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