aided and abetted Bush in wrongdoing. That is why I think this dispute will move to impeachment whether the Congress likes it or not. I could be wrong. But it seems to me that is the logical conclusion. Impeachment is only invoked when criminal acts are alleged. If the lawyer aided and abetted the criminal act, there is no privilege.
Besides, I suspect that Clinton dropped his executive privilege and attorney client privilege arguments because he knew he would not prevail and because the political cost to his party if he wasted the American taxpayers' money and the courts' time to protect his personal interests would be enormous.
Same goes for Bush now. How is a Republican candidate going to defend Bush's wasting American taxpayer money and the resources of the courts to prevent Americans from hearing what went on in the White House? After all, the White House belongs to Americans in the first place. The argument will be: Bush is spending all these resources in protecting his secrets from the American people. He should be spending them on protecting the American people from the "evildoers." Just another waste of American taxpayer money by this spoiled brat administration.
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 1) -- President Bill Clinton's legal defense team Monday dropped its planned appeal of a federal judge's decision on executive privilege, opening the way for testimony from one of the president's aides.
But White House Counsel Charles Ruff said Clinton will continue to argue attorney-client privilege in an attempt to prevent his close aide and friend, White House deputy counsel Bruce Lindsey, from answering Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury questions. In the end, Bush cares more about saving his own skin and reputation than saving the money of the American taxpayers and the resources of the government. So where do you stand on that Mr. Romney, Mr. Giuliani, etc.?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/01/clinton.exec.priv/MARGARET WARNER: President Clinton today decided to avoid a Supreme Court showdown over executive privilege in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. At issue is a lower court ruling compelling two top aides-Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey and Communications Adviser Sidney Blumenthal-to testify before independent counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury. We get more on this now from Ruth Marcus, who writes about legal issues for the Washington Post. She joins us from the Post newsroom. Hi, Ruth.
. . . .
RUTH MARCUS: It's basically saying that it won. The White House is saying that it wanted to make clear that there was a qualified privilege in this case, as there was in the Nixon tapes case, and that there was a balancing test that the court should apply. The independent counsel had argued that basically because he said these issues involved the president's private conduct and discussions about the president's private conduct, there should be no privilege. The White House--having convinced the court there should be some privilege-says that just because the court says independent counsel's needs in this case outweighed the privilege that that was fine with it; it could let things rest where they are.
MARGARET WARNER: Then how do they explain the fact that they're still going to go forward on the attorney-client privilege claim?
RUTH MARCUS: Well, that's a different privilege. Their argument on attorney-client privilege is different because you're right-the court applied exactly the same test to the attorney-client privilege. Johnson said it didn't make sense for there to be two different tests for privilege covering the same groupings of advisers talking about some of the same subjects. But the White House argues that on attorney-client privilege it's imperative that that privilege be absolute, in other words, that the president's conversations with his lawyers about legal issues, be completely shielded from having to be disclosed, just like other citizens, conversations with their lawyers are shielded.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june98/executive_6-1.htmlClinton could argue that he still had the attorney client privilege because his attorneys were not involved in his allegedly criminal conduct. It was private conduct, not conduct involving his office.
I think the situation for Bush and Harriet Meiers is different. She is being asked to testify about her own role and the role of others in abuses of power by the Bush administration Justice Department. I don't think she can hide behind either the executive or attorney-client privilege when questioned about her own allegedly criminal conduct. Thus, she probably should appear and is in contempt if she does not. I'm not an expert. I'm just applying my general knowledge about privileges in California to that situation. Jane Hamsher and many others will know this law much better than I do.
Lawyers cannot commit crimes or help their clients commit crimes and then claim attorney-client privilege. If the abuses in the Justice Department are alleged to be criminal, then I don't think that Harriet Meiers will succeed in asserting attorney client privilege.
Courts determine whether a privilege applies to prevent testimony by weighing different factors. In an impeachment proceeding, Congress's need to determine the facts would very likely outweigh the President's need to have confidentiality in his communications with his aides or attorney if the attorney was involved in the illegal act herself.
The impeaching attorneys would have to show, most likely, that the allegedly criminal conduct was likely to be found criminal. A privilege cannot be set aside based on an unfounded accusation or on speculation that a crime has been committed.
An interesting aspect of the whole idea of impeachment is that, according to the Federalist Paper # 65, it is supposed to be for "POLITICAL" (Alexander Hamilton's capitalization for emphasis according to my version) crimes against the people. Courts refuse to decide political disputes that involve the president. It is unclear to me how a court would have the authority to decide to allow or not allow the assertion of privileges in an impeachment proceeding if the allegations are for political crimes. I don't see how the Court could measure whether the allegations have merit if they concern political issues.
In my view, Bush's alleged high crimes and misdemeanors are POLITICAL in the sense Alexander Hamilton used the word. They involve acts that threaten the political rights of citizens as well as abuses of position and political power.
As I said above, I think at this point that our best argument is that Bush should stop wasting the time and resources of the American people on trying to save his own skin and the skin of his top aides. He should cooperate with Congress and instruct his aides to testify. What is he hiding? And if he has done nothing wrong, why is he wasting taxpayer money fighting congressional investigations? We have the right to know.
Why is Bush wasting our time and money on this privilege stuff? He should let his staff appear and be questioned by Congress. That's his job. Unless he wants to be called himself. And, of course that is what impeachment would mean. I hope he realizes that.
Sorry for rambling on. I realize my thoughts are not very clear or well organized on this.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
