How do you reconcile these two remarks....

[BlackSand]

Was Hannity ever officially a client of this guy?

Yes or no?

Seems like a pretty straightforward question.
.

You looking for a job on Special Counsel Muller's team?
That won't help you ... Straightforward investigation doesn't seem to be a prerequisite in that endeavor.

.​

 

[Votto]

The Dims have been flustered by no one around Trump willing to sell out and do him in, so they turn to his lawyer.

If anyone is capable of selling out, it's a lawyer.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

 

[BULLDOG]

1. Michael Cohen's lawyers averred in court that Sean Hannity is one of Michael Cohen's clients.
2. Sean Hannity asserts that he was not at all Cohen's client.
   

   Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.
   -- Sean Hannity

   
   Hannity: Cohen has never represented me - CNN Video
   • No invoice. No legal fees paid. No legal advice given.

What is attorney-client privilege?

It's very simple. Cohen lied. First he said he had 10 clients, or something like that. When the judge pressed him, he eventually reduced the number to three. When the judge pressed further, he said his other client didn't want to be revealed. When the judge pressed further, he said it wouldn't be fair to the client because it would be publicly embarrassing. When pressed further, he asked if he could reveal the name under seal. When the judge pressed further he danced around like a toddler who need to use the potty, with the same look on his face as the toddler when she tries to think of a lie on the spot to avoid admitting that she wet her pants. And finally, when Cohen spit out Hannity's name he sounded so timid and unsure it seemed like he was asking a question.

So either Hannity is lying, or Cohen is. Either way, it sucks for Trump's team.

 

[Mac1958]

Was Hannity ever officially a client of this guy? Yes or no?
Seems like a pretty straightforward question.

You looking for a job on Special Counsel Muller's team? That won't help you ... Straightforward investigation doesn't seem to be a prerequisite in that endeavor.

I just asked the obvious question.

Should we not do that?
.

 

[ChrisL]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

 

[Penelope]

1. Michael Cohen's lawyers averred in court that Sean Hannity is one of Michael Cohen's clients.
2. Sean Hannity asserts that he was not at all Cohen's client.
   

   Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.
   -- Sean Hannity

   
   Hannity: Cohen has never represented me - CNN Video
   • No invoice. No legal fees paid. No legal advice given.

What is attorney-client privilege?

Which means no paper trail.

 

[BlackSand]

I just asked the obvious question.

Should we not do that?
.

I simply asked why it is important to you (and others).
If there is anything of value in reconciling the difference in the statements ... Then Special Counsel Muller has that information.

Would you rather defer the question and subsequent answers to some other form of application ... And if so, why?

.​

 

[Penelope]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

If he didn't pay him there is no attorney/client privilege.

 

[Mac1958]

I just asked the obvious question.

Should we not do that?
.

I simply asked why it is important to you (and others).
If there is anything of value in reconciling the difference in the statements ... Then Special Counsel Muller has that information.

Would you rather defer the question and subsequent answers to some other form of application ... And if so, why?

.​

I asked it in the context of the thread we're currently on.

I didn't think it would confuse anyone.
.

 

[Crepitus]

The things that strike me about the "Hannity" issue are these:

• The client owns the veil of privilege, not the attorney. It's really hard to say that a genuine attorney-client relationship exists(-ed) between Sean and Cohen when Sean is bending over backwards to minimize the nature of their relationship.
• The bigger problem, for Hannity, is whether he can maintain the appearance of being a journalist. Hannity didn't disclose the relationship with Cohen even as he's on the air ardently defended Cohen and Trump.
  • If Hannity is working as a journalist (in print, Hannity would be a columnist; on the air the same role is called commentator; I just call them editorialists) with regard to his work at Fox, he had an ethical duty to disclose the relationship.
    • Ethics and broadcast journalists
    • Journalism Ethics and the Independent Journalist
      
    • Journalism Ethics
      
    • Handbook of Independent Journalism
  • If, with regard to his work at Fox, Hannity isn't working as a journalist , but is instead working there as an entertainer, he had no duty to disclose.
    • Aside:
      • It wouldn't surprise me to find that Hannity is not classified by Fox as a journalist. The guy doesn't have a college degree. I know one doesn't absolutely have to have one, but it's very uncommon for "big time" journalists not to have one. Also, columnists, correspondents and reporters tend to be people who have a whole lot of training in some sort of subject matter, and/or journalism. Furthermore, the notion that Hannity is, by Fox's HR classifications, viewed as an entertainer rather than as a journalist aligns with the Fox-pioneered approach to news, especially political news and commentary: news as entertainment.
        • News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout

Hannity has never been a journalist. He's an entertainer.

 

[ChrisL]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

If he didn't pay him there is no attorney/client privilege.

Well, obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. Attorney/client privilege extends to advice and counseling even if they are not paid or actually hired to do a job.

 

[BlackSand]

I asked it in the context of the thread we're currently on.

I didn't think it would confuse anyone.
.

I am not confused ... And asked the OP the same question (the post right above where I asked you the first time) ...
It's okay if you cannot answer the question any better than they can.

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

Money doesn't have to change hands. Lawyers do pro-bono work all the time. Cohen told the judge that Hannity was his client. There was no misunderstanding his claim. Was he lying?

 

[ChrisL]

Leftists, always trying to violate the rights of the people.

Attorney-Client Privilege
In the law of evidence, a client's privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidentialcommunications between the client and his or her attorney. Such privilege protects communications between attorney andclient that are made for the purpose of furnishing or obtaining professional legal advice or assistance. That privilege thatpermits an attorney to refuse to testify as to communications from the client. It belongs to the client, not the attorney, andhence only the client may waive it. In federal courts, state law is applied with respect to such privilege.

The attorney-client privilege encourages clients to disclose to their attorneys all pertinent information in legal matters byprotecting such disclosures from discovery at trial. The privileged information, held strictly between the attorney and theclient, may remain private as long as a court does not force disclosure. The privilege does not apply to communicationsbetween an attorney and a client that are made in furtherance of a Fraud or other crime. The responsibility for designatingwhich information should remain confidential rests with the client. In its most common use, however, the attorney claims theprivilege on behalf of the client in refusing to disclose to the court, or to any other party, requested information about theclient's case.

As a basic construction in the judicial system, the privilege is an ancient device. It can be found even in Roman law—forexample, Marcus Tullius Cicero, while prosecuting the governor of Sicily, could not call the governor's advocate as a witness,because if he were to have done so, the governor would have lost confidence in his own defender. Over the years, the closetie between attorney and client developed further with reforms in English Common Law.

Because the attorney-client privilege often balances competing interests, it defies a rigid definition. However, one often-cited characterization was set forth in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950). The courtarticulated five requirements: first, the person asserting the privilege must be a client, or must have sought to become a clientat the time of disclosure; second, the person connected to the communication must be acting as a lawyer; third, thecommunication must be between the lawyer and the client exclusively—no non-clients may be included in thecommunication; fourth, the communication must have occurred for the purpose of securing a legal opinion, legal services, orassistance in some legal proceeding, and not for the purpose of committing a crime; fifth, the privilege may be claimed orwaived by the client only (usually, as stated above, through counsel).

 

[ChrisL]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

Money doesn't have to change hands. Lawyers do pro-bono work all the time. Cohen told the judge that Hannity was his client. There was no misunderstanding his claim. Was he lying?

He said he sought out his legal opinion before but never actually hired him as a lawyer. Why does this confuse you so much?

 

[ChrisL]

Look at you all, just digging and digging. Pathetic. Unless he was committing a crime, it is none of your business why he sought legal advice.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is a thing called attorney/client privilege. As a United States citizen who is equally protected under the laws of this nation, Mr. Hannity owes you absolutely no explanation. Deal with it.

Hannity says Cohen was never his lawyer. How can there be attorney client privalige when he was never his attorney? However, if he was his attorney

The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege
Not all attorney-client communications are privileged.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

• “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
• destroying or concealing evidence
• witness tampering, and
• concealing income or assets.

This was already explained earlier in the thread. He never hired him for his services, but did get some legal advice, which is still covered under attorney/client privilege even if he never actually used his services as a lawyer.

If he didn't pay him there is no attorney/client privilege.

Well, obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. Attorney/client privilege extends to advice and counseling even if they are not paid or actually hired to do a job.

Was he a client or not? Cohen has a lot of client paperwork with his name on it.

 

[Mac1958]

I asked it in the context of the thread we're currently on.

I didn't think it would confuse anyone.
.

I am not confused ... And asked the OP the same question (the post right above where I asked you the first time) ...
It's okay if you cannot answer the question any better than they can.

.​

Great, thanks.
.

 

[BlackSand]

Great, thanks.
.

No problem, anytime ... Let me know if you ever figure out why it is so important to you.

.​