IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action : No. 95-0133 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, : : Defendant. : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Washington, D.C Wednesday, February 11, 1999 Deposition of MICHAEL KANTOR a witness of lawful age, taken on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action, before Rita M. Hemphill, Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia, in the chambers of Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola, 1st Floor, U.S. District Court House, 3rd and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, commencing at 9:45 a.m. 2 APPEARANCES: On Behalf of the Plaintiff: LARRY KLAYMAN, ESQ. Chairman/General Counsel Judicial Watch 501 School Street, S.W., Suite 725 Washington, D.C. 20024 On Behalf of the Defendant: MARINA UTGOFF BRASWELL, ESQ. Assistant U.S. Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. 12th Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 BRIAN D. DiGIACOMO, ESQ. Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Commerce 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230 On Behalf of the Witness: LAWRENCE S. ROBBINS, ESQ. Mayer, Brown & Platt Also Present: THOMAS J. FITTON President Judicial Watch 501 School Street, S.W., Suite 725 Washington, D.C. 20024 3 C O N T E N T S EXAMINATION BY: PAGE Counsel for Plaintiff 5 KANTOR DEPOSITION EXHIBITS: No. 1 2/20/97 Boston Globe article, "Ex-DNC chief says he sought access for contributors" 26 No. 2 Democratic National Committee, DNC Managing Trustee Events & Membership Requirements 44 No. 3 May 5, 1994 memorandum to Ann Cahill from Martha Phipps re: White House Activities 58 No. 4 November 1, 1996 press release, United States Department of Commerce News 67 No. 5 February 12, 1997 Boston Globe article, "Donations are linked to Kantor trade missions" 76 No. 6 February 1997 Boston Globe article, "Trade trips generated millions for Democrats" 82 No. 7 5/16/95 order 120 No. 8 12/22/98 order 125 No. 9 12/22/98 order 125 No. 10 9/12/94 Judicial Watch FOIA request 175 No. 11 9/13/94 Judicial Watch FOIA request 175 No. 12 10/19/94 Judicial Watch FOIA request 175 No. 13 11/20/96 Washington Times article "Huang's thin files arouse suspicion; Lawmakers probe Commerce Department" 193 4 KANTOR DEPOSITION EXHIBITS: No. 14 Weekly reports 208 No. 15 Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill 231 No. 16 Minority Donor List 236 No. 17 7/25/94 letter to Melissa Moss from Terry McAuliffe, 7/25/94 memorandum to Melissa Moss from Terry McAuliffe, 1/13/94 memorandum dated re: Trade Mission to Russia 239 No. 18 September 9, 1994 Wall Street Journal article "How Ron Brown Picks Who Joins His Trips Abroad Raises Doubts." 246 No. 19 September 12, 1994 Business Week article "Clinton cozies up to business, corporate gifts to the DNC have reached unprecedented levels" 247 No. 20 6/21/96 letter to Robert S. Walker from Michael Kantor 261 No. 21 June 1996 American Spectator article, "On the Prowl" 270 No. 22 Declaration of Barbara Schmitz 8/16/96 271 No. 23 Declaration of Melanie Long 8/16/96 271 No. 24 Human Events article dated 2/28/97, "The Mysterious Actions of Ira Sockowitz" 283 No. 25 6/19/94 Investors Business Daily article "An Inside Job at Commerce?" 285 5 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 Whereupon, 3 MICHAEL KANTOR 4 was called as a witness and, after having been first duly 5 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 6 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 7 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 8 Q Mr. Kantor, can you please run us through just 9 briefly your educational background? 10 A Yes. Born in Nashville, Tennessee, went to public 11 schools. Went to Vanderbilt University, received a BA in 12 1961. Received a law degree from Georgetown University Law 13 Center in 1968. 14 Q Upon receiving your law degree in 1968, if you 15 could just set forth for us what your professional background 16 has been. 17 A Well, professionally, between 1961 and 1968, I 18 was a naval officer, United States Navy. After graduating 19 from law school, I was a legal services lawyer, both in 20 Florida and in Washington for five years, then was a -- I 21 went to California and was a partner in the law firm of 22 Manatt, Phelps, Phillips & Kantor. 23 Q In Los Angeles? 24 A In Los Angeles. 25 Q And how long were you with that firm? 6 1 A I was with that firm for 18 years. 2 Q During the time you were with legal services, I 3 take it you engaged in litigation, correct? 4 A Yes, I did. Sure. 5 Q Okay. And when you began with Manatt Phelps, what 6 was your job description? Associate? 7 A I was an associate for one year and then became a 8 partner. I was mainly involved in corporate law practice, 9 transactional practice. I had some litigation, but very 10 little. 11 Q During your time at Manatt Phelps, you did from 12 time to time participate in litigation, did you not? 13 A Yes. 14 Q About how many cases did you participate in? 15 A Oh, I couldn't remember. I was at Manatt Phelps 16 for 18 or 19 years. 17 Q Over a hundred? 18 A Oh, no. Not that many. No. 19 Q Just roughly speaking. 20 A Fifty. 21 Q And when did you leave Manatt Phelps? 22 A December 31, 1992. 23 Q And what did you do then? 24 A I was nominated by the President to become United 25 States Trade Representative. I came to Washington to prepare 7 1 for my confirmation hearing and was sworn in on January 21, 2 1993 as United States Trade Representative. 3 Q And how long did you spend working as United States 4 Trade Representative in the administration? 5 A From January 21, 1993 until April 12, 1996. 6 Q And what happened on April 12, 1996? 7 A I was sworn in as Secretary of Commerce. 8 Q And how long did you remain in that position? 9 A From April 12, 1996 to January 23, 1997. 10 Q And what were your reasons for leaving as Secretary 11 of Commerce on January 23, 1997? 12 A Strictly personal. I have a 15-year-old daughter 13 who had four years left in high school and I didn't want to 14 miss those years before she went to college and, as everyone 15 in this room is aware, the positions I held, which I was 16 privileged to hold and which I enjoyed, are time-consuming 17 both emotionally and otherwise, and physically, and therefore 18 I didn't think could enjoy those last four years and remain 19 in that position. 20 Q Did there come a point after January 23, 1997 where 21 you found alternative employment? 22 A Yes. Thank goodness. 23 Q And when was that? 24 A I began with the law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt 25 on March 1, 1997. 8 1 Q And under what capacity did you begin with them at 2 that time? 3 A As a partner. 4 Q And what's your specialty at Mayer Brown? 5 A Basically involved with trade law. 6 Q And that's where you remain to today? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Now, from the point -- you are aware, of 9 course, that Ron Brown met an unfortunate end on 10 April 3, 1996. That's April 3rd. You're aware of that, 11 correct? 12 A Yes, I am. 13 Q Okay. Before that time, were there already 14 discussions for you to take over the job of Commerce 15 secretary? 16 A Before April 3, 1996? 17 Q Yes. 18 A No. 19 Q When did you first learn that you were going to be 20 nominated to be Secretary of Commerce? 21 A I couldn't give you a specific -- 22 Q After Mr. Brown's death. 23 A I couldn't give you a specific date. The President 24 called me and then met with me some time prior to April 12 25 and after Secretary Brown's funeral, but I can't remember the 9 1 specific date. 2 Q Well, you started on April 12th, correct? 3 A I was sworn in on April 12th. 4 Q You were sworn in. 5 A Yes. Right. 6 Q So you must have been notified by the President 7 before that that you were going to be nominated for that 8 post. 9 A Yes. 10 Q Roughly speaking, when was that? 11 A I said between the time of Ron Brown's funeral and 12 April 12. I can't tell you the specific date. 13 Q And what day was Ron Brown's funeral? 14 A I can't remember the date. 15 Q I believe it occurred on Easter of that year. 16 Does that refresh your recollection? 17 A Yes, but I can't remember the specific date, 18 Mr. Klayman. 19 MR. KLAYMAN: Let me see if I can be helpful here. 20 MR. ROBBINS: Let the record reflect that the 21 interrogator is searching what appears to be a pocket 22 calendar in order to elicit from the witness what specific 23 date Easter fell on in a year some years ago. 24 MR. KLAYMAN: I'm just trying to refresh a 25 recollection. I'm just trying to pinpoint a time here. 10 1 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 2 Q Easter Sunday was, according to my pocket calendar, 3 a Sharp 256KBY0550, was Sunday, the 6th of April. Is that 4 roughly speaking when you were notified by the President that 5 you would be Secretary of Commerce? 6 A Not on Sunday, the 6th of April. No. It would 7 have been between the 6th of April and the 12th of April. 8 Q Some time after the funeral? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. Now, when you were contacted by the 11 President, what did he tell you about why he wanted you to 12 take over as Secretary of Commerce? 13 MS. BRASWELL: Objection, Your Honor. How is this 14 relevant? 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Yes. And also wouldn't it be 16 protected by executive privilege? 17 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, Your Honor, the reason it's 18 relevant is that -- what I'll do is -- I don't want to give 19 away what my follow-up questions are, so maybe I'll put them 20 on the record right now, the questions, and Your Honor can 21 come back and make the ruling later. 22 JUDGE FACCIOLA: All right. Let's leave it this 23 way. 24 You had a conversation with the President? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: As a result of that conversation, 2 you became Secretary of Commerce? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 4 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Let's move on from there, 5 Mr. Klayman. 6 MR. KLAYMAN: Let me make a proffer now why it's 7 relevant. 8 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Please. 9 MR. KLAYMAN: It's that during the period 10 between Ron Brown's death and Mr. Kantor's taking over as 11 Secretary of Commerce, we believe that the White House was 12 concerned about Judicial Watch's lawsuit. There had been 13 communications, that's a matter of record, and there had been 14 daily reports. 15 I'm going to get into those daily reports with 16 Mr. Kantor. In fact, there had been notifications from 17 Ron Brown to Leon Panetta and John Podesta. 18 JUDGE FACCIOLA: About the lawsuit? 19 MR. KLAYMAN: About the lawsuit. And there was 20 a concern about it and we need to know whether or not that 21 concern and the production of records was one of the reasons 22 why Mr. Kantor took over as Secretary of Commerce. 23 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Okay. But you're asking for a 24 conversation between the President and a man who is about to 25 become his cabinet officer. 12 1 Ms. Braswell, are they protected by executive 2 privilege? 3 MS. BRASWELL: It would be my understanding it 4 would be, Your Honor. 5 JUDGE FACCIOLA: It would be my understanding as 6 well. 7 MR. KLAYMAN: Executive privilege, Your Honor, 8 would not be an absolute privilege. I don't want to argue 9 it now. I mean, we can brief this later, but I'd like to be 10 able to ask questions getting to whether or not Judicial 11 Watch's lawsuit entered into the discussions with the 12 President, keep it that narrow. 13 MS. BRASWELL: Your Honor, that still goes to the 14 specific conversations. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Ms. Braswell, okay. I hear your 16 point. 17 Conversations, however, between the President and 18 a man destined to become his cabinet officer with reference 19 to what were the President's concerns and advice he may have 20 secured from the potential member of his cabinet strike me as 21 being at the very heart of executive privilege. 22 Don't they strike you as being right there? 23 Isn't that the nature of the privilege, so that the President 24 can call upon his advisors for the free advice he needs to 25 perform his functions? 13 1 MR. KLAYMAN: Would it be -- I'd be willing to get 2 into this further if I could perhaps ask -- 3 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well, you can make your proffer 4 and then I'm going to rule. I'm going to sustain the 5 objection. 6 Do you want to make a greater proffer and go to 7 Judge Lamberth with this? Because I'm going to rule that 8 the conversations between the President and Mr. Kantor are 9 protected by executive privilege. 10 MR. KLAYMAN: Would it be possible to make a 11 proffer with -- in the Court's presence without the witness? 12 JUDGE FACCIOLA: For what purpose? 13 MR. KLAYMAN: So I can elucidate my point further. 14 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Mr. Kantor, step out for a second, 15 you and your counsel. 16 (The witness and witness' counsel left the room.) 17 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Yes, Mr. Klayman? 18 MR. KLAYMAN: The essence is, Your Honor, I don't 19 want to be provocative, I want it to flow in an evenhanded 20 way. It's to my benefit not to put the witness on edge, 21 although he's probably on edge anyway, given the nature of 22 the case. 23 But we believe, given everything we know, and 24 I'll just show you some of the documents which we will 25 ask about, and I'll as Ms. Braswell and Mr. DiGiacomo, who 14 1 actually will be the subject of some of the questioning, not 2 to discuss this with counsel so as not to tip them off. 3 But these are weekly reports which were sent over 4 by Mickey Kantor and prior to Mickey Kantor, Ron Brown, 5 about our lawsuit. And it shows a very heightened level 6 of concern about having to produce documents to Judge 7 Lamberth. 8 It's very unusual a Secretary of Commerce would be 9 reporting to the President's chief of staff on the production 10 of documents. 11 Nolanda Hill has testified that Leon Panetta 12 and John Podesta instructed Ron Brown, according to what 13 Brown told her, this is Brown's confidant and business 14 partner, that Panetta and Podesta told Brown to obstruct 15 Judge Lamberth's order. This is an affidavit that we have. 16 And the affidavit matches up in time with exactly 17 the time that Brown is communicating with Panetta and Podesta 18 over Judge Lamberth's order. 19 So consequently, we need to know whether Kantor, 20 who has been a very close confidant of the President, going 21 back to Arkansas, who was his campaign manager in 1992, who 22 is now his lawyer in the Whitewater -- excuse me, in the 23 impeachment proceeding, we need to know whether efforts to 24 obstruct our lawsuit were discussed when he was put in as 25 Secretary of Commerce. 15 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Discussed between him and the 2 President? 3 MR. KLAYMAN: Him and the President. Obviously, 4 Panetta is the President's representative. 5 Now, this would raise the crime/fraud exception to 6 executive privilege. That's the difficulty. I don't know 7 how to put it forward delicately, but that is at the core of 8 the obstruction in this case, the core of the destruction of 9 evidence, the core of the suppression of evidence, whether he 10 was part of that. 11 JUDGE FACCIOLA: But the question I have and the 12 question that concerns me is while you're certainly free 13 to ask Mr. Kantor about his participation in this, his 14 knowledge of these documents and so forth, isn't it within 15 the scope of executive privilege for the President to have 16 discussions with a person and seek that person's advice? 17 MR. KLAYMAN: Not if it's related to the commission 18 of an ongoing crime. 19 JUDGE FACCIOLA: All right. Well, that's -- all 20 right. 21 Ms. Braswell? 22 MS. BRASWELL: Well, Your Honor, I would simply 23 say that he has no evidence tying anything that Mr. Podesta 24 or Mr. Panetta may have done, they've never even been 25 questioned in this case, to the President, so this is much 16 1 too attenuated for Mr. Klayman to try and claim some kind of 2 exception to the executive privilege. 3 JUDGE FACCIOLA: All right. Based on the proffer, 4 I'm going to sustain the claim of executive privilege, which 5 you are making at this point? 6 MS. BRASWELL: Yes, we are making. Absolutely. 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: All right. The privilege is 8 sustained, subject to, obviously, a contrary ruling by Judge 9 Lamberth, but I think you've made a sufficient proffer. 10 Please ask the witness to return. 11 (The witness and witness' counsel returned.) 12 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 13 Q Mr. Kantor, when you took over -- during the 14 period leading up to your beginning at the Commerce 15 Department, and I'm going to exclude the President from 16 this question, were you aware of Judicial Watch's lawsuit 17 that you're here on today, the lawsuit which asks for 18 documents concerning whether or not seats on trade missions 19 were being exchanged for campaign contributions and related 20 matters? 21 A I don't think so. If there had been anything in 22 the public press, I may have read it, but I certainly had no 23 awareness of it. 24 Q You were U.S. Trade Representative for a number of 25 years, correct? 17 1 A Yes. 2 Q And the allegations which Judicial Watch had raised 3 concerned international trade matters, correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And as part of your duties as the U.S. Trade 6 Representative, you routinely reviewed clips of press 7 releases and press articles about international trade 8 matters, correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And the U.S. Trade Representative was a participant 11 in the trade missions that were arranged by Ron Brown, was it 12 not? 13 A I was never a participant in any trade mission 14 organized by Secretary Brown, or anyone else, for that 15 matter, until I was Secretary of Commerce. 16 Q But people on your staff obviously helped plan 17 those trade missions, did they not? People in USTR. 18 A I'm not sure our staff had any substantial or 19 continuing involvement whatsoever with those trade missions. 20 Q You're not sure, but you don't know, correct? 21 MR. ROBBINS: Objection to the form. 22 You're asking him to answer the question, "You're 23 not sure, but you don't know?" 24 MR. KLAYMAN: Let me back up. I'll lay the 25 foundation. 18 1 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 2 Q How many employees, roughly speaking, worked at 3 the U.S. Trade Representative's office when you were Trade 4 Representative? 5 A Two hundred and one. Roughly. 6 Q And the function of the U.S. Trade Representative 7 is to promote international trade, U.S. exports. One of the 8 functions, correct? 9 A Not precisely. That's a function of the Secretary 10 of Commerce. 11 Q Are you saying that the U.S. Trade Representative 12 has nothing to do with exports? 13 A No, I was being very precise. The U.S. Trade 14 Representative is the President's chief advisor on 15 international trade. He is charged with the responsibility 16 of enforcing trade agreements and negotiating trade 17 agreements. Promoting international trade was a function 18 of the Secretary of Commerce. There's a difference. 19 Q There were, however, members of your staff, and 20 I mean the entire U.S. Trade Representative, that were 21 charged with coordinating with the Commerce Department, 22 correct? On trade matters? 23 A Oh, sure. Of course. With the -- absolutely. 24 Q And what divisions of the U.S. Trade Representative 25 were charged with doing that? 19 1 A It depends whether it was sectoral or was it 2 geographic. There could have been many involved with the 3 International Trade Administration in talking about trade 4 matters on particular issues or issues of wide concern. 5 Q And there were members of the U.S. Trade 6 Representative's office, employees, that would provide 7 information to the Commerce Department which the Commerce 8 Department could use to do economic analyses for export 9 promotion, correct? 10 A I don't know what the Commerce Department might 11 have done with that information, but we certainly would have 12 provided what they would have asked for in terms of the 13 current status of trade negotiations, trade agreements, 14 enforcement of trade agreements or other matters which had an 15 impact on their duties. 16 Q And there were members of the U.S. Trade 17 Representative's office who provided information to the 18 Commerce Department for use by the Commerce Department in 19 planning and effecting trade missions, correct? 20 A I have no personal knowledge of any particular 21 information which might have been shared between USTR and 22 Commerce which the Commerce Department may have used in 23 relation to trade missions. However, it would have been -- 24 it would have been appropriate, proper and even necessary for 25 USTR personnel from time to time, when asked, to give 20 1 information to the Department of Commerce, given the close 2 working relationship, which may have been used, but I have no 3 personal knowledge of it in terms of planning trade missions. 4 Q Are you saying unequivocally that no member of the 5 U.S. Trade Representative's office, no employee, provided any 6 information or had any role in any way in trade missions 7 conducted by Ron Brown? 8 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. Asked and answered. 9 MR. ROBBINS: It's asked and answered. It 10 mischaracaterizes -- 11 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Let's see if we can -- 12 MR. KLAYMAN: It wasn't answered. 13 JUDGE FACCIOLA: That's the third time you've 14 quarreled with each other on the record. It's also the last 15 time. 16 Judge Lamberth made it quite clear in his opinion 17 that what was driving him nuts were speaking objections. 18 Please make your objection and wait for my ruling. Treat 19 each other with professional civility that we can expect. 20 All right. Now, thanks to that, I've lost my train 21 of thought. 22 I think what they're trying to get at, Mr. Kantor, 23 is this. Or Secretary -- Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, 24 during the period of time that you were Trade Representative, 25 was there a relationship between the members of your office 21 1 and the members of the Department of Commerce? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 JUDGE FACCIOLA: All right. And in that 4 relationship -- well, could you describe as best you can what 5 you understood that relationship to be? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. 7 USTR and Commerce are both charged with involvement 8 in U.S. trade matters. Because these matters overlap to some 9 extent, or in some cases to a great extent, there is constant 10 communication. 11 My only hesitation was I wouldn't have known 12 whether or not the information provided going back and forth 13 would have been used specifically to -- to either design or 14 promote a trade mission. I just wouldn't have known that. 15 But there was constant communication, there had to be. 16 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 17 Q But you knew generally, did you not, Mr. Kantor, 18 that the U.S. Trade Representative was trying to be helpful 19 to Commerce in helping them plan and implement Ron Brown's 20 trade missions? 21 A If you're -- if, Mr. Klayman, you're asking me 22 whether or not I might have had some general understanding 23 they may have taken that information and used it for those 24 purposes, maybe, I don't know, but it wasn't a major concern 25 of mine. 22 1 The fact is we had constant communication with 2 the Department of Commerce. Our people who were negotiating, 3 we negotiated 200 trade agreements in just four years, would 4 have certainly been in constant contact with the Commerce 5 Department because they had foreign and commercial service 6 officers who could provide us with information, so therefore 7 what happened to that information inside the department I 8 would have had no knowledge of personally. 9 Q But I'm not even asking you about your personal 10 knowledge as the first question. I'm asking you whether it 11 was the function of the U.S. Trade Representative to assist 12 the Department of Commerce in planning and implementing trade 13 missions. 14 A Not particularly. 15 Q I don't understand what "Not particularly" means. 16 Yes or no. The answer is no? 17 A That's my answer. 18 MR. ROBBINS: I think he's answered the question. 19 I think we can move on. 20 JUDGE FACCIOLA: State that question again, 21 Mr. Klayman, and let me see if I figure out a way out of this 22 morass. Go ahead. Ask it again. 23 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 24 Q Was it not, Mr. Kantor, one of the duties and 25 responsibilities of the U.S. Trade Representative to assist 23 1 the Commerce Department to plan and implement trade missions, 2 in whatever respect, even if it's just providing information? 3 A To the extent the department may have asked for 4 information which was grounded in their need for that 5 information to plan a trade mission, we certainly would have 6 provided it from USTR. 7 If you're asking me if I have particular knowledge 8 of any specific information that might have gone to Commerce 9 as a result of a request that was grounded specifically in 10 asking about a trade mission, I have no personal knowledge of 11 that. 12 Q And that wasn't what I was asking. I was just 13 asking you simply whether or not one of the functions -- 14 A Mr. Klayman, I've answered your question. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Listen to the question. 16 MR. KLAYMAN: You have not answered it. 17 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Let's see if we can get out of 18 this. 19 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 20 Q I'm just asking you whether it was a function of 21 the U.S. Trade Representative during the time that you were 22 Trade Representative to assist the Department of Commerce in 23 any way in helping Commerce plan for and implement trade 24 missions. 25 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 24 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well, do you understand -- I guess 2 the problem that seems to be dividing you is this: 3 Mr. Secretary, your role as Trade Representative, 4 I suppose, is defined by statute, right? In terms of what 5 you do. The Secretary of Commerce is also at the same time 6 organizing trade missions so that members of our economy can 7 go to foreign nations and talk to people in foreign nations 8 about purchasing our goods. 9 What Mr. Klayman is trying to get at is in your 10 capacity as Trade Representative, was it a major function 11 that you and Secretary Brown had to work together in planning 12 trade missions? 13 THE WITNESS: A major function? 14 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Yes. A major function. 15 THE WITNESS: No. 16 MR. KLAYMAN: Any function. 17 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Any function -- so that those 18 trade missions -- 19 THE WITNESS: Well, I think -- 20 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Just let me finish before you 21 answer. 22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, 23 Your Honor. 24 JUDGE FACCIOLA: To make as an effective 25 presentation to these people as possible. 25 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Because without that information 3 there may not be crucial things that would be conveyed. 4 THE WITNESS: Right. 5 JUDGE FACCIOLA: That's the point. 6 THE WITNESS: I was trying to distinguish, 7 Your Honor, between my personal knowledge and what USTR 8 may have done. 9 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Yes. 10 THE WITNESS: We would have gladly, and I'm sure 11 we did, provide any information possible that was relevant 12 to those missions to make them more effective and I'm sure we 13 did, although I have no personal knowledge of it because it 14 wasn't a major function of USTR. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: So be it. 16 MR. KLAYMAN: I'll show you what I'll ask the court 17 reporter to mark as Exhibit 1. 18 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Thank you, sir. Thank you. 19 MR. KLAYMAN: Exhibit 1 is a reprint of an article 20 which appeared on February 20, 1997 in The Boston Globe. 21 The headline is "Ex-DNC chief says he sought access for 22 contributors." It was written by Walter V. Robinson of the 23 Globe staff. He also happens to be their editor. 24 (Kantor Deposition Exhibit No. 1 25 was marked for identification.) 26 1 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 2 Q Mr. Kantor, if you'd like an opportunity to review 3 this document, I'm going to ask you certain questions about 4 it. 5 A Yes, sir. I remember this situation. I remember 6 the article and the situation which prompted it. 7 Q And in this article, it is stated, and I'm reading 8 down on the page, I'm not going to go through the entire 9 article, this is the seventh paragraph on page 1 -- the sixth 10 paragraph, "'On several occasions, the DNC and chairman 11 Fowler asked us at USTR and at Commerce to either meet with 12 or entertain requests from contributors to the Democratic 13 Party. It was our practice not to comply with such 14 requests,' Scher said in an interview. 15 "Specifically, Fowler defended sending a letter, 16 a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, urging Kantor to 17 reserve a seat on a Commerce Department overseas trade 18 mission for a Florida businesswoman who had given almost 19 $40,000 to the Democrats in the previous 30 months. 20 "In response to Fowler's letter, Scher issued an 21 internal memorandum last June 27 objecting to what he called 22 'this type of intervention.'" 23 Let me just ask you, from time to time, while you 24 were U.S. Trade Representative, were there requests made by 25 the Democratic National Committee to have you or anyone at 27 1 USTR recommend participants on trade missions? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And when did that occur? 4 A I don't have the specific dates. There were either 5 two or three. 6 Q Roughly speaking. 7 A Mr. Klayman, I trying -- I really -- '94 and '95 -- 8 you know, I don't think any in '93, but I really wouldn't 9 have any -- I don't have any recollection of the specific 10 date, but there were two or three. 11 Q And this particular individual, a Ms. Parker, you 12 remember that, don't you? 13 A Oh, at the Commerce Department? 14 Q Well -- 15 A Wasn't that -- 16 Q Ms. M.J. Parker of Miami, Florida? 17 A Wasn't that the letter or the note or whatever 18 Chairman Fowler sent to the Commerce Department with regard 19 to -- she was the businesswoman, I think -- 20 Q Right. 21 A And I was Secretary of Commerce at the time? Yes, 22 I do remember that. 23 Q Okay. And these requests that you received from 24 the Democratic National Committee, do you remember the names 25 of the people that wanted to go on the trips? 28 1 A You mean the prior requests I mentioned to you? 2 Q Yes. Yes. 3 A These weren't trips. Excuse me. These weren't 4 trips. 5 Excuse me, Your Honor. May I explain? 6 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Of course. Of course. 7 THE WITNESS: I hope it's responsive, because I 8 think we can get through this rather quickly. 9 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Don't ever hesitate to explain, 10 Mr. Secretary. 11 THE WITNESS: These two or three requests while 12 I was USTR were not for missions, of course, because I had 13 nothing to do with trade missions as USTR. They were for 14 meetings with me as United States Trade Representative. 15 They all were denied. 16 This one incident you're talking about, I'd be 17 happy to answer questions with regard to that or, of course, 18 anything I remember with regard to the others. 19 MR. KLAYMAN: Okay. Let's start with that. 20 THE WITNESS: But there's a separation here. 21 MR. KLAYMAN: Let's start with that. And I'll 22 make a proffer to the Court that to the best of our knowledge 23 we have never received a copy of this letter which apparently 24 was sent by Chairman Fowler with regard to this department 25 trade mission from either the Commerce Department or the 29 1 Democratic National Committee. 2 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I understand. 3 MR. KLAYMAN: And this is one of the documents 4 which we maintain should have been produced. 5 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I understand. 6 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 7 Q If you will explain -- 8 A Explain what? I'm sorry. I apologize. 9 Q You said you wanted to explain this particular 10 instance that I just read to you. 11 A If you want to ask questions about this incident, 12 I'd be happy to answer it, but I'll be -- I think I can get 13 us through this rather quickly. I believe, although I don't 14 think I ever saw the letter at Commerce, there was a letter 15 from Don Fowler to me as secretary which my chief of staff, 16 Peter Scher, reviewed which asked whether or not the woman 17 in question here -- I remember it now, but I didn't remember 18 her name when I walked here, you've refreshed my memory, 19 Ms. Parker, because of her support for the Democratic 20 National Committee could go on a trade mission which was 21 being planned. I believe it was to Asia, although I'm not 22 certain. It could have been to Bosnia. 23 Would you like to me to continue? 24 MR. KLAYMAN: Yes. Go ahead. 25 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Please. 30 1 THE WITNESS: Mr. Scher and I talked about this 2 and agreed that he would communicate to Mr. Fowler not only 3 would she not go on this trip because of this letter, that 4 she would never go on any mission we ever had and we didn't 5 want any more communications from the DNC of this type. 6 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 7 Q Did you put that in writing? 8 A I don't know if Mr. Scher did or not. I just don't 9 know, Mr. Klayman. 10 Q Did you put your request in writing to Mr. Scher? 11 A No. I mean -- no. He -- this was a conversation 12 in my office. It took about 45 seconds. 13 Q And when did that conversation occur, 14 approximately? 15 A Right after receiving the request. I don't know 16 the date. I'm sorry. It would have been in the -- probably 17 the spring or early summer of 1996. 18 Q Was there anyone present during the meeting with 19 Mr. Scher when your views were -- 20 A Oh, I doubt it seriously. 21 Q -- allegedly expressed? 22 A I don't think I used the word allegedly. These are 23 the views expressed. 24 Q Was this letter in your hand at the time that you 25 expressed your views to Mr. Scher? 31 1 A I don't remember. I don't remember. Peter may 2 have just explained to me what the situation was. 3 Q That letter was cc'd on Ron Brown or someone at the 4 Commerce Department? 5 MS. BRASWELL: Your Honor, I'm going to object -- I 6 object to the continuing -- this continuing line of 7 questioning. 8 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Why? 9 MS. BRASWELL: Because it's outside the scope of 10 discovery in this case. 11 JUDGE FACCIOLA: No, but I thought Mr. Klayman was 12 trying to make the point that the existence of this document 13 and the fact he has never gotten it is significant. And it's 14 significant because we get back to the point of the lawsuit 15 which is that there were documents that were in existence 16 that bore on this question of participation in trade missions 17 and yet he was not provided them. And we're in that mess 18 because, Ms. Braswell, of the nature of the search that was 19 done. So it seems to me that's a very legitimate inquiry. 20 Isn't that the heart of the lawsuit? 21 MS. BRASWELL: No, Your Honor, because this 22 particular letter was created after the FOIA requests in this 23 case came in and therefore this letter and any of these 24 documents that Mr. Kantor is testifying to are not at issue 25 in this case. 32 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well -- 2 MR. KLAYMAN: We don't know because we've never 3 seen the letter, but we want to identify it so we can find 4 it, number one, and Mr. Kantor did just testify that he did 5 receive communications in 1994. That was during the period 6 of our FOIA request subject to this suit. 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Proceed along those lines. 8 See, that's what troubles me, Ms. Braswell. I've 9 been thinking a lot about this. I take it there are other 10 FOIA requests pending that seek information for '95, '96 and 11 '97. 12 MS. BRASWELL: That's correct, Your Honor. There 13 are two other lawsuits. 14 JUDGE FACCIOLA: And will there be discovery as to 15 each of those? 16 MS. BRASWELL: Absolutely not, as far as we're 17 concerned. And certainly there has been no discovery ordered 18 by Judge Lamberth with respect to those cases, and therefore 19 Mr. Klayman should not be allowed in this case to engage in 20 discovery that pertains to two other cases for which 21 discovery has not been authorized. 22 MR. KLAYMAN: First of all, in all due respect 23 and the spirit of collegiality, Ms. Braswell cannot speak for 24 Judge Lamberth or for yourself when she says "Absolutely 25 not." 33 1 Secondly, Judge Lamberth is considering these 2 issues now. But to the extent that later documents make 3 reference to earlier trade missions, they're certainly within 4 the scope of discovery. 5 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Okay. But please tie them up in 6 that way. 7 Mr. Secretary, if I may, this may sound like 8 Greek or Sanskrit, but in a sense this is a confusing bit of 9 business for all of us, because in a way we're kind of 10 hunting for the snark. That is, by virtue of the search that 11 was done, which is the subject of Judge Lambert's opinion, it 12 is very unclear at this point whether or not the search 13 yielded everything it was supposed to. 14 THE WITNESS: I understand. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: So unfortunately we have to take 16 you back in time over events. 17 THE WITNESS: Oh, I understand. I understand. 18 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Which may in your viewpoint not 19 necessarily have generated any documents, but it is a 20 legitimate inquiry subject to Ms. Braswell's objection that 21 you are asked questions about an event and then are asked if 22 it's memorialized. 23 THE WITNESS: I understand. 24 JUDGE FACCIOLA: So if that keeps happening, as 25 it will throughout most of the day, it's not because we're 34 1 crazy, it's because that's what we're obliged to do. 2 Now, Ms. Braswell has objected on the grounds that 3 the FOIA request that is presently before Judge Lamberth 4 which he ruled on in his memorandum opinion only deals with 5 the events up to, I think, October 19, 1994. She has now 6 objected to the inquiry Mr. Klayman has made on the grounds 7 that this article is obviously written about events that 8 transpired thereafter. 9 The problem with that, Mr. Klayman, is that there 10 are other FOIA requests and we don't know what's going to 11 happen. 12 So what I'm going to try to do is to ask you in a 13 sense to do the impossible, to answer a few brief questions 14 about these events to see if they would have any relation to 15 events that occurred before 1994 that were of a similar type. 16 Try that and see how we go. 17 There's no way we can make lapidary judgments in 18 this thing, Mr. Secretary. We're going to have stumble and 19 bumble a bit, but let's see what we can do. 20 Now, Mr. Klayman, I guess it is -- I understand it 21 is your point that you want to make inquiry along these lines 22 as to events which occurred thereafter, after your FOIA 23 request, to see what light they cast on events that occurred 24 before. Is that right? 25 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, both. Your Honor, we don't 35 1 know, for instance, that this letter that's being referenced 2 did not get written in 1994. 3 JUDGE FACCIOLA: All right. Then see if you make 4 some inquiry on that. 5 MR. KLAYMAN: So in fact, Mr. Kantor just testified 6 that he did receive correspondence in 1994. 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Okay. All right. 8 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 9 Q Did this particular letter, can you recollect the 10 date that it was written? 11 A Mr. Klayman, let me be very careful here. One, no. 12 Two, I don't believe I ever -- if there was a letter, I 13 don't believe I ever saw it because I think Mr. Scher merely 14 briefed me with regard to this situation. However, there 15 could be a letter, there may not be a letter. I just don't 16 have any personal knowledge of that. 17 Q So you're saying Mr. Scher is the one who would 18 have seen the letter? 19 A Now, we're talking about the letter in 1996 which 20 was the subject of this news article, I think. 21 Q Well, we are talking about that letter, but we 22 don't know definitively that it was 1996, we can't go on the 23 basis of -- 24 A No, I have no idea. I can't help you, Mr. Klayman. 25 I have no idea. 36 1 Q But Mr. Scher would be the one who would know? 2 A Well, presumably, if there was a letter, Mr. Scher 3 might remember the letter and the date, but I don't know that 4 either, of course. 5 Q Where is Mr. Scher today? 6 A Mr. Scher is a trade ambassador at the United 7 States Trade Representative's office. 8 Q So he's still there? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And where would such a letter have been kept and 11 maintained in the U.S. Trade Representative's office? 12 A Now, we're talking -- Mr. Klayman, let me see if I 13 can help you. The letter you're talking about involved -- I 14 was involved as Secretary of Commerce, if there was a letter. 15 Mr. Scher was my chief of staff at the Commerce Department at 16 the time. 17 Let's separate that from what I -- what I -- an 18 answer to a question you asked earlier. There were two or 19 three, I don't remember how many, requests from the DNC 20 while I was USTR, United States Trade Representative, asking 21 for meetings for people who had been helpful to the 22 Democratic National Committee, each of which was rejected, as 23 was the request, whether letter or not, which I do not know, 24 to the Department of Commerce when I was Secretary of 25 Commerce. 37 1 Q Well, I just asked a very specific question. 2 Where would the letter have been stored at USTR? 3 A I do not know. 4 Q Mr. Scher, where was his office in relation to your 5 office? 6 A At where, Commerce Department or USTR? 7 Q At USTR. 8 A USTR? Down the hall. 9 Q And who was his secretary at the time that you 10 worked there? 11 A I can't remember. I'm sorry, I don't remember her 12 name. 13 Q And you had several meetings or conversations a 14 day with Mr. Scher while you were U.S. Trade Representative? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And you are aware that he had a system for 17 maintaining records as your deputy? 18 A Oh, sure. Yes. 19 Q Did you ever give any instructions to Mr. Scher to 20 discard any documents or destroy them? 21 A Absolutely not. 22 Q So to the best of your knowledge, if he had this 23 letter, it would still be at USTR? 24 A Yes, if there were a letter -- if there were 25 letters that came to USTR on the subject matter you are 38 1 trying to probe, they should be there now. 2 Q Was there any system when you were at USTR or 3 anything you've learned of since where letters would be 4 scanned into a computer, correspondence? 5 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 6 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Refresh my recollection, 7 Mr. Secretary. When were you at USTR? 8 THE WITNESS: January 21, 1993 to April 12, 1996. 9 JUDGE FACCIOLA: In the period of time that you 10 were there prior to 1994, was there such a system of 11 recordkeeping? 12 THE WITNESS: Of scanning? 13 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Yes. When you arrived or -- 14 THE WITNESS: I'm not -- 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Let's do it this way. When you 16 arrived, do you recall -- 17 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so because we 18 continually were asking Congress for more money to have a 19 more efficient system, but I could be wrong about that. 20 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Okay. But while you were there, 21 you don't remember a system where -- 22 THE WITNESS: No, I don't, Your Honor. 23 JUDGE FACCIOLA: -- in lieu of keeping a paper 24 copy, you were able to scan it into a computer and keep it on 25 hard disc? Is that right? 39 1 THE WITNESS: I don't remember. Yes, Your Honor. 2 That's correct. 3 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 4 Q Now, since you've left USTR, you have from time to 5 time been in contact with a person or persons who still work 6 there, correct? 7 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. Your Honor, this entire 8 line of questioning about documents at USTR and contacts with 9 people at USTR is outside the scope of discovery. 10 JUDGE FACCIOLA: And that is because? 11 MS. BRASWELL: Because whatever documents existed 12 at USTR are not the subject of this case against the 13 Department of Commerce dealing with documents that existed at 14 the Department of Commerce. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: So the search that the Department 16 of Commerce had to undertake did not involve searching any 17 portion of the U.S. Trade Representative's office? 18 MS. BRASWELL: That's correct. 19 JUDGE FACCIOLA: As a matter of statutory design, 20 the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative 21 are co-equal members of the cabinet? 22 MS. BRASWELL: Yes. 23 JUDGE FACCIOLA: They are entirely separate 24 divisions and departments? 25 MS. BRASWELL: Yes. Yes. So -- 40 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Mr. Klayman, in light of that, 2 why is information concerning the U.S. Trade Representative's 3 office relevant, except insofar as it casts light on 4 documents that might exist in the Department of Commerce, 5 which was the subject of the FOIA search which is at issue 6 before us? 7 MR. KLAYMAN: Right. Well, it's relevant on that 8 basis alone in that we're able to try to find the documents 9 that haven't been produced, but it is also a relevant 10 question on at least two other grounds. 11 First, Judge Lamberth has already made a ruling 12 that Judicial Watch is entitled to conduct discovery on 13 documents that were taken out of the department or sent by 14 the department. That's why we're able to question the 15 Democratic National Committee. 16 Secondly, it is a practice with FOIA requests that 17 the agency then contacts other government agencies in which 18 it was in contact. In fact, in this case, we have documents 19 from USTR. We have documents from State Department. So it's 20 relevant on three different bases. 21 JUDGE FACCIOLA: So you're argument goes something 22 along this: while I am restricted in the scope of the FOIA 23 search to the documents that were at Commerce, I am entitled 24 to inquire whether or not documents emanated from an agency 25 and went to Commerce because that's the only way I can figure 41 1 out whether they should have been at Commerce when I got my 2 FOIA response. Is that correct? 3 MR. KLAYMAN: That's right, but also one other 4 factor and that is that the search entails not just the 5 Commerce Department, but other government agencies with which 6 it communicated. 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: That's right, because the 8 Department of Commerce -- well, how would that work? How is 9 it supposed to work? 10 MS. BRASWELL: May I address that, Your Honor? 11 When a request comes into the Department of 12 Commerce, the Department of Commerce searches the Department 13 of Commerce records. They do not go and send the request to 14 other agencies and say do you have any records. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: No, but when they do, at least in 16 my experience in the FOIA cases that I've worked on, and one 17 as recently as a couple of weeks ago, where a FOIA request 18 was made to the Department of State, when the Department of 19 State came across a document that originated, for example, 20 from the National Security Agency or the CIA, it sent that 21 document to National Security and CIA, whose FOIA operators 22 looked at it and then communicated back to the Department of 23 State. 24 MS. BRASWELL: That's correct. They send a copy of 25 it. But the point is it has to be a document at Commerce. 42 1 And while Mr. Klayman can ask whether or not documents were 2 sent by USTR to Commerce because then theoretically they 3 might still be at Commerce, it should be within the relevant 4 time period. 5 The document should have been sent during the 6 time that is covered by his FOIA request and we seem to be 7 covering an entirely different time period dealing with 8 documents at USTR in a time period that's not even relevant 9 to this particular case. 10 MR. KLAYMAN: Your Honor -- 11 MS. BRASWELL: There must be a tie to the 12 Department of Commerce or he's engaging in discovery as to 13 the recordkeeping practices at USTR. 14 MR. KLAYMAN: Your Honor has already made a ruling 15 on that issue earlier. And let me just turn the attention of 16 everyone -- 17 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Really? What did I say? 18 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, what you said is that we may be 19 able through later -- a, we don't know what the date of that 20 document is, okay? Number one. Number two, we may be able 21 to trace back documents that were in existence by references 22 in later documents. 23 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Yes. 24 MR. KLAYMAN: But the second page of this Exhibit 1 25 is very instructive, the third paragraph from the bottom, 43 1 wherein it says, "Scher, in a memorandum to another Commerce 2 official declared" -- "in a memorandum to another Commerce 3 official." So it's a document both at USTR and Commerce. 4 JUDGE FACCIOLA: All right. Well, let's see if you 5 can narrow the scope of your question, Mr. Klayman, to those 6 documents which may have been transmitted by the USTR to the 7 Department of Commerce in the relevant period of time. 8 I think that overcomes the objection, doesn't it? 9 MS. BRASWELL: That's true, Your Honor. If I might 10 note, the paragraph that Mr. Klayman points to on page 2 11 deals with two trade missions that are not at issue in this 12 case. 13 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I understand. Okay. Let's 14 proceed. 15 MR. KLAYMAN: But I take it, Your Honor, I'm still 16 allowed to see whether a later document -- 17 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Why don't you ask the question and 18 we'll see where we go? 19 MR. KLAYMAN: -- refers to an earlier document? 20 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Yes. 21 MR. KLAYMAN: Okay. 22 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 23 Q The question was, Mr. Kantor, whether -- and 24 actually we got off track to some extent, whether you have 25 any knowledge of USTR having put in a scanning system since 44 1 you left. 2 A I have no knowledge of that. 3 MR. KLAYMAN: I'm going to show you what I'll ask 4 the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 2. 5 This is a -- I call it a menu, it's called 6 Democratic National Committee, DNC Managing Trustee Events & 7 Membership Requirements. And on this list, it says what you 8 get if you donate $100,000 as a managing trustee to the 9 Democratic National Committee. Among the various things it 10 lists are annual economic trade missions. 11 (Kantor Deposition Exhibit No. 2 12 was marked for identification.) 13 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 14 Q Have you ever seen this document before? 15 A No. 16 Q Have you ever discussed with anyone the issue of 17 whether or not seats on trade missions were being provided to 18 donors to the Democratic Party? 19 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 20 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Overruled. 21 THE WITNESS: With anyone? 22 MR. KLAYMAN: Yes. 23 MR. ROBBINS: May I ask, Your Honor, whether the 24 Court understood that last question to include conversations 25 that may have been with counsel? 45 1 MR. KLAYMAN: I'm not asking about conversations 2 with Mr. Robbins. 3 MR. ROBBINS: Because I could have sworn the word 4 was "anyone." 5 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Counsel, if you would like a 6 second to step outside with the witness and talk about how he 7 wants to shape that question and what objections you wish 8 to make, then I will be glad to give you some to do that. 9 MR. ROBBINS: No, I'm happy for him to answer 10 so long as it's understood that it doesn't embrace 11 attorney-client conversations. 12 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well, okay. 13 Mr. Secretary, you appreciate, of course, that 14 you have an attorney-client privilege. If you have had 15 conversations with your counsel about these things, that 16 would be included in the universe of people. I'm sure 17 that's not what Mr. Klayman is inquiring about. 18 Certainly you have a right to assert the 19 attorney-client privilege at any time with reference to those 20 conversations, but with people with whom you have no 21 privilege, did you ever have such conversations? 22 THE WITNESS: Would you ask the question again? 23 Because it was so broad and ambiguous, I'm not sure what 24 you're talking about. I want to answer the question, I just 25 don't know what you're driving at. 46 1 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 2 Q The question is very simple. Have you ever 3 discussed with anyone whether or not seats on trade missions 4 were being provided to contributors to a political party? 5 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. Your Honor, may I state 6 the basis for my objection? 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Certainly. 8 MS. BRASWELL: He uses the word "trade missions." 9 He doesn't use the word "Department of Commerce trade 10 missions" and therefore it is a vague and ambiguous question 11 as to what he's referring to. 12 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Does anybody else in the 13 government have trade missions? 14 MS. BRASWELL: I don't know whether or not the 15 Democratic National Committee had something that they called 16 trade missions. 17 MR. KLAYMAN: But, Your Honor -- I'm sorry. 18 JUDGE FACCIOLA: All right. Let me see if I can 19 help you. 20 Mr. Secretary, do you recall any discussions with 21 anyone other than your counsel about trade missions which 22 were conducted as official government functions of the United 23 States? 24 THE WITNESS: While I was Secretary of Commerce? 25 Yes. 47 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: And when you were USTR, did you 2 have any such discussions? 3 THE WITNESS: Not in the way that Mr. Klayman -- 4 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Don't worry about the way he's 5 doing it. Just answer the question. 6 THE WITNESS: No. No. 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: He'll follow-up if it's necessary. 8 THE WITNESS: No. We're talking about trade 9 missions, not in terms of who went on trade missions. 10 JUDGE FACCIOLA: But you had general -- obviously, 11 you had general discussions about trade missions all the 12 time. 13 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. Absolutely. Of course. 14 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Okay. Now, I take it, 15 Mr. Klayman, you'll follow up. 16 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, let me back up. Let me ask 17 Your Honor for an instruction here. 18 What Ms. Braswell did in the way she objected to 19 that question, that was a speaking objection. 20 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I understand. 21 MR. KLAYMAN: And that is the problem that we 22 had with Mr. Hegyi, because it provides information to the 23 witness and I ask that she not -- that the Court instruct her 24 not to do it again. 25 JUDGE FACCIOLA: All right. Well, the Federal 48 1 Rules of Evidence require that the basis for the objection be 2 stated. I think that's usually done by simply saying 3 objection, relevance or hearsay. 4 MR. KLAYMAN: Right. 5 JUDGE FACCIOLA: If I don't understand at that 6 point what the position is, I will ask you for additional 7 information. But if you could object in the way you would 8 in a courtroom, I think it would be a little better for 9 everyone concerned. 10 So it would be something like "objection, 11 privileged" or "objection, hearsay" or "objection, 12 irrelevant." That will avoid the objection that Mr. Klayman 13 is making to your objection. That way I won't have to rule 14 on the objection to the objection to the objection. 15 Probably at this point, Mr. Secretary, you're very 16 happy you went into corporate law. 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 18 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 19 Q Let me see if I can ask the question in a different 20 way that would elicit the response I'm seeking. 21 Have you ever discussed with anyone from 1992 to 22 the present whether or not individuals who went on Commerce 23 Department trade missions donated money to the Democratic 24 National Committee or the Clinton-Gore campaign? Other than 25 your counsel, Mr. Robbins. 49 1 A When you ask it in that way, no. 2 Q Well, what did you discuss? 3 MR. ROBBINS: Objection to the form. 4 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 5 THE WITNESS: Let me just -- with all due respect, 6 let me just try to help here because we'll be here all day. 7 When I became Secretary of Commerce and we were 8 planning a trade mission, I wanted to ensure the procedures 9 and process had no political involvement whatsoever. I had 10 people who were designing those missions come in to me and 11 explain how people were chosen, not the individuals, but how 12 people were chosen. 13 Mr. Klayman, I'd like to answer your question. 14 MR. KLAYMAN: Sure. Go on. 15 THE WITNESS: I wanted to make it clear that, 16 one, I didn't want any involvement, as they explained to 17 me Secretary Brown didn't, in choosing anyone to go on a 18 mission; two, I wanted no political considerations to be used 19 in choosing people; three, I wanted the people chosen to be 20 relevant to the mission involved. And that's the way it 21 worked. 22 Now, to that degree I had discussions, but never -- 23 the implication of your question -- and let me -- I'm just 24 trying to get through this quickly -- is did I know nor did I 25 ask anyone to find out or was I aware of or did I have any 50 1 indication anyone chosen on any trade mission which I had any 2 knowledge of gave money to any political party or candidate, 3 the answer is no. 4 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, that wasn't my question, but -- 5 THE WITNESS: You could have fooled me. 6 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 7 Q My question was whether you ever had conversations 8 with anyone, let's try to make it a little bit narrower, 9 while Ron Brown was Secretary of Commerce, that donors to the 10 Democratic Party and/or the Clinton-Gore campaign were being 11 taken on trade missions? 12 A Not that I can recall. 13 Q You're saying you don't remember, not a yes or a 14 no? 15 A I said not that I can recall. 16 Q Which -- I wish to be -- just to get it clear on 17 the record, it's not that you're saying no, it's you're 18 saying you can't -- you have no memory of that? 19 MR. ROBBINS: I think the answer has been given 20 twice, Your Honor. I wonder if we could move on. 21 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well, Mr. Secretary, you want it 22 to be understood that as you sit here that you cannot 23 remember any such conversations. 24 THE WITNESS: I can't recall any conversation, but 25 I'm trying to be careful, Your Honor. 51 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: You have every right be careful, 2 Mr. Secretary. 3 THE WITNESS: I respect this process and I don't 4 want to get into a situation that there might have been a 5 fleeting conversation and -- and -- and it comes to someone's 6 attention and I have given an answer that's not correct. I 7 just can't recall. 8 JUDGE FACCIOLA: So what you're saying today is you 9 have no independent recollection as you sit here of such a 10 discussion. 11 THE WITNESS: That's right. 12 JUDGE FACCIOLA: There is, however, a possibility 13 that there was such a discussion. 14 THE WITNESS: Of course. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: But as you sit there, you do not 16 remember any such discussion. 17 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. 18 JUDGE FACCIOLA: You're welcome, Mr. Secretary. 19 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 20 Q Excluding the President of the United States, 21 for which there is a question pending and a ruling pending 22 which we will in appropriate ways seek to have clarified, 23 have you ever had a conversation with anyone in the White 24 House about Judicial Watch's lawsuit, the one you're here on 25 today? 52 1 A I don't think so, but I need a clarification, if 2 I could just ask a question. I'm not trying to avoid -- 3 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Maybe the best answer, 4 Mr. Secretary, is speak with your counsel. 5 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't even know -- I need to 6 ask a question because I think my counsel won't even know the 7 answer to this question. 8 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Take a moment and speak to your 9 counsel. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11 (The witness conferred with counsel.) 12 THE WITNESS: Not with regard to this lawsuit. 13 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 14 Q You were talking about another Judicial Watch 15 lawsuit? 16 A No. Not with regard to any Judicial Watch lawsuit. 17 Q Did you ever discuss the issue of taking donors on 18 trade missions with anyone at the White House? 19 A No. 20 Q Have you ever discussed the issue of taking donors 21 on trade missions with anyone in the Clinton administration? 22 MS. BRASWELL: Your Honor, I assume that all these 23 questions do not refer to the President or any communications 24 with the President. 25 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I think that was in the 53 1 introduction and that is our mutual understanding. 2 THE WITNESS: State that -- I'm sorry, I lost my 3 train of thought. I'm sorry. 4 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 5 Q Have you ever discussed the issue of taking donors 6 on trade missions with anyone in the Clinton administration? 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Except the President himself. 8 THE WITNESS: No, but I may have discussed with 9 friends who are also colleagues in the administration my 10 anger and dismay at the communication received from the DNC 11 with regard to the issue which was in that -- I think the 12 Boston Globe article, Exhibit 1, because I was so upset over 13 it. But they were conversations not dealing with policy or 14 practice, but only -- I'm certain because I was concerned 15 about it and I may have mentioned it to other people in the 16 administration. 17 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 18 Q And who are those other people? 19 A I don't recall. I'm just trying to be helpful, 20 Mr. Klayman. I don't remember. 21 Q Given the fact that you can't recall, let me ask 22 you in another way. Given what your functions were, your 23 duties and responsibilities, Trade Representative, given the 24 fact that this is discovery, it's not trial yet, who would 25 you likely have been discussing that with? 54 1 A Oh, now you're asking about USTR. 2 Q No, anywhere. I'm just saying -- 3 A No, no, no -- 4 Q I'm just saying you say you can't recall the 5 specific names, but who is it most likely that you did 6 discuss this with, given your duties and responsibilities in 7 the Clinton administration? 8 A At what point in time? 9 Q At any point. 10 A Peter Scher certainly would have discussed it 11 because he had the same concerns as I had. Previous to that 12 time, Tom Nides, who was my chief of staff. 13 Q How is that spelled? 14 A N-i-d-e-s. 15 Q Where is he today? 16 A At Fannie Mae. Federal National Mortgage 17 Association. 18 Q Here in Washington? 19 A Yes. If there were others, I can't recall who I 20 might have -- just because of my concern over the kind of 21 requests I received, which I testified to earlier this 22 morning. 23 Q You would have discussed it, perhaps, with 24 Ron Brown? 25 A No. 55 1 Q You would have discussed it with Hillary Clinton? 2 A No. 3 Q Have you had a chance to review the testimony of 4 Nolanda Hill in this case? 5 A No. 6 Q Did you ever read anything about it? 7 A Casually. 8 Q Where did you read about it? 9 A In the newspaper. 10 Q And you read that Nolanda Hill testified that 11 Ron Brown told her that it was Hillary Clinton who devised 12 the scheme to sell seats on trade missions for campaign 13 contributions, correct? 14 A In fact, I have never read that. That doesn't mean 15 it didn't appear, I just never read it. 16 Q Okay. Did you ever discuss trade missions with 17 Hillary Clinton? 18 A No. 19 Q Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not 20 Mrs. Clinton was the one who had the idea of selling seats on 21 trade missions for campaign contributions? 22 A No. 23 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 24 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Overruled. 25 THE WITNESS: No. 56 1 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 2 Q Did you read, when you read those articles about 3 Nolanda Hill's testimony, that she testified that the 4 President knew and approved of that scheme proposed by 5 Hillary Clinton? 6 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Sustained. 8 MR. KLAYMAN: I just asked whether he had 9 knowledge, not whether he had a discussion. 10 JUDGE FACCIOLA: The testimony speaks for itself. 11 What difference does it make if he -- 12 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, if he discussed it with 13 somebody else. 14 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well, if he didn't have any 15 knowledge of it, why would he discuss it? 16 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, I didn't get the answer. 17 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Did you have knowledge of that 18 testimony, what the woman said about that? 19 THE WITNESS: No. None. 20 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Did you ever, for reasons that I 21 can't quite figure out, discuss that possibility with anyone 22 else? 23 THE WITNESS: No. 24 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, can I get a little more 25 specific, Your Honor? 57 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Certainly. 2 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 3 Q Did you ever discuss trade missions with Harold 4 Ickes, just trade missions in general? 5 A No, not that I can recall. I'm almost certain 6 I didn't. 7 Q At any time, you never discussed any trade missions 8 with Harold Ickes? 9 A I don't believe so, except that after I left 10 office, in private life we may have discussed your lawsuit 11 in general. 12 Q What did you discuss with Mr. Ickes about our 13 lawsuit? 14 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 15 THE WITNESS: This is 1997 or 1998 -- 16 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 17 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Why would that be relevant to the 18 documents at the Department of Commerce? 19 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, because Mr. Ickes -- if you 20 would like me to lay the foundation, I'll be happy to do 21 that. 22 JUDGE FACCIOLA: You'd better. 23 MR. KLAYMAN: Okay. 24 I'll show you what I'll ask the court reporter to 25 mark as Exhibit -- 58 1 THE COURT REPORTER: 3. 2 MR. KLAYMAN: -- 3. 3 Exhibit 3 is a memorandum of May 5, 1994 prepared 4 well before Judicial Watch's FOIA requests, to Ann Cahill 5 from Martha Phipps re: White House Activities. It emanates, 6 Your Honor, from the files of Harold Ickes. It was produced 7 by Mr. Ickes at the Senate Government Affairs Committee, the 8 Thompson committee. It was referenced during those hearings 9 that were televised nationally. 10 (Kantor Deposition Exhibit No. 3 11 was marked for identification.) 12 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Yes. Okay. 13 MR. KLAYMAN: Okay. And in this memorandum, 14 it states, "In order to reach our very aggressive goal of 15 $40 million this year, it would be very helpful if we could 16 coordinate the following activities between the White House 17 and the Democratic National Committee: 18 "4. Invitations to participate in official 19 delegation trips abroad. Contact Alexis Herman." 20 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 21 Q Have you ever seen this document before? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q Did you know of its existence before today? 24 A No, sir. 25 Q Had you ever heard any reference to this document 59 1 in any television, radio or written publication? 2 A I may have, but I don't recall. 3 MR. KLAYMAN: Your Honor, this is why we need to 4 ask whether or not he had discussions with Ickes about our 5 lawsuit because Ickes, according to Nolanda Hill, implemented 6 the scheme to sell seats -- 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Those discussions could be about 8 anything. Let's see if we can get it narrowed down. 9 In those conversations that you had with 10 Ickes about this lawsuit, did you discuss with Mr. Ickes 11 the possibility of documentation at either the Trade 12 Representative's office or the Department of Commerce with 13 reference to this request that certain persons be invited to 14 participate in official delegations? 15 THE WITNESS: No, sir. Let me make it clear, these 16 conversations were in 1997 or 1998 that I'm referring to, 17 when we were both in private life. 18 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well, basically, again, we're in 19 that possibility of trying to figure out -- 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand. I understand. 21 The answer is no, sir. 22 JUDGE FACCIOLA: So the analysis would go something 23 along the lines that if you had a discussion with that 24 gentleman and that gentleman indicated his concern that 25 documents existed, that would bear on the issue -- 60 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. No, sir. We never discussed 2 documents. 3 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Okay. 4 MR. KLAYMAN: Your Honor, the reason that 5 discussing our lawsuit is relevant is because the issues 6 of -- what concerned Judge Lamberth and the Court with 7 regard to this lawsuit is in terms of the likelihood of 8 obstruction go beyond just merely the existence of documents. 9 It goes into false testimony. It goes into issues of 10 whether or not documents were provided timely. It goes into 11 a lot of other issues. 12 So -- and he has no privilege in those discussions 13 with Mr. Ickes, so we would ask Your Honor if we could just 14 ask generally what was discussed about our lawsuit. 15 MS. BRASWELL: Your Honor -- 16 MR. KLAYMAN: And it may go into credibility and 17 truthfulness and veracity in terms of his testimony. 18 MS. BRASWELL: Your Honor, same objection. 19 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Whose truthfulness and veracity? 20 Mr. Ickes? 21 MR. KLAYMAN: Mr. Kantor's. 22 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Why would his conversation with 23 Ickes -- 24 MR. KLAYMAN: I'm not making any accusations, 25 Your Honor. 61 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Wait a minute. Why would -- let's 2 see if we can analyze this, as we're obliged to under the 3 Rules of Evidence. 4 Why would the conversations the witness had with 5 Ickes bear on the credibility of the witness' testimony? 6 MR. KLAYMAN: All right. And this is not 7 accusatory in any way, but in essence we know, for instance, 8 that Mr. Kantor had been requested to be deposed for several 9 years, almost from the start of when discovery began. 10 And we also know that -- well, what we know is that 11 there could have been a discussion similar to the discussion 12 which Ron Brown claims to have had with Panetta to delay 13 production of documents in the case, to not be truthful, and 14 Ickes could have said something to Mr. Kantor, if you're ever 15 called to testify, don't tell what happened. 16 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Okay. 17 During the course of these conversations that you 18 had with Mr. Ickes, did you and he discuss what would be or 19 what should be the appropriate responses by persons who were 20 called to depositions in this case? 21 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 22 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Did you have any discussions with 23 Mr. Ickes with reference to what the level of cooperation 24 with this lawsuit should be? 25 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 62 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Did Mr. Ickes express any concern 2 that if this lawsuit were to proceed that it would be 3 embarrassing to him? 4 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 5 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Did you express during those 6 conversations with Mr. Ickes that if this lawsuit were 7 to continue and be prosecuted it would be embarrassing to 8 you? 9 THE WITNESS: No, sir. 10 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Did you and he discuss any 11 possibility that you would take any action to slow down the 12 prosecution of this lawsuit in a way that it would not reach 13 its ordinary culmination? 14 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. 15 MR. KLAYMAN: Your Honor, I commend Your Honor for 16 asking a lot of questions here, but then it begs the issue 17 then why was our lawsuit discussed? And we should be able to 18 get an answer to that. 19 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I'm going to ask you that. Why 20 did you discuss the lawsuit? Do you recall why you discussed 21 the lawsuit? 22 THE WITNESS: As I can recall, and believe me, 23 I am not -- this is not an accusation, as you say, or an 24 allegation -- the only thing I can remember is we were 25 concerned it was a waste of time and politically motivated. 63 1 MR. KLAYMAN: Well, there we have the issue that 2 I was trying to get to, Your Honor, and there we have the 3 potential bias in the testimony. 4 JUDGE FACCIOLA: That's true. Okay. Now, you've 5 explored the witness' bias, right? 6 MR. KLAYMAN: Right. But -- 7 JUDGE FACCIOLA: And now -- 8 MR. KLAYMAN: I have a couple of follow-up 9 questions. 10 JUDGE FACCIOLA: You could argue that the 11 witness -- at a later date, if you wish -- that the witness 12 was not being truthful because he thought that the lawsuit 13 was a waste of his time and politically motivated. 14 MR. KLAYMAN: Well -- 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: And whether or not a judge ever 16 permits that kind of a bias inquiry to be made on 17 cross-examination remains to be seen. 18 MR. KLAYMAN: If I can then ask just a couple -- 19 let me throw them out, Your Honor can decide whether I can 20 ask them -- 21 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 22 Q Why did the issue even come up as to Larry Klayman 23 and Judicial Watch bringing a lawsuit that was politically 24 motivated and a waste of time? Why did that issue even come 25 up? 64 1 A I can't recollect. It was in the course of 2 probably a much lengthier conversation about many other 3 issues that have no relevance whatsoever to what we're doing 4 this morning. And there might have been some reference to 5 it. I can't remember. It didn't seem very important at the 6 time and, frankly, it seems most unimportant at this time. 7 Q So you believe this lawsuit is a waste of time? 8 MR. ROBBINS: Objection. 9 JUDGE FACCIOLA: I don't know why his belief 10 is important. 11 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 12 Q That's your frame of -- that's your state of mind, 13 as of today, as you sit here, it's a waste of time? 14 MR. ROBBINS: Objection. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well, no, I'm going to overrule 16 your objection because it bears at least generally on bias. 17 Mr. Secretary -- 18 Well, as you know, inquiry can always be made of a 19 witness whether he is biased and has a reason to give a 20 certain testimony he gives. Since this is discovery and the 21 standard is broader than it is at trial, I will permit the 22 inquiry. 23 Have you formed an opinion about this lawsuit? 24 Do you have an opinion about this lawsuit? 25 THE WITNESS: About the substance of it? 65 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Yes. 2 THE WITNESS: Or about the way it's being 3 conducted? 4 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Both. 5 THE WITNESS: Both is compound. I have no concern 6 about the substance because everyone has a right to file 7 just about anything they wish, but about the way it's being 8 conducted, sure. I think it's gone on way too long and has 9 wasted a lot of time. And I do believe it's politically 10 motivated. But my views are not very important, frankly, 11 with regard to that. I'm just a witness here. 12 JUDGE FACCIOLA: But to complete that inquiry, have 13 your views in any way affected your testimony? 14 THE WITNESS: No. Of course not. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Thank you. 16 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 17 Q Well, you are aware that we're here pursuant to a 18 court order, correct, Mr. Kantor? 19 A Sure. 20 Q Okay. Are you taking issue with the Court's 21 rulings in this case? 22 A Absolutely not. And that's why I'm here. We 23 didn't challenge the ruling. I'm doing the best I can. 24 I'll answer every question you have truthfully and fully. 25 But you asked me a question, I gave you the answer. I'm 66 1 sorry if you don't like the answer. 2 Q I don't like or dislike the answer, I just want 3 an answer. But the question is are you saying that Judge 4 Lamberth is politically motivated in this case in issuing 5 orders? 6 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: No. No. No. 8 JUDGE FACCIOLA: That's sustained. 9 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 10 Q Is that your point? 11 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 12 MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor has already ruled. 13 There's no pending permissible question, Mickey. Just wait 14 for the next one. 15 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 16 Q Are you saying that the Court is wasting your time? 17 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 18 MR. ROBBINS: Same objection. 19 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Sustained. 20 MR. ROBBINS: There's no pending question. 21 MR. KLAYMAN: I'll show you what I'll ask the court 22 reporter to mark as Exhibit 4. 23 Exhibit 4 is a press release issued by the 24 Department of Commerce during the period that you were 25 Secretary of Commerce dated November 1, 1996 by Maria 67 1 Cardona, a Commerce Department statement. 2 (Kantor Deposition Exhibit No. 4 3 was marked for identification.) 4 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 5 Q Have you ever seen this press release before? 6 A I don't believe so. 7 Q Were you aware of its being drafted at the time 8 that it issued on November 1, 1996? 9 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 10 JUDGE FACCIOLA: What's the nature of your 11 objection, Ms. Braswell? 12 MS. BRASWELL: This appears to be outside the scope 13 of discovery dealing with this case. 14 JUDGE FACCIOLA: But I thought Mr. Klayman's point 15 was pursuing possible bias of the witness. 16 MR. KLAYMAN: Yes. 17 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Because, as I understand it, he's 18 going to draw our attention to the fact that he characterizes 19 this lawsuit in a certain way. 20 It would seem to me to be at least a brief 21 legitimate inquiry to ask if the secretary was aware that in 22 the name of the Department of Commerce when I take it -- 23 Mr. Secretary, am I right, you were still 24 secretary on November 1, 1996? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, sir. 68 1 JUDGE FACCIOLA: That an assertion was made about 2 the nature of this lawsuit. So I will permit some inquiry 3 in terms at least as to the secretary's knowledge of the 4 existence of the document. 5 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 6 Q Were you aware of the drafting of this press 7 release? 8 A No. 9 Q Now, Maria Cardona worked under Anne Luzzatto at 10 the time, correct? Correct? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And Anne Luzzatto had moved from the U.S. Trade 13 Representative to the Commerce Department when you also moved 14 from USTR to Commerce, correct? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And what was Ms. Luzzatto's position at the U.S. 17 Trade Representative office? 18 A She was the director of communications or press 19 secretary. 20 Q Press secretary. And that's the role she assumed 21 at the Commerce Department. 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And the reason you put her at the Commerce 24 Department is because you wanted to have your own press 25 secretary when you were Secretary of Commerce, correct? 69 1 Somebody you were familiar working with? 2 A Yes, and because she's a very talented individual. 3 Q Right. And, in fact, you had a very close working 4 relationship with her, both at USTR and at Commerce, correct? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And, in fact, this press release was actually 7 drafted at the direction of Ms. Luzzatto, was it not? 8 A I have no idea. 9 Q Did Ms. Luzzatto, Ms. Cardona or anyone in the 10 Commerce Department's press office discuss with you the 11 issuance of a press release with regard to Judicial Watch's 12 lawsuit that you're here on today? 13 A I don't recall. 14 Q Did you ever see a draft of the press release 15 before it was finalized? 16 A Not that I can recall. 17 Q Now, in the first page of this press release, it 18 says -- let me back up. 19 You are aware that John Huang was deposed in this 20 lawsuit on October 29, 1996, correct? 21 A No. 22 Q Roughly speaking. 23 A No, I'm not aware. I'm sorry. 24 Q Okay. Well, he was. In any event, in the first 25 paragraph, it states, the last two sentences, "Despite the 70 1 massive amount of material, Judicial Watch has failed to 2 present any evidence to support its reckless allegations that 3 the Department gave seats on these trade missions as a reward 4 for political contributions. This has not, however, caused 5 Judicial Watch to cease its reckless and unsubstantiated 6 charges." 7 At paragraph three, it states, "The Department 8 treated Judicial Watch no differently than the hundreds 9 of other requestors that submit FOIA requests to the 10 Department, including many reputable news organizations 11 which also requested information on the trade missions. 12 Only Judicial Watch, for partisan political purposes, has 13 contended that the Department willfully withheld documents." 14 You agree with that statement, don't you? 15 A I stand behind it. I was Secretary of Commerce. 16 It was issued while I was the secretary and, of course, I 17 would stand behind it. 18 Q Then it states in the second paragraph from the 19 bottom, "John Huang, a former Commerce official, has now been 20 thrust into this lawsuit. Mr. Huang had absolutely nothing 21 to do with the FOIA matter except that he, like scores of 22 others, signed a statement that he had searched his files for 23 documents responsive to the Judicial Watch FOIA request. The 24 questions about his fundraising activities after he left the 25 Department of Commerce have nothing to do with this lawsuit." 71 1 Do you agree with that statement? 2 A I have no personal knowledge and wouldn't have 3 any personal knowledge of Mr. Huang or any involvement he 4 may or may not have had and I guess -- it says "Further, 5 Judge Lamberth affirmed the Department's position," it 6 appears, "in his latest order where he found that John Huang 7 had little knowledge of the issues in Judicial Watch's 8 lawsuit and he refused Judicial Watch's request to continue 9 an oral deposition of Mr. Huang." 10 The fact is I wouldn't have had personal knowledge 11 of this because Mr. Huang left the department before I was 12 there. 13 Q Well, that wasn't my question. Now, when you were 14 at the Commerce Department, and before when you were at USTR, 15 was it not your practice for Ms. Luzzatto to show press 16 releases to you before they were sent out? 17 A In most cases, not all. 18 Q Now, do you know of any instance when you were at 19 the U.S. Trade Representative's office of the U.S. Trade 20 Representative having issued a press release criticizing a 21 public interest group for having started a politically 22 motivated case? Did that ever happen at USTR? 23 A No. 24 Q That's very unusual, correct? To criticize a 25 private entity for political motivation in looking into 72 1 government conduct? 2 A I don't know if it's unusual or not, I couldn't 3 testify to that, but it didn't happen while I was the United 4 States Trade Representative. 5 Q Do you know of any instance while you were 6 Secretary of Commerce where any other public interest group 7 such as Public Citizen or Center for Public Integrity was 8 criticized for looking into government conduct through a 9 Department of Commerce press release? 10 A I have no personal knowledge. 11 Q So this was a very unusual press release, was it 12 not? 13 A I couldn't -- 14 Q Given ordinary procedures at the Commerce 15 Department. 16 A I can't -- I can't comment whether it's unusual or 17 not unusual. It is what it is. 18 Q And given the fact that this had not happened at 19 USTR, criticism of a public interest group that is a watchdog 20 into government conduct, given the fact that you have no 21 knowledge of it having occurred at the Commerce Department 22 for anyone other than Judicial Watch, wouldn't it have been 23 proper for Ms. Luzzatto to have shown this to you before it 24 issued? 25 A She may have; I just don't recall. 73 1 Q And, in fact, this press release issued, as it says 2 in the right-hand corner, from the Office of the Secretary, 3 correct? 4 A I don't know if it says it issued or that's where 5 the document was obtained. I just don't know what that 6 means. I'm sorry. 7 This does not look like something that was normally 8 placed on the -- on press releases that came from either 9 Commerce or USTR, so I'm -- I just don't -- I'm a little 10 confused here. 11 This looks -- because it blots out part of the 12 heading -- I think this is because the document came from 13 the Office of the Secretary, not because -- not because it 14 was on there when the release was issued. But you would 15 know better than I, Counsel. 16 Q The press department of the Commerce Department is 17 part of the Office of the Secretary, correct? 18 A I think so, yes, sir. 19 Q Okay. And consequently, when press releases issue, 20 they are issued under the authority of the Office of the 21 Secretary, correct? 22 A There's no reason to argue about this. Of course 23 they are. And whether that stamp was there or not is really 24 irrelevant. 25 Q So consequently by sending this out -- 74 1 A Yes. 2 Q -- on behalf of the Office of the Secretary -- 3 A Yes. 4 Q -- it had your endorsement, correct? You were 5 Secretary of Commerce. 6 A Three questions ago I said that, that I stood 7 behind this. 8 Q And you still stand behind it. 9 A I said I stood behind it. I am no longer at the 10 Department of Commerce. 11 Q Is there anything in this press release you want to 12 correct today? 13 A No. In fact, I think it's very well done, 14 including "Under departmental guidelines," it says, "the 15 factors the Department considers in selecting participants 16 for trade missions include whether companies offer goods or 17 services appropriate for the regions and industry sectors 18 involved in a given trade mission and the degree to which 19 companies have done preparatory work or have established 20 themselves in the foreign market," which is absolutely 21 correct. And those are the only criteria. 22 Q And that's the only thing in the press release you 23 still stand behind? 24 A I stand behind it as an individual, as a private 25 citizen, but as secretary when it was issued, I stand behind 75 1 the entire press release. 2 Q No. What I'm asking you is whether there's 3 anything in here that as of today you believe is incorrect or 4 improper. 5 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 6 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Just let him ask that question and 7 then we're moving on. 8 Is there anything in there you wish to correct, 9 Mr. Secretary? 10 THE WITNESS: No. 11 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Let's move on. 12 MR. KLAYMAN: I'll show you what I'll ask the court 13 reporter to mark as -- 14 THE COURT REPORTER: 5. 15 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Excuse me. 16 Madam Reporter, do you need a break? 17 THE COURT REPORTER: Well, whenever. 18 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Mr. Secretary, would you like a 19 quick break? 20 THE WITNESS: No, I'm fine. 21 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well, the judge does. That's the 22 great thing about being a judge. 23 (A brief recess was taken.) 24 MR. KLAYMAN: I'll show you what I'll ask the court 25 reporter to mark as Exhibit 4. 76 1 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, 5. 2 MR. KLAYMAN: 5. I'll ask Mr. Fitton to keep track 3 of the numbers. 4 Exhibit 5 is an article written by The Boston 5 Globe, February 12, 1997, headline "Donations are linked to 6 Kantor trade missions" by Walter V. Robinson, Globe staff. 7 (Kantor Deposition Exhibit No. 5 8 was marked for identification.) 9 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 10 Q Have you ever seen this article before? The 11 exhibit itself consists of four pages. 12 MS. BRASWELL: Objection. 13 JUDGE FACCIOLA: Well, let him ask if he's seen it 14 and then we'll see what the question is. 15 THE WITNESS: I don't recall this article, but that 16 doesn't mean I didn't see it, Counsel. I'm trying to be -- I 17 just don't recall the article. 18 BY MR. KLAYMAN: 19 Q You do recall speaking with Mr. Robinson in and 20 around February 12th of 1997 about trade missions?