Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If Rezko is fair game, is Johnny Chung fair game as well?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:50 PM
Original message
If Rezko is fair game, is Johnny Chung fair game as well?


Johnny Chung, 43, who delivered a $50,000 campaign contribution to the White House and escorted Chinese businessmen to a presidential radio address, is cooperating with the Justice Department's investigation of finance abuses in the 1996 campaign.

As part of a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in March, Chung was charged with funneling illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign by asking friends and employees of his office technology firm to make donations for which they were later reimbursed.


As part of the plea, Chung agreed to cooperate with investigators, and soon told them that Chinese army Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, an executive with a state-owned aerospace company, gave him $300,000 to donate to the Democrats' 1996 campaign. Chung's allegation – hotly denied by Liu and the Chinese government – is the strongest evidence yet of a direct money trail from the Chinese government to Democratic campaign coffers.

In 1996, Liu and Chung attended a Los Angeles fund-raiser where Liu was photographed with Clinton.

Chung made at least 49 visits to the White House, despite the fact that a National Security Council official concluded that he was a "hustler" seeking to exploit his friendship with the Clintons to impress Chinese business associates.

During one visit to the White House, he handed a $50,000 check to Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret A. Williams.

Williams accepted the check and passed it along to the DNC, even though federal law bars government employees from accepting campaign contributions on government property.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/chung.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Fair or not, this has already been out there a long time.
I doubt there's anything in the Clintons' past that hasn't been scrutinized by Republicans for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeraldSquare212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. This one is new, i.e., after his presidency

Clinton took a $1M donation to his global initiative to appear at a press conference and promote this company's search engine; turns out, the owner of the company has a history of stock fraud, and this, too, was a fraud.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/technology/22accoona.html?scp=1&sq=bill+clinton+search+engine


Three years ago, at a news conference at Tavern on the Green restaurant that featured a free-flowing bar, former President Bill Clinton helped introduce a new Internet search engine, Accoona, which was said to be powered by innovative artificial intelligence technology.

-snip-

The $80.5 million initial public offering, managed by a little-known underwriter, moved forward despite the long history of Mr. Rousso, who has had several brushes with the law. He pleaded guilty to stock fraud charges in the United States in 1998 and was convicted of stock fraud in France in 1999. He has settled several suits brought by investors who claimed stock losses.

-snip-

Mr. Rousso was arrested, and he pleaded guilty to securities fraud and money-laundering charges. He was sentenced to probation, a $200,000 fine and forfeiture of $4 million in assets. He was also banned from working in the securities industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah, but that news already blew up and settled down.
Also, everyone knows that Hillary is a politico up to her eyeballs. Barack Obama is running on "change" and presenting himself as if he is morally above the fray. It's like the difference between a strip club patron smacking a girl on the ass and a beloved preacher getting caught smacking a girl on the ass. You probably shouldn't act clean if you got dirt in your back pocket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. So, it's fair to remind people of her baggage then. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. 97- Clinton White House Had Ended System of Checking Foreign Guests
White House Had Ended System of Checking Foreign Guests

By TIM WEINER
Published: February 3, 1997

Ten years ago the Reagan White House adopted a rule about foreign businessmen, lobbyists and consultants who wanted to get in to see the President without the blessing of their embassies: they shouldn't.

But President Clinton's aides did not follow that rule. In their eagerness to raise campaign money, they invited friends of the President's fund-raisers -- including China's biggest arms merchant, favor-seeking Indonesian businessmen, a reputed Russian mobster and other dubiously credentialed dealmakers -- to meet with Mr. Clinton. Nor did the White House check the suitability of Americans invited by the Democratic National Committee to meet the President, allowing, among others, a twice-convicted felon to sip coffee with Mr. Clinton.

-snip

And that is why nobody on the White House political team saw fit to ask the National Security Council staff a year ago about a man named Wang Jun, who showed up on a guest list for a White House coffee with the President. The question of exactly how Mr. Wang got into the White House has a simple answer: ''Nobody ever asked anybody,'' a National Security Council official said.

So, at the behest of a tireless political fund-raiser from Arkansas, Charlie Yah Lin Trie, Mr. Clinton wound up sipping coffee with Mr. Wang, who runs the Chinese Government's weapons manufacturing and procuring agency, which is involved in secret arms deals around the world. These coffees for fund-raisers and donors began as a way to raise morale among party loyalists after the Democrats' disastrous showing in the 1994 election. By 1995, they became a way to reward big donors and prospect for new ones, according to Democratic fund-raisers.

-snip

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E2DC103DF930A35751C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all


A federal grand jury has indicted 14 people and a Georgia company in a scheme to smuggle several million dollars worth of automatic weapons into the United States from China. The indictment came after federal agents smashed an arms smuggling ring that they said involved two government-run Chinese munitions firms. The following press release and affidavit outline the building of the government's case.

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney
Northern District of California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MAY 23, 1996

MASSIVE SEIZURE OF NEW AUTOMATIC WEAPONS
ILLEGALLY SMUGGLED BY PRC WEAPONS PRODUCERS

SAN FRANCISCO - Michael J. Yamaguchi, United States Attorney
for the Northern District of California; Rollin B. Klink, Special
Agent in Charge, United States Customs Service, San Francisco; and
Paul Snabel, Special Agent in Charge, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms, announced today the largest seizure of fully
operational automatic weapons in the history of U. S. law
enforcement. The weapons were illegally smuggled into the United
States from the People's Republic of China (PRC) during the course
of a federal investigation of an alleged arms trafficking conspiracy
involving Chinese nationals, Chinese resident aliens, and U. S.
citizens, a number of whom represented PRC owned and controlled
munitions manufacturing facilities. The illegal importation of the
weapons into the United States is in violation of the Presidential
Embargo on the importation of weapons and munitions designated on
the United States Munitions List, and U. S. law regarding the
importation, possession, and sale of illegal weapons.

On March 18, 1996, agents of the United States Customs Service
and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms seized 2000 AK-47
type fully automatic 7.62mm machine guns. These are military
assault weapons commonly used by the military around the world.
The weapons, which had both Chinese (Norinco) and Korean
markings, had been smuggled into the United States in a container on
board the COSCO ship, Empress Phoenix. Included with the
weapons were approximately 4000 30-40 round ammunition
magazines. It is estimated that the weapons had a street value of more
than four million dollars.

The seizure of the weapons was the culmination of a sixteen month
investigation of high ranking officials, based in both the United
States and the PRC, of POLYTECH and NORINCO, PRC
controlled munitions manufacturing corporations. Hammond KU,
age 49, a Taiwanese resident alien, residing in Soquel, California,
first came under suspicion when information was developed that he
had several thousand Chinese manufactured weapons, in crate.
labelled POLYTECH and NORINCO, stored in his warehouse in
Soquel, California. KU paid federal agent-, acting in an undercover
capacity, to illegally import into the United States, more than 20,000
AK 47 rifle bipods.

-snip
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/misc/smuggle.html


New York Times, May 17, 1998



How Chinese Won Rights to Launch Satellites for U.S.

(BY JEFF GERTH AND DAVID E. SANGER)
On Oct. 9, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher ended a lengthy debate within the Clinton Administration by initialing a classified order that preserved the State Department's sharp limits on China's ability to launch American-made satellites aboard Chinese rockets.

Both American industry and state-owned Chinese companies had been lobbying for years to get the satellites off what is known as the `munitions list,' the inventory of America's most sensitive military and intelligence-gathering technology. But Mr. Christopher sided with the Defense Department, the intelligence agencies and some of his own advisers, who noted that commercial satellites held technological secrets that could jeopardize `significant military and intelligence interests.'

There was one more reason not to ease the controls, they wrote in a classified memorandum. Doing so would `raise suspicions that we are trying to evade China sanctions' imposed when the country was caught shipping weapons technology abroad--which is what happened in 1991 and 1993 for missile sales to Pakistan.

-snip

Other powerful Chinese state enterprises also had multibillion-dollar stakes in getting access to American satellites. Among them was the China International Trade and Investment Corporation, whose chairman, Wang Jun, gained unwanted attention in the United States last year when it was revealed that he attended one of Mr. Clinton's campaign coffee meetings in the White House. The day of Mr. Wang's visit, Mr. Clinton, in what Mr. Rubin said was a coincidence, signed waivers allowing the Chinese to launch four American satellites--though they were unrelated to the business interests of China International Trade.

-snip

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/1998/h980618-prc5.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sure
My pet theory on vetting, the Clintons, and Rezko, is that a number of months ago the Clinton camp got frustrated that the media had been sitting on stories like the Rezbo one and not publishing them until after the early primaries, when the Democratic nomination might already have been decided. Stories about alleged problems the Clinton campaign had with fund raisers, like what you point to here, WERE making it into print in time to effect the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, but Rezko was being sat on.

I suspect the Rezko story line, potent or impotent as it may ultimately be, is not a total surprise and new development. I think both Clintons knew it was out there but they weren't going to be the ones to directly call attention to it. They expected the press to do their normal job, and got frustrated over a perceived double standard regarding the "vetting" of Democratic candidates for President.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. The Rezko deal was far less potent than
the Clinton scandals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. The "Clinton scandals" have obviously not been covered up
This has been out there for a long time, it's gotten press, and people are free to make of it what they will. Voters certainly have had a chance to ponder it before anyone cast a vote this Presdidential season. The Rezko story is just now emerging. I hope it is a complete dud. I honestly like Obama. But I am glad it is coming our before rather than after we choose our candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Democrats have forgotten them.
Heck, a lot of people STILL think that stating that Bill engaged in sleazy and unethical conduct in re: Lewinsky is some kind of rightwing talking point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Frankly, we don't know what has been covered
up for anyone - because, by definition - it is covered up and we can't see it. That said the Clintons can not possibly win a fight saying they are less corrupt than Obama - unless there is a lot hidden. I hope he ends up as basically clean as Gore and Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Did Clinton hire anyone based on Chung's request, or use him to finance his home purchase or get a
real estate price break (of course the 300,000 drop in price can't be traced to Rezko and is only "associated" with him because he "found/suggested" the home for Obama).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. I don't understand what the to-do is about the house.
Sure, $300,000 sounds like a lot of money to be taken off, but re-frame that $2,000,000 down to $1.7 million to something in the range of us poor folk and you have a house that is list for $200,000 being let go for $170,000. Proportionately it is the same, and who would question that?

When my mom went into a retirement home she listed her house at $150k. She accepted $132k. That is also roughly the same proportion discount.

So Rezko is a sleaze, who happened to know somebody who knew a place that Obama could get for 15% off list. That doesn't make the deal sleazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. Im waiting for Obama to talk about the Clinton's selling the Lincoln Bedroom
......to large corporate campaign donors while Bill was President.

That and the Buddhist Temple where monks with a vow of poverty gave the 96 Clinton campaign large donations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jojo54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. For Heaven's Sake........
GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!! Don't these purveyors have anything better to do?? Maybe if they GOT A LIFE, they would see that there's more satisfying ways to make money....on second thought, this probably IS satisfying to them.  ICH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Was the Clinton White House guilty of horrendous judgment
and questionable ethics regarding Chung, Huang etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
14. It's all fair, dammit
Because the Repubs will use it all. And more. Stuff we probably can't even imagine now.

My GOD, what it the deal that some people think we can't talk about possible corruption, drug use, corporate ties, experience... I can't even remember all the stuff, it's all so taboo. But once we have a nominee, we'll be living with daily. If one or the other of the front-runners can't deal with it, we need to know it NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. kick. eom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
18. They will both, absolutely, be fair game during the general election.
Choose wisely, grasshopper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
19. Yep. The top two candidates are the money candidates, obviously.
That's why the MSM doesn't want to mention anybody else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
20. Absolutely--let's get all the dirt out there on everyone.
Do we really want surprises out there during the general election?

Saying to Democrats, "Shush don't talk about this, the Republicans might hear us." is asinine. The Republicans by now have nice big fat dossiers on Clinton, Obama and Edwards. They know where the garbage is buried and will gleefully unearth it and throw it in the Democratic candidate's face when the time comes.

As a lifelong horse person I can tell you that exposure to air and light has a surprising effect on shit. When it's fresh it stinks to high heaven but after being spread out and exposed it not only stinks less, it eventually disappears and even helps nurture the land that it once polluted. One of the reasons Bill Clinton won in 92 was that the dirt on him had been pretty much exposed during the primaries. Everyone knew he was a skirtchaser with some dubious but amorphous relations with certain companies and wealthy individuals in Arkansas. He won the primaries by fighting for them and by the time the general election rolled around, the smell that may have been exposed during the primaries had pretty much become part of the landscape.

Democrats do themselves no favors when they coddle candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC