Harry Reid may have just check-mated W and Rove!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

(I posted this as a response in another very long thread, but thought as a thoery it was worth it's own post)


This could be the most brilliant move of Harry Reid's career. Miers has her fingers in a lot of very messy White House pies and she is "White House Counsel". I am pretty sure that the whole concept of "attorney/client" privilege as it relates to White House Counsel (paid by the taxpayers to represent the taxpayers) was blown totally out of the water during the Clinton impeachment.

So, now we have Bush nominating one of his inner players who will have to sit through a long and grueling nomination process. She has no judicial records to draw from. Her time spent in private practice is privileged, but her time as White House Counsel is not!!! This could be an unbelievable opportunity to ask some very very embarrassing questions. And she will either: a - invoke an invalid confidentiality privilege, which we should fight and then she will look like she is stonewalling, b- say I don't know, I don't remember, etc. which will also be seen as stonewalling or obstructionist or c- tell the truth which won't be pretty.

I understand Ted Kennedy has already made a request for some of her working papers. The White House talking head on Tweety tonight was ALREADY invoking client/attorney privilege. Remember everyone - THAT PRIVILEGE DOES NOT EXIST FOR WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL!!!!! We citizens have a right to this material. (just as a side note - remember the reason Bush had to get a private criminal attorney when Plame started to heat up was precisely for this same reason - government lawyers do not personally represent the President)

This could be rich!!!

[Arkana]

1. Most of the time, I have faith in Reid's leadership

and this is one of those times. If it weren't for the "I HATE EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!" people here, it'd be easier to express my opinion.

[MisterP]

14. how's dissent keeping your opinion from being spoken?

[Arkana]

16. Because I get flamed into oblivion every time I open my mouth

in support of Reid, or Kerry, or anyone else who hasn't absolutely toed the line on one issue, even if they have in the past.

[niallmac]

28. Before my second cup of coffee 6am Mtn Standard Time

I hate everything in the world. Don't worry about we pissants. I like your opinion.
BTW, It's 8pm Mtn Standard now.:hi:

[seabeyond]

37. you are funny and arkana..... i tend to let things play out before

i already decide what isnt yet.

i too am one of those that speak out for the kerrys and even biden when he does something good and the reids and all the others. i am right there with you. i think that is about all i have posted about today. the automatic attack on fellow dems. i believe in enocuraging them when they do stand up. maybe we will get more of it. actually i have seen over the months, we are getting more and more. you arent the only one

[lancdem]

21. I think he's doing a fine job, too

[natrat]

78. GO DEMS RA RA RA

what a joke

[berni_mccoy]

2. Damn, you read my MIND!

I was just going to post this!

You beat me by two minutes.

[texpatriot2004]

11. I think your earlier post today implied this too. n/t

[CatWoman]

3. you make a lot of sense

a helluva lot :D

[faithnotgreed]

26. may i say how cute that is

for all your rough and tumble catwoman
you
are an idealist

i knew it ~

(i am smiling saying this so its not at all a sarcastic response to your support of harry reid - just a genuine observation)

[CatWoman]

35. oh noooooooooo!!!!!

I've been found out!!!!! :D

[faithnotgreed]

38. it is such a great thing

wish there were more people who were

but i wont tell

[Lochloosa]

4. I think you may be on to something here.....

we shall see.....

[knowbody0]

5. hopefully you are right

that means AWOL will be ok topic. oh what a lovely bed of thorns.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. Wow

AWOL?? And *'s legal team missed this? That seems too good to be true.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. I think Reid works for the Republicans

Ever since he so brilliantly :sarcasm: engineered the pact the evaded the dreaded "Nuclear Option," and got us three dangerous and lifetime-appointed judges on the Federal bench, giving up the right to filibuster for god knows how long, I've been less than inspired by his alleged "leadership."

He's in 'way over his head, I think. His pat on the head for Miers is bullshit, as is the idea that her White House counsel job is really a fertile ground for anything that's going to prove detrimental to her.

Do you honestly think those people put anything in writing? Snap out of it, and join the real world. She's a tabula rasa, and, I fear, she is untouchable.

Now let's see Reid smarttalk his way out of the deal he made with Frist and not end up looking like the Democrats are reneging on a deal made in public, made in good faith, made in infinite cowering stupidity on the part of the Democrats.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. whether Reid engineered this on purpose or not

it's still the situation we are left with and it gives us a very fertile field to plow.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

43. Fertile?

How do you figure it's a fertile field?

[KittyWampus]

44. Harriet Headed A Lawfirm Held Liable, Not Once, But TWICE

for defrauding clients.

So either she KNEW of the illegal Ponzi schemes or is a totally incompetent executive.

Which is it?

Oh, and we also get to grill her about scrubbing AWOL's TANG records.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

49. She's not liable for her firm's misdeeds

Unless she was the attorney who took part in the fraud, that has nothing to do with her. Your reasoning is like holding an assembly-line worker liable for a defective car.

Sorry, but there won't be anything there that will personally affect her.

As for scrubbing the records, there will - this is my prediction - no paper trail at all that would even indicate that she did anything illegal.

You're underestimating how careful - and smart - these people are.

Tabula rasa. The smartest move they could have made. And Reid gave away the right to filibuster.

That's not at all fertile.

[KittyWampus]

50. LOL, "Nothing there that won't effect her". Yeah, She's An Incompetent

executive who presided over TWO instances of fraud resulting in the loss of millions and saying that in public won't effect her... sure thing...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

61. "..... executive....'?

Unless they were her clients, sorry, but she's clean.

I don't know how she "presided" over anything in the law firm except her client list. I think, perhaps, you have an erroneous notion of how law firms work.

[Joe Chi Minh]

68. No she was the "Wheel", not a minion. At least a partner.

[mzmolly]

75. Well, she wasn't the assembly line worker, she ran the plant.

But, I defer to the rest of you as I'm not an attorney. ;)

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Not to mention, what if with Harry Reid's blessing, HM is confirmed BUT

Rove, Inc. didn't want her to be put on the Supreme Court? That is, he had another "more appropriate" nominee ready for when she was shot down but he didn't anticipate his "Springtime for Hitler" to be a box office bonanza? And shucks, fresh out of Supreme Court vacancies (short of hiring a hit on John Paul Stevens).

Yep, this could be fun.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. Yes, I was thinking about that too

I think they could've nominated her for a fight so it would make it easier to get Gonzalez through but Reid isn't falling for it. They wanted us to appear as obstructionists (as they love to say) so they could sail him through. Why would Bush nominate someone without any experience after someone like Roberts? What if she does make it through though??

[bunkerbuster1]

67. I love your "Springtime for Hitler" analogy.

I'm replaying the scene in the bar where Max and Leo are celebrating what they think is their good fortune... and then...


MAX: Wait a second. There are a lot of plays on Broadway. They aren't necessarily talking about 'Springtime for Hitler."

BAR PATRON: Didja ever think in a million years you'd laugh at a play called 'Springtime for Hitler'?

[berni_mccoy]

8. I agree with this 100%... I think his suggestion to nominate Miers

Was absolute genius... it may seem like he betrayed the party, but what he did was just allow the following to be discussed under OATH:

1. the Presidential Daily Briefing on Al Qaeda
2. The DSM and what legal justifications were used to justify war
3. How president broke the law when he notified Congress in 48 hours of the beginning of the Iraq war and knew the reasons for going to war were not the reasons he gave Congress
4. How torture was justified

All the really nasty dirty stuff gets talked about because it's the only topic the congress has to get a bearing on her LEGAL OPINIONS.

I'm not absolutely convinced the Dems will actually push these issues, but I think they very easily could... and they could hinge her nomination on the discussion of these issues... so she WOULD have to talk about them.

[samdogmom]

20. This is great. But wasn't Gonzales White House Counsel when most of these

actions were taken? I thought Ms. Miers didn't start until Gonzales moved upstairs to Attorney General. So how can she answer these questions?

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Does she still have access to papers and stuff?

Wouldn't she have to know all that? :shrug:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

32. True, she has not been White House Counsel for all that long

I think I read somewhere for just the last year - but think what all has happened in that time. Believe me, it will be enough to provide multiple entrees on the embarassment banquet table. These guys can't seem to go a week without inadvertantly or intentionally committing some crime, cover-up, ineptitude , lie, or misrepresentation.

[jmowreader]

39. Because she was still in Bush's inner circle

[berni_mccoy]

51. She still may have been involved in his legal counsel

see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4964455

[FreedomAngel82]

23. Didn't Kennedy start writing requests for papers?

[AbbyR]

71. Do you really think the Dems WILL ask the hard questions?

I heard some law professor on NPR this morning saying that the Dems had let everyone down in their "advise and consent" role by NOT asking pointed questions and getting to what Roberts really believes. I don't believe they will fight. Sorry, but it's just too much to ask any more....but then, I'm awfully pessimistic for a Democrat.

And just for tossing around purposes: What do you think would have happened if Clinton, given the opportunity, had nominated his White House Counsel for the court? I can picture it now, and it's not pretty.

[mzmolly]

77. They asked pointed questions, Roberts refused to answer.

He kept giving an "I can't comment on that as I might have to rule on it" speech.

I expect that Kennedy and others will ask some very tough questions. I am simply not convicned this was strategy on the part of Reid just yet.

[Island Blue]

9. I really, really hope you are right.

If so, this could get very interesting. :popcorn:

[texpatriot2004]

10. You're right, NO attorney-client privilege - not after Ken Starr...

I just love it. I am so glad to see that the bullshit they pulled with Clinton could come back to bite them.

Karma, Karma, Karma...

[Esse Quam Videri]

17. No Attorney / Client privilleges

Could someone please explain this / Why this is

[cally]

30. Clinton's WH lawyers tried to not go to the Starr

Grand Jury by claiming attorney/client privilege. It went to the SC and SC ruled government lawyers do not have this privilege. Only personal lawyers do. The WH counsel cannot claim this with their advice to the President.

[texpatriot2004]

33. Right, plus I have also read that this privilege would not apply to

outing a CIA agent or covering for those who did.

[donheld]

13. phoebe i hope like hell you're on to something

recommended.

[dandrhesse]

18. Harry is not stupid and if more Dem Senators would get behind him he

would be even more effective. I think he did it for two reasons. One, he knows how pig-headed our Commander Cuckoo bananas can be and maybe figured, the guys reasoning would go something like this: ...gee let's see Harry Reid told me to nominate her, why would he do that, (takes a bite of banana) it must be the person he doesn't want, so I will give him exactly what he asked for, that will fix his wagon...

And Reid knew it would be a point of contention and possible division among the GOP which is a great way to defeat the nomination.

Also the reason mentioned above, I mean how absurd can you get, she is not a judge, we don't have a single judge in the entire country that is more qualified? Get real!

The Mouse just roared again, go Harry!

[FreedomAngel82]

25. And also if

enough republicans are pissed off that we're happy they would not vote in 2006 and we could take back the White House and ban all the machine's and have real hearings on voting issues and then take back the White House in 2008.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. I think so too

I was pissed at first but earlier this afternoon I thought about it and I think so too. This should be interesting. I think he's doing reverse psychology possibly. He mentioned she was a trial lawyer (who they supposivley are supposed to hate from last year) and now they don't like it when we're happy about something with Bush. I hope you're right. Harry has only disappointed once (bankruptcy bill) so I'll be into seeing how this plays out. I'll get my popcorn ready. :)

[Just Me]

27. I caught a clip of him saying, "she's prepared discovery requests,...

,...and been to trial" (something along those lines) and I absolutely CRACKED UP!!!! I mean, it was clear as day to me that he was pointing out her capacity to be something akin to a law clerk or associate attorney,...NOTHING COMPARABLE TO A SCJ!!!

:rofl: Maybe, others did not pick up on the sarcasm; but, I sure as hell did!!!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

69. Just reading John Grisham's books,

I can see why you split your sides laughing!

She sounds more like one of his characters who was an ex-insurance, ambulance-chasing para-legal, who'd failed his Bar exams too many times, but was an ace at working the accident and emergency wards in the hospitals.

[GeorgeGist]

29. Please give tinfoil warnings ...

before posting these things. :banghead:

[Guaranteed]

36. I have to doubt the veracity of this, although if there is case law

supporting it, I'm totally willing, and hoping, to see it.

[whalerider55]

31. could be but...

worst case scenario, we give them an issue (filibustering) that could re-energize the base, especially if rovian leakage indicates (as cheney said today) she's a lot more like thomas than souter....

nextworse case scenario is that she actually gets approved- no experience, no judicial temperment, infact- she has a pure hack temperment, pro-corp... a solid, lockstep vote with Scalia, roberts thomas- 4 votes and all they need to do is swing kennedy (which is likely to happen the majority of the time...)

and finally- is there any evidence, anywhere- on issues from iraq to ohio-gate, from the three judges of the apocolypse, from anything dems have done even recently, that this fertile ground will ever be plowed?

on that, ik won't take bets. so if the best option is that the field is ready for the farmer, then someone better set the alarm clock for them. they haven't showed up for work all season...

whalerider

[Guaranteed]

34. I like what you're saying, but here's the thing,

and I'm not even caught up on the actual law.

But I can't imagine that the attorney-client privilege would be broken by the courts, even if it is the President who is the client. It's a very, very important concept to our system.

Someone else mentioned earlier that Miers' ACTIONS wouldn't be privileged, while her communications with Bush (and, I'm guessing, work product with regard to any case he might have) would be privileged. So, if there were any actual actions that she took IN representing Bush, she could not claim the privilege for them.

That's different, though, than delving into Bush's confidences with his personal attorney.

I honestly don't think that what you're saying is true. If someone would refute me, I'd be quite happy with that.

[AuntiBush]

40. After some thinking today...

I have a lot of faith in "Give 'um Hell, Harry." He's a very shred, intelligent man, and keeps his cool.

Congressman Reid "knows" what's best for the good of America.

:popcorn:

[kestrel91316]

46. That would be "Senator" Reid.

[Wordie]

41. Could anyone provide a link to info on Reid's suggestions, pre-nomination

regarding Miers, please? I had not read about it, and would be interested to understand this better. I know he wrote a letter to Bush warning him about overly-ideological nominees, but I hadn't read information specifically about Reid's remarks about Miers. Thanks!

[Ksec]

42. So WH council have no rights in the attorney client priveledges?

Thats great.

You can bet they hadnt thought this one through.

But whats to stop her from just saying I dont want to answer that question because it may come up later?

[understandinglife]

45. fyi -- way more than checkmate ... since this isn't a game and Sen Reid ..

... knows it ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4958865&mesg_id=4960390

And, georgia10 has an extensive thread at dKos on these issues, as well:

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/10/3/115019/566

However, I disagree with her assertion that Miers will be confirmed ... way to soon to be certain of anything in this situation particularly since the "Plame Grand Jury" has yet to sing ...


Peace.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

54. Believe me, this is no game in my eyes either

We will all suffer for long periods when unqualified people are elevated to positions they do not deserve.

Thanks for the dailykos link - it is great! I encourage everyone to read it - mucho information and it is about exactly this topic - how to mine the confirmation hearing the most effectively although they all (or most of them anyway) seem to think that Reid was sincere in his endorsement. I prefer to think he outmaneuvered them and is just biding his time

As to all the questions about attorney/client privilege - I only know what I put in the OP - I thought it had been clearly established during the Clinton impeachment that government lawyers, paid by the taxpayers do not have client/attorney privilege. This was a huge point of discussion at the time and shouldn't be all that difficult to research. Isn't that why Roberts in his hearing had to explain some of his early position papers as a government attorney?

[Im with Rosey]

47. Not that I am doubting you,

are you sure about the attorney/ client privilege? That would warrant some popcorn to see Teddy ask some questions!

[Guaranteed]

53. The more I look at the OP, the angrier I get.

I'm starting to think this ought to be locked, actually.

[Im with Rosey]

56. I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought

please explain. Maybe I'm just not thinking straight, what with all the excitement.

[gkhouston]

72. really, why?

I haven't noticed anything inflammatory in the OP. If you think the premise is unrealistic, then you think it's unrealistic, but that's hardly sufficient cause to lock a thread.

[MGKrebs]

48. I am pessimistic.

Clinton's deal had to do with a court case. Here we are talking about a Senate confirmation hearing. Not the same thing, I think.

I am just going to have a really hard time believing that Rove et. al. take some bait offered by Harry Reid. It just flies in the face of their behavior. I mean, this is the same scenario as Dick Cheney. He was in charge of finding a VP candidate for GWB, remember? Turns out they couldn't find anybody better than... Dick! It's like a joke. Pretend to look around for somebody, but pick the person who is closest to "the team" regardless of qualification.

I hope I am wrong and they can question the crap out of her for days on end, but I just don't see it. A more fruitful tactic might be to explore how often and under what circumstances she would recuse herself on issues involving White House personnel, Dept. of Justice policy, or anything else she has advised the Prez on.

And by the way, before being WH counsel, she was Assistant to the President/Deputy Chief of Staff.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/whbriefing/2004stafflistb.html

[gulfcoastliberal]

52. Yeah, right, Just like they got Roberts' papers as Poppys lawyer.

In your dreams. The dems will get "sanitized" releases of a few select items, then confirm her without filibustering - which they really ought to do here. Say it with me: FILIBUSTER, FILIBUSTER, FILIBUSTER.

[Kolesar]

59. Miers will be coached in how to "not answer" questions from the committee

We lose again. More blowback from the stolen 2000 election.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

60. I hope she has to answer questions about this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4964421

The link within the link is from Huffington. Makes excellent point that Miers is very akin to Ken Lay and was a chief executive in a corrupt corporation apart from her time with Bush. I think this should disqualify her.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

55. A little more on the attorney client issue

Everyone really should read the dailykos article that is posted in post number 45 by understanding life - it is filled with tons of relevant information about Harriet Miers and her long-term work for Bush. As well as this information regarding attorney/client privilege which I am passing along.

Anyway, Ken Starr did chip away at attorney/client with Clinton as regards government lawyers. Apparently, decisions in the 7th, 8th and District courts go this way. However, there has been amore recent decision in the 2nd District Court in Connecticut (in the case of the disgraced Governor Rowland) where this court reasserted the right to attorney/client privilege for Government lawyers. Apparently , this case is moot for any kind of appeal. So, you have 3 court decisions going one way and one going the other.

The White House got away previously with not releasing papers because they asserted this right ( and I guess no Dem argued it) and they can cite one supporting decision. Others could argue the opposite and cite the 3 other districts. Wouldn't it make a difference as to what District you were actually sitting around in debating these points? What District covers the White House?

This might be a good case to ask Miers her opinion on - ha!ha! And the answer is clear - if you want privilege - you assert it. If the guys you DON'T like are in power, then of course it doesn't exist.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

57. and some more

The following is an excerpt from a John Dean Article - read the whole thing, it's fascinating.

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

{In the first case, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, former First Lady Hillary Clinton had spoken with her private counsel in the presence of White House counsel (who had made notes of the conversation). Starr wanted the notes. Hillary Clinton claimed the privilege.

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." }

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

58. and a little more

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1109128219232

That link explains the 2nd District decision and while it says that it was ripe for SC review, something I read later said that case was basically moot once Rowland copped.

Just one last point - I have done enough reading tonight to learn Republicans will shout "Privilege" just as loud as they can - it is a red herring! Now that we will know better, don't let them get away with it.

[leesa]

62. Well. they won't get her papers and they will STILL invoke attorney-client

privileges. Didn't we just see this movie with the unqualified CJSC? They never give up papers.

[Jim__]

63. Exactly my thoughts.

She'll invoke attorney-client privilege, refuse to answer questions and glide through to confirmation anyway.

[depakid]

64. and what will Harry Reid do about it?

Rally the Dems to oppose the nomination because they weren't given the records (or any other information that they've requested- and by any measure ought to receive)?

Somehow, I don't think so. In a parellel universe, maybe- but not with this bunch. They've yet to deny Bush and the far right anything- no matter how detrimental to the nation.

I don't see that pattern changing (though I do see a lot of denial at DU).

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

65. I think they will get SOME of her papers

They will have to oblige somewhat if only to make some kind of facade of co-operating.The Repubs did actually make quite a few papers available from Roberts. I have come to believe that once Roberts made it so clear as to how HIGHLY qualified he was for the appointment (his grasp of the scholarship, his long history of arguing before the SC, etc. ) that most people realized this was a done deal and didn't see the need to press further. Miers is a totally different case. She is so clearly unqualified. She will fare very poorly in comparison. I think this hearing will be an embarrassment along the lines of the Tower for Defense Secretary hearings so long ago.

[mmonk]

66. If you think about it

it would be the perfect setup move. Suggesting her as a nominee and then asking questions on her roll as White House counsel and her personal involvement with bush since before his presidency would put them on the defensive and not look good.

[Alpharetta]

70. Executive Privelege will be invoked

Bush said in his press conference today the private proceedings of the White House are protected by "executive privelege".

You have a nice thought, but we'll get nowhere. They say it like it's part of the Constitution, the right to conspire felonies behind closed White House doors.

[wellstone_democrat]

76. I thought "privacy" was destroyed in the Clinton case

for WH counsel and the President? That been abolished for the King?

[Pacifist Patriot]

73. This smells like a job for the DU activist corps.

[mzmolly]

74. I HOPE your right.

Boy do I hope your right.

Thanks for the food for thought.