First section

Section 6 of 10 sections

Last section

Previous

Next

Commentary

Go back to the book index page...

Commentary

6-1

The remainder of this section is a chronology of reports on various Clinton Scandals, rendered first as brief summaries of what three major news magazines: Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report, were reporting on a weekly basis in early 1997, followed by brief summaries of selected additional articles published by these three magazines during the remainder of 1997. These are all other than the Paula Jones lawsuit that was to lead to the actual Clinton impeachment proceeding.

My point in presenting this summary is to demonstrate conclusively the unusual volume and scope of scandal related reporting that occured in 1997. This will be a foundation for showing that by 1998, the Lewinski scandal leading to President Clinton's impeachment may have been in some respects a diversion, to distract from other possible investigations of what was arguably far more serious wrongdoing. If you think you don't need to go over this foundation in detail, you can skip ahead to the "1988: A 'made for Television' Impeachment?" heading on page 30.

Before proceeding, I want to make two comments. First, while there were Republican campaign finance abuses in the 1996 election campaign, it appears to me that the Clinton fundraising scandals were far more extensive and serious than what Republicans did wrong in that Presidential campaign. Second, Congress was under pressure through 1997 to "do something" about campaign reform. Nothing resulted. The primary resistance came from the Republicans, who appeared to think the status quo favored them, if it could be enforced. More generally, by the 1996 election Corporate and special influence money had established a position of dominance over both Republican and Democratic incumbents in Congress. My perception is that there was, and is, tremendous pressure on all elected Federal officials not to disrupt the current campaign financing laws. The current status quo allows Corporations and special interests to decisively shape the legislation of Congress to their own ends. It appears that this fact is behind both the failure to date of Congress to enact meaningful campaign reform, and the failure to accomplish a serious investigation of the 1996 Presidential campaign fund raising violations. The related issues of Corporate and special interest dominance of the Federal political process, and campaign finance reform, will be examined further in Chapter Five. In the following paragraphs, magazine article titles are given in quotes.

Feb. 3, 1997: Time devoted four pages to "The Wake-up Call", showing an across-the-board resistance to campaign finance reform among Congress, corporate contributors, unions, issue advocacy groups and other special interests. Senator McCain was quoted as saying: "Let's accept the premise that Congress is not going to institute a reform that changes a system that dramatically favors incumbents." [25]Time reported: "Just last week voters were reminded again just how brazenly [Clinton's] White House has mixed fund raising with policymaking: ...the party organized a coffee at the White House that brought together its own top fund raisers with banking CEO's and a senior banking regulator, Eugene Ludwig, the Comptroller of the Currency." [26] Time also noted, regarding Clinton's recent enthusiasm for campaign finance reform: "...it is no wonder that Clinton is looking to change the subject...", from 1996 campaign abuses to campaign reform. [27] In "A Secret Cash Link", Time reported on the WhoDB, the taxpayer funded database "...used to track and nuture potential donors to the President's re-election effort." [28] Newsweek, in "The Role of a Lifetime" reported on Senator Fred Thompson's preparations to investigate several areas, including "how the president squeezed big contributors"; Webster Hubbell's receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars that appeared to be hush money; and Clinton campaign connections with potentially illegal Asian campaign contributions." [29]

Feb. 10, 1997: In "Clinton's next trial", US News devoted three pages to "Why illegal donations will bedevil the Democrats." The focus was on the DNC's admission of "accepting millions of dollars in questionable donations — largely from Asians", and the apparent breakdown in the standard practice of finding out such basic information about major contributors as legal residency, and whether a corporation has U.S. revenue. [30] In "The White House Shell Game", Newsweek reported on "How the Clinton campaign's frantic fund raising may have crossed the line." Newsweek reported that two weeks before the election, "Clinton was working a $1,500-a-person fund-raiser... when one of the guests slipped the president a Business card. On the back was written: My associate has $5 million he is prepared to donate to the DNC." [31] Newsweek reported White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes followed up by phone, saying "'the president asked me to handle this matter.'" Ickes was reported to have requested "$500,000 be wired directly into the DNC's bank account. It is against the law for a government official to raise campaign funds." [32] In "The Good Provider", Time reported on the activities of "Massachusetts nursing-home mogul" Alan Solomont, who jogged with Clinton, "gave the party $160,000 and helped raise $1.1 million more from nursing-home owners", lobbied for regulatory changes, and obtained new guidelines from a Medicare and Medicaid programs administrator. Time reported that "[consumer advocate] Toby Edelman says the guideline ensures that nursing homes will escape responsibility for the vast majority of offenses — like poor nutrition and lack of privacy..." [33]

Feb. 17, 1997: Both Time and Newsweek reported that Starr was investigating whether hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments made to Webster Hubbell from the time he resigned at the Justice Department to when he went to prison represented hush money. [34,35]

Feb. 24, 1997: Two articles, of 3 and 4 pages appeared, reporting emerging and still sketchy information about the "Asian connection" between Asian business interests and the DNC. In "Cash-and-Carry," Time reported on documents released by the White House related to confirmation hearings for Anthony Lake as CIA directory: "Time and again the President provided big contributors with the sort of encouragement that when presented in business circles in the Far East, might be mistaken for official credentials. This created, in effect, a shadow diplomatic corps. For businessmen abroad, a picture with the President is worth a lot more than a thousand words — or dollars." [36] In "A China Connection", Newsweek noted "a Washington Post article reporting that the [Chinese] embassy had been used to direct contributions 'from foreign sources' to the Democrats. The information came from 'electronic eavesdropping conducted by federal agencies'". Newsweek reported on a "Widening Asian Web" of DNC campaign contributions linked to Asian business interests. [37]

March 3, 1997: Newsweek reported vice-President Gore's involvement with the Asia connection: Gore had known Huang "almost as long as Clinton", and "Huang accompanied Gore on a three-day junket to Taiwan in 1989. The trip was paid for by the same Buddhist sect that hosted Gore at a fund-raiser in L.A. It was this Huang-engineered event... that first raised concerns about money laundering: penurious monks and nuns were listed as having contributed thousands to the DNC." [38] Time reported in "Johnny Come Often" that "Moneyman Chung" visited the White House 49 times, including once when "Democratic officials and lawyers... tell TIME that he gave $50,000 to the Democratic National Committee in exchange for the invitation for him and six business friends from China to watch Clinton." Time reported: "Yet what is also clear — and disturbing — about this White House moment is that Chung was leading a delegation of foreigners, who by law are strictly forbidden to give money to the President's party." Time reported New York Senator Patrick Moynihan called for an outside investigation. [39]

Go back to the book index page...

Last section

Previous