March 7, 2008, - 6:07 pm

Weekend Read: Clintons Block New Release of Records

By Debbie Schlussel
Uh-oh. Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water at the Clintonista Presidential Library, the sharky slickster couple is blocking yet a new release of documents, including those relating to Slick Wet Willie’s pardons.
As we all remember, some of those pardons were calculated to win Slick Hilly Rodham Cankles the New York U.S. Senate seat. Still others were to set get the Rodham Laurel and Hardy Bros of Slick Hilly some cha-ching (they lobbied for pardons in exchange for cold, hard cash).
Oh, and we can thank George W. Bush for some of this. He signed an executive order–presumably to protect Poppy Bush–expanding the power of former Presidents to withhold certain archives. Heckuva job, Bushie. (Now, we’ll never know just which kind of Cuban cigars he and Bandar Bush a/k/a Saudi Prince Bandar–whose wife funded the 9/11 hijackers–were smoking on the Roosevelt Balcony of the White House the night of 9/11. Damn.)

hillaryclinton.jpgbillclinton.jpg

As much as I prefer a President Cankles to a President B Hussein O, this is important. And don’t kid yourself–as much as Barack Hussein Obama is making an issue out of this, when he and Mrs. Bitch-ama leave the White House, they’ll hide their excrement from public viewing, too. Here’s the latest expose on the Clinton-via-Bush refusal to let us see the docs:

Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.
The archivists’ decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.
Clinton’s legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.
The decision to withhold the records could provide fodder for critics who say that the former president and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, have been unwilling to fully release documents to public scrutiny. . . .
In January 2006, USA TODAY requested documents about the pardons under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The library made 4,000 pages available this week. However, 1,500 pages were either partially redacted or withheld entirely, including 300 pages covering internal White House communications on pardon decisions, such as memos to and from the president, and reports on which pardon requests the Justice Department opposed. . . .
Former president Clinton issued 140 pardons on his last day in office, including several to controversial figures, such as commodities trader Rich, then a fugitive on tax evasion charges. Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, contributed $2,000 in 1999 to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign; $5,000 to a related political action committee; and $450,000 to a fund set up to build the Clinton library.
The president also pardoned two men who each paid Sen. Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, about $200,000 to lobby the White House for pardons – one for a drug conviction and one for mail fraud and perjury convictions, according to a 2002 report by the House committee on government reform. After the payments came to light, Bill Clinton issued a statement: “Neither Hillary nor I had any knowledge of such payments,” the report said.
The pardon records released by the library divulge little that might settle debate about those and other pardons. But they do shed new light on the volume of clemency requests that former president Clinton received – and the pressures he and his staff faced as friends, advisers, political leaders and foreign heads of state weighed in to influence which petitions would be granted.
The files contain handwritten letters from several of the president’s close associates. Former Democratic Party chairman Donald Fowler of South Carolina wrote a note seeking clemency for former congressman John Jenrette, D-S.C., who was convicted in the 1980 Abscam sting in which FBI agents, posing as Middle Eastern businessmen, offered lawmakers bribes for political favors. Clinton did not grant the pardon. [DS: Thank Heaven for small favors!]
Most of the withheld documents, including dozens of clemency pleas sent to the president, were blocked from release under FOIA rules that protect personal privacy. The 300 pages of internal White House documents on pardon requests were blocked under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which allows presidents to maintain the confidentiality of communications with their advisers for up to 12 years after they leave office.
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 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 . . . .
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.

So, just what are the Clintons hiding? What do Bill and Hillary Clinton not want us to see until after a certain date in November? Just what is George W. Bush hiding for his dad and for himself into the future?
Just asking. . . . And probably never getting an answer.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses

We have quite a choice this year. Hillary, the big-time crook, along with her husband, Barack, the up-and-coming crook; the only reason he isn’t as big a crook as Hillary is that he hasn’t yet had as many opportunities as she has. There’s new information that bill raked in $700,000 from a stock deal just before Hillary announced, in which China may be involved.
McCain is not known to have as many crooked dealings other than the Keating 5, and is marginally better than they are, but it is hard to distinguish his policies from those of Bush, who, many people agree, is one of our worst presidents. Especially with what is going on in Israel, I think we need something more from McCain than a ritual denunciation of Hamas. We also need more than the pro forma denunciations of Iran, and weak-kneed sanctions that are meaningless.

c f on March 7, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Schlussel: “when he and Mrs. Bitch-ama leave the White House . . .”
c f: “Barack, the up-and-coming crook . . .”
This website is one class act.

Audacious on March 7, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Audacious–
This is a blog. Maybe you’ve heard of the concept. Journalistic niceties are often dispensed with.
Or perhaps you think the NY Times is a class act, in the wake of their McCain piece–He “may” have had an affair with a lobbyist.
I’m sorry you are apparently so naive as to not realize that essentially every politician is at least a scumbag and probably a crook. As a longtime observer of the scene here in DC, the good guys probably number about 5%.
Then again, if you had brain one, you would be criticizing the content of the postings, rather than the style.

Red Ryder on March 9, 2008 at 5:01 pm

The history of Presidential Pardons from both parties is quite interesting.
Lovely, how Ms. Schlussel paints Clinton as a close associate of Prince Bandar, and blithely leaves out the fact that he’s known as “Bandar Bush”, no less, back at the Crawford Ranch, and his 9/11 funder wife is also a frequent and long-term guest there. There are scores of press photographs of W. & Bandar Bush French-Kissing, and walking passionately hand-in-hand in public. You can’t make this up.
Credibility, schmedibility, but the local sovereign gets an “A” for style and bravado.
The cigars in question were Cohibas, and they came through McDill AFB, courtesy of Norman S., who used to have what seemed like an endless supply.
What should the word for Barack’s potential crookedness be? Schroedinger’s Crook? Honorary Republican? Crookling? Neocrook?
Yes, we have some yawning choices for this sorry semblance of an election. McCain, who, like Rudy and W., has no philosophy, no consistency — Insane McCain voted TWICE against W’s tax cuts, and now did a double somersault flip-flop and agreed to make them permanent. LoL! He’s just a typical low-octane opportunist. Ever look at his list of contributors? Many employ illegal aliens.
Hillary, who’s fast becoming a female version of the duplicitous Lieberman, and foundling Obama, the well-washed phenomenon, though really just another Zbignew Breszinski puppet, like Jimmy Carter was.
This bunch made a lone nut gunman like Ron Paul begin to look good, and a Target-Shopping, bible-thumping snake handler like Huckabee almost normal!
Any way you look at it, we are soooo fked, specially when someone inherits the super-sized mess W. made.
Can’t you get another terrible Hillary pic? That one’s OLD.
yawning gulf
Ps. It’s an honor to be here. The Sovereign came highly recommended, and I turned a blind eye towards her association with FOX.
[Y: HUH? ON BANDAR, I CLEARLY MENTIONED BANDAR BUSH. PERHAPS YOUR EYEGLASS PRESCRIPTION IS NOT UP TO SNUFF. AND I WAS CLEARLY REFERRING TO BUSH WITH REGARD TO BANDAR, NOT CLINTON. YOUR CLINTONISTA PARANOIA IS SHOWING. DS]

yawninggulf on March 9, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Red Ryder — Life is simply too short to be so hostile. Some folks wake up every mornng and see who they can rip up and tear down in a blog. Others rise in the morning and try to make a difference in making someone’s life better.
You choose your own path.

Audacious on March 9, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Red Ryder — Life is simply too short to be so hostile. Some folks wake up every mornng and see who they can rip up and tear down in a blog. Others rise in the morning and try to make a difference in making someone’s life better. You tell me which is more honorable.

Audacious on March 9, 2008 at 9:14 pm

A couple of things I’ve noticed about isolationists or supporters of candiates such as Obama who have unsupportable positions; their positions and egos are so fragile that they ALWAYS have to have the last word. I knew losers like that in grade school — no matter what anyone said, you knew they would come back with something like the little kids they are. The other thing about these people is that they always try to change the subject. Somehow these two liberals/isolationists have tried to change the subject away from the failure of the Clintons to release pardon records. This is a self-contained action, and criticizing the tone of someone else’s comments, trying to deflect the comment by saying that someone else supposedly is just as bad, or responding to what anyone else says so you will always have the last word doesn’t deflect emphasis away from the point of the original post. It just shows that the writers of these childish contributions do not have enough faith in their positions to let substantive entries stand on their own.

c f on March 9, 2008 at 11:38 pm

cf wrote: ” Somehow these two liberals/isolationists have tried to change the subject away from the failure of the Clintons to release pardon records. This is a self-contained action…”
Not even close, cf. Nice hack labeling job, though. Ms. Schlussel made the point that this is neither a partisan nor self-contained action when she wrote:
“So, just what are the Clintons hiding? What do Bill and Hillary Clinton not want us to see until after a certain date in November? Just what is George W. Bush hiding for his dad and for himself into the future?”
Everybody’s hiding something. Juxtaposing Clinton with Prince Bandar was pure daring, and laughable partisan propaganda when the relationship between W. is far longer & deeper, including business dealings and loans — and leads us to wonder about 9/11 as well.
cf continues getting in the last word: “It just shows that the writers of these childish contributions do not have enough faith in their positions to let substantive entries stand on their own.”
Childish? cf, you’ve disproven and shown nothing, posited no argument or debunked a single word. All you can do is label and build straw men to slur.
Substantive entries will always stand on their own.
Hopefully all your hot air will help usher in Spring.
yawning gulf

yawninggulf on March 10, 2008 at 1:56 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field