Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Ocelot II

(122,047 posts)

1. The reference is to "personal identifiers," which is probably a serious consideration

Reply to ancianita (Original post)

Mon Oct 16, 2023, 04:21 PM

Oct 2023

in this case - any time there is a court transcript all the lawyers and court reporters and some other court personnel besides the judge often are identified.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There is no publicly available court transcript of today's DC hearing. And not for a while. [View all] ancianita Oct 2023 OP

The reference is to "personal identifiers," which is probably a serious consideration Ocelot II Oct 2023 #1

I see. I wondered. That makes sense. Thanks. ancianita Oct 2023 #2

But what if I yell *really* loudly about the public's right to know? Hermit-The-Prog Oct 2023 #3