PDA

View Full Version : Bush Lawyers-up: Hires 9 Lawyers... NONE from Regent University


jAZ
06-08-2007, 04:17 PM
Only the best when it's YOUR ass on the line, I guess...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070608-6.html

The President has named J. Michael Farren to be Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President. ... Farren received his ... JD from the University of Connecticut.

... William Burck to be Deputy Assistant to the President and Special Counsel to the President... JD from Yale Law School.

... Emmet Flood to be Deputy Assistant to the President and Special Counsel to the President... JD from Yale Law School.

... Scott Coffina to be Associate Counsel to the President... JD from the University of Pennsylvania.

... Amy F. Dunathan to be Associate Counsel to the President... JD from Georgetown University Law Center.

... Francis Q. Hoang to be Associate Counsel to the President... JD from Georgetown University Law Center.

... Al Lambert to be Associate Counsel to the President... JD from Harvard Law School.

... Michael Purpura to be Associate Counsel to the President... JD from the Columbia University School of Law.

... Kate Todd to be Associate Counsel to the President...JD from Harvard Law School.

Mr. Laz
06-08-2007, 04:24 PM
i wonder if Pat Robertson will be offended and declare George Bush 'Evil'.

Logical
06-08-2007, 10:12 PM
I am not sure I follow you jAZ, the President cannot be tried in court. So what are these fellows being hired to accomplish?

jAZ
06-09-2007, 01:07 AM
I am not sure I follow you jAZ, the President cannot be tried in court. So what are these fellows being hired to accomplish?
I believe they are there to manage the WH's handling of the congressional oversight hearings, etc.

banyon
06-09-2007, 07:41 PM
I am not sure I follow you jAZ, the President cannot be tried in court. So what are these fellows being hired to accomplish?

? He can be impeached (not that I have any evidence) and would certainly be in need of legal counsel in such a proceeding.

And, of course, he could always be indicted after he leaves office (whether by impeachment or end of term).

Logical
06-09-2007, 08:01 PM
? He can be impeached (not that I have any evidence) and would certainly be in need of legal counsel in such a proceeding.

And, of course, he could always be indicted after he leaves office (whether by impeachment or end of term).

Help me out here, he cannot avail himself of the Government counsels after he leaves office can he?

banyon
06-09-2007, 09:21 PM
Help me out here, he cannot avail himself of the Government counsels after he leaves office can he?

No, but that doesn't mean he might not have reason to cover his a** right now for the future.

Also, notice that these are all "special" counsels to the president. Confidentiality doesn't necessarily apply to the AG or the White House counsel because they are doing the people's business. But I don't think it's clear on whether communications from special counsel would have the same non-privileged status.

Logical
06-09-2007, 10:03 PM
No, but that doesn't mean he might not have reason to cover his a** right now for the future.

Also, notice that these are all "special" counsels to the president. Confidentiality doesn't necessarily apply to the AG or the White House counsel because they are doing the people's business. But I don't think it's clear on whether communications from special counsel would have the same privilege.

Thanks for the info.

go bowe
06-10-2007, 03:08 PM
i dunno...

i'm pretty sure that neither the ag nor the special counsels can be forced to reveal confidential communications with their client - in this case the president...

but i could be wrong...

banyon
06-10-2007, 04:12 PM
i dunno...

i'm pretty sure that neither the ag nor the special counsels can be forced to reveal confidential communications with their client - in this case the president...

but i could be wrong...


They made Clinton's Deputy AG tesify about privileged communications and applied a "balancing test."

Link (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/03/lewinsky/)

Here's a good article about it too:

Bush Needs An Outside Attorney To Maintain Attorney-Client Privilege

Readers may wonder, why is Bush going to an outside counsel, when numerous government attorneys are available to him - for instance, in the White House Counsel's Office?

The answer is that the President has likely been told it would be risky to talk to his White House lawyers, particularly if he knows more than he claims publicly.

Ironically, it was the fair-haired Republican stalwart Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr who decimated the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers and their clients - which, to paraphrase the authority Wigmore, applies when legal advice of any kind is sought by a client from a professional legal adviser, where the advice is sought in confidence.

The reason the privilege was created was to insure open and candid discussion between a lawyer and his or her client. It traditionally applied in both civil and criminal situations for government lawyers, just as it did for non-government lawyers. It applied to written records of communications, such as attorney's notes, as well as to the communications themselves.

But Starr tried to thwart that tradition in two different cases, before two federal appeals courts. There, he contended that there should be no such privilege in criminal cases involving government lawyers.

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."

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.

John W. Dean


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

go bowe
06-10-2007, 06:34 PM
see?

i cudda been a contender... :) :) :)

banyon
06-10-2007, 06:46 PM
see?

i cudda been a contender... :) :) :)

Well, John Dean, the author of that article never made any mistakes either. :p

mlyonsd
06-10-2007, 08:15 PM
I wonder how many lawyers FDR would have had to hire when he was president in today's world.

It must really suck having the responsibility of being in charge of protecitng the entire F'ing country.

Logical
06-10-2007, 09:45 PM
I wonder how many lawyers FDR would have had to hire when he was president in today's world.

It must really suck having the responsibility of being in charge of f*cking up the entire F'ing country.
Fixed your post, you can thank me later.

mlyonsd
06-11-2007, 10:01 PM
Fixed your post, you can thank me later.

Other than your opinion, it is an interesting question don't you think?

I think FDR's administration would have had a lot of hills to climb during WWII if today's media and politcal environment would have existed back then.

We lost almost twice as many Americans in several individual battles than we have in the entire Iraq conflict.

Logical
06-11-2007, 10:05 PM
Other than your opinion, it is an interesting question don't you think?

I think FDR's administration would have had a lot of hills to climb during WWII if today's media and politcal environment would have existed back then.

We lost almost twice as many Americans in several individual battles than we have in the entire Iraq conflict.

I will admit it might not have been possible to build support for losing that many men for Europe in todays envirionment.

jAZ
06-11-2007, 10:24 PM
I will admit it might not have been possible to build support for losing that many men for Europe in todays envirionment.
That lack of support would come largely from the Republicans who constantaly attack the Europeans rhetorically.

patteeu
06-12-2007, 07:25 AM
That lack of support would come largely from the Republicans who constantaly attack the Europeans rhetorically.

:rolleyes: