despite the fact that it was wewho had arranged for her to be “dosed” in the first place. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015117 --- PAGE BREAK --- Woodward and Bernstein were not the only ones with reliable sources. According to one of my contacts in the intelligence community, the Democrats’ first choice for a presid

Part Il; The changing sound and look of freedom of speech: from the Pentagon Papers to Wikileaks and from Harry Reems’ Deep Throat to Woodward and Bernstein’s “Deep Throat.” Chapter 5: The Changing First Amendment—New Meanings For Old Words We 5259 Pages 9 Chapter 6 Offensiveness- Pornography: I Am Curi

r, 2016) and a variety of different stimuli such as written vignettes, visual stimuli (e.g., Bernstein & Harley, 2007), and auditory stimuli (e.g., Bernstein, Wilson, Pernat, & Meilleur, 2012). Even individuals with specialized training and expertise succumb to hindsight bias (Musch & Wagner, 2007). One n

erial at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power" and "the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts." Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation and internal marks omitted). Once the right of access atta

hat is, "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," and that's from the Second Circuit's decision in Bernstein v Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139, quoting from an earlier Second Circuit's decision in a case called Lugosch v Pyram

r clear error, its legal determinations de novo, and its ultimate decision to seal or unseal for abuse of discretion." Brown, 929 F.3d at 47 (citing Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitt Berger dr Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court abuses its discretion if it "(1) bases its decisi

4 See United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2017) (noting discovery documents lie beyond the presumption of public access); Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann UP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (weighing value of public disclosure of complaint against privacy interests