Clintons still withholding 2,600 pages of records

posted at 8:46 am on December 19, 2007 by Bryan

I’m sure they’re not hiding anything. It’s not like them to do that.

The National Archives is withholding from the public about 2,600 pages of records at President Clinton’s direction, despite a public assurance by one of his top aides last month that Mr. Clinton “has not blocked the release of a single document.”

The 2,600 pages, stored at Mr. Clinton’s library in Arkansas, were deemed to contain “confidential advice” and, therefore, “closed” under the Presidential Records Act, an Archives spokeswoman, Susan Cooper, told The New York Sun yesterday.

An official who oversees the presidential libraries operated by the federal government, Susan Fawcett, said in a recent interview that the records were withheld in accordance with a letter Mr. Clinton wrote in 1994 exercising his right to hold back certain types of files and another letter in 2002 about narrowing the scope of his earlier instructions. Asked by National Journal whether Mr. Clinton had “total control” over the closure of records under the confidential-advice provisions of the law, Ms. Fawcett said he did.

Ms. Cooper said the 2,600 pages of advice are part of about 24,000 pages of closed Clinton White House records. The bulk of the closures likely involve records found in domestic policy and health care files that Mr. Clinton authorized for processing before the library began accepting record requests from the public in 2006.

Nothing to see here. Move along.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Those records are so confidential that, if they showed them to you, they’d have to shoot you.

Yet somehow, Hil claims to be running on her ‘experience’.

petefrt on December 19, 2007 at 8:51 AM

Could always get Sandy Burgler to sneak in and put them in his pants.

Asher on December 19, 2007 at 8:52 AM

We’ll see those when we see Kerry’s records.

right2bright on December 19, 2007 at 8:54 AM

Or we could always ask Vince Foster whats in them….Doh…wait somebody already shot Vince……

doriangrey on December 19, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Gee I wonder why he closed more records in 2002. What happened to cause him to do that? (rolleyes).

Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Ask Sandy Burgler, maybe he has copies in his Boxers shorts

Wade on December 19, 2007 at 9:03 AM

Gotta love those Clintons. They’re are shameless in every regard.

pistolero on December 19, 2007 at 9:14 AM

Looking at that picture you have on the front page, I can hear that cackle through the screen. “I’m going to get you, my pretty. And you’re little dog too,” Insert Hillary laugh to soundtrack.

Ceroth on December 19, 2007 at 9:18 AM

I have a mental picture of Bill and Hill trying desperately to staunch the flow from all these leaks, just as they get one plugged, another pops open. And Shrillary is screaming at Bill the whole time. Not really a pretty picture.

4shoes on December 19, 2007 at 9:29 AM

These records are not needed to confirm Hillary’s vast experience. Trust them.

Golfer_75093 on December 19, 2007 at 9:29 AM

Flash — This just in from email:

“In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. She claimed she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. Because of this she understands how to pick up a corner blitz and knows the terminology of the Packers offense. A poll of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move. “

Does the above sound idiotic and unbelievable to you? Yes?

Yet Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed.

petefrt on December 19, 2007 at 9:42 AM

“Release the records? Sure, we’ll look into that. Oh, is this your car? How are the brakes?”

CP on December 19, 2007 at 9:42 AM

The 2,600 pages, stored at Mr. Clinton’s library in Arkansasin Sandy Burglar’s pants.

Valiant on December 19, 2007 at 9:50 AM

I’m sure they’re not hiding anything. It’s not like them to do that.

Of course not. They have no secrets but there are a lot of skeletons!!!!

OBX Pete on December 19, 2007 at 9:52 AM

“The 2,600 pages, stored at Mr. Clinton’s library in Arkansas, were deemed to contain “confidential advice” ”

Probably includes “advice” on removing organic based stains from blue dresses…

rbb on December 19, 2007 at 10:00 AM

The National Archives is withholding from the public about 2,600 pages of records at President Clinton’s direction, despite a public assurance by one of his top aides last month that Mr. Clinton “has not blocked the release of a single document.”

Let’s play one of my favorite games, Translate Clintonspeak.

OK, this one’s waaaaaaaaay too easy.

Der Slickmeister has blocked the release of all of the documents.

Done.

fogw on December 19, 2007 at 10:05 AM

This doesn’t matter to the idiots who will vote for her. They will overlook anything for the Clintons. Unless OBama brings it up, it will be spinned as another attack from the Right.

Dork B. on December 19, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Secrets.

Nope. More like incriminating evidence.

Next thing you know, Shrillary will be pleading the 5th.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 19, 2007 at 11:04 AM

This is an issue that could really cause Hillary problems. The public perception is they are not honest and they have something to hide and this plays right into that fear. The GOP needs to exploit it to the utmost. Either they continue to stall and you play that up or they eventually cave and end up releasing and you get a treasure trove of who knows what to dig through. A win – win.

AndrewsDad on December 19, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Make them up but be sure to use a period font.

[email protected] on December 19, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Who’s going to be the one smart enough to bring out the Clinton theft of White House property in an attack ad?

Will Obama be smart enough to use it, or will that gift be left for the Republican nominee to unwrap during the general election?

Gregor on December 19, 2007 at 11:56 AM

petefrt on December 19, 2007 at 9:42 AM
A very good point, but, if logic were really a factor, we wouldn’t have any Democrats at all.
For example: Does it really make sense that a fetus which has it’s own heartbeat is not considered a person? That the fetus (we call them babies) can be killed, that heartbeat stopped forever, without legal repercussions?
To me, it is logical that a fetus (baby) is alive, and that that life should be protected.
That’s why the Democrats staunch defense of Abortion seems illogical to me. And if their defense is illogical, so are they.
I’m not trying to drum up an abortion argument, so please, let that lay. It is just a good example of their unreasonable illogic.

Doug on December 19, 2007 at 12:01 PM

I recently read a paper by an Ugandan that pointed out how in the United States no people are above the law. It was beautifully written and wouldn’t that be great.

He used the impeachment of Bubba as a sign of how well the law works in the USA. The fact is that the Clinton’s are just as corrupt, and above the law as any dictator.

Hening on December 19, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Pretty much sums up the Clinton’s.

Bill and Hill will have that engraved on their tombstones.

BacaDog on December 19, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Inasmuch as Slack-jaw was so concerned [during the Lewinsky, et al., scandals] about not being able to do “the business of the People,” why is it that they hide their “business” from the People?

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Well, knock me over with a straw.

kcluva on December 19, 2007 at 2:35 PM