Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
Not Mueller directly... but based on a tip from Mueller. I think the point above is valid: they were looking at things completely unrelated to the Russian investigations... or the election. This fishing expedition is going after Trump. If that means Trump's prior business dealings, unrelated to Russian interference in the election, then that's where Mueller will go. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
Probably. Fraud has no single definition in the law, but certainly would include making a promise with no intent to perform it. The NDA may also be void for impossibility. No woman intends to never disclose sex or romance in her life, especially from other women. They talk about it, to their girlfriends, to the ladies at the hair salon, especially something glamorous, exciting as bedding a wealthy famous handsome character like Trump. Especially when there is fame and fortune in it. As Menchen put it, “Temptation is a woman's weapon and man's excuse.” No woman can resist tattling, to someone. Moreover, Daniels, an “adult film star” is the equivalent of “Special Forces” in the battle of the sexes, a pro. I imagine that if one were of a mind to do so, one could find video of every kind of sexual activity and combinations imaginable and unimaginable featuring her as the center, ahh, piece. Publicity is the lifeblood of that industry. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
Shaman |
Time to go after Comey's atty now.  He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
I'll offer the argument concerning the affair. It isn't a crime or fraud, but the argument the prosecutor might make is that Cohen isn't acting as a lawyer by offering and handling the payout, but as a fixer (as someone above said). I don't buy it, because he did offer legal advice about how to make the offer enforceable, etc. On the other hand, the report is that Cohen paid the money himself, which is not at all what a lawyer normally does, which pushes the whole thing back into the "fixer" territory. All in all, I think this was an overreach, because they apparently grabbed everything. But these questions are not usually as cut-and-dried as some wish they were. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Member |
Good question regarding the list. It might be to weed out those who are clients v. non-clients. I am actually not sure about that part. I would not disclose a client's identity, but I might have to turn it over in a criminal investigation as whether that client and I were committing a crime (such as wire fraud, etc.) I believe that is what is happenening here. Re the fraud. You are correct: an affair and payment BY ITSELF would not be fraud. But if the payments are made are in-kind contributions to a presidential campaign and not reported, then a crime has been committed by the people involved (the attorney and the client). Therefore, the underlying affair and payment are not a crime, but if the money was paid for other purposes (like money laundering, or to help a candidate, and then not reporting it), then it becomes a crime. Because they are communicating about committing a crime, the crime or fraud exception applies. Therefore, the privilege would not apply, and the name would have to be disclosed too. Just my thoughts. | |||
|
Info Guru |
Thanks for the responses (JALLEN and JHE too)...I finally saw an article today detailing the judge's decision to release Hannity's name. No motion was filed, a spectator in the gallery stood up and said he was a lawyer representing the media, approached the bench and made an argument that the name should be released. The judge agreed and ordered them to release the name. No motion was filed, no legal briefs were reviewed or ruled on. Most attorneys commenting on this say it is very highly unusual for someone to be recognized from the gallery and a ruling like this issued without motions or briefs. https://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/hannity-cohen.php ROB BALIN, A MEDIA LAWYER at Davis Wright Tremaine, is the reason we know that Sean Hannity was Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s secret client. Balin attended the Monday hearing in Southern District Court in Manhattan, following the raid of Cohen’s offices, to represent the interests of several news organizations, including ABC, The New York Times, CNN, the Associated Press, and Newsday. When it seemed the judge would keep the client’s identity under seal, Balin stood up in the second row of the gallery, apologized for interrupting, introduced himself, and informed the court of a “public access issue.” Then, with the court’s permission, he approached the podium and argued that the client’s identity should be disclosed publicly. He noted, among other things, the “intense public interest” in the hearing, and he urged the court to recognize a First Amendment right of access to the client’s identity. He quoted Chief Justice Warren Burger’s majority opinion in the 1980 case Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia: “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions. But it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” Cohen’s attorneys failed to offer a persuasive counterargument, and ultimately Judge Kimba Wood ordered them to disclose publicly the secret client’s identity. And when they did, Hannity’s name drew a chorus of gasps from the gallery. Balin, who represents clients in all aspects of media law and teaches the subject at Columbia Law School, talked with CJR about his experience at the Monday hearing. Why were you at the hearing? This all starts Friday [April 13], when my partner Rachel Strom appeared in court on ABC’s behalf. The judge planned to close certain hearings when receiving information that might be privileged. There was discussion about whether the names of Mr. Cohen’s clients are privileged. Rachel made an argument based on First Amendment access principles: You can’t close the court or seal documents unless there’s a compelling interest of the highest order. The judge understood, and she directed Mr. Cohen’s attorneys to submit a letter identifying Mr. Cohen’s clients. The letter was filed Monday morning, publicly. It said Mr. Cohen had non-legal clients and three legal clients: President Trump, the Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy, and an unnamed third client who did not want to be identified. The attorneys argued that they had an ethical obligation not to disclose that client’s identity. I appeared at the Monday hearing to represent a group of news organizations. (Strom couldn’t be there because she was conducting depositions.) I had a funny feeling that an access issue might arise with respect to the third client. And the hearing had all the makings of a major media event: Mr. Cohen himself was supposed to be there. The lawyer for Stormy Daniels had said she would be there. The president’s lawyer [Joanna Hendon] was there. How did you go from spectator to participant? I was not permitted to sit in the well with the lawyers, so I was in the second row of the public gallery. I gave my card to the court clerk and said that there was a chance I would have to speak on behalf of the public and press. Later, when the judge said she was willing to take the client’s information under seal, that was my cue to get up. I introduced myself and listed off my clients, and the judge invited me to the podium, where I began my argument. I pointed out, as Strom did on Friday, that the names of clients were not privileged and that there is a First Amendment right of access to court hearings whose purpose is to enable the public and press to monitor their institutions. I pointed out that most of the seats in the room were occupied by members of the press, and I wrapped up by quoting Chief Justice Burger in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia. The judge eventually ordered Mr. Cohen’s attorneys to reveal the client’s name. That’s when we had a truly Perry Mason moment: The attorney said it was Hannity, and there was a collective and audible gasp in the room. I’ve been practicing law for a long time, and I’ve never seen anything like that. Electronic devices are generally prohibited in the court, too, so five or 10 reporters rushed from the room to get that news out as soon as possible. It was like a scene from an old-time movie. How many times in your career have you interrupted a hearing to make an argument from the gallery? I’ve been practicing for more than 30 years, and this, I believe, was the first time. I’m usually at counsel’s table, or at least I’m sitting in a chair in the well of the courtroom. Rachel did the same thing Friday, though. It’s what we had to do. The judge didn’t consider it at all disrespectful, because she understood why we were there. You said you had a funny feeling that an access issue would arise. Had you developed your argument in advance? Or were you developing it in the moment? I developed it in advance. When I saw the letter filed by Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, I realized that the press was the reason they didn’t want to reveal the client’s name. They thought it would be embarrassing to the client. I predicted that that would be the issue at the Monday hearing, so I was ready with my argument. That’s what lawyers do. We prepare. It was a good day for the Fourth Estate on both Friday and Monday, but the lawyers who do this kind of work, we’re in and out of court all the time making access arguments. Sometimes you can prepare. Other times you can’t. Rachel had something like 15 minutes notice on Friday that she needed to be in court for ABC. What did you think when Cohen’s counsel revealed that the client in question was Sean Hannity? I had no idea who it might be, and like everyone else, I thought, wow. My role, though, was to be sure that whatever information was shared that day, it was shared with the public. The story goes on from there. As journalists say, they cover the story, and they’re not part of it. That goes for their lawyers, too. We help them cover the story. The story for now is that a good judge has kept the courtroom open, and when she got pushback about the name of the third client, she allowed a representative of the press—me—to be heard. What I find heartening is that our institutions are functioning. The procedure Monday went as it should have under First Amendment jurisprudence. Your name has appeared in countless news stories in the past 36 hours. What have you been hearing from family, friends, colleagues, and others? I’ve had my 15 minutes of fame. It’s bemusing. And it was fun in some respects. I teach media law at Columbia Law School, and I had to rush from court Monday to class, where we talked about what happened in court. It was a great teachable moment. I’m not on social media, but what I’ve seen from the tweets that have been shared with me, well, it’s encouraging to see so many Americans standing up and cheering for the First Amendment. That, more than seeing my name in print, gives me a warm feeling. In the courtroom Friday and Monday, the First Amendment was alive and well. Laura Handman, who sits on CJR’s Board of Overseers, is a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, along with Rob Balin. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024