Some Questions On Disclosure

Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign is dogged by questions about disclosure. Some are fair, others aren't. But added together, they present a ripe target.

Consider:

1. The Clintons can do very little to speed along the process by which presidential documents are approved for release. But the campaign took a while to explain the process fully for reporters -- a process that is, in the end, fairly exculpatory -- and thus generated its own controversy.

2. The donors to the library are another matter entirely. The library's donation solicitors apparently promised their donors that the contributions would remain private.

3. But a list of those donors was apparently sold to a company owned by a major donor.

4. Donations continued to flow in last year, meaning that, as Clinton was preparing for a presidential run, potential donors had a private avenue to try and curry favor with the Clinton world.

5. There's no law requiring the Clinton Library to release its donors and no precedent for doing so.

6. But there's no rule, process or procedure that would _stop_ the Clinton Library from releasing its donors.

7. So -- even though there's probably nothing there, there -- the existence of a secret donor list under the Clinton's control is a real hook for her opponents to hang their charges of misdirection or mischeviousness around.

Comments

During the Norman Hsu stories (NY, CA, CO), I read somewhere that he was also a contributor to both H. Clinton (Senate and Presidential) and B. Clinton Library. Is he on the list? During the Clinton years, was not there a fund-raiser named Beth Dolores or something? She was called to the Senate. May be one good thing if Obama cannot defeat Clinton will be that we will have opportunity to enjoy watching C-SPAN due to many scandals...But, that is not good for the country. So, Obama has to win the primary. Please support his candidacy.

Question: How come there are no stories of contributors like Hsu for Clinton? Why is the press not doing its job (they have free press here, as oppose to state-run press in Iraq or Iran)? Does NYT wants us to accept Clinton as the nominee and then president? I wish the press was more critical.

Posted by eorse | November 20, 2007 10:37 PM

You might have a point, if Obama would find some of the records from his time in the Illinois state senate or Edwards would release some of his senate records or even records of his anti-poverty scam from UNC, but they won't do it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander and these people are hypocrites in the first degree. I think you've just joined them.

Posted by RalphB | November 20, 2007 11:33 PM

Newsflash, RalphB:

There is no "Obama Library" with his records sealed inside.

Senators don't have people filing away their records.

Duh.

Posted by jds | November 21, 2007 12:00 AM

#1 is incorrect. The Clintons could do at least two things to speed the release of Presidential records pertaining to Hillary Clinton's role in the White House:

A) President Clinton could waive restricted access under the Presidential Records Act; and

B) Both President Clinton and Senator Clinton could waive any personal privacy protections.

We do not know how many additional documents we would see on what schedule if the Clintons did those things, but doing them would undoubtedly speed along the process.

Posted by DTM | November 21, 2007 6:30 AM

After almost 20 years, why are the papers still not available for the public regarding hillary's days as Arkansas first lady. She may be able to finangle the white house thing, but, honestly...20 years later for state papers???
Also, a few names that managed to get out regarding the donors were Saudi gov., Dubai, ect. It is in that ABC report on the donor list sale.

Posted by vwcat | November 21, 2007 9:42 AM

Why aren't obama's records from his four years overseas at aged 6 through ten available?
Asking for a first lady of Arkansas's private papers zeers into the silly silly shame on you arena.
We should recognise some papers from the white house between bill and Hill are about health, family, chelsea's school and thier private bills for books or magazines and cable or notes to friends or such. many of the alledged tens of millions are dozens and dozens of duplicates and mail from whomever including friends and fundraising and whatever: much of it is trivial and none of our business. Most of it we will never see nor should we pretend we want to.
Obama's days at harvard law review? Edwards' trial notes? Either's schedule book going back these last 16 years? Richardson's papers from all his different jobs? don't you want everything or is it just Hillary we want to splash with mud of her saying no or wait or don't bug me?

Posted by Michael | November 21, 2007 10:56 AM

Michael:

I think there is a box with his refridgerator drawings from 6-10 in storage. I get the point you are trying to make, but it falls flat for one reason. Both Obama and Edwards' involvement (or lack thereof) in advancing/passing legislation in the Senate and in Obama's case, the Illinois State Senate, are well documented and available for public scrutiny. A great deal of HRC's claims of experience tie almost SOLELY to her time in the Clinton White House. Just yesterday her campaign was claiming that she was the face of America during the Clinton White House, that she was in fact the defacto Secretary of State. Now as memory serves Warren Christopher and Madeline(sp) Albright were the Secretaries of State during the Clinton Administration. But, set that aside for a moment. Assuming what she says is true, how does one establish it objectively?

Again, she's made her campaign about her strength and experience, particularly regarding her involvement in the Clinton Administration. She needs to make those records available, or stop pushing this meme. She can't have it both ways.

Posted by Keith | November 21, 2007 11:55 AM

Michael,

Individual Presidential records are very often trivial as you note, but they are in fact the property of the people of the United States. And a lot of the seemingly trivial stuff can end up being of interest to future historians and the like.

Anyway, if you can think of a way for the Clintons to waive their protections only for documents relating to Senator Clinton's claims of relevant experience during her White House days, then great. Otherwise, they should waive their protections and let the people make up their own mind about what is trivial and what matters.

Posted by DTM | November 21, 2007 1:34 PM

You can read the list in an article from 2004 in the N.Y. Sun. http://www.nysun.com/article/5137

http://www.nysun.com/article/5152

Posted by bob | November 21, 2007 3:25 PM

jds: Which story are they going with today? 1) nobody asked for specific documents or 2) they were discarded so we don't have any documents.

If you think there were no state senate records, you are dumber than a post.

DTM: The Clintons can't waive all personal privacy concerns because the subjects of emails and other documents also have privacy concerns. They Clintons cannot waive the privacy rights of others. They could waive their own but that would get you very few documents. Congratulations, you are post #2.

Posted by RalphB | November 21, 2007 3:56 PM

Clinton's problem is she has lost the benefit of doubt, so she constantly has to demonstrate how she isn't twisting words, lying or hiding something. That's a bad position to be in, so early in the campaign season.

Posted by Paul | November 21, 2007 8:05 PM

Ok, lets not insist that she produce the records but lets do get her on the record about her role in:

(1) Advising President Clinton on the end of term pardons, especially the pardons brokered by her 2 brothers.
(2) Advising President Clinton about what to do in regard to the genocide going on in Rwanda
(3) Advising President Clinton how to handle the Paula JOnes lawsuit. Did she argue for taking it to the Supreme Court - which unanimously rejected Clinton's effort to delay the lawsuit until after he left office.
(4) Advising President Clinton on the 1993 tax increase
(5) advising President Clinton on maintaining the sanctions on Iraq that caused the deaths of half a million children and that Madeleine Albright said were "worth it" at the time but has since said she was wrong.

Thats a start; why can't somebody ask her some questions about what her positions were on big things that happened in the Clinton years. Why is everyone accepting that we can't know ANYTHING like the issue is marital privilege not to testify against a spouse in court?

Posted by Karen | November 21, 2007 11:39 PM

Very interesting... as always! Cheers from -Switzerland-.

Posted by Dog training | November 25, 2007 5:17 AM