Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: SOOPOOAs I have said somewhere here before, I believe Cuomo will use the fact that he worked with a Republican Senate successfully in his Presidential run in 2020.
Quote: petroglyphQuote: TankoThose few members of the press are not chemical weapons experts, and they don't have the Intel our military and our government have.
The real experts from the OPCW are being blocked from entering the site of the attack by the Russians and the Syrians while they scrub the area of evidence.
NYT
Fisk has a lot of street cred: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html I looked at your link from OPCW and didn't see where they said they were blocked. If you peruse this link and prefer your Times media and want to call Fisk a liar, that would certainly be your opinion.
Also, see this.
OAN network in Douma:
One America News Network
But since its inception in 2013, and especially since Trump began his march to the White House, One America’s owner, Robert Herring Sr., a millionaire who made his money printing circuit boards, has directed his channel to push Trump’s candidacy, scuttle stories about police shootings, encourage antiabortion stories, minimize coverage of Russian aggression, and steer away from the new president’s troubles, according to more than a dozen current and former producers, writers and anchors, as well as internal emails from Herring and his top news executives. Wiki.
Did you even look at the link on a famous journalist, Fisk?Quote: billryanQuote: petroglyphQuote: TankoThose few members of the press are not chemical weapons experts, and they don't have the Intel our military and our government have.
The real experts from the OPCW are being blocked from entering the site of the attack by the Russians and the Syrians while they scrub the area of evidence.
NYT
Fisk has a lot of street cred: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html I looked at your link from OPCW and didn't see where they said they were blocked. If you peruse this link and prefer your Times media and want to call Fisk a liar, that would certainly be your opinion.
Also, see this.
OAN network in Douma:
One America News Network
But since its inception in 2013, and especially since Trump began his march to the White House, One America’s owner, Robert Herring Sr., a millionaire who made his money printing circuit boards, has directed his channel to push Trump’s candidacy, scuttle stories about police shootings, encourage antiabortion stories, minimize coverage of Russian aggression, and steer away from the new president’s troubles, according to more than a dozen current and former producers, writers and anchors, as well as internal emails from Herring and his top news executives. Wiki.
Did you take the time to look at the video produced by OAN where the reporter is actually in Douma, talking with residents? Or have you watched the CNN video that was actually filmed in Turkey, where the reporter sniffs a backpack supposedly contaminated with chemical weapons?
If you are more comfy with CNN or MSM or NYT, that's your business. But I think as fast as headlines are hitting the airwaves these days, this story to will disappear by next weak and we will be on to something else. Militarily, probably the incessant march toward Iran.
Also if you want to use Wiki as your source, and you don't think it has an agenda, that's up to you. "Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.
Wikipedia:About - Wikipedia"
Quote: RS
Seems like the last year+ there’ve constantly been cases where the libs find an “Aha! Gotcha! This is yuuuuuge!” nonsense and can’t stop talking about it for forever. Then nothing happens.
I feel like that's been going on for years, though, but it's slowly been ramping up. You saw a little bit of it with Clinton. Then a little more with Bush. Then with Obama, conservatives were losing their minds every few weeks over nothing. Now with Trump it's almost literally every single day there's a new "scandal."
I'm sure stuff like that has been going on for decades, but it seems like it's really been picking up the pace the last 20-ish years, probably due to the proliferation of social media, blogs, and fora, as well as cable news channels fighting each other for ratings.
Quote: petroglyphDid you even look at the link on a famous journalist, Fisk?Quote: billryanQuote: petroglyphQuote: TankoThose few members of the press are not chemical weapons experts, and they don't have the Intel our military and our government have.
The real experts from the OPCW are being blocked from entering the site of the attack by the Russians and the Syrians while they scrub the area of evidence.
NYT
Fisk has a lot of street cred: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html I looked at your link from OPCW and didn't see where they said they were blocked. If you peruse this link and prefer your Times media and want to call Fisk a liar, that would certainly be your opinion.
Also, see this.
OAN network in Douma:
One America News Network
But since its inception in 2013, and especially since Trump began his march to the White House, One America’s owner, Robert Herring Sr., a millionaire who made his money printing circuit boards, has directed his channel to push Trump’s candidacy, scuttle stories about police shootings, encourage antiabortion stories, minimize coverage of Russian aggression, and steer away from the new president’s troubles, according to more than a dozen current and former producers, writers and anchors, as well as internal emails from Herring and his top news executives. Wiki.
Did you take the time to look at the video produced by OAN where the reporter is actually in Douma, talking with residents? Or have you watched the CNN video that was actually filmed in Turkey, where the reporter sniffs a backpack supposedly contaminated with chemical weapons?
If you are more comfy with CNN or MSM or NYT, that's your business. But I think as fast as headlines are hitting the airwaves these days, this story to will disappear by next weak and we will be on to something else. Militarily, probably the incessant march toward Iran.
Also if you want to use Wiki as your source, and you don't think it has an agenda, that's up to you. "Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.
Wikipedia:About - Wikipedia"
That's sort of true, and sort of not true. Anything on wiki has to have independent sourcing that can be cited for each fact, quotation, event in the article. The team that manages wiki goes back.and fact-checks for accuracy, quality of sourcing, and a lot of other criteria.
If your piece doesn't meet their standards, they will either take down your article or preface it with a statement saying it doesn't meet their standards for sourcing, doesn't contain enough cites for the facts claimed, or other caveats. If it isn't corrected or augmented with proper sourcing, they have some time frame where they then take it down.
So, you may think the sources or perhaps the writer exhibits some bias, but I think wiki itself does a lot to maintain credibility. I trust it more than most websites to at least attempt factual unspun information.
Quote: petroglyphDid you even look at the link on a famous journalist, Fisk?Quote: billryanQuote: petroglyphQuote: TankoThose few members of the press are not chemical weapons experts, and they don't have the Intel our military and our government have.
The real experts from the OPCW are being blocked from entering the site of the attack by the Russians and the Syrians while they scrub the area of evidence.
NYT
Fisk has a lot of street cred: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html I looked at your link from OPCW and didn't see where they said they were blocked. If you peruse this link and prefer your Times media and want to call Fisk a liar, that would certainly be your opinion.
Also, see this.
OAN network in Douma:
One America News Network
But since its inception in 2013, and especially since Trump began his march to the White House, One America’s owner, Robert Herring Sr., a millionaire who made his money printing circuit boards, has directed his channel to push Trump’s candidacy, scuttle stories about police shootings, encourage antiabortion stories, minimize coverage of Russian aggression, and steer away from the new president’s troubles, according to more than a dozen current and former producers, writers and anchors, as well as internal emails from Herring and his top news executives. Wiki.
Did you take the time to look at the video produced by OAN where the reporter is actually in Douma, talking with residents? Or have you watched the CNN video that was actually filmed in Turkey, where the reporter sniffs a backpack supposedly contaminated with chemical weapons?
If you are more comfy with CNN or MSM or NYT, that's your business. But I think as fast as headlines are hitting the airwaves these days, this story to will disappear by next weak and we will be on to something else. Militarily, probably the incessant march toward Iran.
Also if you want to use Wiki as your source, and you don't think it has an agenda, that's up to you. "Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.
Wikipedia:About - Wikipedia"
This might sound better in its original Russian.
Quote: RSIf we’re going to believe what he said, then it’d be clear he’s responding to everyone calling him out for talking to Cohen sometimes.
If we’re going to believe the “Hannity is involved in some scandal and is covering it up”, I don’t blame someone for wanting to cover something up. Even then, it doesn’t mean it’s unethical or dishonest to not tell his audience about dealings with Cohen, unless it’s directly related to whatever he’s been “reporting” on.
I don’t really care what happens, if he or anyone else is guilty of something then they should have to pay the consequences. If not, then not. I don’t watch Hannity, Laimbaugh, Fox News, or really any “news” on TV.
Seems like the last year+ there’ve constantly been cases where the libs find an “Aha! Gotcha! This is yuuuuuge!” nonsense and can’t stop talking about it for forever. Then nothing happens. Or maybe politics is just too slow paced for me. It’s pretty damn boring, TBH.
So basically the republican Congress is corrupt!
Because you know if Hillary was president with this current congress and everything had happened the same she would already be under impeachment
Dead ringer for Tom Brady.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-brady-stormy-sketch-20180417-story.html
Quote: petroglyphHell yeah they do. It should be tough on the secret agents of any nation, if they cross their oaths. If we find Americans giving state secrets to the Chinese , Russians, Japan, Israel etc. They should be found and shot. I have no problem with that.
Killing an investigative reporter not a spy. Not the first time for that either.
Quote: billryanThis might sound better in its original Russian.
: )
I don't recall the story, but someone he was connected to was shot right on the sidewalk in Moscow a couple years back? Yeah, he's KGB. I never said he was Mr. Rodgers.Quote: rxwineKilling an investigative reporter not a spy. Not the first time for that either.
Quote: billryanAnyone see the sketch artist version of the man who supposedly threatened the stripper in Las Vegas?
Dead ringer for Tom Brady.
Deflated footballs.
Lock him up!
Most things are subjective, and the truth lays somewhere in the middle.Quote: beachbumbabsThat's sort of true, and sort of not true. Anything on wiki has to have independent sourcing that can be cited for each fact, quotation, event in the article. The team that manages wiki goes back.and fact-checks for accuracy, quality of sourcing, and a lot of other criteria.
If your piece doesn't meet their standards, they will either take down your article or preface it with a statement saying it doesn't meet their standards for sourcing, doesn't contain enough cites for the facts claimed, or other caveats. If it isn't corrected or augmented with proper sourcing, they have some time frame where they then take it down.
So, you may think the sources or perhaps the writer exhibits some bias, but I think wiki itself does a lot to maintain credibility. I trust it more than most websites to at least attempt factual unspun information.
So, I read alternative news. I quote wiki from time to time, I recall you read Wapo and NYT. I get timed out each month at those sites as well. But after all the lies we have been told for so many years by the msm, I prefer another take on what actually happened. I try to use credible sources, but admit they aren't perfect. Shoot the messenger. We can't stand when msm boinks across our screen when it isn't muted. I don't watch any of it. I'm admittedly way behind on what is popular news today or yesterday, I pick up a little when I cruise these forums, and watch the wrath fade and on to something else.
How you doing on the Skripal case? Ready to bomb Moscow yet? : )
Ok, ok, ok. Does Ron Paul have enough integrity to consider his OP on whether or not Assad used chem weapons in Douma?
https://mises.org/wire/trump%E2%80%99s-disastrous-syria-attack "WHAT IS MISES WIRE?
Mises Wire offers contemporary news and opinion through the lens of Austrian economics and libertarian political economics"
You do know that if you agree that Vlad gassed the Skripal's and Assad gassed his potential tax payers, you are agreeing with Trump, right?
He says he never was a client of michael cohen
However he asked michael cohen for advice which he believes is protected under attorney/client privelege
So basically he either believes people not clients get priveleges like a client
Or hes admitting he really is a client
It doesn't matter to me where the news comes from if it is true. Theresa is making lots of money blowing up fake chem weapons and people. This is the kind of things that I don't recall seeing on the evening news. Another reason I switched.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/22/isis-us-airdrop-weapons-pentagon
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=robert+fisk+journalist&view=detail&mid=D65D57655630ED54903CD65D57655630ED54903C&FORM=VIRE
Quote: darkozSo just heard Hannitys denial on radio
He says he never was a client of michael cohen
However he asked michael cohen for advice which he believes is protected under attorney/client privelege
So basically he either believes people not clients get priveleges like a client
Or hes admitting he really is a client
Let's say that Hannity asked Cohen this..... If I refuse to rent apartments at a complex I own to non-English speakers, can I get in trouble? And Cohen answers.... Yes, you could be prosecuted. And that is the end of it. So, do you now consider Hannity a client of Cohen's? It's not clear cut to me. Same on whether there is attorney client privilege for such a discussion. I bet the answer to either question is not clear cut.
I am put in this situation ALL THE TIME. I am asked medical questions by friends, acquaintances, internet forum members, yet if you asked me if they were my patient I would say no. But I believe that I am still bound by patient/ doctor privilege, meaning I wouldn't disclose information without the permission of whoever is confiding in me. So the lawyer/client thing is also not so clear.
OK, I just watched until past the 8 minute mark when he started talking about Afg. Is there a part of the video that you disagree with? I thought it was really pretty good. What is it that you don't agree with? Don't you know how the borders in MENA came to be strait lines?Quote: billryanAn interview with the reporter ,Robert Fisk, from 2009, on Russian State Television. Nuff Said.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=robert+fisk+journalist&view=detail&mid=D65D57655630ED54903CD65D57655630ED54903C&FORM=VIRE
Quote: SOOPOOLet's say that Hannity asked Cohen this..... If I refuse to rent apartments at a complex I own to non-English speakers, can I get in trouble? And Cohen answers.... Yes, you could be prosecuted. And that is the end of it. So, do you now consider Hannity a client of Cohen's? It's not clear cut to me. Same on whether there is attorney client privilege for such a discussion. I bet the answer to either question is not clear cut.
I am put in this situation ALL THE TIME. I am asked medical questions by friends, acquaintances, internet forum members, yet if you asked me if they were my patient I would say no. But I believe that I am still bound by patient/ doctor privilege, meaning I wouldn't disclose information without the permission of whoever is confiding in me. So the lawyer/client thing is also not so clear.
The problem is that Cohen's lawyer disclosed Hannity as a client before a judge while Hannity has denied he officially retained him. The only thing that IS clear in this situation is that if a client (Hannity) doesn't think Cohen is his attorney, then he's not his attorney and there is no privilege. Hannity isn't asserting his privilege, so Cohen lacks any basis not to disclose the information or to prevent the government from looking at the communications the two had in the documents seized by the FBI. And the ONLY reason Cohen's lawyer was forced to disclose Hannity was BECAUSE his name appears on those documents. That suggests a little more than just, "I might've given him ten bucks....or something like that.", which was Hannity's absurd explanation (he should've sought legal advice before he went on the radio to deny it all, but unfortunately, Cohen was busy).
It IS clear cut. If Hannity denies that Cohen is his attorney, there is no privilege.
For one thing, already public knowledge which can be looked up. Whereas, not much way to know you were linked to Cohen before yesterday.
Maybe he fools some dummies with that argument.
Quote: SteverinosThe problem is that Cohen's lawyer disclosed Hannity as a client before a judge while Hannity has denied he officially retained him. The only thing that IS clear in this situation is that if a client (Hannity) doesn't think Cohen is his attorney, then he's not his attorney and there is no privilege. Hannity isn't asserting his privilege, so Cohen lacks any basis not to disclose the information or to prevent the government from looking at the communications the two had in the documents seized by the FBI. And the ONLY reason Cohen's lawyer was forced to disclose Hannity was BECAUSE his name appears on those documents. That suggests a little more than just, "I might've given him ten bucks....or something like that.", which was Hannity's absurd explanation (he should've sought legal advice before he went on the radio to deny it all, but unfortunately, Cohen was busy).
It IS clear cut. If Hannity denies that Cohen is his attorney, there is no privilege.
Re-read Soopoo’s post.
If I go to a doctor-friend and say, “Yo dawg, I got this fiery itch in my wee-wee when I hit the wiz palace, is that a problem or normal?” He tells me whatever he tells me, probably it’s not normal and to get it checked out. Even though he’s not “my” doctor, I’d expect there to be confidentiality for that type of conversation. The rest is semantics and technicality BS. I know y’all love playing off of technicalities, though.
Quote: RSRe-read Soopoo’s post.
If I go to a doctor-friend and say, “Yo dawg, I got this fiery itch in my wee-wee when I hit the wiz palace, is that a problem or normal?” He tells me whatever he tells me, probably it’s not normal and to get it checked out. Even though he’s not “my” doctor, I’d expect there to be confidentiality for that type of conversation. The rest is semantics and technicality BS. I know y’all love playing off of technicalities, though.
Alright RS
And now that doctors office is raided and all his records seized because of suspected medicaid fraud
The judge wants a list of who were the doctors patients
The doctor says he would prefer if one his patients not be mentioned even though his records are amongst those seized
The judge demands the name and the DOCTOR says under oath RS is his patient
Guess what? Its not semantics anymore
I hope Hannity isn't a client. That means Cohen's lawyer lied to the judge.
Quote: billryanAs I'm reading this, Cohen's lawyer states that the third client doesn't wish to be publicly identified. Doesn't that presuppose that such a conversation about the possibility of be identified occured?
I hope Hannity isn't a client. That means Cohen's lawyer lied to the judge.
Which is the fascinating conundrum the arguments on here seem to purporting
You almost feel like Hannity is president
If michael cohens attorneys are lying under oath for michael cohen that is going to reflect back on Trump
Why are all the arguments here in defence of Sean Hannity?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/politics/pompeo-kim-trump-north-korea-intl/index.html
Quote: BozOnly the Trump haters at CNN could spin something that should be seen as a positive into a negative article.
Sounds like what Fox News did to Obama for 8 years.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Quote: petroglyphhttps://www.rt.com/uk/424392-may-husbands-capital-group/ "Philip May, husband of the UK prime minister, works for a company that is the largest shareholder in arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, whose share price has soared since the recent airstrikes in Syria."
It doesn't matter to me where the news comes from if it is true. Theresa is making lots of money blowing up fake chem weapons and people. This is the kind of things that I don't recall seeing on the evening news. Another reason I switched.
I'm not questioning the substance of this article, but you do know rt is the state television propaganda arm for Russian govt, right? I think you have to at least consider the source on a story like this.
BTW, BAE (probably same company, different division, perhaps different company, I'm not sure ) is one of the largest provider of skilled contractors to various Washington DC govt agencies, including the FAA.
Quote: petroglyphI didn't follow the Fla. tragedy and Hogg's movement [sp?] because the hypocrisy just galls me. America is so faux concerned about guns killing innocent people, while recently air dropping 50 ton pallet loads of arms into the Syrian desert, with no sure idea of who would get them. The hypocrisy is stunning, and it doesn't make the msm news.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/22/isis-us-airdrop-weapons-pentagon
It seems possible the gassing was a lie? There are conflicting stories about whether poison gas was used. Which would mean all 3 govt were duped.
I didn't support the bombing. Not that my opinion matters. But for many different reasons, it was a bad idea.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: petroglyphI didn't follow the Fla. tragedy and Hogg's movement [sp?] because the hypocrisy just galls me. America is so faux concerned about guns killing innocent people, while recently air dropping 50 ton pallet loads of arms into the Syrian desert, with no sure idea of who would get them. The hypocrisy is stunning, and it doesn't make the msm news.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/22/isis-us-airdrop-weapons-pentagon
It seems possible the gassing was a lie? There are conflicting stories about whether poison gas was used. Which would mean all 3 govt were duped.
I didn't support the bombing. Not that my opinion matters. But for many different reasons, it was a bad idea.
It would not surprise me if the chemical attack didnt happen. In fact assad and russia could easily have considered this a tactical chess move
Assad must know he cant beat the us militarily
But geopolitically trump and other are idiots
So fake news a chemical attack
Let trump fall for it
Trump impulsively retaliates after syria repeatedly denies attack occurred
Attack turns out to never have occurred
Assad wins geopolitical support against the corrupt and quick to act before thinking trump and US
And if you think thats too smart for assad
1) its not for putin who could help in such suggestions
2).Bush and W.M.D. a student of recent history could figure out this chess move
Quote: SOOPOOSo, do you now consider Hannity a client of Cohen's?
Yes.
He admitted it. He literally admitted it in plain English on his own radio show. He explicitly admitted having paid Cohen money in order to retain attorney-client privilege. And Cohen admitted under legal oath that Hannity was a client of his.
How can anyone be confused by this?
Quote: BozOnly the Trump haters at CNN could spin something that should be seen as a positive into a negative article. For months they complained Trump was going to start WWIII with NK, now when he is discussing options and working on what most see as a positive developments, they still make it a negative. Their hatred doesn’t allow them to even report the news without bias.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/politics/pompeo-kim-trump-north-korea-intl/index.html
What was so negative about it? What was biased about it? What was factually incorrect about it?
Perp walk them all, or shut up about Trumps hookers.
Swamp V swamp
Quote: petroglyphThis should be good for a few headlines: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-18/criminal-referral-issued-comey-clinton-lynch-and-mccabe-rosenstein-recusal-demanded
Perp walk them all, or shut up about Trumps hookers.
Swamp V swamp
Eleven GOP members of Congress wrote a letter? Comey is shaking in his boots!
Quote: petroglyphThis should be good for a few headlines: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-18/criminal-referral-issued-comey-clinton-lynch-and-mccabe-rosenstein-recusal-demanded
Perp walk them all, or shut up about Trumps hookers.
Swamp V swamp
At least Hannity got paid for selling out his soul and his country. Its amazing how many useful idiots are going along for the ride for free.
I haven't seen Hannity since long before Comes [sp?] left the show.Quote: billryanAt least Hannity got paid for selling out his soul and his country. Its amazing how many useful idiots are going along for the ride for free.
In other news re OPCW: see the official report from the 87th session of the OPCW executive council dated 13-16 March 2018, right here:
https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/87/en/ec87dg04_e_.pdf
that's right, the OPCW already had someone on the ground and almost complete progress in line with promises by Syria and Russia from 2013 were being upheld - as certified by the OPCW just two weeks before the 103 tomahawks were dropped, presumably on the remaining two above ground sites.
from that link, here are a few salient points.
"The Secretariat has verified the destruction of 25 of the 27 chemical weapons production facilities (CWPFs) declared by the Syrian Arab Republic. From 6 to 12 November 2017, the Secretariat conducted an initial inspection of the last two stationary above-ground facilities in accordance with paragraph 44 of Part V of the Verification Annex to the Chemical Weapons Convention (hereinafter “the Convention”). "
"As stated in previous reports, all of the chemicals declared by the Syrian Arab Republic that were removed from its territory in 2014 have now been destroyed. "
“Barbara Bush was a nasty drunk. When it came to drinking she made Betty Ford look like Carrie Nation #blottoBabs,” said Stone. “Barbara Bush drank so much booze, if they cremated her … her body would burn for three days.”
The former first lady died last night after several years in failing health. She was 92.
Quote: billryanAt least Hannity got paid for selling out his soul and his country. Its amazing how many useful idiots are going along for the ride for free.
Yeah, Hannity's already "won." He could quit right now, walk away, and live the rest of his scumbag life in complete luxury.
Unless it turns out he's done something illegal...
Quote: TigerWuYes.
He admitted it. He literally admitted it in plain English on his own radio show. He explicitly admitted having paid Cohen money in order to retain attorney-client privilege. And Cohen admitted under legal oath that Hannity was a client of his.
How can anyone be confused by this?
I don't listen to his show. Please provide a transcript of Hannity having "admitted paying Cohen money in order to retain attorney-client privilege". Thanks.
Quote: SOOPOO
I don't listen to his show. Please provide a transcript of Hannity having "admitted paying Cohen money in order to retain attorney-client privilege". Thanks.
“I might have handed him ten bucks, ‘I definitely want attorney-client privilege on this.’ Something like that.” -- Sean Hannity
I don't know what day that aired, but it is a direct quote from Hannity.
Quote: SOOPOOI don't listen to his show. Please provide a transcript of Hannity having "admitted paying Cohen money in order to retain attorney-client privilege". Thanks.
Quote: TigerWuYeah, Hannity's already "won." He could quit right now, walk away, and live the rest of his scumbag life in complete luxury.
Unless it turns out he's done something illegal...
So far as I know, voluntarily having your nose shoved of someones a$$ isn't illegal.
“Michael very generously would give me his time and we’d always say, ‘OK, attorney-client? Yeah, good. OK, good.’ And I’d ask him a legal question.”
“We definitely had attorney-client privilege. Because I asked them for that."
From the Washington Post:
Professor Clark Cunningham of Georgia State University explained in a phone call to The Post how the status of “client” is determined.
“It primarily has to do with the client’s understanding of the situation,” Cunningham said. “That person may be entitled to attorney-client privilege or, under the ethics rules the lawyer has a duty of confidentiality as long as the person believes that — even if the attorney did not intend to create the relationship.”
Approached by Cohen’s legal team over the weekend, Hannity didn’t argue he wasn’t a client of Cohen’s but, instead, that he shouldn’t be identified as a client of Cohen’s. On his radio show, he referred to himself as a client of Cohen’s no fewer than four times, in the context of noting that his conversations with Cohen were privileged. He even, as in that last example, implied that he gave Cohen a de minimis amount of money (to use Hannity’s term) in order to retain Cohen in a non-traditional sense.
Hannity’s short-term goal is to kneecap the assumption that his involvement with Cohen was, like Trump’s and Broidy’s, centered on an agreement concerning an illicit sexual relationship. There’s no evidence that this is why he worked with Cohen. But for all intents and purposes — including the purposes of the court — Hannity was indeed Cohen’s client.
Quote: ams288Sounds like what Fox News did to Obama for 8 years.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh I think I know how to answer this.
Deflection, deflection, rabble rabble rabble, deflection.
Did I do that right?
Quote: TigerWuMore quotes from Hannity:
“Michael very generously would give me his time and we’d always say, ‘OK, attorney-client? Yeah, good. OK, good.’ And I’d ask him a legal question.”
“We definitely had attorney-client privilege. Because I asked them for that."
From the Washington Post:
Professor Clark Cunningham of Georgia State University explained in a phone call to The Post how the status of “client” is determined.
“It primarily has to do with the client’s understanding of the situation,” Cunningham said. “That person may be entitled to attorney-client privilege or, under the ethics rules the lawyer has a duty of confidentiality as long as the person believes that — even if the attorney did not intend to create the relationship.”
Approached by Cohen’s legal team over the weekend, Hannity didn’t argue he wasn’t a client of Cohen’s but, instead, that he shouldn’t be identified as a client of Cohen’s. On his radio show, he referred to himself as a client of Cohen’s no fewer than four times, in the context of noting that his conversations with Cohen were privileged. He even, as in that last example, implied that he gave Cohen a de minimis amount of money (to use Hannity’s term) in order to retain Cohen in a non-traditional sense.
Hannity’s short-term goal is to kneecap the assumption that his involvement with Cohen was, like Trump’s and Broidy’s, centered on an agreement concerning an illicit sexual relationship. There’s no evidence that this is why he worked with Cohen. But for all intents and purposes — including the purposes of the court — Hannity was indeed Cohen’s client.
Thanks. And thanks to ams also for the video. It still isn't clear to me. I guess I would like for Mr. Cohen to clarify if he 'just answered a few questions' or felt like he was actually working for Mr. Hannity. To me that is the crux of the matter. Not that I really care whether an attorney who may have been involved in helping a man (Trump) cover up an extramarital affair was in Prague and might have represented a talk show host. This is what the lefties care about.... Seriously? I see my rightie friendsare posting about arresting Hillary and Comey and others for something about the 2016 election. Seriously? WTF cares!!!!
Quote: RSOh I think I know how to answer this.
Deflection, deflection, rabble rabble rabble, deflection.
Did I do that right?
No need to deflect. The article was neither biased, full of "hatred", negative, or factually incorrect.
