Skip to main content

View Diary: HRC released schedule full of Cheney-like redactions (50 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "I didn't know much about these records that" (0+ / 0-)

    were being released"
    Then, by all means, pontificate!
    And, criticize about something you admit you know little about!

    Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

    by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:25:51 AM PDT

    •  Then please, explain the [REDACTED] records (0+ / 0-)

      to us.

      Heaven forbid that anyone should "pontificate" on partial records released as transparent revelation.

      Please, go ahead, YOU pontificate on how informative the [redacted] records are and how they further a transparent government.

      Please, we beg you ... explain the [redacted] information to us.

      ... an older, white, male, Democrat (in so far as the party supports individual freedoms).

      by Juan4All on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:39:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know either !!! (0+ / 0-)

        But if it upsets you, go online, and look at the FOIA requirements, and check out the redaction rules / statutory privacy requirements, and, you know, like, edumacate yourself about it before bitchin' about something that you may have no right to bitch about!  Jus' a silly suggestion that a diary should have some grounded knowledge rather than 100% baseless accusation.

        Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

        by Barry in MIA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:50:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So let me get this straight. (0+ / 0-)

          You suggest that I familiarize myself with the rules that regulations of FOIA releases in order to comment on whether or not Clinton was or was not transparent when releasing information that was full of redactions?

          I would like to point out that Clintons are free to release any information they wish about their personal actions unless such release is prohibited by law. If legally prohibited, the Clintons ARE free to point out which information those prohibitions apply to. The long and short is, if she didn't state the redactions were required, it must be assumed that they only exist due to her whim. You know ... the burden of proof is on her, not me, not the government ... on her.

          If she can't be transparent about the information she is releasing in order to gain my vote, I have no reason to expect transparency from her that exceeds the low bar provided by Bush.

          Thank you for your concern.

          ... an older, white, male, Democrat (in so far as the party supports individual freedoms).

          by Juan4All on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:26:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site