Here's the lawyer speaking up for press — hence, public — access:https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/985951407479099393 …
-
-
Back to the matter in court, Trump's lawyer makes it clear that she believes the case should be treated differently because the president's personal lawyer and materials relating to the president are involved:https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/985974679268667392 …
Show this thread -
Back to Cohen and Hannity. Hannity's latest tweets and the letter from Cohen's lawyers this morning appear to contradict. Can you explain,
@seanhannity?pic.twitter.com/0WQfrc5Biq
Show this thread -
Back to court, where Wood has not yet decided on whether she'll appoint a special master, after calling the SDNY US Atty's Office taint team procedure a "viable option."https://twitter.com/PPVSRB/status/985981921502158848 …
Show this thread -
Here is
@ambiej’s must-read thread on what happened in court today —>https://twitter.com/ambiej/status/986007655616565248?s=21 …Show this thread -
And our updated story: https://www.buzzfeed.com/amberjamieson/michael-cohen-manhattan-court …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm (maybe charitably) thinking Hannity is trying to be nuanced, which is not his strong suit, and is avoiding coming out and saying that Cohen gave him free legal advice on something that didn't become a lawsuit or litigation, which would be privileged.
-
Even if so, there would basically be no A-C privileged files at issue. And, now that the name has been made public, the taint team would know that the couple emails relating to that might be protected and could easily isolate them. Am I missing something?
-
No, there's just an explosion of tweets that seem to think you have to pay a fee for A-C privilege to exist at all. And yes, this would seem to make it easier to isolate any files at issue. Bigger issue to me is Hannity shouldn't have been reporting on Cohen without disclosure.
-
All true — though, obviously none of us in this thread!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The salient question is why a judge would order his name in particular be released, other than to promulgate salacious gossip and attempt to endanger Hannity’s employment.
-
1. She didn't know the name. 2. As I've been discussing all day, the 2nd Circuit standard for the identity of a client itself being privileged — as detailed in the case cited by Cohen's lawyers — clearly did not appear to be met here.
-
It seems unusual that a judge would insist on having a name released to the press where ANY privileged communication with an attorney had occurred, short of an indictment. This smacks of simply punishing friends of
@POTUS and worse.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Right. Cohen can't have it both ways. But the real question is why would Hannity want ANY amount of legal advice from Cohen, who by most standards is a mediocre lawyer specializing in hush payments. My guess? Hannity is lying.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
If he never was retained by, paid, or was represented by Cohen, how can he claim privilege?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So....does the judge order Hannity to appear tomorrow to "clear things up? "
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Exactly.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Beyond files, lack of a/c privilege would mean the Court can require Cohen to testify as to the substance of his conversations with Hannity.
-
...Not saying any of that would be relevant to the DoJ's case. But that door is open.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.