Fact Check: Sen. Obama on Records

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

Today, the Obama campaign released a statement that contained a number of inaccuracies about his state senate records. First, Obama claimed that all his documents "the state considers to be public" are publicly available:

Obama is pleased that all of the records that the state considers to be public are currently available.

The records "the state considers public" are not "currently available." As the Chicago Sun-Times reports today, "There is no central repository of records between state lawmakers and state agencies, and Freedom of Information Act requests must be filed to obtain documents, a process that has been taking months."

It also does not speak to the real issue -- the availability of schedules, memos and other documents that Sen. Obama produced during his time in the state senate. These are documents that Illinois' two largest newspapers have long requested but have not received a response.

Today, Obama claims that he is "not in possession" of any documents "that are not available to the general public":

We are not in possession of documents from his time in the state senate that are not available to the general public and any pertinent files were passed on to his successor in the State Senate, Kwame Raoul.

Just days ago, Obama acknowledged he had "remaining documents" and encouraged reporters to make specific requests.

Nevertheless the Obama campaign continues to spread misinformation about the Clinton White House records:

This is as opposed to the millions of documents that should be publicly available from the Clinton White House that currently are not.

The records are under the control of the National Archives, not Bill or Hillary Clinton. And Senator Obama should know it's a matter of federal law that the Archives has to review each page of every record to ensure that confidential, security, and personal privacy information is not improperly released. No one can order the Archives to ignore the law.

More misinformation:

In fact, tens of thousands of documents are currently being kept from public view by a representative of the Clintons and that is just a miniscule fraction of what is available to archivists right now.

President Clinton's representative has cleared for release over 22,000 of the approximately 26,000 pages that had been pending before him. The 3 Freedom of Information Act requests (corresponding to about 4,000 pages) still pending review do not mention Senator Clinton.

We get the point. You think your "girl" is better than the rest.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

gobama???

the obamasuckups would still blame Hillary Clinton because the NARA hasn't released all the records that have been requested.

Even Bill Clinton, who wrote for the records FIVE YEARS AGO has not received the ones he wanted yet.

But obamasuckups will still blame her. I have been trying to find a name to call obamasuckups since they started calling us Hillarybots....so tit for tat...but I like suck up better.

Make copies of whatever they have, and give them to the press.

What is the big deal? If there's nothing to hide, just release the records! And that goes for all the candidates.

I think it would be helpful to compare and contrast Obama's record keeping practices with those of his COUNTERPARTS in that legislature before making a judgment. I haven't seen any 'compare and contrast' effort made.

I don't really KNOW what the rules are, and no report I have seen has made any set of rules -- if they even exist -- clearer, frankly.

Is there a rule that state lawmakers should keep records of schedules?

I know I never sent schedules to the Navy archives; I didn't even send memos; just official communiques such as serialized documents and messages, and an official annual History--and over the years I sent a lot of command-related crap there at the end of the year when I had a Large and In Charge job.


Now, if, in the first place, it's the Obama campaign that was tossing mud at the Clinton campaign over the release of President Bill Clinton's 'First Lady' records by not HER, but her husband (AND the current President--both must agree under existing law) then a bit of WTF and payback might be justified.

But I am just NOT CLEAR on the rules in this regard.

I am also not clear on what those news outlets expect to find in those schedules and memos. Have they stated?

Are they just fishing, or do they have something in mind?

that one of the ways they chipped away at Dean was about records of his tenure being available or unavailable. Mainly it spread an effective cloud because I can't remember a damn thing relevant to anything about the hoopla. Everybody does this and it is minor political point making at best and mainly smudge tactics in intent. Smudge and blur the opponent and "you too" type of stuff.

and they wanted access to records that included the violation of Dr./patient confidentiality. But Obama needs to shut up. It's so obvious what he and others are doing: trying to create some cloud of suspicion or bad feeling associated with a candidate. Why is it so offensive that Obama is doing it as opposed to the Repuke black arts scum? Obama knows better. He should be above this. There is nothing new or novel or hopeful about what he or his nasty campaign managers are doing. There was a time i would have voted for the guy. Now I see no difference in his tactics versus Guiliani's. Sorry, kids, this is not a Hillary issue.

:kick: