I. INTRODUCTION.

“The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue,

and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure,

than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the

forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”

John Adams

June 21, 1776.

* * *

“I think it’s time to get all of this business behind us. I think

it’s time to allow the president (Clinton) to finish his term, and

let him move on and enjoy life and become an active participant in

the American system. And I think we’ve had enough focus on

the past. It’s time to move forward.”

Associated Press

“Bush: No Pardon Needed for Clinton”

January 09, 2001

The contrast is striking. In 1776, a founding father and president-to-be is extolling the relationship between virtue, our Constitution, and lasting liberty. In 2001, a President-elect George W. Bush is signaling, in no uncertain terms, his lack of concern about government ethics.^[1]

The next year would be a major disappointment to conservatives, libertarians, and others who hoped that, with a new administration, a new respect for justice would sweep across Washington.

There were hopeful signs. Bill Clinton moved to New York (though Hillary Clinton stayed). John Ashcroft was appointed Attorney General. One of President Bush’s first acts as President was to issue a memorandum to his Executive Branch employees which stated, in part:

“Everyone who enters into public service for the United States

has a duty to the American people to maintain the highest standards

of integrity in Government.”

White House Memorandum

“Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies”

January 20, 2001.

Yet, as described below, President Bush and his administration moved almost immediately to head off virtually every official investigation of Clinton-era crimes, appointed a few Clinton-connected officials of his own, and laid down a stone wall of secrecy concerning government operations.

At a minimum, the President and his advisers have had a “tin ear” for ethics and ethical appearances. His vice president feted donors at the Vice President’s mansion. Access to his cabinet officials was sold by fellow Republicans in Congress. And the whistleblowers, whose heroism during the Clinton years may be the only bright spot in the otherwise sordid story of that era, were treated like pariahs.

The President’s Justice Department shut down Chinagate investigations and have not changed any of the legal obstructionists’ tactics perfected by former Attorney General Janet Reno’s Justice Department. And Judicial Watch was told by a reliable source that the Administration decided early on that it would fight Judicial Watch’s legal efforts to finish prosecuting Clinton corruption.

The President and Vice President have also refused to turn over records and documents concerning their dealings with Enron, a thoroughly corrupt company that made large contributions to the two major political parties. And now with the Enron scandal, President Bush is reaping the whirlwind. Americans overwhelmingly support his leadership in the war, but almost 70 percent think his administration is hiding something in this latest mega-scandal. Only yesterday the General Accounting Office, following Judicial Watch’s lead, threatened to file suit to open up for public scrutiny Vice President Cheney’s secret deliberations of his energy task force. Hillary Clinton tried, unsuccessfully, to keep her “Hillary Medical Care Task Force” secret.

Of course there would be political risks for President Bush to take a strong stance on ethics. The Democratic Party may try to go after his family, friends, and appointees with FBI files and by resurrecting old charges of corruption. Or he may “turn off” that portion of the electorate who equate serious concerns about corruption with Washington insider bickering. President Bush himself would be subjected to vilification, maybe on charges to which he is susceptible (i.e., Enron) and on charges that have no basis in fact. These are the risks of leadership.

We rejoice at the end of Clinton regime. Yet we are worried that Clintonism is still the ethic of this city.

In the wake of September 11, it is more important than ever to have politicians in office who worry about where the next terrorist may lurk, not from where they can get the next bribe. Unfortunately, the President’s leadership has been lacking in the area of fighting corruption.^[2]

The President says often he is concerned about civility. Respect for the law breeds civility. By enforcing the law, by letting the sun shine in on areas that may be discomforting and politically painful, and by being forthright and doing something about the damage wrought by the criminality of the Clinton years, President Bush could both contribute to “civility” and American civilization.

When the new Bush Administration came to office on January 20, 2001, Judicial Watch thought that it might have found a partner in the war against corruption and its cancerous effects on sustaining liberty. Instead, one year later, the “state of the union,” in terms of ethical enforcement, remains poor and Judicial Watch is virtually alone in the fight to restore the rule of law to our nation.

Some say that all criticism of the Bush Administration must be withheld, because the nation is at war. But the battle against terrorism – according to the President himself – is slated to go on for decades. True patriots cannot remain silent for ten years and more, and much less one day. We cannot and should not become “yes men” in the face of ethical, moral and legal concerns that threaten, like terrorism, to destroy our great country.

II. CLINTON WHITE HOUSE VANDALISM.

As President Bush came into office, and President Clinton and Hillary Clinton left The White House, press reports emerged that departing Clinton staffers had vandalized White House offices, including overturning and ruining desks and stealing and damaging computers, and the virtual destruction of The White House phone system (installed at great expense by the Clinton White House in 1993). On January 24, 2001, The Drudge Report detailed how incoming Bush officials had found The White House offices in disarray:

$ Phone lines were cut, rendering them inoperable.

$ Voice mail messages were changed to obscene, scatological greetings.

One Bush staffer had his grandmother call from the Midwest. She was

horrified by what she heard on the other end of the line.

$ Many phone lines were misdirected to other government offices.

$ Desks were found turned completely upside down and trash deliberately left everywhere.

$ Computer printers were filled with blank paper and interspersed

with pornographic pictures and obscene slogans.

$ “W” keys weren't just pried off more than 40 keyboards, but some were

glued on with SuperGlue; some were turned upside down and glued on.

$ Filing cabinets were glued shut.

$ Vice Presidential office space in the Old Executive Office Building

were found in complete shambles. Mrs. Gore had to phone Mrs. Cheney

to apologize.

$ Lewd MagicMarker graffiti were found on one office hallway.

Other reports focused on how Air Force One was stripped of “souvenirs,” with seemingly stolen Clinton Presidential memorabilia showing up for Internet auctions on E-bay.

After a few anonymous, opportunistic remarks by Bush officials about the behavior of the departing Clinton gang, the Bush White House went into cover-up mode. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer denied “cataloging” the White House damage and downplayed the reported damage. On February 1, 2001, The Washington Times quoted Fleischer as saying:

“The cataloging that I mentioned, frankly, that's one person in

our administrative offices who is really just keeping track in his

head about things that may have taken place. . . . As far as we're

concerned, it's over.”

The Washington Times further reported that the Bush White House was discouraging members of Congress from investigating the vandalism, which some estimated cost the U.S. taxpayer upwards of $200,000.00.

But the crimes that the Bush White House were covering up were not just crimes of vandalism. They were crimes of obstruction of justice – as Judicial Watch learned from a contact in The White House that the damage was extensive. Computer hard drives were “wiped” of all information, and computer laptops had been stolen. (Judicial Watch had uncovered in the year 2000 the fact the millions of e-mail concerning virtually all the Clinton-Gore scandals had been hidden from courts, Congress, and independent counsels.) Judicial Watch sought to bring this contact, who wished to remain anonymous because of job concerns, into court before Judge Royce C. Lamberth in sealed proceedings. In this way, Judge Lamberth could decide if the issue was worthy of legal pursuit. (Judge Lamberth is overseeing the Filegate civil lawsuit that Judicial Watch had brought on behalf of former Reagan and Bush (41) staffers against Hillary Clinton and others.) The Bush Justice Department opposed our efforts then, and now, for any court investigation of the Filegate-related evidence destruction, theft, and obstruction.

And later in 2001, when the General Accounting Office (GAO) investigated the Clintonite vandalism at the behest of Congressman Bob Barr, the Bush White House, in a dereliction of duty to the taxpayers, said it had not documented the vandalism on paper, so there were no records to turn over to the GAO. The Bush White House simply wanted the issue to go away. On May 18, 2001, the Associated Press summed up the Bush White House’s view on destruction of government property and theft:

“The White House has made clear that it was looking forward, not backward,” the [Bush White House] aide said, on the condition of anonymity. “We never kept a list of all the incidents, and therefore

did not have anything to turn over. That doesn't mean the incidents

didn't happen. We just were pleased to let the matter fade so that

people could return to the focus on policy.” (Emphasis added).

By the Bush White House refusing to document in writing the vandalism, the GAO’s investigation was derailed. Clinton apologists took the GAO’s failed investigation as an “exoneration” and demanded in a press conference run by Democratic Congressman Bob Weiner a Bush apology for the “false” charges of vandalism. Ari Fleischer then discovered a list of damages “in his head,” telling The Washington Post orally in June 2001 that yes, indeed, there had been vandalism, admitting, among other acts of Clintonite vandalism, that the Bush folks had found phone lines cut and every White House phone had to be reprogrammed. (Judicial Watch had learned this particular fact months earlier from its sources. The reprogramming of phones in this modern age is no small task and likely cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.)

Congressman Barr, in light of the Fleischer’s belated listing of the destruction of taxpayer property, asked the GAO to open a new investigation. According to a report in WorldNetDaily on January 14, 2002, the GAO report has been delayed because of September 11 and is not expected for release until March 2002.

In the meantime, Judge Lamberth is still considering Judicial Watch’s request to depose Bush White House officials about the destruction of computer evidence. The Bush Justice Department continues to oppose this request for limited discovery into Clinton misdeeds.

III. PARDONGATE.

Those who have followed the Clinton scandals generally agree that Bill Clinton’s taking of monies from Chinese sources and agents such as John Huang, the Lippo Group, and Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie, in exchange for government action and special consideration, such as the transfer of American high technology, was his most egregious crime as President. Yet when it comes to pure abuse of power for political and financial gain, the Pardongate scandal is second to none.

The late Barbara Olson’s best selling book, The Final Days, is required reading on this scandal concerning abuse of power and bribery. On, January 20, 2001, his last day of office, Clinton issued 140 pardons and commuted 36 sentences. As Ms. Olson reported in inimitable style:

“The list of beneficiaries of Clinton’s last-minute clemency orgy

was as eclectic as one could imagine: small- and big-time crooks,

con men, bank robbers, terrorists, relatives, ex-girlfriends, a cross

section of the Clinton cabinet, a former director of the CIA,

perjurers (appropriately enough), tax evaders, fugitive money

lenders, Clinton campaign contributors, former members of Congress,

and friends of Jesse Jackson.”^[3]

Revelations about the lax pardon process and the fact that many of the pardonees allegedly paid off Bill and Hillary Clinton through campaign contributions, gifts of furniture, cash to Clinton relatives, and other bribes shocked the entire nation. The New York Times, editorializing on the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, called Clinton’s pardon a “gross misuse of a solemn presidential responsibility.”

In addition to the extensively reported bribery implicated in the Rich pardon, other revelations emerged that Roger Clinton (who received a pardon himself) and Hugh and Tony Rodham (Hillary Clinton’s brothers) received cash payments from mobsters, convicted drug dealers, and the like to help with pardons. Roger’s paid pardon “lobbying” on behalf of Tommy Gambino’s drug-dealing uncle was unsuccessful, while Hugh Rodham’s client, drug trafficker Carlos Vignali, was pardoned after his family paid Hillary’s brother at least $200,000.00 (another felon Glenn Braswell gave Rodham another $200,000.00). Roger Clinton was reported to be selling pardons for cash to a variety of individuals and Hillary Clinton’s other brother, Tony, successfully lobbied for the pardons of his business partners Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, who had been convicted of bank fraud. The Gregorys had donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign as well.

Hillary Clinton was further implicated for her role in the clemencies granted to four individuals from a close-knit Hasidic Jewish community in Rockland County, a northern suburb of New York City. They had been convicted of tens of millions of dollars of government fraud. Reportedly, leaders of their community lobbied for the clemencies during a meeting with Hillary Clinton in The White House during her Senate campaign. On Election Day, 2000, the community voted nearly unanimously for Hillary Clinton for Senate, unlike other nearby Hasidic communities. Quid pro quo? Everyone but Hillary seems to thinks so.

Or Hillary and President Bush.

“Mr. Clinton does not have many friends . . . , unless you count

President Bush, who said yesterday it was ‘time to move on’.”

The New York Times Editorial Page

“Mr. Clinton’s Next Move”

February14, 2001

Despite the overwhelming evidence of illegality and public outrage over Pardongate, President Bush and his administration actively opposed investigating the issue. On February 13, 2001, as congressional and other Justice Department inquiries were heating up, President Bush made it clear that he opposed any investigation of the Clintons. A reporter asked the President on Air Force One about the scandal:

Q: “Sir, I just wanted to follow up on the previous question. You had mentioned -- you've often said, about your predecessor, that you want

to look forward, and not the past. Do you think it's a good idea for

Congress to be investigating pardons, or for the Justice Department to

do that? Or should they just let it go?”

THE PRESIDENT: “I think it's time to move on. And –“

* * *

THE PRESIDENT: “...You know, the Congress is going to do what

they're going to do. My attitude is, you know, all this business about the

transition -- it's time to move on, it is. It's time to stay looking forward

and that's what I'm going to do.”

White House Transcript

“Remarks by the President to the Pool Aboard

Air Force One”

February 13, 2001.

These remarks stifled whatever tepid interest the Justice Department had in investigating the Pardongate scandal. In the wake of President Bush’s remarks, the Justice Department allowed Clinton appointee Mary Jo White to open an investigation. Ms. White was the Clintons’ U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who was chiefly known for having killed an investigation of the Teamsters scandal – which implicated top labor movement and Democratic Party officials in an illegal scheme to steal union funds for the political campaign of then-Teamsters president Ron Carey.^[4] White supposedly was angry at the Rich pardon (her Southern District office was trying to prosecute Rich), but others saw an investigation doomed by the President’s interference:

“The decision by Mary Jo White, a Democratic appointee, to investigate

the Rich pardon came just a day after President Bush criticized

congressional reviews of the matter, saying it was ‘time to move on’.

Bush's remark dampened interest within the Justice Department for a

criminal investigation, said one source familiar with the matter, which

in turn prompted White to act.”

The Los Angeles Times

“U.S. Atty. Launches Inquiry of Rich Case”

Robert L. Jackson and Richard A. Serrano

February15. 2001

The New York Times reported that same day that even John Ashcroft, following the President’s lead, had “a lack of interest” in the Pardongate scandal.^[5]

In the face of continued Congressional interest in the Pardongate scandal, the Bush White House put pressure on Congress to shut down their investigations. On March 4, Newsweek magazine reported:

“White House administration officials are quietly pressuring GOP

Congressional investigators to end the probe of former President

Bill Clinton's pardons as quickly as possible, Newsweek reports in

the current issue. ‘Everybody's not real happy with us over there,’

says one Republican staffer. ‘I've been getting calls from The White

House saying, ‘Hey, what are you guys doing?’”

It seems the Bush White House was worried that some of its own staff would be dragged in, namely Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who had helped Rich try to obtain a pardon. Newsweek reported during the first week of March 2001:

“In private, Bush White House officials worry about a political

backlash from Democrats if the pardon investigation drags on

much longer. For more than 10 years, Rich’s chief American

lawyer and advocate was Lewis (Scooter) Libby, now Vice

President Cheney’s chief of staff. Last week Democrats on the

Burton committee fired a political warning shot, insisting that

Libby, who worked for Rich until last year, be called as a witness.

Libby acknowledged that his law firm had collected $2 million

in fees from Rich, and that he had continued to consult with Rich’s

current lawyers as recently as last November. Even more damaging,

Libby admitted that two days after the pardon, he called Rich in

Switzerland to congratulate him. The revelation delighted Democrats,

who have been dying to inflict a little political pain themselves.

Now some Republicans are having second thoughts. “A lot of our

members are starting to ask, ‘Do we really want to push this?’” says

one GOP staffer.”

Sure enough, after some informative hearings by Congressman Dan Burton in the House, the Congressional investigations ended with a whimper, shut down by the soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott.

Yet Judicial Watch, working with Congressman Bob Barr, had uncovered a way to put the pardon issue back in President Bush’s court.

Judicial Watch called on President Bush to exercise his authority and declare void the list of 44 pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton during his final hours in The White House. Clinton’s letter attempting to grant pardons stated only that the pardonees were being pardoned to the extent set forth in their applications. There were no applications for many of the pardonees, since the pardons were largely obtained through fraud, bribery, extortion and other illegal acts. Well-established case law, going back to the 19^th century, mandates that pardons be specific as to the offenses being pardoned in order to have any legal force or effect. This makes sense, as any pardonee could otherwise use a general, unspecific pardon to be protected from prosecution for any crime committed -- whether known or unknown. And, the law is also well-established, that until a pardon is delivered, a President may cancel it – even if it was first issued by his predecessor.

Presidential pardons are - and can only be - effective to the crimes specified in the President's pardon. See, e.g., Ex Parte Weimer, 29 F.Cas.597, 598 (C.C.E.D. Wisc. 1878) (No. 17,362); Stetler's Case, 22 F.Cas.1314, 1315-16 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1852) (13,380). Further, the law is clear that a pardon does not take effect until the warrant is issued, delivered and accepted. U.S. v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150 (1833); In re DePuy, 7 F.Cas. 506 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1869) (3,814). Quite simply, a warrant cannot be issued and delivered without knowing what was the express basis of the pardon.

President Bush and his Justice Department had been roped into the Pardongate scandal by President Clinton’s last minute maneuvering. President Bush‘s Justice Department would have to implement Clinton’s illicit pardons. In his mad rush to issue pardons on his final day of office, Clinton issued the following statement:

“AFTER CONSIDERING THE REQUESTS for executive clemency

of the following named persons, I hereby grant full and unconditional

pardons to the following named persons for those offenses against the

United States described in each such request:”

The problem is that at least 44 of the 138 individuals Clinton listed had no pending requests before him. Attorney General Ashcroft had promised Congressman Barr during a February 2000 phone call that he would examine this issue. Congressman Barr followed his call up with a letter to the Attorney General on February 20, 2001, laying out the law research provided by Judicial Watch. The incoming Bush Justice Department was saddled with the unconstitutional task of divining the intent of President Clinton’s pardons for individuals who had no pardon requests pending. In other words, the Bush Justice Department would now have to guess about the scope of pardons issued by President Clinton.

President Bush could have undone all of President Clinton’s pardons by simply not delivering them, especially the 44 pardons for crimes which were never specified. He chose not to.

Mary Jo White’s investigation into the Pardongate scandal in New York proceeded in 2001 with no indication that either Bill or Hillary Clinton had been called before the grand jury. Over a year after the scandal broke, not one indictment has been issued by the Bush Justice Department, and none are expected in the future.

IV. STOLEN FURNITURE.

When, on January 4, 2000, Hillary Clinton sent a moving van to The White House to begin the move to Chappaqua (and launch her Senate campaign), Judicial Watch asked in a press release, “Is Mrs. Clinton Emptying White House in Move to New York?” Knowing the Clintons’ penchant for stealing, Judicial Watch wrote to David Kendall, the Clintons’ private attorney:

“Given Mr. and Mrs. Clinton’s significant debt, estimated to be

at least five million dollars [Mrs. Clinton had not received her $8 million

book deal yet], we respectfully request on the behalf of the public

interest complete disclosure of information how they intend to finance

decorating, furnishing, and renovating the mansion. We are concerned

that public and/or private and/or other benefits and preference will

be used and/or bestowed by and on them in violation of the anti-gratuity,

election, and other laws of the United States.”

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Kendall never responded, but Judicial Watch noted in its January 4^th release that the amount of objects being moved and the secrecy surrounding the move was quite striking. Indeed, the Associated Press reported on January 5, 2000 that White House property was removed.

Judicial Watch’s suspicions were right, but it was not until a year later, after the Clintons left The White House, that the scope of the theft of property become apparent. The Clintons simply stole White House furniture, beginning with the move a year previously:

“President Bill Clinton and his wife started shipping furniture from

The White House to the Clintons' newly purchased home in New York

more than a year ago, despite questions at the time by the chief usher

about whether they were entitled to remove the items.

The day before the items were shipped out, White House chief usher

Gary J. Walters said he asked whether the Clintons should be taking

the furnishings because he believed they were government property

donated as part of a [$396,000.00] White House redecoration project

in 1993, during Clinton's first year in office.”

The Washington Post

“Clintons Shipped Furniture Year Ago” George Lardner, Jr.

February 10, 2001

Gary Walters was right. The Post reported that the taxpayer-owned items included “an iron and glass coffee table, a painted TV armoire, a custom wood gaming table, and a wicker center table with wood top.” In total, the Clintons were forced to return over $28,000.00 in furniture to the U.S. taxpayer. The Clintons had stolen the furniture and, after being caught red-handed, returned some of it back to The White House. As Barbara Olson noted in her book The Final Days, “Unfortunately, no one knows for sure how much the Clintons got away with.”^[6]

(This is in addition to the scandal of the Clintons’ receiving $190,000.00 in gifts from “friends.” The gifts included many valued well over the $1,000.00 federal contribution limit, and were given during Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign. Denise Rich (Marc’s ex-wife), for instance, gave $7,000.00 worth of furniture.)

What was President Bush’s response to the evidence that his predecessor stole White House furniture?

Q: “Mr. President, on another note, sir? It appears the Clintons

may have taken some gifts that were actually given to The White

House. Do you feel that they should return any of these gifts?”

THE PRESIDENT: “It's important for all the facts to be laid out

on the table and I'm confident that the President -- the former

President and First Lady will make the right decision.”

White House Transcript

“Remarks by the President and Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans at Swearing-In Ceremony”

February 5, 2001.

A little later in the month, the President was more emphatic in his “see no evil” approach: