Hannity has been named as a client of Cohen

LINK

quote:

---

Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective.

---

From Sean Hannity

quote:

---

U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood ordered him to name his client,

---

If the 4th amendment were still active, one could think this is a massive violation.

Fortunately we don't have to worry about such things.

I think this means the attorneys for Cohen had Hannity as a client?

quote:

---

Hannity has been named as a client of Cohen

---

So what?

No relevance. Media trying to make ties back to Trump/Hannity. He was named because prosecutors were trying to make the case that Cohen was not subject to Atty/Client privilege as he had only client in Trump. Cohen arguing that was not correct, he had more than one. So the judge made him name the other. It doesn't sound like Hannity was a client via his statement, but there is another one in CA said to be an invoiced client.

So a judge just ordered a lawyer to violate Attorney/Client privilege..


What am I missing here!?!

Tick Tock

It makes the conversation that Assange had with the fake Hannity twitter account a lot more intriguing.

quote:

---

So a judge just ordered a lawyer to violate Attorney/Client privilege..

---

According to Hannity's own Tweet there is no attorney-client relationship, thus no attorney-client privilege.

quote:

---

So a judge just ordered a lawyer to violate Attorney/Client privilege..

---

It looks like the Court wants to supervise the FBI's determination as to which of Cohen's documents might be privileged. In order to do that the court needs to know which of Cohen's clients are legal clients.

The disclosure of the names of Cohen's legal clients should not have been made public in the proceeding. It was likely disclosed by a non-official, tangential source.