Tucker Carlson On Hannity-Cohen Revelation: Who Hannity Hires As His Lawyer is Nobodies Business

Tucker Carlson offered a scathing rebuke tonight after a judge revealed that Sean Hannity was in fact a client of Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen. Twitter was abuzz with a bizarre and frantic explosion of joy over this news today, as if it meant anything at all.

The point Tucker made tonight, and anyone who's thinking rationally, is that Hannity is entitled to hire whoever he wants and his privacy should be respected -- especially since he's not under investigation. The only reason why the judge would reveal Sean's name, as 'mystery client #3', is to embarrass him. Where does the authoritarian behavior end: unveiling of medical records, conversations with a priest or rabbi? Tucker, as always, tackles the subject with a sophisticated cadence that is hard to argue against.

Comments

Earl of Chiswick Salzburg1756 Tue, 04/17/2018 - 10:57 Permalink

the judge who ordered that Hannity be unmasked 

" the judge ordered Cohen's lawyers to identify the third client, who Ryan said had asked to remain confidential, and was told it was Fox News host Sean Hannity. "

back in the nineties the same judge was herself worried about FBI scrutiny of her affair with financier Frank Richardson 3rd

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/kimba-wary-fbi-diaries-tryst-r…

In reply to by Salzburg1756

Truth_Hoits MarsInScorpio Tue, 04/17/2018 - 14:42 Permalink

Grammar police police, you go fuck yourself.

I am the grammar police's police's police.

Who dares investigate me?

This is not an investigation... It's a matter.

Grammar matters.

Speaking of which... Do you realize how dangerous it would be if black lives matter ever meets black lives antimatter?

 

Scary.... Very scary... Yet still not as frightening as poor grammar.

Who cares about grammar? If you write for a living, you should have a decent grasp of grammar. If you're investigating a message board, not so much.

Further... Who hates grammar police? Lazy people and illiterates... Well, most.

 

Truth Hurts... So I mixed in a little entertainment.

Have a nice day. :-)

 

In reply to by MarsInScorpio

Earl of Chiswick MarsInScorpio Tue, 04/17/2018 - 11:00 Permalink

CNBC 2013 (the guest list is straight out of  the Star Wars Cantina scene - Bono, Christine Lagard ...)

https://www.cnbc.com/2013/09/22/billionaire-soros-weds-consultant-in-th…

Soros and Bolton, 42, exchanged vows in a small ceremony at his Bedford, New York, estate, which Soros bought in 2003 from "Jurassic Park" author Michael Crichton. Federal Judge Kimba Wood officiated at the non-denominational wedding,

In reply to by MarsInScorpio

ironmace Tue, 04/17/2018 - 08:15 Permalink

No recourse against judges. Getting a judge off the bench is like getting rid of a senator. It takes an act of Congress. Something should be changed about that

L Cornelius Sulla ironmace Tue, 04/17/2018 - 13:23 Permalink

Judicial oligarchs (formerly known as federal judges) represent the ultimate power in the federal system.  They  systematically arrogated to themselves the power to undermine decisions by elected officials without ever having to answer for their actions.  Indeed, the Brotherhood of the Black Robe perpetuates a system in which the mere criticism of a judge by an attorney (someone in an excellent position to know of the shortcomings of a particular judge, intellectual, temperamental, political or otherwise) constitutes a professional offense against the "court." When the Founding Fathers wrote lifetime tenure into the Constitution they only had in mind a Supreme Court whose express powers were much more circumscribed than has been subsequently interpreted to exist (by the judges themselves).  The Founding Fathers never envisioned a profusion of lesser courts populated by judicial tyrants reigning over every aspect of society.  Moreover, life tenure was not as radical a notion in an era when life expectancy was much shorter.  Now, octogenarians like Ruth Bader Ginsburg refuse to let go of power, literally and figuratively supported by their law clerks.  We will probably never be rid of lifetime tenure, but members of the corrupt, intellectually bankrupt federal judiciary can be treated no differently by the public than any other politician.        

In reply to by ironmace

SummerSausage Tue, 04/17/2018 - 08:24 Permalink

The judge - Kimba Wood was Bill Clinton's choice for AG until she admitted to hiring illegal alien nannies to save money.

Then she officiated at George Soro's last wedding.

Other than that, she's as unbiased Hillary.

King of Ruperts Land MarsInScorpio Tue, 04/17/2018 - 13:58 Permalink

They way the system is now with a single Judge having so much power is a (probably intentional) flaw in favour of the powers that be who posses mony for lawyers and points of corruption.

One solution might be to really legalize the second amendment in recognizing the non criminality of the peaceable armed standoff.

Detach the power of lethal state armed force from the Judges.

In reply to by MarsInScorpio

Last Man Standing Tue, 04/17/2018 - 08:35 Permalink

Kimba Woods is another if Bill Clinton's long line of Paramours and for sleeping with him, he gave her a seat on the Federal Bench. Now she is once again repaying him by taking on his wife's enemies, the man who beat her in a free election, an election she lost even with all of her cheating. Bill's motive is the fact that her loss cost them all of that extortion money that had been making up until that point and for his loss of access to all of those interns he could be sleeping with.

swmnguy Tue, 04/17/2018 - 10:06 Permalink

Sounds like Carlson made mince of that particular strawman distraction.  Good for him.  If he can't do that, he's no good for anything as Jon Stewart pointed out so clearly a dozen years ago or so.

This isn't about Hannity.  It's about Cohen.  If Hannity chooses to associate with people of ill-repute he will be affected however.  That's why everybody knows you shouldn't hang around with people who do illegal things.  People judge you by those with whom you associate.  Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.  This goes back to the dawn of time.  Apparently Hannity thinks he's above normal consequences.  That's not surprising.  The guy pretends to be a journalist when it suits him, and he maintains he isn't a journalist when that suits him.  His employers and his audience let him get away with it, so that's his affair.  What do you expect from a guy (Hannity) who promoted Hal Turner until a critical mass of people were disgusted by Hal Turner, at which point Hannity tried to pretend he didn't even know Turner?  Once Hannity had profited from the controversy and attention Turner provided to Hannity?

But now his correspondence has been seized because he chose to associate with somebody who's been under criminal investigation for a while now.  If Hannity were Cohen's client, and their mutual business was aboveboard, Hannity has nothing to worry about.  Since Hannity claims he was never Cohen's client, then there's no question of attorney/client privilege, and if the investigation of Cohen forces the publicizing of Hannity and Cohen's interactions, then Hannity has nothing to fear.  That's what Hannity is claiming, and there's no reason to doubt his word so far.

It is curious then why Cohen's attorneys went to such lengths to claim Hannity was Cohen's client.  And it's odd that Hannity would reinforce the government's argument for them, undoing Cohen's attorneys' efforts to keep Hannity's name out of it.

Whatever.  This seems like a big nothing.  Hannity's association with Cohen seems like both he and Cohen were apple-polishing Trump, which fits the M.O. for both of them; they know how to punch their meal-ticket.  It's just odd that Hannity, for all his talk of Conservative Values and sensibilities, doesn't know better about whom not to associate with.  But then, the rules don't matter if you've already decided they don't apply to you, and anybody who would associate with Hal Turner clearly has no reputation to protect or  sense of personal responsibility in the first place.

And if Carlson has to apple-polish the likes of Hannity; well, that says a lot about him, too.  Nothing that hasn't already been said long since, but still. 

roadhazard Tue, 04/17/2018 - 10:25 Permalink

Trumps lawyers are the gang that couldn't shoot straight. All they had to do was give the judge the third clients name in an envelope and the judge would probably have not said Hannity's name out loud. And they had that opportunity. Stupid fuckers. And why all the argument not to tell if it was no big deal. Trump is fucked if his "lawyers" are going up against Mueller.

bigloser Tue, 04/17/2018 - 12:35 Permalink

Ya know, this Kimba Wood is 74. Most of the US senators are in their 70s. Lots of people in high government offices are in their 70s.

Not for nothing, but I'm 64, and I just don't function like I did when I was say 30, 40, or even 50. I admit to slowing down a bit.

I have a sneaking suspicion that all these septuagenarians are working maybe 3-4 hours a day and many them have diminished mental faculties (Nancy Pelosi is a good example). Anybody see a recent pic of John McCain? Guy looks like Skeletor and rightfully, should step down, as he's not effectively representing his constituency.

I mean, is this any way to run a country (into the ground)? with a bunch of old farts who go to bed at 7:30?

L Cornelius Sulla roadhazard Tue, 04/17/2018 - 13:32 Permalink

An attorney-client relationship exists where advice is given by a member of the bar to someone seeking that advice.  No formal retainer or payment is necessary to create the relationship (though, the first time a lawyer represents a particular client the lawyer is obligated to provide his fee expectations).  Accordingly, if Sean Hannity sought and was provided legal advice, those communications are privileged.  Judge Wood eviscerated that sacred privilege by permitting law enforcement to paw through communications with Mr. Hannity (the degree of protection afforded matters related to the president is less clear at this time than with Hannity, but there is a clear presumption that the president enjoys such protections as well).  Only another judge (perhaps a magistrate) should be sorting the evidence seized.  The mere fact that they sought to vitiate the privilege demonstrates that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted to police itself in the review.  

In reply to by roadhazard

replaceme L Cornelius Sulla Tue, 04/17/2018 - 14:01 Permalink

Clearly the FBI has demonstrated that they, for lack of a better term, can't keep a fucking secret. What makes anyone think that their taint team would keep secret anything they found, wouldn't share it publicly or privately. Certainly they can't point at the FBI's record and say we should assume they'll do the right thing. Fuck them, if I left that out. Taint. I hope they have to wear badges that say that on them, and people laugh and laugh at them. The Taint Team.

In reply to by L Cornelius Sulla

replaceme Tue, 04/17/2018 - 13:40 Permalink

My favorite bit of this all was the Daily Beast's take on it, the 'check your privelege' article they wrote. Ignoring the juvenile, dismissive title (ha ha ha, it's funny that lawyer - client privelege is being trashed and we're clever!), the really haunting part was how it described releasing Hannity's name - laughter from the courtroom. Laughter. Stupid fucks, don't belong in court rooms, they belong in high school. Ha ha ha, it's funny because he's someone we don't like, and we're exposing him in court. Ha fucking ha. Fuch you Brittany and Hillary, whoever wrote that article. Gently, with a chainsaw, you're disgusting.