Corruptocrats = organized crime:
Mr. Burton: "Over 65 people have invoked the Fifth
Amendment or fled the country in the course of the
committee's investigation. Have you ever
experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any
matter in which you have prosecuted or been
involved?"
Mr. Freeh: "Actually, I have. . . . I spent about 16 years doing organized
crime cases in New York City, and many people were frequently
unavailable."
May 5, 1998
On Breaking a Stonewall
The steady din coming out of the White House is beginning to
sound like summer locusts high in the evening trees: unfair, unfair, unfair,
unfair. No matter the subject, source or substance, it's all unfair. Here's
Rahm Emanuel scratching over the weekend at House Oversight Committee
Chairman Dan Burton: "Never before in history has a chairman done what
he has done."
Well, never before in history has so much chutzpah carried so many so far.
The weekend doesn't pass that Kenneth Starr, Dan Burton or some other
critic of the Clinton compound isn't accused of violating Marquis of
Queensbury rules for the manner in which they chip and chisel at the vast
stonewall that now separates this White House from the rest of the country.
How else to break a stonewall built with the power
of the executive branch and the complicity of
Democrats in Congress?
We are reminded of the wonderful colloquy last
December between FBI Director Louis Freeh and
Rep. Burton.
Mr. Burton: "Over 65 people have invoked the Fifth
Amendment or fled the country in the course of the
committee's investigation. Have you ever
experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any
matter in which you have prosecuted or been
involved?"
Mr. Freeh: "Actually, I have. . . . I spent about 16 years doing organized
crime cases in New York City, and many people were frequently
unavailable."
Since that exchange, the number of the unwilling has risen to more than 90
witnesses. Among those pleading the Fifth are key Clinton operatives John
Huang and Mark Middleton, Democratic fund-raisers Nora and Gene Lum,
Florida witness Charles Intriago, and a gaggle of low-level figures tied to the
Al Gore/Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple fund-raiser, to the shakedown of the
Arapaho Indian tribes, and to the Charlie Trie network. Mr. Trie's partner
Antonio Pan has fled the country, as have key probe figures Ted Sioeng,
Pauline Kanchanalak and others. Among those refusing to be interviewed
overseas by U.S. investigators are such central figures as the Riadys of
Indonesia and Mr. Trie's money source, Ng Lap Seng of Macau.
On April 23, Democrats on Mr. Burton's committee blocked grants of
immunity to four witnesses, even as the Justice Department expressed no
objection. The four were associates of Johnny Chung, the Lums and Ted
Sioeng. Clearly, the committee's 19 Democratic votes against immunity
were what caused an impatient Speaker Gingrich's criticisms last week.
Still, what seemed to most preoccupy the Beltway through that cycle was
whether Mr. Burton had violated community standards by calling the
President a scumbag.
Washington's textual deconstructionists were similarly shocked at the
release of the Hubbell prison tapes, obsessing over the manner in which
they were edited, but showing less interest in the tapes' substance--"I guess
I have to roll over again"--which more than hints at a coverup.
All that activity is over in the House of Representatives. The Senate,
meanwhile, has been in conversation with career U.S. Attorney Charles La
Bella. The air has filled up the past 48 hours with attempts to delegitimize
the weekend disclosure of Mr. La Bella's recommendation to Janet Reno in
November that she appoint an independent counsel for campaign finance.
Against these rationalizations, Senate Republicans should here follow the
House's cue and play hardball. And with good reason.
Janet Reno is using the independent counsel law as a shield. In fact, the
Attorney General has always had the power to make such an appointment;
this is precisely what was done during Watergate and Teapot Dome. The
law was created to further enable such a decision, not to erect Ms. Reno's
casuistical barriers.
Kenneth Starr, for his part, exists as a court officer under that same law,
appointed by a decision of the Attorney General and named by three
federal judges. This office of independent counsel, in the course of its
history, has met with Susan McDougal's contempt of a federal court
(leading to a second indictment yesterday), with the White House's inability
to disclose Rose Law Firm billing records that later just appeared, with
former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell's welshing on
promised cooperation after pleading guilty to two felonies, and with at least
three separate White House claims of privilege.
Each of these is a large stone in the White House stronghold. The serial
claims of privilege are especially egregious, given the context. To date,
Judge Norma Holloway Johnson has kept Secret Service privilege and
executive privilege litigation under seal. Defensible, perhaps, under normal
circumstances, but set against the White House's record of suppression, we
strongly think these proceedings should be open.
On this page recently, attorney Douglas Caddy, who represented E.
Howard Hunt and other Watergate plumbers, described how Judge John
Sirica used outrageous sentences to compel co-operation, which is to say,
compel the truth. We don't recall screams from civil libertarians then,
recognizing we suspect that it takes a hardball to break a stonewall mounted
by a President.
One more point about then and now. Eventually in the course of Watergate,
GOP politicians who cared deeply about the integrity of public institutions
stepped forward and helped justice take its course. Where are such
Democrats today? When a Congressional committee has received
permission from Justice to immunize four useful witnesses, why is Henry
Waxman able to get 19 Democrats to stand solidly in opposition, like a
stonewall?
interactive2.wsj.com
|
