in trump world. this guy gets a different lawyer, and recants s testimony. what does that have to do with a stanley woodward and jack smith? sure, my understanding of woodward s filing is that he took issue with how jackie smith s team quoted from what appeared to be sealed testimony without releasing that moment and that time,. without getting approval from the judge to do so. it would be the violation of court rules and it makes at the head of the case. jack smith they had gotten approval, provided copy of it, an order from judge those bark which had been provided in ex parte, meaning the defense counsel was not aware of it. so they didn t do anything wrong in that context, but the concern that woodward has here is that the government is selectively quoting from sealed testimony. my expectation is that if woodward gets the file, he is going to ask it to basically unseal the rest of the testimony. i have no problem with that, i think the public should have a
and that time,. without getting approval from the judge to do so. it would be the violation of court rules and it makes at the head of the case. jack smith they had gotten approval, provided copy of it, an order from judge those bark which had been provided in ex parte, meaning the defense counsel was not aware of it. so they didn t do anything wrong in that context, but the concern that woodward has here is that the government is selectively quoting from sealed testimony. my expectation is that if woodward gets the file, he is going to ask it to basically unseal the rest of the testimony. i have no problem with that, i think the public should have a right to see that. this feels like for what trump world does. there is stuff i could cause delays, but the substance of the matter here for those of us
thought let s pay for all the lawyers and make it easy on ourselves. it seems that backfired in this case. what is your take on what happened here? well, it certainly backfired during watergate, that is how information was was through joint defense agreements and resulted, if anything, in aggravating the cover-up. i am not charging it as a cover-up here, they are certainly sharing a lot of information, and it is what the government wants to do here. they are calling the judge, judge cannon, to have what is called a garcia hearing. it is old law, it goes back to 1975 where a defendant, like walt nauta, is entitled to know in an open hearing or ex parte, theoretically, what the conflict is. and what his lawyer may or may not be able to do in cross examining witnesses who are against him. that is not clear at all right
adjudicated. not something we saw, in secret, evidence has been provided that was strong enough that a judge said oh, yeah, oops, yes, crimes, yes, crimes, and that s why we get to see everything. is that how i understand what you re articulaing? yes. and it s really important to remember, there is a model with this having been done with respect to paul manafort and rick gates in the special counsel investigation. before he ruled in that case, manafort and gates and their counsel all had an opportunity to be heard. in other words, this is not ex parte. they all get an opportunity to argue why the government has been wrong. so this has been fully litigated. there s no question that donald trump, as the person who holds the privilege, would have the opportunity to be heard, so this has all been vetted by a federal judge, a respected federal judge, and i m confident it
Protective letters are a potentially valuable pre-emptive tool for businesses facing preliminary injunctions before the UPC, explain Campbell Forsyth and Nina O’Sullivan of Mishcon de Reya.