FORTUNE -- Most of arguments the Wall Street Journal made Friday in a strident editorial calling for the ouster of the judge in the e-book antitrust case were taken from a motion Apple (AAPL) filed last week. (See Apple to judge: You and your antitrust monitor are way out of line.)
But there was also a nugget of new reporting. It's about the relationship between Denise Cote, the federal judge who found Apple guilty last July of conspiring to fix the price of e-books, and Michael Bromwich, the lawyer -- and, the Journal claims, old friend -- to whom she handed the lucrative task of monitoring Apple's compliance:
"Readers may recall Mr. Bromwich as the political fixer President Obama brought in after the BP deepwater oil spill. He worked for Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh in the Reagan era and as inspector general for the Justice Department in the Clinton years.
"He was confirmed for the latter job despite conflicts of interest; his mentor Philip Heymann was Deputy Attorney General and inspectors general are supposed to be impartial watchdogs. In 1994, Judge Cote wrote Mr. Bromwich an effusive endorsement letter to help push him over the Senate hump."
"The Second Circuit where her ruling is on appeal should remove her from the case," the editorial concludes. "Her condominium with Mr. Bromwich is offensive to the rule of law and a disgrace to the judiciary."
If the Journal's rhetoric seems a bit over the top ("condominium"?), that may be because News Corp. (NWS), which publishes the paper, has a stick in this particular fire. It also owns HarperCollins, one of the five e-book publishers Judge Cote ruled had colluded with Apple. Ironically, HarperCollins was the conspiracy's most reluctant participant. It threw in with Apple only after Steve Jobs appealed to News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch.
For a more dispassionate analysis of the legal issues at stake, I recommend the piece my Fortune colleague Roger Parloff posted Monday:
Judge Cote makes short work of Apple's list of nine evidentiary "errors."
FORTUNE -- This may be too deep in the weeds for anyone who hasn't been following the Apple (AAPL) e-book antitrust case as closely as I have.
But I was curious how Judge Denise Cote would deal with nine evidentiary issues Apple says it will raise in its appeal of her ruling last month (pdf here) that the company was MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Aug 15, 2013 8:46 AM ET
Judging from Judge Cote's past performance, the odds are in Amazon's favor.
FORTUNE -- In another context -- or another courthouse -- the remedies the Justice Department and 33 states proposed Friday to address what they call Apple's (AAPL) "illegal conduct" in the e-book market might seem like an unreasonable intrusion by a government agency into a private company's business practices.
Among other things, the DOJ is demanding that Apple let Amazon MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Aug 2, 2013 1:05 PM ET
I thought the judge was coming around to Apple's point of view. I was wrong.
FORTUNE -- The benches were hard. The courtroom was over-cooled. The reporting challenges were daunting (no Wi-Fi, no cellphones, no laptops). But the drama that unfolded over three weeks of testimony was compelling, and I was happy to be one of a handful of reporters who sat through the whole thing.
I thought I had a good handle MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jul 11, 2013 8:28 AM ET
Apple's appeal of the trial judge's verdict will hinge on the last 38 pages of her decision.
FORTUNE -- The first 122 pages of the 160-page ruling against Apple (AAPL) that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote handed down on Wednesday could have been written before the trial began.
In fact, most of them probably were.
Judge Cote was familiar with the case from having supervised the proceedings by which the five so-called Publisher MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jul 10, 2013 1:30 PM ET
Judge: "Apple seized the moment and brilliantly played its hand."
FORTUNE -- In a 160-page ruling following a three-week bench trial, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote has found that Apple (AAPL) did indeed violate the Sherman antitrust act by conspiring with five publishers to raise the price of e-books.
The key paragraph:
"The Plaintiffs have shown that the Publisher Defendants conspired with each other to eliminate retail price competition in order to raise MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jul 10, 2013 10:06 AM ET
What do the patterns in Judge Cote's queries tell us about where the case is headed?
FORTUNE -- Veteran court watchers will tell you that it's dangerous to read too much into the questions judges ask during closing arguments in a trial. Some are probing, some are rhetorical, and in some cases the judge may be playing devil's advocate, seeming to take positions he or she doesn't actually hold.
Still, in a MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 23, 2013 12:55 PM ET
Questioned repeatedly by the judge, does not dispute that they engaged in a conspiracy.
FORTUNE -- "I have no opinion."
That was Orin Snyder's first reply after U.S. District Judge Denise Cote questioned him early in his closing arguments in U.S.A. v. Apple, the antitrust case the Department of Justice filed against Apple (AAPL) and five publishers in April 2012.
We'll deal with what Apple's lead counsel said in his summation after we've heard MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 20, 2013 1:58 PM ET
Closing arguments are set for Thursday, and things are looking up for Apple.
FORTUNE -- It may be telling that before the case went to trial the Department of Justice thought it would need 30 hours to prove that Apple (AAPL) had conspired with five book publishers to raise the price of e-books, while Apple's lawyers only wanted 27 hours to defend their client. The two sides settled on 29 hours MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 20, 2013 7:02 AM ET
She waited until the penultimate day of a three-week trial to share her feelings.
FORTUNE -- U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who played her cards close to the chest throughout the proceedings of the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Apple (AAPL), opened up a bit on Wednesday.
It started with the declaration of her feelings for her iPad, and ended with something that could be more material to the outcome of MOREPhilip Elmer-DeWitt - Jun 19, 2013 1:52 PM ET
|Light bulb ban set to take effect|
|Netflix finds plenty of binge watching, but little guilt|
|Military retirees: You betrayed us, Congress|
|Military families worry about skyrocketing grocery bill|
|Average American inheritance: $177,000|