Judge Rules to Unseal 11 Cases Related to Starr's Clinton Investigation

Judge Rules to Unseal 11 Cases Related to Starr's Clinton Investigation

Guys. This is freaking genius on CNN's part. One of these cases claimed attorney/client privilege and guess what? They had to give up the info. They're showing that Clinton went through the same damn thing. This negates ANY argument Trump gave.

Another case involves the testimony of Terry Lenzner, an attorney and private investigator for Clinton who tried to avoid turning over documents. Lenzner claimed attorney-client privilege at the time -- an argument also at the core of Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen's dispute with federal investigators in New York this week.

At the time, the court forced Lenzner to give fee information to the special grand jury. Howell ordered this case -- where no documents have ever been made public -- to be unsealed, including the judge's opinion on the matter in July 1998. Its documents will still have some redactions.

It's a shame the story is getting downvoted. This is brilliant.

Not just genius, but prescient genius:

CNN had asked to unseal the disputes related to Starr's Lewinsky investigation in February

Two months before the Cohen search warrant, they were already working on bolstering the legal arguments against his attempt to assert privilege. ;)

For those thinking this is some kind of distraction or witch-hunt:

[Bill] Clinton and others involved, through their private attorneys, said they didn't oppose making the records public, [Chief Judge Beryl] Howell wrote.

I downvoted before I read the article.

Then, I read the article and removed my downvote and replaced it with an upvote.

Don't do the shameful thing I did. Read first.

The republicans going after Clinton is going to bite them in the ass 20 years later.

Ladies and gentleman do not vote or comment before reading the fucking article. Excellent work CNN.

Good article. Nice that the shit Republicans pulled on President Clinton created precedents that now fucks the real criminals in the White House and Republican leadership.

Clinton and others involved, through their private attorneys, said they didn't oppose making the records public, Howell wrote.

Any attorney's in the house want to weigh in on if these judicial opinions count as precedent?

GOP impeaching Clinton is probably going to haunt them in the days to come.

Crazy. It's absolutely a coincidence, but I'll freakin take it. Now I'm not saying Howell releasing these right now is a big FU to Trump or anything, but this is a big FU to Trump.

Precedent is established with court rulings, not judge's opinions. That said, Clinton was forced to cede his A/C privilege at the time with similar circumstances surrounding him.

And he didn't cry about it and claim that the 6th amendment was dead. He was just like, "It's cool. Have a look." That speaks volumes about his character compared to Trumps. And I'm not even a Clinton fan.

You must be new here.

The GOP is more of a short term, instant gratification-oriented political ideology. Consequences aren't even an afterthought. The most recent case study is Paul Ryan, but there was a precedent well before him.

You seem to be misinterpreting this. This will give credence to the government's claims that attorney/client privilege isn't iron clad, even for presidents. This is a good thing.

personally I enjoyed the article, I thought it was a thought provoking look at climate change and its consequences

Now that's convenient timing.

Russian bots incoming

Maybe I'm the only one? Open the damn things. Let stuff fall where ever they may!

Did you read the article? This is a potential road map to make Mueler's findings public

These cases provide precedent that undermines Cohen's attempts to keep his data secret. These unsealings are good for the investigators.

They're establishing judicial precedent, it's brilliant! Republicans live and die by scapegoating, and ol' Wild Bill is a demagogue as far as they're concerned. It doesn't matter to them that whatever old Bill did is potatoes compared to Trump, they fully believe the conservative rhetoric. Bill's a martyr at this point, the whole Clinton family is and we're all better for it.

edit to clarify: I'm NOT anti-Clinton, btw, and I rue this fracture in the progressive community. To be clear. But we've gotta move on.

Before you all start seeing conspiracies, keep in mind that the judge in this case - Beryl A. Howell - was nominated by Obama and is the judge who signed off on Mueller's grand jury request https://www.bustle.com/p/who-is-beryl-howell-the-dc-judge-has-trumps-future-in-her-hands-75787

OK. That was beautiful.

Yes it was. It's in the article.

The consequence of an ideology based (presumably) on maintaining the status quo is that looking toward the future is inherently counter-productive.

Which changes none of the facts.

This is like the counter move to Trump pardoning Libby.

They are always here. We must be the stewards of truth. It is up to us to stand up and save our republic. There will be a time for revenge.

Dude. They used Dijon mustard against Obama. They'll spin anything.

Read.the.article. This is good for Mueller and bad for Trump/Cohen.

I almost feel like I’m the front line of a cyber war. Too many people sit back letting people get sucked into it. It’s important to supply facts, notify people when they are viewing a bot (use botcheck.me) to check. Can’t sit back and just assume people are consuming real news on a daily basis. If you watched Hannity tonight you can tell his regular viewers really don’t even know what/how he was relevant today or anything involving the Investigation(s).

Not at all. It's super relevant because of the investigation into Bill Clinton and the precedent they set. Trump is trying to use a lot of the same tactics Clinto tried and if there is already precedent against the argument it means a lot of Trump team's talking points have already been decided in a court of law...by Republicans...for a blow job.

If you're looking for any kind of admission or recognition of hypocrisy, you're going to be sorely disappointed. It doesn't matter what happened in the past, the redhats will fly in the face of any logic or past examples of current events, as long as Trump is the one being the hypocrite.

I get the point of what CNN is doing here, but it won't make a lick of difference.

Read the article. This is good for Mueller.

Because it shows that a president's lawyer had tried to invoke attorney/client privilege in the past and failed. Trump's big, 6th amendment rant was just completely destroyed. This could also mean that even more of the documents seized will be given to prosecutors.

This is pretty damn huge.

More importantly, Obama was even handed when nominating judges. It doesn't say something political about the judge that they were nominated by Obama. If they were nominated by Trump, then that would be relevant, because Trump has inserted partisan hacks wherever he could.

You are smearing an Obama appointed judge by implying they are acting with a political interest.

One of these cases claimed attorney/client privilege and guess what? They had to give up the info. They're showing that Clinton went through the same damn thing. This negates ANY argument Trump gave.

Which is a fact.

Beryl A. Howell - was nominated by Obama

This doesn't mean anything in a strictly political context. I'm not familiar with this judge, but Obama is well known for having nominated "republican" judges, in states or regions that leaned republican.

I never thought I'd find myself in a position to thank Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr.

 

 

 

And I still don't, fuck them. And awesome job running Baylor, Kenny baby.

You need to read this article. It completely negates Trump's assertion of "attorney client privilege" while his lawyer was committing felonies.

because reasons

Also known as precedent, which is something that matters in a court of law, despite how irrelevant it might be on Fox News.

single clap from the back row

No, but the precedent set by these cases make it harder for trump to squirm his way out of this one, which is the point.

short term, instant gratification-oriented political ideology

I read this as "political theology" for some weird reason and figured you were not wrong.

Please explain the difference between court rulings and judges opinions?

We are the front line. The battle is being waged here. Mods, bots, trolls, fact and fiction, you and me. Some people seek out conspiracy because it fits their reality, their beliefs. Some crave the truth and all it's consequences. Ironically, truth is stranger than fiction.

Seems possibly useful and relevant

Among the cases: a tangle over whether the president himself would be forced to testify, and whether the White House had to turn over Clinton's meeting records and phone logs.

Another case involves the testimony of Terry Lenzner, an attorney and private investigator for Clinton who tried to avoid turning over documents. Lenzner claimed attorney-client privilege at the time -- an argument also at the core of Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen's dispute with federal investigators in New York this week.

IIRC court rulings set legal precedent because they are decisions in favor of either the prosecution or defense of a particular case, and in doing so they clarify the limits (or lack thereof) to whatever law or statute is being argued.

Judges opinions are writings on something about the trial, either the processes or the resolution. They might be justifications for why a judge did something, maybe something out of the ordinary, or they might be dissent from the result that the jury or their fellow judges handed down with regard to the trial. They're useful for looking at how court cases progressed they way they did but they don't hold the "legal precedent" card the way rulings do.

tl;dr - rulings are what happened, opinions are why it happened that way.

Did you read the article?

Bill Clinton doesn't really have their hearts anymore

Read the article before posting.