• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client[W:1086]

Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

MateoMtnClimber said:
With all due respect, you don't have a high schooler's understanding of the Constitution. You make that more apparent every time you post something.
Click to expand...

Based on what, your faulty analyses? Good one. :lamo

Ad homs arent proof of much but a sign of a losing argument.



MateoMtnClimber said:
Um, a constitutional scholar you are not.



A warrant was granted with probable cause for the reasonable search and seizure of Cohen's property.



Public use means use by the government. No one's using any of Cohen's property. It's being held as evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.



Yup. That's the part that comes after charges are filed and the police arrest Cohen.



And since none of Hannity's constitutional rights were violated in even the slightest way, I'll just refer you again to post # 938.
Click to expand...

Again with the ad hom? Sure sign of a losing argument ll. But go ahead, lets hear your credentials, eh? Our Constitution is pretty easy to understand and yet...

Not talking, never have been, about Cohen's property. Why do folks keep going around answering questions never brought up? I think this strategy comes under the category of shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

The judiciary is a branch of our government (3 branches, ring any bells? ). A person's name and reputation are very much property, ones very own property.

Again, how is it that you keep substituting Cohen for Hannity, why? Focus man.

And then you refer me to post 938 wherein you direct me to:

Snip-it_1524003870199.jpg

High caliber site. I almost weighed the "benefit" of reading the featured post about the guy exposing his genitals to a father daughter when trying to steal frozen "meat". Nah, thanks but no thanks.

As regards the atty client privilige paragraph cited, did you read the particulars of case referenced ( US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 992 F.2d 449 (2d Cir. 1993) Argued Dec. 16, 1992. Decided May 3, 1993 ) ? Did you understand the details?...doesnt seem like it.

Besides, you are still going down the wrong rabbit hole, its not at all the point I am arguing. Oxygen must get scarce there at high altitude at times?

Listen, thanks for trying, however this is not an efficient use of my time and efforts....but good luck with your studies.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

trouble13 said:
Why exactly did Hannity name need to be mode public. Explain that to me
Click to expand...
As I wrote earlier in this same thread:

Cohen's legal team made a point of saying there were "thousands, if not millions" of privileged documents, and on that basis Cohen should be allowed to determine what evidence is or is not privileged. (FYI that is a completely unprecedented, not to mention idiotic, request.) The prosecutors pointed out that Cohen has almost no legal clients -- they even zinged Cohen in court, pointing out that Cohen has more attorneys than clients. In order to determine the truth, the judge ordered Cohen to produce a client list, as well as proof that they were clients.

Cohen came up with 10 names, 7 of which were not legal clients thus not entitled to protection. The remaining three are Trump; Eliot Brody, who got outed last week by the WSJ; and the Mystery Client (who turned out to be Hannity). There is no indication that Cohen has yet offered proof that they were clients, by the way.

The judge initially was fine with protecting Mystery Client's identity, until it was pointed out to her that the name of an attorney's client is not, in fact, protected by privilege. Potential embarrassment is simply not a valid reason to keep the name secret or sealed. Despite this, Cohen's lawyers kept trying, including coming up with utterly brain-dead claims like "no one will want to speak to an attorney if this gets revealed."

In other words: This happened because Cohen and his legal team are a bunch of dumb****s who thought they could convince a judge to let Cohen decide which of his communications should go into evidence. Unsurprisingly, it bit them in the ass.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Visbek said:
Why? Because she's issuing rulings you don't like? That's not how the law works.

Her rulings were legal. She followed precedent. The Constitution was not, in any way shape or form, violated. It's well established that the name of an attorney's client is not privileged, with very few exceptions -- none of which were met by Cohen-Hannity. (This has already been pointed out to you, too.) Nor can any client of any attorney invoke privacy rights to avoid having their name mentioned in court.



What on Earth are you ranting about? Are you living some fantasy where any judge who rules against a Republican gets impeached or something?



:roll:

No, this case isn't motivated by the President. It is motivated, as best we can tell, by a fixer with a law degree who paid off a porn star in a manner that violates legal ethics, admitted it in public like a ****ing moron, and drew the attention of the US Attorneys of the Southern District of New York.

Plus, this "ooh it'll happen to Democrats!" Guess what? It already has. Multiple times. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it isn't.



Please.

Trump is dragging the entire nation down into the muck, on a near-daily basis. And that's just his Twitter feed. No one should be surprised that his personal attorney is actually just a fixer who is up to his neck in filth.
Click to expand...
Vis... Veni, vidi, vici.

As usual you say a lot, mostly wrong. Rulings I dont like? :lamo Remember how we argued and argued over the travel ban rulings which were purely partisan and unConstitutional? ...but that you argued they werent partisan AND they were constitutional? How did the supreme court rule, in your favor or mine, eh? Painful reminder that you saying it makes it probably not so.

Wrong then wrong now and you wont see it coming, just like last time. It will amaze you, be like watching, confused as an ordinary baseball suddenly starts growing larger and larger...and then it hits you...ahhhhhh, now you get it.

:2wave:
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Gaugingcatenate said:
Vis... Veni, vidi, vici.

As usual you say a lot, mostly wrong. Rulings I dont like? :lamo Remember how we argued and argued over the travel ban rulings which were purely partisan and unConstitutional? ...but that you argued they werent partisan AND they were constitutional? How did the supreme court rule, in your favor or mine, eh?
Click to expand...
:roll:

The SCOTUS ruled on a different policy than the one we discussed. It was revised multiple times in order to remove the issues, including extending the ban to two non-Muslim majority nations.

But thanks for showing that you have no grasp whatsoever of what's happening in the courtroom, or the legal issues involved.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Gaugingcatenate said:
No, if you can breach the privacy rights of innocent people not under investigation, you must show me the statute. We all know we have rights, 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights.

4th The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

6th In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Hannity has right to his name, person, effects and unless he is under the same criminal investigation, his name should be kept private. It doesnt positively benefit anyone that his name be known.
Click to expand...
How the hell do you come up with this tripe? Why not learn the meaning of the words you parrot?
No property of Hannity was taken, he wan not searched nor was or is he accused of anything.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Gaugingcatenate said:
Screw the lawyers.
Click to expand...
Well of course. Who need those bastards when we have the likes of you to tell us what everything means.

I know the constitution and our god given rights which are inalienable.
Click to expand...
Clearly you know jack ****. The utter ignorance in your posts only proves that you are clueless and are only parroting talking points fed to you.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Gaugingcatenate said:
What is the pertinent public interest that requires an innocent's, not under investigation, name to be dragged about in the public.
Click to expand...
Nothing was dragged in public. The idiot who is Cohen's lawyer announced it in court. He had the option ow writing it on a piece of paper and handing it to the judge.
DO you know ANYTHING about this case?
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Visbek said:
As I wrote earlier in this same thread:

Cohen's legal team made a point of saying there were "thousands, if not millions" of privileged documents, and on that basis Cohen should be allowed to determine what evidence is or is not privileged. (FYI that is a completely unprecedented, not to mention idiotic, request.) The prosecutors pointed out that Cohen has almost no legal clients -- they even zinged Cohen in court, pointing out that Cohen has more attorneys than clients. In order to determine the truth, the judge ordered Cohen to produce a client list, as well as proof that they were clients.

Cohen came up with 10 names, 7 of which were not legal clients thus not entitled to protection. The remaining three are Trump; Eliot Brody, who got outed last week by the WSJ; and the Mystery Client (who turned out to be Hannity). There is no indication that Cohen has yet offered proof that they were clients, by the way.

The judge initially was fine with protecting Mystery Client's identity, until it was pointed out to her that the name of an attorney's client is not, in fact, protected by privilege. Potential embarrassment is simply not a valid reason to keep the name secret or sealed. Despite this, Cohen's lawyers kept trying, including coming up with utterly brain-dead claims like "no one will want to speak to an attorney if this gets revealed."

In other words: This happened because Cohen and his legal team are a bunch of dumb****s who thought they could convince a judge to let Cohen decide which of his communications should go into evidence. Unsurprisingly, it bit them in the ass.
Click to expand...

Ok I gotta stop you. Even If he only has 1 client, his client is entitled to confidentiality. My opinion is that Hannity name should of remained private to the public. Any files relating to him should be excluded from this warrant. Beyond that, have at it if you have legal justification to root through that stuff, but you better have a damn good argument to violate a legal protected trust

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

prometeus said:
She did not. The idiot lawyer blurted it out.
Click to expand...
Learned that earlier in the thread after I posted this and if that's true I would sue cohen if I was Hannity. I have since revised my position


Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Moon said:
That's incorrect. If you are arrested and you have a free consultation with attorney A, but you decide to hire attorney B instead, your conversation with attorney A is still considered priveleged.
Click to expand...
And NOTHING that they have or may have talked about was revealed.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Visbek said:
What are you talking about?

The text is right there. Nothing in the 4th, 5th or 6th Amendments requires that Cohen refuse a demand by the court to name a client. They do not apply, period -- as should be obvious even with the most rudimentary reading of the text. You haven't made even an attempt at a remotely intelligible argument in that respect.

I've also already pointed you to the Vignelli ruling, which clearly spells out that the name of an attorney's client is not privileged, with few exceptions, none of which Cohen-Hannity meets.



You asked who benefits. The answer is the court.
Click to expand...
Aparently, in your mind none of the bill of rights applies :lamo

I didnt mention anything about who benefits, you brought up who benefits.

Done here. Thanks
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Visbek said:
:roll:

The SCOTUS ruled on a different policy than the one we discussed. It was revised multiple times in order to remove the issues, including extending the ban to two non-Muslim majority nations.

But thanks for showing that you have no grasp whatsoever of what's happening in the courtroom, or the legal issues involved.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. I think we ve established who was right, you cant even admit it...wow.:2wave:
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

trouble13 said:
Ok I gotta stop you. Even If he only has 1 client, his client is entitled to confidentiality.
Click to expand...
Nope, wrong.

The name of a client, and even the method of payment, is NOT protected by attorney-client privilege.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/992/449/45535/


My opinion is that Hannity name should of remained private to the public. Any files relating to him should be excluded from this warrant.
Click to expand...
That's nice. It's also nonsense.

Hannity has absolutely no expectation of privacy here. Period. And again, it is Cohen who made a big deal out of his legal practice, which resulted in the judge demanding to know how many clients Cohen had. It is Cohen who apparently did not know the law, and screwed over Hannity with his legal tactics.

We also have no idea what Hannity and Cohen actually discussed. It might be business advice, which is not protected; it might be legal questions, which is protected; it could be illegal activities, which is not protected. It is absurd to make a blanket statement that "anything Hannity discussed is privileged!" because that may well not be the case at all, and no one has made that determination yet.


Beyond that, have at it if you have legal justification to root through that stuff, but you better have a damn good argument to violate a legal protected trust
Click to expand...
Yes, the legal justification is that there is solid evidence that Cohen was engaged in illegal activity. That's why the USAO-SDNY was able to get a warrant for those files and communications in the first place. And I might add, getting a warrant to search an attorney requires really solid evidence.

More importantly, no one has violated attorney-client privilege. It is not absolute. It does not cover the names of an attorney. It does not cover illegal activities facilitated by the attorney. The prosecutors and courts have already developed methods to sort out privileged and non-privileged materials.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Gaugingcatenate said:
Aparently, in your mind none of the bill of rights applies
Click to expand...
I already explained to you how none of the Bill of Rights applies to this specific case.

In contrast, you have not explained, in any way shape or form, how anything in the BoR protects Hannity. All you did was cite irrelevant amendments.


I didnt mention anything about who benefits, you brought up who benefits.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did.

"Hannity has right to his name, person, effects and unless he is under the same criminal investigation, his name should be kept private. It doesnt positively benefit anyone that his name be known."
https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...ael-cohen-s-3rd-client-92.html#post1068415724
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Visbek said:
Nope, wrong.

The name of a client, and even the method of payment, is NOT protected by attorney-client privilege.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/992/449/45535/



That's nice. It's also nonsense.

Hannity has absolutely no expectation of privacy here. Period. And again, it is Cohen who made a big deal out of his legal practice, which resulted in the judge demanding to know how many clients Cohen had. It is Cohen who apparently did not know the law, and screwed over Hannity with his legal tactics.

We also have no idea what Hannity and Cohen actually discussed. It might be business advice, which is not protected; it might be legal questions, which is protected; it could be illegal activities, which is not protected. It is absurd to make a blanket statement that "anything Hannity discussed is privileged!" because that may well not be the case at all, and no one has made that determination yet.



Yes, the legal justification is that there is solid evidence that Cohen was engaged in illegal activity. That's why the USAO-SDNY was able to get a warrant for those files and communications in the first place. And I might add, getting a warrant to search an attorney requires really solid evidence.

More importantly, no one has violated attorney-client privilege. It is not absolute. It does not cover the names of an attorney. It does not cover illegal activities facilitated by the attorney. The prosecutors and courts have already developed methods to sort out privileged and non-privileged materials.
Click to expand...
I adamantly disagree you on fundamental principles of the law and I will leave it at that but I do look forward to you taking these same positions of principle that the left have opened themselves up too. Rest assured my position will remain consistent. I hope you have a change or heart based on something greater than partisanship. Equal justice for all should be a nonpartisan issue

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Moon said:
I'm okay with that. If you were accused of a crime and were talking with different attorneys before you hired one, would you want the government to be able to force the ones you didn't hire to talk about what you discussed?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that just talking to lawyers doesn't confer privilege.

You would have to hire/retain them before that happens. Pay money. Some kind of contract.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Gaugingcatenate said:
Our Constitution is pretty easy to understand and yet...
Click to expand...
You are still parroting talking pints instead of showing even an elementary understanding of it. Makes on wonder though, why on earth we need all those constitutional scholars when such simplistic thinking can explain it all.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

trouble13 said:
I adamantly disagree you on fundamental principles of the law and I will leave it at that but I do look forward to you taking these same positions of principle that the left have opened themselves up too. Rest assured my position will remain consistent. I hope you have a change or heart based on something greater than partisanship. Equal justice for all should be a nonpartisan issue

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Status as a client is not privileged information and never has been. You’re making things up because you are the one being partisan here. It’s a right winger, you want to protect them, so you made up a reason they should be protected.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

hanger4 said:
I suggest you read this;

*the Supreme Court of the United States has held that payment is not required to create an attorney-client relationship. In Alexander v. United States, one of the first Supreme Court cases to address the issue,*

*The answer is yes, unless Hannity formally authorizes Cohen to disclose their confidential communications. Cohen has both a legal and ethical obligation to assert the attorney-client privilege on Hannity’s behalf and to protect all confidential information he possesses.*

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analy...cted-attorney-client-privilege-michael-cohen/
Click to expand...

The author of that article made a premature determination. The transfer of money does not affect privilege, true. There are four conditions required to create privilege. The "attorney" has to be bar certified or the direct professional subordinate of a bar certified lawyer. She has to be providing advice as an attorney and not some more casual association, like a friend or a spouse or a neighbor. The client and the attorney have to understand and agree that the communication is confidential before or as it occurs. During the course of the communication, the client has to be a client in fact or has to in fact seek to be a client.

Pay very careful attention to that last condition. Hannity has shot himself in both feet with his recent statements, but it's never too late to invent a story for a judge and prosecutors. I also doubt that Cohen and Hannity agreed that their conversations were confidential until after they occurred, but they can make up a story that no one will be able to disprove.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

trouble13 said:
Ok I gotta stop you. Even If he only has 1 client, his client is entitled to confidentiality. My opinion is that Hannity name should of remained private to the public. Any files relating to him should be excluded from this warrant. Beyond that, have at it if you have legal justification to root through that stuff, but you better have a damn good argument to violate a legal protected trust

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The communications are privileged and protected. The name is not.

You are literally asking that judges just psychically know what information is protected. Because they are not allowed to know who the clients are, right?
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

hanger4 said:
I suggest you read this;

*the Supreme Court of the United States has held that payment is not required to create an attorney-client relationship. In Alexander v. United States, one of the first Supreme Court cases to address the issue,*

*The answer is yes, unless Hannity formally authorizes Cohen to disclose their confidential communications. Cohen has both a legal and ethical obligation to assert the attorney-client privilege on Hannity’s behalf and to protect all confidential information he possesses.*

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analy...cted-attorney-client-privilege-michael-cohen/
Click to expand...

None of Hannitys communications have been exposed. There’s no violation here.
 
Re: Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen’s 3rd client

Fishking said:
To clarify, what's the crime upon which Mueller is operating under?
Click to expand...

Ask Mueller. Ask the DOJ. Ask Rosenstein. Ask the judge. They ALL approved this investigation, as well as the methods. Why the **** are you asking me? I don't know the circumstances behind it enough to name the crime. But Mueller, the DOJ, Rosenstein, and the judges who approve the various warrants know, though. They know very well the crimes being investigated. So ask them, but they won't give you an answer at the moment, so as not to tip off the actors being investigated. The answer will most likely be coming out before the end of the year, when Mueller makes his report. THAT is when you will find out what the crimes are, with the exception being when indictments are handed down on individuals who are being charged during the course of the investigation. Whoever is a target in this investigation is being investigated the exact same way that Mueller used to put John Gotti in jail.

In short, your question is moot, not to mention silly, for the reasons I outlined above.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom