MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump's Lawyer Michael Cohen Has a Bad Day In Court: Reason Roundup

Plus: White House flip-flops on Russian sanctions, New York City says goat yoga is baaaaaaanned.

Hannity (L): Stephen Smith/Sipa USA/Newscom; Cohen (C): Catherine Nance/Polaris/Newscom; Daniels (R): Louis Lanzano/Polaris/NewscomHannity (L): Stephen Smith/Sipa USA/Newscom; Cohen (C): Catherine Nance/Polaris/Newscom; Daniels (R): Louis Lanzano/Polaris/NewscomBad days (and big reveals) in court for Trump and Cohen allies. In proceedings that dragged on through most of Monday afternoon, President Trump, his personal lawyer Michael Cohen, and others close to the duo—including Fox News star Sean Hannity—suffered a range of blows both reputational and legal. Most notably, Cohen's lawyers were forced to reveal that Sean Hannity—who has been very outspokenly critical of Robert Mueller's Russia-Trump probe and the recent FBI raid of Cohen's properties—is one of only three current Cohen clients.

Hannity has lashed out multiple times on air about the Justice Department's treatment of Cohen, never disclosing that he personally had business ties to the man. Hannity said the FBI raids on Cohen's properties were an "unprecedented abuse of power" and told other Trump supporters they better "get buckled up" for a rough ride.

"You know, now that we know he was working with Cohen," said Trevor Noah on The Daily Show last night, "that looks less like a news show and more like a guy really stressed, giving himself a pep talk." On the Late Show, Stephen Colbert said the revelation that Hannity had hired Cohen—most famously known now for paying off the president's former mistresses and lovers, including porn star Stormy Daniels—"raises the obvious question: Who did Sean Hannity have sex with?"

For his part, Hannity denied an attorney-client association to Cohen. "I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees," Hannity tweeted on Monday.

I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective. I assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third-party.

Hannity followed up by saying that his discussions with Cohen had been about real estate.

The more consequential legal news from yesterday's proceedings is U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood rejecting Trump's attempt to keep prosecutors from viewing communications between him and Cohen that the FBI seized in last week's raid. Trump and Cohen claimed they were protected by attorney-client privilege, but the judge rejected that argument.

Stormy Daniels and her lawyer Michael Avenatti showed up in court just to watch yesterday. Outside the courtroom, Daniels told reporters that "for years Mr. Cohen has acted like he is above the law" and "considered himself and openly referred to himself as Mr. Trump's fixer," but things were going to change:

He's played by a different set of rules, or should we say no rules at all. He has never thought that the little man, or especially women and even more women like me, mattered. That ends now. My attorney and I are committed to making sure that everyone finds out the truth and the facts of what happened.

Ken White has a complete rundown of how to understand what happened at yesterday's trial over at Popehat.com.

FREE MARKETSBRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS/NewscomBRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS/Newscom

Goat yoga gets boot by NY health nannies. Upstate New York farmers and yogis are now banned from bringing goats down to the big city for pop-up exercise events. On Sunday, the organizers of a Bushwick-based pop-up goat yoga class put out a statement announcing that the New York City Department of Health had denied their application for a permit. The class had been scheduled to run on Tuesdays and Thursdays beginning this week. "The 45-minute session was expected to be just like "regular yoga," except adorable baby goats would roam around the practitioners," reports AM New York.

"Goat yoga is something new to NYC and therefore uncharted territory when it comes to the permit application," the group's statement read. "After weeks of communication and brainstorming, we feel that the concept of goat yoga is just not possible within the laws of the city at this time."

Gilbertsville Farmhouse—which offers the classes upstate at its farm—was initially "very optimistic" about the Brooklyn class because "the health department was intrigued and receptive to the idea," it said. The problem seemed to turn on a new York City rule banning goats from being held inside a city building.

Holding goats is not a planned part of the goat-yoga class, but it could happen.

The Health Department said that it ultimately had to deny the permit because of the city's ban on direct physical contact with certain animals inside buildings.

THE RUSSIAN CONNECTION

Flip-flop on Russia sanctions. Trump may be reversing course on a decision to apply economic sanctions on Russia for its support of Syrian President Basha al-Assad. The sanctions, announce Sunday by United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, would've applied exclusively to Russian companies linked to chemical weapons in Syria. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin "will be announcing those on Monday, if he hasn't already, and they will go directly to any sort of companies that were dealing with equipment related to Assad and chemical weapons use," said Haley. But yesterday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters asking about the sacntions that the Trump administration was only "considering additional sanctions on Russia" and a decision would be made soon. The Washington Post reported that:

Trump conferred with his national security advisers later Sunday and told them he was upset the sanctions were being officially rolled out because he was not yet comfortable executing them, according to several people familiar with the plan. Administration officials said the economic sanctions were under serious consideration, along with other measures that could be taken against Russia, but said Trump had not given final authorization to implement them. Administration officials said Monday it was unlikely Trump would approve any additional sanctions without another triggering event by Russia, describing the strategy as being in a holding pattern.

The Russian embassy said someone with Trump administration had contacted them Sunday and said to ignore Haley's warning. Meanwhile, Russia is also stalling on a promised ban on certain US imports.

QUICK HITS

Photo Credit: Hannity (L): Stephen Smith/Sipa USA/Newscom; Cohen (C): Catherine Nance/Polaris/Newscom; Daniels (R): Louis Lanzano/Polaris/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Most notably, Cohen's lawyers were forced to reveal that Sean Hannity—who has been very outspokenly critical of Robert Mueller's Russia-Trump probe and the recent FBI raid of Cohen's properties—is one of only three current Cohen clients.

    Next you're going to claim Hannity is somehow connected to the Republican Party in some way.

  • ||

    Hello.

    Mueller spectacle = banana republic theater.

    No kidding cowards like Colbert and other celebrities side with him.

  • Tony||

    Yes only in true democracies with a strong rule of law and checks and balances do presidents get away with whatever high crimes or petty graft they wish with no accountability.

  • damikesc||

    Well, the candidate you wanted to win certainly did.

  • Tony||

    With the largely Republican-appointed federal law enforcement apparatus in on the conspiracy, of course.

    How does it feel to be a mindless cog in the machine of the United States' destruction?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    With the largely Republican-appointed federal law enforcement apparatus in on the conspiracy, of course.

    You're so close to getting it.

    SO CLOSE...

  • Tony||

    Both-sidesism is the most partisan stance to take.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    That's such a nonsensical thing to say that it's almost a koan.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The United States is not a democracy.

    It is a Constitutional Republic.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And why exactly were the lawyers forced to reveal the information about who Cohen's clients were?

    By what authority did the government demand and publicize this information?

  • Get lit||

    Cohen's lawyers gave it away when they filed a motion to seize the evidence back from the prosecutor so the judge naturally needed to know the names of the clients to establish that an attorney client relationships existed. Court proceedings are generally open to public unless there is a special basis to keep it private so that explains why it was disclosed in open court. In any normal situation an attorney client relationship isn't scandalous but in this instance Trump's chief propagandist is also personally involved in the scandal so it neccessarily calls into question the credibility (as if there's any at this point) of Hannity for not disclosing it.

  • Rhywun||

    Trump's chief propagandist

    zOMG Trump controls a media pundit that hardly anybody watches!1!!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Just FYI, Hannity's show is the top rated cable news show in the country (at least as of February). Scary, but true.

    http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser.....are/358502

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Great, now I'm crying at work and everyone is getting uncomfortable.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    So, a pretty normal Tuesday?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Usually they're uncomfortable for other reasons.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Exactly what Trump scandal is Hannity "personally involved in"?

  • John||

    He had the same lawyer Gilbert. That makes him guilty and deserve whatever he gets because Principles.

  • Juice||

    According to Hannity, he was not a client.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This is just optics. If Hannity was an actual journalist (which, to my knowledge, he doesn't claim to be) this would raise journalistic ethics concerns for him and Fox News.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    " If Hannity was an actual journalist (which, to my knowledge, he doesn't claim to be) this would raise journalistic ethics concerns for him and Fox News."

    Most most people in the MSM who claim to be journalists aren't actual journalists.

    Recent example: Lester Holt's puffball interview with Loretta Lynch about her meeting with Bill Clinton at the airport.

  • Ron||

    it called intimidation though government action. this morning i even saw one person on the news claiming all of Cohen's clients should be scared. why intimidation thats why make it so no one will hire them and ruin their carriers even if no crime was committed. the other method of public prosecution when you have nothing left.

  • MSimon||

    I'd like to see the warrant noting what they used as probable cause.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    On Monday, the bill to legalize hemp farming was fast-tracked on the Senate calendar...

    Something everyone can agree on? I don't like it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "...so the next bear market is going to be the worst in my lifetime," said investor Jim Rogers.

    Way to make it all about you.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    This just in: "global warming" still not working out for many of us in the endless winter of 2018.

    Sure we had a nice couple of days there, but now we're all back huddled in front of Al Gore's fireplace.

  • colorblindkid||

    But didn't you hear? The entire gulf stream is about to shut down, leading to the exact scenario predicted in the most scientifically accurate film of all time, The Day After Tomorrow.

  • John||

    The world is going to warm so much that we are all going to freeze to death.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    How freaking cold is it? So cold that even Ron Bailey has given up on doing his monthly "global temperature trend update"!

  • John||

    I had not noticed that. But you are right. At some point, the AGW hoax is finally going to be seen for what it is. When that happens, people like Bailey will just send their belief in it down the memory hole and pretend it never happened.

  • sarcasmic||

    But the shitty government policies will remain.

  • Rhywun||

    Blame your kids.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Ron has more integrity than that. You also seem to think there are only alarmists and deniers and make no allowance for anything in between.

  • John||

    If he has more integrity, let him show it. And either it is true or it isn't. What fucking degrees are you talking about? That is just you saying "I know it is bullshit but God damn it I don't like the people who say it isn't". Too bad. Sometimes life is like that.

  • gormadoc||

    Why are you judging Ron's integrity? Are you in a position to make decisions such as his?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Typical John: can't see that (a) people can believe in different amounts of warming, and (b) people can believe in different amounts of human involvement.

    Instead of accepting such a simple concept, you resort to insults and profanity.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    John is siding with Mikey here. And Mikey is too stupid to understand averages.

  • TuIpa||

    And you make a fool of yourself screeching about gut bacteria every time Roundup gets mentioned.

    You've got no room to talk.

  • BYODB||


    Typical John: can't see that (a) people can believe in different amounts of warming, and (b) people can believe in different amounts of human involvement.


    A) Interesting claim given that global averages aren't going up. Recall the 'hiatus'? Very interesting.

    B) Different amounts of human involvement in global temperature shifts based upon CO2? Yeah, people can believe in differing amounts and they'll all be wrong. That's rather the point.

    Ron is, however, far more honest than virtually every other publication in what he actually believes so he's not hiding behind bullshit necessarily. He tells you his leanings at the front door, which is admirable.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So it's going to be like when you first feel really hot water and for a moment it feels cold?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's pretty much a classic La Nina Year--the northern sections get hammered while the southern areas end up drier than crisp toast. Fire season's going to be pretty bad this summer.

  • Juice||

    Just like the endless winter of 2008. Might be seeing the start of a pattern.

  • Tony||

    So any time it's a hot day where you live, global warming suddenly becomes true?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A Tennessee bill that would require the disclosure of who paid for political ads on social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook is likely dead...

    JUST LIKE OUR DEMOCRACY NOW.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "It died...on a nice warm spring day, actually. Much like today"

    I'm currently in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois (I live in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin), current official temp in Oakbrook Terrace: 28 degrees Fahrenheit

  • Bee Tagger||

    The New York Times and The Washington Post are being honored with Pulitzers for Trump-Russia reporting

    You can't spell pulitzer without putin

  • ||

    Haha.

    As if we needed more proof of what a scam and sham the Pulitzer is.

    So making shit up is journalism now?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    If hoping for change is good enough for a Nobel Peace Prize, it's good enough for a Pulitzer.

  • DJF||

    The NYT can put theirs next to their Walter Duranty pulitzer

  • Ska||

    Oddly enough I finished watching the Wire S5 last night - 10 years later and it's still relevant.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The New York Times and The Washington Post are being honored with Pulitzers for Trump-Russia reporting.

    Hopefully no one got cum in their eye.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Oh Punky

  • Just Say'n||

    "Most notably, Cohen's lawyers were forced to reveal that Sean Hannity"

    How was this in the public interest, exactly? Seems like this was just done to discredit and humiliate Hannity who isn't even a subject of the investigation.

  • Get lit||

    The disclosure was necessary to resolve a guaranteed to lose motion Cohen filed so it was self inflicted.

  • Just Say'n||

    That makes no sense, DanO

  • Get lit||

    The judge needed to establish that there were clients to resolve Cohen's motion to seize the evidence and you do that by naming the clients. Cohen opened the path to this information disclosed in open court.

  • John||

    Again, the motion didn't have to be heard in open court. The names of the clients could have and should have remained private.

  • Get lit||

    On what legal basis?

  • Get lit||

    And now you want secret courts?

  • John||

    Courts handle confidential and proprietary information all of the time. It is called in camera review. If we litigate over the patent of my secret formula, do you think the formula gets revealed in open court? Is that a secret court if it doesn't, you fucking half wit.

    Just stop it. Take your idiotic partisan talking points elsewhere. You don't know what you are talking about and you are too stupid and partisan to want to learn any better.

  • gormadoc||

    Get lit is actually right here. While there is some precedent for not revealing a client's name publicly when it's necessary in an open court, it's not very common. That precedent was what they tried to use but it was obviously not convincing.

  • TuIpa||

    "gormadoc|4.17.18 @ 11:00AM|#

    Get lit is actually right here."

    You mean your other sock puppet?

    Yeah.

  • Tony||

    You know better than the judge in the case, of course. And Michael Cohen, who... well you probably are a better lawyer than he is.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Patent of your secret formula? How did you ever make it through law school?

  • John||

    I can claim a patent on things that are proprietary chipper. Contracts and lawsuits deal with proprietary and confidential information all of the time.

    Come back when you can have an intelligent discussion on this.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Patents are published and are public, dingbat. That is the whole point of patents. If you want to keep something secret, you have to treat it as a trade secret.

  • commentguy||

    "too stupid"... would be more convincing if the judge (a Republican appointee) had agreed with you. Or maybe she's too stupid too?

  • DJF||

    Because the information had already been leaked to the late night talk shows and their writers had already written the scrips.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It happens to benefit the business of a Kremlin-friendly billionaire...

    Regulatory capture meets the Russian deep state.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    It's been 10 years since we have had a bear market. That is very, very unusual, so the next bear market is going to be the worst in my lifetime.

    And another global depression could very well spend the end of the modern welfare state, as the central banks have pretty much emptied out their bag of tricks to prop up the debt-and-leverage based house of cards.

    Unless, that is, they plan to resort to outright wealth and savings confiscation, which will lead to the biggest civil unrest seen in generations.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Against California law, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department has a policy of restraining all pregnant inmates by default when they give birth.

    I wouldn't want to be those law enforcement officers when the judge gets through with them!

  • Just Say'n||

    "The New York Times and The Washington Post are being honored with Pulitzers for Trump-Russia reporting."

    So brave of them to regurgitate Democratic talking points that haven't panned out. Does anyone still believe this conspiracy theory of which no evidence has been provided?

  • John||

    Let it never be said that lying for the cause is not rewarded.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Like Walter Duranty

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Does anyone still believe this conspiracy theory of which no evidence has been provided?

    Yes.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Who did you find?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I saw the NYT has an article on whether Lenin was a paid German agent when they snuck him through Germany, from Switzerland to Finland, so he could foment revolution and take Russia out of the war. Headlines claiming this would be a game changing event.

    Lenin was known to want both revolution and ending the war, and if the Germans were dumb enough to pay him for what he would do anyway, all it really proves is that Lenin outsmarted them. It changes nothing in history, it changes nothing in their known motives. But it is definitely interesting that the proggies' newspaper of record thinks it changes everything.

  • Ron||

    if something is repeated enough it must be true

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The New York Times and The Washington Post are being honored with Pulitzers for Trump-Russia reporting.

    Excellent. It's always nice to see #TheResistance getting honored for its important work. Hopefully Mueller will get a Nobel Peace Prize when he kicks Drumpf out of office.

  • Rhywun||

    Why not give him one now? It's not like you actually have to accomplish anything to get one.

  • Rhywun||

    Why not give him one now? It's not like you actually have to accomplish anything to get one.

  • Rhywun||

    Why not give him one now? It's not like you actually have to accomplish anything to get one.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I almost agreed with this idea, but on second thought that might give the appearance of telling Mueller he's already done enough and can just stop. No, Mueller's work is incomplete as long as Drumpf occupies the White House. He needs to produce some Russia-related (or pornstar-related, either is fine with me) evidence the Democratic Congress can use to remove Putin's puppet from office.

    #BlueWave
    #Impeach

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I'll need to examine that evidence closely.

  • Rhywun||

    I think it's hilarious how the Left turn into prim prudes when the serial philanderer is not one of their own.

  • Tony||

    When was the last time a Democrat was let off the hook for such a thing? If you can even name one whose history even approaches that of Trump's.

    Say Clinton, I dare you. Only president impeached in modern times. Totally just given a pass on that.

  • gormadoc||

    If the requirement is that they were let off the hook, then it doesn't really apply to Trump either.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Bill Clinton. There I said it.

    Impeached yes. Impeached over bullshit when they couldn't connect him to Whitewater? Yes.

    Given a pass by TEAM BLUE - yes. Which was Rhywun's point and which went right past you.

  • Tony||

    He was more publicly humiliated over a BJ than possibly any other human in history. Democrats were part of that humiliation until Republicans overreached.

    Trump benefits from the affirmative action of very very low expectations, I suppose. How nice that must be for him.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    More humiliated than Monica Lewinsky was for that very same beej? Way to stand up for the powerful, Tony.

  • Rhywun||

    If Trump had run as a Democrat, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The whole point is that we don't know all of what the left gets away with because the media actively buries it.

  • Rhywun||

    If Trump had run as a Democrat, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The whole point is that we don't know all of what the left gets away with because the media actively buries it.

  • Tony||

    How would you know they're burying stuff you don't know about?

    Well this is getting pathetic.

  • TuIpa||

    "Well this is getting pathetic."

    Now you know how we feel.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Teddy Kennedy was let off the hook for something far worse - he killed a woman.

  • sarcasmic||

    "...we feel that the concept of goat yoga is just not possible within the laws of the city at this time."

    In a free country that which is not prohibited is allowed.

  • John||

    Funny how so many people like David French to name one who spend their time huffing about their "principles" and "decency" are all now cackling like hyenas over Hannity's privacy being invaded. WTF does Sean Hannity have to do with the Mueller investigation? It is no one's business who he talks to or who is attorney is. Anyone who cares about privacy should be really angry that DOJ invaded a private citizen's privacy and leaked their information all over the media because they don't like them and in spite of them being in no way connected to the relevant investigation. Trump has done the country a great service by revealing what frauds and liars these people are.

  • Get lit||

    Cohen's lawyers were responsible for the disclosure. Hannity's association with Cohen wasn't leaked. Cohen disclosed it by filing a motion in court that made an issue of attorney client privilege so the judge rightly needed to know who these clients were.

  • John||

    Sure. But she should not have done it in open court. It is called in-camera review. Courts can see things without disclosing it to the public. This is especially true considering it was lawyers for CNN and the NYT who convinced her to do so.

    http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/.....tchywidget

  • Get lit||

    There was no legal basis to keep it secret. "Your honor, the client has a TV show where he plays the part of a journalist who uncovers deep state plots against Cohen so it would be embarrassing if the public found out he was in business with the people who uses his show to protect."

  • John||

    There was absolutely a legal basis. The fact that someone is a client is covered by the privilege. If you don't believe me, call up any law firm and ask them for a list of their clients.

    I get it. You hate Hannity. I don't really like him either to be honest. But unlike you, I am not an unprincipled hack who thinks anytime DOJ and the court system fuck over someone I don't like, that it is okay.

  • Rhywun||

    You're not a fan of the 1st Amemdment, are you?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    LoL

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    That's very problematic. Drumpf is rapidly turning this country into a Christian theocracy, and they seem to be making light of it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    A sleepwear company has announced that the red version of its popular lingerie line has been given the name "Offred." Because when I think of a romantic evening at home, I picture government-sanctioned sexual slavery.

    This author is clearly ignorant about the Gor subsubculture.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    We should definitely have an extensive subthread about Gor. People need to know.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Since when do freakouts need context?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    They will have to be programmed to detect the first signs of withdrawal of consent. This is a tougher problem than even self-serving cars.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Especially when it can be withdrawn years after the fact.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Russian embassy said someone with Trump administration had contacted them Sunday and said to ignore Haley's warning.

    Wait until a man says it before taking it seriously.

  • John||

    Russia said it so it must be true right? I mean they would never lie.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    How This Nixon Ratfucker Conquered Pain

    To overcome his fears, Liddy decided to face them head on. "Suffering. That was the key. Whatever the consequences of what I do, I must accept and endure them—outlast suffering to achieve my goals," Liddy writes. To conquer his fear of rats, for instance, he picked up a dead rat his cat had left in the kitchen with bare hands, took it outside, and built a fire. From Will:

    For the next hour, I roasted the dead rat. Then I removed the dead carcass with a stick and let it cool. With a scout knife, I skinned, then cut off and ate the roasted haunches of the rat. The meat was tasteless and stringy... I smiled as the thought occurred to me: from now on, rats could fear me as they feared cats; after all, I ate them too.

    For Liddy, the key to success was triumphing over any and all emotional impulses—hence the rat-eating. Although he was clearly not opposed to acting out of malice, Liddy understood his fiery "temper was a grave threat to" him, as it represented "a surrender to ungovernable emotion."

    And he once took down Tim Leary!

  • John||

    There was a time in this country when it had proper villains.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I will give him this much: he went to prison rather than talk.

    Let's find out if Andrew McCabe is willing to do the same thing.

  • Eidde||

    Michael Cohen case is being heard by Judge Kimba Wood — aka the 'Love Judge'

    "...Wood was dubbed the "Love Judge" in 1995 when the soon-to-be ex-wife of a multimillionaire Wall Street financier found his diary, which was filled with passionate prose about his trysts with the jurist....

    "Richardson — who was worth an estimated $157 million at the time — wrote in superlatives about the judge, even describing one fireside rendezvous at the country home as "beautiful an eight hours as I have spent in my life."

    "He and Wood married in 1999."

  • John||

    She also used to be a Playboy Bunny.

  • Eidde||

    For, like, a week.

    I mean, who hasn't tried to work as a Playboy bunny? The only complaint I'd make is over their sexist hiring practices.

  • John||

    If you would mix in a salad and join a gym, you would have better luck Eddie. Just saying.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    John fat-shaming Eddie is an unexpected delight, like finding a forgotten $20 in the pocket of some jeans.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Or like discovering there is one more piece of cheesecake in the fridge.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Which may be Eddie's problem, according to John.

    I guess the main thing is, Eddie needs to watch what he eats, or else John might start to get attracted to him.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hannity has lashed out multiple times on air about the Justice Department's treatment of Cohen, never disclosing that he personally had business ties to the man.

    NEXT YOU'RE GOING TO INSIST WE THINK OF HANNITY AS SOME KIND OF SHILL.

  • John||

    If DOJ is going to get in the business of outing hack journalists, I don't think the journalists laughing about this are going to like it very much.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Eidde||

    "reveals" or "alleges"?

  • John||

    It is funny that people actually think that in this day and age stories like that are going to hurt Trump.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Right. He's still no Bill Clinton.

  • Just Say'n||

    You expect me to believe that the thrice married and noted serial adulterer, Donald Trump, had an affair? Why, that is just too logical to believe

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think a three way with a porn star is on my list of preapproved transgressions.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think her exact words were "sure honey. I will forgive you when that happens. "

  • Echospinner||

    Almost spilled my coffee. I get the same answer along with "if she is cute bring her home".

  • MSimon||

    She hasn't aged well. But then again almost none do.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    These stories are so hilarious--"During the 1990s, Donald Trump cut a swath through a gaggle of Playboy Playmates and pornstars." You've got Stormy Daniels getting media love for being a hooker, Karen McDougal admitting that she carried on with Trump for nearly a year, and Barbara Moore saying "I don't hold it against Donald, he was a great lover and I think he's a great president."

    I wouldn't be surprised at this point if it came out that he bagged Peak Jenna Jameson and 7 out of the 10 1990s Playmates of the Year.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Well, I guess this isn't making it onto Trump's Wikipedia page. Those wiki moderator cucks really shot themselves in the foot by banning Daily Mail.

  • John||

    THE ARCHITECTS WHO DID THE BALLPARKS IN THE TEENS AND TWENTIES WERE BETTER THAN THE ARCHITECTS WHO DID THE BALLPARKS IN THE NINETIES

    Yes they were.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Old Tiger Stadium disagrees. There were obstructed view seats all over that place. Literally seats directly behind pillars.

    But it's easy to remember the good ole' days and forget they really weren't all that good.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kids born into bondage.

  • Sevo||

    "End of Castro era in Cuba sees new liberties, dire problems"
    [...]
    "...And after two decades of receiving Venezuelan subsidies totaling more than $6 billion a year, Cuba's patron has collapsed economically with no replacement in the wings..."
    https://www.sfgate.com/world/article/
    End-of-Castro-era-in-Cuba-sees-
    new-liberties-12838450.php

    So the ran out of other people with money on top of running out of other people's money.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    My dearest wish, which will never happen, is that after the regime collapses under it's own stupidity that a million movies and documentaries are made telling the horrors of the regime. And the stories of the people who have died by it's hands.

    Too many people think these monsters are either cute or commendable. We should all be forced to face the tragedy of these regimes.

  • John||

    http://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17.....o-war.html

    North and South Korea set to announce official end to the war. If it turns out that ending the Korean conflict was as easy as telling China that if they want to run a trade deficit with us they better do something about North Korea, will that mean our foreign policy establishment is just that stupid and couldn't figure that out or they could and just didn't want the conflict to end?

  • Rhywun||

    I can't wait for the tweet asking Obama to hand over his "peace" prize.

  • Get lit||

    I can clearky remember Republicans trashing this liberal South Korean leader for working with the NKs and I wonder if the US will its war with NK if SK does so? If we're not at war with NK I wonder if that complicates our leverage and options in future negotiations?

  • John||

    I can clearly remember every Democrat claiming Trump was going to start a nuclear war because he tweeted mean things at Kim. How is that working out? But let's not talk about how wrong everyone in Washington except Trump is turning out to be about this. Let's talk about those damned Republicans who live in your head.

  • Get lit||

    We'll see where Trump is on this when it's said and done. I have no fucking clue. I think it may complicate the NK hardliners (Trump among them?) if SK cuts a deal.

  • John||

    SK isn't cutting a deal unless it is in their interests. And if it is in their interests, it is in ours and Japan's interest. What do you think South Korea wants to get blown up. There will not be any deals that do not involve China, the US, South Korea, and Japan. We will see what happens. But if the conflict does end and North Korea does give up its nukes, it will be an extraordinary thing and one that makes liars out of pretty much all of Trump's critics.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You mean make many of those critics more of liar than they already are?

    Trump's policy is to seek a resolution while simultaneously be ready for war. China and NK have suddenly realized this is the reality and are ready to talk now.

    Unfortunately, NK has nothing to offer the USA like China does with trade. NK has spent generations teaching ingrained violence which will be hard to shake. One of the Koreas has to go down. China is probably going to side with the USA since China is not prepared for war yet. So bye bye Fat Boy-Un.

    It seems to me that China is trying to create a defensive perimeter of islands and territory in preparation for war. Same thing Imperial Japan tried. China knows that US subs can currently cut off all oil and trade ships to mainland China. Russia and India are not friends of China. This leaves very few routes for oil to get thru. China's move toward solar is to minimize its dependence on oil.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, NK will never be peaceful under their current government.

    One of the Koreas has to go down for their to be peace.

  • Agammamon||

    They didn't want the conflict to end. Its the same reason we're still blowing up goat-herders 6,000 miles away - there are people who have built careers on this, are using this to to gain and maintain access to power and money.

    Korea is old news and no one has had a stake in stirring up shit there in a generation so we've left it alone to fix itself. Its the same thing that happened in '90's Central and South America after we stopped with all the 'anti-communist' fuckery we were doing down there in the '80's and let them sort it out themselves.

    Sadly, this probably means we'll be in the ME smacking hornet's nests until some other place comes up.

  • John||

    so we've left it alone to fix itself. Its the same thing that happened in '90's Central and South America after we stopped with all the 'anti-communist' fuckery we were doing down there in the '80's and let them sort it out themselves.

    Venezuela and Cuba are on the line and would like to have a word with you. They sorted it out themselves in the 1990s because the USSR and Cuba stopped funding communist movements.

  • DajjaI||

    Flip-flop on Russia sanctions.

    Poor Trump. He's completely surrounded by Russiaphobes. And he has only himself to blame.

  • Get lit||

    Better than to be surrounded and thrown off a balcony by Russian hitmen.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The problem seemed to turn on a new York City rule banning goats from being held inside a city building.

    Pussies, on the other hand, appear to be required everywhere in NYC.

  • Aloysious||

    re: Goat Yoga-

    "After weeks of communication and brainstorming, we feel that the concept of goat yoga is just not possible within the laws of the city at this time."


    Can you brainstorm when nobody in the process has a brain?

    The Health Department said that it ultimately had to deny the permit because of the city's ban on direct physical contact with certain animals inside buildings.

    Remember, it is ok to touch certain animals outside a building, but once you take the animal inside a building, you can't touch it, because reasons.

  • Eidde||

    SIV hardest hit?

  • gormadoc||

    Depends on the size of the co-op, I'd guess. And perhaps chickens are not one of those "certain animals."

  • Citizen X - #6||

    SIV fucks his chickens in the open air, the way God intended.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If the coops roof has collapsed it is technically considered outdoors.

  • Agammamon||

    And other animals it is ok to touch inside a building but not outside of one.

  • Sevo||

    "The New York Times and The Washington Post are being honored with Pulitzers for Trump-Russia reporting."
    So there are awards for finding nothing?

  • Eidde||

    These are Zen prizes.

  • MSimon||

    LOL ROTF

  • Tony||

    What would it take to convince you? Literally nothing, right?

  • Eidde||

    A Putin/Trump sex tape.

  • Tony||

    "So now we're attacking politicians for having gay sex? Since when! Demonrats are such hypoctits!"

  • Eidde||

    "So now we're making bad jokes?"

  • Sevo||

    "What would it take to convince you?"

    Evidence, loser.
    I know that's a foreign concept to you, but you could look it up.
    Hint: There is none here.

  • Tony||

    But there is a shit ton of it here.

  • TuIpa||

    He means real evidence, not "fever dream lizard people" evidence.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The New York Times and The Washington Post are being honored with Pulitzers for Trump-Russia reporting.

    More like a Pee-yoooo Hitler, if you know what I mean.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No, I don't. Could you walk me through this.

  • ||

    Don't read the comments in the Politico article about the Pulitzer.

    Just. Don't.

  • ||

    I like to think the caliber is a, erm, little bit higher.

    Well it used to be anyway.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Who reads the comments?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    "The 45-minute session was expected to be just like "regular yoga," except adorable baby goats would roam around the practitioners,"

    Why....?

    The problem seemed to turn on a new York City rule banning goats from being held inside a city building.

    Why....?

  • Just Say'n||

    Do you really want to know in this situation?

  • Rhywun||

    Y'know, I really don't have a problem with a ban on keeping farm animals in your apartment. That is not a hill worth dying on.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    If you're not free to keep farm animals in your apartment, are you really free at all?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    But it doesn't say keeping, it says holding. So they might let you have a goat as long as you don't pick it up. Also, I'd love to see the list of unapproved animals.

  • Rhywun||

    The article says keeping as pets, and also "holding".

    I wouldn't be surprised if most densely-populated urban areas have something similar. I really don't see a problem with it. Nor do I see it as a "free market" issue the way ENB seems to be implying. If she thinks the public-health concerns of raising farm animals in your apartment - which would be my guess as to the reason behind the bans - should be jettisoned, maybe she ought to explain that in some more detail.

  • Eidde||

    Look, I love it when Presidents are faithful to their wives, to whom they've stayed married.

    But this seems to be strictly a lifestyle option nowadays where Presidents are concerned - it doesn't exhaust the possibilities.

    Fine, then, but consider how much less drama they'd have in their careers if they followed that particular lifestyle choice.

  • Just Say'n||

    I take the unpopular position that everybody, president or not, would be better off if they remained faithful to their spouse. I know. I'm not 'woke'

  • Eidde||

    In the 1960s Nelson Rockefeller lost his chance at the Presidency because of his divorce.

    Then in the Swinging Seventies he became Vice President and died doing what he loved best.

  • Rhywun||

    You don't get to be president without being powerful and powerful people get what they want. Makes me wonder what sort of things The One got away with thanks to an adoring media.

  • General_Tso||

    Down the road, time wise, stories will come out.

    Just like JFK.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Adultery and divorce are just things everybody does these days. Why are they even things that people care about anymore? What Trump really could use is for one of his kids to go to rehab and one to admit he is mentally challenged. Then everyone else will have to support him.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You leave Eric alone. He's doing the best he can.

  • Just Say'n||

    What is right, isn't always popular and what is popular isn't always right. Trump's extramarital affairs speak ill of his character

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Who really cares anymore? And why?

  • Eidde||

    It would be relevant if he ran against someone of good character. Which means it might be relevant in a primary election, but not in the general.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Your opinion doesn't really count because you actually want the government involved in what people do in their bedrooms.

    For those people who say that the government has no business in their bedroom, why isn't the reverse true? What if Trump never got married but just fucked his way through hookers and models and made sure any kids he ended up having were taken care of? Is that better or worse?

  • Just Say'n||

    "What if Trump never got married but just fucked his way through hookers and models and made sure any kids he ended up having were taken care of? Is that better or worse?"

    Possibly better. He isn't violating any contract (remember, marriage is a contract). So long as he provides for his children it is probably better than being married and then violating that contract and disrupting his family's life.

    I'm also not sure if it is fair to characterize Eddie as preferring government involvement in the bedroom. I may be wrong there, but I don't recall him ever advocating that.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I'm also not sure if it is fair to characterize Eddie as preferring government involvement in the bedroom. I may be wrong there, but I don't recall him ever advocating that.

    I am 99.9% sure that he has previously stated that adultery should be illegal.

  • Eidde||

    I said that the standard libertarian objection - "omg consenting adults" wouldn't work unless the betrayed spouse consented, but at the same time I acknowledged the existence of *practical* reasons not to make adultery a crime.

  • Eidde||

    Likewise with prostitution - if a married person frequents prostitutes w/out the spouse's consent, then you can't really say all relevant adults have consented. But there are still *practical* reasons not to trust the government to wage a war on prostitution.

  • Eidde||

    And I toyed with the idea of adultery having criminal consequences instead of "merely" a civil divorce proceeding, but in the end the practical reasons won out for me, so I'm an opponent of criminalizing adultery, which puts me in advance (I think) of the woke state of New York.

  • John||

    if a married person frequents prostitutes w/out the spouse's consent, then you can't really say all relevant adults have consented.

    You can say that about anything a married person does.

  • Eidde||

    OK, but in any case certain acts are betrayals of the marital relationship, so the term "consenting adults" shouldn't be bandied about too casually unless of course it's one of those "open marriages."

  • Eidde||

    "you actually want the government involved in what people do in their bedrooms"

    No, I want less involvement in bedroom behavior. Eg, no telling private businesses how to define marriage, etc.

    But if we faced a contest between two otherwise equally-qualified candidates, one of whom stayed faithful to their marital vows and didn't invoke the justice system to conceal his bedroom behavior, and the other of whom was unfaithful and misused the justice system (in Clinton's case by obstructing statutes he himself had signed), then I would have a preference for the candidate who respected his vows and the justice system.

  • Just Say'n||

    If the question is "should he be ousted from office because of this transgression" then I think the answer is "no". But, if the question is "does this speak ill of his character" then I think the answer is "yes". Should character matter in elected officials? I think it should, to an extent. If there was a story about how Trump cheated a friend out of a business deal or something, I think people would find that more offensive than him cheating on his wife. But, aren't both incidences the same lapses in morality?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    It's driven by envy. People are thinking "I've stuck with my fat, ugly wife for 30 years while this guy fucks porn stars and models and BY GOD that's not fair."

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe for some that is the motivating factor. But, I have met genuinely decent people who find adultery to be offensive. There still are people who do believe in a moral code of behavior. They may not think that the government needs to enforce it, but they do believe that society should condemn such behavior.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Why must anyone condemn anyone's behavior that is not directly connected to their lives?

  • Just Say'n||

    Bombing Syria will effect my life as much as Trump cheating on his wife. Bombing Syria is still immoral (besides being illegal). The same could be said about slavery. Slavery in parts of the world won't effect you personally, but it should still be condemned as immoral.

    Adultery violates a contract. Shouldn't libertarians care when someone violates a contract? Or does being a libertine trump the sacredness of contracts?

  • John||

    Adultery violates a contract. Shouldn't libertarians care when someone violates a contract? Or does being a libertine trump the sacredness of contracts?

    If you ran a business and your best employee cheated on his wife, would you fire him? If you did, you would be a fool. You can't seem to grasp that your relationship to people can be limited and that people's characters are never the cardboard cutouts you want them to be. Are you perfect? Do you totally lack any character flaws? If you are, then you need to reveal yourself as the risen Christ. If not, then what flaws do you expect people to overlook in you and why? Why should someone who likes the things Trump is doing in office feel compelled to turn against him because of behavior that is between him and his wife?

  • TuIpa||

    "Bombing Syria will effect my life as much as Trump cheating on his wife."

    Um, no, and you're stupid for saying such stupid stupid stupidity.

    We get it, you hate Trump and will use anything to be rid of him.

  • Rhywun||

    Why must anyone condemn anyone's behavior that is not directly connected to their lives?

    Yeah, at this point I really couldn't care less who Trump banged and when. Just like I didn't care about Clinton.

    It's what they do to me that matters.

  • John||

    "Character" is a multifaceted thing. Lots of cowards and scoundrels and thieves have been faithful to their wives. And lots of first-class national heroes have been outright scoundrels in their private life.

    The mistake that you and a lot of other people make is to think that one aspect of character is representative of every aspect of character. It doesn't work that way. People are much more complex than that. You have to judge any President by their actions that relate to the office. Is the person stealing? Are they derelict in their duties? Do they lack the moral fiber necessary to do what is right? Those are the things that matter. And a person can be all of those things and more and still have other character weaknesses. No one is perfect. So, you have to choose what flaws you can tolerate and what flaws you can't. Infidelity is something you cannot tolerate in a spouse. It is, however, something you can tolerate in an employee. And that is all the President is, hired help.

  • Just Say'n||

    Pretty sure you weren't making that argument with regards to Clinton, John. Come on, now, just admit it: Trump is immoral and intellectual light weight

  • John||

    I am pretty sure I did just say'n. I honestly don't care that Clinton had affairs and didn't at the time. I did care that he banged an intern in the oval office, but that is related to the job.

    And I will admit Trump is immoral when you explain what that means and that he is an intellectual lightweight when you give me some reason to believe it. You have never met Trump. A lot of people who have say he is very smart. And as far as his morality, his wife and kids seem to think a lot of him. I find it hard to believe that he is quite that bad and they wouldn't know about it.

    I get it, saying Trump is the monster is good way to show you are part of the smart set. Well, fuck the smart set. I have no interest in posing. Come back when you have something of substance to say in response to my post. If you want to virtue signal, go do it to someone who cares because I don't.

  • Tony||

    You sure as fuck like to pose as someone nobody believes you were in the 90s. Nobody actually thinks you have any moral principles, because you lie with such regularity. So may goddamn lies. You were chief trumpeter on your local "Clinton is a poor role model" bandwagon and I would bet good money on that.

  • John||

    Go fuck yourself Tony. I know what I said and thought and it is exactly as I say. You just assume otherwise because you are a hateful moron who thinks everyone must think as you tell them.

    Trump is going to be held to the same standard Bill Clinton was held. If you don't like it, too fucking bad. In the mean time, stop polluting this thread with your idiocy. Everyone knows you are stupid and hateful. You don't have to remind us on every single thread.

  • Tony||

    So Trump is going to be impeached?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    History is littered with people making fun of the ethics of the people in office.

    With respect to presidents sex life. We had a big national conversation about it in the 1990s.

  • TuIpa||

    I like Tony claiming other people lie, it's like a Mobius strip of dishonesty.

  • John||

    No one. They only care to the extent that it gives them an excuse to further dislike someone whom they already dislike. That is it.

  • John||

    Trump needs one of his kids to come out as a transgendered Muslim. Then Trump can hug in and accept him on national TV and the entirety of the Woke nation will have to vote for Trump's re-election or be seen as Trans and Muslim phobic.

  • Eidde||

    Suddenly all Democrats will become TERFS (trans exclusionary radical feminists).

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    My friend is a TERF.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jesus Christ, these people have serious mental illness to think they are this special.

  • BYODB||

    ...if this is a thing I'd actually need to respect them a little more for being actual feminists. You know, because a man that thinks he's a woman isn't actually a woman, but rather suffers such an intense delusion that they think they fully understand exactly what it means to 'feel like a woman' without being a woman at all.

    Tell me, what does 'feeling like a woman' mean, exactly, and how can you know this nugget of information as a male?

    By that same token, what does it 'feel like' to be a cat, or a horse, or a Boeing 747? You can't know, because you aren't one. Even if you read a book that described it, that isn't feeling it and it assumes the person making the description got it perfectly right, which is unlikely at the very least.

  • General_Tso||

    Like they supported Palin's Down Syndrome child?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Aw shit, forgot about that. Well, I guess Republicans just don't get any breaks.

  • Jerryskids||

    President Trump, his personal lawyer Michael Cohen, and others close to the duo—including Fox News star Sean Hannity—suffered a range of blows both reputational and legal.

    It's one thing to slam Trump and Cohen, but you better not mess with Hannity, he knows karate.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Spending time with pornstars is bound to result in a range of blowing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    and stiff objects that are dangerous.

  • Tony||

    You guys remember our conversation about real propaganda vs. stuff you just don't like to hear? Of course you don't, you're too busy apologizing for Sean fucking Hannity.

  • Just Say'n||

    Do you remember when Russian collusion was totally real and totally would oust Trump? Of course you don't, because you're too busy justifying why a judge was correct in allowing a client's name to be released to the public even though it had nothing to do with the case at hand and was only meant to humiliate the other client. Also, that case has nothing to do with Russia collusion.

    (insert sad trombone)

  • Don't look at me.||

    Pepperidge farms remembers.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, kinda like that.

    Jesus Christ, you people might as well just throw in the towel.

  • Sevo||

    "Jesus Christ, you people might as well just throw in the towel."

    You lost, and you just keep on losing, loser. Fuck off.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I remember when Trump was supposedly a total nutjob for claiming that the FBI was spying on his campaign.

  • Tony||

    Really? I remember it being an admission of guilt.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yes, it seemed like an admission of guilt to me, too--when the FBI confessed to spying on the Trump campaign. WTF kind of Nixonian, corrupt, bullshit is that?

  • Tony||

    The FBI spies on criminals.

  • Sevo||

    "The FBI spies on criminals."

    Good, they should go find some.
    I understand that miserable deleted evidence during an investigation; there's a criminal right there, loser.

  • Tony||

    You could just, like, not follow the Trump Titanic into the glacier.

  • John||

    Sure Tony, just like Hillary was going to be President. Do you plan to set yourself on fire when Trump wins re-election? Just asking for a friend.

  • Tony||

    I plan to send Trump a note of congratulations for making it to 2020 without a massive coronary event. If you think he's getting reelected, that's just gravy. Keeps you from doing the smart thing and finding someone who could actually have a shot at winning.

  • John||

    You thought Hillary was going to be president Tony. You need to start preparing yourself for the inevitable. It is going to be even more fun the second time around. Your misery is just wonderful.

    What are you going to do this fall when the Democrats do not retake Congress?

  • Tony||

    The good thing about being a pessimist is you're always either being proven right or pleasantly surprised.

    So I'm not the one who needs to prepare for his delusions to be undermined.

  • TuIpa||

    You wouldn't accept it if they were, you'd just keep shouting like a piss-smelling bum who thinks snakes live in his head.

  • Jerryskids||

    Wait, releasing Hannity's connection to Cohen was meant to humiliate Hannity? I assumed it was the other way around.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They got rid of O'Reilly and then Hannity took over the large viewership.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who, other than John who is admittedly not a libertarian, is defending Hannity?

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't think anyone is defending Hannity so much as finding the judge's ruling to be curious. What purpose was there to that ruling other than humiliating Hannity. I don't understand why his name needed to be revealed to the public

  • sarcasmic||

    What purpose was there to that ruling other than humiliating Hannity.

    Isn't that reason enough?

  • John||

    So, because you don't like the guy, you think it is okay for the court to screw him over? Is that your final answer? If it is, you might want to consider calling yourself Tony from now on.

  • sarcasmic||

    It was a joke. Take a sedative already.

  • Tony||

    Because Cohen was asking that prosecutors be blocked from examining some of the seized material on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. The judge then needed to know who his other clients were in case their privileged communications were included in the seizure.

  • Just Say'n||

    And he told the judge his clients, but requested that one name not be publicly revealed. The judge took the extra step of requiring that name to be publicly revealed

  • Tony||

    Cohen made the initial request. There's no legal protection for his client's mere identity.

  • TuIpa||

    I like you think either of those things are relevant in THIS case.

  • Ken Shultz||

    My complaint is with the way this shit is presented to the world.

    I've argued for a long time that Trump didn't just win in spite of the way he was covered in the news media, he also won because of the way they covered him. I believe it contributed to his victory.

    They haven't learned their lesson yet.

    There are so many legitimate issue to go after Trump on--immigration, spending, and trade being obvious examples. Why not focus on one of them?

  • Tony||

    Are you saying United States law enforcement should consider politics in deciding what laws to enforce?

  • Just Say'n||

    Comey admitted as much

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm saying that Reason, the news media, and the Democrats better focus on something that matters of they don't want to see Trump reelected in 2020.

  • Tony||

    Trump will never be reelected. Come back to earth Ken.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I have to admit that even the policies I disagree with him on are very popular with swing voters in swing states.

    Part of the reason the Democrats and the media have to savage Trump on personal shit that doesn't really matter is because he's stolen most of their issues.

    Immigration is a loser--so much that the filibuster for DACA lasted all of five minutes. The Democrats couldn't even muster support for dreamers within their own party!

    Rust belt swing voters certainly aren't about to punish Trump for taking on NAFTA and China on trade--not even if they should.

    The only thing the Democrats have to differentiate themselves on is fruit sushi SJW issues, gun-hate, environmentalism, and that's pretty much it--none of which is about to sell in the Midwest.

    I expect the Democrats to take the House in November, but Trump is more likely to win reelection that he did getting elected in the first place. The SOB can run on his record, which for reelection purposes in swing states is pretty damn good.

  • Tony||

    Trump's being a monumental embarrassment, so bad even his most mouth-breathing of followers feel it, is what is going to depress Republican turnout. For similar reasons Democrats are going to turn out in large numbers. It's all about enthusiasm. And to the credit of the human species there just aren't enough of us who are actually enthusiastic about a fat, orange rapey incompetent mental disaster running the most powerful operation on earth.

  • TuIpa||

    And yet, his approval rating goes up.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Public opinion doesn't matter when we're talkjng about democracy!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony thinks all the Democrats left in that dying party will beat all the new Trump supporters and past Republican voters.

    Billions in free publicity again in 2018.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Are you saying United States law enforcement should consider politics in deciding what laws to enforce?"

    What makes you think the case has ever been different?

    J Edger Hoover claimed there was no Mafia

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ken its why the Democrats are going lose so big again this November.

    They have not learned their lessons. Americans are sick of it. Americans are also seeing the effects of the stronger economy thanks to Trump's regulatory rollbacks. Congress also helped with the tax break.

  • Rhywun||

    Yep, the fact that it's Hannity has nothing to do with it. I would say the same about Madcow and I disagree with her 100% on everything.

  • Rhywun||

    Yep, the fact that it's Hannity has nothing to do with it. I would say the same about Madcow and I disagree with her 100% on everything.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Truth: When he was a kid Hannity played one of the blockheads on Gumby.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Hannity has lashed out multiple times on air about the Justice Department's treatment of Cohen, never disclosing that he personally had business ties to the man. Hannity said the FBI raids on Cohen's properties were an "unprecedented abuse of power" and told other Trump supporters they better "get buckled up" for a rough ride.

    This ad hominem stuff doens't even rise to the level of tabloid horseshit--since the tabloid people aren't purporting to be serious news or analysis.

    Are we supposed to believe something differently about the FBI raids because Hannity did or didn't disclose something or other?

    It's rather insulting when you think about it. Who, here among the commentariat, believes anything because Sean Hannity says it?

    When I worked in a hospital, there was this podiatry surgeon who'd been a preschool teacher. She talked to everyone, including other doctors, like they were five years old. It was not charming.

    It was nauseating.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Somebody help me out with the logic here. I can't even begin . . .

    If it wasn't for Sean Hannity, the white, blue collar, middle class in Midwestern swing states would realize that Stormy Daniels . . .

    Stormy Daniels and Trump, see . . . it's about campaign finance and . . .

    I can't even begin to put something sensible together with all that crap.

    What are we supposed to learn from this?

    Or the shit just supposed to pile up so high that people realize . . . that they don't want a wall built on the border?

    Somebody help me out. What's this supposed to mean?

  • sarcasmic||

    Leftists consider ad hominems to be compelling arguments. Smear the person and now everything that person says is wrong. It works on Perry Mason, so why isn't it true of everything else?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I expected more from Reason.

    For goodness' sake. I used to give money to these people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your money hired some of the dummies that staff this place.

    Its hit and miss with the hidden lefty bias here. Some staff avoid that bias and some embrace it like they embraced Hillary as the queen.

  • Just Say'n||

    You know who else condemned the raid? Alan Dershowitz. But he's a Trumpist now or something

  • Ken Shultz||

    If he said something that went against the media narrative, then, obviously, Dershowitz is a RWNJ now. That's the only explanation.

  • BYODB||

    The Ken White breakdown is more useful, and the campaign finance angle is that the money paid to stormy was effectively a campaign contribution since it was meant to assist the Trump campaign.

    If that's a valid thing or not doesn't seem to be a question by any of the people I normally trust on legal issues in the media, so I must assume that it's valid since I'm not a lawyer.

    The Hannity thing, though, seems completely idiotic and it has very little if anything to do with much except Hannity and his perception as being an 'honest' news anchor which, to whit, he's not a news anchor he's an opinion peddler. To discover that he has conflicts of interest in his reporting seems...obvious even without this news.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Tony|4.17.18 @ 11:00AM|#

    When was the last time a Democrat was let off the hook for such a thing? If you can even name one whose history even approaches that of Trump's.

    Bob Menendez.

  • BYODB||

    The Ken White breakdown is, as usual, far more informative than anything put out there by Reason. I appreciate Reason linking to people who actually have brains, though. I guess that's what they're here for.

  • vek||

    I think everybody should be VERY worried about the government arbitrarily deciding that attorney-client privilege doesn't exist in a given situation. That's scary stuff. As much as most decent people don't like it when "bad guys" get away with stuff because of the way our justice system works, those rules are there for a reason, namely to protect the innocent.

  • prediksifajar||

    yeah, its hurts

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online