No Attorney-Client Protection For Lindsey
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, July 27) -- A federal appeals court ruled Monday
that attorney-client privilege does not protect presidential confidant Bruce
Lindsey from answering all questions put to him before the Monica Lewinsky
grand jury.
The ruling is the second recent victory for Independent Counsel Ken Starr. After
a complicated appeals court battle, Chief Justice Willam Rehnquist refused to
block an order forcing several Secret Service employees to testify in the
sex-and-perjury investigation of President Bill Clinton.
Starr is looking into reports that Clinton had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky,
a former White House intern, and urged her to lie about it under oath in the Paula
Jones sexual harassment case. Clinton has denied all wrongdoing.
At issue was whether as a government lawyer, Lindsey could claim that
attorney-client privilege protects his conversations with Clinton, as it would a
private lawyer.
On May 1, Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ordered Lindsey to testify, after
applying a balancing test between attorney-client confidentiality and the grand
jury's need for information in a criminal investigation.
Anticipating the appeal, Starr then asked the Supreme Court to intervene and
compel Lindsey to testify. The high court denied Starr's request on June 4, stating
that the appellate court would proceed expeditiously.
Starr and White House lawyers argued the case before the three-judge appeals
panel on June 29. The first part of the arguments was open to the public, but the
lawyers later went behind closed doors to discuss secret grand jury matters.
Starr argued the Clinton-Lindsey discussions were not privileged and that Lindsey
should be forced to testify in the investigation. The grand jury, he said, must have
all "relevant" information obtained by Lindsey in his discussions with Clinton and
other White House aides.
But White House lawyer Neil Eggleston disputed Starr's claim, saying the special
prosecutor's definition of "relevant extends to the boundaries of imagination."
Eggleston argued that Lindsey's advice should be shielded by attorney-client
privilege. For example, he said the deputy White House counsel's advice about
impeachment was protected because "impeachment is an official action."
Starr countered that government lawyers have an overriding obligation first to the
people.
The Justice Department disagreed with the White House argument that a
presidential attorney-client relationship is always confidential.
In his arguments, Starr made much of Attorney General Janet Reno's position
arguing that she and other "political appointees of the president have taken the
extraordinary step of filing an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief contrary to the
White House legal position."
The appeals panel that decided the Lindsey question included Clinton appointees
Judith Rogers and David Tatel and Bush appointee Raymond Randolph. The
same panel's decision allowing Starr access to notes taken by the lawyer of the
late Vince Foster, despite the claim of attorney-client privilege, was overturned
by the Supreme Court.
|
