THREE WORDS you'll hear more and more in the Miers nomination debate

"attorney-client privilege"

A search of google news for 'miers "attorney-client privilege"'' just now got me only two hits. But that's bound to change for future searches in a few days, with the same keywords.

After all, Miers is Dubya's PERSONAL attorney, although taxpayers pay her salary.

Here's a snippet from one of today's google news hits ( http://www.google.com/news ):

From http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=COURT-MIERS-10-03-05&cat=WW :

"Conservative activists quick to criticize Miers

By MARY DEIBEL Scripps Howard News Service October 03, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush once praised his personal attorney Harriet Miers as "a pit bull in size-6 shoes."...

Whether the Senate or public learns much about Miers during confirmation proceedings will depend on Bush's willingness to release documents detailing her White House work. With Roberts' selection as chief justice, the White House cited attorney-client privilege in refusing to release his working papers during the senior Bush's presidency. ...

Tattooed eye liner. Damn!

:rofl:

Will you recuse yourself in these cases that you can't comment on?

:thumbsup:

was "the most brilliant man you had ever met"? Do you still feel the same way?"

during the Lewinsky investigation, at least if the attorney was on the government payroll.

And now they want the privilege back? All of a sudden they believe in privacy right which are spelled out nowhere in the constitution? Forget it -- at least rub the hypocrisy in their faces!

--when Roberts had only been Solicitor General. So evidently precedents don't apply against Republican nominees, only against Democratic nominees.

did NOT work for the President and there was no attorney client privilege. Also, remember how Bush had to lawyer up with an outside private criminal attorney when Plame started to heat up - it was for this same reason - that would assure that he WOULD have confidentiality.

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


Here's what Berni_Mccoy said:

"Did Bush Just Expose Himself with Miers!?!?!

Edited on Mon Oct-03-05 01:52 PM by berni_mccoy

That is, Miers is a gov't hired attorney for President Bush.

And when she was put in charge of cleaning up his National Guard issue, she may now need to testify to what she did.

According to this discussion, she can't claim attorney-client privilege:

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

Furthermore, that privilege protects communications, NOT actions of a lawyer for her client, especially when the information could have been obtained otherwise. And when the attorney has destroyed or hidden the very information that would normally have been obtainable, that's even more reason.

Unfortunately, I don't expect our democratic representation to push this issue. It would be nice if they did, and if they could get consensus to either compel a testimony or deny her a position on the S.C. it would be interesting if she would sacrifice a position on the supreme court for her loyalty to bush..."

(I don't for a MINUTE think it's valid). I just predicted we'd start hearing the words "attorney'client privilege" more often, and predicted a google.com/news search for certain terms would bring more than two hits in a few days.

I also predict this thread will get more posts and more :"Greatest" nominations than the one you cited (I had not seen it before). THIS thread has a much more irresistable title.

All the way!

peace.

during the Clinton impeachment. In fact, they may have opened up a gigantic can of worms for themselves!! hee hee hee hee.

to bite them.

for the USSC nomination. He's no longer Dubya's personal attorney, and Rove and company would have a harder time constructing dodges for hard questions for Attorney General Gonzalez than for current personal Presidential attorney Miers.

back in Texas. I believe that at this moment she is a "White House Counsel" on the government payroll. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

During confirmation hearings, "the law" seems to be what the majority party leadership in the Senate feels they can get away with. When Starr was investigating Bill Clinton over oral sex, the White House Counsel could not claim Attorney-Client Privilege. But, when Rethugs were pushing John Roberts through to the USSC, a Solicitor General COULD successfully hide documents from the Judiciary Committee by claiming ACP.

This is some scary shit. GW could be covering his sorry ass.

basically that the outing of a CIA agent (Plame) or covering for those that did so would not be covered under "executive privilege" at all. The article dated in June 2004 says that both * and the veep had been consulting private attorneys on the matter; suggesting, they knew of the leak, that they knew "more than they let on."

ways to punish Wilson. Then perhaps a Special Prosecutor would seek these tapes, and Jim Baker would represent the WH in an Executive Privilege case before the USSC?