General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCohen's lawyers give Judge Wood 4 names that could be the "Special Master".
Is this for real?
I think we already have a "Special Master"?
His name is Robert Mueller !
I cannot believe this crap!
And why would they think they would get to choose their "Special Master"??
Keep an eye on this folks.
(On edit: I just saw this on a crawler on MSNBC)
onenote
(42,714 posts)She'll make the decision.
kentuck
(111,098 posts)In my opinion.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,721 posts)Both sides submit names and the judge decides.
bluestarone
(16,968 posts)everyone will fight about the judges decision!! I just wish she would make the decision and be done with it!! I guess i do not understand the reasoning that more people involved would be better????
kentuck
(111,098 posts)They could have subpoenaed them and let them hand over whatever documents they wanted and be done with it.
There should be no "special master" since Robert Mueller is already the Special Counsel. If this ties into the Russia investigation, which it very well might, then Mueller will want the evidence.
bluestarone
(16,968 posts)What he wanted? I sure as hell would not trust Cohen for anything! I believe Mueller did everything right. I just wish the judge would do what she believes is right. (make a decision)
ooky
(8,923 posts)Which is why this "special master" stuff makes zero sense.
The judge should let the prosecutors do their job and allow them to review their lawfully obtained evidence. Then if there is any evidence they decide to use which is subject to "attorney-client priviledge" or "executive priviledge", then the judge can just rule not to allow it to be introduced into the hearing, like a normal court hearing.
bluestarone
(16,968 posts)kentuck
(111,098 posts)...would make it difficult to choose someone of Cohen's choosing?
ooky
(8,923 posts)to prevent priviledged evidence from being introduced into the court record. The judge makes these rulings and doesn't need outside help to do it. That's why she is a judge, we are supposed to trust her to do her job. But this administration fights the rule of law at every turn because it is always on the wrong side of the law. The judge should not be giving in to that. The only correct ruling here is no "special master - we are going to follow our established rule of law." There is no way to pick outsiders to make this determination, either side will be questioned as partisan. To even allow this should result in an automatic motion to appeal by the government. This is a bs exercise.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)evidence in order to speed up the process of deciding what can be used at trial and what can't.
Has nothing to do with whether the warrant was legal or not.
The Special Master works for the court.
Think of the Special Master as a knowledgeable assistant to the judge helping to reduce their workload.
ooky
(8,923 posts)That is not the judge's job. The prosecutors do that and then the prosecutors can present the evidence they want to use and the judge rules on the admissability of that evidence. Asking the defense to participate in sorting through the seized evidence, either directly or indirectly, before it comes before a judge for a ruling does not seem right. That way important evidence could be discarded before the judge ever sees it. However this process will be organized the judge must be allowed to rule on every piece of evidence that is deemed priviledged by anyone but her.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)That is the basic thing to understand. Sometimes, that makes it take longer and be more complex. The hope is that, in the end, justice is served.
If Hillary were in office I have no doubt there would be any number of investigations going on. All of them would actually be witch hunts. We would certainly want to ensure the process was fair and not run by people we believe were completely biased.
The appointment of the special master is one way to maximize the fairness and remove the argument from the defense that the people who decided what gets used and what doesn't were simply the prosecutors who wanted to win at all cost. We would expect no less if a President from our party was the accused.
bluestarone
(16,968 posts)I'm willing to bet neither side will be fully agreeable to the Judges final decision. ( I hope i'm wrong on this) This could become a mess!!
kentuck
(111,098 posts)But, if we have learned anything from the past, it will be accused as being "rigged" from the beginning.
That is the manipulation that must be restrained.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)kentuck
(111,098 posts)...they are not going to choose someone like Robert Mueller.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)of a "Master" is? They work for the court, not the Prosecution or Defense.
From: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_53
(1) Scope. Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court may appoint a master only to:
(A) perform duties consented to by the parties;
(B) hold trial proceedings and make or recommend findings of fact on issues to be decided without a jury if appointment is warranted by:
(i) some exceptional condition; or
(ii) the need to perform an accounting or resolve a difficult computation of damages; or
(C) address pretrial and posttrial matters that cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the district.
(2) Disqualification. A master must not have a relationship to the parties, attorneys, action, or court that would require disqualification of a judge under 28 U.S.C. §455, unless the parties, with the court's approval, consent to the appointment after the master discloses any potential grounds for disqualification.
(3) Possible Expense or Delay. In appointing a master, the court must consider the fairness of imposing the likely expenses on the parties and must protect against unreasonable expense or delay.
(b) Order Appointing a Master.
(1) Notice. Before appointing a master, the court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard. Any party may suggest candidates for appointment.
...
kentuck
(111,098 posts)I was not aware of it.
But, I could see how it could be manipulated and used to delay the process. Hopefully it will have some strict guidelines to prevent that?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)faster (in this case).
Also if both parties can agree on the person to be appointed special master that means there won't be time consuming
challenges to that person's appointment by the judge.
mythology
(9,527 posts)kentuck
(111,098 posts)We have not yet seen the evidence??
Although Mueller must have seen "something" in order to refer it to the Deputy Attorney General, who then referred it to the Southern District?
Buns_of_Fire
(17,180 posts)(1) Ivanka Trump,
(2) Jared Kushner,
(3) Melania Trump, or
(4) Barron Trump
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,721 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)per Trump's order?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Instead, the judge split the decision, ordering both sides to return with an estimate of the volume of evidence that could be covered by attorney-client privilege and then she would decide the expedient way of handling that review.
"I have faith in the Southern District US Attorney's Office that their integrity is unimpeachable," Wood said. "So I think that a taint team is a viable option."
The judge said she would decide whether a special master would adjudicate what investigators can access, as requested by Cohen.
"In terms of perception of fairness -- not fairness itself, but perception of fairness -- a special master might have a role here," Wood said. "Maybe not the complete role, but some role."
From: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/16/politics/michael-cohen-hearing/index.html
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)If he wants the job.
kentuck
(111,098 posts)Those are the types of choices we will be looking at, in my opinion.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)bluestarone
(16,968 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,721 posts)A special master is a neutral person who acts as a judge for a specific, narrow task. Whoever is chosen will be someone who is demonstrably not biased toward or against either party. That person would definitely not be someone who has appeared on TV and offered an opinion about any aspect of the case or the parties involved. Chances are that if a special master is appointed that person will be someone who is a well-credentialed lawyer none of us has heard of.
kentuck
(111,098 posts)"...who is demonstrably not biased toward or against either party."
"Should be..."
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,721 posts)If not, why not?
kentuck
(111,098 posts)...and that she is seeking advice from others. Because no one, not even judges, know everything.
But, she will have to be fair and understand that no matter whom she chooses, one side will say it is rigged and they cannot get a fair hearing.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,721 posts)There is no reason to believe this judge will make a decision that is unfair. Trump's people always claim that a judge's ruling that is not in his favor is rigged and unfair. So what?
bluestarone
(16,968 posts)I'm comfortable with this judge to make final ruling on her own! (no special master involved). What are your thoughts here? You think she would be right in that decision, OR could this mess up things and give appeal ( of here decision)advantage to Cohen?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,721 posts)just because of the sheer volume of the materials somebody - either the judge or the SM - is going to have to review. Federal judges have heavy caseloads and it would make sense to delegate the job to someone else. Apart from that consideration, I have every reason to believe the judge herself could decide on her own which documents are privileged. Judges always have to make decisions on the basis of the law and without having to consider whether one party will appeal or whine that the decision is unfair.
kentuck
(111,098 posts)bluestarone
(16,968 posts)His position is to SLOW DOWN THIS PROCESS!!(that's his goal) That's why i feel the judge needs to make the decision, not special master.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)It's the ultimate discretion of the judge to choose any of them, or none of them.
imanamerican63
(13,798 posts)SomethingNew
(279 posts)people would research the role of a special master.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)...had some good descriptions of the job and it's limitations and under what types of circumstances a special master is called in. Made much of the chatter in this thread, superfluous really. You are correct
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Each side can propose 4 attorneys as special master. If you propose 4 obviously biased people, then none of your proposed SMs will even be in the running any more. The judge will chose among your opponents suggestions. Experienced attorneys will propose respected members of the bar who they think will follow the law. The judge is not going to appoint somebody the judge doesnt think well of. Your local mob attorney is not going to be appointed, nor a television personality. She might well appoint a retired judge.