So it was CNN's and NYT lawyer at the court who insisted the judge reveal

quote:

---

creepy how these people operate and nothing is done about it

---

quote:

---

I was laughing for most of the day.

---

quote:

---

There is no credible claim that this client`s mere identity is attorney-client privileged information. Michael Cohen makes the argument that it would be embarrassing to be associated with what he terms a raid at a house, in a home. Your Honor, I hardly need to remind the court of the intense public interest in the issues that are currently before this court. I look around and I see that every other seat is occupied by a member of the press.

Ultimately, however your honor rules, the public is going to want to know the basis for your honor`s ruling. That`s the very nature of the First Amendment access right, so that we the people and the press can monitor our institutions and have a rational basis for agreeing or disagreeing. And I hesitate to add, your honor, that I suspect, no matter how you rule, those in the public will agree or disagree. That`s what we do in society.

Finally, your honor, I would make one last point. It was Justice Burger who I think put it well. "People in our open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing". That was in Winston newspapers v. Virginia many years ago.

Your honor, I see no basis for denying public access. If your honor is going to order disclosure of this name, I see no basis for denying public access to that name.

---

quote:

---

Robert Balin, representing a consortium of news agencies, arguing before Judge Wood:

---