John Dean's take on Bush retaining a lawyer

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

More and more is coming out, that indeed something major will
soon happen... DUCK! as it is going to fly far and wide

Oh and one more thing, we are in the midst of a Constititonal
Crisis that is making Watergate look like a walk in the park. Here
are some choice paragraphs...

Instead, it seems the investigators are seeking to connect up with, and then speak with, persons who have links to and from the leaked information - and those persons, it seems, probably include the President. (I should stress, however, that I do not have access to grand jury testimony, and that grand jury proceedings are secret. But the facts that are properly public do allow some inference and commentary about what likely is occurring in the grand jury.)

Undoubtedly, those from the White House have been asked if they spoke with the president about the leak. It appears that one or more of them may indeed have done so. .

If so - and if the person revealed the leaker's identity to the President, or if the President decided he preferred not to know the leaker's identity. -- then this fact could conflict with Bush's remarkably broad public statements on the issue. He has said that he did not know of "anybody in administration who leaked classified information." He has also said that he wanted "to know the truth" about this leak.

....

The answer is that the President has likely been told it would be risky to talk to his White House lawyers, particularly if he knows more than he claims publicly.

Ironically, it was the fair-haired Republican stalwart Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr who decimated the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers and their clients - which, to paraphrase the authority Wigmore, applies when legal advice of any kind is sought by a client from a professional legal adviser, where the advice is sought in confidence.

.............

What advice might Bush get from a private defense counsel? The lawyer I consulted opined that, "If he does have knowledge about the leak and does not plan to disclose it, the only good legaladvice would be to take the Fifth, rather than lie. The political fallout is a separate issue."

I raised the issue of whether the President might be able to invoke executive privilege as to this information. But the attorney I consulted - who is well versed in this area of law -- opined that "Neither 'outing' Plame, nor covering for the perpetrators would seem to fall within the scope of any executive privilege that I am aware of."
...........

Suffice it to say that whatever the meaning of Bush's decision to talk with private counsel about the Valerie Plame leak, the matter has taken a more ominous turn with Bush's action. It has only become more portentous because now Dick Cheney has also hired a lawyer for himself, suggesting both men may have known more than they let on. Clearly, the investigation is heading toward a culmination of some sort. And it should be interesting.

Just like all of the other attrocities conducted by this vile and corrupt adminstration, this one will disappear down the memory hole too.

Move along, citizen. Nothing to see here.

I remember reading here on DU that this scandal would be bigger than any of Bush's unreported scandals, and would be his undoing. Even his own father said the person responsible was despicable, among other things. I think Rove went too far, and Bush did too... Suprised Rove hasn't resigned to "be with his family", yet.

It was me and a couple others who prediced this was going to
bring the children down.

It is very simple, treason is not something that most Americans
have a stomach for, once they realize it is precisely this what
is going on.

Now, now, proving treason will be a tad harder, and for that
thank King George the Mad (and I don't mean bunny pants). Since
he used Treason as a means to keep people in jail at the pleasure
of the King (until they rot away and die), our Founding Fahters
made proving treason a tad hard... as in very hard. Why
do you think I laugh when herr Madamn (coulter) throws the word around like a cheap adjective? She would not know the real deal
even if it bit her in the arse, or wiggled in her face.

Now if two people inside the white house decide to break ranks
and put country before party, we may have a regular treason
trial... the penalty for this is... death... and this is the only
thing that I even accept the death penalty... since treason is
such a horrid thing to do, as it puts at risk in this case 270
million Americans and our collective future.

Otherwise, well high crimes and misdemenaors, aka impeachment, is what we have as a tool.... not that the Repubs will put their
nation before nekid power either. Still batten down the hatches...
methinks the shit is about to hit the provebial fan...

if they could get any more corrupt, with who they choose for anything in this administration

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that the lawyer’s name was Jim Sharp, but refused even to confirm whether he is James E. Sharp, a Washington attorney.

But the smokescreen around Sharp goes far deeper than that, and perhaps for good reason. The only other president to hire a private attorney for acts committed while president, Richard Nixon, eventually resigned from office. Sharp long has cloaked himself in secrecy, even taking the unusual move of paying to have his address and telephone number removed from the major Martindale legal directory. He was an assistant district attorney before he came to Washington and has a history of taking on cases with political implications.

Sharp’s highest profile client was Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord, a major figure in the Iran-Contra scandal who helped Lt. Col. Oliver North accumulate untaxed wealth in overseas accounts. Far lesser known, however, is a 1994 finding by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he engaged in “unethical and criminal activity” for pressuring a witness to commit perjury. The charge was leveled by one of Sharp’s witnesses when he represented his self-avowed “good friend” Joe Harry Pegg against a charge of conspiring to import marijuana in 1988 and 1989.

In 1994, when the case was being heard on appeal, the lawyer for one of Pegg’s co-conspirators contacted the prosecuting attorney, Cynthia Collazo, saying that Sharp might have had “privileged conversations” that might cause Sharp to have a conflict of interest in representing Pegg. “In unsworn statements, Baxter told Collazo that shortly after he had been arrested in 1992 for participating in the marijuana importation conspiracy charged in the instant case, Sharp had met with him and arranged for Pegg to pay a portion of Baxter's legal fees,” the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals transcript states. “Baxter then stated that Pegg had retained attorney Dick Hibey to represent Baxter in the case. Baxter further claimed that Sharp and Hibey helped him concoct a false story to help exculpate Pegg.” After Collazo expressed her concerns to Sharp, he decided to remain on the case regardless. Though they did not dispute his actions were criminal, thee government could not to pursue Sharp because they were unable to prove the conflict adversely affected his counsel of Pegg, a standard required by the Sixth Amendment.

“The district court found and the government does not deny that Sharp labored under an actual conflict of interest created by co-conspirator Baxter's allegations that Sharp had engaged in unethical and criminal activity in connection with his representation of Pegg,” the transcript asserts.

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/jim_sharp_bush_lawyer_secrecy.htm

Valerie be?

Oh, I know that there are differences: Dubya is a Rethug; and THIS matter is actually serious.