LOL Hannity. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that dumb people hire dumb lawyers.
Strategic advice = how to draft an NDA to hide your illegitimate children
Business consulting = “I'm warning you, tread very ****ing lightly, because what I'm going to do to you is going to be ****ing disgusting. You understand me?”
If it was help with a living trust or something (lol) why would he be concerned with it becoming public? Really, if there was nothing abnormal Hannity would have spent ample airtime spouting off about Cohen being such an upstanding and competent lawyer he even used him himself.
This would be the same Sean Hannity to whom Julian Assange offered dirt on Mark Warner, through backdoor channels both were aware of [1]. The same Sean Hannity who has become one of Trump's most trusted advisers, telling him to shut down the Mueller investigation [2]. He's probably as deep in it as anyone.
At the very least, he has been spending a week railing against an investigation without disclosing that it affects him personally. Fox needs to suspend him immediately.
[1] Daily Beast, "Julian Assange Offered Hannity Impersonator ‘News’ About Top Democrat"
[2] Daily Beast, "Sean Hannity Has Been Advising Donald Trump on the Nunes Memo, Because of Course He Has"
I listened to Hannity's show until he issued his statement. You all owe me dearly. I need a shower.
"Michael never represented me in any matter, I never retained him in the traditional sense as retaining a lawyer, I never received an invoice from Michael, I never paid legal fees to Michael, but I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective. And I assume that those conversations were attorney-client confidential."
"Not one of any issue I ever dealt with Michael Cohen on ever, ever involved a matter between me and any third party. Now, I have eight attorneys that I use for varying things in my life, and in this particular case, I like to have people I can run questions by."
He claimed attorney-client privilege was established by saying, "Attorney-client?" and getting an affirmative response. Doesn't this have to be established by PAYING the attorney?
A few minutes later he says he probably gave him $10 once or something. He went on to opine about the death of truth and the demise of attorney-client privilege.
I listened to Hannity's show until he issued his statement. You all owe me dearly. I need a shower.
"Michael never represented me in any matter, I never retained him in the traditional sense as retaining a lawyer, I never received an invoice from Michael, I never paid legal fees to Michael, but I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective. And I assume that those conversations were attorney-client confidential."
"Not one of any issue I ever dealt with Michael Cohen on ever, ever involved a matter between me and any third party. Now, I have eight attorneys that I use for varying things in my life, and in this particular case, I like to have people I can run questions by."
He claimed attorney-client privilege was established by saying, "Attorney-client?" and getting an affirmative response. Doesn't this have to be established by PAYING the attorney?
A few minutes later he says he probably gave him $10 once or something. He went on to opine about the death of truth and the demise of attorney-client privilege.
This is all such a hilarious reflection of the Trump orbit and the people they associate with. Hannity has stupid amounts of money and could easily get an extremely competent lawyer for any reason, but apparently he really does worship Donald Trump and values his personal recommendations for this dip**** lawyer who's not particularly good at his job, but does come with the priceless qualification that Donald Trump vouched for him.
Not really true in this specific matter. Spears & Imes is one of the top boutique white-collar crime firms. That said, they are likely in a tough spot in the matter, so making some less than ideal arguments, given their weak hand.
He claimed attorney-client privilege was established by saying, "Attorney-client?" and getting an affirmative response. Doesn't this have to be established by PAYING the attorney?
A few minutes later he says he probably gave him $10 once or something. He went on to opine about the death of truth and the demise of attorney-client privilege.
Even Saul Goodman wanted $5 to make the relationship official. I assume some panicked lawyer rushed in after the first statement to make the revision. It seems like claiming you never had an attorney-client relationship with your attorney is on the same level as claiming you were never a party to an NDA that you're trying to enforce.