In a recent editorial, The Washington Post fiercely defended the National Archives’ withholding of Hillary Clinton’s White House papers at least until after the November elections.  Am I surprised?  Well, in spite of the fact that the Post is a reliably left-of-center publication, I have to say yes.  What credible news agency would come down on the side of government secrecy?  Moreover, I recall the coverage Judicial Watch received from the Post in our lawsuit against Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force:  Nothing but kudos then.

At any rate, the Post finally published my response this week (by the way, you wouldn’t believe the negotiations and editing I had to go with through with the paper before this short letter was published):

The Feb. 8 editorial "Clinton Records Watch" sought to explain why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's White House papers could not be released by the National Archives "at the snap of a finger."  It turns out that rather than snapping its fingers, the Archives has sat on its hands.

After seven years, the Archives has released few significant records, instead responding to requests for documents about  "Unidentified Flying Objects," among other frivolous topics.

Almost two years after we requested access to the records of the health-care task force, the Archives has not released any documents and refuses to offer an estimate as to when it might begin to release these records.  We may not see any such records for years if the Archives gets its way in our pending litigation.  Ms. Clinton's office schedules would not now be on the verge of release but for one of our other lawsuits.

The public's "right to know" is poorly served by the unlawful failure to release these records in a timely way.  We do not seek special treatment; we ask that the Archives comply with the law.

Shame on The Post for endorsing government inaction that has the effect of helping Mrs. Clinton on the eve of primary contests.