The Clinton records ‘gotcha’

In the most recent debate for Democratic presidential candidates, Tim Russert confronted Hillary Clinton on the issue of records from her husband’s White House. Russert argued, “[A]s you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012” about records pertaining to communications between the Clintons.

The senator noted that many documents are already available and the Archives are moving forward on the rest. Russert were undeterred: “But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?”

Clinton said that wasn’t her decision, but added, “[C]ertainly we’ll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.”

It seemed, based on Russert’s question, like this was a bit of an embarrassment for Clinton. After all, much of her experience comes from her years in the White House. If Bill Clinton has tried to keep relevant records under wraps until 2012, it looks as if this might be part of an effort to conceal part of the senator’s background.

That is, if Russert’s question was right. It wasn’t.

As eriposte noted, the AP reports today that Bill Clinton has explained the letter pertaining to 2012. It looks like Russert had it backwards — the former president was trying to release more materials, not less.

Former President Clinton said Friday that a letter he wrote to the National Archives was to expedite release of his papers, not slow the process or hide anything as rivals are suggesting in criticism of his wife. […]

“She was incidental to the letter, it was done five years ago, it was a letter to speed up presidential releases, not to slow them down,” the former president told reporters Friday. “And she didn’t even, didn’t know what he was talking about. And now that I’ve described to you what the letter said, you can readily understand why she didn’t know what he was talking about.”

Russert’s question “was breathtakingly misleading,” Bill Clinton said.

An NBC spokesperson insisted Russert’s question “was entirely on the mark,” but that it appears to be simply wrong. Former President Clinton isn’t required to release any documents until 2012, but he wrote to the Archives to expedite the process ahead of schedule.

He added, “I signed a routine letter to the archives five years ago to accelerate the release of my records, which five years later in a different context is misrepresented as an attempt to block information on my wife.”

Let this be a reminder to all of us — Russert’s quest for “gotchas” is so great, his questions are often wrong.

With juvenile behavior like this, how does Russert even continue to get invited to debates?

  • Might as well have the RNC head moderate the Dem debates if Russert is the person scheduled. Eliminate the middleman.

    Clinton should have merely said that when she is elected president, on January 22, 2009 she will write her own letter demanding the release asap.

  • Russert has a history of idiotic questions like this, but issues like these should come to light so that candidates can make an informed decision about their politicians on the ballot. Politicians using the veil of secrecy and national security in order to protect potential embarrassing facts that could jeopardize their campaign should be lynched – especially if any of these facts shoved under the carpet could lead to an obstruction of justice charge. I think Bill Clinton is a brilliant politician. I’d prefer to keep Hillary as far away from the White House as possible – perhaps we can help her into exile. No two political families should have the power the Bushes and Clintons currently have. If we elect Hillary, more of the same…more of the same.

  • Hillary would be “more of the same” after Bush? I don’t think so.

    Perhaps Hawk voted for Nader in Florida in 2000, believing that there was “no difference” between Gore and Bush.

  • I don’t know if this got much national press, but here in Florida in the 2000 election, there were thousands of ballots entered with every chad missing except Bush. In other words (to borrow a phrase), “Anyone but Bush”. None of them were counted, unfortunately.

  • Regarding the debates:

    Any chance they can make Blackwater a major focus?

    I want to know who supports this private republican army…
    Who doesn’t…
    And who might be merely “troubled” by it….

  • Ass clowns. The whole lot of them: Russert, Tweety, they’re all wastes of airtime.

    As useless as tits on a boar hog.

  • Sea Hawk’s comment at #3 has some questionable sentences in it, making his presence on this blog questionable.

    Just to point it out to people who may not know better- when you see something like that on this blog or other left blogs, I would consider it very questionable.

    Don’t fall for this stuff.

  • I always try to be a little wary of succumbing to partisan hostile media syndrome. Twice as many conservatives as liberals believe the MSM is generally hostile to their side of the argument and we can’t all all be right. But at this point I have to admit I’ve all but stopped watching Tim Russert. He’s just shown his ass too many times now for me to me to write it off anymore as oversensitivity to criticism of Democrats on my own part. I’m half expecting him to finally just drop the pretense and mosey on over to Fox.

  • Russert is a pretentious ass who doesn’t deserve all the hype attributed to him. His ambush questions did nothing to advance the discussion of issues and policies. As soon as I heard he would be a moderator I could have predicted his performance. Read Cheney’s aid’s account of how well they could trust the message from Russert when they leaked info to him.

    ***seahawke #3comment*** You missed the point …Clinton was asking for the release of information and to speed up the release of that info…not the other way around…Russert had it wrong as usual. Bush is the only administration operating in total secrecy having all his records hidden from Texas to the WH. If anyone ever put that info together they’d see what a corrupt, lying manipulating piece of crap he is and he would go straight to prison for the rest of his life. He’s a thief and responsible for mass murder, a deserter and a liar. There is no equivalency between the Bushs and the Clintons other than time in office for Bill and Bush 2. None. Nor are Hillary and George 2 anything alike…at all. If you can’t see that then you are blind or have never looked. It’s an inappropriate generalization.

  • How about the Bush mob coughing up their records? Oh, I forgot … the mob never does cough up its records. I think the word is “omerta”.

    If they did that would be some news story. Which is why you’ll never see Russert, or any other corporate stooge, expressing any interest in the Bush secrets.

  • Bjobotts, you missed the point: why is Sea Hawk talking about lynching people? That’s what concerns me! That makes liberals sound bad! I have to wonder about that- I’ve never, ever heard anybody say that someone should be lynched before, or write that someone should be lynched before. What is this guy, nuts?

    What if an African American reads his comment and thinks it supports some BS some Republicans told him about us being racist? What if an African American looks over that comment without parsing it at all and thinks it has something to do with going after blacks? It’s pretty amazing that a liberal wrote a comment with a sentence like that on a website at all. Some other stuff in the comment also isn’t that good.

    Also Sea Hawk’s sentence about lynching sounds like the kind of thing you write that would get the feds coming after you- it sounds like he’s talking about doing violence to elected office holders (lynching is physical violence, even murder). So for that reason, it’s pretty amazing and nuts he wrote that. Republicans could be showing this to their friends and using it to claim that liberals want to hurt politicians. Again, I’ve never heard or seen a statement like that from a liberal.

  • Oops, I thought Bjobotts was coming to Sea Hawk’s defense- I should have read all of what Bjobotts’ comment said before I wrote comment # 14.

    But, anyway, at least you all can see my elaboration now, to see what I was getting at in my # 9 comment.

  • Comments are closed.