DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: BEHIND THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGATIONS
SUBSECTION: PRIVILEGE CLAIMS
Revised 7/21/99


PRIVILEGE CLAIMS


1993 - to block an inspection of Vince Foster's files after his suicide
1994 - to block turning over documents from its ethics review regarding Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy
1995 - to block lawyer's notes from conversations with Hillary Clinton
1996 - to block turning over documents relating to arms shipments from Iran to Bosnia
1996 - to block turning over a memo by FBI Director Louis Freeh criticizing the drug policy
1996 - to block turning over documents subpoenaed concerning Haiti police violence
1996 - to block turning over Travel Office documents
1997 - to block turning over campaign finance related records
1997 - to block testimony of Bruce Lindsey concerning James Riady - campaign finance
1997 - to block turning over documents pertaining to cancellation of an Indian casino
1998 - to block testimony of Paul Begala - filegate
1998 - to block grand jury testimony of Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal - Lewinsky
1998 - to block grand jury testimony of Bruce Lindsey ("attorney client") - Lewinsky
1998 - to block Secret Service testimony - Lewinsky (new privilege, "protective function") - Lewinksy
1998 - to block answers to 2 questions Hillary Clinton ("spousal privilege") - Whitewater
RDMHQ Funding Document
Secret 3rd privilege claim.

 

Calgary Sun 7/10/98 David Frum ".Starr must now decide: will he subpoena the president -- in effect, order him to testify? And if Starr does, will the president comply with the subpoena or defy it? Seven months ago, I doubt any U.S. lawyer would have imagined the president could refuse a subpoena. Richard Nixon tried it when the Watergate special counsel demanded his secret tapes and was slapped down by the Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Nixon. Since then, presidents under any sort of cloud have instantly and immediately co-operated with the courts and their officials. uring Iran-Contra, for example, Ronald Reagan waived all claims of executive privilege and ordered his entire staff to answer any and all questions from both the independent counsel and Congress. Jimmy Carter and George Bush responded to inquiries from the courts with equal alacrity. ut then, they had the advantage of being innocent of the accusations brought against them. Which may explain why strange and unsourced news reports have begun to appear in the press suggesting it's possible the president might do a Nixon.."

Drudge 9/8/98 "Starr is planning to include President Clinton's repeated assertion of executive privilege as an "abuse of power" in a report set to hit The Hill, it has been learned. Starr will offer detailed evidence that Clinton obstructed justice, according to case intelligence, claiming Clinton personally engaged in a course of conduct designed to obstruct, delay and impede a grand jury investigation. Starr will also outline the actions taken by close subordinates and agents of the president, according to sources. Several broadcast reports suggest the Starr report could hit The Hill within the next few days. "Prosecutors are now convinced they can make a strong argument that Mr. Clinton used his lawyers to defraud the courts and the government out of resources," ace reporter David Shuster told watchers of FOX NEWS Tuesday afternoon.."

Wall St Journal 10-19-98 Peter Wallison ".In his opening statement to the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 5, Republican counsel David Schippers omitted a reference to Count 11 of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's impeachment report -- the much-maligned charge that, among other things, President Clinton abused his office by invoking executive and attorney-client privileges to fend off Mr. Starr's inquiries. Mr. Schippers's omission, as well as Chairman Henry Hyde's recent statement that he intends to "streamline" the charges considered by the committee, suggest that Count 11 will not be considered by the committee. This would be a serious mistake. Count 11, despite the abuse it has taken from many of the president's defenders, is neither frivolous nor -- as Democratic counsel Abbe Lowell has asserted -- evidence of Mr. Starr's bias. Insofar as it deals with the president's assertions of privilege, Count 11 is essential to a full consideration of the impeachment issue. Count 11 makes out a case for the misuse of the president's office.It is true, of course, that Mr. Clinton -- in common with any defendant -- is entitled to use all defenses and privileges at his disposal to protect himself against potential criminal liability. This would certainly be true of a claim of a Fifth Amendment privilege, or protection against unreasonable search and seizure. But are the president's executive or attorney-client privileges in the same category? They are not. Attorney-client privilege does not cover discussions between government lawyers and the president concerning his private affairs. In such cases the privilege, like executive privilege, belongs to the office of the president -- and not to the president personally. Mr. Clinton is entitled to use these privileges only to protect the confidentiality of his communications as president. As the courts have repeatedly found, the president is not entitled to claim either privilege in a matter in which he personally is a target of a criminal charge. Nor is it appropriate to claim that Mr. Clinton was compelled to assert these privileges in order to protect the historic institutional prerogatives of the presidency itself.."

AP 11/9/98 ".The Supreme Court today let stand a ruling that says presidential confidant Bruce Lindsey and other White House lawyers cannot refuse to answer a federal grand jury's questions about possible criminal conduct by government officials.. In a separate case, the court refused to shield Secret Service officers from having to testify to federal grand juries about information they learn while protecting the president.. Starr urged the justices to reject the appeal. "The historical and legal foundations for the White House's privilege claim are nonexistent,'' he argued. "To our knowledge, no case, statute, rule or agency opinion - ever - has concluded that a department or agency of the United States (or any state government entity) can maintain a governmental attorney-client privilege in federal criminal or grand jury proceedings,'' he said. .."

Fox News 6/9/99 Reuters "...The White House Wednesday rejected Republican calls for National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to testify to Congress on the investigation into allegations China stole U.S. nuclear weapons secrets. "As far as I know, there are no plans now for any formal testimony,'' White House spokesman Joe Lockhart told reporters. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, a Republican of Alabama, has said he intends to ask Berger to testify on his awareness of the investigation and what he told Clinton about it. Tuesday, Shelby said, "I believe it's important for Mr. Berger to come before the intelligence committee. I hope he will not assert executive privilege because these questions are too important...I would be really disappointed if he refused.''...But he cited issues of executive privilege in saying cabinet-agency executives should testify rather than members of Clinton's executive staff such as Berger. "There is a traditional and constitutional argument that many administrations have taken about White House staff testifying versus other members of the administration that are confirmable (by the Senate),'' Lockhart said. ...."

fcw.com 6/3/99 Daniel Verton "...According to an amendment to the fiscal 2000 Intelligence Authorization Act proposed last month by Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), the director of Central Intelligence, the director of NSA and the attorney general must submit a report within 60 days of the bill becoming law that outlines the legal standards being employed to safeguard the privacy of American citizens against Project Echelon. .... However, NSA, the supersecret spy agency known best for its worldwide eavesdropping capabilities, for the first time in the history of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence refused to hand over documents on the Echelon program, claiming attorney/client privilege. ...Calling NSA's argument of attorney/client privilege "unpersuasive and dubious," committee chairman Rep. Peter J. Goss (R-Fla.) said the ability of the intelligence community to deny access to documents on intelligence programs could "seriously hobble the legislative oversight process" provided for by the Constitution and would "result in the envelopment of the executive branch in a cloak of secrecy." ...."

6/16/99 Judicial Watch "…Judicial Watch, the public interest legal group, has learned President Clinton personally intervened in Judicial Watch's Filegate lawsuit on behalf of those staffers from the Reagan and Bush Administrations and others whose FBI files were illegally obtained, accessed and misused by the Clinton White House. Clinton is refusing to allow answers to, among other things, whether his private investigator was approached or retained to investigate Linda Tripp, a key Filegate witness. Defendants in the $90 million class-action Fileagate lawsuit, which is in the midst of pre-trial discovery, include Hillary Rodham Clinton, Craig Livingstone, Anthony Marceca, Bernard Nussbaum, the Clinton White House, and the FBI. In a brief signed by his personal lawyers David Kendall and Robert Bennett, Clinton asserts attorney work product and attorney-client privileges to try to shield Lenzner from questioning about Tripp. Judicial Watch contends that these privileges, besides being waived, do not apply - as Lenzner was likely hired by the Clintons' to access and disseminate Tripp's FBI and other Privacy Act-protected material and to threaten and intimidate her, activities not protected by any privilege. Judicial Watch uncovered the illegal release of personal information from Tripp's Pentagon file by Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon, a high-level political appointee, a blatant violation of the Privacy Act. Judicial Watch has also uncovered Pentagon documents showing that Tripp's file was illegally accessed so that its information could be used for a meeting with Clinton's Defense Secretary William Cohen. On March 13, 1998, Judicial Watch questioned the Clintons' Terry Lenzner, whose firm Investigative Group International, Inc. (IGI) was retained on behalf of Bill and Hillary Clinton by their law firms Williams & Connolly and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom, LLP. Lenzner refused to divulge who and what exactly he was investigating on the Clintons' behalf. Incredibly, Lenzner even refused to answer if anyone ever requested him to use FBI files against adversaries of the Clinton administration..."

WorldNetDaily 7/9/99 Larry Klayman "…The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce, a 331-page manifesto and brainchild of Associate White House Counsel Jane Sherburne and the DNC, was circulated to select reporters in a tortured effort to describe how the "right wing" conveyed "fringe" stories into mainstream American media. In essence, this document was an effort to "alert" friendly journalists that such a "conspiracy" was being promulgated by certain groups dissatisfied with the moral lapses of the Clinton White House. In short, it was an enemies list. …In December 1994, Associate White House Counsel Sherburne prepared a memorandum that outlined strategies to use against individuals and organizations perceived to be adversaries of the Clinton Administration. The memo also assigned staff members to carry out these strategies -- and specifically identified the Western Journalism Center for having investigated Foster's death. WJC was the only news organization targeted for action. ….Over the course of the investigation of WJC, nearly 20 conservative organizations -- including the Heritage Foundation, NRA and Citizens Against Government Waste -- felt the close, touch of the Clinton audit machine. Even more oddly, the media who knew of the Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce never saw any pattern developing that would signify an orchestrated White House effort -- much less actually troubled themselves to report it. Meanwhile, the WJC's offices were being broken into, with, mysteriously, nothing stolen. Their phone messages were apparently being monitored, and some of these developments happened to coincide with WJC breakthroughs in Clinton investigations. The scrutiny of the WJC by the IRS lasted nine months. WJC employees lost their jobs and livelihoods. Finally, in October 1996, Farah exposed these corrupt practices in a piece in The Wall Street Journal, and the tide began to turn. Margaret Milner-Richardson, IRS commissioner and close friend of first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, abruptly resigned. The New York Post attributed her departure to political audits of conservative organizations. Some began to probe these rampant abuses, and the audit of the Western Journalism Center was "concluded" -- a verdict of "no wrongdoing" rendered in May 1997. Under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights enacted by Congress, Farah requested his case file from the IRS so he could review its contents. In keeping with the Clinton Administration standard practice, these rights were trampled in a terse refusal to turn over the documents -- the IRS frivolously citing "government privilege" as a means of keeping Mr. Farah from seeing justification for what had nearly bankrupted his organization…."