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