Of course.
(no message)
Who was the second client?
sought primarily real estate advice. And gee, wouldn't you expect a lawyer from one side of the aisle to be recommended to another person on the same side?
But, it sounds like Hannity didn't come out with everything up front when the news shifted recently to Cohen. He is not obliged to do so, and he has a right to his privacy though i think he was stupid not to mention it for this very reason.
Nonetheless, the MSM wants an O'Reilly 2.0. What they don't understand is that like someone pointed out below, Fox could put in almost anybody into that spot and get 3 million viewers. Hannity sucks meatballs and is likely holding the ratings down ( as we have discussed - I can't even watch him and i usually agree with him). They better be careful in their lust for revenge.
Anyways, at this point it appears to be a Nothingburger to quote one of our favorite terms from a MSM Talking Point Memo of the past election.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
First:
"On his radio show Monday afternoon, Hannity said that Cohen had never represented him, and that Hannity had never retained Cohen as a lawyer."
Then:
Sean Hannity’s response to being named Michael Cohen’s third client: "We have been friends a long time. I have sought legal advice from Michael."
2:57 PM - Apr 16, 2018
(no message)
from Cohen.
It should be pretty cut and dried whether Hannity paid for services or was paid by Cohen given that they seized his records.
I expect that this is a smear attempt against Hannity, but I guess that we will see. If Hannity is found innocent as I suspect, and the Left is trying to damage him by the implication alone,
I still refuse to watch his show.
BTW, how would such info find it's way to the public? I predicted that Mueller would give this over to the NYPD who would then leak everything in an unfair manner as part of their strategy. Looks like it has begun (or did the source name himself for the first time in forever).
(no message)
"If I needed a confidentiality agreement with a Malaysian air steward, could you make that happen?"
"Sure Sean, it's what I do".
"OK, I'll get back to you"
That's privileged, but technically the attorney is not "retained", nor "representing".
(no message)
C'mon. Be a little fair.
and if not, why does Cohen claim Hannity is his client?
Depends on state law, intent of the parties, type of communication, etc.
You can have a free interview that is privileged...and yet never retain the attorney. Usually the attorney wouldn't then say you were "a client," but the attorney would certainly claim the attorney-client privilege for your benefit if an issue arose regarding that communication...the court would consider you his client for the limited purpose of protecting the content of that interview.
Work can be "pro bono" which means free, and the privilege can still attach.
You should have your split personality evaluated.
What has occurred in this case, that makes you believe something is amiss with the attorney-client privilege.
Proves what I've always said: Fox could have a primetime show hosted by a thick board and it would draw 3 million viewers.
Has always stunk as radio show host, too.
It turns out that it may be true.
Bwahahahahaha!
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)