The legal machinations surrounding the materials seized in the FBI’s raid of Trump Organization lawyer Michael Cohen are some of the juiciest tidbits of lawyer nerd gossip in years. Monday’s hearing on how the potentially attorney-client privileged materials taken in the raid is just the gift that keeps on giving.

There’s nothing quite like an eye witness account to get the real scoop. Toward that end, Law & Crime editor Colin Kalmbacher actually attended Monday’s court hearing. He’s covered all things Cohen related for that publication, but some details just didn’t make it to print. So he participated in an AMA (that’s Ask Me Anything in Reddit speak) in the closed Facebook group Lawyers for Good Government.

There are lots of great insights in the full AMA, but the most telling are when Kalmbacher identifies the best and worst lawyering of the hearing. The best legal acumen on display (shared below with Kalmbacher’s permission) came from an amicus curiae for the press. This was during the part of the hearing where McDermott Will & Emery partner Steven Ryan, representing Cohen, was trying to stop Sean Hannity’s name from being revealed as one of Cohen’s clients. Instead of taking a compromise and disclosing Hannity’s name to just presiding judge Kimba Wood and prosecutor Thomas McKay, he continued to argue that Hannity’s name should not be revealed to anyone. At this point an amicus curiae representing the press spoke, which ultimately led to Sean Hannity’s name being revealed to the public:

[The amicus curiae for the press’s] entire argument was actually the best lawyering–in terms of presentation; mixture of emotion and logic, and overall effect–in court that day. He was the one who brought up the Vingelli standard–an old (but still precedential) case in the SDNY which stands for the proposition that there are only a few isolated instances in which the attorney-client privilege can be extended to protect a client’s name. This was actually a case cited by Team Cohen. The press attorney ethered their citation by noting that they just mentioned the case without actually arguing why it applied to them–and that actually they couldn’t satisfy any of the elements. This prompted the judge and prosecution to both look into the case–and ultimately agree with the amici. There was also about half a sentence about the First Amendment–remember, some emotion was displayed–but this wasn’t really interrogated at all. Just kind of noted.

But I know what you really want to know: who had the worst lawyering? Well, Team Cohen takes the cake there. Here’s Kalmbacher’s unvarnished take on them:

Michael Cohen should be able to afford better attorneys. The Trump Organization is scared shitless. Donald Trump hired his attorney because she’s just as meandering in presentation as he is. Edit: the prosecution is doing well. Judge Wood is fair and trying her hardest to appease all sides–but Trump and Cohen are making that difficult.

Burn.

Kathryn Rubino is an editor at Above the Law. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).