Full Version: Sealing Records
Okay, much has been made by the sealing of Howard Dean's records being sealed and the fact that he his "hiding something" from the public. From the Guardian in the U.K.
whole story here --> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/...1098376,00.html
Okay a couple of questions to debate here
1. What exactly is the point of sealing your records? Is there any viable reason beyond hiding something??
2. Most of Bush's records are now avaibile upon application..Is this really open to the public? Or is this so he can say "I unsealed mine"?
3. Not really a debate question but..does anyone know if Judicial Watch sued Bush? If not, then a debate question arises..Do they have any credibility by only suing the Democrat?
4. What about Bush's Air National Guard records? Why do those remain sealed?
QUOTE
Questioned on TV about his decision to put some of his official papers under seal for 10 years when he left the governorship in January, a period four years longer than his two immediate predecessors, Mr Dean said he had done no more than George Bush, who sent his records as Texas governor to his father's presidential library. "I'll unseal mine if he will unseal all of his," Mr Dean told an interviewer.
However, state archivists in Texas have say most of the Bush records are now available to the public on application under the Freedom of Information Act.
Mr Dean's records would include correspondence with his gubernatorial staff about his policies, including his decision to legalise civil unions for gay couples in Vermont. The issue has been seized on by his Democratic rivals, trailing him in most polls. Senator Joseph Lieberman issued a statement saying Mr Dean "took an extra long walk from straight talk", while Senator John Kerry said: "The highest office in the land requires the highest level of openness."
According to the New York Times, Judicial Watch, a conservative group in Washington, plans to file a lawsuit to gain access to the records, sealed under an executive privilege exemption. "He has been acting like he has something to hide," the president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, told the paper. Mr Dean has raised considerably more campaign funds than the other eight Democratic contenders; he is under intense scrutiny during the primary campaign on issues that could still hurt him if he won the nomination and took on President Bush next November.
However, state archivists in Texas have say most of the Bush records are now available to the public on application under the Freedom of Information Act.
Mr Dean's records would include correspondence with his gubernatorial staff about his policies, including his decision to legalise civil unions for gay couples in Vermont. The issue has been seized on by his Democratic rivals, trailing him in most polls. Senator Joseph Lieberman issued a statement saying Mr Dean "took an extra long walk from straight talk", while Senator John Kerry said: "The highest office in the land requires the highest level of openness."
According to the New York Times, Judicial Watch, a conservative group in Washington, plans to file a lawsuit to gain access to the records, sealed under an executive privilege exemption. "He has been acting like he has something to hide," the president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, told the paper. Mr Dean has raised considerably more campaign funds than the other eight Democratic contenders; he is under intense scrutiny during the primary campaign on issues that could still hurt him if he won the nomination and took on President Bush next November.
whole story here --> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/...1098376,00.html
Okay a couple of questions to debate here
1. What exactly is the point of sealing your records? Is there any viable reason beyond hiding something??
2. Most of Bush's records are now avaibile upon application..Is this really open to the public? Or is this so he can say "I unsealed mine"?
3. Not really a debate question but..does anyone know if Judicial Watch sued Bush? If not, then a debate question arises..Do they have any credibility by only suing the Democrat?
4. What about Bush's Air National Guard records? Why do those remain sealed?
QUOTE(alwaysnextyear @ Dec 7 2003, 05:32 PM)
Okay a couple of questions to debate here
1. What exactly is the point of sealing your records? Is there any viable reason beyond hiding something??
2. Most of Bush's records are now avaibile upon application..Is this really open to the public? Or is this so he can say "I unsealed mine"?
I'm just guessing, but I've heard that sometimes records are sealed so as to keep private correspondence between parties secret. Sometimes opinions are sought that those who are asked want to be rather frank about. By sealing them up for awhile, it guarantees that an elected official can get the opinions sought after. If these things were made public at the end of a term, then it is doubtful in the eyes of some, that elected officials would receive much help, since the helpers would not want to see their private opinions on the front page of the paper.
In regards to Bush, I remember earlier on in his administration that historians were very angry that he delayed the opening to the public, documents from the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. If the argument outlined above is true, then folks shouldn't say a word about Dean until Bush 43 opens up the records on two administrations who were last in power twelve years ago.
Interesting article about this in this week's Newsweek. A bunch of reasons for hiding the records are mentioned -- both by Dean and others -- but the most believable one is this: the Republicans since 1988 have been masters at turning "oppo research" into misleading mudslinging ads, a la "Willie Horton", which helped torpedo Dukakis' campaign, although he had little to do with it. Clinton hid his records for his '92 run just to prevent a repeat occurrence.
Dean said on Fox News Sunday that he's released about 60% of his records already, per earlier judge's order, but the remaining ones were allowed to stay hidden and that he's letting the next lawsuit (by Judicial Watch and media organizations) play out so that another independent judge can go thru the records and figure out what should be released. Seems like a sane response.
And, yes, Bush's records -- as a still-sitting Governor -- were off limits until after he was elected President.
Dean said on Fox News Sunday that he's released about 60% of his records already, per earlier judge's order, but the remaining ones were allowed to stay hidden and that he's letting the next lawsuit (by Judicial Watch and media organizations) play out so that another independent judge can go thru the records and figure out what should be released. Seems like a sane response.
And, yes, Bush's records -- as a still-sitting Governor -- were off limits until after he was elected President.
QUOTE(amf @ Dec 10 2003, 08:52 AM)
And, yes, Bush's records -- as a still-sitting Governor -- were off limits until after he was elected President.
If this is true, then in my opinion, we are addressing a total non-issue. I remember when this story first broke. Fox news tripped all over themselves and gushingly reported it as if they had just uncovered the watergate scandal of the twenty-first century. Of course, no other perspective was added(i.e.-that it isn't uncommon for governors to seal their records for a time) as well as addressing why the Reagan and Bush '41 era records are still in boxes. This is a case where the issue had more buzz than real juice.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.