Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

Dershowitz on with him now.

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Views 164.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Now we go live to Rudy Guliani:

  • Ms. Bechard is deeply distressed that someone has revealed that she allowed a gelatinous, half-amphibian half-man thing caterpillar across the bedroom on its belly like a walrus, bellowing like a dyin

  • If it's revealed he lied I'm as positive about anything that Brisket Goth wouldn't hesitate even a second to call him a pants on fire doo doo head. But what's fascinating here is your sudden into

7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Next up, "To be frank, we were conspiring to commit crimes.  Was that wrong?" 

“Aaaaand we’re back from break.  To clarify my earlier comments, the only conversations I’ve had with Michael Cohen were purely to satisfy my romantic fantasies of having a lawyer talk dirty to me in legalese.  No actual advice was provided.  Only fake advice and, to be clear, only for the purposes of indulging my unusual fetish.  We’ll be right back after this extended commercial break.”

Edited by BrickHorn

Seems like he is wanting to make it really clear that Cohen didn't pay off anyone on behalf of Hannity. All other data points to him are unimportant. And that could fuck Cohen/Trump over. Delicious.

Edited by SmokeyTheBear

Now talking about FISA and the dossier

Damn.  Infrastructure Week starting off strong.  


Well you’re not going to believe what we have in store for you NEXT week!

"maybe I will retain Dershowtiz before we come right back", and Dershowitz prolly told him to talk about something else.  

Fair and Challenged

Seems like he is wanting to make it really clear that Cohen didn't pay off anyone on behalf of Hannity. All other data points to him are unimportant. And that could fuck Cohen/Trump over. Delicious.
Trumpkin on Trumpkin cuck fight would be popcorn time.

Hannity arguably waived *any* privilege claim by Hannity/Cohen by virtue of a subject matter waiver and telling everyone on air about the subject of their alleged attorney/client relationship. 

Time to take another look at Hannity’s possible communications with Wikileaks... 

Can you imagine the Trumpkin heads exploding if Hillary's lawyer had records subpoenaed, and it turned out that the "lawyer" only had two other clients -- John Podesta and, say, Don Lemon at CNN?

We'd see murder boards about "media conspiracies and coverups" on Hannity for YEARS.

Look, I hate this president.  I think he's awful for the country, for the world, and for humanity.  But, thank God, at least now it's getting laugh-out-loud fucking funny.  Seriously, the Keystone Kops are pointing and laughing at these clowns.

Seems like he is wanting to make it really clear that Cohen didn't pay off anyone on behalf of Hannity. All other data points to him are unimportant. And that could fuck Cohen/Trump over. Delicious.


Is there a Mrs Hannity he needs to talk to before he fesses up perhaps?
Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Hannity arguably waived *any* privilege claim by Hannity/Cohen by virtue of a subject matter waiver and telling everyone on air about the subject of their alleged attorney/client relationship. 

And this.  The privilege can be waived by publicly discussing the subject matter of the advice.  Hannity may have done so or is doing so right now.  I gotta say, the collective quality of all of the legal advice the Trumpkins have gotten seems to be on par with that of a first year Aggy Law School grad recovering from a traumatic brain injury.

What Fox does next will be telling.  They might want to put some distance between him and the network.  Like a vacation.

35 minutes ago, Nick Diaz said:

Also, Simpsons did it first

 

 

 

Da7d5zeX4AAgdBA.jpg:large

Just now, Brisketexan said:

And this.  The privilege can be waived by publicly discussing the subject matter of the advice.  Hannity may have done so or is doing so right now.  I gotta say, the collective quality of all of the legal advice the Trumpkins have gotten seems to be on par with that of a first year Aggy Law School grad recovering from a traumatic brain injury.

i don't think that the trump people are getting bad advice, exactly. it's just that they are all ignoring it

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i don't think that the trump people are getting bad advice, exactly. it's just that they are all ignoring it

I'll be honest....my palate isn't discriminating enough to distinguish between these different flavors of stupid.  They're both so overpowering that all you can taste is "STUPID!"

7 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Odds Hannity is on tonight?  Slim?  None?

 

Are  you kidding? Ratings will be the best he's ever had.

Meanwhile...... some interesting arguments going on in court.  Trump and Cohen's lawyers are back biting with each other's motives (as they should), but still interesting to hear as it could get bad....

 

Just now, Buzzrock said:

Are  you kidding? Ratings will be the best he's ever had.

When the reporter becomes the subject, that's ratings gold.  Hell, I'll watch any rebroadcast I can get my hands on.

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Can you imagine the Trumpkin heads exploding if Hillary's lawyer had records subpoenaed, and it turned out that the "lawyer" only had two other clients -- John Podesta and, say, Don Lemon at CNN?

We'd see murder boards about "media conspiracies and coverups" on Hannity for YEARS.

Look, I hate this president.  I think he's awful for the country, for the world, and for humanity.  But, thank God, at least now it's getting laugh-out-loud fucking funny.  Seriously, the Keystone Kops are pointing and laughing at these clowns.

Question for you as an attorney: does it bother you at all that Cohen is being compelled to disclose his client list? Do you think that implies that there is evidence of serious crimes by Hannity in concert with Cohen?

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

Question for you as an attorney: does it bother you at all that Cohen is being compelled to disclose his client list? Do you think that implies that there is evidence of serious crimes by Hannity in concert with Cohen?

You have to meet the elements of att client privilege to assert the privilege. Can’t do that without identifying a client.   Cohen refused to do so even under seal.  He made his own bed. 

Just now, Buzzrock said:

Question for you as an attorney: does it bother you at all that Cohen is being compelled to disclose his client list? Do you think that implies that there is evidence of serious crimes by Hannity in concert with Cohen?

Not in a general sense (to the former). I don't think the order compelling the disclosure of his clients implies anything regarding his "clients" other than the finding that the mere disclosure would not, by itself, somehow disclose the nature of any communications between the client and Cohen.

Judge entertaining idea of Special Master bc of public nature of this case and asks for submissions on “how we go fast” in such a scenario. Not officially ruled on, but almost certainly denied is Trump’s request for first review 

At this rate, who would be surprised about the revelation that Cohen negotiated a third payout for some chick who had sex with Hannity, became pregnant and had an abortion.  

Not I.

 

 

Questions for lawyers:

If we are to assume what Hannity says is true - that he only had "brief discussions" with Cohen "about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective" - then the assumption is Hannity is the ONLY person to legally interact with Cohen in this way?  That Cohen didn't have these kind of interactions with other friends/colleagues?   

I guess Cohen had to consider Hannity a client because the FBI has emails or taped recordings of their conversations?

Court has denied the TRO as moot.

Just now, Buzzrock said:

Question for you as an attorney: does it bother you at all that Cohen is being compelled to disclose his client list? Do you think that implies that there is evidence of serious crimes by Hannity in concert with Cohen?

Being required to disclose the client list has nothing to do with whether or not any of those clients is suspected of criminal wrongdoing.  It's based on a couple of things:

1 - if you assert the privilege as to communications with some persons, then you need to show that those persons are indeed clients.

2 - the identity of a client is generally not privileged information.

So, if someone subpoenas Brisket's files, I can assert the privilege as to my atty-client communications.  I would say to to the court "I represent ABC enterprises, Bob's plumbing, Ed's taco joint, and the government of the State of New Hampshire."  Then, the court will know that communications with such folks MAY be privileged.

The fact that it's being required here is because a court found probable cause for the subpoena to issue in the first place, and that bar is HIGH when it's an attorney's office being subpoenaed (as has already been discussed).  It makes me nervous when that happens, but it's also appropriate that the bar is high.

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Being required to disclose the client list has nothing to do with whether or not any of those clients is suspected of criminal wrongdoing.  It's based on a couple of things:

1 - if you assert the privilege as to communications with some persons, then you need to show that those persons are indeed clients.

2 - the identity of a client is generally not privileged information.

So, if someone subpoenas Brisket's files, I can assert the privilege as to my atty-client communications.  I would say to to the court "I represent ABC enterprises, Bob's plumbing, Ed's taco joint, and the government of the State of New Hampshire."  Then, the court will know that communications with such folks MAY be privileged.

The fact that it's being required here is because a court found probable cause for the subpoena to issue in the first place, and that bar is HIGH when it's an attorney's office being subpoenaed (as has already been discussed).  It makes me nervous when that happens, but it's also appropriate that the bar is high.

Thanks, I didn't know that about #2.

Just now, Patrick Bateman said:

 

Translation: see my post above. If preliminary injunction is granted in part, it would almost certainly be to assign the review to a Special Master

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Translation: see my post above. If preliminary injunction is granted in part, it would almost certainly be to assign the review to a Special Master

So she hasn't denied it...but she hasn't granted it.  Sounds like she's trying to figure out how to grant it in part, or how to grant it with some specific restrictions.

7 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Are  you kidding? Ratings will be the best he's ever had.

Assuming they even know about it. I still wont watch that show, and they won't learn about it on Foxnews.com. The cover right now is about a stripper storming the courthouse. 

 

4 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Thanks, I didn't know that about #2.

See my post below for an example of where the identity of the client might be privileged.

Edited by DDD Dad

she's got to have time to find one that isn't connected to this fiasco and lay the rules out for the SM and all counsel,.

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not in a general sense (to the former). I don't think the order compelling the disclosure of his clients implies anything regarding his "clients" other than the finding that the mere disclosure would not, by itself, somehow disclose the nature of any communications between the client and Cohen.

 

I've never listened to Hannity's radio show before. Is it always just newsbreaks and buffer music?

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

I've never listened to Hannity's radio show before. Is it always just newsbreaks and buffer music?

SERIOUSLY 

Does he even talk on his talk radio show? 

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

I've never listened to Hannity's radio show before. Is it always just newsbreaks and buffer music?

Seems to be.

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

See my post below for an example of where the identity of the client might be privileged.

Sorry I read your response several times but didn't understand it. IANAL

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.