Tl/dr... people who don't like Hannity smell blood in the water because he's not acting in a manner that a professional journalist with nothing to hide would act.

victor809 wrote:

Tl/dr... people who don't like Hannity smell blood in the water because he's not acting in a manner that a professional journalist with nothing to hide would act.

victor809 wrote:

what has caught my interest, but has not created moisture, are contradictory statements:

a-citing Client/Attorney Privilege.
and
b-he is not my attorney. I am not a client.

if b is true, he has no claim to keep his interactions with Cohen private in this investigation.

Also, he is either spending a ton of rubles or is getting free advertising on Trump TV Network...big time promotions from the POTUS.

frankj1 wrote:

Going to come down to the definition of attorney/client relationship. Regardless, it's a very, very slippery slope. One that should, imho, err to the side of confidentiality.

Does one have to officially take someone as a client for privilege to exist? What happens to situations where a person consults an attorney about a matter? Suppose the attorney declines the case? Maybe the attorney feels the issue will take more time than said attorney has the ability to devote to the case. What if the attorney has a conflict? Perhaps it a nuanced area of law which the attorney lacks expertise. The prospective client told the attorney about their pediment under the assumption that there was an attorney/client privilege. Should that person now fear that law enforcement, be it local, state or federal seizing those records since the attorney didn't take that person as a client?

Very, very slippery slope indeed.

Abrignac wrote:

do you always go to this length to defend public figures with so many what-ifs?
I count 8 of them.

frankj1 wrote:

I'd feel the same regardless. Having been a LEO, I see where this can tip, actually tun it over, the scales of justice.

Abrignac wrote:

in that case, even prouder to know ya!

I find it dumb of Hannity to deny being a client though...except for the fact that it makes his connection to the White House even more of an obvious case of Gov manipulating the press...speaking of slippery slopes, especially with Trump screaming about fake news.

frankj1 wrote:

we really should savor these days.

frankj1 wrote:

We really shoudn't. Politicians were once amiable and were able to find common ground on most issues. Today most are zealots who simply refuse to work with others who don't share their ideology.

Abrignac wrote:

When providing information on a topic, professionals generally disclose any influences that may be perceived later as impacting the information they choose to disclose.

Now that we find he failed to disclose this back when he was screaming about Cohen's offices being raided, everyone has to wonder what it is he was trying to hide then.

victor809 wrote:

Does one have to officially take someone as a client for privilege to exist? No.

What happens to situations where a person consults an attorney about a matter? Suppose the attorney declines the case? Maybe the attorney feels the issue will take more time than said attorney has the ability to devote to the case. ACP attaches

What if the attorney has a conflict? Lawyer may have to withdraw from both clients

Perhaps it a nuanced area of law which the attorney lacks expertise. The prospective client told the attorney about their pediment under the assumption that there was an attorney/client privilege. Should that person now fear that law enforcement, be it local, state or federal seizing those records since the attorney didn't take that person as a client? No.

Very, very slippery slope indeed.

Abrignac wrote:

There is no clear-cut always easy answer. Each situation is to be considered on its own merritt.

rfenst wrote: