Straight Dope Message Board

[Northern Piper]

One of the accounts I read indicated that Cohen volunteered to write the names down and hand them to the judge.

That seems more consistent with protecting client confidential information.

Did the judge explain why she insisted he disclose them openly?

[Captain Amazing]

She didn't say, but my guess is that it was more or less a raw exercise of power on the judge's part. Cohen didn't show up to the hearing about the restraining order on Friday, which supposedly she was upset about. Then, this morning, when the deadline that the judge set for Cohen to turn over the list of clients came, his attorney refused. So, it's a matter of bad things happening when you upset the judge.

[friedo]

There's no confidentiality issue because the fact that you have an attorney-client relationship is itself not privileged information. So the judge was ordering Cohen's lawyers to disclose perfectly ordinary information which did not have any need for secrecy. US courts are very reluctant to do things in camera unless absolutely necessary to protect an ongoing investigation, protect confidentiality, protect national security, or some other compelling reason. There was no such reason here, and the judge was correct to assume that the only reason they were trying the envelope gambit was to avoid the media shitstorm they knew it would be. Which they wouldn't have avoided anyway, because if the judge had accepted the envelope, she probably would have just read the contents right into the record. The whole thing was pointless.

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

She didn't say, but my guess is that it was more or less a raw exercise of power on the judge's part. Cohen didn't show up to the hearing about the restraining order on Friday, which supposedly she was upset about. Then, this morning, when the deadline that the judge set for Cohen to turn over the list of clients came, his attorney refused. So, it's a matter of bad things happening when you upset the judge.

[Vincent Gambini] "You were serious about that?" [/VG]

[friedo]

I'm done wit dis guy.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by friedo

There's no confidentiality issue because the fact that you have an attorney-client relationship is itself not privileged information. So the judge was ordering Cohen's lawyers to disclose perfectly ordinary information which did not have any need for secrecy.

Interesting. It would be considered confidential in Canada. Difference in the systems, I guess.

The professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the solicitor-client duty, and I would think a Canadian court would protect it as well.

[friedo]

How does that even work in practice? How can someone represent you if you can't even be made to confirm that "this guy works for me?"

[Dr. Strangelove]

From this comment by Bayard in the other thread:

Judge Wood was prepared to let Ryan give her the name of Cohen’s third client under seal. At that point, an attorney for the NYT and CNN approached the podium and convinced her that the press (&public) should know. She agreed. He played pivotal role here.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/...836413445?s=19

The NYT/CNN attorney must have been very convincing somehow.

[jasg]

Natasha Bertrand tweeted:

A note about this: Judge Wood was prepared to let Ryan give her the name of Cohen’s third client under seal. At that point, an attorney for the NYT and CNN approached the podium and convinced her that the press (&public) should know. She agreed. He played pivotal role here.

Robert Balin is the attorney’s name. Thanks everyone who commented with it!

ninja'd

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

She didn't say, but my guess is that it was more or less a raw exercise of power on the judge's part. Cohen didn't show up to the hearing about the restraining order on Friday, which supposedly she was upset about. Then, this morning, when the deadline that the judge set for Cohen to turn over the list of clients came, his attorney refused. So, it's a matter of bad things happening when you upset the judge.

This is entirely untrue. According to the actual transcript of proceedings -- which does not yet appear available online but was read from directly on Maddow this evening -- the judge invited Cohen's lawyer (not Cohen himself) to either offer the name in an envelope or state it, his choice. It was Cohen's lawyer who spoke the name aloud on the record, and it was his choice to do so.

ETA: But I am sure she would have made the name a matter of public record at some point, if not immediately.

[Oakminster]

I find it interesting that Hannity denies being a client. I've been in situations where a non-client claimed I represented them, but never the reverse....

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

I find it interesting that Hannity denies being a client. I've been in situations where a non-client claimed I represented them, but never the reverse....

Is Hannity denying that he is a client? From what I've read he is saying that he has had “occasional discussions with [Cohen] for his input and perspective”, that assumes tjeu are confidential and covered by client confidentiality, and that he has paid modest sums for Cohen's advice. None of the discussions “ever, ever involved a matter between [Hannity] and a third party”, but that wouldn't preclude Hannity being a client, the discussions constituting legal advice, and the discussions being privileged.

Tldr; Hannity was enough of a client to to be able to assert privilege, but not enough of of a client that you should imagine that he might be in any way tainted by the sulphurous miasma that emanates from Cohen.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Interesting. It would be considered confidential in Canada. Difference in the systems, I guess.

The professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the solicitor-client duty, and I would think a Canadian court would protect it as well.

Not clear...

Are you saying the name of the client is privileged, or simply that a lawyer acting in a professional manner would not normally divulge his client? Surely that detail is allowed to come out in court at some point (i.e. if lawyer is on the stand for some other matter and the need to name his client was required? )

or are you saying that the name of additional clients is sufficiently peripheral/irrelevant to the case at hand that the judge, if in Canada, would not consider it material/necessary to reveal that detail?

I assume the reason for disclosure in this case was that the judge/prosecutor felt that if the Cohn was going to claim that some papers had privilege because it was a completely different client with no relation to the issues under investigation, then the demand wa "prove it - tell us who".

[galen ubal]

Nevermind. Speculation that has no place in this forum.

[Chronos]

The taint team processing the seized information, at least, needs to know who Cohen's clients are. That way, they can look at a communication and say "This wasn't with a client; it's clean".

[Czarcasm]

If Hannity claims that he is not a client, then there is no attorney-client privilege and the lawyer can be made to tell everything he did for Hannity.

[Muffin]

I wonder if Hannity's conversations with Cohen were on Trump's Cohen tab, or were pro bono, such that Cohen considered Hannity a client but Hannity did not think of himself as a client?

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Muffin

I wonder if Hannity's conversations with Cohen were on Trump's Cohen tab, or were pro bono, such that Cohen considered Hannity a client but Hannity did not think of himself as a client?

A pro bono client is still a client. And I don't even want to try to imagine how and what Hannity thinks.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by friedo

How does that even work in practice? How can someone represent you if you can't even be made to confirm that "this guy works for me?"

Because the professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the solicitor-client privilege. Privilege is an evidential rule in court: privileged material can't be disclosed.

The duty of confidentiality is broader and potentially includes even the fact of acting for someone. A person may consult a lawyer for legal advice without wanting to go to court.

For instance, they may be in a contractual relationship and are wondering if the conduct of the other party means the contract is broken and they're no longer bound by it.

Just the fact of them consulting a lawyer could harm their relationship with the other party to the contract, if it becomes public knowledge. So they might say to the lawyer, "thanks for the advice about my legal obligations, but please keep it confidential that I consulted you."

Then if the media phones me and says "We've heard you act for So-and-so," my response is "I cannot comment on whether So-and-so is a client."

It changes if So-and-so has given me instructions that require me to disclose I'm acting for them, like starting a law suit.

Suppose I advise that I think the other party to the contract has breached it and my client has an action for damages, and the client instructs me to start a court action. Then, I'm solicitor of record for So-and-so, and the fact that the person is my client is no longer confidential.

The duty of confidentiality depends on the instructions from the client.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

From this comment by Bayard in the other thread:





https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/...836413445?s=19



The NYT/CNN attorney must have been very convincing somehow.

Thank you. I hadn't seen that mentioned in any of the reports I read.

[Muffin]

How very appropriate if a judge who decided to not become a playboy bunny is the one who opened the evidentiary trapdoor to Trump's fall.

[Tired and Cranky]

Originally Posted by friedo

There's no confidentiality issue because the fact that you have an attorney-client relationship is itself not privileged information. So the judge was ordering Cohen's lawyers to disclose perfectly ordinary information which did not have any need for secrecy. US courts are very reluctant to do things in camera unless absolutely necessary to protect an ongoing investigation, protect confidentiality, protect national security, or some other compelling reason. There was no such reason here, and the judge was correct to assume that the only reason they were trying the envelope gambit was to avoid the media shitstorm they knew it would be. Which they wouldn't have avoided anyway, because if the judge had accepted the envelope, she probably would have just read the contents right into the record. The whole thing was pointless.

It's not so unequivocal. There are times when U.S. courts will treat the identity of a lawyer's client as privileged information. I don't feel like doing original research on the issue and I won't comment on the status of the law in New York with particularity but here is a mediocre discussion with some cites for when courts will protect a client's identity as privileged information.

https://presnellonprivileges.com/201...nt-identities/

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Interesting. It would be considered confidential in Canada. Difference in the systems, I guess.

The professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the solicitor-client duty, and I would think a Canadian court would protect it as well.

I don't think the systems are that different after all but I won't pretend to be an authority.

I suspect the court required disclosure because the general rule is that the client's identity is not privileged, timely objection to publicly disclosing the information should have been before the information was due to the court, and (perhaps) Cohen's failure to raise any valid grounds upon which to find that his clients' identities should be privileged. The burden for showing that the information should be privileged falls on the attorney.

Based on Dr. Strangelove's account, it seems the court was initially willing to conceal the clients' identities but the NYTimes/CNN attorney intervened and convinced her otherwise.

[Chronos]

I suspect that most judges decide not to become Playboy bunnies. I've never heard of any who have.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Chronos

I suspect that most judges decide not to become Playboy bunnies. I've never heard of any who have.

Well there were those rumors about Thurgood Marshall...

[Kelevra]

Originally Posted by Chronos

The taint team...

You really need a better team name...

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Well there were those rumors about Thurgood Marshall...

Not to mention the late Earl Warren.

[Napier]

Originally Posted by friedo

How does that even work in practice? How can someone represent you if you can't even be made to confirm that "this guy works for me?"

A lawyer can work for a client without representing them in a visible proceeding, and there can be good innocent reasons to keep the mere fact of a client relationship secret. For example, you may not want to effectively announce to your spouse that you are talking to a divorce lawyer, or a financial advisor may not want their clients to hear that they are consulting a bankruptcy lawyer (this example quoted from Morning Joe this morning). And these examples might not be about a divorce or bankruptcy for the client themselves, just one in which they may have some involvement.

[AK84]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

If Hannity claims that he is not a client, then there is no attorney-client privilege and the lawyer can be made to tell everything he did for Hannity.

No. If Hannity asked for legal advice for actual or contemplated litigation or transaction then privilege attaches, even if he never returned or paid, or expected to pay.

[Northern Piper]

"Client" is an ambiguous term. Many people think it means someone who pays for services. That's certainly one meaning.

However, in the context of the phrase "attorney-client privilege", "client" means a person who has sought and been given legal advice by a lawyer. There doesn't have to be a formal retainer or any payment of money. It's the fact that the person sought legal advice and the lawyer gave it that established the lawyer-client relationship, triggering all of the professional obligations for the lawyer that attach to that relationship, and also giving the client the benefit of lawyer-client privilege.

The act of giving legal advice is the heart of the professional duties of a lawyer.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

I find it interesting that Hannity denies being a client. I've been in situations where a non-client claimed I represented them, but never the reverse....

Might change if you ever get raided by the FBI...

[SmartAlecCat]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Did the judge explain why she insisted he disclose them openly?

She repeatedly asked if there was a legal reason the name shouldn't be disclosed. Cohen's legal team couldn't think of any good reason.

[Shodan]

I assume the compelling legal reason for disclosing it was not "because the New York Times wants to know".

Is that the legal default - if an attorney is under indictment, and a newspaper asks, the judge will disclose the complete list of everyone the attorney has ever worked for? Unless he can come up with a compelling reason not to?

I can see the rationale of giving the list to those investigating, so they know whose records are whose and therefore aren't relevant to the case, but why disclose it in open court? What makes this the public's business?

Regards,
Shodan

[Max Torque]

Originally Posted by SmartAlecCat

She repeatedly asked if there was a legal reason the name shouldn't be disclosed. Cohen's legal team couldn't think of any good reason.

Nailed it. Judges are very well aware of the public's interest in courtroom proceedings, and they won't make anything secret absent a compelling reason to do so, such as, "My client might be murdered if his name is mentioned." "My client doesn't want his name to come out," by comparison, is not a compelling reason.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Shodan

I assume the compelling legal reason for disclosing it was not "because the New York Times wants to know".

Is that the legal default - if an attorney is under indictment, and a newspaper asks, the judge will disclose the complete list of everyone the attorney has ever worked for? Unless he can come up with a compelling reason not to?

I can see the rationale of giving the list to those investigating, so they know whose records are whose and therefore aren't relevant to the case, but why disclose it in open court? What makes this the public's business?

Regards,
Shodan

Courtroom proceedings are always the public's business. Judges have gotten in trouble in the past for as little as shutting the courtroom doors when there was no more room inside. In other words, openness is the default, and there has to be a really good reason to keep something concealed.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Because the professional duty of confidentiality is broader than the solicitor-client privilege. Privilege is an evidential rule in court: privileged material can't be disclosed.

The duty of confidentiality is broader and potentially includes even the fact of acting for someone. A person may consult a lawyer for legal advice without wanting to go to court.

For instance, they may be in a contractual relationship and are wondering if the conduct of the other party means the contract is broken and they're no longer bound by it.

Just the fact of them consulting a lawyer could harm their relationship with the other party to the contract, if it becomes public knowledge. So they might say to the lawyer, "thanks for the advice about my legal obligations, but please keep it confidential that I consulted you."

Then if the media phones me and says "We've heard you act for So-and-so," my response is "I cannot comment on whether So-and-so is a client."

It changes if So-and-so has given me instructions that require me to disclose I'm acting for them, like starting a law suit.

Suppose I advise that I think the other party to the contract has breached it and my client has an action for damages, and the client instructs me to start a court action. Then, I'm solicitor of record for So-and-so, and the fact that the person is my client is no longer confidential.

The duty of confidentiality depends on the instructions from the client.

Yes our systems must be very different then, because we are taught from Day 1 of privileges in law school that the fact of whether there exists an attorney-client relationship is not covered by the privilege and a lawyer’s client list is not privileged.

But of course the privilege applies to the question of what a court can compel you to reveal. That doesn’t mean that you have to tell any old joker who calls you up on the phone who Your clients are.

[Tired and Cranky]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I assume the compelling legal reason for disclosing it was not "because the New York Times wants to know".

Is that the legal default - if an attorney is under indictment, and a newspaper asks, the judge will disclose the complete list of everyone the attorney has ever worked for? Unless he can come up with a compelling reason not to?

I can see the rationale of giving the list to those investigating, so they know whose records are whose and therefore aren't relevant to the case, but why disclose it in open court? What makes this the public's business?

There are two legal "defaults" at issue. First, the default is that the identity of a lawyer's clients is generally not privileged. If Cohen couldn't present a good reason for his client's name to be privileged in this case, he can't use privilege as an excuse to not tell the court who his client is.

Second, public criminal court proceedings help to protect the public and press's ability to oversee the administration of justice. Accordingly, the "default" is that evidence presented in criminal proceedings should be public. In most cases, the names of a lawyer's other clients is irrelevant and thus aren't evidence in the proceeding. In this case, the identity of all of Cohen's clients is relevant because, as you note, the parties reviewing the documents need to know whether communications with Cohen might be privileged. So, the default is to make that information available to the public. Although I haven't read the transcript, I suspect that the NY Times and CNN asking that the information remain public helped to persuade the judge that making the information public was the right thing to do -- especially if Cohen failed to persuasively argue why the name should remain private.

In this case, the wisdom of Judge Wood's opinion was revealed when we learned that the client was Hannity. We now have reason to question whether Hannity's coverage of the Cohen is unduly flattering due to their special relationship.

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by Shodan

I assume the compelling legal reason for disclosing it was not "because the New York Times wants to know".

Is that the legal default - if an attorney is under indictment, and a newspaper asks, the judge will disclose the complete list of everyone the attorney has ever worked for? Unless he can come up with a compelling reason not to?

I can see the rationale of giving the list to those investigating, so they know whose records are whose and therefore aren't relevant to the case, but why disclose it in open court? What makes this the public's business?

Regards,
Shodan

It's as American as Apple Pie. There is a presumption that all judicial proceedings are public. Estes v. State of Tex., 381 U.S. 532, 542 (1965).




Kenneth Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006)

Historically, courts have recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978). This right is justified by the interest of citizens in "keep [ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies." Id. at 598, 98 S. Ct. 1306. Such vigilance is aided by the efforts of newspapers to "publish information concerning the operation of government." Id.

Jessup v. Luther, 277 F. 3d 926 (2nd Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted)

The general rule is that the record of a judicial proceeding is public. Not only do such records often concern issues in which the public has an interest, in which event concealing the records disserves the values protected by the free-speech and free-press clauses of the First Amendment, but also the public cannot monitor judicial performance adequately if the records of judicial proceedings are secret.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky

Second, public criminal court proceedings help to protect the public and press's ability to oversee the administration of justice. Accordingly, the "default" is that evidence presented in criminal proceedings should be public. In most cases, the names of a lawyer's other clients is irrelevant and thus aren't evidence in the proceeding. In this case, the identity of all of Cohen's clients is relevant because, as you note, the parties reviewing the documents need to know whether communications with Cohen might be privileged. So, the default is to make that information available to the public.

1. I don't see how this is evidence - AFAIK Hannity has not been charged with any crime.
2. I understand why the parties reviewing the documents would need to know the names of Cohen's other clients. Why does the public need to know? It's not evidence.

In this case, the wisdom of Judge Wood's opinion was revealed when we learned that the client was Hannity. We now have reason to question whether Hannity's coverage of the Cohen is unduly flattering due to their special relationship.

What business of the judge's is it how Hannity covered anything? What does that have to do with the charges against Cohen?

Regards,
Shodan

[Tired and Cranky]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Yes our systems must be very different then, because we are taught from Day 1 of privileges in law school that the fact of whether there exists an attorney-client relationship is not covered by the privilege and a lawyer’s client list is not privileged.

But of course the privilege applies to the question of what a court can compel you to reveal. That doesn’t mean that you have to tell any old joker who calls you up on the phone who Your clients are.

Okay, I did some original research because I know that the identity of a client may be privileged in some cases. New York in particular has a number of cases where the privilege has been recognized. There are a few federal cases on point as well.

In Re Kaplan, 8 NY2d 214, 203 NYS2d 836, 168 NE2d 660 (1960) held that a lawyer retained to confidentially pass information about public corruption to investigators was not in contempt of court for refusing to identify his client.

Most notably relevant to the Cohen case, Allen v West Point-Pepperell, 848 F Supp 423 (1994, SDNY) held that:

While defendants correctly point out that the identity and address of a client are not generally held to be confidential communications and, thus, not privileged, see Matter of Jacqueline F., 47 N.Y.2d 215, 391 N.E.2d 967, 970, 417 N.Y.S.2d 884, 887; In re Shargel, 742 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1984), “the rule in New York is not so broad as to state categorically that the privilege never attaches to a client's identity”; Matter of Jacqueline F., 47 N.Y.2d 215, 391 N.E.2d 967, 417 N.Y.S.2d 884, 887 (1979) (citing Matter of Kaplan, 8 N.Y.2d 214, 168 N.E.2d 660, 203 N.Y.S.2d 836, 838-39 (1960)) (refusing to hold lawyer in contempt for failure to disclose name of client because of client's justified fear of reprisals). The Court in Matter of Jacqueline F., moreover, indicated that absent other compelling circumstances, a client's identity need not be disclosed where the client is not a party to the pending litigation. 417 N.Y.S.2d at 887. Defendants here have not made a showing of the need for disclosure of the names of Mr. Krumme's *432 other clients sufficient to overcome the legitimate fear of retaliation harbored by those clients. (emphasis added)

In Cohen's case, Hannity is not a party to the proceedings and Hannity specifically requested that his identity be kept confidential. Cohen also was not representing Hannity in any proceedings or acting as Hannity's attorney in Hannity's dealings with others. Did the government in this case make a clear showing of the need for public disclosure of the names of Cohen's other client?

[Tired and Cranky]

Originally Posted by Shodan

1. I don't see how this is evidence - AFAIK Hannity has not been charged with any crime.
2. I understand why the parties reviewing the documents would need to know the names of Cohen's other clients. Why does the public need to know? It's not evidence.

What business of the judge's is it how Hannity covered anything? What does that have to do with the charges against Cohen?

There's a weird quoting issue in your post that I don't want to correct but:

Hannity's name is evidence of whether Cohen's communications with Hannity are privileged. The general rule is that evidence in criminal trials are public. Procrustus has cited cases discussing why. Furthermore, the public's interest in monitoring the operation of the courts should be self-evident. Can you explain why the evidence shouldn't be public? Cohen's attorneys apparently couldn't, so now the information is public.

Courts shouldn't be a venue that specially protects the wealthy and powerful like Hannity.

I never suggested it was "the business of the judge's how Hannity covered anything." As a person who lives in a world where voters' viewpoints are shaped by nakedly partisan, self-interested news coverage tainted by undisclosed bias and conflicts of interest, I consider it my business. I'm glad the information was revealed.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Yes our systems must be very different then, because we are taught from Day 1 of privileges in law school that the fact of whether there exists an attorney-client relationship is not covered by the privilege and a lawyer’s client list is not privileged.

...

But of course the privilege applies to the question of what a court can compel you to reveal. That doesn’t mean that you have to tell any old joker who calls you up on the phone who Your clients are.

I'm not saying it's privileged in our system. I'm saying it's subject to the professional duty of confidentiality. Privilege is an evidential rule; confidentiality is a rule of professional conduct.

That doesn't mean the names are inadmissible, but I would think a judge in our system would be sympathetic to arguments that they should respect confidentiality for clients who have nothing to do with the case.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky

Most notably relevant to the Cohen case, Allen v West Point-Pepperell, 848 F Supp 423 (1994, SDNY) held that:

...

In Cohen's case, Hannity is not a party to the proceedings and Hannity specifically requested that his identity be kept confidential. Cohen also was not representing Hannity in any proceedings or acting as Hannity's attorney in Hannity's dealings with others. Did the government in this case make a clear showing of the need for public disclosure of the names of Cohen's other client?

This is more what I'm thinking of: not privileged, but still subject to a duty of confidentiality which the Court can choose to respect, if the clients are not closely tied to the matter before the court.

[Acsenray]

Remember that the judge offered to take the information in writing. It was counsel who chose to speak it out loud in open court.

[Northern Piper]

I thought it was posted up-thread that once counsel for the media said it should be made public that the judge directed it be spoken, not written?

[rbroome]

Originally Posted by Shodan

1. I don't see how this is evidence - AFAIK Hannity has not been charged with any crime.
2. I understand why the parties reviewing the documents would need to know the names of Cohen's other clients. Why does the public need to know? It's not evidence.

What business of the judge's is it how Hannity covered anything? What does that have to do with the charges against Cohen?

Regards,
Shodan

I think you answered your own question: it is the judges business because someone has to run the hearing. Having the judge make decisions about Person X without knowing who Person X is and how he/she relates to the case makes the job very difficult to impossible. In rereading your post, you commented about the importance of "how Hannity covered anything". I agree that isn't the judge's business. But the matter before the judge is the status of Hannity vis-a-vis Cohen. If I didn't get your point I apologize, but I am still unsure what you are trying to say.
Now, on to what I think you meant-what business is it of the public to know that Hannity is involved. Well, he is a public figure. And as many others have said, the default is that all the information possible be made public. The judge gave the possibility of keeping his name private serious consideration.

[Tempe Jeff]

Well, what a coincidence. A Clinton Connection is the Judge assigned to help bring down Trump. Same old, same old... No doubt, she should have recused due to her connections but, c'est la vie. Amazing how the Clintons friends keep trying, and failing; to drag dead Hillary into the White House.

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

Well, what a coincidence. A Clinton Connection is the Judge assigned to help bring down Trump. Same old, same old... No doubt, she should have recused due to her connections but, c'est la vie. Amazing how the Clintons friends keep trying, and failing; to drag dead Hillary into the White House.

Gorsuch just ruled against the man who appointed him. Judges are known to rule without regard to political connections or relationships.
What do you want, judges recusing themselves on every situation that stretches the definition of "conflict"? to an absurd degree?

[Northern Piper]

But wait! She was appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan! That means she had to recuse herself from all cases involving Democrats or Republicans!

I think that means she can only sit on cases involving Greens suing Libertarians.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

Well, what a coincidence. A Clinton Connection is the Judge assigned to help bring down Trump. Same old, same old... No doubt, she should have recused due to her connections but, c'est la vie. Amazing how the Clintons friends keep trying, and failing; to drag dead Hillary into the White House.

Moderator Note

Tempe Jeff, political jabs are against the rules in General Questions. No warning issued, but don't do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky

Can you explain why the evidence shouldn't be public?

Because

Hannity is not a party to the proceedings and Hannity specifically requested that his identity be kept confidential. Cohen also was not representing Hannity in any proceedings or acting as Hannity's attorney in Hannity's dealings with others.

I understand the idea that the team examining the evidence should know who Cohen's clients are, so they know what is relevant to their examination and what is not.

Why does this need to be revealed to the public? I don't see how the public need to have public trials is furthered by revealing the names of people who are not charged, not involved, and who have nothing to do with the case.

Regards,
Shodan

[Chronos]

But what about people who are not charged, are involved, and have something to do with the case?