It’s official. This week, Hillary Clinton threw her hat into the ring of contenders for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. Now, the American people will take a long, hard look at Hillary’s record as they weigh her candidacy. And any discussion of Hillary Clinton’s record begins and ends with her alleged crimes and ethical transgressions.

Clinton Corruption – Everything that goes around...

Since its inception, Judicial Watch, of course, has been pursuing both Hillary and Bill Clinton, launching numerous investigations and lawsuits. In fact, according to Time magazine’s Margaret Carlson, “Thanks in no small part to Judicial Watch, Hillary Clinton may be the most investigated person in the history of the Republic.” (I’ll take that as a compliment.) This effort continues today with our investigation of the records at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas. But here is just a partial summary of Clinton scandals that are relevant to Hillary’s candidacy, as so many questions remain unanswered:

Bribery and Extortion: According to sworn testimony in federal court, Hillary Clinton devised a scheme to sell public, taxpayer-financed trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the Democratic Party and the 1996 Clinton reelection effort.

Filegate: In the early 1990’s, the Clinton White House violated the privacy rights of their perceived political enemies by “stealing” over 900 FBI files of the Reagan and first Bush administration staffers and using the information to destroy their credibility. Judicial Watch’s sued Hillary Clinton in federal court over this scheme, as she evidently was its mastermind.

Pardongate: In the last days of his presidency, former President Clinton granted 140 pardons and commuted 36 sentences. The pardons were for individuals who had paid large fees to Clinton associates. Hugh Rodham, brother of Hillary Rodham Clinton, accepted $400,000 after successfully lobbying his brother-in-law for clemency for two felons. Anthony Rodham, Hillary’s other brother, has also been accused of illicitly brokering another pardon deal.

Campaign Finance Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s campaign failed to properly disclose more than $2 million in contributions to her New York Senate 2000 campaign. Hillary’s National Finance Director, David Rosen, was indicted for his role in the scandal (though later acquitted after the Bush administration watered down his prosecution by keeping Hillary Clinton out his criminal trial). And in response to a complaint filed by Judicial Watch, the Federal Election Commission fined Senator Hillary Clinton’s fundraising operation $35,000 for failing to accurately report the contributions.

Clinton Sex Scandal and Character Assassination: Hillary Clinton personally orchestrated media campaigns to slander the women who had allegedly been sexually and otherwise abused by her husband. One such woman, Gennifer Flowers, was subjected to a vicious smear campaign orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and carried out by former Clinton administration aides James Carville and George Stephanopoulos.

I could go on and on: cattle futures, perjury on the Travel Office firings, hiring private investigators, selling policy to communist Chinese generals and their agents, Whitewater, Vince Foster, and all the rest. Hillary has been angling for the presidency since her corrupt husband took the oath, and certainly before then. Their crimes have all been means to keep and obtain power. So we can expect more of the same in a Hillary candidacy.

Judicial Watch does not endorse nor oppose candidates for public office. Hillary is free to run for president. But Judicial Watch is also free to continue to pursue accountability for her many crimes and ethical transgressions, past and present. Hillary Clinton is the most powerful corrupt politician in the country and much attention should be paid to this corruption, whether or not she is running for office. If you would like more information on our efforts in this regard, be sure to check out the Hillary Watch section of our Internet site.

Mixed Results in Congressional Ethics Reform

Democrats used the issue of corruption in last year’s election to seize control of both houses of Congress. So, how are they doing so far in their efforts to clean up corruption on Capitol Hill? The results are mixed. Read on and you’ll see what I mean.

Last week the House voted 431-0 to deny tax-funded pensions in the future to lawmakers convicted of felonies. The measure will not be applied retroactively, which means former California Rep. Duke Cunningham will continue to be compensated by taxpayers long after he finishes his eight-year prison sentence for taking bribes. (He is entitled to $36,000 per year for his eight terms in Congress.) The same is true for Ohio Republican Bob Ney, recently sentenced to 2 ½ years for an Abramoff-related scandal. (He’ll receive $29,000 per year after the age of 62.)

I’m not thrilled that congressional felons will continue to receive taxpayer-funded benefits. However, this type of measure had been debated for a long time with no movement by Congress, so I guess it’s a start. Why deal with the issue now? Arizona Republican Rep. John Shadegg stated the obvious: “…The American people are no longer willing to tolerate corrupt behavior by their elected officials.”

While the House of Representatives appears ready to remove privileges from their convicted criminal alumni, they have so far failed to crack down on a serious potential conflict of interest: congressional spouses who work as lobbyists. According to The Washington Post, at least a half-dozen congressional spouses are registered lobbyists, while a few others work for lobbying firms. Yet there has been no movement by the House to address the obvious conflicts of interest. In fact, as it stands, a lobbyist can lobby his or her congressional spouse directly!

This according to The Washington Post: “Democrats made ethics reform a major issue in last fall’s congressional elections, but the ethics package the House approved earlier this month didn’t address the issue…”

The Senate, meanwhile, recently passed a series of ethics reforms that included an amendment by Louisiana Republican David Vitter that would ban spouses of senators from lobbying the senate, with the exception of spouses who were lobbying one year prior to their spouse’s election to office. This proposal jumped the first hurdle. However, it is unknown whether or not it will ever make it to President Bush’s desk for signature. The bill would first have to go to conference with the House which is less keen on the idea. Significant changes are likely. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) predicts the most stringent ethics proposals “…are going to be discarded once we go to conference.”

Tom Fitton is President of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation that fights government corruption. Visit www.judicialwatch.org for more information.