Two new books about Hillary Clinton are hitting the book shelves. I have not yet had a chance to review either book thoroughly. However, if press reports are to be believed, neither paints a very flattering picture of Senator Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president.
According to The Washington Post, "A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Carl Bernstein, reports that Clinton as first lady was terrified she would be prosecuted, took over her own legal and political defense, and decided not to be forthcoming with investigators because she was convinced she was unfairly targeted.” (Translation: She lied.)
The second book, Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., substantiates the core of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against Clinton pertaining to the then-First Lady’s attempts to smear Gennifer Flowers, who had an affair with Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas. The book reports that during her husband's 1992 campaign, a team that Hillary Clinton oversaw hired a private investigator to undermine Gennifer Flowers "until she [was] destroyed."
(Judicial Watch alleged for years in its court filings for Gennifer Flowers that Hillary Clinton directed James Carville and George Stephanopoulos as part of the attempt to destroy Ms. Flowers.)
Gerth and Van Natta also reportedly provide substance to the long-time assertion that years ago the Clintons put into motion a “secret pact of ambition” aimed at redefining the Democratic Party and taking control of the White House. The plan called for Bill Clinton to serve eight years in the White House, with Hillary to follow for eight years. (Given Hillary’s campaign war chest, they are close to realizing their vision.)
The response by Clinton’s campaign team to these books was predictable: "Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them,” said campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson.
The only problem with Wolfson’s statement...it isn’t true. According to a recent poll sponsored by Judicial Watch and conducted by Zogby International, 45% of likely voters are concerned there will be high levels of corruption in the Clinton White House should Hillary be elected, including nearly 1 in 5 Democrats. (For the reasons behind this concern, you may want to review our “Top Ten (Plus) Unanswered Questions for Hillary Clinton.”)
The Clinton campaign may have a more difficult time defending against these books than previous offerings. Bernstein, best known for breaking open the Watergate scandal with his partner Bob Woodward, is hardly a right-winger. Gerth and Van Natta, meanwhile, have spent years as investigative reporters for the New York Times, an extremely liberal newspaper. All three can expect a campaign of smears and intimidation by the Clinton machine once their books are published.
I’ll be sure to get my hands on these books and review them more thoroughly for you. I suspect, however, there is much missing from these offerings. (In the meantime, I’ve just begun reading Bill Tyrell’s “The Clinton Crack-Up,” which has some good material.) No one book is ever going to get reveal the full scope of Clinton corruption. However, you can get most of the details on their sordid history at Judicial Watch’s website, www.judicialwatch.org.
Grand Jury: Cities Should Train Officers to Conduct Immigration Checks in Jail
The last couple of weeks, I have commented on the immigration reform bill currently being debated in Congress that would provide amnesty for illegal aliens. This week, I actually have some good news to report on the subject of illegal immigration.
This according to the Orange County Register: “All of Orange County's large cities should follow the Sheriff's Department lead and train officers to do immigration checks in their jails, a grand jury said Monday (May 28).”
Evidently, Sherriff Mike Carona implemented a program through Immigration and Customs Enforcement that trained 14 deputies to use federal databases to check the immigration status of inmates, and report their findings to federal immigration authorities. Those inmates who were discovered to be in the country illegally would then be targeted for possible deportation.
This program, of course, is in stark contrast to a policy implemented by the Los Angeles Police Department, which provides sanctuary to illegal aliens and prevents police officers from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. (Judicial Watch, on behalf of a Los Angeles taxpayer, is now in court taking on the LAPD and ACLU lawyers over this policy, which violates federal immigration laws. Click here to read more.)
In July 2006, Judicial Watch uncovered documents detailing the 287(g) federal government program designed to train local police officers in immigration enforcement techniques.
The 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) “authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into a written agreement to delegate the authority of enforcing federal immigration laws to a state or political sub-division of a state.” Through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), local law enforcement officers can receive immigration enforcement training – called “287(g) cross designation training.”
The bottom line…local officials can help enforce federal immigration laws legally and cost effectively. But local officials and bureaucrats cannot, however, prevent police officers (or other local public employees) from communicating freely with federal immigration officials.
I should point out that Sherriff Mike Carona’s program would have the full support of most Americans. Our recent Zogby International poll found that 72% of likely voters believe local law enforcement officers should help enforce federal immigration laws, including 40% of Hispanics and 55% of self-described political “liberals.”
Congressional Task Force to Unveil New Ethics Panel
More good news to report…this time related to the subject of congressional ethics.
I’ve learned that a congressional task force is set to unveil plans for an independent ethics panel to review complaints filed against members of the House of Representatives. This new panel would advise, and not replace, the House Ethics Committee. Judicial Watch has been working with the House Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement for some months now, and I testified before the Ethics Task Force on April 19th. Judicial Watch is a national leader in combating public corruption, and Congress is interested in our advice on the ethics issue.
In my testimony, we called for the creation of an independent ethics entity that would allow outside groups and citizens to file complaints against members of Congress. We also suggested that the House ethics process must require mandatory reporting on the disposition of those complaints.
Evidently, key aspects of these recommendations made their way into the new proposal, which is expected to be announced soon. The new ethics entity would accept ethics complaints from any source (including Judicial Watch) about members of the House and then have 45 days to make a recommendation to the House Ethics Committee as to whether any further action should be taken. The Ethics Committee would then have 45 days to report to the public about whether the complaint is being shelved or further investigated. (A problem is that the ethics committee is not required to issue public reports or do an independent investigation after the initial determination whether to act.)
While I am generally pleased with this new bipartisan proposal (as far as it goes), there will be hurdles before it is implemented. The House of Representatives has refused in the past to entertain the notion of an independent ethics panel, especially one that allows for citizens and outside groups to file complaints. They have preferred to rig the process to protect themselves. I do worry that by the time the proposal makes its way through Congress, it will be watered down.
And even if a decent proposal does earn the support of Congress, there are a number of factors that will determine whether or not it can work effectively, not the least of which is the independent nature of the panel. If the panel consists of political insiders that merely screen and dismiss complaints with no serious intent to investigate, all of this will amount to little more than a public display. And of course it is important that the independent entity has the necessary investigatory powers for a valid initial inquiry. (I understand that the plan is to allow House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner to each select two members of the panel. No members of Congress or lobbyists could be appointed to the new ethics entity.)
If the proposal makes it to the light of day, it would be a major step in the right direction. If the panel lives up to its independent status, there will be practical and political pressure on the House Ethics Committee to act on its recommendations. And then finally, we might actually see members of Congress held accountable for their corrupt behavior.
Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.