Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
Michael Cohen's third client...
Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:33 pm
Fox wrote:
Lol! You're presuming that any of these people engage in actual journalism! Imagine if Imamother consisted of the most opinionated amongst us gathering every day to yell at each other in grating voices and "interviewing" whatever other Imamothers we could drag into our quarrels. That would be the equivalent of FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc. No. I take that back. It would be far more informative and worthwhile than what cable news provides.

While I'm prepared to let Alan Dershowitz and other legal minds fret over the issue of attorney-client privilege, I wish we could the more annoying ranks of the 4th estate every few years.

Forget journalistic ethics. Can't Sean Hannity be fired for yelling at me every time I visit my parents? Bill O'Reilly used to have that job, but now Hannity seems to have taken it over. Why yell at me? I'm pretty conservative already. Of course, it doesn't help that my parents keep the TV volume high enough to make your ears bleed. Still, Tucker Carlson never yells at me.

Send Laura Ingraham off, too, along with all the other blond lawyers in short skirts with nasal voices. Put Shepard Smith on permanent animal-interest stories; his journalistic genius reached its apex on that runaway llama story a few years ago. Hit the road, Shep! We want kittens, puppies, emus . . . whatever you can find. Jeanine Pirro can come back after she corrects her annoying Long Island accent.

I don't mean to pick on Fox. The others need a good cleanup, too. Everyone's tired of Rachel Maddow's "sad" face. Time to go bale hay or whatever she does on her farm in Massachusetts. Anderson Cooper needs to retire to Dallas and hang out at the country club with the other doctors' wives. Joy Reid can doubtless find work helping Louis Farrakhan spin conspiracy theories. Put Jake Tapper in charge of fundraising for Jewish day schools. Don Lemon can continue to serve as a punchline of inappropriate jokes.

But I suppose you're going to tell me that we can't just line all these people up and say, "You are hereby found guilty of annoying the American people and those foreigners with satellite TV. Go away." There's no real legal mechanism for that. But firing them one by one on the basis of some alleged wrongdoing takes forever.



Alan Dershowitz was not in court today. Neither were your parents, Laura Ingram, Rachel Maddow, et al. None of them have anything to do with this.


If you'd like to seriously discuss Laura Ingram, Rachel Maddow, Jeanine Pirro, Alan Dershowitz, or any of the other totally irrelevant people you mentioned, I kindly request that you start your own thread. This is about the revelation that Sean Hannity was Michael Cohen's client. Thanks.

I've edited this to remove comments directed at Fox.


Last edited by WhatFor on Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:35 pm
Fox wrote:
Fox's average viewer age is 70. And that's the average! A huge chunk of Fox's audience has nodded off in their recliners by the time he comes on.


Hannity is the most watched cable network news show. And yes, among that coveted 25 to 54 demographic.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:39 pm
WhatFor wrote:
But that case aside, IMO, the bigger reason ppl are freaking out right now is a) because this evidence serves people who already thought Hannity was disingenuous and spewing propaganda, and b) because POTUS has been tweeting and endorsing Hannity's show as recently as a few days ago, and now it's just looking more and more like they have some sort of conspiracy circle going.

The reason serious people are upset over the Cohen raid is because it appears to violate attorney-client privilege. While this development makes Hannity look bad, I don't think it has much to do with the real issue at stake. It's more fodder for people who don't like Hannity to begin with as opposed to a smoking gun.

The release of Comey's book on the heels of the raid hasn't lent credibility to the DOJ, either.
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:42 pm
Fox wrote:
The reason serious people are upset over the Cohen raid is because it appears to violate attorney-client privilege. While this development makes Hannity look bad, I don't think it has much to do with the real issue at stake. It's more fodder for people who don't like Hannity to begin with as opposed to a smoking gun.

The release of Comey's book on the heels of the raid hasn't lent credibility to the DOJ, either.


Please tell me more about how it appears to violate attorney-client privilege and how the crime-fraud exception doesn't apply here.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:45 pm
Fox wrote:
The reason serious people are upset over the Cohen raid is because it appears to violate attorney-client privilege. While this development makes Hannity look bad, I don't think it has much to do with the real issue at stake. It's more fodder for people who don't like Hannity to begin with as opposed to a smoking gun.

The release of Comey's book on the heels of the raid hasn't lent credibility to the DOJ, either.


"Serious people" understand that a taint team is being used to cull privileged documents. "Serious people" understand that you cannot allow the target of a criminal investigation to review documents in order to determine what is relevant or subject to disclosure. "Serious people" understand that the taint team needs to know the identity of Cohen's clients in order to make the determination as to what is privileged. "Serious people" understand that this has nothing to do with Comey or his book. "Serious people" know that the Republicans are trying to throw up as much mud as possible to protect Trump and others. But its difficult to call Cohen is "slime ball" while he's still you're attorney.
Back to top

33055




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:49 pm
WhatFor wrote:
When I kindly requested that we please stick to the topic in this thread, I actually had you in mind but held back from naming you.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about and please stop trying to confuse the conversation.

Alan Dershowitz was not in court today. Neither were your parents, Laura Ingram, Rachel Maddow, et al. None of them have anything to do with this.

This is not the first, second, or third time you've tried to derail a political thread by name-dropping a bunch of irrelevant inflammatory people and topics.

If you'd like to seriously discuss Laura Ingram, Rachel Maddow, Jeanine Pirro, Alan Dershowitz, or any of the other totally irrelevant people you mentioned, I kindly request that you start your own thread. This is about the revelation that Sean Hannity was Michael Cohen's client. Thanks.


She didn't confuse the conversation. I followed her perfectly. There is no reason for you to be so beastly to her.
Back to top

33055




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:51 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
"Serious people" understand that a taint team is being used to cull privileged documents. "Serious people" understand that you cannot allow the target of a criminal investigation to review documents in order to determine what is relevant or subject to disclosure. "Serious people" understand that the taint team needs to know the identity of Cohen's clients in order to make the determination as to what is privileged. "Serious people" understand that this has nothing to do with Comey or his book. "Serious people" know that the Republicans are trying to throw up as much mud as possible to protect Trump and others. But its difficult to call Cohen is "slime ball" while he's still you're attorney.


Do you think it was necessary to reveal the names of all his clients publically? Couldn't the taint team have determined relevance?
Back to top

CDL




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:55 pm
Whatfor, you don’t own the thread just because you started it. Everyone is free to post what they’d like, even if it doesn’t suit your fancy or interest you.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:55 pm
WhatFor wrote:
When I kindly requested that we please stick to the topic in this thread, I actually had you in mind but held back from naming you.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about and please stop trying to confuse the conversation.

Alan Dershowitz was not in court today. Neither were your parents, Laura Ingram, Rachel Maddow, et al. None of them have anything to do with this.

This is not the first, second, or third time you've tried to derail a political thread by name-dropping a bunch of irrelevant inflammatory people and topics.

If you'd like to seriously discuss Laura Ingram, Rachel Maddow, Jeanine Pirro, Alan Dershowitz, or any of the other totally irrelevant people you mentioned, I kindly request that you start your own thread. This is about the revelation that Sean Hannity was Michael Cohen's client. Thanks.

I was trying to be humorous about the ridiculousness of caring about TV news readers, even well-known ones. I apologize.

However, when you claim that someone like Alan Dershowitz is irrelevant, you are simply wrong. He was responded extensively to the Cohen raid and problems it presents for attorney-client privilege. That is the real story here -- not the Hannity angle.

As for Hannity, he has said:

Quote:
"Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees," Hannity said in a statement issued after his radio show. "I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective. I assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third party."

So unless Hannity is lying about having retained Cohen, it doesn't seem like there's much of a story.
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 5:57 pm
Squishy wrote:
She didn't confuse the conversation. I followed her perfectly. There is no reason for you to be so beastly to her.


I disagree with your characterization of my comments, but I've gone back to edit my post to tone it down anyway.

Carry on.
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 6:06 pm
Fox wrote:
So unless Hannity is lying about having retained Cohen, it doesn't seem like there's much of a story.


IMO, there's a story either way. If Cohen didn't retain Hannity then Cohen and his lawyers just spent hours lying to a judge in court.

If Hannity did retain Cohen, then Hannity was withholding a bias when reporting on this story and there's potentially more to come.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 6:10 pm
Fox wrote:
So unless Hannity is lying about having retained Cohen, it doesn't seem like there's much of a story.


Oh, I'm pretty sure he's lying. Why on earth would Hannity -- whom Forbes estimates has an annual salary of $36 million -- consult with Cohen on real estate matters, as he claims. Cohen was a personal injury attorney who got into the taxi medallion business. Hannity can afford the best. When it comes to real estate, that's not Cohen.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 6:37 pm
WhatFor wrote:
Please tell me more about how it appears to violate attorney-client privilege and how the crime-fraud exception doesn't apply here.

SixOfWands wrote:
"Serious people" understand that a taint team is being used to cull privileged documents. "Serious people" understand that you cannot allow the target of a criminal investigation to review documents in order to determine what is relevant or subject to disclosure. "Serious people" understand that the taint team needs to know the identity of Cohen's clients in order to make the determination as to what is privileged. "Serious people" understand that this has nothing to do with Comey or his book. "Serious people" know that the Republicans are trying to throw up as much mud as possible to protect Trump and others. But its difficult to call Cohen is "slime ball" while he's still you're attorney.

Here is Dershowitz's piece on what is wrong with the Cohen raid:

Targeting Trump's Lawyer Should Worry Us All

In his interview with NPR, Dershowitz said this about the circumstances under which a warrant to search a lawyer's office is generally granted:
Quote:
To get a search warrant of a lawyer's office, you should be looking for Mafia-type drug connections, major corporate crimes. To use that nuclear weapon, and it's used very, very rarely - a search of a lawyer's office - on what seem like rather technical criminal charges sounds like a lack of proportion.

In short, taint teams by definition are composed of agents who would not ordinarily be entitled to review the items seized. Leaks that violate attorney-client privilege are almost inevitable, especially with high-profile clients. That is why this particular legal remedy is used sparingly and only in the most serious cases. Does this case qualify?

If the result of this raid produces nothing more than a campaign finance violation of some sort, it will seriously compromise the credibility of the FBI. It will also be embarrassing to the FEC, given the current contribution laundering complaint against the Clinton Campaign that has been corroborated by Donna Brazile.

Now, maybe this raid was completely justified. Maybe Trump has really been running an international drug ring and this raid will bring his gang to justice. The folks excited over the raid had better hope so, because anything less is going to backfire.
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 6:52 pm
Fox wrote:
In short, taint teams by definition are composed of agents who would not ordinarily be entitled to review the items seized. Leaks that violate attorney-client privilege are almost inevitable, especially with high-profile clients. That is why this particular legal remedy is used sparingly and only in the most serious cases. Does this case qualify?

If the result of this raid produces nothing more than a campaign finance violation of some sort, it will seriously compromise the credibility of the FBI. It will also be embarrassing to the FEC, given the current contribution laundering complaint against the Clinton Campaign that has been corroborated by Donna Brazile.

Now, maybe this raid was completely justified. Maybe Trump has really been running an international drug ring and this raid will bring his gang to justice. The folks excited over the raid had better hope so, because anything less is going to backfire.


So this isn't saying there's never any justification; it's saying the justification better be there. Obviously none of us knows whether it's justified or not because Cohen hasn't yet been charged with something.

There's a much higher standard required to show that you must conduct a raid when a subpoena will suffice. There's a much higher standard required when you're raiding an attorney's office (you basically have to show either that the docs you're seeking aren't privileged or that there's an exception to the privilege, which is crime-fraud).

What we do know is that the people involved (judges signing the warrant, US attorneys) are well aware of the scrutiny that they're going to undergo when conducting such a raid, particularly for the POTUS's personal attorney. Eventually they're going to have to reveal that justification.

So we're assuming that they wouldn't be so dumb to put their collective careers on the line if nothing was there.

I guess now we'll just wait and see.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 6:59 pm
Fox wrote:
In short, taint teams by definition are composed of agents who would not ordinarily be entitled to review the items seized. Leaks that violate attorney-client privilege are almost inevitable, especially with high-profile clients. That is why this particular legal remedy is used sparingly and only in the most serious cases. Does this case qualify?

If the result of this raid produces nothing more than a campaign finance violation of some sort, it will seriously compromise the credibility of the FBI. It will also be embarrassing to the FEC, given the current contribution laundering complaint against the Clinton Campaign that has been corroborated by Donna Brazile.

Now, maybe this raid was completely justified. Maybe Trump has really been running an international drug ring and this raid will bring his gang to justice. The folks excited over the raid had better hope so, because anything less is going to backfire.


BUT HILARY!

Isn't that the answer to everything? Make up some more lies about someone who is no longer in public service. Or claim that "its all going to backfire." Deflect, deflect, throw things against the wall to make people look away. Next thing you know, you'll be calling Judge Wood a slime bucket, or whatever ridiculous terms Trump uses.

Moreover, what you are stating is that the Justice Department cannot be trusted with confidential material, and that all Justice Department personnel invariably violate their oaths as attorneys and as government employees.

Sorry, not buying it. And neither is the ACLU. But, of course, the ACLU doesn't dine with Trump; Dershowitz does. Right before condemning the search, in fact.

By the way, except for the fact that Trump is freaking out, there's no reason to believe that this has a whole heckuva lot to do with him. The subpoena was very specific in requesting information about Cohen's taxi medallion business. Mueller handed this one off, and it doesn't seem to have to do with his investigation, directly.
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 7:08 pm
Squishy wrote:
Do you think it was necessary to reveal the names of all his clients publically? Couldn't the taint team have determined relevance?


Your suggestion is exactly what the prosecution was arguing they should do. Today's case was about Cohen and Trump separately arguing that Cohen and Trump should get to see all the documents first and decide which were subject to privilege and hand over the rest to the prosecution.

AIUI, the names of clients and fees are generally not subject to privilege. Since Cohen was saying a third client also had an interest and the name of a client is generally not privileged, the judge ordered his attorney to name the client in court.

I believe they're now going forward with the taint team, but I'll double check.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 7:17 pm
WhatFor wrote:
So we're assuming that they wouldn't be so dumb to put their collective careers on the line if nothing was there.

I guess now we'll just wait and see.

Precisely. Here's my prediction: they will definitely find something illegal. Probably something relatively boring and not necessarily involving Trump, or at least not directly.

The debate will then move on to whether the raid was really an investigation of an individual in hopes of locating a crime, which is not Constitutional, or whether Mueller's team had clear evidence of a crime.

From Mueller's standpoint, this was a no-lose proposition. He was able to push Trump's buttons perfectly and predictably. If Trump fired him over this, it triggers a complete conflagration. If not, he now has leverage to make Trump sit down for an interview, something Trump's advisors don't want him to do.

This is really a test to see whether Trump can defy his nature. His nature is, when he is hit, to always hit back. Here, however, he will lose if he hits back in a meaningful way.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 7:25 pm
Fox wrote:
Precisely. Here's my prediction: they will definitely find something illegal. Probably something relatively boring and not necessarily involving Trump, or at least not directly.

The debate will then move on to whether the raid was really an investigation of an individual in hopes of locating a crime, which is not Constitutional, or whether Mueller's team had clear evidence of a crime.

From Mueller's standpoint, this was a no-lose proposition. He was able to push Trump's buttons perfectly and predictably. If Trump fired him over this, it triggers a complete conflagration. If not, he now has leverage to make Trump sit down for an interview, something Trump's advisors don't want him to do.

This is really a test to see whether Trump can defy his nature. His nature is, when he is hit, to always hit back. Here, however, he will lose if he hits back in a meaningful way.


Except that the warrant wasn't part of Mueller's investigation. It came out of the SDNY. But nice try at obfuscation.
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 7:38 pm
Fox wrote:
Lol! You're presuming that any of these people engage in actual journalism! Imagine if Imamother consisted of the most opinionated amongst us gathering every day to yell at each other in grating voices and "interviewing" whatever other Imamothers we could drag into our quarrels. That would be the equivalent of FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc. No. I take that back. It would be far more informative and worthwhile than what cable news provides.

While I'm prepared to let Alan Dershowitz and other legal minds fret over the issue of attorney-client privilege, I wish we could the more annoying ranks of the 4th estate every few years.

Forget journalistic ethics. Can't Sean Hannity be fired for yelling at me every time I visit my parents? Bill O'Reilly used to have that job, but now Hannity seems to have taken it over. Why yell at me? I'm pretty conservative already. Of course, it doesn't help that my parents keep the TV volume high enough to make your ears bleed. Still, Tucker Carlson never yells at me.

Send Laura Ingraham off, too, along with all the other blond lawyers in short skirts with nasal voices. Put Shepard Smith on permanent animal-interest stories; his journalistic genius reached its apex on that runaway llama story a few years ago. Hit the road, Shep! We want kittens, puppies, emus . . . whatever you can find. Jeanine Pirro can come back after she corrects her annoying Long Island accent.

I don't mean to pick on Fox. The others need a good cleanup, too. Everyone's tired of Rachel Maddow's "sad" face. Time to go bale hay or whatever she does on her farm in Massachusetts. Anderson Cooper needs to retire to Dallas and hang out at the country club with the other doctors' wives. Joy Reid can doubtless find work helping Louis Farrakhan spin conspiracy theories. Put Jake Tapper in charge of fundraising for Jewish day schools. Don Lemon can continue to serve as a punchline of inappropriate jokes.

But I suppose you're going to tell me that we can't just line all these people up and say, "You are hereby found guilty of annoying the American people and those foreigners with satellite TV. Go away." There's no real legal mechanism for that. But firing them one by one on the basis of some alleged wrongdoing takes forever.


This was really LOL funny.
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Apr 16 2018, 7:39 pm
Fox wrote:
Fox's average viewer age is 70. And that's the average! A huge chunk of Fox's audience has nodded off in their recliners by the time he comes on.


There's still his radio show, which is afternoon, and a LOT of people listen to. Why, Idk.
Back to top
Page 2 of 4 Previous  1  2  3  4  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Speaking in the third person
by amother
9 Tue, Mar 05 2024, 1:18 pm View last post
Michael kors or coach watch
by amother
0 Sun, Feb 18 2024, 11:03 pm View last post
Third By Cee Bow Back Dress
by amother
0 Tue, Feb 06 2024, 7:54 pm View last post
Dh wants to give a gift to a female client - UPDATE
by amother
59 Tue, Feb 06 2024, 12:48 pm View last post
Dr Michael Carson GP
by amother
0 Mon, Jan 22 2024, 4:17 pm View last post