“I Want To Set The Record Straight”: Hannity Expains His Relationship With Michael Cohen

With most of the media in a feeding frenzy after judge Kimba Wood – the same judge who 5 years ago married the 83-year-old George Soros to 42-year-old Tamiko Bolton…
Georges Soros married Tamiko Bolton; Judge Kimba Wood officiated the non-denominational ceremony

… unveiled that Michael Cohen’s “third client” is Sean Hannity, questions swirled over potential conflicts of interest, and whether Hannity had an obligation to disclose his relationship to Cohen, whom he defended on his show on more than one occasion.

Breaking News

Be the first to know when big news breaks

As we observed earlier, Hannity justified his silence on the matter claiming Cohen never represented him “in any matter involving a third party”, had never “retained  [Cohen’s] services” and had occasionally “asked Mr Cohen questions concerning the law that Mr Cohen indicated would be privileged.”  This however prompted more questions, the top two being i) whether asking your lawyer “some legal questions” and saying “attorney/client privilege” makes you their client and, ii) why was Cohen’s team so reluctant to reveal Hannity’s name in the hearing, and why the secrecy?

Earlier on Monday, even attorney and frequent Fox News guest Alan Dershowitz Sean Hannity criticized host Sean Hannity for not disclosing his relationship with Cohen during his frequent discussions about Cohen in recent weeks.
Dershowitz, a defender of Trump amid his legal woes, was brought on to discuss former FBI Director James Comey’s Sunday night interview on ABC News, but first addressed the Monday revelation that Hannity is the previously unnamed client of Cohen. “I really think you should have disclosed your relationship with Cohen,” Dershowitz said, calling it a “complicated situation.”

Judd Legum@JuddLegum

Alan Dershowitz (!) says that Hannity should have disclosed that he was a client of Cohen before discussing the FBI raid last week.

Hannity responds: “I have the right to privacy.”

 So to answer all of this, in his show on Monday night Hannity addressed the Cohen situation for the second time as follows.

Michael Cohen never represented me in any legal manner. I never retained his services, I never received an invoice. I never paid Michael Cohen for legal fees. I did have occasional brief conversations with Michael Cohen, he’s a great attorney, about legal questions I had or I was looking for input or perspective.

“My discussions with Michael Cohen never rose to any level that I needed to tell anyone that I was asking him questions. And to be absolutely clear: they never involved any matter, any – sorry to disappoint so many – matter between me, a third party, a third group, at all. My questions focused almost exclusively on real estate. I said many times on my radio show ‘I hate the stock market, I prefer real estate.’ Michael knows real estate.

“So in response to all the wild speculation, I want to set the record straight here tonight. I never asked Michael Cohen to bring this proceeding on my behalf. I have no personal interest in this legal matter. That’s all there is, nothing more.”

To be sure, if Hannity is lying – and with both the FBI and NSA now in possession of all Cohen docs – we will know momentarily, or as soon as the leak to the NYT/WaPo hits, at which point Hannity’s future at Fox News will be no more. On the other, if indeed as Hannity claims “there is no there, there”, maybe Trump will be right, and “attorney-client” privilege is indeed dead, in which case perhaps judge Wood who officiated the wedding of the the lovely couple in the photo above, in which the bride is exactly half the age of the groom, can disclose just what the nature of their relationship is.

PS. the following brief blurb on Judge Kimba Wood is certainly interesting:

In 1993 President Bill Clinton nominated her to become the first female Attorney General. But she withdrew from the nomination after the White House learned she had hired an undocumented immigrant as a baby-sitter.

Wood, who was Clinton’s second choice for AG post, didn’t break the law employing the nanny and in fact paid the woman’s taxes. But the White House asked her to withdraw because her situation was similar to Clinton’s first AG nomination, Zoe Baird.

Baird bowed out of consideration for the job after she drew criticism for employing two undocumented immigrants as housekeepers.

via www.zerohedge.com

You might also be interested in:


  1. What difference does it make whether Hannity was a client of Cohen or not,Hannity is not a politician,so is not held to the same standard as a politician,he does a news show based upon opinion,what ever relationship he had is no others business but his,he says he never retained Cohen as his lawyer,and never payed him for any legal matters,so what is the big deal here,to Hell with the liberals,these people are the sorriest people on this planet and need to shut the Hell up.—–Jim Hunt

  2. What does all of this have to do with the Russian investigation on Trump. Our problem is we have WAY too many lawyers in this country and the judicial system is broken and only serves to create wealth for attorneys.
    When I went to school it was pretty evident that Engineering, Science, Education and Business degrees required much more intelligence than the Legal programs.
    If you look at the requirements for a Legal degree it is not very demanding from a scholastic standpoint and yet those that pursue this career typically are offered much more financial opportunities for contributing nothing more than defining technicalities that their predecessors created.
    As a famous orator once said, to fix the problems you need to first kill all the lawyers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *