Hillary Papers Wont Be Available Before 2008 Election
Why is this no surprise?
Crossposted From Newsweek:
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. What about any records that show what advice Bill gave his wife about her 2000 U.S. Senate campaign? Those, too, were closed, the archivist said, because they dealt with "political" matters. "He essentially told me I had no chance of getting anything," says Smith, whose book, "For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton, the White House Years," hits the bookstores this week.
The response Smith got isn't unusual. Nearly three years after the Clinton Library opened—and more than 21 months after its trove of records became subject to the Freedom of Information Act—barely one half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mail messages at the federally funded facility are public, according to the National Archives. 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. With nearly 300 FOIA requests pending for Clinton documents, and only six archivists at the library to process them, Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper says it is "really hard to predict" if any of this material will be released before the election.
Bill Clinton has tried to cast blame for the backlog on the Bush White House. "Look, I'm pro-disclosure," Clinton said in a testy exchange with reporters during a recent press conference. "I want to open my presidential records more rapidly than the law requires and the current administration has slowed down the opening of my own records." But White House spokesman Scott Stanzel tells NEWSWEEK the Bush White House has not blocked the release of any Clinton-era records, nor is it reviewing any. (Under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, the former president and the current president get to review White House records before they are disclosed. Either one can veto a release.) Ben Yarrow, a spokesman for Bill Clinton, says the former president was referring "in general" to a controversial 2001 Bush executive order—recently overturned, in part, by a federal judge—that authorized more extensive layers of review from both current and former presidents before papers are released. (Hillary's campaign didn't respond to requests for comment.)
But 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. Among the document categories Clinton asked the Archives to "consider for withholding" in a November 2002 letter: "confidential communications" involving foreign-policy issues, "sensitive policy, personal or political" matters and "legal issues and advice" including all matters involving investigations by Congress, the Justice Department and independent counsels (a category that would cover, among other matters, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and the pardons of Marc Rich and others). Another restriction: "communications directly between the President and First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature."
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. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group suing the Clinton library for failing to respond to its FOIA requests, is struck by the former president's restriction on records relating to his and his wife's families. That, he says, blocks disclosure of records relating to Roger Clinton, the former president's half brother, and Hillary Clinton's two brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, both of whom were involved in controversial business deals and efforts to secure last-minute pardons later investigated by Congress. But John Carlin, a former Archives chief (and a Clinton appointee) who got the 2002 letter from Clinton, didn't blame the former president. "Given all that they went through in office," he says, the restrictions Clinton placed were "not surprising." Who knows, he asked, how the papers might be used by political foes? That's a question the Clintons don't want answered—at least not before next November.
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm sure what's left went down Sandy Bergers pant's and was shredded anyway. Nope, we dont get to find out a damn thing about Hillary that we dont already know before the election. The Clinton machine has kicked into full swing.
Crossposted From Newsweek:
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. What about any records that show what advice Bill gave his wife about her 2000 U.S. Senate campaign? Those, too, were closed, the archivist said, because they dealt with "political" matters. "He essentially told me I had no chance of getting anything," says Smith, whose book, "For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton, the White House Years," hits the bookstores this week.
The response Smith got isn't unusual. Nearly three years after the Clinton Library opened—and more than 21 months after its trove of records became subject to the Freedom of Information Act—barely one half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mail messages at the federally funded facility are public, according to the National Archives. 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. With nearly 300 FOIA requests pending for Clinton documents, and only six archivists at the library to process them, Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper says it is "really hard to predict" if any of this material will be released before the election.
Bill Clinton has tried to cast blame for the backlog on the Bush White House. "Look, I'm pro-disclosure," Clinton said in a testy exchange with reporters during a recent press conference. "I want to open my presidential records more rapidly than the law requires and the current administration has slowed down the opening of my own records." But White House spokesman Scott Stanzel tells NEWSWEEK the Bush White House has not blocked the release of any Clinton-era records, nor is it reviewing any. (Under the 1978 Presidential Records Act, the former president and the current president get to review White House records before they are disclosed. Either one can veto a release.) Ben Yarrow, a spokesman for Bill Clinton, says the former president was referring "in general" to a controversial 2001 Bush executive order—recently overturned, in part, by a federal judge—that authorized more extensive layers of review from both current and former presidents before papers are released. (Hillary's campaign didn't respond to requests for comment.)
But 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. Among the document categories Clinton asked the Archives to "consider for withholding" in a November 2002 letter: "confidential communications" involving foreign-policy issues, "sensitive policy, personal or political" matters and "legal issues and advice" including all matters involving investigations by Congress, the Justice Department and independent counsels (a category that would cover, among other matters, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and the pardons of Marc Rich and others). Another restriction: "communications directly between the President and First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature."
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. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group suing the Clinton library for failing to respond to its FOIA requests, is struck by the former president's restriction on records relating to his and his wife's families. That, he says, blocks disclosure of records relating to Roger Clinton, the former president's half brother, and Hillary Clinton's two brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, both of whom were involved in controversial business deals and efforts to secure last-minute pardons later investigated by Congress. But John Carlin, a former Archives chief (and a Clinton appointee) who got the 2002 letter from Clinton, didn't blame the former president. "Given all that they went through in office," he says, the restrictions Clinton placed were "not surprising." Who knows, he asked, how the papers might be used by political foes? That's a question the Clintons don't want answered—at least not before next November.
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm sure what's left went down Sandy Bergers pant's and was shredded anyway. Nope, we dont get to find out a damn thing about Hillary that we dont already know before the election. The Clinton machine has kicked into full swing.
Labels: Hillary
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 8:11 AM
13 Comments:
You don't seal documents unles it is for national security reasons or you have something to hide!
Nothing she did as First, (yuck), Lady, (would rather write person because SHE AIN"T NO LADY!), would have national security implications so the ither alternative is that she is hiding her the truth about the witch that she is!
Y'know, Marie, if we look at Mrs. Clinton's "experience" as making her qualified to be President, Monica Lewinsky is probably just as "qualified".
Besides, wouldn't a convicted felon with no security clearance have trouble getting confirmed as National Security Adviser?
Nah.
I just finished a post on this subject and the broader problem of accountability and ethics from Hillary.
And when I visited the Clinton Library in September the only reference I saw to any ethical or legal questions was in the context of blaming it all on the Republicans and the "politics of personal destruction."
The pattern of political pathology of Hillary Clinton is CLEAR and I cannot imagine any American, other than a total moonbat, wanting to see a repeat of the first Clinton Administration.
Ken,
Strange isnt it? Why would the first Lady have her records sealed? Hmmm
Uncle P,
LOL!
Mike,
I am so banking on the fact that it has been Bush, Clinton, Bush, that no one will want Clinton the second time around.
But just in case, doesnt hurt to get started early :-)
Hi Marie,
Don't be so discouraged this is normal for the toxic leftists, don't you remember that John Kerry also didn't release his full military papers either. All the Liberals are liars and connivers cheats and thief's.
I find it utterly frustrating that the Clintons have been allowed to get away with covering up or otherwise evading the consequences of one illegal activity after another, through two terms in the White House, no less, and have since continued their felonious lifestyle through campaigm financing violations with impunity.
They have been, and are, making a mockery of our entire political system and stupid, gullible, uninformed, misguided (or any combination of the above) Democrats support them to the hilt.
That's fine... when it comes out after she is elected (shudder, convulse, barf), I am sure if Burgler, Uh Berger hasn't tossed the rest of the bad news in an incinerator, she will hardly get re-elected.
sheesh more secrets Marie..just spiffy eh!..NOT!..ah help!!! Hill and Bill what a duo!!!
Hey Marie,
Sorry to be off topic, but I want to tell you about the wonderful couple I met this weekend.
I was having breakfast at my local caffe (I live in an Italian neighborhood), and heard them talking at the table next to me, and I detected an accent. In my usual klutzy way, I dropped my fork, and the man picked it up and we started a conversation.
Turns out they're from Bartlesville, OK. He's a teacher, she's involved with education, too, and a writer. He's also very interested in the French and Indian Wars that were fought in New England and Canada, and knows quite a bit about them. We exchanged information--I lived in a suburb of Boston where King Phillip's War as fought, and he was all ears. We talked for an hour, then I walked them around Boston.
They were delightful. We really hit it off. Here's the rub. They are evangelical Christians and extreme right wingers (the man visited Vermont, but, his wife told me, he wouldn't spend any money there because it's too liberal.) LOL!
I really connected with the woman, and my husband connected with the man. We came away feeling good about these fantastic people.
See?
Screw the politics. They knew we were liberals. So what. We had so many other things to talk about and agree about.
I hope to someday visit Oklahoma and see them again!
Made my day.
One other thing, Marie. Forgot. My daughter lives in Orange County, Calif., and can see the hills in flame all around her. So far, she and her family haven't had to evacuate, but she says it's still scarey. Today at 10 am, she said it looked like twilight, and the sun was an angry red color. She can't take my grandson out because of the smoke and ash in the air. The dog hasn't left his little bed he has in the garage.
I've been out of my mind with worry for the past week.
Well, I'm already out of my mind--so can you imagine how this has affected me?
I am never surprised anymore at anything Hillary does. It is clear that she has been engaged in corruption for her whole life.
Hi Marie,
I got something here that will brighten up your day and make you jump for joy and be happy for a long time to come.
Please Read this site and view the Videos this is a guaranteed sure cure to bring you out of your blues
The democrats have already chosen their candidate and they are going to push Mrs. Clinton as hard as they can for the next year. She is going to come out and bribe all the dupes with their own money and they are going to fall for it. Let's get this primary crap out of the way quickly we cannot waste time while Clinton is running for the election her primary is over and done with.
Post a Comment
<< Home