Judge Says Trump and Cohen Can’t Yet Review Materials Seized by FBI

While Judge Wood did not formally rule on which side should get the initial look and said that discussions would continue, she added that she trusted the prosecutors.

“I have faith in the Southern District U.S. attorney’s office that their integrity is unimpeachable,” Judge Wood said.

From the moment he entered the White House, Mr. Trump has had his share of trouble with federal courts around the country, where judges have ruled against him on policy issues like immigration and transgender soldiers, as well as on possible conflicts of interest involving his businesses.

But the matter before Judge Wood touched on a much more intimate issue for the president, involving one of his closest relationships and potentially inching him closer to personal legal jeopardy.

Mr. Cohen served for more than a decade as a trusted fixer for Mr. Trump, and during the campaign had helped tamp down brewing scandals about women who claimed to have had affairs with him.

Mr. Cohen, who had not appeared at an initial hearing in the matter on Friday, showed up on Monday at the direction of the judge. After greeting a gaggle of reporters seated in the jury box, he sat quietly between his lawyers at the table usually reserved for defendants, saying nothing during the hearing.

The seized documents could shed light on the president’s relationship with a lawyer who has helped navigate some of Mr. Trump’s thorniest personal and business problems.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

One of those problems involved Stephanie Clifford, a pornographic film star better known as Stormy Daniels, who has claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump and has accused Mr. Cohen of paying her $130,000 to keep silent.

Moments before the hearing began, Ms. Clifford swept into the courtroom with her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, and took a seat in a folding chair against one wall. Mr. Cohen and Ms. Clifford have been sparring for weeks in the media, but confronting one another for the first time in court, they did not appear to share so much as a glance.

The two-and-a-half-hour hearing was also notable for the surprise revelation that Sean Hannity, the Fox News host and one of Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters, had secretly been a client of Mr. Cohen.

In court papers filed before the hearing, Mr. Cohen’s lawyers had said that he had represented three clients on legal matters in the last few years. Two of them, the lawyers said, were Mr. Trump and a Republican donor, Elliott Broidy, who recently resigned from his position at the Republican National Committee after reports emerged that Mr. Cohen had helped him arrange a $1.6 million payment to a former Playboy model who became pregnant during an affair.

The lawyers refused to name the third client, suggesting he did not want to be associated with Mr. Cohen at this point — until, that is, Judge Wood forced them to identify him as Mr. Hannity.

The government had asked that it be able to use a special group of prosecutors not involved in the investigation — known as a “taint team” — to review the seized materials and determine whether any seemed to violate the attorney-client privilege.

During the hearing, Judge Wood, after saying that she considered a taint team “a viable option,” also explained why she was considering appointing an independent lawyer, known as a special master, to assist in the review.

“In terms of perception of fairness,” she said, “not fairness itself, but perception of fairness, a special master might have a role here. Maybe not the complete role, but some role.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“My interest is in getting this moving efficiently and speedily,” the judge added.

Once the hearing ended, a chaotic scene unfolded on the street outside the courthouse. Mobbed by reporters, Ms. Clifford attacked Mr. Cohen, saying that for years “he has acted like he is above the law.”

“My attorney and I,” she added, “are committed to making sure that everyone finds out the truth.”

After that, she hopped into a black sport utility vehicle and was quickly driven away.

Continue reading the main story

Share and Enjoy

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part Of Immigration Law

President Trump has hailed his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, but Gorsuch sided against the administration Tuesday in an immigration case.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

President Trump has hailed his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, but Gorsuch sided against the administration Tuesday in an immigration case.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The Supreme Court declared a clause in federal law, requiring the deportation of immigrants convicted of a “crime of violence,” unconstitutionally vague Tuesday.

It’s a blow to the Trump Justice Department, and came at the hands, ironically of conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who sided with the court’s liberals in a 5-4 decision.

In 2015, the court also held that a clause alluding to a “violent felony” in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague.

For background on the case, Sessions v. Dimaya, here’s Oyez’s summary:

“James Garcia Dimaya, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1992. In 2007 and 2009, Dimaya was convicted under the California Penal Code for first-degree residential burglary; both convictions resulted in two years’ imprisonment. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony is subject to deportation. The INA definition of  aggravated felony includes a ‘crime of violence,’ which is any offense that involves the use or substantial risk of physical force against another person or property.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subsequently initiated deportation proceedings against Dimaya and claimed that his burglary convictions constituted crimes of violence under the Act. The Immigration Judge held that Dimaya was deportable and that burglary constitutes a crime of violence because it always involves a risk of physical violence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.

“While Dimaya’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States, which held  that the definition of a ‘violent felony’ in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was unconstitutionally vague. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the INA’s crime of violence provision was unconstitutionally vague because it was largely similar to the violent felony provision in the ACCA that the Supreme Court struck down in Johnson. The appellate court found that both provisions denied fair notice to defendants and failed to make clear when a risk of violence could be considered substantial.”

Overseas emails case vacated

Also, given President Trump signed the CLOUD Act, the court also officially vacated the major U.S. v. Microsoft case dealing with whether email stored in servers abroad could be compelled to be turned over to law enforcement.

That move was largely expected at some point.

Share and Enjoy