Clintons' Tax Returns Raise Red Flags

So now we know why the Clintons waited so long to release their tax returns. Of course, a lot of press attention has been given to the amount of income reported by the Clintons -- $109 million over the last eight years – and, indeed, that number is staggering. (I believe that puts them in the top .01% of taxpayers) But of more concern to me is the source of some of these funds.

Take, for example, billionaire businessman Ron Burkle. You will recall that Burkle was a major contributor to the Clintons' campaigns and to their legal defense fund before hiring Bill Clinton to work for his Yucaipa firm.

According to the newly released tax records, Bill Clinton earned $15 million as a consultant for Burkle. Now, Hillary did admit on her 2003-2004 Senate Financial Disclosure Statements that Bill Clinton's Yucaipa income was 'more than $1,000.' So, technically, I guess, she didn't lie. But $15 million!? And for what? Burkle admitted in one news report that Clinton spent about an average of 10 hours per week on Yucaipa business. That's a pretty paltry investment of time, given the enormous amount of compensation.

Which leads to the question'

What does Burkle expect in return for his investment? And what does Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the ruling sheik of Dubai, who is another Clinton/Yucaipa partner, expect from his dealings with Bill Clinton? Given that the Clintons' presumably share the same bank account, Hillary is every bit as indebted to Burkle and Dubai's leader for their largesse as her husband. And, whether she's in the Senate or in the White House, Hillary is in a position to return required favors.

Bill Clinton also raked in a whopping $51.9 million in speaking fees, many coming from foreign interests and governments. Same question: What do these foreign interests expect in return for their investment?

The Clintons' tax returns also raise red flags related to the Clinton Family Foundation. The Clintons claim $10.3 million in charitable donations on their returns and, according to The Wall Street Journal, 'nearly all the donations went to the Clinton Family Foundation, which has disbursed only half the money.' The Journal notes that virtually all of the donations came after Hillary announced her candidacy for president, and that some of the donations reek of 'politically targeted philanthropy.'

So I guess I can see why Hillary failed to report her role as Treasurer of the Clinton Family Foundation a shocking five times on her Senate Financial Disclosure statements. Clearly she didn't want anyone doing any digging on the foundation's activities, as suspicious as they are.

Judicial Watch will, of course, continue to review these records and I'll be sure to report our findings in future installments of The Weekly Update.

Family of Victim Murdered by Illegal Immigrant Calls for End to Special Order 40

Previously I brought you the story of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., the Los Angeles High football star murdered recently by an illegal alien, who was released from County jail just hours prior to the incident. So often the illegal immigration debate is dominated by statistics. The Shaw case is a reminder of the human cost of allowing the illegal immigration crisis to continue to spiral out of control.

Following the loss of their loved one, the Shaw family has chosen to publicly challenge Special Order 40, a sanctuary policy that allows criminal illegal aliens to roam the streets of LA.

This, according to The Los Angeles Times:

'The attack on the Los Angeles Police Department's Special Order 40 -- which limits when officers can ask about the citizenship status of suspects -- has come largely but not exclusively from anti-illegal-immigration forces. But now the order has a new and potentially potent foe: the family of Jamiel Shaw Jr., the Los Angeles High football star who was killed last month. Police have charged a gang member who was in the country illegally with Shaw's slaying.

'Jamiel Shaw Sr. and his wife, Anita, a U.S. Army sergeant who has been serving in Iraq, appeared before the City Council on Tuesday arguing for changes to the 30-year-old Los Angeles Police Department policy as it pertains to gang members suspected of being illegal immigrants.'

The Times also made note of Judicial Watch's taxpayer lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department over Special Order 40. (You can read more about that here.)

'Sterling 'Ernie' Norris, an attorney for Judicial Watch, one of the plaintiffs, said the Shaws' proposal to identify illegal immigrant gang members at the point of their arrest doesn't go far enough.

''Police aren't taking the next step, which is when they pull somebody over to immediately check into whether they are illegal through a thorough background check and through their investigation at the scene,' Norris said in an interview. 'Special Order 40 essentially told them to shut up and not to talk about illegal immigrants.''

Sanctuary policies in Los Angeles and other cities are illegal and nonsensical. It's a shame that it takes the murder of a high school student-athele to focus public attention on this fact.

GAO Report Cites Abuse of Government Credit Cards

Just in time for tax season, a new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) documents a shocking level of credit card abuse in federal agencies. According to The Washington Post:

'An investigative report released by senators Tuesday showed that government employees used their credit cards in 2005 and 2006 to buy cameras, laptop computers, iPods, high-end suits, lingerie, and steak and booze dinners.

'The inquiry by the Government Accountability Office was not the first to discover abuse in federal credit card and travel programs. Previous reports by the GAO and inspectors general have documented federal employees using their government cards to buy baseball tickets, jewelry, cell phones, escort services and, in one instance, breast enhancement surgery for a girlfriend.'

The Office of Management Budget says it's now ready to crack down on the abuse and would welcome help from Congress. Apparently, there is a bill in the Senate that would allow federal agencies to fire government employees for 'egregious abuse of government credit cards.'

Is it just me, or shouldn't there already be a law on the books that would enable a federal agency to fire an employee for these sorts of egregious abuses? This latest GAO report shows that Washington is full of corruption –- high and low. On the one hand you have congressmen like William Jefferson taking bribes as part of international conspiracy and on the other, credit cards being used by government bureaucrats for plastic surgery. Jefferson is still in Congress and we supposedly can't fire bureaucrats who improperly use taxpayer credit cards.

Tom Fitton is President of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation that fights government corruption. Visit www.judicialwatch.org for more information on Judicial Watch's legal campaigns and programs.