Posted on 04/16/2018 12:04:41 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
An unnamed client of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's longtime personal attorney, is Fox News host Sean Hannity.
The revelation came after U.S. District Court judge Kimba Wood ordered Cohen to disclose the name in a court hearing on Monday.
In an earlier court filing Monday morning, lawyers for Cohen refused to identify the recent client — one of three people Cohen represented between 2017 and 2018. The lawyers also refused to identify the names of other past clients.
Lawyers for Cohen — whose business records were seized by FBI agents April 9 — said the then-unnamed client had told Cohen not to disclose his name and that they believed Cohen had a duty not to disclose it.
They also said that if Cohen's clients, other than Trump, were publicly revealed, it is "likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
I agree. I cannot believe this happened in court today. This is out of control.
So what was the reason to this?
Unless it is material to the case, I don’t know if disclosing this is legal.
But we moved beyond that a while ago.
You redefine dumbass
The Love Judge.”..
Her first marriage was to Robert Lovejoy, a partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell. She used the name Kimba Wood Lovejoy from 1970 to 1982, and then the couple divorced.
What part of this are you unable or unwilling to understand:
“Only those communications made in confidence to an attorney for the purpose of seeking professional advice are afforded the stature of privileged communications. For this reason, it has been generally stated that inasmuch as a client’s identity is not relevant to advice proffered by an attorney, such communication is not privileged*** Justification for the same result has also been predicated upon the theory that the identity of a client must be disclosed to ensure that there exists an attorney-client relationship during the course of which privileged communications may be made.”
Rather than condemn, ridicule, insult, you should cite the legal authority that supports your position as Ihave cited to support mine.
How is Kimba wood able to dictate anything she wants inside the courtroom? She’s just a district court judge, not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Couldn’t Cohens attorneys appeal her decisions?
You're thinking of the old America, back when we still had a Constitution and rule of law.
It doesn’t matter if she’s the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The chief justice of the Supreme Court is not a dictator, either.
At least he’s not supposed to be.
So sad that we’ve seen judges at all levels turn into tyrannical dictators that now we think that is somehow normal.
Finally, here we go.
Haven’t most of us incrementally become more conservative over the years as we watched our country being sold and sold out to the swamp in D.C.?
Your reductio ad absurdum argument is as ridiculous as your manufactured outrage.
If and when Hannity does a segment on a specific person or entity, it is important for his credibility that he disclose whether or not he has a personal stake in what he’s about to say.
His credibility as measured by the Editorialist’s Code of Ethics? LOL
Talk about reductio ad absurdum.
I love your sincere outrage though. Raiding Trump’s personal attorney’s files? Pht. Demanding the lawyer reveal the names of all of his clients publicly? Meh. An editorialist who does commentary doesn’t tell everyone he had a non-client conversation about real estate with a lawyer? Flay him!
You’re a joke.
Can someone explain how it is not dishonest for Hannitty to not have disclosed this since he is living off daily coverage of the story?
Question of ethics since Hannity is involved with the reporting of the Cohen FBI Raid story. He should have put out a disclaimer. Would have helped his credibility.
Illegal on Hannity’s part? I hardly think so.
Whether or not Hannity put out a disclaimer, whoever released this private info is much worse. Hannity has a case.
If and when Hannity does a segment on a specific person or entity, it is important for his credibility that he disclose whether or not he has a personal stake in what he’s about to say.
Yes, Hannity should have done that for credibility. No doubt about it. He may have been weighing in the credibility of his job as a political commentator vs his privacy. He chose privacy.
Too bad whoever leaked this info didn’t choose to respect the right to privacy. This is a much bigger issue. It’s in Session’s lap now - has been for a long time.
The whole FBI raid on Trump’s attorney was big issue. Was in Session’s lap also. Up to now, nothing’s been done about it.
It’s unbelievable isn’t it. And all Hannity did is ask Cohen for some legal advice.
Obama would have never become President—except for David Axelrod and an Illinois judge. :-(
While I’ve not experienced what you did, I have reached the same conclusion. Our generation has not properly defended liberty and the rule of law, for which future generations will suffer.
“It’s unbelievable isn’t it. And all Hannity did is ask Cohen for some legal advice.”
Apparently free bono. Hannity says he has like 6 or 7 lawyers and Cohen is not one of them. All he did was ask for advice on New York real-estate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.