Political funny picture thread, part 3

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[nonobaddog]

Offer good only on May 29th after Noon.

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[patience0830]

 

[jamil]

A judge asked Michael Cohen to name his clients, after he claimed he had there. Two were named, but there was pushback on naming the third. Cohen then named Hannity. Hannity says he's not a client of Cohen, despite Cohen naming him, and also Hannity is trying to claim attorney/client privilege.

People who are willing to believe that Cohen simply gave Hannity of "advice," haven't quite been able to explain why (if that's true) Cohen would list him as a "client." Lawyers give advice all the time, yet this is the first time that type of advice given to Hannity by Cohn, which Hannity has implied as minor, enables him to be outed (by Cohen as a client). When Houghmade and Fargo give relatively minor advice, here on INGO, are they expected to list us as clients? Besides the fact that Hannity has been staunchly defending Cohen, in light of their relationship, the above is problematic. "Anti-Trumper" legal minds Alan Dershowitz and Judge Napolitano both agree that Hannity should have disclosed this relationshi. .

I hate the word “problematic”. It was once useful but has recently morphed into a standard in SJW catchphrases, to mean “something is a problem, but we can’t articulate logically why, without sounding really bat**** crazy.”

But we can articulate what is “problematic” about Hanity’s relationship with Cohen. A pundit has an apparent conflict of interest when he “pundits” for a Lawyer he is a client of, without disclosing the relationship. That’s why we often hear pundits saying things like, “full disclosure, xyz is my butt buddy...” Hanity would have been fine if he’d have said up front, “full disclosure, I have sought legal/whatever advice from Cohen in the past.” It’s not saying anything inappropriate about the relationship. It tends to invalidate Hanity’s defense of Cohen.

 

[Birds Away]

A judge asked Michael Cohen to name his clients, after he claimed he had there. Two were named, but there was pushback on naming the third. Cohen then named Hannity. Hannity says he's not a client of Cohen, despite Cohen naming him, and also Hannity is trying to claim attorney/client privilege.

People who are willing to believe that Cohen simply gave Hannity of "advice," haven't quite been able to explain why (if that's true) Cohen would list him as a "client." Lawyers give advice all the time, yet this is the first time that type of advice given to Hannity by Cohn, which Hannity has implied as minor, enables him to be outed (by Cohen as a client). When Houghmade and Fargo give relatively minor advice, here on INGO, are they expected to list us as clients? Besides the fact that Hannity has been staunchly defending Cohen, in light of their relationship, the above is problematic. "Anti-Trumper" legal minds Alan Dershowitz and Judge Napolitano both agree that Hannity should have disclosed this relationship.

So it's like Jake Tapper and the folks at CNN taking talking points from the DNC? Is that the kind of conflict of interest we're talking about?

 

[churchmouse]

So it's like Jake Tapper and the folks at CNN taking talking points from the DNC? Is that the kind of conflict of interest we're talking about?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So it's like Jake Tapper and the folks at CNN taking talking points from the DNC? Is that the kind of conflict of interest we're talking about?

It doesn't not appear to be the same. Jake Tapper and the DNC haven't been outed as sharing lawyers, denying that they were a client, and then trying to invoke attorney/client privilege. If you're asking if Tapper shills for the left, like Hannity this for the right; then yeah, I'll go with that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Back on track...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

 

[Birds Away]

It doesn't not appear to be the same. Jake Tapper and the DNC haven't been outed as sharing lawyers, denying that they were a client, and then trying to invoke attorney/client privilege. If you're asking if Tapper shills for the left, like Hannity this for the right; then yeah, I'll go with that.

I see no difference. Both suffered hits to their already questionable integrity by carrying water for their chosen team. Hannity is being nailed to the wall while Tapper's incident was completely ignored by the MSM. So, business as usual.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I see no difference. Both suffered hits to their already questionable integrity by carrying water for their chosen team. Hannity is being nailed to the wall while Tapper's incident was completely ignored by the MSM. So, business as usual.

Perhaps I've forgotten, or missed it. What exactly did Jake Tapper do?

 

[printcraft]

I see no difference. Both suffered hits to their already questionable integrity by carrying water for their chosen team. Hannity is being nailed to the wall while Tapper's incident was completely ignored by the MSM. So, business as usual.

It's not like Tapper gave the debate questions in advance or anything... or meeting on the tarmac to make sure and investigation into criminal activity only became a matter... I mean come on!

 

[brchixwing]

Oldest meme in history:

 

[2A_Tom]

Can the back and forth, you will never change their mind or accept their premise.

Your arguments are not funny pictures.