Ann Coulter: How about Ted Kennedy's privacy

Townhall.com ^ | 9/1/05 | Ann Coulter

[wagglebee]

Sen. Teddy Kennedy has demanded that the Bush administration waive attorney-client privilege and release internal memos John Roberts worked on while in the solicitor general's office 15 years ago, all of which were supposed to be held in the deepest confidence. Apparently, Kennedy thinks public officials have no right to keep even their attorney-client communications secret.

This surprised me because the senator is such a strong advocate of the (nonexistent) "right to privacy." And not just in the way most drunken, Spanish quiz-cheating, no-pants-wearing public reprobates generally cherish their own personal right to privacy. I mean privacy in the abstract.

I know as much about the "right to privacy" as I know about any other made-up, nonexistent right, but I would have thought that any "right to privacy" would protect confidential attorney-client conversations at least as much as, say, abortions in public buildings.

But I'll have to defer to the expert.

Consequently, applying the principle even-handedly to members of the executive branch as well as the legislative branch, I demand that Kennedy immediately waive all attorney-client privilege relating to his communications with his lawyer after he drove Mary Jo Kopechne off the bridge at Chappaquiddick. It's time to clear up, once and for all, the many questions that have swirled around Kennedy since Chappaquiddick.

Oops – "swirled" may have been a poor choice of words there. How about "floated"? Nope. "Surfaced"? Oooh – even worse, in terms of irony. "Come to light"? OK, now I'm just being obtuse. "Beset"? Yes, that's better.

Youth is no defense. John Roberts was 26 years old when he wrote the documents that Kennedy demands on behalf of the Senate. Kennedy was 36 when he drove Mary Jo Kopechne off a bridge.

If the Senate needs to know what Roberts thought about the law at age 26, then the Senate certainly needs to know what Kennedy thought about the law at age 36, when he drowned a girl and then spent the rest of the evening concocting an alibi instead of calling the police.

This isn't a "rehash" of Chappaquiddick; it's never been hashed. The Senate needs to know whether Kennedy was guilty of manslaughter. How else can the Senate be expected to carry out its constitutional duty to expel Kennedy unless Kennedy makes these key documents available?

We'll pick them up in the same van we send to collect John Kerry's military records and Bill Clinton's medical records.

While we wait, here's my guess as to what those attorney-client conversations sounded like, based on the facts in Leo Damore's book "Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-Up":

Interview with client Teddy Kennedy, July 19, 1969:

Teddy: May I approach the bench?

Lawyer: It's not a bench, Teddy. It's my desk. And no, you can't have another Chivas Regal.

Teddy: (Hiccup)

Lawyer: Let's start at the beginning.

Teddy: I'm going to say you were driving.

Lawyer: No, you are not saying I was driving.

Teddy: OK, someone in your family was driving.

Lawyer: They weren't even in Massachusetts that week. Can we move on? Why didn't you call the police after the accident, Teddy?

Teddy: I had to protect my political career, obviously. But this wasn't just about me! I was thinking about future drunk, philandering U.S. senators who may or may not have just drowned some chick they met at a party.

Lawyer: But what about Mary Jo --

Teddy: Yes, precisely! How would it look if I, a United States senator, were driving off to a secluded beach at midnight with a beautiful, nubile female after a private party? How would that look?

Lawyer: But Mary Jo was still alive for two hours --

Teddy: Did I mention my wife was pregnant? You think I should have reported the accident now, Mr. Smartypants?

Lawyer: She was trapped in that car, struggling to breathe!

Teddy: Do you know that two of my brothers were assassinated?

Lawyer: She was still alive! You could have saved her!

Teddy: Yeah, and say goodbye to my presidential ambitions. There was the future of the country to consider – as well as the future of the Chivas Regal company and all their employees. I am a Kennedy. I have a divine right to the presidency. I had to put that ahead of my lawyer's conscience. Anyway, Mary Jo was driving.

Lawyer: Teddy, we can't say Mary Jo was driving.

Teddy: What if some phony witness claimed that the driver stopped to ask for directions. Wouldn't that prove it was a woman driving?

Lawyer: But what about the witnesses?

Teddy: We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Hey, what's so funny? Did I just say something funny?

To be continued ...

[Smartass]

THANKS FOR THE PING

[bitt]

that's terrible!

[Victoria Delsoul]

LOL, too funny. Good job as usual.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[devolve]

But dead accurate

Teddy will try to kill John Roberts soon



Time to dig up all of the bodies now

[rcocean]

Put Al Franken next to Sharpton in the picture and its the "Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"

[rcocean]

You nailed that one.

The problem is there a lot of House Republicans (in the Media and even on FR) who get all upset when a conservative get too "uppity" and doesn't lift her pinky when she drinks tea. Oh, "She's so tough" or "she'll never persuade any liberal with that approach".

The House Republicans dream Conservative is Tucker "bowtie" Carlson. In the late 80' and early 90s, it was David "melon-head" Gergen, before he went work for Clinton.

The left can use biting satire and very frank humor in attacking every conservative in sight. But if Coulter uses humor and THE FACTS - then its "bomb-throwing", "hate speech", "mean spirited", "nasty".

[patton]

I read it.

[ChadGore]

I really think Teddy Kenedy can help out a lot down in New Orleans. His swimming ability is legendary. His size gives him the ability to swim out with 6 at a time on his back.

[4CJ]

After all, a great many of them are only voting for him because he keeps the gravy train running to Mass.

And if Bills were limited to the subject expressed in the title (no pork amendments!) - then politicians couldn't vote for pork - so there would be no incentive for the people of Massachusetts to re-elect the fat drunken "Swimmer" Kennedy et al.

[roaddog727]

Add another to the list of readers bump.

[inquest]

It would take a major house cleaning to accomplish something like that. While it's possible, and would be desirable, for there to be a national movement that can do that in one election, it's more likely that somebody will have to be the first. There'd have to be some district somewhere that's willing to forego the pork for the sake of voting out some slimeball, and the people of that district (or state in the case of a Senator) must then make the reason for their choice known to the rest of the country. They have to say, "We did our part, now you do yours!"

[4CJ]

It could be something as simple as this - 'Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title'. It's part of the permanent Confederate Constitution, the reason for it being there pretty clear. They also eliminated payments for cost overruns, another source of waste.

I'd vote for a politician that ran on a platform or reducing pork. Let moonbats like Kennedy pay for the 'Big (17 BILLION wasted dollars) Dig' with his money, and that of his state alone.

[inquest]

It could be something as simple as this - 'Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title'. It's part of the permanent Confederate Constitution, the reason for it being there pretty clear.

I can only imagine the can of worms that would open up, as litigation on top of litigation involves the courts inexorably in determining what is and is not related to the subject of the bill, because almost anything can be considered "related" somehow. Just look at the commerce clause, and what Congress gets away with regulating because it's somehow "related" to interstate commerce.

If you really want to make a constitutional change that would help with this situation, probably the best thing would be to limit Congress's ability to raise money in the first place. Raising taxes should require a supermajority, and they should automatically decrease over time unless bumped back up periodically by said supermajority.

[4CJ]

If you really want to make a constitutional change that would help with this situation, probably the best thing would be to limit Congress's ability to raise money in the first place. Raising taxes should require a supermajority, and they should automatically decrease over time unless bumped back up periodically by said supermajority.

The Confederate Constitution required that ALL appropriations bills pass by two-thirds majority, limited spending to 'provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government', and provided that 'no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury' - i.e no Big Dig. Instead of taxes, usage fees would allow the people, and the laws of supply and demand to regulate the economy and federal government/spending.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Yes, you are wrong, HostileTerritory

I read every word of Ann Coulter's column.

After watcing the thugs in New Orleans and hearing the Black Caucus imply whites are not people and the President does not care about blacks, it is quite refreshig to read a column by an American Patriot intead of comments from insane scum.

Thanks as always, Ann Coulter. Accurate, witty and thought provoking, as is your norm.

[inquest]

I could go along with those provisions. But the one about limiting bills to a specific subject I think needlessly opens things up too far to judicial mischief.