 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 31 January 2001 | Vol. II No.15 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 31 January 2001 | Vol. II No.15 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was challenged on Tuesday to explain contacts between opponents of Bush attorney general nominee John Ashcroft and staffers working for leading Senate Democrats.
Arguing that the contacts may have violated federal law barring lobbying by tax-exempt organizations, the Landmark Legal Foundation sent the following letter to the Vermont Democrat:
Dear Senator Leahy:
According to a published report, staffers working for leading Senate Democrats, as well as the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, secretly met with over 200 national organizations opposed to the nomination of former Senator John Ashcroft for attorney general of the United States. Among other things, the group established a lobbying committee. (Exhibit 1)
At the time of the Ashcroft hearings, you served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Therefore, we ask you whether the Senate staffers present at the meeting were aware that the non-profit organizations were preparing to lobby senators, and whether they did so with your knowledge.
Many of the organizations that attended the above-mentioned meeting are classified under the Internal Revenue Code as either 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(3) entities.
501(c)(4) Organizations
Federal law prohibits 501(c)(4) organizations that receive federal funds from engaging in any lobbying activity. 2 U.S.C. § 1611.
501(c)(3) Organizations
Federal law places strict limits on lobbying activities by 501(c)(3) organizations. 26 U.S.C. § 501(h).
According to a recent study by the Capital Research Center, eighteen (18) of the organizations present at the above-mentioned meeting received approximately $150 million in federal funds over a four (4) year period, from 1996 through 1999. (Exhibit 2)
These groups include: the American Bar Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Feminist Majority, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, National Black Women's Health Project, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association, NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund, Organization of Chinese-Americans, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Planned Parenthood (USA), Sentencing Project, Sierra Club and Youth Law Center.
Inasmuch as Democratic staffers participated in the above-mentioned meeting, Landmark Legal Foundation (Landmark) requests that you respond to the following questions:
1. Please identify the names of the congressional or committee staffers who attended the above-mentioned meeting and for what purpose.
2. For each individual named in the response above, please describe their role at the meeting.
3. Did any of the individuals named above attend the meeting with your knowledge or at your direction?
4. To what extent have you or your staff consulted with these non-profit groups about lobbying senators against the Ashcroft nomination?
5. Have you or anyone at your direction made any attempt to determine whether any of these non-profit groups are in violation of federal lobbying restrictions?
Landmark believes that the public has a right to know whether these non-profit organizations, with your encouragement, are using tax-exempt funds or federal funds to lobby senators.
Upon receiving your response, Landmark will immediately make this information known to the public.
Landmark is also providing a copy of this letter, with exhibits, to the Internal Revenue Service, the Tax Division of the United States Justice Department, and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics.
Thank you for attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Levin,
President
Enclosures
CC: Internal Revenue Service, Tax Division (DOJ), Senate Select Committee on Ethics
TCN Comment: Is it any wonder that Leahy is fighting the confirmation of someone who will enforce the laws? It seems to be the ultimate in idiocy to use such illegal tactics to fight against the confirmation of a Secretary of the Justice Department when everyone has said all along that he would be eventually confirmed!
The people of Vermont that elected this half-wit are in a close race with the DemocRATS in Palm Beach Co, Florida. We won't say what kind of race, but there aren't any winners.
Western lawmakers and administration officials are trying to find out how final rules banning snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park were published in the Federal Register on Monday - two days after President Bush signed an executive order that should have prevented it.
Publication is the final administrative step that makes new rules official. Bush's order, issued immediately upon taking office, imposed a moratorium that sought to prevent any new rules from being printed unless specifically approved by the incoming administration.
Prominent lawmakers, like Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., have already begun to hunt heads.
"These guys are playing games with us, no question about that," said Thomas, a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Thomas spokesman Dan Kunsman brushed aside a National Park Service suggestion that it was too late to pull back publication of the rules.
"That appears to be semantics to us," he said. "The president was pretty clear."
Not only did the publication flout the new president's first executive order, the Interior Department also ignored thousands of comments, Thomas said.
"Surely, if you get more than 5,000 comments, some of which went in late in the day, you have an obligation to take a look at those," he said.
Cheryl Matthews, a spokeswoman for Yellowstone, said the rules were developed after years of study and litigation and should have come as no surprise.
The rules won't take effect immediately, added John Wright, an Interior Department spokesman, who suggested the incident would blow over.
"It's going to take a few days for the Bush administration to sort things out, but the rules kick in over two years, and this should give the administration enough time to look at it and decide what they want to do," Wright said.
Supporters of the move hailed what might be a symbolic final victory of the outgoing administration, which managed to anger virtually every pro-use resource interest group across the West.
"The Clinton administration continues to appall us," said Adena Cook, public lands director of the Blue Ribbon Coalition. "They've kind of made a career of that over the last eight years, and they continued right up to the last minute.
[ Denver Post ]
"THE ONLY thing I would ask people to do is look at the facts. I think when people have the facts they'll agree with me."
So said Bill Clinton recently about his pardon of Marc Rich, the fugitive financier to whom Mr. Clinton, on his way out the door, offered a free pass. The president's former lawyer Jack Quinn -- who also happens to be Mr. Rich's current lawyer -- added last week in an article on the op-ed page that "this pardon was granted strictly on its legal merits" and that Mr. Rich's case "is among the precise situations for which the presidential pardon was intended." But the pardon power was not envisioned as a tool for relieving fugitives who have renounced their American citizenship of the burden of facing their indictments. The facts do not aid the former president's claim that legal considerations alone carried the day.
Whatever the merits of Mr. Rich's legal arguments, the most important fact is that he has avoided submitting them to the jurisdiction of American courts. If, after all, the 17-year-old-indictment against him for tax fraud and trading oil with Iran is as deficient as he claims, his very able counsel could surely have made judges up and down the federal system aware of its problems -- provided that their client had been willing to face the charges. Nor, indeed, have Mr. Rich and his also-pardoned partner, Pincus Green, been forthcoming with evidence about their supposedly misunderstood transactions. During the investigation, companies controlled by them paid huge contempt fines to avoid producing documents. And federal agents seized steamer trunks loaded with documents that were about to be spirited out of the country. Mr. Rich's companies pleaded guilty in 1984 to criminal charges in connection with the transactions and paid $200 million in fines. Mr. Rich has hardly behaved like a man convinced of the strength of his own case.
If the merits of that case were indeed the basis of Mr. Clinton's decision, the failure to consult the U.S. attorney's office that brought the indictment makes no sense at all. Any judge would have wanted to hear from both sides before deciding who was right. Mr. Clinton, however, did not seek all the available evidence and arguments, just Mr. Rich's.
The simple fact is that Mr. Rich is, well, rich -- and his ex-wife Denise has given a great deal of money, and even some furniture, to the president and his wife. He has also given a lot of money to various worthy causes around the world and managed to get many of his beneficiaries to write letters of commendation. Some of the authors of these letters, it turns out, had no idea what use would be made of them, much less that they would be deployed to yank a major criminal case from the competence of the American legal system.
There's talk in Washington now of trying to revoke the pardon on technical grounds, while some in Congress discuss whether the presidential pardon power should be somehow curbed. These forays are understandable but misguided. The problem isn't with the power but with how Mr. Clinton used it. He's a private citizen now, but we continue to think he owes more of an explanation than he's given.
[ Washington Post ]
On Monday, Judicial Watch filed a Senate Ethics Complaint against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for accepting apparent bribes in exchange for Presidential pardons issued by her husband, Bill Clinton, shortly before they left the White House on January 20, 2001. Specifically, in recent days, apparent bribes in addition to those paid by Denise Rich on behalf of her former husband, Marc Rich, have been uncovered.
Late last week, Judicial Watch filed another Senate Ethics Complaint over Hillary Clinton's receipt of illegal gifts after she declared as a Senate candidate.
January 31, 2001
BY HAND DELIVERY
Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman
Senator Harry Reid, Ranking Member
Senator Bob Smith, Member
Senator George Voinovich, Member
Senator Kent Conrad, Member
Senator Richard Durbin, Member
Senate Select Committee on Ethics
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Supplement to Ethics Complaint Against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Dear Senators:
On January 26, 2001, Judicial Watch, Inc. (hereinafter "Judicial Watch"), in the public interest, filed a formal ethics complaint against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York State, under the provisions of the Senate Ethics Manual, Appendix C, Part II, Rule 2, "Procedures for Complaints, Allegations or Information." Judicial Watch alleged, and continues to allege, that Senator Clinton is in violation of United States law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and is engaged in improper conduct that reflects upon the United States Senate. As you know, Judicial Watch is a non-profit, public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.
Specifically, Judicial Watch alleges Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is in violation of:
1. 5 U.S.C. § 7535 (Gifts to Federal employees)
2. 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery of public officials and witnesses)
3. 18 U.S.C. § 202 (Definitions)
4. 18 U.S.C. § 203 (Compensation to Members of Congress, officers, and others in matters affecting Government) and Senate Rule 37.1 & 2.
5. 18 U.S.C. § 211 (Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office)
6. 18 U.S.C. § 599 (Promise of appointment by candidate)
7. 18 U.S.C. § 600 (Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity)
8. 18 U.S.C. § 607 (Place of solicitation)
9. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Statements or entries generally)
10. Senate Rule 35.1(a)[1]
This supplemental filing to our original ethics complaint against Senator Clinton arises from additional reported details concerning what clearly appears to be an illegal, unethical quid pro quo of political favors and pardons in exchange for votes and gifts - bribery.
As previously documented for the Committee, Senator Clinton accepted gifts from constituents and others totaling over $190,000.00. These gifts are reported to include items of furniture, artwork, china, flatware, apparel, electronics, and lighting. They include two coffee tables and two chairs, valued at over $7357 from Ms. Denise Rich[2], the estranged wife of Mr. Marc Rich who received a pardon from Senator Clinton's husband, President Clinton.[3] Ms. Denise Rich gave over $300,000 to the Democratic Party during the 2000 campaign cycle, including $100,000 dollars to a "soft money" committee for Senator Clinton.[4]
In the past few days, additional details have emerged concerning Senator Clinton's involvement in the clemency grants of four men from the Hasidic community of New Square, Rockland County, New York. Apparently, after receiving promises from Clinton that she would support clemency for the Hasidim, Senator Clinton received 99% of the community's votes (1,400 to 12 votes for Mr. Lazio). Remarkably, the rest of New York's Hasidic community voted overwhelmingly in favor of Senator Clinton's opponent. The clemency grants were for men convicted of cheating the federal government of approximately 40 million dollars in student aid grants for the needy. In addition to promising support for Hillary Clinton's Senate candidacy, the leaders of New Square met with Clinton, one of the meetings being in the White House, where it was likely they discussed the quid pro quo arrangement. The evidence shows that Senator Clinton was the only U.S. Senator involved in the pardon process, receiving financial and other remuneration from the petitioners and/or their agents.
Under these circumstances, any reasonable person would have to conclude that Senator Clinton's acceptance of gifts and campaign contributions were in exchange for the pardons her husband, Bill Clinton, bestowed upon Marc Rich and the Hasidic Jews, among others. This bribery scheme is part of a pattern of similar conduct. Indeed, in the "Chinagate" scandal, Nolanda Hill testified that Mrs. Clinton was the mastermind behind selling seats on Department of Commerce trade missions for campaign contributions.[5]
Senator Clinton's unethical, improper conduct violates the general principles of public service and reflects negatively on her office and the United States Senate as a whole.[6] Her improper conduct in this apparent bribery scheme is "so notorious and reprehensible that it could discredit the institution as a whole, not just the individual, thereby invoking the Senate's inherent and constitutional right to protect its own integrity and reputation."[7]
Judicial Watch, in the public interest, respectfully requests your prompt investigation of these clear ethical violations by Senator Clinton. Judicial Watch is prepared to provide the Committee with additional documentation and testimony concerning our investigations and litigation relating to various campaign finance illegalities and other matters.
Thank you for the opportunity of providing this important information for the Committee's consideration and investigation.
Sincerely,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
| Larry Klayman Chairman and General Counsel |
Thomas J. Fitton President |
[1]Senate Rule 35.1(a) states:
(1) No member, officer, or employee of the Senate shall knowingly accept a gift except as provided in this rule.
(2) A Member, officer or employee may accept a gift (other than cash or cash equivalent) which the Member, officer or employee reasonably and in good faith believes to have a value of less than $50, and a cumulative value from one source during a calendar year of less than $100. No gift with a value below $10 shall count towards the $100 annual limit. No formal record keeping is required by this paragraph, but a Member, officer or employee shall make a good faith effort to comply with this paragraph.
[2]"Who Says You Can't Take It With You," Washington Post, January 26, 2001, found at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48477-2001Jan25.htm (Attached).
[3]U.S. Department of Justice "Pardon Grants January 2001," found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchart1st.htm. (Attached).
[4]Press Reports:
"U.S. Att'y Ripped Hasidic Pardons," By: Larry Cohler-Esses, Daily News, January 25, 2001, p.4.
"Mayor Asks Probe of Clemency," By: Larry Cohler-Esses, Daily News, January 25, 2001, p.4.
"Hasidim Pushed For Hil," By: Larry Cohler-Esses, Daily News, January 26, 2001, p.2.
"Clinton Pardon Raises Questions of Timing, Motive," By: Jonathon Peterson and Lisa Getter, Los Angeles Times, January 28, 2001, p.A1.
"Questioning Clinton; Pardons, Other Distractions Shroud New Senator's Work," By: John Riley, Newsday, January 29, 2001, p.A7.
[5]Transcript of Testimony of Nolanda Hill,
p. 55:19 - 59:9, Monday March 23, 1998 in Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce, Civil Action No. 95-133 (RCL) (Attached).
[6]Senate Ethics Manual, p. 430 - 434.
[7]Senate Ethics Manual, p. 430.
Flagler County Florida administrators must answer some tough questions about what is being done to protect students after five recent scandals. In less than a year five educators have been investigated for child abuse, drugs, sexual assault, even attempted murder.
One Flagler County teacher is in jail after running her car into a classroom filled with students. But that is just one of five recent scandals. Charges against teachers include attempted murder, drunk driving, and sexual assault.
There are less than 1,500 employees in the Flagler County district. It is a small district by Central Florida standards, but in the past year, five of those employees have had a brush with the law.
A teacher accused of forcing antibacterial soap down disabled children's throats. An assistant principal charged with DUI and possession of drug paraphernalia. A teacher resigned after using sexually inappropriate labels for students. An aide rammed her car through a classroom full of fourth-graders. And a special education teacher was charged with raping an emotionally disabled student.
"I think they should require mental health evaluations of every teacher because a lot of people have problems," says Raman Lucas, a local student.
Administrators say they are open to suggestions on how to improve the screening process. The current screening shows Kerrie West is an excellent teacher, not an accused sex offender.
"She (West) came with good references. There was nothing that we would have seen that would have prevented us from looking at her as a good hire," says Bob Williams, superintendent.
The same can be said for the recent hire of Victoria Acierno. Acierno is now charged with three counts of attempted murder for injuries caused by a car crash.
Parents are concerned but also quick to defend.
"I don't think it's just Flagler County schools, I think it's all schools," says Cindy Barry, a Flagler County parent. "I think, unfortunately, we've had three in a row."
Three of the teachers have resigned, and two more could lose their jobs, pending the outcome of their criminal cases.
Administrators say they have a comprehensive job application, they check at least three references and by law are required to do periodic criminal background checks. They claim on paper there was no way of predicting the teachers would be accused of sexual assault and attempted murder.
The sheriff is meeting with the superintendent Tuesday about the recent arrests. There is nothing on the school board agenda yet dealing with changes to the background check policy.
The state requires the following of its teachers: they must be of good moral character; have fingerprints on file; and they are subject to periodic background checks by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
[ ICFlorida ]
TCN Editorial Comment: Everyone knows that the solution to all education problems is more money and federal control (read "teacher union control") of local schools. The only way the Dems know to address a problem is throw more money at it and tie it up with paperwork.
If I had children in the Flagler County school system, I would pull them out of the state schools immediately. If I couldn't pay private school tuition, I would home-school them. I would not in any form subject my children to such a corrupt and out-of-control system. Then I would be going door-to-door with petitions in support of school vouchers from sun-up until midnight, if not as an option for my children, as an option for those who cannot home-school or provide a private school.
When teachers are out of a job because all of their students are getting a better education at home or over at the private school, they might understand that there is a standard of conduct that is expected by the local community they have been hired to serve.
By David Hackworth
War is in the wind. But you wouldn't know it if you get your news from Brokaw, Jennings and Rather.
Here's the skinny: The Israelis are leaning forward in their foxholes. Their troops are locked and cocked, and their logistical types have been roving the world with checkbooks at high port, buying bombs and bullets aplenty.
Now the USA is rushing to the rescue:
* All our Scud Busters -- Patriot missiles -- in U.S. Forces Europe have been quietly deployed from V Corps in Germany to Israel. But while we're providing that troubled country with theater missile-protection, we've left our soldiers stark naked, unable to stop a single Scud.
* Our ground combat forces in Germany -- a complete armored corps - have moved out into the field "to train." An insider there says, "Training, hell. We're contingency planning for a fight in the Middle East."
Armies are always contingency planning. So it could be over the top to say we're going to strip Europe of all our warriors and completely take sides in a conflict that might eventually involve weapons of mass destruction -- nukes as well as chemical and biological weapons.
The deployment to Israel of the 69th Air Defense Brigade -- complete with all its Chem/Bio protection gear -- and V Corps' current war games both began last month on Bill Clinton's watch. The Bush bunch was presented with the problem on Jan. 20. Just the way JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs debacle from Ike, and Clinton had the Somali disaster dumped in his lap by Bush the Elder.
Bush the Younger signed off on the Patriot deployment plan last week when he gave the 69th the green light to go give the Arabs a live-fire anti-Scud sound-and-light show presently scheduled for next week. Now the nightmare's all his, and we can thank our lucky stars he has Dick Cheney and Colin Powell -- who've walked that desert walk -- securing his flanks. And ours.
The Israeli-Arab fight is no new event. Flip open your Bible and you can brush up on the earlier rounds. Like the shootouts between the Hatfields and McCoys, it won't be going away any time soon. Nor will any of the other feuds running hot in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Southern Europe and the former Soviet Union states.
Since World War II, we've become increasingly responsible for making things right in a world full of long-term wrongs. Even more so since the Soviet Bear went down. And right or wrong, as High Sheriff, it's critical that our troops always have what they need to do the job and are razor-sharp enough to do it right.
Bush's new Pentagon team has taken over a military that's worn out - not only materially but morally. Not exactly Desert Storm good-to-go, the force is more like a fire department with half of its fire engines sitting on flats while four-alarm fires rage in every direction.
Right now, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is eyeballing a shopping list of missiles, ships, fighters and armored vehicles courtesy of the military-industrial-congressional complex, when his No. 1 priority should be rebuilding our force and fixing or replacing whatever basic stuff it needs the most.
Sure, all this dough's great for some of the heavies who dug deep to put Bush in the saddle. But ordering up more whiz-bang, gold-plated wonder gear -- unworkable Star Wars missiles, Cold War F-22 fighters, crash-and-burn V-22 helicopters and new armored cars that promise to make the U.S. Army capable of doing what the U.S. Marines already do well -- should go on hold.
The new SecDef's first order should be to hammer the nail back in the horse's shoe so we don't lose the horse and eventually the rider. Hopefully Rumsfeld, who comes from the old school of never seeing a weapon system he didn't want to buy, can steer clear of any big-ticket Cold War-type spending sprees for a while. You know, impose a shopping moratorium on the bells-and-whistles wonder weapons while he tends to the basics.
Warriors who are well-equipped, well-trained and well-led are far more critical to winning battles than most of that ultrahigh-tech, mainly unnecessary stuff on the wish list that's pretty much just more of the same-old, same-old pork for pals at corporate America.
[www.hackworth.com ]
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.