Commercegate Chinagate illegal sale of US Department of Commerce Trade Mission Seats for campaign contributions, Judiciary Committee evidence, Judicial Watch interim report on crimes and other offenses committed by President Bill Clinton, December 1998

CommercegateHillary

Commercegate Chinagate illegal sale of US Department of Commerce Trade Mission Seats for campaign contributions, Judiciary Committee evidence, Judicial Watch interim report on crimes and other offenses committed by President Bill Clinton, December 1998

 

                       "IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT
                        WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

                               __________

                         THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD
                         PURSUANT TO S. RES. 16
                               VOLUME VII


Transcript of October 5, 1998 presentations of David Schippers and Abbe 
 Lowell, and debate on H. Res. 581, beginning an impeachment inquiry. 
               Committee Print, Ser. No. 8, December 1998"

"Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I also ask unanimous consent to 
insert the Judicial Watch Interim Report dated September 28, 
1998.
    Mr. Hyde. Without objection."
"Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committed by 
 President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment and Removal from 
 Elected Office"

"Through discovery in its civil lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce 
Department, Judicial Watch also has found evidence that President 
Clinton condoned and participated in a scheme, conceived by First Lady 
Hillary Rodham Clinton and approved by the President, to sell seats on 
U.S. Department of Commerce trade missions in exchange for political 
contributions. Bribery is specifically highlighted in the U.S. 
Constitution as an offense warranting impeachment.
 In President Clinton's push to sell taxpayer-financed government 
services to raise money for his political operations, national security 
likely was breached by his Commerce Department appointees and those 
involved in his fundraising scheme, such as John Huang. While Judicial 
Watch is at an interim stage of investigation in this sensitive area, 
the breaches of national security uncovered at the Clinton Commerce 
Department raise real questions of treasonous activities by the 
President and members of his Administration.
 To cover-up this illegal fundraising and likely national security 
breaches, President Clinton's top two staffers, then-Chief of Staff 
Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, ordered late 
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to obstruct justice and defy federal Court 
orders. The evidence also indicates that Secretary Brown personally 
consulted with President Clinton in furtherance of this cover-up.
 In addition to the illegal sale of taxpayer-financed services, such 
as seats on government trade missions, for political contributions, the 
President and Mrs. Clinton have illegally solicited and received monies 
directly from private citizens and others. The creation and use of 
legal defense funds is not only prohibited under federal law, but they 
have proved to be a means whereby lobbyists, influence peddlers and 
foreign powers have tried to influence the Administration, contrary to 
U.S. national security interests."

"part iii
 COMMERCEGATE/CHINAGATE
 Crimes and Other Offenses Relating to the Illegal Sale of U.S. 
 Department of Commerce Trade Mission Seats for Campaign Contributions 
 that Warrant Impeachment and Removal from Office of President Bill 
 Clinton
I. Introduction.
 After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats' loss of 
 Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with [late 
 Commerce Secretary] Ron [Brown], that the trade missions were 
 being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore 
 presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, 
 Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to 
 donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to 
 participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron 
 expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the 
 Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at 
 the direction of The White House.
 Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill, January 17, 1998 
 (131)
 * * * * *
 Question: You are aware, however, that Alexis Herman would 
 set up briefing sessions for participants that went on trade 
 missions before they went overseas? You were aware of that?
 Nolanda Hill: I was.
 Question: And at those briefing sessions appeared the 
 President and Vice President.
 Nolanda Hill: I was told that by Secretary Brown.
 * * * * *
 Question: You've mentioned, to some extent--I'll let your 
 testimony speak for itself--Harold Ickes. Anybody else? . . .
 Nolanda Hill: Ultimately, [Ron Brown] believed that the 
 President of the United States was, at least tangentially.
 Question: Involved?
 Nolanda Hill: Yes, sir. It was his re-election that was at 
 stake.
 Question: Ron believed that the President of the United 
 States knew the trade missions were being sold and their 
 purpose being perverted?
 Nolanda Hill: Yes, sir.
 Nolanda Butler Hill Court Testimony, March 23, 1998 
 (132)

 In the Fall of 1994, Judicial Watch first became aware of evidence 
that the Clinton Commerce Department was illegally selling seats on its 
international trade missions in exchange for political 
contributions.(133) Reports in Business Week and The Wall 
Street Journal showed that there was a high incidence of Democratic 
Party contributors on these taxpayer-financed trade 
missions.(134)
 The fact that the President installed the former head of the 
Democratic National Committee, Ronald H. Brown, as Commerce Secretary 
also raised concerns about Clinton Commerce Department operations. When 
Brown brought his entire DNC fundraising staff with him to Clinton 
Commerce, these suspicions increased.
 After Judicial Watch filed requests with the Clinton Commerce 
Department for information regarding these trade missions under the 
Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA''), it was immediately stonewalled 
and was forced to file a lawsuit in 1995 to obtain the requested 
information.(135) Even after filing suit, the Clinton 
Administration continued to stonewall.(136)
 Over the next three (3) years, Judicial Watch, in its efforts to 
uncover what the Clinton Commerce Department was hiding from the 
American people, found substantial, compelling evidence that seats on 
Clinton Commerce Department trade missions were indeed being sold in 
exchange for campaign contributions, with the knowledge and complicity, 
if not at the direction of, officials at the highest levels of the 
Clinton White House, including the President, Hillary Rodham Clinton 
and Vice President Al Gore. In addition, Judicial Watch's attempts to 
uncover the truth were obstructed through perjury, obstruction of 
justice, intimidation and retaliation that has marred other recent 
investigation of Clinton scandals, including the Paula Jones and Monica 
Lewinsky matters. In short, the court process was obstructed by Clinton 
appointees at his Commerce Department and elsewhere by:

 Perjury;
 Submission of false sworn declarations;
 Destruction and shredding of evidence;
 Improperly withholding documents contrary to Court 
 orders;
 Threats and intimidation of witnesses and 
 investigators; and
 Misconduct by Clinton Administration lawyers.

 Nevertheless, Judicial Watch, through its investigations and the 
legal discovery process, found ``smoking gun'' documents detailing the 
sale the trade mission seats for campaign contributions in the files of 
the Clinton White House, Clinton Commerce Department, and the DNC, 
including:
 Memos from the Clinton White House files of Harold 
 Ickes and Alexis Herman showing that the $100,000 DNC Managing 
 Trustee Program included the sale of the Clinton Commerce 
 Department trade mission seats (among other government-financed 
 perks) and was designed to net President Clinton's DNC 
 political operation $40 million; (137)
 A brochure by the Democratic National Committee 
 showing that ``foreign trade mission'' seats were available for 
 $100,000 contributions to the DNC; (138)
 A list of DNC minority donors found in the files of 
 a key Clinton Commerce Department Official; (139)
 A Clinton Commerce Department memo indicating that 
 the DNC donors were input into the Commerce Department 
 government database;(140) and
 A DNC memo showing that the DNC provided the names 
 of donors to the Clinton Commerce Department for trade missions 
 to Russia and Belgium.(141)

 In January 1998, Judicial Watch uncovered a witness, Nolanda Butler 
Hill, a close confidante and business partner of late Commerce 
Secretary Brown, with whom Secretary Brown had shared key details about 
the campaign-contributions-for-seats-on-trade-missions scheme, as well 
as the Clinton Administration's efforts to stonewall Judicial Watch's 
lawsuit. Secretary Brown had even shown important documents to Ms. Hill 
that detailed this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed government 
services. With Ms. Hill's uncontroverted testimony providing the 
capstone to its investigation, Judicial Watch has proven beyond all 
reasonable doubt that not only was the Clinton Administration engaged 
in an unlawful scheme to sell seats on Commerce Department trade 
missions in exchange for campaign contributions, but that a criminal 
cover-up was ordered by President Clinton's top aides to thwart 
Judicial Watch's Court-ordered investigation and to hide the 
culpability of the President, Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Administration 
and the DNC for their use of Commerce Department trade missions as a 
political fundraising vehicle.
 Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon 
Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce 
Secretary Brown to defy Court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch 
suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill's sworn testimony 
implicated the President's top staff members in obstruction of justice.
 Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to 
President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and Court testimony, Ms. 
Hill explained that:

 The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the 
 trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;
 The President knew of and approved this scheme;
 The Vice President participated in this scheme;
 Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the 
 illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce 
 Department;
 Presidential White House aides Harold Ickes and (now 
 Labor Secretary) Alexis Herman helped orchestrate the sale of 
 the Commerce trade mission seats;
 The President's top fundraisers at the DNC and his 
 reselection campaign (Marvin Rosen and Terrence McAuliffe) 
 helped coordinate the selling of these taxpayer resources in 
 exchange for political contributions;
 Presidential Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy 
 Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered the cover-up of these 
 activities; and
 The President's appointees at the Commerce 
 Department have committed perjury, destroyed and suppressed 
 evidence, and likely breached our nation's security.

 Even more troubling than the revelations about the unlawful sale of 
seats on Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for campaign 
contributions, and the criminal cover-up that followed,(142) 
is evidence of likely national security breaches also uncovered by 
Judicial Watch's investigation. From the beginning of Judicial Watch's 
investigation, national security issues always were a concern. In fact, 
Bernard Schwartz of Loral Space and Communications Corporation 
(``Loral''), a major Clinton donor who had participated in a key 1994 
trade mission to China and was quoted in the Business Week and The Wall 
Street Journal articles that helped pique Judicial Watch's interest in 
the trade missions, now stands at the heart of a scandal over Clinton 
Commerce Department-approved missile technology transfers to China. 
Documents relating to Schwartz, Loral, and other entities involved in 
the current China technology transfer scandal were among those 
requested by Judicial Watch in its first FOIA request to the Clinton 
Commerce Department. Schwartz went on this key trade mission to China 
with Secretary Brown shortly after making a $100,000 contribution to 
the DNC. During the trade mission, Secretary Brown set up an important 
meeting for Schwartz with a Chinese government official that later led 
to the missile deals that are now the subject of various national 
security investigations.
 In addition, Judicial Watch also uncovered the removal by Ira 
Sockowitz, an official at the Clinton Commerce Department and 
confidante of alleged Chinese agent John Huang, of top secret documents 
relating to satellite encryption and intelligence reports on China, 
Russia and India. These documents have since been impounded by Court 
order. Other documents, which have been withheld by the Clinton 
Commerce Department, indicate that Ron Brown's Chief of Staff at the 
Clinton Commerce Department, William Ginsburg, kept allegedly personal 
diaries detailing ``state secrets,'' including information on satellite 
surveillance, intelligence personnel and capabilities, notes of a 
meeting of the National Security Council, among other ``national 
security'' information.(143) He too removed documents from 
the Department when he left its employ.
 The Judicial Watch investigation also uncovered John Huang, the 
Commerce official/DNC fundraiser now believed to have been a spy for 
the Chinese Government. To date, Judicial Watch lawyers are the only 
investigators to have questioned John Huang under oath. Since Judicial 
Watch deposed Huang in October 1996, it has been learned, largely 
contrary to his sworn testimony, that Huang:

 Raised money for the DNC while at the Clinton 
 Commerce Department;
 Received over 100 top secret intelligence briefings 
 at Commerce;
 Continued his contacts while at the Clinton Commerce 
 Department with his former employers at the Lippo Group, an 
 Indonesian company that has also been linked to Chinese 
 intelligence;
 While still working at the Clinton Commerce 
 Department, had access to the office of Stephens, Inc., a firm 
 with close ties to the Lippo Group; and
 Maintained contact with the Chinese 
 Government.(144)

According to President Clinton, Huang is a close friend--going back to 
his governorships in Little Rock.
 Indeed, any complete understanding of China's plan to influence the 
electoral process and spy on American interests must begin with an 
examination of the operations of President Clinton's Commerce 
Department. Many of the key figures associated with the ``Chinagate'' 
scandal all had direct connections to it:
 John Huang worked for the Clinton Commerce Department, before 
moving to the DNC.
 Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, now deceased, organized the Clinton 
Commerce Department trade missions to China now under scrutiny.
 Johnny Chung informally participated in the Clinton Commerce 
Department trade mission to China in 1994. Chung later admitted to 
funneling $100,000 from the Chinese military to the DNC.
 Bernard Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of Loral, participated in 
the Clinton Commerce Department trade mission to China in 1994.
 Charlie Trie, who was indicted earlier this year on charges that he 
illegally funneled foreign money to the Democrats, also participated in 
the 1994 Clinton Commerce Department China trade mission.
 Wang Jun, the powerful Chinese communist ``princeling'' and friend 
of Clinton fundraiser Charlie Trie, met with Secretary Ron Brown 
shortly after attending a fundraising coffee with President Clinton. 
The same day as Wang Jun's meeting with Secretary Brown, President 
Clinton signed a controversial waiver allowing Bernard Schwartz's Loral 
to work with the Chinese on launching a satellite into 
space.(145)
 James and Mochtar Riady's Lippo Group, in addition to benefitting 
from ex-employee John Huang's placement at Commerce, benefitted 
directly from deals negotiated by him on Clinton Commerce Department 
trade missions.
 The DNC, the recipient of most of the illegal foreign money, 
coordinated with the Clinton Commerce Department and White House to 
sell seats on the taxpayer-financed trade missions.
 In short, the crimes at the Clinton Commerce Department were not 
solely related to the illegal sale of taxpayer-financed trade mission 
seats in exchange for political contributions, but likely include 
breaches of national security as well. Key Clinton fundraisers such as 
John Huang, the Riadys, Charlie Trie, Marvin Rosen and Terry McAuliffe, 
were able to use the Clinton Commerce Department for the benefit of 
their overseas patrons, while DNC donors such as Loral's Bernard 
Schwartz and Johnny Chung were allowed to use the Clinton Commerce 
Department trade missions as the means to advance their business 
dealings with the Chinese government--business dealings that eventually 
led to the illegal transfer of missile and other high technology to 
China, and the transfers of hundreds of thousands of illegal dollars 
from the Chinese Government to the DNC; an obvious quid pro quo.
 Congress now has before it other evidence, uncovered by Independent 
Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation, that President Clinton has 
committed impeachable acts relating to the Paula Jones sexual 
harassment lawsuit, and other issues that warrant his impeachment and 
removal from office. President Clinton's misuse of his Commerce 
Department for political fundraising and the subsequent cover-up, and 
the national security breaches that likely resulted from this scheme, 
provide even more compelling evidence of why he must be impeached, 
removed from office, and, at the appropriate time, subject to criminal 
prosecution along with those that aided and abetted him.
II. Judicial Watch's Investigation Has Uncovered Substantial, 
 Compelling Evidence that Seats on Taxpayer-Financed, Commerce 
 Department Trade Missions Were Sold in Exchange for Campaign 
 Contributions.
 During the course of its investigation, Judicial Watch discovered 
substantial, compelling evidence that the Clinton Administration sold 
seats on taxpayer-financed Commerce Department trade missions in 
exchange for campaign contributions to the DNC/1996 Clinton-Gore re-
election campaign.
 At a March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing in Judicial Watch's FOIA 
lawsuit, Ms. Nolanda B. Hill, a close confidante and business partner 
of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown,(146) testified, 
under oath, that Secretary Brown told her that he was ordered by the 
Clinton White House to begin selling Commerce trade mission seats in 
exchange for political contributions to the DNC/1996 Clinton-Gore re-
election campaign.(147) Ms. Hill's oral testimony confirmed 
written testimony she had given to Judicial Watch in an affidavit on 
January 17, 1998:

 After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats' loss of 
 Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron 
 [Brown], that the trade missions were being used as a 
 fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential 
 campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me 
 that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large 
 sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on 
 trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me 
 his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions 
 had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White 
 House.(148)

 According to what Secretary Brown told Ms. Hill, the trade mission 
seats were being sold in part because of ``panic'' by the President and 
First Lady induced by their Democratic Party's loss of Congress to the 
Republicans in 1994:

 [Ron Brown's] discussion with me centered around the panic 
 of--or his perception of panic--with the President and First 
 Lady, after the loss of Congress to the Republicans, and that 
 that was going to--they were afraid they wouldn't be able to 
 raise money, and they were really worried about 
 it.(149)

 Ms. Hill testified that Secretary Brown told her that it was 
Hillary Rodham Clinton who ordered that the trade mission seats be 
sold:

 Q: And did he not say to you that--and I am kind of 
 paraphrasing--Hillary believes that every thing is politics and 
 politics is driven by money; correct?
 A: He did say those--close to those words, as I recall. . . .
 Q: And he told that you that, in fact, it was Hillary's idea 
 to use the trade missions to raise money; correct?
 A: He initially believed that she was very instrumental, and 
 he gave her a lot of credit.(150)

Secretary Brown told Ms. Hill that he was ``[j]ust doing my chores for 
Hillary Rodham Clinton'' and he complained, ``I'm not a mother''--
expletive deleted--``king tour guide for Hillary 
Clinton.''(151)
 Importantly, Secretary Brown told Hill that the President himself 
was involved in the sale of seats on Commerce Department trade 
missions:

 A: Ultimately he believed that the President of the United 
 States was, at least tangentially.
 Q: Involved?
 A: Yes sir. It was his re-election that was at stake.
 Q: Ron believed that the President of the United States knew 
 the trade missions were being sold, and their purpose was being 
 perverted?
 A: Yes, sir.(152)

In fact, Ms. Hill testified that Secretary Brown resented the Clinton's 
involvement in the misuse of the Commerce Department trade missions, 
which he believed had become nothing more than a ``street level 
protection racket.'' (153)
 Ms. Hill also testified that, in addition to the President and Mrs. 
Clinton, high level Clinton Administration officials were also directly 
involved. The Commerce Department's Office of Business Liaison, then 
run by former DNC fundraiser Melissa Moss, worked with the President's 
Office of Public Liaison at the White House, then run by Labor 
Secretary Alexis Herman, to set up White House ``briefing sessions'' 
for trade mission participants with either President Clinton or Vice 
President Gore, or both.(154) Hill also testified that 
Clinton's top political aide, former Deputy Chief of Staff Harold 
Ickes, served as the White House's ``point man'' for the sale of seats 
on Commerce Department trade missions:

 Q: . . . Harold Ickes was involved in the sale of trade 
 missions, too, wasn't he?
 A: It was my understanding through Secretary Brown that Mr. 
 Ickes was the political point man for the White House. . . . 
 Mr. Ickes, according to what Secretary Brown told me, 
 participated heavily in determining what happened from a 
 political standpoint.(155)

 Clinton's top political fundraisers for the DNC and his re-election 
campaign, Terry McAuliffe and Marvin Rosen, were also heavily involved 
in the illegal sale of the trade mission trips, according to what 
Secretary Brown told Ms. Hill:

 Q: And [Terry McAuliffe] was instrumental, based on your 
 discussions with Ron, in working with the White House and 
 coordinating the sale of seats on trade missions; correct?
 A: He was certainly highly involved, according to Ron.
 * * * * *
 Q: And another person who was highly involved from the DNC in 
 coordinating the sale of seats on trade missions for campaign 
 contributions was Marvin Rosen; correct?
 A: I understood from Ron that that was correct.
 Q: And these people worked with the White House in furthering 
 what Ron thought was a perversion of his trade missions; 
 correct?
 A: That's correct.(156)

 Indeed, the sworn testimony of Ms. Hill indicated that donors had 
to pay the DNC/Clinton-Gore campaign a minimum of $50,000 in order to 
receive access to government services--Commerce trade mission seats:

 In early 1996, Ron showed me a packet of documents, about 1 
 inch thick, which he removed from his ostrich skin portfolio. 
 Ron told me that these documents had been provided to him from 
 Commerce Department files as part of the collections efforts to 
 produce documents to Judicial Watch in this case. I only 
 reviewed the top five or six documents, which were on Commerce 
 Department letterhead under the signature of Melissa Moss of 
 the Office of Business Liaison. What I reviewed comprised 
 letters of Ms. Moss to trade mission participants, each of 
 which specifically referenced a substantial financial 
 contribution to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). My 
 response was immediate and decisive. I told Ron he must 
 instruct that production of these documents and all responsive 
 documents be immediate and I advised him to mitigate his own 
 damages by releasing Ms. Moss from her duties and admonishing 
 her for using the offices of the Commerce Department for 
 partisan political fundraising.(157)

 Ms. Hill testified in open Court that she understood that $50,000 
was the minimum ``the White House was charging to go on a trade 
mission. . . .'' (158) According to Ms. Hill, Secretary 
Brown was personally offended that the White House put such a low 
dollar figure on his trade trips. ``I'm worth more than $50,000 a 
pop,'' Secretary Brown told her.(159) A DNC brochure 
soliciting members for its ``Managing Trustee'' program shows that 
participation in ``foreign trade missions'' was only one of the perks 
available to a contributor who donated at least $100,000 to the 
DNC.(160) Documents from the White House files of Harold 
Ickes and Alexis Herman also clearly show that the $100,000 DNC 
Managing Trustee Program, which included trade missions, among other 
taxpayer-financed quid pro quos, was designed to net President 
Clinton's DNC political operation $40 million.(161) 
Importantly, Alexis Herman was listed on the documents as the person to 
see to purchase a ``ticket'' on a Clinton Commerce Department trade 
mission.(162)
 Additional evidence corroborates Ms. Hill's testimony that seats on 
Clinton Commerce Department trade missions were being sold in exchange 
for contributions to the DNC/1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign. In 
the course of discovery in its FOIA litigation, Judicial Watch 
discovered a list of DNC ``minority donors'' in the possession of the 
Clinton Commerce Department.(163) Apparently, this list of 
DNC contributors had been sent by the DNC to the Commerce Department to 
select participants on trade missions.
 Just recently, Judicial Watch discovered additional documents from 
the DNC that provide further corroboration of Ms. Hill's testimony. A 
January 13, 1994 memorandum from DNC official Eric Silden clearly 
demonstrates the DNC's direct role in selecting participants for 
Commerce Department trade missions:

 Sally Painter at Commerce called to ask for a list of 
 candidates for a trade mission to Russia. She needs an initial 
 list by tomorrow (Friday 1/14) of 20-30 names. . . . Ari will 
 use the ``Belgium trade mission list'' as a base of names, to 
 be augmented by additional names that he feels are relevant to 
 Russian trade. It was suggested that he contact Reta Lewis to 
 determine which names on the Belgium list will be included in 
 the delegation, so that they are not also submitted to Commerce 
 for the Russian delegation. . . . Bob will be the point contact 
 with Commerce, as I will not be in the office on Friday 
 afternoon to deliver the list to Sally. (Emphasis added.) 
 (164)

 Judicial Watch has subpoenaed similar materials from the DNC, and 
will depose top DNC officials Terry McAuliffe and Marvin Rosen in the 
next few weeks. Even without the additional evidence that Judicial 
Watch is likely to uncover, it is clear that during the Clinton 
Administration, the Commerce Department has become nothing more than an 
arm of the DNC, where taxpayer-financed government services can be 
bought and sold in exchange for campaign contributions. Even the 
liberal Center for Public Integrity, after examining some of the 
evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch, concluded this was a ``pay to 
play'' scheme:

 When Ron Brown was simultaneously a partner at the preeminent 
 Washington law and lobbying firm of Patton, Boggs and Blow and 
 chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), he was 
 renowned as the consummate deal-maker. By all appearances, 
 Brown's Department of Commerce has continued to apply the art 
 of the deal. As one Justice Department investigator put it, a 
 corporation can ``pay to play.'' American giants such as AT&T 
 and ARCO, among others, which made contributions to the DNC, 
 have gotten seats on Brown's plane when he has traveled to far-
 off lands to meet with foreign governments in an effort to 
 promote American business.
 The seat on the secretary's plane can be viewed essentially 
 as the quo in the quid pro quo relationship between 
 contributors and the administration. Those DNC contributors, 
 with Brown's assistance, were in a position to cut their own 
 deals for projects in those foreign countries whose 
 representatives attended meetings with the U.S. delegation. 
 Some companies came away from the trips with million and 
 sometimes billion dollar deals.
 Others came away with expanded business contacts that led to 
 future deals. And others went in search of tax breaks. For 
 example, gas and oil company representatives on the Russia trip 
 argued for a lowering of the excise tax on oil imposed by the 
 Yelstin government. The Texas-based TGV/Diamond Shamrock 
 company came away from the South America trip with a tax break 
 from Argentina worth an estimated $20-$30 
 million.(165)

 In sum, Judicial Watch has uncovered substantial, compelling 
evidence demonstrating a massive sell-off of taxpayer-financed 
services--namely seats on Commerce Department trade missions--upon the 
orders of, and with the direct knowledge and participation, of the 
President and Mrs. Clinton. This illegal sale of taxpayer-financed 
services violates several federal statutes against the misappropriation 
of government funds, bribery and graft, as well as a host of campaign 
fundraising statutes, including but hardly limited to 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 600, et seq.
III. The Cover-Up.
 Judicial Watch's attempts to uncover evidence of the unlawful sale 
of seats on Commerce Department trade missions began immediately after 
Judicial Watch filed its September 12, 1994, September 13, 1994 and 
October 19, 1994 FOIA requests, which were thwarted at every 
turn.(166)
 After the Clinton Commerce Department received Judicial Watch's 
FOIA requests, Melissa Moss, a former DNC fundraiser who became 
Director of the Department's Office of Business Liaison, telephoned 
Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman on October 18, 1994 to try to 
persuade Judicial Watch to substantially limit the scope of the FOIA 
request.(167) When Mr. Klayman refused to limit the scope of 
the request, Moss abruptly ended the conversation, angrily slamming the 
phone down.(168) The following day, October 19, 1994, Ms. 
Moss sent Judicial Watch a letter via facsimile falsely claiming that 
Judicial Watch had, in fact, voluntarily agreed to limit the scope of 
its FOIA request to a list of trade mission 
participants.(169) Judicial Watch wrote back to Ms. Moss 
that same day to correct her false statements.(170) Judicial 
Watch believes that the likely intent behind Ms. Moss' false facsimile 
was to create a false record if litigation ensued.
 Moss had more reason to be worried than angry. Ms. Hill would later 
testify that she reviewed letters from Ms. Moss to trade mission 
participants, on Department letterhead, detailing the campaign-
contribution-for-trade-mission-seat scheme that would be withheld from 
Judicial Watch in violation of FOIA and in contravention of a Federal 
Court order. According to Ms. Hill, Moss placed that telephone call 
with Secretary Brown's knowledge, to try and convince Judicial Watch 
not to pursue its FOIA requests regarding the trade 
missions.(171) Moss' telephone call and false facsimile to 
Mr. Klayman in 1994 were among the first known efforts by a Clinton 
Administration official to cover-up the fact that taxpayer-financed 
government services were being sold in exchange for political 
contributions. It was far from being the last.
 In January 1995, Judicial Watch was forced to file suit in federal 
district court after the Commerce Department failed to turn over the 
requested information on trade mission trips pursuant to 
FOIA.(172) Not coincidentally, the Clinton Commerce 
Department then tried to create the appearance of complying with the 
FOIA, and in doing so it cleverly attempted to place Judicial Watch in 
a ``Catch-22.'' It required that Judicial Watch pay $13,131 in alleged 
search and duplication costs in order to obtain the requested 
documents.(173) As an all-volunteer, non-profit 
organization, Judicial Watch simply could not afford such an exorbitant 
fee. Seeing through this ruse, the Court ordered the Clinton Commerce 
Department to agree to produce responsive documents under a fee waiver, 
within twenty-four (24) hours.(174)
 The Commerce Department then produced some 28,000 pages of 
documents. Notably absent from this production of documents, however, 
was any correspondence, notes or memoranda of Secretary Brown, or any 
documents to or from the White House and/or the DNC concerning trade 
missions. The failure to produce such documents was inexplicable, if 
not incredible, and provided prima facie evidence that the Clinton 
Commerce Department had withheld documents.(175)
 At approximately this same time, the Clinton Commerce Department 
provided Judicial Watch with a Vaughn index of documents allegedly 
exempt from FOIA.(176) Because of its suspicions that the 
Clinton Commerce Department had not produced all responsive documents, 
and because of the Clinton Commerce Department's previous lack of 
straightforwardness, Judicial Watch asked the Court to review a portion 
of the withheld documents in camera. After this in camera review, the 
Court found that the Clinton Commerce Department's Vaughn index 
``fail[ed] in many instances `to supply [the Court] with even the 
minimal information necessary to make a determination' of whether the 
documents [were] properly withheld.''(177) Accordingly, the 
Court directed that a second Vaughn index be prepared and allowed 
Judicial Watch to begin discovery into the Clinton Commerce 
Department's search for responsive documents.(178) After the 
submission of a revised Vaughn index and a second in camera review, the 
Court determined that fully one half of the documents that the Clinton 
Commerce Department was withholding from Judicial Watch were, in whole 
or in part, improperly claimed as being exempt from 
FOIA.(179)
 Importantly, at that point the Court could have simply ordered the 
Clinton Commerce Department to conduct a second search for responsive 
documents. However, given the Clinton Commerce Department's previous 
failure to respond and its improper withholding of responsive 
documents, the Court obviously recognized the futility of a second 
search. Moreover, given that two (2) years had already passed since 
Judicial Watch submitted its first FOIA requests, the Clinton Commerce 
Department would have had substantial opportunity to remove, if not 
destroy, responsive documents--which, as shown by subsequent discovery, 
turned out to be the case. Thus, the only true option was to allow 
discovery into the adequacy of the first search and the whereabouts of 
other responsive documents. The Court thus permitted Judicial Watch to 
question Commerce Department officials under oath about their 
``search'' for requested documents.(180)
 The discovery process commenced, and Judicial Watch began the 
investigation that would ultimately expose John Huang and spark the 
campaign finance and ``Chinagate'' scandals. President Clinton's agents 
grew increasingly worried about Judicial Watch's lawsuit and increased 
their efforts to cover-up the sale of trade mission seats. Ms. Hill 
later testified that:

 In the spring of 1995, when this Court ordered production of 
 documents to Judicial Watch, Ron [Brown] became very concerned 
 and he thus began to discuss with me the strategy of handling 
 the defense of the Judicial Watch lawsuit.
 * * * * *
 In late fall 1995, after several rulings or statements by 
 this court, Ron himself became more involved in the defense of 
 the case. Specifically, he told me that he had decided to 
 personally review any documents that might be damaging to the 
 Clinton Administration, or in any way be sensitive. Ron told me 
 that he was very worried about the potential damage of the 
 Judicial Watch case to the Clinton 
 Administration.(181) (Emphasis added.)

 In fact, Secretary Brown took the extraordinary step of turning 
over responsibility for responding to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests to 
the Office of the Secretary. This was confirmed in a telephone 
conversation with Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman prior to the 
commencement of the lawsuit. During that phone conversation Brenda 
Dolan, a Clinton Commerce Department FOIA officer, admitted that 
Judicial Watch's FOIA requests had been taken from her and given to the 
Office of the Secretary. She further admitted that this was a highly 
unusual occurrence that did not square with usual Department 
procedures.(182)
 Secretary Brown personally involved himself in the FOIA process 
because of his concerns about what the Judicial Watch suit might 
expose. He also was ordered to do so by the Clinton White House, with 
whom he stayed in routine contact about the case.(183) As 
Ms. Hill would later testify in both her January 17, 1998 affidavit and 
at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing, President Clinton's two top 
deputies, then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and Deputy 
Chief of Staff John Podesta, directly ordered Brown to defy the Court's 
orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch suit until after the 1996 
elections:

 I further learned through discussions with Ron [Brown] that 
 The White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had 
 instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production 
 of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way 
 not to comply with the court's orders.(184) 
 (Emphasis added.)
 * * * * *
 Q: And that Leon Panetta had told Ron that, quote, ``He had 
 the responsibility of containing the Judicial Watch lawsuit?''
 A: Yes.
 Q: And you responded to Ron, did you not, by telling him that 
 that strategy of stall, stall, stall would not work forever?
 A: Yes, in part.(185)

 Weekly reports sent by Secretary Brown to Chief of Staff Leon 
Panetta at the Clinton White House confirm Panetta's involvement, as 
they discussed the status of Judicial Watch's FOIA 
requests.(186)
 Ms. Hill would later testify about Mr. Panetta's and Mr. Podesta's 
efforts to obstruct justice and cover-up the sale of trade mission 
seats for the President's re-election effort:

 Q: And you learned that Leon Panetta and John Podesta had 
 instructed him to delay the case for political reasons?
 A: Yes.
 Q: Now, do you remember Ron saying to you that Panetta and 
 Podesta wanted him to, quote, ``slow pedal'' the case until 
 after the [1996] elections? Those were the words that were 
 used, was it not?
 A: Yes.
 Q: And that Ron mimicked Leon Panetta and laughed when he 
 used the words ``slow pedal?''
 A: Well, he did a pretty good Leon Panetta.
 Q: Imitation?
 A: (Nods head affirmatively.)(187)

 Ms. Hill's testimony indicates that the President was personally 
aware of this unlawful obstruction. She would later testify that, 
shortly after she saw Commerce Department correspondence indicating 
that trade mission seats were being sold in exchange for political 
contributions, Secretary Brown and the President had a meeting. This 
meeting occurred just before Brown took his fateful trip to 
Croatia:(188)

 Q: What did he tell you was the reason he went to see the 
 President?
 A: . . . It concerned the independent counsel investigation.
 Q: Ron was also concerned about the situation at the Commerce 
 Department; correct?
 A: He was very concerned about the attempt by Congress to 
 shut down the Commerce Department.
 Q: And he was also concerned about this lawsuit; correct, 
 Judicial Watch's lawsuit?
 A: He was concerned about it, yes, sir.
 Q: And you had actually suggested to him that he go see the 
 President, didn't you?
 A: I suggested to him that that--yes, I did.
 Q: And Ron relayed to you--there was a meeting between Ron 
 and the President at that time, Ron told you; did he not?
 A: Ron told me that there was.(189)

 The evidence thus shows that key White House officials, acting on 
the likely command of the President himself, ordered Secretary Brown to 
obstruct the lawsuit and defy Court orders. This obstruction of justice 
would involve the use of perjury, the destruction of documents and 
threats and intimidation of witnesses and investigators.
 A. False Sworn Declarations
 Secretary Brown himself submitted a sworn statement, which Judicial 
Watch later learned was patently false and misleading. In his March 14, 
1996 declaration, Secretary Brown testified:

 1. I did not direct, supervise, or otherwise participate in 
 determining, the scope of the Department of Commerce's search 
 for and/or preparation of response to the Freedom of 
 Information Act (``FOIA'') requests made the basis of this 
 suit. 2. I do not maintain documents responsive to the FOIA 
 requests made the basis of this suit, nor at the time of the 
 FOIA requests did I maintain any such 
 documents.(190)

In reviewing this declaration, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. 
Lamberth remarked about its obviously careful wording:

 Well, unfortunately, the Secretary died before his deposition, 
 but that statement from the Secretary raises more questions 
 than it answers. . . . He didn't say there were no such 
 documents or that he never had any such documents . . . which 
 would have been the logical thing to say. . . .(191)

 Ms. Hill would later testify that, not only did Secretary Brown 
maintain responsive documents in his office, but he even showed her 
clearly responsive documents on Clinton Commerce Department letterhead, 
under Melissa Moss' signature, which he kept in an ostrich skin 
portfolio.(192) These documents have never been produced to 
Judicial Watch despite Ms. Hill's advice to Secretary Brown that they 
be produced immediately,(193) and were likely destroyed 
after Secretary Brown's death.(194)
 Ms. Hill also later testified that Secretary Brown told her that 
his declaration was purposely misleading:

 A: He felt like the wording was truthful, but it was crafted 
 very carefully.
 Q: How was it crafted very carefully?
 A: The words ``in determining.'' He felt like he could 
 truthfully say that he didn't determine the scope of the 
 search.
 Q: Why was that important?
 A: I don't think I understand.
 Q: In other words, he didn't want to be part - he didn't want 
 to be implicated in the aspect of actually searching? He didn't 
 want to have to swear to that; correct?
 A: That's right.
 Q: Because of the sensitive nature of some documents, showing 
 the involvement of the White House in selling trade missions?
 A: He just didn't want to be involved.
 Q: Dealing with the White House, the sale of trade missions; 
 correct?
 A: He didn't want to be involved with the FOIA issue.
 Q: Because of the legal ramifications; correct?
 A: He was under investigation by independent counsel.
 Q: So the answer is yes?
 A: Yes.(195)

 Secretary Brown carefully crafted a misleading affidavit to the 
Court and unlawfully withheld responsive documents. He personally 
showed Ms. Hill ``smoking gun'' Commerce Department documents under 
Melissa Moss' signature detailing the sale of the taxpayer-financed 
trade mission seats for political contributions to the 
DNC.(196) He obviously complied with his orders from the 
White House, and in doing so obstructed justice.
 In addition, the Clinton Commerce Department touted Anthony Das, 
the Executive Secretary in the Executive Secretariat of the Office of 
the Secretary of Commerce, as the person charged with overseeing the 
search for and production of documents responsive to Judicial Watch's 
FOIA request. In a sworn declaration dated March 10, 1995, Mr. Das 
testified that, as Executive Secretary, he had ``been delegated 
authority to initially respond to the requests for records of the 
Executive Secretariat,'' and that, upon receipt of such a request, it 
was the job of the Executive Secretariat to ``direct[] all other 
Department offices which might have responsive records to conduct 
searches for records.''(197)
 Contrary to his sworn declaration, at his March 27, 1996 and 
October 9, 1996 depositions, Das made it clear that his role in the 
search for responsive documents was minimal, if not non-existent. 
First, Das testified that he never reviewed Judicial Watch's FOIA 
requests.(198) Das also testified that he never discussed 
the document search with Secretary Brown, although he had frequent 
contact with him.(199) He also testified that he didn't know 
of anyone searching Secretary Brown's office.(200) Upon 
reviewing these obvious inconsistencies between Das' declaration and 
his deposition testimony, the Court asked Clinton Justice Department 
counsel:

 Don't you think it's rather curious that you would file with 
 me an affidavit from Das saying the Secretary had no records 
 and then admit in his deposition he never asked the 
 secretary?(201)

 Clinton Justice Department lawyer, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce 
Hegyi, responded that Das somehow knew Brown did not keep records in 
his office.. Thirty-eight (38) subsequent depositions showed no one 
asked about or searched Secretary Brown's office for responsive 
documents.
 Additional evidence of false, sworn declarations arose when 
Judicial Watch deposed Mary Ann McFate, Director of the Office of 
Organization and Management Support at the Commerce Department's 
International Trade Administration (``ITA''). Ms. McFate submitted no 
less than eight (8) sworn declarations claiming responsibility for the 
search for and production of responsive documents throughout the 
Clinton Commerce Department.(202) However, at her October 
15, 1996 deposition, Ms. McFate testified that her search for documents 
was limited solely to the ITA, although the ITA was clearly not the 
only branch of the Clinton Commerce Department possessing responsive 
documents.(203) Ms. McFate also testified at her deposition 
that she was not involved in searching any other bureaus or offices of 
the Clinton Commerce Department.(204) Accordingly, the 
declarations of Ms. McFate, submitted by the Clinton Commerce 
Department's Office of General Counsel, were clearly false and 
misleading.(205)
 B. Destruction of Evidence
 The letters Ms. Hill reviewed, which detailed the unlawful sale of 
seats on Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for campaign 
contributions, were never turned over to Judicial Watch or the 
Court.(206) This alone constitutes evidence of obstruction 
of justice. In addition, however, Ms. Hill testified that Secretary 
Brown kept documents in his office that were responsive to Judicial 
Watch's FOIA request and which the Court had ordered to be produced:

 A: I became aware that [late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown] 
 kept documents related to this [Judicial Watch FOIA] lawsuit. 
 He had some in his office. . . .
 Q:And what types of documents were they?
 A: The ones that I know about were documents relating to 
 Commerce Department activities that had been subpoenaed.
 Q: And ordered by the Court to be produced?
 A: Yes, sir.(207)

 Depositions taken by Judicial Watch revealed the likely fate of 
these and other likely responsive documents that were never produced to 
Judicial Watch.
 Although Judicial Watch's lawsuit seeking production of documents 
concerning trade missions was pending, and although the Clinton 
Commerce Department was under a Court order to produce all responsive 
documents, several witnesses testified about the wholesale shredding of 
documents in the Office of the Secretary after Brown's death. In a 
sworn affidavit volunteered by Mr. Robert Adkins, a former Commerce 
Department employee who worked with Clinton fundraiser and Commerce 
Department appointee John Huang, Mr. Adkins testified that there was so 
much shredding of Clinton White House and DNC documents at the Clinton 
Commerce Department that the shredder broke. ``Among the documents 
which I personally saw shredded,'' Adkins said, ``were . . . documents 
bearing the logo of the Executive Office of the President as well as 
documents bearing the logo of the Democratic National Committee.'' 
(208)
 Ms. Barbara Schmitz and Ms. Melanie Long, Secretary Brown's 
``Executive Assistant'' and ``Special Assistant,'' respectively, both 
testified at their depositions that documents from Secretary Brown's 
office were shredded after his death.(209) Ms. Dalia 
Traynham, who was in charge of scheduling for Secretary Brown, 
testified at her deposition that she had been assigned the task of 
shredding documents after Secretary Brown's death, even though she 
previously had never been asked to shred documents.(210) In 
fact, during an October 18, 1996 hearing, the Clinton Commerce 
Department was forced to admit that documents from Secretary Brown's 
office were shredded without determining whether any of them were 
responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA request.(211) In light 
of the pendency of Judicial Watch's lawsuit and the existence of a 
Court order requiring production of all responsive documents, this 
massive shredding of documents in Secretary Brown's office after his 
death constitutes clear evidence of obstruction of justice.
 Judicial Watch uncovered further evidence of obstruction of justice 
as well. In the more than thirty-nine (39) plus depositions taken by 
Judicial Watch thus far in this case, curiously few individuals in the 
Clinton Commerce Department admit to having taken any notes concerning 
trade missions and other relevant and important matters. No one admits 
to having seen Secretary Brown ever taking any notes.(212) 
Few notes were ever produced to Judicial Watch in response to its FOIA 
requests. Ms. Melinda Yee, one of the few witnesses who admitted to 
having taken notes(213)--who was, in fact, the designated 
``note-taker'' for the trade missions to China and India--admitted that 
she destroyed her notes from the very important China trade 
mission.(214)
 Yee held several positions in the Clinton Commerce Department, 
including Director of Policy Development Programs at the ITA, and 
Senior Adviser to the Chief of Staff. Yee also has been a very 
important figure in Democratic fundraising activities and was a close 
confidante of John Huang.(215) Yee also once described 
herself as a close friend of the Riady family, which, through the Lippo 
Group, employed Huang before he was appointed to the Clinton Commerce 
Department.(216)
 Yee went on several Clinton Commerce Department trade missions, 
including one to China in 1994 in which key Commerce Department 
officials Ira Sockowitz, Ginger Lew, and Jude Kearney also 
participated.(217) It was on this 1994 trade mission to 
China that the Clinton Commerce Department advocated a joint-venture 
project between Entergy Corporation (a large Clinton donor), the Lippo 
Group (another large Clinton donor), and a Chinese Government-owned 
electric power company.(218) Campaign fundraising scandal 
figures Bernard Schwartz, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, and Tricia Lum 
also participated in this trade mission.
 Importantly, at her deposition, Yee admitted to having taken notes 
on the China and India trade missions, and other 
matters.(219) It has also been reported in the press that 
Yee served as the designated note-taker on these key trade missions. 
Although Yee appears to be one of the few persons in the Clinton 
Commerce Department who admitted to having kept notes about the trade 
missions, at her deposition she was also forced to admit having 
destroyed these notes, along with other documents.(220)
 Not only were these documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA 
requests--which had been pending for a substantial period of time when 
Yee is said to have destroyed them--the federal Court had specifically 
ordered that the documents be produced.(221) Although Yee 
claims that she was never informed of Judicial Watch's FOIA requests or 
the Court's orders (222)--a claim which is not believable 
given the substantial publicity surrounding Judicial Watch's case and 
her constructive notice of Court orders given her positions at 
Commerce--she reportedly contacted one of her lawyers, John Tisdale, 
who is also a law partner of Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey, 
one of the President's closest confidantes, around the same time she 
says she destroyed her notes.(223) Tellingly, she also said 
that she was instructed by her attorney not to answer questions about 
this odd contact with the Lindsey firm at the time of her 
deposition.(224) Given the clear importance of these 
documents to this case, as well as to the campaign finance and 
Chinagate scandal as a whole, their destruction exemplifies clear 
evidence of obstruction of justice.
 C. Concealment of Evidence
 Judicial Watch's depositions yielded further evidence of 
obstruction of justice--in the form of concealment of evidence. The 
existence of key documents--never produced to Judicial Watch and the 
Court--only became known when witnesses testified about them at 
deposition. Other key documents were only produced to Judicial Watch 
when the group learned about them during the discovery process.
 Emblematic of the efforts to ``slow-pedal,'' if not prevent, the 
production of documents to Judicial Watch, was the deposition of Lesia 
Thornton, the FOIA officer assigned to the Office of the Secretary at 
the time of the Judicial Watch FOIA request. At her deposition, Ms. 
Thornton produced detailed, typed notes--some of which contain multiple 
entries per day--that she personally kept concerning her involvement in 
the response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests.(225) Ms. 
Thornton's notes describe a complete lack of cooperation from Office of 
Business Liaison Director Melissa Moss, the former DNC fundraiser whose 
letters detailing the Clinton Commerce Department's sale of seats on 
taxpayer-financed trade mission were reviewed by Ms. Hill, but never 
produced to Judicial Watch. Ms. Thornton's notes state that Moss, who 
had worked intimately with Secretary Brown on selecting participants 
for the trade missions, ``made it more than obvious that she just 
didn't want to do the [FOIA] request. She said her office has more 
important things to do.''(226) Ms. Thornton was distressed 
and frustrated by this conduct: ``I have made every effort humanly 
possible to obtain these documents, however I still do not have them.'' 
Ms. Thornton also noted: ``When we were leaving Melissa's office she 
made the comment that `we are going to try to get this done since 
[Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch] is threatening to sue'--Judith 
[Clinton Commerce Department Counsel Judith Means] then said, `If he 
sues; he sues.' '' (227)
 Ms. Thornton's personal notes also make reference to John Ost, who 
had worked with Melissa Moss in the Office of Business Liaison. At Mr. 
Ost's deposition, Judicial Watch learned that he received a facsimile 
from the DNC listing companies that the DNC was recommending for 
participation in the trade missions.(228) Mr. Ost testified 
that he turned this document over to his supervisors to be produced to 
Judicial Watch.(229) The document, which would have provided 
further corroboration that trade missions seats were being sold 
illegally, was never produced to Judicial Watch.
 Another key document, the DNC ``Minority Donor's List'' found in 
the files of the Clinton Commerce Department, was produced two years 
late and only after being ``uncovered'' by Judicial Watch during a 
deposition.(230) At his May 27, 1998 deposition, Graham 
Whatley, an assistant to Deputy Assistant Secretary Jude Kearney at the 
Clinton Commerce Department, revealed that Kearny kept a list of 139 
minority donors in his files.(231) Importantly, it was 
Kearney who selected the participants for Secretary Brown's trade 
missions.(232) At least five (5) of these donors 
participated in a trade mission to South Africa with Secretary 
Brown.(233)
 Morever, at her deposition Ms. Traynham also testified that her 
office prepared schedules for Secretary Brown, which included meetings 
held in Washington to prepare for various trade missions. She also 
testified that these schedules listed the meetings' participants, and 
indicated the subjects to be discussed. Traynham further testified that 
back-up copies of these schedules were stored on 
computer.(234) As with other key documents and records, the 
existence of these materials was also concealed from Judicial Watch. 
Prior to Traynham's deposition, Judicial Watch had not received and was 
given no information about records reflecting Secretary Brown's 
schedules. Although these schedules contained information responsive to 
Judicial Watch's FOIA requests, no such schedules were ever produced to 
Judicial Watch.
 Another top official at the Commerce Department, former Deputy 
Undersecretary David Rothkopf, took a large stack of documents with him 
when he left the Department to join Kissinger & Associates. The Court 
remarked on June 27, 1997 that this was a particularly ``unique'' way 
of defeating FOIA regulations.(235)
 In response to a deposition subpoena from Judicial Watch, Rothkopf 
testified that he handed over some documents to the Clinton Justice 
Department without reviewing them.(236) Without knowing what 
documents were allegedly given to the Clinton Justice Department, 
Judicial Watch has been unable to confirm either that the documents 
were returned to the Commerce Department, or that they were produced to 
Judicial Watch pursuant to Court orders.
 D. Perjury
 In addition to the perjury committed by Secretary Brown and others 
in the submission of false declarations to the Court, a host of other 
Clinton Administration witnesses perjured themselves under oath.
 Prominent among these is Melissa Moss, the key Clinton fundraiser 
at the Commerce Department. Moss falsely testified at her October 10, 
1996 deposition that fundraising was not a factor in selecting 
participants for Commerce Department trade missions, and that she did 
not conduct fundraising out of the Commerce Department for the 
DNC.(237) Ms. Hill reviewed Moss's videotaped deposition 
testimony and swore in her affidavit that Moss did not tell ``the truth 
in response [to] a number of questions concerning Commerce Department 
trade missions, as well as other representations she has made under 
oath.''(238) In addition to having seen letters on Commerce 
Department stationary under Moss' signature concerning the sale of 
seats on Commerce Department trade missions,(239) Ms. Hill 
testified:

 Q: Okay. Now, Melissa Moss worked with the White House, based 
 on your discussions with Ron, over the trade missions; correct?
 A: Yes.
 Q: So when she says that trade missions weren't a factor in 
 terms of getting campaign contributions, that's false, isn't 
 it?
 A: Yes.
 Q: When she says that she was not engaging in fundraising, 
 based upon what you know, having seen those documents, that's 
 false isn't it?
 A: Yes, sir.
 Q: And when she says that she didn't know of criteria to 
 choose trade mission participants other than the ones she 
 listed, which she claimed were based on economic 
 considerations, that's false, isn't it?
 A: Yes, sir.(240)

 Further evidence of Moss' illegal fundraising activities on behalf 
of the DNC and the President's re-election campaign (241) 
came from the files of the Clinton Commerce Department. A series of 
letters from prospective and actual trade mission participants, and 
internal memoranda from top Commerce officials show that political 
contributions were indeed a factor.(242) On April 8, 1994, 
businessman Ko Saribekian, a participant in the Clinton Commerce 
Department trade mission to Russia, wrote Secretary Brown to thank him. 
Obviously referring to the expected political contributions, Saribekian 
wrote:

 Again I thank you and your exceptional team for the opportunity 
 to participate and I look forward to repaying the generosity of 
 Department of Commerce in some way in the months ahead. Melissa 
 and I are keeping in touch about the latter.(243)

 It thus seems quite clear that Moss was using the Commerce 
Department trade missions for political fundraising to benefit 
President Clinton. It also seems quite clear that Moss continuously 
lied about this activity and worked to cover it up.
 It is also beyond dispute that John Huang, the DNC fundraiser and 
Commerce official now believed by many to be an intelligence agent for 
the Chinese Government,(244) also perjured himself at his 
October 29, 1996 deposition. Before moving to the DNC, Huang was Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy at the Clinton 
Commerce Department. At his October 29, 1996 deposition, Huang 
testified that he was, in effect, little more than a ``budget clerk'' 
at the Clinton Commerce Department.(245) Subsequent 
revelations indicate he was much more. In fact, it is now clear that 
Huang participated in the planning of Clinton Commerce Department trade 
missions,(246) and had extensive telephone contacts with 
Asian and American business people, diplomats and lawyers, many of 
whom, such as Webster Hubbell and Joe Giroir, had ties to Huang's 
former employer, the Lippo Group.(247) Huang also 
participated in numerous departmental meetings concerning Asia 
policy,(248) and even received frequent intelligence 
briefings.(249) These revelations indicate Huang was not 
``walled-off'' while at the Clinton Commerce Department, contrary to 
the obviously false, public testimony of former Commerce Official 
Jeffrey Garten before Senator Fred Thompson's Government Affairs 
Committee, which investigated some of the various fundraising issues 
arising from the 1996 federal elections.
 In addition, at his deposition Huang testified that he kept 
virtually no records at the Clinton Commerce 
Department.(250) Although he was under subpoena, Huang 
produced no documents at his deposition.(251) He stated that 
his notes were thrown away, his reports were destroyed, his computer 
files were erased and copies of his correspondence were not 
kept.(252) However, subsequent news reports, including a 
report in the December 30, 1996 edition of The New York Times, portray 
Huang as a ``pack rat'' who left the Clinton Commerce Department with 
and kept ``bulging files.''(253) Moreover, at the March 19, 
1997 deposition of Huang's secretary, Ms. Janice Stewart, she admitted 
that Huang kept detailed desk diaries that documented his activities at 
the Clinton Commerce Department day-by-day and hour-by-
hour.(254) No desk diaries were produced to Judicial Watch 
until Ms. Stewart made them known more than two (2) years after 
Judicial Watch's FOIA requests. When copies of these desk calendars 
were eventually produced to Judicial Watch, they were illegible in many 
places and therefore essentially useless. Indeed, to this day, the 
Public Integrity Section of the Clinton Justice Department, which 
maintains the originals of Huang's diaries, has refused to produce them 
for inspection and copying, despite a Court subpoena requiring their 
production.(255)
 E. Intimidation and Tampering With Witnesses and 
 Investigators
 As it has done to contain its numerous other scandals, the Clinton 
Administration went to extreme lengths to cover-up the sale of the 
taxpayer-financed trade mission seats for campaign contributions, even 
attempting to intimidate and retaliate against witnesses and Judicial 
Watch itself.
 Foremost among these apparent efforts was the indictment of Ms. 
Hill on fraud and tax evasion charges only a week before she was to 
testify at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing.(256) When 
Judicial Watch uncovered Ms. Hill and obtained an affidavit from her in 
January 1998, the affidavit was presented to the Court. In her 
affidavit, Ms. Hill testified that she feared retaliation from the 
Clinton Administration:

 I would like to come forward and tell this court everything I 
 know about the failure to produce documents to Judicial Watch 
 and this court. I am concerned, however, that if I do so, the 
 Clinton Administration, and more particularly its Justice 
 Department, will try to retaliate against me. As a result, I 
 look to this court for guidance on how I can come forward and 
 tell all I know in the interest of justice.(257)

Consequently, on February 4, 1998, the Court ordered Ms. Hill's 
affidavit be kept under seal, specifically because Ms. Hill was 
concerned about retaliation.(258) Judicial Watch lawyers 
argued as well that the affidavit should not be provided to Main 
Justice by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of 
Columbia, which was representing the Clinton Commerce Department. On 
February 13, 1998, Ms. Hill agreed to testify at an evidentiary hearing 
before the Court on March 23, 1998.(259) After learning 
about this scheduled hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce Hegyi, who 
represented the Clinton Commerce Department in this matter and already 
had been sanctioned for other misconduct apparently provided this 
information and a copy of Ms. Hill's affidavit to ``Main'' Justice, 
despite the fact that the information was under seal. When Judicial 
Watch later raised this issue before the Court, Hegyi did not deny it.
 Between March 10, 1998 and March 13, 1998, Ms. Hill's legal 
counsel, Christopher Todd, who also represents President Clinton's 
private detective Terry Lenzner, and, apparently, Webster Hubbell's 
accountant, was reportedly told by Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder 
and Mary Spearing, Chief of the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division 
of the Clinton Justice Department, or others at ``Main'' Justice, that 
``[Holder] is not pleased by Ms. Hill's involvement with Judicial 
Watch, and her coming forward in this case.''(260) According 
to Todd, Holder also told him that Ms. Hill is ``persona non grata at 
the Justice Department.''(261) On March 14, 1998, Ms. Hill 
was indicted on tax charges,(262) obviously in an attempt to 
retaliate against her and/or short-circuit her testimony at the 
upcoming March 23, 1998 evidentiary hearing by forcing her to invoke 
her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Fortunately, 
however, the Court ordered Ms. Hill to testify in a manner which would 
not implicate her Fifth Amendment rights.
 Tellingly, before her indictment, Ms. Hill had not been formally 
notified that she was under investigation, which is highly unusual 
whenever indictments are issued. Furthermore, at Ms. Hill's 
arraignment, the Clinton Justice Department admitted that they had not 
had time to prepare an inventory of evidence against Ms. Hill, 
indicating that the charges were hurriedly prepared.(263) 
And, after Ms. Hill testified at the March 23, 1998 evidentiary 
hearing, the Clinton Justice Department re-indicted her, purportedly to 
correct typographical errors in the original indictment. Clearly, this 
re-indictment was nothing more than another warning against further 
cooperation with Judicial Watch and the Court.
 Clinton Commerce Department personnel were also subjected to 
intimidation and retaliation. Graham Whatley, the career civil servant 
who revealed the existence of the DNC ``Minority Donors List'' in the 
files of top Commerce official Jude Kearney, was promptly fired by the 
Clinton Administration after his deposition.(264)
 Ms. Christine Sopko served as Kearney's secretary. Ms. Sopko 
testified that she had turned over the DNC ``Minority Donors List'' to 
Clinton Commerce Department and Clinton Justice Department lawyers at 
least three (3) months before Mr. Whatley's deposition. Sopko, a non-
political career employee, broke down in tears as she testified about 
being afraid of losing her job.(265) She also testified that 
she believed Whatley had been fired for revealing the existence of this 
DNC document.(266)
 An attempt was even made to intimidate and coerce Judicial Watch's 
General Counsel, Larry Klayman, into agreeing to a settlement of the 
case, in an obvious attempt to cover-up the scandal. In April 1997, 
Judicial Watch was the first to depose Mr. John Dickerson, the CIA 
officer who regularly briefed John Huang at the Commerce Department. 
Because of the potentially sensitive nature of the deposition, it was 
to take place at the federal courthouse in Washington, DC rather than 
at Judicial Watch's offices. However, the Clinton Administration made 
no efforts to conceal Dickerson from the public. (Indeed, it had 
already lifted his ``cover.'') Dickerson, AUSA Hegyi and other CIA, 
Clinton Justice Department and Clinton Commerce Department personnel 
used public entrances and exits to the Courthouse, and had lunch 
together in the Courthouse's public cafeteria, where members of the 
press frequently congregate. The Clinton Administration later claimed 
that Dickerson was videotaped by a news crew as he left an admittedly 
public exit from the Courthouse later that day.
 Apparently upon returning to his office, AUSA Hegyi and his 
supervisor, Deputy Chief John Oliver Birch, telephoned Mr. Klayman's 
office. In grave, menacing tones, they informed Mr. Klayman about what 
had allegedly transpired, alleging that he had blown the cover of a CIA 
operative, and then placed a call to the Court. After this initial 
conversation with the Court, Mr. Klayman called the Court and offered 
to make himself available for an immediate in camera conference in 
order to support any steps necessary to remedy the alleged videotaping. 
During the ensuing conference on the evening of April 4, 1997, Mr. 
Klayman advised the Court of a routine press inquiry about when and 
where the Dickerson deposition would take place:

 I was asked by the press, in response to their knowledge that I 
 was taking Mr. Dickerson's deposition, whether they could have 
 a copy of the video. And I said no; that its going to be 
 transcribed and that Your Honor would have to have an 
 opportunity to review it, and only then would it be releasable. 
 . . . I did tell them that it was being held in camera at the 
 courtroom. . . .(267)

 Mr. Klayman also stated that it was not his understanding that 
information about the date and place of the deposition had been sealed 
by the Court, and that he would support any effort by the Clinton 
Administration, through the Court, to obtain the alleged videotape of 
Dickerson:

 . . . But technically speaking . . . Your Honor did not seal or 
 order confidential where it was taking place or the date. And I 
 am here to try to facilitate anything that I can do to help in 
 this matter, not here to cover my own rear end, for lack of a 
 better word on the court record, because I feel strongly about 
 this as everybody else.(268)

 In what was clearly a threat of criminal prosecution, Deputy Chief 
Birch responded by invoking the Specter of the ``Pentagon Papers'' 
case, adding pointedly:

 . . . [I]t may be that it would be appropriate for me to relate 
 to the Court the position of the United States Attorney's 
 Office, what we perceive to be our options right now for 
 purposes of both the Court and for purposes of unilaterally, 
 the Government.(269)

(Emphasis added). The Court adjourned the conference without taking any 
further action.(270)
 Immediately upon leaving the conference room, AUSA Hegyi and Deputy 
Chief Birch approached Mr. Klayman and another Judicial Watch attorney 
who had attended both the Dickerson deposition and the April 4, 1997 
hearing. In what can only be viewed as a coercive attempt to force 
settlement, he asked whether Judicial Watch would now agree to submit 
the case to a ``settlement judge'' (i.e., a judge other than Judge 
Lamberth). On April 7, 1997, Judicial Watch filed a pleading with the 
Court to record these same events.(271) This improper 
attempt to coerce a settlement from Judicial Watch constitutes a clear 
violation of Rule 8.4(g) of the District of Columbia Rules of 
Professional Conduct, which prevents the threat of criminal charges to 
gain an advantage in civil litigation.(272) In addition, it 
also constitutes a clear abuse of power by the Clinton Administration. 
Later, the Clinton Administration filed pleadings to have Mr. Klayman 
held in criminal contempt, and then criminally prosecuted. The Court 
summarily denied the request.(273)
 Even Secretary Ron Brown was fearful of crossing the Clinton White 
House. Ms. Hill testified that one of the reasons Secretary Brown did 
not want to turn over incriminating documents to Judicial Watch was 
because he needed the support of the Clinton White House as he faced 
his own Independent Counsel investigation:

 A: [Secretary Brown] was concerned about the independent 
 counsel investigation that he was under, and the potential for 
 how he was going to--not the potential, but the catch 22, 
 because he didn't want to be put in the position that he was 
 in, of appearing to be non-responsive, while at the same time 
 he felt the support of the White House during the pendency of 
 the independent counsel investigation.
 Q: So he was concerned that he needed the support on the 
 independent counsel side, and the White House needed his 
 support with regard to the sale of trade missions and exposing 
 that; correct?
 A: (No response.)
 Q: In other words, he was between a rock and a hard place. He 
 didn't want to have to turn the White House in for selling 
 trade missions?
 A: He didn't want to do anything that would rock the boat.
 Q: So the answer is yes?
 A: I think the answer is what I said. He didn't want to do 
 anything that would rock the boat--
 Q: With the White House?
 A:--with the White House.
 Q: With the White House?
 A: Yes.(274)

Indeed, it was about his own independent counsel investigation, and the 
``catch-22'' he was in over the illegal sale of seats on Commerce 
Department trade missions and cover-up, that he went to see President 
Clinton shortly before he was killed.(275)
 F. Misconduct BY Clinton Commerce Department Counsel
 In addition to false declarations, destruction of evidence, 
concealment of evidence, perjury and attempted intimidation of and 
retaliation against key witnesses, and even Judicial Watch itself, the 
Clinton Administration has misused government lawyers to cover-up its 
unlawful conduct. It is very important to understand the obstructionist 
role lawyers in the Clinton Commerce Department's Office of General 
Counsel (``OGC'') played in impeding the flow of Judicial Watch's 
investigation, and in thwarting the Court's orders--conduct which is 
contrary to their obligations as public servants, and contrary to their 
obligations as officers of the Court and members of the bar.
 Several key lawyers for the Clinton Commerce Department admitted to 
playing significant roles in ``responding'' to Judicial Watch's FOIA 
requests. These lawyers include: Barbara Fredericks, Judith Means and 
Elise Packard. All were deposed by Judicial Watch in early 1997. The 
depositions of these OGC lawyers demonstrate that they: (1) gave advice 
on responding to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests; (2) examined 
documents; (3) prepared the Clinton Commerce Department's Vaughn 
indexes, which contained numerous, spurious claims of exemption and 
attorney-client privilege; (4) prepared sworn declarations submitted to 
the Court; (5) prepared witnesses for deposition; and (6) attended 
depositions In this case, often disrupting the process.(276)
 Importantly, in her January 18, 1998 affidavit and at the March 23, 
1998 evidentiary hearing, Ms. Hill testified that Barbara Fredericks 
helped to draft the false and misleading declaration of Secretary 
Brown.(277) The declaration Fredericks helped to draft was 
carefully worded to avoid Secretary Brown having to acknowledge any 
involvement in the search for documents responsive to Judicial Watch's 
FOIA requests.(278) It also falsely asserted that Secretary 
Brown did not ``maintain documents responsive to the FOIA requests made 
the basis of [Judicial Watch's] suit, nor at the time of the FOIA 
requests did [Secretary Brown] maintain any such 
documents.''(279) In fact, Ms. Hill testified that not only 
did Secretary Brown maintain documents responsive to Judicial Watch's 
FOIA requests in his office, he had even showed her responsive 
documents on Commerce Department letterhead and under Melissa Moss' 
signature that he kept in an ostrich skin portfolio.(280)
 The evidence also reveals that Judith Means was intimately involved 
in providing the Clinton Commerce Department's response to Judicial 
Watch's FOIA requests.(281) Means testified that she met 
with John Ost and his supervisor to answer questions about withholding 
documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests under claim of 
exemption.(282) Ost would later testify that he provided his 
supervisor with a facsimile from the DNC to the Commerce Department 
listing companies that the DNC was recommending for participation in 
trade missions.(283) In addition, Means also testified that 
she met with Melissa Moss, who had signed the letters Secretary Brown 
showed to Ms. Hill concerning the sale of seats on trade 
missions.(284) However, at her deposition, Means failed to 
produce her notes of these meetings.(285) Neither the 
facsimile from the DNC Ost provided to his supervisor nor the Moss' 
letters have ever been provided to Judicial Watch.(286) 
Obviously, Means' notes of her meetings with Ost, Ost's supervisor and 
Moss might shed light on the disappearance of these crucial pieces of 
evidence.
 The testimony in Judicial Watch's case also shows that OGC lawyers 
knew about the DNC ``Minority Donors List'' long before its existence 
was revealed by Graham Whatley.(287) Indeed, Christine Sopko 
testified that she turned over this list of 139 contributors to the DNC 
to her superiors months earlier.(288) A number of donors on 
the list, which included bankers, union officials, and corporate 
executives, attended a trade mission to South Africa with Secretary 
Brown in November 1993. The list thus constitutes further primo facie 
evidence that the Clinton Commerce Department was doing political 
fundraising by selling seats on the taxpayer-financed trade missions. 
OGC lawyers also reviewed the now-missing documents previously 
maintained in Secretary Brown's office.(289)
 When confronted with evidence of obstruction and unlawful conduct 
by Commerce Department officials--such as the shredding of documents in 
Secretary Brown's office,(290) the destruction of documents 
by Melinda Yee,(291) and the removal of classified, national 
security documents by Ira Sockowitz (292)-Clinton Commerce 
Department lawyers testified that, in effect, they did nothing.
 The issue of the adequacy of the Clinton Commerce Department's 
search for computer files has also assumed a central role in this case. 
Court orders dated December 6, 1996 and February 13, 1997 charged the 
Clinton Commerce Department's OGC with the specific responsibility of 
searching for and producing computer files responsive to Judicial 
Watch's FOIA requests. Yet, OGC not only failed in its responsibilities 
to supervise the search for responsive computer files throughout the 
agency,(293) it also failed to search even its own 
computers, even though the existence and location of these records was 
well known.(294)
 As General Counsel to the Clinton Commerce Department, Ginger Lew 
was the ultimate supervisor of all the attorneys who participated in 
the Department's response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests. She was 
also a confidante of John Huang and very active in Asian-American 
politics. Lew later left the Clinton Commerce Department to become 
Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') 
under Erskine Bowles, who is now White House Chief of Staff. Lew was 
instrumental in having her special assistant at OGC, Ira Sockowitz, 
join her at the SBA.(295)
 Like John Huang before her, Lew went to great lengths to avoid 
being deposed, and to avoid producing subpoenaed documents. She and her 
counsel initially sought to avoid service of a subpoena, then attempted 
to ``voluntarily'' appear for the deposition at Judicial Watch's 
offices so as to avoid having to produce documents. The gamesmanship 
then escalated.
 When Judicial Watch was forced to postpone Lew's deposition because 
of the evasive tactics it had encountered in attempting to serve its 
deposition subpoena, Lew's counsel and counsel for the Clinton Justice 
Department then conducted an unauthorized and essentially unlawful 
deposition of Lew and a court reporter to elicit false and misleading 
testimony. The Court would later rebuke counsel for Lew and the Clinton 
Justice Department saying, ``[W]hat you're just giving him and waiving 
around today is a purported transcript of a deposition that is totally 
unauthorized.'' (296) The Court also rebuked Ms. Lew for 
refusing to accept Judicial Watch's subpoena:

 Why would a person like Ms. Lew, who is a lawyer, not just say 
 to her lawyer, ``Accept the subpoena. Don't go play all these 
 games and have people chasing all over town looking for me to 
 serve me?'' Why would a lawyer do that? I don't understand 
 that.(297)

 Ultimately, Judicial Watch was able to at least begin its 
deposition of Lew on March 12, 1997. This deposition demonstrates that 
Lew is an astute political operative.(298) It is also clear 
from her demeanor during the deposition that Lew was not being candid. 
She has still failed to produce the requested documents, and, in the 
middle of the deposition, she, the Clinton Justice Department counsel, 
and Lew's counsel all arbitrarily walked out of the court proceeding, 
without authorization from the Court. The obstruction Lew committed and 
condoned further substantiates and corroborates the other evidence and 
testimony that there was a desperate effort on the part of Secretary 
Brown, under orders and pressure from the President's top political 
aides, to cover-up the fact that taxpayer-financed trade missions were 
being used as a fundraising tool for President Clinton's re-election, 
and other political needs. It is important to remember that Lew was the 
Clinton Administration's lead lawyer at Commerce.
 The testimony of these lawyers also shows that they directly 
obstructed the public's right to know about the operations of its 
government pursuant to FOIA. Incredibly, OGC lawyers directly 
obstructed court processes by participating in the drafting of false 
declarations, the misapplication--with an error rate found by the Court 
of least fifty percent (50%)--of exemptions from disclosure under 
FOIA,(299) the invocation of spurious claims of attorney-
client privilege, and the failure to disclose documents in their 
custody or control (e.g., the ``Minority Donors List''). None of them 
felt a duty to investigate acts of wrongdoing by others in the Clinton 
Commerce Department, such as the destruction by Melinda Yee of her 
notes and other documents, the removal of classified documents by Ira 
Sockowitz, and the disappearance of documents from Secretary Brown's 
office. In fact, according to them, they did not even have an 
obligation to report this evidence of obstruction of justice to the 
Clinton Commerce Department's Inspector General, the Department of 
Justice, or the Court.
 In light of the role of attorneys to uphold the law, the conduct of 
OGC lawyers has been most troubling. While one OGC attorney, Gordon 
Fields, acknowledged that government lawyers have an obligation to the 
American people and not just the Administration or department which 
they serve,(300) the conduct of the OGC lawyers in this 
matter demonstrates anything but such an obligation. In fact, the 
conduct of the OGC lawyers in this matter, obviously under orders from 
supervisors acting on behalf of the Clinton Administration, amount to 
obstruction of justice.
 G. Clinton Justice Department Complicity
 This is the Justice Department. And so I cannot imagine a more 
 seriously jeopardizing situation for Ms. Hill to be in at this 
 point in time.
 Stephen Charles, Ms. Hill's lawyer, just prior to her court 
 testimony on March 23, 1998.(301)

 Throughout this case, it has not only been the Clinton Commerce 
Department and its lawyers that have attempted to thwart Judicial 
Watch's efforts to obtain documents responsive to its FOIA requests. 
The Clinton Commerce Department has enjoyed the apparent approval and 
complicity of the Clinton Justice Department as well.
 For example, in a February 24, 1997 article asking ``How Honest Is 
Justice's Probe?'' Investor's Business Daily noted that the Clinton 
Justice Department is defending some of the very same Clinton Commerce 
Department officials it is supposedly investigating for illegal 
fundraising.(302) Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, who 
admittedly owed his former position as U.S. Attorney for the District 
of Columbia in part to Secretary Brown, who admittedly recommended 
him,(303) and who obviously owes his current position to 
President Clinton,(304) publicly announced on NBC's Meet the 
Press that he was ``intimately involved'' in the Chinagate 
probe.(305) In early 1997, however, Holder tried to shut 
down Judicial Watch's lawsuit. ``[This lawsuit] is not about whether in 
fact Secretary Brown `sold seats on trade missions to big contributors 
to the Democratic Party' . . .,'' Holder wrote in filing a motion with 
the Court.(306) Holder's inherent conflict-of-interest only 
adds to the already substantial conflict-of-interest of the Clinton 
Justice Department.
 The end result has been the lack of any serious investigation by 
the Clinton Justice Department.(307) While Attorney General 
Janet Reno claims to be conducting an investigation of the campaign 
finance scandal that will leave ``no stone . . . unturned,'' 
(308) depositions taken in this case demonstrate the 
contrary. About a year after the scandal exploded, in the summer of 
1997, discovery confirmed that neither the Clinton Justice Department 
nor the FBI had called one Clinton Commerce Department official before 
the grand jury. Not even Huang's secretary, Janice Stewart, had been 
interviewed by the Clinton Justice Department or the 
FBI.(309) Likewise, Ginger Lew, the supervisor of Ira 
Sockowitz at both the Clinton Commerce Department and the SBA, had not 
been interviewed either.(310) Nor have many 
others.(311)
 In addition to the telling lack of any meaningful investigation by 
the obviously conflicted Clinton Justice Department, the conduct of 
Clinton Justice Department lawyers in Judicial Watch's case has been 
marked by a pattern of litigation misconduct and abuse, including 
outright suppression of evidence. For example, Clinton Justice 
Department counsel unilaterally terminated the depositions of Anthony 
Das and Ginger Lew. With regard to the Das deposition, the Court had 
granted Judicial Watch the right to subpoena documents from Das prior 
to his being deposed.(312) Yet, when Das appeared for his 
deposition, he produced no documents. Bruce Hegyi, the Clinton Justice 
Department lawyer defending the deposition, unilaterally declared that 
Das had no obligation to produce the subpoenaed documents, then Das, 
Hegyi and the OGC lawyers attending the deposition walked 
out!(313) The Court ultimately issued sanctions for this 
outrageous misconduct.(314) Similarly, after engaging in 
substantial ``gamesmanship'' prior to her actual deposition, Lew also 
failed to produce subpoenaed documents when she was finally deposed. 
Then, in the middle of the deposition, she, Hegyi, OGC counsel and 
Lew's counsel all arbitrarily walked out again, without any 
authorization from the Court. Motions are pending before the Court to 
sanction this additional misconduct at Lew's 
deposition.(315)
 In addition, the Court has repeatedly criticized Clinton Justice 
Department counsel for improper use of ``speaking objections'' during 
depositions, which have had the obviously intended effect of tipping-
off witnesses about how to respond to Judicial Watch's questioning. 
This grossly improper misconduct has been repeated in deposition after 
deposition.(316) During a June 27, 1997 hearing, the Court, 
responding to the Clinton Justice Department's rationalizations for its 
improper conduct, went to the heart of the matter:

 [T]he one thing that just leaps out at me is that in a case in 
 which the government is being accused of [a] cover-up, and, in 
 which I have suggested that government counsel should take 
 certain actions not to suggest answers to witnesses, I don't 
 understand this whole approach that you continue to take in 
 your brief about, ``Well, we can always try to clarify 
 ambiguous questions, and, therefore . . .'' I mean, you're 
 going to be constantly accused of tipping off witnesses and 
 suggesting answers to witnesses by putting your head in the 
 sand with that kind of approach. That's why I said to the 
 government that you need to reexamine your approach. I just 
 don't understand it.''(317)

Clinton Justice Department counsel was admonished again for using these 
blatantly obstructionist tactics during a number of 
depositions.(318)
 The Clinton Justice Department also has made repeated, material 
misrepresentations of fact. To cite just a few of the more significant 
examples, when Judicial Watch took the deposition of John Dickerson, 
who briefed John Huang on intelligence matters, the Clinton Justice 
Department represented that Huang had received 37 intelligence 
briefings. However, it was later reported in the press that Huang 
actually had received as many as 109 briefings.(319)
 Likewise, the Clinton Justice Department represented that the 
office of Melinda Yee--the official note-taker on Commerce Department 
trade missions who later admitted to having destroyed all of her notes 
despite the fact that the Court had ordered them to be produced to 
Judicial Watch--was searched by Dawn Evans Cromer, Carola McGiffert and 
Beth Bergere.(320) When Judicial Watch deposed these 
individuals, however, it became clear that they had never been assigned 
to conduct any such search, had not conducted any such search, and did 
not even know that their names had been given to the Court as the 
individuals who conducted a search of Ms. Yee's office.(321)
 Moreover, the Clinton Commerce and Justice Departments also were 
involved in suppressing the crucial DNC ``Minority Donors List'' for 
months before Judicial Watch learned of its existence at the May 28, 
1997 deposition of Graham Whatley. Clinton Justice Department counsel 
made repeated false representations that they were ``surprised'' by 
this revelation.(322)
 The lies by Clinton Administration officials continued. During his 
June 13, 1997 Senate confirmation hearing for the post of Deputy 
Attorney General, U.S. Attorney Eric Holder testified that he had no 
involvement in this case and had not signed any pleadings or 
memoranda.(323) While a cursory review of the court file 
shows the contrary, taken at face value, Holder's testimony likely 
means that this case--which has paramount political and national 
security ramifications--is being run by ``Main'' Justice--and out of 
the Attorney General's office.
 This is a massive conflict-of-interest. According to a memorandum 
recently produced in another Judicial Watch anti-corruption case, the 
DNC requested Attorney General Reno's assistance in raising $40 million 
for the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.(324) Thus, 
it appears Attorney General Reno herself is most likely involved in the 
Clinton campaign fundraising scandal.
 In light of this memorandum, and Attorney General Reno's refusal to 
appoint an Independent Counsel despite overwhelming evidence of 
criminal misconduct on the part of Clinton Administration officials, 
and her Department's obvious conflict of interest, it would certainly 
appear that the litigation misconduct in this case is attributable to 
partisan political loyalties to the Clinton Administration.
IV. Clinton's Fundraising Push Likely Resulted in Breaches of National 
 Security
 As Judicial Watch uncovered evidence that seats on Clinton Commerce 
Department trade missions were being sold in exchange for campaign 
contributions, it also uncovered alarming evidence about likely 
breaches of national security. In the four (4) years that Judicial 
Watch has investigated this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed, 
government services, it also discovered John Huang, the removal by Ira 
Sockowitz, a confidante of both Huang and Ginger Lew, of classified, 
national security documents from a Commerce Department safe, the 
removal of national security information by Secretary Brown's Chief of 
Staff, William Ginsburg, curious links between former Clinton Commerce 
appointees and Iridium World Communications, Ltd., and more. Although 
Judicial Watch is only at an interim stage in its investigation of 
these sensitive issues, the potential national security breaches 
already discovered raise ominous questions about further unlawful 
conduct by the President and his Administration.
 A. John Huang, Accused Spy, Had A Role in Commerce Trade 
 Missions and Other Clinton Fundraising Schemes
 While investigating the sale of taxpayer-financed trade mission 
seats by the Clinton Commerce Department, Judicial Watch uncovered John 
Huang, the Clinton fundraiser/Commerce operative believed by many to be 
an agent for the Chinese Government.(325) To date, only 
Judicial Watch has deposed Huang under oath.(326) This 
deposition uncovered Huang's lies and sparked the Clinton controversy 
called ``Chinagate.'' Not surprisingly, the Clinton Administration and 
its allies at the DNC did their best to prevent Huang from testifying 
under oath, and Huang himself went into hiding from federal agents 
trying to serve him with a deposition subpoena.(327) In 
attempting to learn of Huang's whereabouts, DNC officials later lied to 
the Court.(328)
 Indeed, Judicial Watch has learned that, not only was Secretary 
Brown ordered by the White House to sell seats on (Commerce Department 
trade missions, but he was also forced to hire Huang. Ms. Hill 
testified that Mrs. Clinton was involved in Huang's placement at the 
Clinton Commerce Department:

 Q: And he told you, Secretary Brown, did he not, that John 
 Huang was forced into the Commerce Department by the Hillary 
 Rodham Clinton Arkansas group at the White House? He told you 
 that, didn't he?
 A: Yes, sir.(329)

 Indeed, as we now know, Huang was the ``top priority for 
placement'' in the new Clinton Administration by the Lippo Group, the 
Jakarta-based business conglomerate that has substantial dealings and 
joint operations with the Chinese Government, and is headed by the 
Riady family.(330) James and Mochtar Riady have been 
longtime friends and strong financial supporters of the Clintons dating 
back to when President Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. Mochtar 
and James Riady are believed by U.S. authorities to ``have had a long-
term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency.'' 
(331) Before being placed at Commerce, Huang was the top 
U.S. executive for Lippo, and ``the political power that advise[d] the 
Riady family on issues and where to make contributions.'' 
(332)
 In fact, it is now clear that Huang participated in the planning of 
Clinton Commerce Department trade missions,(333) and had 
extensive telephone contacts with Asian and American business people, 
diplomats, lawyers, and fundraisers, many of whom, such as Webster 
Hubbell and Joe Giroir, had ties to Huang's former employer, the Lippo 
Group.(334) In February 1997, The Washington Times reported 
that ``[t]elephone records show that while at Commerce, he made and 
received dozens of calls from Lippo lobbyists and executives while he 
worked on sensitive trade missions.'' (335)
Huang also participated in departmental meetings on Asia 
policy(336) and, astonishingly, received more than a hundred 
CIA intelligence briefings, many on matters related to areas that his 
old employers at the Lippo Group would have an 
interest.(337) While working for the Clinton Commerce 
Department Huang made ``more than 400 telephone calls . . . to Lippo 
and some of its business representatives. . . .'' (338) 
Huang also made a number of visits, while supposedly working for the 
Clinton Commerce Department, to the offices of Stephens, Inc., a firm 
that had close ties to the Lippo Group. Paula V. Greene, a former 
secretary for Stephens Inc., testified before Senator Fred Thompson's 
fundraising investigation that:

 Huang had unrestricted use of the telephone, copier and fax 
 machine in the spare office when he stopped by ``sometimes two, 
 three times a week, perhaps not every week,'' she said. But Ms. 
 Greene said she did not know whom he called or whether Huang 
 transmitted any faxes.(339)

 The Clinton Administration gave Huang access to top-secret 
information apparently without even conducting an overseas background 
check on him.(340) Moreover, press reports indicate that 
Huang ``held top-secret clearances for three years, although he worked 
at Commerce for only 18 months,'' and ``initially was issued a top-
secret clearance in January 1994, five months before he resigned as a 
top executive at the . . . Lippo Group.'' (341) Electronic 
intercepts have also apparently confirmed that, at a minimum, he 
committed economic espionage by passing government secrets to the Lippo 
Group.(342) Indeed, some believe he may have endangered the 
lives of U.S. intelligence agents.(343) The Washington 
Post's Bob Woodward reported on November 14, 1997, that the FBI had 
uncovered ``reports considered reliable but unconfirmed that Huang, 
while serving as a senior Commerce Department official in the Clinton 
administration, passed a classified document to the Chinese 
government.'' (344)
 Coupled with the risk of this Clinton-appointee's activities to 
national security, was his illegal fundraising at the Clinton Commerce 
Department. Huang testified at his deposition that he had little 
contact with the DNC and the Clinton White House while at the Clinton 
Commerce Department.(345) In fact, he was in regular contact 
with top Democratic fundraisers, and often supplied them with names of 
prospective donors in the Asian-American community, and was the ``king-
maker'' for Asian-American political appointments in the Clinton 
Administration.(346) The DNC even credited him for raising 
money while working at the Clinton Commerce Department.(347)
 Also, contrary to his Judicial Watch testimony, Huang was a 
frequent White House visitor and often talked with key White House 
officials, including President Clinton. According to logs kept by the 
Secret Service, Huang made at least 78 visits to the White House 
beginning July 1, 1995, at least a dozen of which were while he was 
working at the Commerce Department.(348) He was also in 
regular contact with top Democratic fundraisers, and often supplied 
them with names of prospective donors in the Asian-American 
community.(349) Indeed, President Clinton personally lobbied 
on Huang's behalf to ensure that he would be placed in a high-level DNC 
fundraising post after leaving Commerce.(350)
 Despite Huang's false and misleading testimony in the Judicial 
Watch lawsuit, and his unlawful fundraising activities,(351) 
the Clinton Justice Department has yet to prosecute, much less 
interview him. In fact, Judicial Watch has seen first-hand the Justice 
Department's complicity in covering-up these offenses. Just one among 
many examples--the Clinton Justice Department's Criminal Division Chief 
until recently was John Keeney. Keeney's son is one of Huang's personal 
lawyers, and represented Huang during his Judicial Watch 
deposition.(352) Huang only surfaced because of the 
relentless due diligence of Judicial Watch--and only after a nationwide 
manhunt in which he temporarily evaded service of a court subpoena with 
the cooperation of the White House and the DNC.(353)
 A final, important note. By testifying nearly two years ago in 
Judicial Watch's lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce Department, Huang 
waived any Fifth Amendment rights he may have been able to assert. 
Thus, Huang cannot now ``take the Fifth.'' Judicial Watch has moved the 
Court to continue Huang's deposition.
 B. Ira Sockowitz, Special Assistant at Commerce, 
 Misappropriated Government Secrets on Encryption 
 and Satellite Technology and Likely Harmed National 
 Security
 In addition to the sale of seats on trade missions and the 
mysterious operations of John Huang at the Commerce Department, in 1996 
the Clinton Administration abruptly gave Commerce the power to control 
exports of sensitive technology to China. This came as a shock to many 
experts because it is generally believed that, unlike the State 
Department, which served as the technology gatekeeper in the past, the 
Commerce Department is not equipped to properly guard against national 
security breaches. In fact, according to a top defense expert in the 
Bush Administration, ``[i]t was tantamount to a complete overthrow of 
the old export-control regime.'' (354)
 Even more shocking was that such a transfer of power would be 
authorized by President Clinton when the Commerce Department could not 
even control breaches of security within its own building. Thanks to an 
anonymous tip in October 1996, shortly after authority for export 
controls on technology was shifted to the Commerce Department, Judicial 
Watch discovered that Ira Sockowitz, a former Special Assistant in the 
Commerce Department's Office of General Counsel, removed 136 files 
containing classified satellite encryption data from a safe in his 
former office after he had had left OGC to work at the Small Business 
Administration.(355) Sockowitz had worked at OGC under 
Ginger Lew, a confidante of John Huang, then joined Lew at the SBA 
after she left OGC for that agency. Sockowitz' replacement at OGC, 
Jeffrey May, allowed Sockowitz unsupervised access to the safe in his 
former office, apparently allowing Sockowitz to remove the classified 
satellite encryption data.(356)
 The sensitivity of this information is immeasurable--encryption 
data are used by U.S. intelligence to keep instructions sent to 
communication satellites, including instructions for nuclear missiles, 
secret.(357) Undoubtedly, the documents Sockowitz took with 
him contained information extremely vital to U.S. national security--
and likewise invaluable to rival nations. Despite this alarming 
security breach, the Clinton Justice Department decided in a matter of 
only weeks without any real investigation, that there was no case 
against Sockowitz. It came to this astonishing conclusion without even 
questioning Lew or his replacement at OGC, Jeffrey May.(358) 
In pursuing its own case against the Clinton Commerce Department, 
Judicial Watch may have uncovered how these secret files were used. 
Both Sockowitz and Lew were involved in the process of selecting 
participants for trade missions.(359) In fact, Sockowitz was 
put in charge of screening companies seeking to participate in trade 
missions. One such mission was the now-controversial 1994 trade mission 
to China during which Loral's Bernard Schwartz began a business 
relationship with a Chinese government official that would ultimately 
lead to U.S. satellites being launched on Chinese rockets and the 
possibly unlawful transfer of missile technology to the Chinese.
 At his deposition in Judicial Watch's lawsuit, Sockowitz admitted 
that he kept classified materials, as well as documents concerning 
trade missions, in the safe in his Commerce Department office at 
OGC.(360) Sockowitz also admitted that he took some of these 
documents from the Clinton Commerce Department--including documents 
that were responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests--and stored them 
in another safe at the SBA.(361) Lew, Sockowitz's boss, 
testified that she knew of no reason why Sockowitz would have taken 
these documents with him, because they would be of no value to anyone 
at the SBA.(362)
 On November 5, 1996, the Court ordered that Sockowitz's safe at 
SBA, which already had been taken into custody by special agents from 
the SBA's Office of Inspector General (``IG''),(363) was to 
be inventoried by Commerce Department officials no later than November 
13, 1996. The Court also ordered that Sockowitz's safe and computer at 
the Commerce Department remain in the custody of the Commerce 
Department IG, pending further order from the Court. The resulting 
inventory of Sockowitz's safe at SBA revealed that not only did it 
contain documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests, but 
also highly sensitive, classified national security intelligence data 
on China, Russia and India, as well as the highly sensitive satellite 
encryption and telecommunications data previously 
mentioned.(364) Some of these materials were ultimately 
turned over to the Central Intelligence Agency. When another 
organization sought access to some of these same documents through 
FOIA, both the Commerce Department and the National Security Agency 
stated, in sworn affidavits, that the release of these documents 
``could harm national security.''(365)
 According to Nolanda Hill, Secretary Brown was also worried about 
Sockowitz' activities at the Commerce Department:

 Q: And I believe you told me that Ira [Sockowitz] funneled 
 information to others, that Ron was aware of that?
 A: I don't believe I used those words.
 Q: What words did you use?
 A: He--Ron--Secretary Brown was concerned that that might be 
 happening.(366)

 Additional questioning of Hill, and the later deposition of Lauri 
Fitz-Pegado, another close confidante of Secretary Brown who traveled 
with him on nearly every trade mission, and the Commerce Department's 
Director of the Foreign Commercial Service, revealed what may have 
happened with the highly sensitive satellite encryption and 
telecommunications data misappropriated by Sockowitz. Ms. Hill 
testified:

 Q: You knew that Ira Sockowitz had been close to (top 
 Commerce official) Laurie Fitz-Pegado at the Commerce 
 Department from your discussions with Ron?
 A: Not close. I mean--
 Q: Or had worked with her in some way?
 A: I knew that he--she had worked--that he had worked with 
 her, yes.(367)
 At the July 18, 1997 and August 1, 1997 deposition of Fitz-Pegado, 
Judicial Watch discovered that she and at least three (3) other former 
Clinton Commerce Department employees, who also had access to top-
secret classified information, left Commerce and went to work for 
Iridium World Communications, Ltd.(368) Iridium is a multi-
billion dollar company that is building a global wireless communication 
network that will enable subscribers to communicate using handheld 
telephones and pagers virtually anywhere in the world.(369) 
Iridium's global network operates through combining a series of low-
orbit satellites with land-based wireless systems. The sixty-six (66) 
low-earth-orbit satellites communicate with each other through 
encrypted messages. Iridium is owned, in part, by state-controlled 
entities in China, Russia and India.(370) These are the same 
three (3) countries that were the subject of classified intelligence 
data secretly removed by Sockowitz from the Clinton Commerce Department 
and stored in his safe at the SBA.(371)
 Obviously, Iridium stood to benefit enormously from the sensitive 
satellite encryption and telecommunications data that Sockowitz 
apparently removed from his safe at the Clinton Commerce Department and 
later kept in his safe at the SBA. Also, Fitz-Pegado seemingly had few 
qualifications for either her Clinton Commerce Department position, or 
her Iridium position, and ostensibly was hired because she was a close 
confidante of Secretary Brown and had accompanied him on trade 
missions.(372) It is more likely that Fitz-Pegado and her 
staff were extremely attractive to Iridium and its foreign joint-
venture partners because they had access to top-secret, classified 
national security information while at the Clinton Commerce Department.
 The Clinton Administration's transfer to the Commerce Department of 
the power to control exports of highly sensitive technology, without 
even minimally adequate measures to properly protect that information, 
raises serious national security questions. Moreover, the revolving 
door uncovered by Judicial Watch raises the additional concern that 
highly sensitive information may have already been compromised. Were 
the individuals at the Clinton Commerce Department approving technology 
transfers to China on behalf of, or to aid companies they planned to 
work for after leaving the government?
 C. The Infamous 1994 Trade Mission Trip to China
 Press reports indicate that the Clinton White House expended 
substantial effort on the 1994 trade mission to China.(373) 
The most likely reason for this substantial effort is because during 
the trip, the Lippo Group, John Huang's former employer, the Chinese 
Government, and Entergy Corporation, a company with offices in 
Arkansas, successfully concluded negotiations for the building of a 
power plant in China.(374) According to Ms. Hill, Secretary 
Brown was ordered by Clinton to further the negotiations on behalf of 
Huang's Lippo Group. In attendance on the China trip were Melinda Yee, 
the mission's official note-taker who later testified at her Judicial 
Watch deposition that she destroyed all of her notes, Ira Sockowitz, 
who would later remove classified satellite encryption data and 
classified national security intelligence on China, Russia and India 
from his office at OGC, and Bernard Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer 
of Loral.(375)
 Sockowitz reportedly claimed that he did not recall seeing Huang or 
Yee on the trip, but did recall sitting next to Bernard Schwartz at a 
dinner in Beijing with Chinese officials.(376) Huang 
reportedly pushed for Schwartz to be on the China trip, and Secretary 
Brown reportedly arranged a meeting between Schwartz and a top official 
of China's Ministry of Post and Telecommunications.(377) 
Schwartz later recalled that the meeting ``helped open doors that were 
not open before.'' (378) Soon after the trip, Schwartz won 
the satellite transmission rights for a multi-billion dollar mobile 
telephone network in China.(379) Schwartz also reportedly 
lobbied hard to get satellite export control authority moved from the 
State Department to Commerce, and contributed heavily to the Democratic 
Party in the process. Indeed, he has provided some $1.9 million to 
Democrats since 1992, and was the party's largest, single donor in 
1997.
 In the months before Loral received the Clinton Administration's 
permission to launch a satellite from China, Schwartz reportedly 
attended three events inside the White House with President 
Clinton.(380) He was also under scrutiny at the time for 
earlier assistance to China that U.S. officials feared improperly aided 
the communist country's missile program. Some believe Loral may well 
have passed sensitive satellite launch data to China Aerospace, an 
entity that is controlled by the People's Liberation Army, which, 
perhaps not coincidentally, is also an owner of Iridium. In fact, the 
Pentagon recently reported that Loral's data disclosure ``harmed'' 
national security.
 D. Commerce Official's Diaries Detail Information of 
 ``State Secrets''
 In addition to the top secret documents taken by Ira Sockowitz from 
the Clinton Commerce Department,(381) Judicial Watch also 
uncovered that Secretary Brown's Chief of Staff, William Ginsburg, 
recorded classified information in ``personal'' diaries he kept in his 
office. The Clinton Administration itself admits that Ginsberg's 
allegedly ``personal'' diaries detailed ``state secrets,'' including 
information on satellite surveillance, intelligence personnel and 
capabilities, and notes of a meeting of the National Security Council 
on an unnamed foreign country, among other ``national security'' 
information.(382) The similarities between the contents of 
the diaries and the materials taken by Sockowitz, notably the secret 
satellite information, are striking.
 Ginsburg's 12-volume diaries, consisting of 3,600 pages, could 
prove to be the ``Rosetta stone'' of how the Clinton Commerce 
Department operated under Secretary Brown. The diaries detail John 
Huang's attempts to maintain a security clearance after leaving the 
Clinton Commerce Department,(383) and concerns about Clinton 
donor/China trade mission participant Bernard Schwartz of Loral. The 
Associated Press recently reported a key detail in the Ginsburg diaries 
concerning Schwartz's connection to the Clinton Commerce Department:

 Sometimes the relationship was a little too close for comfort.

 When Loral was in the process of buying Unisys Corp.'s defense 
 division in 1995, the Commerce Department's chief of staff 
 [William Ginsberg] wrote in his diary of concerns that a big 
 donor like Schwarz might be seeking an audience with top 
 department officials at a time when he needed to resolve a 
 federal contract dispute involving Unisys during the deal.

 ``Key: not to talk to Loral (Bernard Schwartz) re this,'' then-
 Commerce chief of staff William Ginsberg wrote.(384)

 The Ginsberg diaries are currently in limbo, as the Clinton 
Commerce Department and Ginsberg ``fight'' over whether the diaries 
belong to the government or to Ginsberg personally.(385) In 
the meantime, it is ``beyond dispute that a top Clinton Commerce 
Department official was recording top secret information into what he 
considered at the time to be his personal diaries, which he later 
removed without authorization from the Department. And as with the 
secreting of top secret data by Ginsberg's colleague Ira Sockowitz, 
this potentially serious breach of national security was uncovered only 
through Judicial Watch's refusal to be thwarted by the Clinton 
Administration's obstruction of justice in this case. It was not 
discovered by Janet Reno and her Justice Department.
 E. More Chinese Ties_Johnny Chung.
 Another Clinton donor tied to the Chinese Government is Johnny 
Chung. Chung recently admitted that he funneled at least $100,000 of 
the $300,000 he received from Chinese military intelligence to Democrat 
causes in the summer of 1996. The conduit for the money was Liu Chao-
ying, whose father was the head of China's military at the time the 
donations were made to the DNC.(386)
 Chung likely achieved his China connections through the Clinton 
Commerce Department. According to The Washington Post, investigators 
have searched through ``fragments of data gathered from U.S. 
intelligence surveillance intercepts and business records'' to trace 
the relationship between Chung and his Chinese military patrons:

 The documents also trace the history of their partnership, 
 showing how Chung's political donations--which ultimately 
 totaled $366,000 and were all eventually returned by the 
 Democratic National Committee--led directly to meetings with 
 Commerce Department officials. They suggested he attend a U.S. 
 trade mission in Beijing, where Chung was introduced to senior 
 Clinton administration officials, as well as the network of 
 Chinese executives that would eventually include Liu.
 * * * * *
 The same month as his donation to the party, Democratic 
 operatives introduced Chung to then-Deputy Assistant Commerce 
 Secretary Jude Kearney, who in turn suggested that Chung join a 
 Commerce Department trade mission to China, according to 
 Chung's proposed testimony--or proffer--to the Senate 
 investigators. (Kearney said through an attorney that he did 
 not recall making that suggestion, but did not dispute Chung's 
 account.)

 The trip was Chung's first visit to China. Indirectly, it led 
 to Chung's meeting with Liuand, in a previously unreported 
 twist on the campaign finance scandal, to his hooking up with 
 another Democratic fund-raiser, Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie, who 
 was indicted earlier this year on charges that he illegally 
 funneled foreign money to the Democrats.

 Chung made the trip at his own expense and was not listed as a 
 member of the official U.S. delegation, but Kearney met him at 
 the Beijing airport and escorted him to a restaurant where they 
 met Trie's wife, Chung's proffer said. Kearney then took Chung 
 to a hotel where they met then-Commerce policy official Melinda 
 Yee, the proffer said. Chung later attended functions where he 
 met with government officials and executives from the United 
 States and China, and had his picture taken with Commerce 
 Secretary Ronald H. Brown.(387)

 Clearly, the Clinton Commerce Department trade mission to China in 
1994 was a confluence of illegal fundraising and illicit deal-making--
which lead eventually to likely breaches of national security including 
a massive attempt by a foreign power to subvert the electoral process 
in the United States. At best, this is serious malfeasance by the 
Clinton Administration. At worst, and more likely, the Clinton 
Administration's disinterest in breaches of national security was 
purposeful--so as to allow the campaign fundraising operation run out 
of the Clinton White House and Commerce Department to proceed 
unchecked. It is thus clear that the campaign fundraising abuses at the 
Clinton Commerce Department, ordained and then covered-up by the 
Clinton White House, gave rise to likely breaches of national security.
 F. More Chinese Ties_Charlie Trie
 Yet another Clinton donor with links to the Clinton Commerce 
Department is Charlie ``Yah Lin'' Trie, who is under investigation for 
funneling illegal foreign donations to the DNC.(388) Trie 
also helped the Chinese communist arms dealer Wang Jun to gain access 
to a fundraising coffee with President Clinton.(389)
 Documents uncovered by congressional investigators demonstrate the 
nexus of money, access and China at the Clinton Commerce Department:

 A key ally [of Trie's], according to the documents, was Jude 
 Kearney, a deputy assistant secretary in the Commerce 
 Department's International Trade Administration.

 In October 1993, Trie helped shepherd Kearney, a fellow 
 Arkansan, around China.

 ``It was very helpful to have someone around who knew the 
 ropes,'' Kearney wrote Trie after the trip.

 In June 1994, Kearney joined Trie's business associates and 
 guests at a table at a Democratic National Committee fund-
 raising dinner while Trie sat at Clinton's table. That fall, 
 according to the documents, Kearney supported a request by Trie 
 to host a party for the participants on a U.S. trade mission to 
 China. Kearney said last year he couldn't recall whether Trie 
 actually ever hosted the party. In February 1995, Trie sat at 
 first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's table at another Democratic 
 fund-raiser.

 The documents show that in September 1995, Kearney asked the 
 U.S. Embassy in Beijing to invite Trie to events with Mrs. 
 Clinton during her trip to China. Upon Trie's return to the 
 United States, he attended a White House dinner with other 
 large Democratic givers, including postal union leader Moe 
 Biller, Miramax Films co-chairman Harvey Weinstein and oil 
 executive Roger Tamraz, who was raising money for Democrats 
 while being wanted in Lebanon on bank fraud charges.

 Later Trie joined a Commerce Department discussion of Asian 
 issues with the chief executive officers of Boeing, Lockheed 
 Martin and other companies and such federal policymakers, 
 including Deputy Commerce Secretary David Barram and Small 
 Business Administrator Philip Lader. And in January 1996, 
 Kearney and Trie both attended a meeting of the Chinese 
 Association for Science and Technology.(390)

 Judicial Watch uncovered that Trie had regular access to Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Kearney, meeting with him several 
times.(391) Kearney's secretary, Christine Sopko, testified 
that the schedule and agenda for the 1994 trade mission to China was 
faxed to Trie from Kearney's office and that Trie, who had no security 
clearance, may have had access to classified documents in Kearny's 
office.(392) Even more worrisome is that Kearney's office in 
the Clinton Commerce Department had a back door through which 
individuals could come and go unseen by the staff 
outside.(393)
 Trie is now under indictment for ``purchas[ing] access to high-
level government officials in the United States by contribution and 
soliciting contributions to the DNC.'' (394) The Clinton 
Justice Department, which issued the indictment, has yet to charge any 
of the officials who accepted or benefitted from Trie's bribes.
V. Conclusion
 Judicial Watch will continue to pursue its investigation, but 
Congress must, nonetheless, act. The Clinton Commerce Department has 
essentially pled nolo contendre to Judicial Watch concerns about the 
shredding of documents, perjury, and the outright refusal to produce 
documents in response to court orders. In an extraordinarily desperate 
legal move, the Clinton Justice Department, speaking for the Clinton 
Commerce Department, asked the Court to close the Judicial Watch case 
by entering a judgement against itself. The Clinton Commerce Department 
has offered to do a ``second search'' for trade mission documents and 
pay Judicial Watch, using taxpayer money, at least $2 million dollars 
in attorneys' fees and costs. Judicial Watch will not be bribed, 
especially with taxpayer funds, and has opposed this Clinton 
Administration ploy to make the investigation into the illegal sale of 
trade mission seats go away.
 Instead, Judicial Watch has asked the Court to begin immediate 
criminal contempt proceedings against those who have obstructed justice 
in this case--namely, Clinton agents Leon Panetta, John Podesta, 
Melissa Moss, Jude Kearney and others.
 In the meantime, more documents corroborating that illegal 
fundraising occurred at the Clinton Commerce Department emerged just 
recently. The documents, memos from Clinton Commerce official Sally 
Painter (Melissa Moss's deputy in Commerce's Office of Business 
Liaison), are more ``smoking guns.'' One memo, dated January 24, 1994, 
indicates that Painter ``will be meeting with Eric Silden of the DNC on 
1/24 to discuss key business types that we want for the database and 
other interactions that should take place.'' (395) Another 
document by Silden also confirms the DNC provided donor names to the 
Commerce Department.(396) The Associated Press reported:

 But in a Jan. 13, 1994, electronic-mail memo to his colleagues 
 at the DNC, staff member Eric Silden reported that Commerce 
 official Sally Painter had called ``to ask for a list of 
 candidates for a trade mission to Russia.''

 Silden's e-mail suggested that DNC staffers use a list of 
 suggested participants for a trade mission to Belgium as a 
 starting point for coming up with a list for the Russia 
 trip.(397)

 Based in part on these new documents, the Court authorized a 
subpoena for more Commerce records and computers, and authorized the 
depositions of key Clinton fundraisers Terry McAuliffe and Marvin 
Rosen, among other DNC officials.(398) McAuliffe and Rosen 
were two of the Clinton fundraisers implicated in wrong-doing by 
Nolanda Hill in her court testimony on the trade mission 
sales.(399) The DNC will now have to turn over more 
documents that could further expose the DNC-Commerce-White House 
illegal fundraising apparatus.
 A separate Judicial Watch case, against the Clinton-appointee-
dominated Federal Election Commission (``FEC''), could also further 
expose the scheme to sell trade mission seats for political 
contributions to the light of day. Having already uncovered the sale of 
seats on Clinton Commerce Department trade missions, Judicial Watch 
filed a complaint with the FEC on August 26, 1996, to investigate and 
take appropriate action to redress this illegal activity. Without 
taking any action for a year and a half, the FEC casually dismissed 
Judicial Watch's complaint on December 15, 1997. As a result, Judicial 
Watch filed suit.
 Ironically, while commencing controversial investigations into 
GOPAC and other alleged illegal Republican campaign finance abuses, the 
General Counsel of the FEC, Lawrence Noble--a partisan Democrat--moved 
to have Judicial Watch's complaint dismissed, claiming, with great 
bombast, that it was frivolous and, in echoes of prior acts of 
intimidation by the Clinton Administration, that Judicial Watch's 
Chairman, Larry Klayman, should be sanctioned.(400)
 The Court strenuously disagreed and found that the FEC's inaction, 
in the face of serious allegations of bribery, were ``inexplicable.'' 
The Court, in denying Mr. Noble's motion to dismiss and motion for 
sanctions, took the added step of entering judgment itself (i.e., sua 
sponte) against the FEC. In so doing, the Court gave the FEC 120 days, 
or until early November 1998, to decide how it would handle Judicial 
Watch's allegations. The Court also noted that, ``[f]or some reason 
[perhaps because its enforcement arm is run by a Democrat, General 
Counsel Lawrence Noble], the FEC is attempting to thwart a review of 
[Judicial Watch's] charges. . . .'' (401)
 Senator John McCain, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation (which has oversight 
responsibility for the Clinton Commerce Department), has also recently 
expressed concern about the evidence of the sale of the Clinton 
Commerce Department seats and its link to national security:

 When the decision makers are cloaked in the shadows of 
 impropriety, we lose confidence. When I see memos such as this 
 one (MEMO RE WHITE HOUSE ACTIVITIES), advertising how favors 
 such as inclusion in Department of Commerce trade missions can 
 be bought for a campaign contribution, I can't help but wonder 
 whether the same agency can be trusted to make responsible 
 decisions regarding national security.(402)

 A reasonable analysis of the documentary and testimonial evidence 
unearthed by Judicial Watch would indicate that President Clinton and 
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton were heavily involved in the theft of 
government resources to sell for contributions for President Clinton's 
re-election bid. This fundraising push, to the degree it involved 
individuals such as Clinton-hire John Huang and policies such Clinton-
approved hi-tech transfers to China through Commerce, compromised our 
nation's security. The President's two White House deputies, then-Chief 
of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, ordered 
the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to cover-up these crimes. 
Clinton's agents at Commerce and the Department of Justice did their 
level best to accomplish this.
 If it were not for Judicial Watch's exposure of John Huang; if it 
were not for Judicial Watch's refusal to walk away with $2 million in 
taxpayer dollars offered by Clinton's agents; if it were not for 
Judicial Watch's investigations that have uncovered key documents and 
witnesses such as Nolanda Hill, and if it were not for a diligent and 
alert Court, then the President, his appointees, and agents might have 
gotten away with this criminal enterprise.
 The overwhelming evidence of President Clinton's illegal activities 
related to the Commerce trade mission sales are now before this 
Congress. We respectfully request, in the context of expected 
impeachment proceedings on other serious issues, that Congress consider 
whether the actions of this President and his appointees in this matter 
also warrant his impeachment and removal from office.(403)"

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc3/html/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc3-7.htm
 






Related News

  • Coleen Rowley memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller May 21, 2002, FBI special agent and whistleblower
  • “Hillary Clinton is Evil Incarnate” David Schippers Free Republic radio April 2002, Chief counsel of impeachment of Bill Clinton
  • Schippers Exposes Impeachment Debacle, David Schippers interview by Insight Magazine December 8, 2000, Democrat Schippers book Sellout
  • Starr says Clinton ‘chose deception’, Clinton lied under oath obstructed justice and attempted to thwart not just Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit but Starr’s grand jury probe as well, House Judiciary Committee, CNN November 18, 1998
  • Paula Corbin Jones Plaintiff, v. William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson Defendants, For the deprivation and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her federally protected rights, Clinton lowered his trousers and underwear exposing his erect penis and asked Jones to “kiss it.”
  • Accused of rape why won’t president Clinton scream his innocence?, Juanita Broaddrick of Arkansas accused him of raping her in 1978, Why isn’t President Clinton behaving like an innocent man?, Uses his legal wordsmiths as human shields, Newsmax March 2, 1999
  • Kathleen Willey Schwicker vs. William J. Clinton et al, Hillary co defendant, Violation of the 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), Obstructing justice; intimidating party witness or juror, Threats made by jogger, Hillary as guilty as Bill, Newsmax September 21, 2000
  • L.D. Brown testifies about White House intimidation, Seeks attorney with “Intestinal Fortitude” to go against Clinton, Information on possible White House witness tampering, Concerned about my personal safety and for that of my family, Washington Weekly October 6, 1997
  • Comments are Closed