OMG Politics, I'm over it already Mk III, The Search for Spock

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kinda trying to have it both ways, ain't he? "Hey, I want confidentiality on these questions and communication." But, he wasn't really my lawyer. Hmm.

Basically, most lawyers will consider it private and confidential in accordance with the attorney/client privilege, if they answer questions for someone, even if it doesn't turn into a paid case. That is one reason why most attorneys won't even talk to a person before they pay some money down.
 
_100903710_capturasdf3333e.jpg
 
Mark Wein said:
We don’t think we’re public servanrs now, do we? Interior looked at $200k estimate to fly secretary's flag - The Hill https://apple.news/A6EQj4tCpSOmdR3KTB3w6eg
Click to expand...

“The emails showed that the General Services Administration provided an estimate to Interior that placed the new poles to fly the specialized flags would cost $40,000 to $50,000 per pole.” Only the GSA would get crazy rates like that. There’s no way a taller than normal flagpole costs $40,000+ to install. How many days does it take to dig a hole and fill it with concrete?
 
jp_nyc said:
“The emails showed that the General Services Administration provided an estimate to Interior that placed the new poles to fly the specialized flags would cost $40,000 to $50,000 per pole.” Only the GSA would get crazy rates like that. There’s no way a taller than normal flagpole costs $40,000+ to install. How many days does it take to dig a hole and fill it with concrete?
Click to expand...

it's the grift. the thing to look for is WHO the contractor was gonna be, or the flag pole supplier.
duh
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...itys-story-about-being-michael-cohens-client/
The gaping hole in Sean Hannity’s story about being Michael Cohen’s client

It's not what it looks like. That's the refrain from Sean Hannity, after lawyers for President Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, revealed in court on Monday that the Fox News host is one of only three clients that Cohen represented this year and last.

Cohen's previous work included arranging a $130,000 payment to prevent porn star Stormy Daniels from talking publicly about her alleged affair with Trump. And Cohen's work for the other client on his shortlist, Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy, included negotiating a $1.6 million settlement with a former Playboy model who got pregnant when she and Broidy had an affair.

So what it looks like, of course, is that Cohen could have similarly helped Hannity silence a woman who might have told an embarrassing story. That is not the case, Hannity insisted on his radio show.

“I tell you why they're going nuts,” Hannity said of the media. “They're assuming — because I guess he did some type of work for some Republican guy — they're figuring, 'Oh, he must've done a big settlement case for Hannity.' That's not — no, that's not what happened. Ever.”

“Not one of any issue I ever dealt with Michael Cohen on ever — ever — involved a matter between me and any third party,” Hannity added.

Hannity's denial is a bit confusing. Hannity sought Cohen's legal counsel only on matters involving Hannity and himself?

It is also unclear why, if Cohen's work for Hannity was innocuous, the two men sought to keep their relationship secret. In a letter to the court Monday morning, Cohen's lawyers said his third recent client, besides Trump and Broidy, wished to remain anonymous.

“As to the one unnamed legal client, we do not believe that Mr. Cohen should be asked to reveal the name or can permissibly do so,” the letter said. A federal judge disagreed.

But there is an even bigger hole in Hannity's explanation: Why, as he railed against FBI raids of Cohen's office, home and hotel room last week, did Hannity not disclose to viewers and listeners that his communications with Cohen could have been among the materials seized?

Hannity made further comments that appear to be somewhat inconsistent with the statement he issued through Fox News. He said that he might have paid Cohen a small fee, after all, and said he did not merely assume that their conversations were privileged but rather sought assurances.

“I might have handed him 10 bucks [and said,] 'I definitely want your attorney-client privilege on this,' ” Hannity said on the radio. “Something like that. I requested that privilege with him when I would ask him: 'Well, this just came up. What do you think about this? What do you think about that?' ”

As a commentator, Hannity need not be neutral. But as a self-described “opinion journalist,” he could reasonably be expected to divulge a conflict of interest such as the one involving Cohen.
 
"So what it looks like, of course, is that Cohen could have similarly helped Hannity silence a woman who might have told an embarrassing story. That is not the case, Hannity insisted on his radio show."

If I was Hannity, I would pray to God that's what people assume because if not that, the other obvious choice is - he is tied up in the collusion with Russia thing.
 
If he handed him even ten bucks and never saw an invoice, but received services, doesn't that implicate Cohen in tax evasion, no matter how small it may be?

I know, I'm probably reaching for straws here.
 
I like how these guys pound a phrase into the ground. Last year it was "unmasking", this year it's "attorney-client privilege."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top