Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LORAL -- Political Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: brian h who wrote (218)	5/27/1998 11:25:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

Mr. Schwartz paid for the access that Clinton denied with his sanctions of the waiver early in his administration. Think about it....

To: brian h who wrote (218)	5/27/1998 11:45:00 AM
From: P.T.Burnem	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

Whatever LORAL and its chairman statements will be solid evidences for future LORAL shareholders' lawsuit if he did lie. Except for those statements that happen to be self-serving.

To: brian h who wrote (218)	5/28/1998 8:16:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 880

Coincidentally off the hook Irresponsible, self-serving decisions by the White House have severely complicated the Justice Department's criminal investigation of the unauthorized transfer of ballistic-missile technology to China by Loral Space & Communications. While President Clinton has claimed he never made a decision based "solely" on campaign contributions, it so happens that Loral's chairman, Bernard Schwartz, has been the Democratic Party's biggest individual soft-money contributor for the past three years. And it so happens that President Clinton has been shown to have bent over backwards out of concern for "fairness" to his party's biggest Sugar Daddy. In fact, documents disclosed last week show that National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, who claims to have been unaware of Mr. Schwartz's financial largesse, encouraged the president to emphasize "fairness" at the expense of national security. The facts are not in dispute. Loral has acknowledged that in 1996 its space subsidiary, Space Systems/Loral (SS/L), turned over to the Chinese government highly technical information intended to improve China's missile-launch capabilities. It did so without obtaining authorization from the U.S. government to transfer such sensitive technology. In a subsequent analysis, the Pentagon concluded in May 1997 that Loral's actions had "harmed" U.S. national security, prompting the Justice Department to begin a criminal investigation. In February 1998, Loral, while under investigation, sought a presidential waiver to launch a satellite from a Chinese rocket, whose capabilities its earlier unauthorized technology transfer had enhanced. Mr. Schwartz, who has given more than $1 million in soft money to Democratic Party campaign committees since 1995, intended to personally lobby Mr. Berger for an immediate decision at a Feb. 5 White House dinner, but was unable to corner him. A week later, Thomas Ross, a former press spokesman at the National Security Council who had worked closely with Mr. Berger and whom Mr. Schwartz hired in 1995 as Loral's vice president of government relations, wrote a letter to Mr. Berger pleading for a "prompt decision" on the satellite waiver that had become "time urgent for us." White House aides estimated that delaying the waiver approval until it was clear whether Loral would be indicted would have cost Loral about $5 million. In a memo recommending that the president grant the waiver, Mr. Berger noted, "[T]he criminal division of the Justice Department has cautioned that a national-interest waiver in this case could have a significant adverse impact on any prosecution" of Loral. "Justice believes that a jury would not convict once it learned that the president had found SS/L's [satellite] project to be in the national interest," Mr. Berger advised the president. "If Justice is correct on this matter, the proposed waiver might be criticized for letting SS/L off the hook on criminal charges for its unauthorized assistance to China's ballistic missile program." Indeed, the State Department's chief trade regulator had previously told a White House lawyer that Loral had gone "beyond analysis to telling [the] cause of [the Chinese rocket launch] failure and how to prevent" it in the future. The trade regulator told the White House that such action by Loral was "unlawful" and "criminal" and that the company was "likely to be indicted" for its actions. None of that seemed to matter to Mr. Berger. Acting is if he were a staff attorney for the Legal Services Corp. and not the president's national security adviser, Mr. Berger in his memo to the president harps about "fairness" -- as if being criminally investigated for transferring ballistic-missile technology without authorization to a nation whose nuclear-tipped ICBMs are aimed at American cities were comparable to being caught with four ounces of pot and being investigated for possession with intent to sell. "On fairness grounds," Mr. Berger whines, "we believe it is inappropriate to penalize SS/L before they have even been charged with any crime." Later in the memo, Mr. Berger applies the same legal standard to a company being investigated for having "harmed" U.S. national security -- the Pentagon's conclusion -- that one would apply to a shoplifter: "SS/L is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty." Presuming innocence is one thing. Destroying the Justice Department's case is another. Loral admitted it was already guilty of an unauthorized technology transfer. Why should it have been entitled to special consideration -- that's what a waiver is -- before its criminality was determined, especially if such a waiver might preclude such a determination? By irresponsibly granting the waiver, the president accomplished two things. First, he paid back Bernie Schwartz, his biggest benefactor. Second, as his own advisers told him, the president virtually eliminated the possibility that the prosecution of Loral would eat into Bernie's check-writing time. The president acted despite the Justice Department investigation? That's one way of looking at it. Another is that he acted because of the Justice Department investigation. washtimes.com