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] Subject: SLS: JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LETTER TO RENO (fwd) <snip> > ><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 > > >HYDE, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS DEMAND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL WITH >BROAD MANDATE; FOR FIRST TIME, MYRIAD OF ALLEGATIONS LAID OUT IN ONE >DOCUMENT > > >(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 >impartiality. > >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 >important. > >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 >Department. > >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 >reports. > >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 >services). > >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 >monument. > >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