« Rush Limbaugh Will Have First Exclusive Interview with Karl Rove | Main | The CBS News Poll »

What's Hillary Trying to Hide?

Hillary Clinton has said that one of the reasons she should be elected president is her experience, a very important part of which is her record as first lady; however, over 2 million of Hillary's records are currently at the Clinton Presidential Library, but she won't let anyone see them until after the 2008 election. So what's she hiding?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cites her experience as a compelling reason voters should make her president, but nearly 2 million pages of documents covering her White House years are locked up in a building here, obscuring a large swath of her record as first lady.

Clinton's calendars, appointment logs and memos are stored at her husband's presidential library, in the custody of federal archivists who do not expect them to be released until after the 2008 presidential election.

A trove of records has been made public detailing the Clinton White House's attempts to remake the nation's healthcare system, following a request from Bill Clinton that those materials be released first. Hillary Clinton led the healthcare effort in 1993 and 1994.

But even in the healthcare documents, at least 1,000 pages involving her work has been censored by archives staff because they include confidential advice and must be kept secret under a federal law called the Presidential Records Act. Political consultants said that if Hillary Clinton's records were made public, rivals would mine them for scraps of information that might rattle her campaign.

"Those files -- that's the mother lode of opposition research," said Ray McNally, a Republican political consultant in Sacramento. "Opposition researchers would be very hungry to see what's there." Robert Shrum, senior political strategist in Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, said: "In 2 million pieces of paper, would opposition researchers hope to find one where she wrote a memo saying, 'I wish I'd never gotten involved in healthcare?' Sure. That's what they'd love to find."

At the Clinton library overlooking the Arkansas River, federal archivists clad in protective smocks are sorting through 80 million pages of records and another 20 million e-mails from a Clinton presidency that ended in January 2001. About 2 million of those pages concern the first lady's office.

A staff of 11 spends most of its time answering some 250 requests for documents submitted under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests are fulfilled largely on a first-come, first-served basis. Because the earliest requests involved other Clinton administration activities, the requests for the now-New York senator's records are further back in line, staff members said.

Before documents are released, archives staff must read them and, by law, must redact material that they determine contains classified information, invades a person's privacy, reveals trade secrets, reveals confidential advice from presidential advisors or raises other concerns specified in the records law.

Asked how long it might be before Hillary Clinton's records are released, the library's chief archivist said it could take years.

How convenient for probably the most controversial and divisive first lady this country has ever known. So we're supposed to just take her word for it that her record as first lady illustrates how she is qualified to be president? Not a chance, woman. Release the records now.

JammieWearingFool comments:

Democrats are constantly hounding the Bush administration for emails and documents in their relentless witchhunts against this administration, yet records which should be available after many years cannot be seen?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23372.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What's Hillary Trying to Hide?:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Clinton to run first TV ads in Iowa

» Health Care BS linked with Hillary Gives America the Mushroom Treatment

Comments (97)

Ha! For once, I had this u... (Below threshold)

Ha! For once, I had this up at Politics first!

Of course, we can't expect Hillary to know anything about these documents. After all, she told a federal grand jury she "did not recall" 147 times when asked about her Rose Law Firm billing records, and they were stashed in the room next to her bedroom for two years or more.

The real question probably should be, "Do we want a President with that bad a memory?"

I don't expect anything fro... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I don't expect anything from the democrats except hypocrisy. Their ideas and advisors are entitled to privacy but not republicans. Just another "I told you so" moment for the republican party. ww

You know, for being such st... (Below threshold)

You know, for being such strong proponents of the "If you have nothing to hide, you should not be afraid of Big Brother," concept, the Democrats are really, really impressively bad about leading by example.

I am kind of on the fence as to how much personal privacy should factor into Presidential races, but this kind of, "It's there, but we're not going to show you it!" childishness is just sad.

Hillary Clinton IS NOT H... (Below threshold)

Hillary Clinton IS NOT HIDING ANYTHING MORE THAN YOUR CHIMP IS HIDING WITH HIS OVER-REACHING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ABOUT EVERRYTHING HE & DARTH CHENEY HAVE DONE TO THIS COUNTRY.

Get over all your dumb-ass right-wing whacko extremeist crap that you & all the other kooks in the right neo-fascist smear blogosphere are trying to parlay into something outrageous.

Just last week you and that butt-wipe Paul were trying to make something out of nothing about the "end of Global Warming" w/ your baseless spin about nothing.

And you'd look lioke less of an idiot by not linking to the ultimate of KOOK ASSHOLES, Rush LimPbaugh.

I think they should be obta... (Below threshold)
JFO:

I think they should be obtainable - no question. Now I assume wildwillie you would want all the White House records, not classified made available also? And you would agree, in the concept of nothing to hide, that Rove and Meyers et al should be made avaiable to testify?

Or are you and the others going to scurry under rocks
or twist yourselves into prtezels giving us reasons why not?

Hey fast food idiot are you... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey fast food idiot are you trying to tell us something? Well thanks anyway as we all need a laugh each day. Your kookie rants are always a good source. (pssst-always can tell when the left gets their toes stepped on with post like yours (snicker snort)).

I ascribe the comments here... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I ascribe the comments here to kooky left love for old Hil. They can't wait for that bull dyke and her socialist health care.

Wierdos.

JFOYou bring up an i... (Below threshold)

JFO
You bring up an interesting point. Are Hillary's records covered under Executive privelege? If they are, then I agree she can and should withhold them at her discretion.

One of the travesties of the Clinton presidency (him) is the damage he did to the Office of the Executive. In terms of handing power over to Congress, Clinton did as much damage to the Executive Office as Nixon.

JFO: "Now I assume wildwill... (Below threshold)
Drago:

JFO: "Now I assume wildwillie you would want all the White House records, not classified made available also?"

Uh, no, moron.

Records pertaining to counsel provided to COVERED PERSONS (President and VP) are confidential.

Just as the White House is not allowed to DEMAND the records of private discussions of Congressional Democrats.

JFO, I'm not sure you'll recall this since it would require a reading comprehension above the 5th grade level, but Hillary's Health Care Task Force WAS forced, by a Federal Judges order, to release those records from '93 and '94.

Why you ask? Because Hillary, who happened to NOT be the President or VP, could not legally exert executive privelege for conversations SHE had with Health Care Task Force Advisors.

However, any discussions Hillary had with Algore or Billy were and remain confidential (since in those cases it is she who is providing counsel to a covered person for Executive Privelege.)

This is why Democrat calls for access to Cheney's Energy Task Force records failed. Cheney is a covered person.

The Dems knew that, but demanded the records anyway, knowing perfectly well no President is going to hand over confidential records.

You should also recall that the Clintons did in fact attempt to claim executive privelege for Hillary's!! Health Care Task Force under a wonderfully, fantastic, amazing claim that Hillary, as the WIFE of Bill, is also an EXTENSION of the President, therefore, kind of "like" a President, which should preclude her having to divulge the records.

Naturally, she failed.

So JFO's hilarious claims and assertions that Executive Branch confidential records should be released are just that, Laughable.

But just watch. JFO will be back to tell us why Hillary saying she was "like" the President was ok, but Bush and Cheney claiming executive privilege is not ok.

I'll get some popcorn and watch.

"Democrats are constantl... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Democrats are constantly hounding the Bush administration for emails and documents in their relentless witchhunts against this administration, yet records which should be available after many years cannot be seen?" -- JammieWearingFool

The important difference is that while Republicans are seeking information by which to slime Hillary and distort her record:

"Those files -- that's the mother lode of opposition research," said Ray McNally, a Republican political consultant in Sacramento. "Opposition researchers would be very hungry to see what's there,"

the Democrats in Congress on the other hand are conducting criminal investigations of the Bush Administration and seek information that would enable them to impeach or indict.

DragoCheney ... (Below threshold)

Drago

Cheney is a covered person.

Cheney is not only a covered person, but he carefully vetted the process before the fact and used Hillary's errors as reason to do so.

The unknown player in this is David Addington, who became an expert on restoring the power of the Presidency. Whereas Clinton surrounded himself with political operatives, Bush and Cheney sought solid legal advice and have prevailed against congressional intrusion.

Records pertaining to co... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Records pertaining to counsel provided to COVERED PERSONS (President and VP) are confidential.

Really? And just where are these "covered persons" defined?

However, any discussions Hillary had with Algore or Billy were and remain confidential

Really? So you mean just talking to a "covered person" grants you immunity from Congress? Gee!

The Dems knew that, but demanded the records anyway, knowing perfectly well no President is going to hand over confidential records.

So you think the President is not required to hand over anything he deems merely "confidential"?

You know, if you absolutely have no clue what you're talking about, it's best to keep quiet.

Uh, no, moron.

And you shouldn't be so quick to toss around phrases like that, either.

With double butter I hope D... (Below threshold)
marc:

With double butter I hope Drago - nice take down BTW.

Isn't it interesing as I write this 8 votes cast on it and the score is -4. freedomFRIED and JFO musta brought some lurkers with them that are too cowardly to post a comment.

AND FRIED - nice rant by you also! What a "fine" spokesman for your side. You should be "congratulated," and banned.

French Fry has obviously be... (Below threshold)

French Fry has obviously been seething in the oils of the Kos hot tub....or maybe chest thumping after Markos beat up scarecrow (Harold Ford) on Meet the Press.

Herman:the Dem... (Below threshold)
marc:

Herman:

the Democrats in Congress on the other hand are conducting criminal investigations of the Bush Administration and seek information that would enable them to impeach or indict.

Your ignorance is showing. Congress has no power to conduct "criminal investigations," only the Justice dept does.

Frenchfries and JFO, you mu... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Frenchfries and JFO, you must think America was sleeping during the administration of the second worst President in our history took place. I can only assume you wish to spend the pennies you no doubt saved to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom with old Bill, nursing in Clinton' favorite cigar. FF, I guarantee you no one will have to steal documents from the national archieves to protect the reputation of G.W. Bush. I'll further bet, if you had anything of value, Bush will leave the silverware and computer keys when he leaves. Hillary Karl Marx Clinton does not stand a chance. Her husband never got 50% of the vote. Notice 2004 Bush got 61 million votes and you had 4 years to lie about him.

Your ignorance is showin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Your ignorance is showing. Congress has no power to conduct "criminal investigations," only the Justice dept does.

What is it with you people? First Drago's imaginary world of "covered persons" somehow granted the magical right to withhold anything they deem "confidential", and now marc's removal of Congress's investigation abilities (though given his praise of Drago's fact-free missive, it's not surprising). And to think, they make these claims while calling others "moron" and "ignorant".

So the Dems are FOR full di... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

So the Dems are FOR full disclosure, unless theyre against it?

you must think America w... (Below threshold)
Brian:

you must think America was sleeping during the administration of the second worst President in our history took place.

No, judging by these results, I'd say America's been very much awake these last 7 years.

source">http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=348">source

I think FreedomFries just d... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

I think FreedomFries just demonstrated the validity of his point rather well with that juvenile comment.

Oops, <a href="http://peopl... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Oops, source.

Let's see. The Dems are on... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Let's see. The Dems are only wanting to look at everything the Repubs have because they're on the side of the angels, and they're only hiding stuff from the Repubs because the Republicans are on the side of the Devil.

Okay. I get it. Theology! What a concept!

Congress has no power to co... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

Congress has no power to conduct "criminal investigations," only the Justice dept does."

You mean to tell me these mindless mud scabs after three years of having failed to "Get Rove" are clueless as to the difference between their Schmucky Schumer and Patrick Fitzgerald? LOL , Super smart dummies...lol.

What does she have to hide?... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

What does she have to hide? Well, let me think:

1)Records relating to HRC's role in the hiring of White House Security Chief Livingston who ordered thousands of FBI files on Republicans. Grand Jury testimony implicates HRC in both of these actions, although nobody has ever admitted hiring this guy.

2)Records relating to the improper use of FBI files to frame Mr. Dale of the Travel Office and of the HRC involvement, also implicated by Grand Jury testimony.

3)Records relating to the movement of management authority from State to Commerce, in order to approve the sale of top missile technology to China coincident to a large contribution from the manufacturer.

4)Records relating to the pardons of an FBI most wanted, a high-level drug importer, and other pardon processes as advocated by her brother.

5)Records related to the improper use of taxpayer employees to help process specious Executive Privilege claims.

6)Records related to drug use by White House staff and the denial of security clearances.

That oughta do for a start.

Brian: "First Drago's imagi... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Brian: "First Drago's imaginary world of "covered persons" somehow granted the magical right to withhold anything they deem "confidential",..."


Uh, yeah. My "imaginary world".

Executive privilege has been around for 200-years, and is a legal concept that grants the President (and the Vice President)a veil of secrecy for deliberations he has with his aides and advisers on issues of diplomacy and national security (which has been validated by multiple Supreme Court rulings.)

Further, the concept of executive privilege started with the administration of George Washington and has been used by almost every President since then.

The concept of executive privilege is rooted in the constitutional concept of separation of powers, because it gives the Commander in Chief insulation from unwarranted intrusions by the legislative and judicial branches into foreign policy formulation.

Shocking. Separation of powers.

Let me guess Brian: you were FOR separation of powers, before you were against it.

Leave it to a lefty like Brian to pretend that a well-established principle (over 200 years) is somehow something that GWB suddenly just "made up".

Yep. It's undeniable. For lefties, history indeed began in January, 2001.

BTW brian, if you were capable of simple logic (which you clearly are not), you would ask yourself this simple question:

Gee, if executive privilege over advice provided to the President and VP is not a valid, well-accepted tenet of separation of powers, then why did the Clintons try to EXTEND that privilege to Hillary (who was not the President or VP)?

Think about that.

Rinse.

Repeat.

"Okay. I get it. Theology! ... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

"Okay. I get it. Theology! What a concept!"

The democrats are without a doubt on the side of evil having made a contract with with the devil. The truth is that the devil knew they were coming and it was he who innitiated the deal with the Rats.

Even the Devil fears the democrats

Hillary is a class act. If ... (Below threshold)

Hillary is a class act. If she says there's nothing in all those documents, you can bet your last dime that there's nothing in all those documents. She can be trusted. As for those 147 "I don't recall" statements, trust her, she was telling the truth because, after all, she swore she would.

Robert the Original<p... (Below threshold)

Robert the Original

1)Records relating to HRC's role in the hiring of White House Security Chief Livingston who ordered thousands of FBI files on Republicans. Grand Jury testimony implicates HRC in both of these actions, although nobody has ever admitted hiring this guy.

I would love to see those also, but they will never, ever see the light of day. If the Rose billing records were lost for a few years, these records will be found only when time travel is viable.
Imagine the discovery of these types of files in, say, Karl Rove's office?

I have specific reasons for... (Below threshold)
rrita m:

I have specific reasons for not liking Hillary, that may or may not have anything to do with undisclosed information.

I remember Clinton's public apology on national television with Hillary at his side after the impeachment. I was fed up with his B.S. like a lot of people, but I still felt really sad inside it had come to that. The whole while, Hillary was gazing up at her husband with a look of love and admiration. I mean, what else is she supposed to do but be there for him in his time of need?

The closer I looked, however, I realized that loving gaze wasn't for him, it was for his job(or close to it.) Who couldn't see that one coming for eons? She moved right from the White House to New York to become Senator. "Better-deal-your-husband" Hillary is one of my least favorite people. (We'll see how long it takes for this comment to get bombed.)

Brian, you have not gotten ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Brian, you have not gotten any wiser have you? My post spoke of the second worst administration in the past tense. I know you means nothing to you, but the Bush adminsitration is still functioning, something the previous bunch really never got it together to do. Two Presidents in our history have been impeached. Johnson for political reasons and Clinton for crimes. What has Hillary got to hide? The truth about Vincent Foster.

Brian: and now... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

and now marc's removal of Congress's investigation abilities (though given his praise of Drago's fact-free missive, it's not surprising). And to think, they make these claims while calling others "moron" and "ignorant".

"Nice parse" of words Brian. And typical of you.

Never said congress couldn't investigate whatever they choose. The assertion was made they had to power to conduct a "criminal investigation." They DON'T, they investigate, turn over what they feel is illeagal to the Justice dept and THEY proceed with the criminal part of the investigation.

The BDS sufferers like to f... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

The BDS sufferers like to forget that the Bush administration's first assertion of executive priviledge was to prevent the release of information from the Clinton admin.

MarcBrian's parsing... (Below threshold)

Marc
Brian's parsing of your comment is no accident.

Your point needs to be repeated here because the Kos crowd accepts Brian's position without argument, and it is encouraged by Congress.

The encroachment on Executive privilege is relentless...553 versus 1 and 9. Cheney has defended Executive privilege to the extent that he has been labeled a criminal by the MSM, the latter drunk on its power for lack of boundaries heretofore set by reasonable men.

Call yourself Republican or Democrat, depriving the Executive of power will gain you nothing less than Committee for Public Safety rule and a world fit only for Robespierre.

HughS:Brian's ... (Below threshold)
marc:

HughS:

Brian's parsing of your comment is no accident.

Most assuredly!

That's all Brian and barney, among many others, have. Take a long post or comment, select a small section of it and twist it's obvious meaning to something totally different.

They're not stupid in the truest sense, just blinded by partisanship, that leads to stupid statements and conclusions.

Executive privilege has ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Executive privilege has been around for 200-years, and is a legal concept that grants the President (and the Vice President)a veil of secrecy for deliberations he has with his aides and advisers on issues of diplomacy and national security (which has been validated by multiple Supreme Court rulings.)

Dude, you are just so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. Executive privilege does not "grant" anything. It is not defined anywhere in our laws or the Constitution. There is no "veil of secrecy". EP is a claim to a power that has been thrown out by the Supreme Court more often than it's been upheld, and upheld for only very limited circumstances. In fact, the SCOTUS ruled explicitly that there is no "absolute privilege" to "confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions". That means there's no privilege for US Attorney information. No privilege for oil task force membership. No privilege for domestic spying records. And arguably no privilege for Pat Tillman records.

Further, the concept of executive privilege started with the administration of George Washington and has been used by almost every President since then.

Yeah, Washington claimed it... and lost. So did Jefferson. And Nixon. And Clinton.

The concept of executive privilege is rooted in the constitutional concept of separation of powers

It is "rooted" in nothing. EP proponents claim it is "implied". So much for the strict constructionalist Republicans, eh?

Leave it to a lefty like Brian to pretend that a well-established principle (over 200 years) is somehow something that GWB suddenly just "made up".

I never said he "made it up". But that "well-established principle (over 200 years)" of yours has almost without exception been struck down by the courts for over 200 years. Including Nixon's unanimous rebuke. Is that the principle that you are clinging to?

Gee, if executive privilege over advice provided to the President and VP is not a valid, well-accepted tenet of separation of powers, then why did the Clintons try to EXTEND that privilege to Hillary (who was not the President or VP)?

Because they were politicians trying to keep something from being public. AND THEY LOST! Like Washington. And Jefferson. And Nixon. And now that Bush invokes it, it's somehow a well-established and solid Constitutional right?

I'd point you to some more studious articles about EP, but they'd probably be over your head. So you can start with a simple CNN article to introduce you to the basics.

Take a long post or comm... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Take a long post or comment, select a small section of it and twist it's obvious meaning to something totally different.

You mean like taking a comment that Congress is conducting investigations of potential crimes, and attacking it because it was worded as "criminal investigations"? And then when called on it, claiming that you really meant to say that Congress DOES have the power to investigate crimes, but they have no power to issue criminal indictments?

You mean parsing and twisting statements like those? Stupid statements and conclusions like those?

wille:You never fa... (Below threshold)
JFO:

wille:

You never fail to disappoint. You may be the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever read. You couldn't possibly see your way to seeing anything other than Democrat/Liberal - BAD ; Republican/Conservative - GOOD.

I never wrote a word about "executive privelege" which in and of itself is a bullsh** concept. One of the problems with our government is it's secrecy and lack of transparency. Yes, when records are legitimately classified there should be no disclosure. Other than that, "we the people" have a right to know. I don't give a damn if it's Clinton, Bush or anyone else.

But of course you haven't the balls or honesty to go that far because for you everything has to do with being right - not doing what's right, just being right. Just like this disgrace of an administration. People like you and your ilk just astound me - it's always a war, there's never an answer that benefits all of America, just your own ideolgy. I'd feel sorry for you willie, but I'll leave that to "good" Christians like CCG.

Wow, I must be JFO's versio... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Wow, I must be JFO's version of Karl Rove. I don't even need to say a word in a thread (like this one) to get dragged into it.

Go ahead and obsess about me, JFO. It doesn't bother me. Really.

CVCC GThere you go... (Below threshold)
JFO:

CVCC G

There you go again - I give you credit for what you claim to be and not even a thank you. What kind of "good" Christian is that?

Not to interrupt my blogcat... (Below threshold)

Not to interrupt my blogcation, but I have to bring up a point that everyone has overlooked -- and I'm sure Fried and brian did so in ignorance:

Wouldn't a fair comparison be not to general White House policy towards documents, but towards how open Laura Bush's records have been? After all, Hillary never officially held any position in the White House besides "first lady," so wouldn't that be the best way to look at the situation?

J.

Jay:As I remeber i... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Jay:

As I remeber it she was asked by Bill to chair a Task Force on Health Care or sonmething similarly named. It would seem to me that that alone would make the records from the task force the work product of the White House.

That said, I still think executive privilege is a an overused, bullsh** concept. I think her records, Bill's records and Bush's records should all be public.

You make my point better th... (Below threshold)
marc:

You make my point better than I do Brian by the use of the phrase potential crimes.

"You mean like taking a comment that Congress is conducting investigations of potential crimes,"

I'd suggest you look up CRS Report RL30240, Congressional Oversight Manual and see if you can find the phrase "criminal investigation" it it.

But you may find this:

The power of investigation and inquiry. A traditional method of exercising the oversight function, an implied power, is through investigations and
inquiries into executive branch operations. Legislators often seek to know how effectively and efficiently programs are working, how well agency officials are responding to legislative directives, and how the public perceives the programs. The investigatory method helps to ensure a more responsible bureaucracy, while supplying Congress with information needed to formulate new legislation.

Millions of documents and E... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Millions of documents and Email about the Co-President. She ? has a lot to hide. Everything in her 'real' live is hidden as well it should be. Life long criminals always hide their record. Now you know you don't want Slick's records made public, he wouldn't live long enough to complete his prison sentences.

JFO, then I'm sure you'll e... (Below threshold)

JFO, then I'm sure you'll extend the same privilege to Dick Cheney's energy policy commission.

But fine, we'll exclude the health care abortion she drove right into the ground. How about some of those other matters Robert The Original brought up in comment 24?

J.

After all, Hillary... (Below threshold)
After all, Hillary never officially held any position in the White House besides "first lady," so wouldn't that be the best way to look at the situation?

Yeah. What did Hillary know and when did she know it?

the Democrats in C... (Below threshold)
the Democrats in Congress on the other hand are conducting criminal investigations of the Bush Administration and seek information that would enable them to impeach or indict.

No. They are conducting oversight. There hasn't been one mention of investigating criminal conduct.

Congress hopes that if they are allowed access to enough information they may find something that they can claim is criminal.

What pisses off the democrats is that they've been trying to hang a scandal around George Bush's neck since January 2001 and haven't been able to do so. They are relentless though, and will do anything they can get by with to continue that endeavor.

George Bush will leave office in January 2009 and democratics will still be trying to find a scandal to hang on him.

People like you an... (Below threshold)
People like you and your ilk just astound me - it's always a war, there's never an answer that benefits all of America, just your own ideolgy. I'd feel sorry for you willie, but I'll leave that to "good" Christians like CCG.

Actually jfo, people like you your ilk astound me.

CCG hadn't even been active in this thread, and you decided to throw out an attack on his Christianity. In reality, he rarely touts that fact. The few times I've seen him mention that fact is when the arguments turn to the Biblical and religious.

The only place he advertises Christianity is in the name of his blog. The only way you'd know that is if you visited it. He named it what he did because, umm, it's his blog and he can name it what he wants - in this case it was a name the described what he holds as dear and important to him.

But, all you were doing was trying to bait him, and he refused to take your bait. Good on him. You don't deserve the notoriety. What you do deserve is scorn.

As I remeber it sh... (Below threshold)
As I remeber it she was asked by Bill to chair a Task Force on Health Care or sonmething similarly named.

In reality it was part of the payoff to her for not divorcing his dumb ass during the campaign when the bimbo eruptions became public.

Hillary was this||close to splitting, thus almost certainly ruining his presidential ambitions, when the deal was struck with her that she'd get to direct some domestic policy initiatives. One of those was over hauling health care.

It was payoff, nothing more, nothing less. And she botched it big time. So, elect her president.

I'm sorry, any comparison o... (Below threshold)

I'm sorry, any comparison of Mrs. Bill Clinton to Laura Bush takes away any credibility one might have around here, and is probably an indication of a dyer need for some vacation ti...oh, nevermind.

No. They are conducting ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

No. They are conducting oversight. There hasn't been one mention of investigating criminal conduct.

The Attorney General lying to Congress isn't a crime?

You make my point better... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You make my point better than I do Brian by the use of the phrase potential crimes.
...
I'd suggest you look up CRS Report RL30240, Congressional Oversight Manual and see if you can find the phrase "criminal investigation" it it.

Thanks for the pointer. Makes it easy to expose your ignorance. Or is it just your "word parsing"?

Congressional oversight of the Executive is designed to fulfill a number of purposes: A. Ensure Executive Compliance with Legislative Intent
To make certain that these officers faithfully execute laws according to the intent of Congress...
... D. Prevent Executive Encroachment on Legislative Prerogatives and Powers E. Investigate Alleged Instances of Poor Administration, Arbitrary and Capricious Behavior, Abuse, Waste, Dishonesty, and Fraud
Instances of fraud and other forms of corruption, the breakdown of federal programs, incompetent management, and the subversion of governmental processes arouse legislative and public interest in oversight.
... H. Ensure That Executive Policies Reflect the Public Interest I. Protect Individual Rights and Liberties
By revealing abuses of authority, for instance, oversight hearings can halt executive misconduct and help to prevent its recurrence

Do any of those seem like crimes to you?

John Stuart Mill (Considerations on Representative Government, 1861, p. 104), British utilitarian philosopher:

. . . the proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government; to throw the light of publicity on its acts; to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers questionable . . .

Brian:The Atto... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

The Attorney General lying to Congress isn't a crime?

Funny, now you've changed your tune. what happened to you grasping at the "criminal investigation" canard?


Anyway.... what "lie" would that be? And why hasn't that "lie" been documented and turned over to the justice dept for further investigation?

Oh... wait I know. The dems are waiting til the AG is gone because, well... just because they all think he's a crook and won't "investigate" himself.

Your transparent idiocy is very plain to see.

then I'm sure you'll ext... (Below threshold)
Brian:

then I'm sure you'll extend the same privilege to Dick Cheney's energy policy commission.

What about you? Would you strip away Cheney's privilege regarding that commission as quickly as you would strip away Hillary's?

I would.

Sorry asshat.... nothing th... (Below threshold)
marc:

Sorry asshat.... nothing there but oversight.

Try again.

Funny, now you've change... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Funny, now you've changed your tune. what happened to you grasping at the "criminal investigation" canard?

I'll say it again... the Attorney General lying to Congress isn't a crime?

Anyway.... what "lie" would that be? And why hasn't that "lie" been documented

Documented.

and turned over to the justice dept for further investigation?

Oh... wait I know. The dems are waiting til the AG is gone because, well... just because they all think he's a crook and won't "investigate" himself.

No, they don't "think" that. Bush has explicitly stated he will order Justice not to prosecute those under his protection.

Sorry asshat.... nothing... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Sorry asshat.... nothing there but oversight. Try again.

LOL! Failing to execute laws, fraud, corruption, subversion, misconduct... nope, no crimes there! I guess you just consider that standard procedure for a Republican government, eh?

Now you're just proving how dishonest you are. Good night.

She needs to keep everyone ... (Below threshold)

She needs to keep everyone out for a while because Sandy Berger is working in "organizing" the stuff.

Brian:No, they... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

No, they don't "think" that. Bush has explicitly stated he will order Justice not to prosecute those under his protection.

Got a link to the executive order or quote?

Jay Tea:I'm surpri... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Jay Tea:

I'm surprised to learn you're like so many other of your like-thinking brethern on this site. You/they obviously don't read entire comments.

Would I "give the same privelege" to Dick Cheyney's energy policy group? Of course I would. Which means, as I've said twice now in this thread, I'd require him to make them public, just like I'd require Clinton or any Democratic or Republican administration to make all except classified or personal records of the people's business public. "We the people" are entitled to know what in the hell our government is doing. How anyone could think otherwise amazes me.

John in CAI care n... (Below threshold)
JFO:

John in CA

I care not a wit what you think of me but you certainly can say it. But for information purposes I have had the displeasure of having CCG quote passages and give me cites to the Bible while asserting his own moral superiority. Ergo the earned moniker of "good" Christian.

So, in the future try and know just a tiny bit about what ye judge and ye bloviate about.

JFO and the other ostrich l... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JFO and the other ostrich liberals only see their side. GW and Cheney are elected officials with clearly layed out responsibilites in the executive branch. There are no protections or official responsibilites for first ladies, except now that Hillary is running for president, JFO runs to her defence with the "of course she should reveal her records as should GW and Cheney" as if it is the same thing. Our great president is in the middle of fighting a war with people who want to see us die but JFO and his ilk are worried more about 8 political appointees who were fired for political reasons. An orange is an orange and an apple is an apple. Talk about being intellectually dishonest? JFO, you win hands down. ww

good one marc...thats gonna... (Below threshold)
tj:

good one marc...thats gonna leave a mark.

willw:You continue... (Below threshold)
JFO:

willw:

You continue to prove what an idiot you are. You never, ever fail in that regard. For the 4th time now - her records should be made public!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get it now??????????

Now, please answer my question to you. Shouldn't all non-classified documents be made public to "we the people"? It's an easy question, even for a simpleton like you wille.

I wonder how long Berger li... (Below threshold)
kim:

I wonder how long Berger lives?
===================

What kind of skelletons dos... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

What kind of skelletons dose she have in her closet she dont want us to find out about is it her connection with 70s radicals?

Got a link to the execut... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Got a link to the executive order or quote?

Absolutely.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action." ... "A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

Now, you're going to argue that the comment applies only to contempt charges. First of all, Justice is required by law to "bring the matter before the grand jury for its action". So that's Bush saying that he will violate federal law. Secondly, he broadened the scope beyond contempt to "an executive privilege case" and "a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided". So there's no basis for believing that this violation of the law wouldn't be applied to other charges, nor that Bush won't simply declare any wrongdoing to be covered under executive privilege.

This is boring. You keep asking me to provide evidence to trash your position and support mine. It would save me the trouble if you read the news once in a while.

Nope, no mark left.

By the way, the new comment... (Below threshold)
Brian:

By the way, the new comment preview feature sucks.

No, JFO, not everything sho... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

No, JFO, not everything should be made public. Until you actually bother to understand the purpose of executive privilege, your ranting about it will continue to be incoherent.

And by the way, you don't seem to understand in your rantings that the U.S. government is actually among the most transparent government in the world.

Well then SPQR you would be... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Well then SPQR you would be on the side of Hillary's records not being made public? Interesting.

By the way SPQR I do unders... (Below threshold)
JFO:

By the way SPQR I do understand "the purpose" of executive privelege. I just don't agree with it which I don't think is a terribly unreasonable position.

Well, how about that? The ... (Below threshold)
rrita m:

Well, how about that? The incognito monkey patrol has ook ooked by to spread their "peace-loving" and "anti-war" message in the voting link. Wizbang just.ROCKS and they wish it didn't! :D

SPQR says, "No, JFO, not... (Below threshold)

SPQR says, "No, JFO, not everything should be made public"

Apparently SPQR thinks that anything the Bush/Cheney regime does deserves to be hidden from the public.

BTW it is ironic that SPQR chooses the user that he has chosen since he obviously has not the least intent to support the comcept of the "P" (Populusque...the People). It seems that when it comes to Republicans, the notion is that "the People be damned."

It appears that freedomfrie... (Below threshold)
Drago:

It appears that freedomfries is unable to read or comprehend.

ie
Freedom Fries: "Apparently SPQR thinks that anything the Bush/Cheney regime does deserves to be hidden from the public."

But from a post that ocurred 26 minutes earlier-

SPQR: "No, JFO, not everything should be made public."

Freedom, just fyi, someone saying "not everything should be made public" does not mean "nothing should be made public".

Thanks for playing our "straw-man a minute" game.

FreedomFries, it is amazing... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

FreedomFries, it is amazing how dishonest you are are. And it is amusing how incompetent you are at the same time. My statement is completely misrepresented by you.

This surprise me not at all of course.

Your statement: "Apparently SPQR thinks that anything the Bush/Cheney regime does deserves to be hidden from the public." is just a stupid, slimey, little lie.

What the administration does should not be hidden at all except for those things were secrecy is inherently required for success such as military operations, intelligence work etc. And in fact, there is a great deal of transparency in US government currently, probably more than any other government in the world. Executive privilege, the actual subject of my comments, refers to the privilege of the executive branch to keep secret the contents of deliberation at the highest level in formulating policy - that the President should have the confidentiality of those who advise him to enable him to obtain candid, complete advice. But once the President formulates policy, it is not and should not be secret except for those normal classified topics mentioned above.

FreedomFries then spews this little bit of manure: 'It seems that when it comes to Republicans, the notion is that "the People be damned."'.

Until the Democrats enact serious earmarks reform in Congress, then FF's little smart alec remark will remain what it is - another dishonest passing of wind by a partisan incompetent.

SPQRI see you're b... (Below threshold)
JFO:

SPQR

I see you're back. Would you answer my question to you in comment # 69. Thanks.

JFO, most of Hillary's reco... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

JFO, most of Hillary's records do not fall under Executive Privilege claims. The news article does not say that her records won't be made public by the way. It tells plainly that FOIA requests are being processed. The article seems clear that the records are being worked on for release, but that the National Archives staff is pretty overworked and so the records won't be processed for years.

I do not have any problem with the status quo as described in the article.

Executive privilege, the... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Executive privilege, the actual subject of my comments, refers to the privilege of the executive branch to keep secret the contents of deliberation at the highest level in formulating policy - that the President should have the confidentiality of those who advise him to enable him to obtain candid, complete advice.

That claim is not granted by the Constitution, and was unanimously rejected by the SCOTUS.

Next?

Name the Supreme Court deci... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Name the Supreme Court decision, Brian, as you obviously don't understand it.

Are you kidding?Th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Are you kidding?

That would be "United States v. Nixon".

Evidently, you are kidding ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Evidently, you are kidding Brian, as US v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974) does not stand for the proposition that there is no executive privilege. You are misrepresenting the case completely. The court did not "unanimously" reject the concept of executive privilege. In fact, the court opinion states at 705:

The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process. Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of [418 U.S. 683, 706] Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.

Plainly there is executive privilege.

The court's holding is that there is executive privilege but that it is not absolute. In the case, in the context of a criminal prosecution, the judge could hold an in camera review of claims of executive privilege with respect to subpoenaed material.

You're probably not aware t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You're probably not aware that you didn't quote the court's finding, but instead you quoted its restatement of Nixon's assertion. That is, the assertion the court unanimously rejected.

You noted that the court agreed that confidentially is important, but apparently you didn't get to the part where they said that as it pertains to executive privilege, sorry, that's not good enough.

The court's holding is that there is executive privilege but that it is not absolute.

Well duh, Captain Obvious, that's a point I made in a previous post. But that is not what you asserted.

Let me help you out.

You said:

Executive privilege, the actual subject of my comments, refers to the privilege of the executive branch to keep secret the contents of deliberation at the highest level in formulating policy - that the President should have the confidentiality of those who advise him to enable him to obtain candid, complete advice.

SCOTUS said:

providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of "a workable government"

...

However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.

...

We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interests in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.

SPQRThank you for ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

SPQR

Thank you for your non-answer answer. It says all that needs to be said abput you.

Brian, you've done a fine j... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Brian, you've done a fine job of confusing yourself. I never said that the executive privilege was absolute. I stated that it existed, and you claimed that SCOTUS had rejected it. Your claim was and remains false. The case of US v. Nixon talks about when the court will find the needs of a criminal prosecution to override it.

Your attempt to pretend that you know what you are talking about and spin your confusion is amusing.

JFO, non answer? You reall... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

JFO, non answer? You really are bizarre.

"Apparently SPQR thinks tha... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

"Apparently SPQR thinks that anything the Bush/Cheney regime does deserves to be hidden from the public."

FF, "Bush/Cheney regime" Never heard of such a thing. Regime better describes the Clintons and their "War Room". Gee , who could they possibly be at war with?

Not the enemy, the Clintons were at war with Americans.

Brian - also from US v Nixo... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian - also from US v Nixon:

"...the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties."

But also noted "that the executive privilege is not absolute."

BUT, it does exist.

I never said that the ex... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I never said that the executive privilege was absolute. I stated that it existed

No, you stated it existed "to keep secret the contents of deliberation" and "that the President should have the confidentiality of those who advise him to enable him to obtain candid, complete advice."

You are wrong. It does NOT exist for those circumstances, and I cited where the SCOTUS addressed those very circumstances. Don't try to change what you said after the fact. Who are you, Gonzales?

and you claimed that SCOTUS had rejected it.

Yes, they did.

Your claim was and remains false.

Is and remains true.

Your attempt to pretend that you know what you are talking about and spin your confusion is amusing.

You're the one changing what you claim to have said. Do you not realize your previous comments appear above? Not only do you not know what the SCOTUS said, but you apparently don't even know what you yourself said! I'm glad that amuses you.

Brian - also from US v N... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian - also from US v Nixon:
"...the valid need for protection of communications...

Did you stop reading at that point? The rest of the finding says that the "valid need for protection of communications etc. etc." IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. You and SPQR seem to be hanging on the fact that they said the need for confidentiality is "valid", but you completely skip over the fact that they said VALID ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

But also noted "that the executive privilege is not absolute." BUT, it does exist.

Yes, as I said many posts ago, "EP is a claim to a power that has been thrown out by the Supreme Court more often than it's been upheld, and upheld for only very limited circumstances."

Those circumstances are not the ones that SPQR is describing, and what I said was his claim was unanimously rejected by the SCOTUS, not EP as a whole.

But remember, when it comes to executive privilege and the courts, Washington LOST. Jefferson LOST. Nixon LOST. Clinton LOST. But Bush will be the first president in history to have his claim upheld by a court?

Brian, you are wandering a... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Brian, you are wandering around the whole page in your supposed position while misrepresenting mine. You've got the situation backwards, the situation in which executive privilege won't be upheld are in fact the narrow ones, not the converse.

But your pretense to understanding US v. Nixon is rather transparent to all. I think you really don't know how to read this opinion that you yourself cited to, as you keep taking lines out of context.

The privilege does exist, has been upheld in other circumstances, but has exceptions like any privilege and is not absolute. Try to act serious, Brian.

For those actually interest... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

For those actually interested in the subject, this annotation from Findlaw.com's annotated Constitution is a non-partisan summary that I think is accessible to lay persons.

You've got the situation... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You've got the situation backwards, the situation in which executive privilege won't be upheld are in fact the narrow ones, not the converse.

Oh really?

Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

Those are the only areas in which it was upheld. It is NOT upheld in all other areas. And "all other areas" includes the "confidentiality of those who advise him" assertion that you've repeatedly made and now are trying to pretend you didn't make.

The privilege does exist, has been upheld in other circumstances

As I have repeatedly said. Just upheld in narrow circumstances. Yours aren't among them.

Look, just admit you misspoke, were talking out your ass, relied on some bad information, or whatever, and get over it. You've gone from initially rejecting what I said, to basically agreeing with it, with your own little attempt at face-saving "never mind what I said before" spin thrown in. It's gone from amusing to pathetic.

Brian:As I hav... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

As I have repeatedly said. Just upheld in narrow circumstances. Yours aren't among them.

Really? Perchance can you explain why in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton case the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of Shillary?

That case raised the question whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") applied to the health-care-reform panel chaired by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. And that question, in turn, depended on whether the First Lady is, or is not, an officer or employee of the government.

Under FACA, if a person who is not an officer or employee of the government is a member of a government group, then the group's proceedings must be open to the public. The health-care-reform panel had kept its proceedings private, so if the First Lady was not a government officer or employee, it had broken the law. Fortunately for the Clinton Administration, however, the court held that the First Lady is indeed an officer or employee of the government, and FACA thus did not apply.

You'll also note the court rules as it did to avoid "difficult constitutional questions."

"Congress has no power t... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Congress has no power to conduct "criminal investigations," only the Justice dept does." -- Marc

So I guess when Congress is investigating the extent to which it has been lied to (a FELONY, Marc, as you undoubtedly didn't know), it isn't conducting a criminal investigation, (that is, an investigation into whether something criminal occurred)???? What's your answer, dude? WELL????

Maybe you believe that Congress should say to Gonzales, the Head of the Justice Dept.: "We suspect you lied to us, but we'll leave it to you to find out if you did or not." Take a wild guess, Marc, as to what might happen.

And I guess you also believe that all those Congressional hearings in the early 1970s unearthed not the slightest shred of evidence against the Nixon crooks, right?

The stupidity of conservatives never ceases to amaze me.

I guess by marc's idiotic l... (Below threshold)
Herman:

I guess by marc's idiotic logic, Sherlock Holmes never ever conducted criminal investigations. Why? Because he wasn't a member of the Justice Dept.!!!

uh...sherlock holmes... (Below threshold)
Doh!:

uh...
sherlock holmes, heh?
he never conducted a criminal investigation because (are you sitting down?) he WASN'T real.
ya know, fiction.
so, he never ever, never ever at all, conducted one.
thank you for proving that the left can not distingusish between fantasy and reality.

FreedomFries is an angry lo... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

FreedomFries is an angry loser with a serious case of MPH (my pussy hurts).

Such misery and he/she/it wants all to share in it. What a pathetic pussy moonbat.

It does make for entertaining reading though.

Hey Fries, you need to go back to panhandling on the streetcorner. Your spot by the turn lane will be taken.

"So I guess when Congress i... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

"So I guess when Congress is investigating the extent to which it has been lied to"

Just got to love every lie , every frabricated scandal and all the bed wetting false accusation from you criminal democrats. Notice how it's "Congress who is investigating". When the truth is that it is the Criminal Un-American democrats who deceived and lied their way back into power who are lying through their teeth and looking stupid as they accomplish nothing. Is that a "FELONY" as well? Maybe I should ask one of those 85% of felons who'd vote democrat.

"against the Nixon crooks, right?"

Crooks? What exactly did they steal if you don't mind me asking?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy