Reno ‘Mad’ About Timing of White House Videos’ Release

Atty. Gen. Janet Reno on Thursday described herself as “mad” over the belated White House discovery of videotapes of fund-raising coffees but said that at this point the tape evidence does not change her conclusion about the legality of President Clinton’s fund-raising.

Meanwhile, House and Senate committees continued their hearings into fund-raising irregularities during the 1996 presidential campaign, quizzing witnesses about alleged Democratic Party ties to the Teamsters and an alleged separate scheme to use foreign money to support Clinton’s reelection campaign.

Reno coupled her rare public expression of anger at the White House with an unequivocal defense of the format and vigor of the Justice Department’s investigation of the fund-raising allegations.

“No one can shout loud enough or write a headline big enough or use words shrill enough to keep me from doing what I think is the right thing on this investigation,” Reno said, reading from a prepared statement in which she had made handwritten changes in the typed document.

“I don’t seek to create headlines or deal in innuendo or mere speculation. I want to make decisions and build cases that stand the test of time and court review. And no pressure or harsh words or editorials will change my focus,” she said.

Describing herself as “very disturbed” that the White House had taken so long to produce the videotapes and let the Justice Department know about them, Reno acknowledged that the incident had created a “strain” in relations between the two staffs. Reno said that she had spoken with presidential counsel Charles F.C. Ruff about the problem but not to Clinton.

In the Senate, the former finance director for the Democratic National Committee acknowledged that he sought last year to have a wealthy Democratic donor channel $100,000 into the reelection campaign of Teamsters union president Ron Carey.

But the ex-official, Richard L. Sullivan, called this an isolated incident that was not part of any conspiracy. Allegations that the Democrats and Carey campaign conspired to swap donations are being investigated by a federal grand jury in New York.

Sullivan said that the proposed $100,000 donation was abandoned after one of his aides, Mark Thomann, determined that the donor could not contribute to Carey because, as an employer, she was ineligible to do so under federal labor statutes.

Democrats on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee noted that Sullivan’s name has not figured in the federal criminal investigation in which three former associates of Carey have pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

The proposed Democratic donor was identified as Judith Vazquez, a Philippine national who had pledged $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee after attending a fund-raising reception in June 1996 at the San Francisco home of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Clinton attended the event along with Democratic fund-raiser John Huang, a central figure in the fund-raising controversy who has refused to testify to congressional investigators.

The Senate panel also voted unanimously to subpoena officials of the White House Communications Agency to testify about how White House coffees had been videotaped, where the tapes had been stored and who was aware of them.

In a raucous House hearing, lawmakers heard from Manlin Foung, the sister of Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie and the closest investigators could get to the former Little Rock, Ark., restaurateur who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in suspect contributions and is now overseas.

Trie’s sister and her friend Joseph Landon testified before the Governmental Reform and Oversight Committee that Trie had asked each of them last year to contribute $12,500 to the Democrats, money that was quickly reimbursed. Foung contributed another $10,000 to the Democrats, which was also reimbursed.

Investigators unveiled evidence showing that Foung and Landon received five cashier’s checks as reimbursement from an account opened by Antonio Pan, an associate of Trie whose name has not surfaced previously. In addition, Foung received a $10,000 check that investigators traced to the Bank of China in Macau.

“Our witnesses today are not villains,” said Chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.). “They are victims. They are ordinary people who were put on the spot by someone they trusted--and they got burned.”

Committee Democrats wondered why the witnesses were called at all since the Senate investigation had already showed that Trie had reimbursed other donors, a violation of election law.

“It seems to me to be a real waste to have this hearing, to have you come all the way from Sacramento to tell the committee things we already know,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles, the committee’s ranking Democrat.

At Waxman’s urging, Foung denied that her brother ever acted on behalf of the Chinese government, as is suspected by some investigators. Portraying Trie as a bumbling guy who cannot keep track of his own keys, Foung said: “He’s not spy material, I guarantee you.”

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) asked Foung if she would help the House track down Trie for questioning. “You would be helping your government,” he said.

But Foung was noncommittal. “I’ve had a bad experience with this whole thing--so it’s to be determined,” she said.

Waxman also sought to impeach the testimony of Rosemead car salesman David Wang, who contributed $5,000 to the Democrats and wrote another $5,000 check to them from the account of a friend, Daniel Wu, who lives in Taiwan but gave Wang power of attorney over his affairs.

Wang said that John Huang and Pan, the Trie associate, collected the two $5,000 checks in his Rosemead office on Aug. 16, 1996. Later that same day, Wang testified, Pan returned with $10,000 in cash to reimburse him.

But Waxman presented hotel receipts, newspaper articles and statements from a handful of witnesses to show that Huang was in New York preparing for a major fund-raiser on Aug. 16--Clinton’s 50th birthday gala at Radio City Music Hall--and could not have been in Wang’s office.

“As far as I recollect, one of the people who came to my office that day, I assume he was Mr. John Huang,” Wang insisted through a translator.

Waxman also jumped on Wang for his sometimes contradictory testimony and for admitting in his deposition that he had engaged in apparent violations of tax and immigration laws.

Michael A. Carvin, Wang’s attorney, angrily accused Waxman of maligning his client.

But Waxman said that he regretted giving Wang immunity in return for his testimony and would be far more reluctant to grant immunity to future witnesses. That could prove a major obstacle for committee Republicans, who need Democratic support to grant immunity. GOP investigators intend to question numerous witnesses unavailable to the Senate committee--perhaps even Huang himself--by offering immunity from prosecution.

“In effect, this committee has been snookered,” Waxman said. “We have given Mr. Wang immunity from serious immigration and tax violations and in exchange we have gotten false testimony.”