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.
 

Introduction
 

Part I Filegate

Part I- I Intro

Part I-II App of Privacy

Part III-III. Fact Bkgrd

 

Part II IRS-Gate

Part II-I. Intro

Part II-II. Bckgrd of WJC

Part II-III.  Details of Harrass

Part II-IV. Conclusion

 

Part III Commercegate/Chinagate

Part III-I. Intro

Part III-II. Judicial Watch's Investigation

Part III-III. Cover-Up

Part III-III-A. False Sworn Declarations

Part III-III-B. Destruction of Evidence

Part III-III-C. Concealment of Evidence

Part III-III-D. Perjury

Part III-III-E. Intimidation

Part III-III-F. Misconduct

Part III-III-G. Clinton Justice Dept

Part III-IV. Clinton's Fundraising

Part III-IV-A. John Huang

Part III-IV-B. Ira Sockowitz

Part III-IV-C. Infamous 1994

Part III-IV-D. Commerce Official's Diaries

Part III-IV-E. Johnny Chung

Part III-IV-F. Charlie Trie

Part III-V. Conclusion

 

Part IV Trustgate
 

Conclusion  [and Endnotes]

 

Appendix with Exhibits (Separate Volumes I-VIII)

---

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.
 
 

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⁾

III. 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⁾
 
 

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.
 
 

III. 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.

IV. 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⁾
 
 

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.

A. False Sworn Declarations.

Secretary Brown himself submitted a sworn statement, which Judicial Watch later learned was patently false and misleading. In his March 14, 1996 declaration, Secretary Brown testified:

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⁾

B. Destruction of Evidence.

The letters Ms. Hill reviewed, which detailed the unlawful sale of seats on Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions, were never turned over to Judicial Watch or the Court.⁽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: Th