The New York Times reports on the continuing speculation over whether White House Counsel Greg Craig is on the way out.
As President Obama’s top lawyer, Mr. Craig has been at the center of thorny decisions on closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and revising interrogation and detention policies, problems that have bedeviled the new administration and generated fierce battles inside and outside the White House. And for months now, he has endured speculation in print and around the White House about whether he is on the way out.
Mr. Craig said he had no plans to leave, and White House officials said the president still had faith in him. But colleagues and Democrats close to the White House said they expected him to move on around the end of the year, and they have been talking about possible replacements. Whether Mr. Craig leaves or not, the discussion of his fate has grown so persistent and the situation so awkward that one supporter calls it “the Greg Craig watch.”
A large number of senior law-related positions in the Administration that remain open. Having to search for another White House Counsel will hardly help.
Martinned says:
I thought the Attorney-General was the president’s top lawyer. How is it that the president doesn’t turn first of all to the DoJ for advice and support on the issues listed?
October 22, 2009, 9:02 amChrisIowa says:
All those underling positions don’t matter when all power is centralized in the White House.
October 22, 2009, 9:27 amdrunkdriver says:
The Times article is remarkable in that it never features the views of anyone who seems to really, really, really want Craig fired.
Which suggests that you can be canned even if nobody really can blame you for anything, and everyone knows you’re just a scapegoat.
October 22, 2009, 9:48 amBen P says:
I think this is missing the point a bit. As I see it this is indicative of some sort of turf war. There’s no one who can come out an say they really really want Craig fired because that would be to publicly contradict the president’s position that Craig has no plans to leave and that he’s still doing a great job.
Instead we get what amounts to a whisper campaign. People who think craig ought to be fired start spreading rumors that the president is unsatisfied with his work and that he’s leaving at the end of the year. In the Washington meme that “all rumors are true” it may even be true that the president has been unhappy with his performance. The more the rumor spreads the harder and harder it gets for Craig to do his job because he’s lost influence because everyone thinks he’s a short timer. Then he actually at some point does resign because he’s become ineffective and a drag on the presidents policy goals.
October 22, 2009, 10:23 amDaily Pundit » Smaller, Leaner Government Through Incompetence? says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The Greg Craig Watch A large number of senior law-related positions in the Administration that remain open. Having to search for another White House Counsel will hardly help. [...]
October 22, 2009, 10:51 amPatHMV says:
martinned… the Attorney General is the top lawyer for the country, not the White House.
October 22, 2009, 11:25 amAnderson says:
Rahm Emanuel is said to the the anti-Craig inspiration for these stories, which does not make me think well of Obama’s management.
Obama should either tell Craig to go, or tell Emanuel to shut up.
October 22, 2009, 12:43 pmMartinned says:
Well, for the executive branch of government. The top lawyer for the country is the Chief Justice of the United States and his associates.
My point is that there seems to be so much duplication between the President’s staff and the cabinet, even though they all serve at the pleasure of the president. It’s not like he has to appoint certain people to the cabinet for political reasons, for example as part of a coalition compromise. If he doesn’t like or trust Holder, he can have a different AG. So why put so much responsibility with the white house counsel? (The same goes for the OMB/Treasury, for the NSC, etc.)
October 22, 2009, 1:52 pmPatHMV says:
The Chief Justice is not a lawyer (an advocate) for the United States. He’s the top judge, but a judge does not function in the capacity of a lawyer. The job of a lawyer is to zealously represent the interests of his client; that is decidedly not the function of a judge.
As to the rest, it’s a matter of practicality. The White House itself is a relatively large operation, with, naturally, a great many difficult legal questions facing it. It needs a team, actually, of lawyers dedicated specifically to advising the President and his immediate staff. One could, in theory, let the White House be advised, on a day-to-day basis, by some bureaucratic office within the Department of Justice, but that would be pointless… they would be responsible for giving day-to-day advice to their boss’s boss, while reporting directly to their own boss.
While we don’t have a parliamentary system resulting in certain compromises like European nations do, the President is not unconstrained in his choice of cabinet officials, particularly the Attorney General. President Clinton’s first TWO picks for AG were scuttled before they were confirmed.
Moreover, even in the best of circumstances, it is exceedingly difficult for a President to promote his favored policies through the cabinet appointments alone. Firing a cabinet appointment is a significant deal, with political and other consequences, so when one “goes rogue,” but in a relatively mild way, then there’s little the President can, as a practical matter, do, unless he has staff of his own, reporting directly to him, to help analyze what’s happening.
The White House Counsel has no legal standing within the rest of the government. He has no authority to order any executive department to do anything. His sole role is to give advice to the President and the President’s immediate staff in the White House. That’s why he does not have to be confirmed by the Senate; he’s an advisor to the President, not an officer of the United States. If the President accepts his advice, the responsibility for that is the President’s not the counsel’s.
It’s not always a bad thing to have a number of different agencies pursuing overlapping functions. It keeps people honest and on their toes.
October 22, 2009, 2:18 pmCJColucci says:
What PatHMV said. All I would add is that every state has an attorney general and every governor has a counsel to the governor. Different functions. Nothing odd about it.
October 22, 2009, 2:23 pmPLR says:
I wish he’d tell Emanuel to go, myself.
October 22, 2009, 2:29 pmSteve says:
Rahm Emanuel is said to the the anti-Craig inspiration for these stories, which does not make me think well of Obama’s management.
But who is the inspiration for the stories about how Rahm is supposedly the source for the anti-Craig stories? We could peel this onion all day.
October 22, 2009, 3:54 pmMartinned says:
I certainly wasn’t suggesting that there shouldn’t be such a thing as a White House counsel, I’m just wondering why the White House counsel is the President’s point man on something like “revising interrogation and detention policies”. Isn’t that something that is better left to the DoJ (OLC) and the DoD?
October 22, 2009, 4:23 pmSoronel Haetir says:
Except to a certain degree such policies should cover multiple agencies. You have FBI, CIA, military etc. GTMO is even more clearly a political choice. DoJ is in theory supposed to be above politics.
October 22, 2009, 7:22 pmTGGP says:
Obama has had a number of objectionable hires, I don’t see what’s so bad about this one.
October 23, 2009, 12:36 amThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is the Greg Craig Watch Over? says:
[...] Speculation has swirled over the future of White House Counsel Greg Craig for weeks. Now, it appears, the speculation is over. Both the Washington Post and Associated Press report that Craig will announce he is leaving the administration tomorrow. The new White House Counsel? Bob Bauer. More from Marc Ambinder here. Categories: Uncategorized [...]
November 13, 2009, 8:39 am