From: puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: The Latest on Bush Henchmen Specter and Hatch
Keywords: Republicanism considered harmful
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:44:31 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory

Where Anita Hill Is the Silent Third Candidate
  By Isabel Wilkerson [Special to the New York Times, 31-AUG-92]

  Against the low drone of an air conditioner at a roadside inn near Scranton,
a dozen campaign workers sat briefing Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of
Pennsylvania, on how a certain woman was threatening his bid for re-election.

  One by one, they gave their reports, about how Rebublican women still
empathized with her, about how everyone would have to work hard to convince
people, given the situation, and how, in fact, some people were beginning to
come around.

  The woman at the top of everyone's agenda was not Lynn Yeakel, the Democratic
nominee whose upset primary victory made her a household name, although her
candidacy against Mr. Specter was implicit in the discussion.

                           Forced to Defend Role

  The woman was Anita Hill, the University of Oklahoma law professor whose
appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last fall galvanized women
across the country and forced Senator Specter, the panel's lead questioner,
to defend his role in the hearings while asking for people's votes.

  If the now-famous scene of white men questioning a black woman about sexual
harassment has come to symbolize the exclusivity of national politics, many
would say that Senator Specter has, deservedly or not, come to be seen as the
parliamentarian of the men's club.

  His interrogation of Professor Hill, his public accusation that she perjured
herself, the repeated playbacks of it in Ms. Yeakel's primary campaign
commercials and the questions that now still arise about the hearings are
referred to in the Specter organization as the "Anita Hill situation."

  The hearings are an issue in many women's candidacies this year.  But more
than in any of the other campaigns, Professor Hill is, in effect, the silent
third candidate in the tight race in Pennsylvania, a contest that is the 
closest of any to a referendum on the hearings.

  "Here," said Bonnie DiCarlo, a field consultant in Pittsburgh for the Yeakel
campaign, "we can actually get the man who did it."

  Indeed, on the campaign trail, some women clench theit teeth and blurt out
words like "vile" and "despicable" when asked about Senator Specter's 
questioning of Professor Hill.  Many women said they believed Mr. Specter's
tone of questioning was arrogant and patronizing.

  At a meeting of the United Automobile Workers in Harrisburg, a woman asked
Mr. Specter if voters "can expect more of this kind of conduct" if they
re-elect him.  At a reception in Scranton, faithful republicans whispered,
shamefaced, that they believed Professor Hill's accusations that Clarence
Thomas had sexually harassed her years before th Supreme Court nomination,
when the two worked together in government agencies.

[...]

                        'His True Colors Came Out'

  There are a lot of women who feel the way Liz Bettinger, a plastics plant
worker who is a ranking official in the A.F.L.-C.I.O. does: they have not been
able to forgive Mr. Specter.  "You look at him, and you see Anita Hill," Ms.
Bettinger said.  "You can say you're for women all you want, but his true
colors came out."

[...]

  Suporters of Mr. Specter are acutely aware of the cloud hanging over their
candidate.  The men and women who sat around a cramped conference table in
Scranton gave reports from the front.

  "There's a segment out there that, frankly, believes she was telling the
truth and they're militant about it," Mr. Minora told the group.  "That's the
problem."

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  "Here, I've got breasts; vote for me."                                     |
|    -- Larry Yatch, supporter of Arlen Specter, mocking Ms. Yeakel, and      |
|         women in general.                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Lawmaker's Defense of B.C.C.I. Went Beyond Speech in Senate
  By Dean Baquet with Jeff Gerth [New York Times, 26-AUG-92]

  Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the powerful Republican from Utah who is a member of
the Judiciary Committee, worked behind the scenes on behalf of the Bank of
Credit and Commerce International while at the same time pressing the bank to
make a $10 million loan to a close business associate.

  From documents and interviews with bank lawyers, a picture emerges of Mr.
Hatch and an aide as integral parts of the bank's efforts to escape Senate
scrutiny and avoid bad publicity after the bank pleaded guilty in 1989 to
Federal charges of illegal laundering of drug money.

  Mr. Hatch gave a widely reported speech on the Senate floor in 1990 defending
the B.C.C.I. and he later publicly acknowledged asking the bank to lend money
to Monzer Hourani, a Houston businessman.  But an examination of internal bank
documents and the interviews with lawyers and others found that the
relationship went much deeper.  These were among the findings:

  In late 1989, when a Senate subcommittee began a formal investigation of the
bank's ties to dictators and terrorists, Michael Pillsbury, a longtime aide to
Senator Hatch and an expert on national security, sat down with the bank's
lawyers and offered advice on how to counterattack another Senate inquiry,
according to Mr. Pillsbury, as well as some of the bank's lawyers.

  After B.C.C.I. resolved the money-laundering case in Tampa, Fla., by reaching
a plea agreement that many Government officials complained was far too lenient,
Mr. Hatch talked to high-ranking Justice Department officials and urged them 
to step forward and defend the plea deal.  A senior justice Department official
acknowledged the call.  And a B.C.C.I. lawyer in Washington, Raymond Banoun,
said he was present in Mr. Hatch's office when the Senator placed the call.

  The Senator said he made his Senate speech on behalf of B.C.C.I. after the
bank's lawyers had assured him that the Florida money-laundering case involved
only low-level corruption.  But some of B.C.C.I.'s lawyers, including Mr.
Banoun, said in interviews that they were actually reluctant to meet with the
Senator, fearing that such a meeting would backfire and anger the Justice
Department.  The lawyers said they only sat down with the Senator under 
pressure from Mohammad Hammoud, a close friend of Mr. Hatch and also a large
B.C.C.I. shareholder.  Mr. Hammoud died in 1990.

  Mr. Hatch earlier acknowledged news media reports that he telephoned 
B.C.C.I.'s president in London, Swaleh Naqvi, to ask him to consider lending
money to Mr. Hourani.  He portrayed this as a casual request that had no
results.  But B.C.C.I. documents show that Mr. Hourani, who is a close friend
and campaign contributor to Mr. Hatch, himself made a detailed proposal for
the loan.  The loan apparently was never made.

  Mr. Hatch's motivation for helping the bank was not clear.  But at least
three of his friends stood to benefit if B.C.C.I. could remain a going concern
in the United States: Mr. Hammoud, a large shareholder in B.C.C.I.; Robert
Altman, one of the bank's chief lawyers, and Mr. Hourani, the business
associate and campaign contributor who was trying to get a loan.

  Mr. Hatch declined an invitation to discuss the details of a New York Times
examination of the documents.  In a recent statement responding to questions
from The Times, Mr. Hatch said he would ask the Senate Ethics Committee to
investigate the activities of Mr. Pillsbury, the aide who met with B.C.C.I.
lawyers.

  Mr. Pillsbury, in an interview last week, said the discussions with the
lawyers were held at the Senator's behest.  Mr. Pillsbury, formerly a high-
ranking State Department official, said he did not know of the Senator's
attempts to secure a loan for Mr. Hourani.  Mr. Pillsbury said he encouraged
the Senator to request the ethics panel investigation "to show there were no
improper contacts by me."

                  Senator Searching His Files for Details

  The Senator's staff said Mr. Hatch would make no additional comment because
he was searching his files for more details of his dealings with B.C.C.I., Mr.
Hourani and Mr. Hammoud.  Last year the Senator produced a letter from the
Justice Department stating that he was not under investigation for his 
relationship with B.C.C.I.

  Mr. Hourani did not return repeated telephone messages left at his Houston
residence.

  B.C.C.I. was shut down last year after regulators around the world accused
it of one of the biggest financial frauds in history.  Since the shutdown,
law-enforcement officials have accused the bank of bribing officials throughout
the third world to attract government deposits to B.C.C.I.

  Clark M. Clifford, a former Defence Secretary, and Mr. Altman, his law
partner, have been charged with taking bribes from B.C.C.I. in exchange for
concealing its ownership of First American Bankshares, a Washington holding
company of which Mr. Clifford was the chairman.  Both have denied the charges,
which were filed in Federal and New York State courts.

                     The Regulatory Net Began to Tighten

  The examination by The Times shows that Mr. Hatch's dealings with B.C.C.I. in
1989 and 1990 coincided with the bank's efforts to use political influence 
around the world to stave off the law-enforcement officials and regulators who
had begun to scrutinize its far-flung operations after years of regulatory
neglect.

  This push came after the bank's October 1988 indictment on money-laundering
charges in Tampa.  But even before the indictment, the Senate Foreign Relations
Commitee's Subcommitte on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations,
led by Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, had begun its own
inquiry.

  By late 1989, the bank's lawyers were recommending that it plead guilty.  But
several of the lawyers said in interviews that B.C.C.I.'s top executives
expressed dismay at the prospect of pleading guilty, at the soaring cost of
the defense and at the negative publicity that would result from the plea and
from the Senate panel's hearings.  The executives wondered whether some 
lobbying could be done to influence the commitee investigation and the criminal
case, according to the lawyers, who insisted on not being identified.

  Another B.C.C.I. lawyer, Mr. Banoun in Washington, said the criticism 
"filtered back to us, that we were really dealing too much with it as a
criminal case and not worrying about the Hill and the public relations issues."

                       Holding Meetings About Meetings

  Mr. Banoun said that around the same time, Mr. Naqvi, the president of
B.C.C.I., called him to say that he had been visited in London by Mr. 
Pillsbury, who recommended that the lawyers meet with him and plan strategy for
lobbying Congress.  The lawyers said Mr. Naqvi told them that Mr. Pillsbury
was accompanied by Mr. Hammoud, the B.C.C.I. shareholder, and Mr. Hatch's
friend.  Mr. Naqvi quoted Mr. Hammoud as saying that Mr. Hatch wanted to meet
with B.C.C.I.'s lawyers.

  "Hammoud was complaining to the bank," Mr. Banoun recalled.  Quoting Mr.
Hammoud, he said: "'Here Senator Hatch wants to meet with those people, and
the lawyers weren't setting up a meeting.  Hatch wants to meet with you guys.'"

  Mr. Banoun said he had told Mr. Naqvi by telephone that the Senate staff
member's interest in a continued investigation was so unusual that he feared
it might be a Government "sting" operation.  He warned the bank president to
be certain not to pay Mr. Pillsbury any money or reimburse any of his expenses.
He said he feared any payments might be construed as a bribe.

  Shortly after the telephone call from London, Mr. Pillsbury showed up at the
legal defense team's headquarters in Washington, along with Mr. Hammoud.

  "He said he was inquiring on behalf of Hatch," Mr. Banoun recalled Mr.
Pillsbury's saying at the time.   By Mr. Banoun's account, Mr. Pillsbury said
that he put notes of every meeting with the lawyers in writing and sent them
to the Senator.  Mr. Pillsbury confirmend that he sent on th notes.

  Mr. Banoun said that Mr. Pillsbury asked for Government tape recordings made
by Customs agents in Tampa diring the undercover operation.  The lawyer said
he stalled Mr. Pillsbury and never gave him the tapes.  At the time, they had
not been made public, he said.

                     'Couldn't Say No' To a Senate Aide

  "We didn't say no; he was a Senate staffer," Mr. Banoun recalled.  "You
just couldn't say no."

  Mr. Banoun said he had given Mr. Pillsbury a copy of a defense motion
accusing the Government of misconduct in the undercover opreation.

  "He thought it was a good motion," Mr. Banoun recalled, and he suggested
that it should be circulated publicly.

  Mr. Hatch has said he did not know that his friend Mr. Hammoud was a major
B.C.C.I. shareholder.  But Mr. Banoun said he thought Mr. Pillsbury, the
Senator's aide, was aware of the connection.

  Mr. Banoun said Mr. Pillsbury and Mr. Hammoud had arranged for the lawyers
to meet the Senator at his office.  By this time, Mr. Banoun said, B.C.C.I's
lawyers had reached a plea bargain over the money-laundering case.  But the
agreement was subject to approval by the judge in the case, and some members
of Congress, led by Mr. Kerry, were publicly attacking it.

  Under the proposed plea bargain, B.C.C.I. was to pay $15 million in fines
and admit it had laundered money.  For its part, the Government said it would
not pursue various other accusations against B.C.C.I.  But this generated
controversy among Congressmen and law-enforcement officials who considered
the bank to be guilty of much more than money laundering.  Some Government
officials even said the agreement was a result of the bank's political 
connections.

  Mr. Banoun recalled that during this furor, "Pillsbury said, 'Hatch wants
to meet with you guys; he wants to know about the plea agreement, and wants to
know why it's not being defended.'"

                     Defending Bank and Its Prosecutors

  Mr. Banoun said he had met with the Senator, who "was really annoyed, could
not understand the department, why it was throwing in the towel."  The 
"department" he referred to was the Justice Department.

  During the meeting, Mr. Banoun said, Mr. Hatch placed a call to the Justice
Department to complain, and pressed department officials to come to Congress to
make their case in support of the plea bargain arrangement.

  A department spokesman would not comment.  But Robert S. Ross Jr., then
executive assistant to Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, said he spoke to 
the Senator around this time.

  "He wanted a briefing," Mr. Ross said.  "He wanted to know what was going
on."  Mr. Ross said he did not view the discussion as unusual, given Mr.
Hatch's position onthe Judiciary Commitee.

  "He wasn't being a lobbyist for any particular side," Mr. Ross said.

  Mr. Banoun said he had at least one other meeting with Mr. Hatch, though he
could not recall specifics.

  The judge approved the plea agreement in January 1990, and the attacks in
Congress continued.

  The next month, Mr. Hatch took the Senate floor.  In a speech largely written
by Mr. Altman, one of B.C.C.I.'s own lawyers, Mr Hatch defended the bank and
the Justice Department.  "The case arose from the conduct of a small number of
B.C.C.I.'s more than 14,000 employees," Mr. Hatch said.

  Two weeks later, by Mr. Hatch's account in an interview last November, the
Senator telephoned the bank's president. Mr. Naqvi, and asked that he consider
lending money to Mr. Hourani, the Senator's Houston business associate and
friend.

                    Big Contributor Hurt By Houston Slump

  Mr. Hourani, portrayed by business associates and court documents as hard hit
by the Houston recession of the late 1980's, was a big campaign contributor to
Mr. Hatch.  In 1987 and 1988, he and his employees gave a total of at least
$12,000 to the Senator's campaign organizations.

  In 1988, the Senator and the developer entered into an unusual investment.
Mr. Hatch said Mr. Hourani had invested $10,000 of Mr. Hatch's money, using it
to buy a one-bedroom apartment in a development in south-west Houston.  The
600-square-foot apartment is on the first floor of a 20-year-old complex,
across a highway from a pawnshop.  It is appraised at about $20,000.

  On April 2, 1990, less than a month after the phone call from Mr. Hatch to
B.C.C.I.'s president, Mr. Hourani wrote a three-page letter to Mr. Naqvi,
outlining a proposal for the bank to give him loan guarantees, in exchange
for a percentage of whatever projects were financed.

  It is not known what became of the proosal, though Mr. Hatch said Mr. Hourani
had never received financing from B.C.C.I.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush