Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Inside Story : What the Clinton's Don't Want the Super Delegate to Know! The Walls of Clintons Scandals are About to Come Crashing Down!
Attention all Super delegates!
March 23, 2008, 10:38AM
District Court Rules Judicial Watch May Conduct Discovery into Clinton Library
Archives Claims it will take “One to Two Years” to Begin Processing Hillary’s Telephone Logs
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that U.S. District Judge James Robertson granted Judicial Watch’s motion to conduct discovery into the procedures used by the National Archives and Records Administration’s to process its requests for records at the Clinton Library. [Judicial Watch, Inc. v U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Civil Action No: 1:07-cv-01267 (JR)]. The National Archives has requested, in effect, an indefinite stay in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit to obtain Hillary Clinton’s records, estimating in court documents that it will take “one to two years” to begin processing Hillary’s telephone logs.
According to Judicial Watch’s Motion for Limited Discovery, filed on March 17, 2008: “Defendant’s failure to properly respond to Plaintiff’s FOIA request raises significant questions of fact…A full and complete understanding of the Library’s ‘queue’ system, and [Judicial Watch’s] position in the queue, is necessary before any request for a stay can be adjudicated by the Court. Plaintiff respectfully suggests that the answers to these questions, if [Judicial Watch] is permitted to obtain them through limited discovery, would be in the public interest as well as its own.”
The Clinton Presidential Library, which is operated by the National Archives and Records Administration, has established a complex 17-part queue structure for processing Hillary’s White House records that has placed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests related to unidentified flying objects (UFO’s), for example, ahead of timelier public interest requests. Moreover, the Library, in essence, has admitted in its court filings that it wildly underestimated the public’s interest in the records, was woefully unprepared when it started receiving FOIA requests, and remains understaffed and entirely unable to comply with its statutory responsibilities.
After a government lawyer for the Archives explained its confusing queue system in court today, Judge Robertson told Judicial Watch Director of Litigation Paul Orfanedes, “You have your discovery.”
“The Clinton Library now will have to answer questions under oath about how it is handling (or not handling) requests for the Clinton records. The American people deserve to know how and why these records are not being processed and released in accordance with the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “National Archives officials should get their act together and do their job, instead of complaining of how much work they have to do.”
On March 19, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit forced the release of 11,046 pages of former First Lady Hillary Clinton’s daily schedule records, comprising 2,888 days of schedules. To read the court brief, click here. For more information on Judicial Watch’s campaign to force the release of Hillary Clinton’s White House records, please visit www.judicialwatch.org.
March 20, 2008
Comments (27)
Judicial Watch is a RW smear machine.
March 23, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
JW clearly has a special disgust for the Clintons and clearly targets them. They are, in fact, obsessed with the Clintons. I do, however, have to give them begrudging marks for consistency as they have criticized the Bush admin on ethics and secrecy, though rarely without a "we RWingers must be better than the Clintons" spin. E.g., here's their statement on the Libby conviction:
JW also filed FOIA requests for info relating to Abramoff visits to the WH, as cited here by the DNC.
They are RWingers to be sure, ideologues on immigration and abortion, and Clinton-haters definitely. They do seem, however, reasonably sincere in their anti-corruption and anti-secrecy stances and have not shied from going after the Bush admin on occasion.
March 23, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the info. They seem to be dirt diggers, but honest ones:) I wish somebody would actually investigate the real crimes in the WH (hey, Congress might think about tackling this). I jut don't want to hear anything else about the Clinton; private petty stuff. As the kids say- too much information!
March 23, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, they are an equal-opportunity smear machine. Thank God someone is trying to breakdown the secrecy of the Bush-Clinton-Bush world.
March 23, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
They really aren't, that's a naive comment.
March 24, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care if they were the Easter Bunny, if it will get this info out before another precious vote is wasted on this corrupt person!
March 23, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't know what the JW agenda is. They've been going after the Clintons for a long time and went after the judge who ruled the NSA spying program illegal but I think they also did a FOIA for the Cheney energy meetings that was denied. All politicians guard there info because anything can be (mis)used as ammo against them. What bothers me about requests for the library records, the WH daily logs, tax records, etc. is that it is one giant fishing expedition.
The WH logs were released this week and the press promptly set out to prove that Hillary might have been in the WH while Bill was getting it on with Monica. Really, who the fuck cares? They would rifle through Clinton's underwear drawer if they thought they might find something salacious. The Clintons are arguably the most investigated people in American history, but it's never enough, is it?
March 23, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all fairness, JW seems to be willing to go after everybody. But when they do, they're tenacious dogs. They went after the Clintons big time in the '90's. But they've gone after Bush and Cheney too, with the same zeal.
This information MUST be public before the primaries are over, or I suspect there will be devastating consequences for the GE. If they fight to hide it, she is unfit to be president. No one should get to be president in the modern age hiding that amount of potentially explosive information. If she refuses to release, then that on its face makes her unfit to be president. The Clintons seem to have forgotten that, right wing conspiracy notwithstanding, Bill's recklessness cost us the White House in 2000 and has had devastating consequences. I see no evidence that they acknowledge that at all, which likewise calls into question their judgment.
March 23, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be silly, Hillary's been TOTALLY vetted. And when she and McCain face each other, it will all be on ISSUES and SNUGGLING. The 527's will dismantle! Swift Boat veterans for Truth will become SWIFTEES FOR HILLAREEE!!!!
March 23, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
JW may go after republicans, but their main aim is liberal democrats. When viewing their site, very little space is allocated for Bush's corruption and there is an endless stream of Clintons issues they are pursuing. I am no Hillary fan, but do not like JW biased prosecution of the Clintons.
March 24, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad that there is an organization like Judicial Watch. How are we going to make an informed, intellectual decision if we don't know what our elected officials are doing while in office?
No one should care if it's an official of any particular party. After all they are working for us. They are supposed to do the will of the people. Whatever the party, if they do something illegal they should be accountable to their actions. Period.
Unfortunately there isn't as much transparency as there should be in politics that we need Judicial Watch. Not only to inquire about the Clintons but others, too. I just believe that Mrs. Clinton's "experience" can work against her. There are too many scandals already that make her untrustworthy (if people care to remember the scandals).
Elected officials should be transparent if we want our democracy to work. Why is it so hard to expect our politicians to have integrity, morals, and decency?
March 24, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody's experience can work against them, sparky, including yours and mine. And our politicians like everything else is a reflection of we the people. I see you prefer anonymity yourself...and I don't blame you.
Nonetheless, you are likewise a reflection of the candidate you support - as are we all. Would you like to call me a racist, liar, cheat, bitch, etc.
- and blame me for "our" losing the presidency in 2000, since I voted for Bill? It wouldn't be any less flattering than m,uch of what's on here, and I'm sure that, in his heart, Obama will approve.
March 24, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Experience is not always a positive. When you have history of scandals, its weighs even more against you. We should demand that our elected officials to have integrity. Those who are NOT in political life are not making laws so their experience does not matter. As far as I know your tax dollars never crossed my desk so what I do isn't going to affect you. As for Clinton, Bush or anyone in Congress will affect you. Why can't we hold their feet to the fire? I am disappointed in those in power whether it be Republicans or Democrats. Our country is a mess for all their lies and deceit. I want real change but I know it won't happen. Not with either Obama or Clinton or McCain.
March 24, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop recommending the troll.
March 24, 2008 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have admired Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, for many years, all the way back to when he used to appear on Youngbloods, a call-in political show on the now-defunct conservative network. This despite the fact that I think his political views are nutty.
He is one of those guys who has no respect for authority, no desire to be a player in the system, and thus no conflicting career or political agendas to get in the way of saying and doing what he thinks is right. He's my kind of guy, even though again, he's a pretty nutty right winger.
Lots of people in Washington come to believe that intellectual integrity and ethical consistency are luxuries that you can't afford if you want to accomplish anything. Fitton never bought into that, and that is why he attacks everyone in government regardless of their politics.
March 24, 2008 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Wikipedia:
It's pretty telling how the Clintons have arranged for the National Archives and Records Administration to slow walk the release of her role and more importantly have her supporters flood the NARA with requests for pics of the cat or the the 1997 White House Xmas tree in order to create a backlog that effectively stalls the release of any relevant information.
If Democratic voters got a good look at just how many times Bill and Hillary rolled over and triangulated away Democratic values on legislation through out the 1990s she'd be as popular as Joe Biden. NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagall which has left us with the current Wall St. meltdown, loosening media ownership rules (our godawful media didn't just happen), and privatizing half the military's duties to the likes of KBR and Blackwater have been disasters. That was all signed into law by Bill and those records show Hillary was with him every step of the way. We've had enough of that kind of experience thank you very much.
March 24, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
A debate about the credentials of Judicial Watch on a progressive web site? This is ludicrous. It's a far right wing group that yes, has crossed hairs with the Bush administration a couple of times but that has always primarily targeted Democrats and the Clintons. To say they're an equal opportunity anything would be like calling the National Review a moderate publication just because it has been critical of Bush.
March 24, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
National Review has been critical of Bush?
March 24, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
They don't always think he's conservative enough.
March 24, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Defending the Clintons against right-wing attacks used to be a whole lot easier before Bill Clinton himself appeared on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. And before Clinton supporters began to liberally reference right-wing media, like Fox News, Worldnet Daily, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. etc., to make their case against Obama. That marriage of convenience really undermines forever any attempts to marginalize attacks against them by the right-wing. A significant error in judgment on their part, IMHO.
March 24, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because they're an "equal opportunity" smear machine, as Merlot calls them, doesn't make them any more credible. We should denouce, reject, renounce, and pants any smearing. Otherwise we're just sullying the integrity of any candidate we support, since we call the candidates to account for every rabid post on these blogs.
March 24, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter, and while this law suit is periferally interesting to me, I think POTUS Obama 2008 comes off as a troll and click on each of his/her posts with a lot of skepticism.
March 24, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
amen
March 24, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop. Using. Apostrophes. To. Denote. Plurals.
The plural of "Clinton" is "Clintons".
Apostrophes are for possessives and contractions.
Don't hold your breath on being offered the CIC of grammar and spelling cabinet position.
March 24, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have trouble with plurals of acronyms. Calling more than one SD "SDs" looks awkward in English. Or perhaps I've just been corrupted. Gotta dig up my Strunk & White...
And then there's the awkwardness of following the apostrophe rule when the possessive is a word ending with an s. But we digress.
March 24, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, will make every effort to generate good grammar (gladly!). But please- Stop. Using. Periods. For. Emphasis :)
March 24, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is excellent news for hillary.
March 24, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment