Hillary Unmasked

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

You still don't get idiot? If Hillary Clinton made a personal phone call, or better yet a PUBLIC request, to the Clinton library and asked them to release the info, would they refuse?

If Nancy Reagan asked the same of the Reagan library, would they refuse? NO!
If Jimmy Carter asked the same of the Carter library, would they refuse? NO!

God fucking DAMN you are stupid. Direct control ("owned ans operated by") and heavy influence are not the same. Who do you think picked the people in power in the library, and how were they picke?. You know, the ones who would make this choice and set library policy? Enemies of the Clintons?
Hint. People in working presidential libraries tend to idolise the people the library was named after.

You still haven't addressed the taxes. Nor your backpedaling/shifting arguement.

You will not last long here. Quit while you are behind.

[TheKwas]

You expect the Clintons to just call in and say "Hey, release everything irregardless of how sensitive it is to policy and/or strategy"? Are you that fucking naive? NOBODY does that because besides being stupid, it's actually irresponsible. For example, in Canada cabinet meetings aren't allowed to be taped or made public because cabinet meetings require frank and blunt discussion between cabinet members and public servants. In private discussion, the industry cabinet member needs the freedom to say "This move is totally going to fuck over Winsor's automobile industry, but it needs to be done" or to speculate about different policy impacts, but they simply don't have the political capital to make such statements in public.

Anyways, here's some actual journalism concerning the Clinton Library deal, rather than that Fox news twit:

To hear the Republicans talk, any delay in releasing Clinton presidential records is all the fault of the Clintons. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would have us believe that she and her husband have nothing to do with the release of their own records. So who is telling the truth?




The Facts
Both sides are being disingenuous, and are omitting inconvenient facts. Because of cumbersome declassification procedures introduced by President Bush, there are now huge delays in processing Freedom of Information requests at all presidential libraries, including the Clinton and Bush I libraries. But the Clintons are themselves taking advantage of a clause in a November 2001 Bush presidential order that permits former presidents to take all the time they need to review FOIA requests.

According to National Archives officials, 26,000 pages of Clinton presidential records are being held for release to researchers after being submitted to Clinton lawyer Bruce Lindsey for review. The records have been screened and processed by Archives officials under the Freedom of Information Act, but cannot be released to the public until Lindsey signs off on them as President Clinton's designated representative.

Lindsey did not respond to telephone calls. An associate, who asked not to be named, said Lindsey processed 4,000 out of the outstanding pages last week. The associate said Lindsey was going through the documents himself one by one at the presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas, but he is "just one person" and can not delegate the work to other people. He blamed any delays on the new bureaucratic procedures ordered by Bush under Executive Order 13233.

A Clinton campaign spokesman, Jay Carson, said the former president had "consistently been an advocate for releasing his presidential records as quickly as possible" and had opposed the Bush administration order that placed new restrictions on their release.

There is, however, nothing in Executive Order 13233 that obliges a former president, or his representative, to go through the records one by one. If former President Clinton is so opposed to the Bush administration order, he could simply instruct Lindsey to approve the documents wholesale.

Once Lindsey approves the release of the documents, they then go to the White House for a final review. Bush spokesman Scott Stanzel said the White House has approved the release of all records it has received so far from Clinton's office.

How much these documents will tell us about the inside workings of the Clinton White House once they are finally released is another matter, of course. They represent a drop in an ocean of presidential memos, e-mails, and transcripts of telephone conversations that will take decades to process. Another 10 million documents have become the subject of nearly 300 recent FOIA requests, still to be processed by the Archives.

According to Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a non-profit group that monitors declassification procedures, delays in processing FOIA requests have mounted steadily during the seven years of the Bush presidency. Back in 2001, it was taking the Reagan library between 16 and 18 months to process a FOIA request. It now takes six and a half years. According to the National Archives, the current backlog for processing FOIA requests to the George H.W. Bush presidential library is four and a half years.

Some of these delays are the result of staffing shortages. But some are caused by the need to submit documents to former presidents for review. According to Allen Weinstein, the archivist of the United States, an average of 90 days was spent on such reviews in 2004. By April 2007, the average time devoted to such reviews had increased to 210 days.

Blanton praised former President Clinton for releasing "more historically valuable documents and more secret documents than all previous presidents put together." He said across-the-board declassification orders during the Clinton administration and new restrictions on declassification under Bush had overwhelmed the system. Prior to the 2001 Bush order, the National Archives could automatically release records on its own initiative after 30 days, provided that no objection was received from a former president or government agency.

"The process is really daunting," said Susan Cooper, spokeswoman for the National Archives. "Every FOIA requests requires a huge amount of work. A lot of these requests are fishing expeditions, requiring us to look at millions and millions of pages. Once we have vetted everything for classified material, it then goes to the former president's representative, and then the current president. It is really cumbersome."

Some news organizations have made an issue out of a letter President Clinton wrote to the Archivist in 2002 exempting all-but-routine "communications" with the First Lady from the general release of records until 12 years after the end of his presidency, i.e. 2012. We find this less of a problem than the delays in processing FOIA requests. Bill Clinton can reasonably claim to be following precedent in this particular instance. His predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, requested similar exemptions for communications with their "advisers."

On the other hand, neither Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush ever ran for the presidency of the United States.

The Pinocchio Test
Nobody comes off particularly well on this one. Republicans lack credibility when they criticize the Clintons for dragging their feet on the release of presidential records. The 2001 Bush executive order reversed many of the gains made during the Clinton years on access to government archives and release of secret information. But Hillary Clinton should not pretend she is an entirely innocent bystander. It is clear that former presidents have considerable say in deciding which of their records get released, and that influence has increased greatly under Bush II.

Two Pinocchios for both Clinton and the RNC.

Source

So, the main criticism that can be made of Clinton is that she won't approve over 2600 pages of documents wholesale. While no fucking shit.

[TheKwas]

Ghetto edit: 26,000 pages of documents wholesale.

[Darth Wong]

One is held by the Clinton library, not Clinton herself. The other is 'supposed' to come out 'soon', which could mean that Hillary really is going to release this information at some point, however slim you may think the chances of that are.

Yeah, sure.

He says that Hillary is telling the public she wants this information released as soon as possible, but really she wants to keep this information secret and is actively trying to prevent the Clinton Library from releasing this information. Saying you want something you don't actually want is called lying

That's lying about her supposed inability to release the documents, not about the documents themselves. And frankly, I don't see any reason to condemn any such accusation; it's complete bullshit that she couldn't find the time to photocopy a tax return in the last year.

He says 'most likely', but at any rate it's still speculation. The fact that he admits it doesn't make his article any better.

It means that your triumphal proof that he is engaging in speculation is an idiotic criticism since it never claims to be otherwise.

What reasons do I have to believe this is the case? What can Hillary give Dubai? Why would the fact that Bill Clinton has some buisness dealings in Dubai (which many rich people have) somehow mean that Clinton has some 'favors' to pay?

It means there is a potential conflict of interest. Despite your moronic ignorance of this fact, conflicts of interest are very serious problems in politics or business administration or even investing. They are not something you can simply brush off unless you have proof that the person's conflict of interest has affected his decisions. The mere existence of a conflict of interest is a serious issue.

No it doesn't. There is much more to a person's "personal demeanour and conduct" than that, which he undoubtedly derives from having actually known the woman.

Note I said 'Entire theory concerning her conduct and demeanour", not "Theory concerning her entire conduct and demeanour".

Wow, that's some pretty impressive hair-splitting.

[Mr Bean]

One quick note

You expect the Clintons to just call in and say "Hey, release everything irregardless of how sensitive it is to policy and/or strategy"?

They can release her schedules, Unless it reads like this

9AM Talk with Secret Alien Overlords about DADT
11AM:Use official Presidential Time machine to go back and give stock tips to myself.

Seriously, the schedules is the main thing people have been asking for, the PROOF, that she really WAS a Co-President, she does not want them released not because they are highly classified(They arn't anymore, they are classified when she WAS first lady and should have been declassified at the end of term like every other first lady's schedules)

She does not want them released because they will likley show something rather embarsing, like the fact that she and Bill were never in the same location for two months in a row, or sleep apart for all of 1996 or something that could otherwise be taken and picked apart and used against her.


Face it, she wants to claim co-Presidency, but she refuses to release the proof of that, her schedules are not vital state secrets, they are not a method by which her habits could be leanered since she was a First Lady then, not a President.

She is withholding them to prevent embarrassment to herself, pure and simple.

[TheKwas]

Even her schedules need to be checked through and processed under the new regulations.

Also, update article says that the Clinton team is actually done with the documents:

Archives to release Clinton schedules

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. --The National Archives said Monday it expects to release Hillary Rodham Clinton's schedules as first lady later this month, but has asked a judge to delay the release of thousands of her telephone logs for one to two years.

Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for the National Archives, said a representative for former President Clinton has reviewed about 10,000 pages of Hillary Clinton's schedules and last week approved them for release. The archives will soon notify the White House, which must also sign off on the papers' release.

"We are preparing the materials and we still have to give the White House notification. We'll finish processing the materials for opening and we estimate the opening will be before the end of March," Cooper said.

She said longtime Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey told the Archives he believes it withheld and redacted materials too stringently, and the Archives is now going back through materials and removing some redactions and re-reviewing documents that might be released after all.

The archives said in court papers filed Saturday that it needs more time to process 20,000 pages of Clinton's phone logs that also have been sought by Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group that has accused the library of delaying the documents' release. The Archives has said limited staff has hampered the release of records and has accused Judicial Watch of trying to jump ahead of other pending Freedom of Information Act requests.

"The library would require a stay of at least one to two years before which it will begin processing the remaining records as the request arises in the queue structure," the Archives said in a motion filed in federal court in Washington.

Clinton has faced criticism from fellow Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republicans over the number of White House documents from her husband's administration that have not been made public. A year's delay would keep them from public view until after the Nov. 4 presidential election.

Clinton strategist Howard Wolfson said during the weekend that Lindsey had completed his review of the schedules and expected they would be released soon.

"We've given the records back over to the Archives. They are now back in the Archives' hands. Our say in the process is over, and I assume that they will be releasing them very expeditiously," Wolfson said on ABC's "This Week."

The schedules were forwarded to Lindsey, who is also chief executive officer of the Clinton Foundation, for review on Jan. 31. There is no fixed timeline for the White House review.

Messages left for Lindsey with the Clinton Foundation's offices in New York and Little Rock were not immediately returned Monday.

Cooper said Lindsey approved releasing some documents from the schedules that the Archives had recommended withholding, but did not know how many pages he approved.

Archivists have been sorting through 80 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mails from Bill Clinton's two terms, but few records have come out of the library in response to Freedom of Information requests since the archives began accepting them in January 2006. The library processes requests based on when they were received.

Judicial Watch also has sued the Archives to force the release of documents from a health care task force Hillary Clinton chaired as first lady. The Archives has asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit or delay the documents' release for at least a year.

Judicial Watch last week asked the court to deny the Archives' request.

See, all these details that complicate issues? These are the details that pundits like the original author like to omit to make things seem nice and simple. As I said, I'm not a Hillary supporter, but the original article was typical pundit BS.

And frankly, I don't see any reason to condemn any such accusation; it's complete bullshit that she couldn't find the time to photocopy a tax return in the last year.

Having an accountant as a father allows me to avoid many details concerned with taxes, but their asking for a 2007 tax return, and tax time is in April. For all we know, she might still need to file and organize her taxes completely.

At any rate, I'm not here to defend Hillary. I'm here arguing that the original article is junk journalism, and it is. Already I've found countless of omitted details that are more than relevant to his 'argument'. His article is lacking in any intellectual merit.

It means that your triumphal proof that he is engaging in speculation is an idiotic criticism since it never claims to be otherwise.

Imagine I write an article about alien spacecraft crashes causing the amount of autism cases rise and I make sure to start every claim with 'most likely'. It's fair game to state "Don't take this guy seriously, it's all just speculation". The fact that I admit it's all speculation doesn't make me a better journalist and doesn't make my article any better. Unless I'm able to provide verifiable and valid evidence to support my speculations, people should ignore me.

It means there is a potential conflict of interest. Despite your moronic ignorance of this fact, conflicts of interest are very serious problems in politics or business administration or even investing. They are not something you can simply brush off unless you have proof that the person's conflict of interest has affected his decisions. The mere existence of a conflict of interest is a serious issue.

It's possible it's a conflict of interest (I'm still having trouble coming up with a serious way America can pay favors to Dubai though, and it's still unknown if these buisness dealings are actually improper), but you stated that it will lead to Clinton repaying favors and acting in Dubai's favor and Clinton will act on this conflict of interest (assuming there is one). We have no evidence of that. We don't have any evidence for anything right now, other than Hilary has not made her 2007 tax records public (yet).

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

So, let me get this straight.
As of March 1, the army of accountants she can afford hasn't finished her taxes?
Riiiiiight!
Her schedule can't be seperated from the other documents, winnowing the amount of papers to release?
Riiiiiight!
In case it slipped you pea sized brain, her schedule and taxes are all that is being asked for. If her taxes aren't finished by now, she has hired incompetant tax people. Seriouly, she is a candidate for the President, if she did not anticipate needing to release the taxes ASAP, and instructed her tax people to get it done post haste, it shows a collosal arrogance. (Me, release my tax records? Why SHOULD I? Just because every other candidate for pres has done so for the last 4 elections doesn't apply to ME!)
The folks running the Clinton library are perposfuly linking her documents into an all or nothing release. (At her request I suspect.)
Her schedule as first lady, and her taxes.Those and only those two things are what she is being hammered on.

Keep drinking the cool aid, soon the pain will be gone for good.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

I might add, that releasing tax records of Presidents, and presidential candidates dates all the way back to Nixon you fool, so it isn't like she hasn't had enough time.

[TheKwas]

Dude, read that article again. All of those pages ARE the schedule documents. They are still being processed by the archives.

To be honest, I have no clue what is going on with the tax records. Obviously she should release them and I can't make serious excuses on her behalf, but neither should we take the original author very seriously when he starts speculating on what horrible things this tax return contains.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The check is in the mail.
This will only hurt for a little while.
I'll only put the head in.
I'll respect you in the morning.
They are working on it as fast as they can.