The Hillary Paper Chase: 3,022,030 Documents To Go

[875000]

During last week's Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton faced tough questions about why so many of her papers at her husband's presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., are still secret—and her answers have only invited more questions. Clinton said during the debate that one chunk of records, from her days heading up her husband's health-care task force, had been released. "Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available," she said. But National Archives documents obtained by NEWSWEEK and interviews with Archives officials indicate that the vast majority of the Clintons' health-care task-force records are still under lock and key in Little Rock—and might stay that way for some time.

In a letter last year responding to a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative group Judicial Watch, Melissa Walker, supervisory archivist of the Clinton Presidential Library, wrote that archivists had identified 3,022,030 still-unreleased health-care documents, along with 2,884 e-mails and 1,021 photos covered by the group's request. Archives officials at the Clinton library have yet to process the Judicial Watch request or release the several million pages of task-force documents, including many key internal memos written by Mrs. Clinton and her advisers about how to restructure the health-care industry. This prompted the group to file a new lawsuit last week demanding their immediate disclosure. "This doesn't pass the giggle test," said Christopher Farrell, the group's research director, about Clinton's statement that "all" of her health-care records had been released.

The Clinton White House publicly released 13,400 pages of documents regarding Hillary's related health-care "working group" to resolve a 1994 lawsuit. And Clinton campaign spokes-man Jay Carson says that as many as half a million health-care papers have now been disclosed, but he acknowledges that many others have yet to be cleared. "There are undoubtedly other documents related to health care in the hundred million pages" of unreleased records at the library, Carson said, but he added that Clinton's hands were tied because understaffed Archives officials had to review each and every FOIA request—and handle all of them in order. "We don't control their process," he said. "We're not holding anything up."

At the debate, Mrs. Clinton rejected the idea that she could accelerate the process by encouraging her husband to lift restrictions he has placed on confidential communications with his wife on policy matters. "Well, that's not my decision to make," she said. In 1994, according to another National Archives document obtained by NEWSWEEK, President Clinton formally designated both his wife and his close adviser Bruce Lindsey as co-representatives for control of his papers in the event of his death or disability. Lindsey now reviews all White House papers at the library before they are cleared for release; Hillary, Carson says, "has never been involved in the clearing process. Bruce is the designee." But that has not stopped Clinton's principal rival, Sen. Barack Obama, from hitting the issue hard. In an interview with NEWSWEEK, he called Clinton's responses on the records issue "disingenuous." "She can release these papers," Obama said. "She can get them released soon." Carson shot back that Obama "has formally abandoned the politics of hope and is running a negative campaign."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/67939

[Parkbandit]

Carson shot back that Obama "has formally abandoned the politics of hope and is running a negative campaign."


This cracks me up. WHAT national campaign is not negative in some manner?

[bluesmith]

mmm...just look at the stuff that Bush is trying to never hand over...in fact has probably already destroyed...

[Sean of the Thread]

mmm...just look at the stuff that Bush is trying to never hand over...in fact has probably already destroyed...

source please

[TheEschaton]

She's running for President, what makes Barack think she has time to go through FOIA requests when there's already someone going through them?

-TheE-

[Gan]

Nothing incriminating will ever be released until way after the elections when its of no use whatsoever.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.soularsausage.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/4_ize_with_chris_in_the_source..jpg

[Tsa`ah]

She's running for President, what makes Barack think she has time to go through FOIA requests when there's already someone going through them?

-TheE-

The point is that it's the Clinton library and these requests have been in since probably the minute she announced her campaign ... or at least tried to base her presidential experience on the coat tails of her time as first lady.

She's pulling a Bush and that's what her opponents are pointing out.

[Seran]

source please

Perhaps you live in a small Eastern European village without access to electricity, running water and newspapers; or you're just completely ignorant.

There have been literally dozens of articles on the, memos, emails, statements, papers and studies declared immune to FOIA requests under executive priveledge under the Bush administration. How you could have missed any of this proves your ignorance.

No one needs to itemize instances because you're too lazy to give an intelligent counter to his statement, so go crawl back into the hole you came from with the rest of the ultra conservative sheep. Papa Cheney will be along shortly to feed you some more lies from the Master.

[Some Rogue]

Perhaps you live in a small Eastern European village without access to electricity, running water and newspapers; or you're just completely ignorant.

There have been literally dozens of articles on the, memos, emails, statements, papers and studies declared immune to FOIA requests under executive priveledge under the Bush administration. How you could have missed any of this proves your ignorance.

No one needs to itemize instances because you're too lazy to give an intelligent counter to his statement, so go crawl back into the hole you came from with the rest of the ultra conservative sheep. Papa Cheney will be along shortly to feed you some more lies from the Master.


Or, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't get the joke (which started in another thread.)

[Parkbandit]

Perhaps you live in a small Eastern European village without access to electricity, running water and newspapers; or you're just completely ignorant.

There have been literally dozens of articles on the, memos, emails, statements, papers and studies declared immune to FOIA requests under executive priveledge under the Bush administration. How you could have missed any of this proves your ignorance.

No one needs to itemize instances because you're too lazy to give an intelligent counter to his statement, so go crawl back into the hole you came from with the rest of the ultra conservative sheep. Papa Cheney will be along shortly to feed you some more lies from the Master.

There isn't a counter in your pathetic arsenal that doesn't include the word Bush or Cheney... so pathetic.

Hillary should turn over her memos from her time in the White House if that is what she is using as "Look at my experience!" If she doesn't, fine.. but when someone calls you out on it, don't use the excuse "Well, it seems you are trying to run a negative campaign now!"

[Stanley Burrell]

That's a lot of dead tree.

[TheEschaton]

There isn't a counter in your arsenal, PB, that doesn't include the word liberal.

[Parkbandit]

There isn't a counter in your arsenal, PB, that doesn't include the word liberal.

Well.. except the post you are referring to.

Good try though.. but as usual, you fail.

[Mabus]

I am no fan of Senator Clinton's, but it begs to be asked:

What do her detractors think will be found in these documents?

That she failed in getting health care? That she was responsible for having White House staff fired? That she personally strangeled Vince Foster with a handfull of Whitewater documents...?

The Clintons were investigated thouroughly as part of a political hatchet job instigated by Helms and Sentelle. After the millions wasted by their appointment, Ken Starr, she is likely the most vetted presidential candidate in history. If there was a hairy skeleton in that closet Starr would have included it in his report.

[oldanforgotten]

I am no fan of Senator Clinton's, but it begs to be asked:

What do her detractors think will be found in these documents?

That she failed in getting health care? That she was responsible for having White House staff fired? That she personally strangeled Vince Foster with a handfull of Whitewater documents...?

The Clintons were investigated thouroughly as part of a political hatchet job instigated by Helms and Sentelle. After the millions wasted by their appointment, Ken Starr, she is likely the most vetted presidential candidate in history. If there was a hairy skeleton in that closet Starr would have included it in his report.

I would assume the most incriminating things one might find:

1) Some documentation or correspondence regarding Whitewater. That would be the biggest burn, because Hilary magically forgot about the whole thing in court. It is the focal point of the reason I think she is a lying, slandering panderer who does not deserve to be anywhere in a position to make a decision, because it showed both an expertise at lying and covering things up, one of the primary reasons many people dislike Bush. She?s the same as he is, but with money from different places telling her what decisions to make.
2) Some documentation or internal correspondence regarding the whole Lewinsky matter. This I can understand because honestly, I don?t think personal issues like this have a place in the election either.
3) Some political party/intelligence documentation that wasn?t meant to be public
4) Specific early strategic documentation. This could also burn her, because if a plan was in place to set her up to run for President in this election, than many of the things that are ?archived? or ?classified? now would come under question, because it could essentially be inferred that it was hidden to prevent incriminating or damaging information from coming forward.
________
Vaporizer Shop (http://www.vaporshop.com/)

[Gan]

Considering the screening process its going through, I seriously doubt anything incriminating will ever be released.

Incriminating documents have a magical way of disappearing under Clinton supervision.

[875000]

I am no fan of Senator Clinton's, but it begs to be asked:

What do her detractors think will be found in these documents?

That she failed in getting health care? That she was responsible for having White House staff fired? That she personally strangeled Vince Foster with a handfull of Whitewater documents...?

The Clintons were investigated thouroughly as part of a political hatchet job instigated by Helms and Sentelle. After the millions wasted by their appointment, Ken Starr, she is likely the most vetted presidential candidate in history. If there was a hairy skeleton in that closet Starr would have included it in his report.


>>What do her detractors think will be found in these documents?<<

It could be any number of things -- the specific positions she took regarding health care reform during closed sessions; transcripts that would reveal her conduct during meetings; information that others used during the discussion that may be relevant today.

The issue also has teeth because it reveals a double standard on her part. On one hand she criticizes the current administration for its secrecy. On the other, she tries to conceal documents that discuss her own actions.


>>The Clintons were investigated thouroughly as part of a political hatchet job instigated by Helms and Sentelle. After the millions wasted by their appointment, Ken Starr, she is likely the most vetted presidential candidate in history. If there was a hairy skeleton in that closet Starr would have included it in his report.<<

Reality check.

1. The Whitewater controversy (also called the Whitewater scandal, Whitewatergate, or often simply Whitewater) was an American political controversy concerning the real estate dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, James B. McDougal and Susan McDougal in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)). It had nothing to do numerous other political scandals that occured under her husband administration, nor matters of policy such as her work on the task force.

2. Bill Clinton -- not Hillary -- was investigated for lying under oath by Kenneth Starr. That case, too, had nothing to do numerous other political scandals that occured under her husband administration, nor matters of policy such as her work on the task force. Nor did it even really cover her. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal).

If you think her work on the Health Care task force was covered under these invesitagations please think again.

[Mabus]

Reality check.
I am all for reality.


1. The Whitewater controversy (also called the Whitewater scandal, Whitewatergate, or often simply Whitewater) was an American political controversy concerning the real estate dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, James B. McDougal and Susan McDougal in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)). It had nothing to do numerous other political scandals that occured under her husband administration, nor matters of policy such as her work on the task force.
While I agree that the original investigation by Fiske and then Starr was to investigate the Foster death and Whitewater it then became a hunt for anything that could be found that might be damaging to then President Clinton. Numerous "scandals" and rumors were investigated under Starr, many of which were not included in his original mission. After years and millions no charges were brought against the Clintons dealing with Foster or Whitewater.


2. Bill Clinton -- not Hillary -- was investigated for lying under oath by Kenneth Starr.
Incorrect. Starr was investigating Foster's death and any Whitewater misdoings when he broadened the investigation into the Paula Jones case and other matters. During the course of this investigation (which had nothing to do with his original mission) Clinton lied under oath. Starr was not investigating whether he had lied, the lie about extramarital oral sex happened during a branch of the Starr investigation.


That case, too, had nothing to do numerous other political scandals that occured under her husband administration, nor matters of policy such as her work on the task force. Nor did it even really cover her. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal).
Starr investigated every "scandal" dealing with the Clintons that was brought to his office, with our tax dollars of course.

If you think her work on the Health Care task force was covered under these invesitagations please think again.
I think all the time. Thank you for checking. ;)

They tried for nationalized health care, and failed. Where is the controversy to uncover?

The insurance and health care industry spent millions fighting the plan in advertising and campaign contributions. It was doomed. Now the same industries financially support her campaign. Go figure. That is more interesting to me then whether and when documents from the Clinton administration are released. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the release of truthful information to the public. I just do not see a "controversy" here.

How anyone can believe that if any incriminating documents existed they would not have been found during investigations, leaked by profiteering book writers or would be allowed to reach the public without severe redaction by staff is beyond me.

There is also the matter of Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001 (and other presidential records executive orders) to consider. It may currently be illegal to release presidential records less then 12 years old. Strangely, I have not heard this brought into the debate.

[Tsa`ah]

Considering the screening process its going through, I seriously doubt anything incriminating will ever be released.

Incriminating documents have a magical way of disappearing under Clinton supervision.

You realize the irony of this statement when you consider the current administration, no?

Every administration from Washington to Dubya has done it, just some more than others.

[Gan]

You realize the irony of this statement when you consider the current administration, no?

Every administration from Washington to Dubya has done it, just some more than others.

Yes I realize the irony.

And yes, my statement stands. The fact that it happens with every administration does not negate the impact it has on politics nor does it invalidate the claim that things will be covered up by the Clintons.

I really dont see anything incriminating making it past all of the filters.

[875000]

While I agree that the original investigation by Fiske and then Starr was to investigate the Foster death and Whitewater it then became a hunt for anything that could be found that might be damaging to then President Clinton.

Under all versions of the Indepeant Counsel law, the scope of the Independant Counsel is set by the Attorney General. In 1994 it was further amended to require the authority of a panel of three judges -- "The Special Division." In other words, an Independant Counsel cannot fully investigate a matter without prior authorization.

Under the 1994 Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act, people acting as Independant Counsels must be chosen by the Attorney General and a three-judge panel. The same statute gave the Attorney General and the Special Division the authority to remove an independent counsel (note: the Special Division used it in at least one instance) as a mechanism for regaining control.

In short, the and Independant Counsel's scope is limited. Contrary to your assertions, Kenneth Starr only investigated matters that he was authorized to by the Attorney General. Whom, by the way, happened to be Janet Reno.

Plenty of scandals existed outside of that that did not fall under his purview. Renting out the Lincoln bedroom and suspicious campaign donations from the Chinese are two that immediately spring to mind.


Starr was investigating Foster's death and any Whitewater misdoings when he broadened the investigation into the Paula Jones case and other matters. During the course of this investigation (which had nothing to do with his original mission) Clinton lied under oath. Starr was not investigating whether he had lied, the lie about extramarital oral sex happened during a branch of the Starr investigation.

I noticed that you left out my other two sentances, which implied that I was referring specifically to the Monica Lewinsky scandal -- not Whitewater or Vince Foster.

The crucile bit you are also overlooking is that Janel Reno wanted the Lewinsky matter investigated further and submited the request to a panel of three federal judges. The judges then agreed to allow Starr to formally investigate the possibility of subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case. (check numerous weblinks here to get all the gorey details: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/)

The key point: Starr had to have been authorized first. Why? He did not have unlimited jurisdication to investigate anything he wanted to. Two other groups, consisting of four other people, had to give him the thumbs up first.


How anyone can believe that if any incriminating documents existed they would not have been found during investigations, leaked by profiteering book writers or would be allowed to reach the public without severe redaction by staff is beyond me.

It's called asymmetry of information -- people have to know about it before they can do anything about it. If the information is concealed or only accessible by a limited group, people do not know about it and cannot take action on it.

The other point that you seem to be overlooking as well is that damaging information does not have to rise to the level of "illegal." As I noted before, there could be information that just portrays her in a negative light.

[Parkbandit]

You realize the irony of this statement when you consider the current administration, no?

Every administration from Washington to Dubya has done it, just some more than others.


LOL. You say every administration does it.. but for some reason 'Dubya' does it worse (or better)?

I think there is a legitimate difference here. Bush is already President. Hillary is running for President. If people were complaining that Bill wouldn't release information on his Presidency, then you would have a point. Hillary is saying "Hey, look at all my experience in the White House. Sure, I have never run anything in my life, but I did 8 years of valuable and important work that makes me ready for this nomination" but won't divulge any of that 'work', then one has to question her.

It's like going to a job interview and refusing to give the employer a resume.

[TheEschaton]

Ah, back to the old "Blame the Clintons" game.

There was nothing found. Janet Reno was too afraid to deny Starr anything and not once denied him access to anything. And they never put anything in the Starr report except for descriptions of Clinton's dick and which way it bent.

-TheE-

[875000]

There was nothing found.

"Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton's law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In return, Ray will end the 7-year-old Whitewater probe that has shadowed most of Clinton's two terms.

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.

The admission, which came on the president's last full day in office, stems from the same allegations that led to Clinton's 1998 impeachment by the House of Representatives, and the later acquittal by the Senate."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/


Oh yeah. That. Also ...


"Clinton Disbarred From Supreme Court

By Anne Gearan
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Oct. 1, 2001; 10:48 a.m. EDT

WASHINGTON –– The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.

The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.

In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

There are no fines associated with the Supreme Court action. Most lawyers who are admitted to the Supreme Court bar never actually argue a case there, but the right to do so is considered an honor. "

[Mabus]

Contrary to your assertions, Kenneth Starr only investigated matters that he was authorized to by the Attorney General.
I did not assert otherwise. What I did state was his original mission, and that the Lewinski matter had nothing to do with it. Other then Foster (he found no wrong doing, and that it was a suicide) and Whitewater (no wrong doing on the Clinton's part) he also investigated "Travelgate" (no laws were broken), FBI "Filegate" (again, no laws broken). Starr even later expressed regret at investigating the Paula Jone's matter, which is what lead to the impeachment hearings.

If you read the "Starr Report" you will find there is nothing from the other investigations, and just the matter of lying about oral sex.

That Janet Reno agreed to the authorization is irrelevant, other then speaking to her character in legal issues. She did what the law required.


Plenty of scandals existed outside of that that did not fall under his purview. Renting out the Lincoln bedroom and suspicious campaign donations from the Chinese are two that immediately spring to mind.

Renting out the...

Please post a link to a copy of the lease? Or is that in one of the boxes of papers?

...

If you mean allowing campaign contributers to stay overnight at the White House please name recent presidents, of both parties, that haven't. Presidents have often had people over to dinner. Perhaps they were "Setting up a feeding trough." in your view as well?

As to the Chinese, what laws were broken by the Clintons and what charges were filed? I am sure if they were convicted of improprieties we all would know about it.


The other point that you seem to be overlooking as well is that damaging information does not have to rise to the level of "illegal." As I noted before, there could be information that just portrays her in a negative light.
Perhaps you should write the current president and have him recind his executive orders reguarding presidential papers. It may well be a violation of the Presidential Records Act. Thank god we no longer have an independent council statute. I know that I would love to read the papers of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as well as those of William J. Clinton. Perhaps he wants them kept hidden because it may portray people in his inner circle "in a negative light"?

Perhaps this only matters when there is a name "Clinton" involved. That seems much more likely.

[Gan]

Ah, back to the old "Blame the Clintons" game.

There was nothing found. Janet Reno was too afraid to deny Starr anything and not once denied him access to anything. And they never put anything in the Starr report except for descriptions of Clinton's dick and which way it bent.

-TheE-


http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg

la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la...

[TheEschaton]

His license to practice law was A) only suspended, and B) only suspended in relation to perjuring himself under oath in the Lewinski matter. Not in relation to any other matters.

-TheE-

[875000]

That Janet Reno agreed to the authorization is irrelevant, other then speaking to her character in legal issues. She did what the law required.

Nice try. If the matter was not even worthy of a legal investigate, neither she nor the panel of three judges she needed to consult with would have authorized Starr looking into it. If Clinton was entirely innocent, then he would not have had his law license suspended/disbarred.


Starr even later expressed regret at investigating the Paula Jone's matter, which is what lead to the impeachment hearings.


He regretted being the one to handle it, not the investigation of the matter. As he put it "'the most fundamental thing that could have been done differently' would have been for somebody else to have investigated the matter." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr)


As to the Chinese, what laws were broken by the Clintons and what charges were filed? I am sure if they were convicted of improprieties we all would know about it.

See my prior comments about items raising to the level of scandals even though laws are not broken. [/quote]


If you mean allowing campaign contributers to stay overnight at the White House please name recent presidents, of both parties, that haven't. Presidents have often had people over to dinner. Perhaps they were "Setting up a feeding trough." in your view as well?

I am referring to the fact that President Bill Clinton's guests in the Lincoln Bedroom gave a total of at least $5.4 million to the Democratic National Committee during 1995 and 1996, according to a study for CNN by the Campaign Study Group.

Do you think this is morally right -- regardless to who is doing it? Not even your good buddy John Edwards agreed with the practice. Edwards criticized the practice, noting "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate." (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/edwards.clinton/). It is also worth noting that before this scandal hit, Clinton's White house resisted releasing records of who was visiting. Notice a pattern?

And, if you think any Presidency ever came close to this level, please cite a source showing us why. Seriously.


Perhaps you should write the current president and have him recind his executive orders reguarding presidential papers. It may well be a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

No need. First, EO 13233 was not applied to Bill Clinton's records yet.


In a White House memo dated March 23, 2001, the Counsel to the President conveyed the following to U.S Archivist John W. Carlin:

"Section 2(b) of Executive Order 12667, issued by former President Ronald Reagan on January 16, 1989, requires the Archivist of the United States to delay release of Presidential records at the instruction of the current President. On behalf of the President, I instruct you to extend for 90 days (until June 21, 2001) the time in which President Bush may claim a constitutionally based privilege over the Presidential records that former President Reagan, acting under Section 2204(a) of Title 4, has protected from disclosure for the 12 years since the end of his Presidency. This directive applies as well to the Vice Presidential records of former Vice President George H.W. Bush."

Second, EO 12667 is likely to be overriden anyways. From the same Wikipedia article:


On March 1, 2007, a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform held a hearing on bill H.R. 1255, The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007. At the hearing, several leading historians argued that Order 13233 has severely curtailed public access to presidential records and added to delays in obtaining materials from presidential libraries. The bill was reported favorably by the full committee, and on March 14, 2007, the House passed the bill in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 333-93. The bill also passed on June 13, 2007 in a Senate committee and will likely be brought up for floor consideration later in 2007. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, but the House vote marked a veto-proof majority and the Senate Committee passage was unanimous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233

And third, if this is really a barrier, don't you think Hillary Clinton would have raised this point by now, instead of getting repeatedly clobbered over it?

[875000]

His license to practice law was A) only suspended, and B) only suspended in relation to perjuring himself under oath in the Lewinski matter. Not in relation to any other matters.

Actually, he was later disbarred.

The Arkansas Supreme Court decided to up the ante after Clinton left office. Here is a copy of the letter that started the process: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/22/clinton.disbarred/popup.html

Please note the use of the word "disbarred."

The Supreme Court followed suit -- if you get disbarred, procedurally your ability to argue cases before the Supreme Court get revoked. The AP article I quoted below references this: "The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts."

And, as for what you pointed out in part B) , I never argued otherwise.

[Gan]

Careful 875000, the libs will try to cry that your use of Wiki makes your argument ineffectual. Its a standard tactic when they're boxed in with sources that prove them otherwise. ;)

:whistle:

[TheEschaton]

But your implication was that his punishment was somehow connected to all these "scandals" which never came to fruitiion, as opposed to the wrong he actually did commit.

[Mabus]

Nice try.
Try? You pointed out nothing factually incorrect in any of my statements. So you must obviously mean "I apologize, as you are correct.". I accept your apology.


If the matter was not even worthy of a legal investigate, neither she nor the panel of three judges she needed to consult with would have authorized Starr looking into it. If Clinton was entirely innocent, then he would not have had his law license suspended/disbarred.
Reno recused herself from running the investigations, as she stated she was a "friend and supporter" of the Clintons.

Apparently Starr never brought up that he was the law partner of Richard Porter and friends with Peter Smith, two people responsible for putting together Paula Jones legal team and legal strategy. He later stated it was not a conflict of interest because it was "widely known by the media".

Of course none of that mattered to David Sentelle, one of the judges on the panel. I won't bore you with details, as you surely know who he is, who he worked for before he was a judge and who appointed him to the panel.


He regretted being the one to handle it, not the investigation of the matter. As he put it "'the most fundamental thing that could have been done differently' would have been for somebody else to have investigated the matter." ([url]
Strange of him to wish someone else could have aided his law partner.


Not even your good buddy John Edwards agreed with the practice.
My good buddy? Your "black or white" GOP stripes are showing. I both support, and have donated to, Rep. Ron Paul. I like Americans that still believe in the US Constitution.


No need. First, EO 13233 was not applied to Bill Clinton's records yet.
It applies to all presidential records. The EO makes no distinction to which presidents it does not apply.

You ought to read the text of the order before responding. Let me quote part of it for you:
"If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President's decision to authorize access to the records, the incumbent President may independently order the Archivist to withhold privileged records. In that instance, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order. "

This gives the incumbent president the right to deny presidential records, in violation of existing law. It makes no distinction on whose records may be denied.