Ever since Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate in New York, the American people have been asking themselves two questions regarding her presidential aspirations: Will she run? And, can she win? The first question has been answered.
Hillary, of course, is still playing coy with the press (and loving every minute of it), but behind the scenes, she has been holding secret campaign meetings and burning up the phone lines order to line up political support for her White House run. She has even started to assemble her presidential campaign staff, though she won’t acknowledge it publicly. (Hillary can’t even launch a campaign without doing so under a shroud of secrecy. Then again, openness and sincerity have never been her strong suits.)
With respect to her viability as a candidate, Hillary has a significant head-start on her potential Democratic rivals in two key areas: name recognition and money. Love her or hate her, everyone knows the name “Hillary.” And by some estimations she could have as much as $100 million banked by the time the Democratic primaries come around in 2008. Add to these advantages powerful allies in the liberal media who have made Hillary’s ascension to the White House their highest priority and you’ve got an extremely viable candidate.
So, on to the next question: What kind of President will Hillary Clinton make? As Hillary well knows, now that she’s a candidate, the public is free to scrutinize her public record. And any discussion of Hillary Clinton’s public record begins and ends with her past crimes and corrupt behavior. For example:
Sworn testimony in federal court alleged Hillary Clinton devised a scheme to sell public, taxpayer-financed trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign — part of the scandal known as “Chinagate.” Hillary Clinton personally orchestrated media campaigns to slander the women who had allegedly been sexually and otherwise abused by her husband.
Hillary Clinton lied to a grand jury about her role in ordering the firing of several long-time employees of the White House Travel Office, in order to reward two longtime Hollywood pals with lucrative White House travel business. And let’s not forget the former bar bouncer she is said to have hired who took all those Republican FBI files. Hillary Clinton’s fundraising operation failed to properly disclose more than $2 million in contributions to her New York Senate 2000 campaign, leading to the federal criminal indictment of her top fundraiser (which resulted in acquittal) and a $35,000 fine from the Federal Election Commission.
And who knows what Bill Clinton might do once he’s back in the White House. More cash from Chinese generals? Sexual assaults? I could go on, but you get the point.
As Hillary steamrolls towards the White House, the American people have a right to know: Will she actively undermine the integrity of the office of the presidency, just as she disgraced the office of the first lady? Will she play loose with the law as president, just as she did as a Senate candidate? Will she again surround herself with the same corrupt members of the Clinton gang that took the White House to new ethical lows in the 1990s? (Hillary’s candidacy certainly won’t be the only vehicle for calling attention to the issue of public corruption. Indeed, Judicial Watch does not endorse nor oppose candidates for public office. We call ethical transgressions as we see them, no matter the person or the party. In this regard, some of her potential opponents, such as Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have an ethical skeleton or two in their closets as well.)
New Federal Reserve Program Helps Illegals Send Money to Mexico
If there is one thing this country needs, it’s a new government program designed to help illegal aliens send money to Mexico, don’t you think?
This week, JW released Federal Reserve marketing materials created for “Directo a México” [Direct to Mexico], a new government program designed to help immigrant workers in the U.S. — regardless of their legal status — send the money they earn here to their relatives in Mexico. We obtained the marketing materials, prepared for presentations to financial institutions in California in early November 2006, from the Retail Payments Office of the Federal Reserve in Atlanta, Georgia.
Marketed as “the best way to send money home,” offering “more pesos for every dollar,” the Federal Reserve’s remittance program charges U.S. financial institutions $0.67 per item to transfer money from the United States to Mexican banks, ensuring a “highly competitive rate.” The Federal Reserve also provides participating U.S. financial institutions with Spanish language promotional materials to “help get your message out.”
The program was reportedly launched in response to a directive from President Bush following the 2001 U.S.–Mexico “Partnership for Prosperity” created by President Bush and then Mexican President Fox. (This agreement was apparently the precursor to the Security and Prosperity Partnership I’ve been telling you about in past weeks.)
The “Directo a México” marketing materials include information on payment channels and the many benefits to Mexican recipients. They also detail the number of Mexican migrants in the United States, 9,328,405, making no distinction between those who are here illegally or not. A separate list identifies Mexican banks receiving “Directo a México” transfers by branches (8,578) and total bank accounts (41,313,157).
As I’ve been saying in media interviews this week, the taxpayer-subsidized ‘Directo a México’ program appears to facilitate the transfer of wealth by illegal immigrants outside the United States. This program, therefore, not only undermines our nation’s immigration laws, but it is also a potential national security nightmare. In the least, the Federal Reserve should limit this program to legal aliens and U.S. citizens only.
Iraq Study Group and Clinton Corruption
The Iraq Study Group issued its recommendations to President Bush last week regarding the war in Iraq. People can agree or disagree with the group’s conclusions, but, personally, I find it difficult to take seriously recommendations from a committee that includes Vernon Jordan and Leon Panetta, two dishonorable members of the Clinton gang. It seems the “Sandy Berger-wing” of the former Clinton administration was well represented on the Group.
Jordan, a golfing buddy of Bill Clinton’s,who helped the former president cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal, seems to have been a part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. This according to Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s report:
“On January 12, 1998, this Office received information that Monica Lewinsky was attempting to influence the testimony of one of the witnesses in the [Paula] Jones litigation, and that Ms. Lewinsky herself was prepared to provide false information under oath in that lawsuit. The OIC [Office of Independent Counsel] was also informed that Ms. Lewinsky had spoken to the President and the President’s close friend Vernon Jordan about being subpoenaed to testify in the [Paula] Jones suit, and that Vernon Jordan and others were helping her find a job.
“Prior to January 1998, the OIC possessed evidence that Vernon Jordan — along with other high-level associates of the President and First Lady — helped [Whitewater figure Web] Hubbell obtain lucrative consulting contracts while he was a potential witness and/or subject in the OIC’s ongoing investigation.”
The fact that Leon Panetta was Chief of Staff for an impeached president should have been disqualifying enough. In addition to some other issues, Panetta allegedly attempted to obstruct Judicial Watch’s investigation into a Clinton Commerce Department fundraising scandal, by ordering former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to delay turning over incriminating documents pursuant to a court order until after the 1996 elections. Specifically, Panetta is alleged in court testimony to have ordered the late Ron Brown to “slow pedal” the case.
And we’re supposed to trust these two characters to have sage advice about our national security?
The Iraq Study Group had only ten spots to fill on its committee. I find it impossible to believe they could not find anyone with cleaner records than Jordan and Panetta for this task.
Republicans Fail to Confirm Judges
As predicted, Republicans in the Senate completely folded under pressure from Democrats and abandoned President Bush’s key conservative judicial nominees in the waning days of Republican Senate control. The president did his job in late November by re-nominating six judicial nominees who had not received a Senate floor vote due to Democratic obstruction. Republicans had an opportunity to pressure Democrats to allow up-or-down votes while they were still in the majority. They failed, likely sealing the fate of these qualified nominees. (Incoming Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy has said he will only move on “consensus” judicial nominees. Read: conservatives need not apply.)
This colossal failure by Senate Republicans is a disservice to the nominees, some of whom have been waiting for years for Senate consideration.