August 31, 2007

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Another Scandal Rocks Washington

 

Our nation’s capital is abuzz this week with the revelation that Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) was caught by police earlier this summer attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport bathroom.

 

According to the police report, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was investigating allegations of illicit sexual activity in the airport men’s room, entered a bathroom stall on June 11.  Minutes later, Senator Craig entered the bathroom, peeked at Karsnia through the crack between the stall door and frame for a couple of minutes, and then entered an adjacent stall.  The senator then began to “send signals” to Karsnia that he wanted to engage in sexual activity.

 

According to The Associated Press, “The officer said Craig tapped his right foot, ‘a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. ... [Craig] moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area.  Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into [the police officer’s] stall with his palm up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times…”

 

When the officer showed Craig his police identification under the divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed 'No!'”  When asked to produce identification, Craig presented police his U.S. Senate business card and said, “What do you think of that?”  The power play didn’t work.  He was arrested and charged.

 

In an odd press conference on Wednesday of this week, Craig vehemently asserted his innocence, which is a particularly hard sell, considering that he already pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct charge on Aug. 8.  (Craig paid $575 in fines and fees and was put on unsupervised probation for a year.  A sentence of 10 days in the county workhouse was stayed.)   

 

I don’t know anyone who is buying the senator’s feeble explanation that he “takes a wide stance” when visiting the rest room.  Nor does anyone believe the senator, who has been crafting legislation for three decades, pleaded guilty because he misunderstood his rights.  Not even members of his own party.  Republican leaders have already requested a Senate ethics probe in the matter. 

 

Senator Craig admittedly engaged in illegal activity that brings serious disrepute to the public office he holds.  His resignation is reportedly imminent and rightly so.

 

For years, the low standards for corrupt behavior in Washington was were set by Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Republicans, with this and other scandals, are doing a frighteningly good job of competing with the Clinton Democrats for pervasive corruption.

 

Hillary Clinton Nabbed for Suspicious Fundraising Practices, Again

 

Republicans may have their corruption problems but as long as the Democrats keep the Clintons around, their party will also to continue to face well deserved opprobrium for corruption.  Just a couple of months after Hillary Clinton was caught filing inaccurate financial disclosure documents with the Senate, the New York Senator and presidential front-runner was nailed again this week in another scandal, this time involving her campaign fundraising activities.  According to the Thursday edition of The New York Times…

 

“Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign said yesterday that it would give to charity $23,000 it had received from a prominent Democratic donor, and review thousands of dollars more that he had raised, after learning that the authorities in California had a warrant for his arrest stemming from a 1991 fraud case.”

 

The donor in question is Norman Hsu, a businessman in the apparel industry who was a bit of a mystery man in Democratic fundraising circles until this week.  While Hsu is one of Hillary’s biggest fundraisers, bringing in more than $1 million for Clinton’s presidential run, according to Federal Election Commission records, until 3 years ago, Hsu had never made a political contribution.  He had gone from a virtual unknown in political circles to “one of the leading political fundraisers in the country.” 

 

The question people began asking was what was Hsu doing before 2005?  Well, now we know.  He was defrauding investors and skipping town before he could be sentenced for the crime (one count of Grand Theft).

 

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported Hsu’s connection to some suspicious fundraising activity when it uncovered the fact that one of Clinton’s leading donors, the Paw family, lived in a 1,250 square foot lime-green bungalow outside of San Francisco.  William Paw, the 64-year old head of household is a mail carrier who earns $49,000 per year.  His wife is a homemaker.  And yet, the Paw family has donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005.

 

How?  One potential answer is Norman Hsu.  Hsu once listed the Paw family home as his address, according to public records.  He also recently hired William Paws’ son to work for several of his New York apparel companies.  According to federal election records, the Paws’ family donations “closely track donations made by Norman Hsu.”

 

The obvious question:  Did Norman Hsu funnel donations through the Paw family, and others, in an effort to skirt campaign finance law?  (The maximum donation allowed for an individual for 2008 races is $4,600.)  Hsu denies he has reimbursed the Paw family for their contributions.  However, the Journal reports, Kent Cooper, a former disclosure official with the Federal Election Commission, said the pattern of donations is definitely worth a look."  There are red lights all over this one," Mr. Cooper said.  You can bet there’s even more to this Hsu story.

 

“The travails of Mr. Hsu have proved an embarrassment for the Clinton campaign, which has strived to project an image of rectitude in its fund-raising and to dispel any lingering shadows of past episodes of tainted contributions,” The New York Times wrote.  And what are some of those “lingering shadows?”

The former first lady masterminded the illegal sale of trade mission seats in exchange for campaign contributions during the Clinton years.  Our work led to her 2000 Senate campaign fundraising operation being fined $35,000 for failing to accurately report more than $700,000 in donations from another donor who came out the blue to give big money to her and other Democrats.  (Our work also led to the federal prosecution of David Rosen, her Senate campaign’s national finance director.)  And, then you have the whole Chinagate mess, which saw Hillary, her husband, and Al Gore all benefiting from the largess of Chinese communist-connected and other nefarious donors who gave money to them through straw donors and Buddhist monks.  In fact, our client Johnny Chung, who was embroiled in this scandal, met with a Chinese general who gave him money to help Bill Clinton get reelected!  Mr. Chung’s key contacts were in then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s White House office. 

Who is the Clinton machine kidding?  This latest scandal is par for the course and deserves a full criminal investigation.  The Bush Justice Department, to date, has shied away from aggressively pursuing the Clintons.  Let’s the hope the change in leadership at Justice marks a change of attitude in pursuing Clinton corruption.  For our part, our investigators are already on it.

A Must-Read:  “Open the First Lady files”

This latest Clinton scandal is all the more reason why the American people must be granted access to Hillary Clinton’s White House records.  You will recall that Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the National Archives demanding that the records be released.  The Archives indicated recently that it does not plan that access to the records will not be granted (unless a federal court orders them otherwise) until after the 2008 election.

 

“Given Mrs. Clinton’s current status as a presidential candidate, if not the front-runner for the Democratic Party’s nomination, the public interest in her tenure as First Lady is undeniable,” Judicial Watch stated in its lawsuit.  “Because Mrs. Clinton seeks our nation’s highest office and may well be the next President of the United States, the public interest weighs heavily in favor of enjoining the Library from continuing to withhold the records at issue.”

 

The Los Angeles Times has an outstanding editorial published on Wednesday discussing Judicial Watch’s efforts to force the release of Hillary’s records.

 

Here are a few excerpts: 

 

“In asking a federal court to force the National Archives to release papers from Hillary Rodham Clinton's time as first lady, the public interest group Judicial Watch has opened itself to the charge that it's on a fishing expedition.  Maybe so, but the group is fishing with a license -- the Freedom of Information Act.”

 

“That law allows citizens to inspect public documents after deletions are made for privilege or national security.  Judicial Watch, a conservative group that nevertheless tried to pry loose the records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, says the National Archives has stymied its attempt to get hold of the former first lady's calendars, appointment logs and memos.

 

“However the judge rules, the famously organized Clinton campaign should do what it can to help the National Archives comply with Judicial Watch's request. What better way to say that the first-lady-turned-presidential candidate has nothing to hide?”

 

I couldn’t agree more.  Click here to see the full article.  As I say, it is a must-read.

 

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.