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 | regular view
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Ok, here’s what we need to say: Craig represented Hinckley. Hinckley stalked Jodie Foster who is very popular in Hollywood (moonbat land) & is gay. Then we say he represented the foreigner accused of killing an American soldier. That should get us all the people we need to protest Craig right out of the White HOuse.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Fred Fielding, the current White House counsel general counsel, was the White House counsel for five years under Reagan. And Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, started out as Bush’s personal lawyer, rockmom.
The bottom line is that people generally want lawyers who have been successful at the job they’re taking and with lawyers who they trust and make them comfortable, rockmom.
jim m on November 17, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Yep, and that’s what is happening on this thread, Tom. People are rightly calling into question whether or not someone of Greg Craig’s ilk ought to be in that position. Our criticisms won’t affect what Obama does anyway, but even in this shining new era of Hope and Change, we still retain the First Amendment. The criticisms I’m reading here hardly strike me as mindless.
Mr. D on November 17, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Yeah! After all that US soldier was just serving the nation. Who are we to quibble over the fact that the President’s lawyer is going to be the guy defending the killer? Who are we to question the defender of the most corrupt UN Secretary General ever (and that takes some doing). Who are we to pause and ask serious question about this bastard’s character? After all, he went to Harvard and is a lawyer, he must be legit!!!
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I think lawyers have gamed the system to their advantage, and will not police their own. ETHICAL lawyers are needed. Maybe you should focus your advice on their corruptions, instead of giving travel tips.
Patrick S on November 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Agreed. This isn’t mindless commentary. I wished I owned a news outlet. I would put my earlier post out immed.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I don’t think anyone here is saying everyone doesn’t have the right to question/criticize anyone. I do think people are wondering how valid the criticisms are. And the First Amendment only applies to state action, anyways, Mr. D.
jim m on November 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM
The general public doesn’t know who Kofi Annan is nor do they care. They know who Jodie Foster is. And they can visualize an American soldier. Unfortunately, we need to spin this to the lowest common denominator.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Obama just keeps finding ways to endear himself to Nancy Reagan, doesn’t he?
Jim Treacher on November 17, 2008 at 10:30 AM
This one is real odd. Don’t know what to say about this. Another fruit cake lawyer. Good Grief!
sheebe on November 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Nope… already formed, hes just moving in…
IF this was the only “interesting” pick Obama had made for his staff, he would be a non issue for me.
But as part of a pattern of Partisan picks by a “Post Partisan” President?
Its also interesting when you look at his cases in the past… the White House legal counsel if more about GOVERNMENT Law… Constitutional stuff… not Criminal Law. Why choose a CRIMINAL defense lawyer as legal counsel unless you think you may need his expertise?
Romeo13 on November 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM
rockmom-
spot on! Thanks!
JAM on November 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM
So does this mean Lynne Stewart is out of the running?
Cicero43 on November 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Tom is in denial. ≈50 million Americans did not vote for his asshat messiah. Face it Tom, you screwed yourself, so just live with it. Campaigning on “Hope and Change”, and then turning around and bringing back old cronies is simply not change. Obama lied to the electorate, plain and simple. That is what he does best.
He was just somebody from my neighborhood…
Kevin in Washington State on November 17, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Custody and parental rights is one concept. So was the “dry foot” policy specifically applied to Cubans seeking freedom in America. Reno and Clinton were wrong in this situation and it gives me no joy that the scumbag lawyer that pushed the case is going to be in a position of responsibility.
You think Elian’s dad paid for that legal representation? No, our rat bastard traitor’s client list should rightfully include Fidel Castro, the corrupt Kofi Anan, and the killer of a US Soldier. IT IS AN INDICTMENT OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM TAHT THIS BASTARD EVEN HAS HIS LAW LICENSE AFTER REPRESENTING THESE CRIMINALS.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 10:35 AM
My husband is a lawyer & has represented murderers (court-appointed). Should he still have his law license, highhopes?
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Let’s stick to the argument here. This is HInckley’s lawyer. That’s bad for Jodie Foster. Therefore that is bad for Hollywood & the gay community. C’mon. That’s what matters to the most people. Not the American patriotism stuff.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Cue theme song from The Jeffersons….
What bothers me is the pattern of corrupt figures, partisan politicians, and those with unsavory backgrounds. I could deal with a White House Counsel who is a rat bastard traitor if it is simply an isolated pick. Unfortunately, it’s part of a pattern and the opposition is just in pointing out just how little Obama is changing the politics of Washington.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM
I think lawyers have gamed the system to their advantage, and will not police their own. ETHICAL lawyers are needed. Maybe you should focus your advice on their corruptions, instead of giving travel tips.
–Patrick, if you have specific examples of unethical conduct by lawyers, you should report it to the appropriate state bar authority. Private lawyers are ethically required to use all reasonable efforts to defend their clients. They can’t, though, for instance, knowingly use perjured testimony and there are other qualifications to that statement. Public prosecutors are under a slightly higher standard for what they can and can’t do.
Here’s a link to the Model Code if you’re interested: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba.
jim m on November 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM
I see, so basically you hate the state getting involved in family issues here, except when it’s to prevent a dad from being reunited with his son. There, you want the state to interfere against the wishes of the dad.
mycowardice on November 17, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Clinton 2.0, but with less integrity!
Given the stench emanating from the stealth candidate Obama , should we expect anything more from President Obama?
H3ll no.
Welcome to the Obama Nation.
locomotivebreath1901 on November 17, 2008 at 10:40 AM
So you think (potential) criminals such as these should not have legal representation?
mycowardice on November 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM
So the appointment of a White House counsel isn’t a state action? Really?
Stop being a commissar, dude. Unless you’re Allah or Ed, you shouldn’t be trying to dictate the terms of the discussion. And that goes for your bobos Shipley and mycowardice, too.
Mr. D on November 17, 2008 at 10:44 AM
So, where’s the CHANGE????
Barack Obama is a lawyer. He taught law. His wife is a lawyer. He served four years in the Senate, aplace crawling with highly capabke and talented lawyers who know how Washington works. Are you telling me he could not find a lawyer who has not defended scumbags like John Hinckley or done political dirty work like the Ted Kennedy stuff, or was Bill and Hillary Clinton’s personal attorney?
Do you really think it is a coincidence that he hired Craig as White House counsel, a job that does not require Senate confirmation?
rockmom on November 17, 2008 at 10:45 AM
He just figures he had better get the best defense lawyer money can buy, and by making him part of his administration we get to pay for it.
thomasaur on November 17, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Where am I trying to dictate the terms of the discussion.
Don’t try to squelch dissent.
mycowardice on November 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Dissent away, fella.
Mr. D on November 17, 2008 at 10:49 AM
You sound like Bernadine Dohrn, just sayin’.
thomasaur on November 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM
First, I don’t fault legal representation for killers (court appointed or not) but I do take issue of the White House Counsel personally taking on the case of the accused killer of a US Soldier. The White House Counsel represents the Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces. I object to Craig in that position for defending the accused killer of a soldier. It really is that simple but I suspect that you are one of those morally and ethically challenged idiots who has moved in from the North and destroyed the formerly great Commonwealth of Virginia.
Secondly, it isn’t about providing legal representation to killers, corrupt UN officials, or Fidel Castro although there are some interesting conflicts of interest that might arise from Craig’s personal list of unsavory clients. It’s the method of defense. It’s one thing to give legal advice and representation. It’s another thing entirely to try to get the guilty off even when the scum-sucking lawyer knows his/her client is guilty as hell. Your husband’s success in getting killers set free is justice denied for the victim’s family. In that respect, Craig shouldn’t be practicing law because the law suggests an objectivity that isn’t present when one goes from advocate for the acccused to activist for the defense.
I object to the nominee, his actions, his clients, and his methods.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Our criticisms won’t affect what Obama does anyway, but even in this shining new era of Hope and Change, we still retain the First Amendment–Mr. D.
First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
My point, Mr. D: I said no one here was trying to censor anyone, anyways, as you can see. But you seemed to think that the First Amendment protects your right to post here. It doesn’t. The First Amendment only applies to acts by the Government that impede free speech.
jim m on November 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM
So “CRIMINALS” shouldn’t allowed representation? Does the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” in a fair trial mean Jack Schidt to you?
The Monster on November 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I see, so basically you hate the state getting involved in family issues here, except when it’s to prevent a dad from being reunited with his son. There, you want the state to interfere against the wishes of the dad.
mycowardice
I was mostly being facetious. But isn’t there a law concerning the boat people that if they actually get here and make it to land, they get to seek asylum or something? Isn’t that what his mother was doing?
JAM on November 17, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Legal representation yes.
The lawyer defending the killer of a US Soldier providing legal advice to the CINC of the US military. No.
The lawyer who defended a corrupt UN official whose acts ultimately caused the deaths of US troops in Iraq providing counsel to the President. No.
As I just posted to another partisan troll, it’s the nominee I object to.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Why not?
mr.blacksheep on November 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM
That’s the rub here, in that he is an appointment and not a nominee thereby no confirmation needed. I expect that a number of these appointments are yet to come.
thomasaur on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
No, Jim — what I’m saying is that I have a right to free speech. I’m well aware that this a private forum and that if Ed and/or Allah get tired of me, they can make me disappear and I won’t have any recourse. Those would be the “Terms of Use.”
My free speech that I offer here will be identical to what I will offer elsewhere, up to and including if the State attempts to squelch my free speech. And the point is that, whether you see it or not, you’re acting as a commissar on this forum. And that is a tendency we see with a lot of Obama supporters.
Greg Craig’s record suggests that he’s a poor choice for the position that Barack Obama is providing. You apparently aren’t as troubled by it as I am. So be it.
Mr. D on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
So many angry lawyer-lovers around this morning. I’m not going to post my reasons again but you are truly a moron for the way you defend Craig. I’m sure there are ethical lawyers out there somewhere for the WH Counsel’s job but you’ve chosen to take a stand defending a man who cares more about getting a Panamanian politician free than justice for the family of a US soldier. That’s pretty disgusting.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
You do understand, highhopes, that he won’t be able to represent his other clients when he’s WH counsel, don’t you?
And, no, rockmom, it doesn’t bother me that he was counsel for the Clintons or successfully defended high profile clients or wasn’t well connected in Washington. It would bother me much more if he didn’t have significant and successful experience in Washington D.C. and in difficult situations.
Remember the problems that Harriet Miers had, who was a good Texas attorney, but didn’t know the beltway?
jim m on November 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Surely BO can’t be stupid enough to select this piece of turd for Whitehouse counsel. What? Oh, well. Never mind.
DuctTapeMyBrain on November 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I normally love Ed’s articles, but I really don’t get this one. As many commentors prior to me have mentioned, I believe our constitution maintains innocence until proven guilty, *irrespective* of who the person is. What we need to ensure is that the lawyers are ethical in the legal sense of the term, which may or may not jive with a mob-lynching mentality. If this is an attempt to create smear points then fine, but please do not try to portray this as anything else.
Cheers,
The Family Guy.
peter_griffin on November 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I’ve explained this several times. No one ever seems to grasp it, though.
MadisonConservative on November 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM
“And the point is that, whether you see it or not, you’re acting as a commissar on this forum.”
-Mr. D, sorry, but that comment is to my mind wholly unsupportable. Please explain.
jim m on November 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM
highhopes,
You do realize that John Adams represented the British soldiers accused of murder at the Boston Massacre? It is one of the tenets of our system that everyone gets legal representation. From the worst on down.
And I happen to believe that parental rights are one of the unalienable, natural rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
Would you want a government that says “you’re a Christian, you believe homosexuality is a sin, that’s a hate crime so we are taking your kids away and raise them properly.”
Absent abuse (sexual or otherwise) I’m not going to look into parental custody of their children, whether they are Mormons, communists, Branch Davidians, Amish, Catholics, athiests, Republican or Democrat. Otherwise you are looking for results oriented judging, which is what I criticize Dear Leader on.
rbj on November 17, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Oh Lord, I hadn’t thought of that. Poor lady.
BigD on November 17, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I wasn’t clear. I used the term nominee simply because the appointment isn’t official yet.
As a general rule, I agree with the concept that the POTUS can hire whomever he/she wants for positions within the personal staff of the adminstration. However, throughout the election we kept hearing about Obama’s judgement and all the ways his election was going to shake up Washington. What troubles me is that Obama’s judgement is increaslingly questionable and his appointments to date are all individuals more likely to shake down DC than change the way business is done.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Another wingnut who doesn’t like this guy.
Jim Treacher on November 17, 2008 at 11:06 AM
On merit, and ethics, the fact that he represented a person in a notorious case isn’t the issue. All you have to do is look at John Adams defending the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre case. John Adams knew it wouldn’t win him any friends. Comparing Craig to Adams, however, is bullshit.
Craig has taken these cases for profit, not merit. He is acting as a legal carpetbagger.
This is a man we need to be concerned about. If he can twist these cases then think of what he can twist the 2d Amendment, abortion, search and seizure, and other laws into and provide that counsel to Barry.
Limerick on November 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Please fill out the questionaire below, if applying for a position in the Obama administration:
Have ever worked for, been associated with or did favors for anyone in the Clinton administration?
Circle one: YES NO
If you have answered YES, you’re hired. Report for work on Jan 21st.
fogw on November 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I’m not defending Craig. I’m defending the Constitution of the United States of America, which says that people have the right to counsel. That specifically includes “people we think probably did it.” I was responding to the bizarre notion that he should LOSE HIS LAW LICENSE for the temerity to have defended “CRIMINALS”.
And you call me a “moron”?
The Monster on November 17, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Looks like there is plenty of room in this country for the slick and those that would deny others there freedom….. What ever happened to “America, the Land of the Free?”….
DL13 on November 17, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Um, yeah. What’s your point? His list of personal clients indicates a character flaw that makes him unfit for the job he will be appointed to. It really is that clear no matter how much high-minded legal BS is thrown around. Craig can defend the killers of US soldiers as a career if he wants but that doesn’t mean I can’t be critical of his political appointment.
There are far too many morons on this thread who unquestioningly and uncritically defend all lawyers as noble paragons of virtue, ethics, and justice. That simply isn’t the case. That simply isn’t the case. With all the decent lawyers out there, Obama picked a dud. I don’t see the need to resort to high-minded BS about what John Adams did or the presumption of innocence to defend an unworthy appointment like Craig.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I’ll take “b,” please. The country is about to install an incompetent into the White House.
Y-not on November 17, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Ed–those clients could well have come to his law firm (Williams & Connelley) and his law firm could have asked him to handle the defense. In the Hinckley case, it’s clear he was working with Vince Fuller on the case, which suggests that these people may not have approached him directly.
jim m on November 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Good Morning !
Does the hireing of this particular attorney frighten anyone else? If I was thinking about commiting murder, or restricting people’s rights, or doing some really crazy shit related to immigration, this would be the guy I’d want to hire. This is a clear signal that the head moonbat in charge is about to issue some really screwed up executive orders, and he will need the best legal defense our tax dollars can buy.Anyone else see this?
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on November 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Upon further review, I shouldn’t have said that. In the heat of making an argument, I conflated you, mycowardice and Mr. Shipley. I take it back in re you and mycowardice. My apologies.
Mr. D on November 17, 2008 at 11:20 AM
You didn’t read my posts closely enough as to why I think he shouldn’t be practicing law. That does, in fact, make you a moron with a reading comprehension problem.
Perhaps the first post was ambiguous enough that the trolls came out in force but I stand by the principle that lawyers need to be advocates not activists. Craig SHOULDN’T be practicing law no matter how many worthless idiots wrap his actions up in the Constitution.
It’s all moot anyway. Craig will be appointed no matter what I think about his past. You defenders of the indefensible will continue to defend Craig no matter what he does as WH Counsel. Lawyers will continue to deny justice to victims for the sake of huge retainers. But, that doesn’t mean I’m going to remain silent no matter how many people like you are out there suggesting that there is no such thing as a unethical lawyer or reasons why their practice of the law should disqualify them from political appointment.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I live in No. Virginia. If middle America could see how Federal workers live and the bennies they procure you would puke.
Overpaid. Overindulged. Make-work jobs. Early retires would full bennies for life.
It’s disgusting. The “political class”….Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on November 17, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Why, Mr UCC, would you think that? Craig is just Matlock, don’t you see? Mason and Ironsides runs in his blood.
Limerick on November 17, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Why are you so damned intent on defending Craig? Can’t he make his own excuses up without you flitting in with all these reasons why defending the accused killer of a soldier is a fine way to make a living??????
Really, what is your real interest here?
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Well, Ayers dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, so hey, what a great country.
ex-Democrat on November 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM
But, as so many Obamatrons have said time and time again, it isn’t about “character” it is about ideas…
So, with that logic, any criminal with a neat idea to solve a social or economic problem is perfectly fine…it’s the “ideas,” stupid. Right?
Chicago politics is coming to Washington…as if there is not enough criminality going on in our Nation’s capital already.
coldwarrior on November 17, 2008 at 11:29 AM
One of the things I find troubling about this guy is the amount of these types of cases.
It would be one thing if he had one or two “interesting” cases in his carreer, but when you have 7 or 8 that is not simply doing your job as a lawyer…
Yes, everyone deserves Legal Representation, but when you have one lawyer taking this many high level ANTI US Cases???
When his caseload is Impeached Presidents, Fidel Castro, the corrupt head of the UN, and a foreign Gov in a US Military murder case…. to me it shows an anti US Legal stance… by the very cases HE chose to take…
Not someone I want running the Whitehouse Legal Team.
Romeo13 on November 17, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Ed–Vince Fuller’s obituary in the Washington Post says that he,and not Craig, was the one approached to be Hinckley’s lawyer. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801655.html.
Vincent J. Fuller; Star Attorney Defended Hinckley, Hoffa, Tyson
By Matt Schudel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 29, 2006; Page B06
Vincent J. Fuller, a Washington trial lawyer who won a dramatic courtroom victory in the presidential shooting case of John Hinckley Jr. and who defended other notables such as Jimmy Hoffa and Mike Tyson, died July 26 at the Casey House hospice in Derwood from lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. He was 75 and lived in Bethesda.
A longtime partner in the firm of Williams & Connolly, Mr. Fuller was the second lawyer hired by courtroom legend Edward Bennett Williams. He combined a keen legal mind with tireless research, sharp psychological insights and a commanding courtroom manner to build a record as one of the nation’s leading legal advocates.
Mr. Fuller’s most memorable trial came in his defense of Hinckley, who shot President Ronald Reagan, press secretary James Brady and two law officers at the Washington Hilton on March 30, 1981. Within two hours of the shooting, Mr. Fuller had been asked to take the case. Over the next year, he shaped an insanity defense that has entered legal annals as one of the finest courtroom performances of modern time.
jim m on November 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I’m sure there are ethical lawyers out there somewhere for the WH Counsel’s job but you’ve chosen to take a stand defending a man who cares more about getting a Panamanian politician free than justice for the family of a US soldier. That’s pretty disgusting.
So people accused of crime deserve a defense, except those accused of committing really bad crimes?
Tom_Shipley on November 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on November 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM
There is one very simple explanation for this. He wasn’t the first choice:
Lynne Stewart wasn’t available.
If America fell in love with Barack and his radical associates, then Lynne Stewart, Ramsey Clark, or Greg Craig are exactly the kind of dreamy lawyers the voters expect him to hire.
econavenger on November 17, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Let Obama be Obama…since we can’t do a darned thing about this anyway.
Let him screw up his chance at history. Let him so impair his own Presidency that the mopes and dopes who voted for him have four years of regrets. It’s moves like this hiring that will destroy his chances for a second term.
Doug on November 17, 2008 at 11:35 AM
With every passing day I am more and more convinced this country will no longer exist by 2016.
angryed on November 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I read your posts. You said he should have his law license revoked, based entirely on his having defended “CRIMINALS”. You haven’t rescinded that statement, and in fact have now doubled down on it, pretending that I am at fault for not connecting your dots.
The right to counsel is fundamental to our judicial system. If representing people who are found guilty then disqualifies an attorney from representing others, then defendants will be deprived of their Constitutional right to hire competent representation.
Calling me a “moron” doesn’t prove anything other than your ability to insult people. If you have any justification for why he should have lost his license to practice law, spell it out, or admit that you don’t have any other than your personal dislike for some of the people he’s represented.
The Monster on November 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
More information on the Panamanian guy:
He’s the head of the Panamanian National Assembly (or at least he was in November, 2007) and he and two accomplices were acquitted in 1997 by a Panamanian jury, although he still is under indictment in the US.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/world/americas/28panama.html.
jim m on November 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Spare me the sermon on our legal system and the Constitution you moron. At least until your pal Obama gets into office, I have a Constitutional right to voice my opinion just as you have the right to blather on about what a stand-up guy Craig is and how he will make an outstanding WH Counsel.
I stand by my statement that a lawyer who opts to defend (as opposed to be appointed by the court) the kinds of criminals that Craig has defended thoughout his career shouldn’t be allowed to practice law because he goes above and beyond acting as an advocate for the defense. I’m sorry if you’re too damned stupid to understand the difference between my statement/opinion and what the Constitution says. That’s your shortcoming and clearly deficient education but not my problem.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 11:52 AM
That’s ultimately what brought Jimmy Carter down. Were it that the GOP had another Ronald Reagan in the wings! Sadly it doesn’t.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 11:53 AM
To say Craig was a “presidential assassin’s” lawyer is not accurate. An assassin is a kind of murderer, which means he actually kills someone. By luck, the attempt in question was unsuccessful. It’s important to use words correctly (see George Orwell).
interested_party on November 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I don’t know…. I think Craig is a good fit for this new administration. Certainly no different than any of the other crooks Obamacles is hiring.
n0doz on November 17, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Employing a go for it controversial attorney isn’t a good way to stay out of trouble.
Speakup on November 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM
So Craig was an “attempted presidential assassin’s” lawyer? Yeah, that’s SO MUCH better a light on Craig’s client list. Good to know he stops short of defending successful presidential assassins.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I’m convinced that Obama doesn’t want to stay “out of trouble.” He intends on taking every opportunity to issue Executive Orders which are controversial and will be challenged in the activist judicial system and affirmed by the left-leaning Congress.
That’s one of the reason why I find this appointment troubling and have yet to understand the unquestioning and uncritical defense of Craig from morons and trolls like The Monster, mycowardice, and jim m.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Obama is not my pal; I voted for Palin and that old guy she was running with. You have the right to any personal opinion of Craig you may have, but you went beyond that. You advocate stripping him of his license to practice law.
That means you’re attacking my Constitutional right to have effective counsel if I’m charged with a crime. You’re attacking the rights of the Duke LAX team members who desperately needed the best defense possible to fight a corrupt
propersecutor and “community organizers” who convicted them in the media. If they’d been forced to use court-appointed counsel, they’d be serving time for rape by now.So a person who is accused of a crime can only recieve the services of a court-appointed attorney? They are forced to accept the services of the over-worked public defender, and can’t hire private counsel that specializes in criminal defense, while the other side specializes in criminal prosecution?
Oh, I understand far too well the difference. Your position is opposed to the Constitution, which I have taken an oath to defend. With your allegedly superior education, you’d be expected to have come across the phrase “ad hominem fallacy” somewhere along the line. Since your actions here indicate the contrary, I therefore conclude that your education was insufficient to learn fundamental critical thinking skills.
The Monster on November 17, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Real good post.
This shows a bit the problem on some of the right. It is also exhibited in the Gitmo discussion.
For some, the judicial system is simply a matter of convenience. They don’t want criminals to get adequate representation. They attack the lawyer that defend these people, etc. The system needs to give the verdict they want, and if doesn’t then it’s always the fault of the system.
mycowardice on November 17, 2008 at 12:31 PM
It is always a good idea to have your chief counsel be an impeachment lawyer. It saves controversy should you need his services later
Every President should do this. Cut to the chase. Skip the high falutin Presidential junk and hire a good criminal attorney.
Craig even de facto represented Castro (in the guise of Elian’s papa) so he has the broad based experience needed for the new White House
Life is good
entagor on November 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Here I am with an international bent on this.
Did someone mention an attorney who helped Castro’s interests now coming to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
That is nothing!
The One seems to like Fidel Castro. Or, at least, Castro connected fellows and admirers.
The case in point is The One’s cousin Odinga. The London Times had a film of Odinga’s lovely career which ended with our President-elect standing next to him with a bull horn. Odinga’s son is named after Fidel Castro. He had other problems but our MSM was not interested.
I was called a liar so loudly when I presented this elsewhere that I gave up. My source is not a tinfoil-hat site.
IlikedAUH2O on November 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Let’s hope Obama ends the law that prohibits trade and travel by US residents with Cuba. What a stupid law that is, IMHO.
jim m on November 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Problem is that this is the intersection of the Law, and Politics.
I have no problem at all with this guy representing his clients…
I do have a problem with him representing and advising the President from what is also a Political post.
Using every trick in the book to get a client off is the correct thing to do as a Lawyer, HOWEVER, I don’t want that same Lawyer having input as to what tricks become part of the Law.
White House Counsel will be an Advisor to the President on Legal matters… and will be further inside the counsel of the President than the Attorney General (who is subject to subpeona… somthing the Presidents Lawyer is not). Choosing this guy IS troubling.
Romeo13 on November 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM
So what happens if Obama’s administration implodes and Hillary decides to challenge him in 2012? Who does Greg Craig side with then?
The guy is a snake. I would not trust him as far as I could throw him. His appointment does not speak well of Obama at all.
As Jim Geraghty said, All of Barack Obama’s statements come with expiration dates. All of them.
rockmom on November 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I’ve taken that same oath and upheld it on active duty for the past 23 years so spare me your dramatics or sense that I somehow don’t understand who and what you are. You don’t like my position so you distort what was posted, declare your lies to be the only truth, and then keep posting the same lies repeatedly with increasing stridency. It is the tactic of a bully and/or a Democrat-liberal.
Nevertheless, I know what I posted and what I meant. I’m really not interested in any more of your lies.
highhopes on November 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM
oh I understand completely what you mean Ed… there is a certain Honor that the White House and it’s chosen officials should live up to, of course the radical Messiah doesn’t live up to those standards, so… why should we expect any one he picks to do so.
Kaptain Amerika on November 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And if I have specific examples of unethical conduct by congresspersons, I should contact the Dept. Of Justice, yes?
::cough::William Jefferson::cough::
Patrick S on November 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM
First, full disclosure. I am not an attorney. I am a paralegal. I research and write briefs.
Your take on the Elian situation is incorrect IMO. I see it as the single thing Billy Jeff and Janet did right.
Elian never got to land. Dry foot never applied.
Elian was obviously a minor child when he was brought to Florida. His mother was deceased (confirmed as ‘mother’ by Elian) and his father was in Cuba (also confirmed by Elian).
At that point, the federal government had exclusive control and custody of Elian. He was an undocumented immigrant with no passport and no ID.
Yet shyster attorneys in Florida went to STATE court and got a custody order from an equally corrupt STATE court judge. These orders were void ab initio because Elian had no standing in court even with a guardian ad litem. Arguably, he had nominal standing in federal court for the limited purpose of declaring what rights, if any, he had under the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
The INS could have ADMINISTRATIVELY paroled him to his established relatives pending the diplomatic resolution of the situation via the State Department and the government of Cuba.
This is the same Florida court system that screwed up the 2000 election.
In any event, there was NO LEGAL WAY to keep Elian once Castro (through proper diplomatic channels) demanded his return. If we had refused to return him, it would be an act of war no different than the Somalia pirates are doing today. The Miami relatives allowed their hatred of Castro to endanger all Americans abroad by refusing to give him up.
Billy Jeff had no choice under the law. Any condemnation of him or Reno for the outcome is wrong. They probably didn’t need to raid the house but it was legal.
To the extent that Craig was involved in getting Elian returned to his father, it is a plus on an otherwise sleazy resume.
platypus on November 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM
You said a person who chooses to provide private representation for those charged with crimes should lose his license to practice law. That is no distortion, nor are the logical consequences of such a policy.
If you’ve served for decades nominally defending the Constitution, then it behooves you to actually read the thing a time or two. Your stated position on this issue is in direct contradiction to what you have sworn to defend, just as your incoming CinC has spoken disparagingly of what the Framers wrought. In the next 4-8 years, you may be given some unlawful orders. You’ve done nothing to demonstrate that you’ll recognize them should that happen. God help us if your ilk is statistically significant.
You claim first that I am a moron, and now a bully, and that my rhetoric is increasingly strident. Project much?
The Monster on November 17, 2008 at 1:15 PM
B Hussein doesn’t want to find someone ‘main stream’.
He simply is one of the most radical left people in the entire United States.
.
Thanks MSM.
History will laugh at our 2007-2008 media for centuries.
shooter on November 17, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »