Sean Hannity: I Asked Michael Cohen For Legal Advice But He Has "Never Represented Me In Any Matter"

Hannity's statement:

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.

I assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third-party.

In response to some wild speculation, let me make clear that I did not ask Michael Cohen to bring this proceeding on my behalf, I have no personal interest in this proceeding, and, in fact, asked that my de minimis discussions with Michael Cohen, which dealt almost exclusively about real estate, not be made a part of this proceeding.

I'm not sure if that should have had any legal distinction regarding the current hearing. (Though it probably did-- Kimba Wood rejected Cohen's request to review the seized documents before the FBI did.)

I assume Cohen brought up his "third client" because judge Kimba Wood (remember her? Google "Nannygate") was questioning whether Michael Cohen was a bona fide lawyer or just Trump's business partner with legal expertise.

Giving someone legal advice is something a lawyer does, routinely; not all lawyer interactions involve "representing" someone in a court case or business deal involving a third party.

And I think Hannity is wrong to say that "representing" must involve a third party; I think any lawyer who gave you advice, as a lawyer, would say he's "representing" you, as he's representing you as far as your legal interests, researching the question, analyzing the precedents, etc.

I'm not sure if payment matters, either.

This looks like Hannity is throwing Michael Cohen under the bus, and so also Trump then, because I think it hurts Michael Cohen's position the fewer clients he actually has. (At least in Kimba Wood's mind it seems to hurt his position.)

Not sure why Hannity is making this distinction.

I guess he's making this distinction because reporter Gail Sherman is claiming that Hannity hired Michael Cohen to advise him regarding the Media-Matters-led boycott of Fox, which Hannity himself denies:

What part of Michael and I never discussed anything that involved any third party is so hard to understand? https://t.co/uha1z13RJf

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) April 16, 2018

From Mediaite:

Noting that Hannity had come under pressure from left-wing groups -- Media Matters, for one, targeted Hannity's advertisers over the Seth Rich story --Sherman said he was told that Hannity "got paranoid" and hired Cohen to look into those groups.

"This could be interesting because oftentimes private investigators are hired by law firms because it allows attorney/client privilege to be maintained," Sherman added. "So there is a scenario in which if they seized Michael Cohen's documents inadvertently we might be able to learn to what degree did Sean Hannity try to go after his enemies with shady tactics like private investigators."

You mean like the way both Obama and Hillary Clinton hired Fusion GPS through a DNC lawyer? Something you in the media haven't found to be a compelling or "interesting" storyline at all.

In any event, Hannity called up MSNBC (of course this was on MSNBC) to deny it.

Let's check in to see how the sober-minded, country-first, anti-tribalist NeverTrump heroes are reacting:

I don't see how Hannity did anything wrong here. I'm not sure how this DOOMS Hannity.

Does French mean that Hannity's in trouble because he didn't disclose that he asked Michael Cohen some questions while reporting on him?

Seems so:

Has David French's cuck-buddies all disclosed how close they are to FusionGPS, which was paid to stop, and then to prematurely end, the Trump presidency?

Is French going to call for all his pals to note how often they have drinks with Glenn Simpson, and how close their ties are with him?

Nah.

French himself considered running as Bill Kristol's catspaw spoiler candidate.

If French is now a bear on full disclosure -- Can I ask, did David French, perhaps, take a meeting with Bill Kristol's donors? Maybe a get-to-know-you coffee?

Are any of those donors active in funding FusionGPS? Were they active in first funding FusionGPS to dig dirt on Trump (and Ted Cruz)?

I don't know if that happened. But since no one's asked yet: I'm asking now.

In case it wasn't obvious before, it's very obvious now: The government/media class is extraordinarily incestuous with lots of little connections here and there.

Doesn't seem fair that the rule of Full Maximum Disclosure of every single contact that might compromise one's objectivity only being inflicted on the Garbage People the Establishment's Minions Don't Like. Seems the same rule should be applied to them.

In the meanwhile, former Clinton appointee to be AG Kimba Wood (she was never confirmed) ruled that Cohen has no right to review the seized documents before the FBI does.

Sort of related: Page 6 claims that Michael Cohen helped kill an US Weekly story about an affair between Don Trump, Jr., and former attention-seeker Aubrey O'Day.

posted by Ace of Spades at 06:52 PM

| Access Comments