Donation Probe Figures May Have Shot at Immunity

Investigators looking into the web of illegal and improper campaign contributions to the Democratic Party have encountered major obstacles and eventually may be compelled to consider immunity from prosecution for several important figures to obtain essential information, according to interviews with numerous attorneys familiar with the process.

Both the Justice Department and Congress are attempting to determine whether top Democratic Party or White House officials were involved in efforts to solicit improper donations or give donors improper benefits. They are also seeking evidence of influence-buying by the Chinese government.

The investigations, still in early phases, already are running up against the harsh reality that numerous witnesses are out of reach overseas, many documents are beyond subpoena in foreign governments or companies and key figures are refusing to cooperate.

“There are many things that make this extremely difficult,” said a Senate staff member close to the inquiry. “It is incredibly broad, with the various people, entities and countries that are involved. We have numerous witnesses who are key players who have either taken the 5th Amendment or left the country or both. We have key witnesses who live in other countries, and there are several countries involved.”

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has been unable to find John K.H. Lee, the South Korean businessman whose company’s illegal $250,000 contribution to the Democrats triggered the entire controversy last fall.

And sources said lawyers for John Huang, the former Democratic fund-raiser and Commerce Department official at the center of the controversy, have indicated that he will refuse to testify to congressional panels unless they guarantee him that his testimony will not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings.

Huang’s situation points up the colliding mandates of the congressional investigating committees and the Justice Department. Congress is seeking information as the basis for legislation to prevent future campaign fund-raising abuses. The Justice Department is looking to prosecute those who have broken the laws already on the books.

“They are at odds almost from the start,” said Stanley M. Brand, a former general counsel to the House. “The goal of one is to indict and try people for crimes. The goal of the other is to gather information for legislation.”

For Congress, granting immunity from prosecution can compel testimony from witnesses who otherwise invoke their 5th Amendment right to avoid incriminating themselves. One result can be compelling testimony for the television cameras.

While immunity for testimony at congressional hearings does not rule out future prosecution, it prevents the use of the testimony in legal proceedings--or even the exposure of witnesses to the testimony. Justice Department and congressional sources said it is too early to make any decisions about immunity for Huang or other figures in the campaign fund-raising controversy.

In the Iran-Contra scandal, testimony under grants of immunity at congressional hearings worked to the advantage of White House aides Oliver L. North and John M. Poindexter. A federal appeals court dismissed all charges against them after ruling that their public testimony before Congress had tainted the criminal cases against them.

This is far from the only obstacle faced by those investigating the campaign fund-raising controversy. Some key figures, officials said, are overseas and sheltered behind international treaties and extradition limits. That is making this in many ways a tougher case for investigators than Whitewater and some other past political controversies. Seeking to obtain testimony from overseas sources involves cumbersome negotiations between governments, which may prove fruitless in the end.

Among those currently outside the United States are Thai businesswoman and Democratic donor Pauline Kanchanalak, who is in Bangkok; Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie, a former Arkansas restaurant owner and international business consultant who is in Asia, and Mochtar and James Riady, the wealthy Indonesian father and son who have backed Clinton’s campaigns and formerly employed Huang.

Their testimony would be crucial in the criminal investigation and they would be stars of any congressional hearing. But none is expected to return to this country any time soon.

“We can’t force anyone who’s overseas to come here to testify,” a Justice Department official said. “You can only extradite someone who’s been charged with a crime. And no charges have been returned so far. But I doubt that any crimes arising from this investigation would be extraditable offenses anyway.”

The problems are stirring echoes of Tongsun Park, the flamboyant South Korean businessman who remained in Seoul amid federal investigations of congressional influence-buying in the late 1970s. After eight weeks of intense negotiations, Park agreed to testify, first in Korea and then in the United States, in exchange for full immunity from prosecution.

Former Atty. Gen. Benjamin R. Civiletti, who handled the Park negotiations for the Justice Department, said foreign witnesses represent “a problem of a monumental scale. It’s like witnesses who are deceased or have disappeared. It makes things excruciatingly difficult.”

Congressional investigators emphasize that while these are difficult hurdles, they are not insurmountable.

“This is not a trial. We do not have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt,” said a Senate staff member familiar with the inquiry. “We want to shed as much light as we can on these issues for the American people and lawmakers and let them reach their own conclusions.”

The Governmental Affairs Committee, headed by Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), plans to dispatch investigators overseas to talk to cooperative witnesses, sources said. Where such cooperation is not forthcoming, investigators will seek to interview family members, friends and colleagues while simultaneously building a paper trail through government and corporate records. Several investigators have been granted top-secret security clearance as well.

The committee, which has sent out 63 subpoenas, has received more than 3,000 pages of documents in recent weeks and intends ultimately to collect as many as a million pages, said a source close to the inquiry. About 200 to 300 witnesses are expected to be interviewed.

The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, led by Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), which is also investigating the donations controversy, has issued scores of subpoenas as well.

Huang, who appears to loom as the pivotal figure in this drama, is under investigation for whether he passed sensitive trade information to the Riadys--or to the Chinese government--as a Commerce Department official. He has provided 1,700 pages of documents to Congress but has demanded limited immunity before turning over personal documents.

“He’s the central figure. He’s critical,” said a Senate staff member. Deciding whether or not to grant him immunity, the aide said, “would be a tough one.”

Huang’s attorney, John C. Keeney Jr., declined to discuss the issue.

Robert S. Bennett, a prominent Washington lawyer who is representing former White House aide Harold M. Ickes, predicted that few witnesses will testify without immunity, given the partisan nature of the Republican-led inquiries.

“Partisanship plays such a tremendous role on both sides of the aisle that it’s almost guaranteed these committees will refer perjury prosecutions to the Justice Department if there’s even the slightest inconsistency in the testimony of a witness, or even if they say something to one committee and not to another,” Bennett said. “The congressional investigators know where they want to go. They have an agenda and they’re not impartial.”

Nonetheless, Bennett said, he has not decided how Ickes will respond if called to testify.

The prospect of two major congressional investigations vying for the same documents and the same witnesses and negotiating over the terms of the same testimony could make for abundant confusion, say lawyers with experience in such matters.

“They’re going to be stepping on each other’s witnesses,” said a defense attorney who has worked with Congress on past inquiries. “This is very wasteful and duplicative, and it’s probably going to make the two bodies look like the Keystone Kops.”

Times staff writer Marc Lacey and researcher Lianne Hart contributed to this story.