Obama needs to do his homework better.
Now I want to peruse every communication ever produced regarding politics between Obama and his wife.
This includes grocery lists of a political nature.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 4, 2007 09:20 AMI did not like your post about Obama the other day. Today, I can say I fully agree with your post on the presidential documents and Russert.
I refuse to be held captive by hobgoblins.
Obama probably knows better but doesn't care. It's about a potential gotcha for his opponent and he's just as big a liar as the rest of the candidates.
His campaign seems to be a cult of personality anyway so what the hell.
Message to Democrats - don't uncritically believe crap that the BLOGS put out against fellow Democrats.
Posted by John at November 4, 2007 12:09 PMTimmeh is an asshole who would NEVER think of asking a gotcha question to a republican. He IS after all, where Dick Cheney goes to "get the message out".
Really, after than ringing little endorsement, why does anyone wonder what Russert's marching orders are?
Posted by jcricket at November 4, 2007 12:36 PMThis gotcha game is rigged: what they really want is the Clintons' legal team to do is identify the documents that might really be damaging by protecting them. Then the hounds and jackasses will begin to wail.
It would serve them right if the protected documents were the receipts, emails and discussions regarding the feeding of shoe to one named Tucker Carlson whom she hoped to spare the embarasment.
Posted by shirt at November 4, 2007 12:54 PMIt was either on "This Week" or in the Post today that I was hearing that Obama had a point on the archives--that she should release them. Is she going to clear this up? They can really beat her up on this and she needs to get on top of it.
Posted by CG at November 4, 2007 04:50 PM"Message to Democrats - don't uncritically believe crap that the media puts out against fellow Democrats."
**********
I can't figure out why people believe MSM, when they want to, and at other times, realize how un-newsworthy they are.
Make up your "minds." Mine was made up long ago. I don't trust them, whether they say things I like ... or they don't.
Posted by Ann at November 4, 2007 04:57 PMeriposte:
Message to Democrats - don't uncritically believe crap that the media puts out against fellow Democrats.
Nice syntactical ambiguity. If that's what that was.
Posted by Toby Petzold at November 4, 2007 05:22 PMWhat bothers me about this most is that Russert got this question from the wingnuts: Hannity brought this up on his radio show over 10 days ago.
It's been a long time since Timmeh actually had to work for a living. Why would he bite the hand that feeds him?
Posted by jcricket at November 4, 2007 05:55 PMBob Somerby has been writing about this since the debate. tim russert has a clear republican bias. The GE network, along with their "Lost Boys" are going to go after Clinton hard.
It doesn't help that Democratic pundits politely ignore what is going on.
The Clinton campaign is going to have to figure something out.
Posted by BobbyK at November 4, 2007 07:40 PMThe Iraq War: The bravest 1% fighting, bleeding and dying for the richest 1%.
Bumper sticker?
Posted by TIKI AL at November 4, 2007 08:25 PM1. No. There is no bigger wanker than Tim Russert.
2. I would no more uncritically believe anything Russert says than I would trust Cheney himself. That aside, I would never uncritically believe anything that the Clintons say either. Have the Clintons (or NBC) made a copy of this letter available so that we can judge for oursleves who is being candid?
3. I am utterly unsympathetic to the Clintons on the issue of biased media. In signing the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Bill Clinton is as responsible as any Democrat for the shoddy (and pro-GOP) state of TV journalism today. That they both have subsequently cozied up to Rupert Murdoch when they should have been challenging him, is indefensible. Now Hillary Clinton discovers that all her rubbing shoulders with the military-industrial complex and their lobbyists hasn't bought her a fair hearing from GE? Cry me a river.
Posted by space at November 4, 2007 10:32 PMIs there a bigger wanker than Tim Russert (not to mention his stooge Barbara Levin)?
Unfortunately, yes. "Buffalo Tim" Russert is a partisan hack but he's just one of many in the so-called "liberal" media. As bad as Russert is, IMO, Chris Matthews is worse.
Other candidates for top MSM wanker are David Broder, Maureen Dowd, Brian Williams, Jeff Gerth, Katherine "Kit" Seelye, and Richard Cohen.
Posted by "Fair and Balanced" Dave at November 5, 2007 05:36 AMTHE NEW AXIS OF EVIL IS: RUSSERT, WILLIAMS, AND MATTHEWS ........
Posted by blue at November 5, 2007 06:13 AMWhere is a copy of this letter? Timmeh should have to produce it to defend his question, or just admit that he learned about it on Hannity.
From what I remember at the time, 12 years is the earliest the archives will release some presidental papers. Bush wanted them to hold those papers longer; Clinton did not.
This was a big story - although it made Bush look bad, so I'm sure it wasn't one the Lost Boys covered.
Posted by ColumbiaDuck at November 5, 2007 11:40 AMActually, you need to do your homework as well. The statute provides that the President designates how long materials are held from the public, not to exceed 12 years. President Clinton asked for the maximum period permitted under law. It's in his discretion to release them earlier.
ยง 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records
(a) Prior to the conclusion of his term of office or last consecutive term of office, as the case may be, the President shall specify durations, not to exceed 12 years, for which access shall be restricted with respect to information, in a Presidential record, within one or more of the following categories
As an addendum to Keith, a few items:
(i) for those interested, the statute is 44 USC 2201-2207 (Presidential Papers Act). Best to read it for yourself.
(ii) the President's power, as mentioned above, to control release of documents is not plenary...it is limited to certain categories of documents that are listed in Section 2204.
NOTE: Here, this is probably not much of an issue as one of those areas is private discussions w/ advisers.
(iii) Executive Order 13233 has expanded the President's power to withhold documents for a period of over twelve years (seemingly indefinitely)despite the language of Section 2204 quoted above. This order, issued in 2001 by Pres. Bush, asserts that Section 2204(3)(c)(2) ("Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confirm, limit, or expand any constitutionally-based privilege which may be available to an incumbent or former President.)" allows for a former President to assert legal privileges such as: the state secrets privilege, the presidential communications privilege (*concerns talks w/ advisers*); the attorney-client (work product)privileges; and the deliberative process privilege.
Essentially, Executive Order 13233 has driven a Mack truck through the loophole in the Presidential Papers Act. There is some question as to how liberally or narrowly this order would be construed by courts.
So, from the law, we can glean:
(i) Pres. Clinton does have authority over the release of certain documents. This authority allows him to prohibit release of certain documents for at least 12 years and perhaps indefinitely given the Order.
(ii) Conversations with Hillary on substantive policy matters probably is well within the concept of "private discussions with advisers" for Pres. Clinton to prevent release of these documents.
(iii) Control therefore of the release of such documents is either (i) in the hands of the Archivist if no instruction has been given, or (ii) in Pres. Clinton's hands if such an order forbidding such release has been given (absent some dispute on the classification of the items).
(iv) Should such an order have been given, only Pres. Clinton (not the Archivist or Hillary) would be able to release such documents.
(v) If no order has been given to this effect, or if a subsequent order to release such documents is given, then such documents may be released.
(vi) Given (v), Pres. Clinton would have no (further) control over the timing or manner of such release by the National Archives.
THUS, it seems to me that the text of this letter would be illuminating as to who here is acting in a misleading fashion: the Clintons or Russert. Funny, no one has released it from either side!!!!