Here's a Major Problem for the WH: There is NO Atty-Client Privilege with WH Counsel

[Hepburn]

Since Congress wants the testimony of Harriet Meiers, former WH counsel ~~ this is IMO a MAJOR problem for the WH. And, I hate to say it, but we can thank Ken Starr for this problem that the WH is now experiencing.

This is what John Dean has to say on the issue when this came up during the initial Plame Scandal:

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with Starr. The court held that a grand jury was entitled to the information. It also held that government officials -- even when serving as attorneys -- had a special obligation to provide incriminating information in their possession.

In the second case, In re Lindsey, Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey refused to testify about his knowledge of President Clinton's relationship to Monica Lewinsky, based on attorney-client privilege. Starr sought to compel Lindsey's testimony, and he won again.

This time, Starr persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to follow the Eighth Circuit. The court ruled that exposure of wrongdoing by government lawyers fostered democracy, as "openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government."

Based on these precedents, President Bush has almost certainly been told that the only way he can discuss his potential testimony with a lawyer is by hiring one outside the government.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html

This article by Dean came out when Bush "lawyered up" with a private atty when Plame first broke.

Karma is a real b*tch! <smile>

[RevCheesehead]

1. I knew Karma would bite.

She always does. :rofl:

[Hepburn]

2. Don't you just LOVE it???

Harriet, who thinks Monkey Boy is ths MOST brilliant man she has ever met, could be the key to destroying him!

Yeah, Karma........:bounce:

[aquart]

16. Hey! Give hubris a little credit here.

[napi21]

3. UH OH. HEY Harriett!! Are ya gonna go to jail for your buddy?

NOW I see why Shrub is so adamat to say NO to testifying under oath for Rove & Meiers. I guess my brain is getting old, becasue I forgot about that court decision in the Clinton mess.

Hmmmm. Wouldn't ya think people would learn something from the experiences of others? I guess they really did believe the Pubs would ALWAYS be in the majority and they'd never have to care.

OOPS! Too bad! Guess you were wrong AGAIN guys!

[Hepburn]

4. Harriet could be asked about conversations she had with...

...ANYONE! And, being an atty, I know the deal: People are always asking legal questions. And that is no problem for me since I have never been (and would never be) a GOVERNMENT lawyer.

Talk about something coming back to bite the pubbies in the butt: IMO, this is the biggest reason that Harriet has been in hiding and that BushCo came up with this BS about no transcript, non-public "interview" and not under oath.

The one reporter in the Tony Snow press conference hit it right on: "A he said, she said situation."

IMO, the Dems ABSOLUTELY have to push on this ~~ this is the weak spot with the lack of atty-client privilege with Harriet and the WH staff.

JMHO

[pnwmom]

8. And not only that -- Bush cannot forbid Miers to comply with the

subpoena, because Bush isn't her employer anymore.

[Hepburn]

12. True and a good point, IMO.

Couple that with the lack of atty-client privilege and Harriet is a MAJOR problem. I am sure she talked with Rove like crazy. And I bet there are a ton of emails from that missing 18 day period that if produced would bring a ton of interesting questions for Harriet.

I hope the Dems do NOT back down on this at all. IMO, Bush is bluffing and hoping that the Dems will be weak on this.

[merh]

5. Which states were the 8 US Attorneys representing?

and have you seen this article and the study referenced in same?

-snip-

In the last few days we’ve also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal. The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the Bush administration’s politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: “We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest.”

And let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: “In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.”

-snip-

scroll down to Krugman's March 9, 2007 entry at this link http://mgpaquin.blogspot.com/search/label/Krugman

The Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan preview of their study, complete with the statistical data/charts can be found at this link http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html
(look at the end of the article for the charts)

[Hepburn]

6. I am only sure of this one:

Carol Lam was Southern District of Calif.

[pnwmom]

10. And there's McKay in Washington State, who was dumped because

he found no voter fraud in the close Gubernatorial election race. Also, Iglesias in Nevada, who was dumped after he got inappropriate phone calls from legislators.

[merh]

17. Here is the list

* Carol Lam (Southern District of California)
* David Iglesias (District of New Mexico)
* H. E. Cummins III (Eastern District of Arkansas)
* Paul K. Charlton (District of Arizona)
* John McKay (Western District of Washington)
* Kevin V. Ryan (Northern District of California)
* Daniel Bogden (District of Nevada)
* Margaret Chiara (Western District of Michigan)

Let's see, Arkansas, could that be because Hillary Clinton has baggage worth investigating in Arkansas? Didn't Clark announce his 2004 presidential bid from Arkansas? And isn't Arkansas a week red state?

New Mexico, Richardson is a dem candidate, does he need further scrutiny and isn't New Mexico a barely red state that had voting issues in 2004? Weren't New Mexico's electoral votes important in 2004?

Nevada, a barely red state.

California, a blue state that has the most electoral votes and a republican governor, do they think it is vulnerable and do they need to increase the investigations into dems?

Arizona - McCain? Is he not their annointed successor?

Michigan - 17 electoral votes and a state that is barely blue.

Washington ??

[Bitwit1234]

23. The also replaced the attorney in Minnesota

rove considers that a swing state also...they replaced the attorney with a Rachel Paulson. And the people didn't like it.

[napi21]

11. Here ya go.

Margaret Chiara-MI
Kevin Ryson-CO
Carol Lam-CA
David Iglasias-NM
Dan Bogdon-NV
John McCay=Il.
H. Cummins-AR
Paul Charlton-AZ

[merh]

18. thank you - see post 17

:hi:

[troubleinwinter]

20. Whoa!!!!! 80% Dem. - 18% Repub. investigations under Bush

[merh]

21. Well, you know that is just a weird coincidence ....

nothing to see here, just move along :crazy:

[enough]

7. Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought there was a distinction between

the personal lawyers for government officials and the government (ie civil-service) lawyers working for government officials.

[Hepburn]

9. Actually, the thank you goes to...

...Ken Starr! LMBO!

[AndyA]

13. Wouldn't it be hilarious if the ultimate downfall of the Bush Gestapo was brought about

by their hatred of Bill Clinton, and their almost cult like desire to prosecute the Clintons for something - anything - they could possibly find?

Karma is a bitch! And apparently, it's set on dealing with the GOP now.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. *grinning ear to ear*

[Hepburn]

15. My thoughts exactly...

...what goes around, comes around. The pubbies were soooo hateful on going after Clinton they never realized that some of this stuff could def come back and bite them squarely on the butt.

On that Sanchez sub-committee hearing this AM? Those pubbie who were arguing against issuing the subpoenas, IMO, they KNEW this was a major problem. They had to know what would happen if Harriet is called. Their excuses were typical pubbie excuses...but there was something more to it ~~ like fear.

[AtomicKitten]

19. K&R -- This should be interesting.

[soothsayer]

22. Ken Starr is currently lead counsel for Blackwater USA. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

24. I love irony. Don't you?

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Of course there's no attorney client privilege, we pay the White House Counsel's salary

The White House Counsel's job is to advise the President on legal matters, not to get him out of trouble when he breaks the law. If he wants to do that he can hire a private attorney like everybody else.

[Morgana LaFey]

26. Now THAT is WILD!!

really wild. Who knew?

[LiberalFighter]

27. Gee bushwad must had known he had done something illegal

[pnwmom]

28. On top of that, he can't order her not to comply, because she doesn't work

for him anymore.