I left the country for 4 days and this is what happens in my absence???
The next time you come back it'll be revealed that Scott Baio is a client.
Or Scott Baio is now the attorney for this whole thing. Him pretending to be Bob Loblaw is arguably at best a lateral move from what Michael Cohen appears to be. They apparently both have a similar experience (ie none) with actual legal duties.
He even comes with his own sexual misconduct allegations.
Trump and Cohen would find his legal philosophy appealing
I did read an interesting piece that basically said that despite the general tendency of like, NYC law firms to donate 60/40 Dem/Rep, last election 3/34,000 people at Goldman Sachs donated to Trump. So he employed more people from Goldman Sachs directly than ever gave him money during the election.
It seems like people in NYC specifically hate him.
I did read an interesting piece that basically said that despite the general tendency of like, NYC law firms to donate 60/40 Dem/Rep, last election 3/34,000 people at Goldman Sachs donated to Trump. So he employed more people from Goldman Sachs directly than ever gave him money during the election.
It seems like people in NYC specifically hate him.
NYC Elite hate trump, they hate him so much. That's his entire narrative. They will never see him as anything other than a schmuck and he desperately, desperately wants their acceptance.
Can you be charged with perjury for something your lawyer said on your behalf? What about the lawyer?
Lawyers can be disbarred perhaps, but it's not perjury because making legal argument to the court is not a sworn statement
But in this case it was (IIRC)
Judge "Who is the third client"
Lawyer "I'd rather not say"
Judge "Tell me"
Lawyer "Hannity"
There's probably enough gray area in the definition of client that perjury doesn't apply, but it's not really a legal argument so much as a statement of fact (that Hannity is a client) made by the lawyer on behalf of the client. Can you, in the general sense, be shielded from a perjury charge by making your lawyer say the false statement for you is what I'm getting at.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It's kind of hilarious how Trump is trying to "whos mans is this?" Cohen right now.
Can you be charged with perjury for something your lawyer said on your behalf? What about the lawyer?
Lawyers can be disbarred perhaps, but it's not perjury because making legal argument to the court is not a sworn statement
But in this case it was (IIRC)
Judge "Who is the third client"
Lawyer "I'd rather not say"
Judge "Tell me"
Lawyer "Hannity"
There's probably enough gray area in the definition of client that perjury doesn't apply, but it's not really a legal argument so much as a statement of fact (that Hannity is a client) made by the lawyer on behalf of the client. Can you, in the general sense, be shielded from a perjury charge by making your lawyer say the false statement for you is what I'm getting at.
Perjury is a material false statement made under oath. His lawyer didn't commit perjury. You can't be charged with perjury for a statement you yourself didn'tt make.
If his relationship with Cohen was as casual as Hannity would like to claim, then why would there be any evidence for the FBI to seize in the first place?
It'll be interesting seeing Hannity have to backtrack on this one over the next few weeks.
Has this been claimed?
My understanding of events is:
- Cohen claimed there were thousands of documents that are protected by client privledge
- Govt said "Do you even have clients?"
- Cohen said "Yes, I have three!"
- Judge said "Name them."
- Cohen said "POTUS, Broidy, and... Hannity"
Thus Cohen did not necessarily claim any of the documents pertained to Hannity, merely that he was a client.
Don't get me wrong, it still seems like one of them is misrepresenting their relationship, since Hannity claims:
[L]et me make clear that I did not ask Michael Cohen to bring this proceeding on my behalf, I have no personal interest in this proceeding, and, in fact, asked that my de minimis discussions with Michael Cohen, which dealt almost exclusively about real estate, not be made a part of this proceeding.
Hannity is saying he specifically asked Cohen not to bring it up.
I'm guessing that either "almost exclusively real estate" means "and some stuff I don't want revealed."
Or Cohen was desparate to claim another client, and Hannity told him to fuck off because: "I just asked you about a zoning question at a bar once, stop telling people you're my lawyer. I have real lawyers."
You know, that last one, kind of has the ring of truth to it.
As much as I think Hannity is an epic shit heal. It feels truthier.
If he had stuck with "He's not my lawyer, never was my lawyer, wtf is this shit?" then yeah.
But of course he amended that to "I may have thrown him 10 bucks or something now and then so that there would be attorney/client privilege" and "there were a few conversations where we stated attorney/client privilege before hand" (bit of paraphrasing, but they're the content of his tweetments), which seem like some pretty specific technicalities he wants to get out there. And given how firm his "...never, never..." have I ever initial response on his radio show, I'm more inclined to believe it's a bit dirtier than that.
Paying off pornstars and paying playmates to have abortions bad? Probably unlikely. But probably something problematic enough that it could tarnish him with viewers and/or advertisers; at least to some degree. EDIT: And bad enough for optics that he can't just immediately say publicly what it was to get this monkey off his back.
It could simply be the fact that he knew about the other stuff Cohen was doing and wanted to discuss it with him without having to publicly admit it was true. Maybe he wanted to know the details of the how's and why's without being forced to be put in a situation where his knowledge of the payoffs come back to him at all. Which, ha-fucking-ha if that was the goal! Though, the cynic in me looks at Hannity and sees a real true believer, not the quasi believer/actor O'Reilly was, and wonders if his interest in what Cohen did for Trump and the RNC guy, was to find out if there was a way to make it look like someone else paid off a mistress. You know, just in case he needed to undermine a pesky popular "leftist".
It's kind of hilarious how Trump is trying to "whos mans is this?" Cohen right now.
God I want this to bite him.
I don't want to get off topic so I won't get into this; but I do want to quickly ask if someone (WAPO or Politico, or whoever) has ever put together a list of "who dat?" that Trump has done to people he has worked directly with, and publicly praised/defended (often repeatedly)?
But there doesn't seem to be any benefit gained from claiming Hannity as a client if he wasn't really. It would just make the judge mad.
Makes sense we think about who we're dealing with here. This is Henry Winkler level of lawyering. Next Cohen will be TAKING TO THE SEA!
Is Cohen steering the ship though? Based on him not even bothering to show up Friday, I guess I just assumed he was along for the ride.
Do we know anything about the lawyers representing him? Or, for that matter, given my understanding that Trump also had lawyers there, where they working together? Was their legal argument for letting Trump/Cohen go through the stuff first a collaboration?
How is "I may have thrown him 10 bucks or something now and then so that there would be attorney/client privilege" the third iteration of Hannity's lie and also the least believable. Handing a lawyer $10 seems like a super weird thing to do, and not something you would randomly forget if you did it or not. It's infinitely more likely that he never hired Cohen or he totally hired and paid Cohen and he want's to hide it. Trying to say that he may have informally hired a lawyer with a $10 bill, but he doesn't remember if he did it or not is laughable.
Or am I wrong here? Is handing a lawyer friend small bills to get attorney client privilege something people do?
How is "I may have thrown him 10 bucks or something now and then so that there would be attorney/client privilege" the third iteration of Hannity's lie and also the least believable. Handing a lawyer $10 seems like a super weird thing to do, and not something you would randomly forget if you did it or not. It's infinitely more likely that he never hired Cohen or he totally hired and paid Cohen and he want's to hide it. Trying to say that he may have informally hired a lawyer with a $10 bill, but he doesn't remember if he did it or not is laughable.
Or am I wrong here? Is handing lawyer friend small bills to get attorney client privilege something people do?
If his relationship with Cohen was as casual as Hannity would like to claim, then why would there be any evidence for the FBI to seize in the first place?
It'll be interesting seeing Hannity have to backtrack on this one over the next few weeks.
Has this been claimed?
My understanding of events is:
- Cohen claimed there were thousands of documents that are protected by client privledge
- Govt said "Do you even have clients?"
- Cohen said "Yes, I have three!"
- Judge said "Name them."
- Cohen said "POTUS, Broidy, and... Hannity"
Thus Cohen did not necessarily claim any of the documents pertained to Hannity, merely that he was a client.
Don't get me wrong, it still seems like one of them is misrepresenting their relationship, since Hannity claims:
[L]et me make clear that I did not ask Michael Cohen to bring this proceeding on my behalf, I have no personal interest in this proceeding, and, in fact, asked that my de minimis discussions with Michael Cohen, which dealt almost exclusively about real estate, not be made a part of this proceeding.
Hannity is saying he specifically asked Cohen not to bring it up.
I'm guessing that either "almost exclusively real estate" means "and some stuff I don't want revealed."
Or Cohen was desparate to claim another client, and Hannity told him to fuck off because: "I just asked you about a zoning question at a bar once, stop telling people you're my lawyer. I have real lawyers."
You know, that last one, kind of has the ring of truth to it.
As much as I think Hannity is an epic shit heal. It feels truthier.
Except both Cohen and Hannity's responses to this whole affair suggest otherwise. Clearly Cohen didn't want anyone to know he had done something for Hannity and Hannity was both worried by the news getting out and equivocating on what exactly Cohen did for him.
I think it's far more likely Cohen did something for Hannity, in some sort of vaguely official capacity and neither of them wants it to get out.
The fact that he mentions Hannity at all, even if not by name at first, also suggests to me that he wasn't sure he could hide whatever he did for Hannity given what the government has.
How is "I may have thrown him 10 bucks or something now and then so that there would be attorney/client privilege" the third iteration of Hannity's lie and also the least believable. Handing a lawyer $10 seems like a super weird thing to do, and not something you would randomly forget if you did it or not. It's infinitely more likely that he never hired Cohen or he totally hired and paid Cohen and he want's to hide it. Trying to say that he may have informally hired a lawyer with a $10 bill, but he doesn't remember if he did it or not is laughable.
Or am I wrong here? Is handing a lawyer friend small bills to get attorney client privilege something people do?
It's like he watched Breaking Bad when Saul asks Walter and Jesse to put a dollar in his pocket to get the privilege. "So THAT'S how it works!"
+6
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
How is "I may have thrown him 10 bucks or something now and then so that there would be attorney/client privilege" the third iteration of Hannity's lie and also the least believable. Handing a lawyer $10 seems like a super weird thing to do, and not something you would randomly forget if you did it or not. It's infinitely more likely that he never hired Cohen or he totally hired and paid Cohen and he want's to hide it. Trying to say that he may have informally hired a lawyer with a $10 bill, but he doesn't remember if he did it or not is laughable.
Or am I wrong here? Is handing lawyer friend small bills to get attorney client privilege something people do?
No, it's ridiculous
Is it even a "you have to tell me you're a cop" common misconception or is this totally out of left field?
How is "I may have thrown him 10 bucks or something now and then so that there would be attorney/client privilege" the third iteration of Hannity's lie and also the least believable. Handing a lawyer $10 seems like a super weird thing to do, and not something you would randomly forget if you did it or not. It's infinitely more likely that he never hired Cohen or he totally hired and paid Cohen and he want's to hide it. Trying to say that he may have informally hired a lawyer with a $10 bill, but he doesn't remember if he did it or not is laughable.
Or am I wrong here? Is handing lawyer friend small bills to get attorney client privilege something people do?
No, it's ridiculous
Is it even a "you have to tell me you're a cop" common misconception or is this totally out of left field?
It's stupid because you don't need to exchange money for your conversation to be considered privileged
and also IIRC Hannity then went on to blather "but I didn't get an invoice or receipt or anything" meaning that even if he did pay Cohen a tenner, there's no way to evidence it.
How is "I may have thrown him 10 bucks or something now and then so that there would be attorney/client privilege" the third iteration of Hannity's lie and also the least believable. Handing a lawyer $10 seems like a super weird thing to do, and not something you would randomly forget if you did it or not. It's infinitely more likely that he never hired Cohen or he totally hired and paid Cohen and he want's to hide it. Trying to say that he may have informally hired a lawyer with a $10 bill, but he doesn't remember if he did it or not is laughable.
Or am I wrong here? Is handing lawyer friend small bills to get attorney client privilege something people do?
No, it's ridiculous
Is it even a "you have to tell me you're a cop" common misconception or is this totally out of left field?
It's stupid because you don't need to exchange money for your conversation to be considered privileged
Isn't there like a type of work one does as a lawyer which involves, specifically, not ever charging the client anything?
Sleep on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
and also IIRC Hannity then went on to blather "but I didn't get an invoice or receipt or anything" meaning that even if he did pay Cohen a tenner, there's no way to evidence it.
Unless Cohen documented it on his end. Which, dear god, would be too funny.
Online, the “handed him 10 bucks” line immediately launched comparisons to an infamous scene from AMC’s smash hit “Breaking Bad.”
In a memorable exchange, one of the shadiest lawyers in television history, Saul Goodman, played by Bob Odenkirk, tells the show’s meth-dealing main characters to “put a dollar in my pocket” to ensure that their conversations about criminal misdeeds remain protected.
Privilege exists between a lawyer and a potential client or client seeking legal advice when the “predominant purpose of the communication was to render legal advice,” Adzhemyan and Marcella wrote.
The “Breaking Bad” scene in the desert is incorrect, the pair argue, because payment is not necessary if the conversation is about legal advice. “There is simply no reason to exchange a dollar,” they wrote. “To invoke the privilege, Saul only needs to confirm that Walt and Jesse seek his legal advice as potential clients.”
The flip side to this is that payment — as Hannity suggested on his radio show — does not automatically mean privilege.
“Exchanging a dollar bill with a lawyer does not magically cloak subsequent conversations with that lawyer under the protection of the privilege,” Adzhemyan and Marcella said. “Not even seven barrels of cash can buy the attorney-client privilege where none is warranted.”
+6
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
On the other hand Saul Goodman just charged a dollar for something that’s free. That’s just good business sense.
On the other hand Saul Goodman just charged a dollar for something that’s free. That’s just good business sense.
The character of Saul Goodman is also street-smart enough to know that rather than trying to explain the technicalities of the law, it's a lot easier to say something that lay-people will hear and go "okay that sounds legit." Same result.
The fact that Hannity rushed straight to "our conversations were protected by attorney client privilege" means that A) He talked to Cohen about things that he does not want getting out and He believes Cohen might have recordings of those conversations
How does that work with material the FBI seized? Do they have to avoid listening to protected conversations between Hannity and Cohen? Or can they listen to them but just can't use them in court? Or are recorded conversations seized as evidence not protected anymore?
The fact that Hannity rushed straight to "our conversations were protected by attorney client privilege" means that A) He talked to Cohen about things that he does not want getting out and He believes Cohen might have recordings of those conversations
How does that work with material the FBI seized? Do they have to avoid listening to protected conversations between Hannity and Cohen? Or can they listen to them but just can't use them in court? Or are recorded conversations seized as evidence not protected anymore?
thats why they have the taint team
the investigators themselves only get the materials the team approves
The fact that Hannity rushed straight to "our conversations were protected by attorney client privilege" means that A) He talked to Cohen about things that he does not want getting out and He believes Cohen might have recordings of those conversations
How does that work with material the FBI seized? Do they have to avoid listening to protected conversations between Hannity and Cohen? Or can they listen to them but just can't use them in court? Or are recorded conversations seized as evidence not protected anymore?
he didn't?
he got up on his show last night and said he had never been a client or had so much as an invoice. Just asked him some real estate (lol) questions and (lol again) gave him $10. So I guess only the few vocal conversations about real estate would be protected anyway
It's kind of hilarious how Trump is trying to "whos mans is this?" Cohen right now.
God I want this to bite him.
Seriously, these two have been thick as thieves for decades and i'm not buying (especially after trump was apoplectic over atourney client privilege) for one second that he is actually fine with this or that Cohen was just another coffee boy.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The fact that Hannity rushed straight to "our conversations were protected by attorney client privilege" means that A) He talked to Cohen about things that he does not want getting out and He believes Cohen might have recordings of those conversations
How does that work with material the FBI seized? Do they have to avoid listening to protected conversations between Hannity and Cohen? Or can they listen to them but just can't use them in court? Or are recorded conversations seized as evidence not protected anymore?
he didn't?
he got up on his show last night and said he had never been a client or had so much as an invoice. Just asked him some real estate (lol) questions and (lol again) gave him $10. So I guess only the few vocal conversations about real estate would be protected anyway
He did. Hannity gave a LOT of answers yesterday. His bumbling first words on his radio show were "well I guess I have attorney client privilege."
How is "I may have thrown him 10 bucks or something now and then so that there would be attorney/client privilege" the third iteration of Hannity's lie and also the least believable. Handing a lawyer $10 seems like a super weird thing to do, and not something you would randomly forget if you did it or not. It's infinitely more likely that he never hired Cohen or he totally hired and paid Cohen and he want's to hide it. Trying to say that he may have informally hired a lawyer with a $10 bill, but he doesn't remember if he did it or not is laughable.
Or am I wrong here? Is handing lawyer friend small bills to get attorney client privilege something people do?
No, it's ridiculous
Is it even a "you have to tell me you're a cop" common misconception or is this totally out of left field?
The fact that Hannity rushed straight to "our conversations were protected by attorney client privilege" means that A) He talked to Cohen about things that he does not want getting out and He believes Cohen might have recordings of those conversations
How does that work with material the FBI seized? Do they have to avoid listening to protected conversations between Hannity and Cohen? Or can they listen to them but just can't use them in court? Or are recorded conversations seized as evidence not protected anymore?
he didn't?
he got up on his show last night and said he had never been a client or had so much as an invoice. Just asked him some real estate (lol) questions and (lol again) gave him $10. So I guess only the few vocal conversations about real estate would be protected anyway
He did. Hannity gave a LOT of answers yesterday. His bumbling first words on his radio show were "well I guess I have attorney client privilege."
Realize the bind Hannity is in. He may be willing to sell Cohen down the river without a moments hesitation but he is also BFFs with Trump. His claims about attorney/client privilege serve to reinforce Trump's claims. I suspect that is the extent to which he cares about maintaining that privilege, as a supporting argument to Trump's own claims.
The fact that Hannity rushed straight to "our conversations were protected by attorney client privilege" means that A) He talked to Cohen about things that he does not want getting out and He believes Cohen might have recordings of those conversations
How does that work with material the FBI seized? Do they have to avoid listening to protected conversations between Hannity and Cohen? Or can they listen to them but just can't use them in court? Or are recorded conversations seized as evidence not protected anymore?
he didn't?
he got up on his show last night and said he had never been a client or had so much as an invoice. Just asked him some real estate (lol) questions and (lol again) gave him $10. So I guess only the few vocal conversations about real estate would be protected anyway
He did. Hannity gave a LOT of answers yesterday. His bumbling first words on his radio show were "well I guess I have attorney client privilege."
How is "I may have thrown him 10 bucks or something now and then so that there would be attorney/client privilege" the third iteration of Hannity's lie and also the least believable. Handing a lawyer $10 seems like a super weird thing to do, and not something you would randomly forget if you did it or not. It's infinitely more likely that he never hired Cohen or he totally hired and paid Cohen and he want's to hide it. Trying to say that he may have informally hired a lawyer with a $10 bill, but he doesn't remember if he did it or not is laughable.
Or am I wrong here? Is handing lawyer friend small bills to get attorney client privilege something people do?
No, it's ridiculous
Is it even a "you have to tell me you're a cop" common misconception or is this totally out of left field?
It's stupid because you don't need to exchange money for your conversation to be considered privileged
Isn't there like a type of work one does as a lawyer which involves, specifically, not ever charging the client anything?
Posts
Trump and Cohen would find his legal philosophy appealing
Familiarity and all that.
NYC Elite hate trump, they hate him so much. That's his entire narrative. They will never see him as anything other than a schmuck and he desperately, desperately wants their acceptance.
That would be explicitly lying to the court though, and for no good reason.
Hannity is pretty much accusing Cohen of lying in court.
But it wasn’t even Cohen claiming that, it was his lawyer
Lawyers can be disbarred perhaps, but it's not perjury because making legal argument to the court is not a sworn statement
But in this case it was (IIRC)
Judge "Who is the third client"
Lawyer "I'd rather not say"
Judge "Tell me"
Lawyer "Hannity"
There's probably enough gray area in the definition of client that perjury doesn't apply, but it's not really a legal argument so much as a statement of fact (that Hannity is a client) made by the lawyer on behalf of the client. Can you, in the general sense, be shielded from a perjury charge by making your lawyer say the false statement for you is what I'm getting at.
God I want this to bite him.
Perjury is a material false statement made under oath. His lawyer didn't commit perjury. You can't be charged with perjury for a statement you yourself didn'tt make.
If he had stuck with "He's not my lawyer, never was my lawyer, wtf is this shit?" then yeah.
But of course he amended that to "I may have thrown him 10 bucks or something now and then so that there would be attorney/client privilege" and "there were a few conversations where we stated attorney/client privilege before hand" (bit of paraphrasing, but they're the content of his tweetments), which seem like some pretty specific technicalities he wants to get out there. And given how firm his "...never, never..." have I ever initial response on his radio show, I'm more inclined to believe it's a bit dirtier than that.
Paying off pornstars and paying playmates to have abortions bad? Probably unlikely. But probably something problematic enough that it could tarnish him with viewers and/or advertisers; at least to some degree. EDIT: And bad enough for optics that he can't just immediately say publicly what it was to get this monkey off his back.
It could simply be the fact that he knew about the other stuff Cohen was doing and wanted to discuss it with him without having to publicly admit it was true. Maybe he wanted to know the details of the how's and why's without being forced to be put in a situation where his knowledge of the payoffs come back to him at all. Which, ha-fucking-ha if that was the goal! Though, the cynic in me looks at Hannity and sees a real true believer, not the quasi believer/actor O'Reilly was, and wonders if his interest in what Cohen did for Trump and the RNC guy, was to find out if there was a way to make it look like someone else paid off a mistress. You know, just in case he needed to undermine a pesky popular "leftist".
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Makes sense we think about who we're dealing with here. This is Henry Winkler level of lawyering. Next Cohen will be TAKING TO THE SEA!
I don't want to get off topic so I won't get into this; but I do want to quickly ask if someone (WAPO or Politico, or whoever) has ever put together a list of "who dat?" that Trump has done to people he has worked directly with, and publicly praised/defended (often repeatedly)?
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Is Cohen steering the ship though? Based on him not even bothering to show up Friday, I guess I just assumed he was along for the ride.
Do we know anything about the lawyers representing him? Or, for that matter, given my understanding that Trump also had lawyers there, where they working together? Was their legal argument for letting Trump/Cohen go through the stuff first a collaboration?
Was the courtroom just filled with lawyers?
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Or am I wrong here? Is handing a lawyer friend small bills to get attorney client privilege something people do?
No, it's ridiculous
Except both Cohen and Hannity's responses to this whole affair suggest otherwise. Clearly Cohen didn't want anyone to know he had done something for Hannity and Hannity was both worried by the news getting out and equivocating on what exactly Cohen did for him.
I think it's far more likely Cohen did something for Hannity, in some sort of vaguely official capacity and neither of them wants it to get out.
The fact that he mentions Hannity at all, even if not by name at first, also suggests to me that he wasn't sure he could hide whatever he did for Hannity given what the government has.
Oh my God, is that the next chapter? Cohen and Trump start going all sovereign citizen?
Oh I hope so. I hear judges are super-sympathetic to people who go that route.
Is it even a "you have to tell me you're a cop" common misconception or is this totally out of left field?
It's stupid because you don't need to exchange money for your conversation to be considered privileged
Isn't there like a type of work one does as a lawyer which involves, specifically, not ever charging the client anything?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/04/17/sean-hannitys-idea-of-attorney-client-privilege-is-right-out-of-breaking-bad-its-also-wrong/
The character of Saul Goodman is also street-smart enough to know that rather than trying to explain the technicalities of the law, it's a lot easier to say something that lay-people will hear and go "okay that sounds legit." Same result.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
How does that work with material the FBI seized? Do they have to avoid listening to protected conversations between Hannity and Cohen? Or can they listen to them but just can't use them in court? Or are recorded conversations seized as evidence not protected anymore?
thats why they have the taint team
the investigators themselves only get the materials the team approves
he didn't?
he got up on his show last night and said he had never been a client or had so much as an invoice. Just asked him some real estate (lol) questions and (lol again) gave him $10. So I guess only the few vocal conversations about real estate would be protected anyway
Seriously, these two have been thick as thieves for decades and i'm not buying (especially after trump was apoplectic over atourney client privilege) for one second that he is actually fine with this or that Cohen was just another coffee boy.
Actively conspiring to help criminals be criminals isn’t privileged, ever
Its a movie/tv trope
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Realize the bind Hannity is in. He may be willing to sell Cohen down the river without a moments hesitation but he is also BFFs with Trump. His claims about attorney/client privilege serve to reinforce Trump's claims. I suspect that is the extent to which he cares about maintaining that privilege, as a supporting argument to Trump's own claims.
oh, I missed that one, sorry
Yes, it's when you work for Paul Hewson.