What is Hillary hiding?
IBD wonders about Hillary Clinton’s secrets:
The Los Angeles Times reports that calendars, memos and reams of other records from the office of the first lady in the Clinton administration will stay off-limits to public scrutiny until after the 2008 presidential election, according to federal archivists at the Clinton presidential library.
While former President Bill Clinton has authorized lots of the records regarding Hillary’s secret health care task force in 1993-94 to be publicly available, more than 1,000 pages have been censored, purportedly because they contain confidential advice protected under the Presidential Records Act.
But that act, amended by President Bush in 2001, makes it clear that the ex-president is the one who makes the call.
“Because the former President independently retains the right to assert constitutionally based privileges,” Bush’s order states, “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.”
We can only imagine some of the comments in those 1,000-plus pages that Bill and Hillary consider to be obstacles to their returning to the White House.
Is there outrage over the Republican efforts to prevent her from stopping people from choosing their own doctor? Is there admiration expressed for the socialized health care systems of other countries? France perhaps? Or even Cuba?
Knowing Hillary’s real thinking on health care will be imperative for voters.
Judicial Watch is now suing the National Archives after getting no action or response on its request for Hillary’s schedules and diaries. Here’s the complaint.
Hillary’s first campaign ad is titled “Invisible,” by the way.
A fitting description of the papers she’s keeping stashed away from public view.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- universityupdate.com
- Hillary's Records are "Invisible" | No Hillary Clinton
- Jose Padilla — Jury gets case « Mark’s Soap Box
- The Invisible Hillary Clinton Files: What is she trying to hide? : Hillary Clinton - Against Hillary Clinton AgainstHillary.com
- Health Care BS
- Article: Hillary Clinton: I Will Change Our Country - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Hillary Clinton
Jawa Report
» Three Stooges Reassure MarketsHotline On Call
» Leakage Fallout: Pritzker's A No GoStop The ACLU
» Judge Orders 5 Gitmo Detainees ReleasedStop The ACLU
» Those Wacky Iranians Have Fuel For One Nuclear BombHotline On Call
» Wax-ing The Floor With DingellHot Air
» Minnesota Recount: Soros and SilenceMarginal Revolution
» Markets in everything?Hot Air
» Zogby takes a pass on McCain pollRedstate
» Extraordinary Doings in the Bond Market
Vince Foster paper work? Divorce Papers? The list goes on.
Hillary Clinton is unelectable. Her dirty laundry would require several tanker ships to haul out of the archives.
I cannot even get my head around “millions of pages”. Limbaugh said it was 3 to 4 million pages.
The Clintons are making the mistake of trying to go to the cookie jar one time too many.
Smack down dead ahead.
I saw this on my news feeder yesterday I think it was…
The only answers I could come up with is “I really don’t want to know…” and “more than we could ever imagine”…
It’s the old lawyer “bury them with paper trick” Don’t be surprised if it goe’s from 3-4 million to 20-30 million by the time anyone views the documents.
For those short on time, the complaint, specifically, sites that the Clinton library was legally compelled to produce the records by May 3, 2006 and that by July 16, 2007, they still had done nothing other than acknowldge possession of the records and receipt of the request, but had not, apparently, made any excuse in the response for not being forthcoming with the records.
Expect another late-night shredding session sometime in the near future. Maybe this time there will be someone more competent than Ken Starr to do the invetigation.
I wish I could agree with Bear on this, but I can’t; the mainstream media will cover, dodge and fight on her behalf as they’ve always done. While the Dems are indeed the competition, it’s the MSM which is the real enemy. As long as they rule the waves, it’s two against one: whomever the Republican candidate is against whomever the Democrat candidate is and the mainstream media. And for the sake of democracy, somehow, some way, that has to change.
Maybe she’ll explain when she doesn’t debate on Fox.
“It’s the old lawyer “bury them with paper trick”
With them, it’ll be worse: the papers which could prove damning won’t be in the massive pile - it’ll be discovered on Madam President’s dressing table by a maid and no one will ever be able to explain how they magically got there.
So, even if we find Craig Livingston’s employment doc’s, musty FBI files, Rose Law’s second books, and a million others? It’s all ‘old news’ and Judicial Watch is part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Anyone else see the bizarre logic in holding back documents from a first lady - someone who was not elected, not hired, not appointed, to any Government position, but awarded the opportunity to be there due to marital ties?
Yet this woman gets to design and discuss national interest plans and have political discussions, but we’re not allowed to know what they are?
On the other hand - a sitting President who has political conversations with members of his staff - has the Dems in Congress in a tizzy because he won’t give them access to those discussions - ones he had with actual political employees or appointees?
Honestly jrl?
Don’t think about it. If you continue, the shear level of the double standard will make your head hurt…
And if you ask that question in public, I fear for what would happen. I envision howling mobs and pitchforks…
Oh Good Lord above!
Why are y’all picking on Poor Hillary?
http://takeourcountryback-snooper.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-exactly-is-hillary-hiding.html
Re: bear1909 #2
I wish that were true. I always thought of Hillary as the malevolent force behind former president Bill. She, and the democrats, have come far by pandering to the naive, stupid, and gullible. When people believe that the economy is terrible, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Al Gore is some kind of expert on all things green, and that we are not under attack from the death cultists, Hillary can be elected.
YOU ROCK MICHELLE!
Keep up the GREAT work and see you in DC in September!
I don’t doubt that, swj….
Funny how many in our ‘responsible media’ go to great lengths to have the deepest details released regarding Brittany Spears and K-Feds divorce… but don’t bother digging and demanding Hillary’s information….
Clinton should release her archives as soon as GWB, Cheney, the Cabinet, and their respective staffs release all of their notes, memos, calendars, etc.
Oh, wait. Executive privilege. Right. If it’s good enough for the Republicans it’s good enough for the Dems.
Rusty - what did I just post before?
She wasn’t elected, appointed or hired by the Clinton administration, yet she was making decisions on national issues?
And it’s not like they aren’t going to release the data - it’s that it won’t be released until AFTER she’s elected.
Why the wait? What are they hiding? What executive priviledge does a First Lady’s datebook hold?
Several reasons, actually…
A) It is far, far easier to get info on celebs like Brit and Hilton than on someone like Hillary, who could teach classes in obfuscation and avoiding detection of wrong doings… She missed her calling.
Her tradecraft is excellent.
B) Honestly, you think for even one instant the media would dare to delve into the deep, dark dungeon that is any dem’s past?
That would require actualy reporting facts, and they don’t do that sort of thing any more…
jrl beat me to it…
She was the President’s wife, Cheney et al are members of this administration. Huge difference but she’s counting on you Rusty, not to notice…
It’s going to take Sandy Burgler an awful long time to get 4 million pages out in his pants. Bill would help, but half the time his pants are only half on.
Lol swj,
My head already hurts and if I have to look at one more picture of her the nightmares will haunt me forever.
It should be obvious that executive privilege is a double-edged sword and that ever since Watergate, most Americans equate it with a coverup, whether justified or not. However, what’s sauce for the Republicans is sauce for the Democrats and the elected officials of both parties have abused their power.
Ultimately, it is in Hillary’s best interests to come clean as long as no crime was committed and let the gossip mongers have their day of fun.
It holds plenty considering the First Lady has long been considered a part of the Executive Branch.
Well, she was the one in charge of the doomed health care initiative. I would say that was pretty important.
And if First Ladies are so unimportant, why dis so many people spend their time attacking HRC and Theresa Heinz?
First Ladies have much of the same protections as their husbands. They are clearly protected from having to divulge certain documents.
I’ll be the first to criticize HRC if she maintains this veil of secrecy after Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, etc divulge what was said at various meetings. I won’t hold my breath.
nbarry, yeah, you’re probably right. But it’s a campaign. One sentence out of millions could doom her.
Then whatever you do, don’t look at the pic MM has up for her “Hillary Clinton: The Jocelyn Wildenstein of politics” post on the right of your screen…
What? What?!!
“It is far, far easier to get info on celebs like Brit and Hilton than on someone like Hillary,…”
Absolutely true…HOWEVER - what is more important to the public?
We have a media that criticizes a President for taking time off ( which, in reality, isn’t time off - it’s just working from a more relaxing location ) - but that same media won’t dig into the details of a Democratic Presidential candidates past?
They love to dig when it comes to GOP candidates, even making up stories based on false documents. They dig up times when a GOP candidate performed, jokingly, in drag. They dig up what their families do or say.
But when it comes to the Dems - they take what their campaigns give them to say.
Ideology before integrity…. the new MSM motto.
Sorry, the What’s are for Rusty and his public education explanation of the Executive Branch.
To late…
During the 90’s, whenever Judicial Watch sought Clinton documents, they were ignored by the media.
When Judicial Watch wanted some Bush records, the media discovered who they were.
Now Judicial Watch wants The Pantsuit’s records and the media yawns.
Double standards.
I will make that trade Rusty. You WILL NOT find as much dirt as I will.
Haven’t I told you?
I like to share my pain…
They haven’t cared about the general good since Vietnam. To wish they did, or work under the assumption that they aren’t morally, ethically, and intellectually turpid is to fail at understanding them.
Bingo.
Calling on all shredding machines and a few Sandy Bergers.
goshredex.com
Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, “Tailgate”
Suicide/Murdergate - Vince Foster - et.al., - Sandy Hume, Danny Casolaro, Gandy Baugh, Suzanne Coleman, Judy Gibbs, Kathy Ferguson, Bill Shelton, Jon Walker, Ed Willey, Jerry Parks, Luther Parks, The Rose Law Firm, Mena, AK, TWA Flight 800, Bombing the Serbs,….and so on goes the list.
You know, you could turn a brisk business running a “document shredding for hire” business, so long as you open your offices near prominate democrats…
RUSTY…is that your name or what’s wrong with your brain!…equating Executive privilege for HRC to the Prez is just silly. And First ladies do not have this privilege, unless they are elected or assigned into the executive office…Your argument is pure sophistry and I doubt you’d change your mind even in the face of clear consice reasoning. So, we’ll just mark it down that you’re suffering from rampant liberalism..(where the person is unable to form factual opinions and instead relies on “feelings” to make a point). HRC has been of questionable morals for years…if she’s so great, why not open up her files….anyone running for Prez should be completely open..so why won’t she?..oh yeah…she was married to “BILL” so she gets a free pass..and are you so interested in hating Bush that you can’t stay on point? THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE has a bonified privilege that ALL presidents enjoy…IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!…we hired him to do a job..some of it is classified or for official use only….we don’t need to know everything…if they did something wrong..it’ll most likely come out at some point…but guess what, THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES…THEY ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES!…his big mistake was not firing them when he came into office…like Clinton did….so get off his butt…and live with it…get over it…he won the office, twice…he’ll be leaving soon…and maybe you’ll have HRC taking his place…but don’t bet on it…
can’t we all just get along?
We’ll see whether this gains any traction in the major media. I’m not betting on it.
For the Clintons, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” isn’t just a policy for homosexuals in the military; it’s also their personal chapter in the AP Stylebook and other guides for reporters and editors - the same people who dress up in a football helmet, jersey and shoulder pads coupled with a short skirt and pom-poms so they can alternately cheerlead/run interference for Hillary on an as-needed basis.
This is Hillary we’re talking about, remember? The same woman who said “I don’t remember” 99 times in sworn testimony and nobody in the media thought it odd.
She’s counting on the media Wall of Silence to kill this story in the crib, so she can come out of the water dry (how’s that for mixed metaphors?). And aside from the conservative blogosphere and AM talk radio (at least until the Dems resurrect the “Fairness” Doctrine), her hide-the-ball strategy is probably going to work.
One wonders what there is that is so damaging that the papers must be hidden. If there is no wrong doing why not give free access to the papers?
Good Post #34. I do think you’re wrong on one thing (although you’re probably right) but judging by Dems debates/Talent shows and Hillary’s new Ad, President Bush IS running for re-election. Yes, I know the 2 term thing but it appears the dems figured out that Bush found a loop hole, so that’s why they are running against him and not for themselves.
#36 - But when Oliver North said “I don’t recall” (I believe that record stands at 74 times), all hell broke loose.
I believe he even had a cameo in a music video - edited to studder part or all of the sentance over and over again.
Bear said: “If there is no wrong doing why not give free access to the papers?”
Self-answering question.
I think he just liked saying it out loud…
What does it say about the psychology of people who having nothing to personally gain willingly protect a known liar, and corrupt politician? Can someone comment on what are the motives of such people?
Too bad the Clinton Library never hired some former CIA or DOJ personnel - they’re real good at leaking information.
Hillary isn’t electable because she has too much baggage in her caboose.
The MSM can give her all the passes they want. They can have all the Meredith Viera puff pieces they want. The bedrock American electorate doesn’t trust her.
The camps that voted for the Dems last time around will still vote for her- but she will not bring in anybody new.
And that leaves the Dems coming up short in 08. They may still hold Congress- but they have already lost the Presidency because none of them can come toward the middle now with any shred of credibility. So they will face the “flip flop” label again.
My 2 cents. I tend not to worry about the Democrats winning anything because they have no credible platforms that would allow them to build anything but their shantytown policies.
Look at 06. They won a slight majority in Congress and made a huge ballyhoo over having some kind of mandate for a new direction in Iraq, and Pelosi Galore is now the SOTH.
Big deal. They immediately send their approval rating into the loo even lower than GWB’s. And they will look absurd in the face of Petraeus’ report in October. Their pro-Green policies have fueled inflation on milk prices. DOH!
They are like monkies trying to get romantic with a football. Hillary is cut from the same cloth only she had a trip to the top courtesy of Hubby Bubba.
Shades of John Kerrys military records.
bear1909: “Pelosi Galore”….
That is beautiful, man…. I love it.
I get the gist you’re all Republicans. So the “if there’s nothing bad in the papers so why is she hiding them?” argument is really mind-blowing. Think of all the papers that the Executive Branch is currently witholding from Congress. This administration has stretched executive priviledge to unprecedented levels. Hypocrites much?
The “first lady isn’t part of the executive branch” argument holds a little more water, but only because HRC was the first First Lady to have some actual clout in the White House. She is an unprecedented figure in American history. I think it’s obvious that as an adviser to the president that she has executive privilege. She’s no different than the Chief of Staff in that regard. And you’d all certainly agree that Andrew Card should have his papers kept away from the public, right?
If she gets elected Im joining the Taliban
Rusty,
It is not about Hillary’s legal right to keep them secret. It is about her hypocrisy in blasting others such as Dick Cheney for doing so. Hillary has always been very secretive.
This is a woman who blasts Bush for comuting Scooter Libby’s sentence. Sh simply has no moral compunctions.
She may be on solid legal ground, but morally she is bereft.
It is similar to John Edwards having a 30,000 foot square house and talking about poverty. Legally, no problems, but morally, not so good…and politically, bordering on suicide.
Hillary Clinton is unlikable. That is not a crime, but she should stop throwing stones.
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/democrats-running-for-president-primary-winner-declared-least-irrelevant/
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/your-words-are-adequate-but-what-have-you-actually-done/
To paraphrase 1992, “it’s the hypocrisy stupid.”
Respectfully,
eric
Motive = election/power
Rusty - was she on the payroll? She was NOT a member of the Executive Branch.
And she was not the first First Lady to have clout in the White House. See Eleanor Roosevelt.
We did not elect her, and the government didn’t hire her. She has zero rights as a member of the administration.
She does have a history of hiding documents that may be embarrassing or incriminating.
Michelle has a sixth sense about these things and I think she’s nailed it.
There’s ammunition in those papers - and probably something pretty bad too. Could Hillary have expressed thoughts about perhaps wishing America was more like, say, France? Or how about if she expressed contempt for common folk? Or said something really nasty about her opponents?
If you’ve read Peggy Noonan’s book on Hillary, you know what an arrogant witch she truly is. It’s probably only a question of time before that attitude is displayed on national TV for all to see.
Five minutes into an interview on The O’Malkin Factor would pretty much do it.
Arrogant Witch, and I thought I didn’t like her…lmao
I was against the presidential campaigns starting so soon after mid-term elections. Now I see all this additional time as a gift to assure the defeat Hillary so richly deserves. There was a mile-wide credibility gap in the Clinton administration. Ken Starr’s investigation was stonewalled by Janet Reno, so his conclusions about Vince Foster’s death amounted to whitewater … I meant whitewash. Freudian slip?
I’m with ya gramma, The more time they have had the higher the gallows have been built. Reminds me of a skier goin outa control down a mountain.
Or admitting to a felony with her Husband or something?
Came clean about any of the countless “gates”?
Or knowledge about Foster?
I agree, and when I heard about this the other day, I came to the same conclusion…
There’s something in those documents, which she can’t get her hands on because she doesn’t control the archivists, that damns her.
Good luck Judicial Watch…
Many yrs ago visiting in AR, our grandson (Marine in Iraq #2 tour) and I were walking our dog and we saw Paula Jones’ dog, Chunky Chocolate. Paula was a heroine (never met her and poor Chunky was killed later by a school bus). The Clintons tried to destroy her as they will anyone or anything in their path. Her settlement paid for a home in a nice subdivision after putting her through hell. (We spell witch with a “b”.) Semper Fi
The government did hire her.
“She was also the first First Lady to take up an office in the West Wing of the White House.”
and
“In 1993, the president appointed his wife to head and be the chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform.”
She was an appointed member of The Executive Branch. She has protections.
And of course there’s something bad in her memos and notes. There are thousands and thousands of documents. She has every right these matters confidential.
And, Rick Moran. Arrogant witch?
swj, Vince Foster?
Sounds like you all have Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
You never once heard that his death was even minorly suspicious?
Man, my friends must be more “Lone Gunmen” than I originally thought…
I know Jerry Falwell produced a bogus video claiming that Hillary had him murdered. Wasn’t Rush a proponent of this conspiracy too?
It’s as crazy as saying Rumsfeld had Pat Tillman killed for being against the war in Iraq. Tinfoil hats for all!
Well, aside from the whole “Vince Foster possibly had relivant testimony concering the clintons” thing…
Rummy had no personal benifit from having Tillman killed. The Clintons, in theory, did.
This is besides the point anyways. I tossed Foster into the mix just because I was tossing out random scandals the Clintons were tied to (or almost tied to) that her papers might shed some light on.
Yeah, the Health Care thing. I’ll give you that, but it’s hardly what I would call part of the Executive Branch. Who’s in charge of it now? Oh, yeah, it was just nepotism…
But this is about Hillary refusing to make her papers public. This is the woman who apparently had Vince Foster’s office cleaned out before investigators could look at it, and mysteriously, years later, some of the papers re-appeared in the White House with Hillary’s fingerprints on them. So, it’s not a case of derangement to think she has something to hide.
Then for the duration of that employment (it didn’t cover all 8 years), fine. Give her the Executive Priv.
The rest we wanna see. gimme
Caption:
“Oh Bill…don’t make me laugh. I would never make you co president.”