Hillary Clinton plan and sale of Commerce Department seats for political donations, Court documents and Nolanda Hill testimony, Judge Lamberth: “DOC…destruction of potentially responsive documents in the office of…Secretary Brown”, Hillary lied Ron Brown died
“After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats’ loss of Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron, that the trade missions were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White House.”…Nolanda Hill Affidavit
“Hillary lied Americans died”…Citizen Wells
“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion
From Citizen Wells earlier today via the House Judiciary Committee Evidentiary Record of December 1998, we learn:
“In January 1998, Judicial Watch uncovered a witness, Nolanda Butler
Hill, a close confidante and business partner of late Commerce
Secretary Brown, with whom Secretary Brown had shared key details about
the campaign-contributions-for-seats-on-trade-missions scheme, as well
as the Clinton Administration’s efforts to stonewall Judicial Watch’s
lawsuit. Secretary Brown had even shown important documents to Ms. Hill
that detailed this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed government
services. With Ms. Hill’s uncontroverted testimony providing the
capstone to its investigation, Judicial Watch has proven beyond all
reasonable doubt that not only was the Clinton Administration engaged
in an unlawful scheme to sell seats on Commerce Department trade
missions in exchange for campaign contributions, but that a criminal
cover-up was ordered by President Clinton’s top aides to thwart
Judicial Watch’s Court-ordered investigation and to hide the
culpability of the President, Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Administration
and the DNC for their use of Commerce Department trade missions as a
political fundraising vehicle.
Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce
Secretary Brown to defy Court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch
suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill’s sworn testimony
implicated the President’s top staff members in obstruction of justice.
Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to
President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and Court testimony, Ms.
Hill explained that:
The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the
trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;
The President knew of and approved this scheme;
The Vice President participated in this scheme;
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the
illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce
Presidential White House aides Harold Ickes and (now
Labor Secretary) Alexis Herman helped orchestrate the sale of
the Commerce trade mission seats;
The President’s top fundraisers at the DNC and his
reselection campaign (Marvin Rosen and Terrence McAuliffe)
helped coordinate the selling of these taxpayer resources in
exchange for political contributions;
Presidential Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy
Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered the cover-up of these
The President’s appointees at the Commerce
Department have committed perjury, destroyed and suppressed
evidence, and likely breached our nation’s security.”
From court documents related to the FOIA requests of Judicial Watch to the Commerce Department.
Nolanda Butler Hill affidavit.
“Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill
I, Nolanda Butler Hill, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. This affidavit is based on my own personal knowledge.
2. I have been a resident of Texas for all of my life and still reside there.
3. Up to the death of Ronald H. Brown, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, I was a business partner and/or close personal confidant for over seven years. During this period, I spoke with Ron, as I used to call him, daily, and frequently several times per day. I was thus intimately knowledgeable about both his personal and professional activities. I also had contact with his family, including his son, Michael, and his daughter in law, Tamara, who worked for me for approximately five years.
4. During the course of my relationship with Ron, I was privy to his activities, and the activities of the people who worked or were in contact with him at Commerce, and elsewhere. Since Ron died on April 3, 1996, I have also been in contact and spoken with many persons who worked or were in contact with him at Commerce, and elsewhere.
5. After the elections of 1992, Ron became Secretary of Commerce. Shortly thereafter, Ron decided that he would focus the majority his activities at Commerce on trade missions.
6. In the fall of 1994, I became aware, through Ron and Jim Hackney, Ron’s Counselor at Commerce – with whom I was and remain close – that a group called Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain information and documentation about the trade missions. Both Jim and I encouraged Ron at the time to give due consideration to the seriousness of these FOIA requests, as there were politically sensitive issues surrounding the trade missions.
7. After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats’ loss of Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron, that the trade missions were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White House.
8. In the spring of 1995, when this Court ordered production of documents to Judicial Watch, Ron became very concerned and he thus began to discuss with me the strategy of handling the defense of the Judicial Watch lawsuit.
9. I further learned through discussions with Ron that The White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with court’s orders.
10. In late fall 1995, after several rulings or statements by this court, Ron himself became more involved in the defense of the case. Specifically, he told me that he had decided to personally review any documents that might be damaging to the Clinton Administration, or in any way be sensitive. Ron told me that he was very worried about the potential damage of the Judicial Watch case to the Clinton Administration.
11. In early 1996, Ron showed me a packet of documents, about 1 inch thick, which he removed from his ostrich skin portfolio. Ron told me that these documents had been provided to him from Commerce Department files as part of the collection efforts to produce documents to Judicial Watch in this case. I reviewed the top five or six documents, which were on Commerce Department letterhead under the signature of Melissa Moss of the Office of Business Liaison. What I reviewed comprised letters of Ms. Moss to trade mission participants, each of which specifically referenced a substantial financial contribution to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). My response was immediate and decisive. I told Ron he must instruct that production of these documents and all responsive documents be immediate and I advised him to mitigate his own damages by releasing Ms. Moss from her duties and admonishing her for using the offices of the Commerce Department for partisan political fundraising.
12. I then saw Ron call the Commerce Department and he spoke with Melissa Moss. He told her that he wanted to meet with her later. I do not know if the meeting ever took place and I had no further discussion with Ron, because of his untimely death, about the documents I had reviewed.
13. I have reviewed the deposition video of Melissa Moss and, based on my knowledge, she has not told the truth in response a number of questions concerning Commerce Department trade missions, as well as other representations she has made under oath.
14. I would like to come forward and tell this court everything I know about the failure to produce documents to Judicial Watch and this court. I am concerned, however, that if I do so, the Clinton Administration, and more particularly its Justice Department, will try to retaliate against me. As a result, I look to this court for guidance on how I can come forward and tell all I know in the interest of justice.
15. Because of a fear for my personal and my family’s well-being and safety, I ask that this affidavit be kept under seal and that a mechanism be set up by the court for me to come forward to tell all I know.
Sworn to under penalty of law.”http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/4/132.asp
From the Judge Lamberth Memorandum Opinion.
“G. Nolanda Hill
The highest drama in this litigation was supplied by Nolanda
Hill, former business partner and confidante of Secretary Brown:
On January 28, 1998, Hill submitted under seal a sworn
declaration detailing her knowledge of the Department of
Commerce’s handling of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests,
information that she allegedly obtained through her relationship
with Secretary Brown. Stating that she was concerned about
retaliatory actions by the government, Hill requested that the
Court provide mechanisms for her protection. Pursuant to that
request, the Court ordered that the affidavit be initially kept
under seal and saw to it that her attorney was made aware of the
situation and was willing to represent and protect her interests
in this matter. An evidentiary hearing was then scheduled for
March 23, 1998.
On March 14, 1998, Hill was indicted on criminal charges.
Although an investigation had been underway before Hill offered
to testify in this case, Judicial Watch claims that the
government had represented to Hill that charges would not be
filed, and that the March 14, 1998 indictment was in retaliation
for her cooperation with Judicial Watch.
On March 23, 1998, Hill appeared before this Court and gave
extensive testimony as to her knowledge, gained from
communications with Secretary Brown, relating to this action.6
Upon examination by Mr. Klayman, Hill testified that the
Secretary told her that White House officials had actually
instructed him to delay the production of documents responsive to
Judicial Watch’s requests and to come up with a way to avoid
compliance with this Court’s orders. See Transcript of March 23,
1998 Hearing at 85. Hill vividly recalled the Secretary’s
comment that Leon Panetta (then White House Chief of Staff) had
urged him to “slow pedal” the document search. See id. at 85-86.
According to Hill, this message was conveyed to Secretary Brown
by Panetta and by John Podesta (then White House Deputy Chief of
Staff) on several occasions. See id. at 85-88.
In her role as personal advisor and confidante to Secretary
Brown, Hill allegedly offered to review the most sensitive
documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s request, for the purpose
of finding out precisely what was involved and, according to
Hill, to encourage the Secretary to turn over all responsive
documents. See id. at 88. Hill never did review the material,
however, and she was unable to testify as to whether such a
collection of “the most sensitive” responsive documents was ever
assembled. See id. at 89-90.
Ms. Hill did testify to seeing several unproduced responsive
documents in the Secretary’s possession in 1996, shortly before
the Secretary’s death. According to Hill’s testimony, she met
with Secretary Brown at a hotel early in 1996, and on that
occasion the Secretary showed her a one-inch-thick packet of
documents that he produced from a personal portfolio-type
carrying case. See id. at 38-39. The Secretary told Hill that
the documents had been retrieved from DOC files during the
document search for Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests. See id. at
39. Hill reviewed the top five or six documents, confirming that
they were copies of letters from Melissa Moss to trade mission
participants specifically referencing their donations to the DNC,
clearly responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests. See id. at 40-
41. Needless to say, these documents had not been, and have not
since been, released to the plaintiff. Their current location is
unknown, perhaps unknowable, although Judicial Watch argues that
the evidence supports an inference that the documents were either
destroyed during the flurry of document shredding following the
Secretary’s death, or removed from his office during that same
time period. In any event, Hill’s uncontroverted testimony is
strong evidence that the DOC illegally withheld documents from
Judicial Watch in violation of the FOIA. It is also apparent
that the DOC was aware of this Court’s orders that all responsive
documents be produced, and willfully defied those orders,
according to Ms. Hill’s testimony. This conduct alone would seem
to justify entry of judgment against the DOC, and yet it
simultaneously precludes such judgment until the extent of the
DOC’s unlawful behavior is adequately explored.
Also relevant to this action is the testimony of Ms. Hill
that the deposition of Melissa Moss contained a number of
inaccuracies. See id. at 105 et seq. In addition, revelations
about Moss’s role in the orchestration of the trade missions
casts her deposition testimony in a new light, and also raises
doubts as to how the activities in which she participated could
have produced no documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s
requests. As a whole, the evidence supports an inference that
Moss played an important role in resisting Judicial Watch’s FOIA
requests, and the testimony of Nolanda Hill points in particular
to Moss as directly responsible for knowing violations of this
On April 29, 1998, a superseding indictment was issued
against Ms. Hill. Judicial Watch claims that it was intended as
a further signal to keep quiet.”
“In conclusion, this somewhat tedious narration presents
numerous instances of likely violations of the Freedom of
Information Act and this Court’s orders. On many occasions, the
DOC appears to have engaged in the illegal withholding of
responsive documents, in the removal of such documents from the
DOC, and in the destruction of potentially responsive documents
in the office of the late Secretary Brown and elsewhere, as well
as a great deal of misconduct during the litigation which the
Court leaves for another day’s decision. Upon consideration of
this record, and of the legal issues discussed in Part II, the
Court finds that a new search alone is an insufficient remedy,
and thus the DOC’s motion will be denied, partial summary
judgment will be granted in favor of Judicial Watch ordering the
commencement of the search proposed in the motion, and further
discovery under the supervision of a Magistrate Judge will be