I guess they really aren't fully vetted

By Edward Copeland

For all their bellicose ranting that there's "no more surprises" and there's nothing to see here, the Clintons still are trying to block the release of certain documents relating to Bill's presidency, this time all those concerning Bill's pardons. As reported by USA Today:

LITTLE ROCK — Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.

The archivists' decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Clinton's legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

I wonder: Will those archivists now be accused of Ken Starr-like tactics by reviewing their orders? Perhaps they'll have to come up with a new one, since they've already used Karl Rove, Dubya, Reagan, Starr and "friend of Holocaust denier" labels on Obama.

Meanwhile, it bears repeating the continued unfolding of the NAFTA-Canada brouhaha, you know, the one where the Clintonistas accused an Obama adviser of secretly telling the Canadian government he didn't mean what he said about scrapping NAFTA when in fact it was Hillary's people who first told that about her stance to a Canadian official. Of course, Hillary keeps repeating the lie about Obama's part because she's not one to let a little thing like the truth get in the way of scoring political points. As reported by The Globe and Mail on Friday:

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised Thursday that an internal investigation would probe all facets of how information was leaked that may have influenced the U.S. Democratic presidential primaries, including the alleged comments by his own chief of staff, Ian Brodie, and the subsequent leak of a sensitive memorandum.

*****

"New reports indicate very clearly that it was Ian Brodie, the chief of staff," New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton said yesterday in the Commons. "My question to the Prime Minister is very simple. Will he now apologize to this House, the American people and Senator Obama, and will he fire his chief of staff?"

*****

The controversy began after Mr. Brodie allegedly told a group of journalists from CTV News that candidate Hillary Clinton was not serious about earlier suggestions that she would reopen NAFTA if she became president. The network later reported that it was Mr. Obama's campaign that had informed Canadian diplomats not to be overly concerned that he would fundamentally change the deal. The network also reported that Ms. Clinton's officials indirectly tried to deliver the same message, a report the campaign denied the next evening.

Of course, the biggest part of this so-called scandal may be the attempts of Stephen Harper's Conservative government to make mischief in the Democratic primaries to help the GOP hold the White House.