Birds of a Feather

[Ocala Mike]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.3936561

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'm sure Hannity was just using Cohen to form LLCs and mundane stuff like that.

[upthecreek]

Twitter

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by upthecreek

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/stat...70632201564161

I always believe Sean Hannity. Remember, Trump also had nothing to do with the Stormy Daniels payment. He just re-affirmed that position last week.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Oh maybe Mr. Cohen was representing a "Doug Danielson," not Mr. Hannity. That would explain things.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.3936561

I'm curious...dear Trump haters and ultra-libs...

What purpose did it serve for that Judge to order Cohen's attorneys to reveal this "mystery 3rd name?"

Why would a judge need this revealed publicly? What happened to attorney/client privilege? I realize if Hannity isn't actually a paying client, as he claims, he probably isn't entitled to that privilege, not that privilege means anything these days anyway.

How come when Hollywood Madams are busted they are never forced to reveal the names of all their A-list clients? They get more privilege than an attorney?

Where's the ACLU?

I'm really curious why the big need to know, from this judge?

Why is this a big deal?

Did they think that 3rd client was Putin himself?

[Saratoga_Mike]

In general, a client's identity isn't privileged unless the disclosure of that information would implicate the client in a crime. Pulled up some case law:

E.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 600 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1979); In re
Senel, 411 F.2d 195 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 905 (1969); Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Field, 408 F. Supp. 1169 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); United States v. Dickinson, 308 F. Supp. 900 (Ariz. 1969), aff'd, 421 F.2d 702 (9th Cir.1970); Arris v. State, 281 Ala. 622, 206 So. 2d 868 (1968); People v. Sullivan, 271 Cal. App. 2d 531, 77 Cal. Rptr. 25, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 973 (1969); Matter ofJacqueline F., 47 N.Y.2d 215, 391 N.E.2d 967, 417 N.Y.S.2d 884 (1979).

[PaceAdvantage]

Why the need for that name to be revealed...publicly no less...

Curious as hell what the rationale is for this. Except that it's related to Trump, so all other precedent is thrown out the window.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I'm curious...dear Trump haters and ultra-libs...

What purpose did it serve for that Judge to order Cohen's attorneys to reveal this "mystery 3rd name?"

Why would a judge need this revealed publicly? What happened to attorney/client privilege? I realize if Hannity isn't actually a paying client, as he claims, he probably isn't entitled to that privilege, not that privilege means anything these days anyway.

How come when Hollywood Madams are busted they are never forced to reveal the names of all their A-list clients? They get more privilege than an attorney?

Where's the ACLU?

I'm really curious why the big need to know, from this judge?

Why is this a big deal?

Did they think that 3rd client was Putin himself?

there are different laws for different people in this county. another example is that if you stick up a bank you go away for at least 10 years, when the banks rob you no one ever does time.

[PaceAdvantage]

This just sounds like another witch hunt when it comes to Trump.

Trump is so evil, so bad, that they've now resorted to having to bust his lawyer in order to dig up something on him?

Hush money to porn stars isn't going to do it...I've got news for you.

Better hope Putin is the mystery 4th client.

[tucker6]

Why do I get the feeling that all this is a dead end alley. Again.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Why do I get the feeling that all this is a dead end alley. Again.

I guess you missed the news on Papadopoulos (the "coffee boy" - laughable), Flynn (attempting to cut a commercial nuke deal his first day in office), Gates and Manafort (will receive a pardon, no doubt, but then the NY and IL AG will charge him, in my opinion, which should make for an interesting double-jeopardy case).

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

This just sounds like another witch hunt when it comes to Trump.

Trump is so evil, so bad, that they've now resorted to having to bust his lawyer in order to dig up something on him?

Hush money to porn stars isn't going to do it...I've got news for you.

Better hope Putin is the mystery 4th client.

It's either a witch-hunt OR Trump has surrounded himself with sleazy, unethical people his entire professional/political career? Hmm. But what about Hillary? I love the trite Hillary rejoinder. I thought there was ample evidence to charge her, but it's over. Given Hillary wasn't indicted should we just ignore all federal laws? And why hold Trump to such a low standard (i.e., the Clintons)? Hmm.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I guess you missed the news on Papadopoulos (the "coffee boy" - laughable), Flynn (attempting to cut a commercial nuke deal his first day in office), Gates and Manafort (will receive a pardon, no doubt, but then the NY and IL AG will charge him, in my opinion, which should make for an interesting double-jeopardy case).

Like I said, a dead end

[PaceAdvantage]

The funny thing of all this?

The Clintons had/have as many or MORE unsavory and downright criminal activities/characters in their background, yet I have no doubt they wouldn't be facing this kind of scrutiny had she won.

And Saratoga Mike wouldn't be complaining one bit...in fact, he wouldn't be saying a word about it.

So I guess, in a sense, lambo hit the nail on the head in his last reply.

Some people, you literally scrape the bottom of the barrel to find it all, and others, even when they are caught red-handed, get the white glove treatment.