Oafley Jones wrote: » Breaking Bad has a lot to answer for.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Another possible explanation is that none of these people are very bright.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » The fact that this "put a dollar in my pocket" scheme to guarantee attorney-client privilege comes from "Breaking Bad" does not mean that Cohen and/or Hannity don't believe it.
Peregrinus wrote: » Well, while I'm always glad to believe bad things about Fox "News" hosts, it's hard to think that Hannity believed both that by making a token payment he could create an attorney/client relationship and so claim privilege, and that he could deny any attorney/client relationship and still claim privilege.
everlast75 wrote: » Well Hannity can see no contradiction between plaguing folk with conspiracy theories around the time of someone's death, and then asking for the media to respect his privacy when his name is read out in Court.... so no - it's not hard to think Hannity can believe two opposite things at the exact same time.
Peregrinus wrote: » Simply making a payment of a dollar (or indeed of a larger amount) does not make a conversation privileged. Conversely, not making a payment does not mean that it is not privileged. It does not matter at all whether the lawyers is paid, or how much; all that matters is whether a lawyer-client relationship exists. Payment is irrelevant to that question. Plus, if Hannity imagined that the plan was to characterise the relationship as a lawyer/client one in order to be able to invoke privilege, it's very unlikely that he thought that no note or record would be made. If you want at the outset to position yourself so that your relationship looks lawyery-clienty, then obviously you are going to do all the usual lawyery-clienty things, which includes keeping a file, keeping correspondence, documenting meetings and conversations, etc. No, the simple explanation here is: (a) Cohen named Hannity as a client either because he genuinely considers Hannity as a client or because he thinks the point is arguable but he wants to give Hannity the option of at least trying to claim privilege; (b) Hannity was initially undecided whether it would be more damaging to him to acknowledge being Cohen's client and possibly have the benefit of privilege or deny being a client and abandon any claim to privilege, and at first he tried to have an each way bet; (c) he has now realised (or been advised) that he can't have the each-way bet and, forced to choose one, he reckons not being a client and not claiming privilege is going to be less damaging to him than taking the opposite course.
VinLieger wrote: » Did Fox's attorney's let him go on the air last night?
Gbear wrote: » There's nothing to say that he does actually believe that. You always wonder with people like this - shysters, fraudsters, conspiracy nuts, televangelists and all that - whether they do actually believe what they're peddling, or if they're not just utterly cynical and selfish, and are happy to say literally anything so long as its to their own benefit. Do they have a moral code beyond the urge to enrich themselves or gain more power? Of course, as Hanlon's razor goes, don't say something's malicious when stupidity will do, but surely sometimes it's malicious?
jooksavage wrote: » Just back to the Russian sanctions - im convinced now that either Trump is actually compromised, or he's just paranoid the Russians have something on him. Its hard to rationalize this behavaviour otherwise. What the hell though is wrong with the senior Rs who are standing by watching the Commander In Chief acting like a man in thrawl to Putin? If Ryan cant find his voice now with his impending retirement, he's a coward of historic proprtions.
jooksavage wrote: » JIf Ryan cant find his voice now with his impending retirement, he's a coward of historic proprtions.
amandstu wrote: » Has the GOP been destroyed by ,first the Tea Party and now Trump so that they know they cannot fight him openly but only wait in the long grass even though time may not be on their side? ie they are in part putting their shell of a party before the common good.... in part accepting the inevitable.
Hurrache wrote: » The odd thing I find about the whole San Diego thing is that when I was at the border there on more than one occasion I got the impression it was probably one of the more secure crossings in the whole state.
Mumha wrote: » amandstu wrote: » Has the GOP been destroyed by ,first the Tea Party and now Trump so that they know they cannot fight him openly but only wait in the long grass even though time may not be on their side? ie they are in part putting their shell of a party before the common good.... in part accepting the inevitable. Actually that's a great post. The emergence of the Tea Party, (d)evolving into the "Freedom Caucus" has been a ticking timebomb within the GOP. It is appalling that a rump of a party can dictate to the majority (remember the problems the Militant Tendency cause the British Labour Party), and I'd be slightly concerned about the so-called Progressives within the Democratic Party. The problem with the GOP going forward is how does the majority within the party re-assert control from the minority, that would otherwise be not listened to, without blowing up the party ? Blowing up the party might be the best thing in the short term, though not the long term for the US, as it depends on a functioning two party system.
Blowfish wrote: » The more this go on, the more I get the feeling that it's not actually Putin, at least not directly, that he's in thrall to. He seemed ok with kicking diplomats out and bombing Syria, both which affect the Russian nation directly. The main part that he ends up wriggling out of is the imposing of sanctions, which is targeted not at Russia as a nation, but directly at the oligarchs. Some went through in April, but on at least 2 other occasions he hasn't implemented them. If I had an alternative career as an investigative journalist, I'd be looking at the powerful in Russia to try to find specifically who Trump is avoiding hitting with sanctions as that's who most likely has the dirt on him.
notobtuse wrote: » I am not a fan of the bombing of Syria. The US can’t be the world’s moral police. Trump called Putin’s bluff to shoot down all missiles and gave him a black eye. Putin will retaliate, no doubt... not with bombs, but with 1’s and 0’s in the form of cyber attacks, IMO. But I think the UK, rather than the US, will be his primary target.
