Originally Posted by rickholio

Incorrect.

The foundation of the current interpretation grew out of a subpoena that the independent counsel Ken Starr issued for notes that were taken of conversations between Hillary Rodham Clinton and White House attorneys in preparation for grand jury appearances and congressional appearances.

The Office of the President asserted an attorney-client privilege. The District Court accepted that, saying that Clinton thought the privilage existed at the time and therefore entitling her to rely on it. The Eighth Circuit reversed and said there is no attorney-client privilege for the First Lady or any other government official who consults with government counsel as opposed to private counsel.

The court of appeals based this ruling on the fact that the Office of the Solicitor General works not for the president but for the people of the United States, and therefore no party's consultations are entitled to attorney-client privilage. The Clinton white house appealed to the supreme court, which refused to hear the case letting the Eight Circuit case stand.

Apparently, Orrin Hatch was quite pleased at the decision, and remonstrated the clintons for attempting to assert that privilage in an op-ed in the New York Times. I wonder if he'll speak up and bitch out the bush administration for attempting the exact same maneuver but with full knowledge of its illegitmacy. I won't hold my breath.

I suppose, in an odd way, people should be thankful to Ken Starr... while his purient interest extended to little more than dick sizes and boxers/briefs, his legal maneuvers have yielded a powerful tool to defeat stonewalling and corruption in established parties.