I can't see why the 'rats are so insistant on release of the memos unless they are absolutely sure that there is something that will cause a collective gasp from the sheeple. The Dred Scott reference was only half in jest. If Estrada was asked to write opposing views to "Motor Voter" laws, with a specific emphasis on immagration, there would be some interesting reading for the record.
Conversely, if people in the Justice Department knew that anything that they wrote as an assignment could be used against them later, no one would want the job.
Do the clerks write position papers based on their own beliefs and opinions, or are they assigned topics to research and report back, based on the law and precedent, regardless of their own opinions? I ask because I could see where Democrats would take papers written by Estrada as evidence against him when they might not be reflective of his own opinions, just law research.
I also likened it to the OJ trial (don't know if the analogy was a good one or not):
Then the Republicans will have to give analogous reasons why they say no and why the Democrats' request is wrong. For instance:-PJThe Democrats are asking for the equivalent of the results of OJ's polygraph that his lawyers had him take. OJ took a polygraph test, but his lawyers never released the results -- it was internal work product between a lawyer and his client. Marcia Clark asked to see the results, but Johnnie Cochran said no, it was protected by lawyer/client privelege. Clark could keep asking and asking, even go to the press and complain that OJ wasn't releasing his polygraph test. Was OJ obstructing the trial?
The Democrats are asking for the equivalent of OJ's polygraph tests.