Sen. Hillary Clinton greets Peter Paul at Hollywood gala (Courtesy Hillcap.org)
Documents are being prepared for release by the National Archives that could reveal what Sen. Hillary Clinton already did while she was in the White House, as First Lady to President Bill Clinton, according to a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.
Among the issues that remain clouded is her exact relationship with Hollywood Internet mogul Peter Franklin Paul, identified as the largest contributor to her campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2000, who now is presenting compelling evidence President Clinton destroyed his entertainment company – Stan Lee Media – to get out of a $17 million deal in which he promised to promote the firm in exchange for those massive contributions to the 2000 campaign, and other considerations.
Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fundraiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.
Officials with Judicial Watch were forced to go to court to try to obtain the White House documents, including Hillary Clinton’s calendar, daily office diary, schedule, day planner, telephone log book and other files.
That despite statements from both Clintons that they want to have the documentation available to the public.
It was during a hearing before U.S. District Judge James Robertson this week officials with the National Archives said a portion of Hillary Clinton’s White House office records will be ready for release by the end of January 2008.
Officials then will notify President Clinton, who under the Presidential Records Act has 30 days to review them.
During an interview with C-SPAN on Nov. 30, Clinton said he wanted to documents released as soon as possible.
“I want to push the release of more [White House records,] including the request for documents about Hillary’s time in the White House … So I’d like it if the records got out there … but the American people just [need] to know, we’re getting this stuff out there as soon as we can…” Judicial Watch said he stated.
And Hillary Clinton recently said, “We’re moving as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permit.”
“The ball is now in the Clinton’s court,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “Bill and Hillary Clinton are on record saying they support the release of the records, and they have blamed the National Archives for the delays. Come Jan. 31st, the Clintons will have no more excuses.”
Judicial Watch has been seeking the records since 2006, and in July had to go to court seeking access to them. In October, the National Archives submitted a report that essentially was a request for an indefinite period of time to review Hillary Clinton’s records.
The organization cited, “the right afforded to representatives of the incumbent and former presidents to review the presidential records prior to public disclosure.”
Archives officials noted, on average, President Clinton’s representatives took 237 days to review previous records.
But that would mean the records created by the New York senator and Democrat presidential candidate when she was First Lady probably could be delayed until after the 2008 election, keeping secret information voters could find important, Judicial Watch said.
The organization noted in a separate case, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly enjoined the archives organization from following an executive order that allows former presidents and vice presidents to stop the release of archives records for indefinite time periods.
However, Judicial Watch officials said the National Archives officials still are refusing to detail when a review of Hillary Clinton’s telephone logs would be finished, and another hearing is scheduled March 20.
Judicial Watch, a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan education foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law, hopes the documentation actually will become available on schedule.
“Of course, this is a little game the Clintons and the National Archives would love to keep playing right on through the presidential election (or at least through the primaries) next year,” the Judicial Watch group said. “On one hand, the Clintons say they want the records released immediately, but that the National Archives rules and regulations are supposedly slowing the process down. The National Archives, meanwhile, blames the delays on the Clintons and their representatives…
“Hopefully the court will see through this gamesmanship and order the release of Hillary’s White House records as mandated by law,” the group said. “Judicial Watch is committed to making sure the full and complete record of Hillary’s role in the many Clinton-era scandals is made available to the public, and her office records are a good place to start.”
The organization previously posed 10 questions it would like to have Hillary Clinton answer:
- Who in the Clinton administration devised the plan to sell taxpayer-financed trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the Clinton-Gore 1996 re-election campaign?
- Why did you give “factually false” testimony under oath in the investigation of the White House Travel Office firings, as former Independent Counsel Robert Ray stated in his final report?
- Who hired former bar bouncer Craig Livingstone and ordered him to illegally obtain for the Clinton administration the FBI files of former staffers in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush?
- Why did you fail to report more than $2 million in contributions (from Peter Paul) to your Senate 2000 campaign?
- Your brothers Anthony and Hugh Rodham allegedly brokered cash deals to obtain presidential pardons from your husband on behalf of convicted criminals. Were you aware they were each paid large sums to obtain these pardons?
- Did you or your lawyers hire private detectives to investigate and intimidate critics of the Clinton administration?
- What did you instruct James Carville and George Stephanopoulos to say in order to discredit and defame Gennifer Flowers, a woman with whom your husband had an affair?
- Records from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reveal that you turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures in 1978 into more than $100,000 in 10 months … a return of 10,000 percent. How did you earn such an astronomical, and unbelievable, return on this investment?
- How much money does Bill Clinton earn from his relationship with Ron Burkle, a contributor to your Senate campaigns, and Burkle’s company, Yucaipa?
- How do you explain the mysterious disappearance of your Whitewater billing records from the office of Vince Foster, the former Rose Law Firm partner and Clinton White House counsel who allegedly committed suicide in 1993?
“Stopping at 10 questions is hard to do. We could ask about her illegal White House fundraising coffees, doing business with the State of Arkansas while her husband was governor, Web Hubbell, John Huang, Chinese generals, the Lippo Group, and paid sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom,” the Judicial Watch document said.
“These questions are important and relevant as the American people weigh Hillary’s candidacy. We deserve some honest answers,” the group said.
WND also has reported on assertions by Kathleen Willey, in her book, “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton”, published by WND Books, an imprint of World Ahead Publishing, that Hillary Clinton was behind a “terror” campaign against her.
It also has reported on the “smoking gun” evidence of Hillary Clinton’s multiple violations of federal law in her bid for power as revealed in “Hillary Uncensored,” which tells the star-studded story of Paul’s civil fraud suit against the Clintons.
“Given Mrs. Clinton’s current status as a presidential candidate, if not the front-runner for the Democratic Party’s nomination, the public interest in her tenure as First Lady is undeniable,” the Judicial Watch lawsuit said. “Because Mrs. Clinton seeks our nation’s highest office and may well be the next President of the United States, the public interest weighs heavily in favor of enjoining the Library from continuing to withhold the records at issue.”
Judicial Watch spokeswoman Jill Farrell told WND that the Clintons still, as they previously did, are “touting themselves as a co-presidency.” Thus, her records as First Lady are “of high public interest.”