Democrats Put Campaign Panel Leader on Spot

Sen. Fred Thompson, who is heading the Senate investigation of campaign fund-raising practices, was forced onto the defensive Sunday after Democrats sought--and today will receive--an FBI briefing to ascertain whether he went too far last week in claiming China illegally funneled money into U.S. political campaigns.

Adding to Thompson’s discomfort, a Justice Department official suggested that the Tennessee Republican had imposed his own conclusions on the evidence, obtained by U.S. intelligence agencies.

The questioning of Thompson’s judgment was the latest in a string of problems and controversies to bedevil his investigation. In addition to balky witnesses and sometimes-murky evidence, his Governmental Affairs Committee has struggled with partisan divisions made all the more intense by Democratic fears that the campaign-finance controversy could hurt them in next year’s congressional elections.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said Sunday that he asked for today’s closed-door FBI briefing “to see if Sen. Thompson has seen something I haven’t.”

His disclosure of the briefing--to be open to all members of the committee--renewed the partisan debate over allegations Thompson made at the start of the panel’s hearings Tuesday, when he cited classified documents that he said referred to “a Chinese plan to subvert our election process.”

Appearing Sunday on ABC-TV’s “This Week,” the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. John Glenn of Ohio, repeated his view that Thompson’s conclusion lacked factual basis.

“He swung a broader loop on some of the conclusions than I would swing,” Glenn said.

Both Lieberman and Glenn said they have seen the same classified materials that they believe prompted Thompson to reach his controversial conclusions.

“I don’t see it there,” Lieberman said on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation.”

*

But Republican members of the committee quickly came to Thompson’s defense. Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) said on the same program that he too has seen the documents, “and I think this statement that he [Thompson] made at the beginning of the hearing is actually very correct.”

Another committee Republican, Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire, agreed.

” . . . I think in essence what Sen. Thompson has said in his opening remarks was correct. There was an effort, and the documentation is there to prove that,” Smith said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

The issue, so far as Thompson’s statement is concerned, appears to be whether Beijing followed through on its plan and actually put money into candidates’ coffers. Sources familiar with the evidence say the intelligence information makes it clear that such a plan was formulated, but whether it shows the scheme was successfully carried out is open to question. The Chinese government has denied the allegations.

Thompson said in his opening statement at the hearings that his conclusion was based on confidential documents, some of which had been provided by the Justice Department.

But Assistant Atty. Gen. Andrew Fois, in a July 11 letter to Thompson released by the Justice Department on Sunday, seemed to distance the department from Thompson’s remarks, stating it had conducted a review “only for the purpose of protecting classified information and the integrity of the pending criminal investigation” into fund-raising for last year’s presidential campaign.

“You neither requested nor received assessments of the accuracy of any conclusions you drew from information available to the committee,” Fois wrote. “Those conclusions, of course, are your own and not necessarily those of the law enforcement or intelligence communities.”

Thompson has said the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency reviewed his opening statement before he delivered it.

And he said Sunday on NBC-TV’s “Meet the Press” that “I would not go out and make a statement like this if it was not on solid ground and if I had not had the opportunity to let some people see this before I did it. . . .”

On another matter, Thompson expressed doubt that John Huang, the former Democratic fund-raiser and Commerce Department official who is a key figure in the probe, would be granted limited immunity to testify before the committee.

“There is no such thing as partial immunity,” Thompson said. “You either have to give total and complete immunity or not.”

Huang’s lawyer, Ty Cobb, said on the NBC and CBS programs that his client is eager to testify before the committee and is willing to waive immunity for statements he makes concerning espionage and misuse of classified documents.

Cobb suggested that Huang violated election-money laws. But, Cobb said, “He is not a spy” and “I don’t think they will ever be able to tie my client” to suggestions he was a conduit for illegal Chinese money.

*

The Justice Department says it opposes granting limited immunity, a maneuver that sidetracked prosecutions of Reagan administration figures Oliver L. North and John M. Poindexter after the Iran-Contra hearings. Huang’s proposal would bar use of his statements in any election-law case but allow their use in any prosecution concerning espionage.

Glenn said he thought Huang should be allowed to respond to the circumstantial-evidence case he said Republicans would build against him. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), another member of the panel who appeared on the CBS program, said he thought “we lawyers can work it out so limited immunity can be granted here.”

Nickles questioned the legality of limited immunity, but said, “I want him to testify bad enough that I might be willing to do something.”

Times wire services contributed to this story.

* WASHINGTON OUTLOOK

Sen. Fred Thompson’s charges may be buying trouble for the nation’s China policy. A5