I said as much: “is certainly fair enough, and it is, more than, possible, that the art. was ‘edited’ to fit..
though, something tells me that these ‘lawyers’ aren’t to be found doing much Pro Bono work for anything resembling a ‘noble cause’”-above..

I agree

http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=White+House+Counsel+Greg+Craig
“He has represented numerous high-profile clients, including John Hinckley, Jr., who was acquitted of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by reason of insanity.”

JH Jr. long-time friend of the Bush family..

yep, nice guys..

w/this: “But perhaps the pertinent character question to be asked of these people is a list of the charity (low or no yield) professionel work they have conducted throughout their career. And now its my turn to be cynical and speculative; perhaps the newspaper did ask that question and perhaps they have not cited the answer because it did not fit so well with the picture they are trying to paint (and making fun of community service has become so old hat).”

is certainly fair enough, and it is, more than, possible, that the art. was ‘edited’ to fit..
though, something tells me that these ‘lawyers’ aren’t to be found doing much Pro Bono work for anything resembling a ‘noble cause’–this is EZ to look-up, btw..

In a big law firm, the shuffeling of clients to individual lawyers is often dependent on who has the expertise and time to take a particular case. I am not surprised if a “political” case end up with a “political” guy. And I am certainly not the one to suggest that the big companies are taking cases without thinking about how much to be made of $$ on the client. But perhaps the pertinent character question to be asked of these people is a list of the charity (low or no yield) professionel work they have conducted throughout their career. And now its my turn to be cynical and speculative; perhaps the newspaper did ask that question and perhaps they have not cited the answer because it did not fit so well with the picture they are trying to paint (and making fun of community service has become so old hat).

Stuart;

I don’t understand how fighting for our “state of law” and our constitution, by ensuring the fair trial of even the most maligned, can be a “conflict of interest”. And if the constitution is their constituency, is that wrong? And is the fact that you have this information not a sign of “full transparency? And I will have to agree with a previous poster that those who think we can find a financial expert without connections to the financial system (and expertise to fix this mess), need to wake up. In order to know something you have to be connected- because the private sector does not have transparency or sunshine laws. We do not want Joe-the-Plumber as secretary of the treasurer even if he didn’t lie and actually had a license. We have had eight years of a “the-only- qualification- needed-is-a-bible-and-the-right-ideology” regime; it has been proven not to work (but try to explain that to the Palin supporters).

bman;

What I worry about is that the taxpayers in their lynchmob lust for revenge on “the guilty” end up hanging themselves. That’s why I call for understanding the full consequences of something before we do it. If you can show me that the people we will hurt are the same who caused the problem, then I will join the mob.