General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Journalistic impartiality tested in NSA leak story [View all]msanthrope
(37,549 posts)First..Unlike you, I am not quoting Mr. Greenwald. I am quoting the appellate opinion on his major fuck-up of rule 26(b)(3). I've now given you the cite multiple times. It would be sporting if you read the opinion you are opining on. The Center for Constitutional Rights smacked Greenwald's ass righteously...it's worth the read.
Second...Leagle.com is not Little Green Footballs.
Third...appellate opinions recite the findings of facts of the lower court. They do not find their own. Greenwald's ethical violations were not vacated by the appellate court...they remain on record. That the appellate court threw him a bone by noting that they judge not character, but conduct was nice of them...perhaps they thought him merely ignorant, as opposed to malicious. Which is an entirely possible conclusion, given his conduct....
Fourth...If you read the opinion you are opining on, you would realize that the 52-page transcript I am referring to is Greenwald's own work product. Not only was he stupid enough to wiretap a witness..he made a transcript of it.
Then, in a move I simply cannot explain....he brought that transcript to deposition, apparently hoping to impeach a witness. When CCR demanded all evidence of all the wiretaps, Greenwald claimed work product doctrine under 26(b)(3).
Well, because of the ethical violations, the court found that Greenwald couldn't claim the privilege. So his client lost that protection, and Greenwald had to hand over all the transcripts. The magistrate characterized one of those transcripts, the appellate court noted, in a manner that reflected very poorly on Greenwald.
With the privilege lost, Hale settled the case. The NY bar put out a clarifying opinion, referenced in my OP.
And this case is taught in law schools as how not to violate your client's privileges.
It would really help if you read the cases you opine on.