Archivists block release of Clinton papers

[RamboLiberal]

Source: USA Today

Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.

That archivists' decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Clinton's legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

The decision to withhold much of the requested material could provide fodder for critics who say that the former president and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, have been unwilling to fully release documents to public scrutiny.



Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-06-clinton-library-foia_N.htm

---

How convenient!

[Blue State Bandit]

1. I wonder if Scooter Libby's name is in those docs?

[mod mom]

61. OF COURSE THEY ARE-Libby represented Marc Rich in the pardoning process.

[EFerrari]

72. Well, they were acting on the Clintons' legal agents instructions. n/t

[DJ13]

2. These decisions always manage to be one step removed from Clinton responsibility

Reminds me of the plausable deniabilty crap the Republicans play to keep the voters from finding out what they've been up to.

[peace13]

43. It could work two ways.

Maybe they will wait until the McCain - Hillary race and then bring out the dirty details. I am more inclined to think that the Hillary machine is behind the papers not being released. Either way we will be sitting on pins and needles if she is our nominee. Peace, Kim Hussein

[SleeplessinSoCal]

3. Is this what we'd get with another Clinton Presidency? Another Bush Presidency?

[Zhade]

4. Yes.

NT!

[southern_belle]

14. Yes, a vote for Clinton or McCain is a vote

for Bush. :thumbsdown:

[bjobotts]

77. Bullshit! Either ignorant or totally mis informed. A ridiculous statement.

[City Lights]

18. Same shit, different players.

No thanks!

[bjobotts]

79. "Same shit" refers to the money party which has two faces no matter whose

Name they get to represent them. Time to get with the underground because too much has been done to be corrected now. Pelosi and her cohorts are traitors to the constitution and stood there allowing it to happen. It already is a police state and big brother is everywhere. All it takes is for our national leader to dismiss congress or just continue to ignore them until they realize they are powerless to stop this dictatorship. "Real ID" laws make our driver's licenses RDIF which means they emit a signal so anyone can be tracked anywhere. It's already here. Don't look for anyone to save us because they can't. It's already too late...it's a done deal. The talk is just to make the transition easier to take. Welcome to the new world order.

[IsItJustMe]

23. Kind of demoralizing, isn't it? But then again, you will get posters on here saying they all do it

so it must be OK.

[Voltaire99]

24. Yep. Bush-lite is as Bush-lite does. (nt)

[Cherchez la Femme]

86. You have GOT to be kidding!

"Bush-lite"?!

Here, on Democratic Underground, we have people calling not only Hillary, but Bill Clinton BUSH-LITE??!
And you all DARE to complain about Hillary's tactics and rhetoric?!

Goddess knows I am trying not to let the vicious, hateful verbal diarrhea which spews from the Obamaniacs color my view on him. Neither Barack nor Hillary are any great shakes, neither are overly consistent or honorable, but those two are our only choices and we must pick between the two and absolutely support the winner
...but you people, much more than the Hillaryites (or whatever they're called), are the TOPS in both quantity and 'quality' at vomiting up this bullshit.
You make it very difficult not to let the bad impression you make reflect upon Mr. Obama but what's worse, you don't seem to care at all!

That's how you want to be? That's how you want to act?
Do you think our country can afford this? Now? After 8 years of Bush??

Jeezuz Kee-rist. Holy FSM. Oy-vey Yah-weh.

You are doing your guy no favors, none whatsoever.
On top of it, this is NOT news to you ...yet you continue to do it!
Seriously. :wtf: Why? Why do you insist on shooting yourself, over and over, in the foot?

You sure learned the Repuke politics of divisiveness well, all the while decrying it;
haven't you?


One can only conclude you all have lost your way.

I am truly ashamed for you.

[Mme. Defarge]

40. Separated at birth ...

[earthlover]

69. No. She will be defeated by McCain

You can bet that the Reps will make a HUGE issue of this. So big, that the Clintons will have to release them in their defense!

[bjobotts]

80. Get real. After the Bush disaster no republican will win the WH.

Iraq forever, more wars, tax breaks for the wealthy made permanent, No national health care plan...and the biggest reason why no repub will win the WH...2-3 Supreme Court justice appointees would be conservatives with McBush making the court a neocon machine passing laws that will screw up America for 25 yrs at least.

Stop making such bogus statements just to get your candidate nominated. No republican will win the WH this election...period... no matter who wins the dem nomination.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. If she loses it, I won't feel sorry for her because of this.

[NM Independent]

6. hmmmm...interesting n/t

[frog92969]

7. More secretive government

That is what she's prepared for on day one.

[Lasher]

8. This is consistent with the Presidential Records Act of 1978

The Act allows presidents to maintain the confidentiality of communications for up to 12 years after they leave office.

68,000 pages of Reagan's White House records, including vice presidential papers from Poppy, were supposed to have been opened in January 2001, 12 years after Saint Ronnie left office. Junior delayed that release and signed an executive order in November of that year to keep those records secret - in violation of the Act. And Poppy's presidential records should have been released four years later but were not.

[eilen]

10. That's what we need.... More of the Same

Here' the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Lasher]

12. It's actually not the same, that's a bum rap.

Clinton has actually been pretty open with his papers, in sharp contrast with the others I mentioned. And he is in compliance with the law as I noted while they are not. The article linked in the OP mentioned this might be pushback from an archivist who feels pressured to release documents to support a political agenda. I think that's a pretty good theory.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

16. It's different when the ex-President's wife is running for President

I think there's a higher expectation of transparency in that case.

[Lasher]

48. And the president who signed the executive order has a clone running for president

But I also have higher expectations of Bill Clinton - not because his wife is running for President, but because he is a Democrat. I will refer to the article linked in the OP to demonstrate that he has not come up short in this respect:

In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records, but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, he said the restriction should be interpreted "narrowly" and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent.

<snip>

Clinton's guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.

"...goes beyond his predecessors..." = higher standard. And even more importantly, as I mentioned, the Presidential Records Act confidentiality provision for Clinton's papers won't expire until 2013. That day has come and gone for the papers of Saint Ronnie and Poppy but they remain shrouded in secrecy, in violation of the law.

With these important differences in mind (and not bringing into account others that are legion) I think it's harsh to suggest the Clintons are just as bad as the Bushes, as has been asserted upthread. Don't you?

[Divernan]

22. No, it is not consistant. The operative word is :"allows"

Get your dictionary out and look up "allows" versus "mandates". The presidents always have the options of releasing any of their records/documents. They may have to redact an individual's name, but none of the other facts/material in the records.

[polmaven]

49. Have we thought that,

maybe...just maybe...there may be some amount of PRIVACY allowed for the people who were pardoned?

Yes, there needs to be some transparency of the CANDIDATE'S records...and by that I mean the NOMINATED candidate.....But, like it or not....the people who were pardoned are private citizens and may just have an expectation of privacy.

[earthlover]

70. funny the Hillary campaign is not worried about privacy re Resko....

What is being hidden? Who is being protected here? Shouldn't we as citizens know who a president pardons?

[polmaven]

74. Don't we KNOW who was pardoned?

Do we need to know all the details of why on every individual?

Rezko is a "business"...When you are doing business in the public sector, there is no assumption of privacy. There ought to be one for private citizens. That is all I'm saying.

[Lasher]

55. I might enhance my humble communication skills if I were to refer to a dictionary more often.

And since you brought up the subject, please consider the same tactic for your own self-improvement.

consistant: stiff (of a cooking mixture etc) thick, and not flowing

consistent: agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent.

Bill Clinton exercised his option to keep some records confidential. Since 12 years have not yet elapsed from his last day in office, that is consistent with the Presidential Records Act of 1978. He has that legal prerogative.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frog92969]

11. So far, everywhere I see you...

I'm impressed.

I wish I had that much rant in me.:thumbsup:

[Oldenuff]

13. We should all have that much rant in us...

and it should be in the form of RAGE.While everyone is busy trying to decide who looks best,who talks best,and who is related to who....who will be the first this or that....our country is being stolen from us.What is unbelievable,is that most of the sheeple in this country are too busy watching American I-Dull to be informed on the issues and candidates.This is a very interesting topic,with regards to seeing what a past President (and husband of the current candidate) has done.If a candidate was really interested in SERVING the people of this nation,then those documents...and tax returns...should be an open book.(and from the beginning of the campaign.Follow the money.)

[frog92969]

66. "Follow the money" is right

There's very little excuse for secrecy in a "democracy".

As for the majority of citizens...well..let's say they DON'T make me feel any safer.

BTW I have plenty of rage.:grr: See?

[City Lights]

19. Well said, Unicron!

:yourock:

[madrchsod]

15. where`s obama`s state senate records?

that`s the cry i hear all the time but when it comes to the clintons i`m not supposed to ask questions. i will be very happy when the clintons go away and an adult is in charge

[LiberalFighter]

17. Obama says he didn't bother keeping his records

[Divernan]

21. Where's your little linkie, sweetie? With your Bankie?

[LiberalFighter]

83. Try this... Obama records requests prove fruitless

Obama records requests prove fruitless

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) dodged questions Sunday about releasing papers from his eight years as an Illinois state senator, and his campaign has not answered records requests from the state’s two largest newspapers.

Obama’s campaign has prodded Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to make available additional records of her communications during her husband’s presidency.

But two Chicago newspapers have said the Obama campaign has not responded to their requests for comparable papers from his career.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, moderator Tim Russert asked Obama about the papers from his state legislative days, from 1997 to 2004.

Obama first said, “We did not keep those records.”

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ordr]

29. Whoa.

Now that is not a Clinton fan. :)

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ordr]

32. I mostly agree with you.

The Clintons are scum.

Just fyi, though, there are people who will probably complain about being offended by some of the language and whatnot (although they probably just don't like you bashing Hillary ;) ). Keep your anger but channel it in a way that won't get you kicked out for a dumb reason.

[MessiahRp]

30. You're definitely going to have to be more careful on calling out DUers

Dude, this board has rules and calling out other DUers (including calling them a "pathological liar") is not the way to stay on this board, especially with a low post count.

I appreciate the anger and passion this primary arouses in you but please be more cognizant of the rules so that we can see your rants live on (much like those of Nance Greggs) rather than become a quick memory like so many others who did the same thing and were banned because of fear of them being Freeper disruptors.

Rp

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ordr]

36. Well, my hat is off to you.

"I'm sick of this fucking pussy attitude of "oh we have to be ever soo delicate and gentle"...FUCK THAT. "
Truer words have never been spoken. Hopefully certain people on this forum will begin to realize that the politics of "being nice" do nothing but continue to ruin our party and allow for the other side to win because of our disorganization and constant in-fighting.

[madmom]

68. I thought Obama was the one who wanted to"reach across the aisle" and play nice.

[SammyWinstonJack]

39. You're overboard! Way overboard!

A DUer claims that Obama said he didn't bother to keep records and you fly off the handle calling that DUer a pathological liar and a GOP FUCK? Way overboard!

[theHandpuppet]

41. You need to calm down

Either you truly want to discuss this issue or you're just here to make rational Obama supporters appear to be unhinged. Take a step back and breathe, friend.

[Occulus]

42. After reading that, I just HAD to go find an appropriate avatar for you.

Here ya go. :)



(edit: Yes, that's Unicron. From the Transformers animated movie. And, yes, I'm a dork. :D )

[Divernan]

20. Judicial Watch dismisses privacy concerns;people were convicted-Its matter of public record:

"Clinton's legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons."

MY NOTE: IT IS CLINTON'S PEROGATIVE TO OVERRIDE THE ARCHIVISTS. HE HAS THAT OPTION.

SIMILARLY, CLINTON CAN DIRECT HIS LEGAL AGENT TO OVERRIDE ANY REDACTIONS.
THIS ARTICLE QUOTES THE ARCHIVISTS AS SAYING CLINTON'S AGENT REFUSED TO EVERN REVIEW THE REDACTIONS.

Understand that as an agent, this man WAS ACTING SOLELY AT THE DIRECTION OF BILL CLINTON.

#############
From another article cited in the OP's link:
"In January 2006, USA TODAY requested documents about the pardons under the Freedom of Information Act. The library made 4,000 pages available this week. However, 1,500 pages were either partially redacted or withheld entirely, including 300 pages covering internal White House communications on pardon decisions, such as memos to and from the president, and reports on which pardon requests the Justice Department opposed. In a statement, the Clinton campaign said that "all of the redactions made to the pardon-related documents were made by (the National Archives)."

MY COMMENT: CLINTON AND/OR HIS LEGAL AGENT HAVE THE POWER TO CANCEL THESE REDACTIONS AND RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

"Former president Clinton issued 140 pardons on his last day in office, including several to controversial figures, such as commodities trader Rich, then a fugitive on tax evasion charges. Rich's ex-wife, Denise, contributed $2,000 in 1999 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign; $5,000 to a related political action committee; and $450,000 to a fund set up to build the Clinton library."

"The president also pardoned two men who each paid Sen. Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, about $200,000 to lobby the White House for pardons — one for a drug conviction and one for mail fraud and perjury convictions, according to a 2002 report by the House committee on government reform. After the payments came to light, Bill Clinton issued a statement: "Neither Hillary nor I had any knowledge of such payments," the report said."
MY COMMENT: HRC HAS REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER HER BROTHER VISITED HER IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS OF CLINTON'S PRESIDENCY, WHEN CLINTON WAS SIGNING THESE PARDONS. ANOTHER REASON SHE DOESN'T WANT HER SCHEDULING/APPOINTMENT RECORDS RELEASED.

"The 300 pages of internal White House documents on pardon requests were blocked under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which allows presidents to maintain the confidentiality of communications with their advisers for up to 12 years after they leave office."
MY COMMENT: NOTE THAT THE Presidential Records Act A L L O W S, not MANDATES Clinton to hold back info on these documents. Whatever the archivists redacted, CLINTON CAN STILL REVEAL.

"Emily Robison, the library's deputy director, said Clinton's agent, former deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, chose not to review the withheld documents. Lindsey "was given the opportunity to look at what we withheld under the (president's) guidelines, and he chose not to.... Only Mr. Lindsey and the president have the authority to open those," she said.

"The William J. Clinton Foundation, which Lindsey helps oversee, said in a written statement that the National Archives is responsible for deciding which records are withheld under the Presidential Records Act. Archivists were exclusively responsible for "determinations with respect to these materials," the statement said."

MY COMMENT: ANOTHER FLAT OUT LIE FROM THE CLINTON CAMP. As detailed in other quotes from the archivists, whatever the archivists initially redact under the Presidential Records Act, Clinton and his designated legal agent THEN HAVE THE POWER TO OVERRULE THE ARCHIVISTS.

"Blanton noted that Lindsey's refusal to review the withheld documents could be viewed as an effort to ensure the archivists' independence. "He's saying the professional archivists get to make this determination; it's not a political determination."

MY COMMENT: Blanton is a college professor, speculating/spinning on why Lindsey, has refused to act. THERE'S ONLY ONE LEGAL REASON WHY LINDSEY REFUSED TO ACT. LINDSEY IS CLINTON'S AGENT AND ONLY ACTS ON CLINTON'S DIRECTIONS.

In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton's pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine presidents' ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public.

Christopher Farrell, a Judicial Watch director, noted that the pardon documents withheld also included all Justice Department reports that were sent to Clinton with recommendations on which clemency requests he should deny. Farrell disputed the privacy concerns. "It's ridiculous," he said. "These are people who were convicted in a court, and those cases are a matter of public record."

[dixiegrrrrl]

28. Nicely done, Divernan

It would be lovely if the Clinton Campaign and/or the National Dem Party got a few hundred e-mails about this. I always like to let them know they are being watched.

Better yet, if Obama campaign got them...hmmmmmmmmm

[plantwomyn]

50. Although Pres. Clinton could have removed the redactions,

your own post sites the real problem.
"In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton's pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine presidents' ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public."
Do you see the part about "the Bush administration"?

"...Clinton and his designated legal agent THEN HAVE THE POWER TO OVERRULE THE ARCHIVISTS."
But they DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO OVERRULE the BUSH ADMINISTRATION!

No matter what Bill Clinton releases, Executive Order 13233 - Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act states:
"...the incumbent President may independently order the Archivist to withhold privileged records. In that instance, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree..."
LIKE THAT"S EVER GOING TO HAPPEN!

Does anyone think this may be a part of Bush Administrations/repug strategy for 08?

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT HILLARY CLINTON HAS ANY CONTROL OF BILL CLINTON"S PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS?
DOES HILLARY CLINTON HAVE A LEGAL AGENT REPRESENTING HER?
Hillary Clinton has no control or say over what, when or how ANYTHING is released from the archives.
You commented that:
"LINDSEY IS CLINTON'S AGENT AND ONLY ACTS ON CLINTON'S DIRECTIONS."
BILL CLINTON"S DIRECTION! Lindsey does not represent HILLARY CLINTON.

Hillary Clinton will release her taxes by April 15.

[shadowknows69]

25. Ok, maybe a stupid question but

Is there no other source for these documents or actions of Clintons? Aren't all his pardons a matter of public record? Can anyone use google in the Obama campaign?

[still_one]

26. No surprise from me. We are just luckey that clinton NEVER got the line item veto

we would be in even worse shape

No doubt in my mind if hillary became presidents, she would NOT take back any of the powers CONGRESS gave away to the executive branch

From her statements that she and mccain are more qualified to be president than Obama, to even sticking with a spouse who serially cheated on her, that paints a pretty accurate profile of her in my view

[Malidictus Maximus]

33. I wish we would just

Get rid of the power of the President to pardon and require *ALL* government records, everywhere, to be made public with the SOLE exception of information that could be PROVEN to compromised the identities of human intelligence collecting agents. And apply the same law to ALL organizations registered as lobbyists,
If it was created, stored, paid for by, or influences anything touching tax payer dollars EVERYONE has the right to know everything about it.
I wish it was as hard for them (Republican OR Democrat) to classify, destroy or conceal ANYTHING as it is to get a building permit here in Northern California- that is to say one hell of a lot of review.
I feel a person loses all right to privacy when they seek elective office; don't like it, don't run.

Again- if it doesn't result in danger or death to someone who can be PROVEN to be working to keep the country safe (a 'spy' or an undercover officer) then it should be made available, with a sunset for even the secrets.

[Gala328]

37. Agreed!

Hear, Hear! This is exactly the kind of suggestion which I think has merit. Have faith!

[Gala328]

35. Outrage

Whereas I hardly feel that this kind of behavior is ever acceptable, I have learned to put things into context. Hidden documents, privacy and non-transparent activity has become not just a staple of American politics, but politics, in general. The problem with blaming Bill Clinton (or, turning it around, Hillary Clinton) is that often favors to the political party are owed. I feel very certain that political parties pressure presidents (eek, sorry about the alliteration) into enacting 'midnight pardons' in their last days of office to those whom the party feels obligated to repay. I do not have numbers in front of me currently, but I suspect if you go back the past 40 years you will see this as a trend in the political system (governors, as well).

Do I feel outraged? Of course, I do. But it is the same outrage I feel towards someone with a serious addiction. I try not to blame the transgressor so much as I blame the society which has created this horrible, horrible travesty to occur. At the same time, I am not going to sit here and say that Senator Obama will do the same thing. I simply cannot predict what will happen. But over the years, I have come to accept this from a very limited two-party system.

The answer - for me - is not to lay blame at the feet of an individual, but to take a microscope to the system which allows this and wonder how we, progressives, can fix the problem. It is evident that this site (and like groups) excel at grassroots movements. Perhaps we could work together to ensure that this type of activity is curtailed. For his talk of change, it is entirely possible that Senator Obama is the man who could take those first brave steps to setting this new trend in motion. But here is what concerns me - what if he does not? Can I get past this? Will I be horrified, shocked and angered to the point where I merely throw up my hands and give up? Or do I keep working at it?

I will not lie and say that things haven't disillusioned me over the years. But I have learned to work towards a goal. It helps keep me sane in these very troubled times in the world. I seek counsel from friends. I try to understand the root causes of these problems and I try to imagine solutions. The Progressive Movement has always been about change - not stagnation. It is obviously time for a change and I certainly hope that our party can break the cycle of what is popularly known as 'business as usual.'

[Justitia]

38. So much for "FULLY VETTED" huh? How Bush like! What are they hiding? -eom

[mcollier]

45. Kitchen Sink backfire....

Seems more like "Shock and Awe" We know how well that went in the long run....

Cheating may get you an immediate advancement, but in the end your good name will be forever a dirty word....

Betrayal is the hardest to forgive, even more so when there is no acknoledgement of the wrong done.
Sadly to say, that while Hillary has tried to win, she really has lost in many ways....

Hillary did show her disgusting hypocritical characteristics indistinguishable from the worst of the Republican smear machine. And siding with John Mccain over Barack Obama, We've seen this type of "I wanna challenge you to a duel" line that was snapped at Chris Matthews by a "Democrat".... Now that Hillary has been embraced by the far right, how can we expect her to fight for democrats when she is fighting against democrats along side the republicans.


All Hillary supporters, I appreciate your attention to this matter... I ask you to join the Obama team to help take our country in an new direction, one of openness, honesty, integrity, hope, respect, wise judgment and prosperity... Together we can make the difference. We all have worked hard to get power back to the people. With Barack Obama, we have that opportunity...



Thanks All,

MC

PS.. For those few clearly angry posters, note taken, we do need to demand more and show strong backbones. Let's channel this hot energy at those who taught Hillary's Leadership Team all they know - The Republican wolves in sheep clothing.

[malik flavors]

44. The Obama camp better get on a conference call and make a big deal out of this. This is ridiculous.

[ShaneGR]

46. Gees, I didnt realize I'd logged into Free Republic

Amazing.

[frylock]

58. i like how you refuted the OP..

your kung-fu is awesome.

[Festivito]

47. So many new posters, WELCOME. Do smell the spin of ops.

Notice the title does not match the deep detail that
it wasn't Clinton, it was his agent, and
the agent did not block, he declined to review the decision, and
the reason he did not review it was not given as to whether or not he was maybe on vacation.(Not saying he was, just that it's not given.)

Add that deeper we find that most withheld by FOIA rules protecting personal privacy. Sometimes people admit to personal lives with testimony that need not be made public. Have had abortions, being gay, a past expunged conviction, et. al.

Not included is that the rest may be stopped because they might undermine certain worldwide political situations, such as Marc Rich who did some cloaked and dangerous work to effect middle east peace, the details of which are still too sensitive to release.

SO, WE END THIS ARTICLE with, perhaps, nothing released that should not be released. Most being for individual privacy, the rest for national sensitivity.

ANY TROUBLE WITH THIS? Hey ops? Any?

[dbonds]

51. Isn't that convenient

[Ladyinblack]

52. Clinton and McCain

I will vote for the dem, be it Hillary or Obama. However, I no longer desire to see her nominated.

[dbonds]

60. More and more...

Clinton and McCain appear to be owned by the same people that own Busch.

[AngryOldDem]

76. The light dawns.

Ain't a dime's worth of difference among 'em. And both Bill and Hill need to come as clean as they possibly can about all this crap NOW. Otherwise, it's like handing the race over to McCain without so much as a raised voice, let alone a fight.

Can anyone else here see how the election season will go now, if she pulls out the nomination? There are just so many ready-made opposition talking points that the McCain camp can probably just go on vacation after the RNC.

[JPZenger]

53. If they have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding everything?

If they have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding everything?

[JackORoses]

54. How much money did Marc Rich donate to the Clinton Library?

[Political Heretic]

56. Wow sounds familar. I guess Clinton is like a Bush third term too. :(

[williesgirl]

57. She's sooo electable! As if the Repukes won't pounce on this if she's the nominee. More of the

same from the Clintons. Please, let's stop her now before she finds a way to continue the ruination of our country. rec'd

[kwenu]

59. More of the same. We need Obama!!!!!!!!

[bdamomma]

73. aren't we tired of these royal families, can't we have someone

new in the WH??? bush/clinton/bush/clinton............how boring and dangerous.

[DiverDave]

62. So much for a open government

just fucking sickening...we need a revolution, and like, 2 years ago.

[Joe Chi Minh]

63. They all know that using the financial clout of criminals for campaign

purposes is sanctioned (ironically, in the positive sense) by the law, since they will be able to pardon them on leaving office. But they also know that nothing can change the fact that it is actually criminal, if formally lawful. So, it's understandable that they should want those records to be kept sealed.

When Ma Helmesley said taxes are only for the little people, she knew a thing of two - taxation being so intimately linked to the law; justice to the highest bidder and all that. "We make the laws, so we SHOULD be exempt from observing them", is the way the right-wing think. And you sure haven't had a remotely left-wing government since FDR, have you?

In the UK, both sides have been accepting such money, while omitting to record the 'subventions', each side thinking it can out-crim the other. Kind of comical in a cynical sort of way - when all political hope is lost.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

64. How did Bill Clinton ever win 2 terms

apparently nobody voted for him here.

Maybe most of you were still children, in that case no explanation needed.

[ShaneGR]

65. Ya, the Clinton bashing got old about 2 weeks ago, and they wonder why they're losing support

I'm personally tired of hearing it from both sides. Reminds me of Free Republic.

[enlightenment]

67. Thank you. nt

[NorthCarolina]

71. Wow, what a complete surprise......

NOT

[madmom]

75. It's amazing how some people see only what they want to see,..

many are continuing to post about how Clinton could release the records even after plantwomyn explained Executive order #13233 bush ordered these records sealed and Clinton can do NOTHING about it!

[EFerrari]

78. That's wrong. The archivists are acting on Clinton's legal agent's instructions.

[madmom]

81. bush signed executive order #13233, which trumps anything Clinton can do.

[EFerrari]

82. No. The archivists are acting on the Clinton legal agent's directions.

[madmom]

85. This was taken to court and the bush admin. blocked ..

the release, from the article in the link:


" The 300 pages of internal White House documents on pardon requests were blocked under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which allows presidents to maintain the confidentiality of communications with their advisers for up to 12 years after they leave office."

Clinton's 12 years are not up yet.

"In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, Clinton said the restriction should be interpreted "narrowly" and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent.
Clinton's guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.
President Bush signed an order in November 2001 that broadened former presidents' prerogative to block the release of internal White House records. That order, which Bill Clinton opposed, also allows a president's immediate family to assert the privilege.

In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton's pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine a president's ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public."

bush blocked the release.

[EFerrari]

87. I don't think so.

"In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff."

Bush could not have redacted unreleased material.

[Cherchez la Femme]

84. Am I imagining something

or did most Democrats used to, in the main, admire Bill Clinton?

Either we have a LOT of trolls in Dem's clothing, or could it be some fellow Democrats can't hold to their own, past convictions?

My suggestion: try to build up your guy with positive facts instead of trashing his opponent. Otherwise there's no difference between your tactics and all that negative, Swift-boating advertising which is decried so very much.