(Obama's) White House Counsel Greg Craig Asked to ‘Step Down’ (Represents Rove)

[merh]

White House Counsel Greg Craig Asked to ‘Step Down’
March 2nd, 2009

Jill Simpson Alleges Conflict of Interest by Obama’s Attorney

Exclusive
by Glynn Wilson

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — North Alabama attorney and GOP whistle-blower Jill Simpson is asking that White House Counsel Greg Craig recuse himself from consulting with President Obama on his legal position over executive privilege in the case of Karl Rove, the former political adviser to President Bush who is still defiance of a Congressional subpoena to testify about his role in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and other crimes.

Citing the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, Ms. Simpson’s attorney Priscilla Black Duncan writes in a letter dated Feb. 22 that Craig should “step down” from his position as White House Counsel, “at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration.”

In what appears to be a clear conflict of interest, Craig represented Rove in his recent book deal, while Craig’s law partner, close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood, is representing Bush in executive privilege matters before the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals, where Bush administration officials have been charged with the political firings of U.S. attorneys for failing to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections.

Furthermore, Craig had been in contact with Ms. Simpson on the pretense of possibly representing her in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee legal team a year and a half ago, but declined to represent her only after getting her to reveal her entire case against Mr. Rove.

“You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Ms. Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict,” Duncan writes in the letter. “You have a duty now to turn over any material relating to disclosure of that information as well as to allocute to whom you passed the knowledge.”

More @ http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/03/02/white-house-counsel-greg-craig-asked-to-step-down/

Obama needs to purge the ranks and stop relying on those who cannot be relied upon. I wouldn't trust this fellow to reach out to anyone.

It appears White House Counsel Gregory Craig has begun his outreach to Republicans in the Senate over judicial appointees, but it is unclear whether the plan outlined in the GOP Conference letter will affect the nomination process.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/615

More here http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/

edited to revise title to reflect the Rove involvement.

[seemslikeadream]

1. ....

:wow:

[merh]

2. Obama needs to tell that man to find another place to hang his

shingle.

[AyanEva]

3. I was really holding out for this team of rivals thing

But I think Obama really just needs to give up on this concept and purge the ranks, so to speak.

[AlbertCat]

92. Lincoln had to! PURGE! (and flush)

[Tatiana]

4. K&R. Jesus. They've infiltrated everyone and everything. Who can you trust?

This is horrible and unbelievable. I agree. Craig should be dismissed.

[merh]

6. Here is the text of the letter written by Jill Simpson's lawyer to Craig

The conflicts are numerous and incredible - he should not be allowed to remain in his post.

Hon. Greg Craig
Office of the White House Counsel
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C. 20500

February 22, 2009

RE: Your position regarding advising the President
on the pending testimony of Karl Rove

Dear Attorney Craig:

I represent Dana Jill Simpson, an attorney in Rainsville, Alabama, who testified before Congress in September 2007, regarding Karl Rove’s involvement in the U.S. Justice Department prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman.

She is very concerned that you have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 , 1.7 and 1.10, while citing 1.9 to decline representation. She is equally concerned about the person or persons to whom you have divulged her confidential information. Your recent efforts on the part of negotiating a settlement between Congress and Karl Rove have been noted, as well as your efforts to delay matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals, regarding Rove and other Bush administration officers claiming executive privilege.

For this reason, she is asking that you step down from your position as White House Counsel, at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration. Further, she is asking that you furnish her with a list of each and every person with whom you have communicated regarding this matter; that is, Miss Simpson’s affidavit, testimony, knowledge, research and any other matters touching or information furnished by Miss Simpson.

In recapping the events linking you and Miss Simpson:

1.) Upon information and belief, Gov. Don Siegelman or his agent made the direct call to you at your law firm, Williams & Connolly, soliciting your pro bono representation of Ms. Simpson, with regard to her affidavit about Karl Rove’s involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution.

2.) According to Ms. Simpson, you called her up to four times on or about March 16-17, 2007, and you faxed her your resume.

3.) She initially asked, “Before we really start this, do you have any contacts with George Bush, Karl Rove, Don Siegelman or Bob Riley?”

4.) You indicated you did not and said, “Tell me who this is about.”

5.) Your initial conversation with Ms. Simpson lasted about 10 to 15 minutes.

6.) In three conversations of nearly two hours, you extracted particular details of her involvement, and you asked her specifically about the length of time and character of her contact with Karl Rove, the extent of her work with the GOP and her knowledge of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller’s owner-interest in Doss Aviation, a major federal contractor, and matters dealing with lobbyist G. Stewart Hall’s then-Federalist Group and the steering of contracts to Fuller’s company and companies related to Gov. Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley.

7.) After this extensive questioning, which included another session for the questions you had formulated, you announced that you couldn’t represent her because you had represented Sen. Richard Shelby during the 2004-2005 investigations of his alleged national security leaks.

8.) Ms. Simpson says that you related to her that Sen. Shelby had told you “ in confidence” that he “owned and controlled Doss Aviation out of the federal courthouse in Montgomery,” and that Doss Aviation’s, 1 Church Street, mail was delivered to Shelby’s Senate office, even before Fuller was appointed judge. You told her that you “didn’t really like” Shelby, that the Doss connection had not been discovered during the previous hearing, but that, “It will come up, if you really go into it.”

9.) You failed to mention to Miss Simpson, however, that you were a friend of Karl Rove, had shared drinks with Karl Rove, that your law firm, Williams & Connolly, was representing Vice President Cheney on Scooter Libby’s role in the Valerie Plame case in which Rove was involved; that your firm has advised the White House not to turn over GOP emails regarding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. Nor did you disclose your firm’s involvement in defending Iran-Contra figures, which you knew or should have known play a key role in the current military contracts routed to Doss Aviation.

Now, I understand your firm is handling Karl Rove’s book deal. Currently, your former close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood is representing former President Bush in executive privilege matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals with regard to political firings of U.S. Attorneys who failed to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections – matters in which you are directly involved in your role as President Obama’s White House Counsel.

You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Miss Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict. You have a duty now to turn over any material relating to disclosure of that information as well as to allocute to whom you passed the knowledge. She also inquires whether you or anyone to you contacted is responsible for recommending legal services from Washington attorney David Laufman, also known as “Bush’s Cleaner,” or Montgomery Republican Tommy Gallion, who after months of intensive discussions with Ms. Simpson, indicated he was in regular contact with President Bush on her matter.

Ms. Simpson asks that you withdraw from any representation of the President on these matters due to your conflicts and those of Williams & Connolly in this area. If you respect the legal Code of Professional Conduct, you must take action to remedy the damage you have done to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Shelby and the legal profession.

We would appreciate an answer no later than three business days.

Sincerely,
Priscilla Black Duncan
Attorney for Jill Simpson

[hootinholler]

19. Holy Shite!

How can these people continue to operate like that?

Is this actually illegal?

-Hoot

[merh]

22. It is definitely not ethical

and I would file as many complaints as possible if I were Simpson.

[hootinholler]

23. The first one I would file is with the DC Bar.

This is borderline espionage, like if a prosecutor has a lawyer on the defense team.

Ms Simpson should own that law firm.

-Hoot

[merh]

26. Do you have to be practicing "pro hac vice" under the DC rules

or have a license in DC to be a member of the White House legal staff?

I'd definitely file a complaint with the Alabama Bar.

[onenote]

34. where are the actual conflicts?

There is no assertion in the letter that Craig ever represented Rove or even that his firm represented Rove at any time other than "recently" on a book deal that is unrelated to anything Craign is working on. Its not an actionable ethical violation for a lawyer to be friends with or have drinks with someone he doesn't represent who in involved in a legal matter with someone else the lawyer doesn't represent.

[orleans]

67. are you a lawyer? is that how you operate? it seems unethical as fucking hell to me

think about it...

[robinlynne]

106. um. he DID represent the someone else. You missed the main point.

[Jackpine Radical]

87. Borderline?

What's "borderline" about it?

Jesus, a Rove attorney gets her to reveal her whole case against him before declining to represent her.

[onenote]

97. again -- point out to me where it says that Craig -- or anyone at his firm

was or had previously represented Rove when Simpson and Craig talked in March 2007?

I'll help you out -- you can't find any such statement because, when you cut through the clever obfuscation and innuendo in the letter -- it turns out it didn't exist.

The only relationship alleged to have existed between Craig and ROve in March 2007 was the claim that they were "friends" as evidence by the claim that they had "shared drinks". Even under the Facebook standard of who is a "friend", the fact that someone in DC has "shared drinks" with someone else in DC is hardly proof of the kind of personal relationship being implied. And most attorneys will tell you that if, in meeting with a prospective client, they are asked about "contacts" with other individuals, they will not regard that as obligating them to disclose casual social interactions with those people -- what matters is whether they have a professional relationship or a close personal relationship. THere is, as noted, no evidence offered in the letter that Craig had either of those with Rove.

[onenote]

99. Self delete - posted in wrong subthread

[dixiegrrrrl]

27. Well, did they get an answer in 3 business days?????

[merh]

28. I doubt it

But I don't know, your guess is as good as mine.

[Cha]

5. The way I read the title I

thought it was a done deal but I can certainly see why it needs to be.

Thanks, merh~

[merh]

8. I hope that her attorney files a complaint with the Alabama Bar

and the DC Bar if he doesn't step down.

[Mr. Sparkle]

7. OMFG ! How the hell did he get the job of White House Counsel.

Who The hell is vetting these people?? Today is the first day where I'm slowly losing confidence in the Obama administration. :grr:

[Cha]

11. Yeah, yeah..go

fume..the rest of us will get the job done.

[merh]

13. Can we fume and get the job done

this really pisses me off

I don't know who is vetting for Obama but this conflict should never exist in his administration.

[terisan]

16. He helped get Obama elected. His is an inner circle guy. nt

[Gin]

25. You can say that again...

[Samantha]

17. He represented Clinton during the impeachment debacle

and did a heck of a good job. He is an outstanding attorney. Thereafter, he represented Hillary on some matters. He has an incredible reputation.

I am not sure if representing Rove on a book deal, which is not a criminal issue, would be a breach in representing a party adverse to Rove on a criminal issue, such as stonewalling a subpoena. I guess we would have to ask any attorneys here to comment on that ....

Sam

[merh]

24. Check out post #4 - it has the text of the letter

there is a whole lot more to it than the book deal.

And you don't need to have a lawyer tell you what is ethical and what isn't.

After reading the letter at post #4 consider the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct.

Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Client-Lawyer Relationship
Rule 1.7 Conflict Of Interest: Current Clients

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and

(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

And sorry, supporting Obama early on and being a Washington insider and keeping his job despite the obvious conflicts is not the change Obama promised. (Any lawyer that represented Clinton in the impeachment proceedings is a washington insider - they became an insider because of their role as his lawyer.)

[onenote]

31. the letter actually appears to be making much out of little

Contrary to the story, the letter does not say Craig himself legally reperesented Rove on anything. It refers to Craig's firm. I'm not sure what book they're referring to. There was a rove book deal announced in 2007, but again, its not alleged Craig had anything to do with it. And since Craig appears to have left Williams and Connolly in November 2008, and Emmet Flood as best I can tell doesn't work at W and C, I'm having trouble seeing any conflict issue here that would result in any reason for Craig to step down or even to limit the issues on which he works.

[merh]

32. The letter lays out more than just the book deal conflict.

[onenote]

36. could you identify them? Actual legal conflicts?

There is no assertion in the letter that Craig ever represented Rove or even that his firm represented Rove at any time other than "recently" on a book deal that is unrelated to anything Craign is working on. Its not an actionable ethical violation for a lawyer to be friends with or have drinks with someone he doesn't represent who in involved in a legal matter with someone else the lawyer doesn't represent.

[merh]

37. Check out the professional code of conduct.

You really should brush up on ethics if I have to explain to you what is already easily explained and laid out in the letter.

[onenote]

38. I'm very familiar with it. Since I can't cite to what isn't in it.

And you think there is something in it that Craig's conduct violated, why don't you point it out.

[DLnyc]

41. Is lying considered unethical among lawyers, or do they get special

dispensation on that one?

Compare:
======
3.) She initially asked, “Before we really start this, do you have any contacts with George Bush, Karl Rove, Don Siegelman or Bob Riley?”

4.) You indicated you did not and said, “Tell me who this is about.”
======
and
=======
9.) You failed to mention to Miss Simpson, however, that you were a friend of Karl Rove, had shared drinks with Karl Rove, that your law firm, Williams & Connolly, was representing Vice President Cheney on Scooter Libby’s role in the Valerie Plame case in which Rove was involved; that your firm has advised the White House not to turn over GOP emails regarding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. Nor did you disclose your firm’s involvement in defending Iran-Contra figures, which you knew or should have known play a key role in the current military contracts routed to Doss Aviation.
=======
And, incidentally, the fact that one's firm is representing Cheney on Libby's role in the Plame case would not seem, to most people, to be a minor, easily overlooked detail, nor would the fact that the firm was advising the White House in the MAIN POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL issue involving Rove.

Just my opinion, and of course I'm not a lawyer, so I guess my opinion doesn't count for much.

[onenote]

53. let's just say that I have my doubts about the credibility of Miss Simpson's attorney

For starters, she describes Emmet Flood as Greg Craig's "mentor". Now, considering that Mr. Flood graduated from law school in 1991, and didn't start working at Williams and Connolly until after he completed his supreme court clerkship, while Mr. Craig is a 63 year old veteran attorney who graduated law school some 20 years before Flood and was a partner at W&C before Flood even entered law school -- do you really think Flood was Craig's "mentor".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Craig
http://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=520900386&page_url=%2f%2fwww.williamsandconnolly.com%2fattorney.cfm%3fattorney_id%3d262&page_last_updated=10%2f31%2f2003+5%3a17%3a35+PM&firstName=Emmet&lastName=Flood

I don't really give a rat's ass about Mr. Craig or Mr. Flood and I certainly could not care less about Karl Rove. What I care about is yet another effort by someone with their own agenda taking actions, with intent or otherwise, to tear down President Obama by attacking the ethics of his appointees and his vetting process, using innuendo and distortion. There actually is a name for such tactics -- its "Rovian."

[orleans]

68. so you've got *her* as the liar and not craig because you don't want to

criticize obama's appointment?

[merh]

72. He is being dishonest when he posts.

He knows that Flood was appointed to be Bush's Special Counsel before Craig was given the post under Obama's admin. Thus Flood is a mentor of sort, he is teaching Craig the ropes.

Craig is the one that brokered the extension for Rove and Miers, so that they didn't have to "not appear" and then be arrested for their contempt of congress.

This whole thing stinks and Craig needs to step aside and stop running interference for Rove, et al.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merh]

91. Teaching him the ropes about FISA and the executive privileges

or do you think Clinton abused his office the way Bush did and hide behind executive privilege? It is you that is dishonest.

[onenote]

95. you're joking, right?

First, you claim that I was dishonest because, according to you, Flood had the position of Special Counsel before Craig did. Well, in fact, you were wrong about that. (You also are wrong in saying that Craig's position in the Obama WH is the same as Flood's: Flood (and Craig during the Clinton years) were Special Counsel. Craig today is White House Counsel -- the top position.

Now, FISA wasn't mentioned in your earlier post, but suddenly makes an appearance in your lame-o defense, deflection of your earlier factually mistaken claim. WHere the evidence is that Flood is teaching Craig the ropes about FISA and executive privilege is a mystery to me. But even more of a mystery is how you would think that an experienced attorney who had served in the Clinton White House wouldn't know anything about executive privilege. You got caught with your pants down and now you're just making up stuff and grasping at straws.

Let me be clear: I think Don Siegelman got railroaded. I think that his conviction was tainted by prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. And I suspect that Karl Rove had a hand in it. But I don't suspend my critical reasoning skills every time someone writes something about this case. Simpson's lawyer is representing her client's interests vigorously -- I get that. And her letter is standard legal fare: an argument built on a combination of facts, assumptions, innuendo, obfuscation, etc. The thing is, that any lawyer worth his or her salt quickly learns to read other lawyer's letter critically, looking for signs that the other side is playing fast and loose with the facts or trying to mold certain facts in a way to suit their agenda.

So let's apply some critical reasoning here:

A lot of folks have read this article and letter as saying Craig represented Rove. It doesn't say that and there is no evidence he ever did. In fact, the letter alleges only that W&C represented Rove on his book deal. That is true. As was widely reported, in August 2007 -- months after the meeting between Simpson and Craig -- Bob Barnett was engaged by Rove to act as his book agent. The fact that Craig didn't disclose to Simpson something that hadn't happened yet shouldn't come as a surprise, which is probably why Simpson's lawyer ignored that part of the time line in her letter.
By the way, Rove picking Barnett as his agent isn't a surprise either -- he is one of the preeminent book agents in DC -- he's represented folks from all sides of the political spectrum, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as well as Lynn Cheney; Art Buchwald and George Will; etc etc. People don't go to him because of his politics, they go to him because he's considered the best at what he does.

Thus, despite the impression that Ms. Simpson's letter tries to leave, there is nothing in her letter or in the public record to suggest any professional relationship between Craig or his firm and Rove at the time of the Simpson meetings.

Simpson's lawyer raises other clients of Craig's firm as somehow relevant. For example, she cites W&C's respresentation of "iran contra figures" -- note the plural. Again, what she doesn't say is as important -- actually moreso -- than what she says. The only Iran Contra figure represented by W&C was that gas bag Oliver North. THat representation took place 20 years before Craig sat down with Simpson. And that representation was initiated at a time when Craig himself wasn't at Williams and Connolly -- he was working for Ted Kennedy in the late 1980s. Ms. Simpson's letter wasn't subject to a page limitation, so if she really had some reason to link Oliver North's to Doss Aviation and to expect Craig to know something about that -- given that he never represented NOrth and his firm's reprsentation took place two decades ago at a time when he wasn't at the firm -- she might have offered something to back up her otherwise exaggerated statement.

That leaves the representation of Cheney by another W&C lawyer during the Plame investigation. By the way, Emmet Flood left W&C before taking on Cheney as a client -- another factoid left out of the letter. In any event, representing Cheney isn't representing Rove. Just as representing Simpson isn't representing Siegelman. Simpson's lawyer is ethically required to represent her, not Siegelman, just as Cheney's lawyer represented him, not Rove. Which may explain why Siegelman himself has stated that he doesn't see a conflict of interest in Craig's work for Obama at the White House.

Finally, there is the part of the letter that caused me to view it skeptically from the outset -- the apparent concern being expressed by Ms.Simpson's lawyer for the harm allegedly done by Craig to Richard Shelby. At the outset, I find the assertion that Craig would disclose Shelby's confidential information to Simpson -- someone he wasn't representing -- simply not believable. What possible motive would there be for doing that? But even assuming it happened, and it was so troubling to Ms Simpson and her attorney (although that's bizarre since their interests are not exactly aligned with those of Sen Shelby), why did they wait two years to raise it? Did they notify SHelby his confidences were breached? If they had, you would think it would be worth mentioning in the letter.
Again, silence can speak volumes.

The whole thing has a smell to it, imo. Simpson is an attorney herself and politically experienced and astute, not some naif. The idea that she would meet repeatedly with a prominent attorney from one of the prominent DC firms and not have bothered to do any independent checking as to that firm's relationship with various repub figures -- google anyone? -- is simply unbelievable.

I don't really get what Ms.Simpson's agenda is or that of her attorney. I do know that her letter is barely smoke let alone fire. And I know that Siegelman doesn't seem bothered by Craig's serving in the Obama White House.

[merh]

98. You are a waste of words -

You need to go educate yourself on Jill Simpson and then you need to go check out Craig's stance on FISA and his hand in protecting Rove and others from the Conyers most recent subpoena.

Stop bringing Clinton into this, we know that Clinton was not as successful with his executive privilege claims. Flood has been much more successful while representing Bush and he is sharing his insights with Craig.

The way you defend the firm one would think you work there.

Others have explained to you the conflicts - the investigation into the DOJ abuses involve all of the Bush key players, Cheney, Rove, Miers, Gonzales and a host of DOJ lawyers. Any firm that represented the financial interests and/or legal interests of any of the players should not have entertained the prospect of assisting Simpson let alone interviewed her in depth. There wasn't even an effort to erect a chinese wall.

[onenote]

100. Again, try defending the specifics in the letter: the claim Craig or his firm represented Rove

at the time Craig and SImpson met.

Oh wait, you can't address that, because you have nothing to address it with.

Funny how Siegelman himself doesn't see an issue here.

[merh]

101. I don't have to address a thing

I'm fully aware of the issues and can easily comprehend the letter.

There is more to the DOJ abuses than Siegelman, once you get your head around that you may better understand the issues. I doubt you will get there, you don't care about honesty - you are only concerned with defending Obama.

He is a man and he makes mistakes, he wouldn't be the first person to trust untrustworthy folks.

[onenote]

104. don't have to? maybe. Won't? Apparently. Can't? Definitely

[merh]

107. Don't have to - don't need to.

You aren't that important, your opinion means very little to me and your lack of honesty throughout this thread prove that you don't care about the issues, you just hate it that someone dares to challenge Obama's picks. Others have pointed out the obvious conflicts and concerns as outlined in the letter yet you continue to carry on as if you know. It is quite comical at this stage, one would think you work for the "firm".

[onenote]

108. what I dislike (not hate) is when folks blindly accept things without analyzing them

I pointed out any number of things in the letter from Simpson's lawyer that raise questions. Her characterization of Flood as Craig's "mentor"; her sudden concern for the interests of Sen Shelby; her attempt to link the 20 year old representation of Ollie NOrth by Brendan Sullivan to Craig, who was working for Ted Kennedy, not Williams and Connolly, at the time.

I get that a lot of people don't like Greg Craig. Repubs don't like him because he defended Clinton and Elian Gonzalez' dad. Progressives don't like him because he's represented some pretty lousy people, particularly some very questionable South American thugs and his firm has represented all sorts of folks, including first class assholes like Ollie NOrth.

But whether it was the right move politically to install Craig as WH Counsel is a different question than whether he has engaged in some sort of actionable misconduct vis a vis Ms. Simpson. THe case for that is exceedingly thin, amounting to the fact that he allegedly didn't tell her that he had some sort of social relationship with Karl Rove. That's it. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.

If people want to go after Craig head on, I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with trumped up allegations of ethical violations.

[merh]

111. I've analyzed it

I know more about the DOJ injustices than most and have been aware of it and the efforts to ignore them for longer than the abuses have been made public.

I'm normally the apologist, the one that defends Obama. I cannot do that with regard to Craig. Looking back at many of Craig's public positions on behalf of Obama I realize I was wrong to defend him back then. He wants the executive branch to be all powerful, he doesn't want anything to occur which will strip away the powers assumed by bushco.

And yes, Craig had an obligation to tell Simpson that he was personal friends with Rove and that his firm did work for the administration and key members of the administration.

[Jim Sagle]

120. Is he defending Obama, or Rove?

[merh]

122. It's hard to tell.

[DLnyc]

94. Okay, I can't speak to the credibility of Simpson's attorney. But I was

responding to your post 38, where you said:

"38. I'm very familiar with it. Since I can't cite to what isn't in it.
And you think there is something in it that Craig's conduct violated, why don't you point it out."

I was asking whether lying (as described in my post #41 above) is a violation of the ethics code. Whether Craig DID lie is another question, but saying there is nothing substantial in the CLAIM seems inaccurate to me, unless lying is considered okay and ethical in the legal profession.

[endarkenment]

116. You just revised your argument from 'there is no real conflict mentioned' to

I don't believe the credibility of the lawyer making the charges of significant conflict. Offhand, you are now just arguing for the sake of argument.

[Jim Sagle]

119. Greg Craig, is that you?

Oh, that's right, you're just a regular DUer, haw haw haw. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[autorank]

57. It's larger than the code

If the the vetting took place after Rove was a client, well that's
beyond serious. He had a business relationship with someone with whom
the potential client had a serious conflict. It could be seen as a fishing
exercise in behalf of an existing client. If Simpson didn't know this

The easy way to settle this is determine that there was a Simpson-Craig
meeting and what the nature of the meeting was. If he got key information
from her while Rove was a client, that's probing a prospective client for
information that can, without doubt, benefit the existing client.

Here's a link to a short video on Simpson-Rove http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql367FsLUCM

[onenote]

60. what business relationship?

No business or lawyer-client relationship between craig and rove is described or alluded, Indeed, the only relationship between rove and williams and connolly that is referenced is representation on a "recent" book deal. How recent? The one in 2007? Or something more recent?


All I see is a bunch of innuendo and distortion (such as the laughable assertion that Craig's mentor was Emmet Flood -- a lawyer that graduated law school 20 years after Craig -- designed, intentionally or otherwise, to make Obama look bad.

[autorank]

71. "If"

Easy to settle the issue, which is what I sugges. "Did you represent Karl Rove?"

This is of interest and, if true, concern but the Craig representation of the Bolivian Defense Minister responsible for the slaughter of civilians protesting government policies is of special interest See this. That's not a hypothetical, it's a choice Craig made. It is perfectly legal but, at the same time, up for scrutiny. One great shame of the Bush period is Abu Ghraib. Why have a presidential counsel who represented the fascist dictators who slaughtered peasants.

There is so much going on all at once, including the major effort to salvage a system that allows
economic and social justice for all citizens. That's an effort that we all want to succeed. At
the same time, efforts like the Truth Commission and questions about the permanent insiders in
power are still relevant.

[KittyWampus]

48. actually, all you've done is cut and paste something and offered no information

Craig represented Clinton for fucks sake.

And you keep saying "read the letter".

LOL!

You don't know what you are talking about.

[merh]

52. I know that the letter outlines conflicts and

ethical violations. Sorry for you that you cannot understand them.

Or would you feel all nice and cozy knowing that your attorney gave confidential information about you to a potential client?

I suppose I should post comprehend as you read the letter.

And having represented Clinton means he is a Washington insider, he is just playing the odds and now he is helping Obama who is in charge, where before, he was helping Rove when he was more powerful.

Nothing will come of the abuse of the DOJ, it is just more of the same.

[Jim Sagle]

121. And he didn't represent Clinton all that well, did he?

Funny how that works - he must be an alumni of the Bob Shrum School for Fake Democrats.

[JDPriestly]

46. Imputed representation. If anyone in you firm represents an adverse

party, you may have a conflict. Let's say you work for a firm that is working on a case concerning one entity, let's say a bank. You personally never have anything to do with that case, but you change jobs and your new firm is involved in the same case but on the other side, you have a conflict, and your conflict has to be disclosed and you may not be involved in the litigation on behalf of the client in your new firm. So, it's like you become contagious if anyone in your firm is involved with one side in a lawsuit. Rove's book deal might seem totally unrelated to the Siegelman matter, but that's not so certain, is it?

[orleans]

69. nice explanation--but why bother when it all boils down to some people

not wanting to criticize an obama appointment

[Grinchie]

81. It does not matter, he works at the firm.

That's it.

[Grinchie]

79. Is he the one that explained the definition of "IS" to Bill Clinton?

[kskiska]

85. He also represented Elian Gonzales' father

during the child custody dispute.

[MissDeeds]

83. My question too

The vetting process is either nonexistent or a total failure. The Obama administration is making too many mistakes with this whole 'team of rivals' approach. These people are not to be trusted. What better way to sink the administration than from within? He better wake the hell up.

[mod mom]

9. It is VERY disturbing that Obama would select someone who represented rove regarding anything!

[sellitman]

14. Bingo!

Holy crap...what is he thinking?

[autorank]

56. Mom!!! "Stop making sense!!!"

:hi:

[mod mom]

86. Hey you...

It's nice to see your writings are getting noticed. Great work! :hi:

[onenote]

61. except it is not alleged that Craig ever represented rove on anything

The only relationship between Craig's firm and rove that is alleged (not between craig and rove) relates to a book deal. Not even clear when that occurred. It says "recent" which suggests that relationship post-dated the meeting between Simpson and Craig.

[SlowDownFast]

123. Uh, yeah?

Whatever.

Obama's a master chess player and all that...

:puke:

[Uncle Joe]

10. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, merh.

[malaise]

12. Bye bye

Craig

[terisan]

15. Craig was an early and high profile supporter of Obama. I think he will remain.

[merh]

21. Then Obama lied and his entire campaign a fraud.

How can there be change if the lawyer that represents Rove is allowed to thwart investigations into his abuses? That is politics as usual, insiders helping insiders.

[flyarm]

33. Bingo ..and many dems warned about just that!! eom

[merh]

35. I don't believe it to the the truth.

I don't think he was advised of the conflicts, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I told you so posts suck, it doesn't matter who posts them.

[dgibby]

18. Thanks. Hope you don't mind, I sent this to Rachel and Keith.

This definitely needs looking into. Talk about letting the fox into the hen house!

[merh]

20. Please do send it on to them.

It needs to be publicized and scrutinized.

[inna]

29. i just don't get one thing: how in the world can one be in defiance of...

... the congressional subpoena???? just jail his fat ass, seriously! this is way worse than contempt of court.

the bastards are absolutely shameless.

[merh]

30. I agree with you 100%

If it were you or me, they would have had us sitting in the cell weeks ago.

and a belated welcome to DU

[intheflow]

39. This is incredible!

I'm so glad Simpson is on top of things. I can't believe someone on Obama's team didn't see that conflict of interest. Rove has to go down for the treason and war crimes he was responsible for. I hope this story gains enough traction to actually put pressure on Obama to make Craig step down on all Rove matters.



Nice to see you, Friend! I haven't been around much, just stopping in to read headlines now and then. Glad I caught this one and got to "see" you again! :hi:

[merh]

40. Hello friend

I'm arguing with another who loves to accuse me of being anti-gay.

It seems my paper trail on DU reflects that I don't care about equal rights, as if DU is the whole and sum of who and what I am. :rofl:

[burythehatchet]

42. Where the aplogists?

[merh]

43. you can find at least one in the thread

he keeps saying there is no conflict, no ethical problem.

[burythehatchet]

44. Well there is one Ignored on this thread, so that makes sense.

[merh]

45. I'm usually considered an apologist

I think Obama needs to be given time to govern, that he will initiate progressive measures and will be good for the nation. However, I can't let this go - the abuses of Rove and bushco cannot be excused, they must be held accountable.

[Ellipsis]

47. Hey there merh!

Think anything will come from it?

[merh]

49. From the posting of some in this thread it looks like Obama could

care less - Craig is in his inner circle.

I'd like to think that Obama dosn't know about his relationship with Rove and will call him on it and will ask him to resign.

What can I say, I'm an optimist.

I'm afraid that if the guy stays where he is, the possibility that anything will come of the abuses in the DOJ is so low. And the "change" that Obama promised is just a bunch of talk.

[Ellipsis]

50. I'd love it if he was asked to resign.

I was an optimist about Rove testifying and look where that got me. :dunce:

You were right, he didn't testify. :banghead:

On that topic, do you have any insight/opinion on the deal Rove cut, being deposed but "technically" not under oath?

[merh]

51. The only insight I have is that Craig helped him get that deal

and I don't know what good it will do.

I have lost all hope for justice.

[L. Coyote]

54. Consider the sources!

I do not trust the Republicans in this scenario, folks!!

[autorank]

55. Hey Mehr, that's a blockbuster k*r

Why is there someone on Obama's staff who represented Rove?
I can understand the guys with the tax problems getting by.
That's an issue of self-report. They thought it would be OK
to do what they did and didn't bother to tell anyone.

But "worked for Rove" on the resume should have been a good
indication that the person was not qualified to be on staff
for the campaign, let alone in the WH (this guy was up for
Secretary of State).

I heard Simpson at the National Press Club a couple of months ago.
She was dynamic and had the crowd's full attention for 3 hours.
Since blowing the whistle down there, her car was run off the road
and her house burned down. They picked on the wrong woman since
she's got her own money and a strong voice.

Wikipedia

FISA controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Craig

As a spokesman for the Obama campaign, Craig dealt with the senator's reversal of an earlier commitment to filibuster the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.<14> Craig's explanation of the apparent turn-around included a statement that Obama had "concluded that with FISA expiring, it was better to get a compromise than let the law expire." This drew the criticism that Obama and/or his legal advisors had mistakenly supposed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was due to expire in the first place.<15><16> Craig's role in Obama's campaign, particularly with regard to Latin American foreign policy issues, is strongly supported by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.<17>

Glenn Grenwald on Craig

"This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip," Mr. Craig said. "Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire." Greg Craig

Craig's statement is flat-out false. FISA -- enacted in 1978 and amended many times to accommodate modern communications technology -- has no expiration date. The Protect America Act, which Congress enacted last August to legalize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, had a 6-month sunset provision and thus already expired back in February, restoring FISA as the governing law. Thus, if Congress does nothing now, FISA will continue indefinitely to govern the Government's power to spy on the communications of Americans. It doesn't expire. What Craig said in defense of Obama is just wrong.

[merh]

58. I just don't get it.

I want to believe Obama wants change - maybe he doesn't realize how involved craig has been with rove. I want to remain optimistic but I am loosing faith.

[onenote]

62. how "involved" was Craig with Rove -- the only direct connection alleged in the letter

is that they had drinks. Craig isn't alleged to have represented Rove and the only representation alleged by his firm is a "recent" (after the Simpson meeting?) representation by an unnamed person at the firm on a book deal. That's it. It is alleged that Emmet Flood, who once worked for W and C but is not currently a lawyer there, now is representing rove on the executive privilege matter, although the only lawyer I've ever seen publicly identified as representing rove on that issue is Robert Luskin of Patton Boggs.

[merh]

70. You need to use martindale-hubbell

Flood works with Craig - Bush appointed him to the post and Obama and Craig are keeping him on staff.

Of course you know that, you just didn't want to post the current information on Flood that you found when you googled, you decided to use the cached information.

And post #46 has provided the answer to your question.

[autorank]

63. There are real problems with Craig

And his proximity to the president.

Here are another two clients of his:

The suits, which seek compensatory and punitive damages under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) charge Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín with extrajudicial killings and crimes against humanity for their roles in the massacre of unarmed civilians, including children. In September and October 2003, Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín ordered Bolivian security forces to use deadly force, including the use of high-powered rifles and machine guns, to suppress popular civilian protests against government policies.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/hrp/newsid=23.html

Who would defend these two guys?

Here's a reason for optimism. The comparison between Obama's first cabinet and and Lincoln's may
turn out to be true. Lincoln figured out he couldn't work with those who had resisted and
opposed him and got rid of them quickly;)

[merh]

65. It was Craig that obtained the extension for Rove and the others

and he is the one that has been delaying the hearings.

In a statement provided to CBS News, White House Counsel Gregory Craig says Pres. Obama is “very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened.”

But at the same time, Craig makes it clear that Mr. Obama is not disputing the claim of privilege.

“He is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency,” Craig says in the statement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4803349.shtml

[autorank]

66. You're better than the news;)

Thanks. This is amazing. You're right, one struggles to make sense out of it.

[merh]

73. Flood was appointed Special Counsel to Bush

Emmet T. Flood was named June 8, 2007, by President George W. Bush to be Deputy Assistant to the President and Special Counsel to the President.<1> in the Office of Counsel.

Flood recently was a Partner at Williams & Connolly, LLP.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Emmet_Flood

[SpartanDem]

59. Craig should recuse himself

to prevent appearance of impropriety that said saying he should resign just plain stupid it was freaking book deal. He worked in the Clinton Whitehouse and if the Rove still makes you all nutty just remember he defended the guy who shot Reagan

[autorank]

64. I suggested that he should have never been appointed in the first place

He represented the the defense minister of Bolivia who ordered the use of force against Bolivian
peasants who were protesting against the regime. Over 60 were killed and there were many more
injured and beaten: "the massacre of unarmed civilians, including children."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2326

His clients handiwork in Bolivia:

"In all, during those two months forces under their leadership killed 67 men, women, and children and
injured more than 400, almost all from indigenous Aymara communities."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/hrp/newsid=23.html

As for your comment about being "all nutty," thanks for tipping your hand. There was nothing in
what I posted that's "all nutty," In fact, the comments up thread are couched wiht "if" relating to
what Simpson claims and what Craig is claimed to have done. The "all nutty" comment is an
invention on your part.

[Sunnyshine]

74. Represented prime suspect in the last Failministration. Sure, no conflict there. No big deal.

So what, he has a triple lot of opposing interests. :grr: I got that sinking feeling in the gut when reading this OP.
Truth hurts I guess? Seriously- I do not like this one bit. I don't even want it to be true, but here I am.

WH Counsel should not have legal ties with any Cabinet member from the last Tatorship.
It certainly blurs the lines within believed to be brand new Admin, more than a wee little bit.

These unelected autocrats seem more like the deciders- regardless of Constitution/elections/justice/ethics.
Power not conducted in the open- preferring to remain behind the scenes exerting control through economic, or other means.
Dictablanda rocks!:nuke:

[orleans]

75. absolutely kicking and recommending!

makes me think of a song by gang of four called DAMAGED GOODS:

The change will do you good
I always knew it would
Sometimes I'm thinking that I love you
But I know it's only lust
Your kiss so sweet
Your sweat so sour

Your kiss so sweet
Your sweat so sour
Sometimes I'm thinking that I love you
But I know it's only lust
The sins of the flesh
Are simply sins of lust
Sweat's running down your back
Sweat's running down your neck
Heated couplings in the sun
(Or is that untrue?)
Colder couplings in the night
(Never saw your body)
Your kiss so sweet
Your sweat so sour
Sometimes I'm thinking that I love you
But I know it's only lust
The change will do you good
I always knew it would
You know the change will do you good
You know the change will do you good

Damaged goods
Send them back
I can't work
I can't achieve
Send me back
Open the till
Give me the change
You said would do me good
Refund the cost
You said you're cheap but you're too much
Your kiss so sweet
Your sweat so sour
Sometimes I'm thinking that I love you
But I know it's only lust
The change will do you good
I always knew it would
You know the change will do you good
You know the change will do you good

I'm kissing you goodbye
(Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye)
I'm kissing you goodbye
(Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye)
I'm kissing you goodbye
(Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye)
I'm kissing you goodbye
(Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye)
I'm kissing you goodbye
(Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye)
I'm kissing you goodbye
(Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye)
(Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye)
(Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye)
(Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye)
Bye...
(Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRwxB_vhz8

[Truth2Tell]

76. Obama made certain compromises

with various elements of the American Political Establishment in order to pave his way to the White House. You can see this dynamic at work in the form of the troops headed to Afghanistan, the burying of the FISA issue, the refusal to prosecute Bush figures, etc.

Greg Craig is the personification of this dynamic. He will almost certainly remain in place. Expect him to continue to be the go-to "spokesman" for further squishy accountability backtracking.

Craig knows where a lot of bodies are buried in DC, and he has many powerful "clients" of the type you don't abandon just to serve a little stint as Legal Council to the President. I'm sure he's keeping a sharp eye on more than just the Siegeleman case for his bros.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

78. Great find, Merh ! K&R. Very, very interesting...just like Don

said, when it's over, this will be worst than watergate.

[Grinchie]

80. He must step down

Especially since he heard the entire case explained before he refused to take the job.

Regardless of whether he had an agreement with her, there is an implicit Client/Attorney privilege that dictates that council with not act in a way to harm the client. Since he purportedly was interviewing a prospective client, he is rivy to specific information, and must be recused as he has information that would harm her case.

This is actually quite common with lawyers, so watch out for this little sleight of hand in your dealing with them.

I have run into it personally, and it allowed the attorney to interview my wife and get specific details, which were then passed on to a subsequent litigation attorney in his law firm. When we called him out on it, he wrote a puffed up Affidavit that denied it, but produced no timeline of discussions, while we had every conversation documented with detailed notes.

Always get Client/Attorney privilege. It is your only protection against sheister lawyers. It gives you the right to sue them for violating the doctrine.

[NoFederales]

82. The compromise BS is actually a state of being pwned--no room for

progressives in this administration either. How fitting that the meme of HOPE from the Obama team reconciles so well with the religious goal of acceptance and promise--believe, have faith, until Death revels and takes all away from you. That's the new American Way.

NoFederales

[tekisui]

84. knr!~

[peacetalksforall]

88. Fascinating. Equal to what appears to be conniving for power that Craig can provide

Rove Bush Cheney, is the naivety or complicity of Obama or his advisors.

Going back and forth between key political partisans while representing both sides sequentially or simultaneously stinks horribly.

Whether the time-lines of all this crap we're talking about clears Obama or Craig legally, the stench is still there.

Man, I would not have thought that reaching out to Republicans meant lawyers in this manner.

Are we going to be brought down further by lawyer manipulators in addition to financial ones?

I say choose your side and maintain it. This is squirmy, smelly stuff to be flipping back and forth and to keep thise traitors.

Obama better clean it up. But, this is so messy, I'm afraid to see what I time-line will prove.

The Bolivian stuff is way over the cliff. Does anyone understand what the right wing involvement in Bolivia is/was all about - a takeover by our corporations of the land and resources that belong to Bolivians.

Are there no right and left principles?

If the time line does not absolve this man, where was the Obama change by keeping him?

Are there no Democratic law firms to draw from?

We need the time-line.

[Alcibiades]

89. I support Obama on nearly everything

But this guy has to go.

[pleah]

90. K&R

[TacticalPeek]

93. W T F?

Why does the promise *always* fade?

[pam4water]

96. I mean the government is so corrupt at this point I don't see how to fix it.

Everyday there a scandal that I feel I should call/e-mail the white house or congress about. Bur there doesn't seem to be the time to fix any off these. Anyone trying to fix this stuff must be completely overwhelmed.

[Wizard777]

102. Obama may be crazy like a fox for keeping certain individual in place.

[merh]

112. Is it crazy like a fox to protect Rove, et al from public

scrutiny? It appears that is just what Craig brokered, the deposition testimony of Rover and Miers.

[Wizard777]

125. Right now what is most important is to get the testimony. So yes.

[endarkenment]

117. or not

I'm going with 'they had no idea'.

[onenote]

103. Siegelman on Greg Craig: "a very good person and a very good lawyer."

http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/02/22/white-house-counsel-may-have-a-conflict-in-rove-case/

Siegelman also indicated that he did not see the conflict issue raised by Simpson's lawyer to be a matter of "consequence".

[merh]

118. Does his position really surprise you?

Upon information and belief, Gov. Don Siegelman or his agent made the direct call to you at your law firm, Williams & Connolly, soliciting your pro bono representation of Ms. Simpson, with regard to her affidavit about Karl Rove’s involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution.

[L. Coyote]

105. VERY misleading hook. By whom? Just a blogger.

A blogger know to present speculations as news.

[merh]

110. what are you talking about?

your cryptic comments make no sense to me, would you please explain.

[spamlet2002]

109. the bolded part

cheney did a similar thing while "vetting" all the VP candidates for W. they had to disclose all potentially troubling material as part of the process.

of course once cheney had his hands on all this sensitive material--which could then be trickled out into the public--the candidates found themselves unsuitable, and he emerged the "logical" candidate.

that's how they do

[bridgit]

113. Some say the mark of a good lawyer is to be able to argue either side...

To me what remains is: why? Why are some seen arguing the wrong side routinely and with such diligence? Or as though their rewards will surpass the product of their tongues so long as they keep wagging them. Beyond a certain point counsel becomes less vibrant & energetic as afforded criminals, and more advocates for their crimes whoring imo the purpose of law...

It's semantically phantasmagoric to put forward that because crab grass is green it's chocking place is equally deserving on the commons; it's time to weed that garden

[merh]

114. I agree, it is well past the time to weed the garden

I love your posts, you teach me new words all the time.

[bridgit]

115. Hup! Not so fast! Here's the real deal!!

:yourock:

[Jefferson23]

124. Incredible, say good bye Craig.