(Editor's Note:  The following is the report to Congress from Judicial Watch,
     concerning evidence that group has unearthed regarding the presence of classified FBI
     files by White House officials, illegal campaign contributions and various other issues
     involving President Bill Clinton. )
 

        Judicial Watch Interim Report on Crimes and Other Offenses
      Committedby President Bill Clinton Warranting His Impeachment
                      and Removal from Elected Office

                              Judicial Watch, Inc.
                   Larry Klayman, Chairman and General Counsel
                            Thomas Fitton, President
                             501 School Street, S.W.
                                  Suite 725
                             Washington, DC 20024
                                (202) 646-5172
                              (202) 646-5199 (fax)

                  Web Site Address: http://www.JudicialWatch.org
 
 

     Founded in 1994 by its Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman, Judicial
     Watch, Inc. is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to using the courts to
     fight corruption in government and the legal profession.
 

     Table of Contents

     Introduction

     Part I Filegate

     Part II IRS-Gate

     Part III Commercegate/Chinagate

     Part IV Trustgate

     Conclusion

     Appendix with Exhibits (Separate Volumes I-VIII)
 

                              Introduction

     The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be
     removed from office on Impeachment for, conviction of, treason, bribery, or other
     high crimes and misdemeanors.

     United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4

     In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson
     Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of
     President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and
     defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional
     duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed,
     and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

     Beginning around the Fall of 1994, William Jefferson Clinton, his agents and
     subordinates engaged in bribery through the sale of taxpayer-financed trade
     mission seats in exchange for campaign contributions. Subsequent thereto,
     President Bill Clinton, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and
     through his close agents and subordinates, in a course of conduct or plan
     designed to delay, impede and obstruct the investigation of such bribery; to cover
     up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope
     of other unlawful covert activities.

     Throughout his terms of office, William Jefferson Clinton has repeatedly engaged,
     personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in conduct violating the
     constitutional rights of citizens, breaching the national security, impairing the due
     and proper administration of justice, and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or
     contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the
     purposes of these agencies.

     In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has acted in a manner contrary to his trust
     as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of
     the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
     States.

     Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and
     trial, and removal from office. (1)

     Judicial Watch, Inc., respectfully submits to the United States Congress its Interim
     Report on Crimes and Other Offenses Committed by President Bill Clinton Warranting
     His Impeachment and Removal from Elected Office.

     As the United States House of Representatives considers whether to launch
     impeachment proceedings against President William Jefferson Clinton over his conduct
     relating to the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit and resulting criminal grand jury
     investigations, we ask that it also consider this additional evidence, developed over the
     last several years through Judicial Watch's civil lawsuits, Freedom of Information Act
     requests, and other investigations of government corruption.(2)

     Judicial Watch has uncovered evidence that President Clinton and his agents have
     violated a number of federal laws relating to bribery, campaign fundraising, the theft of
     government services, privacy, corruption of federal law enforcement, abuse and misuse
     of federal agencies (including the Internal Revenue Service), perjury, civil rights
     violations, obstruction of justice, graft and likely breaches of national security.

     The evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch overwhelmingly indicates that President
     Clinton condoned, directed and effected this lawbreaking. It also shows that he was
     aided and abetted by, among others, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Albert
     Gore, late Commerce Secretary Ronald Brown, Attorney General Janet Reno, and
     other key White House personnel, including Leon Panetta, John Podesta, Harold
     Ickes, Bruce Lindsey, Bernard Nussbaum, and Labor Secretary Alexis Herman.

     For example, Judicial Watch had uncovered key evidence in the massive political
     espionage, witness tampering and intimidation operation popularly known as "Filegate."
     In "Filegate," the Clinton White House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"),
     Hillary Rodham Clinton, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, and Clinton
     appointees Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca, illegally obtained and misused the
     FBI files of former Reagan and Bush Administration staffers and others to gain sensitive
     information on perceived political opponents and material witnesses for use in its smear
     campaigns. Judicial Watch represents the victims of "Filegate" in a civil lawsuit.

     The "Filegate" political espionage, witness tampering and intimidation operation, a
     horrendous violation of the Privacy Act and other laws, continues to this day. It
     represents the means by which the Clintons defend the various scandals which threaten
     their hold on power. The evidence indicates that the Clinton Administration, with the
     direct knowledge and participation of the President, continues to illegally compile,
     maintain and disseminate sensitive information on perceived adversaries from
     confidential government files. Contrary to previous Clinton Administration explanations,
     Judicial Watch discovered that it was a high-level Clinton political appointee who
     illegally ordered the release of Linda Tripp's confidential information from her Pentagon
     file in a clear effort to intimidate her from telling what she knew of Clinton White House
     illegal activities, and to destroy her credibility. Judicial Watch also uncovered evidence
     indicating that President Clinton authorized the illegal release of Kathleen Willey's
     letters, stored in a White House filing system subject to the Privacy Act, in an effort to
     intimidate and smear her. Like Ms. Tripp, Ms. Willey is a material witness in on-going
     criminal grand jury investigations and civil lawsuits.

     Part of the pattern of "Filegate" is President Clinton's use of private investigators, the
     Reno Justice Department, the FBI, the IRS, and political operatives such as James
     Carville to obstruct justice, silence witnesses and intimidate investigators. For example,
     Judicial Watch has uncovered evidence that President Clinton personally participated in
     this operation by threatening "to destroy," and then defaming one witness, Dolly Kyle
     Browning, if she dared to tell the truth about their 30-year friendship and sexual
     relationship.

     President Clinton's political appointee and former IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner
     Richardson also illegally used the IRS to audit public interest groups thought to be
     hostile to the Clinton Administration, including the Western Journalism Center.

     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 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.

     This President's Administration has also misused government lawyers to obstruct
     investigations into his wrongdoing. His Commerce Department lawyers obstructed
     court-ordered discovery into the illegal sale of taxpayer-financed trade mission seats
     for political contributions. His Justice Department lawyers threatened investigators with
     criminal prosecution, timed the indictment of a major whistle-blower witness to try to
     force her into silence, and consistently obstructed court processes to cover-up
     Clinton-appointee wrongdoing, perjury and destruction of evidence.

       In sum, Judicial Watch has uncovered a pattern of conduct by this President and his
      agents that indicates he has run, in effect, a criminal enterprise from the White House to
      obtain and maintain hold on the Office of the President of the United States. Indeed, he
        is likely in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
      (RICO), a charge recently filed against him by Dolly Kyle Browning in federal court.(3)
         This pervasive corruption, flowing from the Oval Office, is the common thread
      throughout the various "high crimes and misdemeanors" outlined in this interim report.
 

                                   PART I

                                 FILEGATE

          Crimes and Other Offenses Relating to the Misuse of FBI and other
                                 Government

                 Files that Warrant Impeachment and Removal from

                          Office of President Bill Clinton

        I.Introduction.

          Judicial Watch has been investigating the misuse of information in government
          files since September, 1996, when it filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
          eight (8) former Reagan and Bush Administration appointees and employees
          whose FBI background investigation files were improperly obtained by the
          Clinton White House. That lawsuit is pending before The Honorable Royce C.
          Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.(4)

          In the course of its investigation, Judicial Watch has uncovered substantial
          evidence of unlawful misuses of information in government files, abuses of power
          and violations of the Privacy Act. The substantial evidence uncovered by Judicial
          Watch's investigation links key presidential advisors such as James Carville,
          Harold Ickes, Lanny Davis, Kenneth Bacon and even the President himself, to
          this unlawful conduct. The obvious purpose behind the unlawful misuse of this
          information is to discredit, if not destroy, perceived adversaries and critics of the
          President.

          Importantly, the evidence uncovered during the course of Judicial Watch's
          investigation, which still continues, goes beyond acquisition of the over 900 FBI
          background investigation files on former Reagan and Bush Administration
          appointees and employees. It also includes evidence of misuse of information in
          government files and attempts to discredit or destroy the credibility of key
          witnesses in Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr's investigation of the
          Monica Lewinsky matter, including Ms. Linda R. Tripp and Ms. Kathleen
          Willey, if not Judge Starr himself. It also includes attempts to discredit and
          destroy congressional adversaries and other perceived opponents. At times,
          information in government files is released directly to the media by Clinton
          Administration officials. Other times, information is leaked to members of the
          media, such as New Yorker magazine's Jane Mayer, Salon magazine and
          Geraldo Rivera, so that it can be disseminated to the public without it being
          associated directly with, or coming from, the Clinton Administration.

          Most recently, this tactic of attempting to discredit and destroy the credibility of
          perceived adversaries has manifested itself in revelations about the personal lives
          of Speaker Newt Gingrich, House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde and
          Representatives Dan Burton and Helen Chenoweth, coupled with threats
          broadcast by Roger Clinton and published in Salon magazine and other
          publications and news outlets. For example, in what can only be described as a
          thinly veiled threat against perceived adversaries and other critics of the
          President, Salon magazine has "reported" that:

          [D]ie-hard Clinton loyalists are spreading the word that a long-ignored but
          fearsome tactic has now resurfaced as an element in the president's survival
          strategy: The threat of exposing the sexual improprieties of Republican critics,
          both in Congress and beyond, should they demand impeachment hearings in the
          House.(5)

          Jonathon Broder, the editor of Salon "reports" "one close ally of the president"
          as saying that "the Republicans with skeletons in their closets must assume
          everything is known and will come out. So the question is: Do they really want to
          go there?"(6) "Sources in the Clinton camp say they are focusing their attention
          not only on issues of marital infidelity but also on issues of character," according
          to Mr. Broder.(7) Mr. Broder "reports" that his "sources" say "among those
          under scrutiny" are House Speaker Newt Gingrich, House Majority Leader
          Richard Armey, Chairman Dan Burton of the House Government Reform and
          Oversight Committee and Chairman Henry Hyde of the House Judiciary
          Committee.(8)

          Salon is not alone in reporting details of Clinton's sexual scorched-earth
          plan. Insight Magazine reports that:

          [It] has learned from a variety of sources - lawmakers and Hill staffers,
          journalists and dirt-diggers themselves - of several active gumshoe probes into
          GOP figures, including a governor suspected of a series of office romances and
          a House member. An entrapment bid was launched recently on a prominent
          Republican senator, claim private investigators. It failed.(9)

          As further revealed by Insight, one Democratic member of Congress, who had
          the courage to call for President Clinton's resignation, was subsequently hit by
          the Clinton "smear machine":

          Clinton aides also demonstrated their readiness to play dirty in the last week of
          August when they "reminded" TV talk-show hosts of the highly dubious
          "controversy" surrounding Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Paul
          McHale's military record. The White House prompt -- McHale was said to have
          misrepresented what medals he'd been awarded -- was apparent punishment for
          the Pennsylvanian calling on the president to resign. It was so clearly dishonest
          that even Geraldo Rivera apologized for picking it up from a source close to the
          White House.(10)

          Representatives Burton and Gingrich were hit about a month after Salon's
          "scorched-earth" article. Faced with imminent publication of details about his
          family life, Chairman Dan Burton, who is conducting campaign finance
          investigations of President Clinton, recently was forced to admit, in the face of an
          imminent smear campaign against him, that in the early 1980's he fathered a child
          out of wedlock and provided continuing child support payments to the
          mother.(11) Salon itself, recently committed an act of self-fulfilling prophecy, by
          publishing articles detailing allegations about the sex lives of House Speaker
          Newt Gingrich(12) and House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde.(13)

          Thus, as more revelations about the Lewinsky matter become public and the
          President comes under increasing threat of impeachment and possible
          indictment, the White House and its allies are increasingly resorting to
          scorched-earth tactics to avoid impeachment or resignation. Indeed, given the
          Clintons' proclivities for controversy, if not scandal, it is likely that they ordered
          the gathering of FBI files and other information early on in their Administration
          for later use -- whenever it became necessary.

       II.Applicability of the Privacy Act.

          Judicial Watch's "Filegate" lawsuit is premised on common law invasion of
          privacy claims and the Privacy Act, a federal law enacted in 1974 as a result of
          misuse of information in government files and other abuses of power during the
          Nixon Administration.

          The protections afforded by the Privacy Act take effect whenever a federal
          agency maintains a "system of records" containing information on individuals
          "from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some
          identifying number, symbol or other identifying particular assigned to the
          individual." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5). Importantly, agencies must "maintain in its
          records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to
          accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute or
          by executive order of the President." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1). They also must
          maintain only information that is accurate, timely and complete. 5 U.S.C. §
          552a(e)(5). Agencies are specifically prohibited from maintaining records that
          describe "how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First
          Amendment, unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about
          whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an
          authorized law enforcement activity."(14) 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7).

          Each agency maintaining records on individuals must publish, at least annually in
          the Federal Register, notice of the existence of each system of records it
          maintains. By law, this notice must also include information about the system,
          including its name and location of the system, categories of individuals on whom
          records are maintained in the system, categories of documents maintained in the
          system, each routine use of records contained in the system, policies and
          practices regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention and
          disposal, the title and business address of the official who is responsible for the
          system of records, procedures whereby an individual can be notified at his
          request if the system contains a record pertaining to him, procedures whereby an
          individual can be notified at his request how he can gain access to any record
          pertaining to him contained in the system and how he can contest its contents,
          and categories of sources of records in the system. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4).

          There is to be no disclosure of any record about individuals maintained in a
          system of records "except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior
          written consent of," the subject. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). Importantly, a disclosure
          need not be public to be unlawful; an "intra-agency" disclosure may also violate
          the Privacy Act where the disclosure is made to officers or employees who have
          no need for the record in the performance of their official duties. Parks v. U.S.
          Internal Revenue Service, 618 F.2d 677, 680-81 & n. 1 (10th Cir. 1980); 5
          U.S.C. § 552a(b)(1).

          There are limited exceptions to this general rule of non-disclosure, the most
          important of which is the "routine use" exception. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(7). Each
          type of "routine use" must, however, be published at least annually in the Federal
          Register. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(D). Agencies are required to keep an
          accounting of disclosures. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(c).

          Finally, the Privacy Act provides for civil and criminal sanctions. Any officer or
          employee who willfully discloses subject material in any manner to a person or
          agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a crime and fined not more than
          $5,000. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1). Any officer or employee of any agency who
          willfully maintains a system of records without meeting the notice requirements of
          subsection (e)(4) also shall be guilty of a crime and fined not more than $5,000.
          5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(2).

          FBI background investigation files, such as those at issue in "Filegate," are
          admittedly maintained in a system of records by the FBI. Consequently, it cannot
          be questioned that they are covered by the Privacy Act. In fact, the FBI
          admitted as much in Judicial Watch's lawsuit. In response to the lawsuit,
          however, the Clinton White House claimed that the Privacy Act did not apply to
          it. In a Memorandum and Order dated June 12, 1997, the Court rejected this
          claim and confirmed that the Privacy Act did, in fact, apply to the White
          House.(15) However, the Privacy Act also makes clear that any time a federal
          official maintains records on individuals that can be accessed by reference to an
          individual's name, the protections of the Privacy Act come into play. It does not
          matter what information is stored in the file. To release anything from a covered
          file -- even a press clipping -- violates the Privacy Act.(16)

I.Factual Background.

     The origins of Clinton White House's misuse of information in government files predate 1993.
     Former presidential advisor Dick Morris admitted that the 1992 Clinton campaign used
     private investigators, at U.S. taxpayers' expense, to obtain private and embarrassing
     information to coerce and extort the silence of women sexually involved with President Clinton
     while he was Governor of Arkansas. The effort was run by Betsy Wright, who, at crucial and
     relevant times, Secret Service logs show later visited Craig Livingstone, one of the key players
     in "Filegate," at odd hours in the White House.(17)

     Unknown to the public, in 1993 the Clinton White House obtained the FBI files of Billy Dale,
     the former head of the White House Travel Office, and Barney Brasseux, a White House
     Travel Office employee.(18) Apparently, these FBI files were obtained by the Clinton White
     House shortly after Mr. Dale, a twenty-year veteran of the White House Travel Office, Mr.
     Brasseux, and several other employees of the White House Travel Office were fired by the
     Clinton White House to allow their replacement with personal friends of the President and
     Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Dale was subsequently indicted on trumped up charges of fraud.
     Later, Mr. Dale was completely exonerated of any wrong-doing. He even received an award
     of attorneys fees for having to defend himself against the baseless charges brought against him.
     It is likely that the reason for indicting Mr. Dale was to avoid the appearance that he was fired
     simply to allow the Clintons to bring their personal friends into the White House Travel Office.
     It is also likely that the reason Mr. Dale's and Mr. Brasseux's FBI files were obtained was to
     try to find damaging information about them to avoid the appearance of political cronyism in
     firing them.

     About this same time, numerous press reports were circulating about illegal drug use and
     improper sexual conduct among White House staffers. Apparently to counter these and
     possibly other charges, or to retaliate against Reagan and Bush Administration appointees and
     employees for the release of information about President Clinton's passport during the 1992
     election, the Clinton White House also obtained over 900 FBI background investigation files
     on former Reagan and Bush Administration appointees and employees. Surely, this
     information could also be very useful to discredit and destroy perceived adversaries, or simply
     to intimidate them. Among the FBI files unlawfully obtained by the Clinton White House were
     those of some prominent individuals, such as former Bush Secretary of State James A. Baker
     (who, not coincidentally, had been involved in the Clinton passport controversy), former Bush
     Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater,(19) Kenneth Duberstein and Tony Blankley, a former aide
     to Speaker Newt Gingrich.(20) The FBI file of Ms. Linda R. Tripp, a Bush Administration
     "hold-over" who was apparently perceived to be a potential threat at that time, was also
     obtained. Ms. Tripp would later be transferred to the Department of Defense and suffer yet
     another violation of her Privacy Act rights.

     The evidence shows that the Clinton White House knowingly requested the FBI files of
     Republicans "who were no longer working there."(21) Mari Anderson, Craig Livingstone's
     assistant, testified to Judicial Watch that she, Livingstone and Anthony Marceca were aware
     that Republicans, such as James Baker and Marlin Fitzwater, no longer had access to the
     White House, but that their FBI files were obtained anyway.(22) Anderson also testified that
     Livingstone regularly left their office with FBI files in tow.(23) A log, which was to have
     chronicled any removal of the FBI files to other areas in the White House, mysteriously
     developed a six (6) month gap, reminiscent of Richard Nixon's eighteen (18) minute gap in his
     oval office tapes.(24)

     While working for Clinton White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, whose name appears
     on the requisition forms for the FBI files, Ms. Tripp was in a bird's-eye position to witness the
     unlawful conduct that would later become known as "Filegate." In discussions with Judicial
     Watch, Ms. Tripp admitted to having witnessed FBI files on former Reagan and Bush
     Administration appointees and employees "stacked up to the ceiling" in Assistant White House
     Counsel William Kennedy's office.(25) As reported by Ms. Lucianne Goldberg, Ms. Tripp's
     literary agent and friend, Ms. Tripp also "witnessed a White House secretary loading up FBI
     files on a computer" in the White House Counsel's Office.(26) Ms. Tripp also told Tony Snow,
     a nationally syndicated columnist for The Detroit News and a commentator for Fox News
     Channel, that:

     [S]he was shaken by White House dishonesty during investigations of Vince Foster's death,
     Filegate, Travelgate, and reports of drug abuse among administration employees. "It's chilling,"
     she says, "to watch high government officials lie under oath."(27)

     (Emphasis added). Finally, Ms. Tripp reportedly saw a document evidencing Mrs. Clinton's
     direct involvement in the firings at the White House Travel Office.(28)

     In the course of Ms. Paula Corbin Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit, President Clinton,
     through his lawyers, David Kendall, Esq. of Williams & Connolly and Robert Bennett, Esq. of
     Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, hired Terry Lenzner's private investigation firm,
     Investigative Group International, Inc. ("IGI"), apparently to obtain information for use in that
     lawsuit and elsewhere.(29) Lenzner and IGI were later retained to provide similar services for
     other matters involving the President, including the Lewinsky matter. When Judicial Watch
     deposed Lenzner on March 13, 1998, he revealed that Larry Potts, a disgraced senior FBI
     official who allegedly gave the "shoot on sight" orders at the Ruby Ridge massacre, is "virtually
     a partner" of his in running IGI.(30) In addition, Lenzner testified that Howard Shapiro, Esq.,
     the former General Counsel of the FBI who also left the Bureau in disgrace because of the
     "Filegate" matter, serves as IGI's principal attorney.(31) Indeed, Lenzner, a former Department
     of Justice lawyer, has worked closely with the FBI. Thus, Lenzner, Potts and Shapiro all had
     close ties to FBI personnel and were in a position to solicit information from inside the FBI.
     Significantly, on March 3, 1998, FBI Director Louis Freeh issued a warning to all FBI
     personnel against providing information to FBI alumni and others about the various
     investigations involving the President.(32) Obviously, Director Freeh must have been
     concerned that information in FBI files had been and was being leaked to individuals with
     close ties to the FBI such as Lenzner, Potts and Shapiro.

     At his deposition, Lenzner confirmed that he had investigated perceived Clinton adversaries,
     including members of the media, public interest groups and even members of the judiciary.(33)
     In addition, Lenzner selectively invoked the "work product" doctrine to avoid having to
     answer specific questions about who IGI had investigated.(34) Tellingly, hiding behind the
     "skirts" of David Kendall and Robert S. Bennett, Lenzner asserted the "work product"
     doctrine in response to some questions, but failed to do so in response to others. For
     example, Lenzner testified that he had not been asked or retained to investigate Kathleen
     Willey, but refused to state whether he had been retained to investigate Linda Tripp:

          [By Plaintiffs' Counsel] Have you been approached or retained to investigate . . .
          Kathleen Willey?

          [By Mr. Lenzner] No.

          [By Plaintiffs' Counsel] Linda Tripp?

          [By Mr. Lenzner's Counsel] Same privileged objections. Same instruction.

          [By Mr. Lenzner] I will accept my instruction on that.(35)
 

     The clear implication behind this selective invocation of the work-product doctrine, however
     disingenuous those invocations are, was that Lenzner has, in fact, been investigating these
     perceived adversaries of the President. A report in the San Francisco Examiner directly
     linked Lenzner to the recent dissemination of private information smearing House Judiciary
     Committee Chairman Henry Hyde.(36) Rather than let his private investigators, Lenzner and
     Potts, answer questions in the "Filegate" lawsuit, incredibly, the President has sought to
     intervene personally to prevent this questioning.(37)

     When the most recent Clinton scandal involving Ms. Lewinsky broke in late January, 1998,
     the Clinton White House again reverted to releasing information in government files - and
     threatening further releases - in order to silence and discredit its perceived adversaries. During
     a February 8, 1998 interview, George Stephanopoulos, a former top adviser to and
     continuing confidante of President Clinton, and other top advisors in The White House, told a
     national television audience on ABC's This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts
     that there is an "Ellen Rometsch" strategy by "White House allies" to attack perceived
     adversaries of the Clinton Administration:

     [By Sam Donaldson] We know what the White House tactics are. I mean, they've been
     almost open about it. Attack the press -- and perhaps with good reason -- attack the
     Independent Counsel -- perhaps for some good reason -- and stonewall on the central issue,
     which is the President of the United States. And if he has nothing to hide, why is he hiding?

     [By Mr. Stephanopoulos] I agree with that. And there's a different, long-term strategy, which
     I think would be far more explosive. White House allies are already starting to whisper about
     what I'll call the Ellen Roemech (sic) strategy. . . She was a girlfriend of John F. Kennedy,
     who also happened to be an East German spy. And Robert Kennedy was charged with
     getting her out of the country and also getting J. Edgar Hoover to go to the Congress and say,
     don't you investigate this, because if you do, we're going to open up everybody's closets. And
     I think that in the long run, they have a deterrent strategy on getting a lot of... [FBI files].

          [By Sam Donaldson] Are you suggesting for a moment that what they're
          beginning to say is that if you investigate this too much, we'll put all your dirty
          linen right on the table? Every member of the Senate? Every member of the
          press corp?

          [By Mr. Stephanopoulos] Absolutely. The President said he would never resign,
          and I think some around him are willing to take everybody down with him.(38)

     Historically, the "Ellen Rometsch" strategy refers to the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's
     and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's successful efforts to collect and use FBI files to
     blackmail Republican members of Congress to prevent an investigation into President John F.
     Kennedy's affair with an East German spy, Ellen Rometsch.(39) Judicial Watch deposed
     Stephanopoulos in order to learn the identities of the "White House" allies about which he
     spoke on ABC's This Week.(40) However, Stephanopoulos asserted his privilege as a
     "journalist" not to reveal confidential sources.(41) Judicial Watch recently filed a motion with
     the Court to try again to compel Stephanopoulos to release this information.

     Pursuant to this strategy, the Clinton Administration apparently orchestrated the release of
     confidential information from Ms. Tripp's Department of Defense personnel file. On March
     23, 1998, New Yorker magazine published an article by Jane Mayer stating that Ms. Tripp
     had failed to disclose information about a twenty-year old arrest on a security clearance
     form.(42) As such forms are themselves confidential, Privacy Act records, questions thus arose
     concerning how Ms. Mayer had obtained this information. In a March 17, 1998 article
     entitled "Bill's Secret Police," Dick Morris questioned the release of this information and the
     implications it had for the Clinton Administration's claim that "Filegate" was an innocent
     bureaucratic mistake:

     No journalist questioned how Tripp's confidential files ended up in the New Yorker. Instead,
     all the papers dutifully reported on her arrest and her lack of candor in reporting it. The White
     House secret police have struck again. Desperate to discredit Linda Tripp, President Clinton's
     most damaging accuser, the president's men are most likely the ones who delved into
     confidential Pentagon files to dig up and dish out dirt on Tripp. . . . The release of the Tripp
     file lends new credibility to the Republican allegations that the White House's possession of
     confidential FBI files on GOP leaders and potential adversaries was no "mistake," as the
     president's men piously claimed. Is Linda Tripp the latest victim of a file dump?(43)(Emphasis
     added.)

     Accordingly, Judicial Watch began an inquiry into the circumstances behind the release of this
     information, as it was obviously relevant to its "Filegate" investigation.

     On April 30, 1998, Judicial Watch deposed Clifford Bernath. Bernath, Principal Deputy
     Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, had been publicly portrayed by the
     Clinton Administration as the "career" Department of Defense official responsible for having
     released the confidential information in Ms. Tripp's personnel file to reporter Jane Mayer. The
     Clinton Administration also portrayed Bernath as having acted alone. At his deposition,
     however, Bernath testified that he was directed to obtain and release the information by his
     superior, Kenneth Bacon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, a Clinton political
     appointee.(44) Bernath testified he told Mayer that Bacon "has made it clear it's [the release of
     the Tripp information] a priority,"(45) because Mayer "was on deadline and whenever a
     reporter is on deadline, we call that a priority."(46) As the Court later noted, Bernath's
     revelation that he was told to release the Tripp information by a Clinton political appointee
     was understood by the Court as conflicting with the Clinton Justice Department's statements
     to the Court that the release was made by a career official.(47)

     Judicial Watch then deposed Bacon on May 15, 1998. Bacon testified that Mayer initially
     contacted him about obtaining the information from Ms. Tripp's personnel file,(48) and that he
     then told Bernath to search the file to find out whether Ms. Tripp's had disclosed information
     about her twenty-year old arrest on her security clearance form.(49) Bacon also testified that
     he "was very aware of what Bernath was doing and … did nothing to stop it."(50) Thus, it was
     a Clinton Administration political appointee, not a career civil servant, who was at the heart of
     this obvious violation of Ms. Tripp's Privacy Rights.

     This stands in marked contrast to Secretary of Defense William Cohen's public statements
     that Bernath had acted on his own in releasing the information.(51) Although Secretary Cohen
     said the release of Ms. Tripp's information was "certainly inappropriate, if not illegal,(52)
     neither Secretary Cohen nor the White House told the public about the involvement of Bacon
     or others.(53) Secretary Cohen said Bernath "was responding to an inquiry from the press"
     without mentioning that a Clinton political appointee, Bacon, had directed Bernath to do
     so.(54) Bacon testified that, after Secretary Cohen made his statement on Fox News Sunday,
     he told the Secretary that the statement should be corrected.(55) Yet Bacon testified that he
     was unaware of Secretary Cohen ever correcting his statement; nor was he aware of either
     the Department of Defense or the Clinton Administration ever acknowledging publicly he was
     involved in the release of information in Ms. Tripp's confidential personnel file.(56) When
     Judicial Watch questioned Bacon about Secretary Cohen's involvement in the matter, Clinton
     Justice Department lawyers instructed him not to answer.(57) Judicial Watch has moved the
     Court to compel answers.

     Judicial Watch also learned that, after Bernath's role in the release of information in Ms.
     Tripp's confidential personnel file became known publicly, Bernath apparently attempted to
     destroy evidence of his wrong-doing. Specifically, Bernath testified that, between April 1-10,
     1998, he deleted all of the files on his computer's hard drive.(58) Yet Bacon testified that, by
     March 17 or 18, Bernath told him he "had asked for a legal review" of the circumstances
     behind the release.(59) This was confirmed by a March 18, 1998 New York Post article in
     which Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Dick Bridges is quoted as stating that Bernath had
     "requested a Pentagon inquiry to examine the propriety of his actions."(60) Therefore, Bernath
     had deleted potential evidence from his computer at a time when he obviously knew that his
     role in the release of information in Ms. Tripp's confidential personnel file would be
     investigated, if it was not being investigated already. In commenting on Bernath's deletion of
     files on his computer, the Court stated that "cause for concern should exist when an
     upper-level government employee completely deletes his hard drive when this hard drive may
     have information relevant to an on-going criminal investigation, let alone the instant case(61)
     and "it is highly unusual and suspect for such an action to have been undertaken by Bernath
     when matters relating to Tripp are being investigated by the Office of the Independent
     Counsel."(62)

     Judicial Watch also discovered that after information in Ms. Tripp's confidential personnel file
     was released, Bernath was given a new job at higher pay with, ironically, responsibility for
     teaching about the Privacy Act. Bacon testified that "sometime during the week of March
     16th,(63) he selected Bernath to run the American Forces Information Service, which entitled
     Bernath to grade and pay increase.(64) It is reported that in his new job, Bernath "has direct
     control over the Fort Meade school that teaches privacy regulations to public affairs
     officers."(65) Bacon testified that "I offered him that job because I thought he was the best of
     the three candidates.(66) It appears far more likely that Bernath was being rewarded for his
     improper conduct.

     Throughout this controversy surrounding the release of information in Ms. Tripp's confidential,
     Department of Defense personnel file, an unknown factor was whether there had been White
     House involvement in the release. The key role of Bacon, a political appointee, made that link
     very likely. Judicial Watch then uncovered the release of a list of over 1,000 individuals whose
     FBI background files were unlawfully obtained by the Clinton White House.(67) Among the
     names on the list was Ms. Tripp. Consequently, her FBI background file also had been
     obtained by the Clinton White House. As an FBI background investigation file would likely
     contain information on prior arrests, this would seem to answer the question of how Mayer, a
     former colleague of Sidney Blumenthal and a close friend of the Clintons, knew to ask Bacon
     the precise question of whether Ms. Tripp had disclosed any arrests on her security clearance
     form. Finally, when Judicial Watch deposed Clinton advisor Harold Ickes on May 21, 1998,
     it also learned that Ickes had dinner with Bacon and discussed Ms. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky
     during the period leading up to the release of the information in Ms. Tripp's confidential
     personnel file. This indicates a direct link between the Clinton White House and the release of
     information in Ms. Tripp's confidential personnel file in violation of her Privacy Act rights,
     obviously in an attempt discredit and intimidate her. Importantly, Ms. Tripp's FBI file was
     obtained about one (1) year after she began to work in the White House Counsel's Office
     under Bernard Nussbaum. Did the White House know then that Ms. Tripp had the potential
     to be a whistleblower and thus began gathering information to use against her, if necessary? At
     a press conference on the courthouse steps on July 29, 1998, after her Starr grand jury
     testimony, she stated:

          As a result of simply trying to earn a living, I became aware between 1993 and
          1997 of action by high government officials that may have been against the law.
          For that period of nearly five years, the things I witnessed concerning several
          different subjects [at the White House] made me increasingly fearful that this
          information was dangerous, very dangerous, to possess.(68)

     It also appears that, soon after the Lewinsky story became public, the White House Counsel's
     Office requested information from White House files on Ms. Tripp, Ms. Kathleen Willey and
     Ms. Lewinsky. On June 30, 1998, Judicial Watch deposed Terry Good, Director of the
     White House Office of Records Management ("ORM"). Mr. Good testified that, upon
     request of the White House Counsel's office, his office searched its computer database for
     records concerning Ms. Tripp, Ms. Willey and Ms. Lewinsky, and retrieved records on all
     three (3) individuals.(69)

     With regard to Ms. Tripp, Good testified as follows:

          Q: Has any office of the White House or person made a request with regard to
          information or documentation concerning Linda Tripp?

          A: I believe the counsel's office probably did, yes.

          Q: Who made that request?

          A: I do not know.

          Q: What was that request about?

          A: Again, if I don't remember the request, I can't tell you what it was about. All I
          can say is it probably was about anything and everything that we might have in
          our files relating to Linda Tripp.(70)

     At about that same time, Representative Gerald Solomon wrote a letter to President Clinton
     asking whether anyone had pulled Ms. Tripp's White House files. Representative Solomon
     did not receive a response, however.(71) Representative Solomon cited Good's deposition
     and the President's failure to respond in a recent letter to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr,
     referring to the matter as a "potential obstruction of a Congressional investigation" and
     "intimidation of a federal witness."(72)

     With regard to Ms. Willey, a witness in the Lewinsky investigation, evidence indicates that
     President Clinton was directly involved in the violation of her Privacy Act rights in an effort to
     discredit her and harm her reputation. In testifying before the Lewinsky investigation grand
     jury, Ms. Willey accused President Clinton of making an improper sexual advance towards
     her in the White House. Ms. Willey then repeated these accusations during a March 15, 1998
     television appearance on "60 Minutes." At his deposition, Good testified that, in response to a
     request from the White House Counsel's Office, ORM searched its files for documents
     concerning Ms. Willey and obtained a handwritten letter(s) Mrs. Willey wrote to the
     President.(73) The letter(s) was then provided to the White House Counsel's Office, as were
     documents concerning Ms. Tripp and Ms. Lewinsky.(74) The letter(s) was then released to
     the media.(75)

     According to White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, "I'm sure the President knew that
     we were putting the letters out and I'm sure that he approved."(76) In fact, James Carville was
     forced to admit at his March 16, 1998 deposition in Judicial Watch's "Filegate" investigation
     that President Clinton sought his advice about Ms. Willey's letters prior to their release:

          Q: When was the last time you talked to the President?

          A: Saturday.

          Q: Was that in person or by phone?

          A: By phone.

          Q: Who called who?

          A: The President called me.

          Q: And how long was the conversation?

          A: Not very long. Maybe five minutes or so.

          Q: What was discussed . . . ?

          A: He said that there were some - there was a Kathleen Willey, and what he
          said was there was some letters that she had written, and they were - his lawyers
          were considering - I think were considering about making them public, and what
          did I think about it?

          Q: And what did you tell him?

          A: I'm not sure if I know what's in there, but if it was something that was past the
          time that she made this allegation, it was probably a pretty good idea.

          Q: Did he ask you to help make them public?

          A: No, sir.(77)

          Former White House Chief of Staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty also testified in
          the Judicial Watch's "Filegate" case that he and the President discussed Willey's
          credibility "a day or two" after her interview on "60 Minutes":

          A: . . . After her 60 Minutes interview, I believe the President commented to me
          that he thought a mutual friend had made a remark about her credibility was not
          that high in Richmond. I didn't know the mutual friend. He thought I did . . . .

          Q: Who is the mutual friend?

          A: I don't recall his name. I didn't know him. I think the President thought I did
          know him, and I just don't - I don't remember who it was. I didn't know the
          person.(78)

     During his grand jury testimony, the President admitted that Ms. Willey's letters were taken
     from White House files.(79) He also admitted that he authorized their release,(80) and testified
     that the letters "shattered Kathleen Willey's credibility."(81) The Good, Carville and McLarty
     depositions and the President's grand jury testimony thus directly implicate President Clinton
     in this violation of Ms. Willey's Privacy Act rights in order to discredit and harm her reputation
     and thereby undermine the accusations she had made against the President.

     Carville appears to have played a significant, if not central role in misusing information in
     government files against perceived adversaries of the President.(82) When Judicial Watch
     subpoenaed Carville to appear for a deposition in its "Filegate" investigation, it also required
     him to produce documents in his possession, custody and control.(83) After a prolonged court
     fight over obtaining the required documents, Carville finally gave in and produced voluminous
     quantities of information in his possession and in the possession of his business entity,
     Education and Information Project, Inc. ("EIP"). Included among the documents produced to
     Judicial Watch were facsimiles from the White House -- and from the Chief of Staff's Office
     and the White House Counsel's Office in particular -- to Carville enclosing documents on
     perceived adversaries of the President. These documents included information on
     Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, former FBI Agent Gary Aldrich, philanthropist Richard
     M. Scaife and Republican strategist Donald Sipple.(84) The White House Chief of Staff's
     Office even faxed excerpts from Sipple's divorce proceedings to Carville.(85)

     Judicial Watch's review of documents and other materials provided by Carville and EIP
     revealed evidence of other likely attempts to destroy and obstruct members of the staff of the
     Independent Counsel, and Judicial Watch has delivered to the Court tape recordings made by
     James Carville in this regard. These Carville tape recordings show that Carville was probing
     into the sexual and personal backgrounds of investigators. As the tape recordings evidence
     potential obstruction of justice and other criminality, Judicial Watch informed the Independent
     Counsel of their existence. The Independent Counsel has yet to issue a subpoena for the tape
     recordings.

     Also included among the documents Judicial Watch subpoenaed from Carville and EIP was
     an EIP "target list" identifying Independent Counsel Kenneth Star, Speaker Newt Gingrich
     (indeed, in the September 27, 1998 edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Carville admitted he
     was targeting Gingrich), Representative Dan Burton, Senator Fred Thompson and former
     Secretary of Education Bill Bennett as "Individuals to Target" for "expos[ing] the motives and
     methods behind Republican partisan attacks against the President and Democratic Party."(86)
     At deposition, Carville also was forced to admit that he stays in regular contact with David
     Kendall, who hired Terry Lenzner as the President's private investigator.(87) Moreover,
     former Carville aides and employees - Tom Janenda and Glen Weiner - are now staffing the
     White House opposition research office.(88) Based on all of the direct and circumstantial
     evidence obtained thus far, as well as Carville's own repeated threats to destroy Clinton
     adversaries, he appears to be the "ringleader" of President Clinton's smear operations - in
     violation of the Privacy Act and other laws.

     Carville is apparently not the only Clinton aide misusing information in government files against
     perceived adversaries of the President. Lanny Davis, a "Special Counsel to the President,"
     testified at his deposition in Judicial Watch's "Filegate" investigation that he was hired by the
     Clinton White House Counsel's office and worked closely with that office.(89) (90) This office,
     which helped to orchestrate the unlawful transfer of hundreds of FBI files, and, according to
     Linda Tripp, loaded them onto White House computers, is at the very center of egregious
     violations of privacy rights and other unlawful conduct.

     Davis' testimony shows, at the very least, that he unlawfully maintained a system of records on
     notable Clinton adversaries without fulfilling the proper notice requirements as mandated by
     the Privacy Act. Davis testified that during his tenure at the Clinton White House, he
     personally maintained files containing information about prominent Clinton adversaries, such as
     Judge Kenneth Starr,(91) Senator Fred Thompson,(92) Representative Dan Burton,(93)
     Senator Henry Hyde,(94) Monica Lewinsky,(95) Kathleen Willey,(96) and David Hale.(97)
     Davis also maintained files containing information about Larry Lawrence, Roger Tamraz,
     Doris Matsui, Webster Hubbell, Nora and Gene Lum, John Huang, Pauline Kachanalak,
     Johnny Chung, and Charlie Trie.(98) Many of these files were identified, either in whole or in
     part, by the individual's name, such as "Starr," "Monica Lewinsky," "Kathleen Willey" and
     "John Huang."(99) Davis also testified that he was "eclectic" in his judgment as to what to put in
     such files, and that he would generally include any document that he might need to use at some
     point.(100) Such documents included public statements and stories by the media.(101) Yet,
     Davis admitted that the media "frequently does not" publish accurate information, undoubtedly
     thanks to his assistance.(102)

     Davis admitted that he maintained these files so that he could disseminate information to the
     media and thus help them write "good" and "bad" stories.(103) Yet before Davis released
     information from any of these files to the media, he never consulted with anyone referenced in
     the materials, never sought their permission, and knew of no one at the Clinton White House
     who did so.(104) Davis, Ickes and Carville continue to advise the Clinton White House on
     impeachment issues,(105) and it is likely that they continue to receive information from
     government files.

     Judicial Watch also plans to question others in the White House suspected of participating in
     unlawful smear operations such as Sidney Blumenthal, Rahm Emmanuel, Ann Lewis and Mike
     McCurry.

     In the course of its investigation, Judicial Watch has uncovered evidence of possible crimes
     involving obstruction of justice and abuse of power. During his deposition in Judicial Watch's
     "Filegate" investigation, Harold Ickes implicated himself, President Clinton and others in
     possible obstruction of justice in the Independent Counsel's "Filegate" investigation. After it
     was publicly reported that Dick Morris had told Sherry Rowlands that Mrs. Clinton was the
     "mastermind" of "Filegate," Mr. Morris lamely tried to recant in having any independent
     knowledge of Mrs. Clinton's role. Rather, he claimed that his comments were based on
     polling data which reflected a public perception that Mrs. Clinton was behind the "Filegate"
     scandal. Consequently, the Independent Counsel staff subpoenaed the polling data. At his
     Judicial Watch deposition, Mr. Ickes testified to an effort to delay production of this polling
     data until after the 1996 elections.(106)

     Finally, Judicial Watch is submitting this interim report for Congress' consideration at this time
     because it has uncovered substantial, additional evidence of unlawful conduct in the Clinton
     Administration and because it appears that, while Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has
     been given the responsibility to investigate the "Filegate" matter, unfortunately his efforts
     apparently have been devoted almost exclusively toward the Lewinsky and Whitewater
     investigations.

     In fact, it would appear the Independent Counsel's investigation of "Filegate" is still at an early
     stage, if indeed any real investigation is being conducted at all.(107) Key "Filegate" witnesses
     recently deposed by Judicial Watch have yet to be questioned by the Independent Counsel
     about the matter. Thomas "Mack" McLarty, the White House Chief of Staff during the time
     period the FBI files were obtained unlawfully, incredibly testified that he was never questioned
     about "Filegate" before a grand jury:

          Q: But you never answered questions concerning Filegate before a Grand Jury,
          to the best of your knowledge.

          A: To the best of my knowledge and memory, that is correct.(108)

     Likewise, ORM Director Terry Good, who stored the FBI files for Craig Livingstone for
     several months, testified that he has "never been interviewed by anybody" from the
     Independent Counsel's office.(109) Earlier this year, the Independent Counsel staff questioned
     Defendant Hillary Rodham Clinton for only about nine (9) minutes on the subject of "Filegate."
     According to Mandy Grunwald, one of the Clintons' friends and media advisors, even Mrs.
     Clinton remarked about the conduct of the Independent Counsel staff in questioning her so
     briefly. Ms. Grunwald testified that Mrs. Clinton thought the Independent Counsel staff "came
     to the White House for what was very little business."(110)

     Judicial Watch sought to take the deposition of Ms. Tripp on September 4, 1998, but the
     Independent Counsel intervened to try to convince the Court to postpone the deposition
     temporarily. In light of the fact that the Independent Counsel's investigation of "Filegate"
     appears to be in its preliminary stages only and that no meaningful report will likely be
     forthcoming any time soon, Judicial Watch hopes that the Independent Counsel will withdraw
     its objection and allow Ms. Tripp's deposition to go forward without further delay. Judicial
     Watch believes that it is important for the American public to learn what Ms. Tripp witnessed
     while working in the Clinton White House precisely because the Independent Counsel's report
     on "Filegate" will not be issued any time soon -- particularly since Judicial Watch depositions
     confirm that its investigation is seemingly still in an infant state.

     It is also important that the full facts of "Filegate" be made public at this time because the
     "Filegate" strategy of misusing information in government files concerns not just the unlawful
     acquisition of FBI files of former Reagan and Bush Administration appointees and employees,
     but is part of a continuing campaign to smear witnesses and obstruct justice in the numerous
     on-going investigations of the President. By smearing, or at least threatening to smear its
     perceived adversaries and critics, the Administration hopes to intimidate them and gain their
     silence. This reaction is most typified by the response to Pennsylvania Representative Paul
     McHale's recent call for President Clinton's resignation. When Representative McHale
     subsequently appeared on Rivera Live,(111) one of the prime mouthpieces of the President, he
     was confronted with claims that he had misrepresented his military credentials. This type of
     information concerning military credentials would almost surely have come from government
     files, and Judicial Watch will seek discovery on this matter. The misuse of information,
     obstruction of justice and abuse of power apparently has become the last line of defense for a
     severely weakened Administration. Judicial Watch thus is providing these preliminary results
     from its "Filegate" investigation so that Congress can be fully informed at this critical time as it
     considers the future of the Clinton Presidency.(112)

PART II

                                    IRS-GATE

              Crimes and Other Offenses Relating to the Misuse of the Internal
                                     Revenue
                   Service that Warrant Impeachment and Removal from
                            Office of President Bill Clinton

          I. Introduction.

          President Clinton's pattern of using government agencies and their files to harass
          and intimidate those he considers to be his political adversaries apparently
          extends to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). Among several of his targets
          was the Western Journalism Center ("WJC").

          On May 13, 1998, Judicial Watch, on behalf of WJC, a non-profit organization
          established to promote education in journalism and investigative reporting,(113)
          sued former IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson, IRS agent
          Thomas Cederquist and several unnamed IRS officials for violating its First
          Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as well as its
          Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
          The gravamen of WJC's suit was that these IRS officials violated WJC's
          constitutional rights in retaliation for WJC's having sponsored an investigation
          into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster.
          Importantly, Ms. Richardson is a close personal friend of First Lady Hillary
          Rodham Clinton, and had worked on President Clinton's 1992 presidential
          campaign.(114)

          Mr. Foster's death on July 20, 1993 was ruled a suicide by Independent
          Counsels Robert Fiske, Kenneth Starr, the United States Park Police and the
          Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because the official investigations left significant
          questions unanswered, WJC sponsored an investigation and published
          statements that challenged the official results. As a consequence, WJC was
          targeted by the Clinton Administration and subsequently audited by the IRS.
          Afterwards, WJC's tax status remained unchanged and no additional taxes or
          penalties were assessed.(115) However, WJC's ability to investigate and report
          on government corruption was severely curtailed by the audit.

          WJC's lawsuit alleges that the IRS audit was not about taxes; it was about illegal
          use of the IRS for political retaliation.(116) Thus, the case presents yet another
          example of the Clinton Administration's use of governmental power to intimidate
          and destroy its perceived adversaries.

          The audit violated WJC's constitutional rights. Not only was WJC subjected to
          an onerous and burdensome audit to retaliate against it for its prior reporting, but
          it also was prevented from further exercising its First Amendment rights, because
          WJC was forced to devote its limited personnel and resources to the audit
          instead of to its journalistic endeavors. Because WJC was required to turn over
          substantial quantities of information and documentation, the audit also violated
          WJC's Fourth Amendment right of freedom from unreasonable searches and
          seizures. Also, the audit had a chilling effect on WJC's ability to raise funds.

          Evidence indicates that WJC was not the only likely victim of President Clinton's
          IRS. A later survey by WJC revealed that at "least 20 non-profit organizations
          'unfriendly' to the Clinton administration have faced Internal Revenue Service
          audits since 1993," while "not a single prominent public policy organization
          friendly to the Clinton Administration has apparently been targeted for audit in
          the same period, according to two random samples and research into the
          non-profit community."(117) The targeted organizations included National
          Review, American Spectator, Citizens Against Government Waste and the
          Heritage Foundation.(118) In January 1997, even the left-leaning Public
          Broadcasting Service found "that a remarkable number of Bill Clinton's critics
          have recently become the target of IRS audits."(119)

          These reports are consistent with the Clinton Administration's use of the IRS in
          the White House Travel Office matter. In 1993-94, UltrAir, a charter company
          used by the White House Travel Office, as well as Billy Dale, the former director
          of that office, were audited by the IRS.(120) Associate Counsel to the President
          William Kennedy had reportedly sought to have the FBI investigate UltrAir and
          Dale in order to replace them with allies of the President.(121) Kennedy
          reportedly advised an official of the FBI that the IRS would be used to
          investigate the White House Travel Office if the FBI did not do so.(122)
          Subsequently, both UltrAir and Dale were audited by the IRS, with no income
          tax violations being found.(123)

          II. Background of the WJC.

          WJC is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, charitable organization and, as such, pays no
          federal income tax. WJC was granted 501(c)(3) status by the IRS in August of
          1996.

          WJC's operations are funded by contributions from its supporters and
          foundations, who, in turn, are able to deduct these contributions from their own
          federal income taxes. WJC's contributors rely on WJC's 501(c)(3) status when
          making contributions.

          WJC's journalism credentials are substantial. It was founded by Joseph Farah,
          an award-winning journalist and former editor of The Sacramento Union, and
          James G. Smith, the former President of The Washington Star, to promote
          journalism education and investigative reporting. WJC was formerly the
          publisher of Inside California, which focused primarily on investigations
          concerning the state of California. WJC currently is the publisher of Dispatches
          a bi-weekly investigative publication that focuses primarily on national events. Its
          extensive investigative reporting has been widely cited and credited in such
          influential national publications as The Los Angeles Times, The Oakland
          Tribune, The Orange County Register, The Sacramento Bee, The San
          Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner, The Wall Street Journal
          and Investor's Business Daily.

          WJC's investigative reporting is non-partisan. For example, it undertook an
          extensive investigation into the National Education Association's political power.
          It also undertook a substantial investigation into the "militarization" of the federal
          government during both Republican and Democratic administrations. It also
          undertook an extensive investigation into corruption, waste, fraud and abuse in
          California government during a Republican administration.

        I.Details of the Harassment.

          The audit clearly was intended to harass WJC. In July 1996, WJC learned that it
          was being audited by the IRS. On at least two separate occasions, the IRS
          agent conducting the audit, defendant Thomas Cederquist, admitted to WJC's
          accountant that "this is a political case" and that "the decisions were being made
          at the national level."

          During the course of the audit, WJC was asked to produce documents about its
          decision to undertake an investigation into Mr. Foster's death and about why
          opposing viewpoints were not presented in published statements about its
          investigation. At least five IRS "Information Document Requests" (Form 4565)
          were served on WJC demanding the production of thousands of pages of
          documents and substantial quantities of information. One document request,
          dated August 16, 1996, sought the following materials, among others, relating
          directly to the investigation into Foster's death:

          Copies of all documents relating to the selection of Christopher Ruddy as an
          investigative reporter and how the topic was selected. Who was on the review
          committee? What review process is used for peer review? Were any other
          projects considered? What about any opposing viewpoints? Why were they not
          presented in your advertisements?(124)

          When WJC's executive director challenged the audit as being retaliatory in an
          opinion article published in The Wall Street Journal(125) and charged that the
          IRS had undertaken other politically-inspired audits of perceived adversaries of
          President Clinton and his Administration, the scope of the audit was enlarged.
          The IRS then began audits of two of WJC's largest individual donors, as well as
          several individuals WJC had retained to provide expert and research services for
          its Foster investigation.

          Evidence unknown to WJC at the time, but later revealed, showed Clinton
          Administration targeting of WJC. WJC learned of a December 1994 internal
          memorandum prepared by Associate White House Counsel Jane C. Sherburne
          that outlined strategies for addressing various political scandals confronting
          President Clinton and his Administration.(126) WJC was specifically named in the
          memorandum for its investigation into Foster's death.(127) WJC later learned of a
          1995 report prepared by the White House Counsel's Office in conjunction with
          the Democratic National Committee entitled "Communication Stream of
          Conspiracy Commerce," that purported to document a "right-wing" conspiracy
          to convey "fringe" stories about political scandals to the mainstream media.(128)
          The first news organization identified on the first page of this report was
          WJC.(129)

          The tremendous burden imposed on WJC because of the tax audit, including the
          time WJC was forced to devote to the audit and the funds it was compelled to
          expend, severely curtailed WJC's ability to exercise its First Amendment rights.
          WJC was effectively forced to shut down its investigative reporting and other
          activities, including its investigation into Foster's death. One of WJC's
          investigative reporting publications, Inside California, was terminated as a result
          of the audit.(130)

          Because of the audit, several foundations and other contributors who had made
          donations to WJC in the past and/or were considering making donations to
          WJC, decided against making new and/or additional donations either because
          they feared retaliatory audits or because they feared that the on-going audit
          would lead to the revocation of WJC's 501(c)(3) tax exempt status and,
          consequently, that their donations would not be tax-deductible. As a result of
          this funding loss, WJC was forced to lay off at least two members of its already
          small staff, which further limited WJC's ability to exercise its First Amendment
          rights.

          In May, 1997, defendant Cederquist undertook a two-day examination of
          documentation in WJC's offices. Cederquist did not appear for the second day
          of this examination, however, as IRS Agent John Grisso appeared in
          Cederquist's place. During this second day of the examination, Agent Grisso
          stated to Farah that he did not understand why so much time and energy had
          been devoted to the WJC audit because "there was nothing there." Agent Grisso
          advised Farah that he would recommend that a "no-change" letter be issued.

          Ultimately, the Clinton Administration failed to destroy WJC, which has become
          an influential source of news and commentary on the Internet.

       II.Conclusion.

     The likely reason for the audit was to retaliate against WJC for sponsoring an
     investigation into the Foster death, punish it for challenging the results of the official
     investigations, limit its ability to continue to both investigate and publish materials
     perceived as being harmful to the President and his Administration, and discourage
     potential donors from contributing.

     The lawsuit is based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau
     of Investigation, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), wherein the U.S. Supreme Court declared that
     federal officials may be held liable in their individual capacities for violating a person's
     constitutional rights while acting under color of federal law. Judicial Watch expects the
     lawsuit to serve as a warning and deterrent to IRS officials, that they cannot violate
     citizens' constitutional rights without being held personally accountable.

     This personal accountability includes President Clinton. Any impeachment inquiry
     should include the misuse of the IRS, as demonstrated by the experience of WJC and
     other organizations that President Clinton perceives as his adversaries.(131)
 

                                  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(132)

          ****

          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(133)

     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.(134) 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.(135)

     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.(136) Even after filing suit, the Clinton Administration
     continued to stonewall.(137)

     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, 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;(138)

          • A brochure by the Democratic National Committee showing that
          "foreign trade mission" seats were available for $100,000 contributions to
          the DNC;(139)

          • A list of DNC minority donors found in the files of a key Clinton
          Commerce Department official;(140)

          • A Clinton Commerce Department memo indicating that the DNC
          donors were input into Commerce Department government database;(141)
          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.(142)

     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 re-election
          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,(143) 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."(144) 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.(145)

     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.(146)

     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 reelection 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,(147) 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.(148) 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, that the trade missions
          were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore
          presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron
          [Brown] 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.(149)

     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. (150)

     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
          mission to raise money; correct?

          A: He initially believed that she was very instrumental, and he gave her a
          lot of credit.(151)

     Secretary Brown told Ms. Hill that he was "just doing my chores for Hillary Rodham
     Clinton" and he complained, "I'm not a mother - expletive deleted - king tour guide for
     Hillary Clinton."(152)

     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 being perverted?

          A: Yes, sir.(153)

     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."(154)

     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."(155) 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.(156)

     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.(157)

     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.(158)

     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 . . . ."(159) 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.(160) A DNC brochure soliciting members for its "Managing Trustee" program
     shows that participation in a "foreign trade mission" was only one of the perks available
     to a contributor who donated at least $100,000 to the DNC.(161) 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.(162) Importantly, Alexis Herman was listed on the
     documents as the person to see to purchase a "ticket" on a Clinton Commerce
     Department trade mission.(163)

     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 reelection 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.(164) 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 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.(165)

     Judicial Watch has subpoenaed similar materials from the DNC, and will depose top
     DNC officials Terry McAuliffe and Marvin Rosen in the next few seeks. 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.(166)
 

     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. § 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.(167)

     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.(168) When Mr. Klayman refused to limit scope of the request, Moss
     abruptly ended the conversation, angrily slamming the phone down.(169) The following
     day, October 19, 1994, Ms. Moss sent Judicial Watch a 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.(170) Judicial Watch wrote back to Ms. Moss that
     same day to correct her false statements.(171) 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 to it, with
     Secretary Brown's knowledge, to try and convince Judicial Watch not to pursue its
     FOIA requests regarding the trade missions.(172) 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.(173) 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 $13,131 in alleged search and duplication costs in order to obtain the requested
     documents.(174) 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.(175)

     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.(176)

     At approximately this same time, the Clinton Commerce Department provided Judicial
     Watch with a Vaughn index of documents allegedly exempt from FOIA.(177) 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.'"(178) 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.(179) 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.(180)

     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, it 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.(181)

     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.(182)
          (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.(183)

     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.(184) 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.(185) (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.(186)

          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.(187)

          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 reelection 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.)(188)

     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:(189)

          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.(190)

     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.

               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:

          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. 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.(191)

     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 . . .
          .(192)

     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.(193) These documents have never been produced to
     Judicial Watch despite Ms. Hill's advice to Secretary Brown that they be produced
     immediately,(194) and were likely destroyed after Secretary Brown's death.(195)

     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.(196)

     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.(197)
     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."(198)

     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.(199) Das also testified that he never discussed the document search
     with Secretary Brown, although he had frequent contact with him.(200) He also testified
     that he didn't know of anyone searching Secretary Brown's office.(201) 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?(202)

     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.(203) However, at her October 15, 1996 deposition, Ms. McFate testified
     that her search for documents was limited solely to ITA, although ITA was clearly not
     the only branch of the Clinton Commerce Department possessing responsive
     documents.(204) Ms. McFate also testified at her deposition that she was not involved
     in searching any other bureaus or offices of the Clinton Commerce Department.(205)
     Accordingly, the declarations of Ms. McFate, submitted by the Clinton Commerce
     Department's Office of General Counsel, were clearly false and misleading.(206)

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.(207) 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.(208)

     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.(209) "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."

     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.(210) 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.(211) 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.(212) 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 constitute 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.(213) 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(214) -- 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.(215)

     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.(216) 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.(217)

     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.(218) 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.(219)
     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.(220) 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.(221)

     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.(222) Although Yee claims that she was never informed of Judicial Watch's
     FOIA requests or the court's orders(223) -- 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.(224) 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.(225) 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.(226) 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."(227) 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.'"(228)

     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.(229) Mr. Ost testified
     that he turned this document over to his supervisors to be produced to Judicial
     Watch.(230) 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.(231) 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.(232) Importantly, it was Kearney who selected the participants for
     Secretary Brown's trade missions.(233) At least five (5) of these donors participated in
     a trade mission to South Africa with Secretary Brown.(234)

     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.(235) 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.(236)

     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.(237) 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.(238) 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."(239) In addition to having seen letters on Commerce Department
     stationary under Moss' signature concerning the sale of seats on Commerce
     Department trade missions,(240) 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.(241)

     Further evidence of Moss's illegal fundraising activities on behalf of the DNC and the
     President's re-election campaign(242) 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.(243) 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.(244)

     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,(245) 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.(246) 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,(247) and had extensive telephone contacts with Asian and American
     businesspeople, diplomats and lawyers, many of whom, such as Webster Hubbell and
     Joe Giroir, had ties to Huang's former employer, the Lippo Group.(248) Huang also
     participated in numerous departmental meetings concerning Asia policy,(249) and even
     received frequent intelligence briefings.(250) 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.(251) Although he was under subpoena, Huang
     produced no documents at his deposition.(252) He stated that his notes were thrown
     away, his reports were destroyed, his computer files were erased and that copies of his
     correspondence were not kept.(253) However, subsequent news reports, including a
     report in the December 30, 1996 edition of The New York Times,(254) portray Huang
     as a "pack rat" who left the Clinton Commerce Department with and kept "bulging
     files." 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.(255) 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.(256)

     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.(257) 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.(258)

     Consequently, on February 4, 1998, the Court ordered Ms. Hill's affidavit be kept
     under seal, specifically because Ms. Hill was concerned about retaliation.(259) 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.(260) 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."(261) According to Todd, Holder also told him that Ms. Hill is "persona non
     grata at the Justice Department."(262) On March 14, 1998, Ms. Hill was indicted on
     tax charges,(263) 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.(264) 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.(265)

     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
     deposition. Sopko, a non-political career employee, broke down in tears as she
     testified about being afraid of losing her job.(266) She also testified that she believed
     Whatley had been fired for revealing the existence of this DNC document.(267)

     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 . . . .(268)

     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.(269)
 

     In what was clearly a threat of criminal prosecution, Deputy Chief Birch responded by
     invoking the spector of the "Pentagon Pagers" 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.(270)

     (Emphasis added). The Court adjourned the conference without taking any further
     action.(271)

     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.(272) 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.(273) 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.(274)

     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.(275)

     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.(276)

     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.(277)

     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.(278) 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.(279) 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."(280)
     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.(281)

     The evidence also reveals that Judith Means was intimately involved in providing the
     Clinton Commerce Department's response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests.(282)
     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.(283) 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.(284) 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.(285) However, at her
     deposition, Means failed to produce her notes of these meetings.(286) Neither the
     facsimile from the DNC Ost provided to his supervisor nor the Moss' letters have ever
     been provided to Judicial Watch.(287) 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.(288) Indeed, Christine Sopko testified that she turned over this list of 139
     contributors to the DNC to her superiors months earlier.(289) 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 prima 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.(290)

     When confronted with evidence of obstruction and unlawful conduct by Commerce
     Department officials - such as the shredding of documents in Secretary Brown's
     office,(291) the destruction of documents by Melinda Yee,(292) and the removal of
     classified, national security documents by Ira Sockowitz(293) - 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,(294) it also
     failed to search even its own computers, even though the existence and location of
     these records was well known.(295)

     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.(296)

     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, "What you're just waiving around today is a purported transcript of
     a deposition that is totally unauthorized."(297) 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.(298)

     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.(299) 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 process 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,(300) 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,(301) the conduct of the OGC lawyers in
     this matter demonstrates anything but such a 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.(302)

     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.(303) 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,(304) and who obviously owes his current
     position to President Clinton,(305) publicly announced on NBC's Meet the Press that he
     was "intimately involved" in the Chinagate probe.(306) 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.(307) 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.(308) While Attorney General Janet Reno claims to be conducting an
     investigation of the campaign finance scandal that "will leave no stone unturned,"(309)
     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.(310) Likewise, Ginger Lew, the supervisor
     of Ira Sockowitz at both the Clinton Commerce Department and the SBA, had not
     been interviewed either.(311) Nor have many others.(312)

     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.(313) 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!(314) The Court ultimately issued sanctions
     for this outrageous misconduct.(315) 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.(316)

     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.(317) 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:

     The 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 re-examine your approach. I just don't understand it."(318)

     Clinton Justice Department counsel was admonished again for using these blatantly
     obstructionist tactics during a number of depositions.(319)

     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.(320) 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.(321) 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.(322)

     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.(323)

     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.(324) 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 reelection
     campaign.(325) 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.

     VI. Clinton's Fundraising Push Likely Resulted in Breaches of National Security
     Breaches.

     As Judicial Watch uncovered evidence that seats on Clinton Commerce Department
     trade missions were being sold in exchange for campaign contributions, it also
     uncovered an 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.(326) To date, only Judicial Watch has deposed Huang under oath.(327)
     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.(328) In
     attempting to learn of Huang's whereabouts, DNC officials later lied to the Court.(330)

     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.(331)

     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.(332) 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."(333) 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."(334)

     In fact, it is now clear that Huang participated in the planning of Clinton Commerce
     Department trade missions,(335) and had extensive telephone contacts with Asian and
     American businesspeople, diplomats, lawyers, and fundraisers, many of whom, such as
     Webster Hubbell and Joe Giroir, had ties to Huang's former employer, the Lippo
     Group.(336) 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.(337)

     Huang also participated in departmental meetings on Asia policy(338) 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.(339) While
     working for the Clinton Commerce Department Huang made "more than 400 telephone
     calls . . . to Lippo and some of its business representatives."(340) Huang also made
     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.(341)

     The Clinton Administration gave Huang access to top-secret information apparently
     without even conducting an overseas background check on him.(342) 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."(343) Electronic intercepts have also apparently confirmed that, at a
     minimum, he committed economic espionage by passing government secrets to the
     Lippo Group.(344) Indeed, some believe he may have endangered the lives of U.S.
     intelligence agents.(345) 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."(346)

     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.(347) 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.(348) The DNC even credited him
     for raising money while working the Clinton Commerce Department.(349)

     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.(350) He was also in regular contact with top
     Democratic fundraisers, and often supplied them with names of prospective donors in
     the Asian-American community.(351) 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.(352)

     Despite Huang's false and misleading testimony in the Judicial Watch lawsuit, and his
     unlawful fundraising activities,(353) 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.(354) 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.(355)

     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."(356)

     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 ("OGC"), 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 ("SBA").(357) Sockowitz
     had worked at OGC under Ginger Lew, a confidante of John Huang, then joined Lew
     at 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.(358)

     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.(359) 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.(360) 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.(361) 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 office at
     OGC.(362) 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.(363) 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.(364)

     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"),(365) 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 Inspector General, 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.(366) 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."(367)

     According to Nolanda Hill, Secretary Brown was also worried about what 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.(368)

     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.(369)

     At the July 18, 1997 and August 1, 1997 deposition of Fitz-Pegado, Judicial Watch
     discovered 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.(370) 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.(371) 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.(372)
     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.(373)

     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.(374) 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.(375) 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.(376)
     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.(377)

     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.(378) 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.(379) Schwartz later recalled that the
     meeting "helped open doors that were not open before."(380) Soon after the trip,
     Schwartz won the satellite transmission rights for a multi-billion dollar mobile telephone
     network in China.(381) 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.(382) 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,(383) 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."(384) 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(385) 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," the Commerce
          chief of staff William Ginsberg wrote.(386)
 

     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.(387) 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.(388)

     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 Liu and, 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.(389)

     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 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,(390) Trie also helped the Chinese communist arms dealer Wang Jun gain access
     to a fundraising coffee with President Clinton.(391)

     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.(392)

     Judicial Watch uncovered that Trie had regular access to Deputy Assistant Secretary
     Kearney, meeting with him several times.(393) 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.(394) 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.(395)

     Trie is now under indictment for "purchasing access to high-level government officials in
     the United States by contribution and soliciting contributions by the DNC."(396) 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 attorney's 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 missions 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 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 that
     place."(397) Another document by Silden also confirms the DNC provided donor
     names to the DNC.(398) 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.(399)

     Based in part on these new documents, the Court authorized a subpoena of more
     Commerce records and computers and authorized the depositions of key Clinton
     fundraisers Terry McAuliffe and Marvin Rosen, among other DNC officials.(400)
     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.(401) 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 Committee ("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 one 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.(402)

     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, "for some reason [perhaps is 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."(403)

     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.(404)

     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 $2 million in tax dollars offered by Clinton's agents; if it
     were not for Judicial Watch's investigations that 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.(405)

 
                                  PART IV

                                TRUST-GATE

      Crimes and Other Offenses Relating to The Presidential Legal Expense Trust

                    that Warrant Impeachment and Removal from

                          Office of President Bill Clinton

     The Presidential Legal Expense Trust ("the Trust") was established by private trustees
     on behalf of Bill and Hillary Clinton in June 1994.(406) It was allegedly established to
     pay the President's legal fees incurred in defending against the numerous scandals of his
     Administration, as well as the private litigation brought against him, i.e., the Paula Jones
     lawsuit. In fact, the Trust was an illegal scheme, unlawfully soliciting and/or receiving
     something of value for the President, which violated the anti-bribery laws of the United
     States. Indeed, members of Congress have recognized the "grave legal and ethical
     questions" raised by the President's Trust.(407) In so doing, they pointed to the
     sweeping prohibition in 5 U.S.C. § 7353(a), which states that:

          [N]o Member of Congress or officer or employee of the executive,
          legislative, or judicial branch shall solicit or accept anything of value
          ....(408)

     They also noted that the implementing regulations carrying this prohibition into effect
     make the point even clearer.(409) Those regulations address the standards of ethical
     conduct for employees of the Executive Branch, and state that "an employee shall not,
     directly or indirectly, solicit or accept a gift."(410) According to Congressman Cox and
     Congresswoman Pryce, "[i]t would be difficult to draft a clearer prohibition."(411)

     It was also quite clear to most commentators at the time, including Paul Gigot, that
     influence peddlers would use the opportunity to effectively bribe the President and Mrs.
     Clinton:

          Now that President and Mrs. Clinton have established their Legal
          Expense Trust, I'm thinking about writing a check for $500. Since Mr.
          Clinton we will be informed of my gift, maybe I'll get that interview he's
          somehow always resisted. Come to think of it, if I doubled by gift to
          $1,000, maybe I'll get Hillary too.

          ****

          Indeed, that's why Congress passed a law (5 U.S. Code 7363) that says
          executive branch officials can't "solicit or accept" gifts from people whose
          interests they might affect. In view of this ban, I asked a senior White
          House official for the defense fund's legal rationale.

          ****

          All of this goes beyond law to the power and conduct of the presidency.
          By so blithely ignoring the law, the Clinton White House has again shown
          how easily it will cut ethical corners. And by begging for money, it
          undermines the president's credibility and demeans his office. Which is
          why someone else should try to restore presidential dignity. First someone
          could sue to test the legality of the defense fund.(412)

     On August 4, 1994, Judicial Watch brought suit challenging the Trust, creatively
     alleging that the actions of the trustees, in providing advice to the President and Mrs.
     Clinton on the workings of the Trust, were tantamount to a federal advisory committee,
     and thus either needed to be completely open to public scrutiny, or shut down.(413)
     Because the trustees chose not to make the Trust's operations public, Judicial Watch
     pressed its case to a conclusion. While finding that the Trust was not subject to the
     Federal Advisory Committee Act(414) because it was a private, not governmental,
     activity, the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of
     Columbia ruled that it nevertheless raised "major public policy, legal and ethical
     questions," which he could not reach under his jurisdiction.(415)

     Ironically, by finding the Trust to be a private activity, the court effectively "indicted" it,
     as his ruling thrust it into the realm of criminal activity. Consequently, Judicial Watch
     requested that Attorney General Reno investigate the matter and appoint an
     independent counsel. She refused to do so.(416)

     It was later discovered, as predicted, that the Trust was indeed a convenient conduit
     for attempted bribery. It eventually became known to the public that hundreds of
     thousands of dollars were being laundered into its accounts by Charlie Trie, money
     which came from foreign, possibly Communist Chinese sources.(417) As a result, the
     Trust was closed as of January 1, 1998.(418)

     However, a few weeks later on February 17, 1998, a new Trust was established,
     which is even more illegal than the first.(419) The Office of Government Ethics (an office
     that serves at the pleasure of the White House) found that the first Trust could receive
     but not solicit; the second Trust now solicits as well.(420) Indeed, a number of fat-cat
     donors, including Hollywood moguls such as Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand,
     have pumped huge amounts of cash into the operation.(421) It is undoubtedly only a
     matter of time until it is again revealed that influence peddlers, such as Charlie Trie and
     his Chinese benefactors, have found a new way to infiltrate the second Trust. Indeed,
     at the time that Charlie Trie was laundering Chinese money into the first Trust, he was
     also seeking and obtaining confidential communications from the President,
     undoubtedly for his Chinese benefactors, about American intentions over the
     then-brewing international crisis in the Straits of Taiwan.(422)

     That these defense funds were simply an illegal means to raise money through influence
     peddlers, and not a genuine attempt to pay the President's legal bills, was even
     conceded by presidential adviser Dick Morris, who correctly questioned why Bill and
     Hillary Clinton could not simply take out bank loans at market rates, and pay the loans
     back after they left office. Then, they will obviously benefit from multimillion dollar
     book deals, speaking engagements, and others sources of income, which will make
     them wealthy beyond expectations.

     Last Sunday, The Washington Post reported Clinton's chief fundraiser, Terrence
     McAuliffe (who also participated according to Nolanda Hill in the illegal sale of seats
     on Commerce Department trade missions) has been enlisted to raise more illegal funds
     to pay a possible settlement in the Paula Jones lawsuit.(423) The President's "chutzpah"
     and penchant for being bought by illegal influence peddlers apparently knows no limits.

     The legal defense funds of the Clintons are tantamount to a violation of the bribery
     provision of Section 4, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

          Section 4 - All civil offices forfeited for certain crimes.

          The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
          shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
          Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

     "Bribery" is:

          The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any thing of value to
          influence action as official or in discharge of legal or public duty.
 

     Black's Law Dictionary 239 (rev. 4th ed.1968). The President has unlawfully solicited
     and received enormous sums of money and other things of value, which is simply illegal.

                                CONCLUSION

     In the last four years, Judicial Watch has uncovered substantial and credible evidence
     that warrants an impeachment inquiry concerning the activities of President Clinton and
     his agents. The serious breaches of personal privacy rights, witness intimidation,
     national security, and bribery, graft and obstruction of justice perpetrated by the
     Administration against the American people, cannot be addressed and rectified through
     censure, or even impeachment, however. To prevent this from ever happening again,
     Congress should not only vote articles of impeachment, and convict the President, it
     must require that criminal prosecutions follow any such removal from office.

     While Judicial Watch's cases and investigations are continuing, so too must the inquiries
     undertaken by, and in progress before, Congress. Now is the time for all concerned
     Senators and Representatives to put partisan politics aside, and move aggressively and
     seriously to clean up the rampant corruption which is destroying the very fabric of our
     democratic government.

   Appendix