This whole thing is bullshit, how this judge is even allowed to be in charge of this is unbelievable?

Notice how Democrats never recuse themselves?

quote:

5 Fast Facts About The Federal Judge In Michael Cohen's Case (And Why Trump Should Be Worried)

Submitted by Ann of The Political Insider
Zero Hedge

Federal Judge Kimba Wood will be overseeing the court case against President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. Here are five facts about Judge Wood - and why Trump should be very worried.

1. She was President Bill Clinton's pick for Attorney General in 1993

President Bill Clinton nominated Wood to become the first female Attorney General. In fact, Wood was hand-picked by Hillary Clinton, who had been asked to submit a list of possible nominees for her husband’s consideration. However, Wood withdrew from the nomination after the White House learned about her brief time as a Playboy Bunny - and that she employed an illegal alien as a nanny. Further, Wood actually helped the nanny to illegally remain in the country by paying taxes for her.

2. She trained as a Playboy Bunny

The daughter of a U.S. Army career officer and speechwriter, Wood spent much of her childhood and young adulthood in Europe. While studying at the London School of Economics in the 1960s, she trained for a few days as a croupier at a Playboy Bunny casino, but quit because "she thought the gig was silly." Nevertheless, the job would haunt her in her later career and played a role in costing her the position of Attorney General.

3. She had an extramarital affair that earned her the nickname the "Love Judge"

Wood might be a judge, but her personal past indicates that her moral scruples are lacking. In 1995 at the age of 51, Wood began an affair with married multimillionaire Wall Street financier Frank Richardson. The affair was uncovered by Richardson's wife when she found passionate passages written about Wood in Richardson's diary. The tryst earned Wood the nickname the "Love Judge" during Richardson's divorce trial. Wood married Richardson in 1999.

4. She officiated George Soros's wedding

Wood officiated the 2013 wedding of notorious liberal billionaire George Soros. At the time, Soros was 83 and his bride, Tamiko Bolton, was 42. Numerous prominent liberals attended the wedding, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and then-California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsome. In lieu of wedding gifts, the couple asked that donations be made to several organizations including Planned Parenthood and Global Witness, an environmental activist group.

5. She doesn't believe in attorney-client privilege

During Cohen's hearing on Monday, Wood forced Cohen to expose the identity of a previously unnamed client. That client turned out to be none other than Fox News host Sean Hannity, who maintains that he only asked Cohen for legal advice as a friend and never retained or paid him for any legal services.

quote:

Sebastian Gorka DrG
✔
@SebGorka
This is the woman presiding over the court case involving @realDonaldTrump’s lawyer.

Her name is Kimba Wood.

She forced lawyer Michael Cohen to disclose the names of his OTHER clients.

She is a Clinton confidante who was chosen by Hillary to be AG.


The #DEEPstate is real.

5:39 PM - Apr 16, 2018
14.7K
13.9K people are talking about this

Link

This message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum,

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

"I'd like to commend Donald's courage in his decision to have the upcoming summit meeting with the North Korean leader," Abe said.

I do not recall ever having seen this before; one head of state referring to another head of state by only their first name in a public address.



.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
This whole thing is bullshit, how this judge is even allowed to be in charge of this is unbelievable?

Notice how Democrats never recuse themselves?

This is bullshit.

She was appointed to the US District Court in 1988 by Reagan, recommended by Sen. Al D’Amato.

The Clintons wanted a female AG. When Zoe Baird, a Democrat, blotted her copy book over an undocumented nanny and withdrew, Clinton turned to Wood, then a highly regarded federal judge. It turned out Wood had employed an undocumented worker, before it was illegal to do so, but had paid the taxes, which Baird had not. There weren’t many females in high places in the legal community then, and Janet Reno was nominated and confirmed.

District Judges are bound to follow the law. If the law was that these clients are not privileged from disclosure, then that’s what had to be done. The judge had very little choice.

I wonder about Cohen, and whether Hannity is actually within the definition of client. Hannity didn’t seem to think so. He talked to him about some legal questions. Are all of you who have read my posts on legal subjects to be considered clients, assuming I was still a lawyer? Of course not. It doesn’t take many formalities but there are some requirements, seeking legal advice as opposed to information.

I finally saw an article today detailing the judge's decision to release Hannity's name.

No motion was filed, a spectator in the gallery stood up and said he was a lawyer representing the media, approached the bench and made an argument that the name should be released. The judge agreed and ordered them to release the name. No motion was filed, no legal briefs were reviewed or ruled on. Most attorneys commenting on this say it is very highly unusual for someone to be recognized from the gallery and a ruling like this issued without motions or briefs.

https://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/hannity-cohen.php

ROB BALIN, A MEDIA LAWYER at Davis Wright Tremaine, is the reason we know that Sean Hannity was Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s secret client. Balin attended the Monday hearing in Southern District Court in Manhattan, following the raid of Cohen’s offices, to represent the interests of several news organizations, including ABC, The New York Times, CNN, the Associated Press, and Newsday.

When it seemed the judge would keep the client’s identity under seal, Balin stood up in the second row of the gallery, apologized for interrupting, introduced himself, and informed the court of a “public access issue.” Then, with the court’s permission, he approached the podium and argued that the client’s identity should be disclosed publicly.

He noted, among other things, the “intense public interest” in the hearing, and he urged the court to recognize a First Amendment right of access to the client’s identity. He quoted Chief Justice Warren Burger’s majority opinion in the 1980 case Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia: “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions. But it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”

Cohen’s attorneys failed to offer a persuasive counterargument, and ultimately Judge Kimba Wood ordered them to disclose publicly the secret client’s identity. And when they did, Hannity’s name drew a chorus of gasps from the gallery.

Balin, who represents clients in all aspects of media law and teaches the subject at Columbia Law School, talked with CJR about his experience at the Monday hearing.

Why were you at the hearing?

This all starts Friday [April 13], when my partner Rachel Strom appeared in court on ABC’s behalf. The judge planned to close certain hearings when receiving information that might be privileged. There was discussion about whether the names of Mr. Cohen’s clients are privileged. Rachel made an argument based on First Amendment access principles: You can’t close the court or seal documents unless there’s a compelling interest of the highest order. The judge understood, and she directed Mr. Cohen’s attorneys to submit a letter identifying Mr. Cohen’s clients. The letter was filed Monday morning, publicly. It said Mr. Cohen had non-legal clients and three legal clients: President Trump, the Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy, and an unnamed third client who did not want to be identified. The attorneys argued that they had an ethical obligation not to disclose that client’s identity.

I appeared at the Monday hearing to represent a group of news organizations. (Strom couldn’t be there because she was conducting depositions.) I had a funny feeling that an access issue might arise with respect to the third client. And the hearing had all the makings of a major media event: Mr. Cohen himself was supposed to be there. The lawyer for Stormy Daniels had said she would be there. The president’s lawyer [Joanna Hendon] was there.



How did you go from spectator to participant?

I was not permitted to sit in the well with the lawyers, so I was in the second row of the public gallery. I gave my card to the court clerk and said that there was a chance I would have to speak on behalf of the public and press. Later, when the judge said she was willing to take the client’s information under seal, that was my cue to get up. I introduced myself and listed off my clients, and the judge invited me to the podium, where I began my argument. I pointed out, as Strom did on Friday, that the names of clients were not privileged and that there is a First Amendment right of access to court hearings whose purpose is to enable the public and press to monitor their institutions. I pointed out that most of the seats in the room were occupied by members of the press, and I wrapped up by quoting Chief Justice Burger in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia. The judge eventually ordered Mr. Cohen’s attorneys to reveal the client’s name. That’s when we had a truly Perry Mason moment: The attorney said it was Hannity, and there was a collective and audible gasp in the room. I’ve been practicing law for a long time, and I’ve never seen anything like that. Electronic devices are generally prohibited in the court, too, so five or 10 reporters rushed from the room to get that news out as soon as possible. It was like a scene from an old-time movie.



How many times in your career have you interrupted a hearing to make an argument from the gallery?

I’ve been practicing for more than 30 years, and this, I believe, was the first time. I’m usually at counsel’s table, or at least I’m sitting in a chair in the well of the courtroom. Rachel did the same thing Friday, though. It’s what we had to do. The judge didn’t consider it at all disrespectful, because she understood why we were there.

You said you had a funny feeling that an access issue would arise. Had you developed your argument in advance? Or were you developing it in the moment?

I developed it in advance. When I saw the letter filed by Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, I realized that the press was the reason they didn’t want to reveal the client’s name. They thought it would be embarrassing to the client. I predicted that that would be the issue at the Monday hearing, so I was ready with my argument. That’s what lawyers do. We prepare. It was a good day for the Fourth Estate on both Friday and Monday, but the lawyers who do this kind of work, we’re in and out of court all the time making access arguments. Sometimes you can prepare. Other times you can’t. Rachel had something like 15 minutes notice on Friday that she needed to be in court for ABC.

What did you think when Cohen’s counsel revealed that the client in question was Sean Hannity?

I had no idea who it might be, and like everyone else, I thought, wow. My role, though, was to be sure that whatever information was shared that day, it was shared with the public. The story goes on from there. As journalists say, they cover the story, and they’re not part of it. That goes for their lawyers, too. We help them cover the story.

The story for now is that a good judge has kept the courtroom open, and when she got pushback about the name of the third client, she allowed a representative of the press—me—to be heard. What I find heartening is that our institutions are functioning. The procedure Monday went as it should have under First Amendment jurisprudence.



Your name has appeared in countless news stories in the past 36 hours. What have you been hearing from family, friends, colleagues, and others?

I’ve had my 15 minutes of fame. It’s bemusing. And it was fun in some respects. I teach media law at Columbia Law School, and I had to rush from court Monday to class, where we talked about what happened in court. It was a great teachable moment. I’m not on social media, but what I’ve seen from the tweets that have been shared with me, well, it’s encouraging to see so many Americans standing up and cheering for the First Amendment. That, more than seeing my name in print, gives me a warm feeling. In the courtroom Friday and Monday, the First Amendment was alive and well.

Laura Handman, who sits on CJR’s Board of Overseers, is a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, along with Rob Balin.

Funny how the media demands identification from things like this but anonymous sources are protected unto death.

so Balin quotes

“People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions. But it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”

While he represents fake news champions CNN & NYT

Rod Rosenstein should read that quote too.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...i-officials-n2472202

Eleven House Republicans have sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray officially referring Hillary Clinton, fired FBI Director James Comey, fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch for criminal investigation.

FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who were caught sending hundreds of anti-Trump text messages during the Clinton investigation, have also been referred for criminal investigation. U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was tapped by Sessions a few weeks ago to investigate the FBI's handling of the Clinton email probe, was copied on the request.

letter:

https://desantis.house.gov/_ca...riminal-referral.pdf







upload pics




letter signed by Ron DeSantis, Dave Brat, Matt Gaetz, Andy Harris, Ted Yoho, Andy Biggs, Jeff Duncan, Paul Gosar, Jody Hico, & Claudia Tenney (House Reps)

Dana Boente is current FBI General Counsel. Note they left off Rod Rosenstein (who also reportedly signed one of the warrant extension applications)

interview w DeSantis at link

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...l-investigation.html

Sweet! I dunno if anything will come out of the Congress critters’ referral letter, but it at least airs some things out in public.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
Sweet! I dunno if anything will come out of the Congress critters’ referral letter, but it at least airs some things out in public.

I believe the DOJ MUST investigate when they have received a referral letter.
How that progresses is an entirely different matter.

The Outrageous Outing of Sean Hannity, Cont’d
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
April 18, 2018 2:37 PM


It violated longstanding, judicially endorsed standards.

In yesterday’s column, I contended that it was outrageous for federal district judge Kimba Wood to direct that talk-radio and Fox News host Sean Hannity be publicly identified as Michael Cohen’s third client. Cohen, whose law practice is, shall we say, less than thriving, is under criminal investigation by the FBI and federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). He claims only three clients. The other two, President Trump and GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy, acknowledge retaining Cohen. Hannity denies ever having had a formal attorney-client relationship with him.

The court’s order that Hannity’s name be disclosed in open court violated longstanding, judicially endorsed standards against identifying uncharged persons in legal proceedings attendant to criminal investigations.

Forget about evidence of wrongdoing. There is not even a suggestion that Hannity is involved in any crimes. He is a longtime friend of Cohen’s. He says they’ve had some informal legal discussions about such matters as real estate — and as any lawyer will tell you, informal discussions with non-lawyer friends are common. Hannity insists, however, that he has never retained Cohen to represent him in any legal matter, and has never paid him or received an invoice from him. There is no public evidence to contradict this, and no suggestion that Cohen has previously represented himself as Hannity’s attorney.

There has been no intimation that Hannity has any pertinent information about the activities for which Cohen is under investigation. His only relevance to the probe involves the question of whether there is a factual basis for Cohen to claim that an attorney-client (A-C) relationship with Hannity should prevent investigators from perusing some materials seized by the FBI from Cohen’s office and residences. And since Hannity is not suspected of wrongdoing, even that question appears to be of little importance.

Consequently, there was no reason for Hannity’s name to be revealed publicly. As I observed yesterday, grand-jury proceedings are secret by law. When prosecutors and agents conducting an investigation seek judicial warrants to search, eavesdrop on, or arrest subjects, it is done in ex parte and in camera, not in public hearings. In short, the public does not have the right to know the names of people – whether or not suspected of wrongdoing – who pop up in a criminal investigation.

Monday’s hearing was public. Whether it needed to be is debatable: The matter is under grand-jury investigation and it involves search warrants; neither of those things entails public proceedings. Yet the issue for the court’s consideration was Cohen’s motion to bar the government from reviewing the materials seized, which he filed publicly. It would probably have been better if Judge Wood had held the hearing under seal; she could later have issued a public decision that explained her ruling on the legal question without disclosing client names or any other factual information related to the investigation that may have arisen. The judge instead elected to proceed publicly, but she still should have limited the open-court discussion to argument about the legal issue, retreating in camera for any discussion of client names.

In any event, the prosecutors could easily have handed Cohen’s attorney, Stephen Ryan, a grand-jury subpoena demanding disclosure of the client identities. That would have required Ryan to reveal the identities to the grand jury, but not to the public. Clearly, the prosecutors and Ryan were aware of this: As The Atlantic’s Natasha Bertrand tweeted yesterday, Ryan was prepared to surrender the information to the government under seal.

Apparently, Judge Wood was initially disposed to let that happen. Then, however, the judge allowed Robert Balin, an attorney for the New York Times and CNN, to intervene. Balin, the Times reports, argued that potential embarrassment was not a sufficient reason to withhold the purported client’s name from the public. The judge was somehow persuaded by this frivolous contention. Without providing Hannity any notice and opportunity to be heard on the matter, she directed that his name be disclosed in open court.

The flaw in Balin’s argument is patent. It is true that, if the public has a legal right to know a piece of information, the fact that the information is likely to embarrass someone is not sufficient cause to suppress it. But the public has no right to know the names of people who are relevant to an investigation – even if they are suspected of wrongdoing. Furthermore, even when the government arrests someone or formally accuses someone of a crime in an indictment, the names of uncharged persons are not disclosed. (That is why you see such references as “Cooperating Witness No. 1,” “Unindicted Co-conspirator No. 3,” or “Corporation X” in charging documents.)

Though they apparently chose not to remind Judge Wood of this longstanding policy, government lawyers are well aware of it. The United States Attorneys Manual admonishes that “in all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties.” Unless a person has been formally charged with a crime, not only should the government avoid publicly naming the person; federal prosecutors are further schooled to avoid even an “unnecessarily-specific description.” In other words, while calling Hannity “Client No. 3” would have been proper, even referring to him as “S.H.” would have transgressed the policy. There is no justification for publicizing his full name.

As the manual elaborates, federal courts have held that there is ordinarily “no legitimate government interest served” by publicly naming an uncharged person. That is the case even when charges against the person are being contemplated; a fortiori, there is no excuse for gratuitously embarrassing someone who is suspected of no wrongdoing.

The investigation of Cohen involves the suppression of information about extramarital affairs between high-profile men and women involved in pornography. Cohen’s work for Trump and Broidy, the only other clients he claims, involves non-disclosure agreements for this purpose. It was inevitable, then, that if the third alleged client was identified publicly, there would instantly be media speculation that this client, too, must be entangled in some tawdry sex scandal that he retained Cohen to hush up.

This is exactly what happened. Surprised while doing his radio show at news that his name had been exposed in court, Hannity, who has been married for 25 years and has two kids, naturally felt the need to beat back the resulting innuendo. When he denied that he had ever retained Cohen in connection with “any matter between me and a third party,” the Times couldn’t contain itself:

The reference to a third party seems to be an allusion to one of Mr. Cohen’s specialties: drawing up confidentiality settlements. The lawyer has acknowledged paying $130,000 to Stephanie Clifford, an adult-film actress known as Stormy Daniels, as part of a nondisclosure agreement to secure her silence before Election Day in 2016. Last week, it came to light that Mr. Cohen had arranged for Mr. Broidy to pay $1.6 million to a former Playboy model, Shera Bechard, who became pregnant during an affair with Mr. Broidy. After the confidential deal became public, Mr. Broidy resigned from his post as a deputy finance chairman of the Republican Party.

Perhaps you think this is poetic justice for Hannity, who is not above using flimsy evidence to lambaste political opponents and Trump critics. But as a very wise federal judge once admonished me, courts “don’t do poetic justice, they do prosaic justice” — the routine, workaday adherence to the principles and standards on which the rule of law depends.

Under that kind of justice, courts protect uncharged people from being identified in public proceedings in connection with criminal investigations. The failure of the court and the government lawyers to enforce that standard just adds fuel to the fiery contention that, where President Trump is involved, investigations are driven by politics, not law enforcement.

Link

^^^

So as a simpleton, it boggles my mind that a man accused of nothing can have his name included in a public hearing regardless of if he's a client or a friend who had sought informal legal advice. Am I correct in being pissed, or is there some standing that would allow this? Is there even any allegation that S.H. was involved in whatever crime was committed? Do we even know what the alleged crime was yet?

I trust your and jhe's thoughts on this more than anything I'd read in the media.

don't know about you guys, but I have lost ALL faith in the judicial system

its a sham, its fixed, its crooked and its nothing but a crock of shit

to expect anything remotely resembling truth and justice these days is a long lost dream

disgusting

The top story on Drudge is Cohen is would turn if charged. I keep saying it, but this entire thing is insane.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/c...ned-trump-1524093151

Cohen would turn on what? Hes facing bank fraud charges and other things. How big of deal are they gonna give him if he states on record that he paid stormy for trump?

You got click baited and are now spreading this click bait article for WAPO. They are playing towards your fear and the liberals hope of getting rid of trump. This is how they make money folks. Stop buying into it.

In other news for the sessions haters

Sessions investigating 6 billion dollar democrat slush fund by obama.

https://nypost.com/2017/08/05/...by-left-wing-groups/

If not now Never! There's a reason why the swamp is in total freakout.

Criminal investigations should be done quietly and in a non-partisan way.

Trump knows more about what they tried and did than we do. He's not going to roll over?

Savor these moments, they've been a long time in coming.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
The top story on Drudge is Cohen is would turn if charged. I keep saying it, but this entire thing is insane.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/c...ned-trump-1524093151

Listen, you can go to any news web site, any news channel and find this kind of stuff. But that's not enough, right? We have to have it here as well. We have to have endless negative speculation, and from sources that clearly hate the President.

So, I guess you don't have any choice, right? You just have to post this stuff here. It really helps. It helps so much. It keeps everyone around here from thinking that there can be any place where rational discussion of these matters takes place.

Time for a course correction.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
The top story on Drudge is Cohen is would turn if charged. I keep saying it, but this entire thing is insane.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/c...ned-trump-1524093151

Listen, you can go to any news web site, any news channel and find this kind of stuff. But that's not enough, right? We have to have it here as well. We have to have endless negative speculation, and from sources that clearly hate the President.

So, I guess you don't have any choice, right? You just have to post this stuff here. It really helps. It helps so much. It keeps everyone around here from thinking that there can be any place where rational discussion of these matters takes place.

Time for a course correction.

I said it was insane not that I was worried by it. It was a topic we were discussing and it was the WSJ and seemed pretty news worthy demonstrating the insane lengths the left is taking in what I see as something worse than Watergate. I'm not sure why people would have such weak hearts as to have to live in a vacuum, but it's your playground, so instead of snapping at someone who would be happy to honor your wishes maybe just tell us what your desires are and I for one would be happy to follow them. I'm sorry I upset you.

And just what do you think I was trying to do when I posted? It's a bit late to be complaining about my style, which has been consistent for a very long time.

Exactly that. I thought I was contributing when I posted that and certainly didn't mean to upset you.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
The top story on Drudge is Cohen is would turn if charged. I keep saying it, but this entire thing is insane.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/c...ned-trump-1524093151

If you read the story, it is merely a lawyer’s advice to Trump. The possibility that a person may be untrustworthy? That is probably standard advice in every situation where another person’s future conduct bears on the situation.

Goldberg cites Sammy Gravano who turned on his mob family when facing decades of prison. Maybe, but I bet the news that Gotti had put a contract out on him may have influenced it.

Don’t put too much stock in these news reports. People seem more interested in media PR these days than truth, or maybe they find it easier to figure out.