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?
Hannity has not retained cohen, but he is admitting he had consultations. He should have disclosed when he started covering stories with Cohen in them.
Hate Hannity all you want but have the intellectual, and moral, honesty to stand up for the rule of law rather then joint the clown show who wants to abandon it for to push their persoanl political agenda.
If you would like to translate that to English, perhaps I will give it a shot.
It is not dishonest at all. Lawyers have many clients. Doesn’t mean that their interests mix, or that if one client has potential criminal problems that all the other clients of that lawyer are somehow involved or tainted.
The story is the raiding of Cohen's files, looking for anything, and the effort to illegally disclose his other clients (utterly unrelated to the Russian investigation). If Hannity were to disclose this fact before the sham investigators did, he would be helping them in their anti-Constitutional efforts.
Hannity is under no duty to disclose any connection between himself and any story that he comments on. No such duty exists, even for news reporters. SOMETIMES, attorneys need to disclose these connections, but usually these connections are ignored. Try checking out the courthouse in a rural county someday. Everyone in the area uses the same 2-3 attorneys, and any case before the local judge usually has such connections between parties and the few available attorneys. No crimes exist for allowing even those representations to move forward... but Hannity is not an attorney, and you know that. You're just trolling, and getting schooled.
If he was not a client of Cohen’s, which he has stated, what would he have had to disclose? And if he were a client of Cohen, why should he disclose it?
So, if I use a lawyer to challenge the IRS on my taxes, then I should disclose that if a friend uses that lawyer in a divorce?
“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?”
Sure, here’s your explanation:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Sure, here are two reasons for you:
1. He probably just found out
2. It's REALLY none of your business..........Is Hannity legally obligated to inform you of all his financial investments when he talks about the rising stock market?
You redefine dumbass
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.