GOP Isn’t Buying Some Fund-Raising Testimony

All 70-plus witnesses who appeared before the Senate campaign fund-raising hearings last year--nuns and political operatives alike--swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God.

Nonetheless, Republican members of the investigating committee now compiling the probe’s 1,500-page final report are concluding that much of what they were told was hardly true at all.

Accounts provided by White House officials, Democratic Party leaders and others about fund-raising activities often “were literally not believable” and did not square with the evidence, said Paul Clark, the committee’s GOP spokesman. “Not only were we getting the runaround, but we were getting many witnesses fooling around with the truth.”

This alleged lack of candor added to the panel’s intense frustration over “all the witnesses who took the 5th Amendment or who fled the country or who refused to talk to us at all,” he said.

The Governmental Affairs Committee’s public hearings exploring fund-raising in the free-spending 1996 campaign ended months ago after airing tales of widespread abuses but failing to galvanize the American public.

Action Would Escalate Sniping

Now, with their inquiry complete and their report in final draft form, Republican investigators are considering an action that would further escalate the intense partisan sniping that has characterized the entire process: whether to refer a small number of witnesses--including former Democratic National Chairman Donald L. Fowler--to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno for suspected perjury.

Reno this week recommended the appointment of an independent counsel to determine whether Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt lied to the Senate about his role in rejecting an Indian casino in Wisconsin.

Democratic senators accuse their GOP colleagues of tarring as deceitful those who refused to tell them what they wanted to hear.

“Republicans’ complaints about obstruction are based less in reality than in their need to find cover for having presided over such a futile and ineffectual investigation,” said Democratic committee spokesman Jim Jordan.

As for less-than-forthcoming testimony, Democrats say the worst offender was not Fowler but his counterpart, former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour.

At the request of the Justice Department, Senate Democrats turned over depositions from Barbour and other GOP witnesses last summer, Jordan said. Justice is investigating Barbour’s alleged effort to funnel foreign money into GOP coffers as well as his denial that he did so.

Accusations of dissembling have become a common byproduct of congressional inquiries, but legal experts say it is difficult to prove that a witness knowingly lied under oath. Moreover, they say, mere allegations of lying become political weapons in intensely partisan hearings.

The committee’s draft report charges Democrats with violations more serious than dissembling, and it calls on Reno to request that an independent counsel investigate broad fund-raising abuses made on behalf of President Clinton’s reelection.

Report Urges Review of Telephone Calls

The report urges reviews of the legality of fund-raising telephone calls Clinton and Vice President Al Gore made from the White House and the close coordination among the White House, Clinton’s reelection campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

The report also details numerous instances of illegal or improper fund-raising, much of it foreign-linked. The DNC has returned $3 million in suspect donations, and the Justice Department is investigating various fund-raisers for the party.

White House spokesmen say neither Clinton nor Gore violated any laws.

At the DNC, spokesman Steve Langdon said: “The Republican modus operandi was that of partisan investigatory hacks. Draw conclusions first and then accuse your target of lying when the facts contradict your conspiracy plot.”

In fact, the report trains a highly critical eye on the alleged lack of candor of Democratic Party officials.

In public hearings, former chairman Fowler was questioned extensively on his efforts to get Roger Tamraz, an oil financier and major Democratic donor, into the White House despite objections from the National Security Council.

In a 1997 press release, Fowler denied trying to get CIA agents to vouch for Tamraz, and when investigators confronted Fowler with evidence that he had spoken to a CIA agent, he said he may have done so unknowingly but had no memory of it.

“It is likely that Fowler’s . . . claim of ‘no memory’ is as false as his . . . press release absolutely denying any CIA contacts,” the report says.

Expressing surprise at the allegation, Fowler said in an interview: “Throughout all of those proceedings . . . I have been truthful, consistent and cooperative. I plumbed my memory in every way I could and have no memory of any recollections of conversations with the CIA.”

Former DNC Finance Director Richard Sullivan has also found his veracity challenged.

He testified he knew of no DNC plan to support the reelection campaign of Teamsters President Ron Carey. But the report cites evidence of an illegal arrangement between the union and the DNC, and says “the committee obtained testimony and documents indicating that Sullivan had not been truthful” in his testimony about a solicitation for the Carey campaign.

Sullivan’s attorney, Robert F. Bauer, declined comment.

The investigators urge Reno to probe further the Teamsters-DNC relationship.

The committee’s Republican majority also raises questions about the testimony of DNC General Counsel Joseph E. Sandler.

Sandler testified that he was not asked to give special fund-raising training to John Huang after he was hired as DNC finance vice chairman at Clinton’s behest. Huang raised more than half the DNC funds that have been returned.

But Sullivan testified that he and DNC Finance Chairman Marvin Rosen requested special guidance for Huang, and said Sandler agreed to provide it and Huang told him he received it. Rosen corroborated Sullivan’s account.

Sandler still stands by his testimony. “John Huang was trained . . . in a group session with other DNC finance staff,” Sandler said in an interview. “He was not given any individualized, special training. If these guys have that impression, they were wrong.”

GOP Investigators Took Partisan Sides

The report shows that, sometimes, when the facts were in dispute, the GOP investigators took partisan sides.

A June 18, 1996, DNC-sponsored White House “coffee” with Clinton drew particular interest because it was orchestrated by Huang and featured a handful of foreign nationals who could not legally donate. One attendee, Karl Jackson, testified that Huang stood up and solicited contributions from the group, which included Thai American businesswoman Pauline Kanchanalak and her overseas business associates.

The White House has disputed Jackson’s account and denied such coffees were fund-raisers.

But committee Republicans said they believe Jackson, a former Bush administration official, even though six Democratic officials and donors testified they had no recollection of Huang making a solicitation.

“Their memory may be influenced by their strong affiliations with the DNC, the White House or both,” the report says.

Then there was the case of the unopened drawers.

In explaining why he failed to turn over subpoenaed documents from a filing cabinet in his office, former DNC Finance Director Paul DiNino said he opened only two of the four drawers and did not find anything relevant.

Pressed by investigators about why he checked the top and third drawers but not the second and fourth, DiNino replied, “The first drawer is at eye level. The third drawer is at the level my hand is.”

The Senate report labels DiNino’s explanation “preposterous” and speculates that the DNC may have intentionally withheld the documents. “That’s ridiculous,” Sandler said. “No documents were withheld, altered or destroyed in any way or in any case. We missed this. As soon as it was discovered, we turned it over.”