|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 18, 2018 21:10:16 GMT -5
slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/sean-hannity-is-michael-cohens-secret-third-client-why-that-matters.htmlA couple of days ago, a federal judge by the name of Kimba Wood forced Michael Cohen’s attorney to reveal that Sean Hannity was one of Cohen’s three clients. The only people asking why Judge Wood required the revelation of a private individual who was not connected to the case at hand, or accused of any wrongdoing, was publicly named are the reality-based media, and not #theresistance media. The answer appears to be that Wood, who was nominated to be Attorney General by President Clinton, has decided to advocate for #theresistance rather than justice from the Federal Bench.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 19, 2018 9:34:03 GMT -5
Not to mention that nothing in the "revelation" has anything at all to do with wrong doing. So he consulted a lawyer. So what? And, if none of this pans out, Mueller may very well be in the bullseye for prosecution for harassment, wrongful prosecution, possibly even breaking and entering, if he lied on the warrant application, like the lies in the Trump "dossier" used to get a FISA warrant.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 19, 2018 11:53:16 GMT -5
Not to mention that nothing in the "revelation" has anything at all to do with wrong doing. So he consulted a lawyer. So what? And, if none of this pans out, Mueller may very well be in the bullseye for prosecution for harassment, wrongful prosecution, possibly even breaking and entering, if he lied on the warrant application, like the lies in the Trump "dossier" used to get a FISA warrant. To be honest, Judge Wood might have opened herself up to that as well.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 19, 2018 13:35:24 GMT -5
Not to mention that nothing in the "revelation" has anything at all to do with wrong doing. So he consulted a lawyer. So what? And, if none of this pans out, Mueller may very well be in the bullseye for prosecution for harassment, wrongful prosecution, possibly even breaking and entering, if he lied on the warrant application, like the lies in the Trump "dossier" used to get a FISA warrant. To be honest, Judge Wood might have opened herself up to that as well. Possibly, however with her, the bar would be much higher. I don't think a case can be made with just this incident, but we'll see. Hannity might at least have a case of harassment. Maybe violation of privacy.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 19, 2018 14:12:23 GMT -5
To be honest, Judge Wood might have opened herself up to that as well. Possibly, however with her, the bar would be much higher. I don't think a case can be made with just this incident, but we'll see. Hannity might at least have a case of harassment. Maybe violation of privacy. www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-legal-standards/According to the US Attorney's Manual, "federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third parties" and that federal courts have said there is "no legitimate government interest served" by not doing so. This is a formal written policy of the DOJ and the courts which was violated by the judge. Hannity is not involved in this case any more than any of us are involved in work that our attornies are doing for any of their other clients. This is raw politics by the JUDGE it is not justice. And by not following proper procedures and policies, she's exposed herself to legal action in the same way a police officer would in any controversy where he didn't follow his department's procedures.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 21, 2018 18:04:43 GMT -5
Possibly, however with her, the bar would be much higher. I don't think a case can be made with just this incident, but we'll see. Hannity might at least have a case of harassment. Maybe violation of privacy. www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-legal-standards/According to the US Attorney's Manual, "federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third parties" and that federal courts have said there is "no legitimate government interest served" by not doing so. This is a formal written policy of the DOJ and the courts which was violated by the judge. Hannity is not involved in this case any more than any of us are involved in work that our attornies are doing for any of their other clients. This is raw politics by the JUDGE it is not justice. And by not following proper procedures and policies, she's exposed herself to legal action in the same way a police officer would in any controversy where he didn't follow his department's procedures. There is a lot of that going on since Trump was elected. "Judges" rewriting immigration law, ignoring the plain wording of laws, or just plain substituting ideology for law.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 21, 2018 18:06:42 GMT -5
www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-legal-standards/According to the US Attorney's Manual, "federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third parties" and that federal courts have said there is "no legitimate government interest served" by not doing so. This is a formal written policy of the DOJ and the courts which was violated by the judge. Hannity is not involved in this case any more than any of us are involved in work that our attornies are doing for any of their other clients. This is raw politics by the JUDGE it is not justice. And by not following proper procedures and policies, she's exposed herself to legal action in the same way a police officer would in any controversy where he didn't follow his department's procedures. There is a lot of that going on since Trump was elected. "Judges" rewriting immigration law, ignoring the plain wording of laws, or just plain substituting ideology for law. There is, but I think this is the most brazen example so far.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 21, 2018 20:18:56 GMT -5
There is a lot of that going on since Trump was elected. "Judges" rewriting immigration law, ignoring the plain wording of laws, or just plain substituting ideology for law. There is, but I think this is the most brazen example so far. Well, since she has nothing legal to attack Hannity for, she's just trying to embarrass him any way she can. She should be impeached for this.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 21, 2018 20:22:47 GMT -5
There is, but I think this is the most brazen example so far. Well, since she has nothing legal to attack Hannity for, she's just trying to embarrass him any way she can. She should be impeached for this. I would start with impeachment and then disbarment... but I think she's also potentially liable for violating Hannity's civil rights. Starting with attorney-client privilege. She's Mike Nifong as a judge.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 21, 2018 20:49:04 GMT -5
Well, since she has nothing legal to attack Hannity for, she's just trying to embarrass him any way she can. She should be impeached for this. I would start with impeachment and then disbarment... but I think she's also potentially liable for violating Hannity's civil rights. Starting with attorney-client privilege. She's Mike Nifong as a judge. I guess she thinks The Felon won, and she's protected from the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 21, 2018 20:54:11 GMT -5
I would start with impeachment and then disbarment... but I think she's also potentially liable for violating Hannity's civil rights. Starting with attorney-client privilege. She's Mike Nifong as a judge. I guess she thinks The Felon won, and she's protected from the consequences. Given the Felon's husband tried to make her Attorney General, she must also be confused as to why she's still a judge.
|
|