Time: Sat May 31 06:37:08 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA08411; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:22:22 -0700 (MST) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA05219; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:22:08 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 06:26:52 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: C-NEWS: Constitutional stand or stone wall? (fwd) <snip> > >CONSTITUTIONAL STAND OR STONE WALL? >Lawyer-client claim is sham by Hillary Clinton > >By Laura Ingraham >MSNBC Contributor (http://www.msnbc.com/news/74234.asp) > > The Caribbean island of Barbados found itself blasted by >unusual hot winds over the weekend. The front that blew through came >courtesy of President Bill Clinton, responding to claims by independent >counsel Kenneth Starr (and editorial writers across the country) that >the White House is stonewalling his criminal investigation by refusing >to turn over key documents to the federal grand jury. > > "I think that it's obvious that for several years now, >we've been quite cooperative and will continue to be," Clinton chirped, >brushing aside Starr's remarks from earlier in the day to a group of >newspaper reporters in Arkansas. As usual, fact and fantasy are fungible >in the Clinton lexicon. Unsealed court documents now show that since >late last summer, when President Clinton and his former consultant Jim >Carville were railing against Starr for dragging on the investigation, >the White House has been fighting in federal court to block the >production of notes taken by government attorneys of discussions with >the Hillary Rodman Clinton. In fact we now know that just days before >the presidential election, the president's attorneys were arguing in >court that the Starr subpoena for these notes should be quashed, >claiming attorney-client privilege. > > At issue are two sets of notes taken by White House >attorneys: the first, from July 11, 1995, discussions with Hillary >Clinton about her activities following the suicide of Deputy White House >Counsel Vince Foster; the second from Jan. 26, 1996, discussions with >the first lady during and after her grand jury appearance. Although both >of these issues were unrelated to official government business, Hillary >Clinton had both her private attorneys and government attorneys present >at these meetings. > > In overturning the federal district court's ruling in >favor of the Clintons earlier this month, the 8th Circuit Court of >Appeals held: "The strong public interest in honest government and in >exposing wrongdoing by pubic officials would be ill-served by >recognition of a governmental attorney-client privilege." When the court >papers were unsealed, the president's staff scurried to explain the >unexplainable. Battling to keep the notes of government lawyers out of >the hands of a government criminal investigation is "for the good of >America," insisted the president. > > But is it really "good for America" that government >attorneys, whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers, are doing private >criminal work for private individuals? Would the president, say, condone >a White House lawyer's running a small criminal defense law firm from >his government office? Of course not, because using government property >or resources for private gain is a crime. > > Plus, how could Yale Law School graduate Hillary Clinton >have believed her communications with government lawyers were >privileged, when she must know that government lawyers are under a legal >duty to report evidence of potential wrongdoing to authorities? The >court called such a scenario "a gross misuse of public assets." And >let's not forget the government lawyers themselves - such as note taker >and former special counsel Jane Sherburne - who are supposed to remind >individuals in government that they represent the interests of the >United States and are not their personal attorneys (with whom Hillary >Clinton does have an attorney-client privilege). > > This is only the latest evidence of the White House >using government lawyers as their own private ethics and criminal >defense team. The blurring of the lines between public duties and >private obligations occurred early on in the Clinton administration. In >December 1993, it was revealed that Deputy White House Counsel Vince >Foster had been doing Whitewater-related work out of his White House >office up until the time of his suicide. Then in December 1994, the >White House produced a "Task List" compiled by special counsel >Sherburne, which was a compilation of every ethics and criminal >investigation of the Clintons, their Cabinet members and current or >former associates and friends. Among the assignments which were to be >delegated to various White House attorneys: "Hubbell: Monitor >Cooperation"; "Women"; "Troopers"; "David Hale/Susan McDougal/SBA"; and >"Commodities." > > Presumably, under President Clinton's novel theory of >attorney-client privilege, he believes the specific discussions and >notes regarding these matters should remain confidential. However, to >put this in perspective, the attorney-client privilege has never been >asserted by the president, first lady or by a government employee in a >criminal investigation. Even during Watergate, President Richard Nixon >did not try to invoke the attorney-client privilege to stop the damaging >testimony of his White House counsel, John Dean. Dean testified both >before the federal grand jury and before the Watergate Special >Committee. > > Over the weekend, President Clinton said he will fight >all the way to the Supreme Court to prevent Starr from getting the >notes, insisting he's doing so as a matter of constitutional principle, >not because he has anything to hide. But the president's crack legal >team knows full well that this document dispute involves no weighty >constitutional interpretation, but merely a straightforward application >of both the common law of privileges and the federal rules of evidence. >As he does with every sticky issue, the president wants us all to think >he is fighting for us - the children, the elderly, the disadvantaged and >aquatic plant life. But he's beginning to sound like one of those old >carnival barkers. > > Unlike the crooked loans, land deals and shady backwater >characters that comprise much of the meat of the Whitewater >investigation, these new revelations are not Arkansas events of 15 years >ago. The White House reaction to the independent counsel investigation >and to other ethics inquiries embodies a level of corruption and >------- >To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message >UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact >owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail