Call the Show 800-520-1234
LIVE: Mon-Fri, 6-9AM, ET
Hugh Hewitt Book Club
Call 800-520-1234 email Email Hugh
Hugh Hewitt Book Club

Remembering a Great First Lady: Barbara Bush, and Comey’s “Revenge Tour”

Email Email Print

On the Townhall Review, a roundup of the week’s news that I host:

Hear my tribute to former First Lady Barbara Bush.  My friend and colleague Michael Medved takes a look at the bill flying through the California legislature that threatens religious freedom. And Mike Gallagher talks with reporter Mollie Hemmingway about the latest on James Comey.

The show is up right now at  While there, sign up for the podcast.


When Life Becomes Theater of the Absurd

Email Email Print

The absurdity meter has officially broken.  San Diego County has voted to join the “revolt” against California’s self-proclaimed “sanctuary status.” The California law, it has been argued by people that ought to know, is a violation of federal law and unarguably unconstitutional.  Some local California coverage of protests against the SDC action featured one of the protesters proclaiming loudly to the interviewer, “You just can’t go against state law.”

Not too long ago the host had a rather feisty on-TV exchange with someone whose response I described in private conversation as “utterly incoherent.”  After that, I really thought it would be a while before I encountered anything quite so blatantly nonsensical.  Yet in a matter of weeks I hear this protester proudly say something so self-contradictory that I wished I were capable of a Tex Avery cartoon take.

When Philip K. Howard’s “The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America” was published in 1994 it was about the law and how too much law always ends up with contradictions and that it is better to leave some things up to common sense.  But I don’t think anyone at the time imagined that just a little more than 20 years later we would be subject to absurdities like that uttered by the San Diego protester.  We have done far more than kill common sense, we have killed coherence.

Says Wikipedia:

Critic Martin Esslin coined the term in his 1962 essay “Theatre of the Absurd.”[2] He related these plays based on a broad theme of the Absurd, similar to the way Albert Camus uses the term in his 1942 essay, The Myth of Sisyphus.[3] The Absurd in these plays takes the form of man’s reaction to a world apparently without meaning, and/or man as a puppet controlled or menaced by invisible outside forces. This style of writing was first popularized by the 1953 Samuel Beckett play Waiting for Godot. Though the term is applied to a wide range of plays, some characteristics coincide in many of the plays: broad comedy, often similar to vaudeville, mixed with horrific or tragic images; characters caught in hopeless situations forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions; dialogue full of clichés, wordplay, and nonsense; plots that are cyclical or absurdly expansive; either a parody or dismissal of realism and the concept of the “well-made play“. These plays were shaped by the political turmoil, scientific breakthrough, and social upheaval going on in the world around the playwrights during these times.

This is not the stuff of fiction anymore.  Honestly, when I heard that San Diego protester pretty much all of “Waiting for Godot” flashed before my eyes.  We are not cursed merely to live in interesting time, we live in absurdist times.

Read More

Join Hughniverse - First Month 99 cents Join Hughniverse - First Month 99 cents Join Hughniverse - First Month 99 cents

On Attorney-Client Privilege And The Question Before Judge Wood

Email Email Print

Asked about the attorney-client privilege by my colleague and friend Stephanie Rhule on MSNBC Monday, I managed to get out something like “Believe it or not, Sean Hannity may not have known he was Michal Cohen’s client.”

Then time ran out and I couldn’t explain how Sean could easily have the privilege attached to his conversation and not even know it as many laymen wouldn’t. Watching a few years of CSI doesn’t make anyone expert in these matters. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility and the Bar Examiners of the many states do.

After the raid on Michael Cohen’s office, home and hotel, I took the time with both of my law school classes later in the day to make sure my law students understand this as well: You can end up being someone’s lawyer in the blink of an eye, so be careful about that. Further, the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney, and if advice is asked of a lawyer as a lawyer in confidence, whether or not paid for, and whether or not a retainer agreement is signed, that confidential communication is attorney-client privileged unless either the lawyer asked is explicit in rejecting the appeal or conditioning it on the response not being covered, or subject to an exception such as its being part of a criminal enterprise.

I stressed these things to my students because, unlike journalism, the law is a profession, and breaking its rules often means disbarment and worse. The late, great Michael Kelly, a regular guest on my radio show until his death on April 3, 2003 during the invasion of Iraq and the march to Baghdad, said a dozen times on air that “journalism is a craft, not a profession.”

Professions have rules that are enforceable, crafts have different standards and enforcement belongs to a thousand different organizations with just as many standards.

Not so the law. Keeping a client’s confidences is one of the highest obligations a lawyer has, and to get the parameters and importance of that obligation right I asked for some specifics from my law partner, former Former Federal District Court Judge Stephe Larson —also formerly the head of the Organized Crime and Racketeering United of the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles— why the privilege mattered so.

“The attorney client communication privilege is one of the foundational cornerstones of our constitutional justice system,” Larson wrote back. “Anyone committed to liberty and the rule of law should view government intrusion into that relationship, especially when accomplished by sealed affidavits and proceedings, with grave concern.”

Larson is one of the country’s very best white collar criminal defense lawyers and is often called on the dive into sensitive internal investigations, and has to battle, successfully, prosecutorial misconduct. He knows it exists though of course he doesn’t know if it is present in the matter of the seizure of Michael Cohen’s files. Judge Larson’s prosecutor’s DNA and experience, though, informs his views of the privilege, and of the problems associated with seizing an attorney’s files.

“Unfortunately,” he said when I asked about Hannity’s (and the president’s and Elliot Broidy’s privileged communications) “there is no effective mechanism to challenge an illegal or improper search warrant before prosecution other than a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property, which suffers from the square peg/round hole problem — the rule and cases interpreting the rule concern returning property needed by a subject of a search, not challenging the propriety of or invalidating the search warrant itself.”

“Reviewing documents for privilege is a judicial function,”he continued, “not an executive one.”

“So-called ‘taint’ or filter teams composed of law enforcement agents is tantamount to assigning the fox to inspect the chicken coop, Larson concluded. “A special master, who is truly independent and responsible only to the Court, is the only assurance that critical rights will be preserved.”

Lots of members of the media and plenty of Democrats dislike the president so much —and my friend Sean as well— that they will overlook this fracturing of a foundational privilege and jump to the conclusion that Cohen doesn’t deserve an presumption of having been an attorney either because of the sporadic nature of his communications with Hannity, and Sean’s comments regarding them.

But as the very honorable Ben Wittes also said on MSNBC Monday morning, it is very possible that both Cohen’s lawyers and Hannity’s comments can be reconciled. Wittes is a critic of the president but he also knows his rules of professional responsibility. As the media should.

This isn’t a small thing: seizing a lawyer’s files. It is a huge thing. It may in fact be justified. But a federal law enforcement official isn’t going to “unsee” anything they see even if a member of the “taint team.” Judge Wood knows this and hopefully by the time this appears a special master will be reviewing these files and not the Department of Justice, and reporters and pundits will make a better effort to educate the public about the stakes here. The rule of law means the most even when it is protecting your opponents.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement
Book Hugh Hewitt as a speaker for your meeting

Follow Hugh Hewitt

Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices

The Hugh Hewitt Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Friends and Allies of Rome