Patterico's Pontifications

4/16/2018

Sean Hannity Named As Cohen Client. Hannity Says, Uh, Not So Fast…

Filed under: General — Dana @ 2:51 pm

[guest post by Dana]

So Sean Hannity has been named as Michael D. Cohen’s client:

President Trump’s personal attorney Michael D. Cohen did work for Fox News commentator Sean Hannity in the past year, one of just three legal clients Cohen represented after leaving his post as a counsel for Trump’s private company in early 2017, his attorney told a federal judge Monday.

Cohen’s work for Hannity was revealed during a court hearing in Manhattan on Monday and confirmed by a source familiar with the relationship. Cohen also did legal work for the president and GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy in the past year, his attorney told the court.

Hannity denies he was an actual paying client:

Hannity said Monday that he occasionally turned to Cohen when he had legal questions but that he never paid him to be his attorney.

“Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter,” the conservative commentator wrote on Twitter. “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.”

“I assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third-party,” Hannity added.

Untitled

Untitled2

How it came to this:

A letter from Cohen’s lawyer Todd Harrison filed Monday said that agents seized “more than a dozen electronic devices and other items that include documents and data regarding topics and issues that have nothing to do with” the material sought in the search warrant.

The letter says that from 1996 to 2006, Cohen had hundreds of clients, adding that he did not know if any material from those clients was in the seized files. From 2007 to 2017, Cohen worked as a lawyer for Trump and the Trump Organization.

The letter said that in 2017 and 2018, Cohen had “at least ten clients,” but seven of those were business consulting clients whose work did not involve legal advice.

The three other clients, according to the letter, were Trump, Broidy and a third client whom Cohen initially did not want to be identified.

[RNC deputy finance chair steps down after admitting Trump’s lawyer negotiated settlement between him and pregnant Playboy model]

“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. “Upon information and belief, the unnamed legal client’s matters are responsive to any matter covered by . . . the search warrants.”

Cohen’s lawyers argue that if the court appoints a special master to oversee the issue, “that legal client would allow their name to be disclosed to the special master.”

Both Trump and Cohen claimed “that the Justice Department policy is unfair and infringes on constitutional protections.”

As usual, Popehat has some interesting thoughts and cautions about the latest turn of events:

Untitled

Untitled2

Outside the courtroom, Stormy Daniels spanked Michael D. Cohen in a statement made to the press:

“For years, Mr. Cohen has acted like he is above the law, he has considered himself and openly referred to himself as Mr. Trump’s fixer. He has played by a different set of rules or should we say no rules at all,” the adult-film actress said with her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, beside her. “He has never thought that the little man, or especially women or even more, women like me, matter. That ends now. My attorney and I are committed to making sure that everyone finds out the truth and facts of what happened and I give my word that we will not rest until that happens.”

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

295 Responses to “Sean Hannity Named As Cohen Client. Hannity Says, Uh, Not So Fast…”

  1. I feel like the definition of client is going to be up for a major debate.

    Dana (023079)

  2. Thanks for posting this, Dana.

    The major debate over the definition of “client” is mostly an internal debate within Sean Hannity’s foolish brain.

    If in fact he sought confidential legal advice and counsel from Cohen, and Cohen agreed to give it — regardless of whether Cohen was paid and regardless of whether Cohen ever entered a public appearance as Hannity’s counsel in negotiations or court proceedings — then Hannity is a client and entitled to assert attorney-client privilege to protect client confidences he may have shared with Cohen.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  3. If that’s so, it makes you wonder why Hannity doesn’t just keep quiet? Is he simply unable to jump into a perceived fight with …the Deep State, or what? He really doesn’t need to be saying anything.

    Dana (023079)

  4. I’m not going to reprint or link them individually here, but my observations about this topic are already contained in a series of comments on the immediately prior post.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  5. this is a very sleazy court proceeding

    that dirty judge made no effort at all to protect Mr. Hannity, who was swept up in this through no fault of his own

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. People too frequently forget that silence can be their friend.

    Dana (023079)

  7. He really needs not to be saying anything, Dana! He’s an idiot, his own worst enemy, just like Trump.

    Hungry Hungry Hippos is for ages 4 and up. That’s a brilliant observation by Ken “Popehat” White, but he gives them Trump & Cohen too much credit. Trump would smash the game board and grab all the marbles.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  8. women like me

    dirty hookers with funguses?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. and now Billy Joel’s involved too

    this is out of control

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  10. 1.I feel like the definition of client is going to be up for a major debate.

    You said it; which begs the question why would a client want to remain unnamed yet when named as directed by a judge suddenly infer they’re a non-client.

    So when is a client not a client and sheltered by a/c priv., by a lawyer who’s not his lawyer– sounds like a great idea for a new Fox TV series: Shamrocks!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  11. @8. She looked like the Happy Hooker today, Mr. Feet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  12. stormy’s got a hungry hungry hippo Mr. DCSCA

    careful for the funguses though

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  13. And Mike Pence Smiled…

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  14. Thanks for the clarification at 2, Beldar.

    Dana (023079)

  15. Lawyers give him free advice, liberals hate him

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  16. #13: Smiling behind his hand, Pin, only behind his hand. 😉

    #14: You’re welcome. I’m just trying to help Patterico.com readers clear through the smoke and heat to find a bit of light.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  17. @12. Next comes a court battle over ‘tapes,’ Mr. Feet. History rhymes; dust for jowl prints.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  18. I like how the Lawyers get all up in arms about Hannity, Trump and how they should shut up.

    But as we all know this is a PR Battle and Mueller is losing it in large measure thanks to the loud mouths in the room.

    In terms of how their “talking” hurts — with all due respect Lawyers are paid liars and will lie for any reason so long as it is to get what they want. Team Mueller and the Rest could care less if he talks or not. They also could care less about innocence.

    Lawyers have replaced the corrupt Priesthood of the Middle Ages. They say whatever they want then rap it up in more lies with big words and hope no one catches on to the scam. They run their own club of liars and destroy anyone that does not acquiesce to their corruption. Only way to escape the corruption of the Lawyers to pay another lawyer to defend you.

    Quite the racket.

    OT: Bill Joel? Russian Agent too?

    Shep's Social Circle (c587a1)

  19. @15. The younger Murdochs have been trying to clean up Fox News’ act for a while now; this won’t go down well with FNC corporate– particularly the cute failure to disclose on air. Looks bad. Don’t be surprised if Fox’s boyo takes an unscheduled ‘scheduled vacation’ for a week or so if this boils over several news cycles.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  20. Lawyers are like Middle Age Priests. Their “indulgence” is their hourly rate. You pay, you can be forgiven. It matters not guilt but the accusation by one of the other Priests against you, errrr Lawyers.

    Shep's Social Circle (c587a1)

  21. @19 And how do you know it was not disclosed?

    Curious.

    Shep's Social Circle (c587a1)

  22. @ Shep, who wrote (#18):

    I like how the Lawyers get all up in arms about Hannity, Trump and how they should shut up.

    But as we all know this is a PR Battle and Mueller is losing it in large measure thanks to the loud mouths in the room.

    You are delusional. This is not a “PR Battle,” this is a legal and political struggle that will play out in courtrooms and Congress. Polls matter absolutely zero.

    I’m not “up in arms” about how Trump and Hannity should shut up. I’m pointing out that it’s in their legal and political best interest to do so, which is what I’m 100% sure their own lawyers would tell them. Personally, I’d love to see them both ridden out of America coated in hot tar and feathers while riding a rail, and what they’re doing is moving them in that direction. Continuing with your comment:

    In terms of how their “talking” hurts — with all due respect Lawyers are paid liars and will lie for any reason so long as it is to get what they want. Team Mueller and the Rest could care less if he talks or not. They also could care less about innocence.

    Lawyers have replaced the corrupt Priesthood of the Middle Ages. They say whatever they want then rap it up in more lies with big words and hope no one catches on to the scam. They run their own club of liars and destroy anyone that does not acquiesce to their corruption. Only way to escape the corruption of the Lawyers to pay another lawyer to defend you.

    If all lawyers are paid liars, then the paid liars representing Trump and Cohen got caught and called on it today, when Judge Wood criticized them for misrepresenting some of the cases they’d cited in their paperwork.

    In fact, lawyers are one of the very few professions in which lying can end your career. Viz: Bill Clinton’s lost law license.

    I get that from your perspective, the legal system seems like a racket. I cannot count on all my fingers and toes the number of people who share your exact views, who’ve therefore avoided seeking services from a competent lawyer, and who therefore have gotten themselves into a world of trouble that, yes, I, as a lawyer, had to help them get out of or mitigate. They generally change their tune, but if you’re fortunate enough never to have needed a lawyer’s advice or representation, I commend you and wish you continued good luck.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  23. @21. Apparently nobody was publicly aware of it give the reaction in court today. Revisit his telecasts and tirades; he never revealed his ‘association’ – client, non-client, or whatever he wants to label himself this hour– to his TeeVee and radio crowd and sought to have his name remain ‘undisclosed’ as late as this afternoon EDT, until a judge ordered it spoken out loud in open court today. FNC corporate– at least the younger management team– isn’t going to bite on that pretzel.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  24. “But as we all know this is a PR Battle and Mueller is losing it in large measure thanks to the loud mouths in the room.”

    Exactly – Don’t forget Comey and Bill Clinton are lawyers too.

    In fact, you can ask two Attorneys a legal question and get 3 opinions.

    But we’re always supposed to “keep our mouths shut” – and let these Legal Wizards – cast their spells and do all the talking.

    rcocean (a72eb2)

  25. For a week, Hannity has been attacking the search warrant on Cohen daily on his TV show and, I presume, his radio show and elsewhere.

    For a week, Hannity has concealed the fact that he has some sort of personal, private relationship involving Cohen’s legal advice on Hannity’s problems.

    The Society of Professional Journalists, in the SPC Code of Ethics, insists:

    Journalists should:

    – Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

    I know that this “Code” is among the biggest jokes in the history of the universe, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that Hannity has been unethical, if held to standards of a journalist.

    I don’t think the Society of Professional Trump Lickspittles has adopted its Code of Ethics yet, though.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  26. @ rcoocean: I’ll tell you what. For you, I will make an exception. I encourage you to run your mouth to your heart’s content the next time you’re in any trouble, or even when you’re facing trouble you haven’t recognized yet.

    There. Now you’ve been told what you want to hear, not what you need to hear. You’re just like Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  27. (PS: You’re not my client. Don’t rely on my advice. It’s really, really bad advice, custom-tailored for you.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  28. If that’s so, it makes you wonder why Hannity doesn’t just keep quiet? Is he simply unable to jump into a perceived fight with …the Deep State, or what? He really doesn’t need to be saying anything.

    Perhaps Hannity has nothing to hide, literally. He may be more concerned about what the speculation does to him on both a professional and personal level. There are those who are saying since Cohen acted as a fixer for his other two clients’ sexual improprieties, he must have done the same for Hannity. If that’s false, Hannity has an interest in people knowing that it’s false. Also, there has been criticism about Hannity’s failure to disclose when reporting on Cohen stories. If his relationship was really as he’s described it, he may feel that there was no need to disclose and he wants both the public and his employers to know that.

    Just because Hannity likes Trump and Cohen doesn’t mean he wants to get dragged into whatever is going on with Cohen. He has to protect his own interests first.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  29. @25. ‘Cept Fox’s boyo himself has said he’s not a ‘journalist’ but an ‘advocate.’ FNC corporate will surely look at it, though, given the changes at the network.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. Anon Y Mous wrote (#28):

    Perhaps Hannity has nothing to hide, literally.

    He hid the fact that Cohen has been his personal lawyer (at least in Cohen’s opinion), all the while that Hannity has been attacking the SDNY and the FBI for executing the search warrant on Cohen.

    That’s a conflict of interest, one that Hannity concealed from his audience. That’s not the same as breaking the law. Neither journalists nor pundits are licensed or under oath.

    But let’s never again pretend that Hannity has any ethical compass. He’s not entitled to conceal his own conflicts of interest while pretending to the public to be ethical and independent.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  31. if it’s true that Hannity never paid Cohen a dime, he might not have considered Cohen to be his personal lawyer. I know that I would expect that anyone who was acting as my lawyer would send me a bill. I can’t imagine a lawyer doing anything of substance without getting compensated.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  32. @8. Perhaps Hannity has nothing to hide, literally. He may be more concerned about what the speculation does to him on both a professional and personal level.

    That’s a reasonable consideration; the last-ditch rationale presented in court today was to keep his name ‘undisclosed’ to avoid ’embarrassment’ which in the cutthroat TeeVee and radio biz is to be avoided at all cost- particularly at a network that’s been attempting to reshape its image post-Ailes.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  33. ^@28. typo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  34. I can’t imagine a lawyer doing anything of substance without getting compensated
    Loss of way to get ‘compensation’ from a media figure and his contacts that doesn’t involve an invoice and a check.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. ^@34. Lots of ways

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  36. That’s a reasonable consideration; the last-ditch rationale presented in court today was to keep his name ‘undisclosed’ to avoid ’embarrassment’ which in the cutthroat TeeVee and radio biz is to be avoided at all cost- particularly at a network that’s been attempting to reshape its image post-Ailes.

    I suspect he’s even more attuned to boycotts of his sponsors. That’s how they got Bill O’Reilly, and just tried to get Laura Ingraham.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  37. If anybody needed more convincing that Trump is turd floating in a New York sewer, we saw two of the turds he floats with in the same courtroom today. Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels. Sheesh!

    nk (dbc370)

  38. And, no, Cohen is not an attorney. He’s an errand boy cum bagman with a law license and it’s not the same thing.

    nk (dbc370)

  39. R.I.P. Harry Anderson, of Night Court fame

    Icy (8041e1)

  40. I can’t imagine a lawyer doing anything of substance without getting compensated.

    And yet Michael Cohen wants you to believe that he mortgaged his house and signed the money away to a porn actress out of the goodness of his heart, and without any expectation of reimbursement.

    Dave (445e97)

  41. If anybody needed more convincing that Trump is turd floating in a New York sewer, we saw two of the turds he floats with in the same courtroom today. Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels.

    Are we great again yet?

    Dave (445e97)

  42. As for Sean Hannity’s identity being revealed, it was almost inevitable. When a lawyer claims attorney-client privilege, the real party in interest is the client. Even if the court believes the lawyer when he says he is asserting it on the client’s behalf and not to protect his own corrupt New York sewer scum fixer/bagman/errand boy ass, the opponent is entitled to know who is litigating against him.

    nk (dbc370)

  43. @36. Agreed. But in this case it is in his interest to disengage from the legalities of this quickly and stay on Media Island. Last thing he needs is a Cohen ‘tape’ to surface w/Hannity, Cohen and Trump on a conference all ‘plotting’ strategy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. But how dumb is Hannity?

    He has a mountain of cash, and when he needs legal advice, he goes to … Michael Cohen?

    Allahpundit riffs on the epic face-palm element.

    Although there’s no direct evidence, one obvious explanation would be that he wanted something that a reputable attorney couldn’t/wouldn’t help him with.

    But even so, in NYC there must be plenty of crooked attorneys more competent than Michael Cohen…

    Dave (445e97)

  45. If only lawyers could run the country without elections getting in the way.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  46. @42. The ’embarrassment’ he sought to avoid may have more to do w/any exposure to standards and practices violations at FNC and the radio networks his programs air on than any immediate legal exposure. Taking him off the air would be worse than a jail term to Fox’s boyo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. He has a mountain of cash, and when he needs legal advice, he goes to … Michael Cohen?

    Omerta; keep it ‘in family.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  48. Hannity had “de minimis discussions with Michael Cohen, which dealt almost exclusively about real estate:
    “Hey, Michael! Nobody on the media has been a better friend to Trump than me. Now, how about a little love back? Like a condo at Trump Tower for de minimis.”

    nk (dbc370)

  49. Because imaginary conversations are always more interesting than the real thing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  50. I think that Hannity’s choice of lawyers is rather revealing about America’s great patriot. That he would seek advice from a known sleazy bagman with a history of covering for Trump is remarkable – until you realize that Trump no doubt referred his BFF Hannity to Cohen.

    Dana (023079)

  51. @49.=Haiku!= Gesundheit!

    ‘Imagine’ if–or when- a Cohen ‘tape’ or two shows up in that pile of evidence collected w/Hannity, Cohen and the President of the United States ‘plotting strategy.’ He’s screwed. You decide which ‘he.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  52. Doesn’t Hannity have the right to his privacy? He’s not a part of any of this.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  53. One more time: When a lawyer claims attorney-client privilege, the real party in interest is the client. Even if the court believes the lawyer when he says he is asserting it on the client’s behalf and not to protect himself, the opponent is entitled to know who is litigating against him.

    nk (dbc370)

  54. What do you think, Dana. I think that’s the most interesting thing about this. What else in the way of personal information is up for grabs to be used to embarrass or shame someone?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  55. Effing lawyers anyway…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  56. What I would have tried, and maybe succeeded, as Hannity’s new unconnected-with-Cohen attorney, is getting an order that would keep Hannity’s identity knows only the judge and the prosecutor’s filter team for the time being.

    nk (dbc370)

  57. 52. Tell that to Billy Bush.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  58. Some great photos in this BBC report:

    Hannity and Cohen together!

    And this one’s for you, nk:

    Stormy going through security at the courthouse

    They caught her in the act of taking her shoes off; no word on whether she tried to disrobe completely, out of habit, or whether the guards tipped her as she passed through the metal detector…

    Dave (445e97)

  59. “Doesn’t Hannity have the right to his privacy? He’s not a part of any of this.”

    Privacy, civil rights, the right to a fair trial, basic human rights, attorney client privilege,

    Exist only if you’re popular….

    I’m still shocked at the contortions some of the lawyers on this blog insist that this is remotely justified.

    This is why many of the larger law firms hire non lawyers like me to supervise them carefully.

    EPWJ (134698)

  60. Seltzer, CNN, and assorted Never-trumpers, are Shocked! Shocked! that Sean Hannity and Trump have the same lawyer. I guess that’s supposed to create some sort of big Ethics problem because…yeah well it just is!

    Stephypopulous can be an ex-Clinton henchman, Cuomo can be the son of Mario Cuomo. Matthews can be Tip O’Neill old flunky and friend, and untold numbers of News people can be married to Democrat Pols or rotate in and out of Democrat Congressional Offices and the White House, but hey they’re unbiased!

    But we’re supposed to amazed that Hannity has a Trump Connection. And here I thought Sean was objective news reporter.

    rcocean (a72eb2)

  61. I have serious question for all the Lawyers. When can Trump pardon Cohen? Has Cohen even be charged with something or is that down the road?

    rcocean (a72eb2)

  62. Stephypopulous can be an ex-Clinton henchman, Cuomo can be the son of Mario Cuomo. Matthews can be Tip O’Neill old flunky and friend

    And what do all those examples have in common?

    The associations are openly known to anybody who cares to know.

    Hannity did not reveal that Cohen was his lawyer while railing against the search warrants.

    But as Allahpundit points out, Hannity is so universally recognized as a Trump lick-spittle that the failure to disclose his glaring conflict of interest is arguably irrelevant:

    Exit question: Is the ethical problem diminished here by the fact that literally everyone realizes Hannity would be cheerleading for Cohen and Trump against the feds even if they had no business together? Can you be so deep in the tank for the president’s interests, in other words, that your own conflict of interest is negligible?

    Dave (445e97)

  63. Anon Y Mous wrote (#31):

    I can’t imagine a lawyer doing anything of substance without getting compensated.

    Really? How much do you think Clarence Earl Gideon paid Abe Fortas for representing him in the Supreme Court on the case that established the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment? How much do you think Thurgood Marshall billed Linda Brown’s father for helping her get into the same Topeka school the white kids attend?

    Perhaps you paint with an overbroad brush, sir or ma’am.

    That said, I have no doubt that Cohen might do a favor for the Trump Lickspittle in Chief, Sean Hannity, in order to curry favor with Cohen’s principal and almost only client, Donald J. Trump, on the expectation that he would “make it up” in other fees or business opportunities (free or undervalued “tastes” of Trump deals) directed his way by Trump, using OPM (other people’s money) whenever possible, which is a signature feature of most of Trump’s deal-making.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  64. I’m still shocked at the contortions some of the lawyers on this blog insist that this is remotely justified.

    Contortions are better known as wiggle room. This is where a ruling can go one way or the other. In this case, if it’s Trump or an associate, it goes “one way”— if anyone else, it goes “the other”. Among the anti-Trumpers here, this is also known as “sticking to principles.”

    random viking (6a54c2)

  65. Trump can pardon Cohen right now for any federal crime Cohen might have committed since the Founding of the United States. And keep pardoning him daily for any new crimes until January 20, 2020. But only federal crimes.

    nk (dbc370)

  66. Always an outlier to hold up as a purported norm.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  67. @ Dave (#62): AP is pretty funny and has a point.

    One of the “Big Three” Houston law firms (not the one I worked for, which narrows it down to two, I guess) was famous among its Houston competitors for having the “Deemed Waiver” rule when it came to conflicts of interest. It never asked an existing corporate client for a waiver of conflicts of interest whenever it took on a new client with a directly contrary interest, nor disclosed to the new client its past representation of the original client. The firm’s position was: Everyone knows we will work for anyone on anything, and so we’re going to presume that we have a “deemed waiver” from everyone reckless enough to hire us in the first place.

    That was a joke, a bit of an overstatement. Nevertheless, like many such jokes, it had quite a bit of basis in fact, and I personally have witnesses that firm’s lawyers proceed down not only blithely, but jubilantly down unethical paths I’d have resigned — from a representation and, if need be, from a firm — in order to avoid. But they’re astonishingly successful nonetheless.

    I’m told, but lack first-hand experience to confirm, that the “deemed consent” rule is also the rule of thumb at most Washington, D.C. law firms.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  68. When can Trump pardon Cohen? Has Cohen even be charged with something or is that down the road?

    I’m not a lawyer, but this is an easy one.

    Trump can pardon anyone for any federal offense at any time; Ford issued a blanket pardon to Nixon with Nixon ever being charged with a crime.

    Cohen has not been charged with anything yet – he is the target of a criminal investigation. The current court battles are over how access to the evidence seized with last week’s search warrants will be controlled to protect any legitimate attorney-client privilege interests of Cohen’s (three) clients.

    Presumably charges will not be forthcoming until the investigators gain access to whatever portion of the seized material they are allowed to inspect, although it’s possible he might be charged with other crimes that are not directly related to last week’s search warrants.

    Dave (445e97)

  69. *witnessed, not “witnesses”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  70. How much do you think Clarence Earl Gideon paid Abe Fortas for representing him in the Supreme Court on the case that established the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment? How much do you think Thurgood Marshall billed Linda Brown’s father for helping her get into the same Topeka school the white kids attend?

    There you go! Cohen might very well have been representing Hannity pro bono in service of the legal issues that are oh so important to Cohen.

    You’re right. I failed to consider that possibility.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  71. @68 *without Nixon

    Dave (445e97)

  72. @60.Seltzer, CNN, and assorted Never-trumpers, are Shocked! Shocked! that Sean Hannity and Trump have the same lawyer. I guess that’s supposed to create some sort of big Ethics problem because…yeah well it just is.

    It could a good guess; and very well be a problem w/t standards and practices at HR for cable news at FNC corporate and/or the various radio networks Boyo is affiliated with. Could explain the effort to remain ‘unnamed’ until the judge ordered the name revealed. His exposure may well be in the media universe and potential damage to the Fox News Channel; unless some Cohen tape surfaces w/Trump, Hannity and Cohen plotting strategy on a conference call which would be entertaining all ’round.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  73. Col. @ 54,

    Hannity can seek it vice from any lawyer he wants, no doubt, and that should be his business. However, that he sought advice from someone with a reputation as being a fixer and is Donald Trump’s legal shield is telling. Like it or not. Reflecting even more poorly upon him is his decision to not disclose the information when reporting on Trump – Cohen – Daniels.

    Dana (023079)

  74. Or important to both Cohen and Hannity, Anon Y. Mous. I wonder what possible common cause that Cohen might have with Sean Hannity, that Hannity would want to conceal with the attorney client privilege…

    Leviticus (0b0b02)

  75. Of course Hannity devotes his opening segment to going on offense about things he has railed about for months. That this choice will lead to a bigger rating due to the folks who are tuned in simply to hear his take on the Cohen matter surely played no role whatsoever. :)

    No worries. I have enough popcorn to stand by.

    Ed from SFV (4f3559)

  76. Dana and I cross-posted, I see.

    Leviticus (0b0b02)

  77. Kimba Wood, judge of choice to conduct the ceremony when the Lizard People marry.

    https://pagesix.com/2013/09/20/political-bigs-expected-at-george-soros-wedding/

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  78. I wonder what possible common cause that Cohen might have with Sean Hannity, that Hannity would want to conceal with the attorney client privilege…

    ‘Tapes.’ Perhaps conference calls w/Cohen, Hannity and the President of the United States.

    History rhymes.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. His exposure may well be in the media universe and potential damage to the Fox News Channel;

    Yeah, it’s almost as bad as failing to disclose cash payments to a candidate you’re covering:

    https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/george-stephanopoulos-discloses-75-000-contribution-to-clinton-foundation-207120

    But, he got fired … so it’s all good.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  80. “Reflecting even more poorly upon him is his decision to not disclose the information when reporting on Trump – Cohen – Daniels.”

    Dana (023079) — 4/16/2018 @ 6:09 pm

    Thanks, is anyone else not aware that Hannity is not a straight news reporter, that he is working the highly opinionated side of things?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  81. BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Dershowitz is a treasure.

    Ed from SFV (4f3559)

  82. And what were once vices are now habits!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  83. DiGenova & Dershowitz; looks like Hannity is all of a sudden all ‘lawyered up’ tonight. Not a client, just free advice, eh, boyo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  84. DiGenova… “James Comey’s a criminal and he should be charged.”

    Your lips to God’s ears. He”s going a long way toward erasing his own error in judgement vis-a-vis Eric Holder…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  85. Hannity definitely has privacy interests that he can assert.

    Nobody in the courtroom today did that on his behalf.

    Cohen had a legal duty to contact Hannity when he learned of the search warrants’ execution last Monday, to warn Hannity that the seized files might include attorney-client confidences which might be compromised through compelled disclosure. Cohen’s lawyers report that they did so at some point (presumably over the weekend), and that Hannity objected to having his name revealed. Cohen’s lawyers duly included in their filing this morning a hasty section regarding the right of an anonymous client to stay anonymous in these circumstances, because yes, that comes up not infrequently, and yes, there is some precedent on point from prior cases. If they had two working brain cells, though, Cohen’s lawyers also warned Hannity that Cohen is now in criminal jeopardy himself, creating an insuperable conflict to Cohen personally trying to represent Hannity in keeping Hannity’s name out of things. And they surely urged Hannity to get his own lawyer, ASAP, if Hannity wanted to try to assert, under seal or in closed proceedings or otherwise, his privilege claims on his own.

    With Hannity declining to show up to assert his own privilege, and with a frankly not very persuasive set of last minute briefing the government hadn’t even had a chance to respond to, Judge Wood denied the request to keep Hannity’s identity secret.

    At that point, Cohen’s lawyer and/or Cohen himself could have said, “Well, Judge, with respect, I decline at this time to reveal this name, and I intend to seek an emergency mandamus order from the Second Circuit overruling your ruling. At that point Judge Wood would have ruled that Cohen was in contempt, put him nominally into the U.S. Marshal’s custody, but sprung him (or his lawyer) long enough to go to the Second Circuit on an emergency basis.

    But instead, they caved.

    If Hannity had hired his own lawyer because he really cared about his privacy, his own lawyer could have filed a better brief, sooner (as Trump did), to protect his own interests, and could have tried to challenge Judge Wood’s ruling.

    But Sean Hannity is a moron, so he didn’t. And now we all know that he’s the mystery client. It’s his own damned fault.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  86. Off-topic: National Review publishes an amazing extended essay adapted from Jonah Goldberg’s upcoming book, The Suicide of the West.

    Economists left and right might bicker over minor details, but they agree that poverty is man’s natural environment. As economist Todd G. Buchholz puts it, “For most of man’s life on earth, he has lived no better on two legs than he had on four.” Nobel Prize–winning economist Douglass C. North and his colleagues write in Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History that “over the long stretch of human history before 1800, the evidence suggests that the long-run rate of growth of per capita income was very close to zero.” Economic historian David S. Landes is not exaggerating when he writes, “The Englishman of 1750 was closer in material things to Caesar’s legionnaires than to his own great-grandchildren.” For roughly 7,500 generations, everywhere in the world — ancient China and Rome, medieval Europe and Aztec-era Mexico — the average person lived on the equivalent of $3 per day.

    Of course, material prosperity isn’t everything. But the progress didn’t stop there. Rapes, deaths by violence and disease, slavery, illiteracy, torture have all declined massively, while rights for women, minorities, the disabled have expanded dramatically. And, with the exception of slavery, which is a more recent human innovation made possible by the agricultural revolution, material misery was natural and normal for us. Then suddenly, almost overnight, that changed.

    What happened? We stumbled into a different world. Following sociologist Robin Fox and historian Ernest Gellner, I call this different world “the Miracle.”

    […]

    It seems axiomatic to me that whatever words can create, they can destroy. And ingratitude is the destroyer’s form. We teach children that the moral of the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg is the danger of greed. But the real moral of the story is ingratitude. A farmer finds an animal, which promises to make him richer than he ever imagined. But rather than nurture and protect this miracle, he resents it for not doing more. In one version, the farmer demands two golden eggs per day. When the goose politely demurs, he kills it out of a sense of entitlement — the opposite of gratitude.

    The Miracle is our goose. And rather than be grateful for it, our schools, our culture, and many of our politicians say we should resent it for not doing more. Conservatism is a form of gratitude, because we conserve only what we are grateful for. Our society is talking itself out of gratitude for the Miracle and teaching our children resentment. Our culture affirms our feelings as the most authentic sources of truth when they are merely the expressions of instincts, and considers the Miracle a code word for white privilege, greed, and oppression.

    This is corruption. And it is a choice. Collectively, we are embracing entitlement over gratitude. That is suicidal. I did not call my book “Decline of the West” or “Death of the West,” because suicide is a choice. We are not victims of cold immutable forces, or suffering from the loss of God’s favor. Nothing is foreordained. There’s no excuse for coasting on the right side of history, because there’s no such thing. Our words alone can save us. When a loved one is suicidal, what do you say to him? You tell him how much he has to live for, how much he should be grateful for. We are choosing to do otherwise.

    Great stuff. Read the whole thing.

    Dave (445e97)

  87. This is an interesting take:

    Cohen, however, may have had an incentive to inflate Hannity’s importance because he’s grasping for ways to impress the judge in Manhattan that there are *lots* of privileged communications in his files and therefore prosecutors shouldn’t be allowed to sift through them willy-nilly. So voila — Hannity is elevated by Cohen to “client” status, whether he really is or not.

    Dana (023079)

  88. I’ve only been held in contempt myself once so far in 38 years of practice, but it was in exactly the kind of circumstances I mentioned above, where I was telling an angry federal district judge that what he’d ordered my client to do was impossible for anyone to do, on the day before Christmas Eve of 1983.

    It made for an interesting firm Holiday Party that same night. As I entered, I heard the senior partner who’d gone with me at the hearing holding forth to the assembled Trial Department partners and their wives, pointing at me and saying loud enough to be heard across the room, “And there’s our man Dyer! C’mere, Dyer, and tell everyone all about how you braved contempt on behalf of our good client in court yesterday!”

    Since I’d been held in contempt, I not only could seek mandamus relief, but habeas corpus relief, and was entitled to make a record in the trial court before going to the Fifth Circuit with that. At the end of the second day of my “record-making,” the judge gave up, reversed himself, and vacated (not merely withdrew) the contempt citation. That felt good, but did not further endear me to him for the rest of the case.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  89. Sean is having trouble not saying he’s a ‘client’ of Cohen’s in his teasers; or be that a stutter, eh, boyo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  90. @ Dana (#88): There’s no doubt that Cohen had every incentive to exaggerate the number of clients and matters potentially affected by the seizures. There’s also no doubt that in their initial papers, including a “sworn statement” signed by one of Cohen’s lawyers, they did indeed badly exaggerate those things, and that Judge Wood quite predictably and appropriately called them on the carpet for it last Friday, leading to this morning’s letter about the ten-but-really-only-three clients.

    Regardless, though, because the privilege belonged to a former client — even an arguable one, a pro bono one to whom Cohen had rendered only casual, unpaid, and sporadic advice — Cohen had to reveal at least that there was a third client, and likewise had a duty of candor to reveal that he’d refused a request to allow his name to be made public. I fault Hannity on this, not Cohen or his lawyers, at least with respect to what they did between Friday and today.

    Not much mentioned in the press, but mentioned in the briefing, is another category of potentially privileged data and communications that could be included in the seized materials, in which Cohen claims he had “strategic relationships” with other law firms on legal matters that he had referred to them (in return for which he got back a cut of their fees through a fee-sharing arrangement). The briefing identifies a few of them; Cohen and his lawyers should have been in touch with them during the preceding week to warn them that they might need to file appearances to protect their clients’ interests if there’s anything about them in Cohen’s files. But none of them showed up, either.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  91. Since I’d been held in contempt, I not only could seek mandamus relief, but habeas corpus relief, and was entitled to make a record in the trial court before going to the Fifth Circuit with that.

    Typical coddling of criminals. Why didn’t they clap you in irons right then and there, and put you on the next flight to Leavenworth?

    :)

    Dave (445e97)

  92. That’s a reasonable consideration; the last-ditch rationale presented in court today was to keep his name ‘undisclosed’ to avoid ’embarrassment’ which in the cutthroat TeeVee and radio biz is to be avoided at all cost- particularly at a network that’s been attempting to reshape its image post-Ailes.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 4/16/2018 @ 4:42 pm

    Does Shep Smith need to do some disclosin’? Like, is he Goth with all that eyeliner or what?

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  93. Loss of way to get ‘compensation’ from a media figure and his contacts that doesn’t involve an invoice and a check.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 4/16/2018 @ 4:46 pm

    Megyn Kelly calls it tit for tat.

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  94. Sorry, Sean. You had an absolute obligation to tell ME of your tangential relationship with Cohen if you seek my eyeballs and ears on behalf of your advertisers and network carriage fees.

    You speak of HONOR all the freaking time. Tonight, you disgraced yourself.

    This is not hair-splitting. You had a direct relationship with arguably the most important party in the most important legal matter of this moment and you failed to disclose this. You broke any inherent trust I may have, or ought to have, held for your work product.

    You go on blasting Comey and his FBI for failure to disclose to your heart’s content. Your pleadings will fall on my deaf ears.

    Ed from SFV (4f3559)

  95. And, no, Cohen is not an attorney. He’s an errand boy cum bagman with a law license and it’s not the same thing.

    nk (dbc370) — 4/16/2018 @ 4:51 pm

    It’s like calling Stormy Daniels a lady.

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  96. @93. He wears flats; that’s disclosure enough.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  97. . The ’embarrassment’ he sought to avoid may have more to do w/any exposure to standards and practices violations at FNC and the radio networks his programs air on than any immediate legal exposure. Taking him off the air would be worse than a jail term to Fox’s boyo.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 4/16/2018 @ 5:11 pm

    They are already outed as friends.

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  98. “Hey, Michael! Nobody on the media has been a better friend to Trump than me. Now, how about a little love back? Like a condo at Trump Tower for de minimis.”

    nk (dbc370) — 4/16/2018 @ 5:19 pm

    Maybe somebody slipped and fell on some steps he built. You need a scummy lawyer for that kind of thing.

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  99. One more time: When a lawyer claims attorney-client privilege, the real party in interest is the client. Even if the court believes the lawyer when he says he is asserting it on the client’s behalf and not to protect himself, the opponent is entitled to know who is litigating against him.

    nk (dbc370) — 4/16/2018 @ 5:29 pm

    Give us this day our daily litigation

    A

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  100. And forgive those who litigate against us

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  101. Shorter Ed from SFV: Boycott!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  102. Just kiddin’…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. Off-topic: Yet another Russian journalist critical of Putin suffers a tragic “accident”

    Dave (445e97)

  104. @80. Corporations are funny things; cable news vs., network news, their standards and practices and so forth; neither men are ‘journalists.’ Our boyo likely has more exposure within the FNC corporate which has yet to comment. May indicate a possible a lack of knowledge of this tie to Cohen. He has lucrative radio network deals as well. Stay-tuned.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  105. @98. Friends ‘with benefits,’ eh, PP.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  106. Cohen wears a pink tie to court… BIG mistake!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  107. Say how was it Bob Bennett was involved with the Senate Ethics Committee on the Keating Five and he represented John McCain?

    Are we supposed to draw conclusions by looking at a lawyer’s clients? Like a confluence?

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  108. john mccain’s a sleazy worthless layabout

    and a coward to boot

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  109. @ Dave (#92), who wrote, re my anecdote (#89):

    Typical coddling of criminals. Why didn’t they clap you in irons right then and there, and put you on the next flight to Leavenworth?

    :)

    They nearly did.

    We’d had a hearing about a month earlier in which I had predicted to the judge that my client could not possibly do what he was ordering us to do, which ended with him saying “Do your best.” We did, the other side predictably wasn’t satisfied with that, and moved to have me and the client held in contempt. At the hearing, my opponent (as movant) made his pitch — pretty short and sweet, saying, “They didn’t do what you ordered.” And I stood up and said, “May it please the Court,” which is how I always begin.

    And from behind the bench, in his robes, the judge stood up with me. I stopped for a moment, but figured he was just stretching his legs, so I went on, “The court will recall that –” and he pointed his finger at me.

    “Shh.” He said. “Mr. Dyer, I hold you and your client in contempt,” at which point he turned and began walking toward the door behind the bench area, continuing, “and I fine you $10,000,” at which point he opened the door, “until you purge yourself of this contempt.” And the door slammed closed.

    The courtroom deputy clerk, seated right in front of me, looked up at me and whispered, “Mr. Dyer! Mr. Dyer! Don’t leave the courtroom until I check with the judge to see if you have to pay the $10,000 now!”

    At which point, swear to God, I patted my pockets. I bit my lip to keep from asking her, “Do you take American Express?” — imagining the conversation I was going to have with AMEX before they approved that charge.

    She shot off back into chambers to confer with His Honor, and came back and said, “He says you can leave for now and he’ll see you again after Christmas.”

    So I spent Christmas Eve writing my application for an oral evidentiary hearing to make a record for my habeas petition, and we began presenting evidence on that two days after Christmas, if I recall correctly, and the judge gave up just before New Year’s Eve.

    He’s no longer on the bench — resigned unexpectedly. In one of those “small worlds” moments, though, his third-grade son and mine were in the same karate class, and I sat down next to him to watch one day because it was the only open seat in the room. He leaned over to me and whispered, “I’m really sorry about that contempt thing.” I nodded and didn’t say a word.

    There are more stories to tell about that case that I can’t tell here because — yeah, attorney-client privilege.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  110. Trump can pardon Cohen right now for any federal crime Cohen might have committed since the Founding of the United States. And keep pardoning him daily for any new crimes until January 20, 2020. But only federal crimes.

    nk (dbc370) — 4/16/2018 @ 5:54 pm

    Trump has a Pardon of the Day calendar on The Resolute Desk.

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  111. Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, says there’s a civil war going on and there can only be one winner. Guess what, conservative users of Twitter: it ain’t you.

    Let your narcissistic conscience be your guide.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  112. @110 The best “contempt” story I heard (apocryphal, I’m sure) was a lawyer was asked by a Judge: “Are you showing contempt for this court?” Lawyers response: “No, your honor. I’m doing my best to conceal it.”

    pete (a65bac)

  113. Trump asking Arab nations to replace US military in Syria after defeat of ISIS: report

    omg it’s like he thinks I’m mad so he’s trying to do all this charming stuff all up in it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  114. Kimba Wood, judge of choice to conduct the ceremony when the Lizard People marry.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 4/16/2018 @ 6:12 pm

    Judge Wood seems like a good sort of jurist but unlucky in love. Hopefully it won’t rub off on Anna Nicole Soros Healthcare Consultant.

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  115. Hannity treated the news that his lawyer’s office had been raided, and that data relating to him may have been seized, like it was a wedding invitation to which he could RSVP a regretful “not attending.”

    And we’re supposed to feel sorry for how he’s being crushed under a fascist jackboot? Piffle.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  116. And we’re supposed to feel sorry for how he’s being crushed under a fascist jackboot?

    he’s kinda like anne frank 2018

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  117. @110 The best “contempt” story I heard (apocryphal, I’m sure) was a lawyer was asked by a Judge: “Are you showing contempt for this court?” Lawyers response: “No, your honor. I’m doing my best to conceal it.”

    That was Mae West in My Little Chickadee.

    The Groucho Marx version is:
    — Do you want me to hold you in contempt?
    — You can hold me any way you want, Judge.

    nk (dbc370)

  118. In my experience most judges love to conduct wedding ceremonies. One of the Harris County District Judges, a former colleague of mine now retiring after the better part of two decades on the bench, is nicknamed “the Love Judge” because he’ll interrupt almost anything else at the drop of a hat to marry any two people who ask if they have the license in-hand. The other thing judges particularly love to do is swear in newly naturalized U.S. citizens. And also, sometimes, approving adoptions.

    So easy to do, no thinking required, nobody appeals, everyone leaves happy.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  119. A group of senators led by U.S. Senators Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Tim Kaine, a committee Democrat, proposed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, that would authorize “all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaeda, the Taliban, Islamic State and associated forces.

    It does not authorize military action against any nation state, including Syria.

    seems for all the whirl they’re just wanting to codify the status quo

    senators are really stupid and worthless creatures it’s not just john mccain

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  120. Hannity treated the news that his lawyer’s office had been raided, and that data relating to him may have been seized, like it was a wedding invitation to which he could RSVP a regretful “not attending.”

    And we’re supposed to feel sorry for how he’s being crushed under a fascist jackboot? Piffle.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 4/16/2018 @ 7:54 pm

    Yes! He should be thankful Cohen wasn’t subjected to the Manafort Treatment, having their doors knocked down in a pre-dawn, guns drawn raid, having his wife patted down while still in her bedclothes.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  121. I know one judge who’s default wedding ceremony, unless you ask for something else, is to look at the couple and say, “Do you want to be married?” If they both nod, he says, “Okay, now you are. Congratulations.” He’s not being cold or ruthless, he says it with a very warm smile and then comes around from the bench to shake hands. But nothing more is needed.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  122. The Dismal Tide. It ain’t the one thing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  123. $10,000? Everything is bigger in Texas. One time, in Chicago, I got into a small tiff with the opposing party in the courtroom of the best judge in the Civil Division when the judge had gone to his chambers for a few minutes, and the tattletale snitched me out when the judge came back. I understood the judge to say, “Counsel, that will cost you $100.00″, then he proceeded to rule in my favor on the issue we were there for. At the end, I asked “Do I pay the $100.00 now, your Honor?” He said, “No, that was if you do it again.”

    nk (dbc370)

  124. So if you did get fined for that sort of thing, would your law firm cover it (assuming it didn’t involve obvious malfeasance)? Stick the client with the bill as an expense? Or are you poor overpaid shysters on your own?

    Dave (445e97)

  125. About the only thing I can remember from the very entertaining 1980s TV show “L.A. Law” was that in every episode, at least one male or female lawyer got held in contempt after some extravagant but righteously delicious misbehavior in court, and was then taken to jail in handcuffs. And in roughly half of the episodes, that lawyer, or a colleague, then had sex with a judge, opponent, bailiff, jailer, cop, janitor, Fortune 500 CEO, or professional athlete, which somehow resulted in the lawyer getting sprung from jail on a technicality so that he could go on to win the case.

    That, and they also had great closing arguments! It was worth it for trial lawyers to watch that show just to see how you really can, if you have to, pare your argument down to 2:28 so it will fit before the commercial break.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  126. @ Dave (#125): It varies. But these were in my blue-chip BigLaw salad days, $10k was a pittance compared to the fees & expenses the client was already paying, their in-house counsel was in the courtroom watching it all play out (along with the senior partner I’d brought along), and if the client hadn’t bailed me out (not technically bail, but close), the firm would have. I wouldn’t have been much of a martyr very long, and having just come out of a Fifth Circuit clerkship, I knew all the emergency drills and could have gotten relief there within a matter of a day or two at most. I didn’t need my toothbrush, didn’t bring my tin cup to rattle against the bars.

    It wasn’t the first time that this judge had done something that bizarre, either, so it’s not like I was actually surprised at the result. I was surprised he stood up before I’d finished the first sentence in my argument, though.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  127. So if you did get fined for that sort of thing, would your law firm cover it (assuming it didn’t involve obvious malfeasance)? Stick the client with the bill as an expense? Or are you poor overpaid shysters on your own?

    Dave (445e97) — 4/16/2018 @ 8:21 pm

    You mortgage your house.

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  128. Indirect criminal contempt is obvious malfeasance, and I was the law firm. And, no, I would not stick the client for the fine.

    nk (dbc370)

  129. the FBI was sent after Michael Cohen on a fishing expedition of ‘campaign finance irregularities”. As the US Attorney agreed to this fishing expedition, the FBI in rooting through all of these personal files, looking at President Trump, what churned out was an unnamed financial source investing money into real estate, and that is what the US Attorney, FBI and the Clinton friendly Judge zeroed in on, was real estate and money.

    Literally, this witch hunt thought they hit pay dirt in an unnamed investor and client. They thought they struck upon a Russian investor, who Michael Cohen was working as a go between with President Trump and the money was payoff as Cohen had the handling fee for this money transfer. They thought that the Russians were rewarded in this way for helping Trump steal the election.

    That is the standard operating procedure in what Robert Mueller has been constantly probing. This instance it caught an innocent Sean Hannity who apparently ended up on a bling list of this attorney who for tax reasons was properly taking deductions in claiming Hannity as a client as he did provide Hannity legal advice.

    There of course is nothing Russian here, but I could see Mueller via the New York zealotry of Justice, stating that Hannity allowing Cohen to appear on his program was “payment” for legal advice and in this witch hunt Hannity can be indicted for asking a question.

    Lame Cherry

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  130. @ nk (#124): Yes, I’ve seen sanctions and fines “commuted” or suspended or conveniently forgotten too from time to time, usually as an act of grace with which I had no quibble.

    During the era of the “60 Minutes” Texas Supreme Court in the 1980s, there was a ton of litigation resolved via sanctions practice, with “death penalty” sanctions — striking of pleadings and defenses, directing of verdicts, fines, so I actually saw a whole lot more of that then than I see now: It was one of the first abuses reined in as Texans freed ourselves from that thoroughly corrupt appellate court and replaced its justices with the current sort of thoroughly tort-reformed ones. Contempt was still pretty rare as a procedural path, though, precisely because it gave early appellate avenues that interlocutory orders didn’t; the sanctions typically were used to coerce settlements to avoid more than a “fixable” number of appeals.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  131. nk is very old school (#129), and I admire him for it, if it’s not clear.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  132. Thank you, Beldar. Likewise.

    nk (dbc370)

  133. Beldar, nk, and a few others: thank you for not descending into the “lawyers are evil” snarkfesting and off topic weirdnesses. Your comments have taught me a lot on this topic, and THAT is the value that Patterico’s commenters can bring.

    Much appreciated.

    Simon Jester (3697fa)

  134. Now thousands of TeeVee viewers and radio listeners understand why Fox’s boyo railed against the raid in support of Cohen for days; you know… compensation.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  135. @ Simon Jester (#134): Thank you for the kind remarks. It’s not a very exclusive club, but I still try to hang on to my membership card. As always, as I watch these things play out in the media, I can’t help but second-guess all the lawyers and all the clients and all the judges, each of whom put their knickers on one leg at a time.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  136. And as is to be expected given our host’s own day-job and interests, there are several really good lawyers who comment here, with others who lurk but occasionally chime in, many of whom have expertise in legal areas in which I have little, so I’ve learned a ton of things from these comments myself, Simon!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  137. I am Michael Cohen’s client! – Pinandpuller
    I am Michael Cohen’s client! – happyfeet
    I am Michael Cohen’s client! – David Dennison
    I am Spartacus! – Tony Curtis

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  138. @94. Megyn Kelly calls it tit for tat.

    Cleverage, PP.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  139. Fox News commentator Sean Hannity…

    A potato is a common tater, too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  140. A supermarket is to introduce touch-free packaging to help squeamish millennials who are afraid to touch raw meat before cooking it.

    Sainsburys said it was bringing in the straight-to-pan plastic pouches, which are known in the industry as “doypacks”, after a survey showed the prospect of coming into contact with uncooked meat products induced high levels of anxiety among shoppers under the age of 35.

    “Customers, particularly younger ones, are quite scared of touching raw meat,” Katherine Hall, product development manager for meat, fish and poultry at the retailer, told The Sunday Times.

    “These bags allow people, especially those who are time-poor, to just ‘rip and tip’ the meat straight into the frying pan without touching it.”

    The fear of contamination by bacteria such as campylobacter, which is found in some raw poultry and can cause severe food poisoning, was so great that one woman admitted in a focus group to coating her chicken with antibacterial spray before cooking it, Ms Hall recalled.

    Oh Honey, no.

    Telegraph

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  141. I’ve got to say this for Cohen, though:

    It must be economical to have a practice in which you can meet in person with all of your clients, standing shoulder to shoulder in the men’s room of your average Manhattan strip club, and still have a urinal or two left over.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  142. A prominent lawyer who spent years fighting for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people set himself on fire Saturday.

    David S. Buckel’s charred remains were found in a New York park, The New York Times reported. In a letter Buckel emailed to the publication and other media outlets earlier that day, he wrote, “Honorable purpose in life invites honorable purpose in death.”

    By 2016, Buckel was focusing on protecting the environment. As a senior organics recovery coordinator for an initiative hosted by the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, he wrote about how Brooklynites were composting food with the help of solar and wind energy.

    On the last day of his life, he reportedly emphasized environmental responsibility, stating in a note to the media, “Pollution ravages our planet, oozing inhabitability via air, soil, water and weather. Most humans on the planet now breathe air made unhealthy by fossil fuels, and many die early deaths as a result — my early death by fossil fuel reflects what we are doing to ourselves.”

    NPR

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  143. (As for how I know that statistic — I can’t talk about it, I learned it through a client who’s subject to an NDA. Srsly.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  144. Hannity insists that the legal matter on which he might have paid Cohen $10 to keep privileged was a very limited situation involving real estate.

    Whatcha bet that Trump was throwing to various sycophants some bits and pieces of a deal he was handling, giving them a little taste of something he’d already conned his way into?

    Whatcha bet that Hannity asked Cohen some questions about that, even though Cohen had a palpable conflict from his representation of Trump? (It would be a waivable conflict if so agreed by both after full disclosure; maybe Cohen’s files have a nice written waiver signed by Hannity. No? You think not?)

    Whatcha bet Cohen has a piece (probably much bigger) of the same deal too? (Again: waivable, but only after full disclosure.)

    Of course, I’m making wild guesses. But that would sure answer the question: Why would a guy like Hannity, who can afford a real lawyer and surely has used other lawyers in his own career and investment dealings, have an attorney-client relationship with a lamprey eel like Cohen?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  145. Who thinks Cohen funded Broidy’s $1.6M payoff to the as-yet-unrevealed Playmate out of his own personal funds with no expectation of ever being repaid in whole or part?

    A lawyer’s expectation of being paid and the terms under which he is to be paid are not, in general, protected by attorney-client privilege if they’re relevant in some way to the case. The most common example is when an attorney is seeking to recover an award of attorney’s fees as part of his client’s overall recovery?

    Who thinks that a big Trump financial backer, who’s already donated his way onto the RNC, and who’s using Cohen to pay out $1.6M on his own behalf, might also have decided to reimburse Cohen on Trump’s behalf for the comparatively trivial sums paid to Stormy and Karen McDougal?

    Or who thinks there may be more bimbos yet to erupt, still awed by their NDAs?

    Or who’ve erupted in terms of a demand letter to Trump, but without yet going public (since that re-sets all the negotiating leverages)?

    I dunno, I’m just brainstorming. After finding out that Sean Hannity was Cohen’s third-of-three client, I’m willing to believe anything, no matter how outrageous, is within the realm of possibility, during this, the second year of the Benevolent Reign of President Oh-No-You-Didn’t!?!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  146. Barbara Moore doesn’t look like a slag. I’m just fascinated by people getting pulled into other people’s legal battles.

    I need to go back to my true crime podcasts for research but there was a case where a sketchy couple wanted some acquaintance to testify as a character witness and the guy ended up being accused. I think it was part of one of those Satanic Child Care cases.

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  147. Who thinks that a big Trump financial backer, who’s already donated his way onto the RNC, and who’s using Cohen to pay out $1.6M on his own behalf, might also have decided to reimburse Cohen on Trump’s behalf for the comparatively trivial sums paid to Stormy and Karen McDougal?

    Reports are that Baird?sp. paid the 1.6 million, that Cohen negotiated the amount, it was for damages and future child support most likely.

    Still waiting to find out what the SDNY, which btw has a dismal success rate in court convictions, is charging Cohen with.

    Also PP readers should review Pats excellent articles of federal prosecutors misconduct with evidence in the Aaron Swartz case where an email,quite matter of factory showed the intent to seize CRITICAL evidence without a warrant. And in the case of James Okeefe where the federal prosecutor destroyed okeefes video and audio evidence without informing okeefe

    EPWJ (134698)

  148. So when some attorneys imperiously say the doj and fbi are above reproach should then review the branch Dravidian case, the shooting of a mother in Montana while holding a baby, the parkland hs massacre, and the fact that possibly on of their OWN informants, killed a bunch of people in Orlando’s horrible nightclub incident.

    And the DOJ shameful decades long harassment of the families who tried to sue Libya for the Lockerbie tragedy.

    And the decades long protection of that Boston mobster, who killed sooo many young people, so they could make the price of cocaine more expensive in bean town

    EPWJ (134698)

  149. @147. Gee, have we established a pattern yet?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  150. And the DOJ shameful decades long harassment of the families who tried to sue Libya for the Lockerbie tragedy.

    EPWJ (134698) — 4/17/2018 @ 1:12 am

    Didn’t the FBI and DOJ threaten to prosecute families for paying ransom?

    Pinandpuller (ac3c29)

  151. OK. If anyone you know has a self-proclaimed “fixer” for a lawyer, you need to get the hell away. Run.

    noel (b4d580)

  152. common “Fixer” definitions… (Webster, Urban)

    …a person who intervenes to enable someone to circumvent the law or obtain a political favor

    …a person who makes arrangements for other people, especially of an illicit or devious kind.

    …someone hired or on the payroll of an illegal organization

    noel (b4d580)

  153. I call them…. HANNITY PEARLS.

    But those aren’t really pearls around your neck, Sean. They’re the even rarer Presidential hemorrhoid.

    noel (b4d580)

  154. Pi andpuller

    Yep, when I was running the das office, we were threatened daily by thugs from the fbi and the doj, daily, really, daily…

    EPWJ (25c64c)

  155. And freedom watch is foia the search warrant, they have heard rumors there was no 265, in other words a raid, a magistrate, a midnight court run

    No top level

    Also the fbi under obama was watching Cohen in 2016

    EPWJ (25c64c)

  156. http://theweek.com/articles/767786/americans-dont-pay-enough-taxes

    Front and center reasons why trump won’t be impeached

    EPWJ (25c64c)

  157. “Why would a guy like Hannity, who can afford a real lawyer and surely has used other lawyers in his own career and investment dealings, have an attorney-client relationship with a lamprey eel like Cohen?”

    – Beldar

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the relationship was intended to streamline the provision of Hannity’s marching orders, with the hope of concealing said provision.

    Leviticus (0b0b02)


  158. I wouldn’t be surprised if the relationship was intended to streamline the provision of Hannity’s marching orders, with the hope of concealing said provision.


    So you assume since the leftists give written “marching orders” to their coconspirators in the press so did Trump to Hannity? Have you evidence? Couldn’t it be that the one and only truly loyal Trump supporter on TV actually likes and believes in what Trump is saying? Or must he be a bought and paid for toady like Suffinopolis and the like?

    That’s an interesting way of sliming Hannity without actually sliming Hannity while simultaneously inferring he’s in collusion with Trump and thus sliming Trump (which has come to be expected).

    I guess what they say is true, the best way to avoid being the Subject of the Witch Hunt…is to JOIN the Witch Hunt…

    Just when I figured lawyers couldn’t get any lower they dip to throwing away lawyer/client privilege and any prior ideas of privacy in general just to join the coup. Cause, Trump.

    Are you all that unhappy Hillary lost?

    Rev.Hoagie (1b0402)

  159. This entire thread of arguments, that this is even an issue at all in the news let alone one consuming so much hysteria, is a significant indication of what a clown show the legal profession has made of the law and social interaction in general…though not to entirely let the citizenry that tolerates this stupidity off the hook either…A man spoke with a lawyer about stuff. Didn’t ever pay the lawyer. And now it’s some big deal. Hell, I’ve shot pool with a few lawyers (all of them, BTW, were crappy and annoying pool players) and in the process discussed the law in general. I have very little idea who their other clients were, though one was a public defender. If by chance any of these clowns were “fixers” in a sense, would that count in this context? And would it count as what? I talk to all kinds of people, get their perspectives on things. Some of them I wouldn’t trust to watch my dog. But that doesn’t mean what they know somehow corrupts what I learned from them. And especially not me. Now if I did hire them to work for me, that might, probably in most circumstances, reflect on me. But much of that would be dependent upon the specific circumstance.

    Wife and I are currently in the process of having our will/whatevers done. In the contract we need to sign to have the legal firm start the process, in the “ACCEPTANCE:” paragraph is the sentence, “It would be prudent to seek the advice and counsel of another attorney as to your rights under this contract”. Of course I would probably need to sign a contract with that lawyer that perhaps would need to be reviewed by appropriate legal counsel. I have a copy of my sod-busting great-grandfather’s will, typed on thin, cheap paper, that consists of half the number of pages as this contract with this lawyer just to have this will done.

    The basic problem here is when you get to the heart of the matter, peel away the numerous layers of the onion, our society, but especially our legal class, has no sense of morals or honor. If it is not written down in infinite detail in words that God only knows how those words will be interpreted in the future, then it is open for abuse. To even suggest that the primary objective of our legal system should be justice for all involved has been openly mocked by some of the more prominent commenting lawyers here. I don’t believe it is at all naive to say that elements of a legal system that is not putting Justice first, is a despicable situation. Yes, it is naive to expect some perfection from a system devised by man. And yes, everyone has their own warped view of what Justice is. But when man cannot control his appetites, his greed, his sadistic will without tempering such with a higher ideal of seeking Justice or dare I say under the eye of a powerful God, we get such an evil system.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  160. Rev Hoagie

    Judge just ruled towards Cohen, putting a hold on everything until Cohen, reviews the documents first.

    A lawyer friend, said initially, he thought the chances the govt was going to have to return the material was zero, dead flat out concrete zero, now the needle just got off the impossible line…..

    Heh

    Grab a chair popcorn watch the haters

    EPWJ (25c64c)

  161. “Why would a guy like Hannity, who can afford a real lawyer and surely has used other lawyers in his own career and investment dealings, have an attorney-client relationship with a lamprey eel like Cohen?”

    That is demonstrably false. Cohen is a human being. Order in the court!

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  162. “But those aren’t really pearls around your neck, Sean. They’re the even rarer Presidential hemorrhoid.”

    noel (b4d580) — 4/17/2018 @ 4:02 am

    noel the republican.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  163. Tentative book title: The Accidental Attorney. When it’s the attorney who asserts the existence of an attorney-client relationship contrary to the supposed client’s understanding. A play of words on “accidental client” which is a real thing.

    A butcher goes to a local attorney and asks: “If an unleashed dog steals a cut of meat from my shop, is its owner liable?” The attorney responds “Yes”. (For the sake of the brevity of this story, assume that a lawyer would ever give a one-word answer to a question.) The butcher says: “It was your dog. Here is my invoice for $12.00 for the filet your dog stole.” The next day the butcher receives a letter from the lawyer: “Enclosed please find my check in the amount of $12.00 in accordance with your invoice, as well my bill in the amount of $300.00 for the legal consultation.”

    nk (dbc370)

  164. 147… Poncey Dave, News of teh World…

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  165. The next day the butcher receives a letter from the lawyer: “Enclosed please find my check in the amount of $12.00 in accordance with your invoice, as well my bill in the amount of $300.00 for the legal consultation.”

    So nk…Just to be clear…Do you think the lawyer in such a situation is right to charge the $300 or wrong?

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  166. 143… a flaming homosexual?

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  167. Scorcher

    EvERY insidious law written in America, from slavery, to denying women basic human rights, were written by lawyers from top schools and generally overturned by lawyers from the heartland of America.

    Think about all those laws into the 50’s that were passed by senators and representatives overwhelmingly lawyers that had to be overturned by the republic peoples senators the majority who were businessmen in the 60’s

    The legal community is out of control like the doj and the FBI, and needs to start permanently disbarring lawyers and judges.

    Take for instance Daniels attorney, disbarred twice, yep twice, obviously has NOCASE, is obviously trying to blackmail the president for yet a third payment to Daniels, something a few of the braying donkey lawyers here are forgetting, that this women failed to con her way on the apprentice (probably was paid for her time),was paid a significant sum by a tabloid in 2011, but thought it too risky to print her unverified story, and because of the billy bush tape decided to try again

    EPWJ (25c64c)

  168. Col h

    Noel strangely reminds me of Kimberlins publicist Bill Schmalfeldt, his comments were always deeply homophobic

    EPWJ (25c64c)

  169. So nk…Just to be clear…Do you think the lawyer in such a situation is right to charge the $300 or wrong?

    Absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as an accidental attorney. If the client does not think you are his attorney, you are not his attorney. Which is why Cohen is in hot water by Hannity denying that Cohen was his attorney.

    nk (dbc370)

  170. However, accidental client is a real thing that attorneys need to watch out for. Beldar illustrated it with his disclaimer: “I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer.”

    nk (dbc370)

  171. I have actually used that phrase, person to person. A lady came up to me in the courthouse hallway and asked: “Excuse me, are you an attorney?” I said “Yes, but I cannot be your attorney.” She said, “I know that.” After that, I helped her out as best as I could with finding her case on the docket sheet and telling her where to go to check in with the court clerk.

    nk (dbc370)

  172. I always know who my lawyers are. I have the cancelled checks to prove it. No check, no business relationship. That ain’t hard it’s business 101.

    Rev.Hoagie (1b0402)

  173. Hannity can hire any two-bit porn “fixer” he wants but when you are reporting on that fixer on a news network, you might want to mention it’s YOUR “lawyer” too. Oh, he didn’t hire him? He didn’t pay him? But he wants attorney-client privilege?

    Look! Over there! The FBI is up to something.

    noel (b4d580)

  174. Absolutely wrong

    OK. Good. But you of course understand why I had to ask.

    I shall now return to my previous rumination as to whether or not I should hire a lawyer to review the contract I am about to sign with a lawyer.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  175. And please don’t give me that “Sean Hannity is not a reporter, he is an opinion host” excuse. Sean doesn’t give us his opinions…. he parrots Trump’s.

    noel (b4d580)

  176. For estate work, you should want a lawyer who is so punctilious that he tells you to get another lawyer to check his work. Because if it’s some New York taxi fleet owner with a law license and he f’ks up your will, you won’t be around to set things straight.

    nk (dbc370)

  177. The Mugwumps were Republican political activists who bolted from the United States Republican Party by supporting Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland in the United States presidential election of 1884. They switched parties because they rejected the financial corruption associated with Republican candidate James G. Blaine. In a close election, the Mugwumps supposedly made the difference in New York state and swung the election to Cleveland. The jocular word mugwump, noted as early as 1832, is from Algonquian (Natick) mugquomp, “important person, kingpin” (from mugumquomp, “war leader”), implying that they were “sanctimonious” or “holier-than-thou,” in holding themselves aloof from party politics.

    I was looking at the news of the Cleveland Indians abandoning the Chief Wahoo logo from their ball caps to commemorate “Jackie Robinson” day.
    This got me thinking what does Jackie Robinson have to do with the Cleveland Indians? Absolutely nothing.
    Different leagues. The Dodgers never play the Indians unless they meet in the world series.
    Larry Doby was the first negro to play for Cleveland. Helped them win the world series of 1948.

    Wikipedia is pretty good for showing when things ended. Not so good with coming clean about when things began, cause Jackie Robinson wasn’t the first negro to play Major League Baseball.

    The first professional black baseball player was Bud Fowler, the son of an escaped slave who made a living picking hops in Cooperstown, New York. Bud learned the game from Abner Doubleday himself.
    Bud Fowler played his first professional game in 1872 at the age of 14, then off and on right up til the year 1888, when Major League Baseball, echoing the Democratic Party platform for the reelection of Grover Cleveland, banned blacks from playing the game.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  178. Sean doesn’t give us his opinions…. he parrots Trump’s

    And, just for the sake of argument assuming this is 100% true, this refutes his role as an “opinion host” how, exactly?

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  179. It’s really between Hannity and Fox. Payola used to be a thing — a crime — in radio but I don’t know what the rules are for cable talking heads.

    nk (dbc370)

  180. you should want a lawyer who is so punctilious that he tells you to get another lawyer to check his work.

    Well, this firm comes to me with a very good recommendation. And in general, were we talking about a domain with more rigor to it, I would agrees. I’m guessing the wording is somewhat boilerplate or required by statute. Whatever. The thing is, hopefully it will be a long time before this document is actually executed. Hundreds (thousands?) of laws will be passed (I was gonna say “come and go” but “go”? hahahaha) and the very meaning of those words likely will have been bastardized in so many possible ways, will it really matter? The firm, possibly the people making up the firm, may not even exist at that point. What is important is to have something and to avoid any further legal entanglements as much as possible. Personally, my preference would be quite simple. Have everything converted to cash, put in a big pile, and burned. But I’m told that this one wish is simply not possible nor legal. So really, what’s the point?

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  181. I know it’s confusing. He often appears to be reporting news. He is on a news network but I am not saying that he is a legitimate reporter. And he is not a true opinion journalist… he is most accurately called a propagandist.

    noel (b4d580)

  182. See now first the Democrats frucked Bud by banning him from pro ball, then through the temperance movement they double borked him through his day job as a hop farmer. Prohibition of beer.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  183. he is most accurately called a propagandist.

    Like that’s so rare these days.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  184. You frocking bunch of pufferfish.

    Cohen is a multi-millionaire. He drove to law school in a Bentley. You going to tell me he’s a dips[edit] while looking over the dashboard of your Subaru?

    Hannity has a New York based television show, a world of iceholes and backstabbers actively wishing him harm. It’s a fulltime gig. Too busy to waist time searching out and nursing the ego of some poppin jay lawyer, hoping they aren’t as full of sit as they sound over the phone.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  185. How rich was Bernard Madoff? Or Charles “Jared’s Daddy” Kushner when Christie sent him up?

    BTW, Fred Trump drove a mere Cadillac. But he’d trade it in every two years.

    nk (dbc370)

  186. Going to Starbucks. Hope I don’t land in jail. Just kidding. I’m white!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  187. Enjoy! https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/15-1498_1b8e.pdf Sessions v. Dimaya. The Supreme Court seems to be serious about its resurrection of the “void for vagueness” standard in non-First Amendment cases.

    nk (dbc370)

  188. What does any of this fustercluck have to do with what Mueller was originally tasked with doing, i.e., “Russian Collusion”?

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  189. nk (dbc370) — 4/17/2018 @ 8:44 am

    Gorsuch votes with the 4 liberals to overturn a law requiring deportation of a criminal alien…

    Dave (445e97)

  190. This isn’t Mueller’s case, Haiku.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  191. What does any of this fustercluck have to do with what Mueller was originally tasked with doing, i.e., “Russian Collusion”?

    Mueller has nothing to do with it. Try to keep up.

    Dave (445e97)

  192. It resulted from Mueller’s activities, try to keep up.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  193. Yes, and he passed it off, because it was outside his remit. So I don’t get what you’re complaining about. Is he just supposed to ignore any unrelated wrongdoing?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  194. Mr nk you need a t shirt that says “Not for Hire” like limos and commercial trucks. For after work hours I mean.

    Pinandpuller (e476ee)

  195. You don’t have to be lonely

    At lawyers only dot com

    Pinandpuller (e476ee)

  196. the fascist pussyhat fbi was illegally targeting Mr. Cohen long before Mueller was even appointed

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  197. Skorcher,

    I don’t know you or your attorneys and I am not your attorney, but my guess is your estate law attorneys put that provision in all their contract because:

    1.) They will represent you you and your wife in preparing your Wills. In that role, they will give you the best advice they can about what the Wills should say and how they should be signed, stored, recorded (if desired), etc. They owe you a duty of care, loyalty, and confidentiality as your attorneys, and will look out for your interests in preparing the Wills.

    2.) However, regarding the contract, the attorneys are dealing with you at arms’ length like the parties to any contract. When it comes to the contract, and only the contract, you are each looking out for your own interests. Accordingly, there may be provisions that benefit the attorneys instead of you, and vice versa. For instance, the contract may say that if you file a lawsuit about the contract, you agree to sue the attorneys in the city/county where the law firm is, instead of where you reside (if you reside in another city/county). That is why you might want legal advice about the contract, so you understand what it provides.

    DRJ (0280d9)

  198. This is the Great Embedded Bureaucracy Inquisition.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  199. Is he just supposed to ignore any unrelated wrongdoing?

    Convenient.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  200. Souter moment alert.

    “Strange new respect…”

    Dave (445e97)

  201. Throw schiff at the wall, see if anything sticks.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  202. Trump and Cohens lawyers are going submit this, the FBI and the DOJ are never going to get their hands on those files

    Coming soon…

    “In the coming weeks, Horowitz will follow up with entrees on the FBI’s partisan activities in the 2016 presidential election and, later, another report on (if I may employ the term) collusion with the State Department. . . . Andrew McCabe, you might recall, was a central player in the pseudo-investigation of Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified information and self-enrichment schemes while Secretary of State. He was one of the people who made sure that went nowhere. He was also a central figure in the get-Mike-Flynn operation and, later, the Great Trump Hunt that has been occupying Robert Mueller for nearly a year. McCabe leaked information about an investigation to a Wall Street Journal reporter, lied about leaking in casual conversations with superiors as well as under oath. Attorney Jeff Sessions, digesting a preliminary report on McCabe’s conduct, fired him in March 2018 (not even a month ago, but it seems like forever).”

    ~Rodger Simon Pjmedia

    EPWJ (94362d)

  203. Meanwhile, back in Land of Reality, Clinton email server… classified info… Clinton Foundation’s Pay to Play… Obama employment of federal agencies against perceived political enemies… highly politicized/weaponized federal bureaucracy… etc., etc., etc.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  204. Try to keep up, ConDave, Cthulhu…

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  205. Gives whole new meaning to “America… what a country!!!”

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  206. Shall we dig up Alan Colmes for equal time Mr noel? And The Fairness Doctrine? They both stink.

    Pinandpuller (e476ee)

  207. Willem Dafoe threatened Stephanie “Stormy” Clifford?!?!

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Da_rEH3U8AAHrKj.jpg

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  208. Conman, lawyer judge Gorsuch should be beat to his death by illegal gang members.

    mg (9e54f8)

  209. Mg gets the sitcom-style roaring applause upon his entry.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  210. The Fairness Doctrine. What a pile of liberal dung that was. I know folks who could not order paid advertising of their conservative views on local radio or tv as a result of that thing. You get no defense of it from me. I welcomed Rush and FoxNews to the scene as well. It’s why I am so disappointed in FoxNews and especially Sean Hannity because, in my opinion, they are now a tool of the state (Administration) themselves.

    noel (b4d580)

  211. Mr nk you need a t shirt that says “Not for Hire” like limos and commercial trucks. For after work hours I mean.

    Maybe so. But I’ll tell you what. Sean Hannity would not be embarrassed to have it known that I was his attorney.

    nk (dbc370)

  212. As for the Supreme Court case, Gorsuch voted exactly the same way Scalia did (in fact Scalia wrote the opinion) in Johnson v. United State which interpreted the identical statutory provision in a criminal, not a deportation, case. It’s good, folks, it’s good, trust me! You want laws that let you know that what you are doing is a crime, instead of having to wait until the jury comes in.

    nk (dbc370)

  213. Sean Hannity would not be embarrassed to have it known that I was his attorney.

    But you would be embarrassed to have it known that you were his attorney.

    (Or not, maybe criminal defense attorneys develop an immunity to that sort of thing…)

    Dave (445e97)

  214. It’s good, folks, it’s good, trust me! You want laws that let you know that what you are doing is a crime, instead of having to wait until the jury comes in.

    Get with the result-oriented program, nk.

    Immigrants: bad
    Deportation: good

    Dave (445e97)

  215. Illegal Immigrants: bad
    Deportation: good

    FIFYTML

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  216. By their mischaracterizations they will be exposed…

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  217. Yes, DRJ. I understand all that. I know it is hard for lawyers to understand that we unwashed plebs are actually capable of understanding basic written English as well is how the world supposedly works. Unlike lawyers’ often inability to understand how businesses, construction, medicine, software, etc. actually work. We’re not all dummies out here.

    The problem is that laws, and more importantly the interpretation of such, shift so much and so often that we now need lawyers to protect us from the lawyers we actually hire to protect us from other people’s lawyers. I was not raising that point about our Wills for my own edification nor seeking free lawyerly advice. I was simply pointing out, based on my own very recent personal experience, that in this world we have sunk to the point where it has become necessary for even the lawyers we hire and pay to let us know that it might be prudent for us to hire other lawyers to protect us from the potentiality of malfeasance by the lawyers of the first part. In such a world, is it that unreasonable that a public figure such as SH, who does have considerable casual access to numerous high profile legal persons, would seek out casual legal perspectives? In the context as someone above said to the effect of ask two lawyers a question and get three different opinions? He’s not a person like you or me. He’s not even a common public figure. A somewhat common but high profile figure in the political domain however, thus many, many people are actively involved in trying to destroy him. Because they have nothing better to do. And I’m guessing a good number of them are unemployed/low employed lawyers or wannabes or bird dogs for such.

    And full disclosure, I never cared for the guy. Even his damn commercials aggravate me. Every sentence stars with “Now…”.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  218. @171. That ain’t hard it’s business 101.

    Omerta- Fox’s boyo wanted t keep his name under wraps; that’s family business 101.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  219. “You going to tell me he’s a dips[edit] while looking over the dashboard of your Subaru?”

    – papertiger

    I’ll wait until he’s indicted, personally. I’d rather drive my wife’s Subaru than go to prison (or betray one of my clients).

    Leviticus (efada1)

  220. Illegal Immigrants: bad
    Deportation: good

    FIFYTML

    Generally, I agree. But Dimaya was a legal permanent resident. So, illegality does not apply in this case.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  221. I’m sorry I bothered you, Skorcher. I don’t think non-lawyers are incapable of understanding legal issues. In fact, I think the opposite, which is why I try to explain things I hope will be helpful. I now realize you don’t need my help, and you simply want to rant about attorneys and how unhelpful, stupid, and unreasonable they are.

    DRJ (15874d)

  222. “I know it is hard for lawyers to understand that we unwashed plebs are actually capable of understanding basic written English as well is how the world supposedly works. Unlike lawyers’ often inability to understand how businesses, construction, medicine, software, etc. actually work. We’re not all dummies out here.”

    – Scorcher

    Your inclination to find offense where none was intended is not something that anyone but you can control.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  223. (or betray one of my clients).

    That is entirely correct, in case all you all missed it when Beldar also explained it. Cohen is the one who caused his clients’ identities to become public with his TRO petition. The right way would have been to notify his clients (there are only three for crying out loud!) and let them come in individually to protect their privileged communications if they wanted to. Like Trump eventually did.

    nk (dbc370)

  224. Condensed version of 206

    Obama and Hillary are corrupt, so we don’t care if Trump was corrupt.

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  225. , and you simply want to rant about attorneys and how unhelpful, stupid, and unreasonable they are.

    No. That would be redundant. I was just saying in context…per my last post…

    I was not raising that point about our Wills for my own edification nor seeking free lawyerly advice…
    In such a world, is it that unreasonable that a public figure such as SH, who does have considerable casual access to numerous high profile legal persons, would seek out casual legal perspectives?

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  226. Equal time, equal “opportunity”, kishnevi…

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  227. But you would be embarrassed to have it known that you were his [Hannity’s] attorney.

    Tell the truth. Not embarrassed. Terrified.

    Terrified that the leftists will threaten you through your employer. Terrified that the leftists will kill your dog, stalk your wife and children, harrass your extended family (cousins, parents). Dox you on CNN. Excetera

    papertiger (c8116c)

  228. “…you simply want to rant about attorneys and how unhelpful, stupid, and unreasonable they are.”

    I expect many are fine, upstanding people… relatively few “lamprey eels” among them.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  229. “If Obama and Hillary were treated the same as Trump, Hillary would be behind bars and Obama would be a one term failure instead of a two term failure”

    Fyp

    harkin (379712)

  230. “I’d rather drive my wife’s Subaru than…”

    This is worthy of a post all it’s own. Think of teh humorous possibilities!!!

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  231. Thanks for the chuckle, Leviticus!

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  232. Now if it were a Subaru WRX STi, it would be an altogether different proposition!!!

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  233. Couldn’t it be that the one and only truly loyal Trump supporter on TV actually likes and believes in what Trump is saying?

    In which case, wouldn’t the truly loval Trump supporter be willing to say whatever Team Trump would like him to say because he thinks doing so helps Team Trump?

    And why do you think that recognizing that Trump is a corrupt authoritarian statist who shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office is the mark of a “Leftist”?

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  234. I think Hannity would be a good client, actually. As far as I know he not only talks the conservative talk, he also walks the conservative walk. No hint of libertinism and flouting of social norms. Those kind of people also don’t flout the law and heed the legal advice they pay for. IFYKWIMAITYD

    nk (dbc370)

  235. The Hannity thing, while amusing, seems likely to be a nothing-burger – just a desperate, and ultimately unsuccessful, attempt by Cohen to throw obstacles in the way of his investigation.

    I have no love or respect for Hannity, but one reason for his relative passivity in responding in court could well be that he’s telling the truth, and that his interactions with Cohen contain nothing of any real significance to him or the investigators.

    If, on the other hand, it turns out that Cohen was helping him launder money, defraud the government or any similar skulduggery, then good riddance.

    Dave (445e97)

  236. The only corrupt act has been extortion committed by a hooker.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  237. OT- tip of the cap to the teams at NASA, in industry and in academia– those still with us and those who’ve passed– who brought Apollo 13 home safely 48 years ago today, April 17, 1970.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX8-Vmys-Fk

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  238. The only corrupt act has been extortion committed by a hooker.

    papertiger (c8116c)

    Discounting the months long surveilance perpetrated by the SDNY. That’s overt corruption, whereas the shake down by hooker is sort of the business model.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  239. No hint of libertinism and flouting of social norms.

    Other than, you know, slavishly devoting himself to the greatest libertine and reprobate in the history of American politics…

    Seth Rich and Kim Dotcom were unavailable for comment.

    :)

    Dave (445e97)

  240. OT- tip of the cap to the teams at NASA, in industry and in academia– those still with us and those who’ve passed– who brought Apollo 13 home safely 48 years ago today, April 17, 1970.

    Heh.

    My mom wouldn’t let me stay home to watch the splashdown, so I kept my fingers crossed the WHOLE DAY at school, until the teacher told us they had made it back safely sometime around lunch.

    Dave (445e97)

  241. So I feel like, as a first-grader, I did my part.

    Dave (445e97)

  242. @ Skorcher: What DRJ worte in #201: That’s actually extremely important. Once the lawyer has agreed to accept employment and the client has agreed to employ him (even pro bono), the lawyer becomes the client’s fiduciary. Legally, from that point on, as a fiduciary, the lawyer has a broad, undefined, but extremely potent (in later lawsuits) duty to the client not to put his (the lawyer’s) own interests ahead of the client’s.

    In my standard engagement letter, I have a paragraph which reads as follows (underscoring in original):

    In connection with your hiring me through this Representation Agreement, I cannot simultaneously act as your advocate and my own, because I have financial interests as a businessman that are different from — and potentially contrary to — yours as a potential client. Accordingly, I invite you to seek a second opinion or independent legal review of this Representation Agreement before signing it, and I caution you that you must look out for your own interests regarding its terms.

    With every client, I go over each paragraph in the Rep Agreement, including this one, before permitting any client to sign.

    Usually I don’t expect my clients to actually hire an independent lawyer to review my Rep Agreement. Some of my clients in fact have in-house counsel to do exactly that, however. Many of them already have existing relationships with lawyers who don’t do what I do — civil litigation — but who are plenty competent to look over my proposed Rep Agreement to see if it’s a fair contract. Some of them might even do that over a game of pool.

    A couple of years ago, I represented the plaintiffs in a very large family business case (in Ector County, next door to where DRJ lives) in which they hired me by the hour to pursue claims that they and I both thought were very promising against an extremely solvent defendant. We discussed my taking the case on a contingent fee basis, but the clients decided they didn’t want to give up a piece of their case and that they’d do better financially (pay me less overall, net, in all likelihood) by paying me at my regular hourly rate. Two years into the litigation, because of unrelated events, their cash flow suddenly took a spectacular hit, and paying me by the hour became uncomfortable for them, so they raised the possibility of converting their relationship to a contingent fee part-way through the case.

    My ethical obligations under Texas law in that situation were clear: I could not renegotiate my fee arrangement to shift from hourly rate to contingent fee unless I specifically pointed out to my client that now — unlike the situation before the case started — I was filled with extremely detailed knowledge about their case. I knew more about their case than they did, and I was in a far better position to evaluate its likely settlement and trial prospects than they were. And in negotiating the percentage of the case that I would accept in lieu of future hourly-rate payments, any lawyer in my position had an unfair advantage. I was not only ethically advised to point out this new potential conflict of interest in our negotiations about changing the fee structure, I was indeed — per an opinion letter from the Texas Bar in a similar case — obligated to encourage them to seek independent counsel to help the clients deal anew with me. And because I’d be subject to the standards of a fiduciary, rather than just any old lawyer looking to sign up a new client, I would in fact have insisted that my clients get a written opinion from an independent lawyer of their choice blessing the new fee arrangement.

    And a few times, I’ve been hired — and even paid! — by clients specifically for the purpose of helping them hire litigation counsel. A group of banks hired me a few years ago because they shared identical positions in some litigation they needed to file, but my own firm was conflicted out of the representation, and they couldn’t agree with each other on much of anything (just institutional prickliness). At my recommendation, they decided to put their joint case out for competitive bidding among a variety of aggressive and entrepreneurial law firms who’d compete among each other on the contingent fee rate and other terms. I drew up a list, which they approved, sent the particulars to each of the firms I’d listed, and then conducted a “beauty pageant” in which the different law firms trooped into my offices to make their pitches to a group of in-house lawyers and executives for my clients. By paying me a comparatively modest fee, then, those clients not only got my counsel about the terms of their contingent fee deal with the lawyers they picked, they ended up saving themselves millions of dollars by giving away a lower percentage than they otherwise would have to their new contingent fee lawyer. I assure you that they were very, very happy with the cost-effectiveness of my services.

    That’s not the typical case. But my larger point is that, at a minimum, clients need to be vigorously reminded that in striking their deal with their lawyer, the prospective lawyer isn’t yet looking out for their interests, but rather his own.

    You wrote:

    I know it is hard for lawyers to understand that we unwashed plebs are actually capable of understanding basic written English as well is how the world supposedly works. Unlike lawyers’ often inability to understand how businesses, construction, medicine, software, etc. actually work. We’re not all dummies out here.

    That’s true! But from the lawyer’s point of view, it looks different, because we routinely see those same clients claim to be unsophisticated about legal matters as soon as they sue their former lawyers when their case, for reasons unconnected to the lawyer, disappoints them.

    And yes, the warning in your contract is frankly an advance preparation for that situation by your lawyers. If and when you sue them, claiming that you relied upon them but they used their superior lawyer mumbo-jumbo magic to trick and cheat you when you made your contract with them, they can point out that warning to you — and the jury — when you’re on the witness stand, and ask: “Did you get an independent review, as they pointed out that you could? No? You decided not to do that why, for cost reasons? Okay, so then having been warned of the perils of dealing on your own with someone who knows all this lawyer mumbo-jumbo magic, you made a deliberate and well-informed decision, for economic reasons and not because you were tricked into it, not to get an independent review.”

    So that language in your contract is, indeed, useful both to you — or it should be, anyway — if only as a reminder that you need to look out for yourself on some matters rather than just trusting limitlessly and blindly in your soon-to-be lawyers to look out for you. And it’s useful to them. And it’s and ethically appropriate in the eyes of the bar and any future judge and jury looking at your relationship after things go south and you start looking for someone else to blame for it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  243. “Other than, you know, slavishly devoting himself to the greatest libertine and reprobate in the history of American politics…”

    FFS… you are either unaware of JFK and WJC debauchery, your OCD vis-à-vis Trump has blinded you to historical reality, or – far more likely – you’ve undergone a partial lobotomy.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  244. Sammy teh Lawyer…

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  245. My love is bigger than a Honda

    It’s bigger than Subaru

    Pinandpuller (9c906a)

  246. @244.My mom wouldn’t let me stay home to watch the splashdown, so I kept my fingers crossed the WHOLE DAY at school, until the teacher told us they had made it back safely sometime around lunch.

    Meh. Was in London at the time watching BBC carrying CBS feed from the states. Folks asked, ‘do you think they’ll make it?’ Replied, ‘sure– they’re good…’– then crossed fingers exactly like you did.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  247. Starbucks to close all company-owned stores in U.S. on afternoon of May 29 to conduct racial-bias education

    oh my goodness the virulent racism all up in Starbucks must run pretty deep

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  248. can you imagine rolling up to starbucks May 29 and there’s a sign on the door closed cause we have to learn how not to be so goddamned racist on the black people

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  249. I’m guessing Mr Leviticus is too young to remember the legal exploits of Evel Knievel:

    Once when Evel was on a work release detail with
    other cons, he hired 15 limousines to pick them all up in the morning
    and bring them back at night. When the warden saw cons getting into
    limousines, he had a fit.

    “Boy, he was pissed off,” remembers
    Evel. “I told him, just because these guys were in jail didn’t mean
    they were bad. I was just trying to get them to feel part of the
    system. He understood then.” On the day of his release, inmates carried
    out Evel’s footlockers for him.

    Evel took a financial hit from
    the prison episode when he lost endorsements, and he began making
    noises about resuming his career, about wanting to jump out of an
    airplane at 40,000 feet without a parachute. “The state of Nevada
    stopped me,” he says.

    Maxim

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  250. Q- What do you call six clucking hens and a soiled dove?
    A- The View.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  251. That’s why the inside of your shirt says “I’m With Stupid” mr nk.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  252. I’m going to call my company The Ninth Circuit because all my shirts are easily reversible.

    But seriously…

    Pinandpuller (9c906a)

  253. Last point: Scorcher, I don’t think my clients are dummies. I don’t view them with disdain.

    To the contrary, a continuing joy of my profession is that I get to meet, and work with, and learn from, and help an incredibly broad range of clients. I embrace and revel in the occasions when they have to tutor me intensively so that I can learn enough about them and their business to be genuinely useful.

    When I was a brand new lawyer, my firm assigned me to handle a case involving an offshore rig fatality in which our client had manufactured a hoist that allegedly had failed. Before I filed a single piece of paper in the case, I flew to the client’s plant and spent two days, in the engineering rooms and then on the shop floor with a hard-hat and ear-protectors, learning the ins and outs to what hoists do, what they can’t do, and why they’ll fail if you try to make them do some sorts of things they’re not designed to do. Over the next 18 months or so, it became clear — to all the other lawyers, to the judge, and even to the business executives from the other companies in the case (who each had their own lawyers) that none of the other lawyers had done that sort of homework. And it directly translated into my getting a much, much better result for that client than I would have otherwise. Yes, I brought skills of my own to the table, but mostly I was profiting from the investment my client had made to educate me.

    I’ve also had clients who were not nearly so smart or capable or professional, who were incapable themselves and hence incapable of being much help to me. Obviously I have to adjust to that situation too, if I’m to do my professional duty to represent them zealously within the bounds of the law.

    You may hate lawyers, but I generally at least like my clients, and many of them, I positively adore.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  254. 251
    I already boycott Starbucks. Their coffee tastes horrible….

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  255. @ Pin (#256): I’m totally going to steal that joke and use it promiscuously and without attribution. Have your lawyer contact my lawyer if you have any copyright or other intellectual property interests therein. 😀

    Beldar (fa637a)

  256. Beldar…
    blah, blah, blah…
    And yes, the warning in your contract is frankly an advance preparation for that situation by your lawyers. If and when you sue them, claiming that you relied upon them but they used their superior lawyer mumbo-jumbo magic to trick and cheat you when you made your contract with them, they can point out that warning to you — and the jury — when you’re on the witness stand, and ask: “Did you get an independent review, as they pointed out that you could? No? You decided not to do that why, for cost reasons? Okay, so then having been warned of the perils of dealing on your own with someone who knows all this lawyer mumbo-jumbo magic, you made a deliberate and well-informed decision, for economic reasons and not because you were tricked into it, not to get an independent review.”

    So that language in your contract is, indeed, useful both to you — or it should be, anyway — if only as a reminder that you need to look out for yourself on some matters rather than just trusting limitlessly and blindly in your soon-to-be lawyers to look out for you. And it’s useful to them. And it’s and ethically appropriate in the eyes of the bar and any future judge and jury looking at your relationship after things go south and you start looking for someone else to blame for it.

    Talk about totally missing the point. Stunning. Absolutely stunning. We who are not lawyers don’t hate you because we are dumb, we hate you because you are blood suckers. Get it? For the love of God…As I pointed out, I know why the language is there. It’s there to protect you SOBs. If I now have to hire another lawyer to protect me from the lawyer I am hiring, well that just makes more work for lawyers now doesn’t it?
    And then I need another lawyer to review the contract with that lawyer. Because how often does a corrupt, evil, no-good, scheming lawyer ever get disbarred? When bad lawyers are still eligible to practice law, THAT is where the blame lies. But y’all have that all cleaned up. So our bad. Yes. Obviously.

    No? You decided not to do that why, for cost reasons? Okay, so then having been warned of the perils of dealing on your own
    Yes. Because for all us plebs, money is just infinite isn’t it? More money, more money, more money because you can’t be trusted.

    See, out here in the REAL world, if we normal people screw up, we don’t go running to the language of the boss’s memo where he failed to dot an ‘i’ or cross a ‘t’ to justify it. We screw up we get FIRED. Well, we do for now. Though you clowns are working diligently every day to get your bureaucratic claws into ever personal interaction.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  257. @ Pin — Evel Knieval was my first client in a courtroom. Helluva guy.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  258. Skorcher, it happens fairly regularly. Although not usually as extreme as this case
    https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/08/board-upholds-disbarment-former-da-wrongful-convic/

    kishnevi (bb03e6)

  259. There is an amusing morsel in Skorcher’s otherwise petulant Wall of Hate – the infinite regress of lawyers needed to review your agreement with the previous lawyer in the chain…

    Dave (445e97)

  260. @ Skorcher: I think this will end our conversation, for now, but I want to point out that when you write this —

    As I pointed out, I know why the language is there. It’s there to protect you SOBs.

    — it’s very clear that you are the one refusing to understand. That language is there to help you protect yourself from SOBs, but it has the secondary effect of protecting against hotheads who are likely to blame the lawyer they have refused to listen to.

    Hotheads like Donald J. Trump, as a matter of fact, whose universal reputation in the New York legal community since the mid-1980s has been “Won’t listen, won’t pay.”

    I don’t know you other than from your comments here, so I don’t want to start making assumptions or assertions about you in particular. But I will point out — for your benefit, sir or madam, not for mine — that some lawyers charge difficult clients more, justifiably, because they’re riskier and take up more time and generally create problems for themselves.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  261. Evel Knievel i found one of Mr. Knievel’s paintings for sale in alabama once for like $400 it was of a fawn

    the fawn was sweet and innocent like bambi and i wanted to get it but i had many many miles to go and feared i couldn’t care for it

    i should’ve bought and shipped it

    that was so stupid

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  262. I have read that Knieval was a serial womanizer.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  263. You guys, the reason there are so many bad lawyers is there are so many bad clients, and I don’t mean guilty.

    No sarcasm.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  264. 266 he did jump a lotta bones…

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  265. @ Dave (#263), re the infinite regression:

    Yes, it could be infinite in theory. It never is in practice. Someone has to decide, “How many mirrors do I want to view this through?” The point is that it should be the client who makes that decision, knowingly and without pressures or undue influences. And to make a knowing decision not to look in the next 2 or 10 or 1000 mirrors, you have to know that there is, indeed, more than one mirror available.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  266. Lawyers are human. We can’t test makeup on them, for instance.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  267. No Beldar. You’re the thick headed one here. Do you not understand that because I need to protect myself from the very profession from which I am hiring people to protect myself (well, really my posterity as this is a Will) such that I must now hire someone from that same class of people to protect myself, over which will preside a judge who comes from the very same guild, thus costing me more money, that maybe, just maybe this might feel like a racket? What guarantees do people have here, really? Meanwhile lawyers accumulate more cash so they can run for office to write more laws that generate even more business for themselves. How do you not grasp this fundamental point? Or is it a conscious choice on your part and this is how you do business? Considering that last question…Come to think of it, maybe I am the one being thick headed.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  268. And this is sweet:

    Hotheads like Donald J. Trump, as a matter of fact, whose universal reputation in the New York legal community since the mid-1980s has been “Won’t listen, won’t pay.”

    And yet he succeeds. Tremendously. In spite of you people. Have you considered that maybe he “won’t listen” because he’s paid another lawyer who has given him opposite, or significantly different, counsel? Counsel is what you’re paid to do. We do not exist, nor pay you, for you to tell us what to do.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  269. The Fairness Doctrine. What a pile of liberal dung that was. I know folks who could not order paid advertising of their conservative views on local radio or tv as a result of that thing. You get no defense of it from me. I welcomed Rush and FoxNews to the scene as well. It’s why I am so disappointed in FoxNews and especially Sean Hannity because, in my opinion, they are now a tool of the state (Administration) themselves.

    noel (b4d580) — 4/17/2018 @ 9:32 am

    Good on you, mr noel.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  270. Lawyers are human. We can’t test makeup on them, for instance.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 4/17/2018 @ 12:05 pm

    Oh, I don’t know about that… https://nypost.com/2018/04/16/animal-feces-and-urine-detected-in-conterfeit-makeup/

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  271. I keed, I keed…

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  272. To my lawyer acquaintances (Patterico, Beldar, nk et. al.) I offer an in kind retainer in case I need a copyright lawyer referral.

    *Legal Disclaimer* Acceptance of such does not make you my patron, but I am amenable to offers:

    Les Carillons

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  273. @214. Except it wasn’t.

    Thanks for playing. What do we have for him, Johnnie…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  274. @ Pin (#256): I’m totally going to steal that joke and use it promiscuously and without attribution. Have your lawyer contact my lawyer if you have any copyright or other intellectual property interests therein. 😀

    Beldar (fa637a) — 4/17/2018 @ 11:36 am

    Fair Use and see #276.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  275. Beldar

    Or if you wish to barter what do you think my chances of copyrighting or registering that name would be?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  276. Mg gets the sitcom-style roaring applause upon his entry.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 4/17/2018 @ 9:27 am

    Dear Ask a Lawyer,

    Can I be extradited from Hawaii?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  277. If you guys would go take a lawyer for a walk or clean out their cages I think you too would learn to love lawyers like I do.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  278. If you guys would go take a lawyer for a walk

    I don’t think “walk” is the word that applies here.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  279. “…you simply want to rant about attorneys and how unhelpful, stupid, and unreasonable they are.”

    I expect many are fine, upstanding people… relatively few “lamprey eels” among them.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc) — 4/17/2018 @ 10:17 am

    I understand some of them are good people.

    And if you don’t like the lawyers who post here just remember that at least 85% of all lawyers are more dumb and less ethical than they are. I’m not sucking up either, I promise. I went to school with a lot of now lawyers.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  280. Sean Hannity is proud to announce his new sponsor Legal Zoom…

    Ha, suck it lawyers!

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  281. Hannity used two other Trump lawyers to try to silence Debbie Schlussel’s complaint against him:

    Sean Hannity’s Ties to Two More Trump-Connected Lawyers

    Dave (445e97)

  282. his new sponsor Legal Zoom…

    Funny they should come up. Got paperwork from them trying to open a business in my name. Had my ssn. Do anyone do due diligence?

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  283. 181.It’s really between Hannity and Fox. Payola used to be a thing — a crime — in radio but I don’t know what the rules are for cable talking heads.

    Yep. Standards & practices varies from cabler to cabler in the relatively ‘unregulated’ world of cable news. Broadcast network standards and practices are different as well. Boyo telegraphed his POV to FNC brass last night- no need to ‘tell anybody’ – yet sought to keep his name under wraps in court to avoid ’embarrassment.’ Revealing about who works for who. FNC execs say they were caught unaware and after 24 hours expressed ‘surprise.’ Publicly they’ll stand by their cash cow but internally management will remind him about travelling down those ‘Lonesome Rhodes.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  284. Payola used to be a thing — a crime

    I never understood that. I can see a radio station firing someone for taking money on the side to promote records. Or demanding a cut.

    But a crime? Was that based on the airwaves being government property or something? It seems like just another form of paid advertising.

    Dave (445e97)

  285. @288. ‘The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Communications Act of 1934 both have strict requirements and rules regarding the issue of payola. Both the FCC and the Act demand that “employees of broadcast stations, program producers, program suppliers and others who, in exchange for airing material, have accepted or agreed to receive payments, services or other valuable consideration must disclose this fact. Disclosure of compensation provides broadcasters the information they need to let their audiences know if material was paid for, and by whom.”‘ – source, wikipedia

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  286. Hannity used two other Trump lawyers to try to silence Debbie Schlussel’s complaint against him:

    Sean Hannity’s Ties to Two More Trump-Connected Lawyers

    Dave (445e97) — 4/17/2018 @ 12:44 pm

    I occasionally read DS, and I actually love her movie rating system (Four Osama bin Ladens, Four Obamas, Four Marxes) but she is more than a little cray cray.

    I would knock the dust off it, to be fair.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  287. Nobody do due

    Like you do

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  288. I had the same thought Popehat thought – that Cohen was exaggerating his client communiucations and now see a lawyer says so too, but I don’t see how this really helps him. And there’s probably no work product to find.

    Maybe having other clients makes Cohen look better. Seven of his clients he couldn’t claim were legal clients. (after consulting his own attorney) so he was almost without clients.

    Hannity said that he may have occasionally tossed Cohen a $10 bill, when he got concerned about this being coverd by attorney-cleint privilege so maybe it’s the $10 – or $30 that made him intoa cleient according to his own records.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/sean-hannity-was-a-client-of-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-1523908997

    Speaking on his radio show Monday, Mr. Hannity said he hadn’t paid Mr. Cohen legal fees but that “I might have handed him 10 bucks” and asked for attorney-privilege on certain issues.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  289. 86. Beldar (fa637a) — 4/16/2018 @ 6:40 pm

    But Sean Hannity is a moron, so he didn’t. And now we all know that he’s the mystery client. It’s his own damned fault.

    Well, I’d give him a B-minus on the way he summarized the Comey situtation etc. But everyone gets it wrong.

    One thing he said he got foem someone else might be right, and he said he missed it. Comey inb his ointerviews was claiming he never said to a Congressional committee that FBI agents thought Mike Flynn was telling the truth. That was finding #22 of teh republicans (on the intelligence committee I think) he said.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  290. 110. Beldar (fa637a) — 4/16/2018 @ 7:38 pm

    There are more stories to tell about that case that I can’t tell here because — yeah, attorney-client privilege.

    Is it any kind of a secret what it is that you couldn’t do? At one point that was discussed in open court.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  291. On April 19, The Trump Organization filed a Motion asking leave to join as an Intervenor, and the Court granted the motion the same day. I wonder if Hannity will intervene?

    DRJ (15874d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7010 secs.