Sean Hannity was outed this week as a client of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer, raising legitimate questions about whether the cable host had an obligation to disclose these ties publicly before using his show as a vehicle to defend the New York City attorney.

The simple (and easy) answer is: Yes. Hannity had a responsibility to inform his viewers of his full relationship with Cohen. Withholding these details while also defending Trump’s self-described “fixer” is misleading at best, and intentionally dishonest at worst.

Cohen, whose other two clients between 2017 and 2018 include the president and GOP fundraiser Elliot Brody, both of whom used the New York attorney to arrange payouts to alleged mistresses, tried to keep Hannity's name a secret. A judge overruled Cohen.

That the Fox New host was named as the previously undisclosed third man is weird enough. The way his name was revealed, however, is even stranger.

The Atlantic’s Natasha Bertrand gave a us a first look into how Hannity’s cover was blown when she tweeted this week, “[Judge Kimba Wood] was prepared to let Ryan give her the name of Cohen’s third client under seal. At that point, an attorney for the NYT and CNN approached the podium and convinced her that the press (& public) should know. She agreed. He played pivotal role here.”

It’s as strange as it sounds: An attorney not directly involved in the court argument interrupted the hearing to convince the judge to compel Cohen to disclose his clients.

Columbia Journalism Review provided additional details later on how media lawyer Rob Balin convinced the judge to go along with the unsealing of Hannity's name.

“Balin attended the Monday hearing in Southern District Court in Manhattan, following the raid of Cohen’s offices, to represent the interests of several news organizations, including ABC, The New York Times, CNN, the Associated Press, and Newsday,” CJR notes.

It adds, “When it seemed the judge would keep the client’s identity under seal, Balin stood up in the second row of the gallery, apologized for interrupting, introduced himself, and informed the court of a ‘public access issue.’ Then, with the court’s permission, he approached the podium and argued that the client’s identity should be disclosed publicly.”

I'm just a Caveman, but it seems like a strange way to go about things, making a decision based on appeals from gallery members who aren’t part of the court argument.

CJR gives additional details, “[Balin] noted, among other things, the ‘intense public interest’ in the hearing, and he urged the court to recognize a First Amendment right of access to the client’s identity. … Cohen’s attorneys failed to offer a persuasive counterargument, and ultimately Judge Kimba Wood ordered them to disclose publicly the secret client’s identity.”

Full disclosure: I am not an attorney, so I am not the best person to tell you whether this court episode is unethical or highly unusual. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and National Review columnist Andrew C. McCarthy, on the other hand, is very well-equipped to discuss the matter, and he says what happened in that court was “outrageous,” but for a reason other than Balin’s unusual interruption.

“The court’s order that Hannity’s name be disclosed in open court violated longstanding, judicially endorsed standards against identifying uncharged persons in legal proceedings attendant to criminal investigations,” he writes.

McCarthy adds, “The failure of the court and the government lawyers to enforce that standard just adds fuel to the fiery contention that, where President Trump is involved, investigations are driven by politics, not law enforcement.”