July 1, 1999 New York Times
ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Two Men, Walking
Related Articles
Op-Ed Column Archive
Forum
Join a Discussion on William Safire's Columns
wo men who admitted corrupting our politics during the
Clinton years have copped their guilty pleas and are
cheerfully walking free -- without having to implicate any
higher-ups.
In Webster Hubbell's case, the crony and serial felon the
Clintons appointed to run their Justice Department in 1993
triumphed over the Independent Counsel because Ken Starr
was sure he could not get a jury to convict Hubbell, and he
wants to close up shop as fast as he can.
So we will never know if the $100,000 that the Riady family
paid Hubbell was, in Thomas Jefferson's phrase, "hush
money" -- to keep him from telling prosecutors about the part
played by his Rose Law Firm "billing partner," Hillary Clinton,
in his sham deal.
Ironically, Starr threw in the towel just as Jane Sherburne,
former Deputy White House Counsel in charge of delaying
investigations, apparently unburdened herself about her
Hubbell worries to Bob Woodward in his new book,
"Shadow."
"If Clinton had . . . said something to encourage paying
Hubbell," writes Woodward, "he could be personally involved
in some kind of obstruction of justice. . . . Sherburne called
[the President's personal attorney, David] Kendall. Could he
ask the President whether he knew about any payment to
Hubbell from Riady's Lippo Group? Did Clinton instruct
anybody to help Hubbell?
"Kendall said he would ask. . . . He got back in touch with
Sherburne later. 'I've checked it out,' he said convincingly. 'It's
not a problem.' "
But then Clinton told a news conference, "I didn't personally
know anything about it until I read about it in the press."
"She called Kendall to remind him," writes Woodward, ". . .
she had asked Kendall to check it out. Kendall said he
recalled." She asks: " 'but how could that be true given the
conversation we had?' Kendall reacted angrily, suggesting that
there was some disconnect. . . . Sherburne thought that
Kendall was one more person who didn't tell her the full
story."
And so, with no White House tapes and with Hubbell's zipped
lip, Starr was unable to unearth the full story. But what could
John Huang, the Riady employee placed in the Commerce
Department and later as D.N.C. fund-raiser, tell us about the
Clinton-Hubbell-Riady hush-money connection?
That's where the second walk comes in. Despite the strong
protests of F.B.I. Director Louis Freeh and prosecutor Charles
La Bella, Attorney General Janet Reno has kept tight political
control over the carefully botched Chinagate investigation.
This month, Reno Justice announced that John Huang, who
raised millions in Asian money for Clinton that had to be
returned, will plead guilty to raising just $7,500 illegally. His
recommended sentence: a year's probation and a small fine.
In return for this slap on the wrist, will he reveal what he
knows about the Hubbell money; or what transpired in the
Sept. 13, 1995, Oval Office meeting with Clinton and Riady,
or why he got regular C.I.A. briefings and called former Lippo
associates? Don't hold your breath.
Justice's walk-don't-talk prosecutors have interviewed him
extensively, they tell the court, but we will never see those
transcripts.
But what about Congress? Up to now, Mr. Huang has taken
the Fifth to avoid testifying, but surely now that he has
admitted guilt of a campaign finance crime, he can be called
to testify. His sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 2 in Los
Angeles before Federal Judge Richard Paez; could not his
sentence depend on his willingness to tell the whole truth to
Congress?
Not so fast. Reno, working with Democrats, has a way to
prevent that. Huang insists on immunity from further
prosecution, which Chairman Dan Burton of House
Government Reform is prepared to give.
But Justice, which has already said there is no espionage
element to Huang's case, now says it prefers he not get
immunity to testify. Excuse: the old, contemptuous "ongoing
investigations" dodge.
And Democrats on the committee can use that to block a
grant to Huang, thereby keeping the lid on him and
protecting Clinton and Al Gore from embarrassment.
The Riadys' Hubbell and Huang, together again. Both walk;
neither talks; and a five-year cover-up succeeds.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Two Men, Walking
Related Articles
Op-Ed Column Archive
Forum
Join a Discussion on William Safire's Columns
wo men who admitted corrupting our politics during the
Clinton years have copped their guilty pleas and are
cheerfully walking free -- without having to implicate any
higher-ups.
In Webster Hubbell's case, the crony and serial felon the
Clintons appointed to run their Justice Department in 1993
triumphed over the Independent Counsel because Ken Starr
was sure he could not get a jury to convict Hubbell, and he
wants to close up shop as fast as he can.
So we will never know if the $100,000 that the Riady family
paid Hubbell was, in Thomas Jefferson's phrase, "hush
money" -- to keep him from telling prosecutors about the part
played by his Rose Law Firm "billing partner," Hillary Clinton,
in his sham deal.
Ironically, Starr threw in the towel just as Jane Sherburne,
former Deputy White House Counsel in charge of delaying
investigations, apparently unburdened herself about her
Hubbell worries to Bob Woodward in his new book,
"Shadow."
"If Clinton had . . . said something to encourage paying
Hubbell," writes Woodward, "he could be personally involved
in some kind of obstruction of justice. . . . Sherburne called
[the President's personal attorney, David] Kendall. Could he
ask the President whether he knew about any payment to
Hubbell from Riady's Lippo Group? Did Clinton instruct
anybody to help Hubbell?
"Kendall said he would ask. . . . He got back in touch with
Sherburne later. 'I've checked it out,' he said convincingly. 'It's
not a problem.' "
But then Clinton told a news conference, "I didn't personally
know anything about it until I read about it in the press."
"She called Kendall to remind him," writes Woodward, ". . .
she had asked Kendall to check it out. Kendall said he
recalled." She asks: " 'but how could that be true given the
conversation we had?' Kendall reacted angrily, suggesting that
there was some disconnect. . . . Sherburne thought that
Kendall was one more person who didn't tell her the full
story."
And so, with no White House tapes and with Hubbell's zipped
lip, Starr was unable to unearth the full story. But what could
John Huang, the Riady employee placed in the Commerce
Department and later as D.N.C. fund-raiser, tell us about the
Clinton-Hubbell-Riady hush-money connection?
That's where the second walk comes in. Despite the strong
protests of F.B.I. Director Louis Freeh and prosecutor Charles
La Bella, Attorney General Janet Reno has kept tight political
control over the carefully botched Chinagate investigation.
This month, Reno Justice announced that John Huang, who
raised millions in Asian money for Clinton that had to be
returned, will plead guilty to raising just $7,500 illegally. His
recommended sentence: a year's probation and a small fine.
In return for this slap on the wrist, will he reveal what he
knows about the Hubbell money; or what transpired in the
Sept. 13, 1995, Oval Office meeting with Clinton and Riady,
or why he got regular C.I.A. briefings and called former Lippo
associates? Don't hold your breath.
Justice's walk-don't-talk prosecutors have interviewed him
extensively, they tell the court, but we will never see those
transcripts.
But what about Congress? Up to now, Mr. Huang has taken
the Fifth to avoid testifying, but surely now that he has
admitted guilt of a campaign finance crime, he can be called
to testify. His sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 2 in Los
Angeles before Federal Judge Richard Paez; could not his
sentence depend on his willingness to tell the whole truth to
Congress?
Not so fast. Reno, working with Democrats, has a way to
prevent that. Huang insists on immunity from further
prosecution, which Chairman Dan Burton of House
Government Reform is prepared to give.
But Justice, which has already said there is no espionage
element to Huang's case, now says it prefers he not get
immunity to testify. Excuse: the old, contemptuous "ongoing
investigations" dodge.
And Democrats on the committee can use that to block a
grant to Huang, thereby keeping the lid on him and
protecting Clinton and Al Gore from embarrassment.
The Riadys' Hubbell and Huang, together again. Both walk;
neither talks; and a five-year cover-up succeeds.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"