Wait! Did * appoint Miers so she couldn't testify against him?

[grasswire]

Is that it? As a sitting member of SCOTUS, could she be required to testify against him if indictments come down against him? Or could she abstain?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Interesting question, but I think attorney-client privilege shields him.

[Dhalgren]

4. I do not believe that she is his "personal" lawyer, she is the

WH Counsel. If I am not mistaken, Clinton's WH Counsel was not covered under "client privilege" as he was considered a "government" employee. They can't go the other way now. Also, SC justices are not above the law and can be subpoenaed just like anyone else - especially for any evidence arising from prior to ascending the bench...

[greyl]

7. She used to be his personal lawyer. nt

[Dhalgren]

12. I am not saying that she wasn't, you may be absolutely right.

Do you have a source for if and when she was his "personal" lawyer? I have read several reports and I can't remember it being said that Bush was actually her "client" - per se. TIA.

[Lancer]

2. I'm thinking she can also claim attorney-client privilege

in the Senate hearings -- do it often enough and it may amount to the same thing.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. Not necessarily...

I think the Republicans "proved" under Clinton that a White House attorney is employed by the government, not by the President, so attorney-client privilege doesn't attach.

[Kagemusha]

3. Depends on what her job was when a given event takes place

White House council means that you work for the People, but Bush will claim executive, not attorney-client, privilege to prevent her from saying anything about that. And depending on the situation, justifiably so. Depends, though.

[willing dwarf]

5. Ooh, now that's a good one

I thought I'd considered all the motivaations for Bush neming Miers, but the idea that she's be unable to testify is truly a new one on me. Seems quite plausible too. Plus she'll protect him from extradition to the Hague as an added bonus.

The nice thing is Bush has no insurance that "she'll never ever change" at all. She might be like Thomas A Beckett who was completely transformed when he assumed the office of Archbishop of Canterbury. She might suddenly develop or display qualities of soul which Bush can't even fathom. We can hope, hm?

[astonamous]

6. Isn't the White House Counsel paid by our taxes?

Wasn't there question about this during the Clinton impeachment hearings? And didn't they decide that there was no attorney-client privilege? And if she does become a supreme then wouldn't she have to recuse herself and all documents would have to be made available.

[DU me]

8. If Meirs would have to recuse herself, then Bush wins with Roberts

on his side.

[grasswire]

10. she did not serve as WH counsel until his second term...

...if I recall correctly.

Prior to that, she managed administrative tasks. As such, I don't think attorney-client privilege would apply.

On August 6, 2001, she was serving in a secretarial capacity, wasn't she? Preparing memos and papers. But she knows where the bodies are, wouldn't ya think? She knows enough to take him down.

[Ouabache]

11. One more reason to filibuster her Tex ass.

There is something about her potential confirmation that is meant to protect him. That has been my feeling all along. And all the more reason to throw her back with all the other little ones.

[1932]

13. Attorney-Client privilege already protects their communications.

I also don't think there's any limitation on S.Ct. judges providing evidence.