 |  |  |  |  |  |
II. THE MAJORITY REPEATEDLY MADE SENSATIONAL ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE FALSE OR UNSUBSTANTIATED
On February 25, 1997, at the outset of the Committee's investigation, Chairman Burton appeared on national television to discuss the Committee's campaign finance investigation. During the interview, he noted that "this thing could end up being much bigger than Watergate ever was." He reiterated this allegation to the Washington Post a few weeks later, stating: "This could end up being a Watergate type of thing. . . . This is big, big stuff. Every day it's getting bigger and bigger."
The Chairman's accusations generated headlines but were never substantiated. Over a year later, after hundreds of subpoenas and depositions, a senior Republican leadership aide had this to say about the Committee's investigation: "It's been very expensive, and it hasn't amounted to much." Similarly, the Wall Street Journal reported: "the panel . . . has conducted just a handful of hearings that disclosed no major new evidence against the White House."
Unfortunately, the pattern of "accuse first, investigate later" became a hallmark of the Committee's investigation. As one editorial observed, Chairman Burton has "variously accused the President of lying, covering up, obstructing justice and buying off witnesses -- and proved not a one of his accusations."
This tactic may have succeeded as a partisan political strategy. The majority's unsubstantiated allegations regularly received more media coverage than the actual facts. But as responsible congressional oversight, the approach was fundamentally flawed. It was unfair to those whose reputations were falsely maligned, misleading to the public, and a discredit to the House.
A. John Huang Did Not "Launder Money" through David Wang
The Committee's first campaign finance hearing, held on October 9, 1997, was based on an unsubstantiated allegation. The star witness at that hearing was supposed to be David Wang, a used car salesman from Southern California. The majority alleged that Mr. Wang's testimony would prove that DNC fundraiser John Huang had met with Mr. Wang in Los Angeles on August 16, 1996, to solicit and receive conduit contributions from Mr. Wang. Before the hearing, Chairman Burton claimed: "This is the first time we have found an active person at the DNC who was involved in money laundering. So Mr. Huang, while he was an executive at the DNC in the finance area, was laundering money and we will be able to prove that." In his opening statement, Chairman Burton stated that Mr. Wang's testimony was "the first time in my memory that we have seen evidence of such blatantly illegal activity by a senior national party official."
These allegations, however, turned out to be false. Using evidence submitted to the Committee, as well as information available in the public record, a minority staff report demonstrated that the Chairman's allegations were untrue. Mr. Huang's credit card records showed that Mr. Huang was in New York -- not Los Angeles -- on the day that Mr. Wang made the conduit contributions and allegedly met with John Huang. Moreover, affidavits and statements from witnesses who met and worked with Mr. Huang demonstrated that he was in New York during the period in question, including on the specific day Mr. Wang claimed to have met with Mr. Huang in Los Angeles.
Remarkably, the hearing was held even though the majority had received advance notice of the problems with Mr. Wang's testimony. Majority chief counsel Richard Bennett admitted during his questioning of Mr. Wang that "the day after your deposition, I was visited by John Huang's attorney . . . who insisted that his client was not with you in California on that particular day." Chairman Burton and his staff, however, never investigated this exculpatory evidence. Nor has Chairman Burton retracted the allegation, clarified the public record, or apologized for his mistakes.
B. The White House Videotapes Were Not "Cut Off Intentionally" or "Altered"
Less than a month later, Chairman Burton appeared as a guest on CBS's "Face the Nation" to accuse the White House of doctoring videotapes of White House coffees and other events. Chairman Burton stated: "Some of the tapes were cut off very abruptly and then you go to another tape. We think . . . maybe some of those tapes may have been cut off intentionally, they've been -- been, you know, altered in some way."
Chairman Burton's allegation of tape alteration received substantial press coverage in the days following his appearance. Articles about his allegation appeared in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and in wire stories. However, the allegation ultimately proved to be baseless. Investigations by both this Committee and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee failed to produce any evidence of tape alteration. In fact, the investigations produced compelling evidence that the tapes had not been altered in any way.
For example, on October 23, 1997, Chief Petty Officer Charles McGrath, the career military officer in charge of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA) Audiovisual Unit, engaged in the following dialogue with Senator Levin at a Senate hearing:
Mr. LEVIN. Now, the allegation has been made here that these tapes have been altered in some way. Have they been?
Mr. McGRATH. Not at all.
Mr. LEVIN. Well, we had Congressman Burton here make this allegation on Face the Nation last Sunday. Did you hear that allegation?
Mr. McGRATH. I did not see that, but I did hear that he made the allegation.
Mr. LEVIN. And you know that it's not true?
Mr. McGRATH. I know that for a fact.
Mr. McGrath's testimony before the Senate was echoed by other witnesses who testified before this Committee. For example, Steven Smith, a career Defense Department employee who worked in WHCA, was asked: "And you also said that you knew of no instance during your time where a tape was altered, doctored, edited, whatever words you want to use?" He replied, "That's correct." Similarly, Colonel Joseph Simmons (Ret.), the commander of the career military employees at WHCA, testified as follows:
MINORITY COUNSEL. Are you aware of any effort by any White House personnel to doctor or alter the tapes?
Mr. SIMMONS. No.
MINORITY COUNSEL. Do you believe that your men would have [per]mitted such an effort to take place or succeed, had they become aware of it?
Mr. SIMMONS. Absolutely not.
MINORITY COUNSEL. Do you believe they would have informed you . . . of any efforts to doctor, alter, or otherwise edit the tapes?
Mr. SIMMONS. I know they would have.
The Senate Committee even hired an independent expert, Paul Ginsburg, to review the videotapes. This expert also "determined . . . that there was no suspicious trickery."
Ultimately, the evidence that the videotapes were not altered received far less attention than Chairman Burton's initial allegations. Ranking Minority Member Waxman pointed this out at a hearing on November 6, 1997, and requested that Chairman Burton at least acknowledge his mistake and correct the public record. Chairman Burton has refused to retract this false accusation.
C. The Hudson Casino Decision Was Not a "Political Payoff"
In late 1997, the Committee commenced an extensive investigation into whether a decision by the Department of the Interior to deny an off-reservation Indian casino application was influenced by contributions made to the DNC by local tribes opposed to the application. Committee investigators took 18 depositions regarding the decision, including the depositions of ten Interior Department employees involved in the decision. Although these depositions established that the decision was based on the merits -- and not the influence of campaign contributions -- Chairman Burton and other Republican members persisted in making unsubstantiated, but widely reported, allegations of political corruption during four days of Committee hearings in January 1998.
Chairman Burton, for example, alleged that the Department's decision was a "political payoff." He summarized his core allegations during the first day of the Committee's hearings as follows:
$350,000 was given, which appears to be a political payoff; and then after that Mr. Duffy and Mr. Collier, two top executives at the Interior, go to work for the rich tribe. And then after that, Mr. Collier carries a $50 to $100,000 check to the DNC from the Shakopees. Now I don't know how anybody, even if they are blind, could not see these facts. . . . What we are talking about is whether or not the law was complied with, No. 1, whether or not campaign contributions were used to exert influence on people in the White House and at the Department of [the] Interior to kill this project. I think it is pretty clear, at least from my perspective it is pretty clear, that that's what happened.
The Chairman's allegations were echoed by other Committee Republicans, who claimed that the tribes contributing to the DNC were "successfully buying influence" and that "[t]his is an inquiry into whether corruption went to the highest levels of this Government."
These allegations, however, were not supported by the evidence. The evidence showed that the Department had sound reasons for rejecting the casino application. Approval of the application would have permitted the federal government to remove the land from local control for the benefit of distant Indian tribes. Not surprisingly, local officials from the Hudson town council to Wisconsin Republican Governor Tommy Thompson opposed such a move, as did the local congressman, Republican Rep. Steve Gunderson. Also, the land would have been used for casino gambling, which is illegal under Wisconsin law. In essence, the application would have allowed distant Indian tribes to impose casino gambling on an unwilling locality.
These facts led some Republican Committee members to concede that the decision was correct on the merits. Rep. Christopher Cox, for example, acknowledged that "if I were making the decision with a view to vindicating the interests of the community that I represented, I might have gone the same way. I might have said no dog track." Other Republican members also expressed their opposition to casino gambling.
Indeed, the majority's frequently stated opposition to gambling led Rep. Robert Wise, to observe that the opposite decision would have subjected the Department to a firestorm of criticism:
[H]ad you ruled the opposite way in the face of intense opposition from the State house on down in Wisconsin, basically Republican, much of it Republican dominated . . . we would be here today . . . conducting the same hearing, but it would be reversed. It would be . . . Why did you ignore the overwhelming local opposition in Wisconsin?
Moreover, the evidence showed that the decision to reject the application was made exclusively on the merits. Every Department employee who testified before the Committee denied that Department's decision had been influenced -- directly or indirectly -- by campaign contributions. George Skibine, the career civil servant who recommended that the application be rejected, categorically denied the majority's allegations:
I was not pressured in any way by anyone to reach a particular recommendation in this matter. You may choose to question the wisdom of my professional judgment in this matter, and reasonable people may disagree on the merits of my recommendation; however, it was made solely on the merits. Throughout this investigation I have always tried to tell the truth as I know it. I am a civil servant of two decades' standing who has chosen a career in public service because I believe it is a high calling. My integrity, honesty, and good faith have never before been challenged.
Hilda Manuel, deputy commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Mr. Skibine's supervisor, also denied that any improper influence had been brought to bear on the Department:
MINORITY COUNSEL. Were you ever contacted by the White House or the DNC about this project, the Hudson project?
Ms. MANUEL. Never.
MINORITY COUNSEL. And at the time of the decision, did you feel like the White House or the DNC tried to improperly influence the outcome?
Ms. MANUEL. No.
MINORITY COUNSEL. Do you think the decision was based on the record?
Ms. MANUEL. Yes.
Similarly, Deputy Assistant Secretary Michael Anderson, the final decision maker, testified that "I have absolutely no knowledge of any improper political influence or even, for that matter, from the DNC any rumors or suggestions that there was political corruption going on in this decision."
In addition, the majority was never able to establish any connection between the Department's decision and subsequent legal work done by two senior Department employees for the tribes opposed to the application. One of those employees, Tom Collier, testified that he was not even working at the Department at the time the decision was made:
I want to reiterate that there is no connection whatsoever to any work I ever did at the Department of Interior and my representation of the Shakopees. . . . I was not involved in this decision at the Department of [the] Interior. I had left the Department when this decision was made.
At the conclusion of the third day of hearings, it was apparent that the evidence before the Committee fundamentally conflicted with the majority's allegations. Rather than acknowledging this conflict, however, Chairman Burton continued to assert that the Department's decision "stinks" and "smells" based on the circumstantial evidence that the decision favored the tribes that had made contributions to the DNC.
On February 11, 1998, Attorney General Reno recommended that an independent counsel be appointed to investigate possible false statements to Congress by Secretary Babbitt relating to the Hudson casino decision. While the appointment of an independent counsel is a serious matter, the Attorney General's recommendation does not substantiate the majority's allegations. In fact, in the independent counsel application, Attorney General Reno stated that she "did not have specific and credible evidence to suggest that Secretary Babbitt had participated in any criminal activity to corrupt the decision making process." The independent counsel was appointed solely to investigate the truthfulness of Secretary Babbitt's statements concerning a meeting he had with a lobbyist on the Hudson casino application.
D. There Is No Evidence That the President Created a National Monument in Utah "in Exchange for Money from Indonesia's Lippo Group"
Chairman Burton also alleged that President Clinton created a national monument in Utah in order to benefit the Lippo Group. For example, on April 16, 1998, the Indianapolis Star reported: "Although he is not yet able to prove his suspicions, Burton's chief concern is that U.S. policies were compromised in exchange for campaign contributions. Among the possibilities: that Clinton declared 1.8 million acres of coal-rich southern Utah as a national park in exchange for money from Indonesia's Lippo Group. Indonesia is the chief competitor to Utah for low-polluting coal."
On June 11, 1998, Chairman Burton restated his allegation on the House floor:
Who would benefit from turning that into a national park so you cannot mine there? The Riady group, the Lippo Group, and Indonesia has the largest clean-burning coal facility, in southeast Asia. They were one of the largest contributors. . . . Could there be a connection there? We need to know. The American people have a right to know, but we do not know.
After nearly two years of investigation, however, the Committee has produced no evidence supporting the Chairman's allegations. To the contrary, as the Washington Times has reported, "hundreds of pages of administration documents turned over to congressional investigators show no Lippo connection."
E. The Hubbell Tapes Did Not Show a "Payoff" to Webster Hubbell
On April 30, 1998, Chairman Burton unilaterally released tapes of Webster Hubbell's prison conversations. According to the Chairman, these tapes proved that Mr. Hubbell had been paid to protect the President and the First Lady. Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Chairman Burton alleged that the tapes showed that "it appears to be a payoff -- it looks like the White House was trying to keep Webb Hubbell quiet and they've been successful."
It was subsequently revealed, however, that the tape transcripts released by Chairman Burton omitted exculpatory statements by Mr. Hubbell that contradicted the Chairman's allegation. For example, Chairman Burton omitted a passage where Mr. Hubbell tells his wife that "most of the articles are presupposing that . . . my silence is being bought. We know that's not true."
Moreover, the Chairman's allegation of a "payoff" was not supported by the evidence before the Committee. The majority devoted a substantial portion of the Committee's investigative resources to examining, in exhaustive detail, Mr. Hubbell's activities. Although there was little apparent connection to campaign finance issues, the majority investigated numerous subjects relating to Mr. Hubbell, including: Mr. Hubbell's discussions in 1993 with partners at the Rose Law Firm, whether Mr. Hubbell maintained documents relating to the "Whitewater" land deal, whether there were discussions at the White House about subpoenas from Independent Counsels Robert Fiske or Kenneth Starr to Mr. Hubbell, whether persons close to the President hired Mr. Hubbell in 1994 to obstruct Independent Counsel Starr's investigation, what income Mr. Hubbell reported on his tax returns, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Hubbell's resignation from the Department of Justice, the contacts with Mr. Hubbell after his resignation from the Department of Justice, contacts with Mr. Hubbell while he was incarcerated, contacts with Mr. Hubbell's wife while Mr. Hubbell was incarcerated, the trust funds set up for Mr. Hubbell's children and legal expenses when he went to prison, and Mr. Hubbell's reasons for asserting his Fifth Amendment rights.
In investigating these various topics, the majority deposed 42 people, took testimony through written interrogatories from 17 others, and requested documents from 96 companies and individuals. This extensive record shows that the witnesses who hired Mr. Hubbell did so because they had legitimate work for him to do, because he had valuable connections in the government, or out of compassion for a friend -- not as a "payoff" to obstruct justice. In fact, there is so little evidence of a "payoff" that the majority report is completely silent on this issue and the majority never held a single day of hearings on Mr. Hubbell.
During his appearance on "Meet the Press," Chairman Burton also alleged that a taped discussion between Mr. Hubbell and his attorney about "a move that moots everything" indicated that the President was considering a presidential pardon for Mr. Hubbell. According to Chairman Burton, the taped conversation "means that they thought the president might pardon Webb Hubbell right after the election and get him off the hook." This assertion also proved to be completely erroneous. On May 3, 1998, Mr. Hubbell's attorney, John Nields, appeared on ABC's "This Week" and explained that the conversation related to obtaining a grant of immunity from the Independent Counsel's office, which ultimately did happen.
Rather than acknowledging that his allegations could not be substantiated, Chairman Burton actually claimed that the public criticism caused by the release of the doctored transcripts validated his allegations of wrongdoing. As he put it, "When you hear the other side squealing like a bunch of pigs, then you understand you're getting somewhere near the truth."
F. The Immunized Witnesses Did Not Have "Direct Knowledge About How the Chinese Government Made Illegal Campaign Contributions"
On April 23, 1998, Chairman Burton scheduled a Committee meeting to seek immunity for four witnesses: Nancy Lee, Irene Wu, Kent La, and Larry Wong. These witnesses were individuals with varying degrees of relationship to individuals being investigated by the Committee. Ms. Lee and Ms. Wu were former employees of Johnny Chung. Mr. La was a business associate of Ted Sioeng, and Mr. Wong was a former employee of Nora Lum.
Committee Democrats objected. One week before the scheduled meeting, Chairman Burton had called the president a "scumbag" and said that he was "after" the President. These remarks caused the Democratic members of the Committee to oppose immunity. As Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton explained:
I regret and protest that I have been forced to vote against immunity in order to protest rank unfairness in this committee. I have been driven, as has every Member on my side been driven, to vote against what they wanted to vote for.
Moreover, several Committee members expressed concern that the Committee had not obtained proffers from the witnesses explaining what their testimony might be if granted immunity. Rep. Paul Kanjorski observed, "The Chair should have provided written proffers so that we could accurately ascertain whether the information to be derived by these witnesses is reasonable in terms of offering immunity."
Finally, Committee Democrats noted that Chairman Burton had not yet responded to their letter of October 22, 1997, asking for changes in the Committee's approach to immunity. That letter was written shortly after the Committee's October 9, 1997, hearing where the Committee had given a witness (David Wang) immunity for tax and immigration fraud in return for demonstrably false testimony. In the letter, Committee Democrats asked that the Chairman's unilateral powers be returned to the Committee before any additional witnesses were granted immunity.
Chairman Burton and many other Republican members and leaders responded to the minority's reluctance to support immunity by accusing the Democratic Committee members of obstructing the Committee's investigation. According to Republicans, Democrats voted against immunity to prevent the four witnesses from providing essential information about Chinese influence in the 1996 Presidential campaign. In a floor statement, Speaker Gingrich alleged that:
[A]t a time when the American people could have learned the truth from eyewitnesses who participated in laundering foreign illegal money, a threat to the entire fabric of our political system, for some reason the Democrats voted 190 against allowing immunity. That means they voted 190 to cover up this testimony, to block it from getting to the American people, and to prevent the Congress from being informed.
To support their claims of Democratic obstruction, Republican members of Congress repeatedly emphasized the importance of the four witnesses. For example, Rep. John Boehner, Republican Conference Chair, stated that the witnesses "have direct knowledge about how the Chinese government made illegal campaign contributions in an apparent attempt to influence our foreign policy" and opined that granting immunity "is about determining whether American lives have been put at risk." Similarly, Committee Republican Rep. Steven Horn expressed his belief that immunization of the four witnesses was "absolutely essential." Chairman Burton stated that the witnesses would be "very knowledgeable" about contributions made by Nora and Gene Lum and would "shed new light" on the activities of Johnny Chung and Ted Sioeng.
All of these allegations turned out to be wrong. On June 23, 1998, after Chairman Burton agreed to some changes to the Committee rules relating to subpoenas, document release, and depositions, the Democratic members agreed to support immunity for the four witnesses. The testimony that the Committee subsequently obtained from the witnesses showed that they had no knowledge -- direct or indirect -- about illegal Chinese campaign contributions.
For example, during the deposition of Nancy Lee, the Committee learned that for most of Ms. Lee's tenure as an employee of Mr. Chung's company, she worked part-time between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 12 midnight and rarely saw Mr. Chung. Ms. Lee's lack of knowledge about Johnny Chung's political activities was demonstrated during the minority counsel's questioning:
MINORITY COUNSEL. Your lawyer said that you had no knowledge about Johnny Chung's source of funds, where he got his money from. Is that true?
Ms. LEE. Yes.
* * *
MINORITY COUNSEL. And that you don't -- do you know about whether Johnny Chung got any money from any citizen of China or any business from China for a political contribution here in the United States?
Ms. LEE. I don't know.
MINORITY COUNSEL. Do you know whether there was any plan by the Chinese government to influence the 1996 American election? Do you know anything about that?
Ms. LEE. No idea.
Similarly, Irene Wu had no "direct knowledge" -- or even indirect knowledge -- regarding any Chinese efforts to influence the 1996 elections. She did not provide the Committee with any information on whether Johnny Chung received money from the Chinese government, whether there was a Chinese plan to influence the 1996 elections, or whether Mr. Chung received any money from Chinese businesses unrelated to legitimate business transactions. In fact, she testified as follows:
MINORITY COUNSEL. Do you have any knowledge whether the Chinese government ever reimbursed Johnny Chung for a political contribution?
Ms. WU. I don't.
* * *
MINORITY COUNSEL. Do you know whether Johnny Chung ever received any money from any Chinese citizen or business in order to make a political contribution?
Ms. WU. I don't know.
* * *
MINORITY COUNSEL. Do you know whether there was a plan by the Chinese government to influence the 1996 American election through political contributions?
Ms. WU. I don't know.
Republican allegations concerning Larry Wong's knowledge also proved to be baseless. At an April 23, 1998, Committee meeting, Rep. John Shadegg stated that Larry Wong "is believed to have relevant information regarding the conduit for contributions made by the Lums and others in the 1992 fund-raising by John Huang and James Riady." The reality, however, was that Mr. Wong's primary responsibilities were to register voters and serve as a volunteer cook. The sum total of his testimony regarding James Riady is as follows:
MINORITY COUNSEL. Did Nora ever discuss meeting James Riady?
Mr. WONG. James who?
* * *
MINORITY COUNSEL. James Riady.
Mr. WONG. No.
Mr. Wong also provided minimal information to the Committee concerning John Huang.
The last immunized witness was Kent La, a business associate of Ted Sioeng. An agreement with the Justice Department has prevented the Committee from releasing the transcript of Mr. La's deposition. At a Committee hearing, however, Rep. Waxman stated: "The four witnesses . . . don't know anything about transferring technology to China. They don't know anything about possible campaign contributions from the Chinese Government."
Ironically, after insisting on the importance of the immunized witnesses, the majority substantially delayed public access to their testimony. At a Committee hearing on August 4, 1998, Democratic Rep. Jim Turner moved to make public the depositions of Ms. Lee, Ms. Wu, and Mr. Wong. Chairman Burton initially opposed this motion, stating his view that "it is premature to release those [depositions] right now." Shortly thereafter, he reversed himself and agreed to release the depositions on August 14, 1998. The depositions, however, were not released until nearly a month later. Moreover, the majority abruptly and without explanation canceled the hearing scheduled for September 10, 1998, at which Ms. Wu was supposed to testify.
G. President Clinton Did Not "Endorse" the Candidacy of a Foreign Leader in Exchange for Campaign Contributions
At a Committee hearing on October 8, 1997, Chairman Burton released a "proffer" his staff had obtained from Nora and Gene Lum, two Democratic fundraisers who pled guilty to facilitating illegal conduit contributions in 1994 and 1995. Chairman Burton alleged that if immunized, the Lums' testimony would show that "there was real corruption in the financing of campaigns in this country and that this corruption may have affected our foreign policy and possibly our national security." Specifically, the Lums' proffer suggested that during the 1992 campaign, then-candidate Clinton "endorsed" the candidacy of a foreign leader in exchange for a campaign contribution. This proffer was widely reported in the press.
To investigate this allegation and other allegations involving the Lums, the Committee sent out almost 200 information requests -- close to one-sixth of the total information requests for the entire investigation. The Committee's sprawling inquiry into the Lums resulted in the receipt of over 40,000 pages of documents, 50 audiotapes, and a videotape, and involved numerous depositions.
This extensive investigation, however, uncovered no evidence to substantiate the proffer's dramatic allegations. In fact, the investigation uncovered so little evidence to corroborate the allegations that the majority's final report does not even discuss the Lums. There has been no public acknowledgment by Chairman Burton of his failure to substantiate the well-publicized proffer.
H. The Committee Failed to Substantiate the Existence of a "Massive Scheme" to Funnel Foreign Contributions into the U.S.
Perhaps the most significant allegation made during the campaign finance investigation was the allegation that there was a conspiracy between the Chinese government and the Clinton Administration to violate federal campaign finance laws and improperly influence the outcome of the 1996 presidential election. At the outset of the investigation, Chairman Burton raised the possibility of such a conspiracy, stating:
If the White House or anybody connected with the White House was selling or giving information to the Chinese in exchange for political contributions, then we have to look into it because that's a felony, and you're selling this country's security -- economic security or whatever to a communist power.
A few months later, Chairman Burton alleged the existence of a "massive" Chinese conspiracy:
We are investigating a possible massive scheme . . . of funneling millions of dollars in foreign money into the U.S. electoral system. We are investigating allegations that the Chinese government at the highest levels decided to infiltrate our political system.
Although the Committee's investigation veered off in many different directions, the allegation of a Chinese conspiracy remained the Committee's primary focus. To prove this allegation, the Committee subpoenaed over 1.5 million pages of documents, took hundreds of hours of depositions, and spent millions of taxpayer dollars. None of the witnesses deposed by the Committee, however, corroborated the existence of such a conspiracy. In fact, as discussed above, even the witnesses who the majority alleged would have "direct knowledge" of a Chinese conspiracy, such as Irene Wu and Nancy Lee, turned out to have no such knowledge. Not one of the over 1.5 million pages of documents subpoenaed by the Committee provided evidence of a Chinese conspiracy.
It is, of course, nearly impossible to prove a negative. In this case, the minority cannot prove that there was not a secret conspiracy between the Chinese government and the Clinton Administration to violate federal campaign finance laws. Nonetheless, no evidence provided to the Committee substantiates the claim that the Administration was "selling or giving information to the Chinese in exchange for political contributions." If there was a "massive" Chinese conspiracy to influence American elections, it eluded detection by the Committee.
I. Other Unsubstantiated Republican Allegations
There were many other unsubstantiated allegations made by Republican leaders during the course of the Committee's campaign finance investigation. These include:
The Allegation that the Clinton Administration Was Selling Burial Plots in Arlington National Cemetery. In November 1997, numerous Republican leaders drew on unsubstantiated reports by conservative radio talk shows and publications to accuse the Clinton Administration of selling burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. Speaker Gingrich, Sen. Arlen Specter, and other Republicans called for an immediate investigation, and Chairman Burton declared his intention to investigate the matter. These allegations, however, turned out to lack any foundation in fact. An independent investigation by the GAO determined that political contributions played no role whatsoever in the granting of Arlington Cemetery waivers.
The Allegation that Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary Sold Access to a Meeting. In August 1998, several Republican leaders called for an independent counsel to investigate allegations that former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary had, in effect, "shaken down" Johnny Chung by requiring him to make a donation to the charity Africare as a precondition to a meeting with her. For example, Rep. Gerald Solomon, the Chairman of the House Rules Committee, criticized the Attorney General for being "intransigent" in refusing to appoint an independent counsel. An investigation by the Department of Justice, however, found "no evidence that Mrs. O'Leary had anything to do with the solicitation of the charitable donation." In fact, it turned out that Secretary O'Leary's first contact with Mr. Chung occurred after Mr. Chung had made his contribution, making the allegation factually impossible.
The Allegation that the President and the First Lady Conspired with the DNC to Steal the President's Christmas Card List. After an extensive investigation by the Committee and the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, Rep. David McIntosh alleged that he had evidence that the President, the First Lady, and other individuals were involved in the "theft" of government property and resources, specifically the President's Christmas card list and other information from the White House database. According to the majority report on the matter, the Committee acted to "expose the evidence of the President's possible involvement in the theft of government property and his abuse of power." In fact, as documented in detail in the minority views, not one witness deposed or interviewed by the Committee supported Rep. McIntosh's allegations.
The Allegation that the Justice Department Retaliated Against Chairman Burton. On September 14, 1997, Chairman Burton alleged on national television that the Justice Department was investigating him for possible campaign fundraising violations in retaliation for his efforts to investigate President Clinton. Chairman Burton stated that "it's kind of sad and scary . . . that you're having agencies of the federal government going after almost anybody who's looking into allegations against this president and this administration." Although it is true that the Justice Department is investigating Chairman Burton's fundraising practices, the Department's investigation was triggered by allegations by lobbyist Mark Siegel that Chairman Burton had pressured him for campaign contributions.
Many other sensational but unsubstantiated allegations regarding the Clinton Administration were made by Committee Republicans in the 104th Congress. These allegations included the following:
The Allegation that the White House Directed the IRS and FBI to Investigate Political Enemies. Numerous Republicans alleged that the White House misused the IRS and the FBI to investigate and harass the White House travel office employees. For example, Rep. John Mica charged that the travel office firings "involved the abuse of the FBI and the IRS." Rep. Dan Burton claimed that "somebody at the White House was talking to the IRS about an investigation. That is illegal." Rep. Christopher Shays alleged that "the White House misused the FBI and the Justice Department to go after an innocent man."
These allegations were not supported by the evidence. The General Accounting Office determined that "FBI and IRS officials' actions during the period . . . were reasonable and consistent with the agencies' normal procedures" and that there was "no evidence that White House staff made any contact with IRS about the Travel Office matter." The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility found that the FBI acted properly throughout the travel office investigation. The Department of the Treasury Inspector General also determined that there was no contact between the White House and the IRS.
The Allegation that the White House Illegally Fired the Travel Office Employees. Republicans also alleged that the White House fired the employees of the White House travel office so that White House travel business would be given to Harry Thomason, a Clinton political supporter. For example, the Committee report concluded that "the motive for the firings was political cronyism: the President sought to reward his friend, Harry Thomason, with the spoils of the White House travel business." Similarly, Chairman Clinger alleged, "When the White House wanted to find a base for political friends seeking further business with the Federal Government, they chose the White House Travel Office."
These allegations were not supported by the evidence. The FBI and the Department of Justice determined that there was substantial evidence that there was financial mismanagement in the travel office, including the deposit of approximately $54,000 in checks and $14,000 in cash into the travel office director's personal bank account. This finding was supported by an independent review conducted by KPMG Peat Marwick. The allegations were also reviewed by a federal grand jury, which found sufficient evidence to indict the travel office director.
The Allegation that the White House Collected FBI Files for an "Enemies List". During the Filegate investigation, many Republicans alleged that the White House acquired the FBI files of former employees to create a list of political enemies. The Committee report, for example, found that "many of the individuals were political appointees of the Reagan and Bush administrations. This leads to the possibility that the Clinton administration was attempting to prepare a political ‘hit list' or ‘enemies list' with the most sensitive and private information." Rep. Dan Burton charged that one "could only deduct [sic] that they were going to be used for political purposes." Despite these allegations and four days of hearings on the FBI file issue, however, the Committee uncovered no evidence that these files were ever used for any political purpose.
The Allegation that Vince Foster Was Murdered. In a floor speech on November 20, 1995, Chairman Burton revealed that he and other Republican members had conducted their own investigation into the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster. According to Chairman Burton, this investigation raised the possibility that Mr. Foster had been murdered. In fact, however, independent investigations by the Federal Park Police, Independent Counsel Robert Fiske, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr all concluded that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing in connection with Mr. Foster's tragic suicide.
Unfortunately, these unsubstantiated allegations have been given legitimacy by the irresponsible use of the congressional oversight process. As Rep. Waxman stated at one Committee hearing, "Our committee has been the leader in creating a new species of congressional oversight. The basis for an accusation is no longer limited to whether something actually happened; the new standard is that it could have happened. Then the burden shifts to the accused to disprove it."
Continue to Section III, The Majority Report Has Uncovered Little New Information
Return to the table of contents