Why was Hannity not afforded the right to privacy every American is supposed to get?

[Billy000]

I can’t wait for the Netflix documentary on this whole shit show.

 

[Witchit]

He's not a private citizen, he's a celebrity. And he could maybe make a case, if he hadn't been slamming the FBI raid since the minute it happened, without bothering to disclose that Cohen thought of him as a client.

Now, where on earth would Cohen get that idea??

It's gonna be fun, watching these losers go to it like they're in the WWE.

Except Linda McMahon. She actually hasn't made news since she took her place at the table.

 

[Faun]

What the hell is going on with our judicial system when the need to publicly humiliate someone exceeds their right to privacy?
He has been accused of no crime, yet the system is trying to publicly shame him like some list made public of deadbeat dads or child molesters.

How can ANY of you cheer this bullshit?

Since when do public figures have a right to privacy?

 

[DarkFury]

Because he’s a public figure if his own volition . And a fraud .

Let me ask you this . Why can’t citizen Bill Clinton have a conversation with the AG?

Clinton was not attorney/client priviledge. going to be a lot of dead democrats over this.

 

[Eaglewings]

Hannity put himself out there to hate on so many people Gramps..And He is in the public eye,being watched by millions . Haters are going to slamm him when they get a chance...legally
It is not just the Righties, it is anyone making money from the public eye..

 

[Political Junky]

What the hell is going on with our judicial system when the need to publicly humiliate someone exceeds their right to privacy?
He has been accused of no crime, yet the system is trying to publicly shame him like some list made public of deadbeat dads or child molesters.

How can ANY of you cheer this bullshit?

Why would he feel humiliated if innocent?

 

[Lysistrata]

The right to privacy is not implicated here, where hannity was merely named as a client of a supposedly innocent attorney. There is no shame in merely saying that an attorney-client rel

What the hell is going on with our judicial system when the need to publicly humiliate someone exceeds their right to privacy?
He has been accused of no crime, yet the system is trying to
The right to privacy is not implicated here, where hannity was merely named as a client of a supposedly innocent attorney. There is no shame in merely saying that an attorney-client relationship exists.

V

What the hell is going on with our judicial system when the need to publicly humiliate someone exceeds their right to privacy?
He has been accused of no crime, yet the system is trying to publicly shame him like some list made public of deadbeat dads or child molesters.

How can ANY of you cheer this bullshit?

The right to privacy is not implicated here, where hannity was merely named as a client of a supposedly innocent attorney. There is no shame in just saying that an attorney-client relationship exists. Why would this be perceived as a public humiliation for the client? Also, in this case, it is necessary to ascertain just who Cohen's clients are to determine whether he has been functioning as an attorney or as a consultant and to determine the bounds of attorney-client privilege.

If hannity is in any way shamed, it would be because he failed to disclose his association with a person who is the subject of his on-the-air commentary, which is a major ethical faux pas.

 

[Papageorgio]

Because he’s a public figure if his own volition . And a fraud .

Let me ask you this . Why can’t citizen Bill Clinton have a conversation with the AG?

It is called a conflict of interest because the AG was investigating Bill Clinton’s wife. That is pretty clear.

Handing out a lawyers client list should be protected because of attorney, client privilege. At the very least the judge should have pulled the attorneys aside and gotten the name. This seems out of the norm.

 

[G.T.]

n order to protect attorney-client privilege, they have to know who the clients are

WRONG. Go back to law school.

The identity of clients is irrelevant outside the specific people named in the search. The Judge doesn’t get to order a lawyer to crate and produce a list of clients without such a list being narrow in scope, regarding specific circumstances.

Is there any limit whatsoever to the onfidential information the DOJ can seize or compel?

Jesus Buttfucking Christ!

Attorney- client confidentiality is motherfucking dead.

All because Muhhhh, Russians.

I pray to Odin to grant me a civil war so I can die shooting commies and statist on my way to Valhalla!

You should be on a watch list with that extreme butthurt/murderous attitude.

Times like these I wonder....do or dont report people who openly expose that theyre lusting to gun down Americans. It could save lives.

 

[Papageorgio]

Hannity isn't a client. If anything Cohen and his attorney threw him under the bus by naming him as one. My guess is that Cohen fluffed up his list with a big name he gave advice to sometimes, not knowing the FBI would raid his office, and the names would be presented in court.

The names should have been sequestered not publicly announced like some kind of circus act.

Cohens lawyer was the one who chose to disclose the name. Judge Wood gave the lawyer the choice of writing it down ot stating it openly, and he chose to state it openly.

Thank you for that information, I didn’t realize that. Cohen’s lawyer didn’t handle the situation correctly and is in the wrong in my opinion.

 

[Papageorgio]

Hannity isn't a client. If anything Cohen and his attorney threw him under the bus by naming him as one. My guess is that Cohen fluffed up his list with a big name he gave advice to sometimes, not knowing the FBI would raid his office, and the names would be presented in court.

The names should have been sequestered not publicly announced like some kind of circus act.

He wasn't "publicly humiliated". Other people's name are unwittingly dragged into investigations all the time. Except many times they aren't throwing themselves in front of a camera on a daily basis like Hannity does anyways. If he did nothing wrong it's a complete non-story.

If you've done nothing wrong....

A terrible excuse for giving up your rights.

You can search a person's public records and find out their employer, their address, their phone number, their criminal record. Why of all these things that are public record should an attorney's client list be off limits? It is in a sense your employer.

I disagree, it’s a contract, not an employee, employer relationship, the attorney doesn’t work exclusively for you.

 

[strollingbones]

he says he didnt pay anything therefore he has no lawyer...simple as that...i pay a retainer and then get a monthly settlement from my lawyer....

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

What the hell is going on with our judicial system when the need to publicly humiliate someone exceeds their right to privacy?
He has been accused of no crime, yet the system is trying to publicly shame him like some list made public of deadbeat dads or child molesters.

How can ANY of you cheer this bullshit?

I don't see how knowing a client list is a violation of the attorney client privilege. He could be on retainer for what anyone else knows.

 

[sparky]

Anyone who's stood in a grocery store checkout line knows public figures have zero privacy

~S~

 

[Votto]

Because he’s a public figure if his own volition . And a fraud .

Let me ask you this . Why can’t citizen Bill Clinton have a conversation with the AG?

There are thousands of public figures who are frauds.

But only those associated with Trump must wear the scarlet A.

It's showing the world that if you challenge the Swamp, you may win an election but ultimately the Swamp will destroy you.

 

[sparky]

Trump IS the swamp

jmho

~S~

 

[sparky]

so was Clinton for that matter

 

[bripat9643]

What the hell is going on with our judicial system when the need to publicly humiliate someone exceeds their right to privacy?
He has been accused of no crime, yet the system is trying to publicly shame him like some list made public of deadbeat dads or child molesters.

How can ANY of you cheer this bullshit?

Since when do public figures have a right to privacy?

They have always had a right to privicy. What they don't have is the right to sue people for defamation. That's the only right they don't have that the rest of us have. However, I don't believe anyone has the right to sue people for lying about them.

 

[sparky]

Maybe it's time for an update?????

>>>>>


You have the right to remain silent when questioned, but if it's a question we want answered you'd best think about it

Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law, especially true when the only thing you can afford is a public defender

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future, as we have an equal right to impose laws you've never heard of and further claim you're ignorance is no excuse

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. Trust us when we say you'll get what you pay for

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? Because you would not believe what we can invent by the time he gets here.....

~S~

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Because he’s a public figure if his own volition . And a fraud .

Let me ask you this . Why can’t citizen Bill Clinton have a conversation with the AG?

He can't?

He did.

And Hillary runs free.