Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Obama picks presidential assassin’s lawyer as White House counsel

posted at 9:20 am on November 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Barack Obama has selected Gregory Craig as White House counsel, a move that will recall some controversial legal cases over the last few years.  Craig has plenty of experience in politics as well as the courtroom, having served as Bill Clinton’s legal counsel during the impeachment hearings.  Craig flipped from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama early in the primaries, and Obama has repaid his support — but Craig’s caseload will raise a few eyebrows:

Gregory B. Craig, a well-known Washington lawyer who quarterbacked President Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense, has been chosen White House counsel by President-elect Barack Obama, according to Democratic officials.

Craig is intimately familiar with the president-elect’s record because he played the role of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in debate preparations.

The officials said Obama has settled on Craig but were not sure when the appointment would be announced.

The choice gives the president-elect both experience and loyalty. During the primaries, Craig was an early Clinton alumni defector to Obama. Columnist Robert D. Novak reported back in the winter of 2007 that Craig had told him he “was impressed with Obama when he first met him at the home of investment banker Vernon Jordan, an intimate friend and supporter of the Clintons.”

Craig was an Obama foreign policy adviser during the campaign. At the start of the Clinton administration, he had been the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning, the head of State’s in-house think tank. He also was senior adviser on defense, foreign policy and national security to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Besides defending Clinton through the impeachment process, an effort that Craig lost, who else had the benefit of Craig’s counsel?

  • Elian Gonzalez’s father – Craig represented the father who demanded the return of his son after his estranged wife died trying to take Elian to freedom.  Most people saw this as a thinly-veiled publicity stunt from Fidel Castro, attempting to embarrass the US.  The dispute got resolved when Janet Reno ordered an armed assault on the house where Elian’s family in the US provided him a home.
  • John Hinckley, Jr – Craig presented and won the insanity defense that allows Ronald Reagan’s would-be assassin to spend weekends with his family now.
  • Kofi Annan – The former Secretary-General of the UN hired Craig to defend his interests in the Volcker Commission probe of the Oil-for-Food scandal, which put billions of dollars into Saddam Hussein’s pockets while providing cash for Annan’s son, his deputies, and some allege Annan himself.
  • Pedro Gonzalez Pinzon – A Panamanian legislator wanted for murdering an American soldier in 1992.  The Dallas Morning News demanded that Obama force Craig to drop the case during the campaign, but no report of whether he did is easily available.

I doubt that any President has selected the defender of a presidential assassin as White House Counsel before now. Does anyone want to guess how long that takes to become a Trivial Pursuit question?

Given Craig’s dubious client list, especially Gonzalez Pinzon as an apparent active client, this selection is a disgrace.  The last person we need in the White House is an attorney who represented assassins, Castro and his goons, corrupt UN executives, and a suspected killer of an American soldier.  Those are the people the White House should focus on stopping, not embracing.

Update: I’m not saying that people should not have defense counsel when charged with a crime; that’s an absurd response to this post.  What I’m saying is that Craig is an absurd choice for White House counsel on the basis of the kinds of cases he himself pursued.  No one forced him to take Hinckley, Gonzalez Pinzon, Annan, or Gonzalez/Castro as clients.  Like most attorneys looking to boost their practice, Craig undoubtedly competed hard for their business.

Was Craig the only attorney available for this gig?  No.  Could Barack Obama find someone qualified who wasn’t currently representing a man suspected of murdering an American soldier or who represented a presidential assassin?  If not, then Obama’s more incompetent than anyone figured.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Change.

lodge on November 17, 2008 at 9:23 AM

What can you say? The thugocracy cometh.

rockmom on November 17, 2008 at 9:24 AM

Hey Ed,

Check out the front page WaPo article about Obama writing letters to 600,000 federal employees before the elction promising them better jobs and benefits. At least now we know why he won Virginia.

rockmom on November 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Ed, two questions:

Do you believe that person accused of a crime deserves a fair trial?

If so, then why hold a lower opinion of a lawyer who defends someone, even of the most gruesome acts? In fast, shouldn’t a lawyer who takes on such cases to ensure justice is done in even the most heinous of cases be commended, especially in light of the fact that there are people like you who will attack him for providing a necessary component of our legal system?

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:28 AM

In fact

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:29 AM

As the joke goes about lawyers, “We’ve already established that; now, we’re just quibbling over price.” Oh, wait, that’s not about lawyers?

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 17, 2008 at 9:29 AM

“Change” was my thought exactly. Oh, wait…that wasn’t the slogan he ran on was it?

2jazzie lane on November 17, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Not a good sign of things to come, is it.

petefrt on November 17, 2008 at 9:29 AM

At least Craig understands some of the problems Osama Obama will be facing when his shady past is, inevitably, brought out in the open. There will be Congressional hearings at some point….

And how is hiring a defender of lefty wackos and would-be presidential assassins any different than being the pal of domestic terrorists, felons and hate-filled race-hustlers?

MrScribbler on November 17, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Although I may be odd, the one name on the list that creeps me out is Kofi Anan. Presidential assassins and political extremists on his client list just tells me the man likes fame (for any reason) and is up for a challenge. Representing a corrupt bureaucrat who steals money from people who are starving under the cover of doing good really is doing the devil’s work. Mob lawyers have more integrity.

MargaretMN on November 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM

Ed–he’s a partner at one of the largest law firms in D.C. and has taught at Harvard and Yale law schools. Don’t tar a lawyer because of the clients s/he has had. Even Ken Starr has represented two convicted murderers (one pro bono) in the last several year.

jim m on November 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM

I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a moment. This does not reflect my opinion, which is the same as Ed’s. The guy’s a sleeze, okay? But never mind that as I propose the following…

In our system of justice, every man is entitled to the best defense possible. If this guy is good enough to pull off the things that he did (and it is their outlandishness that speaks to his effectiveness, leaving aside his character), would this not make him an effective White House counsel?

manwithblackhat on November 17, 2008 at 9:33 AM

This is “O”s attempt to reach out to everyone even lunatic assassins. Makes you feel warm and fuzzy with all peoples. Also makes you upchuck.

Herb on November 17, 2008 at 9:33 AM

So, it doesn’t bother you that an assasin’s lawyer will be White House legal counsel?

What if Bush’s Legal Counsel had defended abortion clinic bombers? Do you think the Left would wave it off with “the right to trials”?

Techie on November 17, 2008 at 9:33 AM

I doubt that any President has selected the defender of a presidential assassin as White House Counsel before now. Does anyone want to guess how long that takes to become a Trivial Pursuit question?

And…any guesses on what page in the B, C or D sections major U.S. newspapers will bury this item – if they even bother to report it?

whitetop on November 17, 2008 at 9:34 AM

jim m on November 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM

Right. Could you see Reagan appointing as his White Counsel the attorney who defended Lee Harvey Oswald?

BigD on November 17, 2008 at 9:35 AM

He’ll definitely get the murderer vote in 2012.

Mojave Mark on November 17, 2008 at 9:36 AM

Fits right in with his paling around withe Billy & Bernie Ayers.

Blake on November 17, 2008 at 9:36 AM

so what position does he give Ramsey clark?

jp on November 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM

What an asshat. And that can refer to more than one person involved in the above article.

Frozen Tex on November 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM

The 3rd Clinton Presidential term is taking shape…all that is needed as Hillary as Secretary of State.

Obama must be getting pressured intensely by Clinton insiders. Not good for Obama’s legacy – any success will be “Clintonized”, any failure will be due to Obama’s lack of experience.

albill on November 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM

I’m still waiting for change…Do you think his election-day supporters even care? Disgusting.

FuriousAmerican on November 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM

All right you naive, idiotic “sheeple”; this is what you have wrought . . . happy now?

rplat on November 17, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Hope! Change!! Obamba keeps picking the same old Washington insiders. The only hope and change there is, is that the Clintons and their supporters will regain power. They (Clintonistas) have the hope, they get the change (reassigned to new positions). And all we get is the shaft!

scottjenn on November 17, 2008 at 9:38 AM

No one forced the man to represent these people. It was his choice, and he was paid well for it. This is part of the law biz, sure, but don’t give him CREDIT for representing these scummies.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 17, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Is he forming a Mafia family?

Elizabetty on November 17, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Is this appointment in lieu of a retainer for four years?

sherry on November 17, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Obama picks ATTEMPTED presidential assassin’s lawyer as White House counsel

No mere bullet can kill Ronald Reagan!

Tony737 on November 17, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Wow. “Double standard” doesn’t even begin to cover the reactions. As usual.

We’re talking about the White House Counsel, not just some guy the Pres has retained in case he steps on a dignitary’s foot.

Seems like the guy has an astounding record of high-profile cases against America – not entirely unlike the rest of Obama’s playmates.

Merovign on November 17, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Tom:

Everyone one is entitled to a lawyer. But no particular lawyer has to take any case, unless they are court appointed counsel. No one HAS to represent (for all intents and purposes) the Cuban governemnt. No one HAS to represent the foreign murderer of an American soldier. As much as I love Reagan I have less of a problem with Hinckley, who at least was an American citizen.

BuzzCrutcher on November 17, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Right. Could you see Reagan appointing as his White Counsel the attorney who defended Lee Harvey Oswald?

–Would have been tough, since Jack Ruby killed Oswald pretty quickly.

Gregory Craig was also special counsel to the White House in the Clinton administration and apparently knows his way around Washington.

Ed–did the call center company you worked for handle any operations for any of the tobacco companies or any of the companies that are outsourcing US jobs? Did your call center company end up causing the loss of any US jobs?

jim m on November 17, 2008 at 9:43 AM

Give me a break. There are thousands of highly qualified Democratic super-lawyers that Obama could have hired as White House Counsel. And he chose Greg Craig??

Remember how many brickbats were thrown at Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers because they were “Bush cronies”? How is hiring this legal thug any different?

Where’s the change? Did Obama’s voters really think they were voting for the Clinton Restoration, only with a good looking black guy at the head of it instead of Hillary?

rockmom on November 17, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Do you think his election-day supporters even care? – Fury

No, they will agree with anything He does, for His is the Savior!

They’re even beginning to become patriotic! They’re buying American flags … and they’re not even burning them! Libs love their country now, because their guy won. Their love of country is conditional while Conservatives love America no matter who wins an election.

Tony737 on November 17, 2008 at 9:44 AM

All right you naive, idiotic “sheeple”; this is what you have wrought . . . happy now?

too funny, I suppose you’d rather Obama appoint some hack crony yes man who will eventually have to resign because he lied to Congress?

I have to say, I’m really starting to enjoy watching you guys freak out over every move Obama makes. The credibility just keeps going down the drain…

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Ed–he’s a partner at one of the largest law firms in D.C. and has taught at Harvard and Yale law schools. Don’t tar a lawyer because of the clients s/he has had. Even Ken Starr has represented two convicted murderers (one pro bono) in the last several year.

jim m on November 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM

Everybody is entitled to legal representation but that doesn’t give the man a pass on his client list when it comes to taking on a job like White House Counsel . Do you really think that soldier’s family gives a rodent’s behind about your high-minded BS?????

In effect, Obama is hiring a terrorist supporter to be his lawyer. This should give all Americans some concerns- even the scumsuckers of the legal profession.

highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Hope! Change!!

I hope all the corruption probes that come from this unethical cast of characters being appointed by Obama will change the idea that race is the only thing that mattered during this past election.

highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM

Here’s his bio from the law firm’s website. Remember that this is the alleged killer of a US soldier. Ken Starr represented two convicted killers, one for free. How does that make you feel about Ken Starr and what do you think those victims’ families think?
—————————-
Civil Litigation: Examples of Mr. Craig’s civil litigation experience include the following:

In 2000, Mr. Craig successfully represented Elian Gonzalez’s father, Mr. Juan Miguel Gonzalez, in administrative and court proceedings involving Mr. Gonzalez’s effort to regain custody of his son, Elian. Also in 2000, Mr. Craig helped lead the trial team representing Warnaco in contract/license litigation with Calvin Klein and his company. In 1999, Mr. Craig represented a major corporation in a trial in which a senior executive brought suit against the company alleging age discrimination. Most recently, Mr. Craig represented the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in connection with the Volcker Commission’s investigation of the Oil-for-Food Programme at the U.N.

During the last fifteen years, Mr. Craig has represented a variety of foreign individuals and entities who have required advice and assistance with various U.S. government agencies, to list just a few: the Consular Bureau in the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Office of Foreign Asset Control in the Treasury Department, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. For example, Mr. Craig represented two Chicago policemen in extradition proceedings in federal court in Chicago and brought a declaratory judgment action on their behalf in federal court in Washington, D.C. which resulted in a trial court ruling declaring the U.S. extradition statute of 1856 unconstitutional.

From 1978 to 1979, Mr. Craig represented Alexander Solzhenitsyn in a libel case in federal court in San Francisco. In 1977, he brought suit on behalf of one of the first (and lead) plaintiffs in the swine flu litigation that was subsequently consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. From 1973 to 1975, working with Edward Bennett Williams, Mr. Craig represented the clubs of the National Hockey League in antitrust litigation involving the World Hockey Association. From 1972 to 1974, working with Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Mr. Craig represented the Washington Post Company and various reporters in connection with the Watergate scandal and the grand jury investigation of Vice President Spiro Agnew.

Criminal Litigation: Examples of Mr. Craig’s criminal litigation experience include the following:

Mr. Craig has represented numerous American corporations and corporate executives who have been the subjects of grand jury investigations and/or who have also been charged with criminal offenses.

In 1990, Mr. Craig represented Senator Edward M. Kennedy as a witness in the trial of his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, in Palm Beach, Florida. In 1983 to 1984, working with Edward Bennett Williams, Mr. Craig represented a prominent businessman who was charged with tax evasion in federal court in Miami. In 1981 to 1982, working with Vince Fuller, Mr. Craig represented John Hinckley who was charged with the attempted assassination of President Reagan. In 1978 to 1980, also with Edward Bennett Williams, Mr. Craig represented a prominent businessman charged with bribing a D.C. government official. In 1977, he represented the first FBI agent ever to be indicted, who was accused of illegal wiretapping, breaking and entering, and mail opening in connection with the FBI investigation of the Weather Underground. That same year, working with Edward Bennett Williams, Mr. Craig represented a former Director of Central Intelligence, who was under grand jury investigation for perjury in his 1973 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In 1975, he represented an individual charged with arson in a six week trial in federal court in Connecticut.

Other Experience: In three stints away from Williams & Connolly LLP, Mr. Craig has served in government in a variety of capacities:

In September 1998, President Clinton appointed Mr. Craig to be Assistant to the President and Special Counsel in the White House where Mr. Craig served as quarterback of the President’s team that was assembled to defend against impeachment. Mr. Craig was also a member of the President’s trial team in the United States Senate and presented the President’s defense with respect to Count One during that trial.

In 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appointed Mr. Craig to be one of her senior advisors, and he served the Secretary as her Director of Policy Planning during the years 1997 to 1998.

For five years (1984-1988), he served as Senator Edward Kennedy’s Senior Advisor on Defense, Foreign Policy and National Security issues.

Mr. Craig also has taught trial practice at both Yale Law School (1975-1976) and Harvard Law School (1981-1984

jim m on November 17, 2008 at 9:49 AM

The last person we need in the White House is an attorney who represented assassins, Castro and his goons, corrupt UN executives, and a suspected killer of an American soldier.

You could’ve stopped there for me.

4shoes on November 17, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Time for an Internet meme to emerge: Just dream up the next headline of outrage about one of Obama’s appointees, ideas, proposals, Executive Orders, or foreign policy edicts.

I’m thinking nothing would be out-of-bounds or out of line.

Mostly though, I’m thinking how funny it is that so-called, Black America has elected a white man to office and doesn’t even know it.

Joan of Argghh on November 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM

If so, then why hold a lower opinion of a lawyer who defends someone, even of the most gruesome acts?

Is that a serious question? A lawyer who does that is mainly doing it for his reputatation.

It’s not about defending someone, it’s about finding technicalities or manipulating a jury into getting the guilty party a sweeter deal.

We’re not talking about the noble cause of proving someone’s innocence, this is about playing the system to cop a plea, come up with some insanity BS or make political points.

I, for one, will hold a lower opinion. Trying to make excuses for someone who is guilty is a far cry from proving their innocence.

reaganaut on November 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM

Remember how many brickbats were thrown at Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers because they were “Bush cronies”? How is hiring this legal thug any different?

because those people were cronies and incompetent. This guy is obviously one of the elite lawyers in the country (I realize this is a disqualifies him for many of you) and is not a long-time Obama guy (he was a Clinton supporter early in the campaign).

He’s a top legal mind.

One other point, Ed:

The last person we need in the White House is an attorney who represented assassins, Castro and his goons, corrupt UN executives, and a suspected killer of an American soldier. Those are the people the White House should focus on stopping, not embracing.

If we are going to go after these guys, don’t you think maybe it might be helpful to pick the mind of one of the top defense lawyers who had success defending people like this? Wouldn’t help the prosecution to know the best the defense would have to offer?

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM

I have to say, I’m really starting to enjoy watching you guys freak out over every move Obama makes. The credibility just keeps going down the drain…

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Really simple pleasures for really simple minds.

The fun is going to watch fools like you defend Obama when all these cronies start getting indicted for their actions. Not one name thrown around in the Obama administration is unequivocally beyond question when it comes to allegations of ethical lapses, corruption, or tainted by the perception of wrongdoing.

highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Ken Starr wasn’t White House counsel.

reaganaut on November 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Ed–he’s a partner at one of the largest law firms in D.C. and has taught at Harvard and Yale law schools. Don’t tar a lawyer because of the clients s/he has had. Even Ken Starr has represented two convicted murderers (one pro bono) in the last several year.

jim m on November 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM

Does his working at a large law firm coupled with his teaching experience somehow immunize him from criticism?

Patrick S on November 17, 2008 at 9:53 AM

The credibility just keeps going down the drain.

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Then why are you here? Does nobody listen to you at the HuffPo or Kos?

BigD on November 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM

jim m on November 17, 2008 at 9:49 AM

And William Jefferson is “allegedly” guilty of having $90K of marked bills in his freezer. I don’t know why you are so in the tank for a scumsucking lawyer but Washington is filled with decent ethical legal minds without Obama having to hire on this piece of trash.

Shakesspeare had it right.

highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:28 AM

Aw jeez. I actually have to agree with Tom.

As for the Elian thing, I believe in family first. If mom is dead, then dad does get custody. Unless you want the government to start investigating the political views of every parent and the deciding which views are acceptable to that person having custody of their own children. As much as I despise communists I’m not going to take Bill Ayers’ kids away from him. That is too much power to give to any government.

rbj on November 17, 2008 at 9:55 AM

If we are going to go after these guys, don’t you think maybe it might be helpful to pick the mind of one of the top defense lawyers who had success defending people like this? Wouldn’t help the prosecution to know the best the defense would have to offer?

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM

By your logic, William Ayers should be in charge of DHS because the best way to catch terrorists is to hire a terrorist.

highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Tom, your mom is calling. She said don’t forgt your lunch bucket today. She put a twinky in it for you.

katy on November 17, 2008 at 9:56 AM

He’s a top legal mind.

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM

In today’s America that’s like saying he’s the premiere maggot.

Patrick S on November 17, 2008 at 9:56 AM

As for the Elian thing, I believe in family first. If mom is dead, then dad does get custody.

The problem with your comment is that Elian wasn’t just any little kid. He was Cuban and his mom died to get him to America and freedom.

highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM

After the revolution Marx said “kill all the lawyers” but what if it the lawyers who run the revolution?

Gwillie on November 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Does his working at a large law firm coupled with his teaching experience somehow immunize him from criticism?

Patrick S on November 17, 2008 at 9:53 AM

What kind of criticism? Obama picking him? Him defending people you dislike?

mycowardice on November 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM

The problem with your comment is that Elian wasn’t just any little kid. He was Cuban and his mom died to get him to America and freedom.

highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Somehow I believe the word “dad” is missing from your description.

mycowardice on November 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Tom_Shipley

I’m enjoying your defense of every move the ONE makes. You twist yourself inside out to defend his words, “he was taken out of context” and his choices, “shouldn’t a lawyer who takes on such cases to ensure justice is done?” That isn’t the point, and you know it. Like your savior, obsfucating doesn’t make the choice a good one.

I hope he isn’t a failure as pres. simply b/c his success is tied to the success of my beloved country. I will however hold him accountable, just as GWB has been held accountable for every misstatement, appointment, and policy he has enacted.

So gloat and defend away Shipley. We’ll see how it all shapes up and shakes out sooner than rather than later I suspect.

JAM on November 17, 2008 at 10:00 AM

In 1977, he represented the first FBI agent ever to be indicted, who was accused of illegal wiretapping, breaking and entering, and mail opening in connection with the FBI investigation of the Weather Underground.

And the irony just keeps going.

Just A Grunt on November 17, 2008 at 10:00 AM

rbj on November 17, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Cats and dogs living together!

She put a twinkie in it for you.

Fixed.

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 10:00 AM

By your logic

I’m afraid logic was/is never used by Obama supporters/defenders.

It’s really funny, because when an Obama worshipper was ever cornered on the whole “lack of experience” issue, they always rattling off the talking point, “he has good judgement”.

You can’t make this up.

Using that same logic, I guess we need to capture a senior Al Qaeda member for Sec-Defence, and on and on.

reaganaut on November 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM

I refuse to be surprised…

right2bright on November 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM

The credibility just keeps going down the drain.

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:45 AM

OUR credibility ???
Going down the drain as we question HIS cred ??
Surely you jest.

pambi on November 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Somehow I believe the word “dad” is missing from your description.

mycowardice on November 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Are you as stupid as you sound? His dad was CUBAN.

BigD on November 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Oh goody! More Change!

And Hope!

Greg Craig represents the very worst aspects of the Permanent Government, which controls much of what goes on in Washington DC, no matter who gets elected to what.

The fact that Obama selects this guy as White House Counsel speaks volumes about what we can expect for the next four years.

gridlock2 on November 17, 2008 at 10:03 AM

What? Was Lynne Stewart too busy to accept?

andycanuck on November 17, 2008 at 10:03 AM

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Tommy, yer killin’ me…

katy on November 17, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Gee, this reminds me of a local news story this morning, “ALMOST twenty thousand people took part in a MOSTLY PEACEFUL no on marraige march this weekend”……

something that will cause the MSM to say “Now how can we spin this to make it look good…..” Another station here says less then 5,000 broke windows and attacked christian Yes on Eight proponents….

Okay, okay, off topic perhaps, but the analogy still remains!

Vntnrse on November 17, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Are you as stupid as you sound? His dad was CUBAN.

BigD on November 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM

So? His dad was still his dad, right? Even after his mother came over here? Or do you think family values don’t count for cubans?

mycowardice on November 17, 2008 at 10:05 AM

Don’t forget that Williams & Connolly also represented Oliver North.

kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM

I have to say, I’m really starting to enjoy watching you guys freak out over every move Obama makes. The credibility just keeps going down the drain…

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Nonsense. The members of the Obama cult would be shocked at this pick themselves. See, most of them are under the impresison that Barack the lord and savior here on earth IS truly “post-partisan” and a Washington outsider who is like no other candidate, in that he’s pure and untainted and holy. Fact is, he’s doing what most scummy politicians do, he’s repaying favors insteas of appointing the best and most decent guy for the job. He’s got a boat load of cronies that are clinging to him…this is what Obama is and has ALWAYS been about since his (very recent) days inside the Chicago political machine.

The Obama cult would be shocked to know their post-partisan non-politician savior is OH SO partisan and very much a politician who has spent most of his time down in the mud.

That itself is a problem for all of us.

TheBlueSite on November 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Is this the “change” that was supposed to knock our socks off? Methinks all this hiring of ex-Clintonistas is to assuage the Clinton wing of the democrat party so as to avoid a political junta AND to somehow rekindle that carefree Clinto era in the 90’s (you remember, when terrorism was gathering strength for 9-11 and when bubbles in the financial sector were growing).

sladenyv on November 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Right. Could you see Reagan appointing as his White Counsel the attorney who defended Lee Harvey Oswald?

BigD on November 17, 2008 at 9:35 AM

EXACTLY!!!!

DCJeff on November 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM

The Obama cult is getting adjusted to the Clinto redux. They won’t revolt over that.

kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM

All of the above trouble me except this:

Elian Gonzalez’s father – Craig represented the father who demanded the return of his son after his estranged wife died trying to take Elian to freedom. Most people saw this as a thinly-veiled publicity stunt from Fidel Castro, attempting to embarrass the US. The dispute got resolved when Janet Reno ordered an armed assault on the house where Elian’s family in the US provided him a home.

I don’t see the problem. Family before politics. About the only time I ever agreed with anything Janet Reno did.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM

What kind of criticism? Obama picking him? Him defending people you dislike?

mycowardice on November 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM</blockquote

Go back and read it, troll.

Patrick S on November 17, 2008 at 10:10 AM

The audacity of audacity; the Devil’s Advocate indeed.

DR Good on November 17, 2008 at 10:10 AM

mycowardice

I think his mom had it right by trying to get the little guy to freedom and she died for that endeavor. Giving him back to the man (dad)who is a commie that she was trying to get Elian away from, defeats the purpose of her death. Commies aren’t supposed to have family values. Everyone is interchangeable and equal, remember?

JAM on November 17, 2008 at 10:11 AM

So, it doesn’t bother you that an assasin’s lawyer will be White House legal counsel?

Yes, it does. And I said so. Right after I said I was playing devil’s advocate and that this did not reflect my opinion.

manwithblackhat on November 17, 2008 at 10:11 AM

I hope he isn’t a failure as pres. simply b/c his success is tied to the success of my beloved country. I will however hold him accountable, just as GWB has been held accountable for every misstatement, appointment, and policy he has enacted.

The list of appointments to date is not encouraging for anything but revenge, continued partisanship, and corruption in the White House.

highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 10:11 AM

The last person we need in the White House is an attorney who represented assassins, Castro and his goons, corrupt UN executives, and a suspected killer of an American soldier. Those are the people the White House should focus on stopping, not embracing.

You mean Barack Obama? What does this Craig guy have to do with any of this?

BKennedy on November 17, 2008 at 10:11 AM

As for the Elian thing, I believe in family first. If mom is dead, then dad does get custody.

Actually, both had custody and she had no right to remove the kid from Cuba. And once she was dead (a status that she came damned close to putting Elian in as well) it’s a no brainer that the child goes to the father. This was a parental rights issue that politics should have no place in.

Pablo on November 17, 2008 at 10:13 AM

Are you as stupid as you sound? His dad was CUBAN.

BigD on November 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Wrong emphasis. I’ll edit it so it’s properly displayed:

His FATHER, the man who is responsible for him, the figure who is often taken for granted in this country, the sole remaining parent of this child whose mother is now dead, was cuban.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2008 at 10:13 AM

The problem with your comment is that Elian wasn’t just any little kid. He was Cuban and his mom died to get him to America and freedom.

highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Right. However mom is dead. Next closest relative is dad. Unless there is a showing that dad is unfit for some reason (abusive, a drunk) then dad has to have custody. Dad apparently does believe in communism, which while I vehemently disagree with, I cannot use that as a disqualifier from having custody.

What would be next after communism? Believing in a religion that is for plural marriage? Oh wait, that has been done too. I do not mind investigation for sex abuse, but just plural marriage by itself isn’t a disqualifier. How about raising your kids to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I don’t believe that, but if you want to raise your kids that way, that is your business, not the government’s.

Just remember, every power that you grant to the government can be used against you. That’s why I want a limited, small government.

rbj on November 17, 2008 at 10:14 AM

To clarify:

I’m speaking specifically of M/M William Ayers.

We already have someone in the White House who represents someone with no qualms in aiding and befriending those who kill American soldiers. He’ll be President on January 20th, 2009.

BKennedy on November 17, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Could you see Reagan appointing as his White Counsel the attorney who defended Lee Harvey Oswald?

Could you see any president appointing someone who got a would-be assassin found not guilty by reason of insanity for attempting to kill the POTUS, paralyzed his press secretary and wounded a police officer and a secret service agent?

reaganaut on November 17, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Oh, and Hinckley is nuts.

Pablo on November 17, 2008 at 10:15 AM

highhopes

I know. This Thanksgiving dinner is going to be very interesting w/my straight ticket, Democrat voting block family. They probably don’t even know who these people are that Obama is appointing. I will be more than happy to point out to them the shameful partisan records of Emanuel and Craig.

JAM on November 17, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Can the appointment of Bill Ayers as Sec. Eduction be far away? I’m not sure that Bernadine Dohrn can become Attorney General since she is inelligble to be admitted to any bar or court.

holdfast on November 17, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Going down the drain as we question HIS cred??

Going down the drain as you question every move Obama makes. This truly is a bizarre day as rbj agreed with me and I’m about to quote Karl Rove:

1. Avoid mindless opposition. We should support President Obama when he is right (Afghanistan), persuade him when his mind appears open (trade) and oppose him when he is wrong (taxes). It is the Republican Party’s job to hold him accountable on the merits only.

Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 10:17 AM

Bitch all you want about lawyers and technicalities and other things.

But you’ll want a good one (one that’s been successful in the cases s/he has taken) if you get into trouble. That’s the way the system is set up here in the US.

If you think lawyers are maggots because they are unneeded, then you might think about moving to Russia or Cuba, where the governments are so protective of individual rights and never charge anyone inappropriately or incorrectly.

jim m on November 17, 2008 at 10:18 AM

I haven’t read all of the comments so this may have been stated before, but it looks like he may need a really ggod lawyer sooner or later.

thomasaur on November 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM

Don’t forget that Williams & Connolly also represented Oliver North.

kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM

There’s a difference between a lawfirm representing a soldier’s killer and the presumptive White House Counsel personally representing that soldier’s killer.

highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 10:20 AM

In 1990, Mr. Craig represented Senator Edward M. Kennedy as a witness in the trial of his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, in Palm Beach, Florida.

Um, how come we don’t see in that bio what the young Mr. Smith was charged with, and why Uncle Ted was called as a witness?

Greg Craig is the ultimate political fixer and bagman. The White House Counsel job is important, it involves setting legal policy for the Administration, vetting judicial nominees, and reviewing activities of the Justice Department and the legal arms within other federal agencies. Greg Craig has no experience relevant to these duties. His only relevant experience is defending scumbags and politically powerful Democrats.

Craig did everything but fellate Obama personally to get this job. It’s a huge payoff for his break with the Clintons, which helped open the floodgates for other former Clintonistas to jump ship. Craig also was at one time the Clintons’ persoanl attorney. Wonder how many of their secrets he shared with Obama? Why should we even have someone in the White House Counsel job who provokes such questions?

rockmom on November 17, 2008 at 10:21 AM

The barbarians are inside the gates.

Cicero43 on November 17, 2008 at 10:21 AM

John Hinckley, Jr – Craig presented and won the insanity defense that allows Ronald Reagan’s would-be assassin to spend weekends with his family now.

That’s, what, two slaps in the face to dear Nancy Reagan within a ten day span? What’s he trying to do, kill the old girl outright?

He’ll definitely get the murderer vote in 2012.

Mojave Mark on November 17, 2008 at 9:36 AM

Given his record on abortion, I think he already sewed it up this year.

Captain Scarlet on November 17, 2008 at 10:23 AM

ggod= good

thomasaur on November 17, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3


You must be logged in to post a comment.