Here's a Major Problem for the WH: There is NO Atty-Client Privilege with WH Counsel

[Hepburn]

Since Congress wants the testimony of Harriet Meiers, former WH counsel ~~ this is IMO a MAJOR problem for the WH. And, I hate to say it, but we can thank Ken Starr for this problem that the WH is now experiencing.

This is what John Dean has to say on the issue when this came up during the initial Plame Scandal:

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

This article by Dean came out when Bush "lawyered up" with a private atty when Plame first broke.

Karma is a real b*tch! <smile>