Chapter One -- Part C The Nixon-Clinton Impeachment Tragedy |
Too many Scandals? — The "Forgotten Year" of 1997
During the 1996 campaign, Ross Perot warned Clinton’s re-election would bring "A Second Watergate". As we have seen, Perot was right in his perception of how serious the Clinton 1996 campaign violations really were. At the time, Mr. Perot was not permitted to participate in the 1996 debates. He had little success in advancing Clinton's fund raising as an issue.
The details of the 1996 Clinton campaign violations emerged steadily, but slowly, during 1997. Even as early as the Election ’96 Edition, the U.S. News and World Report cover story included these words: "...the potential for a scandal-marred second Clinton term is already quite high." That article included two pages on various scandal-related issues, and a heading called "Ethics Watch" highlighting the following sentence: "The allegations and admissions of sleazy campaign financing and funny foreign money still have significant forward momentum, with the Justice Department looking into fund-raising tactics by the Democratic National Committee’s John Huang. On Capitol Hill, Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson ... is already preparing for hearings on the issue." [24]
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 invesigation. [39]
March 10, 1997: In a 7 page "Strange Bedfellows", Newsweek recounted the growing Clinton fund raising scandal, with emphasis on how the White House fund raising operation worked. Newsweek noted the DNC "methodically listed the amount 'projected' to be raised from each event, and the cash each eventually took in." Former White House counsel Abner Mikva was quoted as saying, had he known about the coffees: "we would have put a stop to it. Any Philadelphia lawyer knows you don't raise money in a government building. And if they were budgeting money for them, that's raising money." [40] In a 2 page "On the Trail of a 'China Connection''', Newsweek's Asian Web of Feb. 24 had now become "the Asian — Clintonite Axis". Newsweek reported: "The Democrats have now returned $3 million in suspect foreign contributions." This included "$253,000 contributed by [Washington lobbyist Pauline] Kanchanalak", whose office was raided by the FBI based on reports of documents being destroyed. Newsweek also reported: "Two years ago a top Commerce official watched in some amazement as Kanchanalak came into the office of Ron Brown, kissed him on the cheek and then sat in on a discussion of the sale of U.S. warplanes to the Thai government." [41] In a sarcastic 4 page "Step Right Up", Time also gave an extensive summary of abuses in the White House fundraising operation, and reported that Democratic Senators Moynihan, Feingold and Wellstone wanted a special counsel to investigate. Time also reported the Republicans were trying to avoid an investigation of Congressional fund raising, and any attempt to condition a more vigorous investigation on Republican willingness to take up campaign finance reform in Congress. [42]
On March 17, 1997, US News gave the Clinton Scandals a kind of permanent, institutional status. In a short article titled "Introducing the Scandometer", they offered this description of a semispherical object that looked a little like a parking meter, with a needle and a scale from one to ten (ten = worst): "The flood of scandal stories has made it hard to judge each development’s relative importance. Newspapers and TV shows don’t help when, in the name of fairness, they heap equal amounts of opprobrium in all directions. The Scandometer attempts to render a concise, dispassionate judgement about the latest twist and place it in context." [43]
On April 14, 1997, US News reported: "Each week brings fresh evidence that the White House traded access for campaign donations. And each week the public seems to respond with an irritable resignation". [44]
Extensive reporting on the Clinton Scandals continued throughout 1997. On July 14, 1997, Time, Newsweek and US News all ran significant articles building up to the long-awaited Senate hearings on campaign finance abuse. On July 21, 1997, Time reported of the first week: "It was such a false start, it almost looked as if it had been planned that way. And in a way it was. Thompson may yet dream of using the hearings to drive reform, but there aren't many elected officials in either party who want him to tear apart the system that has fed them so well." [45]
On August 31, 1997, US News reported "hand-written notations by David Strauss, a former Gore staffer... 65% soft/35% hard — could threaten Gore's claim that he never raised hard money." [46] Attorney General Reno's reasoning in not requesting an independent counsel was based on the assumption Gore had not been involved in telephoning to raise any hard money. The death of Princess Diana effectively pre-empted reporting in early September. On September 15, Time ran a 2 page "Gore's Turn to Squirm" on page 86, reporting on the testimony of Buddhist nuns, who recounted to a Senate Committee "how they were badgered into laundering campaign money when the Vice President visited their temple." [47]
On September 29, 1997, US News ran "Can anyone sort this out?", a kind of recap of what had gone wrong to date with various efforts to investigate the Clinton Scandals. US News reported: "When the many parts of the scandal-discovery machine ground into action long months ago, a thorough explanation of the abuses seemed a near certainty. If the House messed up, Thompson’s Senate panel would find a way to carry on. If his committee proved unfair, the Justice Department’s professional investigators would be there. If even they weren’t up to the job, the attorney general could always request an independent counsel. Now, none of these options seems very good. In each case, some combination of political motives, legal restrictions, and human error has undermined the credibility of the investigation." Regarding the Justice Department's ability to conduct an effective preliminary investigation, US News noted: "They may not subpoena documents, they can't grant immunity from prosecution, and they can't launch a grand jury investigation. These powers are reserved for an independent counsel." [48]
As 1997 wound down, there were calls for Reno to appoint an independent counsel for several targets of investigation, including President Clinton, vice-President Gore, the White House, and former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary. Reno started 30 day or 90 day reviews on all of these cases, but as noted above, the ability of such reviews to be effective was severely limited. On October 20, 1997, Newsweek reported the White House had failed to tell Attorney General Reno about 44 videotapes of White House coffees, until shortly after Reno had "issued a letter essentially clearing the White House of wrongdoing." [49] Time had reported a week earlier "All materials related to the coffees... were subpoenaed earlier this year by the Justice Department and two congressional panels." [50]
On October 20, 1997, in "Sinister obstruction? Or just incompetence?" US News summarized various instances where it appeared the White House might be withholding evidence, including the withholding of the 44 White House coffee videotapes. Other instances were recounted, including: 1) "Gore phone calls": the discovery that money raised by Gore went into "hard money" accounts followed from a legal opinion forcing a DNC lawyer to discuss meetings with White House officials. 2) "The Buddhist Temple": The White House turned over relevant E-mails three hours after a deposition — the E-mails were needed to prepare for the deposition. 3) "DNC Documents": On August 4, 1997, 4,000 pages were turned over relating to DNC former financial director Richard Sullivan, they were due April 30, and were needed for Senate testimony given July 9. 4) "White House Visits": On July 29, 1997 the administration turned over documents, sought since May, needed in connection with testimony given earlier that day, regarding funneling foreign money to the DNC. [51]
Follow-up on the White House Coffee videotapes continued with a 1 page Time article on October 27, 1997, and a 1 page Newsweek article on November 3. The tapes indicated areas for follow-up questioning, in particular Time's report of a statement by Clinton: "The President thanks the assembled guests for giving generously to the D.N.C. 'issues' ad campaign that supports his budget policies. He goes on: 'We realized we could run these ads through the Democratic Party, which means we could raise money in $20,000, $50,000 and $100,000 blocks' — instead of in increments of $1,000 per doner, the limit on contributions to specific candidates like, for instance, Bill Clinton." [52]
On December 15, 1997 US News reported Reno had decided based on a 90 day preliminary investigation that there would be no independent counsel investigation of Gore. [53]
Copyright © 2000, Robert S. Carney Jr., 4232 Colfax Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55409. All rights reserved.