POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

I'm sorry, but if Hannity used this guy to pay off some chicks he had an affair with can somebody be on the lookout for my @ ss, because I'm 100% certain that I'm about to laugh it off.

And if Hannity did that, and if nothing criminal happened (<-- important caveat), what business was that civil matter of ours?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

So investigating a lawyer now allows for naming every single client that lawyer has represented?

"We think Perry Mason defrauded Joe Schmoe and the city on a jay-walking case he respresented on. Let's get all of Mason's client files and find out everything about the rest of Mason's clients. Who knows ... some other names and clients and cases may 'leak' out."

Something about that comes off as very wrong.


Who here's been divorced* and had the settlement sealed? Would you want those documents swept up in what you thought were privileged attorney/client files and released in such a manner?


*Nope.

Is a client list the same as attorney-client privilege? I'd imagine that any confidential information won't be leaked, but his client list likely will.

It's interesting, I've signed a doc stating that I can't tell anyone the names of my employer's clients/customers unless there's a signed doc to allow for disclosure. That's rare, and the client being disclosed is usually compensated. That rarely seems to be the case for lawyers and their clients.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

didn't see you whining about a real estate fraud investigation morphing into a "whose cum is that on that dress?" investigation.

Mentioning that ...

She brought another dress to the dry cleaner the other day.
The dry cleaner looks at it and says, ...
"No problem. We'll get that right away. Come again."
"No. Toothpaste."

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

So investigating a lawyer now allows for naming every single client that lawyer has represented?

"We think Perry Mason defrauded Joe Schmoe and the city on a jay-walking case he respresented on. Let's get all of Mason's client files and find out everything about the rest of Mason's clients. Who knows ... some other names and clients and cases may 'leak' out."

Something about that comes off as very wrong.


Who here's been divorced* and had the settlement sealed? Would you want those documents swept up in what you thought were privileged attorney/client files and released in such a manner?


*Nope.

You are talking from somewhere so far up your own a*s I can smell it here in Ohio. Cohen is being subjected to the same rules and regulations as any other attorney would be in his situation. If you had the first understanding of what is actually right about our judicial system, you might understand why. It's just Cohen's tough luck that, 1.) his client is a well known president of the United States, and 2.) both he and his client are not particularly good at what they do. I will go even further to say that the SDNY (and every other entity involved) are actually going to be even more cautious than they would if they were going after you, me or anyone else of relatively modest means.

You think this all comes off as very wrong because it is a republican president caught in the cross hairs. Had Clinton been selected president she would likely be facing impeachment right now by the treasonous republicans running the House, and you would be gleefully pointing out all of the offenses she's committed and if some questions of fair play came up you'd be dismissing them as the political whining of the defeated left.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

Is a client list the same as attorney-client privilege? I'd imagine that any confidential information won't be leaked, but his client list likely will.

It's interesting, I've signed a doc stating that I can't tell anyone the names of my employer's clients/customers unless there's a signed doc to allow for disclosure. That's rare, and the client being disclosed is usually compensated. That rarely seems to be the case for lawyers and their clients.

Your first paragraph is for the distinguished members of the bar who grace our lowly presence.

The second paragraph, I've signed the same. I'm held to it for three years after separation.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

You are talking from somewhere so far up your own a*s I can smell it here in Ohio. Cohen is being subjected to the same rules and regulations as any other attorney would be in his situation. If you had the first understanding of what is actually right about our judicial system, you might understand why. It's just Cohen's tough luck that, 1.) his client is a well known president of the United States, and 2.) both he and his client are not particularly good at what they do. I will go even further to say that the SDNY (and every other entity involved) are actually going to be even more cautious than they would if they were going after you, me or anyone else of relatively modest means.

You think this all comes off as very wrong because it is a republican president caught in the cross hairs. Had Clinton been selected president she would likely be facing impeachment right now by the treasonous republicans running the House, and you would be gleefully pointing out all of the offenses she's committed and if some questions of fair play came up you'd be dismissing them as the political whining of the defeated left.

You're talking Trump. I haven't mentioned that name once in this context.

I'm saying this seems wrong regarding Hannity (or any other Cohen client that gets their name released). It's a "guilt by association" (to Cohen) tactic and it's dangerous.

 

[bronconick]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

So Sean Hannity has been using his perch at Fox News to rail against the investigation into someone who he didn't disclose was his own lawyer.

Sounds about right.

Edit:

Rick Wilson
‏Verified account @TheRickWilson

Old and busted: "I did not have sex, with that woman, Miss Lewinskii."

New hotness: "I never retained Cohen in the traditional sense"

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

You're talking Trump. I haven't mentioned that name once in this context.

I'm saying this seems wrong regarding Hannity (or any other Cohen client that gets their name released). It's a "guilt by association" (to Cohen) tactic and it's dangerous.

What you are saying is wrong. Plain and simple. It is not wrong regarding Hannity. What they are doing is in keeping with all of the rules and regulations governing the conduct of attorneys. There is no inherent privilege in an attorney's CLIENT LIST. It is not any sort of "tactic" and it is not dangerous. You don't like it because a bunch of so-called conservatives are seeing their names show up in places they don't want them to show up. For Christ's sake I am 1,000,000,000,000,000% sure that if there was a prominent democrat or well known progressive who had their name in Hannity's place, your silence on this topic would be positively deafening.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

What you are saying is wrong. Plain and simple. It is not wrong regarding Hannity. What they are doing is in keeping with all of the rules and regulations governing the conduct of attorneys. There is no inherent privilege in an attorney's CLIENT LIST. It is not any sort of "tactic" and it is not dangerous.

You use the the law firm of Howe, Dewey, Cheatham, and Wynne* for your real estate transactions, your will, your power of attorney documents.
HDCW comes under investigation for criminality regarding covering up sexual misconduct of clients.
Your name is released as an HDCW client by the investigators.
That's not dangerous ground?



*Not to be confused with Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

So Sean Hannity has been using his perch at Fox News to rail against the investigation into someone who he didn't disclose was his own lawyer.

Hannity should've disclosed himself the same way WaPo states they're owned by Bezos in their articles about him/Amazon.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

You use the the law firm of Howe, Dewey, Cheatham, and Wynne* for your real estate transactions, your will, your power of attorney documents.
HDCW comes under investigation for criminality regarding covering up sexual misconduct of clients.
Your name is released as an HDCW client by the investigators.
That's not dangerous ground?



*Not to be confused with Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.

Privacy? What's that?

Besides. Cohen isn't a "lawyer". He's a "Fixer". His word, not mine.

 

[bronconick]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

It's only dangerous to your good name. It's embarrassing for picking a ****ty lawyer and you should probably hire a new one to look at your documents in case they ****ed yours up too.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

I'm saying this seems wrong regarding Hannity (or any other Cohen client that gets their name released). It's a "guilt by association" (to Cohen) tactic and it's dangerous.

Cause heaven knows, Hannity has never used "guilt by association" himself.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

It's only dangerous to your good name. It's embarrassing for picking a ****ty lawyer and you should probably hire a new one to look at your documents in case they ****ed yours up too.

It's a Gestapo tactic. (Godwin's law by proxy. I lose. )

And how do you know what seems to be a good firm is dirty until it hits the fan. (And yes, have the docs reviewed by another firm.)

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

Is a client list the same as attorney-client privilege? I'd imagine that any confidential information won't be leaked, but his client list likely will.

The Hannity thing is an interesting question. I'm not 100% certain the judge made the correct decision with respect to forcing the disclosure of his name. I say that only because I don't know about what, if any, criminal enterprise Hannity may have been involved in or what he retained Cohen to do.

I think as a general rule the name of the client is not necessarily attorney-client privileged. I think that privilege is intended to protect confidential communications between the attorney and client.

However, I think there are exceptions to that general rule where disclosure of the identity of the client would implicate him or her in the very crime for which he or she sought representation. I don't think you can use that exception to cover up illegal activity for which the attorney may be providing representation. But I do think an exception exists and therefore the names of all of an attorney's clients are not automatically available to the government.

So, in this case, lets say the government claims that an unnamed client violated election contribution laws by paying off a hooker to keep her silent. I don't think you can force the lawyer to disclose the name of that client. However, if the lawyer was actually involved in the payoff, then you can probably force the disclosure of the identity of the client. But that's not really an issue because Cohen and Trump have both publicly declared the relationship between the two.

But with Hannity, I'm not sure why he hired Cohen, or how it might relate to a crime. Let's say that he hired Cohen to negotiate a deal with a hooker to keep quiet so that Hannity's wife doesn't find out. I don't think that's a crime. So, can Cohen before forced to disclose the name of his client?

That leads me to conclude one of two things. Either the judge just made an incorrect decision, which is unfortunate because you can't unring that bell and the judge's decision just further erodes the attorney-client privilege in this country, or Hannity hired Cohen to do something that might in and of itself be a violation of the law. I'd really be curious to hear what that is.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

To further expand on this point, I'm sure we've all heard of cases where a crime has been committed, and then a lawyer contacts the police or prosecutor and tries to strike a deal on behalf of a client whose name is not know to the cops, or they just don't yet have enough to prove it. I think that's happened here in Minnesota at least a couple of times that I recall. If the cops had the right to just come to the lawyers office and grab the files, I think they would have done it in those cases.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

To further expand on this point, I'm sure we've all heard of cases where a crime has been committed, and then a lawyer contacts the police or prosecutor and tries to strike a deal on behalf of a client whose name is not know to the cops, or they just don't yet have enough to prove it. I think that's happened here in Minnesota at least a couple of times that I recall. If the cops had the right to just come to the lawyers office and grab the files, I think they would have done it in those cases.

You realize there was a very high standard the FBI had to meet to RAID Cohen's office/home/etc. right? And they met that burden?

 

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

Hannity has clearly stated that Cohen was not hired as a lawyer. So the idea of client privilege don't exactly apply-

Here's what he said-

“Let me be very clear to the media,” Hannity said. “Michael never represented me in any matter. I never retained him in the traditional sense. ... I never received an invoice from Michael. I never paid legal fees to Michael.”

Probably hired as a fixer, which I doubt has any protections. Read Hannity's tweets.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

You realize there was a very high standard the FBI had to meet to RAID Cohen's office/home/etc. right? And they met that burden?

I'm not even talking about the raid. I was addressing issues relating to the public disclosure of a client's name, I think in open court, and whether that should be protected by attorney/client privilege.

 

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.31: "The Caravan is Coming.""The Caravan is Coming."

You realize there was a very high standard the FBI had to meet to RAID Cohen's office/home/etc. right? And they met that burden?

Of which, that standard included people from this administration that had to approve it. And/Or dump appointed judges.

It wasn't done on a whim.

Not sure how people can assume that it was done very easily.