re: So the judge in the case against Michael Cohen was the officiant for George Soros' wedding

My question, Hammity stated that all his conversations with Cohen were, were some legal advice involving real estate, mostly.

"dealt almost exclusively about real estate." was how he put it.

Still, he considered that discussion to be under the attorney-client privilege.

But Cohen's own attorneys submitted a letter a week ago - that was the fire-starter of all the nonsense today - where they listed a total of 10 clients Cohen had since starting his solo practice.

7 of those 10 involved legal work that "appears to be providing strategic advice and business consulting, for which privilege would not attach."

the remaining 3 clients were Trump, disgraced former GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy (who had Cohen negotiate $1.6 million in hush money to a Playboy model he impregnated, and then resigned his position with the RNC last week), and then someone else they refused to name.

That 10th and final Client was Hammity. Now, the first 7 clients were provided "services" very similar to what Hannity said was all he sought from Cohen. So why were the attorneys so desperate in federal court to keep Hammity's name a secret?

And if all Hammity sought from Cohen were real estate advice - that Hammity himself stated he assumed was confidential under the attorney-client privilege, even as he denied being a "client" of Cohen's - well that isn't really any different than what Cohen provided for those first 7 clients listed. But his attorneys stated that for them, "privilege would not attach".

So what is up here? Sure sounds awful fishy.....