Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres. Papers

I've been following the attacks on Hillary over the release of Bill's documents by the National Archives, and I touched on it a little the other day in a diary I posted over on DailyKos.  This all started when Russert (true to form) waived a 13 year old - routine - letter in front of everyone and asked Hillary WHY she and Bill were refusing to release his presidential papers before next year's elections.  

I just got the following information from Bruce Lindsey, who serves as Bill Clinton's Records Representative which totally sets the record straight here - I'll let Bruce speak for himself over the fold...

Statement Regarding Clinton Presidential Records

Bruce Lindsey

William J. Clinton Records Representative

November 2, 2007

In the last few days, there have been several inaccurate reports
 regarding Clinton Presidential records, including reports that have misconstrued a 2002 letter President Clinton sent to the National Archives easing the restrictions on his presidential records.

I want to ensure that the record is clear that:

* By law, the Clinton presidential records are under the control of the National Archives and Records Administration and are subject to the same rules and regulations as the papers of every president elected since 1978.

* Bill Clinton has not blocked the release of a single document from his Library.

* Bill Clinton has actively encouraged the National Archives to release more policy and substantive presidential records sooner than any other president subject to the Presidential Records Act.

* Contrary to recent reports, Bill Clinton has not asked that records related to communications with Senator Clinton be withheld.

* In his 2002 letter to the Archives, Bill Clinton authorized NARA to release substantive policy materials that involve confidential advice from his advisors, including Senator Clinton. No other President subject to the Presidential Records Act has authorized such a broad release. He has designated a subset of these materials (including, among others, negative or derogatory information about individuals involved in the appointment process, confidential foreign policy communications, and communications between the President and Vice President, First Lady, or former presidents or vice presidents) that should be reviewed prior to release. Documents in these categories have been released and are readily available in the Library at this moment.

* There are over 100 million pages of materials at the Library - and the Archives is required by law to review each page before it is released.

* The Archives is in the process of making records available as quickly as they can -- over 1 million pages of the Clinton Administration records have already been released, including Health Care Task Force records.

* Now that Clinton presidential records are subject to FOIA requests, which NARA must by law address, it has devoted significant resources to that task. There are approximately 300 FOIA requests, involving 10.5 million pages, pending at the Clinton Library and the Archives recently estimated that it would take the Archives approximately 5-6 months to process 10,000 pages responsive to one FOIA request.

---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

Background On Clinton Presidential Records

Bruce Lindsey

William J. Clinton Records Representative

November 2, 2007

Background

* The Presidential Records Act (PRA) is a post-Watergate statute that applies to the records of presidents elected since 1978.

* The PRA defines which records are presidential records and provides that they are the property of the federal government to be administered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

* NARA assumes custody and responsibility for control, preservation, and access to the records when the President leaves office.

* Under the PRA, presidents:

* name a personal representative(s) to exercise authority over his/her records in the event of his/her death or disability, and

* while in office, specify time periods up to 12 years to apply to 6 categories of information that may be restricted under the PRA, including national defense/foreign policy records, appointment records, records of confidential advice between the President and his advisers, etc.

* The Archivist determines if access to a presidential record is
 restricted under the PRA (or FOIA), with a notification and review process during which the former and sitting president may raise any constitutional privileges.

August 19, 1994 Letter from President Clinton to the Archives

In 1994, as provided in the PRA, President Clinton sent a letter to the Archives naming me and Hillary Clinton as his personal representatives in the case of his death or disability. Like Presidents Reagan and Bush before him, he authorized the Archives to limit access to the 6 categories of records for the permissible 12 years.

November 1, 2001 Bush Executive Order

The Bush Executive Order provided former presidents with the
 independent right to assert any appropriate constitutional privileges over their records. It also extended - from 30 to 90 days - the time period former presidents have to review records that NARA proposes for release (however, this part of the Executive Order was struck down by a D.C. federal court on September 30, 2007).

On behalf of Bill Clinton, I publicly objected to the new Executive Order because Bill Clinton believes that these additional protections are unnecessary and inconsistent with the spirit of PRA.

November 6, 2002 Letter from Bill Clinton to the Archives

In 2002, Bill Clinton sent an "easing" letter authorizing NARA to
 review and open policy-related documents containing confidential advice between himself and his advisers, including Senator Clinton. As Bill Clinton said in that letter: "My intent is to make available to the public as full a record as possible documenting the decision-making, policy-making, and appointment process of my Presidency by applying both the appointment and confidential advice restrictions as narrowly as possible."

No other president subject to the Presidential Records Act has
 authorized such a broad release. (While former Presidents Reagan and Bush also have sent "easing" letters with respect to "routine" correspondence and "informational and factual" materials, these letters leave greater restrictions in place.) Bill Clinton's letter designates a subset of materials for review prior to release. Documents in the various listed categories in this letter are readily available in the Library at this moment, including those reflecting advice between President Clinton and his advisers.

January 20, 2006 - Clinton Records Subject to FOIA

* Presidential records are not subject to FOIA for the first 5 years after a president leaves office.

* Bill Clinton specifically encouraged NARA to review and make public as many policy-related records as possible during those first five years (as opposed to simply releasing press releases and public speeches, which because of their ease of review, historically have been released first by the Archives).

* Under FOIA, the Archives must review all records covered by requests from the public and restrict access to any information contained in those records that is prohibited from release by FOIA (there are 9 such categories) or that are not subject to FOIA under the PRA.

* Currently, none of the FOIA requests NARA has processed and provided for my review involve Senator Clinton.

I just can't believe the way the press has twisted that 2002 letter around to suit their own agenda (ie to create a story where there is none).  

I hope this sets the record straight here folks.  If anything - the Clintons are doing far more than any other president has ever done to disclose their Presidential papers sooner rather than later.  

Tags: 2008 elections, archives, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, president, presidentail papers (all tags)

Comments

41 Comments

Can We PLEASE Get Back To Discussing The Issues

here folks?  Russert was an ass to even create this shit-storm and now the other press have picked up on it.

There's no there there folks!

by alegre 2007-11-02 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.

Thanks for this information.  I'm sure we'll keep hearing the Cheney comparisons, though.

by Steve M 2007-11-02 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight

Thanks for the info.

I remembered reading that Bill Clinton had released more documents to the archives than previous presidents, so when Russert asked that question I suspected it wasn't true. It's nice to have this confirmed.

by LakersFan 2007-11-02 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight

I was so glad to see this info come out - figured the good folks here would like to see what Lindsey said.

THe bottom line in all this is that Clinton's already made sure a million pages have been release years ahead of the time set by that 1994 letter.  That's a million more than any other president.

IF anything, Bill's pushing hard to get doc's RELEASED - not kept under wraps.

I'm guessing Russert KNEW all that but still wanted to go for his freakin' gotcha.

He's got a history of that kind of shite.  I was at the Clinton Global Initiative a few days after the Sept. debate - where Russert tried a gotcha w/ Hillary and didn't get what he was after.  So that little slimeball sent one of his mini-hacks to Bill's press conference and had her try to get him to address his gotcha BS - totally unreleated to what they were trying to do with Bill's conference (generate billions in grants for develping nations).

I gave that "reporter" a piece of my mind as she was leaving - I was PISSED!

by alegre 2007-11-02 07:50PM | 0 recs
from seattle PI

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebi gblog/archives/124945.asp

Theres supposed to be a video of Bill pushing back hard on this "tale
, but I cant see it...if you could see it and post it at Kos - that would be a good thing.  heres a part from the PI blog:

Breathtakingly" misleading. That's what former president Bill Clinton called a question Tim Russert asked his wife at this week's Democratic presidential candidates' debate. And boy was he mad.

"The implication was that in the last few weeks since she'd been a candidate, I had endeavored to cover up records involving her. You agree with that? That's what people thought when they heard that question," Clinton said. "Here are the facts."

He asserts the letter in question is five years old, involves Hillary only incidentally and requests that the National Archives speed up the release of certain documents, not slow it down.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-02 02:41PM | 0 recs
Watch this video!

Go to the page linked above and watch the video. Bill Clinton is HOT about this. He's almost as fired up as he was jabbing his finger in Chris Wallace's thigh.

by hwc 2007-11-02 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch this video!

That video is freaking AMAZING!  I'll see if I can add it by way of an update ;o)

by alegre 2007-11-02 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: from seattle PI

Thanks for the video!! Bill explains the issue so easily and is rightfully pissed about it!!

I wonder if the mainstream bloggers will write about the issue and Russert's media bias? You know one of Atrios' snarky blogger ethics posts?

I won't hold my breathe waiting for the townhouse crew to set the record straight about the media being unfair to HRC/the Clintons...

by ademption 2007-11-02 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: from seattle PI

Do you know that Bill Clinton is LYING (again!) in that video?

He claimed that Tim Russert said 2009, when in fact, Tim Russert said 2012 ????

Another Clinton lying? It is a family of liars!

by win 2007-11-02 09:43PM | 0 recs
ready for it ...get ready...

ready?...here it comes.....!

F U.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.

Um, instead of going to all the trouble of writing a multi-page memo, why not just release the documents in question? I have no doubt there's nothing there to hide, so I don't understand why Clinton would ensure this becomes an issue by not having Lindsey, who is in possession of the documents, release them.

Dean took a similarly legalistic position concerning his papers as Governor when it came up in the fall of 03 and it was the beginning of his slide.

by desmoulins 2007-11-02 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight

Um, because no one can release hundreds of millions of pages of documents in the same amount of time as it takes to write a memo.

by LakersFan 2007-11-02 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight

But thats not what she said. She said it was the "archives moving at the pace that the archives do." Then, Lindsey says there's been no request by either Clinton to the Archives not to release them. Today NPR reported that the Archives say they are awaiting Lindsey's review.

So if the argument is that Lindsey needs time to review the millions of pages, thats different from what she said the other night.

Moreover, if she wanted to avoid such quibbling, just release what has been reviewed. Certainly they must have made a significant dent over the past 7 years in reviewing them?

Is this the sort of conversation we as Democrats want to have next year, or should it be about passing health care, preserving American jobs and raising wages, bringing troops & reserves home, acting to save our environment from catastrophe and reforming our government? Do you think the Republicans are going to give her a pass on this?

Why isn't Clinton t prepared for this issue to come up, and why didn't she lay it to rest Tuesday by promising to release all the papers?

by desmoulins 2007-11-02 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight

What you are talking about? The argument that "Lindsey needs time to review the millions of pages" is exactly what she said the other night.

I don't know what NPR is waiting for, but I suspect it has to do with FOIA requests. It sounds like you didn't bother to read the memo from Lindsey (a luxury Lindsey doesn't have).

Here's the FOIA highlights so you don't have to:

* Now that Clinton presidential records are subject to FOIA requests, which NARA must by law address, it has devoted significant resources to that task. There are approximately 300 FOIA requests, involving 10.5 million pages, pending at the Clinton Library and the Archives recently estimated that it would take the Archives approximately 5-6 months to process 10,000 pages responsive to one FOIA request.

and

* Presidential records are not subject to FOIA for the first 5 years after a president leaves office.

* Bill Clinton specifically encouraged NARA to review and make public as many policy-related records as possible during those first five years (as opposed to simply releasing press releases and public speeches, which because of their ease of review, historically have been released first by the Archives).

* Under FOIA, the Archives must review all records covered by requests from the public and restrict access to any information contained in those records that is prohibited from release by FOIA (there are 9 such categories) or that are not subject to FOIA under the PRA.

* Currently, none of the FOIA requests NARA has processed and provided for my review involve Senator Clinton.

by LakersFan 2007-11-02 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight

No, she said it was the archives, not her lawyer, that is holding things up. Go watch the tape; she said "the archives are proceeding at the pace that archives do."

by desmoulins 2007-11-02 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight

Now you're just quibbling about semantics. Read the article. He is the person appointed to review these things for the archives. Every president gets to pick someone to do this, and Clinton has released more records, more quickly than other former presidents.

by LakersFan 2007-11-03 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight

There are two levels of review:

a) the National Archives has to review EVERY page of EVERY document before it is released.

b) certain categories of documents are then forwarded to the President or his representative for additional review following the National Archives review. These are common sense categories. For example, is it sensitive national security discussions (minutes of a meeting between the President and a current Head of State...)? Is it private confidential information about appointments (i.e. someone considered for a cabinet position until they found embarrassing private information during the vetting process and who was never nominated). Private conversations between the President and the Vice President, between the President and his family, and between the President and past Presidents. This may be released, but it has to be reviewed first. (The Clintons are under no obligation to release, for example, Chelsea's report card or Hillary's mamogram results)

Seriously, people. Why do you fall for every media gotha moment when we have real challenges facing the country to discuss? Are you that gullible?

by hwc 2007-11-02 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.

You didn't watch President Clinton's video from today, did you. If you had, you would know that Clinton and Lindsey don't have any of the records. The National Archives have the records. Twenty-one million pages of records. The National Archives are required, by law, to release them in the order in which they receive Freedom of Information Act requests.

None of the records are released until the National Archives have gone through them page by page to redact things like Secret Service agent's cellphone numbers, classified national security information, private information about candidates for cabinet appointments who didn't receive appointments, and so on and so forth.

Bill said that all the documents related to Hillary's Health Care Task Force have already been released (even though they weren't required to be released until 2012). Her appointment calendar for every day of the eight years in the White House is scheduled for release in January -- the National Archives staff (total = five people) is going through it to redact private phone numbers, addresses, and so forth. Remember, that calendar covers two thousand nine hundred and twenty days including dozens and dozens of meetings, events, and phone calls per day.

by hwc 2007-11-02 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.

First in, first out is the FOI parlance for releasing documents in the order that the FOI request is received.

HWC is also right about the types of things that the Nat'l Archives would take out before releasing them to the FOI requestor. I can't even imagine how time-consuming a project it must have been to take out all the phone numbers and other personal information from the calendar, esp when the agency is under-staffed.

I haven't watched the video yet, but I can just imagine how pissed Bill Clinton must be over this issue. After all, it was his administration that provided government documents online in electronic reading rooms. How frustrating it must be for them to deal with this bogus issue!!

by ademption 2007-11-02 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.

He is really pissed off. The 2002 letter was a request to the National Archives to waive the standard five year FOIA waiting period and 12 year waiting period for all documents and begin releasing big chunks of his papers as soon as the Archives had reviewed them.

by hwc 2007-11-02 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.

I'm guessing that's why they suggest a 12 year default on those papers.

It'd take that long to go through 100 MILLION pages of documents when you can review about 10,000 every 6 months!

by alegre 2007-11-02 08:09PM | 0 recs
maybe because the media wants to use these papers

to embarass and attack the clintons?

how frigging complicated is that?

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 04:14PM | 0 recs
Giuliani has hidden his mayoral records

This came up on NPR's Diane Rhem today: City Agrees to Private Control Of Giuliani's Mayoral Papers. Any bets on when Russert will ask when Rudy will release these records? Unlike Clinton, where the National Archives controls the documents, Rudy's records are under his personal control through his private foundation.

by souvarine 2007-11-02 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani has hidden his mayoral records

Rudi should release his. So should Clinton.

by desmoulins 2007-11-02 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani has hidden his mayoral records

It's not up to Clinton.  The Archives have to review everything first - it's the law.

by alegre 2007-11-02 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani has hidden his mayoral records

The Archives says they are waiting for Clinton's lawyer to finish his review. So anytime Sen Clinton wants, she could instruct her lawyer to give the green light.

by desmoulins 2007-11-02 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani has hidden his mayoral records

Won't hold my breath on that one!

by alegre 2007-11-02 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight

great job; now will "bambi" send another message to his supporters to set the record straight.....

by pate 2007-11-02 03:11PM | 0 recs
I'm wondering...

Did Russert actually quote the letter?  I'm thinking maybe he was setting up a gotcha.  Maybe he expected Hillary to defend not releasing the papers so he could quote the letter and say Bill said to release the papers.  I'm just wondering, can't recall exactly what was said.

by bookgrl 2007-11-02 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm wondering...

Goddess only knows... I'd have to check the transcript to double check but I'm guessing - no.

He's probably working from that newsweek article - taking that as fact.

by alegre 2007-11-02 08:11PM | 0 recs
Bill's Pres. Papers

Yes, this archives issue is very misleading.

First, the media and opponents act like the Clintons are in possession of these papers. THEY DO NOT HAVE POSSESSION of the Clinton papers. The Bush administration controls the executive branch correct? The National Archives is part of the executive branch correct? So therefore, the Bush administration is in control of the Clinton papers.

Secondly, the FOI request is HUGE. It's going to take a while for Archives employees to process all of that paper. Especially since the Archives is underfunded according to one LA Times article I read and therefore, understaffed. There's only so many people that can actually sift through all of the Clinton documents and determine which are responsive.

Third, I don't think that reporters would get what they wanted anyway. Everyone knows how much the Bush administration advocates executive privilege and keeping secrets. In FOI terms, deliberative process of documents that deal with intra-agency discussions of policy are withheld at the discretion of the executive branch. I can pretty much guarantee you that any documents that the Archives provides to the media will have huge black marks where info was redacted.

This whole story is a waste of time. The Clintons who have no control over the papers, are now going to be blamed for secrecy. Ironic, when it's actually the Bush administration who has control over the documents, when to turn over documents and how much to turn over to the media.

Oh, well, politics at its finest by the straight shooter Obama and the transparent media....

by ademption 2007-11-02 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill's Pres. Papers

Excuses, excuses.....

It is easy to release the records, okay?!

By the way, remember Sandy Berger, the former NSA for the Clintons and currently advising Hillary ? Why did he try to hide some papers in his pants while reviewing some "records" at the National Archives? I think the story is bigger than you think!

Welcome to the Clinton years with scandals, corruption, obstruction of justice..... and we are still in the primaries!

by win 2007-11-02 09:55PM | 0 recs
Actually Lindsey is holding out on us

here's the WaPo fact checker on this comparing Hillary's claims in the debate to claims she's holding back:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2007/11/is_hillary_responsible_for_t he.html#more

Both sides are being disingenuous, and are omitting inconvenient facts. Because of cumbersome declassification procedures introduced by President Bush, there are now huge delays in processing Freedom of Information requests at all presidential libraries, including the Clinton and Bush I libraries. But the Clintons are themselves taking advantage of a clause in a November 2001 Bush presidential order that permits former presidents to take all the time they need to review FOIA requests.

According to National Archives officials, 26,000 pages of Clinton presidential records are being held for release to researchers after being submitted to Clinton lawyer Bruce Lindsey for review. The records have been screened and processed by Archives officials under the Freedom of Information Act, but cannot be released to the public until Lindsey signs off on them as President Clinton's designated representative.

So basically although Hillary supposedly disagreed when Bush changed the FOIA process, they are using that very process to withhold documents.

by okamichan13 2007-11-02 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Lindsey is holding out on us

According to National Archives officials, 26,000 pages of Clinton presidential records are being held for release to researchers after being submitted to Clinton lawyer Bruce Lindsey for review.

1 million pages released to researchers

26,000 pages released by the Archives and in process of review by Lindsey's team

20 million pages still waiting for the initial review by the Archives

by hwc 2007-11-02 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually Lindsey is holding out on us

What do you mean by "withheld"?

How long do you think it it would take you to review 26,000 pages of documents? How about 21 million documents?

BTW, most of the FOIC requests are for really, really dumb stuff that is of interest only to some totally arcane researcher.

by hwc 2007-11-02 10:57PM | 0 recs
I'm sure it will take until after the election

no doubt about that.

The point is also that her answer at the debate was not truthful.

by okamichan13 2007-11-03 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.


Look, we all agree there is nothing to hide in them, right? Don't we?

So why doesn't Sen Clinton and frmer Pres Clinton come out and say, publicly, they have instructed their lawyer to release the papers and they urge the Archives to do so as well -- so that the voters will know they have nothing to hide, before the election.

Why would they not take that course?

by desmoulins 2007-11-02 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindsey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.

They have instructed their lawyer to release the papers as his review is completed.

You do understand that materials from the Johnson and Nixon administrations from the 1960s are still be processed and released, right?

I'm not sure that you have any idea the volume of material we are talking about.

What exactly is it you are interested in? You might find what you are looking for in the list of available collections here:

http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/textual-sy stematic.html

Or, you can make your request using the FOIA form here:

http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/documents/ foiaform.pdf

by hwc 2007-11-02 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.

What to you mean by "hide"?

There is a great deal of material from all Presidencies that will not be released publicly for many years. That's why things like audio tapes of Johnson's and Nixon's phone conversation are still being released.

For example, all of the reports, studies, and position papers of the health care task force are already available. I doubt that you will see memos among Magaziner, Hillary, and Bill regarding legislative strategy for a long, long time. Notes from private discussions between, for example, Sen. Moynahan and Hillary, Bill, or Magaziner won't be released for a long time.

by hwc 2007-11-02 10:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.

just another example of Russert being a total ass.

You know, the thing with these debates, is that they make so much noise on the blogosphere, and then a week later, when the record is set straight, people are still holding on to talking points its disgusting.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-11-03 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Lindesey Sets Record Straight re: Bill's Pres.

a week later?  dude, people are still holding on to the travel office firings!

by Steve M 2007-11-03 10:54AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------