November 3, 2007

Hillary's White House Records To Be Opened In February

Reacting to pressure from public-interest groups as well as criticism from fellow Democrats, the Clintons have decided to open Hillary's White House records to the public by the end of February. The Clinton library will break the seals and begin publishing records in January, and all records will likely be available by the time the primaries have settled the question of the Democratic nomination:

The Clinton library is readying a trove of detail about Hillary Rodham Clinton's eight years as first lady in the White House for release in late January, government lawyers said in a court filing. ...

Even so, the documents appear likely to become public within a month of their release by the archives, as the general election heats up in February.

The New York Democratic senator faces growing questions about her husband's resistance to releasing some documents from the Clinton administration, which ended nearly seven years ago.

Bruce Lindsey will have the final word on whether documents get released. He has 30 days to challenge the release of any document, after which Bill Clinton and George Bush can block release as well. If no one objects, the documents will get released by the National Archives 30 days after the review period starts, which appears to be scheduled for January.

This could cause lots of problems for Hillary, and in a strange way strengthen the perception that she is an incumbent in this race. Since she's decided to run on her "experience" in the White House, she will have to defend the administration's record on just about everything -- as well as her own activities on policy-making. No incumbent has ever had to run on the record from a presidential library in this manner, and undoubtedly the Republicans have already begun to hire opposition researchers to peruse the records quickly for damaging information.

Her backers, however, will insist that the Clinton record will be an asset in the next presidential race. We shall soon see. At the least, the American electorate will have the information necessary to evaluate this vast experience that Hillary has claimed for herself in this candidacy.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (62)

Posted by BB | November 3, 2007 9:46 AM

Wile LIKELY be available? Are we forgetting Sandy Burglar? Standby for more Clinton follies!

Posted by the fly-man/bong boy | November 3, 2007 9:50 AM

So will Rudy release all of his papers?

Posted by Sam Pender | November 3, 2007 9:59 AM

Convenient that they won't be opened before Iowa, New Hampshire, or Uber Tuesday in Feb.

Posted by Keemo | November 3, 2007 10:01 AM

Hell, I'm still waiting for Kerry to release his documents; as promised...

Posted by Sam Pender | November 3, 2007 10:01 AM

I wonder how many emails and other records in Ken Starr's massive collection of file boxes include stuff from Sen Clinton, and are those court docs or Clinton Library docs given the odd Chain of Command and Chain of Custody for his and other investigations into the Clintons?

Posted by E9 RET | November 3, 2007 10:14 AM

Yeah, I'm with Keemo, I suspect that with the foot dragging and "misunderstandings" that we'll see nothing but bland "executive summaries."

Ala FOIA releases, will the documents be redacted? How many "released documents" have we seen in the past that are so blacked out that we can't understand any of them?

There are releases, and then there are "government releases"

Posted by Bob Smith | November 3, 2007 10:21 AM

Redacted? I'll bet that she's using this time to purge the archives of anything incriminating or embarrassing, just like Sandy Berger did to archives not under her direct control.

Posted by DANFORTH | November 3, 2007 10:22 AM

i thought she said the records were sealed by boooshhh!!! guess he changed his mind...

Posted by planetgeo | November 3, 2007 10:32 AM

Hmmm...Let's see now. If an automated shredder can eat about 20 pages per minute, how many pages will they be able to shred before next February?...4 months X 30 days X 24 hours X 60 minutes X 20 pages = 3,456,000 pages.

OK, so they may need about 4 or 5 of these.

Posted by Carole | November 3, 2007 10:34 AM

You are right, Bob. If anyone believes this
story, bless them, innocence is cute, but
the pages will be so lost, blacked out, and
the dog ate them, there is no use wasting our
time waiting for them.
If it works for them, what else is new?
They do not know the meaning of the word,
integrity. Totally a space they have never
been to in their lives.
Sandy Berger can give them the help they need,
he just has to buy bigger pants.

Posted by Don Bear | November 3, 2007 10:38 AM

Carole is absolutely right. This is a typical Clinton smoke screen. If anyone thinks something juicy will be released,well, dream on.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | November 3, 2007 10:38 AM

Many of us have a skeleton or two in our closet, most people do.

But I get the feeling that Hillary has a virtual backlot of an abattoir in her closet, hence this latest attempt to have records reviewed, redacted, purged, approved and then released after Super Tuesday, Iowa and new Hampshire.

Kerry's refusal to release his miltiary records, after he chose to make his military service the cornerstone of his campaign, is pretty much moot...he is no longer running, thus there is no "need" for any of this information to be made public. I, for one, would certainly like to know some essentials, to include what his military status was when he became a poster child for the VVAW and his trip to Paris, and the precise details of his receipt of the several Purple Hearts obtained over such a short period in country. But, that is ancient history for the most part.

Hillary, on the other hand, who chose to make her experience of eight years in the White House the cornerstone of her campaign, makes the release of her records of "service" of vital and timely importance.

This convoluted forced mechanism of release of White House records (only after it was made a major issue) seems to reflect that there is/may be that backlot of an abattoir that is currently being shielded at all costs.

IF there were nothing at all to be concerned about, then wouldn't a candidate make an honest choice of transparency from the start? If theyt cannot be honest in the Primaries, then hoiw can we believe them to be honest once nominated, or worse, once elected?

I'd like to know about the Travel Office firings. About the investments. About relationships with the Chinese in Little Rock, and after arrival at the White House. About the special commission on health issues. About the FBI records. About how Rose law Firm records ended up in her closet at the White House. And about a few dozen other things. If she is exhonerated, well and good. If this release raises further questions and concerns, then they should be pursued.

We are not talking about electing a Senator or Representative, who can shield themselves behind the collective of Congress for bad decisions, we are talking about the President, the final authority, where the buck stops...and American's had better know and understand the cut of that person's jib long before election day, and not well after.

Posted by Christoph | November 3, 2007 10:45 AM

Well this is good news. More information is better than less.

I bet you Edwards and Obama wish it was yesterday.

Posted by Silvio Canto, Jr. | November 3, 2007 11:00 AM

Wonder what these documents will say about Hillary Clinton's Iraq positions during the late 90s?

I have heard that she was very hawkisn. If true, it may be a problem in the primaries.

Posted by daytrader | November 3, 2007 11:13 AM

I will reserve judgment until a review of the document drop becomes available.

However this I believe is not just a reaction to the backlash. I believe the campaign had already looked at this aspect in the war room sessions because of the way the issue was thrashed about when Howard Dean refused to release the records he had sealed.

However if the disclosure of the documents is limited in scope and shows the worst damaging item being a review of a minor protocol violation at some off the wall state dinner held at the White House then the quality of the release will come into question leaving the impression of less than candor.

At that point it would be up to observers to balance in their opinion which would be worse from the choices of total sealing , questionable quality releases or releases with information that may be damaging.

Considering the already on record voter opposition to a Hillary nomination (near 50% assertion of likely voters that no way they would vote for her) it would only take a small shifting of moderate distrust to bring irreparable damage to her election efforts.

Posted by Doc | November 3, 2007 11:24 AM

I can't wait for the documents concerning Campaign Finance.

Peter Paul

Posted by coldwarrior415 | November 3, 2007 11:31 AM

One aspect of Hillary's "records" is the role she played on policy and the level of her influence on policy and other Presidential decisions. If she was deeply involved in policy making and decision making, given that she was not an elected official but a private citizen who happened to be married to the President, then, if she is elected what will the propensity for yet another private citizen who happens to be married to the President to be fully engaged in policy making and decision making that affects all of us, influence of the highest sort by a person who is not elected to be President?

This sort of thing should keep us awake for nights on end with worry. Not because it is Hillary or Bill, but because it establishes a precedent. It further calls into play the private lives of candidates, something that for so many years we have been told is none of our business and what happens in private has no effect on public policy. There is NO co-presidency in America, nor should there ever be. Yet, for eight years we were offered throughout the 90's in the press and in just about any other forum the cutesy little display and public glee from certain sectors of having elected "two Clinton's."

Posted by Bullmoose777 | November 3, 2007 11:36 AM

Isn't there a federal Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")?

Why aren't these records already available -- on a few days notice -- under the FOIA?

Posted by eaglewings | November 3, 2007 12:01 PM

Shrillary should just show the docs to Kucinich and Ron Paul (no copying) and let them vet it for the public. No one would believe a word that either of those fruitcakes said, so Shrillary would be safe for the elections.
I also do not hold out much hope for full disclosure from Shrillary. After all, we remember the sudden disappearance and reappearaces of scandal records while she was co president. Maybe the SandBerglar needed to review them? In fact, based upon her past performance I would agree with those posters who said that the records will be vigourously contested, and redacted as to make them meaningless. But that would be appropos of the very meaningless personage of Shrillary.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 12:17 PM

It's no secret that Hillary spent 8 successful years in the White House. Her First Lady credentials are almost as clean as a whistle. And, in the one place they are not; arafat's dead.

While Laura Bush, donning a burka is brand new.

As to "opening records," have fun,now. Because Bush's records, which are deep, dark secrets, are burning and can "spark" oversight, as well.

How did we get into Irak?

What's this "success story?"

Embassy staff don't want to go into the brand new building in Baghdad. Condi has a revolt on her hands. And, the saud's are still pressuring Bush to "provide" American paper saying there IS a palestinian state! To hell with the roadmap "requirement" that the arabs put down terror.

And, terror, ahead, it is.

I also doubt switching from "Saddam, the menace," to the new Iraqi threat of Shi'a fundamentalism, will give Dubya any heft.

While, yes, the blogosphere is slogging it out. (But you can't quite celebrate another Dan Rather victory, just yet.)

If anything? It seems there's no responses to the flame throwers. Except, if you could measure "audiences" ... you might discover that Guiliani, with such full support of the war; doesn't track with the public's "questions." (And, Ron Paul is just too weird. He's like the GOP's Ralph Nader.)

"Unsafe at any speed." Remember that one?

How the public actually adopted Nader's reports, and spit out American cars from their garages?

These things happen.

You could learn about them in Business Schools. Because Business Schools do "case studies." Real companies that ran into troubles. And, the students are divided into reams. Just as they will be, later, in real life. When they go to work for firms. Applying what they know of businesses that got into trouble, because management stank.

Oh, heck. You can go back and review Civil War battles. You'd see one bad general, after another, not knowing much, except how to hold parades. And, dawdle. There was a huge cost to that fight. And, it lingered on; because of inept generals. (And, Lincoln's backing them. Until it was almost too late. Thank goodness he didn't take the "advice" of jealous men, to fire Grant!)

We've got a growing mess on our hands.

And, we're practically at the last stop of this Bush drive. Where he is still trying to pull off November 26 "Annapolis" event. But the saud's are so shy!

Hell, we "halped" them from total collapse when Saddam was on a roll, back in 1992. And, what did they give us, in return? 9/11.

Something tells me there are more Americans out there who detest Bush. Along with his "rationales."

And, Guiliani? Well, let's see. To gain the nomination, he's already promised to kill ROE. (With the appropriate code-words in place.) And, he's also "FOR" Bush's war in Irak.

While on the nominating stage, there stands Ron Paul. Goofy. But targeting the subject that most in the GOP treat as verboten.

How will this all pan out? It is not an advertising campaign.

(If we're lucky? We never use our military might to fight for the saud's. Bunch of underhanded bastards. With enough money to buy politicians.)

But we shall see?

According to the Jerusalem Post's Herb Keinon. Israel is getting a full-frontal-assault, behind the scenes, from Bush, right now.

Ya know what I think? Bush can really step into it; and Tom Lantos will tap Nancy Pelosi on the shoulder, and shout in her ear: IMPEACHMENT.

You think I'm kidding?

No? I'm just trying to figure out one of the outcomes, ahead. While Americans are in no more mood for these "arab success stories." We've had "one too many."

Posted by daytrader | November 3, 2007 12:20 PM

Sometimes in these types of issues you have to get beyond the clear surface knowables and take a peek under the covers at that one degree of separation that can give pointers. It really becomes valid in aspects of this documentation issue.

You don't have to dig very far to reach a couple of eye catching data points.

Blair Effron is a major fundraiser for the Clinton clan. He was a Director of the Foundation for the National Archives, the well known Sandy Burger take out joint. Also his wife is one of the 8 or 10 major fundraisers on the Boards or Trustees of the New School that ties back to the mysterious Norman Hsu.

I find it interesting that today news reports are saying that the Clinton campaign says they can't really recall just how Norman Hsu became a bundler for the campaign or who stood up to vouch for him.

From CNN we have this bit of observation

National Security: Hillary Clinton claims she can't recall who vouched for Chinese bagman Norman Hsu. She expects us to believe he just showed up, dumping $850,000 in her lap.

Her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, famous for his careful grooming of big donors and fundraisers, says he's also stumped. "I don't know how he became involved in the Clinton campaign," he said.

This is the same Democrat power broker who courted the other Clinton's top donor in the last Clinton presidential campaign -- New York businessman Bernard Schwartz -- who just happens to know Hsu.

We don't think it's a coincidence that Hillary's top donor sat with Bill's top donor on the board of a small left-wing New York college, the New School, to which Hillary has steered at least a million in federal grants.

Nor is it a coincidence that the two in November chaired a New School banquet at the Mandarin Oriental in New York that featured Sen. Clinton as keynote speaker.

Nor is it a coincidence that Hsu's donations to Democrats mirror Schwartz's donations to Democrats.

A review of Federal Election Commission records reveals they both have given to HillPac, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Maria Cantwell, among others. They also both happen to share interest in the same causes, such as Emily's list, a favorite beneficiary of Schwartz's wife, Stephanie.

We also don't think it's a coincidence that both of these major Clinton donors do major business with China.

This from a source that would be hard to claim is a member of the vast right wing conspiracy.

Another major contributer to the Clinton funding is Ron Burkle. A man of many interesting ties to the Clinton camp. A operator of major hedge funds which has as among his advisors Bill Clinton in a less than transparent disclosure even by industry standards documentation of involvements. He ties back as being a board member of the Clinton Library which overseas the Hillary documents in question.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 12:38 PM

Do you know how businesses lose sight of customers?

It starts when the insiders wouldn't touch the crap they buy, wholesale, at retail.

In other words?

Hillary's at the 50 yard line. With enough experience, where she's got a solid record as a senator. (And, got re-elected. Robert Kennedy was murdered just before he needed to get re-elected; and it was assumed back then, that he'd lose.)

Well? Democrats lost, back in 1968. And, Robert Kennedy was Hamlet. Not quite into his fight for the presidency, until it became obvious LBJ's tent folded like a cheap suitcase.

Hillary won her re-election.

So she knows how to campaign. (And, don't get fooled. It's still about sound-bytes.)

IF the blogosphere, on the right, stays focused on throwing out insults? Well, that's their right. But it doesn't make for a winning campaign.

Too many Americans these days, are UNAFFILIATED. That means they're not part of any "group" think scheme. And, if you want to win on November 4, 2008 ... that's a critical portion of 50 markets, in 50 states. Not all as good as one another.

So, yeah. You can lose Vermont. And, Iowa. And, other little dippy spots without "big numbers" attached to their electoral college.

As to Hillary's bad night, with Russert? Her numbers haven't changed. And, she'll pull in more of an audience, next time.

Where the Bonkeys had been lagging the republicans, has been in the "tune-in" size of audiences. Who watch.

We've got a long row to hoe, to get to November 4, 2008. Nothing's solid yet. Even the finalists in the contest, are not really known right now.

Irak? Oh, boy. Terror hasn't stopped. Bush is just blind to terror. Because he wants the Israelis to accept this.

And, the Israelis, like our public at large, has gone very quiet.

Ever realize, when the silence piles up against ya; that you're not holding the winning hand in your argument?

Here? You'd be surprised. Yesterday, I discovered "david" saying the things I feel, too. In a world were few non-partisans ever show up.

You think Bush has made the sale?

I think he's an idiot. With a closed mind, who has no idea on how to "close."

"Closing" is an art. In sales, those who can have a following, where people do business with them.

Hillary? She's not your cup of tea.

But calling her "tough" ... That's not gonna make others fade away. Among other things, Margaret Thatcher was TOUGH. She supplied the backbone, as a matter of fact, to Ronald Reagan.

Oh, and Nancy Reagan. Another woman who knew how to add "spine" to her man's performance.

Something's ahead. You can't spend $3-trillion dollars out of the American treasury; on the Saud's game plan, and not expect the perverbial fan blades to whip this crap, around. Eventually.

I suspect this, even though I'm very shy about crystal balls, and predictions.

Still, in business? You can smell failure.

If you still don't see this, try getting your hands on a picture of the EDSEL. See if that monstrosity didn't have a front grill that stands out and looks like a urinal.

How did it make its leap off the drawing boards? I still have no idea. Beyond terrible management at the top. (Maybe, the engineer who designed it, was a spy for the german auto makers? With a grudge.)

Posted by Steffan | November 3, 2007 1:19 PM

I have the sneaky feeling that the Clinton records are going to go the same way as Kerry's SF 180. Lots of promises to release the relevant data Real Soon Now, but ultimately nothing of any substance will be released. Hillary has enough skeletons in her closet to populate a Metropolis of the Dead.

By the way, Carol, the Edsel in and of itself was actually a pretty good car. Where FoMoCo bit the wax tadpole was in the marketing -- it's a textbook case of How Not To Market A Product.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 3, 2007 2:10 PM

"Bruce Lindsey will have the final word on whether documents get released."

He's the man behind the curtain, a la "The Wizard of Oz", in Clinton Incorporated. If he were someday waterboarded to tell us all he knew, Bill and Hill (and himself) would most likely be sent up the river, and the jailers would throw away the key.

And Silvio Canto Jr. said:

"Wonder what these documents will say about Hillary Clinton's Iraq positions during the late 90s?

I have heard that she was very hawkisn. If true, it may be a problem in the primaries."

In justifying her vote in favor of the Iraq War, she claimed that she had eased her decision not on what Bush's intel people told her, but also based on what her husband's intel people told her.

Posted by daytrader | November 3, 2007 2:34 PM

Another interesting point of how the Clinton camp very publically says one thing but if you check you see the slight of hand as to where it is something else is the direct contributions from Norman Hsu were widely quoted as being donated to charity.

However if you review the quarterly report for the campaign submission you see that the total items listed as contributions is far less than the 23,000 they claim for the Norman Hsu amount.

But then you see 23,000 listed as Disgorgement to US Treasury. So that is where the money really went. Still the campaign left the more positive false information without any kind of retraction or update.

Posted by Dave in Pa. | November 3, 2007 3:03 PM

Hillary's White House records made public by the end of February, eh? Gives them three more months time to "lose files" and keep the shredders running...

Posted by daytrader | November 3, 2007 3:05 PM

Hillary has on her campaign website a list of HillRaisers who are the bundlers associated with her campaign.

I have cross referenced each and every one of them for social network relationships of any kind such a common organizations they belong to, board or trustees at common entities or any other similar linkage you can pick up from open source searching.

The vast majority seem to be totally independent with little connection.

While doing all this in relation to Norman Hsu you came across one place that almost seemed like the Borg where assimilation was total. At least it is a major hive of some kind with a cluster far an above any others I could turn up.

That Nexus was The New School in NYC.

This is how it shapes up

Fred Hochberg Dean of Milano School this guy is a HillBlazer that is above a HillRaiser they promise 1 million min donations, son of founder of Lillian Vernon the gift catalog merchant.

Trustees or Boards of the various sub schools at the New School or those having links to places like the Clinton Foundation and other direct Clinton descended organizations. I left out any members who had no other connection of a similar nature.

Leo J Hindery

Cheryl Cohen Effron wife of Blair Effron a HillRaiser

George Haywood tied to Blair Effron via Foundation for the National Archive (Bergers take out place for hot documents)

John L Tishmen

Richard L Kauffman tied to also Alvin Ailey Dance School a source of Hsu donors

Maggie Williams also runs HillPac past president of Fenton Communications (left side media relations firm for every group on the face of the earth you can think of) Chief of staff for Hillary Clinton , Married to Ronald K Noble now head of InterPol and was in charge of Customs, the Secret Service, BATF, Federal Law Enforcement Center, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and Office of Foreign Assets Control (handy if you have questionable foreign contributions and that little other thing called Waco.)

Beth Rudin DeWoody

John A Catsimatidis also HillRaiser

Jay T Snyder also HillRaiser

Sally Sussman also HillRaiser

Bernard L Schwartz also HillRaiser (also ex CEO Loral Corporation –think China Missles)

William D Zabel who has his ties via Princeton alumni fundraising to Joel Rosenman Woodstock Promoter and Hsu Victim.

Many of these are also cross linked through The Clinton Foundation and common boards of various other organizations and companies many linked directly to other Clinton issues.

Norman Hsu of course was one of the trustees here until he had his issues surface.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 3:30 PM

Oh, Day Trader ...

And, what if Bush is impeached in January?

NO! I don't read tea leaves. I just think there are various possibilities out there ... as professionals begin slapping balls up into the air.

You see Hillary as the "weak link."

Do I know?

You think Nixon had "illustrious" connections, when he was running? And, he had $3-million in cold cash, in his White House safe. In the days when the conduit for money ... bursting out of the political fire hose ... was pretty safe from review.

A lot of good this did Nixon.

Among the PRO's, life's different.

Heck, you watch stocks all day. You don't think there are dogs? And, some dogs, that pay good commission, get touted regularly?

No. I'm not callng Hillary a dog.

All I know is that she's a front runner. And, she seems in better shape than Howie Dean, when Dr. Dean mesmerized the Bonkey base; back in 2004.

And, you know what happened to him!

Geez. The suited up Wesley Clark sure didn't reach "star power" status, did he?

Me? At least Hillary's a better "pick" than 'Jon Cary.'

Oh. And, Hillary seems to be going back ... and helping Americans recover from their post 9/11 disappointments.

She's 9/10 on the scale. (Where ten is best.)

Not that you haven't provided a good college try. But do you really think most people are all that comfortable with numbers? And, balance sheets?

Where's Taleb's BLACK SWAN?

He said he's known traders to blow up. WHere there one loss is much worse than all of their gains, combined. And, people, with succesful lives, and big homes. Lose all.

Sure, being a Day Trader. Full of risk. You see a lot of other people putting new money on the table, to bet?

If Hillary wasn't good as a senator, in 2006 she would not have gotten her re-election. At a time, the GOP went home, hurting.

And, up next? Just the way things sort out in the senate; the GOP not only has to contend with Pork. Not only with the dissatisfaction with Bush, across the horizon. With the mainstream. But also with a reality that Larry Craig's "intent" ... used that word "unwisely." And, 24 GOP senators seats come up for votes. But only a dozen democrats "have to defend."

Wow. Customers sure have strange ways registering their disatisfaction with businesses they decide to "turn on."

There's no slam dunk in sight. Not in my book. But then, I'm the world's most reluctant gambler.

Posted by hunter | November 3, 2007 3:51 PM

With a three level censoring process that includes Bill and Hillary lackey Lindsey, fuhgetaboutit. There will be little if nothing to see.
This will be as interesting as waiting on Kerry to release his full Navy records.

Posted by fox2! | November 3, 2007 4:19 PM

I still want to know why she had access to the intel on Saddam that she so easlily let slip. What official position did she hold that admitted her into the sanctum sanctorum of the intelligance community?

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 4:20 PM

Hunter. Nixon won.

And, he put "dirty tricks" into the political dictionary.

Candidates win when there's a good breeze to their backs; right after Americans turn their backs on their "previous majority party."

How did this happen back in the 1960's, to the democrats? Seems LBJ thought of the Oval Office as "his" ... with the most powerful political levers in the world.

He didn't realize it at the time; but he angered a cross-section of Americans. While Robert Kennedy played "Hamlet." (Party leaders were begging him to enter the 1968 contest. But Robert was "afraid.")


This professor, Eugene McCarthy, showing no fears at all. Wiped the floor with LBJ, in the New Hampshire primary.

From this, I learned the Kennedy's only "buy" sure things. And, Robert's stock had gone downhill.

While Eugene McCarthy couldn't get traction. (Yes. He had a great sense of humor! So, it got said that if you're funny, you couldn't win the White HOuse.) Obviously, he didn't.

Back in those days? When the powers-that-be move a candidate forward, the nod went to Hubert Humphrey.

Later? Well, in 1996, the republican nod went to Bob Dole. Remember him?

Alas, 2004 was the Bonkey's worst moment. Dr. Dean had been given the boot. There was a blog revolt against Kevin Drum. Who lost his site: Cal Pundit. (Even though he did Friday Cat blogging.) I guess cat blogs aren't the most popular? Could'a fooled me.

We're here, again. Sort'a.

The right blogosphere thought they'd climb on the "we won in Irak" bandwagon. But a wheel, or two seems to be stuck in the mud. Lots of people don't think we've won very much. While the price tag sure attracts attention.

I give the Captain lots of credit. He doesn't let the bozos, that infect both the right and left sides of blogs that take comments, to rule, here.

This is the exception.

But with it, you can see debate coming across a cross-section. Which could alert you to the marketplace. It's like weather reports. You can have fine weather. But then? You're not living in Minnesota. Where Lewis Black's weather routines, have me landing on the floor, laughing.

Politics, by the way, when things are working well? There's a lot of laughter. People aren't afraid to crack jokes. And, there are no sacred cows.

One reason I worry? With people saying we've got victory; there's no clown at this circus.

People seem in a foul mood, instead. As if Bush has been caught LYING.

And, he's not through.

Lots of people expect at least one more shoe to drop. In other words? Bush still has room to do worse. While the nominees on the republican stage, only have Ron Paul questioning "why" ... did we ever go into Irak? It's not a bad question.

Sort'a on par with NOT SAFE AT ANY SPEED. And, Nader never became president.

While Pat Buchanan did his "best" in Palm Beach, with a confusing Butterfly ballot. Two thousand votes which were meant for Gore. Went to the anti-Semite. And, could not get recovered.

Oh, I remember seeing Pat Buchanan on TV. Laughing. He said "thanks." Yet, he still doesn't like Jews. Some things just can't be bought with votes.

Of course, Gore looks just as irrational. But whose he hurting? Carrying the Nobel prize home, it seems he loves being a hero "over there." While here he still looks like an idiot.

Would he, by the way, be willing to be a spoiler to Hillary? Running as an "independent?" He could say he learned everything he knows about that, from Joe Lieberman.

And, in politics? All you need is a good bumper sticker.

Posted by davod | November 3, 2007 5:05 PM

Another PR exercise. Anything controversial will be classified as Bill's and witheld. Anything good will be classified as Hill's released.

Are we going to have a Hill's Bill's moment (Hell's Bell's)

Posted by RD | November 3, 2007 5:11 PM

As I sit here dreamily stirring my tea leaves with my right index finger before I put it up in front of the fan to determine what side of the issue to come down on a look in my crystal ball (snow globe) tells me that the only thing of interest that will be found is a receipt made out to Bill for a hundred copies of Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" and multiple receipts for weighted crystal lamps and ashtrays bought by the gross by Hillary. Duck and cover...incoming...boy that girl can throw bull chips better'n any man I know.

Posted by Geoffb | November 3, 2007 5:28 PM

"The Clinton library will break the seals"

This has got to be a joke, right. Anything at that place has already been "unsealed", rewritten and rewritten again over the course of the past seven years to support whatever line the Clinton machine is taking on any subject. Cover stories are what we will see.

They didn't want them released because once they are in the public domain they can't be rewritten again when the story line being pushed changes yet again.

Smoke and mirrors is all you will ever see with this pair. Other politicians have also been good at covering their dirty tracks but these two are the masters.

Posted by patrick neid | November 3, 2007 5:30 PM

I would be extremely surprised if there is anything negative in any of the papers. In fact quite the opposite should be expected.

Both Hillary and Bill knew that she would be running for president at some point in the future. That said, all recordable info was pre washed before official entry. All emails etc were carefully written ahead of time etc. All things important were talked about in person.

What the papers will show is process. Big deal!

Folks continue to underestimate the long term planning that went into the Clinton's pursuit of the White House.

Posted by McGehee | November 3, 2007 5:37 PM

I would be extremely surprised if there is anything negative in any of the papers. In fact quite the opposite should be expected.

Agreed. Even if the files were to contain documentary proof that Big Mother cooked and ate the babies of poor urban single mothers, complete with video of her demonstrating her favorite recipes, the Big Media spin will be, "Hillary Loves to Serve the Poor."

Posted by Tinian | November 3, 2007 6:42 PM


Your November 3, 2007 3:05 PM comment is golden. A truly independent and inquisitive press would plaster stories about these connections above the fold on page 1.

Carol Herman:

Who, what or where the hell is this Irak thing you rant about?

Posted by fouse, gary c | November 3, 2007 6:49 PM

Bruce Lindsay has final word on release? We'll never see anything that will embarrass Hillary.

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | November 3, 2007 7:58 PM

We shall have to see if it really happens...

John Kerry seems to have played this game before.

Still hasn't truly come clean.

As time slowly floats by, the Clinton deceit is becoming the talk of the Nation again.

What a shocker...

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | November 3, 2007 8:00 PM

We shall have to see if it really happens...

John Kerry seems to have played this game before.

Still hasn't truly come clean.

As time slowly floats by, the Clinton deceit is becoming the talk of the Nation again.

What a shocker...

Posted by j | November 3, 2007 9:12 PM

Won't happen - there will be a ton of excuses, restraints, outsiders filing whatever. The Clintons have far too much to hide.

What is so stupid (and both of them are smart tho Billy is far brighter than Hilly) is they think they will rule the world. What they don't realize is that the people using them will just move them aside to take over.

For being so smart, they sure are blind in some areas.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 9:21 PM

The games have just begun.

Who has feet big enough to fill the shoes that would make an Independent candidate viable?

When the democratic voters in Connecticut, took the primary route of discarding Joe Lieberman ... did you follow that story?

You know this Lamont character failed to win election, don't cha?

The Republicans also put up somebody. Who didn't win.

And, Joe Lieberman aced his re-election the old fashioned way. By getting voters to vote for him from the left, right, and, center.

Is Hillary a "machine" candidate? Perhaps.

Or, perhaps, it's time for a woman to slug it out with an Italian guy?

There's the "other reality," too.

By having primaries so early ... (instead of right next to the "decision making times" that have been used in previous years ... It's possible that AFTER the "picks" have been made ... World events can get dicey?

And, the "favorites?" Well, they can fall out of favor.

Even if you always back the same flavor, pie. And, yours is the most American apple; you'd be surprised how customers shop. Lucky, food expenses are the cheapest part of the restaurant business.

Could this be true with candidates?

As to the local "games," the one that just played out with Mukasey, seemed to me to be a "set piece."

He was gonna get the committee approval, but he'd be damaged enough in the handling; that his victory is discounted.

Bush did not send someone sailing through the confirmation process. Just in case his presidency lands another lucky shot for the Supreme Court bench; this was just a preliminary contest. Wasn't meant to defeat Mukasey, at all. But by definition, Bush doesn't get good "headlines."

He wins. But it's still weak.

Brooklyn - hnav ... You might not believe this; but Bill Clinton had lots more support from lots of Americans; that Bush has never even seen.

You see scandal, because that's what you want to remember. It's a partisan thing. Similar, in a fashion, to the ways in which brokers tout the stocks that pay them the highest commissions. While if you fall for it, you're buying junk.

If Bush were doing better? You'd have recognized a better set of headlines following him around.

Hard to win that, when lots of people go negative.

By the way, the Man Upstairs either blows on lucky dice. Or gambling just means ya crap out.

Posted by chsw | November 3, 2007 9:34 PM

I have been surprised by the conduct of Governor Richardson during the campaign. He could challenge Senator Clinton claims for partial credit for her husband's successes.

I wonder how many shredders will burn out at the Clinton Library between now and February. Is anyone watching whether Iron Mountain or some other corporate archive management service is making pick-ups from the library?


Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 9:34 PM


Carol Herman:

Who, what or where the hell is this Irak thing you rant about?

Ya know, Tinian, I bet you can answer this. If not? I'll clue you in. It's in the Mideast. Look around.

By the way, English has absorbed spellings with many variations. Over time. You'd be surprised.

And, "K" may outlast "Q" ... You just never know.

After I left school, I left the ladies with their red pencils, behind.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 3, 2007 9:46 PM

fox2! asked

"I still want to know why she had access to the intel on Saddam that she so easlily let slip. What official position did she hold that admitted her into the sanctum sanctorum of the intelligance community? "

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."

Hillary Clinton

Posted by onlineanalyst | November 3, 2007 10:07 PM

"There is not one shred of evidence..." Hillary Clinton

Carol Herman: Hillary's at the 50 yard line. With enough experience, where she's got a solid record as a senator.

LOL! Doing what?

Hillary Clinton won two elections in New York. How difficult was that?

Daytrader: Keep up the terrific research work. There are wheels within wheels of duplicitous connections in the Clinton cabal.

Posted by daytrader | November 3, 2007 10:34 PM


What I just broke is only a small sampling of what I am putting together as a package narrative.

Right now the latest versions of the drafts I have about a 90 page word doc on all things Hsu

Stuff on the Clintons other than Hsu is pushing 300 pages now.

All with circles arrows and links to sources.

I have tons more to go through that I have already collected in case it goes poof on the net.

Right now the raw collection I have on my to do list is somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 gigs of info.

Posted by daytrader | November 3, 2007 11:07 PM

Some teaser points being explored

Why do some campaign offices have phone bills and internet costs and others don't (included in the lease maybe) takes time to check all that

Same for electric bills

What are the known links developed from paid staffers

Why are the taxes for the staff not consistent in all locations (some states paid some not)

who are some of the independently documented people paid only perdiem and travel and how do they fit in

Hot Words already linked

direct or indirect via a degree of separation

Mafia known history
FBI most wanted list (current)
Future Supreme Court Justice at the time of the historic linkage
Casino Owners (some with alleged Mafia ties)
Black Radical Activists
Dead Reporters
Two of the largest privately held companies in the US.
Sports Gambling , Stadium Concession Contracts, Sport team ownerships, Slot Machine Manufactures
More College trustee and board members of other colleges
All those college classmate gals showing up in the most interesting places and how they link together
What are the top 200 players of the Clinton Presidency doing today and where are they at to do it.
Who links to all the Africa trade mission deals and ditto for the China trade missions
Kosovo linkages by key players in the web of players
lots of union ins and outs and some real oh my stuff.
Full 100% crosscheck of every last donor for the Clintons (both of them to day 1) for links to any and all the above plus running each through a full open source exhaustive search with a 100% populated social network diagram out to a minimum of 2 degrees of separation.
Dynamic Cluster Analysis of all common sublinkage sets and Cluster Crash/Collision analysis of cluster intersections/overlaps and third party common linkages across cluster groups.

All of this set to a best efforts composite time line including all parallel event paths.

Piece of cake don't ya know.

Posted by daytrader | November 4, 2007 2:20 AM

An example of how I am working on this follows

"Blog Poster" [redacted by me]
Subject: Other than direct money issues I am working on about Hsu / Chinatown
To: "Tom Hamburger"

I thank you for your earlier reply to my email about the donation information related to Chinatown I sent you.

Another issue I am touching on is generally under the category of how could this have happened.

By that I mean not just the skeptical sources of the campaign dollars but the mechanism that has allowed so many other gross errors to occur.

Ms Clinton had promised to run one of cleanest ships as far as fundraising efforts and all know now that has been less than successful.

The direction I am looking at this particular aspect is partially based on some past experience working with a statewide political race as part of the staff for the fundraising accounting and reporting area of the campaign.

I am just going on that basis plus my many discussions with representatives from the national party level as to the mechanisms for adequate control measures to meet documentation and reporting requirements and a week internship to see how the software suite interacted to give a total view of fundraising.

So in looking at that area, I knew I needed some specifics to try to scope out what was happening.

The first thing I did was look into the FEC requirements and available documentation. From that effort I found one thing I was looking for. Since I knew that at the Presidential level the reporting had to be part of a suite of campaign oriented software, I was able to find out that part of the requirements for the electronic submission of the reports to the FEC was that in the introductory identifier header of the report was the requirement to include the name of the software package and version that was used in the preparation of the submission package.

From there I determined the Clinton Campaign was utilizing Navision AVF 5.0.

"HDR","FEC","5.3","Navision AVF","5.00","^","","000",""
"F3PN","C00431569","Hillary Clinton for President","PO Box

Now tracing down that particular software I determined it is an enterprise level crm/erp/accounting suite of programs Microsoft offers

My speculation is that this is a generation of software derived from the acquisition of Great Plains Software by Microsoft to develop the business accounting market segment and the enterprise management area.

It has since been re branded as Microsoft Dynamics NAV reflecting the Web 2.0 transitions made to the base product.

To make things a little more unique, the base software package Microsoft offers has been then customized and enhanced by AVF Consulting.

The important point here is that the software has had a work over to support campaign fundraising (non-profit accounting is something AVF does).

At the moment I have correspondence pending on several levels to determine more specifically the package parameters.

In general from my prior experience and learnings it is fairly well established that at a national campaign level this type of software is used in coordination with other general purpose and specialized software to form an integrated fundraising environment.

By that I mean full documentation in data base format of historic donations and donors and such to model out potential locations and sources of donations to be approached for campaign support. Also they would have breakdowns of every conceivable option of looking at how donor profiles and patterns were developed and breakdowns by zip code , metropolitan statistical areas. interest groups and just about any way a campaign would wish to view the data. This is mixed in with voter registration information, information provided many mass mailers on a fee basis and multiple other data sources.

The end result being that they could query such things as a hypothetical How many democratic donors who are left handed and drive an SUV in Connecticut can we solicit who did not donate to us before.

The customized accounting software used to generate electronic reports to the FEC can also export information to aide in this effort.

What I am digging for now is how complete the customization was that AVF performed.

Specific areas of interest

How does the software deal with name collisions to validate total donations
Do they use secondary identifiers ie zip code to validate names
How does it account for line item donation/corrections/refunds and compliance with donation limits for the general/primary races
What data validations occur on the line items i.e city/zip code validation, looking for proper data types in required fields and reporting of missing or exception data fields
What type of exception reports are generated to warn of issues with the data and noted violations of donor documentation issues and donation limits.

My interest in the area is because of the following

Clinton has the only campaign that has been subject to letters from the FEC noting over donations, missing data and other errors with their quarterly submissions to the FEC as discovered by their audit software.

Clinton has the highest number of returned donations and dollar amounts
Clinton has the highest number of donations exceeding total limits
Even excluding all the Hsu related donors and the Chinatown donors her numbers still exceed the total of all major Republican and Democrat campaigns combined by a large margin.

Quality Issues

From review of the refunds by myself and others there are many areas of concern being revealed from that subset of data

Not all Hsu related donors have been fully refunded to match their contributions
This is even after accounting for writing off donations to her Senate Campaign

Donations have been refunded to donors at addresses in variance with the original address

Donations have city/zip code errors that are reporting donations to city / zip pairs that are as much as 5000 miles apart. Example NYC with a Honolulu zip code.

The same goes for refunds to donors. Especially where donor city/zip errors are present and even another city/zip mismatch or city/zip pairings are different from each other. Example San Francisco donation with Alabama zip code being returned to Chicago with a Dallas zipcode.

A refund has been noted to a person who does not have any record of a contribution. This is likely a partial name error I have yet to match.

A refund has gone to a person with a donor name collision that has a donation history of only to the Republican Party and lives in NYC where the original donor lived in Miami. No refund has been recorded for the original donor.

With wonderment, not even all the Paw family have received refunds. Two have not been refunded at all, and that was the family that broke this story about Hsu to start with.

Only a small percentage of the refunded money has been turned around to generate new donations to the Clinton campaign. This raises questions about how sincere the original donations were.

From looking at the donor patterns (date timing etc) there seems to be a lot of coordination of synchronized donations to the Clinton campaign as well as timed donations to other campaigns Mr Hsu supported.

Hsu bundled donors have combined, contributed significant donations to other targeted campaigns far removed from their residence locations and these donations have not been acknowledged or accounted for in any robust way by the other campaigns. Those who have received linked the donations are still only reporting a small portion of the total contributions from Hsu linked donors. Most have only acknowledged the Hsu direct donations only.

There are issues with Harry Reid's Starlight Fund and Obama's Hope Fund to be resolved.

The DSCC has many issues as well as several state Democratic Party Committees.

Conclusions and Speculation

Based on the software environment a Presidential level campaign would have, the Chinatown donations would have set off alarm bells based on the comparisons to historic donations for that specific zip code/neighborhood. It would have also been flagged as being overly successful in the amount raised from their projections models.they would have generated prior to the fundraiser event to measure their performance. Also they would be looking at all reported donations by other campaigns to develop strategies for targeting groups/cities/zip codes to go where the others haven't and try not to solicit those who have already donated to a opposition campaign.

The number of errors and their variety would lead one to believe the refunds were handled outside the accounting software package specifically designed to perform that task that would never have occurred if the original software had been relied upon.

Based on assumed expected capabilities of the software accounting package alone and the number of over donation errors, donors from LLC's rather than individuals that were refunded and other FEC technical violations I draw the clear speculation that staffers and / or supervisory personnel in the area of fund raising accounting would almost certainly have had to ignore error checking and reporting by the software and in fact would have likely taken specific positive action to over ride the checks of the software during the process.

It is almost inconceivable that the package would allow donors to exceed individual donation limits to the FEC unchecked.

I have reconstructed on servers here the entire FEC database for the last 20 years and am running multiple reports to analyze looking for abnormal indications and pattern changes. Those searches and looks from different aspects bring up donations to be looked at. It is not until the are selected out that I group them into a single spreadsheet for analysis that the names of the donors are picked up from the database. So the separation portion is agnostic to race, creed , color etc. I use other criteria like zip code loading, single address loading, neighborhood nominals etc to form clusters. Also I use just pure zip code or city segments also.

Even with that I am noticing patterns of concern that parallel the Hsu/ Chinatown issues. I see other areas of Asian communities such as Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles , Houston and others that are returning results several standard deviations from the norm. Also I am seeing major abnormalities in the Indian/Pakistani community.

For a national campaign the analysis of the data for the Clinton camp diverges from other campaigns in their collection patterns.

The bulk of her donations come from 6 states and even more heavily lopsided patterns if you look at the top ten states. Considering the number of total donations, some states are percentage wise nearly void of donations to the Clinton camp. I don't know if this says more about their fundraising efforts or raises flags about issues for her down the line if you project donation patterns onto electoral votes from the states involved. In any event I am seeing distribution variations that are not matching up to profiles for other campaigns or all major campaign averages and they also vary from historic average distributions.

I am also seeing groupings of donations by industry classes and interest groups that are in variance with her past campaigns and those of Bill Clinton and John Kerry that raise some eyebrows. This is notable because of the many financial advisors those campaigns had in common.

Posted by Jose | November 4, 2007 6:38 AM

"If she is exhonerated, well and good."

The Clinton's have already been investigated exhaustively to the tune of how many hundreds of millions of dollars? So far nothing.

Posted by onlineanalyst | November 4, 2007 6:47 AM

Daytrader: I stand in awe and salute your tenacity in unraveling this web of chicanery.

One can only hope that your correspondence with the latimes will bear great fruit in exposing to a broader base of voters paying attention the Clinton machine for the racketeering and laundering underpinning its finances.

Posted by Dave B | November 4, 2007 7:19 AM

Count me as skeptical that whatever records come out are the same records that went in.

Posted by daytrader | November 4, 2007 7:25 AM

Thanks OLA

What I am dealing with is stuff literally hidden in plain sight with the crush of the sheer volume of the data. It takes horsepower and time and software to weed it all out into meaningful data then areas under suspicion are re calculated by two different methods to cross check and compared to historical benchmark data for variation.

But the data on the refunds is very troubling. In general there are what appear to be transcription errors in the Hsu refunds well over 30% and even the overall rate is above 5% errors.

SuitablyFlip blog was the first with the data proving the issues and deserves all the credit, he's been the lead dog on the financial info I have only been doing confirmation long after he did.
example of his work beside the data contained in the posting on his site

That page shows some examples of the zip code issue in the refund data

My thrust has been at mainly building the social network diagrams to discover things like all those dialed in at the several schools that make up the New School community.

It doesn't help that some of the data I would like to have has poofed from the net, even the cached versions.

Posted by Tinian | November 4, 2007 7:26 AM

daytrader: Wow. Keep up the great work and stay far away from Fort Marcy Park.

Posted by daytrader | November 4, 2007 7:42 AM

I only work from open source.
Newspapers, FEC data, State Election data, press releases, position papers, white papers, heck even gossip columnists reporting who was at such and such a fundraiser.

Who are sponsors of various fundraisers, who was on the various committees for the fundraiser.

I am dealing with the connecting the dots on the people end.

I haven't had anything yet that I can say "here is the smoking gun" but there are enough variances from expected results, that either a campaign has really put forth a convincing message to sway some groups which is fine or if way to many questionable clusters of data show up, then you can send a letter to someone and say hey here is unusual data that is way out of wack with historic data and even contemporary fundraising of other camps. Then it's up to the ones with oversight to say if it needs a closer look with more authority than I have to dig into the process.

But like I say Flip is the man on this , I am dragging up the rear with a whole different kind of data.

Posted by daytrader | November 4, 2007 8:13 AM

For example , remember all news reports said Clinton gave the 23,000 of Norman Hsu's donations to charity. Commentors on threads said let me see the check.

Well I found where the money really went

scroll to the bottom of this page and look at the last two entries and that is where it went this quarter. All the other contributions above that don't add up to 23K so the last two match the number and have to be it.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | November 4, 2007 9:28 AM


I've got to admire your effort.

Gave Hsu's donations to charity? Didn't the funds go to "charity?" [Perhaps the largest charitiable organization on the globe, if you look at it from a certain perspective...]

Posted by daytrader | November 4, 2007 9:47 AM

I will take a charity like Valor IT which is fundraising right now over that one thank you.

Want to compare what percentage of the "donations" get to the end users and how much gets chewed up in "administrative expense" in each case?

Posted by daytrader | November 4, 2007 9:51 AM


Please accept my apology for hijacking the thread.

That's not very nice manners.

Posted by richard mcenroe | November 4, 2007 6:38 PM

May I be the first to offer my condolences to the Clintons on their tragic loss in the fire that will mysteriously destroy the Clinton Library in December of 2007?

Luckily it was fully insured...

Posted by onlineanalyst | November 5, 2007 2:33 AM

This may be a dead thread by this point, but to borrow freely from the "peace-loving" activists...

What do we want? Hillary's White House records.
When do we want them? NOW!
(without Bruce Lindsey's sanitizing)

An intriguing article in The American Spectator about Madame Hillary's odd Asian campaign contributions speculates that smuggled Chinese illegals brought in by a criminal cartel may be behind some of the cash and may explain the "smartest woman in the world's" drive (pun intended) to provide licenses to illegals.

Check it out:

Is the Madame Hillary Cash Express tacitly condoning indentured servitude?

Posted by coldwarrior415 | November 6, 2007 12:52 PM

Well, maybe not...

At least one chunk of Hillary's papers won't be "available" until 2009. Let the games begin.

Post a comment