www.411mania.com
| Search
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// New Moon Breaks Dark Knight's Single Day Box Office Record!!
MUSIC
// Pics From Miley Cyrus Indianapolis Concert
WRESTLING
// 411 PPV Roundtable Preview: WWE Survivor Series 2009
POLITICS
// 411 Politics RoundTable: Thoughts On The Ft. Hood Massacre
MMA
// 411's UFC 106: Ortiz vs. Griffin II Report 11.21.09
BOXING
// Ward Shocks Kessler
GAMES
// Top 10 Action Role Playing Games




  MY 411
User name
Password
Register now! | Forgot your password?
 MUST READ
//  WWSD - What Would Schlafly Do?
//  Game Time: Obama Set to Deliver National Address on Health Care Sept. 9
//  The Revolution Will Be Twitterized
//  What's So Wrong With Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
//  Why Letterman's Apology is Bad for Democracy
//  Porn Actress Tests Positive for HIV – Could More Government Oversight Have Prevented It?
//  Who Was Worse, Palin or Letterman?
//  Is Sotomayor Good Enough for the Supreme Court?
SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds





Follow 411mania on Twitter!




Add 411 On Facebook
 



 
 411mania » Politics » Blog Entry
CNN & Politico: Greg Craig to be Obama's White House Counsel
Posted by J.D. Dunn on 11.16.2008



Both Politico and CNN are reporting that Gregory Craig will be appointed as President-Elect Obama's White House Counsel.

Craig is a long-time Washington defense attorney, and if his name sounds familiar to some of you, it should. Craig's list of former clients read like a laundry list of famous Washington cases. He defended John Hinckley Jr. and William Kennedy Smith. He represented the father of Elian Gonzales during Elian's immigration/deportation ordeal, and he also represented U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan during the oil-for-food investigation. Perhaps most famously, though, Craig was in charge of President Clinton's defense against impeachment in the late 1990s.

If Craig is named as White House Counsel, it won't come as too much of a surprise. He has a diverse background in both legal and foreign affairs, having served as foreign policy advisor to Senator Ted Kennedy. He's been with the Obama team for quite some time, and his name was even bandied about as a possibility for Secretary of State. Craig was key in vetting vice presidential nominees and served as Obama's major debate preparation adviser.

The pick, while not as high-profile as Secretaries of State or Defense, is still an important one. The White House Counsel advises the President on all things legal, and defines the legal line between official and political actions. Craig has a mountain of experience, and the record to back it up.

Craig's first major task may be finding legal alternatives to the unpopular Guantanamo Bay detention facility. It was one of Craig's predecessors, Alberto Gonzales, who authored a memo stating that Article III of the Geneva Conventions was outdated, paving the way for indefinite detention of terror suspects. Gonzales also authored the memo which authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" for detainees. While both President-Elect Obama and his Republican rival John McCain pledged to close down Gitmo's detention facility, the major stumbling block is finding a legal system that is consistent with U.S. law.

Craig may also play an important role as a power broker if an Obama administration begins investigations into alleged Bush administration wrongdoing. Because many of George W. Bush's controversial actions are based on his assumption of the power of the Presidency, any investigations become a Catch-22 because they would also limit the power of an Obama presidency. Craig's job may be to find a fine line between the two.

Finally, Craig will be a "dust-buster" for any scandals that may (read: will) erupt. Despite Obama's promises of change for Washington, he hasn't been immune from scandals, both legal and personal. Craig will be Obama's strongest line of defense, should any future accusations arise. Given the political climate, and a Republican Party desperate to even the playing field, it's likely that his political opponents will do their best to bog down the administration with scandal.


Post Comment (15)  |  Email J.D. Dunn  |  View J.D. Dunn's 411 Profile

  Send To Friend  |    Stumble It!  |    Digg It!  | 



Please add your comment below.
If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.
 
Name : 
Comment : 
Remaining Characters : 
2800
 

Comments (15)

 
Ohhh, ANOTHER liberal has been appointed to his administration.. so much for bipartisanship!.. most left-wing legal advice ever!

Posted By: Jesse (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 02:45 PM

 
 
Really? Ever?

...are you sure?...


Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered)  on November 16, 2008 at 04:02 PM

 
 
Well, alright, maybe I'm overreacting a teensy bit. I'm just so excited for everything this man has worked for to fail that I can hardly contain myself.

Posted By: Jesse (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 04:39 PM

 
 
Another Clinton holdover. Shocking. More "change from the usual politics of Washington", obviously.

What will all these Clinton folks do, without a dot.com bubble to make them look like they have a clue?


Posted By: Eric (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 04:52 PM

 
 
You know Obama has been called an awful lot of names by conservatives or as I prefer to call them regressives. For those so into name calling, what would you label somebody who pretty openly hopes for and cheers for the failure of the President of the United States and basically the nation? At minimum it's the exact opposite of patriotism, at worst it's treason. Think about that as you hope and prey for Obama's failure in order to facilitate your party having a shot in 2012.

Posted By: Riverbottom Nightmare (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 05:10 PM

 
 
Forgot something... Obama pledged to change the way that Washington works. That doesn't necessarily mean changing everybody who works in Washington. I would compare it to a football team who has built its offense around the pass. If a new coach is hired who wants to run the ball, they don't necessarily need to change all of the personnel on the team, just their mentalities if possible. That sort of change comes from the leader, not the players. Give the man a chance before you criticize.

Posted By: Riverbottom Nightmare (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 05:13 PM

 
 
Riverbottom NIghtmare:

Want a shot at Fact or Fiction one of these weeks? Email me at crow.brandon@gmail.com

Waiting to hear from you.


Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 05:40 PM

 
 
So what if it's another liberal? Obama's pledge was to bring in people that disagreed with them, and just because two people are liberal that doesn't mean they agree on every course of action.

Posted By: Scott B (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 06:33 PM

 
 
"For those so into name calling, what would you label somebody who pretty openly hopes for and cheers for the failure of the President of the United States and basically the nation?"

A) Liberals Since 2000
B) The Obama Campaign
C) Osama Bin Laden
D) All of the above

I'm taking D


Posted By: Guest (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 07:13 PM

 
 
Personally, Riverbottom, I would call it treasonous.

Give him a chance? Aw hell no, what has he ever done? Helped those is need? How does that help ME? All I care about is me and the me me, and I will never give a man who is a member of a political party I do not support a chance, because it is MY right to be a jerk.

And it is very, VERY difficult to satisfy me.


Posted By: Jesse (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 07:35 PM

 
 
Wow... so in the past month we've had Regressives compare Obama to Marx, then last week Hitler, and now Osama Bin Laden. There really are some hate filled people in this country. That sort of animosity and scorn are a far greater obstacle to the prosperity of this nation than any law or appointment made in Washington.

Posted By: Riverbottom Nightmare (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 07:38 PM

 
 
There are hundreds of people who went on to be great leaders who had "accomplished nothing" before history beckoned them. I would challenge anybody to tell me the long list of achievements Mr. Bush had on his resume prior to his election. I've been to Texas, and there are many good reasons I don't live there.

As for not giving a person of another political party a chance, that's where this nation is bogged down. No less than George Washington himself warned against political parties. They are inherently bad for the country. Think about it, neither party has any interest or benefit in seeing the other side accomplish anything. If Democrats are sucessful, then that will inevitably result in less Republicans in office, and so the Republicans will go out of their way to prevent any success. They same is true of Democrats.

If you are going to hold a grudge against somebody hold on the basis of your ideology, not your party affiliation. Lord knows the current Republican party probably doesn't match up with your ideology anyway, so perhaps you should hate Republicans as much as you seem to hate Obama.


Posted By: Riverbottom Nightmare (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 10:43 PM

 
 
So river ya remember all the trash that was talked after Bush was elected or does that just fade from your memory since Obama got elected? You cant sit and bash one side for doing something when the otherside has done . Try to be more neutral and tell both sides to grow up. Bashing either side gets us no where if your playing for one side

Posted By: Guest#3101 (Guest)  on November 16, 2008 at 11:53 PM

 
 
Guest:

This conversation is a dialogue between the people involved in it on this site. I do not pretend to speak on behalf of the nation, all Democrats, or all Progressives. I can only represent my thoughts and opinions, and as such you have no frame of reference for how I feel about or have judged President Bush for the last 8 years. It is you who should be careful about assumption. And if you'll note, I've been quite clear in nearly all of my posts that both sides engage in senseless politics that need to stop. My main concern here is those who are already burying a man who hasn't even taken the oath of office yet.


Posted By: Riverbottom NIghtmare (Guest)  on November 17, 2008 at 06:27 AM

 
 
Without having a majority in either House or Senate, how again are the Republicans going to bog down the Administration with scandals.

I do think it funny that the President of the United States would see a high profile criminal defense attorney as necessary.


Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest)  on November 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM

 
STAY CURRENT

Advertisement



www.41mania.com
Copyright © 2005 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.