And Michael Cohen's mystery client that he wanted to keep
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:52 pm
undisclosed was..................
Sean Hannity.
You can't make this shiRt up.
Sean Hannity.
You can't make this shiRt up.
Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
https://uwsboard.com/
Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
Politicsip_law-hokie wrote:They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ip_law-hokie wrote:They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As I understand it, this is not being initiated by Mueller.Mcl3 Hokie wrote:I mean other than headline grabbing...what a bunch of crap. You know an investigation is grasping at straws when it resorts to media whoring.
ip_law-hokie wrote:They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uh huh, just his former subordinates.ip_law-hokie wrote:As I understand it, this is not being initiated by Mueller.Mcl3 Hokie wrote:I mean other than headline grabbing...what a bunch of crap. You know an investigation is grasping at straws when it resorts to media whoring.
ip_law-hokie wrote:They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HooFighter wrote:One would think that during the past few weeks when Hannity defending Cohen on a daily basis that he might have acknowledged the fact that he had a professional arrangement with him.
Telling your viewers about that conflict of interest would probably be the ethical thing to do.
But...Fox News.
Keep on sleuthing detective, I'm sure you're about to crack this case wide open.HooFighter wrote:“High level operative for Bill Clinton”
Yes, that’s common knowledge. Not really a secret. I’m sure you see the difference.
Snow?Major Kong wrote:I actually listened to Hannity today while tooling around in the snow with my nephew coming home from the VA in Johnson City.
Hannity found the whole situation hilarious...neither my nephew nor I had a clue as to what was going on but the segment we were listening to was fascinating.
Uh huh.ip_law-hokie wrote:They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s a federal judge, appointed by Reagan, in Manhattan. I’ll trust her judgment and impartiality over yours.HokieJoe wrote:Uh huh.ip_law-hokie wrote:They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HooFighter wrote:“High level operative for Bill Clinton”
Yes, that’s common knowledge. Not really a secret. I’m sure you see the difference.
ip_law-hokie wrote:It’s a federal judge, appointed by Reagan, in Manhattan. I’ll trust her judgment and impartiality over yours.HokieJoe wrote:Uh huh.ip_law-hokie wrote:They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This ("They must have had their reasons. . .") needs to be the response in every thread where IP is bitching about cops, because it seems that Comey / Mueller are the only law enforcement officers in the country that IP doesn't have a problem with.HokieJoe wrote:Uh huh.ip_law-hokie wrote:They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TDB.USN_Hokie wrote:This ("They must have had their reasons. . .") needs to be the response in every thread where IP is bitching about cops, because it seems that Comey / Mueller are the only law enforcement officers in the country that IP doesn't have a problem with.HokieJoe wrote:Uh huh.ip_law-hokie wrote:They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote:Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.USN_Hokie wrote:So what?
Is this a leak?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DFPip_law-hokie wrote:TDB.USN_Hokie wrote:This ("They must have had their reasons. . .") needs to be the response in every thread where IP is bitching about cops, because it seems that Comey / Mueller are the only law enforcement officers in the country that IP doesn't have a problem with.HokieJoe wrote:Uh huh.ip_law-hokie wrote:They must have had their reasons. . .Mcl3 Hokie wrote:Let me ask how his name is pertinent to the Cohen/Trump investigation? Why would a judge “unmask” an unrelated client?
ElbertoHokie wrote: Cohen's lawyer's motion to hide who the client was, was denied by a judge. So Cohen's lawyer announced it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You betcha. 80°F Saturday. 28°F with 18° wind chill and snow today.awesome guy wrote:Snow?
Thought so as the river crests on Wednesday. Stupid snow melt.Major Kong wrote:You betcha. 80°F Saturday. 28°F with 18° wind chill and snow today.awesome guy wrote:Snow?
Winter can bite me.