Editor’s note: Scroll down for updates to this post.
Buckle up, folks. This is gonna be one hell of a ride:
Lawyers are here not only for President Donald Trump but also for the Trump Organization, per judge.
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
Prosecutor on Cohen's clients: "His letter this morning admits that he has only three legal clients, and I think this is fatal to their motion."
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
Prosecutor Tom McKay: "Mr. Cohen has asserted that he has more attorneys of his own than he has clients."
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
McKay says the warrant is specific to material in some cases for certain subjects from Jan 1, 2013 onward and for others for material concerning events that are post-2011.
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
Prosecutor: "Mr. Cohen might have a legal degree, but this investigation and the search is largely focused on his business dealings and personal financial dealings."
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
On Cohen's secret third client, McKay says, "How can the government ever hope to push back against the overly broad claim of privilege?" if he doesn't disclose the name.
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
"I think it indicates that he's going to continue to hide behind overbroad claims of privilege."
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
McKay: "There are three parties to this litigation as of now. Only two of them have made inflammatory public comments about this case," he says, naming Trump and Cohen. "Our office has done no such thing."
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
"The only thing that makes this case unusual in any respect is that one of Mr. Cohen's clients is the president…neither one of them has a persuasive reason why this case should be any different."
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
Cohen's lawyer says his unnamed third client is a "publicly prominent individual."
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
Oh boy …
Cohen's lawyer is offering to give the name to the judge in a sealed envelope right now.
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
Judge says regarding unnamed third client, Cohen team "has not met the standard for an exception to the notion that client identity and even fee arrangements must be revealed."
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
Judge Wood: "I understand that he doesn't want his name out there, but that's not enough under the law."
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) April 16, 2018
Judge has ruled that client name must be disclosed publicly now.
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
For everyone waiting for the name: there is further discussion happening over some of the related points of the disclosure of this name. It hasn't yet been announced.
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
Until now:
Michael Cohen's previously unnamed third client is SEAN HANNITY.
— erica orden (@eorden) April 16, 2018
"The client's name is Sean Hannity"
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) April 16, 2018
It is:
Hannity confirms pic.twitter.com/fGTmQhBpWI
— Joshua Green (@JoshuaGreen) April 16, 2018
Welp.
— jon gabriel (@exjon) April 16, 2018
You can't even make this stuff up.
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) April 16, 2018
Marvel: “Infinity War is the most ambitious crossover event of all time.”
Me: pic.twitter.com/TZ86d3R1Gl
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) April 16, 2018
Thank you, Jesus. https://t.co/cYUEPgCyPa
— Dr Hugo Z Hackenbush (@MangyLover) April 16, 2018
MERRY LITMAS
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) April 16, 2018
LMAOOOO it's so lit https://t.co/SPHJIT9vsW
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) April 16, 2018
I dont care what anyone says
2018 < 2017
— Mujahed Kobbe (@Moj_kobe) April 16, 2018
The writers of 2018 are unconscionable hacks. Another implausible plot twist! https://t.co/5oYYOJWZKl
— Brendan Nyhan (@BrendanNyhan) April 16, 2018
Season 2 of President Trump is the best show on TV how the hell do they come up with this stuff
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) April 16, 2018
This is going to break the internet! I'm calling it now.
— Jo Anne Smoot (@joannesmoot) April 16, 2018
***
Update:
On Fox, Shep Smith addresses Hannity: "We just spoke with his publicist here at Fox News who says that he says they've been friends for a long time, he never denied that he he was his lawyer, that he did some legal work along the way, and that's the extent of that."
— Max Tani (@maxwelltani) April 16, 2018
***
Update:
This is getting interesting. Well, more interesting:
HANNITY: "I've known Michael a long long time..let me be very clear to the media, Michael never represented me in any matter, I never retained him in the traditional sense … I have occasionally had legal discussions where I wanted his input
— Alana Abramson (@aabramson) April 16, 2018
Sean Hannity: “I never retained him in the traditional sense” but I have asked him questions about the law and those conversations are privileged.
— Ben Dreyfuss (@bendreyfuss) April 16, 2018
Hmmm …
Then why did Michael Cohen say he was his client? https://t.co/98feeJ7lvF
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) April 16, 2018
I still don't understand why Cohen's lawyer would refer to Hannity, in a letter to the court, as a "client" if the relationship were this casual https://t.co/B6lxGNUPw2
— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) April 16, 2018
What is going on?
HANNITY says he has 8 different lawyers, but occasionally slipped Cohen a few dollars … "I definitely might have handed him 10 bucks: "'I want attorney-client privilege on this'."
— David Martosko (@dmartosko) April 16, 2018
Sean Hannity says he may have handed Michael Cohen $10 and said “I want privilege to cover me about this conversation”
— Ben Dreyfuss (@bendreyfuss) April 16, 2018
OK …
The "Better Call Saul" defense.
— Charles Repine (@DistrictDawg) April 16, 2018
***
Update:
So, is Hannity calling Michael Cohen a liar or … ?
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.
— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) April 16, 2018
In that case:
So, as @nycsouthpaw said earlier, either this is not accurately portraying the relationship, or there are basically no A-C privileged files at issue — which would undermine the argument Cohen's lawyers are trying to make in court. https://t.co/gTprU7HUK7
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) April 16, 2018
Oy vey.
Why would he call Hannity, in court filings no less, a client then? Is Cohen that dumb/inept? https://t.co/8bUy5REKn0
— Brad Thor (@BradThor) April 16, 2018
***
Update:
Some insight from Legal Insurrection:
Contrary to what a lot of reporters are tweeting, it doesn't matter that Hannity never retained Cohen in a matter, signed a retainer, or paid attorney's fees. He still was, for legal purposes, a client if he consulted even informally for legal advice. https://t.co/7DzqT8x29p
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) April 16, 2018
And more from Popehat:
Bear in mind that Cohen has every incentive to exaggerate his client communciations to try to derail the doc review, so he may be spinning Hannity into a client when he really isn't, or is only minimally for a few communications.
— TheNewNormalHat (@Popehat) April 16, 2018
Also: Cohen screwed Hannity. Wood was only in a position to require revealing his identity because of how Cohen structured his mostly-weak mostly-bad argument about how the doc review should work. If Hannity was a real client, that was a knife in the back.
— TheNewNormalHat (@Popehat) April 16, 2018
This makes sense, but it sounds like Hannity didn't know he was a client. We know that's not true b/c he asked Cohen not to name him.
— Michael D. Pomerantz (@MDP_ESQ) April 16, 2018
Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about that.
— TheNewNormalHat (@Popehat) April 16, 2018
I am really at a loss whether to believe Cohen less or Hannity less.
— TheNewNormalHat (@Popehat) April 16, 2018
Sometimes it’s best to just call it a draw and leave it at that.
***
More from Hannity:
I assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third-party.
— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) April 16, 2018
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,
— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) April 16, 2018
which dealt almost exclusively about real estate, not be made a part of this proceeding.
— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) April 16, 2018
***
Update:
Could Sean Hannity's relationship with Michael Cohen pose a problem for Fox News? https://t.co/mLzRw7W5iL
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 16, 2018
