Time: Tue Jul 22 11:58:16 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA12876
	for [address in tool bar]; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:52:30 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA05507;
	Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:39:00 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:38:17 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Op-Ed by Jim Nicholson on Democrat Finance Scandal (fwd)

>Questions begging to be asked
>Op-Ed in July 18th edition of the Clevland Plain Dealer
>by Jim Nicholson
>     Let's see if we have this straight:  A Senate committee is
>investigating whether the government of communist China attempted
>to corrupt the American election.
>     Among other things, the committee is trying to determine
>whether a U.S. government official who later became a leading
>fund-raiser for the Democrat Party may have passed secrets to
>foreigners closely associated with Beijing, and whether he
>received cash in return.
>     They have learned that John Huang:  1) laundered foreign money
>through a shell corporation to the Democrat Party just after
>Bill Clinton won the presidential nomination in 1992; 2) was
>placed in a sensitive, high-level government position as a
>political payback, even though a higher-up considered him
>"unqualified;" 3) was given hundreds of classified intelligence
>reports on China, even though his superior "walled him off" from
>China issues; 4) frequently visited the Chinese embassy and called
>his former employer, the Lippo Group, virtually daily while he was
>receiving these briefings; and 5) that Lippo has a partnership
>with a company owned by the communist Chinese government and
>connected with espionage.
>     Since John Huang was close to the President and Vice
>President of the United States -- indeed, the President was
>instrumental in getting him hired  -- investigators also want to
>know how much they and others in their administration may have
>known about what he was up to.
>     And, let's see if we also have this straight:  The Washington
>press corps says that all this is a bore, old news, irrelevant --
>nobody's interested.
>     Really?
>     Since the scandal over the many questionable fund-raising
>practices of the Clinton-Gore campaign began to unfold, Democrats
>have pursued a clear strategy.  That strategy can be summarized as
>follows:  "Say we did nothing wrong, but say that everybody does
>it.  Say that the real issue is campaign finance reform."
>     None of that is surprising.  But what does have to be counted
>as perplexing is the willingness -- no, the eagerness -- of so
>much of the Washington press corps to buy the Democrat pitch and
>to repeat it as gospel truth.
>     All of which raises a few obvious questions that the
>establishment media ought to be asking but for the most part is
>*  If Democrat operatives did nothing wrong, why are Democrats on
>the Senate investigative committee unwilling to conduct a serious
>investigation that would establish their innocence?
>     Instead, with the notable exception of Sen. Joe Lieberman of
>Connecticut, Democrat members of the committee have been
>attempting to turn the hearings into a circus that the public
>would dismiss as just partisan politics as usual.
>*  If both sides have been involved in similar campaign finance
>law-breaking, why is it that only Democrats have fled the country
>and gone into hiding in communist China?  Why is it that only
>Democrats have invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-
>incrimination?  Why is it that only Democrats have asked for
>immunity from prosecution?
>*  If Bill Clinton and Albert Gore did nothing wrong, where is
>their outrage and sense of betrayal?  Why have they not demanded
>that their friends and supporters, John Huang, Charlie Trie, James
>Riady, Johnny Chung and Pauline Kanchanalak come out of hiding
>and tell the American people what they know?
>*  Finally, how could the real issue be campaign finance reform if
>what the investigations are meant to discover is who knowingly
>sought and accepted foreign money?  That's already against the
>law.  Presumably it would continue to be against the law under any
>"reformed" system of campaign financing.
>     Having said that, let me add that I don't think the current
>campaign finance system -- a system designed largely by Democrats
>-- is perfect.  Far from it.
>     For that reason, some months ago I convened a Republican
>National Committee task force on the issue.  That task force will
>report its findings at our meeting here in Cleveland today.
>     From those recommendations, I plan to develop a formal
>Republican campaign finance reform package.  It will be built on
>these principles:
>     Government rationing of free speech has no place in our
>democracy.  As the RNC task force report correctly concludes:
>"Let us not give the government the power to tell us how, and how
>often we can criticize those who govern us and our governing
>     Second, there should be full and prompt disclosure of all
>contributions and expenditures.  Given that information, the
>voters are capable of drawing their own conclusions and making
>their own decisions.
>     Third, no one should be compelled to contribute money to a
>campaign or a candidate; all contributions must be strictly
>voluntary.  This principle would outlaw the current practice of
>Washington labor bosses, who extract millions of dollars in
>compulsory union dues from working men and women and spend it for
>partisan political activities without the workers' permission and
>often against the workers' political views.  (Roughly 40% of union
>workers vote Republican for Congress, yet union bosses spend their
>dues money almost 100% in support of Democrats.)
>     And, oh yes, it should continue to be against the law to
>solicit foreign contributions.  Any serious evidence or
>allegations that this law has been broken should be thoroughly
>investigated, and violators should be held accountable.
>     Is it really too much to expect that such investigations be
>taken seriously by Democrats?  Is it really too much to expect the
>establishment Washington media to exercise a little skepticisim
>and not act as an echo chamber for the Democrat Party line?
>(Visit http://www.rnc.org for the latest news and information)

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