Archivists at the Clinton Library blocking access "of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich." The risk with this kind of thing is that, basically, Democratic partisans don't want to hear about it and don't care. We know perfectly well that the right-wing dragged all this stuff up as part of a crazy and pernicious scandal net and only talks about it to use their nefarious agenda. Thus maybe it won't hurt Clinton much in a primary. But in a general election? In a country where her husband never secured a majority? It'll be damaging.
« WireTAP 3 | Main | More Wire Stuff »
No Files For You
07 Mar 2008 02:44 pm
Comments (36)
"...Democratic partisans don't want to hear about it and don't care."
Exactly. Which is why the Ohio and Texas results were so disheartening. For a little while it looked as if the Democrats were going to pick a nominee who would move us past the Clintons and their insatiable, win-at-any-and-all-costs, self-obsessed, parsing, dissembling, dishonest, money-grubbing, divisive, damn the consequences to the party and nation, drive for power and privilege.
Now we may be headed right back to the mud pit that is Clintonism. And what makes it even more maddening is that many Democrats don't seem to mind the Clintons and their sleaze, because, well, the Clintons are "their" insatiable, win-at-any-and-all-costs, self-obsessed, parsing, dissembling, dishonest, money-grubbing, divisive, damn the consequences to the party and nation, power couple.
These records are like that part of old sea charts where the captains were too afraid to take their ships, so instead they would just write: "Here There Be Monsters."
Food for thought.
But Bill is using Bush's executive order to shield those documents. So in a general election they will be able to turn it into a debate about the secrecy culture of the current administration. Bush is enabling Clinton on this one
I don't see what the big deal is. So the wifey gave the Clinton Library $350K. Who cares? It had nothing to do with getting a Presidential Pardon for evading $50 million in taxes and trading with Iranians during the hostage crisis.
I don't see how being a Felon and campaign donor to the Clintons' and then receiving a pardon from the former President could possibly be interpreted as corrupt or unethical.
To be fair, this may indicate more about the current state of mind of the National Archives than it does the Clinton campaign.
However, I noticed that one of the FOIA releases from the Clinton Library has to do with a 2000 meeting between Bill, Hillary and the Skverer Chasid Grand Rabbi David Twersky of New Square, NY (four residents of which Clinton had recently pardoned following their conviction for defrauding the government in a fake yeshiva scam). So somebody's out doing some poking around.
Matt,
Your first sentence is a little misleading. It is not the archivist alone making this decision. THe linked to article says the following:
Second paragraph:
"The archivists' decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides..."
Third paragraph:
"Clinton's legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld..."
It is not the archivists, it is the Clinton's that do not want these documents released.
Right Wing Noise Machine or not, the Mark Rich pardon was pretty shady, yo. It should be put out there because its not the kind of crap that presidents should be held unaccountable for.
I strongly disagree that only right-wing partisans care about this. Clinton sabotaged the unbiased pardon evaluation procedure that Carter set up. It was a bad policy with obviously biased outcomes. I think his pardon of his half-brother was even worse than the Rich pardon. Bill deserves continuing bad press on it, and just maybe that will slightly reduce the number of stinker pardons we can expect from Shrub in January 2009.
Jeez, so much for being vetted for the job. If everything's already out there like she's kept saying, there's be no reason not to release anything -- tax returns included. Even if there wasn't anything new to find (which I'm skeptical about, but, you know, giving the benefit of the doubt), there'd be nothing but upside to releasing the documents now and nothing but downside to keeping them secret.
The other bigfoot issue that Democrats appear too delicate to discuss is Sandy Berger and his sticky fingers. He's been advising Hillary for some time now. Anyone who thinks Hillary is better placed to beat John McCain on national security--or somehow negate the issue through similarity--should consider the remaining questions about Mr. Berger and think again.
No, Matt, some of us do care what corruption is registered, even indirectly, in those documents, and as good Democrats we want the Clintons gone and the house cleaned. Yes, some of the Republican stuff was dishonest, but there is a lot to suggest that the Clintons are unscrupulous financially, as well as ethically and sexually. I don't want my party tied to their trailer-trash behavior for the next decade.
Did they really pardon Twersky? Twersky is a total criminal. Half of all Satmirs and Sqverers don't pay their taxes. Actually, I'd say a majority of them don't pay taxes. They think they're above the law because all the local law enforcement in New Square and Monroe and Williamsburg wouldn't so much as touch them.
(Disclosure: I'm a Lubavitcher Jew; You know, one of them "Ultra-Orthodox Extremist Zionist Haim Saban" people. I despise those Yoelie crooks; we had riots between Williamburg and Crown Heights because they would beat up Lubavitchers..
The right wing is going to go to town on the Clintons with new dirt. They won't destroy the Clintons rep among dems, but it will be enough to knock them down and secure the win for McCain.
Why else do you see every single republican shill on TV pushing Hillary's lines on Obama right now?
As a couple of people have noted, the Clintons could release the records, they just don't have to. Eventually this is going to kill her, unless Dan Rather breaks the story and the request was made in Comic instead on New Helvitica font.
You are wrong Matt.
She has been vetted. She has been fighting the right for 350 years. She is ready to be Commander In Chief at 3 a.m. on day one.
With Barack Obama he is less than 6 years old because he was born at a speech he gave in 2002 and then he just went around dealing drugs for Tony Rezko while fighting with the insurgents in the Phillipines.
Abe, Twersky himself wasn't indicted in connection with the fraud charges, but it does seem that he mobilized his (not inconsiderable) political capital on behalf of the convicted. Since this was during Hillary's first Senate run, the pardon (coming basically on the heels of the convictions) does have a rather political odor about it.
Plus, this is bad stuff on the merits, regardless of whether it was dug up by crazy rightwingers. Just because crazy rightwingers think the Clintons are the most corrupt people ever -- a belief that is false -- doesn't mean that the Clintons aren't fore corrupt than the average politicians.
"You are wrong Matt.
She has been vetted. She has been fighting the right for 350 years. She is ready to be Commander In Chief at 3 a.m. on day one.
With Barack Obama he is less than 6 years old because he was born at a speech he gave in 2002 and then he just went around dealing drugs for Tony Rezko while fighting with the insurgents in the Phillipines."
Damn you Obamabots, you just don't know when to quit!
First off, it's 350 thousand years and she was ready for C-i-C when Moses parted the Red Sea. Get your facts straight and quit being so uninformed and naive, you crazy cult-joinin' quack.
And Obama wasn't born, he budded off one of Jesse Jackson floating ribs, after which, they both smoked some crack before stealing half the real-estate in Chicago. Akbar Al-Rezko is his secret Muslim name which he plans on using in public once he builds his jihadist army from his brain-washed legions. Then he, Ken Star, Ahmadinejad, Putin, and Saddam Hussein (who Obama will resurrect by saying his own middle name into a mirror three times) will implement their evil plans to eliminate the world's supply of brown pantsuits. Oh, and they'll probably say something mean about Hillary to a reporter.
Waiting for that tax return lookie see!
Where are Obama's calendars and schedules from his time in the Illinois legislature? What did he shred them or throw them out? What is he trying to hide?
completely naive question: when a politician releases his tax returns, do they simply copy the return and send them to the nearest reporter? How do we know if the return is in fact genuine and not "purged" of potentially damaging material. After all, the IRS and state tax agencies cannot reveal tax info (unless...).
I'm not so sure she'll get a pass on this in the primary. A lot of people who gave her husband's administration a pass on this stuff in the 1990s may not be reluctant to hate her for it this time around.
Her husband never secured a majority?
In 1992, Bubba beat Bush the First 44,908,254 to 39,102,343.
In 1996, Ms. Clinton's wayward spouse beat crippled war hero Robert Dole 45,590,703 to 37,816,307.
After that, the deeply flawed Clinton duo's designated successor, Al Gore, won the popular vote, DID HE NOT?
Y'all need to read the much longer ABC version of the USA Today story:
Puts rather a different slant on things.
Democratic partisans don't want to hear about it and don't care.
That's about the most insulting thing you've said yet Matt...
There may be partisan Dems that would rather not talk about this stuff, but most would love for some REAL investigative reporting to go on about ALL the candidates.
Put these sorts of messes out there...side by side comparisons of all the candidates forthrightness about their past records and let's examine all of them.
Put the financial records, personal AND political out there...side by side...for all the candidates and let's see who's buying whom for what reason.
Put there voting records out there for real comparison...side by side.
I think you'll find more Americans...Dem or Rep...would love that sort of thing.
And it certainly would go a long way toward developing that ever so elusive educated electorate.
Well, I'm a Democratic partisan, and I sure want to see those records. vetting is fine, necessary, and important, and the problem isn't vetting, it's hyperbolic attacks using Republican talking points - not asking questions.
And I certainly want to see the records having to do with Senator Clinton's two brothers, not one but both of whom took in six-figure sums as "consultants" to wealthy people seeking Presidential pardons during the Clinton administration.
Re: Thus maybe it won't hurt Clinton much in a primary. But in a general election? In a country where her husband never secured a majority?
The rightwing noise machine would dig up calumnies against the Virgin Mary were she running as a Democrat. Why the hell should we care about any of this now? I mean, if we can forget about George Bush's cocaine habit and his DUI, why should we care about something that Hillary's husband (not even Hillary herself) did?
And Matt, when did you start repeating GOP talking points a la Rush Limbaugh ("never secured a majority")? If you keep this up I'll write your sponsors to exile you to NRO.
I'm thinking Clinton will release those tax returns sometime next week. It will be after the Wyoming caucus, but so far ahead of Pennsylvania that whatever controversies she is hiding from will have died down by the time of the PA primaries. And it would save her six weeks of "Where's the tax returns, Hillary?"
“In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, Clinton said the restriction should be interpreted “narrowly” and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent…
“The William J. Clinton Foundation, which Lindsey helps oversee, said in a written statement that the National Archives is responsible for deciding which records are withheld under the Presidential Records Act. Archivists were exclusively responsible for “determinations with respect to these materials,” the statement said.
“Clinton’s guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.
“Blanton noted that Lindsey’s refusal to review the withheld documents could be viewed as an effort to ensure the archivists’ independence. “He’s saying the professional archivists get to make this determination; it’s not a political determination.”
“The archivists’ decision to withhold records that could be construed as confidential communications between Clinton and his advisers is more consistent with the Bush administration’s hard line on the release of White House records, Blanton said.
“President Bush signed an order in November 2001 that broadened former presidents’ prerogative to block the release of internal White House records. That order, which Bill Clinton opposed, also allows a president’s immediate family to assert the privilege.
“In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton’s pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine a president’s ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public.
“Christopher Farrell, a Judicial Watch director, noted that the pardon records blocked by the library also included all Justice Department reports that were sent to Clinton with recommendations on which clemency requests he should deny. He said it was “ridiculous” to withhold clemency petitions over privacy concerns. “These are people who were convicted in a court, and those cases are a matter of public record.”
USA Today
“In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, Clinton said the restriction should be interpreted “narrowly” and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent…
“The William J. Clinton Foundation, which Lindsey helps oversee, said in a written statement that the National Archives is responsible for deciding which records are withheld under the Presidential Records Act. Archivists were exclusively responsible for “determinations with respect to these materials,” the statement said.
“Clinton’s guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.
“Blanton noted that Lindsey’s refusal to review the withheld documents could be viewed as an effort to ensure the archivists’ independence. “He’s saying the professional archivists get to make this determination; it’s not a political determination.”
“The archivists’ decision to withhold records that could be construed as confidential communications between Clinton and his advisers is more consistent with the Bush administration’s hard line on the release of White House records, Blanton said.
“President Bush signed an order in November 2001 that broadened former presidents’ prerogative to block the release of internal White House records. That order, which Bill Clinton opposed, also allows a president’s immediate family to assert the privilege.
“In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton’s pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine a president’s ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public.
“Christopher Farrell, a Judicial Watch director, noted that the pardon records blocked by the library also included all Justice Department reports that were sent to Clinton with recommendations on which clemency requests he should deny. He said it was “ridiculous” to withhold clemency petitions over privacy concerns. “These are people who were convicted in a court, and those cases are a matter of public record.”
USA Today
“In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, Clinton said the restriction should be interpreted “narrowly” and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent…
“The William J. Clinton Foundation, which Lindsey helps oversee, said in a written statement that the National Archives is responsible for deciding which records are withheld under the Presidential Records Act. Archivists were exclusively responsible for “determinations with respect to these materials,” the statement said.
“Clinton’s guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.
“Blanton noted that Lindsey’s refusal to review the withheld documents could be viewed as an effort to ensure the archivists’ independence. “He’s saying the professional archivists get to make this determination; it’s not a political determination.”
“The archivists’ decision to withhold records that could be construed as confidential communications between Clinton and his advisers is more consistent with the Bush administration’s hard line on the release of White House records, Blanton said.
“President Bush signed an order in November 2001 that broadened former presidents’ prerogative to block the release of internal White House records. That order, which Bill Clinton opposed, also allows a president’s immediate family to assert the privilege.
“In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton’s pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine a president’s ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public.
“Christopher Farrell, a Judicial Watch director, noted that the pardon records blocked by the library also included all Justice Department reports that were sent to Clinton with recommendations on which clemency requests he should deny. He said it was “ridiculous” to withhold clemency petitions over privacy concerns. “These are people who were convicted in a court, and those cases are a matter of public record.”
USA Today
I'm still waiting for the scandal when it's discovered Hillary has had a long term lesbian relationship with Huma Abedin, a probable Mossad "swallow".
Hillary’s Mystery Woman: Who Is Huma?
http://www.observer.com/node/37040
I mean, the woman is allegedly of some Arabic extraction, but nobody knows which country?
Please.
I can't wait to see how Hillary has been "vetted" for THIS one!
As Biden pointed out, Hillary should release the names of all the donors to the Clinton Library so we'll know who she's in hock to: one donor being the wife of crooked Marc Rich, whose case for pardon was pleaded by Israelis. Is this connected to the fact that Hillary is the Israel Lobby's favorite war-mongering Democrat candidate and is so beloved by the Israel-Lobby-dominated media?
But in a general election? In a country where her husband never secured a majority? It'll be damaging.
Er, but the way I remember it, a right-wing attack machine yelling corruption this, corruption that 24/7, did absolutely nothing to affect a 2/3 job approval rating all through his second term.
I remember it because I was in constant amazement at the polling data. Always seemed that the only ones affected were those that hate already, it's a preaching to the choir affect, and those with middling inclinations see the hate behind it the attacks and judge it to be worse than whatever the purported malfeasance.
Corruption proved or not simply is given lesser weight than overall performance for the common good, as people expect politicians to be somewhat corrupt, it's where the corruption affects things that matters. And the attackers better have a clean record themselves and to have anti-corruption as their only agenda or it just won't raise hackles except with those who already hate the pol?
The Clintons are counting on the long term memory of the American people to forget.
Remember Bill Clinton pardoned 140 people in the final hours of his presidency…His most controversial pardon Marc Rich…Yes, the same criminal that “Scooter” Libby represented from1985 to spring of 2000. While testifying before congress Libby defended Rich and then later called him a “traitor” for doing business with the Iranians while they were holding U.S. hostages.
“GOP lawyer: Facts 'misconstrued' in Rich case” http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/
I’m sure Denise Rich's $400,000 gift to Clinton presidential library, and her $1 million plus donations to Democratic campaigns during the Clinton era had no influence on Bill’s decision to pardon her husband.
“Sources: Ex-Wife of Pardoned Fugitive Gave $400,000 to Clinton Library” http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html
Without a doubt, Hillary would NEVER be influenced by any of her supporters should she become president.
“Saudis, Arabs Funneled Millions to President Clinton's Library” http://www.nysun.com/article/5137?page_no=2
In the words of Bill Clinton: “Insanity is just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result”
Comments closed March 21, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
But in a general election? In a country where her husband never secured a majority? It'll be damaging.
Well, its clear that Clinton is not going to win the nomination. So, you must be implying that it would be damaging if she is Obama's VP pick.
Posted by Jim W | March 7, 2008 2:51 PM