for the 2 besides hannity, he hasn't actually done any legal work, just shady stuff. So therefor not actually been practicing law?
This is the only part I'm not sure I understand right even with all the great explanations in this thread.
+1
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So there's one thing I still don't understand in all of this, and why him having more than one client matters at all.
If you pass the bar exam you are allowed to practice law correct? Having just one client would be acting in the practice of law, makes you a lawyer. Why does it matter if he has one client or a 100?
Or is it not the issue of how many clients he has, but the fact for the 2 besides hannity, he hasn't actually done any legal work, just shady stuff. So therefor not actually been practicing law?
This is the only part I'm not sure I understand right even with all the great explanations in this thread.
Because most lawyers with practices have multiple clients, even "personal" lawyers.
I don't believe this specific question was addressed yet:
If someone states explicitly that "I was never [lawyer's] client," does that not sever privilege? I mean, how can Hannity be considered a client if he flatly denies it? Or is it one of those deals where you can't sign away your constitutional rights, even if you want to?
The privilege can be waived. Even if he was never the client, prospective clients fall under the privilege so if he asked some preliminary questions, it could fall under attorney-client privilege.
I rather suspect that the underlying question is a dilemma along the following lines
"Michael I want to turn this house I bought into a restaurant, any reason I shouldn't get some contractors in and pre-order 3000lbs of softshell crab?"
"No Sean, you'll need a zoning exemption, also maybe an alcohol licence and a bunch of other stuff, swing by my office on Wednesday and we can go over it"
" Man that's way more work than I wanted to do, I'll just sell the dump. Thanks though, here's ten, get a couple of beers in would you?"
As I understand it, this scenario would be privileged and understandably Hannity wouldn't want a property he's trying to sell being referred to publicly as a dump.
However one rather gets the feeling that he's trying to claim that something equivalent to that scenario is what happened, therefore the judge should suppress 30 hours of call recording and 900 pages of documents.
So there's one thing I still don't understand in all of this, and why him having more than one client matters at all.
If you pass the bar exam you are allowed to practice law correct? Having just one client would be acting in the practice of law, makes you a lawyer. Why does it matter if he has one client or a 100?
Or is it not the issue of how many clients he has, but the fact for the 2 besides hannity, he hasn't actually done any legal work, just shady stuff. So therefor not actually been practicing law?
This is the only part I'm not sure I understand right even with all the great explanations in this thread.
it's not relevant per se; tbh it seems a little weird to me that the president's lawyer would have more than that one client
when cohen asserted the right to review the seized materials in advance of prosecutors he claimed that he had given advice to three clients within the relevant period; in addressing that claim the judge required him to reveal who those clients were
hannity being a client (maybe? it's unclear) wouldn't even really be a big deal, except that hannity spent the previous few days of shows telling his audience how terrible the whole proceeding was without revealing his own interest in it
also given that cohen's entire practice appears to be paying off famous mens' mistresses, it makes some of us with more prurient minds wanna know what all hannity's been up to
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
So there's one thing I still don't understand in all of this, and why him having more than one client matters at all.
If you pass the bar exam you are allowed to practice law correct? Having just one client would be acting in the practice of law, makes you a lawyer. Why does it matter if he has one client or a 100?
Or is it not the issue of how many clients he has, but the fact for the 2 besides hannity, he hasn't actually done any legal work, just shady stuff. So therefor not actually been practicing law?
This is the only part I'm not sure I understand right even with all the great explanations in this thread.
If you've got a client list of 20, and you get caught doing shady stuff, there's a good chance a fair chunk of that client list is completely ignorant you were doing shady stuff.
If you've got a client list of 3, and you get caught doing shady stuff, there's a good chance that not only do your clients know you were doing shady stuff - but that this is the entire reason why they fund you as well as 20 legitimate clients.
Hence why attorney/client privilege is super important in this case.
The basic problem for Cohen is that he doesn't seem to have been actually, you know, lawyering. You don't just get attorney-client privilege just because you have a law degree and passed the bar. It's attached to the whole "doing legal work" thing. So Cohen was asked to prove that he was actually doing legal work and he responded by providing a list of clients he'd done it for and it turned out to be pathetically small and a weird list to boot.
The reason for all this that we know from reporting is that Cohen wasn't actually doing legal work. He was a dealmaker and fixer for Trump and others.
Cohen's lawyer made the multiple clients a point when they tried to get first pass screening what the FBI took before the taint team. They used the argument that it was more than just Trump's privilege at stake.
Hevach on
+14
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Cohen's lawyer made the multiple clients a point when they tried to get first pass screening what the FBI took before the taint team. They used the argument that it was more than just Trump's privilege at stake.
It's been openly stated they've been monitoring Cohens e-mails for a while as to determine who falls under that privilege. I don't remember if it's the AG, SDNY, or which organization, but they didn't just blindly raid Cohen.
I didn't say it was a good point, just that they unleashed this monster - if it is a nothingburger it would have vanished in the taint team if they just kept their mouhs shut.
It was a hail Mary shot. There are no good arguments when asking a judge to pretty please give you a couple hours alone with the evidence, but I suppose you gotta try something.
The basic problem for Cohen is that he doesn't seem to have been actually, you know, lawyering. You don't just get attorney-client privilege just because you have a law degree and passed the bar. It's attached to the whole "doing legal work" thing. So Cohen was asked to prove that he was actually doing legal work and he responded by providing a list of clients he'd done it for and it turned out to be pathetically small and a weird list to boot.
The reason for all this that we know from reporting is that Cohen wasn't actually doing legal work. He was a dealmaker and fixer for Trump and others.
negotiating hush-contracts with spurned mistresses, while distasteful, is the work of a lawyer. It's not like Cohen would be the first.
the issue is not that he wasn't doing lawyering, it's that he seems to have broken a few laws along the way
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The basic problem for Cohen is that he doesn't seem to have been actually, you know, lawyering. You don't just get attorney-client privilege just because you have a law degree and passed the bar. It's attached to the whole "doing legal work" thing. So Cohen was asked to prove that he was actually doing legal work and he responded by providing a list of clients he'd done it for and it turned out to be pathetically small and a weird list to boot.
The reason for all this that we know from reporting is that Cohen wasn't actually doing legal work. He was a dealmaker and fixer for Trump and others.
negotiating hush-contracts with spurned mistresses, while distasteful, is the work of a lawyer. It's not like Cohen would be the first.
That's only true if you do so with your clients knowledge.
The basic problem for Cohen is that he doesn't seem to have been actually, you know, lawyering. You don't just get attorney-client privilege just because you have a law degree and passed the bar. It's attached to the whole "doing legal work" thing. So Cohen was asked to prove that he was actually doing legal work and he responded by providing a list of clients he'd done it for and it turned out to be pathetically small and a weird list to boot.
The reason for all this that we know from reporting is that Cohen wasn't actually doing legal work. He was a dealmaker and fixer for Trump and others.
negotiating hush-contracts with spurned mistresses, while distasteful, is the work of a lawyer. It's not like Cohen would be the first.
That's only true if you do so with your clients knowledge.
Which the client currently denies.
Can that work if you give your lawyer some open-ended instructions? Like "Do whatever it takes to keep me from being arrested/sued/publicly humiliated."
So the client doesn't know exactly what the lawyer has done, but they did tell them to do it?
The basic problem for Cohen is that he doesn't seem to have been actually, you know, lawyering. You don't just get attorney-client privilege just because you have a law degree and passed the bar. It's attached to the whole "doing legal work" thing. So Cohen was asked to prove that he was actually doing legal work and he responded by providing a list of clients he'd done it for and it turned out to be pathetically small and a weird list to boot.
The reason for all this that we know from reporting is that Cohen wasn't actually doing legal work. He was a dealmaker and fixer for Trump and others.
negotiating hush-contracts with spurned mistresses, while distasteful, is the work of a lawyer. It's not like Cohen would be the first.
the issue is not that he wasn't doing lawyering, it's that he seems to have broken a few laws along the way
There is also the alternate interpretation that the "contracts" were just Cohen saying, "If you say anything about Trump we will ruin your life." Even that doesn't account for the real nightmare scenario for Trump/Hannity where they actually, in writing, asked him to do that and then we're in real crazy pants territory.
3DS FC: 1977-1274-3558 Pokemon X ingame name: S3xy Vexy
The basic problem for Cohen is that he doesn't seem to have been actually, you know, lawyering. You don't just get attorney-client privilege just because you have a law degree and passed the bar. It's attached to the whole "doing legal work" thing. So Cohen was asked to prove that he was actually doing legal work and he responded by providing a list of clients he'd done it for and it turned out to be pathetically small and a weird list to boot.
The reason for all this that we know from reporting is that Cohen wasn't actually doing legal work. He was a dealmaker and fixer for Trump and others.
negotiating hush-contracts with spurned mistresses, while distasteful, is the work of a lawyer. It's not like Cohen would be the first.
That's only true if you do so with your clients knowledge.
Which the client currently denies.
Can that work if you give your lawyer some open-ended instructions? Like "Do whatever it takes to keep me from being arrested/sued/publicly humiliated."
So the client doesn't know exactly what the lawyer has done, but they did tell them to do it?
"Who will rid me of this turbulent skank?" Kind of thing?
Embattled attorney Michael Cohen has dropped a pair of much-touted libel suits against BuzzFeed and the private investigation firm Fusion GPS over publication of the so-called dossier detailing alleged ties between President Donald Trump and Russia.
The dossier claims that Cohen met with Russian operatives somewhere in Europe, including Prague, to attend a meeting to “clean up the mess” created by public disclosures of other Trump associates’ reported ties to Russia.
Posts
Which, of course, is not how privilege works.
Wouldn't Hannity being there actually nullify any privilege that Trump might have otherwise had at that meeting?
There isn't privilege if the person isn't a lawyer from whom the client is seeking legal services.
And exposes himself to civil action brought by the client.
I bet it could be argued by a real lawyer that anything told to the fake lawyer in believed confidence should be considered inadmissible as evidence. Would depend on the circumstances and the presiding judge as to whether that play would work.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
As always, there is an exception for this. The client is the one who holds the privilege, not the attorney (or "attorney"). So if the client reasonably believes that the person who they are talking to is a person authorized to practice law, the privilege may still apply (see section IV.B) (and with a heavy emphasis on "may").
It wouldn't remove privilege between Cohen and Trump, but no privilege between Hannity and Trump would exist. So Hannity could be compelled to testify about whatever the meeting was, but not Cohen.
This is from a book a reporter he trusts (took down Duke Cunningham) is publishing next month and Marshall has an advance copy of.
2018 is such a weird year. Finally Washington is talking about the massive amount of prosecutor overreach that our system has fallen into...because the Republicans are really concerned a criminal might be caught.
Unless whatever Hannity was up to is somehow tied into the stuff the FBI was looking for under their warrant, the taint team will keep it separate.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Having the files is not a legal problem. Using the files would be though
This goes in the other thread please.
Safe assumption he's committed crimes.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Because everyone who has dealt with Trump has evidence of Trump committing crimes
We're at the rats each other stage. Now Mueller can simply threaten Cohen into telling the press he's already flipped and he'll flip to save himself, or Mueller was setting this up behind the scenes to catch him in this trap. Either way, Cohen's bridges with Trump and co. are gone.
Everyone who reads Twitter has evidence of Trump committing crimes.
If someone states explicitly that "I was never [lawyer's] client," does that not sever privilege? I mean, how can Hannity be considered a client if he flatly denies it? Or is it one of those deals where you can't sign away your constitutional rights, even if you want to?
The privilege can be waived. Even if he was never the client, prospective clients fall under the privilege so if he asked some preliminary questions, it could fall under attorney-client privilege.
I believe I saw something like the judge saying that Hannity's "I was never a client but I still assert attorney-client privilege" today was not going to fly.
Regardless, just saying something on twitter/tv doesn't really make it legally binding. If they do that while sworn or in legal correspondence that's a different matter entirely.
So this kinda dovetails with a post I was writing anyway but, to explain this, I suggest listening to the interview from the Tuesday April 17 of Pod Save America. It's a really good interview because the guest is great and really goes through a lot of the details from the start on this stuff. It's with Adam Davidson of The New Yorker about his recent piece Michael Cohen and the End Stage of the Trump Presidency.
The most important bit to this point is where he walks through who Cohen is and thus why he knows shit. So basically back in like 2006-2007 (I think that was about the time) the Trumps basically stopped being real estate developers. Mostly because no one would lend them money. This is around when they started just licensing the Trump brand to make money. And they did this all over the world, almost always working with shady ass characters and second-rate oligarchs. A lot of this seeming to involve money laundering and financial crimes because, well, that's what real estate development is a lot of places.
The reason this matters is that Cohen was a dealmaker for the Trumps according to Davidson. That was basically his job. Using connections to make deals for the Trumps to make them money. Which means that Cohen is basically the person not named Trump who knows all about how the Trump organization works and makes it's money. And since all those deals are balls deep in financial crimes, Cohen is privy to all that.
Interestingly, the Alantic published a story linking Hannity to 3 other lawyers whose names may be familiar: (All 3 of which are frequently on his program.)
On May 25, 2017, KFAQ, a radio station based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, received a cease-and-desist letter signed by two lawyers for Hannity: Victoria Toensing and Jay Alan Sekulow. Toensing’s signature sits above her name and that of her husband Joseph E. diGenova, the members of diGenova and Toensing LLP, who are identified as “Counsel for Sean Hannity,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Atlantic. Sekulow is also identified in the letter page as a “Counsel for Sean Hannity.”
Interestingly this cease and desist letter involved a guest making comments about Sean being a creep to her:
The letter was sent in response to accusations against Hannity made by the controversial conservative activist Debbie Schlussel. During an appearance on the Pat Campbell show on KFAQ last April, Schlussel said Hannity had been “creepy” towards her and had invited her to his hotel room.
Ultimately it's probably nothing but coincidence and the fact these people all run in the same conservative circles, but the reason for the cease and desist dovetails rather nicely with why other people were using Cohen's unique services.
If you pass the bar exam you are allowed to practice law correct? Having just one client would be acting in the practice of law, makes you a lawyer. Why does it matter if he has one client or a 100?
Or is it not the issue of how many clients he has, but the fact for the 2 besides hannity, he hasn't actually done any legal work, just shady stuff. So therefor not actually been practicing law?
This is the only part I'm not sure I understand right even with all the great explanations in this thread.
Because most lawyers with practices have multiple clients, even "personal" lawyers.
I rather suspect that the underlying question is a dilemma along the following lines
"Michael I want to turn this house I bought into a restaurant, any reason I shouldn't get some contractors in and pre-order 3000lbs of softshell crab?"
"No Sean, you'll need a zoning exemption, also maybe an alcohol licence and a bunch of other stuff, swing by my office on Wednesday and we can go over it"
" Man that's way more work than I wanted to do, I'll just sell the dump. Thanks though, here's ten, get a couple of beers in would you?"
As I understand it, this scenario would be privileged and understandably Hannity wouldn't want a property he's trying to sell being referred to publicly as a dump.
However one rather gets the feeling that he's trying to claim that something equivalent to that scenario is what happened, therefore the judge should suppress 30 hours of call recording and 900 pages of documents.
it's not relevant per se; tbh it seems a little weird to me that the president's lawyer would have more than that one client
when cohen asserted the right to review the seized materials in advance of prosecutors he claimed that he had given advice to three clients within the relevant period; in addressing that claim the judge required him to reveal who those clients were
hannity being a client (maybe? it's unclear) wouldn't even really be a big deal, except that hannity spent the previous few days of shows telling his audience how terrible the whole proceeding was without revealing his own interest in it
also given that cohen's entire practice appears to be paying off famous mens' mistresses, it makes some of us with more prurient minds wanna know what all hannity's been up to
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If you've got a client list of 20, and you get caught doing shady stuff, there's a good chance a fair chunk of that client list is completely ignorant you were doing shady stuff.
If you've got a client list of 3, and you get caught doing shady stuff, there's a good chance that not only do your clients know you were doing shady stuff - but that this is the entire reason why they fund you as well as 20 legitimate clients.
Hence why attorney/client privilege is super important in this case.
The reason for all this that we know from reporting is that Cohen wasn't actually doing legal work. He was a dealmaker and fixer for Trump and others.
It's been openly stated they've been monitoring Cohens e-mails for a while as to determine who falls under that privilege. I don't remember if it's the AG, SDNY, or which organization, but they didn't just blindly raid Cohen.
It was a hail Mary shot. There are no good arguments when asking a judge to pretty please give you a couple hours alone with the evidence, but I suppose you gotta try something.
negotiating hush-contracts with spurned mistresses, while distasteful, is the work of a lawyer. It's not like Cohen would be the first.
the issue is not that he wasn't doing lawyering, it's that he seems to have broken a few laws along the way
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
That's only true if you do so with your clients knowledge.
Which the client currently denies.
So the client doesn't know exactly what the lawyer has done, but they did tell them to do it?
There is also the alternate interpretation that the "contracts" were just Cohen saying, "If you say anything about Trump we will ruin your life." Even that doesn't account for the real nightmare scenario for Trump/Hannity where they actually, in writing, asked him to do that and then we're in real crazy pants territory.
"Who will rid me of this turbulent skank?" Kind of thing?
Might well fail the reasonable belief test.
Cohen drops libel suits against BuzzFeed, Fusion GPS