He certainly has an ethical duty to disclose to both his employer and his viewers that he has a personal and/or business relationship with one of the subjects of his coverage. To his employer, so that they are aware and can plan for any fallout if the relationship is discovered, and to his audience so that they understand why he's covering the issue the way he does.

He can claim to be a "host" and not a journalist all day long, but he works for FoxNEWS.

But I dont think that means he would be drug into court and asked to explain.. Unless he was involved with what ever they have on Trump...

Why? Its a talk show. Big Fucking Deal. The guy is a known trump voter and supporter. He doesn't have a duty to disclose anything.

Why? Its a talk show. Big Fucking Deal. The guy is a known trump voter and supporter. He doesn't have a duty to disclose anything.

Because he would be moving from a conservative pundit to a spokesman for the Whitehouse and for anyone who actually takes him seriously, is something he should disclose.

The bigger problem is that we don't know the extent of the relationship and the fact that he purposefully hid it, can be seen as they have something to hide.If you were his employer, wouldn't you want to know that?

“While Fox News was unaware of Sean Hannity’s informal relationship with Michael Cohen and was surprised by the announcement in court yesterday, we have reviewed the matter and spoken to Sean and he continues to have our full support.”

I just assume journalists have underlying bias and conflicts of interest. I gave up on the idea they are objective a long time ago. Here in Canada I have to put up with the national tax funded broadcaster being all about only one side of the political spectrum .

Nothing to see here, move along.

Awww, I guess they forgot the "But Hillary...!"

I just assume journalists have underlying bias and conflicts of interest. I gave up on the idea they are objective a long time ago. Here in Canada I have to put up with the national tax funded broadcaster being all about only one side of the political spectrum .

My gut is still that Hannity wasn't really a client. I'm guessing Cohen was fishing for reasons that someone innocent would be irreparably harmed by the things that were seized and he remembered he talked to Sean about that thing that one time. And Sean said, "don't tell them about that, I don't want you to claim me as a client, your job is to cover up dead hookers."

But Hannity looks incredibly bad when it comes out now after railing against the raid in the first place.

Hannity has already said that Cohen dealt "almost exclusively" with real estate matter for him.

Wait, he wasn't really a client? Then this is meaningless because then none of the documents seized would mention Hannity, since he is not a client. And if there are documents, then they are clearly not protected by attorney client confidentiality, because he is not client.

If Hannity was not a client, these would all be correct

But then why did Choen say he only had three clients? Seems like Cohen could have just said that he had two clients (both of which he paid off people to hide embarrassing information), unless he was worried that he would get caught lying when it came out he had three clients?

Above I said my theory was he was trying to prevent use of the documents based on irreparable harm to an innocent third party. I also said it was a fairy tale pulled from my rectal region. Pure speculation based on shenanigans I have seen other lawyers unsuccessfully use. You try these things when you have no other option

Hannity has already said that Cohen dealt "almost exclusively" with real estate matter for him. Now why would he say that if he was not a client? And also, why say "almost exclusively", so there were other things.

'Exclusively almost' is my new favorite term. I exclusively almost have sex with you honey. I exclusively almost tell the truth. I exclusively almost am careful to not steal other people's money.

My initial thought was he had never used Cohen as an attorney, but had talked with him as they were friends and he had made the joke of giving him a ten and saying now we have privilege. Again, pure speculation. That may still be the truth, but It is looking more likely that there is a tangled web involved.

All the evidence points to Hannity being a client.

It is looking more and more like that, yes.