April 27, 2007

 

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

 

Obama Brushes Off Relationship with Rezko in Presidential Debate

 

Last night, eight candidates for the Democratic nomination for president took center stage in a debate televised on MSNBC.  While the important topic of ethics was largely ignored, Barack Obama was asked one question about his relationship with shady political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko.  (Earlier this week, The Chicago Sun-Times published a fairly thorough article on Obama’s ties to Rezko.) 

 

Here’s an excerpt from Obama’s exchange with MSNBC’s Brian Williams last night: 

 

WILLIAMS:  “You've promised in your campaign a new kind of politics, but just this week the Chicago Sun-Times reported on questionable ties you have with a donor who was charged last year for demanding kickbacks on Illinois business deals.  Aren't you practicing the very same kind of politics that many of the others on this stage have engaged in?”

OBAMA:  “Well, not all, we have thousands of donors. This donor engaged in some ethical (sic) behavior and I have denounced it.  But I have a track record of bringing people around this new kind of politics, since I was in the state legislature…”

 

You don’t need to read the rest because Obama deftly shifted the conversation away from Rezko, and Williams let him get away with it.

 

In addition to covering Obama’s shady land deal with Rezko, which I have discussed in previous updates, The Chicago Sun-Times article revealed a new twist in Obama’s relationship with Rezko, a loyal donor to Obama’s campaigns.  Obama reportedly helped Rezko snag $43 million in government funding to renovate dozens of low income housing structures owned by Rezko.  Whatever Rezko did with the money, he apparently had no interest in fixing the properties, which are decrepit and beset with code violations.  In fact, many of the tenants, who live in Obama’s former State Senate district, were forced to endure a brutal Chicago winter without any heat.

 

By the way, just in case you were wondering, Hillary was apparently let off the hook again with respect to her corrupt history as First Lady and New York Senator. 

 

Not one question about Hillary’s role in a scandal involving the sale of taxpayer-funded trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions.  Nothing about her “factually false” testimony to the Travelgate criminal grand jury.  Nothing about cattle futures.  Nothing about Whitewater and missing billing records.  Nothing about her New York Senate campaign finance operation’s failure to report $700,000 in contributions.  And nothing about her recent failure to report her role on the Clinton Family Foundation on her Senate financial disclosure documents for five years.

 

(Click here to check out our brochure: “10-Plus Questions for Hillary Clinton” if you want to see the type of questions I would have asked.) 

 

The issue of ethics loomed large in the last election cycle as the Democrats took control of Congress.  And according to a recent poll sponsored by Judicial Watch in partnership with Zogby International, “69% of likely voters strongly agree with the statement : 'Corruption is a significant problem in Washington.'”  The public wants to know where these candidates stand on ethics.  The topic deserves more attention that one question to one candidate in a 90-minute debate.

 

Rep. Jefferson to Keep Key Post Despite Federal Investigation

 

One reason Republicans were tossed out of power on Capitol Hill in the 2006 elections, of course, was their willingness to countenance corruption in their own ranks.  (See Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney, to name a few.)  It appears the Democrats, however, have failed to learn any lessons from Republican mistakes.

 

This according to Roll Call yesterday:  “House Democratic leaders are not expected to pressure embattled Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) to forfeit his lone remaining committee assignment, even as two Republican lawmakers who similarly face intense FBI scrutiny have relinquished their posts in recent days.”

 

Jefferson is alleged to have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to help broker high-tech business deals in Nigeria.  The evidence against Jefferson, by most accounts, is very compelling.  According to press reports, he was caught on tape discussing the deals, while an FBI search of his home uncovered $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer.  The FBI later searched Jefferson’s office in the Rayburn House Office Building for documents pertaining to the alleged bribery deals. 

 

And Jefferson is being protected by the leadership of both parties as House lawyers argue that the search of his office was unconstitutional.  You may recall Judicial Watch recently filed an amicus brief with a federal appeals court in support of the search.

 

I find it difficult to believe that Jefferson has a reasonable explanation as to why he had $90,000 in cash jammed in his freezer.  If he had any shame, he’d resign, in the least, from his committee post.  If he fails to do so, Democrats and Republicans should break their conspiracy of silence about him and hold him to account.  The last thing this country needs is more corrupt members of Congress in leadership positions on the Hill.

 

New leadership.  The same old story.

 

Bill Clinton:  U.S. Ambassador to the World?

 

Hillary Clinton had some disturbing news to report last Saturday.  If elected president, Hillary said she plans to make her husband, Bill Clinton, a roaming ambassador to the world.  Of course, no such official position exists within our government.  This would be a special role crafted just for Bill.

 

"I can't think of a better cheerleader for America than Bill Clinton, can you?" Clinton asked during a town-hall style meeting.  Actually, I cannot think of a worse choice to represent the United States than a disgraced and impeached former president.  And I suspect a large segment of the American population agrees with me if the poll sponsored by Judicial Watch in partnership with Zogby International is any indication.

 

According to the poll, which was conducted between March 22-26, 2007, 36% of likely voters agreed with the statement:  “If Hillary Clinton is elected president, Bill Clinton cannot be trusted to behave honestly in the White House.”  (Overall, 45% of likely voters said they are concerned there will be “high levels of corruption” in the White House if Hillary is elected president.”)

 

If a large segment of the population believes Bill Clinton cannot be trusted to behave honestly in the White House, certainly they would have their doubts if Hillary sends him traipsing around the world pushing their personal and political agendas.  I also wonder what kind of oversight he would be subjected to as “Ambassador to the World?”  To whom would he report?  Hillary?  Those details, of course, haven’t been hammered out yet.  When in office, Clinton sold his office to foreign nationals, including communist Chinese generals.  Think of the money opportunities for Clinton as a roving ambassador.

 

Clearly, if elected, Hillary has big plans for Bill in her administration, whether it is in an official or unofficial capacity.  To be fair, we should remember that President Bush currently uses Bill Clinton for special projects.  And what a shame that is. 

 

Judicial Watch Releases D.C. Police Documents Revealing Sanctuary Policies

 

You may remember that Judicial Watch recently filed an open records lawsuit against the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department [MPD] seeking information pertaining to the department's illegal immigration policies.  Well, this week, we released the eye-opening documents we received in response. 

 

Within days of the filing of our lawsuit, the Washington D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department released a memo from Charles H. Ramsey, who, until recently, served as Chief of Police.  The memo includes some pretty shocking language.

 

In a memo brimming with hostility to federal immigration law, Ramsey writes:  "MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] officers are strictly prohibited from making inquiries into citizenship or residency status for the purpose of determining whether an individual has violated the civil immigration laws or for the purpose of enforcing those laws…the MPD is not in the business of inquiring about the residency status of the people we serve and is not in the business of enforcing civil immigration laws."  (The emphasis is in the original document.)  Federal law requires otherwise.  The documents show that DC’s corrupt former mayor, Marion Barry, helped promote a “don’t ask, don’t tell” immigration policy.  (These days, Barry is facing jail time for yet another round of crimes.)

 

The newly released documents, available at www.judicialwatch.org, also emphatically state the "limited" and infrequent support the department begrudgingly offers to federal immigration officials. 

 

Ramsey’s language is bold.  But he may have been one-upped this week by his successor, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier, who reaffirmed her department’s illegal policy.  When asked by WTOP News about the potential of litigation over their illegal immigration policy, Lanier’s response?  “I think we’ve been sued a couple of times before.”  How reassuring for Washington, D.C. taxpayers, who have suffered from a dysfunctional government and the attendant financial liabilities for decades.  (You know, it occurs to me that if Washington, D.C. wants some of the benefits of statehood, as its liberal political class have been advocating for some time, it may want to begin by obeying federal law.  Just a thought.)

 

Our nation's capital, of all places, should not violate federal immigration law, but rather set an example for other cities in the U.S.  Clearly such an example is sorely needed.  In the meantime, police in our nation’s capital are illegally handcuffed in their ability to “protect and serve.”

 

Just last week, San Fransisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that San Fransisco is an open sanctuary city, practically inviting illegal immigrants into the city.  Other cities across America have their own version of sanctuary policies that only serve to make matters worse.  (By the way, earlier this week I appeared on CNN’s Lou Dobbs to discuss Newsom’s announcement.  You can watch the interview by clicking here.)

 

Judicial Watch is battling the problem of lawless sanctuary cities, like D.C. and San Francisco, all over the country.  I encourage you to visit our Internet site to learn more. 

 

Until next week…

Tom Fitton

President

  

Contributions to Judicial Watch are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

 

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.