Roberts lawyer-client privilege? What about Clinton?

[wurzel]

Bush is claiming lawyer client privilege to deny info on Roberts. But it seems to me that Clinton was denied this in the Whitewater case on the grounds that such a privilege could only be for private lawyers and not to lawyers on the government payroll. Do I have this right? If so why isn't this an issue?

[Fiona]

1. Bush

hired a private lawyer to deal with the Plame case. He's not using White House Counsel.

[atreides1]

2. Nothing to do with the Plame case

Judge Roberts worked for the first Bush administration as a political apointee to the Solicitor General's office, and represented the administration.

So this isn't about Bush II, it has to do with Bush I.

[Fiona]

8. ah, I'm sorry

my mistake.

[bullimiami]

3. sorry bub. find someone else that doesnt have so many secrets then.

this guy is a long time bushmafia tool.

[jsamuel]

4. You are right, it is an issue because Bush says so

The only difference I see is that it was "subpoenaed" before, now it is being requested.

But the arguement is the same, so it doesn't hold water.

[jayfish]

5. Kos Take:(EDITED)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/26/115428/490

<SNIP>
(T)his case grew out of a subpoena that the independent counsel issued for notes that were taken of conversations between Hillary Rodham Clinton and White House attorneys in preparation for grand jury appearances and congressional appearances. The Office of the President asserted an attorney-client privilege. The District Court accepted in a kind of odd way, saying that Mrs. Clinton thought there was one at the time, and therefore she is entitled to rely on it. The Eighth Circuit reversed and said there is no attorney-client privilege for the First Lady or any other government official who consults with government counsel as opposed to private counsel.
</SNIP>

Here is an interesting take from Joe DiGenova

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

<SNIP>
The first thing to remember in considering President Clinton's refusal last week to comply with a Senate Whitewater Committee's subpoena for notes from a 1993 meeting between his personal lawyers and White House attorneys, is that the U.S. Congress is not a court of law. Congress's power to investigate is almost unfettered; no court has ever ruled that attorney-client privilege applies in congressional hearings.

It's hard to imagine how Mr. Clinton could win the court case that is about to ensue; the law and tradition of congressional investigations are simply not on his side. Since the founding of the republic, Congress has consistently maintained that the privilege "cannot be claimed as a matter of right before a legislative committee," as a congressional study put it in the mid-'80s - though it occasionally may do so as a matter of courtesy. It has based this view on English common law and parliamentary history, as well as on congressional tradition. Most important of all, both houses of Congress have declined to adopt changes to their chambers' standing rules to incorporate any specific recognition of attorney-client privilege.
</SNIP>

Hmmm, I wonder what ol' Joe would write today. Well, not really, I know exactly what he would write.

Jay


EDITED TO ADD DiGenova COMMENTARY

[wurzel]

9. So this had to do with Hillary and not President Clinton.

So Bush's stand is legit.

[jayfish]

10. Key Part Of The Snippet.

"The Eighth Circuit reversed and said there is no attorney-client privilege for the First Lady or any other government official who consults with government counsel as opposed to private counsel."

So I would read that as, no his stand is not legit.

Jay

[wurzel]

11. I did not think of the "President " as a "Government Official".

But I suppose he is. In which case how can Bush claim it now? And why have the Dems not pointed the double standard out?

[cybildisobedience]

6. thought the same thing, then saw Jack Quinn on tv talking about it

Quinn, representing the Dems, was on tv, and I thought, I hope he brings up how this didn't work for Clinton and how the Repukes demanded intimate knowledge of personal details and conversations between Clinton and lawyers, and Quinn then goes on to say that the White House is right, that it would be devastating for our government to have these private communications made public.
Thanks, jerk.

[wurzel]

7. Another double standard? Why isn't there a row about this?

Whose side are these "Dems" on?