Originally Posted by rickholio

The scenario is entirely applicable. Attorney/Client privilage would extend both ways, but when it's removed it extends neither way. Nothing that he did while working in the Solicitor General's office is thusly protected, and you will see such when the Eighth Circuit ruling is upheld.

Additionally, he (John Roberts) was never Solicitor General himself. He was Dep. Solicitor General under Ken Starr. He was the ?political deputy? in the Solicitor General?s office and thus, unlike career Deputy Solicitor Generals, cannot dismiss positions he took as simply arguments he was forced to make as part of his obligation to zealously represent the interests of his client, the federal government. While in the Solicitor General?s office during the Bush administration, Roberts co-authored briefs in a number of controversial cases.

The documents requested, as that has NOT been mentioned yet here, center around his involvement in the Iran/Contra scandal and the Bush 41 administrations pardoning of Oliver North and co-conspirators. It's obvious WHY they would want to not release those papers, and why the democrats want them: Iran/Contra was the biggest black eye on republicans since Nixon. Nevertheless, what legal protections they may have enjoyed to protect that information were blown away by Ken Starr himself when he pursued the Clinton witch-hunt and obtained the precident of non-privilaged communication.