Huang took fifth on Chinese money

Human Events, Jan 29, 2001 by Jeffrey, Terence P

Lawyers Cited Lack of Immunity for Potential Espionage Charges

Reports of the death of the Justice Department's campaign finance investigation have been greatly exaggerated.

In fact, with Bill Clinton gone from the White House, and Janet Reno's tenure as attorney general terminated, the most important phase of that investigation may be only just beginning.

If so, it is beginning, ironically, in the very same place as the first phase: with John Huang refusing to answer questions.

But this time Huang's refusals may portend something far different from what they did last time-because this time Huang is a witness cooperating with the government. And now his onetime boss, Lippo Group President James Riady, may also become a government witness.

And Janet Reno is no longer attorney general of the United States.

What would be the purpose of making a deal for Riady's cooperation unless there were parties in this case more important than Riady whom government prosecutors would like to pursue with the evidence and testimony Riady can provide?

Who could such parties be?

Court documents and a November 6 deposition in which Huang was questioned by Judicial Watch President Larry Klayman offer some clues.

Hooking a Bigger Fish?

In the deposition, Huang repeatedly invoked his Sth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In most, but not all, instances, the magistrate judge monitoring the deposition cited Huang for contempt.

Huang had two rationales for taking the 5th, according to his lawyers. First, a federal appeals court opinion, called the Perkins case, holds that a witness does not have to answer the same question twice in the same legal proceeding. (Klayman has deposed Huang on five occasions, both before and after Huang's plea agreement.) But secondly, Huang's plea agreement did not immunize him against prosecution if he is found to have violated national security or anti-espionage laws.

"Anything he says here is not immunized against him for any federal prosecutions for espionage or related crimes," Huang's attorney Ty Cobb told the judge at the deposition,

John C. Keeney, another attorney for Huang, said in an interview with HumAN EvENTs that, as a simple matter of legal prudence, he and Cobb could not allow Huang to answer some deposition questions that related to foreign persons, entities or issues. "If we did not assert the 5th Amendment, it would be legal malpractice," said Keeney-who teaches legal ethics at American University.

Keeney further noted that the plea agreement in which the government reserves the right to prosecute Huang for any possible espionage or national security violations also includes language stating that prosecutors are not "currently" aware of evidence that would support such charges.

"The United States will not prosecute you for any other violations of federal law based on conduct related to events disclosed by the defendant or otherwise known to the government other than those laws relating to national security or espionage (economic or otherwise), occurring before the date this agreement is signed by you," says the plea agreement. "The United States represents that it isnot currently aware of evidence which would support any charges of violations of the relevant national security or espionage statutes. You understand and agree that the United States is free to prosecute you for any unlawful past conduct relating to national security or espionage or for any illegal conduct that occurs after the date this Agreement is signed."

The government also indicated that it understood Huang was likely to invoke the 5th Amendment if later asked certain questions in venues where he had not been granted immunity. "[Since defendant Huang's plea agreement leaves open the possibility of subsequent prosecutions for violations of espionage and national security statutes, he will obviously retain a 5th Amendment right with respect to questions in this area, even after his guilty plea and sentencing," Assistant US. Attorney Daniel J. O'Brien, a member of the Justice Department's Campaign Financing Task Force, told Huang's sentencing judge.

As of now, Federal District Judge Royce Lamberth, who has authority over the magistrate who monitored the position, has not certified the contempt citations against Huang lodged by that magistrate. If he does, Huang will appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In one venue or the other, Huang's attorneys are confident that a proper reading of his 5th Amendment rights will prevail over the contempt citations.

Nonetheless, the government's reservation of the right to prosecute Huang for espionage or national security violations, and Huang's invocation of the 5th Amendment in the first place, demonstrate that the campaign finance investigation still must answer the biggest questions it has faced since the outset: What was the involvement of the Chinese government in funneling money to congressional candidates, the Democratic Party, and the Clinton-Gore campaign? Who knew of that involvement? When did they know it? Did the Chinese get anything in return?