Judge allows questioning in Clinton suit

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Thursday forced the National Archives to undergo questioning by a conservative group seeking the release of Hillary Rodham Clinton's telephone logs during her years as first lady.

~snip~

The Clinton presidential library has hundreds of pending requests for the release of records. On Wednesday, the archives disseminated more than 11,000 pages of Mrs. Clinton's daily calendars from her White House years.

The archives wants to place Judicial Watch's lawsuit for the phone logs on hold for a year before the agency considers how soon to begin reviewing the telephone logs for possible release, a process the Justice Department lawyer estimated would take six to eight months.

At the start of a 20-minute court session, Robertson appeared prepared to rule in favor of the archives because no court precedent exists for Judicial Watch's request.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080320/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_papers

[Fresh_Start]

1. I'd happily swap Clinton's phone logs for the missing 3 million

emails from the current administration

[nels25]

6. Thank you for making my point.

neither party (political or personal) should be allowed to run roughshod over rules regarding transparency of public records.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The public know a double standard when they see one.
:dem:

[DCKit]

12. The missing $8.8 billion, even. n/t

[nels25]

2. What the archive really means is

that they want all the time they can get to sanitize the Clinton files so that:

A: Hillary can evade any nasty questions leading up to her coronation.

B: That anything that does come out of a damaging nature will be after she is safely elected to POTUS.

C: They will let the real story about the comings and goings of the Clinton's and anything negative out about them that they have control over when pigs fly!!

Look at all the redacted and left out thing that are in the release of papers yesterday??

If the roles were reversed we as Democrats would be screaming bloody murder (and properly so).

Oh well, SOS with the Clinton's.:eyes: :shrug:

[acmavm]

3. That is one of the biggest bullshit posts I've seen in a LONG LONG

TIME. You're accusing them of the shit that republican's have been doing. YOU KNOW that this is going to happen.

This is one of the biggest reasons that Barrie's candidacy is going to doom us to four more years of republican rule. Dumbass offensive remarks like this.

edit: I don't like Hils or Barrie so don't let your little brain cell get away from you.

[Psephos]

4. Your reply sounds almost Scientological

Clintonian obfuscation is a pox on our house. There's no innocent explanation for it. Exempting those with a D behind their name promotes corruption.

I accept that all our politicians have flaws. It's those who won't admit it or try to hide it that I most deeply distrust.

[acmavm]

8. Scientological? Obsfucation? Wowie Zowie, am I impressed!

I don't like either one of the dem candidates. We got screwed. The most important election in the country's history and lookie what we got. A guy who's main claim to fame is speech making and a woman who was married to one of the sneakiest corporatist presidents this nation ever had.

Make anything you want of this post. I have a feeling that you won't understand it but will try to mask that fact with double-talk and more than an little 'obsfucation' of your own.

[Psephos]

13. I agree with your basic premise, actually

I don't like either of the Dem candidates as much as some we might have had.

I can't say I care much for the way you spray hackle-raising language around without provocation. You know, it's okay for us to have differences of political opinion. Some might even say it's healthy.

Let your arguments themselves do the heavy lifting.

[papau]

10. obfuscation? compared to what - to whom - to Obama and lost State papers?

[nels25]

5. Hey look what did I state that was factually incorrect?

I may have been a little snide with it.

And for that I can and will apologize (though I hasten to note that If have observed one heck of a lot worse that passes for discourse).

Ducking history is always dicey (don't believe me check Barack ala Reverend Wright.)

And a look at the Clinton's tenure shows them to be every bit as tight with information and secretive as any they accuse that of.

We hope that people will have relatively short memories, but do you really think that the GOP will afford us that luxury??

If all of this had been nothing more than fluff than Al Gore would be finishing his last term as president and the supreme court would never had needed to get involved.

I fail to understand why I can not be considered a progressive in good standing while still being able to understand the political landscape around me.

I mean no harm, and if you can educate of where I am mistaken. Then I am more than willing to learn.

As I have gotten older I have learned that picking fights should never be done.

I was not looking to offend as I will state again.

:pals:

[lazer47]

7. Surprise,, Surprise,, another bash Hillary thread, how unique.

[singilarpoint]

9. BULLSHIT ALERT!!!!

I just came from the Wikipedia site. This is the first sentence used by Wikipedia to describe
Judicial Watch: Judicial Watch is a NONPARTISAN watchdog organization founded in 1994.
NONPARTISAN MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!

[Supersedeas]

11. wonders if Judicial Watch will be just a ferocious about Bush telephone records