Liberal Professor Attacks Clinton Secrecy

Photo of Justin McCarthy.

Even liberal Bush administration critics are, as Hillary Clinton would say, "piling on" the Senator from New York and Democratic presidential candidate. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a regular guest on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," who suggested that President Bush "could well have committed a federal crime...30 times" with the NSA wiretapping program, offered harsh words for Senator Clinton on the November 6 "Fox and Friends."

Turley opined that the Clintons "seem to want" documents being released "at a glacial pace." Turley noted that "it’s not just health care stuff" but also "things like pardons, controversies involving Hillary Clinton’s brothers."

Host Gretchen Carlson cited Clinton’s claim that he actually "sped things up." A skeptical Professor Turley said he does not "see how former President Clinton could say he sped things up" and that many of these documents are very difficult to reach because of some "very, very broad" "exemptions."

The entire transcript is below.

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): My husband has not with held a single document. And we have hundreds of requests that are being dealt with and are being processed as quickly as the archives can.

GRETCHEN CARLSON: The battle over access to the Clinton White House papers. So why the delay?

STEVE DOOCY: George Washington University Constitutional law professor and extremely smart man, except that he got up so early this morning, Jonathan Turley joins us live from DC good morning.

PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you.

DOOCY: Alright, so Hillary Clinton says those archivists are working as fast as they possibly can to release this stuff. But isn't it true, professor, that she herself could have ordered these papers released years ago because she is one of two people that the former president designated as keepers of his papers?

TURLEY: There's no question, first of all that it's moving at a glacial pace and I think there's also no question the, the Clintons seem to want it that way. I mean, if you look at this objectively, they could have done a lot more to release much of this information. It's not just the health care stuff. It's many things that historians are interested in, including things like the pardons, controversies involving Hillary Clinton's brothers. And so there's a lot there that academics want access to, but there have been long complaints that President Clinton, former President Clinton put very difficult exemptions in place that make this a movement a slow pace.

CARLSON: So Jonathan, apparently back in 2002, President Clinton wrote a letter. Some people say that, that slowed down the process of releasing these documents. Now he has come out the last few days and said "hey, now that letter really sped things up." What's your perspective?

TURLEY: I don't see how former President Clinton could say he sped things up. He sent a letter that extended the release date for 12 years. Presidents can do that. After five years, they can be released or organized by the archives. The president can extend all of that twelve years before anything's released. But what President Clinton did was he cited a series of exempted- exemptions or categories. And those are very, very broad. They contain most everything that academics and reporters want to see. That's what has slowed this down so dramatically.

DOOCY: Right, and in fact, they referred to "Newsweek" magazine, to quote some of the locals down in Little Rock. They called the library "Little Rock's Fort Knox" because it's almost impossible to get stuff out of there. And when you look at it, professor, it, it- so, okay, you can have my papers in 12 years, that is just a little too convenient, isn't it? By that time, Hillary Clinton would have run for president, and some people are just saying they planned this from the get go.

TURLEY: Well, frankly, I don't think that they're eager to see a large scale release of papers for obvious reasons running for the presidency. I can't say that they are more hostile to release than other presidents. It is true that President Clinton has gone further in terms of the scope of his exemptions than President Bush's father or Ronald Reagan. But it's largely due to Hillary Clinton's role in government. She also had a more extensive role. First ladies have not been subject to these types of exemptions in terms of their communications. That clearly is the case here and that makes it more extensive.

—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nixon, again

But what President Clinton did was he cited a series of exempted-
exemptions or categories. And those are very, very broad. They contain
most everything that academics and reporters want to see. -
Jonathan Turley

And what we have here is, again, Richard Nixon, speaking next to a table piled high with stacks of tapes, (must have been about 100 tapes) telling (and showing) the country how much information he had released to the Watergate Commission.

The only problem was, in spite of all those tapes, he had not released the ones the Commission had actually asked for.

Update:

She also had a more extensive role. First ladies have not been subject
to these types of exemptions in terms of their communications. That
clearly is the case here and that makes it more extensive.
Turley

Well, then, Her Royal Clintoness needs to immediately stop referring to her "experience" in the White House as a plus. If we can't find out anything about what she did, then it doesn't exist as far as this election is concerned.

 

 

What did Hillary know, when did Hillary know it

Turley is about as independent as a tissue in a womb being attached yet to his mother. All of these college types get their feeding ticket from the Rockefellers.....which means he is a shill starting the continueing drums of Al Gore by attacking Hillary.

This is going to be a story of the straws which broke the camel's back in the MSM starting to demand to get access to the Hillary papers.

It is strange in all of this the amount of resources the Rockefeller's expended on one of their own........how the MSM has kept the fake Clinton legacy alive........and yet it is going to be Hillary who destroys it all.

I will wager a conclusion for Newsbusters to remember:

When Al Gore goes down to defeat in 2008..........Hillary Clinton will be blamed for sinking the entire Democratic party.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Nothin' to see here, folks!

Well, I'm shocked. President Clinton lying? Who'dve thunk it? The only question is WHAT ARE THE REPUBLICANS GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Successful media manipulation in a hostile universe demands a cohesive response or it allows the MSM to cherry pick what they'll report. If EVERY REPUBLICAN public official ended or began EVERY public statement with a DEMAND that Hillary prove that SHE IS NOT CORRUPT by releasing the docs, you just might get somewhere. You have to do what THEY do, alledge the wrong doing, talk about the "seriousness of the charge" and force them to release the documents to "disprove" it! Since there's obvious wrongdoing any time a Clinton OPENS THEIR MOUTH, you'll be on solid ground. But if the Republicans don't attack this "en masse" then it will quickly fade to the nether reaches of the cosmos. Like those FBI files, Charlie Tree, Travelgate......you get the picture. Trouble is, I'm losing the ability to convince myself that the Republican party is anything other than a bunch of MORONS, who'll think the unwashed masses will "figure it out on their own" if they take the "high road" and say NOTHING. (roflmao). 

Wow Keith... We agree on

Wow Keith...

We agree on something.

Good post.

Frankly I don't care what

Frankly I don't care what Jonathan Turley has to say about any dang thing....he walks both sides of the fence, where ever his bread is buttered, he makes me ill, I have watched/listened to him from his start on television.

He and Bruce Fine are two peas in a pod.

Turley

Turley's commitment is to the media. Since the media is mostly liberal, he usually sides with liberals. However, in this case, there's a conflict within the normal liberal world, between the Clintons and the media (who want the bombshells, if any, buried in the documents). Turley sticks with the media.

I suppose Turley thinks he's being a defender of the First Amendment, but he needs to see the difference betweem the media and First Amendment. They are -far- from the same thing.

Hi KC... You hit the nail

Hi KC...

You hit the nail right on the head......

Couldn't of said it better.

Thank you.

bigtimer, I feel the same

bigtimer,

I feel the same way about Dick Morris. If the Clinton's paid him enough he would go back and work for them in a heart beat.