Secretive Whitehouse?

[Professor Mouse]

As was established during the Clinton years, there is no attorney/client privilege between the individual and the attorney if the attorney is a government attorney. Here's a few opinions:

http://www.digenovatoensing.com/inthenews/No_Client_Atty_Privilege.htm

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislat...ongress/confirmation_watch/estrada_memos.html

http://www.acprivilege.com/articles/acgovern.htm

The right gets hoisted by their own petards again.

And lest I forget, Ding, ding, ding,............I'm the winner here. I mentioned Bill Clinton first. Wonder what I'll give myself as a prize.

Don't you know that the attorney client priviege is only for Republican presidents and their attorneys. There is no such thing as attorney client privilege for a Democratic President or if the controversy is solely about sex.

 

[sodaseller]

Don't you know that the attorney client priviege is only for Republican presidents and their attorneys. There is no such thing as attorney client privilege for a Democratic President or if the controversy is solely about sex.

You obviously fail to recognize the grave threat to the nation represented by unconfessed sex. Henry Hyde said that preventing just such an episode was what motivated the Allies at D-Day! Remember that the GOP was upset the last time we struck at bin Laden and separately, Hussein, because it distracted from the far greater threat to national security - unreported oral sex (some internal demons at work, plainly). When that became clear years later, it was still Clinton's fault for causing their collective loss of sanity, which reminded me of the old SNL "Ex-cops" tagline - "another marijuana related death!"

 

[Charade]

Here’s what I make of it. It’s political posturing on both sides. The White House wants to take the stance that they are not required to release every single shred of information about Roberts (which of course could be relevant and could be not so relevant). This angers the Democrats, who want to at least have the opportunity to see everything even remotely related to Roberts. In the end, the White House wants to be sure that nothing that might hold up his confirmation comes to light and the Democrats want to be sure to find something to use against him. This is the sort of thing that gets frustrating with politics. Let’s just release relevant information and discuss relevant issues, not try to hide information *or* try to find something irrelevant to “convict” Roberts in the court of public opinion and sound bites.

It's like a fishing expedition. They keep casting the line hoping to catch something. So rather than ask pertinent questions they think of all on their own, they get out the rod and reel.

 

[ThAnswr]

Don't you love it? What goes around comes around!

One of life's golden "gotcha" moments.

 

[ThAnswr]

It's like a fishing expedition. They keep casting the line hoping to catch something. So rather than ask pertinent questions they think of all on their own, they get out the rod and reel.

Yanno, Larry Flynt said the same thing about his "1 million dollar" deal to anyone who could prove they had an affair with a member of Congress. That was a fishing expedition too.

And as Larry Flynt said "He went bottom feeding and look who he found". Why none other than Bob Livingston, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr.

Btw, call me old-fashioned, but I do believe if you've a statement or written an opinion, you either stand behind it or explain how your opinion has changed. But, that's not the Bush way. The Bush way is, would you believe, pretend you never made any statements or, would you believe, they're none of your business.

And I really do wonder who all these talking heads think Roberts worked for while on the government payroll. He worked for the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer was his client.

Then, again, I'm old-fashioned and just racking up the years in Purgatory enjoying this sideshow.

 

[Teejay32]

There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for Bush to comply with the Democrats' request, so, just have the DNC offer a $1M reward for damaging information on Roberts.

 

[kirbsam]

it doesnt matter who is int he white house. there are plenty of secrets. and there should be. should everything that congress asks for be made public. i am sure not. people are making too big of a deal about this than they need to be. this kind of thing happens all the time. people want info and others try not to give it out. happens now, happened when bill was in the whitehouse, happened when reagan was in the whtie house, happened when fdr was in the white house. i often wonderhow fdr would have gotten us into wwII, if he wasnt allowed to have secrets.

 

[ThAnswr]

it doesnt matter who is int he white house. there are plenty of secrets. and there should be. should everything that congress asks for be made public. i am sure not. people are making too big of a deal about this than they need to be. this kind of thing happens all the time. people want info and others try not to give it out. happens now, happened when bill was in the whitehouse, happened when reagan was in the whtie house, happened when fdr was in the white house. i often wonderhow fdr would have gotten us into wwII, if he wasnt allowed to have secrets.

Other than for national security reasons, and those should have strict rules, everything the public pays for should be public.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Thank you Ken Starr. Privilege Claim May Not Apply to Roberts Papers

WASHINGTON — The White House is citing the attorney-client privilege as the basis for refusing to reveal memos written by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. when he was representing the government before the high court. At the time, Roberts was the top deputy to Solicitor Gen. Kenneth W. Starr.

But it is not clear that this legal privilege shields the work of government lawyers from the eyes of government investigators — thanks to a legal ruling won by Starr himself, when he was independent counsel investigating President Clinton.

Usually, the attorney-client privilege protects private lawyers from being forced to reveal what their clients told them. It also shields their notes and memos from prosecutors. This rule of secrecy is seen as vital to the adversarial process.

But in 1996, Starr challenged the notion that White House lawyers who worked for Clinton could invoke the attorney-client privilege when Starr sought notes they had written.

Starr argued that the lawyers worked for the people of the United States, not for the president.

Democrats are making a similar argument in Roberts' case: that the solicitor general represents the public interest.

The flap about Robert's paper is far from over

 

[disneyworldgirl]

I seem to remember the Republicans rejoicing over that ruling. I wonder how many feel like rejoicing now. Also, I think it will be interesting to see if the Bush administration is going to follow that legal precedent, or bury themselves in more hypocrisy. I suspect the latter.