Christ when the George W Bush Library sponsored by taxpayer dollars with a grant from Halliburton opens, there won't be more than a small file cabinet holding all the papers Bush agrees to release- and it will contain nothing but Birthday Cards and the logbook he uses to keep track of his bicycle mileage.  And the media won't give a s**t because Republicans aren't expected to be open with information, just Democrats.  

Can someone  please explain to these braying jackasses that Hillary Clinton was not President of the United States from 1993 to 2001, and that those papers are the property of her HUSBAND'S Administration?  Or are these guys going to be attacking Laura Bush in 2016 because her husband hasn't released all of his papers to the public yet?

I do not like or buy the excuse, "We've already released 10,000 documents."

If a crime is being investigated, then OF COURSE it will be the IMPORTANT papers which are withheld.

That said, what CRIME is Hillary currently being investigated over? If it's just a "hunting expedition" for campaign dirt or some tidbit to bash her over, I'm STILL for the release of ALL presidential papers.

Therefore, I will claim now that I wish for ALL of the Clinton Administration papers released IMMEDIATELY -- including all applying to the first lady Hillary  ... one day AFTER the GW Bush Administration releases HIS papers (and all those still kept secret from his stint as Governor of Texas -- they're still under lock and key, and the MEDIA has said virtually NOTHING about HIS secretism.)

Fair is fair, so release ALL, or shut your trap. 

Christ when the George W Bush Library sponsored by taxpayer dollars with a grant from Halliburton opens, there won't be more than a small file cabinet holding all the papers Bush agrees to release

When the George W. Bush Library opens, it will contain two books, one of which George is still coloring.  But he's getting better about staying within the lines....

The smearmongers just want more new source material to spin allegations from.

The implication that she is somehow withholding the documents is therefore the only angle such people can take.

Not at all.

There is no statute of limitations on fraud.  Prosecutors would just like some more evidence.

You wish to defend these criminals?

You can start by explaining what 'political favors' these payments were made in exchange for.

Riady plead guilty to making over $5,000,000 in illegal campaign contributions to the Clinton Presidential campaign.   Pray tell us two things:  What did Clinton do for Riady and where did this illegal money go?

you will notice he was prosecuted because of a task force set up by janet reno.

No.  You tell us.  The burden of proof is on you.  Speculation gets us nowhere and it appears that is all you have.

My point made for me.  We can only speculate?  Half of the transaction is identified as a criminal act by conviction.  If the illegal payment is a quid-pro-quo, as it most certainly must be.  That should be enough by itself to indicate a criminal investigation is warranted. 

Riady was never examined by the Starr investigation.  Why?  Because he fled the United States and hid in Indonesia while the subpoena for him was outstanding. 

I don't need to speculate abot these  indisputable facts:  Riady is an international banker.  Riady's bank had a presence in Arkansas during and after the Clinton governorship there.   The Arkansas State bank inspectors were appointed by Clinton.  Ruiady is known to have several questionable shady international relationships, inclidung some to the former BCCI.  [Bank of Creduit and Commerce International]

One might reasonably ask the question:  Was there money laundering to conceal international crime going on in Arkansas?

I notice you aren't all interested in where the tainted money went.  Perhaps Clinton should return it plus interest?  Or is Clinton the dirty double dealer that this evidence makes him appear?

"If the illegal payment is a quid-pro-quo, as it most certainly must be." --NL207

Baseless speculation.

"One might reasonably ask the question:  Was there money laundering to conceal international crime going on in Arkansas?"--NL207

The question is reasonable enough to ask, but you were making an accusation based on a supposed answer.  I will grant you that there are questions that should be answered, but you were going well beyond that and claiming Clinton's actions were criminal, which you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support.

NL207,

 Just out of curiosity, are you also interested in Jack Abramoff's payments to Republicans?  He made millions of dollars of payments to Republicans, and Republicans ONLY (despite claims to the contrary by Fox News).  Do you want those payments investigated?

You never seem to know what you are talking about but there is DEFINITLY a statute of limitations on fraud. In most states it is between two and five years.

I'm sure Republicans and MSM will make a big deal about Hillary's papers but what appears to go unnoticed is The Natl Archives is suing the Executive Office of the President to find out what e-mails are missing from the White House e-mail system or backup tapes to get current e-mail. That seems more important than a former First Lady's documents. 

Why are we not going to be able to view Rudy's 9/11 testimony UNTIL after the 2008 election? That seems just as important as a former First Lady's documents. I'm sure Rudy won't be one of those screaming for the release since he wouldn't want to be caught in a lie. After all Rudy Giuliani told an audience at Pat Robertson's Regent University: "Bin Laden declared war on us. We didn't hear it. I thought it was pretty clear at the time, but a lot of people didn't see it, couldn't see it."  However his testimony was a completely different story: Giuliani conceding that it wasn't until "after Sept. 11" that "we brought in people to brief us on al Qaeda." According to the memorandum, Giuliani told two commission members and five staffers: "But we had nothing like this pre-Sept. 11, which was a mistake, because if experts share a lot of info," there would be a "better chance of someone making heads and tails" of the "situation."

As Republicans have said time and time again, "everything changed after 9/11" Stop digging up crap from the Clinton's years gone by. I doubt there are very few orifices of both Clinton's that have not been thoroughly examined.

Since HRC is running for "Prez" based upon mostly her experience as one of the women that Bill slept with while in office, doesn't she owe the voters a complete release of ALL documents and records?

Since HRC is running for "Prez" based upon mostly her experience as one of the women that Bill slept with while in office, doesn't she owe the voters a complete release of ALL documents and records. Justice

Do you EVER get tired of the same old sh*t? Does it EVER just get old?. Who gives a sh*t WHO Bill slept with? Why should YOU be concerned with who Bill slept with? Did he turn you down? Do he tell you he didn't "swing" that way? Why after spending over 10 million dollars per day of YOUR grandchildren and THEIR grand children's money are YOU still concerned with who Bill did or did not sleep with?

When I voted for Bill Clinton, twice, I voted for a President, not a husband. As President her performed quite well for me. Since I didn't marry him, his performance as a husband DOES NOT CONCERN ME not should it concern YOU!

WHAT???  No opening slogan to declare yourself the authority on justice, truth and facts?

So what happened to the "fact checker"? 

All I see here are scraps from the bottom of the partisan cesspool.

What a ridicuolus assertion!  She running for prez, so the doc's of another prez should be public?  Or her doc's when she was frist lady?!  How about all the doc's form W.'s first term AS PRESIDENT when he was running for re-election?  Or Dick Cheney's?  Or anyone else in W.'s administration?  You think you'll see full disclosure of that stuff in YOUR LIFETIME?  Keep dreamin'. 

In public life, some things are public, and some are private.  We'd all like more info (from everyone) but HRC isn't hiding any more than anyone else.  And considering how much the media has uncovered, I'd say that at this point she's hiding considerably less.  How much more do you want ot investigate these two?!  Not a day goes by, and yet you people can't find ANYTHING!  Nothing sticks!  GIVE IT UP!  GET OVER IT!  There's NOTHING THERE!

...HRC isn't hiding any more than anyone else.

That's a pretty "slick" line! 

Well, what then?  Are the legion of investigative journalists, independent cousels, political opponents, professional muckrakers, pundits, etc... really that incompetant?  Hundereds of people have been searching for whatever you're alleging she's hiding for over a DECADE. 

If there something (anything) to be found, it would have been found by now.  You're basically saying, hundereds of people can't find anything... so there must be something REALLY BIG there.  That's completely illogical.  (You must be a very religious person - that's the same kind of logic the religious (of any stripe) use: the less proof there is, the more they believe it.)

Now notice - I didn't say "she's not hiding anything."  Only that whatever's she's hiding i no worse than anyone else.  Considering what Bush won't even let his former aides tell congress, even when they're subpeoned, (this is actually illegal BTW) I hardly think you can reasonable say that HRC is hiding something worse.

Again - to say that there has been a lack of scrutiny reagarding Bill & Hill shows stupidity bordering on lunacy.  No public figure in my memory (admitedly I'm too young to remember Nixon) has had anywhere near the level of scrutiny that these two have.  (And I'm not sure even Nixon did!)

So I re-iterate: IF THERE WAS ANYTHING TO BE FOUND, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND BY NOW!!!

(Or are you still holding out for Saddam's WMD's as well?)

Justice,

What planet are you from?

The documents in question are not to be released until 2009 not 2008.  Even MMFA makes mistakes

You have another source other than the NARA status report which clearly says "potentially responsive to the request by the end of January 2008"?

Aside from Nl207s link to cases settled 6-8 years ago, the media machine is going to be non-stop on one or both Clintons. We can only hope that they're successful, and give us a more non-Republican Dem nominee.

I got home a while ago and checked out a bit of Hannity's America. Brilliant investigative piece into the number 666 (Whaaa...?) and also an installment of The Clinton Chapters.

If it gets re-run check it out. Amazing example of propaganda aimed at those who want to hear certain things, and the media that obliges them.Lots of "so and so was implied" and "suspiciouscly, nothing came of it".

If Hillary ends up being the Dem candidate, the shlt machine is going to be cranked up to 11.

"going to be cranked up to 11."

"Why don't you just make 10 louder?"

"But this one goes to 11."

Spinal Tap still funny and in this case sadly true. But any Democratic nominee can expect the corporate hatchet. While Reap'ers will get hard hitting questions like what do you think of fuzzy puppies? And the ever popular, if the entire US was bombed how would you react?

The only thing I hope is that the Dem.s remember their friends -- the voters -- when they get to office and give a working over to the corporate shills of the MSM.

"Well, that's not my decision to make," she said. In 1994, according to another National Archives document obtained by NEWSWEEK, President Clinton formally designated both his wife and his close adviser Bruce Lindsey as co-representatives for control of his papers in the event of his death or disability.

Gee, all that was asked here was approval to move the process along.  Rather than just say no, she took the obfusaction track.  It's all about seeing the kind of 'open' administration she would bring to Washington.

I am all for open government.  I think nearly anything would be an improvement over the current regime.

Is Bill Clinton dead or severely disabled? You'd think it would be in the news.

and daddy bush's documents? those from his vp and pres stints. when do those get released?

Telling a partial truth is often the same as lying.