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

Wierdos.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 disclosure, unless theyre against it?

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 demonstrated the validity of his point rather well with that juvenile comment.

Oops, source.

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 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? 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 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! 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 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

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

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 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.