VAST CLINTON COVERUP EXPOSED

Vast Clinton Cover-Up Exposed!
July 13, 2000, 5 months before Clinton leaves office.

This extraordinary article was produced by NewsMax.com July 13, 2000. It details an affidavit by a brave and honest high level civil servant who felt she had to come forward in spite of terrible risk to her career and possibly her personal safety.

One of the ways that Clinton has kept the beaurocrats in line is by using well known but hushed up intimidation tactics. This included in the past after he molested Kathleen Willey killing her cat and having strangers come jogging up and mentioning her children's names to her as they passed, asking if they were safe. Many people, including this very civil servant's boss, Ron Brown, died under "mysterious" conditions. Explain this: Ron Brown had a 45 caliber bullet fired directly down into his brain (found after his plane crashed on a mountain in Bosnia literally guided into the disaster by "faulty" radar). He had just told Clinton that he was going to tell what he knew to Congressional Investigators who were hot on his tail for the Commerce Department cover-ups years before this lady came forward. Without any doubt this lady was aware that Ron Brown was murdered in the crash and may have otherwise survived. One other passenger survived with minor injuries. She was in the process of being carried from the wreck and somehow she died from a sudden loss of blood from a brand new cut to her femoral artery. That occurred later on a stretcher. In other words, she was murdered too. The colors were added by me to emphasize certain information.

The lady who is the subject of this article knew about these terrifying events as well because of her privileged position. So without further comment here is the article.

What Stewart's Revelations Could Mean is a link to the NewsMax article that follows at the conclusion of this article.

NewsMax.com

Dynamite Affidavit Exposes Vast Clinton Administration Cover-Up

NewsMax.com
Thursday, July 13, 2000

An explosive sworn statement written by a former Commerce Department officer and obtained by NewsMax.com threatens to expose top Clinton administration officials to serious criminal charges.

In an affidavit sworn by former Freedom of Information Act division head Sonya Stewart and filed with Federal District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth by Judicial Watch, Stewart details the efforts of the administration to withhold secret documents demanded under the FOIA by Judicial Watch and Congress.

In her affidavit Stewart voiced fears of retribution for coming forward with explosive charges.

"I come forward to present my declaration to this Court with great trepidation and grave concern about retribution and retaliation which may be directed at me, both professionally and personally, as a result of this affidavit," she wrote.

"Nevertheless, I present this declaration out of my obligation to uphold the interests of justice as I swore to do upon my installation as a federal employee. I hope, believe, and expect that the Court will protect me."

Stewart described her long career with the government-one she fears is now at risk.

"Since 1975, I have served solely as a career civil servant at the Commerce Department. I am now the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") where I oversee a staff of approximately 1,100, manage a $3 billion budget, and hold the rank of Senior Executive Service Level 5 (SES-5).

"From approximately 1991 until March 2000, I was the Commerce Department's Director for Executive Budgeting and Assistance Management in the Office of the Secretary. Additionally, I served as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration for Commerce in the Office of the Secretary from November 1998 to September 1999."

In her affidavit she pointed the finger at a number of administration officials, provided extensive details about the sale of seats on overseas delegations led by the Commerce Department, and gave full recollections of the administration's attempts to keep subpoenaed documents from being delivered to those legally entitled to have them.

As head of the FOIA offices Stewart said she was aware of the political manipulations involved in the administration's attempts to hide documents subject to the act.

Among those named by Stewart as having been involved in the cover-up was former White House Deputy Counsel to the President Cheryl Mills, one of the lawyers representing Clinton in his Senate impeachment trial.

Mills, who was all but beatified by the media during her appearance before the Senate, played a prominent role in the cover-up, Stewart charged.

"I am aware of Commerce officials' contacts with Cheryl Mills, then Deputy Counsel to the President, concerning whether to release or withhold certain documents," Stewart wrote.

"I know that Ms. Mills, in her position as Deputy Counsel to the President, advised Commerce officials to withhold certain documents. In my many years working for the federal government on FOIA and other matters, and in my experience gathering and responding to FOIA and Congressional requests for information, I have never known or heard of a federal agency collaborating or discussing releasing or withholding documents with White House officials.

"The Commerce Department's collaboration with White House Deputy Counsel Mills on these matters was, in my experience, highly irregular and at variance with normal procedures. During the time period at issue, many of the same documents were being sought by several entities, including Judicial Watch, Inc., congressional committees, grand juries, and others. It is my belief and recollection based on my knowledge and experience that these interactions with Ms. Mills, as well as other practices, delayed and corrupted the Commerce Department's response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests."

Also mentioned in the affidavit was Bruce Lindsey, Clinton's closest friend and White House aide, and William M. Daley, then Commerce Department secretary and now the top campaign official for Vice President Al Gore.

Stewart said a December 1998 order by Judge Lamberth directing the Commerce Department to review its compliance with Judicial Watch FOIA requests was simply ignored despite being brought directly to Daley's attention.

"In my role as Commerce FOIA Director, I have reviewed Commerce Department documents showing that Commerce Department officials offered to contact White House official Bruce Lindsey concerning the vetting of participants, such as James Riady of the Lippo Group, in trade mission events led by late [Commerce] Secretary [Ron] Brown," Stewart states.

"I have also reviewed Commerce Department documents which show that Commerce officials did coordinate with White House official Doris Matsui concerning potential participants in trade mission activities, and that Commerce Department officials considered support for the President and Democratic Party during their review."

Stewart's full affidavit follows:

DECLARATION OF SONYA STEWART

I, Sonya Stewart, hereby state, under oath, as follows:

1. Since 1975, I have served solely as a career civil servant at the Commerce Department. I am now the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") where I oversee a staff of approximately 1,100, manage a $3 billion budget, and hold the rank of Senior Executive Service Level 5 (SES-5). From approximately 1991 until March 2000, I was the Commerce Department's Director for Executive Budgeting and Assistance Management in the Office of the Secretary. Additionally, I served as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration for Commerce in the Office of the Secretary from November 1998 to September 1999. During my twenty-five and one-half years of solely career federal service, I have received the top merit awards for career civil servants, including the Department of Commerce Gold Medal, which is the highest award and honor presented at the Commerce Department. I have also received the Silver and Bronze Medals, the second and third highest awards, respectively, for my work at the Commerce Department. In December 1999, I received the second highest award for civil servants throughout federal government, the Presidential Rank Meritorious Award. (Bob's note: It makes you wonder if she got this for pretending to keep her mouth shut while, without a doubt, she was taking action to protect herself.)

2. I come forward to present my declaration to this Court with great trepidation and grave concern about retribution and retaliation which may be directed at me, both professionally and personally, as a result of this affidavit. Nevertheless, I present this declaration out of my obligation to uphold the interests of justice as I swore to do upon my installation as a federal employee. I hope, believe, and expect that the Court will protect me.

3. As the Commerce Department's Director for Executive Budgeting and Assistance Management in the Office of the Secretary, I had supervisory authority over all Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") matters department-wide. I oversaw approximately sixty employees, including staff charged with responding to requests for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The Commerce Department's FOIA Officer, Brenda Dolan, and Commerce's FOIA Officer for the Office of the Secretary, Bobbie Parsons, worked under my supervision and reported to me. These career FOIA officers tried to perform their duties admirably and honorably, often working under circumstances that were extraordinarily adverse and challenging. They always did their best to manage properly the search for and gathering of documents responsive to various FOIA requests submitted by Judicial Watch, Inc. These document requests included requests for information on the reported sale of seats on Commerce trade missions and other matters. My FOIA staff also handled document requests from many other entities including the United States Congress.

4. However, my staff's efforts and the FOIA process were thwarted and obstructed by Commerce Department officials. Melissa Moss, former Director of the Office of Business Liaison ("OBL"), refused to cooperate in producing documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests. Lesia Thornton's notes to file, attached as Exhibit 1, evidence such obstruction. (Ms. Thornton was formerly Office of the Secretary FOIA Officer.) The actions of the Commerce Office of General Counsel ("OGC") The actions of the Commerce Office of General Counsel ("OGC") staff, including career civil servants Barbara Fredericks, Assistant General Counsel for Administration, and Judith Means of her staff, as well as political appointee Sue Esserman, former Acting Commerce General Counsel under former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor and currently Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, also contributed to obstructing the FOIA process. When documents properly responsive and releasable to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests were gathered by my FOIA staff, they were sent to the Office of General Counsel, where Ms. Fredericks is responsible for the legality of day-to-day administrative operations, including all legal issues related to FOIA.

5. Ms. Fredericks and her OGC staff improperly assumed and exercised the final authority to approve or disapprove the release of documents responsive to FOIA requests submitted by Judicial Watch. This practice was and is inconsistent with the Commerce Department's written, prescribed rules for responding to FOIA requests and, thus, contributed to the flaws inherent in the first and second Judicial Watch searches. Commerce's Administrative Order on FOIA calls for the first-tier FOIA determination whether to release or to be made by the appropriate Commerce FOIA Officer. That FOIA Officer determination is to be made and executed, after which the requester may appeal that determination to the Commerce OGC. The OGC, specifically, Ms. Fredericks and her staff, are to decide FOIA appeals according to the Department's FOIA rules. In essence, when the OGC assumed authority to make the final release/withhold determinations on the initial Judicial Watch FOIA requests, this eliminated the possibility for a fair and objective review of those determinations on appeal. When OGC makes the first-tier determination to release/withhold, the requester does not receive an objective, independent appeal review since the same OGC staff which makes the initial release/withhold determination also rules on OGC's own determination on appeal. This practice violates the Department's written rules and flaws the process.

6. During the first Judicial Watch search, Departmental FOIA staff, other officials, and I often experienced frustration and concern as a result of the requirement to send all FOIA-responsive documents to the OGC. At times, sending FOIA-releasable documents to Ms. Fredericks and her staff was like sending these documents down a black hole because Ms. Fredericks and her staff would delay and/or withhold release of FOIA-requested documents from Judicial Watch and this Court, inconsistent with prescribed FOIA rules. For instance, this Court has remarked upon the improper withholding of the "Minority Donors List" by the OGC. Prior to Judicial Watch's discovery of this document during a deposition, I recall a meeting during which all in attendance, including Judith Means, were made aware of the existence of the "Minority Donors List." At that time, we determined that this list was responsive to a number of pending requests on which we were working, including the Judicial Watch FOIA request. The FOIA staff turned the document over to Judith Means and the OGC for release, yet we later learned, through Mr. Whatley's deposition and the Court's December, 1998 rulings, that the document had not been released by OGC and that Ms. Means had denied knowledge of the document. Subsequently, we also learned that Ms. Means admitted that the "Minority Donors List" was turned over to her and OGC by appropriate FOIA staff, but that the document was never released to Judicial Watch. Concerning any other documents which may not have been released to Judicial Watch, assuming they still exist, I believe they would likely remain in the custody and control of Ms. Fredericks and her OGC staff since the procedure for handling Judicial Watch FOIA requests required that FOIA officers submit all documents to Ms. Fredericks' office for final disposition.

7. I am aware of Commerce officials' contacts with Cheryl Mills, then Deputy Counsel to the President, concerning whether to release or withhold certain documents. I know that Ms. Mills, in her position as Deputy Counsel to the President, advised Commerce officials to withhold certain documents. In my many years working for the federal government on FOIA and other matters, and in my experience gathering and responding to FOIA and Congressional requests for information, I have never known or heard of a federal agency collaborating or discussing releasing or withholding documents with White House officials. The Commerce Department's collaboration with White House Deputy Counsel Mills on these matters was, in my experience, highly irregular and at variance with normal procedures. During the time period at issue, many of the same documents were being sought by several entities, including Judicial Watch, Inc., congressional committees, grand juries, and others. It is my belief and recollection based on my knowledge and experience that these interactions with Ms. Mills, as well as other practices, delayed and corrupted the Commerce Department's response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests.

8. Barbara Fredericks was and remains very influential within the Commerce Department. As Assistant General Commerce Department, Ms. Fredericks' responsibilities include serving as the Chief Ethics Officer for the Commerce Department. In carrying out this role, she worked closely with the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and other top officials on their financial disclosure forms. As such, I believe Secretary Brown and other high-level Commerce officials trusted Ms. Fredericks. I have heard top Commerce officials describe her as "our lawyer." After Secretary Brown and other Commerce officials died in 1996, Ms. Fredericks quickly filled the resulting power vacuum, in close collaboration with then-Commerce Department Inspector General, Frank DeGeorge, who recently pled guilty to a federal criminal conflict-of-interest charge. Ms. Fredericks and Mr. DeGeorge actually usurped the management of the Commerce Department in many respects. The power-sharing alliance formed between these two high-level officials resulted in no accountability for wrongdoing by favored Commerce Department officials. Certainly, Mr. DeGeorge, despite being Commerce's Inspector General, never sought to hold Ms. Fredericks, Ms. Means, or other OGC lawyers accountable for their irregular and improper conduct in the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits. Concomitantly, this Court noted in its December 1998 decision in this case the "amazing fact" that no investigation or action was taken by the Commerce Department Inspector General with regard to improper activities uncovered by Judicial Watch. Based on my knowledge and experience, any investigation this Court ordered or suggested to the corrupt Inspector General DeGeorge's office was either "fixed" or never even undertaken. In return, Ms. Fredericks and the OGC would ignore and cover up Mr. DeGeorge's outrageous misconduct and misbehavior, which was very often improper, unethical and dishonest.

9. When this Court issued its December, 1998 decision in the Judicial Watch FOIA case excoriating the conduct of OGC staff including Judith Means, I read and studied the decision with great concern. I believed that the OGC, to protect Ms. Fredericks, Ms. Means, and others, would attempt to ensure that the Court's actual decision would not be shared with Commerce Department Secretary William Daley and other top-level officials who should have been informed of the Court's actual decision, order and opinion. Inasmuch as I was still responsible for the Department's FOIA activities, and given the Court's angry admonishments to departmental officials for their conduct during the first search, I believed it important that certain officials, including the Secretary, be made aware of the Court's decision. I knew that I would need top-level support to ensure that the second search would be conducted in a proper manner in keeping with the Court's orders. I also wanted to ensure that the second search was conducted in a manner which would not further harm the Department's reputation, and in a way which was mindful of the Court's views concerning the improper behavior exhibited by certain officials during the first search. Thus, in January 1999, I personally alerted my immediate supervisor, then Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Assistant Secretary for Administration, W. Scott Gould, to this Court's decision and provided him with a copy of it. I shared and discussed my concerns about the Court's decision with CFO/Assistant Secretary Gould so that he could alert his superiors, the Deputy Secretary and/or the Secretary, as he deemed appropriate. Indeed, CFO/Assistant Secretary Gould later informed me that Deputy Secretary Robert L. Mallett and Secretary William M. Daley had not seen this Court's actual decision until Assistant Secretary Gould provided them with a copy of the decision (which I had annotated) and discussed with them.

10. In keeping with this Court's December, 1998 orders, I also sought unsuccessfully to ensure that the Department put proper procedures in place to turn over all responsive documents to Judicial Watch, as appropriate. I suggested to top Commerce officials that, if the OGC were to remain substantively involved in the decision-making process to release or withhold, that the re-search procedures must include a systematic and consistent means of resolving any conflicts which might arise between FOIA officers and OGC determination. I believed this was significant because the because the first search procedures had no "check and balance" safeguards to ensure that conflicts between FOIA Officer and OGC determinations were resolved appropriately; all final determinations were made by OGC attorneys/advisors, often absent discussion with or knowledge of FOIA Officers. In other words, Commerce FOIA officers, such as Brenda Dolan, might send a document to OGC with a recommendation only and and assume final authority to determine whether to release or withhold documents. At times, the OGC determinations were at odds with my FOIA Officers' determinations and, in those cases, the OGC would, in effect, "overrule" improperly the FOIA Officers' determinations and unilaterally withhold documents. This practice occurred without any objective, independent internal review to adjudicate the conflicting determinations. Also, given the Court's criticism of OGC's conduct in the first FOIA searches, I believed it would contravene the spirit and intent of the Court's orders to allow Judith Means and Barbara Fredericks to participate in the second FOIA search without an independent entity evaluating their release/withhold determinations. In January 1999, I thought I had partially succeeded in my efforts to institute procedural safeguards for the second search when I received a phone call at home from CFO/Assistant Secretary Gould, my immediate supervisor. Assistant Secretary Gould called to inform me that Secretary Daley, after reading relevant portions of this Court's decision, had decided and instructed that Judith Means should not be involved in the second Judicial Watch FOIA search ordered by this Court. However, despite Secretary Daley's "orders" to the contrary, Ms. Means did continue to participate substantially and substantively in the second FOIA search. Ms. Fredericks effectively controlled the second search, despite representations that the second search would be spearheaded by the Chief of Staff's office.

11. Additionally, I initiated several discussions with Commerce Inspector General Johnnie Frazier, who had served as one of Frank DeGeorge's Assistant Inspectors General, to alert him that the re-search procedures needed procedural safeguards to ensure that the second search results were not flawed like the first search results. Given Mr. Frazier's "monitoring" role in the second search, I recommended to him that, before he sanctioned and "signed-off" on the new procedures, he and his staff should ensure that they contained a consistent methodology for resolving conflicting determinations made by FOIA Officers and OGC attorneys/advisors. Also, I suggested that the procedures contain a means to determine when such conflicts arose so that FOIA Officers would at least be able to learn whether the OGC had determined to release or withhold the documents they forwarded. Mr. Frazier informed me that instituting such safeguards would be a good idea, his office did not ultimately require that such safeguards be instituted prior to "signing off" that they were sufficient. I had similar discussions with other officials, including officials in the Chief of Staff's office, suggesting and requesting that they require that such "check and balance" safeguards be built into the second search procedures, but to no avail.

12. I am aware that, during the second search, OGC staff reported to the FOIA staff that certain documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA request which were to have been under OGC's control had been "lost" and could not be located. The FOIA staff suggested to OGC staff that they look for the "lost" documents in the OGC safe, but OGC staff maintained that the documents were not there. The FOIA staff then initiated an intensive search for the "lost" documents, and learned subsequently, while they were searching for these "lost" documents, that the OGC had, in fact, found the "lost" documents in the OGC safe. In sum, inasmuch as procedures for the Court-ordered second search did not vary substantially from those used during the first search; and inasmuch as no systematic, consistent procedures were ever instituted to ensure that all documents FOIA officers determined should be released were, in fact, released by the OGC; and inasmuch as the OGC participants whose behavior the Court admonished during the first search continued to play a material and substantial role during the second search, I believe that the Court and Judicial Watch have no assurance that the OGC allowed the release of all FOIA-releasable and responsive documents required by the Court's December 1998 order.

13. I have spoken with George Grafeld, a career civil servant and colleague who formerly worked for the Office of Business Liaison under its former Director Melissa Moss. (Ms. Moss, when deposed by Judicial Watch for a deposition presented to this Court, was asked to name OBL staff members during her tenure as OBL Director. Under oath, Ms. Moss, failed to name Mr. Grafeld and Lyne-Marie Griffin, a career civil servant, notwithstanding that both Mr. Grafeld and Ms. Griffin were, in fact, OBL staff members under Ms. Moss's tenure.) Mr. Grafeld told me that during Ms. Moss's tenure, he saw computer diskettes in OBL that were labeled "contributions/trade missions." Mr. Grafeld said he knows that these diskettes were never handed over to Judicial Watch or the Court in this FOIA case. Ms. Griffin also saw these diskettes, according to Mr. Grafeld also told me that when he worked at OBL, he learned of letters from Melissa Moss to trade mission participants which referenced contributions they made to the Democratic Party to order to go on the trade missions at issue in this case. Mr. Grafeld told me he discounted these stories about Ms. Moss's fundraising letters until he saw press reports of Nolanda Hill's testimony about the Moss letters that Secretary Ron Brown showed her. Mr. Grafeld believes these letters were created from the information that came from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), working in conjunction with the White House. Further, he believes that the letters were taken by a Commerce OBL employee, Jose Ceballos, to be printed at an outside print shop owned by Mr. Ceballos' uncle in the Washington, DC suburbs. Mr. Grafeld also reported that he saw a colleague at OBL, Twanna Smith, working on what he understood were these kinds of letters, although he was not allowed to see them.

14. According to Mr. Grafeld, Melissa Moss tasked certain OBL employees, including Ms. Griffin, to enter names, including "political names, into computers at OBL. Ms. Moss restricted access to the room where information was being entered into the computer, and Mr. Grafeld was not allowed to even be in the same room as the computer on which Ms. Griffin was inputting names. Mr. Grafeld reports that John Ost, a former Commerce OBL employee and political appointee, also worked on this project which eventually grew to 40,000 names. From reading Mr. Ost's deposition to this Court, I learned that he admitted to receiving faxes from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with the names of some donors, and he said that he gave them to Melissa Moss in response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests. I also understand that these documents were never produced. Mr. Ost later left the Commerce Department (where Mr. Grafeld believes he earned approximately $45,000 per annum) to work for the DNC (where Mr. Grafeld believes he earned approximately $120,000 per annum). According to Mr. Grafeld, Kathy Kellogg also participated in the "names" project in OBL and warned Mr. Grafeld to mind his own business when he inquired about the names being compiled. (Ms. Kellogg died in the tragic plane crash along with Secretary Brown, OBL Deputy Director Gail Dobert, and others.) Bob's note here: Secretary Ron Brown died in the plane not from the crash but from a 45 caliber bullet fired point blank down into the top of his skull). Mr. Grafeld reported to me that Ms. Moss was intent on developing the list of names using information provided by political appointees and various agencies within the Commerce Department, including the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau refused to provide information to OBL, citing privacy laws prohibiting the Census Bureau from sharing the data requested. Ms. Moss then instructed Mr. Grafeld to devise a way to obtain names from Commerce agencies via computer without the agencies knowing about it. Mr. Grafeld told her that this could not be done. Ms. Moss became upset with Mr. Grafeld and ultimately, Ms. Moss initiated a Reduction-In-Force ("RIF") in OBL which resulted in Mr. Grafeld and Ms. Griffin losing their jobs in OBL, leaving only political appointees working in OBL.

15. Mr. Grafeld told me, referring to Judicial Watch's allegations that Commerce Department trade mission seats were sold in exchange for campaign contributions, that "(Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel) Klayman is right on target" but that he believes that the trade mission issues were "only the tip of the iceberg--that the really big money went towards Presidential access." Mr. Grafeld indicated to me that he believes that Ms. Moss was asking for political contributions in exchange for seats on Commerce Department trade missions, likely at the direction of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but that documents showing this illegal activity had "left the building". In fact, there were effectively no security procedures at the Commerce Department to ensure that sensitive and secret documents and/or any documents which might evidence criminal activity stayed in the building. The purported letters referenced by Mr. Grafeld and Nolanda Hill could easily have "left the building" absent sufficient procedures to secure them.

16. In my role as Commerce FOIA Director, I have reviewed Commerce Department documents showing that Commerce Department officials offered to contact White House official Bruce Lindsey concerning the vetting of participants, such as James Riady of the Lippo Group, in trade mission events led by late Secretary Brown. I have also reviewed Commerce Department documents which show that Commerce officials did coordinate with White House official Doris Matsui concerning potential participants in trade mission activities, and that Commerce Department officials considered support for the President and Democratic Party during their review.

17. I participated in Commerce Department meetings concerning the selection of trade mission participants prior to March 2000 when I moved to NOAA. While criteria for selection of participants were developed after the Brown Administration in an attempt to address public perceptions of politicization of trade missions, the current process still lends itself to subjective determinations in many respects.

I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 7, 2000 in Litchfield Beach, South Carolina.____________ Sonya Stewart.

Stewart Affidavit Raises New Questions About Old Charges

NewsMax.com
Thursday, July 13, 2000

Sonya Stewart's explosive revelations about the Clinton administration's attempt to hide secret documents from Judicial Watch and Congress could lead to a revival of the long-ignored allegations made by former Ron Brown associate and lover Nolanda Hill.

As Insight magazine noted, "Stewart also confirmed earlier sworn statements by Nolanda Hill, a former close confident of Brown, that there were secret letters and memos that have been described to her concerning trade missions and political donations."

Insight recalled that Hill's charges were "generally discounted or otherwise discredited by the press and/or the White House...partly [because of] her close association to Brown and legal troubles she once experienced; the failure to 'find' such incriminating evidence also cast a pall over Hill's allegations."

Stewart's startling affidavit now makes it probable that Hill's allegations will be revived, raising serious questions about the roles of Clinton, Gore and their associates in the long-ignored matter of alleged selling of seats on U.S. trade trips in return for political campaign donations.

The charges were stridently denied by Clinton/Gore spokesmen, officials at the Commerce Department, and White House aides, and treated with scorn, if not completely ignored, by the media.

As Media Research Center's L.Brent Bozell wrote when Hill was airing her charges: "At a time when so many DNC-Donorgate targets are refusing to cooperate or have fled the country, why are the media ignoring the key player standing right in their midst-Nolanda Hill? Despite being under investigation by the Justice Department, the former business partner and close friend/lover of late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown is singing like a canary-and the media are pretending to be deaf."

Stewart's revelations could restore the media's hearing.

In a January 1998 interim report on its various legal actions, Judicial Watch explained exactly what was involved in the Hill allegations.

"In January 1998, Judicial Watch uncovered a witness, Nolanda Butler Hill, that detailed this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed government services. With Ms. Hill's uncontroverted testimony providing the capstone to its investigation, Judicial Watch has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that, not only was the Clinton Administration engaged in an unlawful scheme to sell seats on Commerce Department trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions, but that a criminal cover-up was ordered by President Clinton's top aides to thwart Judicial Watch's court-ordered investigation and to hide the culpability of the President, Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Administration and the DNC, for their use of Commerce Department trade missions as a political fundraising vehicle.

"Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce Secretary Brown to defy court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill's sworn testimony implicated the President's top staff members in obstruction of justice. Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and court testimony, Ms. Hill explained that:

The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;

The President knew of and approved this scheme;

The Vice President participated in this scheme;

Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce Department;

Presidential White House aides Harold Ickes and (now Labor Secretary) Alexis Herman helped orchestrate the sale of the Commerce trade mission seats;

The President's top fundraisers at the DNC and his re-election campaign (Marvin Rosen and Terrence McAuliffe) helped coordinate the selling of these taxpayer resources in exchange for political contributions;

Presidential Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered the cover-up of these activities; and

The President's appointees at the Commerce Department have committed perjury, destroyed and suppressed evidence, and likely breached our nation's security."

Stewart's exposure of the lengths to which the Clinton-Gore administration went to conceal documents related to the sale of trade mission seats also validated Judicial Watch's charges contained in the report:

"After Judicial Watch filed requests with the Clinton Commerce Department for information regarding these trade missions under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it was immediately stonewalled and was forced to file a lawsuit in 1995 to obtain the requested information. Even after filing suit, the Clinton Administration continued to stonewall.

"Over the next three (3) years, Judicial Watch, in its efforts to uncover what the Clinton Commerce Department was hiding from the American people, found substantial, compelling evidence that seats on Clinton Commerce Department trade missions were indeed being sold in exchange for campaign contributions, with the knowledge and complicity, if not at the direction, of officials at the highest levels of the Clinton White House, including the President, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.

"In addition, Judicial Watch's attempts to uncover the truth were obstructed through perjury, obstruction of justice, intimidation and retaliation that has marred other recent investigation of Clinton scandals, including the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky matters. In short, court process was obstructed by Clinton appointees at his Commerce Department and elsewhere by:

Perjury;

Submission of false sworn declarations;

Destruction and shredding of evidence;

Improperly withholding documents contrary to court orders;

Threats and intimidation of witnesses and investigators; and

Threats and intimidation of witnesses and investigators; and

Misconduct by Clinton Administration lawyers.

"Nevertheless, Judicial Watch through its investigations and the legal discovery process, found 'smoking gun' documents detailing the sale of trade mission seats for campaign contributions in the files of the Clinton White House, Clinton Commerce Department, and the DNC, including:

Memos from the Clinton White House files of Harold Ickes and Alexis Herman showing that the $100,000 DNC Managing Trustee Program included the dale of the Clinton Commerce Department trade mission seats (among other government-financed perks) and was designed to net President Clinton's DNC political operation $40 million;

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

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

A Clinton Commerce Department memo indicating that the DNC donors were input into Commerce Department database; and

A DNC memo showing that the DNC provided the names of donors to the Clinton Commerce Department for trade missions to Russia and Belgium."

All of this, and more, will now be aired thanks to Sonya Stewart. And observers say that she may be just the first of a long line of decent civil servants who, inspired by her courageous example, will now come forth to help expose the rampant criminality they witnessed in the Clinton-Gore administration.

MORE TO COME SOON!