Time: Mon Jul 14 18:15:18 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA19217; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:19:07 -0700 (MST) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA25191; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:18:53 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:18:33 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: CHINAGATE HEARINGS (fwd) <snip> > >THE CHINAGATE HEARINGS > >Senate Begins Probe of Clinton's Fund-Raising > >by Edward Zehr > >"From colorful characters to a provocative plot line, Tuesday's >long-awaited opening of Senate campaign finance hearings seems to >have all the ingredients for a major movie," gushed the Arkansas >Democrat-Gazette, placing the Senate Governmental Affairs >Committee hearings that began taking testimony last week in >perspective as another summer entertainment event. > >The players will include Bruce Lindsey, John Huang, Charlie Trie, >Wang Jun and an international cast of front men and wheeler- >dealers ranging from Buddhist monks to Beijing arms merchants, if >only in absentia. Charlie Trie, who once owned Bill Clinton's >favorite Chinese restaurant in Little Rock, is presently >sojourning in Shanghai, accessible to network talking heads such >as Tom Brokaw, but not to the Senate committee. > >Next the Democrat-Gazette lays out the plot for us: > > "The money trail that links those people with President > Clinton and his Democratic allies in the 1996 campaign will > be a central theme as Thompson directs the GOP-controlled > committee through an initial four-week run of hearings. > Democrats, meanwhile, will push to turn the GOP's campaign > activity into a major subplot." > >The Arkansas newspaper goes on to emphasize the game-playing >aspect of the hearings, stressing that the Republicans hope that >they will capture "national attention much like the Iran-Contra >hearings or the Watergate investigation. Their goal: examine >questions of whether foreign money flowed into last year's >elections and whether Democrats 'sold' access to the White House >in exchange for campaign donations." > >"Democrats fear the sessions could turn into a remake of the >partisan bickering displayed during the 1995-96 Senate Whitewater >hearings. Their goal: use the hearings as a platform to correct >the campaign finance abuses of both parties." > >In other words, it's just another cynical exercise by Republicans >to gain political advantage by faulting Democrats for dubious >campaign finance practices when all we worldly types just know >that "everybody does it." The public spirited Democrats are >determined, at least, to use the hearings constructively, >according to the Democrat-Gazette. Nowhere do they mention that >President Clinton's knowledge of illegal activities in connection >with illicit fund-raising in the 1996 election is an issue in the >hearings. The Democrat-Gazette article goes on to recount how >the Clinton administration "dumped" documents in advance of the >hearings in order "to 'burn off' damaging news stories by >selectively releasing documents to the press at times when the >White House wants. This prevents Thompson's committee from >releasing them first during the public hearings, when they would >attract more attention." > > >THE CASE AGAINST THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION > >The administration has good reason to divert the public's >attention from the contents of these documents. For example, an >October 7, 1996 memorandum to President Clinton from White House >aide Phil Caplan mentions that the Democratic National Committee >would be allocating $1 million "for potential fines" incurred >pursuant to the fund-raising process. Clinton's handwritten >notation "ugh" appears in the margin next to the warning. Micah >Morrison, writing in the Wall Street Journal, comments that >Clinton's scribbled notation "along with the accompanying stamp >'The President Has Seen,' it does suggest that Mr. Clinton knew >that some DNC fund-raising was presumptively illegal." > >What the mainstream press have been at pains to sweep under the >carpet, Morrison puts into sharp focus with the comment, "What >the country deserves to know is whether this pattern of violation >was directed by a conspiracy hatched in the Oval Office." > >In other words, was the illegal fund-raising inadvertent, or was >it deliberate and premeditated? The implications of the answer to >this question are enormous. Morrison defines the issue in basic >legal terms: > > "Under conspiracy statutes, if Bill Clinton agreed with his > top aides to raise money by means he recognized as illegal, > and if actual criminal acts resulted, he would be a party to > the conspiracy, as guilty of the crime as the actual > perpetrators. The defining question is, in the lexicon of > Watergate: What did the President know and when did he know > it?" > >The columnist characterizes Attorney General Janet Reno's failure >to appoint an independent counsel to investigate campaign >contributions as "indefensible...once the issue is framed as a >possible criminal conspiracy involving the president and other >covered officials..." > >Morrison summarizes the long laundry list of allegations in the >fund-raising scandal: > >John Huang is said to have laundered millions in illegal campaign >contributions to the Democrats "through the likes of poor monks >at the now-famous Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple fund-raiser hosted by >Vice President Al Gore, Indonesian gardeners, and a glorified >former Arkansas burger-flipper named Charlie Trie." > >Mr. Trie, in turn, "funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars >from foreign accounts at the Bank of China to the DNC. Mr. Trie >also attempted to deliver more than $600,000 in suspicious checks >to the Clintons' legal defense trust, and once showed up at a >White House coffee with a Chinese arms dealer." > >The arms dealer referred to here is Wang Jun, chairman of the >Poly Technologies group, a front for the Chinese People's >Liberation Army's arms exporting operations. Kenneth Timmerman >wrote in the American Spectator that Wang has brokered "some of >China's largest foreign arms sales." > >The New York Times recently reported that "Mr. Trie also appeared >in Manhattan in August 1996 with $100,000 for the DNC as a >presidential birthday party got underway at Radio City Music >Hall," according to Morrison. As previously noted, Mr. Trie has >now taken up residence in Shanghai and refuses to respond to >urgent demands by the Senate committee that he testify. > >Furthermore, Morrison says that former White House aide Mark >Middleton "attempted to solicit Taiwanese officials for $15 >million in campaign donations at a time when China was conducting >missile tests in the waters off Taiwan and President Clinton was >deciding whether to dispatch the Seventh Fleet to the area; Mr. >Middleton denies the charges and says he'll invoke the Fifth >Amendment if called to testify." > >If the charges are untrue one wonders why Mr. Middleton finds it >necessary to take the Fifth -- on the other hand, if they are >true he would be well advised to do so since a shakedown >conducted in so blatant a manner would be highly illegal. > >Morrison's list continues, "Hillary Clinton's top aide, Maggie >Williams, received a $50,000 campaign check from California >businessman Johnny Chung in the White House, although federal >statutes bar government employees from accepting such >contributions." > >"Mr. Chung managed to contribute $360,000 overall to the >Democrats," says Morrison, "despite being labeled a 'hustler' out >to impress his Chinese business associates by a National Security >Council official. Mr. Chung has not responded to congressional >subpoenas." > >Notice, the only individual in this rogue's gallery who has >offered to make himself available to testify thus far is John >Huang. He did so unexpectedly on the eve of the hearings after he >had earlier asserted his intention to take the Fifth. His offer >was made conditional upon his receiving limited immunity, >however. > >The offer required clearance from the Justice Department and >Janet Reno was reluctant to assent to this. Committee chairman >Fred Thompson, after initially expressing willingness to grant >Huang limited immunity in return for his testimony on Tuesday, >was having second thoughts by the following day, concerned that >it could shield Huang from any possible prosecution. Democrat >Sen. John Glenn of Ohio had no doubts at all, telling the >committee, "Under no circumstances would Mr. Huang be immunized >from prosecution for any act of espionage or for any offense >prosecutable for the disclosure of classified information or for >acting as an agent for any foreign government.'' > >The problem would seem to be that immunity, once given, is very >difficult to limit -- it could well undermine any subsequent >attempt to prosecute Mr. Huang. The tradeoff is that Huang's >testimony might incriminate others higher up in the >administration, including Mr. Clinton himself. Indeed, the threat >of prosecution might induce Mr. Huang to plea bargain, trading >testimony against higher officials for a lenient sentence. >Perhaps Chairman Thompson does not consider the risk worth >taking, although he is continuing to negotiate with Huang's >lawyer in an effort to elicit his client's testimony. > >Also included in Morrison's cast of picaresque characters is >Roger Tamraz, whom he describes as "wanted in Lebanon on a >charge of embezzling $200 million. Mr. Tamraz, last spotted in >the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, gave more than $170,000 to state >and national Democratic organizations." > >The Wall Street Journal columnist concludes by noting that "Thai >lobbyist Pauline Kanchanalak pushed a $7 million deal at the >Export-Import Bank for a Blockbuster video franchise in Bangkok, >while channeling more than $500,000 to the Democratic Party. The >deal fell apart and the Democrats have returned most of the >money; Ms. Kanchanalak has decided to remain in Thailand for a >while." > >All of this, Morrison notes dryly, is apparently regarded by the >Democrats on the Governmental Affairs Committee "as merely >random acts of excessive exuberance." He suggests, however, that >the hearings are likely to develop evidence that Mr. Clinton >understood far more about what his agents were doing than his >vague pronouncements on the subject would imply. That, in fact, >they understood full well that they were taking money from >illegal sources. All of which seems consistent with the >information disclosed thus far -- the real question is whether >the majority members of the committee will have the moral courage >to pursue the evidence to its logical conclusion in the face of >massive hostility on the part of the mainstream press, who seem >inclined to protect Mr. Clinton no matter what is revealed. > >AN INTIMATION OF ESPIONAGE > >The Los Angeles Times carried a news item early last week that >said in part: > > "Investigators have recovered the contents of two safes from > John Huang's former office at the Commerce Department in an > effort to determine whether the former Clinton administration > appointee improperly handled classified information." > >Huang had contacted Clinton early in 1993 requesting that he be >appointed to a position in the new administration. As noted in a >previous column, Huang received an appointment as deputy >assistant secretary for international economic policy in the >Commerce Department resulting in his acquiring a top-secret >clearance without going through the usual FBI background checks. >According to The London Sunday Times, Huang was given a >clearance on direct instructions from Commerce Secretary Ron >Brown, although "background checks by the FBI or the state >department's Office of Security [are] a strict requirement for >somebody born in a foreign country." > >In fact Huang was given top-secret clearance five months before >he joined the Commerce Department and was allowed to keep it for >a year after he left. > >According to the L. A. Times article, the search of Huang's safe >turned up 10 secret documents " as well as indications that the >Commerce Department inventory system was too porous to trace the >whereabouts of sensitive materials Huang received when he worked >at the agency." > >A Senate investigator said, "The bottom line is that [Huang] had >virtually unlimited access to hundreds and hundreds of pieces of >intelligence information, and (government officials) have no idea >what they showed this guy or what he had." > >The FBI and Senate investigators are presently attempting to >determine whether Huang passed classified information to foreign >governments or business concerns. According to the L. A. Times >article, Huang made more than 150 phone calls "to Lippo officials >between July 1994 and December 1995," while he was an official at >the Commerce Department. He also placed calls from the Washington >office of Stephens Inc., an investment company based in Little >Rock, Ark., that has business ties to Lippo and according to a >secretary at the firm, he brought Commerce Department documents >with him to the Stephens office. > >Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Rules >Committee, stated last month that "electronically gathered >evidence--presumably telephone calls monitored by a U.S. >intelligence agency--confirmed that Huang relayed 'classified >information' to the Lippo Group," the L. A. Times article said. > >The article further revealed that: > > "In his government post, Huang received regular intelligence > briefings on Asia because he was 'an Asian specialist' and > 'responsible for the Asia portfolio,' said John H. Dickerson, > a CIA liaison to Commerce who regularly briefed Huang between > October 1994 and November 1995. Huang had a 'particular' > interest in China, Dickerson said during a three-day > deposition in April, according to transcripts." > >Dickerson indicated in an affidavit that he was surprised to >learn that Huang had failed to return or destroy all of the >classified documents in his possession when he left the Commerce >Department in 1995. That is a violation of security regulations. > >"Huang's 'top secret' clearance allowed him access to 'raw' >intelligence data, finished intelligence reports and copies of >electronic State Department cables from embassies abroad," the L. >A. Times said, adding that "three reports given to Huang >explicitly warned that any unauthorized release 'could result in >the death of a source.'" > >HEARING HIGHLIGHTS > >On the first day of public hearings Chairman Fred Thompson led >off with a statement that, "The committee believes that high- >level Chinese government officials crafted a plan to increase >China's influence over the U.S. political process." > >Thompson elaborated on this, alleging that the Chinese government >had poured money into national and state political campaigns, in >violation of U.S. law, in an effort to influence the policy of >our government to its own advantage. > >"The government of China is believed to have allocated >substantial sums of money to achieve its objectives," said >Thompson, adding that the effort is still underway. > >Sen. John Glenn of Ohio, the ranking Democrat on the committee, >disputed Thompson's allegation, saying, "I think I have seen >everything the chairman has seen, and I recall nothing to >document allegations that China had done anything illegal," > >Referring to the Lippo Group, Sen. Thompson noted that its >operations had formerly been oriented towards Indonesia but that >their focus had subsequently shifted to mainland China. > >The lead witness, former Democratic National Committee Finance >Director Richard Sullivan, testified that Don Fowler, the head of >the DNC, was not enthusiastic about hiring Huang as a fund raiser >when he was first approached by Joseph Giroir, formerly a major >player at the Rose Law Firm, who was working with Lippo at the >time. > >James Riady, whose family owns Lippo, and Huang subsequently met >with Clinton and aide Bruce Lindsey at the White House. >Sullivan was later told by Marvin Rosen, the DNC Finance >Chairman, that Clinton had a specific interest in having Huang >hired by the DNC, mentioning that he had received two calls from >White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes. Huang was hired >on November 13. Although Sullivan ordered that Huang be given >extensive briefings to ensure his understanding of the legal >limitations on fund- raising, it is not clear whether any such >briefings actually took place. > >Asked about his role in the DNC's hiring of Huang, Mr. Clinton, >who was attending the NATO conference in Madrid, said with >characteristic clarity: > > "I can only tell you what I recall about that. I believe that > John Huang at some point when I saw him in 1995 expressed an > interest in going to work to try to help raise money for the > Democratic Party and I think I may have said to someone that > he wanted to go to work for the DNC. And I think it was - he > said that to me and I relayed it that to someone - I don't > remember who I said it to, but I do believe I did say that to > someone. And I wish I could tell you more; that's all I know > about it." > >The Wall Street Journal reported that, "Despite disclosures after >President Clinton's re-election of the Democratic Party's fund- >raising problems, Mr. Sullivan told the senators he was never >confronted with any evidence of the party's fund-raising >irregularities during the crush of last year's election." > >Sullivan looked somewhat befuddled, however, when he attempted to >explain why White House coffees held by Clinton were not really >fund-raisers although they had, in fact, been used to raise >funds. Citing a document Sullivan had drafted for high DNC >officials titled "Fundraising dates received to date from White >House and fund-raising dates requested" which referred to several >of Clinton's coffees, noting the fund-raising target of each of >the events as well as the money actually raised, Sen. Pete >Domenici, (R-N.M.) cut off Sullivan's testimony, expressing >disbelief. > >Why had Sullivan attempted to make such a far-fetched >distinction? The Hatch Act prohibits the solicitation of >political donations in government buildings. Clinton's fund- >raising coffee klatsches were illegal. > >Sullivan's testimony was something of a disappointment to the >Republican members of the committee as the information he had >given in his earlier deposition had been far more specific -- and >damaging to the Democrats. For example, Sullivan had apparently >indicated in his deposition that the DNC discontinued its normal >procedures for checking the legality of large contributions in >1994. Under questioning, however, Sullivan stonewalled, saying >that he did not know why the checking had been discontinued, but >was sure that it hadn't been done purposefully. > >In frustration, a GOP staffer leaked a copy of the deposition to >the press. And how did the press react? They rushed to the phones >-- just as in the good old days -- but instead of dictating the >dirt in the deposition to the rewrite desk, they called up the >Democrats and tattled on the GOP for leaking the document to >them. Which only serves to confirm a long-standing suspicion of >mine -- these people are not really journalists at all. > > > > > Published in the Jul. 14, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly > Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) > Reposting permitted with this message intact > <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail