Roberts CAN'T claim privilege for his papers? Thanks, Ken Starr!

WASHINGTON — The White House is citing the attorney-client privilege as the basis for refusing to reveal memos written by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. when he was representing the government before the high court. At the time, Roberts was the top deputy to Solicitor Gen. Kenneth W. Starr.

Usually, the attorney-client privilege protects private lawyers from being forced to reveal what their clients told them. It also shields their notes and memos from prosecutors. This rule of secrecy is seen as vital to the adversarial process.

But in 1996, Starr challenged the notion that White House lawyers who worked for Clinton could invoke the attorney-client privilege when Starr sought notes they had written.

Starr argued that the lawyers worked for the people of the United States, not for the president.
...
The dispute was one of many legal tussles during Starr's six-year investigation of the Whitewater matter. It resulted in a broad appeals court ruling that held that government lawyers did not have the same right to keep secrets as private attorneys did.

ha ha ha

;)

But that's what they get for being bastards.

Good post!

Ever since this hypocritical bullshit came about.

Nice to see the LA Times finally getting around to agreeing with me.

ya just never know when it will bite you in the ass.......

I hope this gets publicized a lot right now!

The Dems are trying to tell the Pubs this is going to be the result of their neuclear option too! But they won't listen this time either!

That is exactly what I was going to post:)




I hope the Dems remind them of this :hi:

You never know. There just might be a Wizard passing by on way to only God knows where. He just might hear that wish.

:rofl:

The Republicans' own precedent-setting fights are biting them in the arse,...including the Traitorgate being revealed by the Plame case.

:rofl:

The special exception clause reserved for bushbots.

This is only for this time! What a bunch of crock!

Shot in his own foot! :rofl:

I predict that they will stonewall for all eternity and ignore any court rulings calling for the release of these papers or any other releases of info they wnat to keep secret. Better than half of Congress will call it all partisan attacks and will block any possible action there. Previous rulings will not matter, have not mattered.

it is nothing that they will, or have to, obey. Onerous laws for all except those actually in charge. Such is the way of Dictatorships. Most "Amuricans" don't understand this yet.

It is sad and telling that Saddam's looking better everyday.

on tv who might cover this. KOlbermann@msnbc.com

how much they may seem similar in that you just can't make this stuff up kind of way).

Anybody else this should go to? I'm about to leave for the day.

come back to bite them in the ass. They probably sent a few precedents with the Clinton case. I hope we can use more..

to keep it up there in plain site for all to see! :toast:

Datadiva...barks but doesn't byte.

Man, this guy is DIRTY.

:kick:

:hi:

And it has been upheld by another court- the appeals court, DC Circuit

snip>
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.
....
In the first case.....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

It's all coming back to them now!

:sarcasm:

you spent on a blue dress!

Excellent post, Rose Siding!

Kicked and recommended!!!! :thumbsup:

which is what Bush the Lesser was doing when he put out the E.O. to prevent presidential papers from being opened without permission from the former president, his heirs or legal assignees in perpetuity. I'm no Sherlock Holmes but I'll bet there is evidence of treason and felonies in those presidential papers and in Roberts' memos.

It was ridiculous for anyone to buy that he was "out of the loop." It was HIS loop.

Oh, the IRONY.

:rofl:

impeachment of Clinton. So many standards and precedents set that will, like instant karma, knock the Republicans right in the head.


:)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"When I served as principal deputy solicitor general, my sole client was the United States," Roberts wrote four years ago, when he was seeking to be confirmed as an appeals court judge.

Led by Starr and Roberts, the solicitor's general office pressed a conservative legal agenda in the high court. It is Roberts' memos from that time that Senate Democrats are seeking as they evaluate his nomination for the Supreme Court.

In 1990, for example, Roberts argued and won a 5-4 ruling that made it harder for environmentalists to challenge the Reagan administration's policy of allowing more mining on public lands. In that case, the National Wildlife Federation had sued on behalf of several members, saying the expanded mining violated environmental laws. But the high court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled the wildlife activists did not have standing to sue because they could not show the expanded mining harmed them.

<>.And in 1992, Starr's office intervened in a Pennsylvania case to argue that the Roe vs. Wade ruling should be overruled. The court disagreed, and in a 5-4 ruling upheld the right to legal abortion.

The Democrats said they were interested in whether Roberts fully endorsed these legal efforts or simply went along with a strategy devised by the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/privilegeclaimmaynotapplytorobertspapers;_ylt=AksRXDLPqyMviHbjI1N.xKeyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Dems have already brought this up.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We are at war! The world has changed! We must protect those papers and other top secret info for the sake of national security! (Unless of course it involves a covert agent whose husband isn't playing nice!)

:sarcasm:

Remember last week the WH announced that we are no longer conducting a "war on terror." We're in a "struggle against terror." No war-time special deals!

ROTFL!!

It's a struggle against extremism!! The war must be over!!! }(

I need to practice.

Struggle.

Struggle.

Struggle.

Give me time, I'll get there. :evilgrin:

the client is free to waive the attorney-client privilege and is often deemed to have done so if the client places information protected by the privilege at issue. Whether the client is the U.S. government or the American people, or the executive branch would make no difference here. By seeking Robert's appointment to the Supreme Court, the government/people/executive branch has placed Roberts' personal and professional qualifications at issue and has thereby waived any privilege it had to the confidentiality of the "work product" he produced for it.

The argument suggested in that article presents some problems that I don't want to go into.

Let's see if the Democrats can hold the Republicans to their own words and deeds.

good to see someone is right on top of them, the gang that can't shoot straight.

hehehe... :rofl:

...that it's a "matter of national security". Ya know, those words that when we hear them we're supposed to just stand back and let them get away with any 'ol thing they want to.

...every time he was trying to cover his ass (which was a lot).

that Republicans will be haunted by their own policies for decades to come.

THEY should be entering the cannibal phase very soon. :9 :D

investigations of Clinton would ever come back and bite them in the butt.

especially since, to this very day, the Repukes keep blaming things on the Big Dog's penis.

:evilgrin:

... it is sauce for the lame duck, too. To mix metaphors even more, being forced to taste one's own medicine usually shows just how bitter the pill is to swallow.

Let's hear it for the GOP legacy of Clinton's presidency! :toast: And may we have cause to make many more identical toasts.

:)

from Bushco.

Meaning, attempts to stonewall until the end of Dim Son's pResidency under the guise of "matters of national security".

Of course, that means that we should be right on top of these people every single day. No rest for the wicked, right? Or is that no rest for the weary? Either way, it applies.

I do think, though, if we keep this out front, Roberts will be forced to open up. He won't have a choice. His former boss, that asshole Ken Starr, has set precedent for that. Guess it sucks to be him, hmmm?

did any rule that was applied to the Clinton administration ever apply to the Bush administration as well?

are not applicable to Republicans. These slimeballs will worm their way out of this in some manner, as they always do, because the party of "integrity and honesty" is not to be held to the same standard as those demon Democrats.

I have no faith that the court system, loaded with right wing "activist judges", will uphold this decision in reference to the Republicans' plight. They'll argue that this is a completely different set of circumstances and that they're immune from the court's findings.

I've seen it happen too many times. There are two sets of rules in this country; those for Republicans, and those for everyone else. The "party of personal responsibility" will weasel their way out of another one, I'm sure.

I hate to sound so pessimistic, but I'm merely pointing out that these thugs have never believed that they are subject to the laws that everyone else has to follow. They make shit up as they go along.

There are 2 sets of rules and the Repukes control the law, the judiciary, and the media.

sought for evil purposes by these bastards, come back to bite those who pushed for it in the ass.

This is very good news and we should let our voices be heard on this issues if the Repugs try to get around it.

:evilgrin:

...if you want.



And some Kitties too:

comes around, and it usually picks up speed on the way back. I love it when they are hoisted on their own Petards.

love kicking that can down the road :D