CONFLICT OF WHAT?!?
When Michael Cohen went to court on Monday, he was compelled to reveal the name of his third, previously anonymous client. The big surprise to everyone was that it turned out to be Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity was been using his highest rated show over the last few weeks defending Cohen, and most recently blasting the investigators for raiding his office… all the while never mentioning that he was in fact one of his clients.
But does this matter? Obviously, Jimmy Kimmel has gotten a HUGE kick out this after his very public Twitter feud with Hannity, following Kimmel’s jokes about Melania’s accent, but is this really that big of a news story? We must return to the attorney client privilege discussion with regards to privacy, and ask ourselves if you really are required to report a confidential relationship, built on the very nature of that confidentiality, as a “conflict of interest?”
Should he have made it known that the man he was defending so fervently, was his lawyer (or consultant, as he’ll lead you to believe)? Is it a conflict of interest?
Do concepts like conflict of interest even register at Fox News?
@writesbackwards is a group of friends who love to write about life, sports, comedy, tech and other fun stuff!
Consider leaving a comment, we love rewarding engaging Steemians!
Fox News is the same thing as CNN, they all have COI, that's part of their job, and to make money out of it.
It's pretty funny, one wonders who cares though. Hannity and Kimmel are both unabashed partisans.
Ha, valid point.
not to mention the fact they are both douchebags.
A case is not easy if you do not want to make peace. maybe the mistake can be minimized by talking.
Not sure why this is even news. I have more interesting arguments with my wife about what's for dinner...and the news never picks up on it.
Who a lawyer's clients are shouldn't matter, except if national security might be at stake. All these investigations are but the desperate flailing of the deep state to protect itself, to provide a smokescreen to cover its own profound corruption.
Why aren't they on top of the obvious red flags that occur before nearly all of these school shootings and acts of terror? Why does protecting the integrity of the voting process through a simple voter ID requirement not seem to matter? Why aren't they solving the obvious, practical problems we can all agree are problems?
They thrive on our misery, on our fear, on our sense of moral superiority. They thrive on our complacency, our greed (wanting something for nothing), and our eagerness to show how charitable we are (using the governments money, not our personal stash, and "the governments money" is just another word for debt, which in turn is a synonym for slavery).
The argument was the breech of attorney-client privilege. This is an important issue worth defending regardless of whether the attorney in question was in service to you or not.