Archivists Block Release Of Clinton Pardon Records

Seems Obama is holding back some of his records too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/obama-may-not-release-pre_n_90707.html

I am part of the vast left wing conspiracy who needs to apologize to the members of the vast right wing conspiracy because I stood up for Clinton ... only to realize in the end it was a ruse --- they are disgusting excuses for elected officials who manipulate lie steal and cheat and act in an abhorrent fashion ...

Try to name one Democrat running for congress in a republican district who would ask Clinton to help?

The Clintons are dirtier than a baby's 3AM diaper.

The so called "fully vetted" candidate continues to hide behind Bill Clinton's apron.

You are a load of BS hillarious

Was it legal for President Clinton to engage in a co-Presidency with his spouse?

Hillary was not elected by the American people and therefore she should not have shared the Oval office in an official capacity with the President. I mean, just how much access Hillary had to classified information when she was First Lady? Maybe her records could shed some light on this disturbing situation.

The imporant part of the above article is "based on the guidance of Bill Clinton". Translation= they could release the papers if they wanted to.

These papers are public property. They should disclose them. This lack of transparency from the "vetted" candidate is unsettling.

What could be so bad in these documents that they are fighting so hard to not release them?

Dear Monkeytime:

If you click the headline above you'll find the federal agency titled 'The National Archives' has independent jurisdiction to decide which records are withheld.

Quote:

"... the National Archives is responsible for deciding which records are withheld under the Presidential Records Act. "

(further down in same article):

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.

(hear that -- Bill has urged them to release more records than previous Presidents have released. More from same article)

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.

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

Hello? The Bush administration blacked out Clinton's pardon records.

Let me ask you something? If Hillary's spouse has to release so many records -- I want to see Obama's spouse, Michelle, release her records from various institutions she's represented.

Fair?

Dear HRC Supporter:

Please post an intellectually honest argument supporting the notion that we aren't entitled to these 1500 pages.

I don't want to have such strong negative feelings for the Clintons. I want to be able to vote for her in the fall if she wins the nomination. But her surrogates are all over TV shouting Rezko! Rezko! And yet they will not answer to this or the tax returns.

In fact (no hyperbole) the Clinton surrogate leads with a Rezko charge, the Obama guy sites the 200+ articles that have been written answering the Rezko questions & then asks about the tax returns. At this point the Clinton surrogates start with "I thought this was supposed to be the campaign of hope, etc." And accuse the Obama guy of dirty politics.

And they seem to get away with it.

I've read all I can find about Rezko, the land deal, the British Billionaire and while I admit it doesn't make me happy that BO has a pretty sleazy buddy/fundraiser, the situation seems to have been thoroughly investigated and I find that there is nothing there.

But refusing to even discuss these pardons issued to big donors seems really stinky.

So again I ask any HRC supporter:

Does this stuff not bother you guys? Am I so blinded by my loyalty to my candidate that I'm unfairly suspicious of the Clintons? Or have you made an analysis and decided that, yes, they are a little sneaky but you really think they will do a good job.

I am honestly seeking sincere, non-ironic answers.

Thanks in advance,

MT

Obama supporters should write letters to the editors of their local newspapers asking what the clintons are hiding. there are many who still get most of their news the old-fashioned way.

So, if she cheats her way into getting the nomination you think the Republicans are going to ignore this? Having a republican administration for 4 or 8 years more will just be peachy . What a fine team Hill and Bill are- slash and burn politics no matter what the cost, gratz!

heard nothing of this on the news today!

Imagine that???? Guess Hillary doesn't want the news out.

Guess this is another contrivance of the vaunted "right wing attack machine," huh?

I'm curious: has any Democratic politician in modern history so assiduously used the specter of the right-wing in its defense against progressives? I'm not talking about actual right-wingers like, say, Robert Kennedy in his pre-Demascus McCarthy-ite phase as AG, dragging his feet over brutality in the South and authorizing bugging of MLK by the FBI--I'm talking about fake-populists and arch-triangulators like the Clintons. The Clintons are tied symbiotically to wingnut maggots like Ken Starr and Richard Mellon Scaife and the rest: the criminality of the right (like, wiretapping Lewinsky and then arresting her on no charges and sweating her in a hotel room until she snaps) was a perfect compliment for the Clintons' secrecy, underhandedness, serial dishonesty, and so on.

I can't help but think that a part of the offense presented by Obama's campaign and his success (thus far) is that it has brought President Clinton's legacy into play in a way absolutely unexpected by Sen. Clinton's campaign staff: they were expecting insinuations about blow jobs, which they would easily parry with "hey, weren't you better off back then?"; but instead they're faced with being perceived as the Same Old Shit.

Why?

Has Bill got something to hide, something he's not proud of?

And here is the Rub its called the 22nd amendment. Obfuscation and pandering and kickback deals and on the way out Bill Clinton let a lot of rats off the ship Hillary's own brother was involved with shady dealings and pardons for his pal's in Florida.

When power is concentrated within one family at the level of president it is a corrupting force.
Hillary has not been immune to this corruption, Bill has lapped up the gravy.

The Clintons dont reveal anything because Bill spilled a bit of gravy and Hillary sat in it,
her pants suit's full of gravy she unbuttons that pant suit gravy comes gushing out.

Our forefathers saw how power corrupts absolutely.

Take a look to Bush to see how the legacy thing works out....

Stop press; Fox News with Shepard Smith finally admitted it. Today March7th. They said Hillary was Mud Slinging by accusing Obama of Ken Starr tactics. So finally Starr is mud!!!!!!! This from FOX NEWS after all those years.

"That archivists' decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton "

"GUIDANCE?"......

"Persuasion", perhaps?

Like....uh......a wedgie or something....or...."don't expect to see your check in the mail...."

Let's review:

All the paperwork and all the messages and all the other stuff was done WHILE HE WAS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Hence, these records are the PROPERTY of the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...under his 'storage agreement'.

They are NOT PRIVATE PAPERS.

They are PUBLIC PAPERS - On public purchased paper, written with public purchased pens, processed by other public employees....THEY ARE PUBLIC OWNED.

And,. 'We, the People' demand to see them.

That about sums it up, Bill. Deal with it.

funny how they have time to darken obama's face but no time to release some papers.

THIS is what should be BIG news today...everything else is diversion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

The clintons have more dirty secrets hidden in the Arab funded 'library' than Cheny and Bush could ever dream of.

Yet the press is so afraid of the clintons that they won't press the issue. Whether you like him or not Olberman seems to be the only reporter left who is willing to call it like it is.

hillary clinton has never been vetted. She continues to hide behind her husband's apron.

Not POTUS material folks

This is absolute Bull S---. Those records are public documents. So are we to look forward to Bush-like a--wiping of the constitution if Hillary is President?

What are the Clintons hiding? Where are the tax returns?? And where are the rest of the white house documents?? Stop hiding these items - the public has a right to see them!!

The headline should be: Bill Clinton blocks release of records. That's what the article says.

Why did Clinton grant the pardons? Rich, for example? And what did he receive in exchange? Did he, for example, receive a big fat wad of money from the Rich folks that he has hidden away in his "Library" fund?

The Clinton Gang has so many secrets, and so much dirt in their past, that they will destroy the Democratic party by trying to steal the nomination. If Hillary is nominated, all of the Clinton mis-dealings of the past will once again be front page news. Hillary claims she has been vetted? Yeah, but she didn't pass. Neither of them did. Yes, it's true the press has uncovered some slimey stuff about her and her husband. But there's no reason to think there's not lots more where that came from.

I guess it doesn't matter. If they steal the nomination, so be it. She won't get my vote.

Fully vetted, my azz.

Guaranteed there are some mighty sketchy things in those transcripts. Just as there are obviously are in the tax records.

I've about had enough of her. She's no Democrat based on her words about McCain and Obama yesterday. She lies about her diplomatic experience. She lies about the NAFTA issue. And she is an unapologetic war monger.

I have been saying I'd vote for her if I had to, but I am at the point that I simply will not vote for a presidential candidate if she is the nominee. I'll leave that one blank.