When Heat Is On, Politicos Are Quick to Sign Off

The next time you receive a letter from a politician, remember this: The official whose signature is at the bottom may not have written it, may not have signed it and, if push comes to shove, may deny any knowledge of it.

That’s one truth that has emerged from two months of Senate hearings on campaign fund-raising abuses.

During appearances before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, politicians repeatedly have been confronted with documents bearing their signatures or even written in their own handwriting. And what has appeared in black and white repeatedly has turned gray as politicians have distanced themselves from the words before them.

Take an Aug. 22, 1996, letter signed by former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour thanking the Taiwan government’s U.S. representative for a $25,000 contribution to a GOP think tank. Democrats on the committee produced the correspondence to show that Barbour must have known that his party was taking in money from overseas, a violation of U.S. law.

“It’s not a letter that I wrote,” Barbour insisted, the correspondence displayed on a video screen before him.

He then conceded he may have signed it, albeit without knowing its contents. “It appears that I signed the letter. I don’t think that’s an auto-pen. A lot of my correspondence was signed by auto-pen. But I don’t believe that’s an auto-pen. I believe this was probably in a stack of letters I signed.”

The auto-pen is a device that politicians, deluged by mail, often use to produce replicas of their signatures.

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, touted a personal letter dated April 26, 1996, from President Clinton to Democratic fund-raiser Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie, explaining the administration’s China policy as evidence of how much cache Trie had at the White House. Democrats, however, argued that the short, “perfunctory” note from the president may not have even passed through the Oval Office.

Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) suggested that it was a White House auto-pen and not Clinton himself who signed the “Dear Charlie” letter. He was even ready to conduct a test, if necessary.

“I have a number of letters in my office with Bill Clinton’s real signature and the auto-pen signature on some,” Glenn said. “And I’d be glad to compare.”

When it is not a mechanical device that is causing the confusion, sometimes it can be a mysterious aide.

When a June 25, 1985, letter from former RNC Chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf was introduced as evidence, Fahrenkopf denied that the signature was his, suggested that an RNC employee “wrote the letter and signed my name without any authority or approval.”

It’s easy to see why Fahrenkopf did not want his name on the letter. The embarrassing missive recommended controversial oilman Roger Tamraz for a foreign policy post in the Ronald Reagan White House.

Tamraz is the same international wheeler-dealer--wanted on a criminal charge in Lebanon--whom Republicans have held up as a poster boy for how big donors bought access to the Clinton administration. He contributed $300,000 to the Democratic Party in 1996--support that helped him gain invitations to the White House even as national security advisors sought to keep him out.

Republicans also distanced themselves from two letters sent to Tamraz in February of this year that offered him a spot on the “Republican Senatorial Inner Circle” if he donated to the GOP.

The fund-raising pitches appeared to have been signed by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), head of the GOP committee that raises money for Senate candidates. But a party spokesman dismissed them as “generic mass mail,” suggesting neither Lott nor McConnell is accountable if recipients include those with questionable backgrounds.

Meanwhile, former Democratic Party Chairman Donald Fowler testified that he did not recall receiving a July 12, 1995, memo written to him by an aide warning him about Tamraz’s background.

Fowler also distanced himself from his own handwritten notes from an Oct. 6, 1995, meeting with Tamraz. The notes mention the full name of an intelligence agent, along with his secret telephone number and the acronym “CIA.”

In testimony, however, Fowler’s recollection of the agent, identified at the hearings only by the first name of “Bob,” dries up. Fowler said he does not recall speaking to the man, or even knowing that he worked for the CIA.

“Now, memory is fallible,” Fowler said. “And I’m telling you . . . as sincerely and as honestly as I can [that I] have no memory whatsoever. Now, if somebody has some proof or whatever, I would be happy to try to refresh my memory.”

Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), the committee chairman, was more than willing to oblige. He produced CIA records confirming that Fowler had spoken to a CIA agent named “Bob” about helping to get Tamraz a White House meeting.

“Does that refresh your recollection, Mr. Fowler?” Thompson asked.

“Not in the least, sir,” Fowler said.