From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #119 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, April 27 1998 Volume 02 : Number 119 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:04:48 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: more words re. recent NJ excitement We're running a political movement. It is -so- critical that we approach these things carefully (not to mention simply a mark of a carefull thinker) I don't think it can be stressed enough. My thanks to TSB and to anyone else who can provide rapid verifiable information on things like this. Boyd Kneeland, Pres., Council for Legislative Action, Washington - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:04:48 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: more words re. recent NJ excitement We're running a political movement. It is -so- critical that we approach these things carefully (not to mention simply a mark of a carefull thinker) I don't think it can be stressed enough. My thanks to TSB and to anyone else who can provide rapid verifiable information on things like this. Boyd Kneeland, Pres., Council for Legislative Action, Washington - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 22:18:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Sleep well tonight... The following is not a joke, or a put-on. I wish it was. This is an article excerpted from the Valley Daily News, Kent, Washington, April 26, 1998. - -----Article excerpt ------------ *Driver busted for 'improper' car litter bag* Associated Press Olympia, Washington April 26, 1998 A motorist stopped for speeding was arrested and handcuffed by Olympia police officers for failing to have a litter bag in his car. The officer who arrested Jerry Clark last month also made it clear that not just any litter bag would do. Officer Bryan Henry wrote that when he looked in Clark's car, he did not see a "state-approved and designed litter bag." "I asked Clark if he had a litter bag," Henry added, "and Clark pointed to a grocery bag on the floor." The law does require drivers to carry a litter bag, but doesn't say what kind. It does say the state will distribute free bags bearing the "statewide anti-litter" symbol. But state officials say that due to budget shortfalls, the bags are no longer made. Clark, 28, of Olympia, was handcuffed and hauled off to the city jail, where he was later released without being booked. Clark doesn't dispute the speeding ticket, and he acknowledges mouthing off to the officers. But he says the police used the law on litter bags to harass him. "Nobody should get treated like that," Clark said. "It was total abuse." Henry and Sgt. John Hutchings said in their reports that Clark was aggressive, verbally abusive, irrational, and hostile. After being processed at the jail, Clark was cited and released for speeding, not a having a litter bag, and improper placement of a license plate. Clark was later charged with carrying a dangerous weapon, a 4-inch fixed blade hunting knife found in a map pocket in his car. The case has received the attention of state Rep. Peggy Johnson, R-Shelton, who said she was considering legislation to repeal the waste-bag law. Police Chief Gary Michel said there were no grounds to reprimand the officers involved, but said the issue would be discussed in future training. - -------------End of excerpt------------------------- Don't you fell safer now, knowing your local Scheutstaffel are awake? And these gun-totin' Protectors of the Public Peace consider it remarkable that someone treated like this should be "aggressive, verbally abusive, irrational, and hostile"? Well, DUH! - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 08:37:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: US backs UN Gun Control (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 08:28:45 -0700 Subject: US backs UN Gun Control U.S. aims to shoot down illicit firearms trafficking Nation backs U.N. resolution for the first time Last updated 04/25/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT New York Times News Service VIENNA, Austria =97 In a major step against international crime, the Clinto= n administration is co-sponsoring a U.N. resolution aimed at curbing illicit trafficking in firearms. It is the first time the United States has endorsed a U.N. resolution on firearms regulation, U.S. officials said. The action came after a week of intense negotiation in Vienna among the delegates to the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Late Thursday, the Clinton administration agreed to support the resolution, drafted by Canada and Brazil, but only after it had been rewritten to clarify that it does not call for action on possession of handguns or domestic sales of guns. The resolution urges governments to adopt measures, including an international accord, aimed at "combating illicit trafficking in firearms." The United States also joined Canada in recruiting other sponsors, and by the end of the day 21 countries had agreed, including Russia, Germany, Britain, Japan, Australia and Argentina. "The phenomena of transnational crime is causing a ratcheting up of international cooperation against trafficking," said Jonathan Winer, a deputy assis tant secretary of state and the head of the U.S. delegation.= =20 The resolution is expected to be approved when it is put before the 40 members of the commission Monday, delegates said. "This is quite a dramatic change for governments," said James Hayes, coordinator for international firearms issues in the Canadian Justice Department. "They are now accepting that they must take accountability for guns going out of their countries."=20 "In an era of globalization and easier flow of goods, firearms are going to be treated as different than other commodities," said Hayes. He and U.S. Customs Agent James McShane have promoted U.N. action to curb firearms trafficking. Hayes said the resolution, along with a treaty on firearms regulations adopted last November by the Organization of American States, would make it easier to combat crime. "There will be more transparency in the movement of firearms," he said. "It will be far easier to trace them." It is largely because of the difficulty of tracing firearms once they have been sold to countries in the European Union that the Clinton administration decided Wednesday to suspend the sale of U.S. weapons to British companies. Even though the resolution is not as tough as many gun-control advocates would have liked, they were generally pleased. "It's the best we could expect," said Philip Alpers, a gun policy researcher from New Zealand. "It is the next stage in a long process that will eventually make it more difficult to move guns across borders." He and representatives of other nongovernmental organizations said the U.S. decision was a defeat for their antagonists, like the National Rifle Association. Though acknowledging that she was "not happy" with the outcome, the NRA's chief lobbyist, Tanya Metaksa, said the group had achieved some victories in the process, like defeating a Japanese proposal that dealt with possession of firearms. The organization is opposed to any U.N. involvement in firearms issues. "The bottom line is that the U.N. should respect the sovereignty of countries, on all issues, and that for them to tread on national policy is bad international policy," said Metaksa. Metaksa turned her criticism to the process that produced the resolution. "There were not open and fair discussions," she said. "These are not open meetings."=20 The NRA, however, was an accredited participant at the meetings, which were open to journalists and generally more open than most U.N.=20 deliberations. Between September and January, the United Nations held workshops on firearms regulations in Lubliana, Slovenia; Arusha, Tanzania; Sao Paolo, Brazil; and New Delhi, India.=20 The process alone, even before Friday, has been salutary, advocates of domestic gun-control laws said. "It has encouraged governments to focus on gun laws and adopt tougher ones," said Rebecca Peters, an Australian who represented the International Alliance of Women. She said, for example, that after the workshop in New Delhi, in January, Mongolia banned the import of all firearms. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 06:55:02 -0700 (PDT) From: wbg Subject: Re: Sleep well tonight... Harry wrote: > > This is an article excerpted from the Valley Daily News, Kent, > Washington, April 26, 1998. > > -----Article excerpt ------------ > > *Driver busted for 'improper' car litter bag* In my truck, between the front seats, I carry a 1.5-gal. Rubbermaid wastebasket. I wonder whether that would meet with the approval of Washington's Garbage Gestapo? They couldn't object to my piece, since I have a Washington carry permit for that, right alongside my Oregon permit. Brewster - -- **************************************************************** " Liberalism today plays much the same role in social life that Christianity played in late Victorian Britain; increasing numbers of people have come to suspect that it is not valid, even as they find themselves utterly unable to imagine any alternative source of truth. " David Frum, in _Atlantic Monthly_, March 1995 **************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:32:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Democrats block investigation on Clinton - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 19:26:38 -0500 From: Bill Nalty Subject: CAS: WW: Chairman Burton Criticizes WH Obstruction of Justice http://www.federal.com The Washington Weekly April 27, 1998 CHAIRMAN BURTON CRITICIZES WHITE HOUSE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Dan Burton, Govt. Reform and Oversight Committee Good morning. Today we are meeting to consider granting immunity to four witnesses. This is a very serious matter. It is a matter that I hope every Member has considered carefully. This Committee has faced obstructions that no previous Congressional investigation has ever had to face. More than 90 people have either taken the Fifth or fled the country to avoid testifying. 53 people involved in raising money for the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton/Gore Campaign have taken the 5th -- 53. That means that 53 people that this Committee has sought to speak to may have committed crimes. That is just an astonishing number that everyone should stop and think about. These 53 people aren't just rank and file fundraisers. They include senior Presidential appointees and friends of the President. Webster Hubbell has taken the Fifth. He reasserted his claim just this week. He was the President's Associate Attorney General. He received $100,000 from the Riady family of Indonesia while he was under investigation. Mark Middleton has taken the Fifth. He worked in the office of the Chief of Staff to the President. He had numerous White House meetings with the Riadys, John Huang, Charlie Trie and Ng Lap Seng. John Huang has taken the Fifth. He was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and a major fundraiser at the DNC. The President was personally involved in placing him in both positions. 37 witnesses have fled the country. Charlie Trie fled the country for over a year. He returned to the U.S. following his indictment by the Justice Department. He was a Presidential appointee to a high-level trade commission. Ted Sieong has fled the country, along with 11 members of his family. His daughter, who has remained in the United States, has taken the Fifth. So have three of his business associates. Today, we will consider immunity for one of his closest associates -- Kent La. The Sieong family and their associates have given over $400,000 to the Democratic Party. They have given $150,000 to Republican candidates and groups. We have had an absolute stone wall erected to prevent us from getting to the facts about Ted Sieong. All together, over 90 people have refused to cooperate. This is unprecedented. There has never been a Congressional investigation that has faced this kind of stonewall. I have asked my staff to erect the wall that you see to your left so that everyone can see very graphically what kind of obstacles this Committee faces in getting at the truth. You can see the pictures - many with the President - of the major figures of this investigation who have fled the country or taken the 5th. The Director of the FBI testified here last December. He has had a long and distinguished career in law enforcement. He was a prosecutor, a Federal judge, and now the Director of the FBI. I asked him if he had ever seen an investigation in which so many people have taken the Fifth or refused to cooperate. He responded that the only time he faced similar obstacles was when he was prosecuting organized crime cases in New York. My colleague Mr. Waxman likes to complain about the number of subpoenas I have issued. There have been about 600. It would not be necessary to issue so many subpoenas if we had more cooperation from some of the President's friends and appointees. We have issued over 100 subpoenas just to get information about Charlie Trie, his associates, and his activities. This was necessary because Charlie Trie had fled the country and gone to China and most of his associates took the fifth or fled. If Mr. Trie had stayed in the country and cooperated with us, these subpoenas would not have been necessary. We have had to issue close to 60 subpoenas to try to get information about Ted Sioeng because he has fled the country. Most of his family has fled the country. In fact, about 80% of the subpoenas we have issued have been targeted to get information from about a half-dozen key people who have declined to cooperate with us -- Charlie Trie, John Huang, Ted Sioeng, Webster Hubbell, Johnny Chung, Mark Middleton, and Gene and Nora Lum or a combination of these people and their associates. One thing that is very clear to me is that, when you have more than 50 people taking the Fifth, and when you have more than 30 people fleeing the country, that is a very strong indicator that there was a high level of criminal activity swirling around the President and his campaign. That is inescapable. But the stonewalling doesn't stop there. This Committee has faced incredible stonewalling from the White House. * The White House has been absolutely recalcitrant in turning over documents. We had to go to the brink of holding the White House counsel--Charles Ruff--in contempt of Congress to get the White House to produce documents. * The White House withheld videotapes of the President at White House fundraisers for six months after they were subpoenaed -- 6 Months. * The President has absolutely abused the power of executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing. Six months ago -- last September -- we attempted to depose Bruce Lindsey -- one of the President's closest advisors. We attempted to ask him about his conversations with the President about James Riady. Mr. Lindsey told us that the President intended to claim executive privilege. When we pressed the issue this spring, the White House relented and admitted that there was no legitimate claim of executive privilege, and that Mr. Lindsey would answer the questions. Such frivolous claims of executive privilege should not be made. We have seen executive privilege abused time and time again. * Just last month, a White House official -- Marsha Scott -- got up and walked out of a deposition. She was under subpoena and she got up and walked out. We had to call an emergency meeting of the McIntosh Subcommittee to compel her to come back and testify. We still have not completed her deposition. She is scheduled to return next week. This is the kind of non-cooperation we have received from the White House. It is very clear what the White House strategy has been all along - - -- attack anyone that investigates, stall and delay and drag out the investigation as long as possible, and then have White House allies in Congress criticize us for the length of the investigation. Unfortunately, this is a very cynical game designed to keep the facts and the truth from the American people. That brings us to today's meeting. Today, we will vote to offer immunity to four witnesses. The Justice Department has provided approval to the committee for immunizing all four. We have had numerous meetings with the Justice Department and the minority has been included in these discussions. It is my hope that we will start to lower that stone wall a little bit. Let me talk for just a few moments about these witnesses, and then we will discuss them further during general debate. Kent La -- Kent La is a close business associate of Ted Sioeng. He owns the company that distributes Ted Sioeng's Chinese cigarettes in the United States. He contributed $50,000 to the DNC. The few people who know Ted Sioeng and have been willing to cooperate have all said that Kent La is beyond a doubt the most knowledgeable person in the country about Sioeng and his activities. Irene Wu -- Irene Wu was Johnny Chung's office manager and top assistant at his company. She arranged his travel and attended numerous fundraising events with him. Numerous witnesses who have been interviewed by this Committee have reported that she distributed reimbursements for conduit payments to President Clinton's campaign. Irene Wu has already been immunized by the Justice Department and testified before a grand jury. Nancy Lee -- Nancy Lee was also an employee of Johnny Chung. She has also been implicated in soliciting conduit contributions and reimbursing the donors with cash. She has also been given immunity by the Justice Department and testified before a grand jury. Larry Wong -- Larry Wong has been a long-time friend of Democratic Fundraisers Gene and Nora Lum. The Lums have been a subject of this Committee's investigation for quite some time. A number of witnesses have informed the Committee that Larry Wong should be very knowledgeable about the Lums' contributions. We have been involved in lengthy consultation with the Justice Department about these witnesses. It has been a slow process -- slower than I think it should have been. In some cases, we have agreed not to pursue immunity for witnesses at the request of the Justice Department. In other cases, we continue to try to work out disagreements. However, the Justice Department has agreed to immunity for these four witnesses. The Justice Department does not oppose us granting immunity to any of these witnesses. Now, let me turn to a subject that I know that Mr. Waxman is eager to discuss today -- the comments that I made about the President over the recess. I would like to say a few things: Our Committee Report and any criminal referrals to the Justice Department will be based on facts we gather and not on my personal opinions. Perhaps I could have used different more diplomatic language to describe how I feel, but the fact is -- I do not believe that the President is a man of integrity. And I believe any objective person who follows the facts would agree with me. Look again at that Wall -- I call it a Wall of Shame. 90 people - - -- many members of the present Administration or close friends of the President have headed for the hills -- all of the President's men and women are running and those that are willing to come forward are attacked, villified and if possible destroyed because they are willing to talk. And finally, on this subject, what I'm "out to get" -- is the truth -- which is very hard to obtain because all of the President's men and women are either fleeing the country or taking the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination from criminal prosecution. The American people have a right to know! I do believe after this much of our investigation, that if we could prove 10% of what we believe to be fact, that this Administration and the President would be in serious trouble! Let me once again restate this -- I may personally have some strong feelings about the President. My feelings are what they are. But as chairman of this Committee, I set my personal feelings aside. I base my decisions on the facts. I have always strived to do what is best for the country, and that is what I will continue to do. We all have strong feelings about different people. On the floor of the House yesterday, Mr. Waxman called me "vile" and "reprehensible." A few months ago, Mr. Lantos compared one of our witnesses -- a highly-respected lawyer and independent counsel -- to a Nazi. A leading Democratic Senator even described the President as "an unusually good liar." I would be very surprised if Mr. Waxman or some of his colleagues haven't had private conversations where they called me worse. My point is that we all have our personal opinions. As we do our jobs here, we all have to put those personal feelings aside and do what we believe is best. That is what I intend to do. Now let me address the matter of the Hubbell tapes. Mr. Waxman has expressed great dismay that we are releasing to the public tapes made of Mr. Hubbell's phone calls while in prison. He has called me vile and reprehensible. Let me tell you what I believe is reprehensible. Webster Hubbell was the Associate Attorney General of the United States. He was appointed by President Clinton to be one of the highest law enforcement officials in the land. He is now a convicted felon. He has taken the Fifth and refused to cooperate with this Committee. The American people have an absolute right to know why Webster Hubbell received a $100,000 payment from the Riady family of Indonesia. Americans have an absolute right to know why Mr. Hubbell received $700,000 in payments -- most of it from friends and associates of the President -- at a time that Hubbell was under criminal investigation and believed to be a key witness in matters related to the President and First Lady. The American people have an absolute right to expect that the Associate Attorney General of the United States of America would not stonewall a Congressional investigation. Mr. Hubbell is a key figure with close ties to the President, the First Lady and figures such as James Riady and John Huang, as well as other political allies of the White House. He has refused to cooperate with this investigation and the independent counsel's office has also been reported to be frustrated with his lack of cooperation despite being provided a plea agreement. Let it be clear; when Mr. Hubbell was in jail, he was well aware that his conversations were monitored and taped, as is common practice in prison. These tapes were obtained legally by the committee and the committee has followed the proper protocols with respect to them. Last week, the working group acted to make the tapes public. Mr. Waxman was involved in that process. As we go forward, we are going to limit to the extent possible the release of purely personal information on the prison tapes. We are going to focus the public release of tapes on those which relate to matters bearing on this investigation such as possible obstruction of investigations, White House pressure on Mr. Hubbell or his family, his connections with the Riadys and John Huang, his connections with other political associates of the President, and his $700,000 or more in payments. Committee staff are editing the transcripts of these tapes so that only conversations that are relevant to this investigation are released. Only a limited portion of these Hubbell prison tapes will end up being made public -- the portions that have a bearing on our investigation. This process is still on-going. So as you can see, all of these hysterics have been for nothing and again designed to deflect attention from the real facts. This is not the first time that hysterical charges have been made. Mr. Waxman accused me of leaking two tapes of Webster Hubbell to the press a few weeks ago. The problem is, he didn't check the facts. He was wrong. The tapes in question were entered into the Committee record during our Committee hearings with Attorney General Janet Reno on December 9 under a unanimous consent request by Mr. Shays. Here is a copy of the page from the transcript. Mr. Lantos chaired that hearing. Yesterday on the House floor, Mr. Waxman said that we have spent over $6 million on this investigation. Again, he is wrong. He hasn't checked the facts. He isn't even in the ballpark. In fact, this Committee spent less than $2.5 million on this investigation last year. 25% of that was given to Mr. Waxman's staff. I think most of his money was spent writing letters to me. A lot of these allegations and accusations are meant to distract our attention from the real issue -- determining who was responsible for the millions of dollars in foreign money and illegal contributions made during the last campaign. But we will not be distracted. I believe that there are probably some people at the White House and at the DNC who hope that we will not begin to immunize some of these witnesses. I am sure that there are more than a few people who are not upset at the wall of silence. But we have a job to do. We must begin to tear down the wall. We have an obligation to get to the truth. The American people have a right to know. We have honorable men and women on both sides of this Committee. There is no question about that. It is time to set aside the distractions and the side issues. It is time to start getting the facts out. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support immunity for these witnesses. The Justice Department has no objections, and neither should we. Published in the Apr. 27, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 98 11:31:17 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Democrats block investigation on Clinton Is it coincidence that there are about as many, (80+), Mysterious Deaths surrounding our Cappo Di Tutti Cappi In Chief as there are obstructions? Nahhhhh, couldn't be.....:-/ On Apr 27, wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 19:26:38 -0500 >From: Bill Nalty >Subject: CAS: WW: Chairman Burton Criticizes WH Obstruction of Justice > >http://www.federal.com > >The Washington Weekly >April 27, 1998 > >CHAIRMAN BURTON CRITICIZES WHITE HOUSE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE > >Dan Burton, Govt. Reform and Oversight Committee > > >Good morning. Today we are meeting to consider granting immunity >to four witnesses. This is a very serious matter. It is a matter >that I hope every Member has considered carefully. > >This Committee has faced obstructions that no previous >Congressional investigation has ever had to face. More than 90 >people have either taken the Fifth or fled the country to avoid >testifying. 53 people involved in raising money for the >Democratic National Committee or the Clinton/Gore Campaign have >taken the 5th -- 53. That means that 53 people that this >Committee has sought to speak to may have committed crimes. That >is just an astonishing number that everyone should stop and think >about. > >These 53 people aren't just rank and file fundraisers. They >include senior Presidential appointees and friends of the >President. Webster Hubbell has taken the Fifth. He reasserted his >claim just this week. He was the President's Associate Attorney >General. He received $100,000 from the Riady family of Indonesia >while he was under investigation. Mark Middleton has taken the >Fifth. He worked in the office of the Chief of Staff to the >President. He had numerous White House meetings with the Riadys, >John Huang, Charlie Trie and Ng Lap Seng. John Huang has taken >the Fifth. He was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and a >major fundraiser at the DNC. The President was personally >involved in placing him in both positions. > >37 witnesses have fled the country. Charlie Trie fled the country >for over a year. He returned to the U.S. following his indictment >by the Justice Department. He was a Presidential appointee to a >high-level trade commission. > >Ted Sieong has fled the country, along with 11 members of his >family. His daughter, who has remained in the United States, has >taken the Fifth. So have three of his business associates. Today, >we will consider immunity for one of his closest associates -- >Kent La. The Sieong family and their associates have given over >$400,000 to the Democratic Party. They have given $150,000 to >Republican candidates and groups. We have had an absolute stone >wall erected to prevent us from getting to the facts about Ted >Sieong. > >All together, over 90 people have refused to cooperate. This is >unprecedented. There has never been a Congressional investigation >that has faced this kind of stonewall. I have asked my staff to >erect the wall that you see to your left so that everyone can see >very graphically what kind of obstacles this Committee faces in >getting at the truth. You can see the pictures - many with the >President - of the major figures of this investigation who have >fled the country or taken the 5th. > >The Director of the FBI testified here last December. He has had >a long and distinguished career in law enforcement. He was a >prosecutor, a Federal judge, and now the Director of the FBI. I >asked him if he had ever seen an investigation in which so many >people have taken the Fifth or refused to cooperate. He responded >that the only time he faced similar obstacles was when he was >prosecuting organized crime cases in New York. > >My colleague Mr. Waxman likes to complain about the number of >subpoenas I have issued. There have been about 600. It would not >be necessary to issue so many subpoenas if we had more >cooperation from some of the President's friends and appointees. >We have issued over 100 subpoenas just to get information about >Charlie Trie, his associates, and his activities. This was >necessary because Charlie Trie had fled the country and gone to >China and most of his associates took the fifth or fled. If Mr. >Trie had stayed in the country and cooperated with us, these >subpoenas would not have been necessary. > >We have had to issue close to 60 subpoenas to try to get >information about Ted Sioeng because he has fled the country. >Most of his family has fled the country. > >In fact, about 80% of the subpoenas we have issued have been >targeted to get information from about a half-dozen key people >who have declined to cooperate with us -- Charlie Trie, John >Huang, Ted Sioeng, Webster Hubbell, Johnny Chung, Mark Middleton, >and Gene and Nora Lum or a combination of these people and their >associates. > >One thing that is very clear to me is that, when you have more >than 50 people taking the Fifth, and when you have more than 30 >people fleeing the country, that is a very strong indicator that >there was a high level of criminal activity swirling around the >President and his campaign. That is inescapable. > >But the stonewalling doesn't stop there. This Committee has faced >incredible stonewalling from the White House. > >* The White House has been absolutely recalcitrant in turning >over documents. We had to go to the brink of holding the White >House counsel--Charles Ruff--in contempt of Congress to get the >White House to produce documents. > >* The White House withheld videotapes of the President at White >House fundraisers for six months after they were subpoenaed -- 6 >Months. > >* The President has absolutely abused the power of executive >privilege to cover up wrongdoing. Six months ago -- last >September -- we attempted to depose Bruce Lindsey -- one of the >President's closest advisors. We attempted to ask him about his >conversations with the President about James Riady. Mr. Lindsey >told us that the President intended to claim executive privilege. >When we pressed the issue this spring, the White House relented >and admitted that there was no legitimate claim of executive >privilege, and that Mr. Lindsey would answer the questions. Such >frivolous claims of executive privilege should not be made. We >have seen executive privilege abused time and time again. > >* Just last month, a White House official -- Marsha Scott -- got >up and walked out of a deposition. She was under subpoena and she >got up and walked out. We had to call an emergency meeting of the >McIntosh Subcommittee to compel her to come back and testify. We >still have not completed her deposition. She is scheduled to >return next week. This is the kind of non-cooperation we have >received from the White House. > >It is very clear what the White House strategy has been all along >- -- attack anyone that investigates, stall and delay and drag out >the investigation as long as possible, and then have White House >allies in Congress criticize us for the length of the >investigation. Unfortunately, this is a very cynical game >designed to keep the facts and the truth from the American >people. > >That brings us to today's meeting. Today, we will vote to offer >immunity to four witnesses. The Justice Department has provided >approval to the committee for immunizing all four. We have had >numerous meetings with the Justice Department and the minority >has been included in these discussions. It is my hope that we >will start to lower that stone wall a little bit. Let me talk for >just a few moments about these witnesses, and then we will >discuss them further during general debate. > >Kent La -- Kent La is a close business associate of Ted Sioeng. >He owns the company that distributes Ted Sioeng's Chinese >cigarettes in the United States. He contributed $50,000 to the >DNC. The few people who know Ted Sioeng and have been willing to >cooperate have all said that Kent La is beyond a doubt the most >knowledgeable person in the country about Sioeng and his >activities. > >Irene Wu -- Irene Wu was Johnny Chung's office manager and top >assistant at his company. She arranged his travel and attended >numerous fundraising events with him. Numerous witnesses who have >been interviewed by this Committee have reported that she >distributed reimbursements for conduit payments to President >Clinton's campaign. Irene Wu has already been immunized by the >Justice Department and testified before a grand jury. > >Nancy Lee -- Nancy Lee was also an employee of Johnny Chung. She >has also been implicated in soliciting conduit contributions and >reimbursing the donors with cash. She has also been given >immunity by the Justice Department and testified before a grand >jury. > >Larry Wong -- Larry Wong has been a long-time friend of >Democratic Fundraisers Gene and Nora Lum. The Lums have been a >subject of this Committee's investigation for quite some time. A >number of witnesses have informed the Committee that Larry Wong >should be very knowledgeable about the Lums' contributions. > >We have been involved in lengthy consultation with the Justice >Department about these witnesses. It has been a slow process -- >slower than I think it should have been. In some cases, we have >agreed not to pursue immunity for witnesses at the request of the >Justice Department. In other cases, we continue to try to work >out disagreements. However, the Justice Department has agreed to >immunity for these four witnesses. The Justice Department does >not oppose us granting immunity to any of these witnesses. > >Now, let me turn to a subject that I know that Mr. Waxman is >eager to discuss today -- the comments that I made about the >President over the recess. I would like to say a few things: > >Our Committee Report and any criminal referrals to the Justice >Department will be based on facts we gather and not on my >personal opinions. > >Perhaps I could have used different more diplomatic language to >describe how I feel, but the fact is -- I do not believe that the >President is a man of integrity. And I believe any objective >person who follows the facts would agree with me. > >Look again at that Wall -- I call it a Wall of Shame. 90 people >- -- many members of the present Administration or close friends of >the President have headed for the hills -- all of the President's >men and women are running and those that are willing to come >forward are attacked, villified and if possible destroyed because >they are willing to talk. > >And finally, on this subject, what I'm "out to get" -- is the >truth -- which is very hard to obtain because all of the >President's men and women are either fleeing the country or >taking the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination from criminal >prosecution. The American people have a right to know! > >I do believe after this much of our investigation, that if we >could prove 10% of what we believe to be fact, that this >Administration and the President would be in serious trouble! > >Let me once again restate this -- I may personally have some >strong feelings about the President. My feelings are what they >are. But as chairman of this Committee, I set my personal >feelings aside. I base my decisions on the facts. I have always >strived to do what is best for the country, and that is what I >will continue to do. > >We all have strong feelings about different people. On the floor >of the House yesterday, Mr. Waxman called me "vile" and >"reprehensible." A few months ago, Mr. Lantos compared one of our >witnesses -- a highly-respected lawyer and independent counsel -- >to a Nazi. A leading Democratic Senator even described the >President as "an unusually good liar." I would be very surprised >if Mr. Waxman or some of his colleagues haven't had private >conversations where they called me worse. > >My point is that we all have our personal opinions. As we do our >jobs here, we all have to put those personal feelings aside and >do what we believe is best. That is what I intend to do. > >Now let me address the matter of the Hubbell tapes. > >Mr. Waxman has expressed great dismay that we are releasing to >the public tapes made of Mr. Hubbell's phone calls while in >prison. He has called me vile and reprehensible. > >Let me tell you what I believe is reprehensible. Webster Hubbell >was the Associate Attorney General of the United States. He was >appointed by President Clinton to be one of the highest law >enforcement officials in the land. He is now a convicted felon. >He has taken the Fifth and refused to cooperate with this >Committee. The American people have an absolute right to know why >Webster Hubbell received a $100,000 payment from the Riady family >of Indonesia. Americans have an absolute right to know why Mr. >Hubbell received $700,000 in payments -- most of it from friends >and associates of the President -- at a time that Hubbell was >under criminal investigation and believed to be a key witness in >matters related to the President and First Lady. The American >people have an absolute right to expect that the Associate >Attorney General of the United States of America would not >stonewall a Congressional investigation. > >Mr. Hubbell is a key figure with close ties to the President, the >First Lady and figures such as James Riady and John Huang, as >well as other political allies of the White House. He has refused >to cooperate with this investigation and the independent >counsel's office has also been reported to be frustrated with his >lack of cooperation despite being provided a plea agreement. > >Let it be clear; when Mr. Hubbell was in jail, he was well aware >that his conversations were monitored and taped, as is common >practice in prison. These tapes were obtained legally by the >committee and the committee has followed the proper protocols >with respect to them. Last week, the working group acted to make >the tapes public. Mr. Waxman was involved in that process. > >As we go forward, we are going to limit to the extent possible >the release of purely personal information on the prison tapes. >We are going to focus the public release of tapes on those which >relate to matters bearing on this investigation such as possible >obstruction of investigations, White House pressure on Mr. >Hubbell or his family, his connections with the Riadys and John >Huang, his connections with other political associates of the >President, and his $700,000 or more in payments. Committee staff >are editing the transcripts of these tapes so that only >conversations that are relevant to this investigation are >released. Only a limited portion of these Hubbell prison tapes >will end up being made public -- the portions that have a bearing >on our investigation. This process is still on-going. So as you >can see, all of these hysterics have been for nothing and again >designed to deflect attention from the real facts. > >This is not the first time that hysterical charges have been >made. Mr. Waxman accused me of leaking two tapes of Webster >Hubbell to the press a few weeks ago. The problem is, he didn't >check the facts. He was wrong. The tapes in question were entered >into the Committee record during our Committee hearings with >Attorney General Janet Reno on December 9 under a unanimous >consent request by Mr. Shays. Here is a copy of the page from the >transcript. Mr. Lantos chaired that hearing. > >Yesterday on the House floor, Mr. Waxman said that we have spent >over $6 million on this investigation. Again, he is wrong. He >hasn't checked the facts. He isn't even in the ballpark. In fact, >this Committee spent less than $2.5 million on this investigation >last year. 25% of that was given to Mr. Waxman's staff. I think >most of his money was spent writing letters to me. > >A lot of these allegations and accusations are meant to distract >our attention from the real issue -- determining who was >responsible for the millions of dollars in foreign money and >illegal contributions made during the last campaign. But we will >not be distracted. > >I believe that there are probably some people at the White House >and at the DNC who hope that we will not begin to immunize some >of these witnesses. I am sure that there are more than a few >people who are not upset at the wall of silence. But we have a >job to do. We must begin to tear down the wall. We have an >obligation to get to the truth. The American people have a right >to know. > >We have honorable men and women on both sides of this Committee. >There is no question about that. It is time to set aside the >distractions and the side issues. It is time to start getting the >facts out. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle >will support immunity for these witnesses. The Justice Department >has no objections, and neither should we. > > >Published in the Apr. 27, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly >Copyright 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) >Reposting permitted with this message intact > >========================================================================== >This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If >you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #119 *************************