Craig, Butts, Meltzer, DeRosa & Wolin: President Obama’s In-House Law Firm
EmailPresident Obama rolled out 22 attorneys to join his White House counsel’s office today, including one specifically designated for first lady Michelle Obama.
The plague of barristers will serve under White House Counsel Greg Craig and Deputy Counsel Cassandra Butts.
Most of the lawyers named today are alumni of either President Clinton’s administration (as is Craig), Harvard Law School (as is Butts) or clerkships for left-leaning Supreme Court Justices.
The deputy counsels are Principal Deputy Counsel Daniel Meltzer (Harvard); Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council Mary DeRosa (Clinton); and Deputy Counsel to the President for Economic Policy and Deputy Assistant to the President Neal Wolin (Clinton).
The Obama White House has appointed Norman Eisen to serve as a Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform Norman Eisen. Eisen is an alumnus of both Harvard Law School and the liberal good government group CREW.
Associate Counsels named today include Kendall Burman; Susan Davies (Clinton, clerk for Kennedy and Breyer); Karen Dunn (Hillary Clinton’s Senate Office, Breyer); Danielle Gray (Harvard, Breyer); Michael Gottlieb (Harvard, Stevens); Roberto J. Gonzalez (Stevens) Virginia Canter (Clinton); Caroline Krass (Clinton); Jonathan Kravis (Breyer); Trevor Morrison (Ginsburg); Alison J. Nathan (Stevens); Kate Shaw (Stevens); and Christian A. Weideman.
Susan Sher, a legal eagle who worked with Michelle Obama at the University of Chicago Medical Center and has served as Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, will serve as associate counsel to the president and counsel to the first lady.
Deputy Associate Counsels include Ian Bassin; Rashad Hussain; Blake Roberts (Harvard); and Jason G. Green.
- Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Tapper refers to the Obama attorneys as being former clerks for “left-leaning” Supreme Court justices. I can’t for the moment think of a euphemism for incendiary. I would recommend that the left-leaning judges be named to validate the allegation. The incendiary suggestion aside, most of use who read news don’t like major informational gaps.
Posted by: kathy | January 28, 2009, 10:54 am 10:54 am
I’m not aware of any Supreme Court justices being left-leaning as alleged. Would you please name them, Mr. Tapper?
Posted by: kathy | January 28, 2009, 10:57 am 10:57 am
“Plague” of Barristers? Doesn’t the word “plague” usually connote something bad? Why choose this word? It is certainly incendiary as kathy said.
Posted by: geecee | January 28, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
“plague of barristers” is much too kind.
Posted by: smith | January 28, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
Left-leaning justices:
Associate Justice John Paul Stevens
Associate Justice David Souter
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer
Posted by: Bob | January 28, 2009, 11:27 am 11:27 am
The plague of barristers will serve under White House Counsel Greg Craig and Deputy Counsel Cassandra Butts.
IT is a PLAGUE presidency! FITS!
They need many attorneys….
Posted by: stmulassplague | January 28, 2009, 11:38 am 11:38 am
“plague of barristers” is much too kind.
*****************************************************
If O’Reilly were using it, I’d say it would be his usual verbiage. But coming from Limabaugh, that would be uncharacteristic kindness and restraint on his part. Pejoratives can be relative.
Posted by: kathy | January 28, 2009, 11:43 am 11:43 am
Correction: Limabaugh? Limbaugh, I meant. Though it’s easy to think of him as a fat pack of flatulent lima beans.
Posted by: kathy | January 28, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
Jake — I think you have it just right this time, as in “a gaggle of geese, a herd of buffalo, a school of fish,” and . . . “a plague of lawyers.”
Posted by: aviewerofabc | January 28, 2009, 11:49 am 11:49 am
Thank you, Bob, for filling in Mr. Tapper’s informational gap.
Posted by: kathy | January 28, 2009, 11:50 am 11:50 am
These guys are needed to ‘protect’ goverment workers, who like the new Treasury Secretary, in charge of the nations money, can not correctly file his own taxes!
Posted by: LiveFreeorDieGuy | January 28, 2009, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
Why does the First Lady need a counsel?
My specific objection is that I think freezing aides salaries was political grandstanding that is not much of an economy for the federal government but can be a big hit for the employees involved.
If we are adding a layer of unnecessary lawyers (which I dont know this is) its even more insulting.
Posted by: BertieW | January 28, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
I would call those 4 justices middle of the road and the ones who intervened in an election to install the idiot son of the former President and head of US Intelligence dangerous reactionary right wingers.
Regardless of what those rightwing-nuts say, there is a huge and significant difference between graduates of Harvard Law and graduates of Regents Law.
Posted by: thebob.bob | January 28, 2009, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
“My specific objection is that I think freezing aides salaries was political grandstanding that is not much of an economy for the federal government but can be a big hit for the employees involved.”
Raises for that group are the cost of living variety of a few thousand dollars.
At least that is the avg raise that Bush employees over $100K enjoyed.
Obama is freezing that pay raise for people making over $100K.
Its a political move and a good one.
Savings would be only a few hundred thousand dollars.
Posted by: Ryan C | January 28, 2009, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
who is Rashad Hussain?? is he American?
Posted by: susan | January 28, 2009, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm
“At least that is the avg raise that Bush employees over $100K enjoyed.
Obama is freezing that pay raise for people making over $100K.
Its a political move and a good one.
Savings would be only a few hundred thousand dollars. ”
I dont see where you are disagreeing with me about the facts, yet we have a different conclusion.
This policy really cant be saving a significant amount of money. Probably less than a million a year.
*If* these staff members deserved raises then there really is no sound reason not to give them.
Especially since it at least looks at first blush like all kinds of additional lawyers are being hired. Perhaps the First Lady can do without an in house counsel.
Posted by: BertieW | January 28, 2009, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm