Time: Wed Sep 10 06:17:33 1997
	by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA06217;
	Wed, 10 Sep 1997 06:05:11 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 06:05:04 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]

><apologies for the minor formatting problems>
>from http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a4703.htm:
>Demanding Clinton/Gore campaign finance independent counsel
>House Judiciary Committee letter to Janet Reno
>09/08/97 Chaiman Hyde
>September 3, 1997
>for IMMEDIATE Release
>(WASHINGTON) - Under the leadership of Chairman Hyde, all Republicans on
>the House Judiciary Committee requested that the Attorney General apply
>for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate a number of
>matters relating to the financing of campaigns in the 1996 federal
>election, including the conduct of President Clinton, Vice President
>Gore and former Secretary O'Leary, among others. The 24 page letter
>details for the first time the entire picture of alleged wrongdoings of
>the Clinton Administration in the 1996 federal election. Hyde stated,
>"when you take these allegations individually they are most troubling,
>however, cumulatively they are overwhelming."
>The comprehensive letter was delivered by messenger to the Attorney
>General late this afternoon. The law provides her with 30 days in which
>to respond. A copy of the letter is available in the offices of the
>House Judiciary Committee, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building [see below].
>- - -
>from http://www.house.gov/judiciary/renoltr.htm:
>September 3, 1997
>Honorable Janet Reno
>Attorney General of the United States
>United States Department of Justice
>Washington, D.C. 20530
>Dear Attorney General Reno:
>We, the undersigned, constituting a majority of the majority party
>membership of the House Judiciary Committee, respectfully request,
>pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. =A7 592(g)(1), that you apply for
>the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate a number of
>matters relating to the financing of campaigns in the 1996 federal
>election. We made a similar request in March, 1997, which you refused in
>your letters of April 14. See Letter from Attorney General Janet Reno to
>Chairman Henry J. Hyde dated April 14, 1997 ("Hyde Letter"); Letter from
>Attorney General Janet Reno to Chairman Orrin G. Hatch dated April 14,
>1997 ("Hatch Letter"). Herein, we provide you with new and specific i
>nformation from a number of credible sources to add to and supplement
>our earlier request.
>The evidence that has continued to mount since our last letter compels
>us again to request that you seek the appointment of an independent
>counsel. To date, none of the allegations swirling around this matter
>has been proved in a court of law, although at least four persons, Gene
>Lum, Nora Lum, Trisha Lum, and Michael Brown, have entered guilty pleas
>since our last request. See David Johnston, Couple Agree to Guilty Plea
>in Illegal Gifts to Democrats, The New York Times, May 22, 1997, at B10;
>Jerry Seper, Two Admit Illegal Fund Raising; Couple Gave to Democrats,
>The Washington Times, May 22, 1997, at A1; David Jackson, Ex-Commerce
>Leader's Son Admits Funneling Funds, The Dallas Morning News, August 29,
>1997, at 1A; Lance Gay, Ron Brown's Son Pleads Guilty to Law Violations,
>The Plain Dealer, August 29, 1997, at 12A. Before any conclusions are
>reached, a fair and thorough investigation must be conducted. However,
>if the evidence proves the worst of what now appears on the surface, the
>misconduct threatens the very foundations of our democracy. The American
>people must know whether their political institutions serve their
>interests, and they must have complete confidence in the investigation
>that answers that question. As your 1993 testimony on the
>reauthorization of the independent counsel statute indicates, you can
>only ensure that confidence by seeking an independent counsel.
>I. The Independent Counsel Statute
>Before reviewing the evidence, we believe it is appropriate to make
>several points relating to the independent counsel statute itself. In
>both the Hyde Letter and the Hatch Letter, you review the basic outlines
>of the statute. Hyde Letter at 2-3; Hatch Letter at 2-4. For the most
>part, we do not disagree with your description of the statute. However,
>three points need further emphasis.
>=46irst, the statute requires you to conduct a preliminary investigation
>whenever you find specific and credible evidence that a covered person "
>may have violated any Federal criminal law ..." 28 U.S.C. =A7 591(a)
>(emphasis added). Although you have accurately described this
>requirement, we do not believe that you have correctly applied it. We do
>not understand this language to mean that you must find a covered person
>has actually committed a crime. Rather, you need only find that the
>evidence indicates it is possible that a covered person committed a
>crime and that you cannot definitively determine that it did not happen.
>Second, in making the decision whether grounds to begin a preliminary
>investigation exist, you may only consider the specificity of the
>information and the credibility of the source of the information. 28
>U.S.C. =A7 591(d)(1). You are explicitly prohibited from finding a lack of
>specificity and credibility based upon a determination that the person
>lacked the required state of mind. 28 U.S.C. =A7 592(a)(2)(B)(i). In
>short, you are not allowed to decline to conduct a preliminary
>investigation based on a lack of intent.
>Third, you argue that "[u]nder the Act, I must conclude that there is a
>potential for an actual conflict of interest, rather than merely an
>appearance of a conflict of interest" before invoking the conflict of
>interest provisions. Hyde Letter at 3 (emphasis in original). We believe
>that in this case, you have an actual conflict of interest, which we
>will discuss below, so this point is academic. However, we want to point
>out that this argument directly contradicts the understanding of the
>statute advanced in your testimony on the reauthorization of the Act in
>1993. We also want to quote this passage at length because your words at
>that time so aptly explain the rationale both for the statute and for
>seeking the appointment of an independent counsel in this case. We
>cannot state the rationale any better than you did in 1993:
>In 1975, after his firing triggered the Constitutional crisis that led
>to the first version of this Act, Watergate special prosecutor Archibald
>Cox testified that an independent counsel was needed in certain limited
>cases and he said, 'The pressure, the divided loyalty, are too much for
>any man, and as honorable and conscientious as any individual might be,
>the public could never feel entirely easy about the vigor and
>thoroughness with which the investigation was pursued. Some outside
>person is absolutely essential.' Now, nearly two decades later, I could
>not state it any better.
>It is neither fair nor valid to criticize the Act for what politics has
>wrought, nor to expect the Act to solve all our crises. The Iran-Contra
>investigation, far from providing support for doing away with the Act,
>proves its necessity. I believe that this investigation could not have
>been conducted under the supervision of the Attorney General and
>concluded with any public confidence in its thoroughness or
>The reason that I support the concept of an independent counsel with
>statutory independence is that there is an inherent conflict whenever
>senior Executive Branch officials are to be investigated by the
>Department and its appointed head, the Attorney General. The Attorney
>General serves at the pleasure of the President. Recognition of this
>conflict does not belittle or demean the impressive professionalism of
>the Department's career prosecutors, and permit me to say again, I have
>been so impressed with the lawyers in the Department of Justice at every
>level. They are non-political, they are splendid lawyers, and they have
>enjoyed the opportunity to work with your staff on this legislation.
>* * *
>It is absolutely essential for the public to have confidence in the
>system and you cannot do that when there is conflict or an appearance of
>conflict in the person who is, in effect, the chief prosecutor. There is
>an inherent conflict here, and I think that that is why this Act is so
>It is worth noting that only a few matters that have been investigated
>by independent counsels over the last decade resulted in convictions.
>=46ar more covered individuals accused of wrongdoing have been cleared at
>the close of an independent counsel's investigation. This role of
>declining to prosecute a Government official is, I suggest, as important
>a part as any process in the prosecution. The credibility and public
>confidence engendered by the fact that an independent and impartial
>outsider has examined the evidence and concluded that prosecution is not
>warranted serves to clear a public official's name in a way that no
>Justice Department investigation ever could.
>It is telling that on occasion covered individuals, including former
>Attorney General Edwin Meese, have called for an appointment of an
>independent counsel to investigate the allegations against them. I doubt
>the public would have accepted with confidence the decision not to
>prosecute had each of those individuals been cleared not by an impartial
>outside prosecutor but by the Attorney General and his Justice
>The Independent Counsel Act was designed to avoid even the appearance of
>impropriety in the consideration of allegations of misconduct by
>high-level Executive Branch officials and to prevent, as I have said,
>the actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The Act thus served as a
>vehicle to further the public's perception of fairness and thoroughness
>in such matters, and to avert even the most subtle influences that may
>appear in an investigation of highly-placed Executive officials.
>The Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1993: Hearings on S.24
>Before the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess.
>(S. Hrg. 103-437) at 11-12 (Testimony of Attorney General Reno).
>II. Evidence of Crimes Committed by Covered Persons
>Your letter correctly notes that you are required to conduct a
>preliminary investigation whenever you "receive[] information sufficient
>to constitute grounds to investigate whether any [covered person] may
>have violated any Federal criminal law ..." 28 U.S.C. =A7 591(a). Your
>letter concludes that at that time you had not received any such
>information. Hyde Letter at 4-5. Because you have not moved for the
>appointment of an independent counsel since that time, we believe that
>you adhere to that conclusion now. For the reasons that follow, we
>believe such evidence is overwhelming and widely available in published
>A. President Clinton
>Under the statute, the President is a covered person. 28 U.S.C. =A7
>591(b)(1). For the following reasons, we believe you have sufficient
>grounds to investigate whether President Clinton may have violated
>=46ederal criminal law.
>1. Bribery -- 18 U.S.C =A7=A7 201, 371, 600, 872, 1341, 1343, 1346
>The bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. =A7 201, prohibits federal officials,
>including the President, from receiving any benefit in return for any
>official action. Numerous published reports describe circumstances that
>suggest that President Clinton may have received campaign contributions
>in return for official government actions he took on behalf of the
>contributors. In addition, any such scheme may also violate other
>statutes including: 18 U.S.C. =A7=A7 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United
>States), 600 (promising of government benefits in return for political
>support), 872 (extortion by government officials), and 1341, 1343, and
>1346 (mail and wire fraud by defrauding the United States of honest
>a. Government of the People's Republic of China
>On February 13, 1997, the Washington Post reported that the Department
>of Justice had obtained intelligence information that the government of
>the People's Republic of China had sought to direct contributions from
>foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee ("DNC") before the
>1996 presidential campaign. Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy, Chinese
>Embassy Role in Contributions Probed, Planning of Foreign Donations to
>DNC Indicated, The Washington Post, February 13, 1997, at A-1. In
>response, President Clinton said, "It would be a very serious matter for
>the United States if any country were to attempt to funnel funds to one
>of our political parties for any reason whatsoever. So I think we have
>to let the investigation proceed." Tim Weiner, F.B.I. Looks at Whether
>China Funneled Money to Democrats, The New York Times, February 14,
>1997, at A-21. Further reports have indicated that these directions came
>from the highest levels of the government of the People's Republic of
>China and that the scheme is ongoing. Bob Woodward, Top Chinese Linked
>to Plan to Buy Favor, FBI Evidence Indicates Ongoing Effort in U.S., The
>Washington Post, April 25, 1997, at A-1.
>Against this backdrop, a number of troubling events have been reported.
>In March 1995, Johnny Chung, a Democratic National Committee trustee and
>a businessman from Torrance, California, brought six officials of the
>government of the People's Republic of China and its state-owned
>companies, including Hongye Zheng, Chairman of the China Council for the
>Promotion of International Trade, and Yang Zanzhong, President of China
>Petro-Chemical Corp., to hear the President give his regular Saturday
>radio address. Donor Got 6 Chinese Officials into White House, St. Louis
>Post-Dispatch, February 15, 1997, at 3; 2nd Chinese Meeting Revealed,
>Clinton Expressed Concern over Propriety of Photographs, The Arizona
>Republic, February 15, 1997, at A-2; William C. Rempel and Alan C.
>Miller, First Lady's Aide Solicited Check to DNC, Los Angeles Times,
>July 27, 1997, at A1. Early on, presidential spokesman Mike McCurry said
>that the White House was mystified as to how these officials got into
>the White House, and he admitted that the National Security Council
>concluded that they should not have been at the event. Id. President
>Clinton personally expressed his concern that he "wasn't sure we'd want
>photos of him with these people circulating around." Id.
>A recent interview with Mr. Chung reveals how the officials were
>admitted. Id. On March 8, 1995, he came to the First Lady's office in
>the White House seeking various favors for the officials, including
>admission to the radio address. Id. Aides to Mrs. Clinton, Margaret
>Williams and Evan Ryan, suggested that Mr. Chung could get the favors if
>he helped Mrs. Clinton with her debts to the DNC for holiday parties.
>Id. The next day, Mr. Chung gave Ms. Williams a check for $50,000, and
>received a lunch in the White House mess, a picture with Mrs. Clinton,
>and admission to the radio address for himself and the officials. Id.
> Records indicate that on Friday, March 17, 1995, Mr. Chung donated
>$50,000 to the Democratic National Committee and on April 12, 1995, he
>donated an additional $125,000. Id. In commenting on the solicitation in
>the White House by the First Lady's aides, Mr. Chung said, "I see the
>White House is like a subway: You have to put in coins to open the
>gates." Id.
>Notwithstanding this experience, an even more troubling event occurred
>less than a year later. On February 6, 1996, Wang Jun attended a coffee
>at the White House with President Clinton. Michael Weisskopf and Lena H.
>Sun, Trie Gained Entree for Chinese Official, Head of Weapons Firm
>Joined Small Gathering with Clinton, The Washington Post, December 20,
>1996, at A-1. Mr. Wang is the head of the state-owned company, China
>International Trade and Investment Corp. ("CITIC"), a $21 billion
>conglomerate, and its subsidiary Poly Technologies. Id. Poly
>Technologies is the primary arms dealing company for the Chinese
>military. Id. Mr. Wang gained access to the coffee through Charles Yah
>Lin Trie, an old Arkansas friend of President Clinton and Democratic
>Party fund-raiser. Id. Again, Mr. McCurry had "no answer" as to why
>normal screening procedures were bypassed. Id. After the Wang visit came
>to public attention, President Clinton said he remembered "literally
>nothing" about the meeting, but he conceded that it was "clearly
>inappropriate." Susan Schmidt and Lena H. Sun, Clinton Calls Wang
>Meeting "Inappropriate," The Washington Post, December 21, 1996, at A-1.
>Mr. Trie had a number of interesting sources of funds. Among other
>things, in the spring of 1996, Mr.Trie delivered suspicious donations
>totaling $789,000 to the President's legal defense fund. Glenn F.
>Bunting, Clintons Knew of Trust Fund's Ills, Sources Say, Los Angeles
>Times, August 31, 1997, at A1; Mark Gladstone and Marc Lacey, Clinton
>=46und Kept Suspect Gifts Secret, Los Angeles Times, July 31, 1997, at A1;
>James Warren, Sect Leader Badgered Followers for Clinton Aid, Chicago
>Tribune, August 1, 1997, at 4. Mr. Trie made the donations on three
>dates: March 21, 1996 - $460,000; April 24, 1996 - $179,000; and May 17,
>1996 - $150,000. Id. These donations have now been returned. Id. Recent
>reports reveal that most of this money came from members of a
>Taiwan-based religious sect, Suma Ching Hai. Id. President and Mrs.
>Clinton knew about these suspicious donations at the time, and they
>concurred in efforts to conceal them until after the election. Id.
> Notwithstanding that knowledge, President Clinton continued to grant
>favors to Mr. Trie. On April 19, 1996, President Clinton appointed Mr.
>Trie to the Commission on U.S. Pacific Trade and Investment Policy. Id.
> On April 26, President Clinton signed a letter to Mr. Trie relating to
>U.S. policy in putting carriers in the Taiwan Straits. Id.
>During 1995 and 1996, Mr. Trie received a series of wire transfers in
>amounts of $50,000 and $100,000 from the Chinese government's
>state-owned bank, the Bank of China. Glenn R. Simpson, Bank of China
>Tied to Funds for Big Donor, Wire Transfers were Made to Trie, a Key
>=46igure for Democratic Party, The Wall Street Journal, April 1, 1997, at
>A-20; Jerry Seper, Chinese Government Bank Made Substantial Transfers of
>=46unds to Trie, The Washington Times, April 2, 1997, at A-4. Recent
>Senate testimony reveals that Mr. Trie received $1.4 million in wire
>transfers from abroad from 1994 through 1996. David E. Rosenbaum,
> Committee is Told a Donor Received Foreigners' Cash, The New York Times
>, July 30, 1997, at A1; Terry Lemons, FBI Follows Foreign Cash to LR's
>Trie, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, July 30, 1997, at 1A; House Panel
>Questions Name on White House Guest List, The Times Union, May 20, 1997,
>at A3; James W. Brosnan, 2 Chinese Tell Panel of Illegal Gifts to
>Democrats, The Commercial Appeal, July 30, 1997, at A1. At least
>$220,000 of this money has been traced into the treasury of the DNC. Id.
>Of the total Mr. Trie received from overseas, $905,000 came from Ng Lap
>Seng, a Macao-based businessman who was Trie's partner and who was also
>known as Mr. Wu. Id. Mr. Ng is an adviser to the Chinese Communist
>government. Id. Although he is a foreign national who cannot legally
>make donations to U.S. campaigns, he gave money through two employees to
>attend a dinner for big contributors with President Clinton on February
>16, 1995. Id.
>Returning to Mr. Wang's visit to the coffee with President Clinton, just
>four days before the meeting, Mr. Wang's arms trading company received
>special permission to import 100,000 assault weapons, along with
>millions of bullets, into the United States despite the assault weapons
>ban. Michael Daly, This Prez Donor a Real Pistol, New York Daily News,
>March 26, 1997, at 7. The story says: "The U.S. lawyer representing the
>Chinese could not explain why the special permits were suddenly granted
>=46eb. 2, 1996. 'All of a sudden, there was a breakthrough,' the attorney,
>Robert Sanders, was reported to say. 'I can't account for it.'" Id.
>On the day of the coffee, Democratic fund-raiser Ernest G. Green,
>another Arkansas friend of the President's, delivered a $50,000 donation
>to the Democratic National Committee. Doyle McManus and Sara Fritz, DNC
>Donor Denies He Was Reimbursed, Fund-Raising: Meeting with Clinton and
>Chinese Arms Dealer Wasn't Compensation for Gift, Lawyer Says, Los
>Angeles Times, March 26, 1997, at A-26; Sara Fritz, Scrutiny of
>=46und-Raising Falls on Civil Rights Figure, Los Angeles Times, March 5,
>1997, at A-1. Mr. Green, a managing director at Lehman Brothers, had
>never before given such a large contribution to the Democratic Party. Id
> Mr. Wang used a letter of invitation written by Mr. Green to obtain a
>visa for Mr. Wang's trip to the White House for coffee. Id. After
>delivering the check, Mr. Green met with Mr. Wang before Mr. Wang went
>to the White House. Id.
>Several lengthy reports in the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post
>detail the depths of Mr. Wang's international arms dealing activities.
>David Jackson, Chinese Arms Dealer Leaves a Tangled Web; Probe Seeks to
>Unravel Ties that May Have Reached White House, Chicago Tribune, January
>5, 1997, at 1; David Jackson, U.S. Probes Whether Beijing Gave Money to
>Influence Policy, Chicago Tribune, February 14, 1997, at 1; David
>Jackson, Chinese Official No Stranger to VIPs; Fundraising Probe's Key
>=46igure Cultivated U.S. Establishment, Chicago Tribune, March 23, 1997,
>at 1; Steven Mufson, To Chinese Firm, Access Becomes a Key Commodity,
>Conglomerate's Leader Boosts Country's Business Ties Abroad, The
>Washington Post, March 26, 1997, at A-21; David Sanger, Senators Ask for
>Inquiry on Leasing of California Base to Chinese, The New York Times,
>March 13, 1997, at A-18. To say the least, Mr. Wang and Poly have
>engaged in a number of unsavory activities.
>Beginning in the summer of 1994, federal agents began an undercover
>sting investigation of Poly's efforts to smuggle weapons into the United
>States. Id. On March 8, 1996, just a month after Mr. Wang's visit with
>President Clinton, the President of Poly's U.S. subsidiary, Robert Ma,
>sold his house in Atlanta and fled the country. Id. On March 18, 1996,
>federal agents surreptitiously seized a Poly shipment of 2,000 AK-47
>assault rifles in Oakland, California. Id. These weapons had left China
>on February 18 aboard a vessel belonging to another state-owned company,
>the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company ("COSCO"). Id. In May, federal agents
>hastily shut down the operation when they learned that the Chinese had
>been tipped to its existence. Id. The stories indicate that the
>Department is currently investigating to determine the source of the
>leak. Id.
>Smuggling the weapons into the United States has not harmed the fortunes
>of COSCO. In April 1996, with the support of the Clinton Administration,
>COSCO signed a lease with the City of Long Beach, California to rent a
>now defunct navy base in Long Beach, California. David Sanger, Senators
>Ask for Inquiry on Leasing of California Base to Chinese, The New York
>Times, March 13, 1997, at A-18; U.S. Pacts Ease Port Calls by Chinese,
>The Washington Times, April 1, 1997, at A-8; Rowan Scarborough, Long
>Beach Foes of Chinese Cargo Facility Score Victory; Harbor Panel Bows to
>Judge's Order, Ends Port Pact, The Washington Times, April 23, 1997, at
>A-3. To our knowledge, allowing a Communist government to control a
>former naval base on our shores is unprecedented. In addition, the
>Clinton Administration has allowed COSCO's ships access to our most
>sensitive ports with one day's notice rather than the usual four, and it
>has given COSCO a $138 million loan guarantee to build ships in Alabama.
>Id. The Administration has made all of these concessions since the
>coffee with Mr. Wang. Id. That COSCO participated in the shipment of
>illegal arms does not appear to have dampened the Administration's
>enthusiasm in any of these matters.
>These circumstances strongly suggest that there was a quid pro quo --
>i.e., the contributions from Mr. Chung, Mr. Green, and Mr. Trie, which
>may have come from the Chinese government, in return for the various
>government favors described. The President met directly with the Chinese
>officials whom Mr. Chung and Mr. Trie brought to the White House, and he
>knew about the suspicious circumstances of Mr. Trie's donations. If the
>President knew about a quid pro quo, he may have violated 18 U.S.C. =A7
>201 and the other statutes cited above.
>b. The Lippo Group
>Closely related to the allegations concerning the government of the
>People's Republic of China are the allegations relating to the Lippo
>Group. The Lippo Group ("Lippo") is a multi-billion dollar real estate
>and financial conglomerate based in Indonesia. The Riady family, an
>ethnic Chinese family living in Indonesia, owns and controls Lippo. The
>patriarch of the Riady family is Mochtar Riady. His son, James, has
>known President Clinton since the late 1970s when he interned with an
>investment bank in Little Rock, Arkansas. Since President Clinton began
>his first presidential campaign in 1991, members of the Riady family and
>Lippo's subsidiaries and executives have contributed more than $475,000
>to the Democratic Party and its candidates. Lippo and the Riady family
>have numerous business interests in China and Hong Kong. See generally
> Alan C. Miller, Controversy Swirls Over Donation to Democrats, Los
>Angeles Times, October 14, 1996, at A-1; Evelyn Iritani and Maggie
>=46arley, Indonesian Fulfills Aim for Firm, Los Angeles Times, October 16,
>1996, at A-6; Seth Mydans, Family Tied to Democratic Party Funds Built
>an Indonesian Empire, The New York Times, October 20, 1996, at 10.
>In the early 1980s, John Huang, the former Commerce Department official
>at the center of this controversy, worked for Lippo in Little Rock at
>the Worthen Bank, in which Lippo had a large stake. In 1986, Mr. Huang
>moved to Los Angeles to help run the Lippo Bank, which has had a number
>of problems with banking regulators. In that role, he became Lippo's
>chief representative in the United States. David E. Sanger and James
>Sterngold, Fund-Raiser for Democrats Now Faces Harsh Spotlight, The New
>York Times, October 21, 1996, at A-1; Lance Gay, Lippo Bank Faced 6-Year
>Inquiry, The Plain Dealer, November 1, 1996, at 10-A; David Willman,
>U.S. Likely to Hit Lippobank with 3rd Severe Sanction, Los Angeles Times
>, March 19, 1997, at A-1.
>Mr. Huang began raising illegal contributions for the Democratic Party
>as early as 1992. The recent Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
>hearings revealed that in August 1992 Huang gave a $50,000 contribution
>to the DNC through Hip Hing Holdings, a U.S.-based Lippo subsidiary. He
>then requested and received reimbursement for the contribution from
>Lippo's Indonesian headquarters. Senator Lieberman said, "Here's a clear
>trail of foreign money coming into U.S. elections." Edward Walsh, Senate
>Panel Finds 1st Direct Link to Foreign Funding, The Washington Post,
>July 16, 1997, at A1.
>Maria L. Haley, a presidential aide, recommended Mr. Huang for a job at
>the Commerce Department in October 1993. In January 1994 while he was
>still an employee of Lippo, Mr. Huang received a top-secret security
>clearance without a full background check. On July 18, 1994, he became
>principal deputy assistant secretary for international economic policy
>in the Department of Commerce. He received a $780,000 severance payment
>from Lippo. David J. Rothkopf, the deputy undersecretary of commerce,
>and Jeffrey Garten, the undersecretary, expressed misgivings about Mr.
>Huang's suitability for the job. In recent Senate testimony, Mr. Garten
>said that Mr. Huang was "totally unqualified" for the job and that " he
>should not be involved in China at all." Mr. Rothkopf has said his
>complaints were to no avail and that he "got the distinct impression
>that this was a done deal. But it was unclear to me at what level it was
>done." The Riadys have apparently boasted to friends that they placed
>Huang in the job. Marcy Gordon, Huang Called Lippo Amid Secret Briefings,
>Chicago Sun-Times, January 10, 1997, at 30; Bob Woodward, Chinese
>Embassy Role in Contributions Probed, Planning of Foreign Donations to
>DNC Indicated, The Washington Post, February 13, 1997, at A-1; Michael
>Kranish, Push to Sway U.S. on China is Revealed, The Boston Globe, March
>20, 1997, at A-1; Alan C. Miller, Boost from Above Aided Huang's Rise up
>the Ladder, Los Angeles Times, April 12, 1997, at A-1; Paul Leavitt,
>=46lood Relief Held Up by Senate Squabbling over Bill, USA Today, April
>30, 1997, at 4-A; Glenn F. Bunting and Alan C. Miller, Huang Helped to
>Raise Funds While at Agency, Los Angeles Times, May 25, 1997, at A1; Don
>Van Natta, Jr. and Christopher Drew, Donations to Democrats Traced to
>Phony Firms and Dead Person, The New York Times, June 6, 1997, at A-1;
>James Risen and Alan C. Miller, Huang's Security Status Raises New
>Questions, Los Angeles Times, June 17, 1997, at A1; Edward Walsh, Panel
>Examines Hiring of Huang at Commerce, The Washington Post, July 17,
>1997, at A1; Alison Mitchell, Clinton Gives Few Details on Recommending
>Huang, The New York Times, July 10, 1997, at B8; James Warren,
>Ex-Democratic Fundraiser Seen as Key to Puzzle, Chicago Tribune, July
>14, 1997, at 1; Edward Walsh and Anne Farris, Panel Hears of Huang's
>=46requent Visits to Firm, The Washington Post, July 18, 1997, at A8.
>The Commerce Department now acknowledges that Mr. Huang attended 109
>meetings at which classified information might have been discussed. Id.
> Phone records show that Mr. Huang made at least 70 calls to Lippo
>during his tenure at the Commerce Department, many of which occurred
>near the time of the briefings. Id. He had contacts with officials of
>the Chinese Embassy. Id. Mr. Huang also maintained an office at a
>private investment firm with Arkansas and Asian ties, Stephens, Inc.,
>where he made numerous phone calls and received faxes and packages
>during his Commerce tenure. Id.
>Mr. Huang began to raise money illegally before he even left the
>Commerce Department, and the DNC attributed these donations to his wife.
>Id. In mid-1995, he expressed an interest in going to the DNC to raise
>funds. Id. DNC Chairman Don Fowler did not think that the move was
>necessary and took no action. Id. In September 1995, the President and
>his closest adviser, Bruce Lindsey, met with Mr. Huang, James Riady, and
>C. Joseph Giroir, a former law partner of Mrs. Clinton's who was close
>to the Riadys, regarding Mr. Huang's desire to move to the DNC. Id. The
>President has acknowledged that he had a role in recommending Mr. Huang
>for the DNC job, and other former Clinton aides with ties to Asia,
>including Mr. Giroir, apparently mounted a concerted campaign to bring
>about Mr. Huang's job there. Id. In December 1995, Mr. Huang moved to
>the DNC with the title finance vice chairman. Id. After Mr. Huang left,
>his Commerce Department position was eliminated. Id. Strangely, however,
>Mr. Huang kept his security clearance long after he left the Commerce
>Department. Id.
>At the DNC, Mr. Huang embarked on an unusual fund-raising drive in which
>he raised $3.4 million. Id. Of that amount, the DNC has identified $1.6
>million as being illegal, improper, or sufficiently suspect that it will
>be sent back to donors. Id. Many of these donations came from fictitious
>donors and, in at least one case, a dead person. Id. One of the most
>egregious examples is the $450,000 donated by Arief and Soraya
>Wiriadinata. Id. See also Alan C. Miller, Controversy Swirls Over
>Donation to Democrats, Los Angeles Times, October 14, 1996, at A-1.
>Until December 1995 when they left the country, this couple lived in a
>modest townhouse in Northern Virginia. Id. Mr. Wiriadinata was a
>landscape architect, and Mrs. Wiriadinata was a homemaker. Id. Despite
>these modest circumstances, the couple wrote 23 separate checks to the
>DNC totaling $425,000 from November 9, 1995 until June 7, 1996. Id.
> However, Mrs. Wiriadinata is the daughter of Hashim Ning, a partner of
>the Riadys in owning Lippo. Id. Democratic Party officials had concerns
>about the legality of Mr. Huang's activities as early as July 1996, but
>they did not remove him from his job. Tom Squiteri, Democrats Knew Huang
>Might Be Trouble, USA Today, February 19, 1997, at 9A.
>The Wiriadinatas are not the only conduit through which Lippo money
>apparently benefited the Clintons. Existing Independent Counsel Kenneth
>Starr is reportedly investigating whether payments that Lippo made to
>Webster Hubbell were made to buy his silence in the Whitewater
>investigation. David Willman, U.S. Likely to Hit Lippobank with 3rd
>Severe Sanction, Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1997, at A-1. These
>payments reportedly included paying for a vacation the Hubbell family
>took to Bali in the summer of 1994. Id.
>One possible quid pro quo for this Lippo money is the possibility that
>Lippo bought Mr. Huang's position in the Commerce Department as well as
>the accompanying access to classified information. In addition, during
>September 1996, the President announced that he was designating 1.7
>million acres of Utah wilderness as a national monument. Clinton Critics
>See Other Motives Behind Monument Atop Utah Coal, Chicago Tribune,
>December 26, 1996, at 26; Utah Not Impressed with U.S. Promises on New
>Monument, Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 30, 1997, at 4-A. This
>designation abruptly halted plans to mine the world's largest deposit of
>clean-burning "super compliance coal." Id. The President made this move
>with virtually no consultation with people in the affected area of Utah.
> Id. The second largest deposit of this kind of coal lies in Indonesia,
>and critics suggest that the designation was made as a reward to Lippo.
>Id. See also Paul Craig Roberts, Clinton's Pen Aids Foreign "Friends,"
>Rocky Mountain News, January 4, 1997, at 40-A.
>If there was a quid pro quo for Mr. Huang's position at the Department
>of Commerce, his access to classified information, the designation of
>the national monument, or all three, then there may have been a
>violation of 18 U.S.C. =A7 201 and the other statutes mentioned above. The
>President's direct involvement includes his participation in the
>September 1995 meeting at which Mr. Huang expressed his desire to go to
>the DNC and his participation in the designation of the national
>c. Paraguay
>On February 20, 1997, the Wall Street Journal reported that a Miami
>computer executive with close ties to the government of Paraguay had a
>number of dealings with the White House. Jill Abramson, Jonathan
>=46riedland, and Marcus W. Brauchli, Latin Connection, DNC Donor with Ties
>to Paraguay Presses its Case in White House, Mark Jimenez's Gifts Often
>Coincide with His Access to Administration Aides, Contraband in Ciudad
>del Este, The Wall Street Journal, February 20, 1997, at A-1. Several
>days later, USA Today provided further details. Tom Squitieri, White
>House Link to Paraguay Probed, USA Today, February 24, 1997, at 6-A. See

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