Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama's former White House counsel visits Don Siegelman, working on his appeal [View all]starroute
(12,977 posts)31. There's a backstory on Craig and it's not pretty
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/11/16/the-assassination-of-greg-craig.html
Nov 16, 2009
The White House counsel was done in by a scurrilous leaks campaign. So much for the Obama team's pledge to be transparent, forthright and accountable for their actions. . . .
I spoke to Gregory Craig in the summer when the first leaks began to break. While he suspected they were driven by someone in the White House who was frustrated with the slow progress on shuttering GITMO, Craig did not know who was out to get him. He had no idea.
But the sustained nature of the leaksand the fact that they ultimately proved to be trueindicates something quite disappointing for anyone who had hoped that the Obama White House would operate more transparently and honestly than the Bush team had. . . .
NPRs Nina Totenberg puts the finger on White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. There doesnt seem to be much doubt that these leaks came at least indirectly from Rahm Emanuel, she reported. What is the cause of the friction? It's very hard to say. Was it Rahm not wanting to have another power center? Was it their personalities? Was it Rahm seeing the GITMO stuff as a distraction from the president's agenda?"
Nov 16, 2009
The White House counsel was done in by a scurrilous leaks campaign. So much for the Obama team's pledge to be transparent, forthright and accountable for their actions. . . .
I spoke to Gregory Craig in the summer when the first leaks began to break. While he suspected they were driven by someone in the White House who was frustrated with the slow progress on shuttering GITMO, Craig did not know who was out to get him. He had no idea.
But the sustained nature of the leaksand the fact that they ultimately proved to be trueindicates something quite disappointing for anyone who had hoped that the Obama White House would operate more transparently and honestly than the Bush team had. . . .
NPRs Nina Totenberg puts the finger on White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. There doesnt seem to be much doubt that these leaks came at least indirectly from Rahm Emanuel, she reported. What is the cause of the friction? It's very hard to say. Was it Rahm not wanting to have another power center? Was it their personalities? Was it Rahm seeing the GITMO stuff as a distraction from the president's agenda?"
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama's former White House counsel visits Don Siegelman, working on his appeal [View all]
annabanana
Jul 2013
OP
a person needs to admit guilt and apologize before a President can give a pardon legally.
graham4anything
Jul 2013
#4
Every single person the President has pardoned has said they were sorry.
graham4anything
Jul 2013
#10
Post #1 whined about not getting a pardon. Your response is irrelevant to the legal process.
graham4anything
Jul 2013
#15
Poster was replying to previous poster's questions "Why doesn't Obama sign the pardon?
KittyWampus
Jul 2013
#23
Yet another anti-Obama slant on something. Would President Romney or Bush even listen?
graham4anything
Jul 2013
#3
Leakers should be in jail, yet Rove never was found to be in violation by the special prosecutor.
graham4anything
Jul 2013
#19
Actually, Article II, section 2 of the Constitution authorizes the President "to grant Reprieves and
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#30
But he is not guilty so therefore the above don't apply. Spiegelman did not admit his guilt.
graham4anything
Jul 2013
#34
Quite frankly, I think that you are only pretending to be ignorant and stupid.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#35
So you are using a Bushfamily member as an example? There is Bush, there is what 42 others have done
graham4anything
Jul 2013
#36
No. The plain language of the Constitution's Pardon Provision remains the same regardless
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#38
Does anyone actually think that President Obama would let Seligman sit in prison for one day if
Freddie Stubbs
Jul 2013
#22
A whole lot of former US and Ass't US Attornys believe that Siegleman was unfairly treated
byeya
Jul 2013
#25
I think a Presidential pardon is coiming. At least it should be. Petition the WH nt
kelliekat44
Jul 2013
#18
Those Administrative rules are not a restriction on the Constitutional power of the President.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#32