Hillary Clinton Back
in the White House
Friday, November 28, 2008
By Tom Fitton
Judicial Watch President
So let me get this straight. You’re the President-elect trying to deliver a new spirit of reform and integrity to Washington, DC, while at the same time healing and bringing together a divided country. And then you tap Hillary Rodham Clinton, perhaps the most corrupt politician in modern political history – and certainly the most polarizing -- to be your Secretary of State? Hillary Clinton, the nation’s top diplomat?
If you’ve read this update for any length of time, or if you’re familiar with Judicial Watch’s 13-year record of holding the Clintons accountable, you know what a truly horrible decision Barack Obama has just made for his administration and for the country.
It would be impossible for me to provide a comprehensive review of the many
scandals that have involved Hillary Clinton. For this you should check
out our Internet site, www.judicialwatch.org. (You can also read this booklet, which summarizes Judicial Watch's
Clinton-related investigations and lawsuits) But here is a "greatest
hits" list of some of Hillary Clinton's more reprehensible acts over the last
15 years:
- Chinagate: Hillary Clinton allegedly masterminded the illegal
scheme to sell taxpayer-financed trade mission seats in exchange for campaign
contributions to the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in 1996. This
opened the door to campaign cash for White House access and administration
favors for the communist Chinese and other foreign nationals.
- Filegate: Hillary Clinton allegedly orchestrated the theft of
the private FBI files of former Reagan-Bush staffers, and then used the
information to blackmail the Clintons' political enemies.
- Travelgate: Hillary Clinton ordered the firing of several
long-time employees of the White House Travel Office in order to install her
friends and campaign supporters in their positions. Independent Counsel
Robert Ray stated that Hillary's testimony regarding the incident was
"factually false."
- Smear Campaigns: Hillary Clinton destroyed the lives of women
who had the courage to come forward and publicly disclose the abuse they
suffered at the hands of Bill Clinton. This was all part of Hillary
Clinton's "slash and burn" campaign used against anyone who dared to cross
them.
- Campaign Finance: Hillary Clinton failed to report a $2
million campaign contribution in the form of a star-studded Hollywood
fundraiser dedicated to her husband. The National Finance Director for
Hillary's Senate 2000 campaign, David Rosen, was indicted in the scandal and
her campaign finance operation was fined by the FEC.
Trust me this is a partial list. I could go on and on about pardons
for terrorists, pardons for cash (profiting her brothers), White House
fundraising coffees, Whitewater, doing business with the State of Arkansas
while her husband was governor, Web Hubbell, John Huang, Chinese generals, the
Lippo Group, and paid sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, stealing White House
furniture, etc., etc.
With specific relevance to her new job as Secretary of State, there are
also the serious conflicts of interest involving Bill Clinton, who has become
something of an international sensation since leaving the White House,
brokering international business deals and reaping huge fees for foreign
speaking engagements. Even the liberal CNN reported that Bill Clinton's "complicated global
business interests could present future conflicts of interest that result in
unneeded headaches for the incoming commander-in-chief."
The question is what promises will Bill Clinton make to his international
business associates with respect to U.S. State Department Policy that his wife
will have to keep?
Hillary Clinton is ethically challenged. Her husband is ethically
challenged. Has any other Secretary of State nominee been the subject of a
grand jury criminal investigation? From their days in the White House to the
present day, they have consistently abused their public office for personal
and political gain. Hillary and Bill (not to mention their siblings) are
scandals waiting to happen. She has neither the temperament nor ethics to be
in such a sensitive office.
I believe Obama made a deal with the devil to avoid a floor flight at the
convention. It may have served him politically, but the public shouldn't
suffer the consequences. If the Senate is serious about ethics in government,
Hillary's nomination would be rejected. In putting forward Hillary, Obama now
owns the Clinton scandals. Her nomination is another weak personnel decision
that will harm his presidency.
Will the Obama administration exercise due diligence and keep a watchful
eye on the Clintons? My guess is that if Obama is willing to hire
Hillary given her dismal record, he'll be willing to turn a blind eye to her
likely corrupt behavior at the State Department.
The vetting of Hillary seems to have been run by John Podesta (her
husband's former Chief of Staff) and Cheryl Mills (the ethically-challenged
lawyer who served as Clinton White House lawyer). Surprise.
Surprise. She passed.
Will the names of those at home and abroad who gave the Clinton machine
millions over the years be released?
With pals like Rezko, Wright, and Ayers, Obama doesn't seem to care about
the ethics of his cronies.
That means it?ll be up to Judicial Watch to monitor Hillary Clinton's every
move if she and Bill make it to State.
Another Clinton Crony to Join the Obama
Administration
What is this obsession Barack Obama has with scandal-ridden former Clinton
officials? Rahm Emanuel, Greg Craig, John Podesta, and Eric Holder are
all slated to hold key positions in the upcoming Obama administration (not to
mention Hillary herself, see above). And now you can add former Clinton
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to the list. Richardson will now serve
as Obama?s Secretary of Commerce.
Richardson may not have the corruption resume of, say, a Hillary Clinton.
(But who does?) That said, Richardson is not without his ethical
skeletons.
You may recall that Richardson was the Secretary of Energy at the time
nuclear secrets were stolen from the Los Alamos Laboratory and possibly
transferred to the Communist Chinese. Judicial Watch client Notra Trulock, the DOE Director of Intelligence who
uncovered this serious breach of national security, was subjected to a massive
smear campaign by Clinton officials in retaliation, led by Bill
Richardson. Trulock was demoted and ultimately forced out of the
agency. (Judicial Watch deposed Richardson in litigation on behalf of
Trulock.)
(Richardson was roundly criticized for his mishandling of the Los Alamos
fiasco, but that didn't stop him from publishing a book entitled, Leading by
Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution. You gotta
admit; he?s got nerve.)
While serving as Clinton's Ambassador to the United Nations, Richardson
also narrowly escaped prosecution for his alleged participation in the
attempted Monica Lewinsky cover-up. Richardson met with Lewinsky on
several occasions in her Watergate condo and offered her a job at the
UN. This was an attempt to keep Lewinsky quiet about the affair.
In fact, Richardson apparently lied during his Secretary of Energy
confirmation hearings when he said he offered a job to Lewinsky to fill an
"existing opening." Evidence suggests there was no such job.
Still, Richardson was confirmed and, following the Clinton administration,
was elected Governor of New Mexico. Now, he'll be in charge of guiding
the nation?s Commerce Department through the most serious financial crisis in
60 years. During the Clinton years, Commerce was a bazaar where, at
Hillary's direction, taxpayer-funded seats on trade mission junkets (and
waivers for missile technology transfers to the communist Chinese) were sold
to companies in exchange for political donations. It is fair to ask
whether Richardson will follow the corrupt model of the Clinton years at
Commerce.
So who's next on Barack Obama's list? Sandy Berger, the disgraced
former Clinton National Security Advisor who was caught stealing and
destroying documents from the National Archives? It wouldn't surprise me
in the least?
FEC Gives McCain Campaign a "Pass" on Foreign
Campaign Fundraiser
Apparently, the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) is not concerned about foreign nationals attempting
to influence the U.S. election process.
Judicial Watch was notified recently that the FEC had decided to "close the
file" on an April 22, 2008, Judicial Watch complaint related to a
fundraising luncheon held at London's Spencer House to benefit Senator John
McCain's presidential campaign, despite noting questionable delays in billing
for the event.
In its "factual and legal analysis," the FEC noted that the McCain
campaign was invoiced for the event one week after Judicial Watch filed its
complaint, which ?could raise a question as to the commercial reasonableness
of Spencer House's extension of credit to the campaign.? However, the
FEC ultimately decided nonetheless that no violations of the Federal Election
Campaign Act had occurred.
(According to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, it is illegal for any foreign national to
"make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value" to a
Federal, State or Local election.)
The McCain fundraiser was held on March 20, 2008 at Londons Spencer House,
which is billed as "London's most magnificent 18th century private
palace." The McCain campaign distributed an invitation indicating that
the site for the luncheon had been provided "by kind permission of Lord
Rothschild, OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild," who are both foreign
nationals. In statements to the press, the McCain campaign referred to
the luncheon as a "fundraiser."
Judicial Watch filed its complaint with the FEC on April 22, 2008,
suggesting the McCain campaign, "may have accepted an in-kind contribution
from foreign nationals Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel
Rothschild of Great Britain in contravention of federal election laws."
On April 29, 2008 – one week after Judicial Watch's complaint and 40 days
after the event was held – the Spencer House finally invoiced the McCain
Campaign for the event. The invoice was paid three days later.
So what is the excuse for the delayed billing?
Spencer House officials claim they "needed to consult with 'advisors' to
ascertain whether Value Added Tax should be added to the charges since the
Committee is located in the United States."
This is a feeble excuse, and I'm not buying it. The McCain foreign
fundraising event was only cleaned up after we filed and publicized our
complaint. I find "after the fact" invoices and excuses about taxes
unconvincing. Pity the FEC bought it.
The FEC had better start taking seriously the threat posed by foreign
nationals who seek to corrupt our election process because this McCain
campaign fundraiser is just the tip of the iceberg. Remember all those
foreign Internet contributions allegedly flooding into the Obama
campaign? Foreign influence in U.S. elections is a serious problem and
it deserves the FEC?s (and law enforcement?s) full attention.
Happy Thanksgiving
On behalf of all of us here at Judicial Watch, I hope you had a wonderful
Thanksgiving. In the spirit of the holiday, I want to extend my
gratitude to all of you who continue to support Judicial Watch and our work to
clean up corruption and to hold politicians of every political stripe
accountable to the rule of law.
As we've seen over the last few weeks, Judicial Watch is going to have its
work cut out in 2009. We need your help now more than ever. If you
would like to make a tax-deductible contribution to help Judicial Watch
monitor the Obama-Clinton administration, please click here.
Thank you and God bless?
Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to
fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics
and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible
contribution in support of our efforts, click
here.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
