HRC White House Schedules Turned Over For Review

10,000 Clinton administration documents from 24 months of FOIA requests are due to be turned over to representatives for former President Clinton today.

Currently about one half of one percent of the 78 million archived documents are available – about 300,000 of out of 78,000,000.

The documents available today are said to include Hillary Clinton’s daily schedules in the White House.

A Clinton aide said last night that the records have yet to be turned over. “When the records arrive, they'll be reviewed,” the aide said. The statute allows for a 30 day inspection period, but that can be extended if the reviewer needs more time.

Clinton's aides insist that Clinton has given the least restrictive instructions to the National Archive of any president during the modern period.

Comments

I'm an Obama supporter, but posts like this make me nervous. Maybe there's absolutely nothing there, but if she's the nominee (and there's no question I'll support her if she is), I'll aways worry that something from the previous Clinton White House will come back to bite us all in the ass.

And it's not like the non-presidential years can't provide fodder years later (Wal-Mart, Kazakhstan).

Posted by Ryan Scott | January 31, 2008 10:26 AM

“When the records arrive, they'll be reviewed,” the aide said. The statute allows for a 30 day inspection period, but that can be extended if the reviewer needs more time.

Clinton's aides insist that Clinton has given the least restrictive instructions to the National Archive of any president during the modern period."

Right, and I've given advance instructions that if I hit the Power Ball, the jackpot should go directly to the Republican National Committee.

Posted by zoot | January 31, 2008 10:39 AM

They have opened up the records so they may look at them to see if there is anything in her schedules as first lady that can be used to bolster her claims of having significant experience as much as for any potential damage control. They will extend the review time so no one other than the Clinton camp gets access before the election.

Obama has more experience as an elected official. Her Senate accomplishments are mediocre at best. Her pre-first lady experience, which is hard to track down, isn't any more significant that Obama's; there's more of it because she's 14 years older but the magnitude isn't greater. They need something from the White House years to claim as important experience and knowing how to run the phone system on day one isn't enough.

Posted by Evan Summers | January 31, 2008 10:42 AM

the point is do we go backwards?
Or do we go forwards?

If there is another Clinton white house - the slow drip of information will continue to divide this country--

we already know nothing can get accomplished in congress without a super majority
am I the only one who thinks the congressional dem hierarchy has decided they have to stop the Clinton's for he sake of the party and the country?

Posted by winnie | January 31, 2008 10:44 AM

Better late than never? This is timed just too perfectly. Now they can say, "See, we're transparent, we're releasing our records." But they'll come out too late for Democrats to see them and think twice about Hillary's "experience" before casting a vote for her in a primary.

Posted by Hatch | January 31, 2008 10:59 AM

Early enough that she can claim she is being transparent and has nothing to hide, but too late for anything incriminating to pop up before Tuesday. She is a weasel.

Posted by Rob Davies | January 31, 2008 11:01 AM

She can't win with you people, can she? If they keep the records sealed, everyone thinks she has something to hide. If they are open to inspection, everyone thinks she hid the ones that show she has something to hide.

Frankly, I'm fed up with it. Most of this crap is because she's a woman. When Bush was running, where was the scrutiny about his failed businesses, and his cocaine habit, and his generally wasted life? But now that a woman is running, every aspect of her life is being torn apart, despite the fact that she has already been scrutinized under a microscope for the past 15 years.

Obama has shown that he can't take criticism, and if he is the Democratic nominee he will crumple like a cheap suit when the GOP starts slinging mud, as they will. If you vote for obama, you are voting for the Republicans to hold the White House. I hope you're prepared to deal with THAT eventuality.

Posted by cincybabe | January 31, 2008 11:23 AM

Obama's gotta love this.
He HAS no record to go back and look at.
The "Heir to the JFK Legacy" ...RIGHT
All you need is a good speech writer and the delivery of a televangelist.

Then:
Lie about a personal indiscretion = Impeachment

Now:
950+ documented Administration lies leading to the deaths of near 4000 US Soldiers and 88,000+ Iraqis =
Suffer the indignity of Talkshow Monologues

Posted by BWK | January 31, 2008 12:01 PM

Obama's gotta love this.
He HAS no record to go back and look at.
The "Heir to the JFK Legacy" ...RIGHT
All you need is a good speech writer and the delivery of a televangelist.

Then:
Lie about a personal indiscretion = Impeachment

Now:
950+ documented Administration lies leading to the deaths of near 4000 US Soldiers and 88,000+ Iraqis = Suffer the indignity of Talkshow Monologues

Posted by BWK | January 31, 2008 12:02 PM

"Most of this is because she is woman" I guess we will have to hear the gender card being played for the next eight years. Sorta like Cheney playing you ain't no patriot card if you don't love the war. Yikes - that is progress.

It's because she is the wife of the ex-president and is running on her experience as the wife of the ex-president. Not because she has a vagina!

Posted by C.B. | January 31, 2008 12:12 PM

cincybabe you're racist.

see how lame that is, you can't throw "Most of this crap is because she's a woman" around without sounding lame and petty. Every Dem was speaking loud and clear about Bush's past...you either weren't into politics or you were to young to remember. The fact remains that the Clintons carry alot of baggage, fair or unfair she is a larger target, much larger for the Republican party to attack. And you complaining that "Obama has shown that he can't take criticism" doesn't make it true..post some examples or shut up...

From my viewpoint Obama is standing toe to toe with the two most powerful people in the Democratic Party and doing just fine, he's already knocked out Bill(where did he go, is he in the news any longer). One down one to go.

Posted by whoanow | January 31, 2008 12:17 PM

I refer to Hillary's speeches as the Vagina Monologues.

Posted by Jay | January 31, 2008 12:19 PM

Cincybabe, you must either be a grungy West Sider or some air headed pseudo feminist up in Mt Adams. Which is it?

Posted by Marc | January 31, 2008 12:22 PM

This is timed exactly right and anyone that thinks it's a coincidence that she can say she's being transparent without giving people enough time to use the information against her is incredibly naive about politics and campaigns.

Posted by Mike | January 31, 2008 1:31 PM

It's also very very annoying to hear people claim that attacks on Hillary are because she is a woman. Are attacks on Bill because he's married to a woman? She's a slick, unlikeable polititian with almost no experience. That's why people attack her.

Posted by Mike | January 31, 2008 1:34 PM

let me understand

Clintons are releasing 1/2 of 1% of 78,000,000 documents currently not available on the day of the debate -- so she can say her documents have been released

and the Clinton campaign issues a press release that they are releasing documents as soon as possible

They really talk down to the electorate --

let's hope Obama knows these numbers and can refute on national TV --

Posted by Aventura | January 31, 2008 3:21 PM

what exactly do they have to review them for? how odd

Posted by JC | January 31, 2008 7:02 PM

on super tuesday vote obama and you don't have to worry about any clinton whitehouse records hitting you in the ass.

Posted by bobojake | January 31, 2008 7:52 PM

who could bill have met with to help get the clintons on solid financial footing. did this happen in TWH or Chappaqua? it's more thump, thump, thump than drip, drip, drip.

Posted by typsi | February 1, 2008 12:17 AM

She claims 35 yrs of experience, so the Republicans have a lot of ground to cover. This is hill-arious, pardon the pun.

Posted by WhiteWater | February 1, 2008 2:09 AM

Obamabots - remember that Rezko goes to trial around Feb 25 - and certain unnamed Illinois officials have been discussed who did favors for Rezko - Chicago Tribune, insinuating that its Obama...we have been done a disservice by the Press and Obama himself for not vetting his candidacy until it's too late-

Clintons records will show that she did voluminously more than Obama has done in his lifetime.

Posted by bbln | February 1, 2008 3:37 AM

Billary has a good reason for not wanting the Clinton administration documents to be released. They are counting on the short term memory of the American people to forget…

Remember Bill’s 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”

Posted by REB | February 1, 2008 7:23 AM