Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary Clinton's secret files.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 06:11 PM
Original message
Hillary Clinton's secret files.
Edited on Fri Nov-02-07 06:13 PM by calteacherguy
Papers? I Don’t See Any Papers.
He says he's 'pro-disclosure,' but Bill has kept Hillary's White House files under wraps.
By Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK
Oct 29, 2007 Issue

When author Sally Bedell Smith was researching her new book about Bill and Hillary Clinton's White House years, she flew to Little Rock to visit the one place she thought could be an invaluable resource: the new William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Smith was hoping to inspect records that could shed light on what role the First Lady played in her husband's administration. But Smith quickly discovered the frustrations of dealing with a library critics call "Little Rock's Fort Knox."

An archivist explained to Smith that the release of materials was tightly controlled by the former president's longtime confidant Bruce Lindsey. Could she look at memos detailing the advice Hillary gave Bill during debates over welfare reform? Smith asked. No, the archivist said, those memos were "closed" to the public because they dealt with "policy" matters.

<snip>

The lack of access is emerging as an issue in Hillary's presidential campaign: she cites her years of experience as First Lady as one of her prime qualifications to be president. Like other Democratic candidates, she has decried the "stunning record of secrecy" of the Bush administration; her campaign Web site vows to bring a "return to transparency" to government. But Clinton's appointment calendar as First Lady, her notes at strategy meetings, what advice she gave her husband and his advisers, what policy memos she wrote, even some key papers from her health-care task force—all of this, and much more documenting her years as First Lady, remains locked away, most likely through the entire campaign season.

<snip>

documents NEWSWEEK obtained under a FOIA request (made to the Archives in Washington, not the Clinton library) suggest that, while publicly saying he wants to ease restrictions on his records, Clinton has given the Archives private instructions to tightly control the disclosure of chunks of his archive.

<snip>

Archives officials say Clinton is within his legal rights. But other Archives records NEWSWEEK reviewed show Clinton's directives, while similar, also go beyond restrictions placed by predecessors Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom put any controls over the papers of their wives. This undoubtedly reflects the larger policy role Hillary played in her husband's administration. Still, some analysts are surprised at the broad range of documents Clinton asked the Archives to withhold. "It does sound pretty expansive. You start to wonder what's not included," says Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy.

More...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. And the papers of Papa Bush that sonny boy put a disclosure ban on....
This is just so much BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. .
"Clinton's directives, while similar, also go beyond restrictions placed by predecessors Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom put any controls over the papers of their wives."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. Comparing Barbara Bush to Hillary Clinton?
When did Barbara run for president? When did Nancy? Comparing apples and astronauts. One is found in a sheaf of recipes, the other soars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. True. That's why other first ladies' papers are irrelevant.
However, Mrs. Clinton is running for office by touting her experience. But, by not releasing data that would prove or disprove it, she is giving no reason for the public to vote for her on that basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. I suspect

that this is getting caught up in an "executive privilege" argument,
which bush* created by changing the rules governing FOIA disclosures
in the first place.

he was trying to cover his own stuff up for posterity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. "Archives officials say Clinton is within his legal rights."
Conspiracy theories like this are sooooooooo laughable.
ooo look! It's Hillary's Black Helicopters and... ELVIS!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-02-07 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
7. You know these type of things are so sickening
President Clinton's papers are in the NARA pertaining to government. They are there because of the President Papers Law (or whatever it is called) made more secure because of Bush's Executive Order 13,233. HE SAID IN THAT ORDER.....PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS CAN NOT BE RELEASED UNLESS UNDER AN ORDER FROM THE INCUMBANT PRESIDENT.

So these people are "supposed" to be journalist. They are "supposed" to know what they are writing about. They are "supposed" to know at least some of the laws.

But is seems to me they, like the people here that post their trash, are a bunch of fools. But maybe not. They post their lies and you see they get people to believe them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC