An open letter to Sean Hannity:
Riddle me this Sean Hannity, you claim that Michael Cohen has never represented you in any legal capacity. Yet, Michael Cohen presumably under oath stated that among his three recent clients, you are one of them. I am confused, and I imagine others are as well to the contradiction of Cohen stating you are one of his clients and you arguing that you are not.
According to news media reports, Michael Cohen has three clients that were active within the last twelve months. I understand that you rile against the news media as being dishonest on a regular basis, but not having attended the court hearing on Monday – where your name was disclosed – and not having access to the court documents, I must rely on the news media for now. As a matter of fact, both on Twitter and on your website, you stated that Cohen “never represented” you in any matter.
Therefore, I must assume that the news media is correct, and Cohen’s attorney told the judge that you are one of three clients.
This forces me to ask a very simple question: how is it possible that Michael Cohen told a judge, under oath, that you are a client, and yet, you deny it?
Someone must be lying.
I understand that you dropped out of college, so I know you are not an attorney. Neither am I, but like you, I comment on topical issues on a regular basis. I believe that you will agree with me that in the jurisprudence of the United States, “attorney privilege” can only be asserted by the client, and not the lawyer. As I understand it, only the client has the right to release the attorney from the privilege. I imagine you would agree with me on that.
This leads me to assume that you have no problem with the court releasing all documents related to you that Michael Cohen had in his possession and that are now in the possession of federal prosecutors.
You, yourself, has stated that Michael Cohen was never your attorney.
Since words matter, here is what you stated on your website:
“Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. 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.”
Sean, you further added,
“I assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third-party… In response to some wild speculation, let me make clear that I did not ask Michael Cohen to bring this proceeding on my behalf, I have no personal interest in this proceeding, and, in fact, asked that my de minimis discussions with Michael Cohen, which dealt almost exclusively about real estate, not be made a part of this proceeding.”
I viewed your website yesterday, April 17, 2018 at about 14:07 eastern time. I assume my quotes are accurate.
Because you, yourself, has stated that you never considered Michael Cohen your attorney then we can both agree that attorney-client privilege does not apply to you on the communications currently in the hands of the federal investigators. Right?
Just in case you still do not agree with me, remember that you, yourself, also stated that your communications with Cohen were too minor to matter. To be precise, you used the term de minimis.
Although I do not see how you can argue that the documents must be confidential, I wouldn’t be surprised if you did.
But, let’s keep the discussion going for the benefit of those reading this open letter.
As per the news media reports, Michael Cohen has three active clients: you, Elliott Broidy and Donald Trump. There are ten clients in total, but it seems that Michael Cohen has dropped asserting attorney-client privilege on the other seven clients because “the work appears” to be “strategic and business consulting” services.
How come yours aren’t “strategic and business consulting” work products?
I believe that I’ve already established that by your own words, you have waived the attorney-client privilege on the communications currently in the hands of the federal investigators that have to do with you. Therefore, that only leaves Elliott B. Broidy and Donald Trump.
This is where I believe things get a bit complicated for you and why you are so adamant to add to your commentary that the work Cohen did on your behalf “never involved any matter between” you and a “third-party.”
I can understand that when you recognize the fact that of the three current and active clients that Michael Cohen provided legal services for, two, Elliott Broidy and Donald Trump involves paying “hush money” to keep extramarital affairs secret, many make you uncomfortable. After all, being one of three clients with this narrative in place would make the other client nervous if people were to read into the debacle as legal services to keep secret some extramarital affair or some nefarious sexual encounter.
But that still leaves me confused. If you want to clear the air, so to speak, instead of putting Michael Cohen in legal jeopardy for lying about you, or making the issue about you, instead of him, why not just let Michael Cohen issue a statement to the community attesting to what services he provided to you. You might as well also release the documents or clarify what “real estate” confidential discussion you had with him were.
Since you’ve already told the court, through your public pronouncements, that there is no attorney-client privilege it is likely that the documents the federal investigators ceased will eventually make their way into the public realm.
Instead of waiting for the process to make the documents public to conclude and allow the innuendo to grow, you could do Cohen and the American people a solid by proactively releasing all the information about your dealings with the Cohen. Not to mention that your spouse might like not having questions about your marital relationship in the public realm because of the innuendo about Cohen’s client services.
Because, as you like to point out, it is important that facts be verified, it would be prudent for you to release original source documents to support your claims about your interactions with Michael Cohen. Not only would you allow Cohen to focus on his own legal entanglements, but you can continue to rile about how unfair the whole Mueller investigation is and how the news media is anti-Trump, without the cloud of marital strife hanging over you.
Oh, and while we are on the topic about American politics, and especially about Donald Trump, I wonder if you know about the San Patricio Battalion? As I understand it, your grandparents immigrated to the United States from Ireland. As you likely know, Donald Trump believes that the United States is too open to immigrants. As I do not regularly listen or watch your shows, I do not know how you personally feel about immigrants. However, I’m curios about how you feel about fellow Irish immigrants who came to the United States and because of “America First” politics and anti-immigration policies, defected the American lines during the Mexican-America War and fought for the Mexican side against the foreign invaders flying the United States flag.
In case your history lessons missed that part of history, you can read more about the San Patricios by following this link.
Although I do not expect you will ever address this uncomfortable historical fact, just like you’ll continue to argue that you had no obligation to let your audience know your direct connection to Michael Cohen, I ask it, nonetheless, because I like to point out the hypocrisy of those who take to the air to fawn over Donald Trump and the politics of hate.
Martin Paredes, a Mexican immigrant living in the United States paying his share of taxes and contributing to the American way of life.