March 16, 2007

 

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

 

“We Need These People Out, We Need Our People In”

 

The above quote is NOT in Department of Justice emails about the removal of eight U.S. Attorneys.  That’s a handwritten quote from Hillary Clinton in 1993 referring to seven employees of the Clinton White House Travel Office.   Hillary Clinton ordered the firing of seven White House Travel Office employees in order to provide business to her husband’s political and financial supporters. 

 

To obscure Hillary’s role and the role of political patronage in the firings, the Clinton White House manufactured bogus allegations against the employees and pressured the FBI and IRS to go after them.  The Travel Office employees served at the pleasure of the president, the Clinton White House argued.  That was true, but unlike the U.S. Attorneys recently let go, the Travel Office employees were long-time career employees.  Billy Ray Dale, the office director, had been in his position since the Kennedy administration.  He certainly did not deserve to be fired, prosecuted (he was acquitted) and have his name dragged through the mud to provide political cover for Hillary Clinton.  (Mr. Dale’s FBI file was one of hundreds illicitly taken by the Clinton White House.)    

 

This week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is in hot water over the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys last year.  As is so often true, the “crime” in this case is not as serious as the cover-up.  Actually there seems to be no underlying “crime,” as U.S. Attorneys can be fired at will by President Bush.  The problem in this case is that it appears the Justice Department may have misled Congress and the American people about the reasons for the firings.  (Nothing as serious as Travelgate, yet.  Hillary was nearly indicted for lying to a grand jury about her role in the firings.  Though Hillary has no shame and has loudly criticized the Bush administration for taking a page or two from her playbook.)  

 

The Bush administration didn’t learn much from Travelgate and should have come clean from the start.  While it might raise the ire of political adversaries, there does not appear to be anything illegal about firing a U.S. attorney for political reasons.  The fallout certainly would not have been nearly as severe as what is happening right now.  The scandal has already claimed the job of Gonzalez’s chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, and many are calling for Attorney General Gonzalez himself to resign.  Expect noisy congressional hearings and maybe even the appointment of another Fitzgerald-type special prosecutor.    

 

Many are also drawing parallels between Alberto Gonzalez and Janet Reno, who fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys shortly after being appointed Bill Clinton’s attorney general.  You can bet Hillary was involved in that unprecedented purge.  I have a feeling any hearings run by her party won’t touch Hillary – or even Reno.

         

The more things change…  

 

Judicial Watch Investigates Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement Policies in Washington, D.C.

 

As part of its nationwide campaign against illegal immigration, Judicial Watch is investigating enforcement policy in its own back yard: Washington, D.C. 

 

This week, we filed an open records lawsuit against the District of Columbia Police Department related to the department’s illegal immigration policies and procedures.  We’re asking the court to compel the D.C. Police Department to comply with a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents pertaining to the interaction between D.C. police officers and known or suspected illegal aliens.   

 

Weekly Update readers are, by now, familiar with Judicial Watch’s ongoing investigation into so-called “sanctuary policies” that protect illegal immigrants from federal law.

 

In addition to this week’s lawsuit, we have also investigated and filed lawsuits over sanctuary policies in Los Angeles and Chicago.  More recently, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with a Pennsylvania court in defense of a Hazleton, Pennsylvania ordinance intended to punish those who employ and rent to illegal aliens.  Judicial Watch has also investigated sanctuary policies in Houston, Texas and Westchester, New York.  (For more information on any of these cases and on our other investigations into illegal day laborer centers, please take a few minutes to visit our Internet site.)

 

All local police departments must comply with federal immigration law, and the Washington, D.C. Police Department is no exception.  The department should release all relevant documents pertaining to their illegal immigration policies, as required by law.  It should go without saying that police policies in our nation’s capital should not undermine federal immigration law.

 

Judicial Watch Obtains “Security and Prosperity Partnership” Records Detailing Border Management and Travel Recommendations

 

On Wednesday, Judicial Watch released another set of documents uncovered in our ongoing investigation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.  The Department of Homeland Security records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reveal the objectives and agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership’s “Traveler Screening Systems Working Group.”  (The partnership’s working groups often have confusing names, perhaps to obscure their purpose.  This one deals mainly with border management and travel between countries.)

 

U.S. members of the working group included representatives from the Department of Commerce, several agencies of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State and the Department of Transportation.  (So we’re not talking about obscure and insignificant government agencies here.) 

 

The working group was tasked to develop “deliverables” to support the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, including: 1) developing technical standards for travel and nationality documents; 2) testing biometrics technology and recommending screening enhancements for travelers bound for North America; and, 3) exploring means of identifying third-country nationals who overstayed. The records also contain a memo describing the “Rice-Chertoff Joint Vision” for border management and immigration systems.

 

I perked up when I saw in the records talk of a conceptual agreement for a “One Card” to facilitate border movement between Mexico, the United States and Canada.    

 

As Update readers will recall, the Security and Prosperity Partnership was launched on March 23, 2005 by President Bush, former Mexican President Vincente Fox and former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin during a meeting in Waco, Texas, with the expressed goal of “a safer, more prosperous North America.”  Since that time, high level meetings have regularly taken place between officials from all three nations, drawing criticism from those with a concern for U.S. national sovereignty.

 

The issue is this:  High level officials from Mexico, Canada and the United States are crafting policy recommendations under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership that could have a significant impact on the lives of American citizens and, to date, there has been very little oversight. The ‘One Card’ concept, in particular, is a new wrinkle that demands further investigation.  However, as Congress and many in the media don’t seem much interested in monitoring the SPP, Judicial Watch will continue its investigation to get the facts.

 

Speaking of “getting the facts,” this week is Sunshine week, which is intended to highlight the importance of government transparency.  Perhaps to mark the occasion, the House of Representatives passed some fairly substantial open government legislation, despite a veto threat from President Bush.  This according to The Washington Post:  “In a bipartisan confrontation with the White House over executive branch secrecy, the House ignored a stern veto threat and overwhelmingly passed a package of open-government bills yesterday that would roll back administration efforts to shield its workings from public view.”  The House vote was by a veto-proof majority, so Congress may have forced the president’s hand.

 

Judicial Watch, of course, is a leading force in the fight for government transparency.  If you have a moment, check out some of Judicial Watch’s open records success stories.  (We’ve filed more than 400 open records requests over the years, leading to the release of thousands of documents into the public domain.)  You may also want to download a copy of our Open Records Handbook, which will take you step-by-step through the process of filing your own Freedom of Information Act Request.

 

Until next week…

 

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.