Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NBC NEWS confirmed on Saturday that Clinton�s
lawyers formally invoked both executive prvilege and
attorney-client privilege Friday to block grand jury
testimony of two senior White House aides.
Sources familiar with the dispute say senior White
House aides Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal refused
to answer some questions by prosecutors when they
appeared recently before a grand jury.
Both aides cited executive privilege concerns in
declining to answer the questions at the instruction of White
House lawyers, the sources said. Since then, they said, the
White House has made clear to the court that it agrees the
information sought by prosecutors was covered by
executive privilege � the right of a president to keep
certain deliberations secret.
Clinton�s lawyers invoked the privilege during Friday�s
session before U.S. District Judge Norma Hollaway
Johnson. Johnson is the chief judge for the federal court in
Washington, D.C. and oversees the grand jury.
Before that hearing, White House officials have said
that in general they believe the president is entitled to seek
advice from his aides without having to be forced to
disclose it.
Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr is
trying to determine what, if anything, Clinton may have told
his senior aides about his relationship with Lewinsky or
efforts to find her a job and a lawyer when she emerged as
a witness in Paula Jones� sexual harassment lawsuit against
him.
On Saturday, Starr refused to comment on whether
Clinton�s lawyers had invoked executive privilege during
Friday�s hearings.
Starr, however, did say the investigation should move
forward.
�I don�t think I should comment specifically, but as a
general matter it�s very helpful when we can move the
investigation forward and the Grand Jury can get all the
information that it needs. That�s all I�ll say.�
Starr�s position was echoed by Rep. Henry Hyde,
chairman of House Judiciary Committee. Hyde, who would
play a role in overseeing any impeachment hearings against
Clinton, said Saturday that the president should not use
�executive privilege� to hide embarrassing information about
his private life.
�My understanding of executive privilege is that it
applies to matters of national security, instead of ...
personally embarrassing information,� Hyde told Reuters.
But Hyde declined to speculate whether Clinton�s use
of the executive privilege is similar to President Nixon�s use
of it to cover wrongdoing in the Watergate scandal.
�It (executive privilege) should be appropriately used ...
and whether this is appropriate or not I can�t say,� Hyde
said, referring to Clinton�s actions.
Hyde also said he has no idea of what impeachable
information, if any, Starr has on Clinton.
But he speculated about what types of wrongdoing
would be cause for impeachment.
�Are rumors of sexual transgressions impeachable
offenses? I have no idea. I would think not,� Hyde said. �I
would think something to be impeachable, it would have to
be an egregious abuse of office,� he added.
�That means perjury, subordination of perjury,
tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice, something
like that,� Hyde said.
White House officials and prosecutors refused to
answer questions about Friday�s proceeding. But among
those in attendance Friday was lawyer Neil Eggleston, who
has been hired by the White House as a private counsel to
represent it in any legal battle over executive privilege.
Starr is looking into allegations that Clinton had an
affair with Ms. Lewinsky, a former White House intern, and
then tried to get her to lie about it. Clinton has denied the
allegations.
The White House legal team was led by presidential
counsel Charles F.C. Ruff and included David Kendall,
Clinton�s private lawyer; Lindsey, a longtime Clinton friend
and confidante; Cheryl Mills, deputy White House counsel;
and Lanny Breuer, a White House lawyer.
Also on hand was William McDaniel, Blumenthal�s
lawyer. Blumenthal had been summoned before the grand
jury to answer questions about the dissemination of negative
information about prosecutors on Starr�s team.
Executive privilege is a legal theory, upheld by the courts,
that allows a president to keep private the confidential
advice he receives from advisers. Presidents have argued
that they could not have these frank discussions if there was
a danger the conversations would someday become public.
The Supreme Court recognizes executive privilege but
has generally limited it to private discussions between the
president and advisers about official matters, notably the
conduct of foreign affairs or other internal policy
discussions.
President Nixon�s claim of executive privilege was
rejected by the Supreme Court and he was ordered to turn
over Watergate tapes that sank his presidency.
Eggleston successfully represented the White House in
an executive privilege dispute over documents relating to the
prosecution of former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy
ATTACK ON PAULA JONES� CASE
Elsewhere in Washington, President Bill Clinton�s
lawyer declared Friday that Paula Jones� evidence of sexual
harassment was �garbage� unworthy of a trial and suggested
to a court that her key witnesses lacked credibility. With a
200-page filing in federal court in Little Rock, Ark.,
attorney Robert S. Bennett submitted testimony that Jones
was looking for a �movie business� job, and members of
Clinton�s Arkansas security detail � who had accused him
of womanizing � could not be believed.
Bennett also argued that Kathleen Willey�s sensational
claim last week of an unwanted sexual advance was
irrelevant to Jones� case.
Jones is suing Clinton for sexual harassment, accusing
him of asking her for oral sex in a Little Rock hotel room in 1991. The
case, set for trial May 27, has become entwined
with a grand jury investigation into the president�s conduct
because both matters involve allegations of womanizing. The
grand jury is looking into whether Clinton had an affair with
former White House intern Monica Lewinsky and then
urged her to lie about it under oath.
At a news conference in Washington, Bennett called
Jones allegations �little more than a web of deceit and
distortions ... (including) every piece of garbage they could
get before the court.�
�NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE�
�There is not an iota of evidence to support
those claims,� Bennett said of Jones� claim that she was
sexually harassed by Clinton and then suffered in her state
job.
Bennett also blasted Jones� claims last week that she
has suffered mental and physical anguish and an aversion to
sex, calling the assertions �a big joke.�
�Until two or three weeks ago, no such claim was in
the case. ... All of a sudden, to fill a gap in their pleading
when we show a massive deficiency in their case ... there
pops up a Ph.D. in education who gives them an affidavit
that there is now a damage claim of sexual aversion,�
Bennett said.
He said he was confident the case would be dismissed.
�I don�t think we�re going to go to trial,� he said.
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
