DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: BEHIND THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGATIONS
SUBSECTION: STONEWALLS
Revised 1/8/01

 

Billing records missing for 2 years (subpoenaed, crucial to FDIC investigation) appeared in White House living area and turned over several days after statute of limitation expired.

Bruce Lindsey's notes, subpoenaed but not turned over until the day after the Senate's Whitewater Committee authorization expired.

Hillary Clinton and White House lawyer talks claimed as executive privilege, then attorney client privilege, appealed to Supreme Court - ordered turned over.

Existence of diaries subpoenaed in April 97, were "concealed" to October 97 and have not been released. Second set also not disclosed until three weeks before committee's deadline expired.

Existence of videotapes subpoenaed in April 97 (coffees and fund-raisers) was not disclosed but then turned over October '97.

FBI files from 91 (Chinese efforts to influence U.S. elections) were turned over five days after the Senate committee ended its hearings.

White House continues to be unresponsive (from June 96 to date) to requests by Rep. Dave McIntosh, R-Ind., concerning its 300,000-name database.

White House tried to delay the Paula Jones case until after Clinton left office, appealed to the Supreme Court, turned down unanimously.

Existence of letters from Willey, subpoenaed by Jones' attorney was denied, but 15 were produced in response to 60 Minutes interview, by personal approval of president.

Lewinsky proffer: Clinton told her that if she were in New York, she might be able to avoid testifying in the Jones lawsuit

Lewinsky proffer: Clinton told her she would not have to turn over the gifts, subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's lawyers, if she did not have them in her possession.

Lewinsky proffer: Clinton told her that she could explain her White House visits as trips to see Ms. Currie.

Clinton met with Ms. Currie on a Sunday in January, the day after his deposition in the Paula Jones case, posed and answered a series of questions to guide her through an account of his relationship with Lewinsky. The president placed Betty Currie at the center of all Lewinsky-related matters Mr. Clinton took Ms. Currie on his recent trip to Africa.

Lewinsky tapes: she claims Clinton directed her to testify falsely in the Jones case. Under oath Ms. Tripp said she was told by Lewinsky to "lie and deny," Lewinsky passed along to Ms. Tripp three pages of "talking points" giving her instructions on how to lie under oath.

Clinton/Flowers tape: Clinton says "deny it" Flowers says "The only thing that concerns me . . . at this point, is the state job," to which Clinton replies, "Yeah, I never thought about that. . . . If they ever ask if you've talked to me about it, you can say no."

House Campaign Finance Committee - immunity grants blocked by Democrats

At 9:30 the day before scheduled deposition of Clifford Bernath by Judicial Watch, Justice filed a motion for protective order.

Justice refusals to appoint Independent Counsel for Campaign Finance

Presidential action (waiver regarding PRC) when Loral/Hughes was under FBI Investigation

Firing of former FBI director Sessions

Office of President and Vice-President are not "agencies" for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act.

Curt Weldon "...can't get access as a member of Congress to these briefings..." (threat assessments)

White House leak of Executive Privilege Decision followed by White House Motion for Contempt action against Independent Council

Sweet Coal - administration refused House Natural Resources Committee document request for 7 months, missed deadline by one week.

Refusal to provide documents (China/missile) to Congress citing a criminal inquiry v. prior Presidential permit to transfer the technology to China while the investigation was underway (after the fact.)

Department of Treasury tip off to White House re: criminal referral of White Water

12/13/94 Task List Memo - "to do" items regarding Foster, White Water and other 39 scandals, Congress and the press

Commerce Department "pattern of obstruction" for refusing to provide Defense Intelligence Agency with information on U.S. supercomputer exports (e.g. Russia/China)

White House missed deadline for turning over Loral (China/Missile) documents to House Committee

Janet Reno refused I.C. Smaltz on information about cash payoffs to then-Governor Clinton

Atty General Reno refusal to provide Congress the Freeh memo concerning the FBI position on an Independent Counsel for Campaign Finance

Haney - Portals, House Investigation - withholding documents

Mayer (reporter) wanted to know how to respond

DOD attorney objects to Bacon answering questions about Lewinsky in deposition (Judicial Watch.)

Hoyt Zia (Commerce) called John Huang when Huang was being sought by US Marshals, ie didn't tell the Marshals where to find him.

Concerning data subpoenaed by Starr, Harold Ickes testified about a conference call with other aides on Sept. 9, 1996, because "the president doesn't want any polling data turned ... over to people outside the campaign."

Change of privilege claim on Bruce Lindsey to attorney-client at the last minute.

Secret 3rd privilege claim.

At the last minute, Justice appealed the Secret Service testimony ruling to the Supreme Court.

State Department said they are not sending a witness to the hearing 6/4/98 "The Sale of Body Parts by the People's Republic of China."

When US government nuclear experts asked Commerce to provide American computer companies with a list of nuclear laboratories in Russia and China to prevent the companies from selling their high-performance supercomputers to them, Commerce refused to provide such a list, claiming U.S. policy prevented them from sharing such information.

Congress has been unable to see a copy of the May 1997 Pentagon report that said "national security has been harmed" by the transfer of sensitive computer technology to China's military complex. According to Rep Pitts, the White House offers only silence and spin.

Senate Republican leader Trent Lott, R- Miss., said 6/8/98 that the Justice Department did not give the Senate Select Intelligence Committee four documents it requested when legislators began investigating the matter last week.

The administration has not responded to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) for the release of economic conclusions, data and evidence supporting its position on the proposed international treaty addressing the questionable threat of global warming.

9/96 The Washington Times: White House refused to release a Pentagon-commissioned report suggesting Clinton's strategy to combat drug use has failed.

9/96 White House refused to release documents to House investigators trying to determine whether the administration knew U.S.-trained Haitian security agents murdered political opponents of the U.S.-supported regime.

10/96 White House refused to release a memo by FBI Director Freeh and DEA Administrator Thomas Constantine that condemns Clinton's efforts against drug use.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Shelby on 6/10/98 accused the Clinton administration of failing to produce documents his panel requested. Instead of getting actual reports, the committee is only getting short summaries, he complained. He said some of the summaries are contradictory.

Refusal (Clinton) to allow access to medical records, academic records, passport records.

EPA delayed 2 years to produce climate-change proposal document for House Commerce Committee

Senate Campaign Finance hearings, Clinton White House no help in getting 45 witnesses to testify

According to Klayman (Judicial Watch) regarding quid pro quo information: some of the records are missing, pertinent information on original records obtained through the courts is blacked out -- making it impossible to read, "These documents have been permanently altered or destroyed."

.Commerce executive Melinda Yee admitted that she destroyed handwritten notes regarding trade trips.

Robert Atkins, formerly with the Commerce International Trade Administration, said he saw hundreds of documents on White House and DNC letterheads en route to a shredder.

House members cannot make an informed decision on $18 billion in new IMF funding because, according to Treasury officials, any documents on IMF operations might have to be presented with some details left out because governments that deal with the IMF often demand confidentiality.

The White House will be barred from spending $630,000 for overtime pay for East Wing stewards and kitchen help until it turns over expense forms to the General Accounting Office team investigating the controversial Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers.

The Administration balked at cooperating with the GAO claiming that the White House isn't subject to audits

According to an exclusive from Drudge, there appears to be a direct White House attempt to thwart any immunity deal for Monica Lewinsky, i.e. the White House lawyers are arguing over assurances by William Ginsburg regarding joint defense.

Donald Smaltz independent prosecutor has at least three times been blocked in his attempt to expand his probe beyond alleged wrong-doing involving Michael Espy. The latest request came just two days after the Fayettesville, Arkansas, police filed murder charges against two brothers in the 1986 death of Mitchell D. Abel, a cocaine dealer and student. Abel's shooting had been followed a few days later by the mysterious death of Randall Tyson, a Tyson Foods VP and half brother of Don Tyson who choked to death on a cookie. It is unknown whether these are connected or are connected to Smaltz' request.

Developer Franklin Haney, a Democrat from Chattanooga, Tenn. and a friend of Vice President Al Gore, refused to comply with a subpoena for documents regarding a $1 million payment to Clinton's former campaign manager, saying it violated the lawyer-client privilege, was an invasion of privacy and would hurt his business. A House subcommittee voted to hold the developer in contempt of Congress.

On the eve of Clinton's trip to China, Senate Democrats shut down debate on a defense bill to block votes on China policy, Tom Dashle D-SD: ``I'm not going to allow one single vote on China this week .We're not going to embarrass this president.''

In Congressional hearings with reference to the missing encryption device, Rep. Weldon: ". But I wanted to raise this, because I just don't think you were candid last week. It's hard for me to believe that none of you knew the answer to that question when I asked it last week. And even though I had been assured by Mr. Tarbell that we'd get that by the end of the day, to my knowledge, we never did get that answer. We had to finally go get it for ourselves over the weekend. But it's in the record now.."

Prosecutors subpoenaed materials from Terry Lenzner's Investigative Group Inc. - but the company declined to turn over information because Clinton's lawyers had invoked attorney-client and work product privileges.

7/6/98 The White House has removed any reference to EO 13083 Federalism from their Web library site.

Rejecting the Clinton Adminstration argument that the Secret Service should be exempt by creating a new "protective function privilege," a Federal Appeals Court panel ruled 7/7/98 that three of the Secret Service employees must tell a grand jury in the Monica Lewinsky investigation what they observed while guarding the president.

7/10/98 Washington Post Bill Miller "A federal judge has ordered the Federal Election Commission to aggressively review a conservative group's allegations that the Clinton administration and the Democratic National Committee offered U.S. businesses places on overseas trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions. U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin, in ordering the agency to pursue what it said could be "serious violations of law," criticized the FEC's decision not to pursue the case on its own as "inexplicable." .David Kolker, an FEC attorney, told the judge. "If the campaign contributions themselves were lawful, there is nothing for the commission to look at." ."Well, is bribery lawful?" Sporkin shot back. ."

RNC 7/9/98 "Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson this evening applauded a decision by U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin holding that the Federal Election Commission "for some reason is attempting to thwart a review" of charges that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton/Gore 1996 Reelection Committee gave seats on Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for contributions of $100,000 or more. In a case brought by Judicial Watch against the FEC seeking action on a complaint it brought alleging possible sales of seats on the trade missions, Judge Sporkin noted that the FEC had received the complaint on August 26, 1996, about ten weeks before the 1996 elections. In language sharply critical of the FEC, Sporkin ruled that "inexplicably, the FEC waited over a year and a half before determining whether to investigate Plaintiff's allegations," then suddenly closed its file, without explanation, on December 15, 1997. In the lawsuit, the FEC had claimed that the dismissal was based on technical reasons.

New York Daily News 7/10/98 Thomas DeFrank "Lawyers for President Clinton yesterday moved to block the release of hundreds of pages of papers from the Paula Jones sex suit, fearing they would spark a "media circus." .White House sources confirmed that much of that material is extremely unflattering to the President and, if unsealed, would reignite a media frenzy over the President's sex life. .."

October 27 1993, US Attorney Paula Casey in Little Rock rejected the first RTC criminal referral concerning Whitewater, 9 others pending.

November 9, 1993 RTC investigator Jean Lewis was taken off the Madison probe. In August 1994, amid a mounting smear campaign, she was placed on administrative leave. In later testimony before the House Banking Committee she charged that there was "a concerted effort to obstruct, hamper and manipulate" the Madison probe.

7/98 Online Progressive Review (1996) ". Jim Leach of the House Banking Committee is reported running into stonewalling on the grounds of "national security" as he investigates drug smuggling and money laundering out of Mena, Arkansas..Rep. Jim Leach is trying to look into the Mena drug and gun running side of the story but is running into resistance from federal investigative agencies and the IRS. The IRS has turned over three boxes of material on the late CIA informer and drug pusher Barry Seale but won't release another 21. Leach says that "various security agencies" also say their Mena documents are not available: "You'd be astonished at how little they claim to know." Leach insists: "We have more than sufficient documentation that improprieties occurred at Mena.."

7/98 Online Progressive Review about Smaltz ".[Janet] Reno, meanwhile, has quietly -- and unsuccessfully -- made an effort to rein in some of these far flung prosecutions. Sources close to the Espy investigation say that about a year ago Justice Department attorneys tried to deny Smaltz the right to expand his probe further. To Reno's consternation the department was overruled by the three judges who oversee the implementation of the independent-counsel act." . speaking of his most recent case, Smaltz declared in a largely unreported statement that the Justice Department's "opposition significantly delayed our investigation and prosecution..."

7/13/98 Jonathan Turley Chicago Tribune ".Over the last few months, the president has declined six invitations to testify before the grand jury and to respond to allegations that he committed perjury, suborned perjury and obstructed justice. .First, White House defenders have argued that the president should not testify because Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is not to be trusted.. The second explanation is that Clinton should not testify because Starr's investigation has strayed far from its original mandate of investigating the Whitewater dealings.. The third explanation is that Clinton has already testified on this matter in his deposition in the Jones case. The final explanation given by all of the former White House counsels is that Clinton should only address these allegations before Congress..This leaves us with Ockham's Razor and the only remaining, and simplest, explanation: The president cannot testify because he committed perjury in his earlier deposition."

7/13/98 Mark S. Zaid, Esq Press Release "The U.S. Department of State has successfully impeded the efforts of syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington to reveal evidence of potentially illegal activities committed by, among others, officials of the Department and Ambassador M. Larry Lawrence and his widow Shelia Lawrence. In a July 6, 1998 Order, publicly released yesterday, the Honorable James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, granted the Department of State's request to delay producing the documents until at least November 16, 1999. No opinion explaining the Court's decision was issued. Reconsideration of the decision will be sought and, if necessary, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. ."

7/13/98 AP Larry Margasak "A Tennessee developer with ties to Vice President Al Gore provided documents to a House committee Monday concerning $1 million he paid President Clinton's former campaign manager. "[NOTE: A House subcommittee had previously voted to hold him in contempt for failure to turn over documents.]

Washington Post 7/14/98 Robert Suro and Peter Baker "Despite serious doubts about the chances of success, the Justice Department has decided to ask a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision ordering Secret Service officers to testify in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, administration officials said yesterday.."

7/13/98 St Louis Post Dispatch "Law enforcement officials said that investigators were actively reviewing Huang's activities, including fund-raising solicitations made while he was an official at the Commerce Department and his role in funneling overseas contributions to the Democratic Party..James Desarno, the lead FBI investigator assigned to the inquiry, was planning to accept a promotion at his agency until the FBI director, Louis Freeh, ordered him to remain in place indefinitely after news reports about the move..FBI officials and investigators continue to openly question Reno's refusal to seek an independent prosecutor to examine the vast swirl of accusations.."

7/13/98 Wall Street Journal ".Ms. Tripp finished the week with U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth sanctioning the Clinton White House and Justice Department for stonewalling a private lawsuit into how material from her personnel file was released in violation of the Privacy Act. Judge Lamberth ordered the government to pay attorneys' fees and costs for putting up roadblocks to the deposition of Clifford Bernath, the Pentagon official who released the data. More significantly, Judge Lamberth found it "highly unusual and suspect" for Mr. Bernath to have completely deleted his computer hard drive after the incident . The judge took the rare step of ordering the Pentagon ' s Inspector General to examine the hard drive and its server to see if all relevant documents in the case have been turned over to his court .."

7/14/98 Don Van Natta Jr. and David Johnston "Twenty-one months after accusations of illegal fund raising arose from President Clinton's re-election campaign, law enforcement officials concede they have no big cases to show for their effort and express doubts that they will obtain evidence to warrant prosecution of senior White House or Democratic Party officials.."

7/15/98 Washington Times Jerry Seper and Bill Sammon ".Lawyers and others close to the probe said Mrs. Tripp, who appeared for a fifth time yesterday before the grand jury, has testified that the former White House intern asked her to lie during talks they had concerning the now-dismissed Jones suit."

Rush Limbaugh 7/15/98 Summarized "Tim Russert on NBC Today Show this morning says Clinton White House threatening USSS not to testify; Russert says the USSS "facilitated" liasons for Clinton like Arkansas State Troopers. Starr may be investigating if USSS facilitated and covered up."

AP 7/15/98 Laurie Kellman "Senate Republicans accused Attorney General Janet Reno of protecting President Clinton from fund-raising and obstruction of justice investigations by having the Justice Department concoct ways to shield the White House. Chief among the phony protections, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch charged Wednesday, is the department's insistence that the law exempts Secret Service agents from having to testify in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Sen. Arlen Specter, R- Pa., accused Reno of using a double standard in appointing an independent counsel to investigate charges of influence peddling against Labor Secretary Alexis Herman but using similar arguments to reject a special prosecutor for campaign fund raising. Specter cited ``overwhelming evidence'' of White House involvement in shady funding practices and asked ``what is the real reason, the real motivation'' for Reno's refusal to appoint an independent counsel. Even FBI Director Louis Freeh believes Reno should request an independent counsel to probe the fund-raising practices, Governmental Affairs Chairman Fred Thompson of Tennessee pointed out. `It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel,'' Thompson quoted Freeh."

7/15/98 Matt Drudge "FBI Director Louis Freeh forcefully warned Attorney General Reno that she was flatly misreading the law by not seeking an independent counsel to investigate campaign fund-raising by the Clinton administration, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to lead in Thursday editions. Freeh wrote Reno a 27-page legal memo urging her to bring in outside counsel.. "Freeh has been worried all along that secret intelligence gathered by the Bureau and the National Security Agency would make its way back to the top White House policy makers close to the Chinese operatives and most interested in shutting down the investigation," goes Safire..."

7/15/98 Drudge "URGENT: WHITE HOUSE SEEKS AID OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST IN QUASHING SECRET SERVICE SUBPOENAS... CLINTON OFFICIALS LATE WEDNESDAY NIGHT ASKED COURT TO STOP STARR FROM TAKING TESTIMONY FROM SECRET SERVICE AGENTS, SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY. THE EXTRAORDINARY MOTION COMES HOURS AFTER A DISTRICT JUDGE REFUSED TO BLOCK STARR FOR OBTAINING TESTIMONY... NO IMMEDIATE SIGN IF REHNQUIST WILL STOP THE GRAND JURY HEARING... "

Roll Call 7/16/98 Damon Chappie and Mary Jacoby "The Justice Department decisions in 1995 to block an Internal Revenue Service criminal probe of Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun are extremely unusual, according to tax experts and former Justice and IRS officials. The Illinois Democrat and the Justice Department confirmed that an IRS investigation into allegations over the misuse of campaign funds ended in 1995 when the Justice Department refused IRS requests to impanel a grand jury to continue the tax investigation."

7/16/98 AP "The U.S. Court of Appeals today refused to reconsider a panel's decision ordering Secret Service officers to testify at the Monica Lewinsky grand jury, but gave the administration until noon Friday to appeal to the Supreme Court. Sending a strong signal to the Justice Department, the full appeals court said not one of its 11 judges wanted to reconsider the earlier decision by a three-judge panel. The ruling came just hours after the appeals court issued an emergency order stopping President Clinton's chief bodyguard and eight other Secret Service officers from testifying until it made its decision. Now that the court declined the case, the Justice Department has one last recourse: an appeal to the Supreme Court. Anticipating the need, Justice lawyers had sent protective paperwork to the Supreme Court that would ask Chief Justice William Rehnquist to block the testimony and take the case when the high court returns to work in October. The Justice Department had made a mad dash from the District Court to the Supreme Court seeking to head off the testimony of Special Agent Larry Cockell, who leads Clinton's security detail, and other officers subpoenaed by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr."

Washington Times 7/17/98 "The federal appeals court that unanimously rejected the administration's request includes five judges appointed by Democrats and six appointed by Republicans President Clinton named Judith Rogers and David Tatel in 1994 and Merrick Garland in 1997. President Carter appointed Patricia Wald in 1979 and Harry Edwards in 1980."

Judge Silberman's Opinion 7/16/98 "This is the first time in 13 years on this Court that I have seen a petition for rehearing or an appellant's brief that does not state the identity of the party petitioning or appealing in the caption of the brief. There is good reason. It is now established beyond dispute that the Independent Counsel stands in place of the Attorney General and represents the United States in any proceeding within his or her jurisdiction. The Independent Counsel's briefs therefore are captioned as briefs of the United States. The Attorney General apparently all too aware of this problem, filed a petition without identifying, in its caption, the party she is representing. Yet on the first page of the brief she purports to represent the United States. That is analytically impossible. We cannot have two opposing lawyers before us representing the same named party. Nor is this simply a matter of captioning. Even if under certain circumstances it can be thought that two entities of the executive branch can litigate against themselves under Article III, the Attorney General lacks prudential standing under the Ethics in Government Act. That Act provides that the Independent Counsel replaces the Attorney General with respect to all manners within the Independent Counsel's prosecutorial jurisdiction. Indeed, the Act specifically mandates that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General "suspend all investigations and proceedings regarding" the subject matter of the Independent Counsel's investigation. Unless the Independent Counsel agrees in writing to permit the Department of Justice to continue its involvement of the case, the Attorney General is permitted only to file an amicus brief in such a proceeding. An amicus brief, of course, would be inadequate here because if the Attorney General is not permitted to "represent" the United States neither is any other government lawyer. It seems clear to me that no one in the United States Government, speaking for the government, has standing to oppose the Independent Counsel in this proceeding, and, therefore, neither we nor the district court have jurisdiction over this case. "

Pete Yost. AP 7/16/98 "In a dramatic last appeal, the Clinton administration today asked Chief Justice William Rehnquist to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals refused to stop Secret Service officers from testifying in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. The Justice Department filed the request at the Supreme Court less than an hour after the appeals court refused to reconsider an earlier decision ordering the Secret Service personnel, including President Clinton's chief bodyguard, to testify. The appeals court sent a strong message to the Justice Department by saying none of its nine judges available on the case wanted to intervene and that the administration was unlikely to win before the nation's nine justices."

Z2: "On the morning following her July 16, 1998 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the following newspapers' editorials demanded that Attorney General Janet Reno appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Democratic campaign finance scandal: Dallas Morning News, St. Petersberg Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Boston Globe. She continues to ignore all such recommendations, including that of FBI Director Louis Freeh. Curious."

Chief Justice Rehnquist 7/17/98 "This case is before me as circuit justice on the application for stay submitted by the solicitor general,on behalf of the secretary of the treasury, Robert E. Rubin. Because several of my colleagues are out of the country, I have decided to rule on the matter myself rather than refer it to the conference. An applicant for stay first must show irreparable harm if a stay is denied. In my view, the applicant has not demonstrated that denying a stay and enforcing the subpoenas pending a decision on certiorari would cause irreparable harm. The secretary identifies two injuries that would result from denying a stay: any privileged information would be lost forever and the important interests that the 'protective function privilege' protects would be destroyed. I cannot say that any harm caused by the interim enforcement of the subpoenas will be irreparable. If the secretary's claim of privilege is eventually upheld, disclosure of past events will not affect the president's relationship with his protectors in the future. On balance, the equities do not favor granting a stay. An applicant for stay must also show that there is a likelihood that four members of this court will grant certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals on the merits. This case is obviously not a run- of-the-mine dispute, pitting as it does the prosecution's need for testimony before a grand jury against claims involving the safety and protection of the president of the United States. I shall assume, without deciding, that four members of this court on that basis would grant certiorari. But a stay applicant must also show that there is likelihood that this court, having granted certiorari and heard the case, would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. The applicant simply has not made that showing to my satisfaction, and I believe my view would be shared by a majority of my colleagues. The opinion of the court of appeals seems to me cogent and correct. The district court which considered the matter was also of that view, and none of the nine judges of the court of appeals even requested a vote on the applicant's suggestion for rehearing en banc. The application for stay is accordingly denied. I believe my view would be shared by a majority of my colleagues."

St. Petersburg Times 7/17/98 Editorial "Everyone in Washington had known for months that FBI Director Louis Freeh disagreed with the decision of his boss, Attorney General Janet Reno, not to seek an independent counsel to investigate charges of fund-raising abuses in President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign. However, not until this week was the vehemence of Freeh's disagreement -- and the full force of his logic -- a matter of public record. Reno, sitting as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee as Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., read excerpts from Freeh's months-old memo to her, was clearly embarrassed, and understandably so. Freeh's interpretation of the independent counsel statute left her little room for rebuttal. "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel," Freeh wrote. Freeh, a former federal judge, noted that the law was intended to be applied whenever the Justice Department finds credible evidence that high-level administration officials are implicated in wrongdoing. In this case, Freeh noted, the allegations reach to the very highest levels of the White House: the president and vice president. Freeh added that, contrary to Reno's prior assertions, the independent counsel statute should be applied to prevent even the appearance of a conflict of interest for the attorney general, a presidential appointee.."

Rep Gerald Solomon referred to Ken Starr - President Clinton refused to reveal to Congress that White House officials searched their files for any and everything on Linda Tripp.

Washington Weekly 7/19/98 Wesley Phelan " Last week the nation came as close as it has in 24 years to seeing the complete emotional and legal breakdown of a presidency. The crisis was brought about by a series of federal court rulings that Secret Service agents guarding President Clinton must testify before a grand jury convened by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr [1]. The utter desperation of the administration was evident in the maneuverings of the Department of Justice, which explored every available avenue for keeping the agents from going before the grand jury. If the agents' testimony supports the claim that the President committed perjury or obstructed justice, it will be the death knell of the Clinton Administration. The court battle over the agents' testimony would then be the equivalent of President Nixon's battle to withhold tape recordings of Oval Office conversations during Watergate from Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski (see U.S. v. Nixon, 1974). Most commentators seem to have missed this very important implication of the just-completed court battle."

7/19/98 Pete Yost AP "Secret Service testimony in the Monica Lewinsky investigation could spur a new round of subpoenas as prosecutors delve into possible perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice, legal experts say.Four uniformed division officers testified Friday -- retiree Robert Ferguson and currently employed officers Gary Byrne, John Muskett and another currently employed officer. Byrne saw Lewinsky on her last days at the White House before she was transferred to the Pentagon. The others all knew who Lewinsky was. "I did testify there yesterday," Muskett said Saturday when contacted at his home. "We'll be back next week." He declined to answer any questions about his testimony."

World Net Daily 7/21/98 Charles Smith "The Clinton administration claims they have nothing to hide. Yet, the White House is resisting the release of documents hidden inside the files of the late Ron Brown. The documents are being sought by the House National Security Committee. The documents involve a 1996 presidential waiver written by Clinton for the troubled Loral Aerospace Corporation. Congressional officials are concerned because the 1996 Clinton waiver for Loral included the transfer of an advanced satellite encryption telemetry ground station to China. "Dozens of documents the House National Security Committee was promised have not been delivered," said Congressman Gibbons of Nevada in a recent interview for Congressional Daily. "That is typical of someone who has something to hide."

World Net Daily 7/21/98 Charles Smith ".The name of the company involved in the 1995 satellite waiver is being withheld from the public by the Clinton administration. The company name is also blacked out in the official Sockowitz inventory list."

World Net Daily 7/21/98 Charles Smith ".In response to the House request for Sockowitz documents on 1995 memos between himself and Baca - on July 6, 1998, Reinsch wrote a confused reply to Chairman Floyd Spence of the House National Security Committee. Curiously, Reinsch ignores the Kazakhstan request of 1996 and claims in his letter that the memos he exchanged with Ms. Baca were not for the Chinese Loral satellite launch that failed in February, 1996."

World Net Daily 7/21/98 Charles Smith ".The Clinton administration is also resisting the release of documents on secret meetings held in the White House. Information on the secret meetings was obtained from the U.S. Commerce Department using the Freedom of Information Act and from inside the hidden files of Ira Sockowitz. Commerce Undersecretary Reinsch has refused to turn over files linking secret Clinton administration meetings with a powerful lobby group of computer companies, called the Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP). At the July, 1998, House National Security hearing, Rep. Gibbons asked Reinsch to produce all documentation on secret meetings and classified briefings given to the CSPP. Reinsch has not complied.."

7/17/98 Letter Dan Burton to President Clinton ".As you know, the existence of a deliberate plan created by a variety of entities in China, including the Chinese government, to influence our political process was confirmed by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee investigation.While it is no surprise that President Jiang continues to deny the existence of a covert scheme to influence our 1996 elections, I was very concerned to read of your public statements expressing your general agreement with Jiang's statements regarding the campaign finance Chinese government connections. On July 3, 1998, during your final press conference in Hong Kong, you stated that "[Jiang] said they looked into that and that he was obviously certain. And I do believe him, that he had not ordered or authorized or approved such a thing, and that he could find no evidence that anybody with governmental authority had done that". As you are certainly aware, the Chinese government is not known for accurately characterizing its legal or military actions. Mr President, it is important that we verify not just trust statements by Chinese leaders. When you combine the large body of evidence gleaned from U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies that a deliberate plan was created by the Chinese to subvert our electoral process with the refusal of the Chinese government to cooperate either with the investigations of this committee or the Department of Justice, most observers have a healthy level of skepticism..According to published reports, President Jiang told you at a meeting in Washington on October 28, 1997, that the Chinese government would cooperate with U.S. investigators looking into whether foreign money illegally entered campaign treasuries. As you are well aware, this has not been the case. The Chinese government has remained uncooperative. ..First, the Chinese government has refused to grant visas to allow congressional investigators to travel to China or Hong Kong to conduct interviews. It is my understanding that visas have been denied also to Justice Department investigators. When I requested that both Justice Department and congressional investigators be included as part of your delegation to China, which I understand included 1200 people, I received a non- response from your diplomatic advisers..There are now 108 witnesses who are refusing to cooperate with the investigation. Because of this, it is imperative that we have your cooperation in seeking the release of key records from the bank of China. President Jiang Zemin should direct that Justice Department and congressional investigators have access to the bank records of key wire transfers to major figures such as Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, James Riady, Ted Sioeng, and related figures, so that his statements may be matched against the facts and the matter resolved.On three previous occasions: March 9, 1998, March31, 1998, and June 11, 1998, I have written to you or your staff requesting assistance with the Chinese government in obtaining these records."

New York Times David Johnston 7/22/98 "After a 10-month inquiry, the departing chief of the Justice Department's campaign finance unit has concluded in a confidential report to Attorney General Janet Reno that she has no alternative but to seek an independent prosecutor to investigate political fund-raising abuses during President Clinton's re-election campaign, government officials said Wednesday. The prosecutor, Charles La Bella, delivered the report to Reno last Thursday as he prepared to return to San Diego this week to take over as interim U.S. attorney. La Bella's conclusions, coming from a seasoned federal prosecutor with full access to all grand jury evidence in the case, represents a serious internal fracture within the Justice Department.He produced only two copies, the officials said. He gave one copy to Reno and sent another to the home of Freeh, an ally whose top agent on the case, James Desarno, approved Labella's findings.The report casts possible new light on La Bella's decision on leaving his job as the top campaign finance prosecutor, suggesting that he could be stepping down in the middle of the inquiry because he believed that the case should not be handled by the Justice Department but by an outside prosecutor. ..In his report, the officials said, La Bella concluded that there was sufficient information to warrant the appointment based on the mandatory and discretionary provisions of the independent counsel statute, meaning that he found enough specific information to justify an outside investigation of high-level officials. .."

7/23/98 Capitol Hill Blue Doug Thompson ".More than a dozen high-level attorneys and investigators at the Justice Department have resigned in a growing internal dispute over Reno's refusal to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate fund-raising abuses during President Clinton's 1996 re- election campaign, sources said. LaBella is just the latest, but highest-profile, attorney to leave the Justice Department in an expanding protest of Reno handling of the issue. "We've lost over a dozen top-notch attorneys and investigators here over this mess," says one Justice Department attorney. "Morale around here is in the pits." Sources say some Justice Department attorneys speculate privately that Reno is fulfilling her part of a deal she cut with Clinton to keep her job after his re-election in 1996. Clinton wanted to replace Reno in a general reshuffling of his cabinet, but she kept her job after a series of meetings with the President. Others say Reno would never agree to such a deal and cite her approval of Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr's expansion of his probe into the Monica Lewinsky as evidence she is not keeping the hounds at bay.Sources say the report confirms internal Justice Department speculation that La Bella decided to leave in the middle of the investigation because he did not believe the agency should be handling the probe. "

7/24/98 FoxNews Wire Larry Margasak AP - ".Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a Democrat who participated in the Senate's campaign fund-raising investigation, said La Bella's views are "significant, and it gives me pause to think about my previous position.'' Lieberman has been skeptical of naming another independent counsel. Republicans pointed out that La Bella confirmed their view - and that of FBI Director Louis Freeh - that the independent counsel law should be triggered in this case because the Justice Department is investigating Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, Reno's superiors. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said, "If she doesn't do it this time, I think there had to be some kind of backroom deal made.'' ."

7/24/98 Mary Mostert The Reagan Information Interchange "Mike McCurry Survived three and a half years as Clinton's spokesman by deliberately squelching his journalistic curiosity about Lewinsky and the President, according to a story in today's Washington Post by veteran reporters Peter Baker and Howard Kurtz. They wrote: "Still, he survived the crisis by abandoning the one political commodity he prized the most: access. With subpoenas flying and lawyers setting strategy, McCurry deliberately stayed uninformed on the Lewinsky situation, aggravating an already combustible situation in the briefing room where questions went unanswered.Only in Washington could McCurry's studied determination to deliberately evade the issues involved in the Clinton White House be called "honesty." ."

CNN 7/24/98 Pierre Thomas "Rep. Dan Burton, chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, issued a subpoena Friday demanding that Attorney General Janet Reno provide him with two internal memos from senior law enforcement officials calling for an independent counsel to investigate allegations of campaign finance abuses. Burton authorized the subpoena after Reno failed to meet a 1 p.m. EDT deadline that Burton had set.."

7/24/98 Samizdat ".Chairman Burton believes that professional law enforcement experts, like Freeh, LaBella and Desarno, are having their advice diminished by President Clinton's political appointees at the Justice Department, including the Attorney General. 'They are determined to protect the President,' he said, 'by keeping the campaign investigation in the Justice Department.' Chairman Burton added, 'all that Janet Reno seems to be interested in are illegal donations. What about illegal solicitations by persons covered by the Independent Counsel Act? These memoranda we've subpoenaed shouldn't be cloaked in silence, they're cries for help!" "

FoxNews 7/24/98 "Independent counsel Kenneth Starr has subpoenaed President Clinton to testify before the Monica Lewinsky grand jury and the White House is considering ways Clinton could give information without having to appear in person, sources close to the case said Friday. The White House publicly signaled a new willingness to reach an agreement this week after the subpoena was issued, the sources said."

The NewYork Times 7/24/8 Don Van Natta Jr. "With Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr threatening to subpoena him, President Clinton has told an adviser that he does not want to testify voluntarily before the federal grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky matter and become the first sitting president in history to appear before a grand jury, the adviser said Friday. Clinton's remarks came earlier this week after prosecutors working for Starr informed David Kendall, Clinton's personal lawyer, that they were preparing to serve the president with a subpoena, senior administration officials and lawyers close to the case said Friday. One lawyer said Friday night that the subpoena "is drawn up and ready for delivery."."

From Meet the Press 7/26/98 Chuck Allen "Russert: Mr. Emanual as you know, on Thursday NBC called you three times and on Friday we called you five times and each time, eight times you told us there was no subpoena. Emanual, duh duh as ah as you know we uh cant comfirm or deny uh the uh , Mr. Kendall uh has uh been instructed to uh get uh the Grand Jury the uh information it uh needs.And uh let me remind you that on Aug .5th it will mark the 4 year anniversary of the Indendependent Council's appointment and we have worked all along to get the Grand Jury the info it needs. Russert: but you told me there was no subpoena, and then on Friday night after 11pm, after the Capitol shooting you guys sort of let it sneak out. Emanual: Well uh duh we uh , Mr. Kendall is instructed to talk to OIC so uh we can get the Grand Jury the info it needs."

Conservative News Service 7/25/98 ".A Maryland state prosecutor today answered a request by Judicial Watch for files regarding an investigation of Tripp, by refusing to hand over the documents. The political watchdog group believes this denial is likely motivated by "political considerations and by pressure from the Clinton Administration and its allies." Prosecutor Stephen Montanarelli wrote Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman that not only would he not turn over documents related to Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg and Monica Lewinsky, but that he had no record in his "custody" related to the Democratic Party, the White House and many Clinton cronies. In his letter, Montanarelli added, "I do not know where such records may be located." Klayman said this does not go with previous reports that Montanarelli was contacted by Maryland Democratic lawmakers who encouraged him to prosecute Tripp. Judicial Watch maintains they are keeping an eye on reports that Montanarelli has been contacted directly by Democratic members of the Maryland General Assembly. Klayman said they are going to appeal Montanarelli's denial."

FoxNews Jonathan Turley by Freeper rmgatto "Just concluded on Fox News Sunday was a stunning affirmation of the rule of law as it applies to the president. Mr. Turley, introduced as a democrat, eloquently expressed his opinion that the president has "no cards in his hand", and that the Supreme Court would likely vote 9-0 in an expedited hearing that clinton must testify in person before the grand jury. Turley stated his feeling that a compromise would pobably be reached but that he would be disappointed because the president should not be excused from his duties as a citizen. Among many other perspicacious points, Mr. Turley dismissed questions about a "perjury trap" by saying you can't accomplish that without perjury being committed. He aslso stated the the most serious allegation is multiple perjury counts, not obstruction of justice. "

Drudge Report 7/26/98 Exclusive "President Bill Clinton is reserving the option to follow the lead of President Thomas Jefferson by refusing to 'physically testify' before a federal grand jury, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. A secret meeting among Clinton's legal team was in progress at the White House late Sunday. Monday's NEW YORK TIMES is reporting that a major obstacle to any agreement between the White House and prosecutor Starr is the president's request that his lawyer, David Kendall, sit in on his testimony. Starr is unwilling to grant the request, the TIMES reports. Starr may give ground and not require Clinton to testify at the Federal Courthouse. Starr may bus the jurors to the White House, or have Clinton testify via live closed-circuit television. But the DRUDGE REPORT has learned that a plan was still circulating in elite halls of the White House over the weekend: Clinton would agree to provide written answers to written questions submitted by prosecutor Ken Starr -- and nothing more -- citing a historic legal precedent."

Roll Call 8/3/98 John Bresnahan "Attorney General Janet Reno, citing an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department, has denied a request by two top Republicans for copies of a confidential department memo outlining the need for an independent counsel to probe allegations of campaign fundraising abuses during the 1996 presidential election. Reno's refusal to release the report has angered some Republicans, who now plan to step up their campaign to force Reno to resign. Hatch and Hyde have each twice formally asked Reno to name an independent counsel to look at the propriety of the infamous White House sleepovers and coffee klatches, which helped the Clinton/Gore campaign raise millions of dollars in donations. While Administration officials have repeatedly insisted that they broke no laws during the campaign, Hill Republicans claim there is sufficient and credible evidence to warrant a special investigation. Reno's refusal to name an independent counsel to investigate the fundraising activities of the Clinton/Gore re-election campaign has infuriated GOP Congressional leaders. "

AP John Solomon 8/3/98 "With pressure growing for President Clinton to explain his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, the White House today decided to continue the legal fight seeking to block testimony by presidential confidant Bruce Lindsey, an official said. The administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House would appeal a decision last month by a three- judge appeals court panel that ordered Lindsey to testify before a grand jury. The judges rejected arguments that his testimony was protected by attorney-client privilege."

Wall Street Journal Brian Duffy 8/3/98 "The departing head of the Justice Department's campaign fundraising investigation has told Janet Reno that he developed evidence of wrongdoing by senior officials of the White House and the Democratic National Committee. Charles LaBella's findings, presented in a lengthy memorandum to Ms. Reno, focus sharply on the fund-raising efforts of Harold Ickes, the former deputy White House chief of staff. They form the basis of Mr. LaBella's recommendation that Ms. Reno seek the appointment of an independent counsel.Interviews with senior government officials present a picture at sharp variance with the image of the inquiry that Ms. Reno has sought to portray. The attorney general appointed Mr. LaBella to the fundraising task force after complaints by the FBI and senior Justice Department officials that it had stalled. Since then, Ms. Reno has repeatedly told her Republican critics that she based her decision not to seek an independent counsel on the advice of career Justice Department attorneys. But Mr. LaBella, her top attorney and a career federal prosecutor, was frequently excluded from meetings concerning the appointment with Ms. Reno and other Justice Department executives, several officials said."

Wall Street Journal David Cloud 8/3/98 "The Secret Service officers subpoenaed in the Monica Lewinsky matter are seeking to force Kenneth Starr to obtain a federal judge's approval before he discloses their testimony to Congress.Mr. Starr may already intend to submit his report for Judge Johnson's review, some lawyers involved in the case said, or to a special three-judge appeals-court panel that oversees independent-counsel inquiries. Even if the courts block Mr. Starr's report, lawyers and scholars say Congress can demand all of his evidence."

AP Kevin Galvin "A House committee voted today to cite Attorney General Janet Reno for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over reports recommending that she seek an independent counsel to probe campaign fund-raising abuses.."

Drudge 8/6/98 "The WASHINGTON TIMES is set to release a blockbuster report that is bound to turn official Washington upside down and inside out. U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, contrary to what he told Congress last month in sworn testimony, did not have a job opening on his staff when he offered to hire Monica Lewinsky in October, according to sources and documents obtained by the WASHINGTON TIMES."

Capitol Hill Blue 8/4/98 "Confidential memos to Attorney General Janet Reno from FBI Director Louis Freeh and her former chief investigator into fundraising law violations name President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes and other White House officials as "principal targets" of the probe, sources confirmed Tuesday..A third witness at the hearing, chief task force investigator James Desarno, said he concurred with the opinions of Freeh and La Bella that an independent counsel was needed."

8/5/98 Washington Post Peter Baker Susan Schmidt "A top White House lawyer went before the grand jury investigating President Clinton's ties to Monica S. Lewinsky yesterday but refused to answer certain questions, prompting another round of legal jousting with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, according to sources familiar with the closed proceedings. White House special counsel Lanny A. Breuer showed up at the federal courthouse to testify about two hours after Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist refused an emergency White House request to intervene and temporarily block his appearance yesterday morning. ."

Washington Times 8/5/98 Warren Strobel "The powers and privileges of the presidency have shrunk during the legal duel between President Clinton and independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, with major consequences for the future, according to legal scholars.They're the ones who've jeopardized" presidential privileges by litigating them at every possible turn, said C. Boyden Gray, who was White House counsel under President Bush. "There's a lot of power in the ambiguity" that once existed, he said. Mr. Gray called the Clinton White House's actions particularly egregious because the president and his aides have asserted privilege in matters having to do with the president's personal conduct, rather than his official conduct or issues of national security. By taking "the weakest possible case to the courts, they have gotten rulings that reduce the leverage future presidents will have in cases when it really matters," he said. "

NY Daily News Online 8/5/98 Timothy Burger Kathy Kiely "Monica Lewinsky has given investigators a photo of her and President Clinton with a personal inscription from him written on the back, CBS reported yesterday. According to the report, Lewinsky concealed the picture from the FBI when she turned over tapes of her telephone conversations with Clinton and a dress allegedly stained with the President's semen."

NY Times 8/5/98 David Rosenbaum "Attorney General Janet Reno and a House investigating committee approached a showdown Tuesday over whether she should ask for an independent counsel to prosecute campaign finance abuses.. A few minutes before the hearing began, Reno called and asked to testify herself. Burton turned her down. "There are procedures for what we're doing," he said at the hearing. .Freeh and La Bella suggested Tuesday that they believed the mandatory and discretionary provisions of the law applied in this case, but they declined to tell the committee their reasoning. The top FBI agent on the case, James Desarno, testified Tuesday that he agreed with Freeh and La Bella. Freeh testified that the investigation involved "a core group of individuals who in my view are indisputably covered." Burton asked whether that included President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. "Yes sir," Freeh responded. But he did not say whether any evidence had been found suggesting that Clinton or Gore had committed crimes.."

NY Post 8/5/98 Vince Morris "A House committee is poised to hold Attorney General Janet Reno in contempt of Congress following word she called a meeting about the funny-money investigation that excluded top probers. Absent from the meeting were FBI chief Louis Freeh, Reno's own chief funny-money prober Charles LaBella and FBI investigator James Desarno, all of whom want Reno to name an independent counsel - an idea she rejects. Meanwhile, GOP leaders took aim at Reno, faulting her for excluding key people from her meetings and refusing to make public documents that contradict her. "I don't have confidence in this attorney general," said Rep. John Shadegg, (R-Ariz.).If the House approves the measure, Speaker Newt Gingrich is required by law to refer the matter to the local U.S. attorney, Wilma Lewis, who could charge Reno - her boss - with obstructing justice. "The people who she's been meeting with do not include any of you," said a visibly upset Rep. Chris Cox (R- Calif.), after Freeh, LaBella and Desarno said they weren't in the room during Reno's July 21 discussion.Under questioning, Freeh said he'd read LaBella's report "a couple of times" and pronounced himself in full agreement with it. "I couldn't think of a stronger argument for an independent counsel," said Freeh, who last November made waves when word leaked that he wrote his own 27-page memo to Reno urging her to appoint an independent counsel.."

Reform Party News 8/3/98 Dan Burton, Chairman (R-Ind.) letter to Janet Reno ".I have considered and rejected all of the objections raised in your letter of July 28, 1998. As you have failed to provide the subpoenaed documents or assert a valid claim of privilege, I have recommended that the Committee continue to assert its constitutional oversight responsibilities in pursuing these matters. "

AP Sandra Sobieraj 8/5/98 "Bedrock Democratic loyalists in the Hispanic and black communities say they're not concerned about what story might emerge when President Clinton testifies in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. " 'We're not fair-weathered friends. We will be with you to the end,' Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., told Clinton, whose appearance Tuesday night at her fund-raising reception of mostly black activists raised $300,000 for House Democratic candidates.".and reply from Freeper gruber ".With that statement, Maxine Waters has just disqualified herself as an impartial member of the House Judiciary Committee."

FoxNews Fred Barnes . a Freeper reports "Fred Barnes stated that according to "sources" that Monica will implicate Lindsey as contributing to the talking points...."

US Newswire 8/5/98 Mike Collins "The reason President Clinton is threatening to shut down the federal government later this year, says Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Jim Nicholson, is that new polling data shows "President Clinton's personal approval ratings are sagging faster than an old barn in the wind." "Bill Clinton is looking to pick a fight with Congress to deflect attention from the scandals that are swirling around the White House," Nicholson charged. "He's got to create a crisis to stop the hemorrhaging, and a federal government shut down in the weeks before the Nov. 3 election is just what his spin doctors ordered. At a speech Monday in Prince George's County, Md., and at an appearance today before the House Democrat Caucus, Clinton and his aides repeatedly raised the spectre of repeating the budget showdowns of 1995 and 1996 that resulted in two partial shutdowns of the federal government."

8/10/98 AP Ron Fournier "A week before Bill Clinton's risky date to answer questions from prosecutor Kenneth Starr, some of the president's closest advisers are convinced he should try to avoid telling all. The president last month agreed to testify ``completely and truthfully'' on Aug. 17 to a grand jury investigating whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky and tried to cover it up -- allegations Clinton denies. In exchange, Starr withdrew a subpoena, saving Clinton from being the first sitting president compelled to testify in a criminal case. That concession could play a role in the president's strategy next week. A longtime Clinton confidant said one option under discussion among the president's advisers would have him repeat his broad denials to the grand jury but refuse to answer specific questions about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. A second Clinton adviser said the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa and the resurgence of trouble with Iraq could be grounds for the president to delay his testimony..

New York Post 8/11/98 Editorial "If Kenneth Starr's staff has indeed been leaking confidential grand-jury testimony about the Monica Lewinsky matter, then punishment is certainly in order. Judge Norma Holloway Johnson has ordered Starr to prove his office was not the source of those leaks, and that seems appropriate. But let's be clear about something: This issue is a smokescreen. Bill Clinton's lawyers and shills are trying to make it seem as though the president's possible misconduct and Kenneth Starr's are comparable. They're not.

NY Times James Bennet Richard Berke Neil Lewis and David Sanger 8/14/98 "President Clinton has had extensive discussions with his inner circle about a strategy of acknowledging to a grand jury on Monday that he had intimate sexual encounters with Monica S. Lewinsky in the White House, senior advisers said. Although Clinton has not settled on this approach, discussions have centered on a plan that would allow him to acknowledge a specific type of sexual behavior while still maintaining he told the truth when he testified in January that he never had "sexual relations" with the former White House intern, according to the advisers. Clinton would say he based his previous denial, in a deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones lawsuit, on a definition of sex approved by the judge in the case. His advisers believe this definition does not cover certain activities, including oral sex."

Washington Times Donald Lambro 8/13/98 "Cracks are beginning to appear in the party-wide wall of support that Democrats have constructed around Bill Clinton in the perjury and obstruction of justice scandal that threatens his presidency. Publicly, Democratic leaders and their rank-and-file continue to march in lockstep behind their embattled president. And some are threatening to launch a "scorched earth" counteroffensive that will reveal dirt about the personal lives of House Republicans if they begin an impeachment inquiry against him. But party strategists say many Democrats in Congress are becoming scared stiff about the damaging political fallout that would rain down on them if independent prosecutor Ken Starr produces substantial evidence that Mr. Clinton is guilty of impeachable offenses. ."

8/14/98 Press Release Rep Dan Burton (R-Ind) on letter to Janet Reno ".Evidence is mounting that suggests your decision making is subject either to unacceptable political considerations, or serious misreading of the law for inexplicable reasons. Therefore, it is incumbent on this Committee -- following its mandate to conduct oversight of your agency -- to investigate the Department of Justice's response to campaign finance crimes committed in the last two Presidential election cycles..Suffice it to say that something appears to be very wrong at the Department of Justice. Last week, at a press conference, you made the following statement: "The Department cannot do its duty if it is subjected to a process that can only shake public confidence in our ability to make law enforcement decisions free from political pressure." This sounds perilously close to an argument that you are above the law and that you are above scrutiny. As has been observed by many across the ideological spectrum, it is you who has politicized this process by failing to understand the obvious conflicts inherent in investigating your own boss. It is precisely this type of situation that resulted in the original push for an Independent Counsel statute."

Wall Street Journal Phil Kuntz and Glenn Simpson 8/20/98 "President Clinton has acknowledged taking steps to foil efforts by Paula Jones's lawyers to prove the true nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but he insisted his actions didn't constitute obstruction of justice or perjury.."

Boston Globe 7/31/98 " Seven times during a daily briefing with reporters this week, White House press secretary Michael McCurry pleaded ignorance to questions on the Monica S. Lewinsky case and the president's strategy in addressing the allegations. And that was just in the first two minutes of the briefing. ..In private, McCurry seemed angered by the lack of communication between Clinton's lawyers and policy advisers. The White House still did not even acknowledge that it had received the subpoena until Starr withdrew it in a deal for Clinton's testimony on Wednesday. ..''We are very concerned about the state of the White House,'' said one adviser with intimate knowledge. ''There is a tremendous amount of disarray and lack of a message. There was that silliness of not confirming the serving of a subpoena, the lack of any message team. There is literally a total vacuum of political and press strategy in the White House. Everyone has taken a pass.'' .By the time the case is resolved, many in the West Wing expect to no longer be part of the Clinton circle. McCurry has announced he will depart in October. Chief of staff Erskine Bowles has sent strong signals that he will leave by year's end. Yesterday, he uncharacteristically gave two speeches during a Clinton trip to North Carolina, in what appeared to be a dry run for a possible gubernatorial bid. And Emanuel has long been rumored to be leaving the White House for Chicago. "

Arianna Huffington 7/30/98 about BruceLindsey ".There is no end to which Bruce wouldn't go for the President,'' said Bill Burton, a former White House colleague from Arkansas. ``There are things that Bruce would do for the President that nobody else on earth would do, and Bruce wouldn't even think twice about it.'' Lindsey clearly didn't think twice when, on June 8, 1996, he offered an unequivocal ``no'' to the question of whether anybody affiliated with the administration tried to drum up any ``work'' for Webb Hubbell. This was under oath during a closed session of the Senate Whitewater Committee. Early the following year, White House officials had to admit that Lindsey's testimony had not been accurate. .When in 1990 Clinton needed money for a last minute media blitz in his run for governor, it was Lindsey, then the campaign's treasurer, who made large cash withdrawals and failed to report them. For his efforts, he ended up as an unindicted co-conspirator in Starr's case against two Arkansas bankers.When Clinton wanted John Huang moved from the Commerce Department to the Democratic National Committee's fund-raising central, it was Lindsey who quietly and seamlessly arranged the move. And at the beginning of Clinton's first term, it was Lindsey who briefed the President on the plan to fire the travel office workers. When Gennifer Flowers was being hounded with media questions about Clinton's role in getting her a state job, it was Lindsey -- she says -- who instructed her ``to tell them I found out about it through the newspaper, and that's exactly what I told them.'' When Christy Zercher, a former stewardess from the 1992 presidential campaign, started getting calls from a reporter, it was Lindsey who called her at her New Jersey home to urge her to say ``all positive things.'' When former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen was confronted by the press with questions about an affair with the President (which earlier this year she confirmed), it was Lindsey who allegedly tracked her down and urged her to deny it. When Dolly Kyle Browning was subpoenaed by Paula Jones' lawyers, it was Lindsey who arranged for the draft of a motion to be sent to Browning's lawyer to avoid her being deposed. When Linda Tripp started getting calls from Newsweek reporter Mike Isikoff about the Kathleen Willey incident, it was Lindsey, Tripp's friend and former boss, who encouraged her in a very lawyerly way to come up with a newfound ``recollection'' of her encounter with Willey. Indeed, Tripp's letter to Newsweek -- a letter which, incidentally, bears a striking resemblance to the famous talking points Lewinsky gave Tripp -- apparently contains Lindsey's guidance verbatim. And it was Lindsey who arranged for Tripp to meet with the President's lawyer Bob Bennett -- a meeting which Tripp canceled when she decided to stop cooperating with the White House. .."

Washington Post 7/29/98 Michael Kelly "The problem with stone walls is that, eventually, they fall down: Eventually people will talk, eventually truth will out. The defense that President Clinton erected against the exposure of his behavior in the matter of Monica Lewinsky rested entirely on denying the reality about walls, and the days of denial are ending. .Clinton and his array of lawyers, flacks, spinners and hacks labored heroically to maintain the hush. They invented elaborate and often patently absurd legal claims of privilege and pursued these claims as slowly as they could through increasingly skeptical courts. They mounted a furious campaign of vilification against independent counsel Kenneth Starr and anyone who had the temerity to aid Starr in his investigation. They erected what was euphemistically called a "shared defense" among the lawyers representing witnesses called before Starr's grand jury, so that everyone might get their stories straight. They steadfastly declined to allow Clinton himself to tell what he knew, reportedly refusing half a dozen invitations from Starr. And above all, one assumes, they prayed for the continued sweet silence of the lady in the case. ."

CNN AllPolitics 7/28/98 "Attorney General Janet Reno is under fire for refusing to hand over two Justice Department memos that recommend the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Democratic fund-raising practices. Rep. Dan Burton, whose House Government Reform and Oversight Committee is also investigating fund-raising abuses in the 1996 Clinton/Gore campaign, has threatened to bring a contempt citation against Reno if she does not hand over the documents."

7/29/98 AP John Solomon ".sources said Ms. Lewinsky is prepared to explain why she returned gifts from Clinton to the White House last December, furthering prosecutors' investigation of obstruction of justice. In addition, Ms. Lewinsky was said to have provided a dress to prosecutors as some sort of evidence. Reports of such a garment, frequently denied and ridiculed by her attorney, circulated last January when Ms. Lewinsky first came under investigation."

7/29/98 AP John Solomon ".Linda Tripp, the woman whose secret tape recordings of Ms. Lewinsky prompted the investigation, spoke publicly for the first time, presenting herself as a common citizen and lashing out at her critics from the White House to Hollywood. ``I have been vilified for having taken the path of truth,'' Mrs. Tripp, visibly shaking, said after wrapping up eight days of grand jury testimony. ``I have been maligned by people who have chosen not to tell the truth and who know they are not telling the truth,'' she said. Mrs. Tripp, who worked inside the Clinton White House and now works for the Pentagon, said that between 1993 and 1997 she learned of ``actions by high government officials that may have been against the law'' and became fearful. "

UPI 7/29/98 "President Clinton maintained his silence on the Monica Lewinsky case while aides welcomed reports that the former intern is prepared to claim authorship of the infamous talking points memo. The three-page memo appeared designed to influence the courtroom testimony of Lewinsky's former friend and colleague, Linda Tripp, in a way that would deny the existence of an affair between Clinton and Lewinsky. It had been widely seen as the potential foundation of an obstruction of justice case against Clinton. But Lewinsky reportedly plans to claim no White House assistance in her authorship of the memo, despite its apparently professional style.. Lewinsky also is reportedly prepared to testify that the president encouraged her to say that her many visits to the White House after she lost her job there in 1996 were to see Clinton's private secretary Betty Currie and not the president himself. Both Lewinsky and Clinton have denied under oath having a sexual relationship. But the Times reported that Lewinsky told prosecutors she and Clinton had a sexual relationship that began in 1995, and said she lied in the sworn affidavit she submitted in the Paula Jones sexual misconduct suit in January. Lewinsky will reportedly say that Clinton told her in mid-December, after she was put on the witness list in the Jones case but before she received a subpoena, that nobody could prove her wrong if she denied a relationship. "

8/1/98 J. Peter Mulhern (Peter the Lawyer) "Richard Nixon said it best: "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook." Today, unfortunately, every American with normal intelligence and access to the news knows that the president is a crook. This is not just an embarrassment. It is a crisis with profound implications for the future of our republic. Democrats and their media allies argue that Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice are minor matters that could not justify impeachment. This despite the fact that these crimes together carry a combined maximum sentence of twenty years. Clinton's crimes involve his private life, we are told, not his public duties. He should just apologize for breaking the law and the country can move on. Apparently our politics are now so degraded that we actually have to have a serious national debate about whether a felon can stay out of jail by clinging to the Oval Office.The irony of this situation is sharp; like that of a lunatic running the asylum.But even if, when all the evidence is heard, most Americans want to retain Clinton, doing so would be a constitutional catastrophe.."

Miami New Times 11/27/97 "Foutanga Dit Babani Sissoko's $1.2 million contribution to Camillus House last week was secretly orchestrated by U.S. District Court Judge K. Michael Moore and has raised questions about whether the West African millionaire made the supposedly voluntary donation in order to buy his way out of federal custody. Earlier this year Sissoko was sentenced by Moore to four months in jail and four months of home detention after Sissoko pleaded guilty for his role in a plan to smuggle a pair of helicopters out of the United States by bribing a Customs agent. Forty-eight hours after Sissoko wrote the check to the Miami homeless center, Moore signed an order, over the objection of federal prosecutors, allowing him to return to his home in Gambia even though he still had three months to serve on the house-arrest portion of his sentence. Several days later Sissoko boarded a plane and quietly left the country. Moore's order requires Sissoko to complete his confinement in Africa, but prosecutors say compliance will be impossible to verify. In addition, they note, the wording of Moore's order allows Sissoko to come and go virtually at will, so monitoring him in Africa would be pointless.Schnapp also noted in his motion that the president of Gambia had written to Pres. Bill Clinton asking for Sissoko's release."

MSNBC 8/5/98 "With anticipation building for Monica Lewinsky's imminent grand jury appearance, which could come as early as Thursday, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's prosecutors were enmeshed Wednesday in a renewed legal battle over testimony by White House lawyers, this time centering on special counsel Lanny Breuer, sources said. .Legal sources told NBC and the Associated Press that rulings by a federal appeals court and Chief U.S. Justice William Rehnquist that cleared the way for testimony by White House lawyers before the Lewinsky grand jury left open the possibility that the administration could try to block specific questions by making additional claims of attorney-client privilege or resurrecting its earlier claim of executive privilege, which it dropped earlier this spring.."

Washington Weekly Marvin Lee 8/23/98 "Judicial Watch last week took the deposition of Larry Potts, former head of the FBI's Criminal Division during Travelgate and Filegate. Potts also played key roles in the Ruby Ridge and Waco disasters. His authorship of the infamous "shoot to kill" order at Ruby Ridge eventually led to his resignation from the FBI. Potts is now a high official with Terry Lenzner's IGI International, one of the private investigation firms hired by president Clinton to collect dirt on critics and potential witnesses. During the deposition, Potts refused to answer questions from Larry Klayman about whom he had been in contact with at the FBI during his tenure at IGI, as well as whether IGI has obtained materials from Linda Tripp's Pentagon file. He also refused to identify who IGI was investigating, including Judge Starr, Larry Klayman, federal judges, and others.."

Fox News 8/23/98 Reuters "Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report on his investigation of the president's love affair with Monica Lewinsky includes details that will make people "want to throw up," according to Newsweek magazine."

8/24/98 Washington Times Editorial "Anyone still harboring the illusion that the president's not- so-frank grand jury testimony and his not-so-apologetic speech to the nation signaled an end to Mr. Clinton's stonewalling in the Lewinsky case? Well, they had their bubble burst by his appeal to the Supreme Court Friday of a July 27 appeals-court ruling that Deputy White House Counsel Bruce R. Lindsey (and other White House counsels involved in the Lewinsky matter) must also testify before Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's grand jury. Having failed to get a stay of the appeals court ruling from Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Mr. Clinton is now asking for a full review of the matter by the Supreme Court, something that cannot possibly happen before October, at the earliest, when the Court comes back into session. It is worth noting Counsel Lanny Breuer, who was been in charge of the debriefing of friendly witnesses and their lawyers to figure out the direction Mr. Starr was heading in his grand jury questioning, reportedly defied the July ruling by continuing to claim attorney-client privilege when called to testify after Judge Rehnquist denied the stay. And though Bruce Lindsey, the president's closest confidant who undoubtedly knows more than anyone about Mr. Clinton's actions in the Lewinsky matter, is conveniently unable to testify because of recent back surgery, there's no reason to believe he would not have claimed the rejected privilege as well, had he testified."

Landmark Legal Foundation 5/2/98 Mark Levin ".Basically, we are attempting to learn whether the IRS is being used, willingly or otherwise, as a partisan or ideological tool to punish certain tax-exempt groups. The IRS' response has been to stonewall. Rather than seek to prove that its audits are non-partisan and routine, it has spent months using one delaying tactic after another to keep the information, assuming some exists, from the public. For example: On January 28, 1997, we submitted the FOIA request. The law requires the IRS to respond within 10 working days. It did not. On March 6th, we made a second request for the information. Still no answer. On March 26th, we appealed to the IRS commissioner with a third letter. On April 1st, the IRS asked for 30 more days to locate the information. On April 11th, the IRS told us to "demonstrate how you will actively disseminate the requested information" as a condition of releasing the information. It also said that they would have to search "at least 1,400 items over a seven-to-eleven week period." On April 28th, we provided an extensive dissemination plan to the IRS. On May 1st, the 30-day extension ended. On June 6th, the IRS refused to give us a fee waiver for the cost of searching and copying documents, a waiver which is usually granted to tax-exempt foundations. On June 27, 1997, tired of the obvious run-around and failure to comply with federal law, Landmark sued the IRS for release of the documents.."

Washington Times 9/9/98 Editorial " `If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either the facts or the law, pound on the table.' - Lawyers' aphorism President Clinton is pounding the table. His personal lawyer wrote to independent counsel Kenneth Starr demanding that the president and his lawyers be given an advance copy of the Starr report currently being written. Mr. Clinton wanted a heads-up of at least a week so that the White House war room could coordinate a battle-plan. "We believe that fundamental fairness dictates that we have the opportunity to review [the independent counsel's report to Congress] and submit simultaneously any reply we wish to make," Mr. Kendall wrote to Mr. Starr. What's telling about the request is the justification: "fundamental fairness." If Mr. Clinton or his lawyers could point to any sentence, phrase or word in the law that even hinted about advance copies being given to targets of special prosecutors, he would be pointing away. If there were any legal precedent for the demand, Mr. Clinton would be standing on a stack of case law books. He did neither.."

Washington Times 9/28/98 Frank Murray "President Clinton's fight to shield evidence shifts today to the Supreme Court despite the independent counsel's assertions to Congress that Mr. Clinton's appeals are themselves an abuse of power aimed at delaying an impeachment inquiry. The case before the court is the first of two White House appeals Kenneth W. Starr, in his impeachment referral to Congress, contended were examples where Mr. Clinton "abused his constitutional authority" in his legal battle with the prosecutor. Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin -- who maintains he is acting independently of the White House -- wants Secret Service bodyguards and uniformed officers declared immune from telling a grand jury what they see and hear while guarding a president. A separate lawsuit invoking "executive privilege" to block Mr. Starr from recalling presidential confidant Bruce R. Lindsey, a deputy White House counsel, also is pending and may come up for a vote next month..

AP 9/26/98 "The acting Teamsters president could face contempt of Congress unless he turns over documents subpoenaed by a House panel or offers a legitimate reason for continuing to withhold them, said a lawmaker investigating the union's 1996 election. At issue are documents pertaining to work that White House counsel Charles F.C. Ruff performed for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters before he took the administration job. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Education and Workforce subcommittee on oversight and investigations, told the union's acting president, Thomas Sever, that unless he produced the material by Tuesday, the panel would consider a contempt resolution. The Washington Times first reported on the issue in Saturday's editions. Ruff, as a private lawyer, worked from December 1993 to August 1995 on the union's anti-corruption efforts. He, in turn, hired a San Francisco private investigator, Jack Palladino, whose work for the union also is among the files Hoekstra wants. ``Ruff and Palladino were paid more than $250,000 in members' dues. We're trying to find out what they did for that money, and the IBT has steadfastly refused to provide us with that information,'' Hoekstra said in a statement dated Friday accompanying a letter sent to Sever at union headquarters. The congressman's office made the statement and letter available Saturday.."

CNN Ted Barrett 9/25/98 "U.S. Commerce Department lawyers asked a federal judge Friday to grant "an unprecedented judgment" against their own department for failing to "adequately and reasonably" fulfill a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Clinton Administration adversary Larry Klayman and his watchdog organization Judicial Watch. The motion, if granted, would cost taxpayers more than $2 million, the cost of Judicial Watch's legal fees, according to Klayman. Commerce Department officials, who asked not to be identified, said the cost to taxpayers could be justified because of the "incredible resource strain" and "huge costs" the department has faced after four years of litigation with Judicial Watch. The dispute centers around Commerce Department documents related to trade missions it sponsored to Russia, China, India, South Africa and other nations. Judicial Watch alleges the missions were used as a tool by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), in concert with Commerce and the White House, to raise money for the 1996 election cycle. Judicial Watch alleges corporations and business leaders were given access to the missions in return for large donations to the Democrats. The White House, DNC and Commerce Department deny the link..

New York Times AP 10/1/98 AP "Hoping to avert a contempt charge, Teamsters attorneys were meeting with House Republicans today over subpoenaed documents the union says are privileged and can't be released without jeopardizing the safety of people who cooperated with internal corruption investigations..At issue are records pertaining to legal work Charles F.C. Ruff, now White House chief counsel, and private investigator Jack Palladino did for the union from 1993 to 1995. Hoekstra has questioned the legitimacy of the work..

ConservativeNews.org 10/12/98 "The chairman of the Committee on House Oversight and the White House are at odds over a weekend incident in which the White House did not accept a bill passed by Congress Saturday."

Conservative News Service 10/12/98 Ben Anderson "GOP congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, in an effort to head off a budget showdown with President Clinton, agreed to a meeting with his budget negotiating team, headed by Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. There was only one problem, the president's team failed to show up.."

North Carolina News and Observer (Nando Times) 7/14/95 From Freeper Z ".Foster's widow blames his depression on the massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, according to the FBI. "Lisa Foster believes that Foster was horrified when the Branch Davidian complex burned. Foster believed that everything was his fault," the FBI wrote of their interview with Lisa Foster. A strange form of support for that theory comes in the form of a car burglary. The July 14, 1995 News and Observer reported that White House lawyer Cheryl Mills had her car broken into after preparing for a Senate hearing on Whitewater. In addition to her wallet, the burglar stole a gym bag containing Mills' notes on the Foster affair and on Waco. During the 1995 U.S. House hearings on Waco, Texas Rangers disclosed that when they were in dispute with the FBI about the destruction of evidence, someone in the Texas Governor's office gave them Vince Foster's phone number to contact. The hearings revealed that the only document found in Foster's Waco file was a memorandum that Foster was forwarding "Waco, the Big Lie" (a videotape charging government conspiracy) to to the Treasury Department."

Insight 11/9/98 Jennifer Hickey ". Before the debate could begin about whether the Democrats have been remiss or negligent in returning $1.7 million in questionable donations, the most heated disagreement was addressed by the committee -- whether its investigation was prolonged because of Democratic and Clinton-Gore "stonewalling" or as a result of a Republican "partisan witch-hunt." Reflecting the importance the staff places on the stonewalling, a 30-page analysis of the "Unprecedented Obstacles to the Committee's Investigation" directly follows the report's introduction. The primary obstruction, according to the committee report, has been the reluctance of witnesses to cooperate with the investigation -- a reluctance also encountered by the Senate investigation. To date, 79 potential witnesses have exercised their Fifth Amendment right lest they incriminate themselves, 18 witnesses have bolted from the country and 23 who now reside outside of the United States have refused to testify. This brings the total of noncooperating witnesses to 120, says the report. . . . . The Burton report also cites a pattern of unresponsiveness by the Clinton-Gore administration and the White House Counsel's Office. The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee experienced similar delays during its investigation into the firing of the seven-member White House Travel Office. In fact, this has been going on while the administration claims to be following the practice set by Ronald Reagan's counsel, Edwin Meese III, who refused to claim executive privilege over documents in the Iran-Contra investigation. . . . . The Clinton-Gore administration has asserted executive privilege in at least seven investigations. The committee reports that even when the administration does not claim a privilege to withhold documents, it is less than forthcoming. The White House Counsel's Office response to Burton committee directives is typical. On Jan. 15, 1997, the committee issued a directive for production of documents responsive to their subpoena. On Jan. 31, White House Counsel Jack Quinn responded to Burton's request, informing the committee that the administration was "unable to produce documents in the two-week time period the Committee requested and that production would be delayed [still further] until a meeting time could be arranged with White House officials." A week later, some of the documents found their way into the hands of reporters, and five days later the documents finally were delivered to the committee. . . . . While the Clinton administration was extremely inefficient in compliance with congressional subpoenas, the report asserts that it was not alone. "The DNC's refusal to produce relevant information in a timely manner acted as an additional restraint on the Committee's efforts.... In addition, production logs for many documents were never provided to the Committee despite repeated requests. This has made it impossible to ascertain the origin of many key documents," says the majority staff.."

Washington Times 10/16/98 Bill Sammon and Mary Ann Akers "President Clinton will not admit to the facts at the heart of the impeachment charges against him, but might refrain from disputing those facts if Republicans agree to focus instead on whether the charges -- even if true -- rise to the level of impeachable offenses, Democratic sources said Thursday.. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee said the president is in for a long hard ride if he refuses to stipulate the facts of the case. Any hopes of wrapping up the matter by the end of the year likely would be dashed, they said, and public support for the president could erode "That would be a bad sign," said a committee GOP aide. "If they take that tack, they'll make it much harder for us to move expeditiously. I don't think the public will support White House stonewalling after they demanded a quick resolution."."

AP 10/16/98 Jamie Stengle President Clinton's deposition from Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit won't be released when the court file is opened Monday because it was discovered Friday there isn't one on record with the court.."

Drudge Report 10/25/98 ".Senior White House adviser Bruce Lindsey may take the Fifth if called during upcoming impeachment hearings, it has been learned. According to White House intelligence, several scenarios have been discussed on how to shield Lindsey and block him from disclosing details of his role in the Lewinsky mess and other scandals that could be revealed during the upcoming impeach hearings."

Freeper report 11/2/98 Doug from Upland ".I originally called Congressman Dan Burton's office to see if they would encourage Henry Hyde to call Dr. Paul Fick to testify about Bill Clinton's non-sex related perjury in the 1996 case of Herbie Branscum and Robert Hill. The secretary put me in touch with John Williams, Burton's press secretary. Guess what --- he will probably be reading this. Yes, Williams is a FReeper. He was very kind with the time he gave me. Although he had no comment on the Fick matter, Williams was able to give me information that has not appeared in the mainstream. Burton's committee is charged with investigating the campaign finance violations of 1996. They recently issued their interim report. The day after the issuance of their report a DNC errand boy delivered 10 boxes of evidence that had been under subpoena since March of 1997! The information was received too late to become an issue in the 1998 elections but will be a part of the final report.."

American Spectator 11/5/98 Robert Bork ".The rule of law is subverted when law itself, and the institutions that guard the law, are seen as no more than a means, or sometimes an obstacle, to power. The Department of Justice's fate was virtually sealed at the outset when a complaisant Janet Reno was named attorney general but real power lodged in the president's confidante, and now convicted felon, Webster Hubbell ..Investigations have been frustrated by the shredding of documents, the withholding of files under subpoena, witnesses taking the Fifth Amendment or fleeing the country, and a spectacularly rapid spread of amnesia among administration personnel, a plague highly convenient to the White House. A journalist says witnesses recall matters very well when they talk to him, but then go before congressional committees and are unable to remember anything. The processes of justice have been savaged by the "war" on Kenneth Starr conducted by Bill and Hillary, ignobly abetted by sundry White House lackeys. The object is to delegitimize Starr's investigation and cast doubt upon his report. This is the moral, if not the legal, equivalent of an obstruction of justice. The war, despite its patent untruths, has partially succeeded. Starr, the mildest and most judicious of men, is now believed by a sizable number of Americans to be a rabid partisan. There are moments when one wishes he were..."

House of Representatives 9/11/98 Chris Cox R-CA ". Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), I rise this afternoon to talk about a document that was recently provided, very belatedly, by the White House to the Congress, a document now referred to as the task list. It is dated December 13, 1994, but it was just provided to the Congress in recent days. The task list shows 39 scandals that the White House staff in the West Wing, taxpayer supported staff, decided that they needed to work on because there was now going to be a Republican Congress. This memo was prepared just after the November 1994 elections.."

House of Representatives 9/11/98 Chris Cox R-CA ". Rep. Christopher Cox. For a very long while, The request for 3,000 pages was originally described not all that long ago by the White House as a request for toilet paper, that this was a trivial request, that they should not be asked for such documents. When finally we got the first 1,000 pages of the 3,000 that we requested, we got the famous list of all of the FBI files, the background files, the very, very confidential law enforcement background files, on people who had worked in the White House. These had been collected illegally by the White House for patently political purposes. Rep. Robert Walker And so for a while the White House was claiming that this information was in fact information that no one had the right to know, not even the Congress, when originally the memo was prepared because they believed that Congress would want to know about these matters. Rep. Christopher Cox. Precisely. In fact, while we learn about this same process in what turns out to be pulling teeth from the White House, trying to get them to cooperate, because they are claiming executive privilege about all of these things so they do not have to do anything cooperative with the Congress, they first gave us 1,000 of the 3,000 pages. And in that first batch of documents which we got under a threat of subpoena, we found out about Filegate and all of the FBI files that had been collected on senior officials, including James Baker and others well known. But we did not get this memo. It was only 2 weeks ago, on August 15, that we got this memo. This is brand new, and almost no one, even many of our colleagues here in Congress, has yet had the opportunity to read this, but it is clearly shocking.."

U.S. Newswire 11/12/98 ".White House to Appeal Hillary Lawsuit Nov. 12, AAPS Reports To: National Desk, Legal and Healthcare writers Contact: Kathryn Serkes, 202-333-3855, for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Inc. News Advisory: WHO: AAPS v. Hillary Clinton, Ira Magaziner, et al. WHEN: Thursday, Nov. 12, at 9 a.m. WHERE: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 333 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. WHAT: Oral arguments by White House and Ira Magaziner to appeal sanctions and misconduct in illegal operation of President Clinton's 1993 Health Care Task Force The Department of Justice will present arguments why the White House and the DOJ should not be found liable for misconduct and sanctions in the Health Care Task Force case filed by Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in 1993. Health Care "czar" Ira Magaziner will be represented by private counsel, who will present his independent arguments. BACKGROUND On December 18, 1997, District Judge Royce Lambert found the Executive Branch, Hillary Clinton, Ira Magaziner and the Department of Justice guilty of misconduct in the case of AAPS v. Hillary Clinton, and ordered the White House to pay AAPS $286,000 attorneys fees, costs and sanctions. This litigation has already cost the taxpayers more than $12 million. Congress has voted that taxpayers should not be forced to pay this bill. Costs to AAPS, even before the appeal, have amounted to more than double the amount awarded. And yet the White House has pursued a now well-recognized pattern of denying wrongdoing, instead of admitting guilt and apologizing to the American people for their illegal actions, even when caught red-handed, as, in this instance, by a federal judge. As Judge Lamberth wrote in his order, "It seems that some government officials never learn that the cover- up can be worse than the underlying conduct....this conduct is reprehensible, and the government must be held accountable for it." Lamberth charged that the cover-up extended to "the highest levels of the executive branch." Even though represented by the Department of Justice, Ira Magaziner, whose lies in his affidavits were central to Judge Lamberth's decision, has insisted on filing a separate appeal, claiming he has been "harmed" and "defamed" by the judge's decision. And yet when reacting to the judges finding of misconduct and $286,000 fine, President Clinton, sucking an unlit cigar, laughed and defended Mr. Magaziner, who has continued in his position as Special Advisor to the President. "In this Administration, when the truth or the means used collide with the ends to be achieved, the truth becomes the enemy," says AAPS attorney Thomas J. Spencer.."

Wall Street Journal 11/12/98 Editorial ". On the rest of Mr. Starr's investigation--the Whitewater real estate transactions, the aftermath of the Vincent Foster suicide, the Travel Office firings, the abuse of FBI files--Mr. Clinton and his agents have consistently abused their powers so as to impede investigation of wrongdoing. But the stonewall has been largely successful; the one case that breached it happened to be about sex. Consider the original Whitewater land deal. The Clintons were partners in a business that received a fraudulent loan for which taxpayers were ultimately stuck. Mrs. Clinton helped lawyer the transactions, we learned, when billing records long under subpoena turned up in the White House family quarters. A federal banking investigator forwarded a criminal referral naming the Clintons as beneficiaries; during the Clinton Presidency she was booted off the case (and, like every Clinton critic since, blackened in the press). Tax returns prepared in the White House failed to report the income received when Jim McDougal agreed to assume the Clintons' share of Whitewater debts. But who could offer evidence of Clinton involvement in these events? Mr. Foster, who prepared the tax returns, is dead, as is Jim McDougal, who after a time did cooperate with the investigation. Webster Hubbell, who was in the thick of relevant legal work in Arkansas, served jail time in defiance of his agreement to cooperate with the independent counsel, and received some $700,000 from the President's friends for fictitious legal work. Susan McDougal went to jail for contempt rather than answer the question put to her before a grand jury: When the President testified at her trial, did he tell the truth in denying knowledge of the illegal loan?."

L. A. Times 11/17/98 David Rosenzweig ".A federal judge voiced suspicions Monday that major Democratic donor Johnny Chung might be taking a fall for unnamed others in the national campaign funding scandal. For the second time in as many weeks, U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real postponed Chung's sentencing for making illegal campaign contributions. He asked to see transcripts of Chung's secret testimony before a federal grand jury in Washington. ``What I think is that Mr. Chung is going into the tank for someone else, but I don't know who that someone is,'' said a frustrated Real. He also cast doubt on the sincerity of an unsolicited letter to the court from the Democratic National Committee, portraying itself as a victim of Chung's machinations. That letter accused Chung of ``victimizing'' the party by funneling to it nearly $400,000 in illegal contributions from China.."

Manchester Union Leader 11/19/98 Richard Lessner ".But this is not about sex, or at least it should not be. Monicagate is the least of the President's potentially impeachable offenses. The perjury and obstruction of justice in the Lewinsky affair was part of a larger pattern of misconduct on the part of the President. There is compelling evidence that suggests Bill Clinton has violated a number of laws related to bribery, campaign fundraising, theft of government services, violations of the Privacy Act, abuse of power, obstruction of justice and misuse of federal agencies. Judicial Watch, a legal monitoring group, has compiled through a series of lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests a staggering amount of evidence detailing a criminal conspiracy run out of the White House at the direction of or with the complicity of the President. This conspiracy involved: -- The selling of seats on Commerce Department foreign trade missions for campaign contributions. -- The laundering of illegal contributions through the President's legal defense funds. -- Abuse of the Internal Revenue Service and the FBI to attack political opponents. -- And flagrant breaches of national security resulting from Bill Clinton's financial links to Red China through such intermediaries as John Huang, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, James and Mochtar Riady and a number of agents working for the government of Communist China. Little of this, of course, has been investigated. The Justice Department under Attorney General Janet Reno has stonewalled the investigations into the FBI Filegate and IRS abuses and still is dragging its feet on naming an independent counsel to probe the Chinagate campaign fundraising outrages.."

Drudge 11/23/98 ".Several of Attorney General Janet Reno's close aides advised her Monday in a private meeting that federal law required her to seek an independent counsel to investigate Vice President Al Gore's political fund-raising, according to Tuesday's NEW YORK TIMES. According to publishing sources, the TIMES is set to run the report in a Page One. In the meeting described as "spirited" -- Reno informed her aides that she was "unprepared to declare whether she had decided to refer the allegations about Gore's case to an outside prosecutor." Officials at the Justice Department tell the TIMES that Reno's decision is based, in part, on a perception that "some independent counsels have misused the offices." "Reno has been said by some aides to have expressed concern about the conduct of more than one independent counsel. She has disapproved of some tactics, like when prosecutors unfairly expose low-level witnesses to the expense and embarrassment of criminal inquiries that seemed to continue and expand long after departmental prosecutors would have dropped them."."

AP Michael Sniffen 11/24/98 ".EXCERPTS: "...``Once again, the Attorney General has failed to follow the law,'' said Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind. ``For the past two years, the attorney general has made it clear she is committed to protecting the president.'' Burton faulted her for rejecting the advice of FBI Director Louis J. Freeh to order an independent counsel, which Freeh has been advocating for more than a year....Steve Forbes, a would-be Republican presidential candidate in 2000, said, ``This raises the question of Ms. Reno's fitness to remain in office.'' Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., suggested asking a court to order Reno to turn the case over to a counsel....``We need to take these matters out of the hands of the attorney general, who appears to be acting politically and not in accordance with the act,'' agreed Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. ``Personally, I think it is going to take legislation.''..."

Reuters 11/28/98 ".House Judiciary Committee member Bob Barr told CNN's Saturday Morning News that Clinton's responses to written questions from the committee would be used against him as evidence of a "pattern of evasive answers'' by the president. The replies to Congress' 81 questions were made public late Friday, during the long Thanksgiving holiday weekend. "I think they will be used by our staff, our lawyers and our investigators, to buttress the case that the president in fact did perjure himself on many occasions,'' the Georgia Republican said.. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said he was disappointed in Clinton's responses, noting they were full of "all kinds of obfuscations.'' "He ought to be more forthcoming, he ought to tell the truth,'' Hatch said Saturday on the MSNBC program "Equal Time.'' In many of his answers, Clinton said he did not remember conversations or was uncertain about details. He declined to answer "yes'' or "no'' to any of the 81 questions. "It's kind of a pathetic thing, but a very good lawyerly job keeping him from getting into even more trouble than he is now,'' Hatch said.."

Houston Chronicle 11/17/98 Paul Greenberg ".Reno has found a way to avoid the obvious need for an independent counsel to investigate the whole, many-tentacled mess that was the Clinton-Gore campaign of '96 and its dubious finances. She concentrated instead on the narrow question of whether Gore lied to the FBI. As for the Chinese connection, and the plans to get around the campaign finance laws by the very crew that talks loudest about reforming them ... all of that was ignored. One was reminded of Mr. Magoo examining a doorknob so intently, he misses the door. Let it be said for Mr. Magoo that his is a physical, not an ethical, problem. There's nothing wrong with Reno's eyesight; she has no problem seeing the smallest way around the obvious. In the end, it is no one particular law that this ethically inert administration has failed to respect, but the spirit of all of them. The whole great structure of the law begins to totter when men come to see it not as a guide or restraint, but just a series of obstacles to evade. Remove the basis of law -- like the search for truth that once made perjury a serious charge -- and any individual law may be got around, too. Crimes are minimized. And if prosecutors cannot be ignored, they can always be demonized. Deprive the laws of the land of their force, and they soon lose their moral authority over us. The telltale phrases that mark such a downward spiral are already familiar: Everybody does it. It's not a high crime, and therefore it isn't a crime at all, or at least not one that should carry any penalty. It's time to move on and deal with the eal business of the country, which isn't specified. Whatever the business of the country is in 1998, it's clearly not encouraging respect for the law.."

The New York Times 11/29/98 ".Attorney General Janet Reno's decision last week to clear Vice President Al Gore of campaign illegalities was hardly surprising. Mr. Gore's telephone soliciting from Government property was one of the Clinton campaign's more innocuous fund-raising activities, and the evidence was mixed. But Senator Orrin Hatch was right to send up a warning about Ms. Reno's motives. The need for an independent counsel with broad powers to examine the White House's 1996 fund-raising has been established by journalistic accounts and Congressional hearings, and by legal opinions from the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the former chief prosecutor of the Justice Department's campaign-finance task force. So far Ms. Reno has managed to avoid taking their advice by singling out subsidiary activities like Mr. Gore's phone calls and citing narrow legal grounds for preliminary inquiries. In the days ahead, Mr. Hatch warned, we will learn whether the Attorney General will undermine "the rule of law and integrity of the Department of Justice" by preventing an unbiased inquiry into the Democratic effort to circumvent campaign laws, to use White House invitations to entice donors and to collect suspicious foreign contributions.Ms. Reno is not the only official who needs to come to grips with issues of law and conscience. The Federal Election Commission is due this week to rule on a staff audit of Mr. Clinton's re- election campaign. The audit is said to conclude that the use of unregulated "soft money" for Mr. Clinton's re-election advertising violated the election laws. The six-member commission is often divided on partisan lines on campaign issues. But in their meeting this week, the commissioners could decide to reject the auditors' finding. They are under pressure to do so because if Mr. Clinton's ads violated the law, so probably did the soft-money ads for Bob Dole, the Republican nominee. We urge the commissioners to endorse the findings of the auditors and close a loophole through which the Presidential candidates drove tens of millions of dollars in illegal fund-raising and spending. Whatever the commission does, Ms. Reno should accept the auditors' finding -- and those of Mr. Freeh and Mr. La Bella -- that this issue must be decided by someone not beholden to Mr. Clinton and his inner circle. This is more than a technical issue. The law says that unregulated soft money can only go to certain party-building activities like voter registration and get-out- the-vote drives. If Ms. Reno and the Federal Election Commission look the other way while candidates circumvent the law, the parties will simply step up their shakedowns of corporations, unions and rich donors to finance election campaigns.. If Ms. Reno takes a dive, Congress will have to find a way next year to get those investigative answers. Ms. Reno, for her part, will have nailed down the title of the most politically compromised Attorney General since Watergate.

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc 11/30/98 Meredith Oakley ".How's this for a novel idea: To heck with investigating the president, the vice president, and current and former White House officials: Investigate the attorney general who continues to protect them. Janet Reno's rare action and chronic inaction have played havoc with government, politics and our system of justice for the bulk of the Clinton administration, invoking as she frequently does the now laughable excuse that judgment and the law guide her decision-making.In my humble opinion, nobody has done as much to obstruct justice as Janet Reno, whose conflict of interest appears to be so great that she cannot bring herself to cut someone else loose on this much scandalized administration of which she is a part--a part of both the administration and the scandal, that is to say.."

11/30/98 AP Michael Sniffen ".Attorney General Janet Reno delayed a decision today on whether an independent counsel should investigate whether Harold Ickes, a former top White House aide, committed perjury before a Senate committee, officials said. She requested that a special court allow her 60 more days to review the case, according to officials and people familiar with the case. There was no immediate word from the court or any explanation of how she would spend the extra time. Reno asked the court to seal her reasons for requesting the delay, according to people familiar with the case...Republican senators have threatened action to fight Reno's reluctance to seek independent counsels for the campaign funding matters. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on ``Fox News Sunday'' that Congress should take Reno to court because ``she has abused her discretion.'' The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, said on ABC's ``This Week'' that he would do ``everything in my power'' to enact legislation removing the attorney general's power to seek independent counsels.."

CNS 12/2/98 Ben Anderson ".Senate Judiciary Chairman Orin Hatch (R-UT) is exploring the prospect of removing from the Attorney General's office the responsibility of seeking the appointment of independent counsels. Hatch appeared Sunday on ABC's "This Week" saying he would pursue such an effort if Attorney General Janet Reno refused to seek an independent counsel to investigate former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes. Reno announced Monday that she has delayed for another 60 days a decision on whether to ask a three federal judge panel for an independent counsel... Hatch's spokeswoman Jean Lopatto told CNS the Senator is "looking at the possibility of taking the responsibility of out of the Attorney General's hands. He wants to study whether that can be done with legislation." Lopatto said Hatch will be considering such a move very carefully over the next few weeks.."

Progressive Review 12/3/98 Sam Smith ".Back in 1994, Time reported that a senior pilot for Tyson had been grilled for three days by Smaltz and FBI agents about transfers of cash to the governor's mansion. Joe Henrickson claimed to have carried white envelopes containing a quarter-inch stack of $100 bills on six occasions. Here's how Ambrose Evans-Pritchard describes what happened next: "In one case, [Henrickson claimed] a Tyson executive handed him an envelope of cash in the company's aircraft hanger in Fayetteville and said, 'This is for Governor Clinton." "'I nearly fell off my chair when I heard Joe make the allegation. I took over the questions,' Smaltz told Time." But Smaltz had no authority to investigate Clinton and when he asked Janet Reno for permission she said no. Reno's refusal, along with Starr's mishandling of the Mena drug and Foster death investigations, rank among the biggest scandals that lie within the Whitewater scandal."

Insight Magazine 12/26/98 Jamie Dettmer and Paul M. Rodriguez ".It comes as no secret that Republicans and, truth be told, even some Democrats, are madder than hell about Attorney General Janet Reno's decision not to seek an independent counsel to probe allegations of fund-raising abuses by Vice President Al Gore. . . But many FBI agents and officials at Justice are equally upset with Reno's deputy, Eric Holder. The reason for their frustration with Reno is evident -- she has rejected the fruits of their investigative labor several times over. What's surprising, however, is the level of disillusionment with Holder, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia who on corruption charges successfully prosecuted onetime Democratic Rep. Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois. . . . According to Justice and bureau sources, Holder has not been idle, even though he has portrayed himself as the hapless deputy who has tried to support the Justice Department fund-raising task force against all odds. As news alert! disclosed once before, Holder has played a pivotal role in advising Reno to reject the Justice/FBI task-force recommendation for an independent counsel. And he's done this while holding out public olive branches to FBI Director Louis Freeh and former Justice task-force leader Charles LaBella, who resigned rather than continue beating his head against Reno's granite walls. "He's as political as she is," says one senior FBI official. "Holder tells us one thing and then whispers to Reno something else and then pretends it's all her wrongheaded doing," complains another law-enforcement official.."

New York Times 12/8/98 ".One of the sorriest episodes in modern Justice Department history has concluded with another demonstration of Attorney General Janet Reno's obstinacy. For the third time in a month, she has refused to hand her department's anemic investigation into President Clinton's 1996 campaign abuses over to an independent counsel. Both the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice's top prosecutor for campaign finance urged her to appoint an independent counsel under the part of the law allowing an Attorney General to avoid conflicts of interest. Although she is mired in conflict, Ms. Reno decreed that no one would be appointed to investigate whether her boss illegally used "soft money" to support his re-election. Congress now has a duty to demand an inquiry run by someone not beholden to Mr. Clinton. Her action was based on her finding that Mr. Clinton did not "knowingly and willfully" violate the law because he allegedly acted based on his lawyers' advice. Mr. Clinton is entitled to assert that his lawyers let him do it.."

Center for Security Policy 11/30/98 Decision Brief No. 98-D 192 ".Thanks to the Wall Street Journal, a man who has long labored behind the scenes on behalf of robust U.S. security policies in general and effective technology controls in particular has been given a small measure of the visibility and credit due him. In a profile published on 27 November, the Journal credited Michael Maloof, a senior career civil servant in the Pentagon's Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA)(1) with advocating "hard-line views, unfashionable since the Cold War's end, [that] have been adopted by many Members of Congress and are driving the debate" over sensitive high-technology exports to Communist China. As a public service, the Center for Security Policy is circulating the article about Mr. Maloof in its entirety since the Friday after Thanksgiving is not the optimum day for mass readership of a business- oriented publication like the Journal. Particularly noteworthy are its references to a "diary" the DTSA official has kept since early in 1998 to record "his dealings with Pentagon superiors." According to the newspaper, copies of the Maloof diary are in the hands of Justice Department and Customs Service investigators, as well as the Wall Street Journal. It would appear that it must also have been made available to the select committee chaired by Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) charged with examining allegations that the Clinton Administration abetted Chinese ballistic missile systems aimed at the United States by authorizing the transfer of know-how and technology that would improve their reliability and accuracy.(2) Mr. Maloof was subpoenaed to testify before the Cox committee last August.."

12/7/98 Rep Bob Barr "."Janet Reno's argument that we should turn a blind eye to potential wrongdoing by the President, because his lawyers told him to do it, is outrageous. "There is specific and credible evidence, including the President's own words on tape, that indicate he engaged in an effort to violate campaign laws by engaging in a scheme to exceed spending limits. Furthermore, this scheme was financed in part by illegally obtained campaign contributions from all sorts of questionable and foreign sources, including Communist China. "It is staggering the Attorney General can look at this mound of evidence, engage in esoteric legal discussions for months, and then pretend that it has vanished. She is refusing to fulfill her responsibility to faithfully execute the laws, just as the President is failing in his duty to do so."."

UPI 12/8/98 "..House Judiciary Committee Republicans are crying foul (Tuesday) that media outlets, including United Press International, were leaked copies of the White House's detailed impeachment defense before members of the committee were informed. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., accused the president's lawyers of going behind the committee's back.."

USA Journal 12/9/98 Jon Dougherty ".It seems as though relevant materials - specifically, White House telephone records and email - that have been subpoenaed for years but were said not to exist do exist. The comical thing is that the phone records Ken Starr and his office have long sought were in the Old Executive Office Building, according to Paul [Rodriguez] and Insight Magazine. Furthermore the email - which was freakishly discovered after White House Internet repair guys found a "blockage" of some 100,000 emails in the West Wing's Internet server system - is currently being examined and, presumably, destroyed or hidden again by operatives within the Clinton administration. That is, unless Insight's story gets the kind of attention Paul Rodriguez correctly assumes it should get. Meanwhile, the staffers who are rifling through these emails "in secret," one White House insider told Insight, are fully aware that there are active subpoenas out there, issued by our own Justice Department, that call for them to hand them over to Starr and a small number of congressional investigative panels. Nothing doing comes the word. See, legally speaking, the White House les Honorables aren't "sure" whether or not those subpoenas are still valid. So, as long as there is a question about their validity then hey, there will be no compliance with congressional and DoJ subpoenas this time. Now, if this isn't the modus operandi of LADs, I don't know what is. What I find interesting to note is that this revelation was discovered and made public right before lawmakers in the House are supposed to vote on whether or not to impeach President Clinton. Coincidence? Like so many other Clinton administration "coincidences" over the years? ."

NY POST 12/9/98 Deborah Orin ".President Clinton's men are still stonewalling - they won't admit the lies, they won't admit the sex with Monica Lewinsky and they're still playing "Slick Willie" word games. That makes it very hard to cut a "plea bargain" with Republicans for censure instead of impeachment - and there were hints yesterday's White House defense session could backfire..The latest White House defense does nothing to answer Monica Lewinsky's graphic account of how she had sex with Clinton, even by his narrow definition. Instead it claims two witnesses can honestly recall things differently. Really? On such graphic descriptions of sex and cigars and other hanky-panky? With a president famed for his memory? Also, the White House defense panel of professors from Harvard, Yale and Princeton came in and talked down to the House Judiciary Committee members as if they were stupid college freshmen.Princeton's Sean Wilentz threw down the gauntlet by claiming that anyone backing impeachment risks "going down in history with the zealots and fanatics ... for your cravenness." .They were equally skeptical when boyish White House scandal lawyer Greg Craig insisted Clinton didn't lie when he claimed he couldn't recall being alone with Lewinsky, with one Republican saying that simply "is not credible." .."

Wall Street Journal 12/17/98 ".Another federal judge has criticized the stonewalling of President Clinton's Justice Department. District Judge Manuel Real, who was appointed by Democrat Lyndon Johnson, sentenced Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung to five years probation this week and included a searing criticism of Attorney General Janet Reno's handling of the campaign finance scandal. After reviewing Mr. Chung's secret grand jury testimony he said he was "surprised that the Attorney General has eschewed appointment" of an independent counsel. Last month at an earlier hearing, Judge Real was even more blunt: "What I think is that Mr. Chung is going into the tank for someone else, but I don't know who that someone is." Yes, Virginia, there's more to it than just Monica.."

LOS ANGELES TIMES via St. Louis Post-Dispatch 12/23/98 ".A federal judge charged Tuesday that Commerce Department officials systematically concealed and destroyed documents that might have shed light on whether overseas trade missions were used to reward business executives who contributed to the Democratic Party. In a blistering 80-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth found "a pattern of abuse" by the department's office of general counsel in a 4-year-old civil lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization. Among the targets of Lamberth's wrath was former Commerce Department aide John Huang, a major figure in the Democratic campaign fund-raising controversy. Lamberth said destruction of documents stretched over several years, showing an "egregious . . . disregard for the law." It climaxed with "a flurry of document shredding" in the office of Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown after his death in a plane crash in Croatia in April 1996, the judge said. But even before this tragedy, department officials were cavalier in failing to search for documents responsive to Judicial Watch's freedom-of-information suit, Lamberth said..Commerce officials over the past two years repeatedly have insisted that U.S. business executives were chosen for seats on overseas trade missions based on a set of objective criteria and that political considerations played no part in their selection. However, public records show that many made sizable Democratic campaign contributions either before or shortly after these trips... The judge said Huang gave "incredible" testimony that he had minor duties at Commerce. In addition, the department never fully complied with a court order to turn over all of Huang's relevant records, he said. Huang remains under investigation by a Justice Department task force for his role in obtaining foreign campaign contributions. ."

AP 12/23/98 Philip Brasher "..A federal judge is threatening to hold Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in contempt for the government's delay in producing records of Indian trust funds. The Interior and Treasury departments are being sued over the mishandling of 300,000 Indian accounts worth an estimated $500 million. Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs was ordered two years ago to turn over statements, checks and other documents on accounts held by five Indians who are the lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit. So far, only a small amount of the documents have been produced. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who has frequently clashed with the Clinton administration, last week set a contempt hearing for Babbitt and Rubin for Jan. 11. "They've meddled with the wrong person here as far as stonewalling and ignoring his orders,'' an attorney for the Indians, Robert Peregoy, said Wednesday. In a separate case, Lamberth on Tuesday accused Commerce Department officials of illegally destroying evidence in connection with charges that the agency sold slots on trade missions for donations to Democratic candidates. He's the same judge who earlier fined the administration $286,000 for making inaccurate statements about the makeup of its health care task force. At a Dec. 15 hearing in the Indian case, government lawyers gave him a variety of reasons for failing to turn over the records, including possible viral contamination of two storage facilities in Albuquerque, N.M., and rodent infestation at another site.."

Insight Magazine January 11-18, 1999 Paul M. Rodriguez ".Justice Department and congressional investigators now are working quietly, as one federal law-enforcement source tells news alert!, and "rapidly before the files disappear," to track down the records long sought by investigators. . . . White House insiders and government lawyers familiar with the flurry of activity say that beepers and phones have been buzzing to determine who spilled the beans and to get control of the records before federal agents swarm in. "They're in a panic over this," a West Wing source tells news alert! . . . . Although a White House spokesman sought to minimize the importance of Insight's disclosure of the e-mails, of which there are between 50,000 and 100,000, by claiming some involving Lewinsky appear to have been duplicates, another White House aide confirms that nobody knows for sure how many others are originals that should have been turned over to investigators upon discovery in midsummer 1998. "It's a legal headache," a White House lawyer says. . . . . The telephone records are a completely different matter. "We were told they did not exist," one federal law-enforcement source says. "If we can find them they will prove to be invaluable." Indeed, the details of these records, which go back years, would show who was called and when, by dates and times -- information that, to date, federal and congressional investigators have failed to secure. . . . . Curiously, Justice Department officials do not appear eager to secure the records, according to several federal law-enforcement sources. "It's as though they don't care you've discovered this gold mine.".."

The American Spectator http://www.spectator.org/ 1/99 print edition p 15 by Freeper A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPT: "...A former high-ranking FBI official has told associates that he was approached by FBI Director Louis Freeh and asked to help disseminate material collected by Freeh's staff and that of former prosecutor Charles La Bella in their investigations of Clinton-Gore campaign irregularities. This contact occurred nearly three weeks before Attorney General Janet Reno, acting as Freeh expected she would, announced she will not appoint an independent counsel to investigate Gore. "Freeh doesn't want Gore to get off scot-free," says another former high-ranking FBI official, who helped select Freeh for his post. "Louis is just sick about the stonewalling, and if Reno won't do something, he's going to do to the White House what it's been doing to everyone else--leak like crazy."..."

Wall Street Journal 12/29/98 ". Here's a question philosophers have pondered through the ages: If someone were to fire a cannonball up Pennsylvania Avenue, would anyone hear it? Or to put it differently, Is it true that trees only talk to one another? We raise these mysteries after observing that not much of anyone in Washington beyond a few reporters seems to have noticed that on December 22 a federal district judge denounced the behavior of a group of Clintonesque former Commerce Department officials as akin to "hooligans" and "scofflaws." What's more, he said the department's handling of a lawsuit over the late Ron Brown's trade junkets has been so untrustworthy that he is appointing a special magistrate to keep an eye on them. Judge Royce Lamberth found that the facts "strongly substantiate the claim that the agency was deliberately destroying and jettisoning documents," ending "in a flurry of document shredding" in Secretary Brown's office after his death in Bosnia in April 1996. He describes the department's four years of legal stonewalling as an "egregious . . . disregard for the law." Again, one must ponder the Beltway's apparently eternal mysteries: Does anyone connect the dots down there anymore, or do all the capital's solons and scribes really believe the whole issue is just Bill Clinton's pattycake habits?."

Newsletter 12/29/98 Charles Smith SOFTWAR ".If Attorney General Janet Reno really wanted to investigate Bill Clinton then she need look no farther than WORLDNETDAILY. Starting in 1998, Worldnetdaily readers were treated to a series of articles on the documented sale of advanced technology to China for campaign donations. One prime example of the documented China scandal is a series of letters written to President Clinton and Commerce Secretary Ron Brown by million-dollar DNC donor Sanford Robertson.Robertson bragged in a 1994 letter to Ron Brown that his influence extended into the PRC leadership by employing the son of a powerful red party member. Robertson also foolishly wrote a November, 1994, "thank you" letter to Bill Clinton. .Another letter discovered in the previously unreleased files of Ron Brown shows that Loral Defense Systems President, Jerald A. Lindfelt, wrote Brown in March of 1996. Lindfelt sought Brown's help in the export of an advanced radar system called SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) to China's State Science and Technology Commission. SAR radar is employed by U.S. bombers, and special military aircraft such as the advanced JSTARS ground surveillance plane. SAR radar played a major role in detecting and destroying Iraqi tanks during the Gulf war. "We've worked hard trying to resolve these problems with the Department of State, the Department of Commerce and the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA)," Loral's Lindfelt wrote to Brown..President Clinton left a paper trail a mile wide between himself and his Chinese benefactors.In February 1995, Motorola was impatient with the delay over human rights and their proposed sale to red China. Motorola's CEO wrote Ron Brown an angry letter detailing his objections. According to Tooker, Brown needed to "Delegate to the export control officer appropriate authority for reviewing certain classes of controls, e.g., encryption... Export controls administered by the State Department at the behest of the National Security Agency (NSA) should NOT be referred for endless delay to the human rights bureau and myriad others in State.".Of course, Ms. Reno is aware of all this.."

The Detroit News 1/2/99 ".But for a fair sample of the American federal judiciary, the verdict is in on his administration: It is lawless and untrustworthy. The most recent example is a decision by Washington Federal Judge Judge Royce Lamberth to appoint a federal magistrate to oversee a search for documents in a lawsuit involving the Clinton Commerce Department. The reason: He doesn't trust the department to respond honestly.. Following hearings on the administration's unsuccessful claims of executive privilege, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Laurence Silberman was moved to write that the Clinton administration had opted to "literally and figuratively declare war on the independent counsel." .And then there is U.S. District Judge Manuel Real of Los Angeles. At the sentencing earlier last month of Clinton fund-raiser Johnny Chung, Judge Real, an appointee of President Lyndon Johnson, went to the extraordinary length of expressing from the bench his "surprise" that Atty. Gen. Janet Reno had not appointed a special counsel to investigate the Clinton campaign's fund-raising maneuvers. Judge Real reserved his harshest criticism for former officials of the Democratic National Committee, however. They had pleaded that they were unaware of Johnny Chung's illegal fund-raising tactics involving the Chinese government. If that is so, said Judge Real, "they are the dumbest politicians I've ever seen."."

New York Times 1/3/99 Neil Lewis ".Commerce Secretary William M. Daley has asked the department's inspector general to expand his investigation into whether officials systematically concealed and destroyed documents sought in a lawsuit, after a federal judge made those charges in a stinging rebuke of the department, officials said last week. Judge Royce C. Lamberth compared the behavior of former Commerce officials to that of "con artists" and "scofflaws." In harshly criticizing the department in a ruling last month, Lamberth demonstrated that he had lost patience in trying to supervise a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative group, against the department.. In unusually scathing language, the judge wrote, "Either out of carelessness or deliberate defiance, the Department of Commerce repeatedly and grossly mishandled materials responsive to Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests." He also complained that some former department officials had improperly taken official documents with them when they left to go into the private sector. He ordered those documents returned along with videotapes and audiotapes of some of the trade missions, which had been sent to Howard University to become part of a permanent "Ron H. Brown Jr. Collection." Finally, he complained that the department handed out awards to some of the very employees who were involved in the delay and destruction of the documents.."

Reuters 1/6/99 ".Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott said Wednesday the impeachment trial of President Clinton, which formally opens Thursday, will move forward next week even without an agreement on its duration. After an early morning meeting with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Lott said he thought the first presidential impeachment trial in 130 years could begin without an ironclad agreement on its length or how many witnesses would be called."We made a strong representation that we need witnesses and he was not unreceptive,'' Hyde said, adding the 13 House of Representatives managers who will act as prosecutors would have to justify to the Senate the need for each witness. Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle objected to starting the trial without an agreement, and said calling witnesses would open the door to a protracted process. "My advice to the White House would be as soon as the first witness is called, all bets are off with regard to agreeing on a procedure,'' he said, because the defense would not be able to anticipate what prosecution witnesses would say. ."

Wall Street Journal 1/7/99 ".Witness. 1 an attesting of a fact; 2 a person who saw or can give a firsthand account of something.--Webster's. Democrats vowed "universal, unanimous opposition" to calling witnesses.--The Associated Press yesterday.. The fact is that witnesses have been routine in impeachment trials going back to Andrew Johnson, but most recently that of former federal judge Walter Nixon in 1989. But spend enough time around the legal world as Bill Clinton defines it, and you're likely to start believing in trials without witnesses. In fact, you could call it a firmly established Clinton precedent. After the House Government Reform Committee called hearings into the financing of Mr. Clinton's 1996 campaign, a total of 121 witnesses fled the country, pleaded the Fifth Amendment, or stonewalled the investigation..Ms. McDougal is scheduled to go to trial in March for criminal contempt and obstruction of justice in the Whitewater inquiry. Her indictment lists the following questions to which Ms. McDougal has refused to bear witness: "Did you ever discuss your [illegal $300,000 Master Marketing] loan from David Hale with William Jefferson Clinton?" "To your knowledge, did William Jefferson Clinton testify truthfully during the course of your trial?" "What did you mean by the notation 'Payoff Clinton?' " [On an August 1983 check for $5,081 signed by Ms. McDougal, from a Jim McDougal trustee account, payable to Madison Guaranty.] "What do you know about Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Industrial Development Corporation [Castle Grande] property?"."

NY Times 1/7/99 William Safire by Freeper machman ".The White House message is plain: If the Senate dares to call Monica Lewinsky as a witness, the Clinton lawyers will drag out the impeachment trial clear through to the summer and blame the G.O.P. for shutting down the Government. Yesterday the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, snapped a partisan salute, announcing "universal, unanimous opposition to witnesses."."

Associated Press 1/7/99 Philip Brasher ".A presidential appointee in charge of cleaning up more than $2 billion in Indian trust funds resigned abruptly Thursday and accused Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt of stripping him of the authority he needed. The departure of Special Trustee Paul Homan is the latest twist in a long legal and political battle that eventually could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Babbitt's department is being sued over its decades-long mismanagement of the money. The secretary faces a contempt hearing next week over the government's failure to turn over canceled checks and other records for accounts held by the lawsuit's lead plaintiffs.."

1/11/99 Jim VandeHei ".Republican leaders may call a Members-only House meeting to declassify secret evidence showing the Clinton administration jeopardized national security by allowing China to buy U.S. military technology. The session would be held only if President Clinton refuses to declassify the report himself...There was virtual unanimity among the leaders, which included Majority Leader RichardArmey (R-Texas) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), that the material is potentially damaging to the Clinton administration and that it should be declassified, leadership sources said. In an interview Friday, DeLay said leadership was briefed by Cox last week and told that the House may have to "vote to declassify the report without the administration's approval" if the White House fails to do so in the next 90 days. DeLay refused to elaborate.."

Associated Press 1/11/99 Philip Brasher ".A judge threatening to hold Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in contempt for his department's failure to hand over Indian trust records for a lawsuit is looking into Babbitt's recent moves against the officials in charge of the accounts. As a contempt hearing opened Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth announced he would subpoena former Special Trustee Paul Homan to testify about Babbitt's actions. Homan, a presidential appointee, quit last week after Babbitt ordered a reorganization of the trust office, which is in charge of cleaning up nearly $3 billion in funds held for tribes and individual Indians. Homan, a former bank executive and federal bank regulator, wasn't consulted about the overhaul and accused Babbitt of undermining his authority. "Don't you think Mr. Homan's resignation flies in the face of the secretary's contention that he's acting in good faith?'' the judge asked government lawyers. The Interior Department is being sued over its admitted decades-long mismanagement of the Indian trust funds, and the government lawyers said Babbitt's reorganization of the trust office showed he was dealing with the problem. His actions included reassigning the top recordkeeping official. .."

Jewish World Review 1/13/99 Thomas Sowell by Freeper Marcellus "..how long the Senate impeachment trial lasts and how many witnesses are or are not called are things that cannot be allowed to be the tail that wags the dog....Attempts to put time limits on the proceedings are especially dangerous when dealing with a president who has made stalling a central part of his defense strategy throughout the investigations of his conduct. After the special prosecutor agreed to a four-hour time limit on the president's White House testimony in August, Clinton rambled on and on in answering even the simplest questions and ran out the clock....The Clinton defenders were able to waste time bringing [charges of prosecutorial misconduct] up again because the court records were still sealed at that point.... Now those records are unsealed, so that game should not be tolerated again....If Democrats have decided to vote for acquittal, regardless of the evidence, that can create a party-line vote. But that does not make both sides partisan."

AP Breaking News 1/14/99 ".Attorney General Janet Reno decided Thursday against any further investigation of President Clinton's campaign manager in connection with a controversial office building development in the nation's capital. Such an investigation could have led to naming an independent counsel to further probe the activities of Peter Knight, a former top aide to Vice President Al Gore who ran Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996. Republicans on the House Commerce Committee last month asked Reno to look into whether a $1 million payment that Knight received from Tennessee developer Franklin Haney was an illegal contingency fee for helping get the Federal Communications Commission to move to the Portals development. Haney was an investor in the project. He and Knight have both said the $1 million payment represented legal fees for Knight's work on several Haney projects over a three-year period and not a contingency fee dependent on the FCC move. Haney, a longtime supporter of Gore and Democratic campaign contributor, was indicted last month on 42 counts alleging he made illegal donations to the 1996 Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and to two senatorial candidates. The Justice Department's campaign finance task force, which brought the indictment, looked at the Portals issue in connection with that investigation. ``The task force concluded that the evidence does not support the report's view that Mr. Haney's payment to Mr. Knight was a contingency fee,'' Acting Attorney General Dennis Burke wrote to Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley Jr., R-Va. .."

New York Times 1/17/99 Philip Shenon ".The Defense Department has demanded that Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, turn over advance copies of a book in which he is expected to step up his criticism of the Clinton administration and detail some of his work for the United Nations...The lawyer, Matthew Lifflander, said the Defense Department appeared to have joined in an administration-wide attempt to intimidate Ritter into silence. Ritter is already under investigation by the Justice Department on charges that he may have shared classified information with Israel while working at the United Nations, a accusation that he denies. In a letter to the Pentagon dated Jan. 14, Lifflander said, "We have been reliably informed that certain very senior officials of more than one federal agency have recently gone out of their way to deprecate Ritter and denigrate his views." And as a result, the letter said, "we are not inclined to submit unnecessarily to any potential suppression of his First Amendment rights." .."Here's a guy who has testified before both houses of Congress, who has given interview after interview, who has written for a variety of leading publications, and all of a sudden, they want to know in advance what he's going to say?" Lifflander said. "He doesn't have any classified information to give away." ."

Associated Press 1/17/99 Robert Burns Freeper Brian Mosely ".The Pentagon dropped a demand that a former U.N. weapons inspector critical of U.S. policy in Iraq submit advance manuscripts of a book he is writing on his experiences as a member of the inspection team working to disarm Iraq.."

Tampa Tribune 1/17/99 ".Janet Reno began her tenure as U.S. attorney general nearly six years ago and last week became the longest-serving occupant of that office this century. Unfortunately, the first woman to hold the nation's chief legal post has become so politicized that her reputation for integrity is no longer unassailable. Although neither friend nor confidant of President Clinton, Reno has, since the beginning of her term, shown a willingness to protect the man who appointed her. Reno took control of the Justice Department in March 1993 with great fanfare and with plenty of support from state and national leaders, along with accolades from Florida's newspapers, including this editorial page. But within days of her arrival, her political stripes became evident: She sought to stall the investigation of Dan Rostenkowski, then the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, by demanding the resignations of all her U.S. attorneys..Within weeks of taking office, Reno made what was arguably her biggest blunder - approving the federal assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. More than 80 people died, including children, in a horrific fire that April. Unlike her boss, who never takes responsibility when initiatives go bad, Reno accepted blame, striking just the right note with the public.."

The State (Columbia, SC) 2/6/99 Editorial Freeper newsman ".Attorney General Janet Reno was wrong not to appoint an independent counsel to investigate whether the White House aide who ran President Clinton's 1996 campaign lied to a Senate committee two years ago. In declining to act, Ms. Reno effectively shut down the only remaining avenue into investigating questionable fund-raising practices by the Clinton White House and the Democratic Party. Efforts by the House and Senate to probe wrongdoing in this matter have turned up compelling information but lack the focus of a full criminal investigation..From the beginning of the Clinton administration, Janet Reno has acted in contentious contempt of Congress. Why Congress lets her get away with it is a baffling question."

MSNBC 1/29/99 Bob Bennett Freeper Lex reports ".Bob Bennett just announced on MSNBC that there will be NO independent counsel for Ickes."

Judicial Watch 1/29/99 ".Judicial Watch is not surprised by Janet Reno's refusal to once again appoint an independent counsel to look into the Clinton fundraising machine. Her pre-ordained decision to let off Harold Ickes, who helped run the 1996 illegal fundraising operation out the White House, shows an absolute contempt for the law, rivaling that of her superior, Bill Clinton. "In addition to the smoking-gun evidence implicating Ickes in the Teamsters scandal, the Attorney General has sworn testimony before her in our Commerce/Chinagate case that Harold Ickes participated in the illegal sale of Commerce Department trade mission seats in return for DNC/Clinton-Gore campaign contributions. She also has sworn Senate testimony that Ickes was soliciting campaign contributions from Air Force One," said Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel. "Ickes, as much as Bill Clinton, deserves an independent counsel." The question of Ickes' perjury goes beyond campaign fundraising. When he testified in the Filegate lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch on behalf of those whose FBI files were taken by the Clinton White House, Ickes had a memory lapse about every four minutes. The court overseeing the case recently ruled that "a full review of the transcript of Ickes' deposition shows his remarkable inability to recall certain memorable facts, in addition to a contentious demeanor." .."

Daily Republican 2/1/99 Rich Davis ".During the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, a woman (Anita Hill) came forward with a very old, poorly corroborated story. The story was a stretch in it's attempt to accuse Judge Thomas with a watered-down sexual harassment accusation. At the time, however, it was considered to be newsworthy..An old, highly corroborated story has been discovered about the President. It is not sexual harassment. It concerns rape. And later intimidation of the victim (Juanita Broaddrick) that resulted in her signing a false affidavit for the benefit of the President. The charge is relevant to the impeachment proceedings because the President has been accused of encouraging the signing and filing of a false affidavit in a sexual harassment case (Paula Jones). The affidavit was needed to unfairly de-rail that sexual harassment claim against the President. Now, whether or not the Senate considers this old story may largely depend upon the news media. The media (NBC news), whose responsibility is to inform the public about corruption by public officials, is struggling with whether to share such information with the public... Hiding relevant information from courts is punishable by law. Hiding relevant information from citizens is a breech of responsibility. Both types of cover-ups are corrupting influences. Both are manipulative acts geared to protect, in this case, a master manipulator. Both are corrosive to the fabric of trust that should exist between our judicial branch and citizen and between media and citizen.."

Wall St. Journal 2/1/99 Op-Ed Freeper Raven ".With impeachment proceedings under way on charges the President obstructed justice, Attorney General Janet Reno has again rejected an independent counsel for the campaign finance investigation, giving Harold Ickes her latest get-out-of-jail-free card on Friday. It becomes ever clearer that the ultimate outcome of the impeachment depends on whether the Congress finally steps up to the duty of oversight.."

FoxNews 2/5/99 David Shuster Freeper Shethink13 "Starr is looking into whether the WH has illegally withheld subpoenaed documents. The OIC vigorously denied they were the source of leaks about indicted the President. Also, denied there was any wiretapping or monitoring of phones that would lead them to suspect there were undisclosed phone calls.."

Houston Chronicle Lizette Alvarez New York Times 2/5/99 ".Since they crossed the divide between the House and Senate, the 13 House prosecutors in the impeachment trial have faced a string of hurdles before a Senate eager to shoosh them up, politely, but unfailingly. Publicly and privately, they have been lambasted for their zealousness, criticized for their political naivete and strong-armed into ditching their grandiose plans for a "full trial." A self-righteous bunch, critics say. ."We really are coming from different worlds," said Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., one of the House managers, referring to the House and the Senate. "From the very beginning we're thinking like, a real trial, and they are thinking in terms of the unique procedures.. But nick the surface, and prosecutors say it has been difficult not to smell a whiff of condescension from the well-scrubbed Senate, no matter how courtly their manner. .It was clear to McCollum that senators screen the Senate chamber, searching for breaches of decorum, just as mothers at a debutante ball might crane their necks to root out undesirables. That attitude, he said, helped stymie the prosecutors' case for witnesses, especially Lewinsky. "They just didn't want to, as White House counsel said, sully the Senate floor," McCollum said. "I didn't agree with that. It's a Senate thing, I guess." Hyde best summed up the relationship between the Senate and the 13 prosecutors, at least through the eyes of the prosecutors. "You view us as reformed alcoholics," Hyde said. "You're very proud of what we attempted to do in our lives. You just don't want us hanging out on the porch all that long.."

Judicial Watch 2/10/99 ".While Judicial Watch has two lawsuits against the Department of Justice for its failure to produce documents concerning Janet Reno's refusal to appoint an independent counsel in the Chinagate scandal, as well as its malfeasance concerning Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Olympic bombing fiascos, it intends to increase its efforts to "bring justice to the Clinton Justice Department." "A number of legal actions and ethics complaints are in progress or in the works to address the rampant politicization of the Justice Department under Janet Reno and Eric Holder, which has resulted in the widespread failure of the agency to do its job as the nation's top law enforcement agency. As a once proud alumnus, I am appalled and sickened by the misconduct of the Justice Department during the Clinton Administration," stated Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman. Among the illegal or unethical actions of Janet Reno, Eric Holder and their staff during their reign at the Clinton Justice Department, are: 1. The attempt to silence a key witness in the Chinagate scandal, Nolanda Hill, by various retaliatory and unethical actions. 2. The repeated failure to appoint an independent counsel in the Chinagate scandal. 3. The threatened use of criminal process to settle civil litigation in the Chinagate scandal. 4. Litigation misconduct by Reno's and Holders' hand-picked attorneys by coaching witnesses to not tell the full truth, as well as the use of speaking objections to tip them off when important questions are pending in civil litigation detrimental to the Clinton Administration. 5. The suppression of evidence in civil litigation detrimental to the Clinton Administration."

DRUDGE REPORT 2/13/99 ".The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that there is growing division on Capitol Hill over whether to release all of the remaining material given to Congress by investigators. The material is stored in a secret room in the Ford Building on The Hill. Files and reports on all of the Jane Does; graphic details never told about the Clinton/Lewinsky mess. While one side wants to release all of the material gathered during the year long Lewinsky investigation, others are fighting such a move, demanding privacy for those caught in the headlights.."

Washington Weekly 2/15/99 Marvin Lee "."I am under a gag order not to speak to the press," says Matthew King of the San Francisco office of the U.S. Bureau of Customs. King was a participant in the "Dragon Fire" sting operation that netted Chinese gun smugglers in 1996. In 1997, before the gag order was issued, King managed to explain to reporters for Vanity Fair that the ultimate goal of the Dragon Fire operation was to arrest top Chinese Communist officials such as Wang Jun, who were engaged in massive weapons smuggling to the United States:.. But for some reason, the Dragon Fire sting operation was leaked to the press before Matthew King and his BATF colleague Dick Stoltz managed to get to the top of the military industrial complex of Communist China and nail Wang Jun and his lieutenants. What King and Stoltz did not know at the time, but was later revealed through the Chinagate investigation, is that Wang Jun visited the White House just one month before the press leak that aborted the Dragon Fire sting operation. The visit had been arranged by Chinese agent and Clinton friend Charlie Trie and Clinton friend Ernest Green. Trie has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton and his legal defense fund on behalf of the People's Republic of China, and Ernest Green's wife, on the day of Wang Jun's White House visit, donated $50,000 to the Democratic National Committee [1].."

Email Charles Smith 2/18/99 Freeper reports ".In what can only be described as a swift, total and stunning victory - SOFTWAR defeated the Clinton administration in Federal Court today. During a pre- trial hearing, Richmond Federal Judge Robert Payne ordered the Commerce Dept. to deliver all documents in reference to the Chinese Army Unit COSTIND within 60 days. Judge Payne's ruling came after Joan Evans, Assistant United States Attorney representing the Commerce Dept., failed to show a reasonable cause to withhold the documents. Judge Payne called the Clinton administration defense arguments "too weak". Judge Payne also noted that the Commerce Dept. had defined the Freedom of Information request by Softwar to be as tiny "as a BB pellet". "I want you to open this up all the way," Payne ordered the Justice lawyer. "I want it full bore, double barrel, 12 gauge, shotgun open. I want everything." ..According to the GAO, "COSTIND" - the Chinese Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense, "oversees development of China's weapon systems and is responsible for identifying and acquiring telecommunications technology applicable for military use." ."

Scripps Howard News Service 2/18/99 Michael Hedges Rachel Smolkin ".Two Clinton Cabinet officials likely will be held in contempt of court within days for their roles in a civil suit which charged that American Indian trust funds had been mismanaged, officials involved in the case said. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin also may be sanctioned for failing to turn over records ordered by a federal judge in a case involving billions of dollars the government has put in the Indian funds. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth apparently has decided to hold Babbitt and Rubin in contempt -- a rarity for Cabinet secretaries -- and will issue an order in the near future, said an official involved in the case.."

WorldNetDaily 2/19/99 Stephan Archer ".The Clinton administration suffered a blow yesterday as a federal district court judge ordered the U.S. Commerce Department to turn over documents that could incriminate members of the White House in the Chinagate scandal. Charles Smith, a WorldNetDaily columnist well known for investigative work in the area of military technology, along with his company, Softwar, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Commerce Department for materials on COSTIND -- the Chinese Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense -- in an effort to uncover the illegal trading of military secrets between the United States and China. The Commerce Department initially turned down his request stating the documents didn't exist and that even if they did, they would be labeled as "top secret" due to national security reasons. Smith, however, had already received some of the documents from the Commerce Department and knew they existed. Thus, he appealed his turned down request. When the Commerce Department again turned him down, he filed a lawsuit. At the pre-trial hearings yesterday, Judge Robert Payne immediately ruled against the Commerce Department saying that Assistant United States Attorney Joan Evans failed to show a reasonable cause to withhold Commerce's documents. "He (the judge) immediately wagged his finger at Commerce's lawyer for even trying to withhold the documents for 'national security' reasons," Smith said. "I want you to open this up all the way," Payne ordered Evans. "I want it full bore, double barrel, 12-gauge, shotgun open. I want everything." ."

NY Times 2/21/99 Philip Shenon "...Reversing itself for a second time, the Pentagon has demanded that Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector, provide it with an advance copy of a book in which he is expected to accuse the Clinton administration of hindering the search for evidence of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons...."

Wall Street Journal 2/29/99 Excerpt "...It was this matter that the White House spokesmen and others point to when dismissing her account. Her lawyer, Republican state Sen. Bill Walters, prepared the affidavit--the model for which he says he got from White House lawyer Bruce Lindsey, who was happy to oblige. Her lawyers, Mrs. Broaddrick relates, didn't actually know the facts--that the sexual advances in question were very far from consensual. Her goal was to keep out of everything...." Freeper curtarmy observes "...Who called Whom?..."

Judicial Watch Motion 2/19/99 Petition to Court "...The notes, which were marked as Clinton Deposition Exhibit 13, contain numerous false statements by both Mr. Clinton and Marsha Scott. The false statements by Marsha Scott were undoubtedly a calculated attempt by Mr. Clinton to furnish his own corroboration. However, brand new evidence, some of which is discussed herein, shows conclusively that Mr. Clinton testified falsely in the Jones case, produced false evidence, and suborned false statements from Marsha Scott in order to bolster his own false statements. Mr. Clinton's willful and intentional misconduct before this Court not only severely obstructed the administration of justice in the Jones case, it defamed Mrs. Browning and impugned her truthful testimony. Mrs. Browning seeks relief from and petitions this Court for swift action. She asks that it promptly institute criminal contempt proceedings, issue to Mr. Clinton an order to show cause, hold a trial, and make findings on these matters. She also asks the Court to determine whether Mr. Clinton's counsel participated in and/or facilitated the contemptuous conduct at issue, and the appropriate sanctions, if necessary. Finally, Mrs. Browning requests that Mr. Clinton's false testimony and evidence concerning her be stricken from the record, the entire court record be forwarded to all applicable state bar associations and courts, and the Court award her attorneys' fees and costs for the preparation, filing, and advocacy of this petition, as well as all other relief the Court deems appropriate..."

Judicial Watch Press Release 2/23/99 "...Judicial Watch filed in federal court on February 20 a Motion For Order To Show Cause Why George Stephanopoulos Should Not Be Held In Contempt. The motion was filed hours after Stephanopoulos refused to answer questions about a Court-ordered document search and unilaterally walked out of a deposition. George Stephanopoulos was redeposed in Judicial Watch's $90 million class action lawsuit filed on behalf of the Reagan and Bush officials whose FBI files were improperly obtained and used by the Clinton White House. Mr. Stephanopoulos was in a central position in the Clinton White House during Filegate -- and in particular when the scandal broke, playing a key role in damage control. He is therefore an important witness. Mr. Stephanopoulos was ordered by the Court to reapppear for deposition, because the Court found not only that he had not done a search for documents before the last round of testimony, but that he also was not truthful about it. With regard to his prior testimony about a document search, the Court found that Stephanopoulos's "claims of memory loss are simply not believable" and "that some of his deposition testimony on this point is not truthful." As a result, Mr. Stephanopoulos was ordered to conduct a "second search," as well as to pay attorneys fees and costs. Mr. Stephanopoulos appeared for the Court-ordered deposition dressed in an inappropriately casual manner, despite it being a court proceeding. More importantly, Mr. Stephanopoulos did not produce a single document. During the deposition, Mr. Stephanopoulos again gave testimony showing that he had not done an adequate second search, as ordered by the Court nearly one year ago. When Judicial Watch lawyers sought to probe him about specific aspects of the second search as ordered by the Court, he refused to answer questions and unilaterally walked out of the deposition. "Contemptuous conduct is endemic to this Administration," stated Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch Chairman. "What Judicial Watch seeks from Mr. Stephanopoulos is immediate compliance with the Court's orders and our subpoena."..."

UPI2/24/99 "…The Justice Department is likely to resist if the three-judge panel that appoints independent counsels decides to intervene in an upcoming department investigation of allegations against independent counsel Kenneth Starr and his office, United Press International has learned. The three-judge panel issued an order last Friday telling the department and Starr's office to at least respond to a filing by a conservative foundation that challenges the Justice Department's authority to investigate Starr. One source told UPI that department officials are considering "whether there's even proper jurisdiction (for the panel to require the responses) or whether the the (independent counsel) statute provides for something like this." …"

Wall Street Journal 2/26/99 Editorial "...What an odd period we have entered upon. The impeachment and all that is "behind us." We watched for months as a great political herd thundered past -- the office of the Independent Counsel, a President and his legal outriders, a House, a Senate, a whole chorus of cable pundits. Solons as diverse as Asa Hutchinson and Dan Rather told us it is time to "move on." And then Juanita Broaddrick appeared. Incendiary as is Mrs. Broaddrick's charge of rape, we are struck by what an austere and stark presence she is.... Now what? Well, the President is not going to be impeached, tried, indicted or anything else. He won't resign. Those avenues are behind us. But he is going to be assessed....The loudest sound being heard in politics just now is the Democrats' silence. It seems never-ending. We thought one of them would speak out during the Presidential campaign, but they never did. Senator Lieberman gave his famous speech, seconded by Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerrey. Then came the votes on impeachment and conviction, and the Democrats gathered themselves into a cement wall of support for the Clinton Presidency. None, it appears, is willing to address the Broaddrick accusation. In time, the Democrats may pay a price for this. They bring to mind Cicero's searing remark during a trial before the Roman Senate: With their silence, they condemn you. The Democrats have flipped that for their leader: With their silence, they acquit you..."

Freeper A+Bert 2/29/99 Lisa Meyers and 40 questions to Bill Clinton Meet the press-NBC "…MS. MYERS: Well, about 19 days before the story aired, we sent the White House a letter requesting basically any information they had about Juanita Broaddrick, any reason she should not be believed, and we also asked for any information they had about the president's whereabouts on six days in April and May of 1978; one of the dates was April the 25th, the day we believe the alleged incident occurred. And we kept waiting for information from the White House. We also asked not only where Bill Clinton was that day, we asked, "Did he know Juanita Broaddrick? Had he ever been in a hotel with her? Had he ever had any intimate sexual contact? Did he apologize to her in 1991, as she claims?" And we got back the two-sentence denial from David Kendall, and that's it…."

Judicial Watch Motion 2/26/99 "…Stephanopoulos has failed to provide any proper justification for unilaterally terminating his February 20, 1999 deposition and walking out. The questions asked by Plaintiffs’ counsel were relevant to Stephanopoulos’ understanding of his obligations under the Court’s May 28, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order and his search for responsive documents. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions were designed to elicit information about what kinds of documents and materials Stephanopoulos has in his possession, custody and control, where such documents and materials are located, and whether they were searched. Such questions are a perfectly proper way to conduct a deposition about a document search. Stephanopoulos’ efforts to portray Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questioning otherwise are simply disingenuous, especially because Plaintiffs’ counsel even put the reasons for his questions on the record. When it became readily apparent that Stephanopoulos had not conducted an adequate search, he became increasingly belligerent, insisted on answering only questions about his clearly inadequate, February 16, 1999 search of his Columbia University office, then walked out -- after forecasting that he would do so throughout the deposition. It is clear that Stephanopoulos simply failed -- yet again -- to conduct an adequate search for responsive documents. This time, however, he knowingly violated a court order. Consequently, not only must Stephanopoulos’ motion for a protective order be denied, but he must also be found in contempt for knowingly violating the Court’s May 28, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order and fined $10,000 per day until he undertakes an adequate search and makes himself available for yet a third time…."

 

The Washington Times 3/3/99 Bill Sammon Nancy Roman Freeper A Whitewater Researcher "…EXCERPTS: "The White House yesterday refused to budge from its position of silence on Juanita Broaddrick's accusation that...Clinton raped her in 1978, but aides are quietly concerned that the controversy won't go away....cable TV outlets, Internet gossip sites and major polling organizations have seemed to breathe new life into the scandal....The Clinton administration, which has often made news b y issuing wordy and varied versions of "no comment" on other touchy subjects, stuck uncharacteristically close to its script yesterday. Barry Toiv, the White House deputy press secretary, steadfastly referred reporters to a terse denial issued last month by Clinton attorney David E. Kendall....at yesterday's White House press briefing...Another reporter said polls are showing that Americans find Mrs. Broaddrick's charges credible, and asked: "Is he still going to have a press conference this month? I mean , eventually, doesn't he have to address this?"..."That's up to you all," Mr. Toiv said...." ,,,:

Judicial Watch 3/3/99 "…Janet Reno was forced by court order to provide Judicial Watch access to the originals of John Huang's desk calendars. …. The calendars detail John Huang's involvement in Asian policy, trade missions, briefings, meetings with foreign officials, other figures embroiled in the Chinagate scandal, and contacts with the White House and the DNC. Various media outlets, including Fox News in a documentary entitled "John Huang: In His Own Words," of October 24, 1997, have credited Judicial Watch with uncovering John Huang over two years ago, sparking the Chinagate scandal. Huang will be deposed again by Judicial Watch soon. As of this date, neither Congress nor Janet Reno's Justice Department have questioned Huang…"

Judicial Watch Press Release 3/05/99 "…Judicial Watch yesterday asked a federal court to appoint U.S. marshals to serve Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey with a civil complaint filed by Dolly Kyle Browning against him, Bill Clinton and others…. The President and other defendants in the lawsuit, including Bob Bennett, Marsha Scott, and Jane Mayer and The New Yorker magazine, have already accepted service of the lawsuit. Judicial Watch served Lindsey (along with the President) at the White House and attempted unsuccessfully to serve Bruce Lindsey personally at least seven times at his residence. All the while, Mr. Lindsey sent a number of letters to Judicial Watch, threatening it and refusing to acknowledge service…."

New York Times 3/06/99 Jeff Gerth "… At the Energy Department, officials waited more than a year to act on the FBI's 1997 recommendations to improve security at the weapons laboratories and restrict the suspect's access to classified information, officials said. The department's chief of intelligence, who raised the first alarm about the case, was ordered last year by senior officials not to tell Congress about his findings because critics might use them to attack the administration's China policies, officials said…. White House officials, for example, said they determined on learning of it that the Chinese spying would have no bearing on the administration's dealings with China, which included the increased exports of satellites and other militarily useful items. They continued to advocate looser controls over sales of supercomputers and other equipment, even as intelligence analysts documented the scope of China's espionage…. "

New York Times 3/06/99 Jeff Gerth "…In August 1997, Berger flew to Beijing to prepare for the October summit. He assigned Samore, a senior NSC aide in charge of proliferation issues, to assess the damage from the Los Alamos spy case. After receiving a briefing from Trulock in August, Samore asked the CIA's directorate of intelligence to get a second opinion on how China had developed its smaller nuclear warheads. It was, an NSC aide said, "a quick study done at our request." …CIA officials strenuously deny that the agency's analysts intended to downplay Trulock's findings. The FBI inquiry was stalled. At a September 1997 meeting between FBI and Energy Department officials, Freeh concluded that the bureau did not have enough evidence to arrest the suspect, according to officials…. But the suspect was allowed to keep his job and retain his security clearances for more than a year after the meeting with Freeh, according to U.S. officials…. "

New York Times 3/06/99 Jeff Gerth "…The administration explained aspects of the case to aides working for the House and Senate intelligence committees beginning in 1996. But few in Congress grasped the magnitude of what had happened. In July 1998, the House Intelligence Committee requested an update on the case, officials said. Trulock forwarded the request in a memo to, and in conversations with, Elizabeth Moler, then acting energy secretary. Ms. Moler ordered him not to brief the House panel for fear that the information would be used to attack the president's China policy, according to an account he later gave congressional investigators… In October, Ms. Moler, then deputy secretary, stopped Trulock from delivering written testimony on espionage activities in the labs to a closed session of the House National Security Committee. Ms. Moler told Trulock to rewrite his testimony to limit it to the announced subject of the hearing, foreign visitors to the labs, an Energy Department spokeswoman said…."

The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/ 3/8/99 Jerry Seper Freeper A Whitewater Researcher "…EXCERPTS: "Susan McDougal once again faces a Little Rock jury today, this time facing criminal contempt charges for refusing to testify on whether...Clinton lied about an illegal $300,000 loan she received in 1986....Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr is accusing Mrs. McDougal, former business partner with the Clintons in the Whitewater land deal, of twice refusing to answer questions before a grand jury on whether Mr. Clinton knew about the loan and if he lied about it under oath in the first Whitewater trial....A 12-page indictment named Mrs. McDougal on two counts of criminal contempt and one count of obstruction of justice.... The indictment, handed up in U.S. District Court in Little Rock, came after the White House refused requests by Mr. Starr to intercede and encourage Mrs. McDougal to testify.... Charles W. Bakaly III, spokesman for Mr. Starr, said the Office of Independent Counsel repeatedly asked Mr. Clinton to urge his former business partner and longtime friend to testify, but the requests were rejected...." …"

 

Orange County Register 3/5/99 "…Rep. Christopher Cox recently sent the White House a 30-page overview of his China select committee report, which he believes could be released to the public without compromising national security. The White House approved three sentences…."

Original Sources 3/9/99 Mary Mostert "… In 1996 Bill Clinton told reporters he was "not told about the June 1996 FBI warnings of Communist Chinese involvement in the 1996 presidential election." However, it was later learned that president Clinton not only KNEW about it, but that he subsequently made a thwarted attempt to obtain the counterintelligence information about what the FBI had learned of the Communist Chinese influence on the presidential election in November of 1996. Charles Ruff, Clinton legal counsel who most recently defended him in the Senate Impeachment trial, made the FBI contact. Ruff contacted Janet Reno's deputy Jamie Gorelick and wanted to know what federal investigators knew or suspected about Chinese illegal contributions to the presidential campaign. However, when FBI director Freeh learned of the White House probe by Gorelick, he ordered the information not be provided to Clinton, federal law enforcement officials told the Daily Republican in 1997. In a New York Times story Ruff was quoted as telling Gorelick he was seeking the information on behalf of the National Security Council…. However, law enforcement officials pointed out that Ruff's request was received only after FBI director Freeh had left Washington on a trip to the Middle East. In his absence, attorney general Janet Reno and Gorelick quickly moved to obtain the secret FBI files. Before the Justice Department turned over the FBI files to Clinton's legal counsel, Robert Bryant, then head of the FBI national security division, picked up the telephone and informed Freeh of Clinton's probe for the secret files on the Chinese investigation. Freeh ordered the files withheld. And people wonder how come the Senate of the United States was never able to get Janet Reno to obey the law of the land and appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Chinese money that helped get Clinton and Gore elected…."

New York Times 3/10/99 Jeff Gerth Eric Schmitt "…The Clinton administration and congressional Republicans are wrangling over how much information to make public about official findings that China acquired some of the most sensitive American military technology…In recent weeks the discussions have become increasingly tense. They are now taking on a more partisan tone, and the issue is providing ammunition to critics of President Clinton's China policy in the days leading up to important talks between Beijing and Washington…. A Republican member of the panel, Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, said in an interview Tuesday: "They're trying to spin this thing to get the best play for themselves and avoid further embarrassment. They want to drag it out as long as long as they can. I'm so mad I can't see straight." …Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, has suggested that the Senate might consider contempt charges against administration officials if they do not cooperate sufficiently with the committee. He did not specify the target of contempt charges or explain his legal reasoning. …Last month, the White House released a redacted version of the committee's recommendations but with little input from the committee, members said. A few days later, Cox and the panel's ranking Democrat, Norman Dicks, of Washington, sent a letter to President Clinton requesting a meeting to discuss the report. The White House has not yet replied to their letter…."

Omaha World Herald 3/10/99 Editorial Board "…Bereuter has said before that two American companies, Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics Corp., have broken the law in the 1990s by giving China access to unauthorized technological materials. Both companies contract with China to launch satellites. China uses the same type of missile for commercial and military launches, Bereuter said, so Loral and Hughes are subject to restrictions on how much they can help China improve its missile technology. He said the companies are required to keep satellite technology to themselves. Bereuter suspects that Loral and Hughes shared prohibited missile and satellite technology. He said he believes Loral was especially brazen in violating national security laws in order to curry better business relations with China. When congressional investigators tried to pursue the matter, Bereuter said, the Justice Department told them to back off, that Justice was conducting its own criminal investigation. That, Bereuter said, does not inspire confidence. He said Justice may be shielding Loral rather investigating it. He noted that Bernard Schwartz, Loral's chairman, was the largest individual donor to the Democratic Party last year and has given the party more than $1 million in recent years…."

Washington Times 3/12/99 Bill Gertz "…


The Pentagon said Thursday that disclosures about Chinese spying at a U.S. nuclear laboratory will not alter plans to bring a group of People's Liberation Army officers to a similar laboratory in New Mexico this year. "At this point, I know of no plan to cut back on our military-to-military contacts," said Pentagon spokesman Capt. Michael Doubleday. In Antigua, Guatemala, President Clinton Thursday denied charges by congressional Republicans that his administration ignored Chinese espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where U.S. nuclear-warhead secrets leaked to Beijing's agents in the 1980s. "We did not ignore evidence," Mr. Clinton said during the last day of a visit to Central America. "Quite the contrary, we acted on it. I think the record is that we acted aggressively."…"I believe the record is clear that we did respond in an appropriate way," Mr. Clinton said. The president also rejected calls for Mr. Berger to resign….At the Justice Department, Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Thursday the administration was not slow in responding to the spying accusations and that the inquiry was given the "highest priority." He also denied that political considerations delayed the probe….Mr. Rohrabacher first uncovered the Pentagon's program of expanded military contacts with China last month. He asked Mr. Cohen in a recent letter why the Pentagon has agreed to help Chinese military officials learn about U.S. military logistics and support and weapons-acquisition programs…."

Fox News 3/15/99 Jim Abrams AP "…Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., told NBC that the spy case called for a serious review of U.S.-China policy, including a warning to China that a missile attack on Taiwan would be met with U.S. retaliation. Other Republicans said they would fight administration resistance to make public almost all of the report on technology transfers prepared by a special panel headed by Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif. "We will have to have a vote of the House in order to declassify that report, and when the American people see what's in it, I think they will be really outraged,'' House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said on "Fox News Sunday.''…"

New York Times 3/15/99 William Safire "…A few questions to the committees holding closed hearings this week: The White House line is that Congress was adequately briefed on this 17 times. If true, were the intelligence "Big Four" properly forewarned and did they then fail in their oversight responsibilities? Representative Chris Cox tells me no: "Our committee expressly found the Administration failed to comply with National Security Act requirements for keeping Congress informed. To claim otherwise is outrageous." …"

Washington Post 3/15/99 Howard Kurtz page C01 "… On Thursday, March 4, the New York Times was all set to unload a lengthy story about Chinese theft of U.S. nuclear secrets but held up at the request of the FBI. The next day FBI officials again asked for a delay, but this time the paper refused. The front-page Saturday story said among other things that the main suspect -- a Chinese American computer scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory whom the paper declined to name -- had failed a lie detector test. Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld said FBI officials justified the initial request for delay "on grounds that they had an appointment to question this alleged suspect on Friday. They had set it up in a very low-key way. We knew things that he didn't know -- in particular that he had flunked his second polygraph, and that they were aware of a trip that he was supposed to take to Shanghai." ….It is rare but hardly unprecedented for editors to agree to a law enforcement request to hold off on a story that might damage an ongoing investigation or military operation…. When the FBI renewed its request on the China story, Lelyveld sent word that he would consider it only if FBI Director Louis Freeh called him personally. Lelyveld waited until 7 p.m., but no call came, so the Times went ahead with a story that exploded with maximum political force. Two days later the government fired the suspect, Wen Ho Lee, who refused to cooperate with the FBI probe…."

South China Morning Post 3/16/99 Agence France Press "…Whip Tom DeLay said the House of Representatives would vote on declassifying the so-called Cox Report - named after Republican congressman Christopher Cox - in two weeks. "We will have to have a vote of the House in order to declassify that report, and when the American people see what's in it, I think they will be really outraged," he said. "I don't know how much of it will be declassified, but a significant amount will be and the American people will see what's been going on for the past six years."…"

Fox News Channel 3/17/99 Renee Schilhab "…Reno frustrated committee members on both sides of the aisle by her repeated refusal to answer questions posed by committee members about Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth R. Starr or any other special counsel. "I do not think I can address that issue now and not interfere with the investigation and matters being handled by the independent counsel," Reno told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who inquired about the expansion of Starr's original Whitewater Investigation. The Justice Department currently is investigating how Starr handled his investigations.

A clearly frustrated Specter unsuccessfully pressed Reno for a response, but she stuck by her refusal to comment. "What is the interference?" he asked. "This is a closed matter. There are representations you've made on the record." …"

 

Albion Recorder 3/20/99 Meghan Murphy "…Thursday night in Albion College's Olin Hall, David Schippers, chief investigator in the U.S. House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry of President Clinton, spoke on the process that he and his staff went through during the investigation….. The auditorium fell into a mass gasp as Schippers gave a shocking example of a conversation that proved just that. Less than half an hour after senators had taken their oath to uphold justice in our country while conducting the impeachment trial, he witnessed the following conversation between Committee Chair Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), and a Senator Schippers declined to identify. "Henry, you know no matter what ya' got, you'll never get 67 votes," the Senator said. Hyde retorted by saying that the evidence they had is very strong. "I don't care if the president raped a woman and then stood up and shot her dead," said the Senator. "You will not get 67 votes."…"

Washington Weekly 4/5/99 Marvin Lee "...On November 8, 1995, at a presidential luncheon at the "Car Barn" in Georgetown, an unusual constellation of guests were in attendance: Charlie Trie, Ng Lap Seng and Eric Green met Richard Mays and Eric Wynn. Also attending was then-Commerce Secretary Ron Brown who addressed the assembled people as "The Trie Team," and said that "big business helps us everywhere." What is "The Trie Team"? We know from Timperlake & Triplett's book "Year of the Rat" that Trie and Lap Seng are members of the "Four Seasons" Triad gang of Chinese organized crime. We also know that Trie is a long-time friend of Bill Clinton. Another long-time friend of Clinton is Richard Mays, a Little Rock lawyer whose name has appeared in the Whitewater and tainted blood scandals as well as the investigation into the death of White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster. He is also a fundraiser for Clinton who has repeatedly solicited money from people reported by the Washington Post to be tied to U.S. organized crime: Eric Wynn and Richard Tienken. Mays has also successfully raised campaign contributions from Charlie Trie. The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee during its Campaign Finance investigation obtained a video tape of the Car Barn event in Georgetown. During a recently released deposition of Richard Mays, David A. Kass, Investigative Counsel for the Committee asked about the Car Barn event. Mays did not seem comfortable testifying about the event that was co-chaired by himself and Charlie Trie, and had no explanation for why participants apparently had tried to hide photos from the event showing President Clinton and several top DNC officials socializing with members of U.S. and Chinese organized crime. Mays admitted during the deposition to giving Eric Wynn "free legal advice." Mays left for Africa when the Committee later subpoenaed him to testify during Campaign Finance hearings....What is the link between U.S. and Chinese organized crime? The Car Barn event may be providing the answer. It was a fundraising event. Could it be that U.S. and Chinese organized crime serve as one of the funnels of cash between the Chinese military and the Clinton administration? The Chinese military - Lt. Colonel Liu Chaoying - Johnny Chung - White House channel could not possibly have paid for all the military technology obtained from the Clinton administration by the People's Liberation Army...."

World Net Daily through Softwar.net 4/13/99 through E-Mail Alert "... According to a May 1995 CSPP document sent to Ron Brown, "controls on computer exports to Russia and China for commercial, civil end-users should be eliminated; controls on exports for actual military end-uses may be appropriate until there is greater certainty that neither country poses a threat to U.S. national security." ...According to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) the Commerce Dept. was required to make public disclosure if a government agency consults advisors who are not government employees. FACA was established to force Federal officials to hold formal policy meetings in public, instead of meeting with special interests, lobbyists and industry behind closed doors. The Commerce Dept. was legally obliged to offer open access to the public, media and other qualified individuals the same access as the members of the CSPP - who are NOT members of the Federal Government. Instead, the Commerce Dept. engaged in a cover-up of the secret meetings with the CSPP and Podesta Associates employees at the White House. No notification was issued for the secret meetings, nor the classified materials offered to any other company...."

udicial Watch Press Release 4/13/99 "...John Huang and his attorneys, despite several opportunities to advise the Court in the last several months, attempted to assert the Fifth Amendment today. When asked if he was truthful during the first deposition session on October 29, 1999, Huang refused to respond. When asked if he had received a copy of the subpoena and notice of deposition requiring his attendance today, Huang refused to respond. When asked if he had produced documents in response to subpoena, Huang refused to respond. This caused counsel for Judicial Watch to comment that he would probably assert the privilege on the color of his tie. The deposition has been adjourned and reset for Thursday, April 15, 1999, to allow Judicial Watch to move the Court to force Mr. Huang to testify. Judicial Watch asserts that Mr. Huang has waived any claim of Fifth Amendment privilege by previously testifying, among other grounds -- even if properly asserted, which it was not. At the end of the session today, Huang and his attorneys attempted to enjoin release of the transcript and videotape of the deposition, claiming that public release amounts to "McCarthyism." Previously, Huang's counsel sarcastically commented when asserting the Fifth, that even Asian Americans are entitled to do so. The Magistrate Judge instructed Huang's counsel to make no further comments like this. Indeed, prior documentation obtained from the DNC shows that the "race card" was devised or discussed by its Chairmen after Huang was first deposed on October 29, 1996. Later, President Clinton made similar comments in public to deflect the exploding interest by the media in the Chinagate scandal.Prior to being originally deposed, Huang ran from U.S. Marshals seeking to serve him with a subpoena...."

World Net Daily through Softwar.net 4/13/99 through E-Mail Alert "... The White House secret meetings with the CSPP are of the same magnitude as Hillary Clinton's secret meetings on health care, except the subject here is global thermonuclear war. Perhaps the American public might consider the "fall-out" from the political access of the CSPP before purchasing an Apple, IBM, or Compaq computer. The Commerce Dept. serviced the original CSPP request by this reporter in October 1998 with a "final" response. However, Commerce left out all materials with any reference to "Podesta Associates". This reporter appealed the Commerce Dept.'s inadequate "final" response, and included examples of "missing" documents on Podesta Associates. In March 1999, the Commerce Dept. discovered an additional "33" documents. The Commerce Dept.'s 1999 discovery included hundreds of new pages of materials not found during the "final" search done in 1998. Commerce also denied access to some of these newly discovered documents for a variety of FOIA exemptions....."

USA Today 4/13/99 AP "...Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., criticized Moler before the hearing for working to block and then trying to water down security reforms at the labs he sought in 1998. Moler, deputy secretary from July 1997 and acting secretary in 1998 until Bill Richardson took over the department, insisted she was ''an enthusiastic supporter of taking aggressive action to protect our nation's most important secrets.'' Trulock said he was also thwarted by Energy Department officials in 1997 when he recommended changes in counterintelligence policies. ''They were ignored, they were minimized and occasionally even ridiculed,'' he told the panel. He said officials urged him to bury the Los Alamos case, arguing that it was of historical interest only and would harm the credibility of the labs. A Taiwan-born American is suspected, but has not been charged, in the passing of nuclear weapons technology to the Chinese...... Democrats on the panel said the FBI, which is in charge of the criminal investigation at Los Alamos, and other intelligence agencies had briefed Congress 19 times on the case, and questioned GOP attempts to find fault with the administration. Nine congressional committees are looking into the Chinese espionage issue, said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. ''There's an appearance or a perception that we've got a piling-on here by the Congress,'' he said...."

Knight-Ridder Story 4/13/99 Steven Thomas Freeper Tom T "...But two other airmen refused to comment when asked about Clinton's visit or the military mission in Yugoslavia. Clinton, who avoided the Vitename War draft, has often been treated with suspicion or outright hostility by many members of the armed services. Saying they were acting under White House orders, Air Force officers stopped several reporters from conducting interviews with military personnel and civilians after Clinton's public speech. Air Force officer summoned guards and threatened to forcibly expel one reporter from the base when he persisted in asking questions of airmen and families who lingered after Clinton's speech. White House spokesman P.J. Crowley said he was unaware of the order and it was a mistake..."

Washington Post 4/13/99 Dan Burton and Dan Miller "...The March 24 op-ed piece by Commerce Secretary William M. Daley made clear the administration's policy on conducting the census: Make excuses, delay the details and ignore the facts. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are working to abide by the law and push for an accurate and legal count. Here are some pesky facts the administration would like to ignore: In accordance with a fiscal year 1998 appropriations agreement, the Census Bureau was required to prepare for the 2000 decennial census on a dual track while awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of sampling. In other words, the bureau was to plan for one census using traditional enumeration methods and another employing statistical adjustments. On Jan. 25 the Supreme Court did indeed find the use of statistical sampling for reapportionment of the House of Representatives illegal. This ruling upheld two unanimous federal court rulings. The Census Bureau didn't obey the law. To date, with less than 12 months remaining before census day, the bureau has not given Congress a plan or an estimated budget. On Jan. 27 the America Counts Today (ACT) Initiative was unveiled. It is a dramatic set of initiatives designed to increase local involvement and count everyone in the 2000 decennial census. It focuses on common-sense approaches that will ensure an accurate, reliable and honest head count in 2000..... Another measure, H.R. 928, would encourage an increased mail response by providing households a second chance to fill out their census form. The Census Bureau's own research indicates that the second questionnaire can increase mail response rates up to 6 percent. That is roughly 19 million people, or the population of the entire state of New York. H.R. 929, the "Language Barrier Removal Act" would provide census questionnaires in a myriad of languages to increase response levels. The short form questionnaire would be printed in 33 languages and English Braille, thereby allowing any household, upon request, to receive that requested version of the form..... H.R. 472, the "Local Census Quality Check Act of 1999," would reinstate the highly successful Post Census Local Review program used in 1990. This program affords local officials a last quality check of census numbers before they are made final.... Because the administration has chosen to waste valuable resources on an unproven statistical sampling scheme and not devote its full energy to an actual enumeration mandated by the Supreme Court, the Census Bureau is opposed to three of these common-sense proposals that would add real people to the count. The administration must stop putting politics over public policy. We challenge the White House, the Census Bureau and congressional Democrats to do the right thing and put partisanship aside in an effort to work together to save the 2000 census...."

AP 4/12/99 "...A federal judge on Monday found President Clinton in contempt of court in a ruling stemming from his testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled the president in contempt for ``willful failure'' to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully. ``The court takes no pleasure whatsoever in holding this nation's president in contempt of court,'' the judge said in her order. The judge said, ``The record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the president responded to plaintiffs' questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.'' Wright said Mrs. Jones was entitled to information regarding any state or federal employee with whom the president had or proposed to have sexual relations...."

Washington Times 4/19/99 Joyce Howard Price "...The congressmen who headed an investigation of Chinese espionage in the United States yesterday criticized the Clinton administration for keeping a too-tight seal on their report. Lawmakers have been struggling to declassify a report on Chinese thefts of U.S. nuclear secrets and recently extended the original March 31 deadline until the end of this month..... Mr. Cox said that declassification has been a tedious process, and that negotiations are being carried out "word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph." "When there is an administration objection [to releasing something in the report] based on source or method of intelligence gathering, we have to walk back that claim and check out who is the source, what needs to be protected, and find if there isn't a way to write around it," the chairman said. He said the committee understands those objections but not some others that have been put forth recently by the Department of Energy, which runs the nuclear weapons labs, where spying has gone on. "Recently we've found that even though we reached agreement with the CIA or the FBI, the Department of Energy will have an objection, not based on sources or methods, but based on some other ground," Mr. Cox said. He argued that "those kinds of objections not based on sources and methods are not proper," if declassification of the report is the "legitimate aim here."..."

Wall Street Journal 4/19/99 Jonathan Turley re: Susan Webber Wright's decision "...A federal judge was holding a president in contempt of court: an historic moment. The opinion was loaded with barbed language and findings of willful misconduct. Yet the most intriguing line may be the most innocuous: "It was during the President's televised address that the Court first learned the President may be in contempt of court." This one line could prove the most controversial part of Judge Wright's opinion and the issue upon which her own role in the crisis will be judged. It isn't the content but the date of Judge Wright's decision that is troubling. Judge Wright makes clear that the date of the opinion was no judicial snafu of poor timing or indecision. Judge Wright noted that Mr. Clinton's contempt was obvious and hardly required "extended analysis." Yet she decided to withhold judgment as the impeachment battle unfolded and finally ended with acquittal. At the very moment in history where an independent court ruling was most needed, she decided to remain silent. The reference to the president's speech gives a specific date upon which his possible contempt was apparent to the court: Aug. 17, 1998....Judge Wright explained that "the Court determined that it should defer to Congress and its constitutional duties prior to this Court addressing the President's conduct in this civil case." The purpose of this deference is unclear; the court was not assisting Congress but withholding material information from it...."

The Weekly Standard 4/26/99 David Tell "...To be sure, Judge Wright's April 12 essay is not entirely without its pleasures. "Contrary to numerous assertions," she writes, "this Court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff's case." And, she adds-contrary to numerous other assertions vehemently advanced, throughout the controversy, by the Democratic party-Bill Clinton was unmistakably guilty as charged by the House impeachment managers. There can be "no factual dispute" and there is "simply no escaping the fact" and "the record leaves no doubt" and "the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence" . . . that the president defied the orders of a federal judge by responding to questions from Paula Jones's attorneys with "intentionally false" answers "designed to obstruct the judicial process." Perjury and obstruction of justice, in other words. Nice of her to say so......The president violates the law. A major federal investigation ensues. He and his aides lie to and about that investigation for eight months. He marshals the executive branch of government and his political party, the Democratic party, to sustain the lie during a spectacular impeachment proceeding in Congress. And his only punishment is a one-day scolding from a district court judge-plus a couple thousand bucks...."

WorldNetDaily.com 4/20/99 Charles Smith Softwar "...Even more astonishing, according to the Commerce Department, neither John nor Tony Podesta exist. In March 1999, Commerce replied to twin Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests on John Podesta and his brother Tony Podesta. The official Commerce response claims for the Podesta brothers is that an "extensive search" produced "no" responsive documents. Obviously, the Commerce Department reply is false. John Podesta has held various positions inside the White House since January 1993 and openly met with Commerce officials. The Commerce Department has previously supplied this reporter several documents involving Commerce officials and White House advisor John Podesta....

SOFTWAR News 4/22/99 "... On Thursday, April 22, 1999, this reporter took a conference call with Federal Judge Robert Payne, and a Dept. of Justice (DOJ) attorney representing the Commerce Dept. The DOJ attorney explained that Commerce would abide by the ruling made by Judge Payne but that they were not going to send classified or secret documents.... The Judge over-ruled the DOJ request and noted that "all" means everything, including classified materials. Judge Payne ruled that Commerce must turn over "all" documents on time by Friday, April 23, 1999. ....The DOJ attorney then explained that she could not provide the classified documents by Friday, April 23, because of the "government shutdown". The Judge asked her to explain. "What shutdown?" he questioned. "Er... The war ..." she replied.... The Judge ruled "NO" exceptions - no matter how many bombs are dropped on Kosovo....The DOJ attorney then explained she was not "cleared" to see the secret documents. She stated that many of the documents in question originated at "other agencies" including the "CIA and State Dept." In order to review them for her written argument she, of course, needed to read them. However, not being "cleared", she couldn't read them..... The Judge quietly told the DOJ attorney to "get cleared" and if necessary "haul someone down from the CIA to testify" on the nature of any secret materials. The Judge then granted her one month to complete her argument on what the Commerce Dept. wants to keep secret about meetings with Chinese Army officers. The secret documents, however, must be turned into the Court on time. The Judge will review them and lock them in the Court safe, which is protected by armed Federal Marshals, 24 hours a day..... The DOJ attorney then proceeded to explain, in detail, over an insecure party line, exactly when and where the secure courier would pick up the secret documents, leave Washington, and arrive to deliver them in Richmond....."

http://www.ConservativeNews.org 4/26/99 "...The planned testimony of former Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee has been pushed back until May because of delays in questioning Chung by Janet Reno's Department of Justice. Committee officials told CNS that Justice Department investigators did not brief Chung until last Friday, making it impossible for committee investigators to interview him before his testimony, which was originally scheduled for April 27. Committee Chairman Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) was "not thrilled by the Justice Department delay," said committee communications director Mark Corallo. According to Corallo, Chung's testimony will now be heard "hopefully in the second week of May."..."

The American Spectator 5/99 Kenneth R. Timmerman "....When Chairman Christopher Cox offered a vague summary of the Select Committee's findings on December 30, he promised that more details would follow once the report had been scrubbed to protect classified sources and intelligence-gathering methods. Three months later, the administration was still fighting to keep the report secret. According to committee staff members, an interagency review board was even trying to classify information taken from newspaper accounts, in their efforts to bottle-up the scandal...."

Softwar 4/26/99 "...On Friday, April 23, 1999, the Commerce Dept. partially complied with the Federal Court of Judge Robert Payne. The order, issued two months ago, forced the Commerce Dept. to turn over documents on meetings with Chinese Army officers. The Commerce Dept. fully released 1,004 pages of materials that it had previously denied existed. In addition, 116 pages of materials were either partially or fully withheld for unknown reasons. The total number of documents turned over is nearly three times the original estimate provided on April 22, 1999 by the Dept. of Justice. The Commerce Dept. turned over the 116 classified documents to Federal Judge Robert Payne for his review "in camera" or behind closed doors. Judge Payne ordered all the secret China-Gate materials to be stored in a special secure vault, guarded by armed Federal Marshals 24 hours a day....The China-Gate suit is quickly turning from a political and espionage disaster into a legal rout for the Clinton administration. A cursory examination of the turned over documents has revealed that the legal response is filled with major mistakes. For example, the Commerce Dept. either withheld or failed to deliver a 1996 report from the Dept. of Defense. Commerce could only find a single page of the multi-page report, which they delivered to SOFTWAR on July 23, 1999. The remaining pages are either being withheld, have been destroyed, or were never found. The Commerce Dept., however, neglected to check the SOFTWAR lawsuit and the SOFTWAR web page. This reporter included the ENTIRE 1996 DOD report as evidence in the original lawsuit. The full DOD report was delivered to SOFTWAR in 1998 in response to a previous Freedom of Information (FOIA) against the Commerce Dept. In fact, the full DOD report has been available for nearly a year on the internet AT http://www.softwar.net/dod.html What has been reviewed so far can only be described as stunning. The documents show the level of contact between the Chinese Army and the Clinton Commerce Dept. to be far deeper than previously admitted. The information also includes Chinese Army meetings with the Energy Dept. in an effort to obtain U.S. nuclear technology...."

United States House of Representatives 4/29/99 The Honorable Dan Burton (R. In) "....Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, my committee, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, of which I am chairman over the past 2 1/2 years, has been investigating illegal campaign contributions that came in from a variety of countries around the world...During the past 2 1/2 years we have been trying, day and night, to get to the bottom of this. We have tried to get people to come forward and testify, we tried to get cooperation from the Justice Department, the White House, but we have been very, very unsuccessful because there seems to have been a stone wall erected by the White House and the Justice Department and other agencies to keep us from getting to the bottom of this. We have had 121 people, 121 people take the Fifth Amendment or flee the country. That is unparalleled in American history...Now today I rise on a different subject, but it may be related, and that is why it is so troubling to me. The Chinese communists, through people in their government, the head of their military intelligence and the head of their Chinese aerospace industry gave a man named Johnny Chung $300,000 to give, at least in large part, to the Clinton Reelection Committee, and they were not doing it in my opinion for Mr. Clinton's good looks. They obviously had some kind of an agenda. The head of the Chinese military intelligence and the head of the Chinese aerospace industry giving campaign contributions to a candidate for President in this country would lead almost anyone to say there is something amiss here, there is something wrong, and it should be thoroughly investigated. Mr. Speaker, we just recently found out that at Los Alamos, one of our nuclear research facilities, that they had a man there named Wen Ho Lee who had been there for a long time who is believed to have been involved in espionage. I am very concerned about some of the statements that have come out of the administration with respect to China's thefts of these U.S. nuclear secrets. Again and again we have seen administration officials all the way up to the President make misleading statements about what they knew and when they knew it. Let me provide you with some examples...."

United States House of Representatives 4/29/99 The Honorable Dan Burton (R. In) "....One good example is on March 19, 1999, President Clinton was asked by a reporter, `Can you assure the American people that under your watch, no valuable secrets were lost?' The President responded, `Can I tell you there has been no espionage at the lab since I have been President? I can tell you that no one,'--listen to this--`I can tell you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing has occurred.' So the President was saying he was totally uninformed. He did not know anything about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, the President's response about his knowledge of Chinese spying is not only troubling and disingenuous, it is just hard to believe. The Clinton administration, his administration, knew about the full extent of Chinese spying at Los Alamos and Livermore and other laboratories as far back as 1996, over 3 years ago. Then the National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, head of the NSC, was briefed about the Chinese spying by the Energy Department's chief of intelligence, a Mr. Notra Trulock. Berger was told that China had stolen W-88 nuclear warhead designs and neutron bomb technology. He was told that a spy might still be passing secrets to China at Los Alamos, our nuclear research facility. He was even told that the theft of neutron bomb data occurred in 1995 under the President's administration..."

United States House of Representatives 4/29/99 The Honorable Dan Burton (R. In) "....Mr. Speaker, in August of 1997, Gary Samore, the senior National Security Council official assigned to the China spy case, received a briefing from Mr. Notra Trulock, who is the head of intelligence security over at the Department of Energy, and immediately after the briefing about this spying, he went to the CIA director and asked the CIA director to seek an alternative analysis about how the Chinese had developed these small nuclear warheads. So after he had been told they stole this nuclear technology and that spying was going on, he went to the CIA and said, `Can't you give us a different way they got this technology?' Why would he do that? Why, when presented with such overwhelming evidence of Chinese espionage, did Gary Samore seek to downplay the significance of the information, asking the CIA to come up with another explanation, other than espionage, about China's advances? We had already gotten some of this information from our intelligence sources over in China...."

United States House of Representatives 4/29/99 The Honorable Dan Burton (R. In) "....This has been going on for some time. Norris's colleague, physicist Matthew G. McKenzie said that `unauthorized access to those programs, so-called legacy codes, used to simulate warhead detonation, would represent an unprecedented act of espionage in his scope. Get this. The espionage in the Manhattan Project, that was right after we discovered the nuclear bomb that ended World War II, the espionage in the Manhattan Project would pale, would pale, in comparison.' This is so much more damaging. We are focusing everything right now in the media almost on Kosovo, and our heart goes out to the people who are suffering over there. But this espionage endangers every man, woman and child in this country if we ever go to war with Communist China. And they have made threats in the Taiwan Straits. They have made overt threats about we would not go into Taiwan to protect them because we value Los Angeles more than we do Taiwan, which was an implied threat. So you do not know what might happen. They are a Communist dictatorship. Yet they got all this, and we keep working with them and dealing with them as if nothing happened...."

United States House of Representatives 4/29/99 The Honorable Dan Burton (R. In) "...My committee will continue to investigate the illegal campaign contributions. The Cox report which looked into this espionage should be made public. The White House has blocked, according to the information I have, the White House has continued to block the Cox report from being made public. Much of it has been leaked to the American people through the media, but not all, and that information needs to be made known to every man, woman and child. Because if this administration has been derelict in its responsibilities and endangered every man, woman and child, it is more important than Kosovo. It is more important than anything. And we need to get to the bottom of it and those who let this happen, for whatever reason, campaign contributions or because they like the Chinese or whatever reason. They need to be held accountable and brought to justice...."

Investors' Business Daily 4/29/99 Mark Levin "...The IRS is infamous for its efforts to root out taxpayer fraud and wrongdoing - even when, no such crimes have been committed. But don't try to uncover any sins by the IRS. It'll just stonewall and, in some cases, retaliate. The Landmark Legal Foundation is giving the IRS a dose of its own medicine. And the IRS doesn't like it. We first reported Landmark's efforts to inquire into the political actions of the IRS in May 1997. At issue: The IRS has audited some 20 right-wing groups and at least a half-dozen of Clinton's critics. Why'? And who pulled the trigger? The Landmark Legal Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the IRS to see if the agency had a political vendetta against conservative groups. Since then, the IRS has thrown up every conceivable roadblock. In fact, at nearly every turn, the IRS has broken the law, failing to provide requested material to Landmark within statutory deadlines. That is, until Landmark filed suit. The group is still locked in the legal battle. The IRS has turned over some of the documents but has so censored the material and all the relevant names, the documents are nearly useless. In addition, the agency has failed to turn over e-mail and telephone records that could show that it was doing the bidding of political hit men. In short, the agency continues to balk. Land-mark has asked the court to force the issue. ....It's critical to understand that Landmark isn't asking the IRS for private tax information. It wants public documents showing correspondence between groups or individuals seeking the audits. After all, the IRS ostensibly serves the people and should yield to public scrutiny. To be sure, most agencies try to dodge the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. After all, no agency likes to disclose embarrassing information. But if the suspicions about these audits are true, the IRS needs to be challenged. If it has moved itself from a tax-law enforcement agency, where every citizen and group is equal under the law, into a minion of those in power. the threat to liberty is clear. Landmark's effort could be the most important lawsuit during the entire Clinton administration. We already know that other agencies, such as the Commerce and Energy Departments, have been used to facilitate fund raising for the Clinton-Gore campaign But Landmark's effort could show something far worse-- a White House that is willing to use the power of the state to crush political opponents and strangle public debate. IRS' power alone is such a sufficient threat to liberty that it's the duty and right of every citizen to monitor it. As the IRS hearings from 1997 revealed, the agency has twisted itself into an engine of great destructive power. And at least one of those IRS employees who testified about the agency's abuses is feeling the agency's wrath. Jennifer Long, a 16-year IRS employee with a record of strong performance ratings, has been targeted for firing. When news of the possible firing reached Congress, it was hastily suspended until the agency's top officials reviewed the matter. It's still under review. Punishing truth-tellers. Targeting political groups. These are not the actions of a government founded on the ideals of liberty and the rule of law...."

USA Today 4/29/99 AP "...A number of Energy Department and national weapons laboratory officials face possible disciplinary action because a scientist was provided continued access to top nuclear secrets long after he became a target of an espionage investigation, government officials say. An internal Energy Department investigation of the scientist and possible theft of secrets by China at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico is focusing on ''why was this man permitted access for so long,'' a senior official said Wednesday....Meanwhile, it was learned Wednesday that investigators for nearly two years were prevented from examining Lee's personal computer at Los Alamos because Los Alamos employees never had been put on formal notice that their computers were subject to search.... A search of Lee's computer was proposed as early as 1996, but both FBI and Justice Department lawyers said a warrant would be needed because the lab's computers did not contain warnings they were subject to search as government property, the officials said, and there was not enough hard evidence to get a warrant. When investigators finally examined Lee's computer after the scientist had been fired, they found the computer contained extensive files of top-secret weapons design and performance codes, although the computer was part of an unclassified system with wide access and could be used to send data in and out of the lab complex. The discovery of top-secret data in Lee's less secure computer is expected to raise new questions about why he was allowed to keep his security clearance and allowed continued access to some of the lab's most sensitive weapons data more than two years after he became a leading suspect in the alleged theft by China of information on a sophisticated nuclear warheads, the W-88, in the 1980s....Most of the files in Lee's computer had been transferred from Los Alamos' highly secure computer system in 1994-95, although evidence was found the Lee made some authorized transfers as early as 1983, an official said. He said there was no evidence that the files were accessed from outside the laboratory, but also no assurance that they were not...."

http://www.senate.gov 4/30/99 U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe (R - Oklahoma) "..."Based just on what has leaked to the press in the last month, it is apparent that the coverup of China's theft of nuclear secrets is one of the biggest national security scandals in American history," Inhofe said. "The American people are beginning to wake up to the realization that secret files on virtually every technology used in the design of our nuclear arsenal has been compromised, and that the significance of this security breach has been deliberately withheld from Congress and the public by the incumbent administration." ...."We have sworn testimony that members of Congress were denied a proper briefing on these matters for political reasons," Inhofe said. "At the same time, other officials deny there was an attempt to coverup. This is why I am insisting that those giving this conflicting testimony submit to lie detector tests...."Headline distracting events from Kosovo to Colorado cannot diminish the immense significance of the China nuclear secrets scandal. The Administration had better realize that members of Congress are not going to be diverted or appeased by the usual game-playing, delays, and lies we have come to expect from this White House. The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened and its immense significance to our national security and foreign policy."...."

Washington Times 4/30/99 Editorial Board "..... For several years, the Justice Department obstructed the FBI's efforts to detect Mr. Lee's downloading activities Mr. Lee, who was fired in March, emerged more than three years ago as the primary suspect in an espionage case in which China acquired design information about America's most sophisticated nuclear warhead, the W-88, which is deployed on the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile...."

Washington Times 4/30/99 Editorial Board "..... Energy Department counterintelligence officials identified Mr. Lee as a major suspect in February 1996, noting that his travels to China made him stick out "like a sore thumb." For reasons that are virtually impossible to fathom, however, the FBI did not learn of Mr. Lee's massive downloading activities until last month, more than three years after he became the primary suspect in an espionage case that the CIA's chief of counterintelligence regarded as "far more damaging to national security than [Soviet spy] Aldrich Ames." ..."

Washington Times 4/30/99 Editorial Board "...Attorney General Reno's Justice Department is far more culpable for this catastrophic national-security debacle. Time and again, the New York Times reports, the Justice Department declined to pursue FBI requests for wiretaps. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy Review would have been required to petition a special court to obtain either a wiretap of Mr. Lee's phone or to gain surreptitious access to his office computer. Despite Mr. Lee's role as the principal espionage suspect, Miss Reno's Justice Department declined a 1997 FBI request for a wiretap and surreptitious access to Mr. Lee's office computer. Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy Review maintained there was insufficient evidence for it to seek the necessary court permission The FBI appealed that decision to Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, the second-highest Justice Department official. Mr. Holder also denied the request to pursue the wiretaps...."

Washington Times 4/30/99 Editorial Board "...in 1997, while President Clinton was pursuing his "strategic partnership" with China, not only was the FBI investigating Chinese nuclear espionage but congressional committees and an incompetent Justice Department task force were investigating Mr. Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign and the Democratic Party for receiving laundered money from the Chinese Communist government. Miss Reno repeatedly refused to seek an independent counsel, despite a 1997 recommendation to do so by FBI Director Louis Freeh...."

Washington Times 4/30/99 Editorial Board "..... Meanwhile, her deputy and other Justice officials were refusing to act on FBI requests to obtain wiretaps that would have uncovered Mr. Lee's unauthorized downloading of the secrets of 50 years of U.S. nuclear-weapons development. Normally, the Justice Department favorably responds to FBI requests for such wiretaps in 99.9 percent of the 700 or so requests it receives each year. ...."

Washington Times 4/30/99 Editorial Board "....The FBI finally discovered the downloaded computer code after searching Mr. Lee's office computer last month. Within days of his March 8 firing and after he failed a lie-detector test, Mr. Lee gave the FBI permission to search his office computer...."

Washington Times 4/30/99 Editorial Board "..... Amazingly, however, even after the FBI made its startling discovery, the Justice Department delayed seeking court-ordered approval to search Mr. Lee's house. That search was finally conducted April 10, more than a month after Mr. Lee was fired...."

Washington Weekly 5/2/99 RICKI MAGNUSSEN AND MARVIN LEE "...QUESTION: Okay. To go to the Cox report. Do you have any knowledge of the content of that? TIMPERLAKE: Actually, it's coming out every day now like in the article in The New York Times Wednesday. The Cox report is more the catalyst for the great question that Jeff Gerth of the New York times asked which is: What did you know in the White House and what did you do about it? Because they thought that they could lay it all off on Reagan and Bush and it's not sticking any more. It is moving up much more dramatically into the Clinton administration. So the Cox report has served its purpose very effectively and the argument that I'll make is that the Cox report now is completing the technological Nexus between miniaturization of nuclear weapons, which they now have, and the upgrading of their missiles. So it's all coming together. The next decade will be a very dangerous decade for the world.... "

Washington Weekly 5/2/99 RICKI MAGNUSSEN AND MARVIN LEE "...QUESTION: But there has been some concern that the most important parts of the Cox report would be redacted before release. TIMPERLAKE: But my argument is that it's so bad that we can assume the worst, regardless. They can redact everything but honest credible journalists can no longer give the benefit of the doubt to the President of The United States. He's a known liar! There's no longer any excuse for any spin. It's too serious for that. This transcends Republicans or Democrats, this goes to the heart of the next century. So the worst case has to be assumed. It can be redacted but who cares. Regardless of how much they redact, the worst has already happened and it happened because of Bill Clinton. It's already to late. We now have to break the conspiracy and hope that we can move to the new generation of missiles like missile defense, new strategic weapons on the drawing board that may protect us, but we are not there yet so we really have to ring the alarm bell. I wouldn't speak like this if I didn't truly believe it. I don't want to scare America, but right now it's a wake up call and the fire bell is ringing. There's a fire right now and the fire is that all our nuclear secrets are open to the rogue nations and The People's Republic of China. ..."

World Net Daily/SOFT WAR NEWS 5/3/99 "...On April 29, 1999, the Dept. of Justice Attorney representing the Commerce Dept. issued a notice to the Court that it has withdrawn its motion to deliver a "Vaughn Index" or index of classified documents that are being withheld. The DOJ attorney claimed the index was rendered "moot" by the Judge's order for the Commerce Dept. to deliver all the documents to him behind closed doors ("in camera"), including a full explaination of why each document should be withheld. According to the motion from the Clinton administration, there are now an unknown number of Commerce documents being withheld from public release for unspecified reasons. The Commerce Dept. now intends to withhold more information from the public than it would normally release on an ordinary Freedom of Information Act request. The move, if accepted, might effectively gut the Freedom of Information Act, allowing agencies not to respond even if taken to court.... the Commerce Dept. has not supplied any information on a 1994 meeting between Secretary Ron Brown, Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz and Chinese General Shen of COSTIND. Commerce also has not supplied information on the well documented meetings with PLA missile engineers and U.S. space contractor Hughes. However, above all, the Commerce Dept. forgot to include copies of any pictures, videos or tape recordings taken at meetings with the Chinese Army. According to one recently released document supplied by the Commerce Dept., photographers from both sides attended meetings between Chinese Army Generals and Clinton administration officials. The meeting was held in Beijing in August of 1994. The meeting included a Major General who was also PLA Deputy Director of Intelligence. The meeting also included Defense Secretary Perry and PLA spymaster General Ding Henggao. General Ding is also the husband of Lt. General "Madam" Nie Li, the Chinese co-chair of the Hua Mei deal listed in the missing DOD document from 1996...."

Reuters 5/6/99 James Vincini "...U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, stung by criticism in Congress that the Justice Department and FBI bungled the case of a suspected Chinese nuclear spy, announced Thursday that an internal review panel would find out what should have been done differently. A day after Republican senators cited repeated mistakes in the espionage investigation, Reno said a team of federal prosecutors and FBI agents would go back to 1982 to determine what had happened and to make recommendations so cases can be better handled in the future. ``I want to make sure that we've looked at everything to see if there is anything that we could have done differently,'' Reno said at her weekly Justice Department news conference.....Senate Energy Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said he wanted ``an explanation of why the Justice Department didn't give the FBI the authority to initiate an investigation and monitor (Lee's) computer.'' Assistant Senate Majority Leader Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican, said: ``It's very, very troubling to think this individual, this suspect ... had unbelievable access to very sensitive data on warheads, testing codes, and to think that we didn't even review his computer files until this March.'' Nickles said he wanted to know why the Justice Department turned down the FBI's request several years ago to search the computer of the Taiwanese-born U.S. scientist...."

Time 5/10/99 Romesh Ratnesar "...But the realization that the codes stored on Lee's computer could have found their way into scores of foreign hands, including those of the Chinese government, left U.S. officials dumbstruck. "Holy s___," was what Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said when his counterintelligence chief told him of the data transfers in late March. Republicans were using language even less polite last week when news of the possible heist landed in Washington. Congressional leaders were already fuming about disclosures, first made in the March 6 edition of the New York Times, that since 1996 the FBI had been trying to determine whether Lee had given Beijing classified information about the design of America's most advanced nuclear warhead, the W-88, and that in spite of this possibility, Lee had remained at Los Alamos until he was fired on March 8. The Administration tried to sidestep criticism by insisting that any spying that had taken place had happened during Republican administrations. But that defense may not cut it this time around. Investigators suspect that Lee, 59, downloaded the bulk of the secret codes in 1994 and 1995. He was allowed to retain his high-level security clearance at the lab until late 1998, even while he was under FBI surveillance for the W-88 theft. Agents say they asked the lab to let Lee keep his job so he wouldn't get wise to their probe. Still, it was not until after Lee's dismissal from Los Alamos that anyone managed to check what was on his computer. As more details have emerged, it has sometimes seemed that the only thing more breathtaking than Lee's alleged deceit was how long the government took to ferret it out...."

Time 5/10/99 Romesh Ratnesar "...By then the investigation of Lee had devolved into a bureaucratic Byzantium. The Albuquerque agents filed their warrant request with the Justice Department in July 1997. Officials there concluded that the FBI did not have sufficient proof that Lee posed a national-security threat grave enough to merit a raid on his computer. Exasperated FBI authorities appealed to Attorney General Janet Reno, but she wouldn't budge. Attempts to get more goods on Lee turned up nothing. Says a veteran counterespionage investigator of China's spy network: "They're everywhere, but it's hard to catch them doing anything." ..."

Time 5/10/99 Romesh Ratnesar "...The Energy Department contracts out day-to-day operation of the country's nuclear labs to the University of California and Lockheed Martin Corp. "Security is something they don't even think about," says a retired FBI agent. To break the logjam, agents arranged for Freeh and CIA director George Tenet to receive a stunning briefing in 1997 on security lapses and suspicions of Chinese snooping at Los Alamos. The directors then told Energy Secretary Federico Pena that security was in need of an overhaul. The two also convened a committee of U.S. counterspies, which informed the National Security Council in mid-1997 that the labs needed tighter security and stricter vetting of foreign visitors. Clinton signed off on the proposal in February 1998...."

Judicial Watch Press Release 5/06/99 "...Ever since Judicial Watch filed its first case against the Clinton Commerce Department, uncovering in documentation the role of suspected spy John Huang at the agency, it has been opposed on nearly every effort to get at the full truth by the Clinton Justice Department. Just recently, the Clinton Justice Department, run by Attorney General Janet Reno, even opposed Judicial Watch's request to depose Johnny Chung. The effort was not successful, and Mr. Chung will testify on May 13, 1999. Another example of Reno's attempts to obstruct was her refusal to turn over the original of the desk diary of John Huang, which also proved unsuccessful. Huang was deposed again by Judicial Watch on April 13, 15 and May 3, 1999. While questioned about his diary, he took the Fifth Amendment over 1000 times. Judicial Watch will challenge this with the Court.....Now, the excellent newspaper, The Washington Times, reports today that, "Justice to Probe FBI Handling of Nuke Espionage: Focus on Secrets Passed To China." With revelations in Judicial Watch depositions in recent days that the Clinton Administration has also failed to shore up security at its Commerce Department, where it is likely that classified material was also provided to the Chinese by Huang, having the Clinton Justice Department put in charge of a new task force is like letting the fox investigate his own henhouse massacre. "Why don't we just let the Chinese investigate. While corrupt, at least they're not also incompetent," quipped Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman...."

The Union Leader, Manchester, NH 5/6/99 "...U. S. Attorney General Janet Reno refused yesterday to say in a public U. S. Senate Committee hearing why her Justice department vetoed wiretaps of suspected Los Alamos spy Wen Ho Lee. Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reno was asked pointedly by U. S. Senator Bob Smith, R-NH, why an FBI request to wiretap Lee was twice rejected. She refused to answer publically, preferring to do so during a closed door meeting of the committee. "This is the biggest spy scandal in the history of the United States," Smith said. "Our entire nuclear arsenal has been compromised. I am very concerned that the Attorney general refused to answer, and concerned that no reasons were given for the wiretap refusal...."

USA Today 5/6/99 "...Five months ago, a special congressional committee investigating security problems with China questioned whether the Department of Energy had adequate safeguards to protect nuclear secrets. Its report won't be out until next week. But on Feb. 1, President Clinton responded, saying safeguards were "adequate" and getting better. That wasn't true then, and is doubtful now, as senators are learning this week. Fresh disclosures reveal a laxity at government's highest levels that defies easy explanation....Between the time the Justice Department refused the FBI's request for a court order and Lee's firing, there were more than 300 break-ins involving the computer network on which Lee kept his purloined nuclear secrets. A classified report last November alerted the heads of defense, energy, the intelligence agencies and the national security counsel to those vulnerabilities. Yet it took Energy Secretary Bill Richardson until April to upgrade computer security at the weapons labs. All of this mocks White House claims of taking security seriously and that it was previous administrations that were to blame. Now, the administration is ominously indicating those found culpable will be let go...."

NY Times 5/5/99 AP "...Lab officials also were dissuaded from even checking the scientist's office computer, although employees had been warned in a formal policy that their computers were subject to search ``without notice'' as a security precaution. Again, lab managers were told such a search might taint evidence and ruin a potential criminal case. ``This points out the dilemma of balancing the requirements of national security against the constraints guiding law enforcement efforts,'' John Browne, the Los Alamos director, told a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing. Paul Robinson, director of Sandia National Laboratory, also located in New Mexico, told senators that in the past he had ``pulled a person's clearance'' even when an FBI investigation was under way. He gave no further details.... Browne, a 20-year employee at Los Alamos who became the research lab's director 18 months ago, said Lee would have been transferred out of the secure areas, if given the word from the FBI. When Energy Secretary Bill Richardson directed that Lee be transferred last December ``we had him out within hours, we put him in an office outside the classified fence,'' said Browne. But FBI Director Louis Freeh had told senior Energy Department officials in August 1997, before Richardson was on the job, that the investigation would not be hindered if Lee's security clearance were lifted. The problem, said Browne, is that lab managers never got the word. ``This is one of the real breakdowns in communications'' that has marred the Lee case, said Browne...."

Washington Post 5/6/99 Walter Pincus and Vernon Loeb ".... Senate Republicans unveiled new evidence yesterday that investigations of the chief suspect in possible Chinese espionage at nuclear weapons laboratories have been marked by repeated bungles over the past 15 years, including at one point the loss of his security file. "I think heads should roll," Don Nickles (R-Okla.), the Senate majority whip, said at a hearing held by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee....Adding to charges of lax security and improper investigations that have cascaded out over the weeks, the revelations provided further fuel for a growing controversy pitting Republican lawmakers against the Clinton administration..... "An individual is suspected of being a spy with access to all of our warhead information . . . and we did not get into his computer. This is total incompetence," Nickles said..... Feeding the concern of Nickles and others was disclosure by Los Alamos director John C. Browne that Lee, like all employees, had signed a waiver permitting his e-mail and personal computer to be reviewed without his knowledge. Browne said that despite the waiver the FBI and Justice Department in 1996 decided a court warrant would be needed before that step could be taken.....It was not until 1989, when Lee's five-year renewal of his special Q clearance was up for review, that the Energy Department at the highest levels learned of the FBI's inquiry into Lee. But a file put together on Lee that was sent to DOE headquarters for security review was lost, Domenici said, and it was not until 1992 that the department hired an "outside contractor to reconstruct the lost Wen Ho Lee file." ..."

Deseret News 5/5/99 Lee Davidson "...Sen. Orrin Hatch said Wednesday the Justice Department took rare action to deny a request for an FBI wiretap that could have cut short the Chinese spying at a U.S. nuclear lab. He said that happened about the same time the Justice Department refused to seek an independent counsel to investigate illegal Chinese campaign donations to the 1996 Clinton campaign. "Had the department acted promptly and properly two years ago (on the wiretap petition) . . . much of this apparent damage to our national security may have been avoided," the Utah Republican said. In a second front of attack, Hatch also used an annual Justice Department oversight hearing to accuse the administration of not enforcing current gun control laws - but calling for more of them after the Littleton, Colo., school shootings..... Hatch noted that press reports said the FBI makes 700 such wiretap applications a year, and the Justice Department only refuses one or two a year. "We find ourselves looking at the extraordinary damage that may have been caused since 1997 alone - since the time the department denied action to seek a wiretap," Hatch said. The actions also came while Attorney General Janet Reno continually refused to appoint an independent counsel to look into possible fund-raising illegalities involving the Chinese government. A written statement by Hatch said not enough evidence exists to connect the two actions, but maybe Reno should reconsider appointed a special council to ensure "greater confidence in the Department's actions in this most serious matter." ...."

The Washington Times 5/6/99 Bill Gertz and Jerry Seper "...The Justice Department is setting up a special task force to investigate the FBI's probe of a Los Alamos computer scientist suspected of passing nuclear weapons secrets to China. A senior Justice Department official told The Washington Times that Attorney General Janet Reno and Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. will soon appoint a panel headed by a federal prosecutor and supported by FBI agents...."

Detroit News 5/6/99 "...The picture is becoming ever clearer: The Clinton administration has been shockingly lax in protecting America's nuclear secrets. And it is allowing the Energy Department, which is primarily responsible for nuclear weapons research and development, to hold up a bipartisan congressional report on the issue of China's theft of nuclear secrets. This is only likely to add to suspicions that the security lapses are somehow linked to this administration's campaign fund-raising efforts..... "

New York Times 5/10/99 William Safire "... called three friends in the Departments of Energy, Defense and Justice and asked them to turn on their office computers and read to me the first banner that came on their screens. Anyone using this system expressly consents to monitoring" is the message. Government employees using Government equipment on Government time thus waive privacy claims. Wen Ho Lee, the scientist who downloaded millions of lines of the nation's most secret codes to a computer easy to penetrate, also signed a waiver consenting to a search of his computer without his knowledge. And yet the Reno Justice Department denied the F.B.I.'s request for permission to search Lee's Government computer. Eric Holder, Janet Reno's deputy, decided that a court search warrant was necessary -- but then refused to apply to the special foreign-surveillance court to get it. Of more than 700 such F.B.I. requests a year, a surveillance official admits that a flat turndown is extremely rare. Why this one?

Ms. Reno, who never met an investigation of Chinese penetration she didn't try to undermine, is suckering us with a claim that the denial of surveillance was to protect a criminal investigation. That is foo-foo dust. This was counterespionage, and the Criminal Division was kept in the dark. Making C.D. the scapegoat for the failure to protect America's deepest nuclear secrets is typical of the Clinton-Reno refusal to accept responsibility for endangering national security. Reno has appointed her personal Whitewash Brigade of favorite roundheels. This enables her to rebuff Congress and the press for months with the usual "I cannot comment because an inquiry is ongoing." ...With Clintonites hunkered down and Justice covering up, Congress must do the digging. A report by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control showed what Chinese arms enterprises received U.S. technology over the past decade -- but could supply no names of U.S. exporters during the Clinton years. That's because that embarrassment is "proprietary information" at the Commerce Department. John McCain's Senate Commerce Committee has the power to subpoena those names from Commerce, and to have Wisconsin's Gary Milhollin run those sales against his Chinese-arms data base. That would tell us what political contributors were allowed to sell sensitive technology in 1996 and 1997 to which Chinese nuclear, missile and military sites....."

MSNBC.com 5/11/99 Jay Severin "...The bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade may not have been a mistake at all....it does look like the Chinese are pretty angry with us. So angry, they probably won't be speaking to us for quite a while - especially about controversial matters, such as spying and nuclear secrets. In fact, the Chinese have just announced they have suspended discussions on these very issues..... How very convenient for the Clinton administration. The last thing Bill Clinton wants is an American public actually aware that China may pose greater danger to us than the former Soviet Union ever did, and that they acquired their dangerous capability on Clinton's watch. Enter the Cox report. Waiting in the wings is a bipartisan Congressional document, named for California Republican Rep. Chris Cox, chair of a select committee charged with examining transfer of sensitive U.S. technology to China. The still-classified report is said to reveal that China has had access not only sensitive missile and satellite technology via its business dealings with Space Systems, Loral and the Hughes Corp., but also to vital military secrets. Clinton asserted some weeks ago that nobody in his administration ever told him espionage was even suspected. But on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, addressing another suspected breach of national security at Los Alamos nuclear labs, said that is exactly what had occurred "during the current administration." And here is where the bombing of the Chinese embassy comes in. Most of us have no trouble believing that the United States is performing awkwardly and ineptly in this war. But perhaps we are not quite that incompetent. Is it possible we could have bombed China's embassy intentionally, to create a pretext for our inability to ask them about devastating allegations anticipated in the Cox report? "Gee, we would love to ask the Chinese about this, really we would, but they're not speaking to us. What can you do?" In such a scenario, would Clinton really risk provoking such a powerful adversary to cover himself politically? The not-so-obvious answer is: The Chinese knew and gave their permission. They also want a pretext to refuse to answer such questions...."

WorldNetDaily 5/11/99 Jon E. Dougherty "....To dismiss this theory out of hand, you'd have to have already made your mind up about a number of other implausible things. For instance, you would already have to believe that the Central Intelligence Agency is so inept, they couldn't identify the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. You'd also have to believe that U.S. weaponry is so bad that we could accidentally send four bombs into the embassy using laser-guided technology. Then, you'd have to assume that Bill Clinton and the Chinese have had absolutely no relationship whatsoever for the past six years. Plus, you'd have to discount all the hard evidence showing Chinese financial contributions to the Clinton/Gore reelection campaign in 1996. Next, you'd have to believe that neither Clinton, nor any of his spokesmen, have ever lied to you. Good luck with that one. Finally, what with the amount of information already released about China's spying activities at our nuclear weapons labs, you'd have to believe that people like Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., really didn't have any hard information that was damaging or harmful to national security. But, since most Americans have already found out that at least some damage has been done due to Chinese spying, there goes that excuse. Nobody hates conspiracy theories worse than me. But you've got to admit: with this administration, anything is possible and certainly anything that would involve collusion with the Chinese government....Is it true? Who knows? But, the more important question ought to be, is it even possible? We're dealing with the Clinton administration. Therefore, the answer to the last question should be obvious...."

New York Times 5/19/98 William Saffire "...Who has helped keep this sellout of security under wraps? In the Senate, John Glenn, D-Ohio, we rewarded with a space flight by Clinton for derogating the leads to China of the Thompson committee. The warnings by Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., warnings about China's plan to penetrate this White House were then scorned by Democratic partisans; his Government Affairs Committee should now swarm all over this. The House's pggressive agent of the Clinton cover-up, Democrat Henry Waxman of Ca., is finally "troubled" by the prospect of damning evidence he provented the committee of Dan Burton, R-Ind., from finding. At least three Democratic partisans who foolishly followed Waxman in blocking the testimony of Asian witneses may have difficulty explaining their cover-up vote to even more troubled voters in their districts...."

CRIER REPORT 5/10/99 Freeper Jobim reports "...John Fund took on a John Holden (didn't catch affiliation) and a Joe from a Carnegie think tankette. Sorry for the sketchy report. Fund, ably assisted by Ms. Crier who let Fund run with it, scored all the salient points. At one point, reaching the exasperation we all reach in talking to amoral lawyers, asked: "Joe, don't you have a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach about this, about all that hasn't come out yet but might?"..." and "... The 2 apologists made standard excuses for the Administration: 1)Clinton was distracted through the impeachment hearings and thus probably wasn't briefed by Berger 2)neutron technology and and EMT is old info 3)no verifiable evidence that much of this tech actually is in their hands 4)rather a stretch to say this stands with the Rosenbergs (etc ad nauseum)...Fund articulately dealt with each evasion, and appealed to their sense of logic in attempting to give them pause as Americans. Ms. Crier's input, though brief, was cogent. She's great....." and Freeper gohomebubba adds "...The liberal from the Carnegie Institute blamed Clinton's lack of knowledge of Chinese nuclear espionage on the fact that the Republicans were "hounding" him during his impeachment and therefore he was "distracted". Obviously, then, it was really the Republican's fault that His Slickness was so ignorant concerning the theft of our technology. John Fund, to his credit, said that for years we have been hearing about Clinton's ability to "compartmentalize" things, so therefore the lib's argument was "pathetic"..."

Judicial Watch Press Release 5/11/99 "...In recent testimony supervised by a Magistrate Judge, Judicial Watch has learned that the Clinton Administration not only failed to take adequate security measures on trade missions to China, as well as internally at Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., but also withheld from Judicial Watch the production of hundreds of thousands of documents for nearly five years.... Judicial Watch believes that national security was compromised on the China trade missions. During recent depositions of Jeffrey Garten and Jude Kearney, former Commerce Department officials who went on the China trade missions, they testified that no measures were taken to prevent Chinese intelligence from using the trade missions to make contacts with, or spy on, American businesses attending the events. In this regard, these officials knew of no U.S. counterintelligence who accompanied government officials and American businessmen on the trade missions. Further, Donald Forest, the Commerce official who heads the China desk, testified that following the revelations that John Huang received over 100 classified briefings, security procedures were not tightened up at the Department. To this day, anyone with a top secret clearance can walk out of the building with classified documents -- no questions asked. Indeed, this was the fear with regard to Mr. Huang's frequent visits across the street to Stephens Inc. when he worked for Commerce. Finally, last Friday evening, at the close of the weekly press cycle, the Clinton Administration notified Judicial Watch that it was producing 59 boxes of documents. These documents were originally requested in the fall of 1994, and are being produced pursuant to a "second search" of Department records ordered by the Court....."

The Washington Times 5/11/99 "....Nothing less than "the president's word" was "at stake," Mr. Russert declared, momentarily forgetting that the president's word long ago became worthless. And Mr. Richardson's word was in trouble too. As a transcript of the interview shows, he attempted all manner of dissembling to protect the president until, finally, he could dissemble no more and acknowledged: "The Chinese have obtained damaging information." And the president knew it last November...."

The Washington Times 5/11/99 "....Mr. Will noted that Rep. Chris Cox, who chaired a 1998 bipartisan select committee investigating China's acquisition of U.S. technology for nuclear warheads and missiles, had asserted that China's nuclear espionage was "ongoing." Mr. Richardson replied, "I disagree," noting the "dramatic steps" he had taken as energy secretary were "sufficient steps." Three days later, Mr. Richardson announced new policies involving e-mail, apparently abandoning his peculiar concern for "free expression" involving the potential distribution of the nation's most sensitive nuclear secrets...."

The Washington Times 5/11/99 "...."Sufficient steps," Mr. Richardson? In fact, even during Mr. Richardson's tenure, the Energy Department was extremely lax in implementing many steps to improve security. Mr. Richardson waited more than four months after receiving the November secret report before shutting down the department's classified computer system to improve the security of its data. Mark it down as another of this administration's "insufficient steps." ..."

Opening Statement Chairman Dan Burton Committee on Government Reform 5/11/99 "...We have some very serious national security issues here that we need to address. If China is conducting covert operations to influence our elections (and it appears that they are), then we have a threat to our national security. If China is stealing our nuclear secrets (and it appears that they are), then we have a threat to our national security. We have to treat it like a national security issue, and so far, we haven't. In my view, this isn't about politics, and it isn't about elections. It shouldn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican. The Chinese government is taking actions towards us that are hostile, and we have to start taking it seriously...Johnny Chung has also told us that within two weeks of receiving this money from General Ji, he gave $35,000 to the Democratic National Committee. After we finish this hearing today, some of the reporters sitting here are going to call the DNC and the White House. I'll tell you right now what their response will be. They're going to say - "We didn't know." "We had no idea where Johnny Chung's money was coming from." Well, if they didn't know, then they must have been trying really hard not to find out. Just ask the Federal judge in California who sentenced Mr. Chung. He said, "If Mr. Fowler and Mr. Sullivan didn't know what was going on, they're two of the dumbest politicians I've ever seen." This was a Democratic judge. It's easy to understand why the judge said that: When Johnny Chung showed up at a Clinton/Gore fundraiser in Los Angeles in September 1995, he had 10 Chinese nationals with him. When Johnny Chung showed up at a DNC fundraiser in Los Angeles in July 1996, he had half-a-dozen Chinese nationals in tow. When he went to the President's radio address in the Oval Office in March 1995, he was accompanied by six senior Chinese executives. We have a letter to Mr. Chung from Don Fowler, the head of the DNC. Mr. Fowler said, "Best of luck on your trip to China. I enjoyed meeting your friend who is the wife of the Chief of Staff of the Chinese Army." ...."

Opening Statement Chairman Dan Burton Committee on Government Reform 5/11/99 "...We asked the Chinese government for visas to come to China to interview people who were involved in this fundraising. They wouldn't give us visas. In fact, they told us that if we came to China, they'd arrest us. Are these the actions of a government that has nothing to hide? We've asked the White House and the State Department time and time again for help. They won't lift a finger. We've asked the Chinese government for bank records that would show where these millions of dollars originated. We've gotten absolutely nothing. Are these the actions of a government that has nothing to hide? Why won't the Clinton Administration push China to turn over this evidence?..."

Opening Statement Chairman Dan Burton Committee on Government Reform 5/11/99 "...He [Chung] said that Liu Chao-Ying told him that Mark Middleton got half a million from a Singapore group. We checked Mark Middleton's bank records. They show that he received over $1.75 million from Asian businesses. One of the payments he received was a half-a-million payment from Indonesia. We don't know what money Liu Chao-Ying was referring to. If we could go to Hong Kong to interview Liu Chao-Ying, maybe we could find out. We have a copy of a letter from Mark Middleton to one of his associates in Singapore. It mentions someone named Liu. It says, and I quote, "Thank you for the update on Ms. Liu. I know that she must be concerned with nepotism but I'm not sure how that affects us." We don't know what Mark Middleton meant in this letter. He's taken the Fifth, so we can't ask him...."

Global News Wire 5/12/99 Jim Gibson "....Johnny Chung testified yesterday before the Congressional Committee investigating illegal Chinese campaign contributions to China Bill Clinton and the DNC. Our Republican congressmen used their time "on the clock" making obvious attempts to unearth facts about the behind-the-scenes goings-on with pointed questions and polite discourse. As understandably disappointed Americans have come to expect, we watched The Democrats, to a man (or woman), squander their time covering up, accusing Chung of changing his story, and basically proving that the Democrats as a group care very little about putting and end to such Ponzy schemes.....Democratic Minority Obfuscator Extraordinaire, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, made the point that "Saying that you 'can' give this money to the President is different from telling you that you 'have to' give the money to him, isn't it?" My, my. How very insightful and probative, Henry. You traitor. Shades of "Well, I suppose that would depend on what you feel the definition of 'is' is..." Must be a Democrat thing. Rep. Bob Barr from Georgia made the point that secret meetings in restaurant basements might cause a raised eyebrow from the average voter. True, but fairly obvious also. What is really frightening is that NO ONE asked, "Why does the Chinese Military 'really like' Bill Clinton?" NO ONE asked "Why did Chinese Intelligence want to see Bill Clinton re-elected?" ...."

Fox News 5/12/99 reported by Right-Winger "...This sounded like a big story which had 3-4 stories bound up in it. The Administration ignored the North Korean weapons program which he knew about a year ago. In addition to the two Lees, 3 other Labs scientists are under investigation. I didn't catch the last one clearly, trying to digest the previous two so a HUGE grain of salt here. I thought that Carl Cameron just mentioned that FBI wanted to brief a sentate committee about the labs fiasco, but the breifing was cancelled by 3 senators (think he said Democrat, but not sure). ..."

The Goldberg File 5/14/99 Jonah Goldberg "....This administration is freaking out about checking the backgrounds of bubbas at gun shows, but it doesn't give a damn about checking the backgrounds of actual spies. One suspects that we'd get a lot more action out of the FBI if the Belgians posted the president's medical records on the web (yes, I am irresponsibly raising the issue of Belgian hegemony again).....'

USA Today 5/17/99 Tom Squitieri "....Cox said Sunday on ABC's This Week that the report will be "of such gravity that it needs the top attention of policymakers in Congress and the executive branch." Cox warned that the Chinese might test a new warhead this year for its Dong Feng (East Wind) 31 intercontinental missile. "There is no question that what the People's Republic of China is now doing is a direct result of what they have stolen from the United States," Cox said...... On May 13, the House adopted a resolution that would extend the life of the special House panel until the end of May. The committee's mandate was to expire last Friday. It is the panel's third extension. ...."

WorldNetDaily Joseph Farah 5/17/99 "....Exactly whose interests are being protected by the long delays in the release of the Cox report on national security breaches involved in China's theft and purchase of U.S. nuclear, computer, telecommunications and other technological secrets? Many details have already been leaked. The report concludes that U.S. national security has been damaged by China's theft and acquisition of nuclear warhead secrets, satellite and missile technology, supercomputers, telecommunications equipment, jet engines and sophisticated machine tools. In other words, the Chinese have gotten just about everything they want from the U.S. through incompetence, greed, malfeasance, shortsightedness and, probably, high treason. There was a time in America -- some would argue a more enlightened time -- in which people were shot for such offenses. So far, the bi-partisan back-scratching on Capitol Hill has avoided any serious discussion of accountability by the high officials responsible. A tip-off as to how lame this report will be is the fact that the Clinton administration has already agreed to implement nearly all of the 38 recommendations regarding issues such as export controls and increased security at nuclear labs. So why all the secrecy? If our nuclear secrets were guarded half as carefully as the contents of the Cox committee report, there would have been no need for the investigation in the first place. If the American people were protected from incoming nuclear missiles half as thoroughly as they have been protected from whatever truth there is in the Cox committee report, there would have been no need for an investigation..... "

Capitol hill Blue 5/17/99 "...But the section [Cox Report] that implicates the White House directly in the growing China spying scandal may be excised from the report before it is publicly released later this month. Congressional sources who have read the 700-page report prepared by a panel headed by California Republican Congressman Christopher Cox say the report is being "edited for national security reasons" and that sections which show the most damning connections between China and the White House may be removed before public release. "Obviously, a report of this nature contains information that is highly-classified and which cannot be released for public consumption," one high-ranking Republican aide said Sunday. "And some of that information deals directly with the relationship between the White House and China." President Clinton in 1996, over the objection of intelligence professionals, approved the transfer of sensitive computer technology to China from the Loral Corporation, which is headed by high dollar Clinton campaign contributor Bernard Schwartz. Intelligence analysts from both the CIA and FBI warned the White House that the Loral technology could be used for military purposes. However, a memo from White House counsel Charles Ruff to Clinton urged the President to ignore the warnings. A CIA investigation into Chinese spying at U.S. nuclear labs also found connections that led directly to the White House, but that report remains classified and intelligence sources say it will probably never see the light of day....."

Citizen Investigator 5/17/99 Richard Hirsch Freeper RichH "...We spent over 40 million dollars for the NTSB to find the answer for the cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 and we get 40 million dollars of hoopla and spin. Chairman James Hall never misses an opportunity to tell the press or audiences where he speaks that the NTSB "knows" what caused the crash of TWA Flight 800, but they just don't know where the "mystery spark" came from...."

NY Times 5/17/99 WILLIAM SAFIRE "...Though Clinton is softer than ever on China, he's taken a hard line in resisting Congress's investigations into Beijing's penetration of our nuclear labs and our political process. His latest trick: the improper use of documents submitted for intelligence declassification to prepare advance refutations of evidence of security lapses. The White House has delayed for four months the three-volume report on security laxity by the House select committee headed by Representative Chris Cox. Clinton spinners are already distributing a packet of reprints of derogations by offended scientists, China-defenders and favorite journalists. Cox has used the "clearance" delay to rewrite the turgid prose and to enliven the report with photographs and diagrams showing what missiles and satellites were stolen; that might even awaken television interest. The Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Richard Shelby and Robert Kerrey, is not about to hold still for the abuse of clearance. After it submitted one of its reports on nuclear lab laxity for review to protect intelligence sources, it learned of a refutation of that bipartisan report in work by the National Security Council response machine. The White House was told that the submission of documents was for security clearance only. It was not to be used for (a) advance policy review so that "rapid response" would occur in the same news cycle as the reports' release, or for (b) leakage of portions to the press for "inoculation" to later reduce its impact as "old news." The intelligence business is not the publicity business. National security reports are not to be equated with the Starr report about hanky-panky. The Shelby committee made plain to the Berger Rapid-Apology Center that if this undermining of inter-branch comity did not stop forthwith, "we're going to zero out the N.S.C. staff budget."..... (In both House and Senate, bipartisan committees are discovering serious intelligence weaknesses: too little analysis of too much collection. "If there's a flare-up in Iraq, North Korea or the Andes," worries an investigator, "we could not handle it and Kosovo, too." The most troubling breakdown is in counterespionage. The F.B.I. and C.I.A., which are not blameless, are telling Congress the weakest link is the Department of Justice. What began as corrupt political protection became dangerous national security laxity. Who will apologize for that? ..."

Fox News 5/18/99 Carl Cameron Freeper Yikes reports "...Carl Cameron just reported on Special Report with Brit Hume that the Cox Report has been cleared for takeoff by NSC, CIA, etc. but is being blocked by Commerce Dept. Reason: Because they signed off on super computers, of which China has 600...."

USA Today 5/19/99 Peter Eisler "... It took just over a year for Raymond Mislock, associate deputy director at the CIA, to conclude that his ideas for fixing security problems at the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons plants and laboratories were falling on deaf ears. Mislock was appointed early in 1998 to the DOE's Security Management Board, a government-wide panel set up to address concerns that the department lacks proper safeguards for millions of secret records and thousands of tons of nuclear material in its custody. "I expected the (DOE) wanted the input of representatives from other agencies," Mislock told department officials in a March 16 letter. "Unfortunately, my experience with the board indicates that it is a feckless exercise with no accomplishments almost 15 months after it was established." ..."

USA Today 5/19/99 Peter Eisler "... A USA TODAY examination of the DOE's security record shows it has spent two decades frustrating efforts to bolster protections against spies, thieves and terrorists across the network of plants and labs where it develops, maintains and decommissions U.S. nuclear weapons. USA TODAY interviewed dozens of sources and reviewed hundreds of pages of documents. Time and again, the reporting shows, the Department of Energy has shelved critical reports, ignored proposals for corrective action and punished officials who dared to speak out about concerns. ...."

USA Today 5/19/99 Peter Eisler "...As recently as 1996, months after top DOE officials learned of Lee's activities, the department shelved a plan for new guidelines that might have helped block data transfers from classified computers. "It dealt with issues like how to track who's removing information from systems and who would have to be physically present if anybody was in a facility with classified systems," says Woody Hall, the department's chief information officer until last year and a main architect of the proposal. "The labs were very vocal in opposing it. ... We couldn't overcome the objections." ...."

USA Today 5/19/99 Peter Eisler "... In 1997, for example, site managers helped bury a report by the department's Office of Safeguards and Security, which cited vulnerabilities at several key facilities. Los Alamos and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory outside San Francisco took hits, as did the Rocky Flats site, an idled weapons plant near Denver. The report decried a steep decline in security spending at DOE facilities. It noted that guard forces had dwindled 42% from 1992 through 1996, alarm systems needed replacement, employee background check programs were backlogged and computers were increasingly susceptible to outside penetration. Heavy complaints from site managers spurred DOE officials to commission a follow-up assessment with heavy participation by site managers, who painted a far brighter picture of the agency's security...."

USA Today 5/19/99 Peter Eisler "...In April 1997, as the agency readied its Annual Report to the President on the Status of Safeguards and Security, officials opted to "eliminate some of the unsupported conclusions" reached by the security office, according to an internal memo by then-Assistant Energy Secretary Tara O'Toole. Those conclusions, she added, did not present "an accurate and balanced picture." The report to the president did include toned-down comments reflecting some of the security office's chief concerns. But like previous reports, which also questioned computer security and physical protections , the legally required assessment was held back from the White House.

USA Today 5/19/99 Peter Eisler "...Between 1992 and 1996, according to agency records, annual security inspections performed at DOE sites by the evaluations office dropped from 13 to three. Moreover, a federal judge last month blasted officials who oversee that office for retaliation. The retaliatory acts reportedly included a forced, out-of-state transfer for an employee who went public with evidence that safety inspectors covered up problems at DOE facilities. "It's all the same people and I think they'll continue to fall back into the old ways," David Ridenour, former head of security at the Rocky Flats weapons plant, says of the agency's reforms. "If there's a problem, classify it, hide it and get rid of the people who brought it up."

USA Today 5/19/99 Peter Eisler "...But Richardson, a former New Mexico congressman, knows how to protect the agency on Capitol Hill. This month, he quietly derailed a Commerce Committee hearing on personnel disputes involving DOE security. In written testimony submitted for that hearing but never aired, McCallum, the DOE security chief, said he suffered "retaliation" for criticizing "lax security at the DOE laboratories." ..."

Media Research Center Cyber-Alert 5/19/99 "...The Cox Report has been delayed some more by embarrassed Clinton operatives, Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron revealed Tuesday night. On Special Report with Brit Hume the host of the same name asked Cameron: "What about the fabled Cox report on Chinese influence and the spying scandal? What is the status of that?" Carl Cameron disclosed: "This is the report that says China both stole nuclear secrets and acquired through legal tech exports all kinds of U.S. secrets. It has been approved for release by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the FBI but the Commerce Department is now blocking its declassification and release. And there is some expectation that part of their objection to its release is their approval of exports of super computers to China. China has some 600 as result of Clinton administration policy and many of those computers have been used for nuclear testing."..."

AP 5/20/99 H Josef Hebert "...Intelligence experts were worried three years ago about the possible theft of secrets about America's nuclear arsenal and believed the Los Alamos weapons lab was the most likely source, an Energy Department intelligence officer told a Senate panel Thursday.... "What was done, in short was nothing,'' Notra Trulock, acting deputy of the Energy Department's Office of Intelligence, said of the concerns expressed by intelligence experts in early 1996 about potential loss of the top-secret computer codes. Lawmakers have applauded Trulock for raising alarms as early as 1995 about the possible theft of nuclear secrets from weapons labs, including information in the 1980s about a sophisticated warhead known as the W-88......Trulock, appearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, described repeated attempts in early 1997 to bring his concerns about espionage and lax security at weapons labs to then-Energy Secretary Federico Pena. He said that he was repeatedly thwarted by senior DOE officials, including Pena's deputy, Elizabeth Moler, and that Pena knew nothing of the espionage concerns for about six months. Trulock in the past also has accused Moler of muzzling him when he tried to testify before Congress..... Trulock, who was director of the Office of Intelligence from 1994 into early 1998, said his concerns about espionage at the labs were viewed in 1997 with skepticism and "outright denial'' among senior DOE officials. They were dismissed as views of "Cold War warriors,'' said Trulock..... Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, the committee chairman, derided the "cavalier attitude about security'' described by Trulock and suggested that senior administration officials should not be let off the hook..... Attorney General Janet Reno announced on Thursday that a veteran prosecutor, Randy Bellows, would head a Justice Department investigation into whether Justice or the FBI made any mistakes in the Wen Ho Lee investigation, dating to 1996...."

http://www.washtimes.com/news/news2.html 5/20/99 By Nancy E. Roman Washington Times "..."The report will be amply illuminating," said Rep. Christopher Cox, California Republican, chairman of the U.S.-Chinese national security committee that put together the report. "No nation has succeeded in stealing so much." Mr. Cox said that disputes over what material to "redact," or censor, have been winnowed from the hundreds to "just a handful," and that the public will see only 70 percent of the committee's findings. The rest will remain classified to avoid revealing damaging information about U.S. intelligence methods. Some Republicans have said the White House also wants to eliminate language that would be politically damaging as well. But 70 percent will be enough, Mr. Cox said. Sen. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican and one of 15 senators who were briefed on the report by Mr. Cox, emerged with a one-word description of it: "Scary. Mr. Cox said that news accounts of what is in the report -- based on information "leaked by others" --have made headlines that merely tease. "The report will explain the story behind the headlines," he said. The document will be posted on the Internet at the address www.House.gov.... The committee has wrangled with the White House since Jan. 1 over which sections to release. The White House argued that most of the report was too sensitive to make public. Members of the committee have said most of the findings should be released to the public...."

AP Jim Abrams 5/24/99 "...But Cox said there were serious lapses in the U.S. response to the Los Alamos affair, which was first uncovered in 1995 but didn't surface until this year when Lee was fired from his job. "For a great deal of time the appropriate people in our government were not told of these things,'' Cox said, noting that one person out of the loop until this year was the secretary of commerce, who is responsible for approving high-tech sales to China...."

Reuters 5/21/99 Tabassum Zakaria "....Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott Thursday lashed out at the White House for the delay in making public a report detailing alleged efforts by China to acquire U.S. nuclear weapons secrets. ``Why has it taken six months to declassify this report?'' Lott said. ``Obviously it's because the administration has been trying to get portions taken out and they have been delaying that report from being released.'' ....Cox, a California Republican, said stolen U.S. secrets could show up in Chinese weaponry by year-end. ``We can look forward for example to the testing later this year of a new intercontinental ballistic missile and we can look forward to that missile being mated with a warhead that built upon United States nuclear weapons secrets,'' Cox said in a Fox News Channel interview...Lott called it the ``biggest breach of national security of our lifetime.''..."

AP 5/24/99 H. Josef Hebert "....In a blurring of commerce and intelligence-gathering, China clandestinely controls several thousand U.S. ``front companies'' to obtain American technology for military purposes, a congressional report says.... The report, about a third of which remains classified, will characterize a voracious appetite by China for American technology -- from nuclear secrets at U.S. weapons labs to satellite and computer technology it obtained through business and academic contacts....The report contends that the espionage threat from China is much broader than the infiltration of the weapons labs, encompassing a broad array of technology-related businesses and academia. There is evidence, the report concludes, that China has been using -- and continues to use -- an extensive network of both small and large businesses operated by Chinese nationals in the United States to penetrate civilian technology centers. There may be more than 3,000 such American ``front companies'' -- many concentrated in high-tech centers in California and New England -- with connections to the Chinese intelligence apparatus, the report says. In addition, the congressional panel concluded, China requires as a normal practice that many of the thousands of students, tourists and other Chinese visitors to the United States to seek out bits of information that might be used for military purposes.....In October, according to committee members, the focus shifted dramatically when the panel learned of a major loss of nuclear secrets at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to the problems of espionage at the weapons labs. At the same time, the committee heard complaints from a senior Energy Department intelligence officer, Notra Trulock, that he had been stymied in his attempts to bring the espionage loss and security problems at the labs to the attention of senior Clinton administration officials...."

Los Angeles Times 5/24/99 Bob Drogin "...The portion of the Cox committee's report that is likely to draw the most interest and concern focuses on espionage at the nation's nuclear weapon labs. And for that, the panel relied heavily on its star witness, Notra Trulock, now acting deputy director of intelligence at the Energy Department. In his testimony Thursday before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Trulock called the current Los Alamos case among the worst in U.S. history. China's theft of nuclear secrets, the 25-year intelligence veteran said, "is on a parallel with the Manhattan Project compromises," referring to the Soviet spy ring that stole blueprints from Los Alamos in the 1940s and helped Moscow build its first atomic bomb..... For his part, Trulock complained that, although he briefed more than 60 members of the administration, his warnings and assessments were generally ignored until mid-1997. "There was a predisposition not to accept the findings of our work," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Trulock, a self-described "whistle-blower" who is a controversial and contentious figure, was more direct in his Senate testimony last week. He complained then that he and his colleagues were "labeled Cold Warriors, knuckle-draggers and even McCarthyites." ....A key finding accuses the Clinton administration of not complying with the National Security Act, which requires regular reporting to the intelligence committees and the leadership of the House and Senate...."

Statement of Lt. Jack Daly "....My name is Lieutenant Jack Daly. I am an active duty regular U.S. Naval Intelligence Officer who, prior to my transfer to San Diego last year, was stationed at the Canadian Pacific Maritime Forces Command Base, Esquimalt, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. My intelligence liaison assignment with the Canadian Armed Forces was under the auspices of the Chief of Naval Operations/Intelligence Directorate (CNO/N2) Foreign Intelligence Liaison Officer (FILO) program, managed by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). On 4 April 1997, I, along with a Canadian Air Force pilot, Captain Patrick Barnes, were wounded aboard a Canadian CH-124 helicopter when we were lazed (shot/targeted with a laser) while on an ONI tasked surveillance mission. This surveillance mission was tasked against the Russian merchant ship KAPITAN MAN, which was located five nautical miles north of Port Angeles, Washington in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. As a result of this lazing, both Captain Barnes and I suffered irreparable eye damage resulting in permanent retinal damage (see appendix A). Captain Barnes has been permanently grounded as a result of this incident and has lost all flight qualifications. He will never fly again. The statement that the Pentagon released to the press on June 26th, 1997, that our injuries were healed, was erroneous. Both Capt. Barnes and I continue to suffer agonizing chronic pain 24 hours a day from this incident and our vision continues to deteriorate, with little expected relief since there is no known effective medical treatment. The pain symptoms we have experienced since the day of the incident have not diminished but have actually increased in severity. The burns to the retinas of both of my eyes have turned into scar tissue that continues to grow resulting in enlarging scotomas or spots in my field of vision.....To make matters worse, the exact type of device that was used against us is still unknown. According to the expert analysis conducted by the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy tri-service group headed by the U.S. Army's Medical Research Detachment (USAMRD) of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, at Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, it could have been one of two known devices, or possibly a device the United States has no knowledge of. Initially, based on the evidence exhibited through extensive testing and evaluation of the physical characteristics of the damage and changed function of our eyes, the possibility exists that the device may have been a Laser Range Finder (LRF) of the Neodymium-Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Crystal or Nd-YAG laser. The other possibility is that of a Fosterite laser which is used to record sound, i.e., the signature of the propeller of a surfaced submarine. In essence, this incident left Capt. Barnes and I as victims of what could be argued was a hostile act in a undeclared war, an act of terrorism and, at minimum, a federal crime. The use of lasers that blind, whether immediately or years later, to ward off surveillance is in direct violation of "Protocol-IV" of the "Certain Conventional Weapons Convention." .... What followed from this point forward was a coordinated effort conducted by select individuals to disprove that this incident had ever actually occurred. Evidence was altered, ignored, omitted and refuted. The subsequent so-called investigations and reports that followed served only to support the original intentions of a cover-up. Unfortunately, the evidence of the case remains an errata event which the cover-up cannot hide; both Captain Barnes and I have retinal damage from a lazing incident which occurred in the line of duty. ....I sent a letter, dated October 6th, 1998, to the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno, outlining my concerns regarding this incident and it's handling. To date I have received no reply. A follow-up phone call to the Attorney General's office indicated that the letter had been passed on to the National Security division at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). After numerous phone calls to that office, I was informed that it had once again been passed on to the Washington, DC, field office. Repeated telephone calls to this office in order to ascertain the whereabouts and status of this letter have been futile, and numerous requests for a return call have been ignored. This is not surprising considering that in an interview with an FBI agent from the Seattle field office in April 1997, the statement was made to Capt. Barnes and I that "since no device was found during the search the case is considered open and shut." Recent consultations with an Assistant United States Attorney revealed that this method of handling this incident is contrary to the norm under U.S. laws and enforcement thereof.....There will be those who will claim that this approach was taken "for National Security" reasons. However, it is our National Security that has been jeopardized and our nation which has been weakened. Considering the ever increasing instability around the world, particularly in Russia with it's numerous nuclear weapons and instability, our National Security depends on increased vigilance now more than ever before..... In fulfilling my duty as a Naval Officer and while upholding the oath that I took to protect and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I was wounded in the line of duty. However, for some unknown reason, since April 4th, 1997 I have been accused of having fabricated the entire event and labeled a liar, a lunatic and a traitor. My loyalty to the United States Navy has been questioned and I have been passed over for promotion. I have even been accused of withholding intelligence from the U.S. on this issue. The actual reasons why this incident was handled the way it was is unknown. However, the information provided today paints less that a "rosy" picture of the real relationship between Russia and the United States. My greatest fear is that our naïveté and ignorance will continue to foster complacency and a false sense of security that will prove to be our undoing...."

5/25/99 Bill Gertz Washington Times "...The release of the report this morning comes nearly six months after the committee finished its investigation. Mr. Cox said at least 30 percent has been censored by the White House, citing national security......"Some of the most significant thefts have occurred in the last four years" -- after the Clinton administration was informed of serious security lapses, Mr. Cox said. "It does make one wonder how it is that others who possess this information could so readily have dismissed it or not acted upon it," he said.

The Washington Times 5/26/99 August Gribbin "....But it [Cox Report] conceals the extent of espionage during the Clinton years...... For example, the first section of the report states: "In the mid-1990s the PRC [People's Republic of China] stole, possibly from a U.S. national weapons laboratory, classified thermonuclear weapons information that cannot be identified in this unclassified report. Because this recent espionage case is currently under investigation and involves sensitive intelligence sources and methods, the Clinton administration has determined that further information cannot be made public without affecting national security or ongoing criminal investigations." On 24 different occasions, the report declares: "The Clinton administration has determined further information cannot be made public." Nonetheless, the report makes clear that information losses in the last seven years have been massive. The special House investigating committee that prepared the report found that "in the late 1990s" the People's Republic of China illegally obtained research and development "technology" that if properly deployed "could be used to attack" U.S. submarines and satellites. Also in the "late 1990s" China obtained basic research material and data on development regarding "electromagnetic weapons," a phrase that refers to neutron bombs and other atomic weapons. The enormously effective neutron bomb destroys mainly by radiation instead of blast. A one kilatron neutron warhead can, for instance, penetrate armor and kill tank crews while causing slight damage to the tanks. It will kill all within 1,310 yards in all directions of the explosion point. The committee concludes, "Such technology, once developed, can be used for space-based weapons to attack satellites and missiles." In 1997, China reportedly stole data telling how to develop "sensitive detection techniques that could be used to threaten U.S. submarines." ....Carefully avoiding specifics, the report explains that in 1994, a company directly controlled by China's People's Liberation Army was unhindered in buying sophisticated "advanced machine tools" from McDonnell-Douglas. Presumably these tools were used for weapons production. But additionally the committee obtained evidence that "during the 1990s," China stole "technology data from U.S. industry valued at millions of dollars." The committee found that "the PRC used Chinese nationals hired by U.S. firms for that purpose." However, the report adds, "The Clinton administration has determined that no details of this evidence may be made public." In just one 1996-97 operation, the U.S. Customs Service seized $36 million in "excess military property" that was being shipped to China illegally. Included were: Thirty-seven inertial navigation systems for the U.S. F-117 and FB-111 aircraft. Thousands of computers and computer disks containing classified "top secret" information. Patriot missile parts. Five hundred electron tubes used in the U.S. F-14 fighter. Tank and howitzer parts. Twenty-six thousand encryption devices..... Often this equipment was purchased as 'scrap,' for which the buyers paid pennies on the dollar." As an example, the report mentions that the Chinese obtained a "multi-axis machine tool profiler." The device is used for designing wing spans for the F-14 fighter. The original cost was $3 million. China got the device for $25,000. The select committee found that in the "mid-1990s" a Chinese company obtained U.S. defense manufacturing technology for jet aircraft. It didn't bother to try for the necessary export license and lied about the contents of the shipping containers that passed customs and reached the PRC. However, the committee noted again, "The Clinton administration has determined that further information on this case cannot be made public." ..."

5/25/99 U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe "....U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said today that the Cox Report's most important revelations about China's theft of nuclear secrets were known within the Clinton administration at least three years ago and were deliberately withheld from Congress and the American people. "With today's release of the Cox Report, the American people are learning about China's enormously damaging theft of our nuclear secrets which was discovered by the Clinton administration as early as 1995," Inhofe said. "Yet this information was deliberately withheld from members of Congress for the better part of three years. "The President willfully sat on this explosive information for political reasons. His political appointees prevented the Energy Department's Director of Intelligence from briefing the Congress about these matters as late as July of 1998. The President has shown a gross indifference to national security and an utter contempt for the Congress. This is a coverup and a scandal. "The President cannot escape responsibility by saying he has fixed the problem, because he hasn't. "He signed the waivers that allowed our missile guidance technology to improve China's ballistic missiles. "He approved the transfer of export control licensing from the Commerce Department to the State Department, over the objections of his Secretaries of State and Defense. "He appointed the national security advisor, the attorney general, and the previous Energy secretaries whose competence in dealing with the nuclear secrets scandal has been called into question. "He misled the American people over 130 times saying no nuclear missiles were targeted at America's children when he knew there were. "He presided over a campaign fundraising scandal in which over 100 witnesses have fled the country or refused to testify. "He told the American people two months ago there was no evidence of Chinese espionage during his presidency when he knew there was. "His defense and foreign policies have harmed national security, from cutting military budgets to squandering our resources in an ill-conceived war in Kosovo, to blocking national missile defense. "This is an administration whose competence in understanding and protecting our national security is constantly shown to be lacking. ...."

The Boston Globe 5/26/99 Michael Kranish "...When a Senate panel two years ago investigated allegations that foreign money was given to the Democratic Party, it hoped to nail down the specifics with testimony from three fund-raisers with connections to the Chinese government. But all three men refused to testify without being granted immunity. Now, the same three men, John Huang, Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie and Johnny Chung, are secretly telling what they know to the Justice Department in exchange for guilty pleas to relatively minor offenses..... ``It looks bad,'' said Senator Fred Thompson, the Tennessee Republican who headed the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee investigation in 1997. He noted Huang reportedly has not implicated ``higher-ups.'' ``If this is the kind of cooperation they are getting for a probation sentence, it heightens our concern,'' he said in an interview. Thompson said he plans to launch a new investigation focusing on why the Justice Department decided to plea bargain. Thompson often has said an independent counsel should be appointed to examine the campaign finance matter because the administration has a vested interest in closing the probe...."

W TIMES 5/27/99 Sean Scully "...House Democrats yesterday rallied to President Clinton's defense over the release of the bipartisan Cox report, saying he has made vigorous efforts to combat Chinese espionage and sharply attacking his Republican critics. GOP criticism of the president is a "cheap and vulgar partisan attack which has been used opportunistically and cynically by individuals in this town, some in this body," said Rep. Tom Lantos, California Democrat.. "I'm not sure whether I should be more concerned with the threat from without or the raging threat from within that's starting to take place," said Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, New York Democrat...... In many instances, Mr. Cox and Mr. Dicks were unable to discuss specifics of the security violations. At White House insistence, almost a third of the report is secret. During months of negotiation, the White House steadfastly refused to declassify much of the more recent information. As a result, the report gives an incomplete picture of spying during the Clinton administration.. "Just like Watergate, it's the cover-up that counts," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, during yesterday's hearing....."

CBN News Interview 5/26/99 "... LEE WEBB: Joining us live from Capitol Hill is Representative Curt Weldon. Representative Weldon, welcome. Thank you for being with us. CURT WELDON (R-PA): I am happy to be here. WEBB: Our reporter tells us you were the angriest person on the panel at Tuesday's news conference. What has you more upset than other members? WELDON: Well, the way the White House has tried to spin this whole effort, it is not unusual for the White House to do that. But in cases of national security, to me, it is absolutely unacceptable and it is a travesty. The example I can give you, just that comes to mind, is that we finished our work the first week of January of this year and had a total bipartisan vote 9-0 in favor of our findings. We wanted to get this information out to the American public as soon as possible, but the administration kept stonewalling our efforts. In fact, it took us five months to get it out. On February 1st, Sandy Berger, the top security adviser to the president of the United States, took a public document responding to our 38 classified recommendations and gave it to selected media in this city. Two days later, the head of the CIA, in a sworn statement before the House National Security Committee, said he hadn't even read the report yet, which meant the White House was already spinning its report and spinning its response two days before the head of the CIA publicly acknowledged they hadn't even had time to read the report yet. This White House just doesn't get it. I mean, in every type of situation they get themselves involved in, it becomes a spin effort to work their way out. Now they are trying to say that this whole thing is focused on our laboratories. And Bill Richardson is saying he has done everything necessary. Well, that is only one small part of what the Cox committee was about. Bill Richardson is not the secretary of defense; Bill Richardson is not the director of central intelligence. Bill Richardson ought to focus on what his responsibilities are, because, goodness knows, he is overseeing one of the worst debacles in the country's history and for him to trivialize this is absolutely irresponsible; it is irrational and it is wrong...."

The Washington Times 5/27/99 Mark Levin "...None of this concerns Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Having spent nearly two years trying to scuttle the Thompson committee's investigation of China's efforts to influence illegally the outcome of the 1996 presidential election, Mr. Daschle reacted to the Cox report's revelations as follows: "This administration knew what the Reagan administration and the Bush administration knew, but, in contrast, chose to do something about it." Unlike his predecessors, Democrat or Republican, Mr. Clinton transferred primary legal authority for approving export licenses for advanced U.S. technology from the security-conscious State Department to the politically conscious Commerce Department for the purpose of making such exports easier. Mr. Clinton is also the first and only president to approve an export waiver authorizing two companies - Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics - to transfer technological secrets in the face of a criminal investigation involving their prior alleged export violations. Mr. Clinton approved personally the export of their data relating to satellite- and missile-launch technology to China over the objections of his secretary of state, the Pentagon and others. And Mr. Clinton's political appointees at the Justice Department rejected repeated requests by the FBI to wiretap Wen Ho Lee, the Los Alamos lab scientist suspected of spying for China. Attorney General Janet Reno's defense of this blunder goes something like this: Even alleged spies have constitutional rights. The Justice Department refused even to bring the matter before a federal judge. Then there's the little problem of Notra Trulock, acting deputy director of the Energy Department's Office of Intelligence..... At the same time, the Chinese military was funneling money into the Democratic National Committee and the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. Gee, I don't remember the commies' contributing to the Reagan or Bush campaigns. One hundred twenty-one people connected with the fundraising scandal have either pleaded the Fifth Amendment or fled the country to evade law enforcement. And Mr. Clinton's attorney general has refused to trigger the appointment of an independent counsel to get to the bottom of all of this, despite the urging of the FBI director and the former head of the campaign-finance investigation. ..."

Rush Limbaugh / EIB Network 5/27/99 Freeper newsman "...Today, on his talk show, Rush Limbaugh said he was amazed, maybe even astounded, that Senator Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who charged former Presidents Reagan and Bush with treason Tuesday, has not demanded the convening of an emergency select committee to look into the matter. ...Today Limbaugh responded: "They [Reagan and Bush] knew and they chose not to take any action - that's Tom Daschle's bombshell! But three days have gone by and he hasn't pursued the matter further. Why? Why drop this? I'm serious about this. This has to do with nuclear secrets. The minority leader has accused the Reagan and Bush administrations of knowingly allowing espionage to occur and did nothing about it, while the Clinton administration was the first to do something about it. "This cries out for answers," said Limbaugh, the tone of his voice changing to signal that he was about revealed the discrepancies. "Now again I wish to point out to you that, according to the 'Tom Daschle Bombshell,' Reagan and Bush knew, and did nothing. In other words, there was information about substantial Chinese espionage for 20 years, and Reagan and Bush didn't stop it. However, Janet Reno says that she didn't have enough information three years ago to authorize a wiretap on Wen Ho Lee, the suspect." Also, continued Rush, "according to Senator Daschle, the president of the United States, was the first to understand the implications of the theft, the first man in America to understand the severity of what had been purloined. And yet - while Reagan and Bush knew 20 years ago and did nothing - Bill Clinton, according to his own statement, knew nothing about it prior to March 19 [of this year], even though members of his administration did." So Daschle is caught red-headed conning the accommodating media with two glaring discrepancies. "And all the while," Limbaugh then charged, "Senator Daschle accuses the Republicans of playing politics with this, of being extreme and partisan. If you ask me, ladies and gentlemen, we need fast action on the part of the U.S. Senate now" to investigate Daschle's charges, and he challenged the minority leader to get it moving. "I would think that Daschle would be demanding that [Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott appoint a select committee to look into this," he declared. After reminding his vast audience that this was the biggest treason story in U.S. history, Rush added: "This treason outdoes Julius and Ethel Rosenburgs'. But three days have gone by now, and the minority leader has not moved." Why is there no movement? "Look at the difference, ladies and gentlemen. After the Columbine and Conyers school shootings, the Senate wasted no time in passing irrelevant gun control laws that had nothing to do with stopping such tragedies in the future. But, boy, did the Senate move fast [after the school shootings], with Tom Daschle right there to see to it. "And now three days have gone by [since Daschle leveled his most serious charges against Reagan and Bush] and there has not been one shred of movement on the 'Tom Daschle Bombshell!' Why not?" ..."

The Drudge Report 5/25/99 Deb Weiss ".... The night before the Cox Committee's report on Chinese espionage was due to be released, I watched MSNBC's Chip Reid and Brian Williams talking it over. An MSNBC preemptive strike -- smirky, smug, smarmy. The Cold War redux, framed in ironic anomie. A deja vu moment, its haunting nuance like an old tune heard and half-remembered. Why so familiar? Ah yes. They were glossing over the report itself. They weren't talking policy or praxis. No substance. No facts. No conclusions, no reality. No hard-nosed analysis of all those numbers and dates and documents. Nope. They were talkin' dish. They were talkin' spin. As if nukes, or a new Cold War, were inconsequential -- mere fripperies that paled beside the possibility of political harm coming to Mr. Clinton. Clinton's front-line cable boys, spinning for The Man before that toxic Cox report could see the light of day. Spin in the act of being etched in stone. They quoted presidential press secretary Joe Lockhart on the sin of 'fingerpointing' (a caution the press only notes when Republican fingers are doing the pointing). They acclaimed Lockhart's coy soundbite that this 'bipartisan problem' requires a 'bipartisan solution' (another cliche trotted out only when there's DNA evidence against Democrats). They spouted the White House formulation, eliding China's decades-old pattern of garden-variety espionage with the curious and still-murky 'special' circumstances that seem to have obtained since 1992. They even floated Team Clinton's most audacious China-spin (so far, at least) -- that because the espionage was intercepted on Mr. Clinton's watch, he gets the credit. He saved us from the Reds. Bill Clinton, Commie-catcher. Yes!! (Distant sound of Lanny Davis, cackling in the ether.) ..."

Washington Weekly 11/17/97 "...The most shocking and devastating revelation made by Bob Woodward's story Friday is that after Chairman Thompson announced two weeks ago that he was suspending his public hearings, the FBI obtained intelligence showing that the Ministry of State Security in Beijing -- the Chinese equivalent of the CIA -- boasted it had been successful in "thwarting" the congressional inquiry. How could Chinese agents be able to "thwart" an inquiry by the U.S. congress? The answer is not hard to find. One need only look at those who irrationally attacked Chairman Fred Thompson for his opening statement, where he revealed that there was a Chinese plot to influence the election. His statement was deliberately non-partisan, so there would be no partisan reasons to counterattack. But the interests of the Chinese intelligence agency would be served. Senator John Glenn said: "I think I have seen everything the chairman has seen, and I recall nothing to document allegations that China had done anything illegal." After the FBI offered to show the classified evidence to any Senator who wished to see it, Senator Glenn fell strangely silent. Even more shocking was Senator Glenn's offer to negotiate an immunity agreement on behalf of John Huang. How did John Glenn end up representing a Communist agent whom Senate staffers had been unable to locate? .....Chairman Thompson's landmark opening statement included a reference to the U.S. media. He referred to intelligence showing Chinese agents "attempting to communicate Beijing's views through media channels in the United States." It comes as no surprise, then, that network and cable news anchors took the position of Senator Glenn in ridiculing Thompson's allegation....... And there is at least one FBI counterintelligence agent who is so outraged by the cover-up of his superiors that he is now leaking to Bob Woodward....."

 

WorldNetDaily 6/1/99 Charles Smith "...Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., says that one third of the long-awaited report on Chinese espionage bearing his name never made it past the White House and may never be made available to the public. However, political limitations cannot hold back the facts. What Clinton deleted from the Cox report is just as important as what we are allowed to see.

Washington Times 6/1/99 "...Underlying Sen. Akaka's understandable defensive posture in the face of this espionage scandal is a straightforward conclusion that Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman, unlike Messrs. Clinton, Gore, Berger and Daschle, had the courage to reach. It's clear, Mr. Lieberman said last week, that "this espionage has gone on through the Clinton administration and that, in hindsight, the administration's response -- after notification -- was not as rapid as it might have been." Indeed, in several respects, that response was obstructionist, counterproductive and clearly antagonistic to long-term U.S. national security...."

'Betrayal' by Bill Gertz 6/01/99 By Newsman "... according to author Bill Gertz's Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security. For, contrary to the rosy picture Clinton paints of our relations with them, the Russians are still our most dangerous enemy. And - also contrary to the president's assurance - the Russians never got rid of their nuclear arsenal, as they promised under the terms of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Moreover, they still have their siloed missiles aimed at us. Indeed, writes Gertz, "Russia is engaged in a major strategic arms buildup that includes new long-range land-based missiles and a new class of long-range ballistic missile submarines, as well as continued development of a massive underground strategic defense program of secret bunkers and command centers for waging nuclear war. . . . In other words, Russia is embarked on a major strategic nuclear modernization program while, at the same time, the United States is sending over $1 billion to help the Russians 'dismantle' nuclear weapons. This buildup has gone on without any effort by President Clinton to discourage the Russians from spending millions on weapons that directly threaten the United States."....And, oh me, I forgot to mention that the Russians still have their "Suitcase Bombs." At one time they had 250 of these "portable nuclear bombs," with the exploding power of 1,000 tons of TNT, which can be set off by saboteurs to block communications or wreak great havoc on our cities. More than 100 of these 250 suitcase bombs, according to testimony before Congress, have fallen into unknown hands. But that still leaves Russia with about 150. And what is Clinton's reaction to this threat? "As if by reflex," says Gertz, "the Clinton administration's response was to play down the alarming claims. Once again, the White House did not want to paint Russia in a dangerous light because of its efforts to woo Moscow and pretend that post-Soviet Russia had become an ally."...."

Committee on Government Reform 6/1/99 Dan Burton "....I am deeply troubled by reports that the leadership at the Department of Energy would discourage an employee from informing Congress of security problems at the agency," Burton said. "One of the key findings of the bi-partisan Cox Report was that Congress was not adequately briefed on DOE security breaches and the unprecedented scale of espionage at DOE labs. It is disturbing to think that whistleblowers would have to fear for their jobs." During the 1990s, Mr. McCallum wrote several reports faulting agency budget cuts, saying they seriously weakened security forces assigned to protect weapons-related facilities and to screen foreign visitors. Mr. McCallum, who was placed on administrative leave in April, has claimed that within the last few weeks he has come under pressure not talk to Congress if he wants to continue working in the government...."

JimRob Received via email 5/31/99 Garland "...Those familiar with the Burton and Thompson Committee evidence, know that the Cox Committee basically confirmed in more detail what was already known from their investigations. This evidence was also defined by the Senate investigators in a book entitled Year of the Rat. The real question that now begs to be answered is "How complicit were organizations and individuals within our government in giving them the information?". About 100 pages that answer this question in the classified Cox report were left out of the declassified version for reasons of 'national security'. A disturbing, but good start at answering this question can be found in the declassified report appendices, which may be the most intriguing chapter in the entire report. Here, the report mentions how Loral employees were instructed by their lawyers not to answer questions and how three Loral lawyers claimed attorney certain client privileges, after Loral waived the privileges for voluntary disclosure. The report then goes on to describe three top government agencies that similarly hampered the investigation. First, the CIA impeded the investigation by tipping off Hughes with a 'courtesy' notice that the Cox Committee might interview Hughes employees. The CIA even detailed to Hughes the potential lines of questioning. The Cox Committee did not agree to the 'courtesy' notification and was concerned that the CIA had given Hughes the opportunity to destroy evidence and pressure employees to be less candid. Second, Chairman Cox testified that the Justice Department attempted to insert itself as an intermediary for information requests between the committee and all government agencies because an investigation was in progress. However, Justice did not provide other agencies with necessary progress information about their investigation. The Cox Committee spent a major part of their resources retracing Justice Department steps despite protests of harm to their investigation. The sincerity of their investigation was demonstrated one day after the Cox report was released, when Justice gave John Huang immunity for the entire campaign finance scandal in a plea bargain on an unrelated 1992 charge. Previous evidence indicated that Huang arranged most of the 7 sources of revenue traceable through 11 streams from Clinton / Gore campaigns and the DNC to individuals and organizations directly connected to the Communist Chinese military. Even more disturbing was the lack of cooperation from the Department of Defense (DOD). Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) employees testified that senior managers frequently overruled valid national security concerns regarding DOD positions on dual-use license applications. But the DOD refused to allow the Cox Committee to interview the six most senior DTSA managers, refused to let them interview DTSA employees unless a DOD observer was present and refused to allow DTSA employees to answer a survey by mail. The problems illustrate how key Executive Branch agencies can easily form a tyrannical dictatorship that is not accountable to the American people or even the Congress of the United States. They also show a strong anti-American pro-Communist mentality in individuals at the very top of the CIA, DOD and Justice Departments, which are agencies that we rely on to protect our freedom. As Americans, we are falsely fooled into believing that elected and appointed officials represent our interests...."

fcw.com 6/3/99 Daniel Verton "...According to an amendment to the fiscal 2000 Intelligence Authorization Act proposed last month by Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), the director of Central Intelligence, the director of NSA and the attorney general must submit a report within 60 days of the bill becoming law that outlines the legal standards being employed to safeguard the privacy of American citizens against Project Echelon. .... However, NSA, the supersecret spy agency known best for its worldwide eavesdropping capabilities, for the first time in the history of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence refused to hand over documents on the Echelon program, claiming attorney/client privilege. ...Calling NSA's argument of attorney/client privilege "unpersuasive and dubious," committee chairman Rep. Peter J. Goss (R-Fla.) said the ability of the intelligence community to deny access to documents on intelligence programs could "seriously hobble the legislative oversight process" provided for by the Constitution and would "result in the envelopment of the executive branch in a cloak of secrecy." ...."

AP 6/7/99 "...A court-appointed investigator found the government still handles American Indian trust records carelessly more than three months after two Cabinet officials were held in contempt of court over them. In a report issued Monday, the official said trust documents are stored in ``patently substandard conditions'' at several Bureau of Indian Affairs offices he inspected recently. At Anadarko, Okla., records were kept in wooden sheds. Files were spilled loosely around and stuffed in unmarked boxes strewn among truck tires, the report said. Alan Balaran was appointed a special master in a lawsuit against the government after U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth found Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in contempt for delaying the turnover of trust records. The judge said he had ``never seen more egregious misconduct'' by the government. The lawsuit alleges the government has been mishandling the accounts for decades. They include 300,000 accounts held by individual Indians, subjects of the lawsuit, and an additional 1,600 tribal accounts worth $2.5 billion. The money includes lease revenue, royalties and court settlements. Balaran recommended the judge order safeguarding of the documents. ``The absence of an order affirmatively mandating the preservation of Indian trust records risks the possibility that the deficiencies ... will continue unchecked and that the opportunity for a meaningful accounting will be forever lost,'' Balaran wrote....."

Judicial Watch 6/9/99 "...If the state investigation was politically motivated - and Tripp has stated that she believes it was inspired by Hillary Clinton -- then Montarinelli's actions could amount to witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Judicial Watch filed a Public Information Act Request, which is similar to the Federal Freedom of Information Act , seeking documents relating to whether or not political influence was involved. Rather than producing documents, Montarinelli stonewalled. When Judicial Watch was forced to file suit, he filed a misleading affidavit with the Court, suggesting that he had no documents. This proved false. The lower state court -- which obviously "smelled a rat" -- ordered the Maryland State Prosecutor to list, as is routine, the documents which he had in his possession, so it could review subsequent claims of privilege and determine whether to release them. Even this was too much for the Democrat prosecutor to bear, so he appealed. Yesterday, Larry Klayman, Chairman and General Counsel of Judicial Watch, argued the case before Maryland's highest tribunal, and pointed out how evidence of misuse of the government's investigatory process could not be privileged information. An hypothetical example would be a letter from Hillary Clinton to Mr. Montarinelli, ordering that he, as a loyal Democrat, investigate and prosecute Linda Tripp to threaten and impede her role as a material witness. However, inexplicably, Tripp's lawyers seem more intent on feathering the nest of the local Democrat politicians before whom they practice in Maryland, than agreeing with their own client. In The Washington Post today, Mr. Anthony Zaccagnini is quoted as saying: "... he doubts there is merit to Judicial Watch's argument. My impression was that we had no evidence that pressure on the prosecutor from the White House was occurring." Tripp's other lawyer, Joseph Murtha, adds: "Do I believe that Mr. Montarinelli is the handmaiden of President Clinton? I have no evidence that shows that." "...."

Fox News 6/9/99 Reuters "...The White House Wednesday rejected Republican calls for National Security Adviser Sandy Berger to testify to Congress on the investigation into allegations China stole U.S. nuclear weapons secrets. "As far as I know, there are no plans now for any formal testimony,'' White House spokesman Joe Lockhart told reporters. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, a Republican of Alabama, has said he intends to ask Berger to testify on his awareness of the investigation and what he told Clinton about it. Tuesday, Shelby said, "I believe it's important for Mr. Berger to come before the intelligence committee. I hope he will not assert executive privilege because these questions are too important...I would be really disappointed if he refused.''...But he cited issues of executive privilege in saying cabinet-agency executives should testify rather than members of Clinton's executive staff such as Berger. "There is a traditional and constitutional argument that many administrations have taken about White House staff testifying versus other members of the administration that are confirmable (by the Senate),'' Lockhart said. ...."

Associated Press 6/9/99 H Josef Hebert "...Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said Wednesday he has turned over an internal investigation into mishandling of the China espionage case to the department's inspector general, delaying its release for at least 30 days. The long-awaited review of the Energy Department's response to the alleged theft of nuclear secrets from the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory in New Mexico had been expected to be released this week. ``More questions need to be asked. ... I want to do this right. Careers are at stake,'' Richardson said. Richardson has said the mishandling of the case involving a three-year espionage investigation of a Los Alamos scientist would result in firings and demotions. ``There will be disciplining. There will be terminations,'' Richardson reiterated Wednesday, speaking to reporters after a three-hour appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee. But Richardson said a draft of the internal report given to him on Monday ``did not effectively or adequately deal'' with the actions of personnel at the agency's headquarters in Washington. He said he had accepted findings involving Los Alamos employees, but would not elaborate....."

Chicago Sun Times 6/10/99 Robert Novak "...In the first week of July 1997, the Justice Department dispatched a lawyer from its campaign-finance task force and an FBI agent to Little Rock, Ark., in quest of a warrant to search the home and offices of restaurateur and Clinton fund-raiser Charlie Trie. But they were called back to Washington before any warrant could be issued. Not until 3 1/2 months later was the search made. By that time, as court testimony has shown, material subpoenaed by Senate investigators was destroyed by Trie's order. After the story of the aborted search warrant was confirmed last week by Justice in briefing the House Government Reform Committee staff, Chairman Dan Burton subpoenaed records of what transpired two years ago. Typically, the department missed the subpoena's due date. Such stonewalling by Attorney General Janet Reno long ago cooled the investigative fervor of the Republican-controlled Congress. But not Burton's. Dogged despite intense abuse, the chairman still targets illegal foreign financing for President Clinton's re-election in 1996. What's more, Burton has cited new evidence in asking Reno to reconsider something she has steadfastly refused: naming an independent counsel. This effort to breathe life into Burton's inquiry comes as Reno's lieutenants are putting a lid on the scandal that once threatened the Clinton presidency. Trie and fund-raiser John Huang both have entered guilty pleas for lenient sentences, with the Clinton White House and the Democratic National Committee off the hook. The Justice Department's deadly delay in executing the Trie search warrant bears an eerie resemblance to its refusal to wiretap a scientist suspected of giving nuclear weapons secrets to China. In Trie's Little Rock trial last month, his office manager, Maria Mapli, testified under a grant of immunity that she followed Trie's orders to destroy information sought by Sen. Fred Thompson's investigation beginning in mid-1997. According to committee sources, the FBI pressed for the search warrant, only to be forestalled by Justice Department orders from Washington. "It is troubling to wonder what additional records that we will never know about may have been destroyed in this time frame," Burton said in a June 4 letter to Reno accompanying the subpoena...."

Chicago Sun Times 6/10/99 Robert Novak "...The Burton committee's open-ended investigation still is seeking testimony from Trie and Huang. But, as usual, the Justice Department is insisting on delays..... In again calling for an independent counsel, Burton in a May 26 letter to Reno cited two pieces of evidence that "coffees" at the White House were, in fact, fund-raisers. The first was the assertion in former White House Special Counsel Lanny Davis' new book that the "coffees were held to raise money during a political campaign. That's a fact." The second, retrieved from the computer of March Fong Eu, former U.S. ambassador to Micronesia, describes the coffees as fund-raisers presided over by the "man"--presumably Bill Clinton. Reno, guided by her highly political aides, has been impervious to new evidence when she has refused to invoke the independent-counsel statute. That was made clear in a chilling interview on ABC's "Nightline" May 26 with former Justice Department campaign-finance task-force chief Charles LaBella. His 94-page memo recommending an independent counsel, he indicated, was ignored last year because Reno already had made up her mind. "Nobody talked to me about that [report]," LaBella said. "Nobody ever debriefed me on my report." He was soon shuffled out of government service. LaBella also revealed that he had been ordered by the deputy attorney general's office: "Don't talk to Congressman Burton." Complaining to me that "we have been blocked by the Justice Department," at every turn, Burton is one member of Congress who argues that an independent counsel mechanism is essential...."

David Limbaugh/newsmax.com 6/12/99 "...First, Weldon confirmed what we suspected all along: While the administration was purportedly reviewing the report for security reasons (for the benefit of the nation), it was actually engaging in damage control by preparing a rebuttal to the report (for the benefit of Bill Clinton)..... The administration purposefully leaked and spun details from the report months before it was released to the public. On Feb. 1, four months before responding to Congress with its security concerns, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger issued a detailed statement to select members of the Washington media specifically responding to the 38 recommendations of the committee that were still classified. Secretary of Energy and White House flack Bill Richardson has continued the spin operation, apparently not content to rely solely on the Kosovo campaign as a decoy. He brazenly contended that "these problems didn't happen under the Clinton administration. They happened under previous administrations." -- Despite Richardson's assurances that the security problems have been remedied, to this day there are no controls on e-mails that are being sent out of our labs. -- The public has been made aware of less than 1 percent of what the FBI and CIA know about the linkages between PLA front organizations, front companies and financing mechanisms....."

yahoo! News 6/11/99 Tom Dogget Reuters "... Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has ordered a new investigation into lax security at the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories, delaying for at least a month punishing government workers responsible for wrongdoing, a spokesman said Thursday..... " Freeper cornelis reports Rep. Curt Weldon's reply: ``The administration is deplorable in that they are trying to find scapegoats. We are going to come down with a sledgehammer if they try to do this,'' said Rep. Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican and member of the House Select Committee on National Security, which issued the spy report...."

The Washington Post 6/11/99 Cindy Skrzycki "....The debate between the business community, which thinks it has the right to know about the science that goes into rules that it must comply with, and the researchers who want their work protected from prying eyes was set off by a 1997 Environmental Protection Agency proposal to tighten air-pollution rules at considerable cost to industry. After the EPA rule change was proposed, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) pressed the agency for the Harvard University study that helped it draw its conclusions about the need for a new air-quality rule. But EPA refused to request the data for Shelby. "What the heck? Can you imagine the arrogance?" Shelby said, who responded with the disclosure legislation..... Shelby said there are safeguards in the current Freedom of Information Act that protect the privacy of patients, trade secrets and other sensitive information..... He said the new OMB rule would "empower the people to have access to the data." He chided the scientific community for appearing "to view federal funding as an entitlement" and for assuming the public is "too stupid to understand their research" and likely to misuse it....... Robert Hahn, director of the Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, and Linda Cohen, an economics professor at the University of California at Irvine, suggest tailoring access to the documents. They believe there should be access to the information that results in regulations that have significant economic impact -- such as the EPA's 1997 ozone and particulate matter standard, which would make current air-pollution rules more stringent -- and an independent agency should be created to replicate the results of research before any standard becomes final. "Give the data to a completely disinterested party and see if they can replicate the results," said Randall Lutter, former OMB economist and an AEI resident scholar...."

NewsMax.com 6/11/99 Carl from Oyster Bay "...Could it be that the spirit of the late Vince Foster now haunts the Chinagate probe? On Thursday nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported that a 1997 attempt to search Chinagate figure Charlie Trie's Little Rock office was thwarted when, inexplicably, the Clinton Justice Department ordered its investigators to return to Washington, D.C. More than three months later, Justice probers got the green light and a warrant was obtained. But by that time Trie had his office manager destroy key documents Last week, according to Novak, Clinton Justice confirmed this sequence of events for Rep. Dan Burton (R-In), who chairs the House committee which continues to probe the Chinese campaign cash connection.....Four years later, Charlie Trie was tracked down by ABC News in China, just weeks after the search of his own office had been mysteriously aborted by Washington. He had fled overseas, ostensibly, to avoid congressional subpoenas. But that's not how Trie explained it to ABC. Instead, the bigtime Clinton donor peered into the TV camera and revealed, "I'm not hiding. I want to stay alive." Evidently, by seeing that important evidence was shredded and by making himself unavailable for testimony, Trie succeeded where Foster had not. He did manage to "stay alive". ..."

NewsMax.com 6/11/99 Carl from Oyster Bay "...Five years ago [Sen Kit] Bond sat on the then-Democrat controlled Senate Banking Committee, which was investigating Whitewater at the time. The committee scheduled a single day of hearings into the death of Vince Foster, who doubled as both the Clintons' Deputy White House Counsel and their Whitewater lawyer. Before the July 29, 1994 hearing, Bond got permission from then-chairman Sen. Don Reigle to dispatch his own investigators down to Little Rock. Why? To see if Foster was tipped off when the Little Rock U.S. Attorney issued a search warrant for the office of key Whitewater witness David Hale....Three days before the Foster hearing, Bond's team was in the Little Rock ready to interrogate the U.S. Attorney's staff about whether anyone had called Foster with a heads-up on the search warrant. But an hour before the scheduled 9:30AM grilling, word came down from the Banking Committee that permission to do the interviews was withdrawn. Bond's team packed their bags and flew back to Washington in disgust Thus, one of the great mysteries of Whitewater slipped between the cracks: Did Foster know about the Hale office search? If the answer is yes, then he knew that Whitewater was about to explode, which no doubt caused him great distress. Just hours after the Hale office search warrant was issued, Foster's body was found in a remote Virginia Park; his gunshot death ruled a suicide...."

Chicago Sun-Times 6/10/99 Robert Novak "...n the first week of July 1997, the Justice Department dispatched a lawyer from its campaign-finance task force and an FBI agent to Little Rock, Ark., in quest of a warrant to search the home and offices of restaurateur and Clinton fund-raiser Charlie Trie. But they were called back to Washington before any warrant could be issued. Not until 3 1/2 months later was the search made. By that time, as court testimony has shown, material subpoenaed by Senate investigators was destroyed by Trie's order. After the story of the aborted search warrant was confirmed last week by Justice in briefing the House Government Reform Committee staff, Chairman Dan Burton subpoenaed records of what transpired two years ago. Typically, the department missed the subpoena's due date. Such stonewalling by Attorney General Janet Reno long ago cooled the investigative fervor of the Republican-controlled Congress.... This effort to breathe life into Burton's inquiry comes as Reno's lieutenants are putting a lid on the scandal that once threatened the Clinton presidency. Trie and fund-raiser John Huang both have entered guilty pleas for lenient sentences, with the Clinton White House and the Democratic National Committee off the hook..... According to committee sources, the FBI pressed for the search warrant, only to be forestalled by Justice Department orders from Washington. "It is troubling to wonder what additional records that we will never know about may have been destroyed in this time frame," Burton said in a June 4 letter to Reno accompanying the subpoena. The Burton committee's open-ended investigation still is seeking testimony from Trie and Huang. But, as usual, the Justice Department is insisting on delays. Expressing concern that in return for their light sentences, the cooperation by the two fund-raisers might be "very limited," Burton wrote Reno: "The American people have a right to know what role these individuals played in the campaign fund-raising scandal and whether they are providing full and honest cooperation with the U.S. government."..."

Reuters 6/27/99 "...Republican and Democratic senators criticized Sunday the Clinton administration's handling of allegations of Chinese nuclear spying. Reacting to a New York Sunday Times report that the White House was told of the technology loss in 1995, an angry Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, told Fox News Sunday, ''That's the kind of crap that really shouldn't go on. I'm sick of it and that's one reason I'm running (for president).'' ....``The scandal is there -- the revelations of Chinese spying -- and then starts the cover-up, the obfuscation and that makes it 10 times worse. Clearly the White House has not been forthcoming about what the president knew, when he knew it, when (National Security Adviser) Sandy Berger knew it,'' said McCain. ....Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut, said he thought that the White House handling of the allegations had been inadequate. ``From everything that I know the administration ... either knew about it or should have known about it. The 'should have' is because some of the experts at our labs in the Department of Energy reached a conclusion based on what they saw from Chinese nuclear testing that the Chinese must have obtained, probably obtained, information on our W-88 warhead,'' he said on Fox News Sunday..... ``Looking back at it, this is critical enough. The president should have been told then, there's no question about it,'' he said...."

House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 6/24/99 Prepared Testimony of Congressman Curt Weldon "...In 1995, the congressional leadership committed to passing legislation that would mandate the timely deployment of a national missile defense system. Unfortunately, that debate began on a highly partisan note -- bolstered by the President's repeated public insistence that the United States was no longer targeted by Russian missiles.... I also became a conduit for agency employees whose findings were being squelched by the Administration. That is how I first learned about the Administration's aggressive campaign of distortion -- when a former DOE employee came to my office in 1995 to discuss the deterioration of Russian nuclear security.

Jay Stewart In 1991, Jay Stewart, Director of DOE's Office of Foreign Intelligence, commissioned a panel of DOE specialists to assess the control, safety, and security of Soviet nuclear weapons. Later that year, results indicating a loss of control were briefed to Secretary of Energy James Watkins, and the CIA. Stewart made continued monitoring of this urgent situation -- known as the "Russian Fission" program -- the office priority. In December 1992, he led a classified conference on this subject matter at the National Defense University [NDU], which was widely attended by the military, intelligence and policy communities...."

House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 6/24/99 Prepared Testimony of Congressman Curt Weldon "...Hazel O'Leary was briefed on this situation in February 1993, and asked that Secretary-General of NATO Manfred Woerner be briefed immediately. Suddenly, after marshalling the highest levels of support from the U.S. government and NATO, the program was terminated by the newly appointed Director of DOE's Office of Intelligence and Arms Control, Jack Keliher. All papers, briefings, agendas, conference video and audio tapes were seized, locked up -- and ultimately destroyed. Keliher said that the Secretary told him the program was "politically sensitive" and could "embarrass the President." He said that "if any materials from the NDU conference ever leaked to the press, somebody would be fired." He then said Stewart's work was "ill informed," contained "inaccurate assumptions and conclusions" and should not be referred to because it "gave the wrong impression of the situation in Russia." Refusing to buckle under to political pressure and tow the party line, Stewart and his deputy were both removed from all DOE intelligence and management duties. Facing a future in dead-end positions, both quietly left DOE...."

House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 6/24/99 Prepared Testimony of Congressman Curt Weldon "...Concerned that the Administration would try to bury this information, and astounded by the lengths to which it went to dispose of the findings, I initiated an Armed Services Committee investigation of this matter. Most Department employees "circled the wagons," preventing us from obtaining physical evidence of politicization. However, Jay's story was ultimately corroborated by three brave DOE employees, and was later backed up in the book One Point Safe. I subsequently held several hearings in the Armed Services Committee on this matter which confirmed the validity of the Russian Fission effort -- including the testimony of Brookings Scholar Bruce Blair, Russian Academician Alexi Yablokov, General Alexander Lebed and former KGB agent Stanislav Lunev. The Stewart case was my first foray into Clinton Administration politicization of national security matters, and a stunning lesson in just how far this White House would go to bolster its own policy agenda. I still find it absolutely galling that someone of Jay Stewart's caliber, just doing his job, could be so effectively trashed by political appointees and run out of town....."

House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 6/24/99 Prepared Testimony of Congressman Curt Weldon "... #1 - Just as the Russian Fission investigation was wrapping up, I learned that one of my staffer's relatives -- an employee of the CIA -- was suffering undue harrassment after presenting analysis that conflicted with the Administration's policy governing U.S. involvement in UN peacekeeping efforts. Assigned to the panel drafting Presidential Decision Directive 25 dealing with use of forces in peacekeeping efforts, this analyst revealed to his superiors an intelligence leak in Somalia that compromised U.S. security. After objecting to intelligence sharing in international peacekeeping efforts and opposing U.S. troops involvement in civil wars, he was pulled off the PDD panel and reassigned to a lesser job. Managers complained about his writing and analysis, and he suffered continued harrassment. After he requested binding arbitration, he was asked to submit to a drug test, a medical exam for brain tumors, and a psychiatric evaluation. Ultimately, it took a seasoned attorney to bring an abrupt end to the harrassment, and to ensure his exoneration...."

House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 6/24/99 Prepared Testimony of Congressman Curt Weldon "...#2 - When Gordon Oehler, Director of CIA's Nonproliferation Center, provided Congress with detailed information on the scope of the Iranian missile threat, he effectively ended his twenty-five year career. Members were pressing for details on Iranian threat developments, concerned about their implications for our troops and Middle East allies. At the time, the Administration was maintaining that an Iranian medium-range missile capability was a decade away. To his detriment, Oehler provided Members with candid details about technology transfers from Russia and China to Iran that vastly accelerated the Iranian missile threat. His revelations not only undermined the credibility of the Administration's threat assessment, but challenged its policy with respect to Russia and China. In my view, Oehler's greatest sin was not in arriving at these assessments, but in sharing them with a critical Congress...."

House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 6/24/99 Prepared Testimony of Congressman Curt Weldon "... On April 4, 1997, Lt. Jack Daly, a Navy intelligence officer serving on a joint U.S.-Canadian surveillance mission near Seattle, was shot in the eye with a laser beam while monitoring a Russian ship thought to be tracking our submarine fleet. The incident prompted a search of the ship days later, but our State Department provided twenty-four hour warning of the investigation which may have enabled the removal of the laser equipment. Only public areas were allowed to be searched. Because this incident was perceived to be a potential stumbling block in our relations with Russia, it was kept secret for weeks and efforts were made within the Defense and State Departments to cover it up. The State Department never issued a formal demarche..... Fortunately, the story was broken by Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, who exposed more details about it is his recent book Betrayal. While no acknowledgement has been made to this day that the Russians attacked a U.S. military officer, the fleet monitoring ships was ordered to wear eye protection against lasers. When he wrote me pressing for further investigation of this matter, Daly suffered professionally for pursuing this matter. Prior to the incident, he had received his highest rating for promotion ever. After the incident, that rating was reversed, and it became the worst evaluation of his career...."

House Government Reform and Oversight Committee 6/24/99 Prepared Testimony of Congressman Curt Weldon "...At a time when Congress was still questioning the validity of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I obtained a copy of a DOE "gag order" on one of the labs preventing circulation of documents without approval, and requiring notification prior to any congressional interactions. I took Secertary Federico Pena to task for this action, and called on him to protect the sharing of CTBT information with Congress...."

Sen. James M. Inhofe Republican from Oklahoma. "...The Cox Report also tells us that the Energy Department and FBI investigations of this matter have focused exclusively on the loss of the W-88, which we know happened around 1988. There have been no investigations undertaken about the loss of the other warheads, the timing of whose loss cannot be as clearly pinned down...."

Sen. James M. Inhofe Republican from Oklahoma. "...What are the motives for all this? Why did the Clinton Administration act the way it did, in almost total disregard for any traditional concern for U.S. national security? The Cox Report did not answer these questions because it was only concerned with the facts of the security breaches themselves, not what was behind it. But FBI Director Louis Freeh did assign one man to look into this. His name was Charles LaBella, who became head of the Justice Department's China Task Force. He and his investigators spent months looking into the connections, trying to connect the dots with campaign contributions, foreign influences, and Administration actions. What he found is laid out in a 100-page memo he prepared for Janet Reno. We know this memo argues in favor of the appointment of an independent counsel to carry on the investigation. But the memo itself has remained secret, even though it has been subpoenaed by Congress. Janet Reno, who rejected its recommendation for an independent counsel, has refused to release the memo to the Congress or to the public. It is time for that memo to be released. FBI Director Freeh has testified that the public knows only about one percent of what the FBI knows about the Chinagate scandal. It is time for the truth to come out. It is time for the public to get some sense of the other 99% which is contained in the LaBella memo...."

Sen. James M. Inhofe Republican from Oklahoma. "...On March 15, I began my speech by asking the American people to listen as I told them "a story of espionage, conspiracy, deception and cover-up-a story with life-and-death implications for millions of Americans-a story about national security and a President and an administration that deliberately chose to put national security at risk, while telling the people everything was fine." In the three months since I made these statements, none of this has been refuted...."

Sen. James M. Inhofe Republican from Oklahoma. "...I want you to listen again. I am going to pick up on the incredible but true story of the Clinton Administration's betrayal of national security and the scandalous coverup that continues as we speak. In doing so, I fully realize that the majority of Americans will not believe me. They have continued to believe our President even after he has demonstrated over and over that he has no regard for the truth. Though you would never realize it by listening to the national media or the Clinton spin doctors, the recently released Cox Report has revealed a wealth of information on how the Clinton Administration has undermined national security to simultaneously pursue its misguided foreign policies and self-serving domestic political agendas......On the one hand, there is the mind-boggling story of how the Clinton Administration deliberately changed almost 50 years of bipartisan security policies-relaxing export restrictions, signing waivers to allow technology transfers, ignoring China's violation of arms-control agreements and its theft of our nuclear secrets, opening up even more nuclear and high technology floodgates to China and others-thus harming U.S. national security...On the other hand, there is the continuing coverup-the effort to hide from Congress and the American people the true damage that has been done to national security and the Clinton Administration's central role in allowing so much of it to happen on their watch...."

Washington Times 7/2/99 Inside Politics "..."The lesson and the legacy of the Starr investigation into the Clinton administration is that a legal stonewall conducted by a presidency will succeed," the Wall Street Journal says..... Ken Starr was never able to tie the White House directly into any of these events because a president is surrounded by many aides and well-wishers, who don't always have to be told what to do," the Journal said in an editorial. "The reason that a big breakthrough came about sexual behavior was that this was the one thing the president couldn't delegate." ..."

 

Investor’s Business Daily 7/8/99 "… Whatever the motive, it's plain that Richardson is not interested in holding Clinton appointees accountable for rampant Chinese espionage and security breaches during the Clinton years. ''Richardson hasn't done a blessed thing,'' one Cox Committee member told us. ''Last I checked, there were over 70 Chinese nationals still working at the labs.'' And the doors are still open to Chinese visitors. Gottemoeller's lab- to-lab exchange program? Still alive. In other words, it's business as usual. The Clinton administration is still putting politics - and apparently China - above U.S. security. As one bewildered intelligence officer put it: ''What are foreign nationals from Russia and China doing at the labs? And as long as they're in the labs, where's the security?'' Indeed….."

 

WorldNetDaily.com Stephan Archer "…Landmark President Mark Levin informed WorldNetDaily that his group has mounting evidence that the IRS has been obstructing information regarding the names of congressional members who are requesting audit information on tax-exempt, non-profit organizations, particularly those of a more conservative or libertarian bent. In the lawsuit itself, Landmark has been trying to obtain all pertinent information involving the names of individuals and groups who, during the Clinton administration, may have prompted the IRS to audit conservative and libertarian tax-exempt groups. Last March, Landmark Legal received 8,379 pages of documents from the IRS in response to the FOIA request, but large portions of the documents were blacked out. ….Although Levin said there is nothing illegal about asking the IRS to audit a tax-exempt organization, deliberately obstructing public information regarding who requested the audit is a crime. "If you're destroying public documents that are the subject of litigation, that's unlawful," said Levin…."

WorldNetDaily.com Stephan Archer "…Levin said he first got a hold of this information when his organization interviewed a "senior grade" government official who did not want to be identified. This "whistleblower," as Levin called the government official, was in attendance at an October 1997 IRS meeting at which Terry Hallihan, a senior manager for the tax-exempt organization division of the IRS, spoke. According to the "whistleblower," Hallihan made some interesting statements at that meeting. What was said, however, is not entirely known. However, she allegedly indicated that perhaps a Justice Department attorney in attendance leave the meeting before she spoke. No one left. According to information Levin got from his contact, Hallihan addressed IRS policies regarding certain IRS forms on which "intake notes" are kept. "Intake notes," Levin explained, are "notes taken by IRS employees in response to requests by third parties for audits of tax-exempt, non-profit groups." These "intake notes" were allegedly handled in a way that was intended to conceal the source of the audit request. "She (Hallihan) evidently said, according to the person we interviewed who was in attendance (at the meeting), that if a congressman or staffer called, the IRS was to ask the congressman or the staffer where the information came from -- like a TV or a radio report or constituents or a news article or whatever -- so that the IRS could then list as the source of the information something other than the congressman or the staffer," Levin said. Levin added he was told Hallihan was aware some of these "intake notes" had been, or were being, shredded by the IRS…."

Committee on Government Reform 7/15/99 Dan Burton "….Now let me summarize my concerns with the Justice Department and Attorney General Reno. Before I start, though, let me play a tape. I think it is a very good introduction to how this Justice Department operates: [Tape Text]: La Bella: My favorite piece is these two message slips that I got when I was out of my office. At 12:10 on May 20th I got a call from Chairman Burton. Very important, please return the call. At, the same day, 12:10, the same time, it must have been the next phone call, . . . a call from Craig Iscoe who is in the deputy attorney general's office, saying don't talk to Dan Burton. Don't talk to Congressman Burton. So that really says it all. That's Washington in a nutshell. ..."

Judicial Watch 7/16/99 "…Johnny Chung, a Clinton fundraiser who admitted to funneling money from the China's military to the Democratic National Committee to help Bill Clinton, testified to Judicial Watch last week that the Reno Justice Department didn't want to hear all the information and evidence he had on Clinton Administration illegal fundraising and that he was abandoned by the Reno Justice Department despite repeated threats to his life from Chinese operatives. The complete text of Chung's testimony is now available on the Judicial Watch Internet site at www.judicialwatch.org. Mr. Chung also implicated an unnamed top official of the Justice Department, head of the Civil Division, in an effort to keep him quiet by fixing the case against him on campaign fundraising. In fact, Mr. Chung received no jail time. But Judicial Watch believes that the Eric Holder, the number two at the Justice Department, is the likely culprit here.
Another star witness in this case, Nolanda Hill, implicated Holder in similar activity -- accusing him of wanting to keep her quiet about what she knows about the illegal fundraising of her former confidante Ron Brown, the Clintons, and Al Gore. Chung also implicated President Clinton directly in a scheme to keep Chung quiet. Chung testified that he was told by a Chinese operative that President Clinton had a deal with the Chinese that Chung would be pardoned as long as he kept quiet. Chung also gave testimony indicating that Clinton and the Chinese President had agreed together on a cover story to explain away the Chinagate scandal….Chung also testified about threats to his life from at least two squads of Chinese operatives sent to the United States to harm him and his family. Despite these and other threats, Chung was recently told by the U.S. Attorney (appointed by Reno) overseeing his case that he should "call 911" if any future threats occurred… His latest testimony puts him at significant personal risk and is an act of patriotism. The fact that Reno, with Chung's testimony and other evidence, hasn't indicted one high-level official is absolute proof of a massive cover-up, one that Judicial Watch is committed to unraveling…"

Judicial Watch 7/16/99 "…Hillary Clinton, former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, the Commerce Department, and other government officials were also tied to illegal fundraising, bribery, and other crimes in Chung's sworn testimony. Chung's testimony came in Judicial Watch's Chinagate lawsuit against the Commerce Department over its sale of taxpayer-financed trade mission seats in exchange for campaign contributions and related issues…."

New York Times 7/16/99 William Safire "… The most dramatic clash between the F.B.I. and the heavily politicized Reno Department of Justice took place in February 1997. Stimulated by press reports of "the Asian connection" to the Clinton-Gore campaign, the Bureau teletyped all field offices for reports on foreign attempts to influence U.S. political campaigns. On Washington's Birthday the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence chief, John Lewis, delivered a packet of those top-secret reports to Janet Reno. "The Attorney General gave the packet of teletypes to then Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick," reports Michael Bromwich, the in-house Inspector General. At the same time, White House Counsel Charles Ruff made two calls to Justice seeking to find out what embarrassment was in store. Never told by Ms. Reno of F.B.I. restrictions on the documents, Ms. Gorelick bucked them to the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. They then blithely passed them on to Laura Ingersoll's Justice "task force," selected for its ineptitude. Nothing doing, said the F.B.I., which "retrieved the packet shortly after the Task Force received it," according to Bromwich. When I asked the F.B.I. Director, Louis Freeh, yesterday if he had been aware of the confrontation -- an unprecedented dispatch of agents to snatch back evidence from Main Justice -- he replied, "I knew about it and certainly approved of it." …Justice was passing the surveillance of messages to Ted Sieong and Maria Hsia -- both in direct contact with Al Gore in his fund-raising -- all over the building. And so the F.B.I. acted to prevent contacts with the White House officials under investigation, to avoid the sort of improper "heads up" given them in Whitewater….The name-no-names whitewash by Ms. Reno's I.G. admits that Congress was not given two pieces of espionage information it should have had until September 1997 -- after the Senate investigators had all but closed shop and Democrats happily declared the Asian penetration unproven…."

New York Times 7/16/99 William Safire "… Bromwich's 569-page report dumping on the F.B.I. and claiming innocent ineptitude on high is stamped "top secret" because it might jeopardize an ongoing failure at Justice. The two of its deep, dark secrets … are covered in Elizabeth Drew's new book that has a chapter about the successful obstruction of the Thompson committee investigation, "The Corruption of American Politics." One is the Hong Kong source of the $400,000 contribution of Indonesia's Sieong, most of it routed to the Democratic National Committee through his resident alien daughter…. Another secret was sent the committee only after its hearings were over. It alleged that Ms. Hsia had recruited someone in California's state government to be "an agent" for China. In the Bromwich sandwich, eight more bits of intelligence information concealed from Congressional oversight are deliciously embedded, but not for the public to see until after the next election…."

DrudgeReport 7/14/99 "…First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton says in a sworn statement that she had nothing to do with the gathering of FBI files on employees of the Bush and Reagan administrations….. 5. I did not hire, nor did I direct or recommend the hiring of, Craig Livingstone for any position, including his position of Director of the White House Office of Personnel Security, and I do not know Mr. Livingstone's mother…."

Judicial Watch 7/15/99 "…But, in court papers filed Monday, Mrs. Clinton sought desperately to try to block her deposition by saying she was too high a government official to be deposed. In addition to filing a loophole-ridden sworn declaration, Mrs. Clinton’s brief contends that "‘as a general proposition, high-ranking government officials are not subject to depositions’" and that she not have to testify so she can "‘have time to dedicate to the performance of [her] government functions.’" This argument fails for a number of reasons, chiefly because Mrs. Clinton is not a government official. She is, however, a defendant and all defendants are deposed. "If the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President is subject to being deposed, then certainly the President’s wife, who is not even a government official, can be deposed…. Judicial Watch has sworn evidence and documents tying Mrs. Clinton directly to Filegate... The evidence includes but is hardly limited to: – An authentic FBI document and sworn testimony showing Hillary Clinton hired the former bar bouncer Craig Livingstone, the individual who helped obtain the Republican FBI files... – Linda Tripp’s testimony that FBI file information was being uploaded onto White House computers to be shared with the Democratic National Committee -- on the orders of Hillary Rodham Clinton…"

Softwar 7/26/99 "...In 1997 SOFTWAR requested all information on the export of US super computers for the use in nuclear weapons research using the Freedom of Information Act. The US Dept. of Energy responded that all responsive documents in question originated in the US Department of Commerce. The US Commerce Department initially denied access to the materials based on an invalid claim of conflict of interest against SOFTWAR. SOFTWAR threatened to take legal action and Commerce officials gave up and agreed to service the FOIA request in early 1998. Commerce officials have, to date, returned no information to SOFTWAR on the Brown super computer deals. Commerce officials have also been reported to be denying access to similar documents to Congressional investigators...."

Roll Call 7/26/99 John Bresnahan "...House Resources Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) is threatening to seek a contempt citation against a top Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee official over the DCCC's failure to comply with a subpoena. The subpoena, issued two weeks ago, stems from a probe of alleged illegal partisan political activities by an Interior Department employee who was trying to dig up dirt on several top Congressional Republicans. "This a very serious matter," Young wrote in a letter sent late Friday to DCCC Executive Director David Plouffe. "Unless you and the DCCC provide the subpoenaed materials, I intend to issue notice that the full Committee will consider a motion to hold you in contempt of Congress." .... Young is seeking evidence of contacts between North and the DCCC. North sent a former senior DCCC official a memo in October 1997 suggesting they cooperate in finding incriminating information on DeLay, Armey and Rohrabacher and their ties to the Mariana Islands, as well as the American corporations that do business there. ..."

Reason website 7/28/99 Cox Reports Interviewed by Michael W. Lynch and Jeff A. Taylor 8/9 99Reason: A third of the report is still classified. According to some news reports, much of what's classified has to do with the later years. Were you happy with the negotiations with the Clinton administration over how to unclassify the document? Cox: I am very concerned that some of the information that ought to be out for people to make policy judgments is not out. This is particularly true in the area of the very recent export of high-performance computers to particular end users in the People's Republic of China. But the deletions were made in order to protect sources, and second-guessing the representations of the intelligence community on that score is a matter of life and death.

WorldNet Daily 7/22/99 "...The Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department are withholding evidence crucial to a $10 million civil suit alleging the tax agency audited the Western Journalism Center at the behest of the White House in 1996, says Judicial Watch chairman Larry Klayman..... a Treasury Department report obtained by the center through a separate FOIA request shows investigators found documents in the case file not yet produced by the IRS or Justice Department. Among those documents is a letter sent from the White House to IRS officials suggesting an audit of the center was in order.... "This new evidence, clearly suppressed by the administration until after a favorable ruling by a Superior Court judge, provides the smoking gun we were hoping to find in the discovery process," said Klayman. "I am confident this new revelation demonstrating the government systematically concealed the truth will persuade the courts to permit this case to proceed to trial and give us the opportunity to expose and punish these abuses of power." ..."

WorldNet Daily 7/26/99 Joseph Farah "…An official Treasury Department report, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act after three years of such filings by the Western Journalism Center, parent company of WorldNetDaily.com, states unequivocally that the audit of the center in 1996 began with a letter forwarded to the Internal Revenue Service from the White House. This is known as the smoking gun that proves the Clinton administration was actively using the IRS as its own private political attack dog. This is the stuff of police states. This is worse than anything the Nixon administration did. This is raw-boned abuse of power…. WorldNetDaily has been hammering on this story for five consecutive business days. Only two other print sources have touched it -- the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times. Neither treated it as the serious, headline-making front-page news it is….Not only does the Treasury Department report make clear the audit initiated as a result of the letter from the White House, there has been a systematic cover-up of this fact for three years and it continues at the White House and IRS even today. Hello? Is anyone home out there? Do we now tacitly accept such authoritarian practices at the highest levels of government? Is this a case of once impeached, you're home free on any future charges? Or has the public and press become so overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of Clinton administration corruption that proof of crime no longer even matters? …"


Drudgereport 7/26/99 "…The Committee on Government Reform, investigating the cash transfers from China, is now threatening to subpoena individuals from CITIBANK to explain the lack of cooperation. The congressional committee has continually unearthed new leads in the case -- leads the Justice Department has not pursued. Early on in the investigation, it was discovered that CITIBANK was used for the original "Chung wire" of cash from China. Investigators now want the bank records of Liu Chao Ying, a Chinese aerospace executive and lieutenant colonel in the People's Liberation Army. China's alleged money laundering scheme has been on Gerth's radar for months….."

 

Wall St. Journal 8/6/99 "...Investigators have traditionally found it difficult to connect top mafiosi to the crimes they order, not least because the dons typically know enough not to discuss business on their phones, not to keep notes and not to make it easy for investigators to get to key witnesses. The IRS may be taking lessons here. When the Landmark Legal Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act request back in January 1997, it asked a simple question: the names of anyone who had requested audits for any tax-exempt organizations. A few months later, Landmark's suspicions were confirmed by a senior government official who told the foundation that, at a 1997 meeting in San Francisco, IRS official Terry Hallihan spoke about the shredding of IRS intake notes and the ways in which third-party audit requests might be disguised, so they didn't look as though they were coming from congressmen. Yet here we are in the summer of 1999, and we still don't have a straight answer from the IRS. What answers the IRS has given, moreover, suggest some remarkably Gotti-like practices: uncooperative witnesses, secretaries trained not to take notes, missing files, and so on. How else should we view the latest legal maneuver to keep Landmark or anyone else from finding out whether the extraordinary string of audits that hit tax-exempt organizations which might reasonably be described as Clinton opponents was more than coincidence...."

Wall St. Journal 8/6/99 "...In a flurry of motions to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department, representing the IRS, argues - that any reference to IRS shredding of documents be expunged from the record; - that Landmark President Mark Levin, a lawyer and former senior Justice Department official, not be permitted to argue before the Court (though yesterday the IRS reversed itself and now consents to Mr. Levin); -that congressmen who sic the IRS on you should be allowed to do so without your ever knowing. To top it off, the IRS has filed a motion for summary judgement, this on a case that it has dragged out for more than two years. Needless to say it would like that summary judgement issued before the judge, Henry Kennedy, rules on a Landmark request to depose Ms. Hallihan. Remember, this is not a trial; this about discovery. And with each forced release of information the case for a more thorough investigation becomes more obvious.....And it is dead set against the most sensible course for anyone who wants to get to the truth: putting Ms. Hallihan under oath and following the trail where the evidence takes it. We might also ask about the existence of a tape, which the whistleblower says was made and which the IRS denies exists...."

8/6/99 Susan Roth Arkansas Democrat-Gazette "... Arkansan Mark Middleton repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Thursday in his first congressional appearance to answer questions concerning allegations of wrongdoing in the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign...."We are looking at our legal recourse in this matter," said GOP committee spokesman Mark Corallo. "Holding him in contempt or enforcing other sanctions are things we are looking into. Mark Middleton may have set a very dangerous precedent out there today.....Committee Republicans said Middleton can't choose to cooperate with one branch of government and refuse to deal with another. "To say through your lawyer, 'I'm innocent. I have nothing to hide. I'm cooperating with the U.S. government, but I won't cooperate with you because I don't like you' is invalid, in our point of view," Corallo said. "Congress is a duly authorized branch of the U.S. government." Corallo pointed to a May opinion from the Congressional Research Service, which the Republican leadership of the committee sought because of the service's fair and nonpartisan reputation. "Although the law may be to the contrary elsewhere, the courts here in the District of Columbia would likely conclude that the witness has waived any otherwise available Fifth Amendment privilege and may not reassert it in response to the committee's subpoena," the opinion says. In addition, Corallo said, "You can't assert the privilege because you don't want to talk to somebody. You have to feel it will incriminate you somehow. If he's innocent, how would he be incriminated?"...."

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "... Viewed together, in the "totality of the circumstances," the FBI believed that this information [probable cause on Wen-Ho and Sylvia Lee] amounted to "probable cause" that Wen-Ho Lee and his wife Sylvia were "agents of a foreign power" such that approval for electronic surveillance was authorized under FISA. OIPR, however, viewed the evidence against the Lees differently. OIPR argued that the information from the FBI's 1982-84 investigation of Lee and the FBI's more recent, separate investigative lead, in particular, was not "current" enough to satisfy the statutory definition of an agent of a foreign power as someone who "engages in" intelligence activities -- i.e., one who is currently involved in such things. OIPR officials argued that the FBI had "not sufficiently demonstrated a connection" between Lee and the compromise of the W-88 information, and that "all of the most interesting things that would qualify him for coverage were too distant in time."

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...Most importantly, however, OIPR viewed the FBI's case as being flawed from the outset, and "the central reason" for that, OIPR Attorney Allan Kornblum explained, "had to do with the fact that the DOE and Bureau had [multiple] suspects, and only two were investigated. * * * That is the principal flaw which ha[d] repercussions like dominoes throughout all of the other probable cause." When asked why, given the seriousness of the case, they did not simply ask the FISA Court itself to decide whether these elements amounted to probable cause, OIPR attorneys offered two answers. First, Kornblum explained, OIPR believed that the FBI was still working on the issue and would return with more information for the FISA application. "When we broke off discussions in '97," he said, "I fully expected the Bureau to come back." Second, and more broadly, it was OIPR's position, in dealing with FISA matters, that the Department of Justice should be essentially certain that there is probable cause before forwarding a FISA application to the court. According to OIPR attorneys, the statute's requirement that the Attorney General find that the requirements of the statute have been met imposes a legal and ethical obligation upon them to make the determination of probable cause themselves. OIPR, however, was far from certain: the acting head of OIPR, Gerald Schroeder, felt that the evidence did not show probable cause and did not even make "a close case."

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...Accordingly, on August 12, 1997, Allan Kornblum headed a meeting between OIPR and FBI officials at which the application was discussed, and he recounted OIPR's objections. (FBI official "Agent A" took notes at this meeting; this is apparently the only written record of OIPR's denial.) On August 14, John Lewis, then chief of the FBI's National Security Division, sent a memorandum to FBI Director Louis Freeh. In this memorandum, Lewis recounted to Freeh that he had turned in the Wen-Ho Lee FISA application earlier than anticipated -- and without as much supporting information as he would have liked. He advised Freeh that OIPR had found it inadequate. In Lewis' view, Congress had created the FISA court precisely in order to enable it -- rather than OIPR -- to decide close cases. OIPR attorneys are reluctant to describe their disposition of the matter as a "denial" or "turndown," but it is evident that the FBI took it as such. As one FBI official put it, "I think if you were to ask the FBI our impression was that we were not successful, we were turned down in our efforts to get a FISA [warrant]. * * * We didn't get it. We were turned down."

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...It is also evident that after not hearing back from the FBI for some time, OIPR effectively also concluded that the matter was over, for when Ryan's file cabinet and the computer diskette upon which he had stored his draft Wen-Ho Lee FISA applications both became full, he destroyed these records in order to make space for new materials. (At the time, OIPR had no record-keeping policy regarding cases that were not sent to the FISA court for approval; the only documents that remain from this process were kept by the FBI.) That the FBI viewed OIPR's assessment as a refusal is also apparent from the Bureau's subsequent -- and unprecedented -- decision to appeal the matter to the Attorney General. On August 20, DOJ and DOE officials met at the Justice Department to discuss security issues at DOE. Officials present included Attorney General Reno, Deputy Attorney General Holder, and DOE's intelligence chief, Notra Trulock. After this meeting, the head of FBI's National Security Division, John Lewis, mentioned to the Attorney General that the FBI had sought a FISA warrant in the Wen-Ho Lee case, but that "we've been turned down by OIPR. (Attorney General Reno has said that she does not recall the conversation, but does not deny that it occurred.)

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...According to Lewis, she told Kornblum to "[r]evisit it, and I'm going to have either [Daniel] Seikaly [of DOJ's Executive Office for National Security (EONS) within the Deputy Attorney General's office] or the Deputy [Attorney General Eric Holder] review it" The FBI's Stephen Dillard, who also attended the August 20 meeting, thereupon discussed the FISA denial with OIPR Acting Counsel Schroeder and Deputy Counsel Allan Kornblum. At or after the August 20 meeting, Seikaly was asked to review the Wen-Ho Lee FISA matter. Seikaly told the Committee that he does not recall who asked him to do this, but when reviewing this Statement prior to its declassification, OIPR's Allan Kornblum "recalled that * * * Mr. Seikaly [told him] that the Attorney General had asked Mr. Seikaly to review the matter." Seikaly met with Kornblum to discuss the FBI's evidence of probable cause; they talked about this matter at least once

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...Though he had been asked to undertake a review of OIPR's legal judgment in this enormously important case, Seikaly had no experience with FISA matters and had never worked on a FISA issue before (although national security was his field of expertise). "[T]his was -- in my experience at least, a singular event. I had never done it before or since. * * * I am not a FISA expert." After his consultations with Kornblum, however, Seikaly soon agreed with OIPR that the FBI had failed to demonstrate probable cause. Seikaly apparently did not consult with the FBI. In late August or early September 1997, Seikaly communicated his decision to the FBI through Allan Kornblum. Though he had apparently been specifically requested to deal with this important matter, Seikaly says he did not report his disposition of this matter to his supervisor, the Deputy Attorney General, or to the Attorney General herself.

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...The FBI's action in raising the Wen-Ho Lee FISA issue directly with the Attorney General -- as well as the involvement of the Deputy Attorney General's office in adjudicating this intra-Departmental "appeal" -- was apparently unprecedented. Every approval of a FISA surveillance or search request made by OIPR necessarily involves the Attorney General, since her certification is required on the application submitted to the FISC. The denial of a FISA request by OIPR, however -- itself an extremely rare occurrence -- had never before been thus appealed. Similarly, while it was not uncommon for the Deputy's office (though obviously not Seikaly) to become involved in helping assess FISA requests where OIPR recommended approval but the Attorney General still harbored doubts, non-approvals had never before been thus addressed.

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...In the summer of 1998, the FBI endeavored to revive its stalled investigation. The Bureau undertook additional, proactive investigative steps. While not dispositive of Wen-Ho Lee's status as an agent of a foreign power, these additional steps did yield additional information that OIPR attorneys would have considered relevant to a determination of probable cause for FISA surveillance. Nevertheless, the FBI's "Agent A" did not mention the FBI's additional investigative steps to OIPR for four months, and when he did, he failed to recount vital details relevant to a probable cause determination -- details relating to Lee's failure to make full disclosure of a certain significant matter.

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...Indeed, the FBI's only effort to inform OIPR of the results of these additional investigative steps took the form of an unscheduled meeting that occurred when "Agent A" dropped by Ryan's office at the Department of Justice on December 22, 1998. At this meeting, they briefly reviewed "the prior application and the reasons for its declination," and "Agent A" "advised Dave of the FBI's most recent steps and their results." The "results" that "Agent A" recounted, however, were only the bare fact that the investigative steps had not yielded a positive result. He did not tell Ryan about the additional details relating to Lee's failure to make full disclosure that could have affected OIPR's prior determination.

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...By this point, officials at OIPR had become aware of additional information bearing upon the W-88 issue at Los Alamos. In November 1998, the National Counterintelligence Center (NCIC) distributed a report assessing the Chinese espionage threat to the Energy Department's laboratories. This report highlighted the efforts of Chinese intelligence to target these Energy facilities and amplified upon many of the issues (e.g., particular aspects of Beijing's intelligence practices) raised in the draft FISA applications prepared by the FBI and OIPR in the summer of 1997. The new head of OIPR, Frances Townsend, received this report in November or December 1998, and she used it to help prepare the Attorney General for a meeting with Energy Secretary William Richardson. OIPR attorney Allan Kornblum also saw the report in or around March 1999.

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...Armed with this new information -- the failed polygraph of February 10 and the new discoveries regarding Lee's computer -- the FBI returned to OIPR for a final attempt to obtain FISA authority. At this point, however, the focus of the FBI's efforts was upon searching the Lees' home, and the FBI simultaneously pursued two avenues of approach: (a) the possibility of FISA search authority, and (b) the possibility of a criminal search warrant under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In the first few days of April 1999, a draft Rule 41 criminal search warrant was circulated among prosecutors in both the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in Washington and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Albuquerque. To the FBI's frustration, the Criminal Division prosecutors concluded that the draft contained an insufficient showing of probable cause to search Lee's residence. This conclusion led the FBI to begin working with an assistant U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque to craft a second affidavit -- as well as to initiate an additional round of FISA discussions with OIPR.

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...In a conference call with FBI agents from Headquarters and from Albuquerque, prosecutors from the Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed strategies to bolster the showing of probable cause. Shortly thereafter, the FBI added additional facts to the draft Rule 41 affidavit it had circulated, and this affidavit was reviewed and approved by the Criminal Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The revised affidavit was presented to a U.S. Magistrate Judge on April 9, 1999; the Rule 41 criminal search warrant against Wen-Ho Lee was executed without incident the following day.

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...As noted, however, before the FBI finally went to the District Court for this Rule 41 warrant, it tried once more to persuade OIPR that there was ample reason to obtain a FISA warrant against Wen-Ho and Sylvia Lee. On April 7, FBI officials met with OIPR attorneys to discuss this matter. The FBI recounted the new information about Wen-Ho Lee. As memorialized in notes taken by OIPR's new Deputy Counsel for Intelligence Operations, James Baker -- and in an "action memorandum" to OIPR drafted the next day by the FBI General Counsel's office (though apparently never sent) -- FBI officials also told OIPR that FBI Director Louis Freeh preferred to use FISA authority to search the Lees' house. According to these FBI representations, Freeh was prepared formally to supply the necessary certifications that this search met the requirements of the FISA statute -- that is, that it was being sought for purposes of intelligence collection (e.g., to learn about Lee's alleged contacts with Chinese intelligence). The FBI's General Counsel has confirmed that Director Freeh was indeed "prepared [to make this certification] if we were going to go that route."

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...At this April 7 meeting, OIPR attorneys raised their old concerns with the "currency" and sufficiency of the evidence against Lee, but also raised two new issues. First, they expressed concern that -- particularly in light of the negative reaction from ISS with regard to the Rule 41 idea -- there might be the "appearance" that FBI was improperly using the FISA process as a proxy for criminal search authority. Second, OIPR expressed concern about the prospect of conducting an unprecedented overt FISA search. Now that Lee had been fired from his Los Alamos job, he and his wife remained at home most of the time -- leaving little opportunity for a clandestine search of their house. A FISA search, therefore, would have to be conducted in broad daylight and with the Lees' knowledge. This had never been done before, and OIPR attorneys expressed serious practical and legal reservations. These issues were not resolved at the April 7 meeting.

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...Though, as noted above, the FBI did prepare a draft "action memorandum" to OIPR on April 8 requesting FISA search authority for the Lee house, the Bureau did not return to OIPR on this subject and never sent the memorandum. FBI officials have said that this final loss of interest in the FISA route was simply because the Bureau chose to obtain a Rule 41 criminal warrant in Albuquerque -- as indeed occurred on April 9, 1999.

http://www.senate.gov/~thompson/wen-ho.html 8/6/99 Senator Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman "...The real reason that the FBI filed the Rule 41 warrant affidavit in Albuquerque on April 9 and abandoned its FISA approach, however, may be related to contacts on April 7 or 8 between OIPR Counsel Frances Fragos Townsend and the FBI. According to handwritten notes taken by the FBI's "Agent A," an NSLU attorney was told by NSLU's chief that "the FISA search warrant is not going forward" because "F.F. Townsend called and said it was way too criminal." Townsend has denied saying this specifically to FBI General Counsel Parkinson, but she did admit talking with him about the Lee case and did not specifically deny conveying such a message to his office or to NSLU. With the issuance of a criminal warrant on April 9 and the search of Lee's house on April 10, the Wen-Ho Lee espionage investigation moved into its criminal phase, which at the time of writing was still ongoing.

Washintgon Post 8/13/99 Edward Walsh "... John Huang, a central figure in the more than two-year-old investigation of campaign fund-raising abuses during the 1996 election, pleaded guilty yesterday to conspiracy to defraud the Federal Election Commission as part of a plea agreement reached earlier with federal prosecutors. Appearing in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, Huang was sentenced to one year's probation, a $10,000 fine and 500 hours of community service. A condition of the probation is that Huang will continue to cooperate with government investigators, prosecutors said. Huang, a former official of the Commerce Department and the Democratic National Committee, helped generate about $2 million in 1996 contributions that the DNC ultimately returned because the funds came from illegal or suspect sources. But in hours of interviews with government investigators, Huang never provided evidence linking other White House and Democratic Party officials to criminal activity. The conspiracy charge to which Huang pleaded guilty did not involve the 1996 campaign but rather contributions to Democratic campaigns in California in 1993 and 1994....."

The Dallas Morning News 8/10/99 Lee Hancock "...A federal judge in Waco told the federal government Monday to hand over every piece of evidence relating to the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff. In a sweeping order, U.S. District Judge Walter Smith told federal authorities to surrender to the federal clerk in Waco everything "in any way relevant to the events occurring at Mount Carmel," the Davidian compound besieged by federal authorities from Feb. 28 to April l9, 1993. "It is important for two reasons that the materials be maintained and safeguarded. First and foremost, the parties to civil litigation pending in this court have a right to seek access," Judge Smith wrote. "Second, the events that took place between Feb. 28 and April 19, 1993, and thereafter, have resulted in sometimes intense interest from the national media and members of the public." ..... The officials have said repeatedly in sworn testimony that FBI agents did not fire a single shot during the entire 51-day siege and used nothing capable of starting a fire. Government officials have noted that arson investigators ruled that the fire was set by sect members, and federal actions were exhaustively examined in weeks of congressional hearings, an independent U.S. Treasury Department review and an internal evaluation by the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI. Michael Caddell of Houston, one of the lead lawyers representing the Branch Davidians, praised the judge's order as a first step toward full disclosure of the government's actions. "I do think that for the American people to feel that justice has been done in this case, it's important that they feel there has been complete disclosure," he said. "That has not happened. There's been a complete stonewall by the government. "I don't think that people realize this lawsuit was filed five years ago and the government hasn't filed an answer yet. They have tied this up with procedural gimmickry. ... When you play games and obfuscate, people think you must have something to hide." ...."The Justice Department's going to have a fit," the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said. "This is an unfathomable amount of material." The FBI alone will have to turn over tens of thousands of documents. An agency official recently reported that more than 17,000 pages of documents had been compiled by the FBI's San Antonio office alone, where the chief agent supervised the standoff. A major portion of the evidence will come from the Texas Department of Public Safety. The state agency's lawyers precipitated the judge's action by filing a motion several weeks ago asking him to take control of the evidence it has stored since the Texas Rangers were asked to investigate the standoff. The Texas Rangers were named special deputy U.S. marshals and brought in to investigate within days after the shootout that started the standoff. Four agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms died on Feb. 28 when a gunfight erupted as they tried to serve search and arrest warrants on the Branch Davidian compound....Mr. McNulty researched and helped produce a 1997 film harshly critical of government actions in Waco, and he has worked as a private investigator for the Branch Davidians' lawyers. He is completing a second film on the incident due for September release that will include footage he obtained during his visits to DPS evidence lockers. Among the evidence that Mr. McNulty has spotlighted are two 40 mm projectiles and a 40 mm shell casing found in the compound wreckage. He said explosives experts retained by his film's producer to test chemical residues from the devices recently reported preliminary findings that they were pyrotechnic. The Rangers recently opened an inquiry to determine the nature of the 40 mm munitions and other items that Mr. McNulty found mislabeled in their evidence locker...."

The Washington Times 8/17/99 Audrey Hudson "…A congressional committee is expanding its investigation of bribery and visa fraud at a U.S. embassy in China to include five additional embassies in Central and South America. A committee spokesman says their probe of Charles Parish Jr., former first consul and secretary to the Beijing embassy, has prompted whistleblowers to come forward with new information on illegal activities by other consular officials. "We are getting lots of calls about other State Department problems around the world," the spokesman said. "On more than two occasions Foreign Service officers have told us they have resigned in disgust of the graft and corruption they've seen," he said. "They are seeing what happened with Parish and saying they have the same problems in their embassy and no one is doing anything about it. (The State Department is) sweeping it under the rug because it's an embarrassment," the spokesman said…. The spokesman confirmed that the committee is also examining whether they can hold Mr. Parish in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate…..

Embassy officials began complaining in 1995 that Mr. Parish was accepting gifts and issuing visas to unqualified individuals, but it wasn't until 1996 that the embassy began an official inquiry, House investigators say. Despite the accusations, he was given a sensitive assignment in Washington, given a merit pay increase and retired with full benefits, investigators said. Committee documents show Mr. Parish had been under suspicion for visa fraud while serving in Bangladesh and Nepal as early as 1990. Details of Mr. Parish's activities first surfaced when Johnny Chung testified before Mr. Burton's committee of his connection to Chinese officials and campaign contributions he made during the 1996 presidential election. Mr. Chung testified that Mr. Parish provided him with 25 to 30 visas for business associates, and in exchange he provided favors for Mr. Parish. Mr. Chung says he created invitation letters for Mr. Parish's girlfriends to visit the United States. Mr. Chung says he witnessed Mr. Parish accepting a bag full of money he estimated at $15,000 from a Chinese businessman, that included passports to be stamped with U.S. visas. Investigators say Mr. Chung also paid $3,000 for Mr. Parish, along with his girlfriend and sisiter, to attend a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser….."

http://www.scmp.com/News/HongKong/Article/FullText_asp_ArticleID-19990818015125294.asp 8/18/99 Alex Lo "…


US computer giant Sun Microsystems has refused to send two expert witnesses to Hong Kong to testify in a case alleging the illegal sale of a supercomputer to a PLA weapons research institute, a court heard yesterday. Prosecutor Louisa Lai Nga-man sought an adjournment to allow time to take statements from the witnesses in the United States. "Sun Microsystems has said it will not send its two employees to Hong Kong to testify," Ms Lai told Sha Tin Court. "In light of this, we will have to interview the witnesses in the US." She said summonses would be issued by a US court and statements taken from the two witnesses in America….Automated Systems allegedly imported three high-performance Sun Microsystems computers into Hong Kong and re-exported one of them, an Enterprise E5000 Network Server, to the mainland between February and August 1997, without proper licences. The computer is said to have found its way to the Changsha Institute of Science and Technology, which is involved in research on advanced weapon systems for the PLA…."

 

NY Times 8/26/99 James Bamford "…The investigation into China's suspected theft of top nuclear secrets has become so partisan that it's hard to know where the politics ends and the truth begins…. In recent days, critics of the way the Wen Ho Lee case has been handled have compared his case with that of John Deutch, the former Director of Central Intelligence. Mr. Deutch was stripped of his security clearance last week because, as head of the C.I.A., he transferred more than a dozen top-secret "codeword" documents, dealing with topics from international terrorism to Iraq, to an unclassified computer at his home. The C.I.A. had reportedly been aware of this for two and a half years but took action only recently. …. There was a time when espionage wasn't such a partisan game. The Reagan years were the worst on record for espionage. Jonathan Pollard walked out of Navy intelligence offices with suitcases stuffed with documents for his Israeli controllers. Aldrich Ames met with Soviet intelligence officials and sold out his country. Members of the Walker family were taking secret documents and codes off Navy ships by the boxload. Larry Wu-Tai Chin, a C.I.A. analyst, passed secrets to the Chinese Government. What was missing in those cases, however, was heated Congressional rhetoric, hearings to investigate dark conspiracies, shrill accusations of Reagan Administration bungling and leaks of damning information by committee staffers. Spies were caught, prosecuted and sent to jail. Period. It was more or less understood that espionage happens in every Administration. In that same era, hundreds of people were investigated for security violations. None, however, were thrown into the political circus as quickly and cruelly as Mr. Lee was. …"

Chuck Baldwin Live 8/25/99 "…According to Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, there is a massive amount of evidentiary material that is still sealed in the Gerald Ford Building which incriminates Bill Clinton to a variety of criminal conduct. It is material that the Republican leadership has no desire to let the American people see, however. And, that's the way many people apparently want it. It appears that we have reached a point in our nation when many, if not most, of us would rather believe a lie than deal with the truth…..Those things don't bother us today. In fact, not much of anything bothers us today. That's the problem. We place little value on character and integrity. Instead, we esteem wealth and power. We don't teach our children to be somebody. We teach them to do something. Who they are is not near as important to us as what they do…."

New York Post 8/26/99 "….It's a perfect snapshot of everything we have come to know and loathe about how the world works in Clinton-land. First, they try to use the excuse of incompetence to cover corruption. Then, they charge that "they all do it." Finally, cries of "racism" and "right-wing conspiracy" are used to block legitimate inquiries. But when the subject is espionage and threats to national security, the idea that the administration is trying to spin its way out of trouble by claiming that no damage was done is really, really beyond the pale. Newsweek magazine reports that, due to insufficient evidence, espionage charges may not be filed against suspected spy Wen Ho Lee. In a related move, Notra Trulock, the Energy Department deputy director of intelligence, resigned to protest the "whitewashing" of his work. And a host of charges and countercharges of incompetence and racial discrimination continue swirling around the Energy Department…."

 

UPI 9/16/99 "... Attorney General Janet Reno says President Clinton has invoked executive privilege barring testimony by White House aides or access to documents directly relating to his decision to grant clemency to 16 Puerto Rican prisoners. Clinton's decision was transmitted in a letter to Rep. Dan Burton, R- Ind., Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform. Clinton offered clemency to 16 Puerto Rican prisoners, members of the FALN liberation army, none of whom had been involved directly in terrorist acts in the United States...."

CNN 9/14/99 "....The Justice Department on Tuesday prevented the FBI from testifying at a Senate hearing on President Clinton's decision to grant clemency to members of the Puerto Rican independence group FALN. In what appeared to represent continued tension between the Justice Department and the FBI, a senior Justice official sent a letter to Foreign Relations subcommittee chairman Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Georgia) late Monday saying, "We cannot authorize their appearance at tomorrow's hearing." The letter was signed by Acting Assistant Attorney General Jon Jennings, who heads the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs. "In light of ... the fact that the hearing may, in significant part, address the exercise of an exclusive presidential prerogative, we are carefully reviewing this matter and consulting with the White House regarding how most appropriately to proceed," the letter said. ....An FBI official told CNN Monday that Assistant Director Neil Gallagher intended to testify before congressional panels about the FALN issue on Tuesday and Thursday of this week and would express the FBI's opposition to the president's clemency offer. An FBI official told CNN on Tuesday, "They pulled the plug on us," referring to the Justice decision to prevent the FBI testimony. ...."

New York Post 9/15/99 Brian Blomquist Robert Hardt Jr. "....The Senate yesterday voted 95-2 to condemn President Clinton's clemency to 16 Puerto Rican militants - as the White House stonewalled questions on how the decision was made. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the White House stonewalling was a key reason for voting to condemn Clinton's clemency grant. "I have repeatedly requested information on these cases. I have been given no such information and therefore have voted to support the resolution," Schumer said. Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.) charged that the White House, in a last-minute move, "pulled the plug" on a witness from the FBI who was set to testify to a Senate hearing on Clinton's controversial clemency decision. The stonewalling appears only to have fanned the flames against Clinton's clemency, which led to the freeing last week of 11 jailed members of the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group responsible for 130 bombings and six deaths. In a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, Coverdell wrote, "It is completely unacceptable for the administration to refuse to discuss the president's decision to offer clemency to 16 convicted terrorists."....."

Softwar 9/13/99 "....Softwar is pleased to announce that the Clinton administration lost yet another round in Federal Court. On Sept. 9, 1999, Federal Judge Richard Williams over-rode Clinton administration objections and officially scheduled trial in Smith v. Commerce 399cv280 or "Computer-Gate". The trial is slated to start December 13, 1999. Softwar is seeking documents in reference to the actions of John and Tony Podesta regarding the Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP), a consortium of U.S. computer companies. Documentation provided by the Clinton administration shows that CSPP members obtained favors in exporting super-computers and encryption equipment to military end users in China and Russia. ..."

Augusta Chronicle 9/16/99 Editorial "....It's getting to be routine. Any congressional investigation that might embarrass the White House is stonewalled -- and so it is with the Senate's inquiry into why and how President Clinton made his decision to offer clemency to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists, despite the opposition of every law-enforcement agency involved in fighting terrorism. The stonewall came as quite a shock, especially to Sen. Paul Coverdell, who was chairing the hearings. His Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee was expected to hear from FBI witnesses Tuesday, when at the last moment the Reno Justice Department canceled their appearance and withheld documents. The flimsy reason for the cancellation, explained a Justice letter sent to Coverdell, was that a congressional inquiry into the president's exclusive power to grant clemency might be unconstitutional. Hogwash! The hearings aren't questioning the president's clemency power. They're looking into how the pardons affect national security and the longstanding bipartisan policy of not making deals with terrorists. Surely, that's a legitimate line of inquiry. Even Clinton lackey U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., says, ``The burden of proof is on the administration to prove why clemency should be granted.'' ....."

Washington Weekly 9/20/99 Marvin Lee "....When Isaiah Webb applied for jobs with the District of Columbia he believed his race and sex to be a factor in the decision by the District not to employ him. So Isaiah Webb filed suit in U.S. District Court claiming he was discriminated against on the basis of race and sex with regard to several positions to which he applied within the D.C. Department of Corrections. The District of Columbia (DC) usually deals with such lawsuits by tactics of stall, delay, and with the sympathetic ear of politically correct liberal judges. But Isaiah Webb's case was assigned to Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee who is neither politically correct nor does he tolerate government misconduct. So when the DC pulled its usual tactics of destruction of documents, withholding of evidence and plain obstruction of justice, judge Lamberth said "no more," and entered a judgment of default against the District. Counsel for the District whined and found a more sympathetic ear to its incompetent and illegal behavior in the Court of Appeals which remanded Lamberth's default judgment "for further consideration of less onerous sanctions." ..... Judge Lamberth then explained why judges who condone official misconduct in fact reinforce it: "Unfortunately, if not altogether surprisingly, the effect of the Court of Appeals' decision in Bonds seems to have been to instill in Corporation Counsel a certain arrogance and a belief that the District of Columbia plays by different rules than those applicable to other litigants. That was certainly the attitude displayed by the defendant and Corporation Counsel in this case, and the Court of Appeals' remand no doubt has reinforced that perception of special status." And further, that: "By vacating the default judgment entered by this Court, the Court of Appeals has once again demonstrated to the District and the community that the District of Columbia and the Office of Corporation Counsel enjoy an elevated status, in which they are permitted to engage in misconduct without fear of any real consequence." And then came the kicker: "The Court of Appeals appears either blind to this unfortunate perception or willing to condone it. With all due respect, this Court, however, will not apply such a double standard, in this case or in any other, unless specifically directed to do so by the Court of Appeals." And thus Judge Lamberth last week reinstated his prior judgment of default and dared the Court of Appeals to overturn him once again and block his efforts to uphold the rule of law. ...."

Judicial Watch 9/22/99 Joe Giganti "....Linda Tripp is a material witness in Judicial Watch's $90 million dollar class action lawsuit, and has testified that Hillary Clinton is behind the scandal. Indeed, in sworn testimony Ms. Tripp herself has identified Mrs. Clinton as the person who is also behind her criminal prosecution in Maryland. To prosecute Ms. Tripp for political purposes -- to try to destroy her credibility -- would be an obstruction of justice. For these reasons, Judicial Watch filed a request for any communications between The White House and the Maryland State prosecutor, Stephen Montanarelli, urging or suggesting the prosecution of Ms. Tripp, under the Maryland Public Information Act, which is similar to the Federal Freedom of Information Act. When Mr. Montanarelli stonewalled, Judicial Watch filed suit. When suit was filed, Mr. Montanarelli filed misleading affidavits, and as a likely result, the lower court judge entered an order requiring the prosecutor to prepare a list of all such documents he had in his possession. The purpose of Judicial Watch's lawsuit was not to obtain legitimate grand jury information, but rather any communications from The White House and its allies improperly urging a prosecution of Ms. Tripp for political purposes. Accordingly, the Maryland appeals court's overturning of the lower court order yesterday, justified primarily on the basis that Judicial Watch sought grand jury information, was disingenuous and likely reflects a desire to protect the Democrat Maryland State prosecutor and his colleagues in The White House....."

http://www.dso.com Sources 9/21/99 Dr Clifford Kiracofe "...The Clinton administration for months has refused to turn over to Congress foreign policy documents that implicate it in the Taliban reign of terror in Afghanistan, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), told SOURCES. A number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives believe the Clinton Administration played a key role in creating the Taliban by giving a "green light" to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to organize, fund and direct the terrorist movement that has now taken control of Afghanistan, he said. "We have tried for a year and a half to obtain documents on our Afghan policy," Rohrabacher told SOURCES in an exclusive interview Friday. Rohrabacher says he has evidence the Clinton administration encouraged and approved the creation of the terrorist Taliban movement. Certain key officials in Middle Eastern countries have confirmed the administration's role in direct conversations with him. He also explained he has additional evidence from a number of confidential sources close to the matter. Meanwhile, Rohrabacher believes the State Department is stonewalling his requests for information on its policy toward the Taliban because administration officials fear the disclosure of facts to Congress would confirm a U.S. role in the operation involving the fundamentalist Islamic movement. Nonetheless, Rohrabacher, who is a member of the International Relations Committee, is pressing on with his requests for documentation of U.S. policy. "Our Chairman, Congressman Gilman, and others are supportive," he told SOURCES. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan is now an "epicenter" of international terrorism, Rohrabacher told SOURCES. A key aide in the Reagan White House and a journalist by profession, Rohrabacher said he saw Osama bin Laden's camp during a secret visit to Afghanistan in 1988. Rohrabacher has closely followed Afghan affairs for over a decade. Rohrabacher confirmed recent SOURCES reports regarding the formation of the Taliban by the Pakistani Interior Ministry and Inter-Services-Intelligence organization (ISI). Rohrabacher said there is no question Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States were brought in to finance the operation....."

http://www.softwar.net/plaafaa.html VIA Worldnet Daily 9/27/99 "....The Commerce Dept. claimed in August 1999 that it had complied with the orders of Federal Judge Robert Payne and turned over all documents on the Chinese Army unit COSTIND. However, the newly released Commerce Dept. documents dealing with COSTIND were found by the FAA, not the Commerce Dept. The documents were turned over by the FAA in response to a FOIA request for Chinese military contacts. None of the newly released Commerce documents were given to Judge Payne in response to his Court order. Thus, the new documents show the Commerce Dept. did not fully comply with Federal Judge Payne's order....."

10/7/99 Daniel J Murphy ".... A trail of missing funds, lost records and charges of not cooperating with congressional overseers have led some to wonder if Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's agency is a major scandal in the making - one that could add an unwanted taint to the department's policies. One situation in particular stands out. Interagency e- mails reveal that, after taking over at Interior in 1993, Babbitt remained active in a project even after he had formally severed ties with its private-sector side, a recent report in The Washington Times noted. The project is Canyon Forest Village, an Arizona development just outside Grand Canyon National Park. The planned housing, lodging, retail and transportation complex sits on U.S. Forest Service land. A memo Babbitt's office sent to IBD stresses that the Agriculture Department (the Forest Service's parent), not the Interior Department, has legal authority over the land. But Interior's National Park Service oversees work with the Forest Service on the Grand Canyon's general management plan. The National Environmental Policy Act requires that the Park Service draw up such plans. A May 1997 Forest Service memo detailed Babbitt's direct involvement. Legal experts say Babbitt's insertion into the process governed by the National Environmental Policy Act merits closer scrutiny. What's more, Babbitt's family has ties to the Canyon Forest Village project......"

http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/99/Oct/13/international/TASK13.htm 10/13/99 Chris Mondics ".... And the outlook for Specter's task force has not improved since then. .... Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight authority over the Justice Department, has said no Democrats would serve on the task force because the rules are tilted in favor of Republicans. Leahy's objections alone may doom the panel because without Democrats, it would inevitably be seen as a partisan probe. And U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno has told the Senate that her department would not cooperate with such a task force. In a letter last Thursday to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R., Utah), the Judiciary Committee chairman, Reno said Specter's task force doesn't have the authority to request confidential information from the Justice Department because it was never authorized by a vote of the full Senate. But Specter said yesterday that he remains undaunted, convinced that he will be able to persuade Democrats to support his initiative.....With the Senate set to go on recess at the end of the month, there is the growing risk that lawmakers will leave town without granting subpoena power to the task force. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet on the issue again tomorrow to take up Specter's request for permission to subpoena the Justice Department for information on its probe of alleged of campaign-finance improprieties by Democrats in the 1996 election. In particular, Specter wants a memo from former Justice Department prosecutor Charles LaBella to Reno recommending that she appoint an independent counsel to look into the campaign accusations. LaBella contended that Reno, a Clinton appointee, faced potential conflicts in probing Democrats. Specter is also asking the Judiciary Committee to authorize the task force to subpoena Justice Department files on its investigation of Wen Ho Lee, the former Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab scientist suspected by the FBI of providing nuclear secrets to China. Lee has repeatedly denied spying for the Chinese and he has not been charged with any crime. The Justice Department turned down FBI requests to tap Lee's phone, a decision that was later questioned by Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill....."

Conservative News Service 10/29/99 Ben Anderson "....Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt is under fire from a Member of the House Resources Committee for his refusal to provide information regarding the administration's plans to consider certain federal, state and private lands for national monument designation. .....During a meeting on Tuesday of the House Resources' subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Shadegg asked Babbit for a list of sites the Clinton Administration is currently considering for designation as national monuments, a classification which gives special environmental protections to the property involved. "No," Babbit responded....... Shadegg said Babbitt's "arrogant refusal to communicate" is one of the reasons some Members are introducing legislation to keep "presidential powers in check." "He did not refuse. He said there is no list," Babbitt's spokesman Tim Ahern told CNSNews.com. Resources Committee spokesman Steve Hansen responded, "We're not asking for 'the list.' We're asking for 'a list.'".....One committee source said Members on both sides are becoming increasingly irritated by Babbitt's lack of cooperation on a number of fronts. In 1996, when Clinton designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, the Administration did so without consulting the either the Utah congressional delegation or the U.S. Congress, according to Shadegg's office. "The president even denied his intention to declare the area as a national monument in a conversation the night before with the Governor of Utah," Shadegg's press release read....."

Fox News Online 11/8/99 Tom Raum AP "....Energy Secretary Bill Richardson made an 11th-hour offer of a classified document to a House subcommittee Monday, moments before the panel was to vote to subpoena the material in an inquiry into the alleged Chinese theft of nuclear missile warhead technology secrets..... The panel met and took no action on the proposed subpoena, agreeing to take Richardson at his word. Hunter said, however, that if the document wasn't delivered to the panel Tuesday morning, "then we will have another meeting tomorrow afternoon and we will issue the subpoena.'' At issue is written testimony - prepared for an Oct. 6, 1998, committee meeting - by Notra Trulock, the Energy Department intelligence officer who triggered an investigation into alleged Chinese spying at the nation's nuclear weapons labs.....The subcommittee demanded the original, unedited and classified copy of Trulock's testimony in a March 24 letter to Richardson. Hunter contends the testimony he actually gave the committee was heavily edited by the administration......"

The American Spectator 11/99 Byron York "….Bill Clinton's legacy? On Capitol Hill, he'll be the man who proved you could stiff-arm congressional investigations-- and get away with it…… But there was more to the Clinton strategy than just trashing Al D'Amato. In a larger sense, the White House realized it could win by trashing the whole process. If administration spokesmen yelled, screamed, and changed the subject, and got Democrats on the committee to yell, scream, and change the subject, and in turn provoked Republicans to yell, scream, and change the subject, the whole affair would look like a pointless food fight, regardless of how much useful evidence was being uncovered. Looking back, Michael Chertoff believes that was perhaps the most important factor in the committee's losing battle to capture public interest. "The mere ability to make a lot of noise tends to turn people off and reduce the effectiveness of hearings," he says. "You get the idea that hearings are an opportunity for people to yell at each other, and that tums people off. I don't know if you can put that genie back in the bottle." …..So what is left after almost five years of nearly non-stop investigation of the Clinton administrations A lot of evidence that Bill Clinton is a fundamentally corrupt president. A record, in other words. "Our role was to get the truth out, whether or not anyone wanted to hear it," says one Capitol Hill lawyer. "The biggest question is: Were you able to get the record out?" …."

Judicial Watch 12/9/99 "....Judicial Watch, Inc., the public interest law firm which fights government corruption, presented sworn evidence last Tuesday evening to the Court that The White House Counsel's Office, which is effectively run by Hillary Clinton, has employed a strategy of obstructing discovery in the $90 million Filegate class action lawsuit to get the Clintons beyond the next election. In a startling sworn declaration of December 7, 1999 (Pearl Harbor Day), Sheryl L. Hall, a former White House computer specialist who now is Judicial Watch's client - Mrs. Hall having defected when she refused to do illegal acts at The White House for Mrs. Clinton - swears that Ms. Michelle Peterson and other lawyers of The White House Counsel's Office told her "that 'our strategy' for the Filegate lawsuit was to 'stall' because 'we had just a couple more years to go.'" This sworn declaration has been presented to Judge Royce Lamberth for him to exercise his discretion on how to proceed. Judicial Watch has pending a request to depose Hillary Clinton and to move the case forward into a trial posture. It is hoped that the case will be able to be tried next year....."

Washington Times 12/16/99 Barbara Saffir "....A former White House employee said in legal papers that the Clinton administration is trying to "stall" the "Filegate" lawsuit until President Clinton has left office with first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sheryl Hall, a computer specialist who left her job three months ago, said Michelle Peterson of the White House Counsel's Office told her in late May or early June "that 'our strategy' for the Filegate lawsuit was to 'stall' because 'we had just a couple of more years to go.' " The lawsuit claims the White House and the FBI "willfully and intentionally" violated employees' rights under the Privacy Act by receiving more than 900 confidential FBI files at the White House. ...."

World Net Daily 1/5/00 Julie Foster "….Fearing the federal government is trying to severely restrict the use of eight million of its acres, the State of Idaho has sued the U.S. Forest Service to stop the agency from ramming major policy changes down the state's throat without giving officials there time to provide input. After its Freedom of Information Act Request was ignored for nearly three weeks -- the maximum time allotted for such requests is 10 days -- Idaho filed suit demanding more information regarding the federal government's "roadless protection plan," which proposes to set aside 50 million acres of U.S. land to remain roadless, and about which states were given only 60 days to comment. "What we're asking of the federal government in this lawsuit is to open up the process to provide a meaningful dialogue between the states that would have to live with the effects of this proposal. Any significant relationship between the states and the federal government demands nothing less," said Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne. …."

Inside The Pentagon 1/6/00 Keith Costa "….The State Department has refused to turn over to House Armed Services Committee member Walter Jones (R-NC) all the documents he requested on the department's voluntary anthrax immunization program for its overseas employees. The State Department responded to Jones in a Jan. 4 letter that briefly sketches the history of the program. However, the agency insisted it could not release the bulk of material Jones requested unless asked to do so in writing by a committee chairman. In an August 23, 1999, letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Jones said he was "baffled" that the State Department's immunization program is voluntary while the Defense Department's program is mandatory (Inside the Pentagon, Sept. 2, 1999, p1). …."

The Associated Press 2/18/00 "….A videotape of Vice President Al Gore's controversial visit to a fund-raiser at a Buddhist temple won't be available for his political opponents' campaign commercials for another week or so. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled Friday that the Gore video will be off limits to the public until a jury reaches a verdict in the criminal trial of former Democratic fund-raiser Maria Hsia. Justice Department prosecutors plan to wrap up their case Tuesday, followed by a defense from Hsia's lawyers and jury deliberations. Hsia lawyer Nancy Luque played the video for the jury, making it vulnerable to public dissemination. In a three-page ruling, Friedman made all trial exhibits available immediately, except for the tape, saying he wanted ``to avoid the possibility that the jury will be influenced by the coverage of the videotape by the media.'' However, the media already has videotape of Gore at the Buddhist temple, with CNN airing segments on Jan. 31. Congressional investigators looking into Gore's role in the fund-raising scandal of 1996 never were able to find video of him at the temple. Luque did not give the source of the tape, which carried a commentary in Chinese. Thursday in court, Luque referred to the Republican National Committee in saying she'd like the judge to keep the Gore tape under wraps until the case ends so it doesn't prejudice the jury. The judge said he'd gotten a few inquiries about the video from congressional offices……"

Freeper abwehr 2/18/00 "…..Unable to find a copy??? I hate it when the media lie like this. Do they do it on purpose, or is it just stupidity or laziness on their part? The real story:
Hsia barred reporters from viewing the videotape taken by King & I Productions, videographers hired for the Vice President's Temple luncheon, including that taken of the speeches made by Vice President Gore and others to the assembled guests229. Within two days of the luncheon, all copies of the videotape footage were gathered up from the film company and quickly shipped to Taiwan230. Moreover, the monastic who took the tape from the production company on May 3, 1996- a monk by the name of Man-Chin231 - left the Fo Kuang Shan order shortly after the Committee served Temple officials with a subpoena for the videotape; he has since disappeared232. Despite the repeated assurances of Temple officials that they are looking for this missing tape - and despite the fact that Temple officials have used short excerpts from this tape in making a brief publicity video that appeared on the Cable News Network - the full videotape record of the event with Vice President Gore on April 29, 1996 remains hidden to this day.
229. See Memorandum of Interview of Anonymous Chinese newspaper reporter, May 16, 1997, pp. 1-2.
230.Hank Tseng, letter to Christopher Ford, Aug. 27, 1997 (Ex. 153); Hearing testimony, Sept. 4, 230 1997, pp. 167-69 & 173-81.
231.See Ex. 153.
232.Hearing testimony, Sept. 4, 1997, pp. 174-75 & 179 (remarks of Man Ho, Senator Fred Thompson, and Brian Sun).
Source: The "Thompson Committee" hearings, 1997. .pdf transcript…….. Gotta love Nancy Luques request to the judge that she didn't want to release the tape because it might prejudice the jury when she had just showed it to that same jury... and the judge? AGREED! ….."

UPI 3/3/00 Ashley Baker "……Despite a legal requirement that agencies respond to most requests for government documents made under the Freedom of Information Act within 20 days, tens of thousands of requests are sitting unfilled - some for years - throughout the federal government. Although federal law does not force agencies to disclose the age of their oldest unfilled FOIA requests, most of the more than 40,000 requests collecting dust at cabinet-level agencies are well over 200 days old, government data shows. "The fact that some agencies aren't coming close to meeting the time requirements in the law is completely unacceptable and obviously contributes to the public's lack of faith in the management of their government," Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., told United Press International. Thompson chairs the Senate committee charged with overseeing agencies' compliance with FOIA laws. "Agencies have a responsibility to fill FOIA requests, and in many cases have clearly chosen not to make them a priority," Thompson said….."

Weekly Standard 5/8/00 Stephan Bates Starr Deputy "….. If William Jefferson Clinton's advice in 1991 to Gennifer Flowers was "deny, deny, deny," the administration's approach in 1998 to Kenneth Starr's office, where I worked as an associate independent counsel, was "delay, delay, delay." Now, in Truth at Any Cost, Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post and Michael Weiss kopf of Time provide a comprehensive, fine-grained, and occasionally infuriating account of what we were up against. Clinton's lawyers, the government ones and the private ones alike, withheld everything they could. Even before the Lewinsky investigation, the authors note, our subpoenas met with what deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes approvingly called a "foot-dragging, f-k-you attitude." "If they want it," said David Kendall, Bill and Hillary Clinton's private lawyer, "they can litigate for it." We did litigate, and we mostly won, but the court fights consumed time and resourcesógiving Clinton defenders a foothold for complaining that the investigation was too lengthy and too costly. ..."

 

Judicial Watch 10/24/00 "……Judicial Watch said today that the Department of Defense Directorate of Freedom of Information and Security Review is "dragging its feet" to comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning controversial Clinton fund-raising "sleep-overs" at Camp David. Nestled in the Catoctin Mountains north of Washington, DC, the presidential retreat is technically a Department of the Navy installation. Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the Navy on September 14, 2000, seeking "The names of all persons (other than U.S. government employees) who have stayed overnight at Camp David since January 21, 1993." The request languished in various Navy and Defense offices until October 13, 2000 - the last possible day for response before Judicial Watch would file suit - when Director H. J. McIntyre faxed a denial of expeditious handling of the request, writing: ". . .I have determined that any responsive information that may be found would not significantly contribute to the public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. I have determined that a list of persons who stayed overnight at Camp David as guests of the President does not make a meaningful contribution to the public's understanding of the operations or activities of the government." ………."The Clintons have obviously ordered the Defense Department to illegally stonewall this request," stated Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman. "The arrogance of the Defense Department's October 13th letter demonstrates the contempt with which this Administration holds the American public - but that same public can rely on Judicial Watch to dig out the truth from these prevaricators and hold the responsible parties accountable for selling access to Camp David and the White House," added Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. ...,,: