Current Article

New Obama Scandal: Top Obama Adviser Could Face Legal Disbarment

By Larry Johnson on March 26, 2008 at 9:52 AM in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton

Greg Craig, Obama Hitman, May Have Violated Attorney-Client Privilege With Clintons

Is the Obama campaign violating the fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence, the sacred bond of trust between a lawyer and their client? Under the rules of every bar association, based on tradition going back centuries of Anglo-Saxon legal principles, a lawyer must never exploit the intimate relationship with a client for other purposes that might benefit the lawyer. For this breach of trust, lawyers have regularly been disbarred.

Who is the possible ethical pirate operating at the beck and call of the Obama campaign?

Greg Craig, top adviser to Obama, holding a rank equal to recently disgraced and resigned aide Samantha Power, is a longtime partner at the Washington law firm, Williams and Connally. Now he’s Obama’s designated hatchet man, sent out on cable TV to deliver negative attack lines against Hillary Clinton. Craig knows no limits in his frenzied assaults on a person he has known well since they attended Yale Law School together. Craig knows better. He knows Hillary is a person of values and integrity, even as he smears her.

[The NYT photo caption, above right: CANDIDATE CABINET Foreign-policy advisers of Senator Obama (at head of table) include, from left around table, Gregory Craig, Susan Rice, Anthony Lake, Maj. Gen. Scott Gration and Samantha Power.]

But as nasty as this picture is, it’s actually much worse–and potentially a legal problem for the high-flying Craig.

Attorney Craig is ethically challenged. He and his firm, Williams and Connally, have been the attorneys of record for Bill and Hillary Clinton for more than a decade.

In the law firm, he regularly consulted with the Clintons’ personal lawyer, David Kendall, on numerous occasions. But not only that, Craig himself was hired as the lead attorney, working on the White House legal staff, for the President during the impeachment trial. Over a two-year period, throughout 1998 and 1999, Craig, as an attorney, was privy to the private legal matters involving the president and his wife. (See the Washington Post article, “Crisis Quarterback: Gregory Craig Is Calling the Plays On Clinton’s Team,” November 19, 1998.) [PHOTO: Greg Craig speaking on the floor of Congress on behalf of President Clinton]

For his work, the president thanked him, and Craig’s business thrived. But he decided that his ambition dictated that he betray his old friends and clients to align himself with Obama, where he thinks he has a better chance of getting a big job. Bill Richardson has nothing on Greg Craig in the Judas Iscariot betrayal department.

But as unethical as rank betrayal is, the problem is graver.

Is Greg Craig exploiting the attorney-client privilege that he and his firm have had with the Clintons in order to advance his career position and the political fortunes of Obama?

Could he face a disbarment hearing over his exploitation of his attorney-client privilege for political purposes?

Will the supine mainstream media, slavishly following the Obama campaign’s barks and calls like one of Pavlov’s dogs, ever even ask about Greg Craig’s potential ethical conflict of interest and breach of trust?

Where is Obama’s promise to run an ethical campaign on positive issues when his attack dog has questionable ethics and using personal attacks on a former client?

Will Obama fire Greg Craig to uphold his pledge?

Once again, Obama, who has smeared the former president for “McCarthyism,” demonstrates that there is no bottom to his ethically challenged negative campaign.

To paraphrase Joseph Welch’s famous statement to Senator Joseph McCarthy: “You’ve done enough, Greg Craig and Barack Obama. Have you no sense of decency, sirs, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

When I did research and assistance work for attorneys — for many years, off and on — every attorney I ever worked with (EVERY ONE OF THEM) carefully checked their records to make sure that any new client did not represent a CONFLICT with any current client of the firm. Not just the attorney, but of the entire firm.

This is Law Firm 101. The attorneys I knew were quite paranoid about it because of rules of the bar association. They knew they had to make sure that any new client did not represent any conflict with any current client. EVERY firm had a system for performing a detailed check to make sure there was never a conflict.

Then there was that their current client would feel violated if they took on any new client whose matters crossed over into the current client’s concerns. But the attorneys’ worries didn’t even have to go that far because the bar rules are SO strict and SO clear.

It is appalling that Greg Craig is betraying the trust of his clients, the Clintons. It is an even more grave matter that he is breaking bar rules.

myiq2xu

We also checked for witnesses who were former clients – we might have to challenge their credibility.

simon

And when we hired a attorney, for business, say, we were told the same thing, ie “if we already represent, or represented, another whom you deal with as a subcontractor, we cannot represent you…”

Conflict of interest was the key phrase.

Given how Obama’s staff casually violated the privacy of Obama’s grandmother, in addition to the stench of Obama’s corrupt IL and Washington cronies, I can’t imagine this ethical conflict gave them, or gives them, a second thought.

anna shane

even a copywright attorney won’t take a new client that has some business that competes with a previous client. I guess if he’d been able to close the deal and wasn’t in a protracted race where his method is to try to force her out this wouldn’t look so bad for Obama, but he is and this guy is riding shotgun, so it’s yet another sign that Obama has had to settle for ‘left-overs’ from Bill tenure. He won’t do a do-over with left-overs? Disgusting.

Hope

Susan
You are SO right about this. The FIRST thing one does before even considering taking on a new case is to do a conflict of interest check. This is of the UTMOST importance before anything else is ever done.
allie

OBAMA is a lawyer (civil rights and voting rights) so he should know this and should never have hired him. Why is this a shock? OBAMA is a Chicago politician. I guarantee you he sought CRAIG out. The real question is how is CRAIG tied to REZKO?

Anna Belle

I agree. That’s the first thought that occurred to me too. Obama is well-known for using marital court records against his opponents, and no one ever asks how the info got out. Twice now he’s done it. I fully expect him to go nuclear on Bill in the next few weeks. He’s been desperately trying to neutralize that strength for two months now.
TeakWoodKite

The real question is how is CRAIG tied to REZKO?

answer is $, but who’s?

Shainzona

In my legal practice I wouldn’t touch anyone whose name was professionally familiar to me with a ten foot pole…even if my only connection might have been “hearing their name” through one of my files.

The state bar associations will also usually provide pre-retention counsel/advice if you suspect a possible conflict problem.

No wiggle-room on that one. I valued my practice – and my clients – too much.

Hope

Shainzona:

What might this Greg Craig be thinking then? Is there some strange loopehole that we are missing? I just don’t get it after reading all of this. Is this guy deluded?

Mike Howell

The short answer is no. There are two codes typically. One is a national code referred to as the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

The second is the individual Bar Association Ethics Rules.

The only person who can waive the conflict of interest is the client.

Disclosing confidential info. is a violation as is failing to safeguard info.

There are different amounts of time required for file retention; however, it is typically several years and the files must ultimately either be destroyed or returned to the client.

The Gringo’s Wife

If there is one thing we may all be able to agree on, is the lack of shame in politics today. And the bar keeps getting lowered each day by the likes of Craig and Richardson.

Though they are by far tame considering the many politicians caught in far more serious and egregious acts. There was a time when someone arrested for soliciting sex from strangers in a bathroom would have simply faded out of the public eye in shame.

But we live in a day when the likes of Paris Hilton is made more famous by a video of her sexacapades. Where a son of a famous president gets to pass himself off as a Texas “dude” and even his parents go along with what would be, in any other sane family, grounds for a true life “intervention.”

But all of America participated in Bush’s delusions. How easy it was with the help of the media. And that was truly the lesson of the Bush regime. We focused (those of us plugging along after Bush was reelected) more on the electronic machines and the danger they posed.

We did not focus on the quality of our party. And we are seeing in this article the results of that. I believe Dean was/is a fine man with good goals, but his inexperience is showing. There has been little done toward cohesiveness one way or the other. But that reflects the raging political positioning that has been going on inside the Democratic Party for years. The Pelosi/Murtha divide should not be underestimated. Richardson was the most recent player in this behind the scenes drama that is truly fueling the Obama/Clinton debacle.

It is this lack of shame that gives us the type of candidate that Obama is. How else do you explain the arrogance, if not the chutzpah, to run for POTUS with so many skeletons in your closet? Mr. Obama?

Meanwhile, it’s raining rotten apples and the Democratic Party forgot to set up the “Big Tent” they are so famous for.
Kevin

My god, what a bunch of hyperbole and specious name calling and innuendo. Larry – you’ve sunk to the level of and adopted the tactics of those who maligned Valerie Plame that you used to decry.

Sad

Hanna

Gosh the truth always hurts Obama supporters. You people are completely brain washed. How scarry- remeniscent of early Hilter.

Kevin

Hanna, the word is scarey – secondly, please explain how the statement hurt or how it wasn’t hyperbolic speculation.

Mike Howell

Kevin-

Your mother’s calling you!! And Hanna spells as well as you – it’s scary you jerk, not scarey!

Hope

Kevin:

I guess you have never worked in a law firm.

http://www.todayslies.com Will

“Craig knows better. He knows Hillary is a person of values and integrity, even as he smears her.”

Actually, it would appear the opposite. I know it’s so hard to believe, but he might actually have come to know Hillary in a quite different light over the years than the one you’ve painted her in above. That would provide a rational explanation for his joining the campaign.

Or perhaps his reasons are as devilish and inexplicable as you’re making them out to be. After all, people usually don’t act out of a sense of right and wrong, or rational thinking–it’s usually out a devilish desire to enact grandiose schemes of depravity on a scale not seen since the Grand Evil Wizard Bill Richardson sold out Hillary for 30 pieces of silver.

simon

You know, Will, Obama’s trolls are like smug Frenchmen without the intellect, or the talent, just the arrogance, self superiority and lack of personal insight.

Which puts a whole new spin on the term John “French” Kerry, and the swift boating of such.

Kevin

Yeah, that goes along way to explain the juvenile name calling and inability to engage in direct discourse you continue to exhibit. Keep up the good work…

Fran

Kevin–do you have a life? All you do is visit Hillary sites and display what a child you are. I feel sorry for you–you must be lonely with nothing to do all day but type ignorant and obnoxious comments. Get some counseling.

http://www.todayslies.com Will

Why do people here feel this strong need to resort to such petty name-calling? Can’t we just debate the merits?
Kevin

So tell me Fran, how am I displaying how much of a child I am? You make inane statements and I challenge you on the validity or veracity of them. Seems pretty simple – if you’re correct, it would be easy enough to bat aside my doubts and demonstrate the truth of what’s said – funny how that never happens.

Instead I get accusations – g’head, ignorant comments… obnoxious ones, please demonstrate.

ROFLMAO

ps – I’m gainfully employed – sorry love, I’m able to engage in more than one activity at a time.

Molly

sorry love, I’m able to engage in more than one activity at a time.

Aren’t you a typical Obama sexist pig?? Obama had better find a third sex somewhere because if he is the nominee, he’s going to have a hard time getting most of the women in America to vote for him. That is, if you discount children and the Obama girl forgets to vote again. And he owes it all to sycophants like you who have dirtied up the internet with your sexist crap. I just be you are one of those NIKEs (No Income Kids With Education-dumbed down education at that) who moved back home so you could sponge off your parents, spend their retirement money as your own personal supplement, and appear “upscale”.

Kevin

good grief, first – I apologize since no offense was meant, had just gotten finished speaking w/ an english colleague and inadvertently repeated one of her phrases.

But give me a break. From that single statement, you go off on a completely unfounded rant speculating about my sexist ways…

way to go Molly.

Kevin

by the way, I’m far from being a “Nike” (how long did it take for you to figure that one out, or did you steal it from someone else) and provide for my daughter as a single parent quite well thank you.
Mike Howell

Kevin –

You’re Home Alone?! AHHHHHHHH!!!

Hanna

Yes Molly. The Obama supporters are for the most part disgraceful in tone. Why do they think people want to vote for someone who brings this out in the male species? They are so threatened by women that they resort to the worst kind of bashing. Sorry fellows, we see right through that – women will tilt this election – if you guys could count you’d have realized that by now.
Mike Howell

Molly –

Good Golly you’re sooo right on!

Shainzona

Will….you’re missing the point. EVEN IF, Craig learned to hate the Clintons after years of taking their money, he CAN’T/ISN’T ALLOWED/VIOLATES A CANON OF ETHICS to become intimately involved in any role where confidential information – direct or indirect – could be given out. Importantly, it doesn’t have to be a direct piece of information – but it can be hinted at, winked at, nodded at – that is a violation.

Hey, he can hate all he wants – but he should not put himself in a position to violate confidence, especially the ones upon which his hate is founded.

Period.

http://www.todayslies.com Will

“Hey, he can hate all he wants – but he should not put himself in a position to violate confidence, especially the ones upon which his hate is founded.”

Fine, but this is still a highly technical legal issue that isn’t going to be answered by innuendo and ad hominem attacks from No Quarter. Seriously, proving this would be one of the more difficult things to pull off.

Rob Gard

Not difficult at all. Some conflicts are apparent to just about anyone, except perhaps Senator Obama’s fan club. In my experience, Attorney disciplinary commissions and judges will throw an attorney off a case or issue sanctions for even a hint of conflict of interest. Once the allegations are made, the attorney seeking to prove that there was no conflict or violation of confidentiality has the more difficult task of proving innocence.

TeakwoodKite

this is still a highly technical legal issue

Since when are Ethics a “highly technical legal issue”?

This is just another example of Senator Obama’s poor judgement and lack of basic awareness of the issues that surround him.

For someone with a degree in “Constitutional Law” he exhibits a total lack of understanding in this disipline, and is making Harvard look bad.

This a VERY serious matter and I thank Mr Johnson for pointing it out.

Hope

Teak:

I think it is called Convolutional Law.

TeakWoodKite

I will remember that

Mike Howell

Rob Gard –

There you go again! Talking about experience when the Oblamers just want to pull shit out of their asses!

How’s Oblamer going to win when every friggin time he does a hatchet job on Hillary or any time he starts spewing his Rev. Wrong Hate America First Campaign –

some intelligent guy like you brings up EXPERIENCE?

Rob Gard

If Greg Craig did come to loath or distrust Hillary after working in the White House for the Clintons, then he is not only a bad judge of character, but a fool as well, for trading on any such knowledge or contacts, even if he weren’t paid by the Obama campaign. He must figure that it is time to find another line of work, but it would take a complaint to the applicable State Supreme Court or other attorney regulatory body in the state where he is licensed (or a referral from a judge) to start an investigation (which could lead to disciplinary proceedings), and I don’t think that Hillary would want to take time for this distraction, at this time (maybe later).
The Gringo’s Wife

Will, I think Richardson is banking on his career, worth millions if played right.

But why do we insist that one politician is somehow of a different species than another?

Having said that Will, you strike me as intellectually gifted enough individual to meet me halfway. It is so fascinating to me, as I see it is to you, how often our hearts will fool our brains into believing what we love is actually good for us. You know like being a Miami Dolfan (snick).

I could be wrong about Hillary. You could be wrong about your candidate. Who is to say? Me? You?

Let’s pretend for a moment that instead of it being Richardson betraying Clinton, it is Kerry betraying John Edwards by coming out and endorsing Obama right before the New Hampshire primary.

Do you feel the same way? I do. I thought that was a real low down classless act on Kerry’s part. It made me actually think for the first time, that he really wasn’t the man of character to be POTUS (Edwards would have been better me thinks).

And there is nothing that Mr. Kerry can do to restore my confidence in him again as a result of that. It is no wonder to me that Edwards has kept quiet and not endorsed anyone yet. It seems Mr. Edwards does put his honor and love of country over a clever political move. So far.

Richardson’s timing says more about him than it does about the Clintons. The fact that the state he represents voted for Hillary further illustrates my point

Mary

Don’t forget: Richardson was part of the Obama scheme to remove their names from the Michigan ballot to suck up to Iowa and New Hampshire and diminish Hillary’s win.

Also part of the Obama scheme to deny Florida and Michigan revotes even though the DNC approved both revotes.

And then he has the gall to on national TV and say he doesn’t want to get into the “gutter,” and wants us all to unite.

I don’t think so, Mr. Richardson.

You’re part of the problem now.

Carville’s right.
http://www.todayslies.com Will

“Let’s pretend for a moment that instead of it being Richardson betraying Clinton, it is Kerry betraying John Edwards by coming out and endorsing Obama right before the New Hampshire primary.”

I think there is too much stock placed in the concept of “loyalty” as far as endorsements are concerned in politics. They are pragmatic decisions on almost every occasion, made by career politicians who have spent their lives developing highly calibrated relationships with so-called “allies” who they will dump the minute it’s politicall expedient. The higher profile the politician, the more this truth bears out.

John Kerry and John Edwards went separate ways long before Kerry endorsed Obama before S.C. They were clearly uncomfortable bedfellows as running mates, and were regularly out-of-sync and off-message w/one another. After the campaign ended, both sides’ surrogates trashed the other.

So I wasn’t the least surprised that Kerry didn’t endorse Edwards. Also, apparently Kerry was put off by Clinton’s criticizing his soldier gaffe prior to the midterm elections, so she didn’t get his endorsement, either. Apparently, memories are long in this game. That’s just how it goes.

I’ve long respected and admired Ed Rendell, and didn’t lose respect for him when he endorsed Hillary. It’s smart politics, that’s how this works. It’s about Rendell’s political survival–cleary, the demographics of PA support this endorsement over an Obama one.

But let me add that I appreciate that you didn’t toss in some bomb at the end of your post about what an idiot I am, or something similar. Most people here for some reason cannot restrain themselves from the personal attacks, and for that, I appreciate that you kept the discussion on the issues. Thanks.

The Gringo’s Wife

I think there is too much stock placed in the concept of “loyalty” as far as endorsements are concerned in politics. They are pragmatic decisions on almost every occasion, made by career politicians who have spent their lives developing highly calibrated relationships with so-called “allies” who they will dump the minute it’s politicall expedient. The higher profile the politician, the more this truth bears out.

Will,

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Your reply clarifies that we do start off from very different core beliefs. No wonder we arrive at different conclusions!

My personal belief is that without some measure of “loyalty” our society would collapse. Hillary could not be challenging Obama to this degree if she did not enjoy a very large number of established as well as neo-political junkies. It is hard to appreciate the positives of an opponent because it requires you to give them credit. I suggest that the more vulnerable our preferred candidate, the less willing we are to examine the truth and realities of our opponent. I certainly confess to suffering from this very human behavioral response.

We can look to Obama and also see that he enjoys some very loyal support. I think this loyalty was severely tested recently. Without loyalty, Obama would be dead in the water by now.

As a member of a military family, loyalty is pretty big in our lives. My immediate family agrees that a person who does not show loyalty in public cannot be trusted to be loyal in private.

But that’s my view. I understand what you are saying and it is where my thoughts turns to next.

Not all politicians are “loyal” and loyalty does not a good politician make. I agree!

My point really is that loyalty is a criteria for me when judging others. A lack of loyalty in my personal life is a deal breaker. A lack of loyalty from my attorney would be grounds for a law suit followed by a hearty “word of mouth” referral to all my friends to avoid such attorney.

I’m not sure why I would expect any less from Craig due to the fact his clients are political figures.

PMS

Actually, it would appear the opposite. I know it’s so hard to believe, but he might actually have come to know Hillary in a quite different light over the years than the one you’ve painted her in above. That would provide a rational explanation for his joining the campaign.

And that, Will, merely proves Larry’s point, and why it is possible grounds for disbarment. The “Guild” (the Bar) does not look kindly on actions that threaten it.

Once again, Team Obama’s sense of ethics have stuck to the bottom of the Called One’s shoe.

John

I think the picture of Hillary sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife in an editorial meeting at his vanity rag to answer questions about side issues such as “what my preacher said” really says a lot. Richard ‘fucking’ Mellon Scaife. The #1 funder of the Arkansas project. Is that Stockholm syndrome or what?
Both Democratic candidates should be daily pointing out the debacle in Iraq…Warmonger Cheney stirring up death and destruction with his war hardon for Iran and so on…meanwhile the circular firing squad is still trying to elect high school class pres..

simon

I think the picture of Hillary sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife in an editorial meeting at his vanity rag to answer questions about side issues such as “what my preacher said” really says a lot.

“Waiting for Troll”

Three anti-Clinton French sockpuppets with pretensions toward intellectualism sit under a tree, discussing various aspects of a swift boat attack on Hillary.

It writes itself.

kenoshaMarge

Simon,
Is it just me or is every comment about Obama is met with “but, but Clinton” just like the Republicans always do when you mention Bush?

And also could you explain to me why so many Obamatrons, who have a plethora of Pro-Obama sites to go to just can’t stay away from NQ which is an unabashedly pro-Hillary blog? One of the few I might add. Evidently we are not allowed to have our own opinions or support our own candidates.

I used to wonder what went on in the pointy little heads of Republican Trolls that hung around liberal blogs just to insult people with whom they differed. How very sad it is that some so-called libs do the same thing.

Please tell me I’m wrong for thinking that the Democratic Party is broken beyond repair.

rwc

“And also could you explain to me why so many Obamatrons, who have a plethora of Pro-Obama sites to go to just can’t stay away from NQ which is an unabashedly pro-Hillary blog?”

Insecurity. At some level the Obamatrons are worried that not enough people are believing that tin plated con-man they are pushing as the messiah.

Though I am still amazed at how rapidly and thoroughly the progressive blogosphere turned into pro-Obama sites. Its like someone gave them all a cash infusion.

I wouldn’t put it past Obama.

kenoshaMarge

Well it is apparently an infusion many of us are immune to.

I think this election is heading for a cliff for the Democrats. I think that most Obama supporters and most Hillary supporters loathe each other more than they loathe the conservative/Republicans.

I just wish there was some place, any place that was Obamatron free.

simon

Swiftboating, marge, it’s guerrilla marketing, 101.

And this is what you’re seeing today.

And what are guerrilla marketers, or David Axelrod, or Karl Rove, or even Obama, for that matter, but characters from a parody of a Beckett, or David Mamet play?

They’re attempting to swift boat, to cause chaos, in an attempt to scatter, and gain the upper hand, “destroying Clinton.”

But if you look at the roster, well, it won’t happen.

Just don’t bite, if it feels you’re bickering with an aged, alcoholic, out of work, French has been, marginally talented, embittered Joan Crawford-Bill Kristol type, ostensibly male, it’s a troll.

dooner

You write
“They’re attempting to swift boat, to cause chaos, in an attempt to scatter, and gain the upper hand, “destroying Clinton.”

I don’t know…I am new on this site, and not too keen on all the insults, andsoon, and don’t know exactly who the ‘trolls’ supposed to be, but I sense that if there were any attempts to destroy anybody, you seem to go after Obama.

Correct me if I am wrong, plese

simon

I don’t know…I am new on this site, and not too keen on all the insults, andsoon, and don’t know exactly who the ‘trolls’ supposed to be, but I sense that if there were any attempts to destroy anybody, you seem to go after Obama.

First off, you should read before you attempt, as a troll to distract.

Secondly, giving you the benefit of the doubt, which I don’t, Obama accepted money from Saddam’s ex bag man.

What do you think about that?

If you think it’s OK, you’re the problem, too.

I men, really, doo, what are the implications for American foreign policy, Obama accepting money from Nadhmi Auchi?

Do you even know?

Four sockpuppets sitting under a tree, desperately trying to analyze “waiting for godot” within the context of their troll.

Being marketing and science guys, they can’t.

IMO, Obama’s lack of judgement, again, was trusting the apparatus of national security wouldn’t hold him, and his crew, responsible for their transactions.

You know? doo?

Of course you don’t.

simon

I guess the point I’m trying to make is imagine throwing your political lot in with Hamas, per the good reverend, versus the NSA.

What a shithead, eh?

Sorry, Susan, I’m trying to be civil.

http://www.todayslies.com Will

“Its like someone gave them all a cash infusion. I wouldn’t put it past Obama.”

Again, completely absurd. The only campaign that would ever consider wasting money like that would be the Clinton campaign.

The Gringo’s Wife

“Its like someone gave them all a cash infusion. I wouldn’t put it past Obama.”

Again, completely absurd. The only campaign that would ever consider wasting money like that would be the Clinton campaign.

Will,

Sometimes we can follow an argument right off the the short end of the pier.

I find generally there are two types of Hillary detractors; true Obama supporters and true Hillary haters.

But they both share one thing in common. They exhibit fixated thinking.

Yes! There are similar Clinton supporters. But in general, I find true Clintonistas (raising hand proudly) a more open minded and logical bunch.

http://www.todayslies.com Will

“Evidently we are not allowed to have our own opinions or support our own candidates.”

That is ridiculous. No one has said you “are not allowed to have” your own opinions, or support the candidate of your choice. My mere presence here as an Obama supporter does nothing to keep you from supporting Clinton. My challenging the basis of your Clinton support factually also compels you to do nothing.
mimi

What’s funny is that prObama sites instantly ban Hillary supporters from their sites. They won’t even tolerate a post that disputes Obama.

This is why I don’t support Obama. They don’t believe in the basic tenets of Democracy: freedom to vote for the candidate of your choice in an election and freedom of speech.

And yes, kenoshamarge, the Democratic Party, as far as I’m concerned is broken beyond repair.

Certainly Barack Obama won’t be the one uniting it, or our nation as he has claimed.

kenoshaMarge

Mimi,
thanks for your input. I guess I am just really depressed this morning. I see and hear smears and attacks on Clinton(s) everywhere while his royal phoniness gets a pass.

I don’t think the pundits realize just how angry many, many older women are. We have been insulted, dismissed and taken for granted.(Just like being married) Sure, we’ll just toddle off and vote for whoever the media and pundits decide will be our candidate. We are a “reliable” vote.

I don’t think so. And that is why I believe the party is broken beyond repair. I don’t believe the older woman vote is a reliable vote for the Democrats any more. At least this old woman’s vote isn’t. I plan on writing in Hillary if Obama is the candidate and then voting for the down ticket Dems I think worth voting for. And that doesn’t mean all of them by any means.

But a lot of the women I’ve talked to, old bats like me, are planning on voting for McCain if Hillary is not the candidate. They loathe Obama. And they do not despise McCain like they did Bush. And the more they get called “racist” and other names, the more they loathe him. This is a train wreck waiting to happen IMO.

ginaswo

IMHO, the Dems will lose the ‘middling’ womens vote too Mimi
Im 38 and I wont under any circumstances vote for Obama either
most of the Dem base appears to be moving away from the ‘party’ platform as led by Pelosi, Dean et al and they dont appear to know it, they are standing in quicksand with their Golden Boy….
Let’s see how PA and the remaining states play out, maybe they will get a clue….

dooner

Mimi
what are the Obama sites? I have never visited one

Hope

Don’t go unless you are prepared to be lambasted over the coals for speaking freely. I swear they all act like Scientologist with their attack dogs.

jwrjr

Obama is their religion. And you know how people react when you challenge their religion (no matter how foolish it might appear to others) …

Molly

think the picture of Hillary sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife in an editorial meeting at his vanity rag to answer questions about side issues such as “what my preacher said” really says a lot.

Well she had to sit down with Mellon. After all CNN is too busy to bother. Most of their time is taken up having news-sex with the Baby Jesus Obama.

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

I am reading that 1998 WaPo article that Larry linked to. Look at this:

“There’s no one I’d rather be with in a crisis,” says Ethel Kennedy, another member of the famous clan who has relied on Craig’s advice in recent years. “He’s just wonderful and very comforting, no matter how tough the problems you’re dealing with. He never kind of loses it. He’s so rational, says what he has to say very clearly, and he’s always on your side.”

Guess not.
votermom

Obama’s a lawyer; he should know better than to put Clinton’s former lawyer into a position where he would be called upon to breach client confidentiality.

http://www.todayslies.com Will

“Obama’s a lawyer; he should know better than to put Clinton’s former lawyer into a position where he would be called upon to breach client confidentiality.”

Maybe’s because he’s “a lawyer”, Obama knows that he has in no way done that.

simon

So, handling a swift boater, or his lawyer, and their attacks, their “logic,” is analogous to handling an intellectually pretentious, no talent Frenchman.

The English have a lot of experience with that…

What brand of cigarette does Obama smoke, again?

Gitanes?
http://ObamabillsandNewPolitics verminme

AH NO. I can’t let that one go by. Obama, the lawyer, knows what he’s doing and he doesn’t mind “serving up” another lawyer for disbarrment to acheive his goals. It’s all about Obama, all the time.

ginaswo

All Obama All the Time

hey isnt that the new CNN catchphrase?

DJ

What breach are you talking about? You see a buzzword, an accusation, and you are off.

Craig was one of Bill Clinton’s impeachment attorneys. Did he reveal anything about Bill Clinton’s nasty conduct?

He owes no loyalty to the relatives of any defendants he represents.

What he said about Hillary Clinton are verifiable facts. It is the Clinton camp that needs factcheck.

liberalbuffet

Hillerys pitt bulls and thugs who are trying to win this thing for her, (NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES) are making Obama look better, and better EVERY DAY. LOL

This site has “gone into the bit tent) with the GOP. Have a nice day. LOL

John

Wait! Take Will and Kevin with you!

simon

Wait! Take Will and Kevin with you!

And you too John!

“I told you he wouldn’t go.”

He doesn’t get it, not being familiar with self irony, and Beckett.

Pseudo intellectualism, indeed.

Remember the quote “irony is dead?”

That was wrong, it simply morphed into self parody, men with no insight into their own behavior, at all, American political consultants as no talent obtuse Euro trash.

LOOK at the republicans, look at Obama’s camp, even throwing GRANDMA under the train, not even recognizing, oh, the audacity.

They don’t get it.

They really don’t.

It’s just business.

To everyone else, it’s parody.

Kevin

You’re seeking or engaged in therapy right?
http://www.todayslies.com Will

“He doesn’t get it, not being familiar with self irony, and Beckett.”

Beckett references? Whoa, boy!

Mary

Translation of Will: Who’s Beckett?

http://www.todayslies.com Will

“Translation of Will: Who’s Beckett?”

I have a B.F.A. in theatre, so I’m well aware of Samuel Beckett’s work. I was almost cast as Hamm in Endgame, but got lucky with Arturo Ui instead, which any warm-blooded actor would be thrilled with. If you know the play I’m referencing, you’ll understand why. If you haven’t read The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui, you should.

I was only surprised to see Beckett brought up in a political chat room regarding Obama and Clinton. It’s not every day!

Once again, I don’t understand why everything boils down to an insult or a personal attack on this site.

Mary

Uh, no.

The Gallup Poll shows that if Obama gets the nomination against McCain in the fall,

28% of Democrats will vote for McCain.

So it appears, dear, that your premise is the EXACT opposit of the truth.

Obama’s reputation has DIMINISHED because of the Wright fiasco, and all the hysterical attacks on Hillary won’t change that.

Obama can’t win in November if 28% of Democrats desert him.

FACTS

Cee Hussein

So the Hillary 2012 plan is working. She’ll take the party down in the hope that she can come back later.

I won’t vote for her than either.

Mary

NOt the Hillary plan, dear.

It’s the ANTI-MEDIA plan.

Ironic, isn’t it, that after their continued trashing of Clinton after the New Hampshire win, claiming that it was only because of the Bradley Effect (ie, NH voters were all racists)…..

that the hidden Wright information may very well bring down Obama BECAUSE of the Bradley Effect.

Obama is dividing the party, darlin. And he’s playing the race-baiting card to do it.

And THAT is why Democrats are moving AWAY from his bamboozling bullsh*t EN MASSE.

He’s a fake. A fraud. A liar.

http://www.todayslies.com Will

“And THAT is why Democrats are moving AWAY from his bamboozling bullsh*t EN MASSE.”

Why is he closing in PA, then?

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

http://www.todayslies.com Will

The reason the numbers are higher right now for Clinton supporters supposedly defecting to McCain is simply that Obama is ahead, and Hillary is behind, and is likely to lose the nomination.

There is more bitterness in her camp right now because of that than his, and so of course that means sour grapes. It would go the exact same way if the situation were reversed.
MessyMarcy

Once again Obama is just like George W. Bush. Bush went into Iraq with not a clue what to do once we were there. Obama (with considerable help from the press and the DNC) is trying to get the Democratic nomination and is totally clueless about what he will do in the GE. His Republican supporters in red states won’t be voting for him; Democrats are being more and more turned off by the unethical and repugnant people with whom he has surrounded himself, as well as by his total lack of qualifications to be President. Polls are showing he might not even carry Massachusetts against McCain, for God’s sake. Does the DNC have any interest at all in winning in November? Does he and they have any game plan at all other than to whine and blame Hillary?

And for those who are asking would not Obama, as a lawyer himself, realize this conflict of interest exists — maybe not. Just as Bush misrepresented his military service while campaigning to say he was in the Air Force rather than the Guard, it appears that Obama was not the law professor that he has held himself out to be, but instead was just a lecturer. Neither does there seem to be anything notable in his career in private practice, except maybe the billable hours for Rezko. So let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Just like he didn’t know which button to push when voting in the Illinois Legislature, maybe he didn’t know this was a conflict of interest. The real test is what he will do now that it has been pointed out.

mimi

Nothing will make Obama look better.

Mary

Absolutely correct, Mimi.

His bamboozling and hoodwinking chickens have come home to roost.

He is unelectable now, even with moderate Independents and Reagan Democrats.

And THAT is why the Obama campaign & supporters are so frenzied lately.

Pingback: Wednesday- PSAs « The Confluence
Kat

Is this really what Senator Obama and his supporters really think? If you are not with us, you are a racist; if you are not with us, you are a GOP?

Where have I heard this “you-are-either-with-us-or-against-us” before?

Kevin

Sounds more like the attitude expressed by alot of Hillary supporters here… if you’re not with us (Her) you’re either sexist or w/ the GOP.

I honestly don’t think the majority of supporters on either side feel that way about their opponents. At least I’d like to believe that – otherwise we’re lost.

Fran

Don’t feed the trolls.

mimi

And Kat,

If you are an AA like I am and not down with the kool-aid, you’re an ‘Uncle Tom.’

I love how the candidate of ‘hope’, ‘change’ and inspiration, inspires such lovely name-calling.
http://www.todayslies.com Will

Myself, I’ve been mystified by the Clinton supporters here who, by default, have labeled me a racist for supporting Obama.

jwrjr

Supporting Obama doesn’t make you racist. It is a sign that you have poor judgement.

http://www.todayslies.com Will

What’s said is that most posters on this board will probably see this as good news:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx

Shainzona

And 19% of Obama supporters will go to McCain if Hillary wins.

And your point is – that Hillary is the bad guy?

Nope – but Obama and Company have driven Hillary supporters away at an even worse rate.

I may very likely be one of those – I can write Hillary in no matter what.

lowdowndog

The Clintons knew from the moment Greg Craig started working for Obama there could be a conflict of interest. Did they confront the issue or did they think is was not worth the fight?

simon

It’s an attempt to throw the blog into chaos.

Apparently, Obama’s camp is suffering from a bowel obstruction.

All I can say is when that mother blows, everybody move it.

We will finally find out what composes a swift boaters brains.

Here, kitty kitty.

Mary

ROFLMAO, simon.

http://speaktruth speaktruth

simon,
I agree with you about the trolls. They are probably paid by the Obama campaign, or at least sent here by them. I know they hire people to troll for them. They never have anything of substance to say.
One request though – please leave the French out of it. I love the French, some of my best friends are French. Let’s not stoop to the racism of the other campaigns or the Repubs with their dumb attacks on Kerry.
I come to this site for information I can’t get anywhere else, certainly not from corporate media. I hope this site does not deteriorate into yet another site for Obama trolls. I guess that is what they are aiming for, since there is nothing of substance they can say to informed people for Clinton on this site.
One of my concerns is getting the word out on the important issues raised by Larry and Susan. Any suggestions?

simon

agree with you about the trolls. They are probably paid by the Obama campaign

Yeah, speak truth, I see it.

I don’t care.

No talent is no talent, and so stupid, it can’t even see what a thick JOKE it is…

It’s like telling people you play the piano, and the only thing you can play is a middle A.

Over, and over, and over and over.

With no insight into the fact, you stink.

Kathleen, cujo, and a few others all sound the same, you know?

Susan said yesterday Kathleen was changing IP numbers, but the lack of talent, and sameness, came through on every post, couldn’t hide the lack of originality, critical thinking skills, lack of original thought.
Escoffier

They do the trolling in shifts. If you compare the periods of time that various ones are posting you can see a clear pattern. They are even off on holidays. This was very obvious at the big orange loony bin and I was almost banned for pointing it out. I most humbly apologized with my fingers crossed.

They even have private discussions about the accommodations at the various state headquarters in the middle of the night which I found to be very bold. These are not Republicans as some have suggested. They are trained and paid staff of the Obama campaign. They throw crap to see what will stick. They are following Clinton supporters around because they have fouled all of the big sites and have to troll for new ones to disrupt.

Mary

I don’t mind if they troll.

I MIND that they sent the most poorly informed, logic impaired, stupid ones to our blog.

Is this the best they’ve got?

TeakwoodKite

I guess they pay cheap wages…

ginaswo

Je t’aime les Franciase aussi, pardon the terrible spelling it’s been a while
http://www.todayslies.com Will

“They are probably paid by the Obama campaign, or at least sent here by them. I know they hire people to troll for them.”

No political campaign pays people to infest chat rooms with propoganda. There could be no greater waste of resources than spending precious donations on that which we all clearly are doing for free anyway.

John

Wow, what a shame that the media has it’s hands filled with the “Hillary LIED about her trip to Bosnia” SCANDAL and the “Chelsea took a cheap shot at an honest questioner in Indiana” SCANDAL. Because I’m so sure that if they weren’t so busy with this “important” stuff, they’d be all over the latest evidence that Obama is not ready for prime time.

By the way, the worst cliche used by the media is “this story just won’t go away.” Because what it means is “we like this story, it serves our purposes and our prejudices, so we are going to beat it until its good and dead.” Thus= more Hillary/Bosnia “fallout,” less Obama is a crook.

Mary

Yes, of course, John.

Notice they passed on the story about Obama’s tax returns: The 2006 return showed a “charitable contribution” of $13,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus.

It is illegal to deduct political contributions as charitable contributions. Obama had to file an amended return to fix that mistake.

You’d THINK a man running for President of the United States would KNOW that he can’t deduct political contributions as “charitable.”

GEEZ, this guy’s a rookie. He’s not ready for the White House.

barbh

Mary, I looked at those returns and totally missed that. I did notice that he paid his Hispanic child care worker a very low wage. I would sure like more specific details on that, how many hours, etc. she worked and an explanation of why she made so much less than her nonHispanic nanny.

Mary

I saw that $6,000 for a full-time nanny too, barb. These Obamas are cheapskates. There’s not a single BLACK nanny that would take that salary, but an Hispanic might.

You wonder why they didn’t hire a worthy Black woman to do that job, don’t you, given that the Obamas are SOOOOOO concerned about lifting up their fellow Blacks, eh?

But Michelle went the cheap , stingy choice instead.

Speaks volumes.

Pingback: Obama Advisor Faces Disbarment | REBEL CENTRAL
http://thehorizontalworld.blogspot.com/ Mary Jo Kopechne

“Will the supine mainstream media, slavishly following the Obama campaign’s barks and calls like one of Pavlov’s dogs, ever even ask about Greg Craig’s potential ethical conflict of interest and breach of trust?”

Larry, this sentence says it all. You could substitute Greg Craig’s with McPeak’s anti-Semitic comments, and Richardson’s endorsement, Dean and Pelosi’s selling out of the Democratic party, Wright’s replacement, Michelle Obama, and many other examples of how the ‘supine’ msm ‘slavishly’ acquiesce to the Obamarama.

I hope (what a tender word–hope–) that the msm will begin to do their jobs before it’s too late. Otherwise, we will have a another republican president and the missed opportunity of the excellent leadership of Hillary Clinton.

As far as Will and the other trolls–leave them to their fantasy relationships with Obama, their imaginary hip black friend.
tinat

doesn’t Hillary already have a disbarred lawyer as an adviser…some guy named Bill I think

simon

some guy named Bill I think

Kicking some French American wannabe butt, from what I can tell…

lol.
TeakwoodKite

Hey tinat; get your facts straight. Ni! Ni! Ni!

Arkansas – Suspension of Bill Clinton law license ends next month.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544869/posts

Andy

“Ethical change” some have been waiting for, alright.

The people Obama has surrounded himself with tells you what Presidency he would have. It’s like going to the theatre before the premiere. Over and over we are witnessing in Obama’s candidacy the rehearsals of a seriously flawed and bad play. I say; shut it down before opening day. It is doomed to be a failure. The US and the world cannot afford one more day of it after the last 8 years.

Kevin

Good grief Andy…

“The people Obama has surrounded himself with tells you what Presidency he would have. It’s like going to the theatre before the premiere. Over and over we are witnessing in Obama’s candidacy the rehearsals of a seriously flawed and bad play.”

You could exchange Hillary’s name for obama’s then cite Ferraro, Penn and others past and present on her campaign team and arrive at the same conclusion, excuse me – opinion.

What’s your point? Better still how will all this negativity help either candidate? Most importantly how is it hurting the party and helping the GOP?

http://thehorizontalworld.blogspot.com/ Mary Jo Kopechne

Larry,

Can’t the Clinton”s, or a Clinton surrogate, report Craig’s ethical breach to the American Bar Association? From what I gather, a report will force the accused to cease and desist until an investigation concludes with it’s findings.

I suggest that someone from the Clinton campaign report this concern.

Kevin

Mary, speculation aside – just what ethical breach or breaches is Craig guilty of? And don’t you think that if the accusation were true – they’d have acted on it already?

Rob Gard

Kevin:
The appearance of impropriety is sufficient, as lawyers are held to a much higher standard than the general public. If a lawyer represents Microsoft, and becomes privy to corporate secrets, strategies, and methodologies, that lawyer cannot then convey any of that information to his new friends & clients at Sun Microsystems. The simple fact that the lawyer likely was privy to political and personal confidences of the Clintons, gives rise to an apparent conflict of interest. I just don’t think that the Clinton’s want to deal with the distractions that would occur from the campaign if they filed a complaint at this time.

Kevin

Come on Rob… that’s precisely the lazy logic employed by the Clinton bashers when they attacked Hillary over Rose…

You’re not only presuming but presupposing that he’s shared privileged information.

B-Rob

There are a lot of people offering opinions about “conflicts” who have no idea what they are tal;king about.

Not only that, everyone is presuming that he is Obama’s attorney! Who said he was his attorney? And who said he was ever Hillary’s attorney? Prove that, first, then we can move on to what he is doing for the campaign.

TeakwoodKite

lawyers are held to a much higher standard than the general public…

Did they teach this at Harvard? What is the oath a lawyer takes for the Illinois State Bar?

B-Rob

The ABA is, for all intents and purposes, a lobbying group. If they actually thought Craig commited an offense, he would be reported to the DC bar . . . you know, the one that disbarred Hillary’s husband.

http://speaktruth speaktruth

So then is there a way to follow the money?
How much are these people being paid – Richardson, Craig, etc.
O don’t think they are taking such risks with their reputation, law license, without getting something big in return.
Why are these questions being addressed? I’m sure money exchange is private, but don’t campaign finance disclosure laws cover this somehow?
Richardson could be offered Veep job but I suspect there is money involved, too.
There must be ways to uncover this info, including how much Obama staffers are paid. How much trolls are paid? Where is all that money they raise going?
buckskin711

FREEDOMSENEMIES.COM……CHECK THIS SITE. AND OBAMATRUTH.ORG….BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, THREE ARABIC NAMES. AND AFTER 911 WE ARE GOING TO ELECT HIM ? WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY THINKING ? HE NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED BY THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITEE FOR SITTING IN THAT CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS AND LISTENING AND NODDING HIS HEAD IN AGREEMENT TO HATE SPEECH. ISNT THAT PRACTING IN UN AMERICAN ACTIVITIES ? WHY IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE BEING A US SENATOR ? ITS MIND BLOWING TO SAY THE LEAST.
http://thehorizontalworld.blogspot.com/ Mary Jo Kopechne

As far as following the money, I just made a hefty donation to the Hillary campaign in Will and Kevin’s names.

That’s how we deal with trolls at the Taylor Marsh blog. http://www.taylormarsh.com/

And the other rule is if you engage them in discussion, you must double your donation to Hillary.

Kevin

Thanks!

Catriley

Thanks for pointing this out, Larry. Apparently ethics are not Obama’s strong suit. His is a do-anything, say-anything, atomosphere of sycophants and political opportunists. The inspiration-on-steroids message of the earlier Obama campaign era, has been trampled beneath the professionally produced signs that his supporters are required to hold at his rallies, and left behind like the empty Corona bottles on a beach somewhere in the Virgin Islands this week.

The Obama campaign has perfected the art of leaving the dirty work to his surrogates, leaving him untainted by the ugliness. Axelrod fancies himself the new Karl Rove — he matches him in scuzziness and disregard for other people, but Axelrod is clumsy. He’s a small time player who has stumbled repeatedly because he hasn’t the smarts to realize that he’s not offering a new product but a Candidate 1.2 Like a house with a leaky roof, the mold and rot is beginning to take down the house that Change built.
VMorris

The stupidist notion I’ve read in a long, long, time is that Chelsea took a cheap shot at a question asker in Indiana. That is bass-ackwards thinking. The question that was asked was the cheap shot.

A dear friend of mine told me once: “Don’t ask the scary question if you don’t want the scary answer.”

Chelsea was spot on with her comeback.
sajo

HURRY! GET THE SMELLING SALTS FOR LARRY

Is this the article that caused the Larry Johnson Eruption?
He poses a lot of inflammatory non-specified accusations in the form of questions. Could he face disbarment? Could this be an ethical breach?
This so called scandal only exists in Larry Johnson’s head, and he knows his choir well enough to predict that they will swallow anything without evidence, logic or substantiation.

Larry has become a branch of Fux News

Bravo! This should get you a few private contractor jobs in a Clinton administration (you wish)

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/
Obama adviser accuses Clinton of ‘inflated resume’
by Mike Dorning

Greg Craig, a top foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama and former senior State Department official in the Clinton Administration, says Hillary Clinton is “misleading the American public” with claims of foreign policy experience that amount to an “inflated resume.”

“She did not sit in on national security meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the situation room. She conducted no negotiations. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy,” Craig said in an interview with the National Journal.“Senator Clinton and her supporters have in serious ways overstated, if not grossly exaggerated, the nature of her experience,” added Craig. Later, he said, “It’s inflated résumé.”

This, by the way, is the same Greg Craig who was one of Bill Clinton’s defense attorneys in his Senate impeachment trial.
In the interview, Craig honed in on Clinton’s claim that she played an important role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland.

“Take the Irish peace process — which was a lengthy and arduous and difficult negotiation. She said, initially, that ‘I helped bring peace to Northern Ireland.’ Well, if you took the many, many heroes who were responsible for achieving that agreement — I could name 20 people in Ireland. Primarily, the Irish were responsible for doing this, and the Americans were strong supporters.

“But it’s a little bit presumptuous for the first lady, who would meet people and support people to take credit away from the Irish themselves who did it. Terry McAuliffe said, ‘We would not have peace today had it not been for Hillary’s hard work in Northern Ireland.’ That’s just not true. This morning, Senator Clinton said on NPR that the role that she played in the Irish peace process was ‘instrumental.’ Well, that’s not accurate. That’s an overstatement.

“And anybody who is really knowledgeable about what went on, including George Mitchell, who wrote a book about it — he wrote a book about the peace process, and he never mentioned any role whatsoever that Senator Clinton, or the first lady at the time, played.”

The full interview, in which Craig also challenges Clinton’s claim to have negotiated a reopening of the Macedonian border to refugees from Kosovo, is available on the National Journal web site.

DJ

Sajo,
Thanks for posting this article. Interesting.

It seems like nobody in this group is arguing with the FACTS stated by Craig.

Maybe the truth will sink in

Rob Gard

And, pray tell, how was he positioned to know these “facts”, and I can assure you that it was not from reading George Mitchell’s book.
“I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as first lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland,” said former SDLP leader and Nobel laureate John Hume is a statement responding to critical press reports.

“She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward,” said Hume.

apishapa

It seems to me that the Prime Minister of Ireland would know a little bit more about Hillary Clinton’s involvement in Ireland’s affairs than Mr. Craig, who as an employee of Obama’s campaign has reason to lie. Also, since Craig has demonstrated his complete lack of ethics, I would hold anything he said suspect. All this shows is that he is a really bad lawyer, gossipping about his clients.

Ireland Prime Minister Bertie Ahern:

Mr. Ahern called Mrs. Clinton “hugely helpful” in the process both as first lady and as a U.S. senator, and suggested some of the criticism of her are unfair.

Mr. Ahern addressed the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of Lackawanna County on Sunday and gave a feel-good talk about the unity of Ireland and the United States.

Before taking the podium, he discussed the tough negotiations between the Irish and English in the 1990s that would lead to power-sharing and peace in Northern Ireland.
Hope

What is the definition of “instrumental”?

VMorris

Hmmmm….I agree that SOMEONE here needs the smelling salts. However, it is not Larry…
llilytoo

Can someone tell me why Obama is still on Easter vacation? Isn’t there a campaign going on or something ?? Has he told the DNC he’s not coming back till they wrap this up? What?

TeakwoodKite

Perhaps he went hunting for Golden Easter Eggs?

Hope

No he went hunting for the Goose that laid the Golden Egg.

TeakWoodKite

Rezko?

B-Rob

Give the man a break! He’s been working hard trying to slay the Monster! He deserves a break while his kids are on vacation. Besides . . . before we know it, he will be back to wiping the floor with what is left of the Clinton invincibility! Scoreboard!

Hope

That little skinny wimp can’t even handle his own foul mouthed wife of a monster let alone his opponent.

http://www.dcmediagirl.com DCMediagirl

This is so fucking sad, pardon my French. I got to know Greg slightly during the Elian imbroglio and found him to be a dedicated and charming advocate. I also admired his work during the impeachment “trial” – although for my money, Dale Bumpers’ presentation for the defense put all those high-priced lawyers to shame (I’ve seached in vain for the video online. If anyone can track it down please send the link my way).

What an utter disappointment.

http://www.dcmediagirl.com DCMediagirl

Pls. disregard my request for the Bumpers video. Maybe if I’d checked out this newfangled thing called “Google” I wouldn’t have had so much trouble finding this brilliant political speech. For those of you who haven’t seen it in a while I urge you to check it out. The image quality is lousy but the content is superb:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/trial/bumpers_1-21.html

TeakwoodKite

Thanks for the link.
Tonights “tv”.

apishapa

We all know that Obama will swear that he had no idea that his new lawyer represented the Clintons. Just like he never knew Rezko was a crook, and that his preacher was a lunatic.

Purely a coincidence that he hired Clinton’s lawyerr, and he would never betray a client, because he is too honorable. And he sure didn’t know that was unethical.

Obama never knows anything. He often sounds like AGAG.

http://www.todayslies.com Will

“We all know that Obama will swear that he had no idea that his new lawyer represented the Clintons.”

Everyone who’s read anything about Greg Craig knows that he was the Clintons’ lawyer. I’m sure a big reason Obama welcomed him was because he used to be the Clintons’ lawyer. Obama knows what we all know, and knows that we all know that he knows it. So he’s not going to try anything so silly as feign ignorance on this.

[ADMIN: HAVING RECEIVED TOO MANY COMPLAINTS, I HAVE PLACED YOU ON MODERATION. I WILL REVIEW YOUR COMMENTS AS TIME ALLOWS.]

TeakwoodKite

Obama knows what we all know, and knows that we all know that he knows it.

Is that you Don?

Kathy

The truth about Ireland and Hillary

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6430
Tab

This is all hype – no facts. Trying to make something out of nothing. If there were anything there, don’t you think the Clintons/Penn/Carville would have made a big stink about it. You are unethical in trying to judge someone as guilty without having proved anything. But that is not unexpected.
Hope

This is serious conflict of interest. He’s playing his own opposing counsel.
Linda

Thanks for the legal people blogging here for attempting to educate the trolls on the real issue. It’s not whether or not Craig has given Obama confidential Clienton information. It’s that, as a lawyer, he is bound by a duty not to give even the appearance of a possible conflict. That’s why, as the legal folks noted, law firms go to such extremes to check and cross-check that they are not taking on representation of any party at odds with another party they represent. The notion that Obama and Craig do not know this is simply impossible. But I agree, Obama doesn’t care who takes a fall for him.

Mary

Nor does Obama care about ethics.

Obama cares about Obama. And nothing else.
B-Rob

This is utter b.s. First and foremost, unless and until Obama and Clinton buy property from each other or sue each other, they are no more adverse than you and me. They are simply two individuals competing for the same job, to which NEITHER of them is entitled.

The people spouting off about the “appearance of a possible conflict” . . . that is poppycock. Either you have a conflict, or you don’t. They don’t because the two parties are NOT adverse. And another thing: has anyone even proven that he or Williams and Connelly ever represented Hillary?

PamFlorida

This conversation has deteriorated into mindlessness. Doesn’t anyone monitor this blog? I really miss the pertinet discussions and info sharing.
Hope

I think everyone should just ignore the trolls and the rest of us will go on blogging in normal, polite fashion regarding issues.
Tracy

This information is just simply not true. He’s not facing disbarment at all. He’s been up front about this for months. He’s been on radio shows and done interviews where everyone’s mentioned this information. The Clintons are aware he’s working with Obama and you know for sure that if there was any chance he was doing anything wrong, they’d have called it out already. There is absolutely no proof he’s done anything to betray the attorney-client privilege.
Hope

It is a matter of conflict of interest.

B-Rob

There is no conflict of interest in Craig representing Hillary (assuming he did . . . did he?) and supporting Obama. Why? Its simple.

1) Obama is not suing Hillary and Craig is not representing him. He is merely providing financial support. So from a legal standpoint, Obama and Hillary are not adverse.

2) By supporting Obama, Craig is not impacting any legal right of Hillary’s. I know this is hard for some of you to grasp, but Hillary is NOT entitled to be the nominee such that Craig’s support for Obama interferes with her legal rights in any way.

3) Do we even know if Craig ever represented Hillary? I know he and his firm represented Bill, but her? Not so sure. And that would have been a bad idea if they did since, at some point in the criminal investigation, their interests might have become adverse.

B-Rob

Will monkeys fly out of Greg Craig’s butt? No. And “no” to all the other “questions”, too.

OK, children, here is how it works: an attorney is not allowed to divulge client secrets or confidences. They do not have to like their clients, they can take political positions adverse to their clients, they can even criticize their clients on NON-LEGAL ISSUES.

To the best of my knowledge, Greg Craig was not representing Hillary on “diplomacy” matters: she was under federal investigation, remember? The whole “I’ve been investigated so many times, it is a badge of honor” argument? So, no, he is no more likely to be disbarred (and the Clinton’s know about disbarrment) than Hillary is for lying about the sniper fire. Give it a rest, people . . . .

Tracy

Well put, B-Rob!
Hope

B-Rob

Okay so what you are saying is that he possess some form of a waiver? Or that he is operating under some technicality that we are not aware of at this point? Thank you for your legal expertise.

B-Rob

Waiver for what? And what technicality?

Greg Craig was representing Bill Clinton in his criminal matter. Are we even sure he represented Hillary in anything? But even if he did, guess what? He is permitted to say she is lying about things unrelated to his legal representation of her or unrelated to her legal rights! Let me give you an example.

Hillary is playing golf and Craig is in the foursome. Hillary cheats on her score card (surprise surprise), gets called out on it and turns to Craig and says “Greg, didn’t I get birdie on that Par 5?” He does not have to lie for her. Indeed, even if he volunteers that she is lying through her teeth, that is not an ethical violaiton for him. Because her flat out lie has nothing to do with her legal rights or his representation of her (assuming he ever represented her.)

And no one here has commented on the fact that her lawyer (assuming he was her lawyer) is supporting another person . . . maybe a subliminal message on the whole “trustworthiness” issue with Hill? Methinks so!

Hope

OH I see. I had no idea that Hillary went to Mr. Craig and asked him to lie for her. Does the article above inform the reader that Hillary asked him to do that?

B-Rob

The lying about golf is a hypothetical to explain what is a conflict and what is not a conflict. Just as it would not be a conflict if he pointed out that she was lying through her teeth about the Tuzla sniper fire.

And no one has yet proven that Craig ever represented her, either. If he never did (and his firm never did), then this is all curious, but irrelevant. He is just one more person who knows Hillary well but who would rather support an “empty suit” than her . . . . Interesting that there are no Obama turncoats.

PMS

Interesting that there are no Obama turncoats.

That’s the great thing about having no concrete history. But don’t worry. You won’t have to wait long for pack to turn.

PMS

…and how very revealing that you would use the term “turncoats”.
B-Rob

“That’s the great thing about having no concrete history.”

Yeah . . . no concrete history . . . except for 20 plus years living in a “little town” called Chicago, 18 years as an attorney, 12 years as a professor, eight years in the Illinois state senate, three years in the US Senate . . . no history at all and no opportunity to piss anyone off . . . God you Hillary people are clueless.

Kathy

20 plus years living in a “little town” called Chicago, 18 years as an attorney, 12 years as a professor,

he wasn’t a professor–he was
a guest lecturer or something

eight years in the Illinois state senate,

7 years in the State Senate and
he didn’t pass a bill until the
7th year when his mentor Jones
gave him all the other senators
bills to put his name on. He
subsequently put them on his
resume as his own and boy are
they pissed. The other senators
put in a lot of work on those
bills which Obama took as his own.

three years in the US Senate

a year and one-half actually
he has been running for president
the other year and one half

Obama is an empty vessel who has
done nothing yet. I expect him to
be called as a witness in the Rezko
trial or a warrant will be issued
for his arrest for taking bribes and
kick backs along with Rezko. Rezko
has been friends with Obama for 20
years and according to Obama, he is still a friend.

No-obama-nation

Remember, the State Senate position is a part-time position so he wasn’t even playing lawmaker full time.

Hope

B-Rob

There are always turncoats. There is no such thing as a person who doesn’t have a rival, an enemy or an adversary. “Yes We Can” will always meet its opposing “No You Can’t”.

There are no sages in this campaign who act but do not act. Politics is antithetical so such ideology.

Fleaflicker

This seems to be a clear cut case of conflict of interest. I do not see how Craig can justify this (what seems to me to be) violation of the ethics.

B-Rob

It is far from clear that it is anything of the sort.

First, prove he or his firm was ever Hillary’s attorney(s).

Second, prove that Hillary and Obama have a legal conflict. They don’t!. Neither one has sued the other and they are not engaged in any transaction that makes them adverse or potentially adverse.

Third, prove that Craig is giving legal advice to Obama. There is a difference between acting as a lawyer as opposed to acting as a campaign advisor.

In short, anyone who says that Craig has a “conflict” doesn’t know what they hell they are talking about.

Hope

B-Rob

It doesn’t take very much work to find out who is Attorney of Record.

B-Rob

Not necessarily. Remember, Hillary was just being investigated, unlike Bill, who was actually sued. If I was a betting man (and I am not) I would bet that Willaims and Connolly did NOT represent Hillary. After all, she had her own criminal matters to tend to and her interests might have diverged from his at some point.

Mike Howell

B-Rob -

You make NO sense!

B-Rob

Just an aside — I know this crap because I do a bit of legal malpractice defense for a living! For people to assume that, just because he represented Bill means he represented “the Clintons” . . . that is simply false. The writer of this post obviously had no idea what he was talking about when he opened this. But, then again, this is the silly season and the Hillary people are a bt defensive and desperate about the whole “lying through her teeth and the camara proves it” situation. Anything to change the subject!

Hope

B-Rob,
It sounds like you know a lot about what you are talking about so maybe you can tell us how to go about finding out if Craig was ever Attorney of Record.

Thanks,

Anna Belle

My question is, how can we get an official complaint filed against Craig for this? There have to be procedures in place for this kind of ethical breach, no?
Mike Howell

Attorney Craig is ethically challenged. He and his firm, Williams and Connally, have been the attorneys of record for Bill and Hillary Clinton for more than a decade.

B-Rob is yanking your chain. Apparently he failed to actually read Larry’s post above. Additionally, if he was a really good attorney, he would know that there is this thing called spousal privilege.

Did Hillary reasonably believe that he was her attorney? If so, he’s going to be talking to the discipinary committee if someone files a complaint.

B-Rob

Just saw this today, so I don’t know if you will see this. But here goes:

Spousal privilege — it is a common law concept that a person can’t be forced to testify against their spouse, or that private communications between spouses are not admissible in court. It has NOTHING TO DO with an attorney representing one spouse having any legal obligations to the other.

Conflict of interest — an attorney cannot take a business position or bring legal proceedings against a client without that client’s waiver of the privilege.

In order for Hillary to prove Greg Craig has any duty toward her, she would first have to prove that he was her lawyer. But even then . . . he is opposing her politically, not opposing her in a transaction or litigation. Just because he may have been her lawyers (and, more likely, just her husband’s lawyer) doesn’t mean she gets carte blanche over Craig First Amendment protected right to support the political candidate of his choice. THAT, my friends, is why there will be no bar complaint against Craig.

Gilbert Borman

As an attorney, I have to disagree with your premise- an attorney is free to support the political candidate of his choice and owes no duty to support a former client’s political aspirations.

He is forbidden to disclose his client’s secrets. Any showing that Craig does so at any time would be grounds for ethical discipline.

If Craig cannot be trusted to keep his client’s secrets, the Clintons made a very poor choice of their legal counsel. Craig is a high priced lawyer, it would be career and financial suicide for him to disclose any client secrets and he is very much smart enough to know this.

For the record, I am a McCain man. Have never met and have no ties to Craig, his firm or either of the Democratic candidate’s campaigns.

Hope

For the Record I am a Hillary woman and I am also the Wizard of Oz.

Marie

I don’t understand why Obama supporters are always attacking? Do they think that Hillary supporters are going to support Obama if he wins the nomination?
How do you support people who are constantly attacking a difference of opinion? Everyone does not have to agree, but the attacks are only going to cause McCain support.
A lawyer has to consider not only a conflict of interest, but also the appearance of a conflict of interest. Mr Craig is on very shaky grounds. Unethical Attorneys do take on conflicts and they get away with it until someone files a complaint.

sajo

Marie,
Did you read the comments on this blog? Who is attacking whom?
Larry decided to attack an attorney who used to defend Bill Clinton, case closed.
He can now go and do whatever, whereever he wants.

Larry, comparing him to the Judas Richardson, wants to see everybody who had made eye contact with the Clintons to be enslaved to them for life.
Doesn’t work that way.

Please don’t jump on irresonsible speculations and insinuations. Please keep an open mind and read information outside this blog.
Thank you,
s

http://www.panama-guide.com Don Winner

By Don Winner for http://www.panama-guide.com: Greg Craig is currently representing Pedro Miguel Gonzalez, the President of the National Assembly in the Republic of Panama. Gonzalez is an indicted criminal wanted by the United States for the TERRORIST ASSASSINATION of US Army Soldier Zak Hernandez in Panama in 1992. A Panamanian court acquitted Gonzalez in a trial the United States says was rigged in Gonzalez’s favor. If Gonzalez ever set foot in the United States he would be immediately arrested terrorist. So, in effect (and in fact) Greg Craig has accepted the case – to defend a man accused of having assassinated a US Army Sergeant in cold blood in a political act on foreign soil, making him a terrorist. The United States Congress has refused to pass a bilateral Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Panama because Gonzalez continues as the President of the Legislative Branch of government here. Obama’s decision to keep Craig on his team is a serious error in judgment. More details of the connections between Craig, Obama, and Pedro Miguel Gonzalez are available on the http://www.panama-guide.com website.
sys admin

This is so awesome! A thread that captures the venom of the hillraisers in amber, forever!