Trump hush money case remains under veil of secrecy — and his lawyers aren't happy: report

The New York district attorney is desperately trying to keep Michael Cohen's name out of the court filings involving the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal. In fact, he wants to keep the adult film star's name out, too.

The Daily Beast obtained a court filing from last month which showed redactions that try to keep the identities of "Lawyer A" and "Woman 2" under wraps.

But Donald Trump's lawyers appear to be trying to find ways to include Cohen's identity as often as possible.

New York law aims to protect witnesses from “risk of intimidation, economic reprisal, bribery, harassment or unjustified annoyance or embarrassment" and, as such, often keeps the names of witnesses and testifiers secret until trial.

Trump has already been accused to trying to intimidate Cohen — and other witnesses and court officials — through social media attacks. Judge Juan Merchan, who's overseeing the hush money trial, has made it clear that Trump had to stop when he started going after the judge's daughter online.

The Beast included this as an example of the kind of redactions:

“The People allege that President Trump and his personal attorney, █████, worked with executives from American Media, Inc. (“AMI”) to identify and suppress potential negative news stories during the runup to the 2016 presidential election."

ALSO READ: Now we know how Hitler did it

Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche, complained to the judge about the redactions in October, and begged for them to be restricted.

“Further, any considerations must be weighed against President Trump’s fundamental right to a public trial and the public’s interest in open access to judicial records,” Blanche wrote, according to the Beast. “Notably, much of what the People seek to redact, such as the name of witnesses who proffered with the People, is not even grand jury material.”

Justice Merchan was against it.

Though the names are redacted in the filings, they're well known publicly. Tell-all books have flooded the market, the Beast noted, citing Daniels' book "Full Disclosure" and former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, who wrote "People vs. Donald Trump."

But as the Beast pointed out, the actual court case has remained largely quiet recently as the focus moved more to Trump's federal cases, the ongoing fraud trial and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.

Court documents are usually easily accessible and are reported moments after they're uploaded, with legal experts quickly providing analysis.

"But at the Manhattan criminal courthouse, the publicly accessible file bin only includes a snippet of the back-and-forth going on behind the scenes," the report explained. "Several judicial orders are missing, and the occasional legal motions hint at a much more thorough discussion about ongoing issues behind closed doors."

Oddly, it means Trump and his allies are fighting for the media to have better access to the documents.

“The redactions proposed by the People are inappropriate,” Blanche wrote.

“The People brought this case and should not be permitted to avoid public scrutiny of the numerous infirmities in their case by attempting to litigate it in secret. Nor should the People be allowed to pick and choose what information they believe the public is entitled to know pre-trial.

"This is inconsistent with President Trump’s First and Sixth Amendment rights, as well as the public’s First Amendment and common law rights to public access to judicial records.”

Read the full report here.