U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–833 CC 1997

CONDUIT PAYMENTS TO THE DEMOCRATIC

NATIONAL COMMITTEE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT REFORM 

AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 9, 1997

Serial No. 105–51

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 

DC 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

HAROLD E. FORD, Tennessee 

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

(Independent) 

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director 

RICHARD D. BENNETT, Chief Counsel 

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk 

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 9, 1997 ............................................................................ 1

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: 

Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia: 

Exhibits 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, and 78 .......................................................... 151

Exhibits 115, 119, 60, 61, 53, and 67 ....................................................... 158

Bennett, Richard, chief counsel, Committee on Government Reform and 

Oversight: 

Exhibit 68 ................................................................................................... 96

Exhibit 69 ................................................................................................... 98

Exhibits 70, 71, and 72 ............................................................................. 100

Exhibit 73 ................................................................................................... 104

Exhibits 75 and 76 .................................................................................... 106

Exhibit 77 ................................................................................................... 109

Exhibit 78 ................................................................................................... 111

Exhibit 93 ................................................................................................... 115

Exhibit 94 ................................................................................................... 117

Exhibit 96 ................................................................................................... 119

Exhibit 97 ................................................................................................... 121

Exhibit C–28 .............................................................................................. 123

Exhibit 99 ................................................................................................... 254

Exhibit 100 ................................................................................................. 260

Exhibit 101 ................................................................................................. 262

Exhibits 102 and 103 ................................................................................ 264

Exhibit 106 ................................................................................................. 267

Exhibits 104 and 105 ................................................................................ 269

Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana: 

Letters referring to House Rule XI 3.(f)(2) .............................................. 4

Pertinent supplementary material ........................................................... 306

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Foung, Manlin: 

Deposition of .............................................................................................. 16

Exhibits from deposition ........................................................................... 59

Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California: 

Exhibit 113 ................................................................................................. 288

Information concerning John Huang’s whereabouts .............................. 359

Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania, photograph of John Huang .............................................. 290

Landon, Joseph Raymond, Jr.: 

Depostion of ............................................................................................... 76

Exhibits from deposition ........................................................................... 89

Lantos, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, letter dated October 8, 1997 ............................................................ 134

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida, exhibit 110 ....................................................................................... 181

Wang, David: 

Deposition of .............................................................................................. 186

Exhibits from deposition ........................................................................... 217

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: 

Bank of China annual report ................................................................... 367

Chart referring to John Huang as Charlie Trie’s DNC contact ............ 13

Minority staff report ................................................................................. 306

(1)

CONDUIT PAYMENTS TO THE DEMOCRATIC 

NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Burton, Hastert, Morella, Shays, Cox, 

McHugh, Horn, Mica, McIntosh, Souder, Shadegg, Sununu, Sessions, Pappas, Snowbarger, Barr, Portman, Waxman, Lantos, 

Owens, Kanjorski, Condit, Maloney, Barrett, Norton, Fattah, 

Cummings, Kucinich, Blagojevich, Davis of Illinois, Tierney, Turner, Allen, and Ford. 

Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Richard Bennett, chief 

counsel; William Moschella, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; 

Butch Hodgson, chief investigator; Daniel R. Moll, deputy staff director; Judith McCoy, chief clerk; Teresa Austin, assistant clerk/

calendar clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; Will Dwyer, director 

of communications; Ashley Williams, deputy director of communications; Barbara Comstock, chief investigative counsel; Robert 

Rohrbaugh, James C. Wilson, Tim Griffin, and Uttam Dhillon, senior investigative counsels; Dave Bossie, oversight coordinator; 

Kristi Remington, Alicemary Leach, Bill Hanka, and David Kass, 

investigative counsels; Jim Schumann, John Irving, and Jason Foster, investigators; Phil Larsen, investigative consultant; Carolyn 

Pritts, administrative investigative assistant; David Jones and 

John Mastranadi, investigative staff assistants; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth 

Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; Agnieszka Fryszman, 

Christopher Lu, Matthew Joseph, Andrew McLaughlin, David 

Sadkin, Michael Yang, Michael Yeager, minority counsels; Harry 

Gossett and Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff members; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Becky Claster, Jean Gosa, 

Andrew Su, and Amy Wendt, minority staff assistants; and Sheridan Pauker, minority research assistant. 

Mr. BURTON. The committee will come to order. 

Would the television cameras recede a little bit? And when we 

get through with our opening statements, at the request of the 

counsel for the witnesses, we will ask the television cameras to 

leave the room. 

Good morning. A quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will come to order. Before the disVerDate Sep 04 2002 16:54 Sep 20, 2002 Jkt 081028 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\44833 44833
2

tinguished ranking member and I deliver our opening statements, 

the committee must first dispose of some procedural issues. 

I ask unanimous consent that Members be able to use the depositions of Manlin Foung, Joseph Landon and David Wang at today’s 

hearing and ask further unanimous consent that they be made a 

part of the record. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object, those depositions, 

Mr. Chairman, will be, in their entirety, part of the record? 

Mr. BURTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. We have no objection. 

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that questioning in the matter 

under consideration proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House rule XI 

and committee rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking minority member allocate time to committee counsel as they deem appropriate for extended questioning, not to exceed 60 minutes, equally 

divided by the majority and the minority. 

And without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. LANTOS. Reserving the right to object. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman reserves the right to object. 

Mr. LANTOS. Does this mean, Mr. Chairman, that committee 

counsel, with his questioning, will precede members of the committee? 

Mr. BURTON. Yes, sir. For the first hour, we will have committee 

counsel on each side question for 30 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LANTOS. I’ll be glad to yield. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The rules have recently been changed in the House 

of Representatives to provide for an interrogation of a half-hour, 

first by the majority and then a half-hour by the minority. That 

time can be allocated to staff or to Members as the chairman sees 

fit on his side or we see fit on our side. 

Mr. BURTON. That is correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Under the rules, this must be agreed to either by 

consent of the ranking member with the chairman or vote of the 

committee. 

I don’t see an objection to what the chairman is requesting. I 

think this is going to be the first time that the House of Representatives has used this new format for a more extended period of time 

for interrogation. We’ll try it out. 

Mr. LANTOS. Continuing my right to reserve, I will not object. 

However, I think it is a very bad procedure. It is analogous in political campaigns to having a battle of advertising agencies rather 

than candidates themselves. 

I think members of this committee should conduct their own 

questioning. That is why we have been sent here by our respective 

constituencies. And to turn this very important function over to our 

staff, I think is less than ideal procedure. But I withdraw my objection. 

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered. 

I further ask unanimous consent that the questioning in the matter under consideration proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House rule 

XI and committee rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking minority member allocate time to members of the committee as they 

3

deem appropriate for extended questioning, not to exceed 60 minutes for the first panel, equally divided between the majority and 

the minority. 

And there has been agreement reached between myself and the 

ranking member, Mr. Waxman, that we will proceed under an 

equation or situation where there will be 10 minutes given to the 

majority side and 10 minutes to the minority and so on until the 

60 minutes is exhausted. 

Is there objection? 

Hearing none, so ordered. 

On October 1, 1997, the committee received a letter addressed 

from Charles J. Stephens requesting, on behalf of his clients, 

Manlin Foung and Joseph Landon, that the cameras be turned off 

pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of House rule XI. Similarly, David 

Wang’s attorney, Michael A. Carvin, sent a similar letter on October 8, 1997. 

Without objection, those letters will be entered into the record. 

[The letters referred to follow:]

4


g:\graphics\44833.001
5


g:\graphics\44833.002
6

Mr. BURTON. Clause 3(f)(2) of House rule XI allows a subpoenaed 

witness to have the cameras turned off and the microphones used 

for broadcast turned off. The rules provide that,

No witness served with a subpoena by the committee shall be required against 

his or her will to be photographed at any hearing or to give evidence or testimony 

while the broadcasting of that hearing by radio or television is being conducted. 

At the request of any such witness who does not wish to be subjected to radio, 

television, or still photography coverage, all lenses shall be covered, and all microphones used for coverage turned off.

While I’m disappointed that this hearing will not be televised because we believe the American people have the right to know what 

these witnesses have to say. However, Manlin Foung, Joseph 

Landon, and David Wang have asserted their rights under the rule, 

and the committee is obliged to honor their request. Therefore, at 

the appropriate time, I will instruct our friends in the media to observe the rule and cover all lenses and shut off all microphones 

used for coverage. 

I now yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Today, marks the first day of hearings into illegal foreign fundraising and other violations of law during recent campaigns. We 

have three witnesses today. These individuals have admitted to 

making conduit contributions to the Democratic National Committee. 

Testifying on our first panel will be Manlin Foung, the sister of 

Charlie Trie. Joining her will be her companion, Joseph Landon. 

Testifying on our second panel will be David Wang, a businessman 

from Los Angeles. Our witnesses today are not villains; they are 

victims. They are ordinary people who are put on the spot by someone they trusted, and they got burned. 

Ms. Foung, Mr. Landon, and Mr. Wang have given their full cooperation to this committee, and we really appreciate that. They 

have talked to us voluntarily. Their testimony will help us as we 

slowly but surely try to put the pieces of this puzzle together. We 

owe them our thanks for their cooperation. 

It stands in marked contrast to the cooperation we have received 

from the White House and the Democratic National Committee. 

The difficulty this committee has faced with the White House has 

been deplorable. It is an outrage that the White House has withheld knowledge of the White House coffee videotapes until now. 

This committee’s March 4th subpoena specifically required the 

production of videotapes 7 months ago. At least a half a dozen senior White House aides and the President himself were taped. It is 

obvious that the President and most of his senior staff knew that 

these tapes existed for a long time. After all, the President was in 

the tapes. 

The fact that they have been withheld this entire year borders 

on obstruction. There are reportedly another 150 tapes of Democratic National Committee events that we still have not received. 

The record shows more and more that this White House and this 

President are not eager for the American people to know the whole 

truth, and the American people have a right to know the facts. 

Fortunately, today, we have witnesses who have been cooperative 

and are willing to tell the truth. Ms. Foung and Mr. Landon contributed $35,000 to the DNC in 1996 at Charlie Trie’s request. 

7

They were promptly reimbursed for each contribution. Our investigators have traced $10,000 of this amount directly back to the 

Bank of China in Macao. This money was wired to the United 

States in August 1996. Within 10 days, it was in the hands of the 

Democratic National Committee. The other $25,000 was repaid in 

sequentially numbered money orders from a bank in New York 

City. Mr. Wang contributed $5,000 to the Democratic National Committee in August of last year. His friend, Daniel Wu, also contributed $5,000. Daniel Wu lives in Taiwan. Both contributions were 

made at the request of John Huang. Both men were paid back with 

envelopes full of cash given to them by Antonio Pan. 

We have granted these witnesses immunity from prosecution. 

This is an extra layer of protection to make sure that these three 

people can come forward and tell the American people what happened without any fear. It is well known that the Justice Department, as a matter of policy, does not seek to prosecute straw donors. I will quote from a 1994 memo from the director of the Justice Department’s Election Crimes branch, quote, The Justice Department has a long-standing, nonprosecution policy for persons 

who are used as conduits or straws to disguise another person’s illegal contributions, provided that allowing their names to be used 

by another is the extent of their participation in the scheme, end 

quote. 

The testimony we are about to receive cannot be dismissed lightly. John Huang and Charlie Trie are both close friends and appointees of the President. John Huang was in the White House 

over 90 times during the President Clinton’s first term. He had numerous meetings with the President. The President personally intervened to help move him from the Commerce Department to the 

Democratic National Committee. 

This is the first time in my memory that we have seen evidence 

of such blatantly illegal activity by a senior national party official. 

John Huang’s title at the Democratic National Committee was vice 

chairman for finance. 

Likewise, Charlie Trie was a close personal friend of the President. Charlie Trie visited the White House nearly 40 times that we 

know of. In early 1996, the President signed an Executive order enlarging a Presidential commission on trade, so he could appoint Mr. 

Trie to that commission. It should be disturbing to all of us to receive testimony about illegal and unethical conduct by such close 

associates to the President of the United States. 

An important figure that is going to emerge during this hearing 

is a man named Antonio Pan. Mr. Pan is a rather mysterious figure who had ties to Charlie Trie, the Lippo Group, and John 

Huang. He was in the White House eight times in 1995 and 1996. 

He was apparently the bag man in both the transactions involving 

Manlin Foung and David Wang. It will become clear through documents and testimony that he was handling large amounts of cash. 

Antonio Pan’s involvement here raises a number of questions. 

Whose bidding was he doing? Charlie Trie’s? John Huang’s? The 

Lippo Group’s? Were they all collaborating? Where did the cash 

come from? A number of the transactions we are going to talk 

about today involve large amounts of cash. If we are going to trace 

8

the origins of this money, we are going to have to talk to the people 

who handled that cash. 

Charlie Trie has left the country. I don’t think he’s planning on 

coming back. The last we heard, he was in Shanghai. John Huang 

has taken the fifth. Antonio Pan has left the country. According to 

our most recent information, we believe that he’s either in Hong 

Kong or New Zealand. This is a perfect case study in the obstacles 

that this committee has faced in trying to root out the truth about 

the illegal foreign money that was flowing to the DNC. 

The obstacles have been many. More than 60 people have either 

taken the fifth amendment or fled the country to avoid revealing 

their role in this scandal. Next week, the President will be meeting 

with President Jiang Zemin of the People’s Republic of China. If he 

wants to get all of the facts laid out on the table, he should insist 

that the Chinese Government send Charlie Trie back to the United 

States so we can question him. The American people have an absolute right to know what Charlie Trie did and what senior Government officials asked him to do. 

Finally, today’s hearing is going to focus much-needed attention 

on the DNC’s program of identifying and returning illegal contributions. It appears that the DNC’s highly touted audit by Ernst & 

Young was error prone and is completely unreliable. This is a subject that we are likely to return to in future hearings. 

I once again want to thank our witnesses for their cooperation. 

This has been a tense and nervous couple of weeks for them, and 

we understand that. This hearing room is probably the last place 

that they want to be today, but we are going to try to make this 

as easy as possible for all of them. 

I now recognize our ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for his comments. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]

9


g:\graphics\44833.003
10


g:\graphics\44833.004
11


g:\graphics\44833.005
12

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. After nearly a year of investigating and $3 million spent, 

we’re hearing from our first witnesses about the 1996 elections. 

The focus of this hearing is on conduit payments. Conduit payments are, of course, illegal; unfortunately, they’ve also become 

much too common. In Senator Dole’s campaign, for instance, both 

Simon Fireman and Empire Landfill have admitted to pervasive 

conduit schemes and directed $149,000 in illegal donations to the 

Dole campaign. In fact, today’s Washington Post has the headline ‘‘Firm to Pay $8 million Fine for Illegal Campaign Gifts.’’ Moreover, as the chart on the screen indicates, the Federal Elections Commission is currently investigating 27 conduit payments 

involving 214 individuals. The FEC has closed 21 cases involving 

108 individuals and levied $335,000 in fines. The FEC also closed, 

without action, 20 cases involving 246 respondents under their enforcement priority system. All these cases are for the 1992, 1994 

and 1996 election cycles. 

Our hearings have value if they at least add to the knowledge 

gained already in Senator Thompson’s hearings. So it is useful to 

review briefly the July 29 Senate hearing that focused on Charlie 

Trie. 

[Video shown.]

Senator THOMPSON. ‘‘There was a Presidential appointment in April 1996. So the 

committee will hear today from Mr. Jerry Campane, an agent of the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation. And it will later hear from two witnesses to whom it has granted 

immunity for the—from the use of their testimony and any criminal prosecutions 

against them. 

‘‘Senator Glenn, do you have an opening statement?’’

Senator GLENN. ‘‘I don’t have an opening statement.’’

Senator THOMPSON. ‘‘All right. 

‘‘Mr. Campane, will you please stand and raise your right hand.’’

Mr. WAXMAN. That was an excerpt from Senator Thompson’s 

hearing and part of his opening statement. At that hearing, he had 

three witnesses testifying. The first, Jerry Campane, was an FBI 

agent detailed to the Senate. He led the Senate conduit investigation and used the chart now on the screen—if we could have that 

chart put on the screen—to show how Charlie Trie and Ng Lap 

Seng, also known as Mr. Wu, arranged conduit payments. And I 

want to point out that these conduit payments were for a February 

1996 fund-raiser at the Hay-Adams Hotel, which is the same fundraiser that Manlin Foung and Joseph Landon contributed to. 

[The chart referred to follows:]

13


g:\graphics\44833.006
14

Mr. WAXMAN. Also testifying at the Senate hearing were Yue 

Chu and Xi Ping Wang, whose names are on the charts. They received immunity from the Senate and testified that they made contributions and were subsequently reimbursed by Charlie Trie and 

Ng Lap Seng. 

In my view, the Senate hearing conclusively demonstrated that 

Mr. Trie and Ng Lap Seng asked Yue Chu and Xi Ping Wang to 

make conduit contributions. The depositions of Manlin Foung and 

Joseph Landon seem to indicate that they had an identical experience. But there is nothing in their deposition that adds to the 

knowledge to what Senator Thompson uncovered in his July 29 

hearing. Instead of bringing them here from California, we could 

have achieved the same result simply by replaying not just that 

opening from Senator Thompson’s hearing, but the whole hearing 

itself. 

Now we have a third witness today, but before addressing his 

testimony, I want to make a brief comment to my Democratic colleagues. As the senior Democrat on this committee, I have a special 

responsibility to make sure our side has all the necessary information in making decisions. In retrospect, I believe I made a serious 

mistake in not adequately questioning the information Chairman 

Burton gave to us regarding David Wang and in agreeing to his 

recommendation to approve immunity. 

When the matter was before us, I was influenced most by the 

fact that Mr. Wang seemed to be an innocent victim in a conduit 

scheme and that he made statements to committee investigators 

without an attorney present, and with no understanding of the 

legal consequences that he faced. But I was also perhaps too sensitive to the fact that if the Democrats opposed immunity, we 

would be accused of being partisan. I will not make that mistake 

again. 

It is now clear that David Wang never should have received immunity. He has repeatedly misled this committee and Chairman 

Burton and his staff and our staff, and we have failed to ensure 

that his representations were truthful. The essence of his testimony—the part the chairman, the Republican chief counsel and 

other committee members have been citing, and the press has been 

reporting—appears to be a fiction. 

I personally questioned Mr. Wang during his deposition on Monday, and he testified that John Huang called him on the morning 

of August 16th. According to Mr. Wang’s testimony, 1 hour later, 

John Huang then arrived in Mr. Wang’s Los Angeles office. Mr. 

Wang also testified that at that time, John Huang asked for and 

immediately received Mr. Wang’s contribution to the Clinton campaign. The truth, however, is that this never happened. 

John Huang did not meet with David Wang on August 16. In the 

last 3 days, the Democratic staff has thoroughly investigated this 

matter. Later this morning, I will enter into the record hotel bills, 

receipts, photographs, news stories and sworn affidavits that prove 

that John Huang was in New York on August 16th. It was impossible for him to have met with Mr. Wang. 

Now, it’s bad enough that we have approved immunity for false 

testimony. But even worse is that in the course of his deposition, 

Mr. Wang disclosed other criminal acts or potential criminal acts 

15

that are far more serious than his conduit contribution. But because he provided that information in response to a question Republican Counsel Dick Bennett asked, he now has immunity for 

those crimes as well. We have blundered into giving Mr. Wang immunity for immigration and tax fraud and received only false statements in return. 

At the outset, I said our hearings will only have value if we add 

to what Senator Thompson has learned. But that presupposes that 

we do no harm. Today we do harm. We have made a careless and 

irresponsible decision on immunity. We cannot take the representations Chairman Burton gives us at face value. And I regret that we 

didn’t initiate our own Democratic investigation of Mr. Wang earlier. That is another mistake we won’t make again. 

In a year of embarrassments, this is the most damaging one to 

our committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

I would just like to say to the ranking member that while immunity was granted, there is no immunity for perjury before this committee, and all witnesses will be sworn, as the ranking member 

knows. 

With that, in accordance with what I previously stated in the 

rule, we will ask the cameras to be shut off, to be covered, and the 

microphones to be covered so that we can proceed with the—— Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. In light of the fact that the most serious witness 

before us is Mr. Wang, I would ask that we put him on first. 

Mr. BURTON. We already have the schedule. And the Chair 

has——

Mr. WAXMAN. There’s no reason why that schedule couldn’t be 

changed. He is the witness from whom we are going to learn something today. And we may have learned that, to our regret, we’re 

out giving immunity inappropriately. Let’s put him on first. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman, the gentleman is not even here yet. 

He was scheduled to come this afternoon. He won’t be around until 

at least noon. And we will proceed as we have scheduled. 

The cameras will be shut off at this time. They will be covered. 

The microphones will be covered in accordance with the request of 

the witnesses. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. BURTON. If you’re going to leave that camera there, could 

you cover that lens, please, just to make sure that the witnesses 

feel comfortable. I know you have it shut off, but I want to make 

sure it’s covered, so we don’t have to worry about it. 

Thank you, sir. I appreciate that very much. That is an unusual 

cover you have there. Could you find some kind of cover or turn 

that camera around on the right, please, or whatever you want to 

do to cover it up? 

Are we about set? Would the officer out there shut that door as 

soon as the door is cleared, please? 

Manlin Foung and Joseph Landon, with your counsel, would you 

approach the witness table, please? Would you stand and raise 

your right hands, please? 

16

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. BURTON. Be seated. 

Once again, we want to thank you for your cooperation in being 

here today. And like I said to both of you before we started, we’re 

going to try to make this as easy and as painless as possible. So 

just relax. And if you need some water or anything, take your time. 

I now recognize the committee’s chief counsel, Mr. Bennett, to 

start the questioning. He will be recognized for 30 minutes, and 

then we’ll yield to the ranking minority member for whomever he 

chooses for the remaining 30 minutes of the first hour. 

[The depositions of Manlin Foung and Joseph Landon follow:]

EXECUTIVE SESSION

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC. 

DEPOSITION OF: MANLIN FOUNG 

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1997

The deposition in the above matter was held in the Office of Charles J. Stevens, 

Esq., 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1450, Sacramento, California, commencing at 9:00 a.m. 

Appearances: 

Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Richard D. 

Bennett, special counsel; James C. Wilson, senior investigative counsel; Charles F. 

Little, investigator; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigator; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; and Christopher Lu, minority counsel. 

For MANLIN FOUNG: 

CHARLES J. STEVENS, ESQ. 

Stevens & O’Connell 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1450

Sacramento, California 95814

Mr. BENNETT. Good morning, Ms. Foung. I am Dick Bennett, Special Counsel to 

the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform and 

Oversight. I want to thank you for coming. 

In an abundance of caution, I want to read a preamble and some ground rules 

prior to having the oath be administered. If for any reason you don’t understand 

any questions that we have here today, don’t hesitate to indicate that you don’t understand. 

On behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I want to thank you for appearing. The record should reflect that we are here 

in Sacramento, California, taking your deposition. This proceeding is known as a 

deposition. The person transcribing the proceeding is a House reporter and notary 

public, and I would now request that he place you under oath. 

THEREUPON, MANLIN FOUNG, a witness, was called for examination by counsel, 

and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Foung, I would like to note for the record those who are 

present at the beginning of this deposition. Your attorney, Chuck Stevens, is here 

with you. And again the record should reflect we are here in Mr. Stevens’ office. 

I am Dick Bennett, special counsel to the committee. With me and accompanying 

me is Mr. Jim Wilson, who is also Majority counsel for the House committee. Also, 

Mr. Charles Little, an investigator for the committee. 

Here for the Minority today are Messrs. Ken Ballen, Phil Barnett, and Charles 

Lu. 

Mr. LU. Chris Lu. 

Mr. BENNETT. Chris Lu. I’m sorry. 

Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you have been placed under oath, your testimony here today has the same 

force and effect as if you were testifying before the committee, before the Congress, 

or in a courtroom. Do you understand that? 

17

The WITNESS. Yes, I do. 

Mr. BENNETT. If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past and if 

you are unable to recall the exact words used in a conversation, you may state that 

you are unable to recall those exact words and you may then give the gist or substance of any conversation to the best of your recollection. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Oh, yes, I do. 

Mr. BENNETT. The court reporter cannot pick up a nod of your head. 

If you recall only part of a conversation or only part of an event, please give us 

your best recollection of these events or parts of conversations that you recall. If I 

ask you whether you have any information about a particular subject and you have 

overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding that subject, or have 

seen correspondence or documentation about that subject, please tell me that you 

do have such information and indicate the source from which you derived such 

knowledge. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Including newspaper? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, general information that you have, yes. 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

Mr. BENNETT. Before we begin the questioning, I want to, pursuant to the procedures normally followed, give you some background about the investigation and 

your appearance here. 

Pursuant to its authority under House rules 10 and 11 of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is engaged in a wideranging review of political fund-raising improprieties and possible violations of law. 

Pages 2 through 4 of House Report 105–139 summarizes the investigation as of 

June 19, 1997, and describes new matters which have arisen in the course of the 

investigation. Also, pages 4 through 11 of the report explain the background of the 

investigation. 

All questions related either directly or indirectly to these issues, or questions 

which have the tendency to make the existence of any pertinent fact more or less 

probable than it would be without the evidence, are proper. 

The committee has been granted specific authorization to conduct this deposition 

pursuant to House Resolution 167, which passed the full House of Representatives 

of the United States Congress on June 20th of this year. Committee Rule 20 outlines the ground rules for the deposition. 

The Majority and Minority committee counsels will ask you questions regarding 

the subject matter of the investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after 

Majority counsel has finished. 

After the Minority counsel has completed questioning you, a new round of questioning may begin. If there were any Members of Congress who were here today and 

wanted to ask you questions, they would be afforded an immediate opportunity to 

ask you any questions. 

Pursuant to the committee’s rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present 

to advise you of your rights here at this deposition, and Mr. Stevens is here. Any 

objection raised during the course of the deposition shall be stated for the record. 

You are represented by Mr. Stevens, not by Minority counsel, and you follow the 

instructions of Mr. Stevens with respect to responding to questions. 

If you are instructed by Mr. Stevens to not answer a question or otherwise refuse 

to answer a question, we will then, either Majority and Minority counsel, will confer 

to determine whether the objection is proper. If the counsels agree that the question 

is proper, you will be asked to answer the question. If the objection is not withdrawn, the Chairman or member designated by the Chairman may decide whether 

the objection was proper. 

This deposition is considered as taken in executive session of the committee, 

which means it may not be made public without the consent of the committee, pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule 11. You are asked to abide by the rules of 

the House and not discuss with anyone other than your attorney this deposition and 

the issues and questions raised during this proceeding. 

No one is going to take this deposition, Ms. Foung, and give it to a newspaper 

reporter in terms of your responses. You ultimately will be called as a witness before the committee to publicly testify and at that time people can ask you questions 

after you publicly testify. But no one is going to have a copy of this deposition prior 

to that. Do you understand that? 

Again, you have to answer. 

The WITNESS. I do. 

Mr. BENNETT. Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed 

and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the Chairman. That would give you the opportunity if you think 

that Mr. Strickland, the court reporter, had made an error with respect to tranVerDate Sep 04 2002 16:54 Sep 20, 2002 Jkt 081028 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\44833 44833
18

scribing something, you would be given an opportunity to correct any error that you 

felt was in the transcript, and we will see that that is sent immediately to Mr. Stevens so you can have an opportunity to review it. 

The transcript will be available for review by committee staff in terms of any errors anyone thinks has been made. That would be available to both Majority and 

Minority. 

Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments to the deposition 

transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes 

and a statement of your reasons for the requested changes. A letter requesting any 

substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments must be signed by 

you. Any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments shall be 

included as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon your signing the transcript. 

Do you understand everything we have gone over so far? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. STEVENS. If you don’t, tell them and ask questions. 

Mr. BENNETT. Do you understand generally what I have advised you thus far? 

The WITNESS. I’m sorry? 

Mr. BENNETT. Do you understand the matters about which I have advised you 

thus far? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Okay. I am starting to understand why these depositions are taking forever, if this preamble was read to every witness. 

If you have any reasons to break, to talk to Mr. Stevens, you may. 

In terms of ground rules, I will be asking you questions concerning the subject 

matter of the investigation. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Would you repeat that, please? 

Mr. BENNETT. I will be asking you questions concerning the subject matter of this 

investigation. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes, I do. 

Mr. BENNETT. Okay. If you don’t understand a question, please say so and I will 

repeat it or rephrase it so that you understand the question. 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

Mr. BENNETT. Do you understand that you should tell me if you do not understand my question? 

The WITNESS. Yes, I do. 

Mr. BENNETT. Okay. The reporter will be taking down everything we say and will 

make a written record of the deposition. You must give verbal, audible answers because the court reporter cannot record a nod of the head or other gesture. 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

Mr. BENNETT. If you cannot hear me, say so—I doubt that will be a problem—

and I will repeat the question or have the court reporter read the question to you. 

Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes, I do. 

Mr. BENNETT. Please wait until I finish each question before answering, and I will 

wait until you finish your answer before I ask the next question. Do you understand 

that this will help the reporter make a clear record, because he cannot take down 

what we are both saying at the same time? Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Your testimony is being taken under oath as if we were in court, 

and if you answer a question it will be assumed that you understood the question 

and the answer was intended to be responsive to it. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Are you here voluntarily or here as a result of the subpoena? I believe the record should reflect that you have not been subpoenaed. I believe we filed 

a Notice of Deposition. So you are here pursuant to your understanding with your 

attorney, Mr. Stevens, correct? 

The WITNESS. Say that again. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Stevens, we actually didn’t subpoena your client. You have 

agreed to make your client available to us to answer questions; is that correct? 

Mr. STEVENS. I think that is accurate. We certainly anticipated that if we said 

no, that there would be a subpoena. But you’re right, we agreed to do this voluntarily, and we appreciate everyone coming here to this office to accommodate the 

witness. 

Mr. BENNETT. And I am sure that we were all glad to come here to Sacramento 

on such a beautiful day to be here. I speak for the Majority and I suspect I might 

speak for the Minority on that. 

19

If you have any questions before we get started, please ask, Ms. Foung. Or you 

can talk to Mr. Stevens. Do you have any questions. 

The WITNESS. Not at this time. 

Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me, Mr. Bennett. I do have some opening comments I would 

like to make. 

Mr. BENNETT. That might be a good time, if you would like. Go ahead. 

Mr. BALLEN. Ms. Foung, good morning. 

The WITNESS. Good morning. 

Mr. BALLEN. I represent the Democratic members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. As you may know, there are two parties in the U.S. 

House of Representatives, the Republican Party that controls the House and the 

Democratic Party which does not. 

On our committee, every committee has representatives of both parties. The Majority is represented by the Republicans. Their Chairman is Dan Burton who is Mr. 

Bennett’s boss. I represent the Minority on the committee, the Democrats. My boss 

is Representative Henry Waxman from Los Angeles, and the other committee Democrats. If you are familiar, some are from this area. Gary Condit is one of our Members. Tom Lantos from California. You may know some of them. 

I want to emphasize to you that we represent the Democratic Members of Congress who sit on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. I do now. 

Mr. BALLEN. Okay. We don’t represent the Democratic National Committee. We 

don’t represent the White House. We simply represent the Members of the House 

of Representatives who are the Democratic members on the House committee. 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

Mr. BALLEN. You look somewhat perplexed, so I wanted to ask you. 

The WITNESS. It is something more complicated than I can understand, but I basically understand what you are trying to say, yes. 

Mr. BALLEN. I want to let you know our view of this proceeding so that you do 

understand it, and start by apologizing because we feel you have given the statement and that should be sufficient for this committee. We do not feel this deposition 

today is necessary. And so we apologize for the inconvenience it has caused you, in 

advance. 

And we also want to tell you, and Mr. Bennett is going to perhaps have to tell 

you that better, why we think you are being called today, because we are not sure. 

Mr. Dan Burton, who is the Chairman of the committee and who is Mr. Bennett’s boss, has stated on the floor of the House of Representatives that he believes there 

to be a conspiracy possibly involving the Chinese Government to corrupt the American political system. And he also believes and he has stated that your brother, 

Charlie Trie, may be a part of this conspiracy. 

In April of this year, Mr. Burton took to the floor of the House of Representatives 

and talked about your brother. He said your brother was part of a cast of characters 

who may have corrupted the American political system. 

The WITNESS. What does that mean, ‘‘cast of characters’’? 

Mr. BALLEN. Well, can I read it to you? 

Mr. STEVENS. Ken, I don’t think she understands the idiom ‘‘cast of characters.’’

It means one of a group of people, a group of individuals involved in something. 

The WITNESS. Oh, okay. That was my only question. 

Mr. BALLEN. Let me just read you the exact quotes, not to take anything out of 

context. 

Mr. Burton, Mr. Bennett’s boss, said on the floor of the House of Representatives 

in Washington, ‘‘Did foreign governments funnel foreign funds in the 1996 campaign? The American people have a right to know. How did a cast of characters’’—

individuals—‘‘such as John Huang, Charlie Trie, Chinese arms dealer Wang Jun, 

purported Russian mob figure Gregori Loutchansky and convicted drug dealer Jorge 

Cabrera gain access to the highest levels of our government?’’

The WITNESS. So in another word, they do not necessarily mean—I am just still 

trying to understand the ‘‘cast of characters.’’

Mr. BALLEN. Uh-huh. 

The WITNESS. Does that mean they are just comparing my brother with the other 

characters, or is my brother part of all the characters that conspired something? Is 

that what that means? 

Mr. BALLEN. Well, it’s hard for me to answer that. I think the answer is both. 

Comparing your brother to the other characters——

The WITNESS. As well as he’s a part of it? 

Mr. BALLEN. Yes, correct. I mean, I think that’s the theory. I think the statement 

reflects that theory and those are serious allegations. 

20

The WITNESS. This is news to me, yes. 

Mr. BALLEN. That’s why I wanted to tell you, so that you know the context of why 

you are being called here and what this is about. 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

Mr. STEVENS. Let me be clear that he is not saying that there is necessarily evidence of that. He is saying that that is one potential theory that will be reviewed. 

It may be that there is no evidence of it. He is outlining one thing that might be 

the subject of the investigation. 

The WITNESS. Right. 

Mr. BALLEN. Right. And I think what your lawyer told you is correct. It is just 

a theory, but it is a theory that Mr. Bennett’s boss has said repeatedly over the past 

9 months. So it is a theory that some people may want to try to prove. 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

Mr. BALLEN. I think it is also fair to inform you just what is meant—why you 

have to be coming back to Washington, what will happen to you in Washington. 

That there will be a hearing. There may be—there will be a large room with many 

Congressmen, over 44 Congressmen sitting there. You will be at a table in front of 

them. There may be television cameras. There may be news reporters. It is a public 

open hearing. 

And we just want you to know where this thing is going and our point of view 

on it, which is different from their point of view. And we will do our best to make 

this as simple for you and as painless as we possibly can. 

The WITNESS. I hope so. Thank you. 

Mr. BENNETT. Are there any further comments, Mr. Ballen? 

Mr. BALLEN. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Foung, are you now terrified to testify, or are you still willing 

to testify here today? 

The WITNESS. I will tell you what I know. That is all I can do. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am certainly not here to try to frighten you here, Ms. Foung. The 

effort here is not to scare a witness or frighten a witness. It is merely to get facts. 

We as lawyers are here—I am here representing the Majority. I don’t just work 

for one individual. I’m with the Republican Majority and report to the Republican 

Majority. And we are here just to ask you questions of facts. No one has made an 

allegation against you, and the lawyers here at the table as lawyers are bound by 

canons of ethics in which we are to seek the truth as best we can. 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

Mr. BENNETT. And that ultimately is or should be the calling of lawyers. So no 

one is here to frighten you. I don’t know what is going to happen when you come 

to Washington. There will be a hearing and there will be, hopefully, 44 Congressmen sitting in a room, although I suspect many of them will be going in and out 

of the room, from what I have observed, and you will be asked questions. We 

thought it was fair to see you first to understand the types of questions that will 

be asked of you. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask. 

Also, in the room here, along with the two lawyers for the Majority and the three 

lawyers for the Minority and your lawyer, is Mr. Charles Little, I mentioned earlier. 

I believe you met Mr. Little before; is that correct. 

The WITNESS. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. And Mr. Little as well as two other individuals at one point in time 

asked you basic questions and tried to get information as best they could from you; 

isn’t that correct? 

The WITNESS. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. And you were very cooperative and answered their questions; is 

that correct? 

The WITNESS. I believe so. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. And I want to compliment you on your level of cooperation and 

your candor in answering those questions. 

Do you believe that Mr. Little or any of the other visitors were unfair to you in 

any way? 

The WITNESS. I believe they were doing—probably doing their best job they can. 

Mr. BENNETT. And do you think that they in any way abused you or treated you 

unfairly or unkindly in any way? 

The WITNESS. They were very polite and very friendly. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Stevens, I believe you indicated to me previously that you don’t 

believe your client’s constitutional rights were violated in any way. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, I’m not having my deposition taken. But do you want me to 

state my full position on the record? 

Mr. BENNETT. Just generally, if you will, on behalf of your clients. 

21

Mr. STEVENS. Based on my review of the situation, including numerous discussions with my client, I think it is fair to say at this point that she is not alleging 

that any of her constitutional rights were violated nor is she alleging that she was 

in any way abused or mistreated in the normal sense of those words by the attorneys or investigators who contacted her. 

I will say, however, though, that she is concerned there were some statements 

made that in her mind were designed to cause her to believe that it was not necessary for her to consult counsel in order to protect her interests. She’s not claiming 

that she was told unequivocally not to obtain counsel. And I know, based on my own 

experience, that statements of an ambiguous nature like this are frequently made 

and they are not necessarily improper. However, given her background, her cultural 

background, to a certain extent inability to comprehend all of the idioms of the 

English language, in an ideal world there would have been no statements about 

counsel at all. 

For example, when she asked whether she should consult with counsel, one thing 

that she recalls being stated in response was, ‘‘Why would you need counsel?’’ Now, 

we all as lawyers might know that that is not technically an improper question, but 

when that question is posed to a person in Ms. Foung’s position, it could have the 

effect of causing her to misunderstand the situation. Again in an ideal world, certain statements perhaps shouldn’t have been made. But that expression of concern 

on her part about her treatment is a far cry from some of the things, frankly, I’ve 

heard and read about violating constitutional rights or abusing her or mistreating 

her or lying to her. 

But I did think it appropriate to put on the record that one area of concern, because it is one Ms. Foung has consistently expressed to me, although she understands the system and she does agree that all the lawyers and investigators on both 

sides in this situation are honorable people doing their best and no one at any time 

has tried to induce her to make things up or to implicate people unfairly or inappropriately. 

Let me just make sure that what I said is an accurate summary of Ms. Foung’s 

position. 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Ms. Foung, and Mr. Stevens. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. With respect to your personal background, Ms. Foung, when were you 

born? 

Answer. February 9th, 1952. 

Question. And what is your social security number? 

Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me; is this necessary to put her social security number on 

the record? Something maybe she—because we——

Mr. BENNETT. I don’t really care. You don’t have to put your social security number on the record. That’s fine. 

Mr. BALLEN. This might be publicly released, this deposition. 

The WITNESS. Could I have a piece of paper and pen? 

Mr. BENNETT. Sure. 

Mr. BALLEN. It is my understanding that your deposition could be publicly released and so, therefore, I don’t see why we need to put the social security number 

on the record. 

Mr. STEVENS. Can we go off the record for a second? 

[Discussion off the record.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Let me just ask you this, you are a naturalized American citizen? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. What is the date of your citizenship? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. I believe sometime around 1980. 

Question. When did you first come to this country? 

Answer. 1973. 

Question. And what is your educational background? 

Answer. I graduated from high school in Taiwan. I had 52 units completed in the 

United States, major in business. 

Question. At what university? 

Answer. Solano College. 

Question. Here in California? 

Answer. Yes. 

22

Question. And in terms of your background, I’ll get into your family background, 

I’ll ask more detailed questions on some matters perhaps later, but you have a 

brother and a sister; is that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And are your mother and father both still living? 

Answer. No. My father was dead. 

Question. And your mother, her name is? 

Answer. Do E-Fong. 

Question. And where does she reside? 

Answer. Little Rock. 

Question. Arkansas? 

Answer. Arkansas. 

Question. And your two siblings, a brother and a sister, your sister’s name is? 

Answer. Why do we—Dai Lin. 

Question. And does she have a last name in addition—I know that Lin is a family 

name. Is there a last name? 

Answer. Outlaw. 

Question. And she lives in Virginia; is that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And then you have a brother who has previously been indicated as Mr. 

Charlie Trie? 

Answer. Yah Lin Trie. 

Question. And he goes by the name Charlie Trie; is that correct? 

Answer. I call him Charlie—we call him Charlie. 

Question. Okay. And are your brother and sister both naturalized American citizens? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And your mother is a naturalized American citizen? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. Now, have you been politically active yourself, Ms. Foung? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And I would imagine after this experience you don’t intend to be; is that 

correct? You have to answer. You are not politically active, are you, ma’am? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And prior to the matters about which we are going to have you testify 

in 1996, had you ever worked on any political campaigns? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Had you—and I want to go over the matter—the States in which you 

have resided, but have you been particularly active in contributing money to any 

political campaigns over the years? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. In terms of your residence, you have lived here in California for how 

long? 

Answer. Since 1990. 

Question. Prior to 1990, where did you live? You don’t need to name the specific 

address, but the State. 

Answer. Texas. 

Question. How long did you live in Texas? 

Answer. Approximately 6 years. 

Question. From approximately 1983 or 1984 until 1990? 

Answer. I’m sorry? 

Question. Just take your time. From——

Answer. From 1992 to—I mean ’82 or ’83—I couldn’t remember. 

Question. Let me go back. Maybe it would be easier as opposed to moving back, 

I will take you back to a date and let you move forward. Where did you first reside 

when you came here to the United States? 

Answer. San Francisco. 

Question. For how many years? 

Mr. STEVENS. Just give approximate, two or three? Four to five? 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. You don’t need to be with any great specificity. 

Answer. ’73 to ’7—’73 to ’77. Approximately 4 years. 

Question. You lived in the San Francisco area of California? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And then in 1977, where did you move? 

Answer. Little Rock, Arkansas. 

23

Question. And you went to Little Rock, Arkansas, approximately in 1977? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. How old were you at that time, approximately? 

Answer. If I was born—— Question. 25? 

Answer [continuing]. In ’52? Twenty-five. 

Question. And what caused you to move to Little Rock, Arkansas? 

Answer. A job transfer. 

Question. And for whom were you working at the time? 

Answer. USF&G, an insurance company. United States Fidelity and Guaranty. 

Question. And you went to work there in 1977 in Little Rock, and how long did 

you stay in Arkansas? 

Answer. Approximately 5, 6 years. 

Question. From let us say 1977 until perhaps ’83? 

Answer. ’82, ’83. 

Question. Were any other members of the family with you when you moved to Little Rock, Arkansas? 

Answer. What do you mean by that? 

Question. I mean, did you move to Little Rock, Arkansas—my question is, did any 

other members of your family live in Little Rock, Arkansas, in addition to you? 

Answer. Yes, my brother and my sister, both. 

Question. Were they already living there or did they go with you to Little Rock, 

Arkansas? 

Answer. They were already there. 

Question. And how long had Dai Lin been living in Little Rock, Arkansas? 

Answer. I don’t remember. I don’t know. 

Question. Several years? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. She had an existing business there; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And her business, she owned a restaurant? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And your brother, Yah Lin Trie, Charlie Trie, how long had he been in 

Arkansas when you arrived there in 1977? 

Answer. I don’t really remember. 

Question. He was working for your sister at the time; wasn’t he? 

Answer. At first, yes. 

Question. And in what capacity did he work for your sister? 

Mr. STEVENS. What did he do? 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. What did he do? I’m sorry; what did he do for your sister? She owned 

a restaurant. Dai Lin owned a restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And your brother worked for Dai Lin in her restaurant; is that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And what did he do for her? 

Answer. I don’t really know. I believe everything related to whatever the restaurant needs. 

Question. She owned the restaurant, though, and he worked for her; is that correct? 

Mr. BALLEN. If you know. 

The WITNESS. I believe so. I don’t really know. I was in the insurance business, 

different than the restaurant business, so I didn’t really know what they were 

doing. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I understand. 

At some point in time during this 6 years that you were there in Little Rock, Arkansas, from ’77 to ’83, did there come a point in time when your brother established his own business? 

Answer. I believe so. 

Question. And what was the nature of that business? What was the business? 

Answer. Restaurant. 

Question. He opened up a restaurant separate from your sister’s restaurant? 

Answer. I don’t really know. Seems like they were working together for a long 

time, and then I moved to Texas. 

24

Question. I understand. 

Answer. And then I didn’t keep up with it. 

Question. You moved to Texas around 1983? 

Answer. ’83, yes. 

Question. I guess my question is——

Answer. End of ’83, uh-huh. 

Question [continuing]. During this time from ’77 to ’83, do you know whether your 

brother took over your sister’s restaurant or do you know whether he established 

a separate restaurant? 

Answer. I really can’t remember. 

Question. At some point in time, though, he went into the restaurant business? 

Answer. That’s correct. That’s correct. 

Question. And up until the time you left Arkansas to move to Texas in 1983, he 

was operating a restaurant; is that correct? 

Answer. He was working in a restaurant business. How was—what capacity, I 

don’t know. 

Question. Okay. But basically, then, that was his—you don’t know what the nature of the ownership of the restaurant was or the details but——

Answer. No——

Question [continuing]. But he was in the restaurant, running a restaurant? 

Answer. That’s right. 

Question. That was what he did for a living was run a restaurant? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. During that period of time, did you have occasion to meet Governor 

Clinton of Arkansas? 

Answer. No. 

Question. I’ll ask you this later, but at some point in time your brother during 

that time period met Governor Clinton; is that correct, in Arkansas? 

Answer. I personally don’t know. I did find out later, yes, they were friends. 

Question. And how did you find that out later? 

Answer. The newspaper. It was on the newspaper all over. 

Question. I will get into more detail later but you at one time in March of last 

year actually had occasion to meet President Clinton; didn’t you? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And you met him here at a fund-raising function here in California; is 

that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And at that point in time President Clinton made reference to your 

brother; isn’t that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And exactly what did President Clinton say to you about his relationship with your brother back in the Little Rock, Arkansas, days? 

Answer. He say my brother, Charlie Trie, is a close friend of his in two decades. 

Question. A close friend for two decades? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. But during the time that you lived in Arkansas, you yourself did not 

meet Governor Clinton? 

Answer. Never. Was he the Governor at that time? 

Question. At some point in time. I believe he was the Attorney General and then 

was the Governor. 

Answer. I wasn’t familiar with him at all. 

Question. And I gather that you yourself did not meet any members of the Clinton 

family during your 6 years in Arkansas? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Then chronologically moving forward, around 1983 you moved to Texas; 

is that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And you maintained contact with your mother who remained in Arkansas? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And maintained contact with your brother who remained in Arkansas? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And with respect to your sister, she, Dai Lin, had had a restaurant in 

Arkansas, you said, when you arrived in 1977; is that right? 

Answer. I think so. 

Question. When did your sister move from Arkansas to Virginia? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. It seems like ’84 or ’85. Something like that. 

25

Question. At some point in time while you were still in Texas, your sister then 

moved from Arkansas to Virginia? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And your brother and mother remained in Arkansas? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And your mother remains in Arkansas to this day? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And she lives in a home which is owned by your brother; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you have any ownership of that house in which she lives, you personally? 

Answer. I don’t believe so. We originally applied a loan together. 

Question. ‘‘We’’ meaning your mother and you? 

Answer. Me and my brother. But somewhere along the line, I think that the house 

was sold and then the person that bought it—I don’t know exactly what happened, 

either default or something, and he has to buy back without my name, I believe. 

Question. Who is ‘‘he’’ who bought it back? 

Answer. My brother, Charlie—Yah Lin. 

Question. So Yah Lin Trie at some time became the total owner of the house in 

which your mother now resides? 

Answer. I think so. I never did go into it to find out. 

Question. When do you believe this approximately would have occurred when your 

name was taken off the title? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. 

Question. Okay. It was while you were in Texas or when you had moved back to 

California? 

Answer. It was when I was in Texas. 

Question. Sometime during the 1983–1990 time period? 

Answer. Yes, but I don’t remember—I don’t know the details. I don’t know what 

happened. 

Question. I understand. Did you have any conversations with your brother where 

he explained to you what happened? 

Answer. I don’t think so—I don’t remember. 

Question. Directing your attention up until the time period of February of 1996, 

do you have any recollection of making any political contributions to any Federal 

political candidates, meaning candidates for Congress or the United States Senate 

or candidates for President, for President Clinton? Up until February of 1996, do 

you recall making any political contributions? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. And what contributions would they have been, ma’am? 

Answer. I believe there was a check written to DNC. 

Question. The Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. And when would that check have been written? Approximately? 

Answer. February. 

Question. February of 1996? 

Answer. February 1996. 

Question. I’m going to get to that ma’am, we are going to do that in a second. 

I’m sorry if you didn’t understand my question. That is the $12,500 check. 

Mr. BALLEN. Before. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I am trying to get before that, prior to the $12,500 check to the Democratic National Committee in February of 1996, before that, before that date, do you 

recall making any political contributions to President Clinton or the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. I cannot remember. 

Question. Do you recall making any contributions to any Federal political candidates for the U.S. Senate or for Congress in Texas or in Arkansas or in any other 

State? 

Answer. I can’t—I can’t recall. 

Question. Now, then, directing your attention to February of 1996, I will show you 

what has been previously marked as MF–1, your initials, dash, 1. 

[Foung Deposition Exhibit No. MF–1 was marked for identification.]

[Note.—All exhibits referred to may be found at end of deposition 

on p. 59.]

26

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Looking at that exhibit drawn on your bank account, which is the Travis Federal Credit Union; is that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And do you recognize—I know that that is a faded copy—your signature 

on that check and do you recognize the copy of that check? 

Answer. Yes, that’s my signature. 

Question. And in fact—and that is, in fact, a copy of a check which you prepared 

on February 18, 1996, to the Democratic National Committee, or as you have noted 

on the check, paid to the order of the DNC; is that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. Now, with respect to that check, what were the circumstances leading 

up to your preparation of that check? As a matter of fact, why don’t we—in order 

to have everything in front of you, let me have, if I can, two more exhibits, please. 

I’m going to show you—place in front of you and Mr. Stevens, your attorney, MF– 2. 

[Foung Deposition Exhibit No. MF–2 was marked for identification.] 

Mr. STEVENS. Is it all right if I mark exhibit numbers on these copies? 

Mr. BENNETT. Go right ahead. And MF–3. 

[Foung Deposition Exhibit No. MF–3 was marked for identification.] 

Mr. BALLEN. Dick, ours are not marked, so if you could indicate which is going 

to be which. 

Mr. BENNETT. For the record, Ken, the check, the $12,500 check is MF–1. The 

packet of material from the Amerasia Bank and the $5,000 cashier’s check payable 

back to Ms. Foung is MF–2. And then the deposited cashier’s checks, the second 

packet you just got, is MF–3. 

Mr. BALLEN. Thank you. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. If you want to look at those, take your time, I want to go through the 

scenario with those exhibits in front of you in terms of the circumstances of your 

first contribution to the Democratic National Committee. 

You have indicated that to your knowledge—and if I’m not stating this correctly, 

please correct me—from what I gather this is the very first time you had ever prepared a check to the Democratic National Committee; is that correct? To your 

knowledge? 

Answer. To my knowledge, yes. 

Question. And what were the circumstances giving rise and causing you to prepare this check? Why did you write this check? 

Answer. Because my brother called me. 

Question. Your brother, Charlie Trie? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Approximately when did he call you and where was he when he called 

you? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember—I don’t know exactly the time. I will have to guess 

somewhere around the check written time. 

Question. Somewhere around the date of the check, February 18, 1996? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Was he overseas at that time? 

Answer. I believe so. I was under the impression he was. 

Question. And what caused you to believe that he was overseas? 

Answer. Because he said he couldn’t make it to meet a deadline of a contribution. 

Question. He—I’m sorry, if I misunderstood what you said, correct me. But your 

brother, Charlie Trie, said to you that he could not make a deadline for a contribution? 

Answer. Something like that. 

Question. And where was the contribution to be sent, this $25,500 to the DNC? 

Answer. That I don’t remember. I must jot down the address. 

Question. Do you know what the deadline was he was referring to? 

Answer. No, I didn’t ask. 

Question. Did you have any knowledge of a dinner right around that time period 

that was to be held at the Hay-Adams Hotel in Washington, D.C.? 

Answer. No, I don’t. 

Question. Did he talk to you about that? 

Answer. No, he didn’t. 

Question. And basically you prepared this check at his request? 

Answer. Yes. 

27

Question. Did he indicate to you how—did he indicate to you that you were to be 

reimbursed for writing this check? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And did he indicate to you how he was going to reimburse you? 

Answer. I don’t remember. I don’t remember. 

Question. But again we’ll go through the exhibits, looking at the exhibits before 

you, you were reimbursed almost immediately for your check; isn’t that correct? 

Answer. According to the date, yes. 

Question. Within a matter of a few days, you got the money back from your brother? 

Answer. Four or five days, yes. 

Question. Now, do you recall whether you mailed this check or what happened to this $12,500 check made payable to the DNC once you prepared it? Where did it 

go? My question is, did someone come by and pick the check up at your home? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did you put it in the mail? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Where did you send it? 

Answer. I sent it to Washington, D.C., somewhere by—I couldn’t remember if it 

was by Federal Express or regular mail or Federal express mail, I couldn’t remember. 

Question. But you sent it to whatever address your brother gave you; I gather? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And do you recall what the address was? 

Answer. No, I don’t. 

Question. Do you recall whether or not it was the address of the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. I don’t even know what their address. 

Question. So you don’t know the mechanics of how this came into the possession 

and was cashed by the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. No. 

Question. You just know that you sent it to an address designated by your brother? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. Now, did you know an individual named Antonio Pan? 

Answer. No, I don’t. 

Question. Have you ever met an individual named Antonio Pan? 

Answer. I don’t believe so. 

Question. Do you have any personal knowledge of the involvement of Mr. Antonio 

Pan in forwarding money to you in covering this check? 

Answer. No, I don’t. 

Question. And we’ll go into the matter of Mr. Landon—you have a close personal 

friend, Mr. Joseph Landon; is that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And you and Mr. Landon reside together; is that correct? I don’t need 

to get into your personal life. Strike that question. 

He is a close personal friend of yours; is that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And, again, I don’t want to get into your personal life, and I apologize 

for that. Mr. Landon at some point in time this same day also wrote out a $12,500 

check; is that right? 

Answer. I believe so. 

Question. Did you have discussions with Mr. Landon concerning the preparation 

of a $12,500 check? 

Answer. I might have. Must be very brief because I couldn’t remember what was 

said. 

Question. Do you know if your brother spoke to Joe Landon about a $12,500 

check? 

Answer. No. 

Question. You don’t remember or you don’t know that he spoke with him? 

Answer. I know he didn’t spoke to him. 

Question. So it could be correct, would it not, that if Mr. Landon prepared a similar $12,500 check, as did you, to the Democratic National Committee, it would have 

been at your request pursuant to the discussion you had with your brother? 

Answer. Must be. 

Question. Okay. Let me show you that check. 

[Foung Deposition Exhibit No. MF–4 was marked for identification.] 

[Foung Deposition Exhibit No. MF–5 was marked for identification.] 

28

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Looking at now Exhibits MF–4 and MF–5, you see there is Mr. Landon’s 

check I think a day later than your check. 

Mr. BALLEN. I’m sorry, Dick, I just missed what you said. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am sorry, excuse me. 

Mr. BALLEN. I’m sorry. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Showing you Exhibits MF–4 and MF–5, you will see that Mr. Landon’s 

check is also made out to the Democratic National Committee for $12,500. Do you 

see that? 

Answer. Yes, do I. 

Question. And, in fact, that was a result of a conversation that you had with him, 

based on your conversation with your brother; isn’t that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And, in fact, Mr. Landon—you advised Mr. Landon that both you and 

he were going to be reimbursed for these checks and you were doing this as a favor 

for your brother; isn’t that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And in fact, then looking at MF–2 and MF–5, they are copies of cashier’s checks which came back to you and Mr. Landon 3 days later, isn’t that correct? 

From the Amerasia Bank in New York? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And if I’m wrong correct me, but three of the five—there are five $5,000 

cashier’s checks; isn’t that correct? If you want to take a minute, look at Exhibits 

MF–2 and MF–5. Just take your time. 

Answer. Okay. MF–2, we have three and MF–5 we have two. 

Question. Meaning that MF–2, there are three cashier’s checks to you each for 

$5,000, totaling $15,000; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And MF–5, there are two $5,000 cashier’s checks made payable to Mr. 

Landon; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And, in fact, that represents a total of $25,000 totally reimbursing both 

of you for the checks you had written out to the Democratic National Committee 

a few days earlier; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Now, how did it turn out? Did Mr. Landon get his entire $12,500 back? 

Answer. I believe so. 

Question. And how do you believe that he got his money back? 

Answer. I must gave him $2,500. 

Question. Actually, to help you here, Ms. Foung, let me show what you has been 

marked as MF–1A, which is a supplement to Exhibit 1 which I think will be of some 

assistance to you. 

[Foung Deposition Exhibit No. MF–1A was marked for identification.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. If you look at MF–1A, you will note there in terms of a $2,500 withdrawal—again, correct me if I am wrong, Ms. Foung, but it appears that of the 

$15,000 you received back after depositing those checks, you took $2,500 out to give 

to Mr. Landon, in addition to his $10,000 in cashier’s checks; is that correct? 

Answer. It appears to be. 

Question. As you testify now, that is your recollection, looking at these documents 

in terms of what happened; is that right? 

Answer. Exactly, because I couldn’t remember what happened. 

Question. I understand. I understand. I understand. 

Did you have any contacts with any officials of the Democratic National Committee at the time that you wrote these checks——

Answer. No. 

Question [continuing]. You wrote the check? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. To your knowledge, did Mr. Landon have any contact with any representatives of the Democratic National Committee at the time he wrote the check? 

Answer. I really cannot speak for him, but to the best of my knowledge, no. 

Question. I understand. Okay. And do you know the particular fund-raising event 

for which these checks were prepared? 

29

Answer. No. 

Question. And you did not attend any events in connection with these checks; is 

that correct? 

Answer. No. 

Question. It was purely at the request of your brother that these checks were prepared? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. To your knowledge, had Mr. Landon ever made any contributions himself to the Democratic National Committee prior to this check, reflected by exhibit 

MF–4? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Does Mr. Landon know your brother, Charlie Trie? 

Answer. He met my brother a couple of times briefly. 

Question. How long have you and Mr. Landon known each other? 

Answer. Possibly 4 years. 

Question. And during those 4 years, how many times do you believe Mr. Landon 

has met your brother? 

Answer. Two times for sure. Maybe three. 

Question. To your knowledge, does Mr. Landon know the individual, Antonio Pan? 

Answer. Not as I know of. 

Question. Let me ask you this, Ms. Foung, have you ever heard of a group in Arkansas called the Lippo Group? 

Answer. Never heard of it. 

Question. Prior——

Answer. I do now. 

Question. I think a lot of people have heard of the Lippo Group now, but prior 

to the matters in the newspaper did you have any knowledge of the individuals at 

the Lippo Group in Arkansas? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And as we speak, you have never met Antonio Pan? 

Answer. Not as I know of. 

Mr. BALLEN. Just to clarify your question was, ‘‘Do you have any knowledge of 

the Lippo Group in Arkansas?’’ Do you have any knowledge of the Lippo Group at 

all anywhere? 

The WITNESS. No, sir. 

Mr. BALLEN. Thank you. 

Mr. BENNETT. We don’t have a process of rotating questions here, but I thank 

counsel for the clarification on that. I should have followed up. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. You don’t have any knowledge of Antonio Pan anywhere up until today 

other than perhaps having seen his name in the newspaper; is that correct? 

Answer. Until his name was brought up to me. 

Question. Did your brother explain to you where the $25,000 came from that reimbursed you and Mr. Landon? 

Answer. I believe—he never explained, but I believe it was his money. 

Question. In fact, there are documents—just so you understand, because I want 

to make sure that you have the benefit of as many facts as we can give you so you 

understand, the committee has documents before it showing that the $25,000, in 

fact, came from an individual named Antonio Pan, and an account in New York. 

Would you have any explanation for why Mr. Pan would have been giving you 

and Mr. Landon the $25,000 back? 

Answer. I really never thought about that. 

Question. Did your brother, Charlie Trie, ever represent to you that he, Charlie 

Trie, had repaid the $25,000 to you and Mr. Landon? 

Answer. Would you please repeat that question? 

Question. Did your brother, Charlie Trie, ever indicate to you that the repayment 

of the $25,000 came from him, Charlie Trie? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember exact conversations, but I was under the impression, 

yes. 

Question. That he, Charlie Trie, your brother, had in fact paid you the $25,000? 

Mr. STEVENS. When you say ‘‘paid,’’ are you talking about physically being the 

conduit of the money or being the source of the money? 

Mr. BENNETT. Being the source of the money. 

30

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. To your knowledge, your impression was that your brother had repaid the $25,000? 

Answer. Yes, yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just one second. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Directing your attention to approximately a month later, I think it is 

in March of 1996, do you recall attending—we talked about this a little bit earlier 

in the morning—a political fund-raising event here in California attended by President Clinton? 

Answer. Would you be more specific? 

Question. Sure. 

Answer. Are we talking about the one that I mentioned earlier? 

Question. Yes, yes, in fact, specifically you attended a political fund-raising event 

in Hillsborough, California. Do you recall that? 

Answer. I recall, but at the time I didn’t know it was fund-raising. 

Question. I want to direct your attention to that event, if I can. With respect to 

the—an event in March of 1996, directing your attention to that event, first, you 

attended an event in Hillsborough, California, in March of 1996 at which Mayor 

Willie Brown of San Francisco and President Clinton were in attendance; is that 

correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And, in fact, you met President Clinton at that time; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And that’s the very first time you’d ever met President Clinton? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. When you went to that event, did you know that it was a political fundraiser? 

Answer. I didn’t. 

Question. What were the circumstances surrounding your attendance at that 

event? 

Answer. Because my brother called me, said—— Question. Again, do you know where your brother was when he called you? 

Answer. I don’t. 

Question. Do you believe it was overseas? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. If I can just step back for a second, Ms. Foung, I gather that your 

brother travels overseas a great deal? 

Answer. He spends the majority of his time overseas. That’s the way I understood. 

Question. And would he be in Taiwan or China; do you know? I’m going to get 

into the details later of where he is now, but it is your belief that he called either 

from Taiwan or China or wherever overseas? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I will rephrase the question. You don’t know specifically where he was 

when he called you in March of 1996; do you? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. 

Question. It’s your impression that he was overseas but you don’t know in which 

country he might have been? 

Answer. No. 

Question. But it was your impression that he was overseas? 

Answer. I believe so. 

Question. And what did he say with respect to attendance at this event? 

Answer. Say that again. 

Question. What did your brother say to you about this event that he wanted you 

to attend? 

Answer. He was just asking me if I would go to a dinner function, that Mr. Clinton will be there, that was in San Francisco. 

Question. And as to that event, you weren’t asked to spend any money? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And how did you get to the event? How did you go to Hillsborough? 

Answer. We drove. 

Question. And it is a drive—from here in the Sacramento area, I guess it is a 

drive of approximately an hour and a half or 2 hours? 

Answer. From where I live to Hillsborough, how far is that? About 50 miles or 

something like that; 50, 60 miles. 

Question. And who drove you? 

31

Answer. Joe Landon. 

Question. Joe Landon. Anybody else besides you and Mr. Landon travel in the 

car? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And did Mr. Landon actually attend the event? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Where did Mr. Landon stay? He, in fact, remained in the car while you 

went to the event; is that right? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. How did you actually get to the event? Did Mr. Landon drive you right 

to the event or did you meet another group of people and attend the event with a 

group of people? 

Answer. We were supposed to—the instruction was to park at the high school 

parking lot. There is a bus to transport all the guests to the house. 

Question. And that was in Hillsborough? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. And you went to the local high school in Hillsborough, Burlingame High School? 

Answer. Yes, few blocks away from the house. 

Mr. BENNETT. For the record, my nephew attended that high school, so I’m some- what familiar with the area. 

Mr. BALLEN. I was wondering how you knew the geography. 

Mr. BENNETT. I don’t want counsel to think I knew all the details. It doesn’t matter much, but my sister-in-law lives in Hillsborough and I think I know the high 

school where he went. But in any event, the record should reflect that one of the 

few times in the deposition the counsel are all laughing together in a matter, which 

is a healthy sign I think. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. You went to the local high school and a bus took a group of people to 

this private party; is that right? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And at some point in time did you meet an individual there named John 

Huang? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Had you met Mr. Huang before? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And what were the circumstances under which you met him? Did he 

come up and introduce himself to you? Or what were the circumstances? 

Answer. He called me prior to the function to ask me to give him some personal 

information such as name, address, social security, so it was strictly for security 

clearance. 

Question. And did he indicate to you at that time—how did he know you were 

going to attend the event? 

Mr. STEVENS. If he said. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. If he said. My question—I will rephrase it. My question is, Mr. Huang, 

an individual named John Huang called you prior to the event? 

Answer. Right. 

Question. And this would have been after your brother, Charlie Trie, asked you 

to attend the event? 

Answer. That’s right. 

Question. Did Mr. Huang call indicating that he had spoken to your brother, 

Charlie Trie, and therefore knew you were going to attend the event? 

Answer. He must. 

Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me; do you recall? 

Mr. BENNETT. Counsel, I don’t mind occasionally clarifying, but why don’t I finish 

the train and you will be free to follow up on it. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I gather Mr. Huang must have known from some source, either your 

brother or some source, that you were going to attend the event. 

Answer. I assume so. 

Question. You didn’t know this man, John Huang, and he calls you for information 

because you are going to attend the event? 

Answer. Yes, somebody must know I was attending to get my security clearance. 

32

Question. And then on that evening in March of 1996—it was an evening event; 

wasn’t it? 

Answer. It was evening, about 6 o’clock. 

Question. Did you meet Mr. Huang at that time? 

Answer. We met outside the bus. 

Question. At the high school parking lot? 

Answer. The parking lot, yes. 

Question. And then you went to the event on a bus, and both you and Mr. Huang 

were on the bus together? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. And we’ll get back to the details of the event. 

Have you seen John Huang since that particular night? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you spoken with John Huang since that night? 

Answer. I vaguely remember he called me one more time to ask me if I would 

attend a function in San Francisco. I said no. 

Question. And when would that have been? 

Answer. I don’t remember. 

Question. It would have been prior to the re-election of President Clinton last November? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember, but I believe—I believe so. 

Question. Apart from that one other telephone call from John Huang, is it fair 

to say that the only time you have met or spoken with John Huang, except for that 

one additional telephone call, would have been on this particular night in March—

strike that. 

Apart from John Huang calling you on the telephone and then being with you on 

that evening in March of 1996, the only other contact you have had with Mr. Huang 

is one other time when he called you on the telephone? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. You have not spoken with him since? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. The only time you have ever seen him face-to-face would have been on 

this particular evening in March of 1996? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. Now, directing your attention to that particular evening in March of 

1996, what were the circumstances giving rise to your actually meeting and speaking with President Clinton? Did someone introduce you to him? 

Answer. No, everybody get in line to take a picture with him. 

Question. In the trade it is called a photo op. 

Answer. Okay. 

Question. A photo op. Okay? 

And when you met him, what gave rise to his saying to you, as I think you indicated earlier, that Charlie Trie—your brother Charlie Trie has been my best friend 

for two decades? How did that comment come up? 

Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me, that’s not what she testified. She said ‘‘close friend.’’ Not 

best friend. 

Mr. BENNETT. Whatever she said, close friend. Charlie Trie has been my close 

friend for two decades. 

Mr. STEVENS. My notes have her saying that he was, quote, ‘‘A close friend for 

two decades,’’ closed quote. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Going by your counsel’s—and if I misrepresented I apologize—Charlie 

Trie has been a close friend for two decades, what caused him to make that comment? Did someone say, this is Charlie Trie’s sister? 

Answer. Yes, something like that. Somebody must——

Question. I understand. As best you remember, someone let the President know 

that you were Charlie Trie’s sister? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And as a result of that, he made that comment? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. Did he talk to you at any length at all? How long did you talk 

with President Clinton? 

Answer. I think that was it. 

Question. And you had your picture taken with him? 

Answer. Yes. 

33

Question. Were there any follow-up notes from President Clinton when you—

strike that. 

I assume you ultimately got a copy of that photograph, correct? 

Answer. No, I didn’t. 

Question. You did not? 

Answer. Huh-uh. 

Question. Off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. You indicated that you never actually got the photograph of you with 

the President? 

Answer. No, I never did. 

Question. And I gather, then, that you have not spoken with President Clinton 

since that time? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you spoken with any member of the President’s family since that 

time? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And you have no personal relationship with any member of the Clinton 

family, correct? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me, can I just follow up one question there? Clarification? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I think in the spirit of comity, I think generally we have the 

questions of the Majority and Minority, but I don’t have any objection to asking a 

quick question just to move it along. 

Mr. BALLEN. Thank you very much. 

You asked her if she had any contact with any member of the President’s family 

since that time. And I wanted to ask, have you ever had any, other than meeting 

President Clinton on this one occasion, have you had any contact with him or his 

family? 

The WITNESS. No. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Fair question. Thank you, Mr. Ballen. Thank you, Ken. 

Moving on, then—one second, I’m sorry. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Mr. Little was reminding me of one matter. At some point in time did 

someone explain to you why you were there at the March 1996 event? At some point 

in time was it explained to you that it was a fund-raising event for the President 

and his reelection? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. Fund-raising—I cannot understand that at all. So 

it wasn’t important to me to know. I only remember I was meeting the President. 

That’s all I can remember. It was exciting. 

Question. Do you recall—I will follow up with another question. Do you recall 

Mayor Brown of San Francisco being there? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did you get your picture taken with Mayor Brown? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Was there any discussion about needing to attend the fund-raiser to 

show support for Mayor Brown or for President Clinton? 

Answer. I would assume if I was asked to attend a function, it will be showing 

support. I would assume that. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, he doesn’t want you to assume. First, he wants you to tell 

him what you remember people saying to you. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Did anyone talk to you about needing to have people in attendance for 

this event for Mayor Brown and for President Clinton? 

Answer. My brother might have said he would like to be there personally; since 

he couldn’t, would I be there on his behalf. 

Question. But was there a discussion about trying to make sure there were people 

in attendance, that the more people, the better, was there that kind of conversation? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember exactly. 

Question. All right. 

34

Now, directing your attention to August of 1996. 

[Foung Deposition Exhibit No. MF–6 was marked for identification.] 

[Foung Deposition Exhibit No. MF–7 was marked for identification.] 

[Foung Deposition Exhibit No. MF–8 was marked for identification.] 

Mr. BENNETT. We can go off the record for a minute to help counsel with numbers. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Directing your attention to August of 1996, I placed before you what has 

been marked as deposition Exhibit MF–6, which is, in fact, a copy of a $10,000 

check made payable to the Birthday Victory Trust. 

Do you see that, Ms. Foung? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And, in fact, with respect to that check, did you attend any particular 

function in connection with that check? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And that check was prepared, again, at the request of your brother, 

Charlie Trie; is that right? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And, once again, you were immediately reimbursed for that $10,000; is 

that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Now, going back to the specifics, approximately how soon prior to your 

preparing that check did you speak with your brother? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. Maybe the—the same day or the day before, maybe 

a couple days before. 

Question. And, again, he called you on the telephone? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you know where he was calling from? 

Answer. No, I don’t. 

Question. Do you believe he was calling from overseas? 

Answer. I—I believe so, yes. 

Question. But you don’t know what country he was calling from? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And exactly what was the nature of the conversation you had with your 

brother at that time? 

Answer. It was the same thing. That he needed a check to be in by a certain day; 

that he couldn’t do it himself. 

Question. He could not write the check himself and needed someone else to write 

the check? 

Answer. Yeah, because he wasn’t able to. 

Question. And did he indicate how soon this event was going to take place in connection with this check? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did he make any reference to any deadline that he had to meet? 

Answer. Not in the exact words, but I was under the impression it has to be in 

by a certain date. 

Question. And did he ask you to do this immediately? 

Answer. Must be. Something like that. 

Question. And what was the understanding you had in terms of how quickly you 

were going to be reimbursed? 

Answer. I’m sorry? 

Question. What was your understanding as to how quickly you were going to be 

reimbursed for this $10,000 check? 

Answer. Was I or——

Question. Yes, you indicated earlier that your brother indicated that he was going 

to, as he had in February, see that you got repaid for this; correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what was your understanding as to how you were going to get repaid? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know how quickly he was going to do it? 

Answer. Has to be—has to be fast enough to cover the check. 

Question. Because you didn’t have the money in your account to cover that check? 

Answer. I guess not. 

35

Question. Now, I put these exhibits in front of you so you could look at them. MF–

6 is the check itself for $10,000. 

Do you know how that check was delivered? Actually, strike that. 

First of all, you note on the bottom left-hand corner there is the word ‘‘Federal’’

written on that check? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you recall why the word ‘‘Federal’’ is written on the check? 

Answer. My brother told me to put it there. 

Question. In other words, in addition to writing the $10,000 check out, you were 

told to put ‘‘Federal’’ on the check? On the bottom left-hand corner? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And that was at the request of your brother? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And do you know how this check was delivered or to whom it was delivered? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. Again, could be Federal Express or something. I 

don’t know. 

Question. And I gather you don’t recall exactly where you sent it; is that correct? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Okay. Would you have sent it wherever your brother told you to send 

it? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And apart from speaking with your brother, did you have any involvement or discussion with anyone else in connection with the Birthday Victory Trust? 

Did you talk to the people who were organizing the event, for example? 

Answer. No. 

Question. So wherever you sent it, it would have been at the instructions of your 

brother? 

Answer. Yes. 

Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me; could I ask one follow-up question, please. 

Mr. BENNETT. Sure. By the way, just for the record on this, until certain protocols 

are established, I don’t want my willingness to allow Mr. Ballen to ask questions 

to in any way waive procedures that we may have established in previous depositions. But in the spirit of comity—C-O-M-I-T-Y, not C-O-M-E-D-Y, as Congress Waxman would sometimes suggest—I have no objection to move this along to allow Mr. 

Ballen to quickly interject a question. Go ahead. 

Mr. BALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. 

You indicated when your brother talked to you that he said he wasn’t able to 

write the check himself? Did he tell you why? 

The WITNESS. Because he was traveling. 

Mr. BALLEN. Okay. And that’s why you believed he was overseas? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BALLEN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Continuing on. 

With respect to the repayment of this money, looking at MF–7, in fact there was 

a wire transfer, was there not, of money into your account at the Travis Federal 

Credit Union where a $10,000 deposit was made into your account almost the next 

day; is that correct? 

Answer. It appears to be. 

Question. And do you know the source of that $10,000 wire? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know an individual named Ng Lap Seng, also known as Mr. Wu? 

Answer. No. 

Question. I’ll get back to that in a minute. 

Do you recall any discussion about the money going back into your account, being 

wired back into your account the next day? 

Answer. What do you mean by ‘‘discussion’’? 

Question. Did anyone say to you: By the way, the wire was made today? 

Answer. No. 

Question. How did you find out that—unlike the February event where you received cashier’s checks——

Answer. Oh, I see what you are saying. 

Question [continuing]. Here you were reimbursed not by cashier’s checks; you 

were reimbursed by a wire. 

36

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And did anyone talk to you about the wire transfer going into your account? 

Answer. I think my brother asked my account number to prepare the money to 

wire to my account. Now, what I usually do is call the bank to verify, to make sure 

the check is covered. That was my only concern. 

Question. And, in fact, you called your bank to make sure that it had, in fact, been 

deposited; is that right? 

Answer. That’s what I normally do if I am expecting something, I normally call. 

Question. And then looking at deposition Exhibit MF–8, in fact, that reflects both 

the wire transfer on August 15, 1996, into your account, and the debiting of your 

account on August 16 of $10,000; is that correct? 

Answer. It appears to be, according to this. 

Question. So this document reflects the transmission of funds in and out of your 

account with respect to that $10,000 check to the President’s birthday party; is that 

correct—the Birthday Victory Trust; is that correct? 

Answer. Uh-huh. 

Question. I’m sorry; you didn’t understand my question? 

Answer. What are you asking? 

Question. These two documents, MF–7 and MF–8, reflect the money going into 

your account and immediately out of your account at the request of your brother 

to cover this check, Birthday Victory Trust of $10,000; is that correct? To cover this 

check for the Birthday Victory Trust? 

Answer. Cover the check I wrote? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did you have any contacts with any other individual, apart from your 

brother, with respect to this $10,000 check and the transmission into your account 

the day before, or contemporaneous, the wire transfer, did you have any discussions 

with anybody else other than your brother, Charlie Trie, with respect to that matter? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And I don’t want to get into the discussions you have had with your 

attorney subsequent to it, but with respect to that transaction, did you have any 

discussions with anyone else after you engaged in that transaction? 

Answer. No. 

Question. I’ll get to the matter of Judd Best and the Democratic National Committee later, but around the time of the event——

Answer. No. 

Question [continuing]. You didn’t talk to anyone from the Democratic National 

Committee? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did you talk about this matter with anyone in connection with the reelection campaign of President Clinton? 

Answer. I don’t believe I talked to anyone at all. 

Question. And were you aware of the particular fund-raising event to which this 

related? 

Answer. No, I assume it was the birthday party; wasn’t it? 

Question. That’s right. And you don’t know if anyone went in your place or anything else, correct? 

Answer. Not as I know of. 

Question. And, certainly, this event actually was in New York. You did not travel 

to New York to attend this yourself? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Now, Ms. Foung, let me ask you something. Have you ever met Senator 

Tom Daschle, a United States Senator? 

Answer. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Senator Daschle, for the record, is from what State? 

Mr. BALLEN. South Dakota. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Have you ever been to South Dakota? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Has anyone ever spoken to you about Senator Tom Daschle? 

Answer. Not as I can remember. 

Question. Do you know—your mother’s name is E-Fong Do Trie; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

37

Question. Am I pronouncing that correctly? 

Answer. Uh-huh. 

Question. To your knowledge, do you know whether or not your mother knows 

Senator Tom Daschle? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Have you ever heard your mother mention Senator Tom Daschle? 

Answer. No. 

Question. The records of the Federal Elections Commission reflect that you con- tributed $1,000—reflect that there were two $1,000 checks written by you to Senator Tom Daschle on June 26th, 1995. Do you have any knowledge or recollection 

of writing one or two $1,000 checks to Senator Tom Daschle in June of 1995? 

Answer. I personally couldn’t remember I did or I didn’t. 

Question. Is it your belief that you would have written—according to the records 

of the Federal Elections Commission, reviewed by the committee—again, I’m not 

trying to accuse you of some impropriety, I am just trying to get to the facts. I don’t 

know if somebody has used your name or whatever, that is why I am asking—that 

the records of the Federal Elections Commission reflect that there were two checks, 

each for $1,000, made payable to Senator Tom Daschle, both of them dated June 

26th, 1995. Do you have any recollection of that? 

Answer. I cannot remember, same thing like I couldn’t remember all those. How 

come they didn’t get the bank records? 

Question. I’m going to get into that in a minute. Maybe your counsel can follow 

up. I don’t have reason to believe that you knew about this. Frankly, I believe someone used your name, but I am just trying to get to the facts. 

Mr. BENNETT. And the records also reflect one check from the mother, correct? Off 

the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. The records reviewed by the committee also reflect that your mother 

wrote a $1,000 check. E-Fong Do Trie is listed as having contributed $1,000 to Senator Tom Daschle also on June 26th, 1995. 

Do you have any recollection of talking with your mother about making contributions to Senator Tom Daschle? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Perhaps I can, in the interest of time—well, let me ask you this: Do you 

recall ever being solicited by anybody to make a contribution to Senator Daschle? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. 

Question. Okay. Maybe in the interest of time, Ms. Foung, I’ll just ask that your 

attorney, at your convenience, check to see if you have any canceled checks or recollection of having made a contribution to Senator Daschle. And in the event that the 

answer is in the affirmative, your counsel can advise me. Does that sound appropriate? 

Mr. STEVENS. Can we go off the record for a second? 

Mr. BENNETT. Sure, off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Ms. Foung, I understand that you don’t recall ever making those contributions, and for the record, I suggest that—I understand that. It is my belief, as 

I ask you these questions, that someone else used your name and that you did not 

in fact make these. I represent that to be my impression based on the review of FEC 

records. 

But the purpose of this deposition is not for me to state my opinion, but to try 

to find out what knowledge you have. And your attorney, Mr. Stevens, has indicated 

that he will see if you have any records or canceled checks that will in any way 

support the records of the Federal Elections Commission with respect to such donations. 

Do you understand that? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And I appreciate again, as always, your high level of cooperation with 

the committee on this matter. 

And again, just for purposes of the record, you don’t recall having discussions with 

anyone from the Democratic National Committee concerning any contributions to 

Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota; do you? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Who is Jim Outlaw? 

38

Answer. My brother-in-law. 

Question. And Dai Lin Outlaw is your sister; is that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. She is the sister who resides in Virginia? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. She is your only sister? 

Answer. Uh-huh. 

Question. Do you have any knowledge of your brother-in-law, Jim Outlaw, or your sister, Dai Lin Outlaw, giving $2,000, each of them, to Senator Daschle that same 

day, June 26th, 1995? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. So you have no knowledge at all whether or not they know Senator 

Daschle? 

Answer. No. 

Question. You have never had any discussions with your mother or—strike that. 

Have you ever had any discussions with your mother or your sister or your brother-in-law concerning Senator Tom Daschle? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Who is Denise Outlaw? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. She is not a relation of Jim Outlaw or Dai Lin Outlaw? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Do Jim and Dai Lin have any children? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what are the names of the children? 

Answer. Michael and Elaine. 

Question. Do you know an individual named George Chu? 

Answer. No. 

Question. According to our review, he is an individual who purportedly went to 

school with your brother in Taiwan. But you don’t have any knowledge of him? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you have any familiarity with a company known as Da Tung? 

Answer. How do you spell that? 

Question. D-A and then T-U-N-G. 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what knowledge do you have of that company? 

Answer. That’s a very big company that makes rice maker. I use their rice maker, 

cooker. 

Question. That is located where? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Is it here in California, though? 

Answer. I know they have a big factory in Taiwan. I don’t know about here. They 

must have some distributor or something. 

Question. Do you know what contacts your brother has with that company? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know whether your brother has any business with that company? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Do you know an individual named Ernie Greene? 

Answer. No. 

Question. I’m going to go down a list of companies in terms of information you 

may or may not have, and I want you to take your time on this. I can assure you, 

Ms. Foung, the effort is to not trick you here. I am just trying to get facts in terms 

of if you have any knowledge of these companies or individuals? 

Answer. Okay. 

Question. And if, for example, on reflection during this time period before you get 

to review your transcript, if you may recall a connection, please let Mr. Stevens 

know if you can’t recall now and subsequently you do. 

Answer. Okay. 

Question. Chy Corporation. Do you have knowledge of the Chy Corporation? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know an individual named Tony Hsu, H-S-U? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever heard your brother mention Tony Hsu? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know an individual named David Mercer? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Or Ari Swiller? 

39

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know an individual named Martha Shoffner? 

Answer. No. Wait, wait, wait. 

Question. Let me give you some background on this. It may help. 

According to the information we have at the committee, your brother had an assistant at the Daihatsu Corporation and her name was Martha Shoffner. Does that 

ring a bell with you? 

Answer. It could be. Where does she work? 

Question. She did at one time work at the Daihatsu Corporation, until your brother went to Washington in August of 1994. 

Answer. I cannot be certain. 

Question. What about a woman named Keshi Zhan? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Martha Shoffner still now lives in Arkansas. Again, you don’t have any 

recollection of Martha Shoffner? 

Answer. Did she ever work in Washington? 

Question. No, according to our information she’s still in Arkansas. 

Answer. Then I don’t. 

[Counsels confer.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Mr. Wilson advises me she might have. I don’t know. Suffice it to say, 

you don’t have any knowledge of Ms. Shoffner and don’t recall meeting her? 

Answer. No. 

Question. What about an individual named Lorin Fleming who was the head of 

an electronics company in Arkansas and an acquaintance of your brother, according 

to our information. 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How well do you know Ms. Fleming? 

Answer. Not very much. I think I met him once. 

Question. That is an individual—I’m sorry, a man named Fleming, Lorin Fleming? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Have you ever had any discussions with Mr. Fleming concerning your 

brother’s business activities? 

Answer. No. 

Question. There is an individual who had Power of Attorney for several of your 

brother’s bank accounts, and according to our information was your brother’s bookkeeper at one time, an individual named Maria Mapili. Do you know Maria Mapili? 

Answer. Not by that name. 

Question. Do you know anyone named Maria who worked with your brother? 

Answer. No. 

Question. There was an assistant at the Daihatsu Corporation, your brother’s corporation, Jody Webb; do you know Jody Webb? 

Answer. No. 

Question. There is a gentleman named Yue, Y-U-E, Fang, F-A-N-G, Chu, C-H-U. 

Do I know that individual? 

Answer. No, huh-uh. 

Question. There is an individual with whom your brother has done business according to the records of the subcommittee, named Ng Lap Seng, also know as Mr. 

Wu, and I think I asked you earlier about Mr. Wu. Do you recall, first of all, ever 

hearing his name? 

Answer. Not as I can remember. I was in Little Rock in 1994, late 1994, I met 

a lot—I went to his office and met some staff. 

Question. You went to whose office? 

Answer. My brother’s office. I met a bunch of people but I have no idea who they 

are and I don’t remember any names. 

Question. I think I asked you about a woman named Keshi Zhan and you have 

no knowledge of her at all? 

Answer. Not that name, no. 

Question. Do you know an individual named Ming Chen? 

Answer. No. 

Question. How about Xiping Wang, X-I-P-I-N-G? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And I apologize to you if I mispronounce these names in any way. 

Answer. No, it’s fine. All the people I know seems like they will be Mike, Dave, 

Bob. When you start spelling those, I don’t know anybody that by that names, yes. 

40

Question. You’re indicating to me—and if I’m misstating this correct me if I am 

wrong—you have met associates of your brothers who have been given first names 

such as Mike, Dave and Bob and you don’t necessarily know their last names? 

Answer. No, just introduction, say, ‘‘Hi,’’ that was the end of it; never speak to 

them again, never seen them again. 

Question. Okay. Do you know an individual named Zhengwei Chang? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Charles Chiang? 

Answer. No. 

Question. There is an individual who according to our information signed for your 

brother’s—strike that. 

Your brother signed for her apartment in Washington, a woman named Bei-Bei 

Liu? 

Answer. Never heard of her. 

Question. Okay. And how about Zhengkang Shao? Have you ever heard that name 

before? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know any individuals at the Asia-America Trade Center in Hong 

Kong? 

Answer. No. 

Question. You don’t know an individual named Peter Chen? 

Answer. I heard of his name, yes. 

Question. You heard of his name? From whom have you heard about Mr. Chen? 

Answer. He’s a family friend. 

Question. He’s a friend of the family’s? Of your family’s? 

Answer. Not mine, but my brother, sister. I think they know him. 

Question. Would he be from Arkansas? 

Answer. I don’t know where he’s from. 

Question. But do you recall ever meeting him? 

Answer. I think I met him once. 

Question. Do you know an individual here in the San Francisco area named Sy 

Zuan Pan? 

Answer. No. 

Question. How about Yogesh Gandhi? 

Answer. No. I would have remembered if I heard that name. 

Question. It is a name you would remember, I guess; is that right? 

Lottie Shackleford, a friend of your brother’s from Arkansas? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever met a man—strike that. 

Have you ever heard your brother mention a name, Mark Middleton? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever met Mr. Middleton? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever been to Washington? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Then you have never attended any political or government events with 

your brother in the city of Washington? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you recall your brother being appointed to a commission with respect 

to international trade? I think it had the name Bingaman Commission. Do you recall anything in connection with your brother being appointed to a commission by 

President Clinton? 

Answer. I remember he was—there was a possibility to be appointed, but I don’t 

know—I didn’t follow up because it wasn’t important to me. 

Question. Let me, if I can, get into another area now. At some point in time in 

connection with the $12,500 represented by Exhibit MF–1 and the $10,000 represented by MF–6, at some point in time you had a series of discussions with representatives of the Democratic National Committee; didn’t you? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And, in fact, Mr. Landon ultimately, as represented by his check, represented by MF–4, his $12,500 check, Mr. Landon received $12,500 back from the 

Democratic National Committee; isn’t that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. Have you ever received any money back from the Democratic National 

Committee? 

Answer. Not yet. 

Question. And you had discussions with people at the Democratic National Committee concerning getting the $22,500 returned to you; did you not? 

41

Answer. Yes. 

[Foung Deposition Exhibit No. MF–9 was marked for identification.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I show you what is marked as MF–9, which in fact are some telephone 

records reflecting some of the calls you have had to make to Washington, and according to our review of the numbers, you have, in fact, made calls to Washington 

seeking to have this money be returned to you; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. With whom have you spoken concerning—you have called the Democratic National Committee; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And with whom have you spoken at the Democratic National Committee 

concerning the return of $22,500 to you for the two contributions that you made for 

which you were reimbursed by your brother? With whom have you spoken concerning those contributions? 

Answer. I recall at first it was Mr. Joe Sandler. 

Question. Joseph Sandler? 

Answer. Joseph Sandler, yes. 

Question. And how many times have you spoken with Mr. Sandler? 

Answer. Once or twice. 

Question. And did Mr. Sandler make any representations to you about money 

being returned to you? 

Answer. No. I couldn’t remember. I don’t think so. 

Question. Who else have you spoken with? 

Answer. He referred me to talk to the counsel, John Best. 

Question. Mr. Judah Best, Judd Best? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And how many conversations have you had with Mr. Best? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. 

Question. When was the last conversation you had with Mr. Best? 

Answer. The last conversation was right after the investigator left. I called him 

to let him know according to this record, the money was reimbursed me by the cashier’s check, but I didn’t remember previously. 

Question. And did Mr. Best accuse you of changing your story? 

Answer. Not so much accuse. I guess I didn’t remember any detail, so my detail 

might be different. 

Question. I guess what I’m trying to—the point I’m trying to get to is that the 

Democratic National Committee determined to return $12,500 to Mr. Landon, correct? 

Answer. Say that again. 

Question. The Democratic National Committee returned $12,500 to Mr. Landon, 

correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And they haven’t returned any of the money to you? 

Answer. Yes—no, I mean. 

Question. That is correct, they have not returned any money to you; have they? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And you have discussed that with Mr. Best or Mr. Sandler about their 

paying Mr. Landon $12 500, but not paying you $22,500 for your contributions. 

Have you had any discussions with Mr. Sandler or Mr. Best about that matter? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you discussed that you be reimbursed? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. My point is when you asked to be reimbursed, what was the response? 

Answer. At first, he was asking me a question to see——

Question. ‘‘He’’ being Mr.——

Answer. Mr. Best. 

Question [continuing]. Best? Okay. 

Answer. To determine whether it should be refunded or not. And at first, I don’t 

think I gave him the correct information, because I couldn’t remember this $15,000 

and my bank record does not reflect the twelve-five deposit, so I thought—I couldn’t 

give him the exact on that part. And on the $10,000 wire, he say, yes, that should 

be refund. He will have to get back with me. He will talk to the DNC. 

Question. And that conversation was in August? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember when. 

Mr. STEVENS. Just tell him if you remember. 

42

The WITNESS. I couldn’t remember. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. As you speak today, have you received any money back from the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. Not yet. 

Question. Has anyone—did you at any time indicate to the Democratic National 

Committee that this money was not yours; in fact, it had been reimbursed to you 

by your brother or by some friends of your brothers? 

Answer. I did mention initially, according to my bank record, the money was 

wired to me. I did mention that to him. I couldn’t remember this one, so I cannot 

tell him exactly what happened. And later on I did call back to confirm that according to the investigator, the record, that is what happened. 

Question. Do you know if Mr. Landon indicated to officials of the Democratic Na- tional Committee that the $12,500 was not his money? 

Answer. I—I don’t know—I don’t know. 

Question. I understand. Mr. Landon will be here. We will ask him. 

Answer. Yes, you will have to ask him. 

Question. I wondered if you had any knowledge of what he has said to the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. I think he mentioned that he never spoke to anybody about it. 

Question. Has anyone from Ernst & Young, the accounting firm of Ernst & Young 

ever contacted you? 

Answer. Not as I can remember. 

Question. In connection with the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you recall how Mr. Landon’s contribution for which he was reimbursed by your brother, or friends of your brother, of $12,500, do you recall how that 

money was returned to him? Was it in the form of a check? 

Answer. I’m sorry? 

Question. Do you recall how the $12,500 returned to Mr. Landon, do you recall 

how it was returned to him? 

Answer. You mean from DNC? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. I think it was a check. 

Question. Apart from contacts with the Democratic National Committee, and contacts with Mr. Little and investigators working with the Majority members of the 

committee, the Republican side of the committee, have you had contacts with those 

working with the Democrats on the committee, with the Minority on the committee 

prior to this morning? 

Answer. Mr. Ballen called me one time, asked to speak to my counsel, my attorney, and I didn’t have one. 

Question. Apart from that one call from Mr. Ballen, any calls from any other representatives of the Democrats on the committee? 

Answer. No. 

Question. I meant to ask you about an individual at the DNC in addition to Mr. 

Sandler and Mr. Best named Steve Grossman. Have you ever spoken with Mr. 

Grossman? 

Answer. No. I spoke to somebody who answered the phone, but it wasn’t him, I 

know. I know that. 

Question. Mr. Grossman is not answering the phone at the Democratic National 

Committee? 

Answer. No, he didn’t answer the question. 

Question. No, I’m just kidding. 

Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me, Dick, could I have a brief break? 

Mr. BENNETT. I was going to say we are literally about to stop. We have been 

going for 2 hours or an hour and 45 minutes. Why don’t we take a brief break for 

10 minutes. 

[Brief Recess.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Ms. Foung, with respect to your contacts with individuals at the Democratic National Committee, do you recall speaking with anyone other than Mr. Best, 

Mr. Sandler, or Mr. Grossman, apart from someone who answered the telephone, 

but in terms of having any substantive discussions with anybody other than Best, 

Sandler, or Grossman? 

Mr. STEVENS. I’m sorry; did she say she actually spoke to Grossman? 

43

The WITNESS. No, I never did spoke with him. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I’m sorry. Besides Best and Sandler, you said you did not speak with 

Grossman but you spoke with someone who answered the phone? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. But it was probably not Mr. Grossman? 

Answer. No, it wasn’t. 

Question. Do you recall speaking with anyone else other than Best or Sandler? 

Answer. No. 

Question. You obviously had to make some phone calls. I mean, just in July alone 

there are a series of six phone calls, and I gather from your testimony you’ve had 

to make others. 

Have you been having sort of an engaging dialogue with the Democratic National 

Committee? I mean, looking at Exhibit MF–9, just in July there are a series of six 

phone calls in a period of 13 days. You also called the Democratic National Committee sometime in August after being interviewed by investigators; is that correct? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. How many times in August do you think you called to the Democratic 

National Committee? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. No, I never did call Democratic National Committee. I always talked to Mr. Best. But prior to talking to Mr. Best, I did call a 

couple of times. 

Question. Mr. Best is the lawyer for the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. Right. 

Question. Let me ask you two questions. You called Mr. Best after meeting with 

investigators in August; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And how many phone conversations have you had with Mr. Best since 

August? 

Answer. After talking to the investigator? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Only one time. 

Question. Have you talked to him within the last month? 

Answer. No. 

Question. To your knowledge since speaking with investigators, have you only spoken with Mr. Best one time? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. With respect to other representatives of the Democratic National Committee—and for the record, Mr. Best is the lawyer for the Democratic National Committee representing that group—how many conversations have you had with anybody else at the Democratic National Committee after speaking with investigators? 

Answer. None. 

Question. None? Okay. Since basically speaking with investigators, have you only 

had one conversation with Mr. Best and you have had no conversations with anyone 

else as a representative of the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. How many phone calls do you think all told, in total, the total number 

of phone calls you have had with either Mr. Best or with any other representatives 

of the Democratic National Committee, total? 

Answer. I don’t know. I couldn’t remember. 

Question. Certainly we have the six reflected on Exhibit 9, plus the other one with 

Mr. Best, so there have been—there have been at least seven phone calls that you 

have had; is that correct? 

Mr. STEVENS. I think that would assume that in each of these six phone calls on 

Exhibit MF–9 that she actually spoke with someone. I would note that a few of 

them are 30, 40, 60 cent telephone conversations. And in light of my knowledge of 

long distance rates, that would suggest to me that these were very brief——

The WITNESS. Leave a message. 

Mr. STEVENS. —leave-a-message type calls. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Take a look at MF–9, if you would, Ms. Foung. The phone call on July 

3rd lasted for a minute. Another phone call a minute later on July 3rd lasted for 

2 minutes, but you don’t have any recollection of the specifics of that phone call? 

Answer. Probably just left a message. 

44

Question. All right. And then the phone call, again looking at MF–9, on July the 

11th lasted for 6 minutes. Again, you don’t recall the substance of that call? 

Answer. No, not at all. 

Question. And then there was a phone call on July 14th lasted 1 minute, then 

another phone call a few minutes later on July 14th lasting for 5 minutes, but you 

don’t recall the specifics of that call? 

Answer. The 5 minutes is probably the person who answered the phone. I have 

maybe had a brief—— Question. How about July 16th, there was a 22-minute telephone call? 

Answer. That’s Mr. Best’s number. 

Question. Okay. And you believe that’s the conversation—— Answer. The initial—— Question [continuing]. The lengthy conversation with Mr. Best at that time? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. And you believe you have had—we don’t have your records for 

August before us, but you recall that you did make one other phone call in August; 

is that right? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. What about the calls that you have received from the Democratic National Committee or from Mr. Best? You have in fact received calls from Mr. Best, 

haven’t you? He’s called you back on occasion; hasn’t he? 

Answer. Yes, Mr. Sandler called me once and gave me Mr. Best’s number. And 

so I was keeping in touch with Mr. Best. 

Question. How many times do you believe Mr. Best has called you? 

Answer. He called me once. 

Question. Has he called you more than once? 

Answer. No, just once. 

Question. Has any representative of the Democratic National Committee, apart 

from Mr. Sandler, ever called you? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And that was one time that he called you? 

Answer. Mr. Sandler? He called me once. 

Question. So again to be clear, Mr. Sandler has called you one time? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And Mr. Best has called you one time? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. Now, let me get into the matter which obviously relates to why 

you’re here, and that is your brother, Charlie Trie? 

Answer. Uh-huh. 

Question. When did your brother first immigrate to this country? 

Answer. I can’t remember. 

Question. Your brother’s 3 years older than you? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. He was born in 1949; you were born in 1952. 

Answer. I was born 1952; I think he was born in ’49. I don’t know his birthday. 

Question. Okay. Do you recall how old you were—did you all come as a family? 

You all came as a family when you came to this country, correct? 

Answer. No. 

Question. You did not? I’m sorry. 

Answer. My sister came—I don’t remember when, long, long, long time ago. 

Question. Is your sister, Dai Lin, older than you? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How much older, if you know, approximately? 

Answer. I don’t. 

Question. I’m just trying to make sure I understand the arrival of your family. 

I know you said your father is deceased. When did your father die? 

Answer. When I was 13, so about 32 years ago. 

Question. Okay. He died here in this country, in the United States? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did your father—I need to step back if we can in terms of your family 

history with respect to your brother and arrival. 

Answer. Okay. 

Question. Did your mother and father both immigrate to this country, or just your 

mother after your father’s death? 

Answer. Just my mother. 

Question. Your father died in China? 

Answer. In Taiwan. 

Question. In Taiwan, I’m sorry. 

45

And then your mother immigrated to this country with how many children at the 

time? 

Answer. Three—we have three of us. 

Question. Three. So all three of you came with your mother when she came to 

this country? 

Answer. No. 

Question. If you will explain. I am trying to get the answer from you and I don’t 

know how to do it with the questions I am asking. Perhaps you can tell me. Why 

don’t you explain when did your mother come to this country? 

Answer. 1978 or ’79. 

Question. And you were—— Answer. 1978. 

Question. And she had adult children by that time? 

Answer. We were all adult, yes. 

Question. Okay. Then I’m just trying to clarify, then your mother did not come 

to this country with young children? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Your mother came in 1978 or ’79, after all three of her children had already come to this country? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. Then let’s step back. Correct me if I am wrong, I believe you indicated 

you first immigrated to this country when you were 25? 

Answer. Twenty-one, ’73, yes. 

Question. In 1973. Your sister Dai Lin was already here? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Was your brother Charlie Trie already here? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Okay. Again, trying to go back over what you went over earlier this 

morning. Your brother came approximately 1973? 

Answer. ’74 or ’5 or ’6, I can’t remember. 

Question. And he went directly to Arkansas? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. So your brother came from China and moved directly to the State of 

Arkansas? 

Answer. From Taiwan. 

Question. From Taiwan to Arkansas? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And your sister was already there? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. So when your brother came to this country, in the mid-1970s, he went 

directly to Arkansas and I believe you indicated earlier he began working for or 

with your sister in her restaurant? 

Answer. I believe so. 

Question. Okay. And your brother would have been, in the mid-’70s he would have 

been late twenties, perhaps approaching 30 years of age; is that correct? 

Answer. Something like that, 20-something. 

Question. What is your brother’s educational background? 

Answer. He graduated from high school in Taiwan. He was in some kind of engineering school, or something. 

Question. Do you know, did your brother ever go to college? 

Answer. I don’t think so. 

Question. When your brother came to Arkansas in the mid to late ’70s, there was 

a time period from 1977 to 1983 when you lived in Arkansas? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. So you would see your brother with some frequency, at least during 

those 6 years; isn’t that correct? 

Answer. Yes, I see him. 

Question. I mean, your sister and your brother and you were all living in the 

State of Arkansas? 

Answer. Right. 

Question. From 1977 to 1983? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And were you living in the Little Rock area? 

Answer. Uh-huh. 

Question. So you were all living in the same city? 

Answer. Yes, that’s correct. 

Question. Incidentally, before I get—on the matters we discussed earlier this 

morning, the reimbursement to you for the $12,500 check and the $10,000 check, 

46

did you ever discuss with your brother the source of the repayment, where he got 

the money to reimburse you or where anyone got the money to reimburse you? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Okay. Do you have any knowledge of anybody, other than your brother, 

seeing that you got repaid? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Directing your attention to the period of time, the late 1970s, mid to 

late 1970s, I wasn’t clear this morning whether or not your brother ultimately took 

over the restaurant from your sister or established his own restaurant. Do you 

know? 

Answer. I remember at first he was working for my sister, then they were— opened a new restaurant as a partnership together. 

Question. Okay. 

Answer. Then after my sister moved to Virginia, I assumed he was on his own. 

Question. And how long was he in the restaurant business? 

Answer. Since he came here until he sold his business. I don’t remember what 

year. 

Question. Up until the time he sold his business and went to Washington, he was 

in the restaurant business, correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And that would have been approximately up until, like, 1994? 

Answer. I don’t know. I don’t remember. 

Question. Do you know—strike that. 

I think you previously indicated to the investigators that on some occasions—and 

correct me if I am wrong—you have indicated that on some evenings, receipts at 

the restaurant on a given evening might be made as political contributions to Governor Clinton for his re-election campaigns in Arkansas at your brother’s res- taurant. 

Do you recall making that statement? 

Answer. I remember saying something like that. But—I don’t know—— Question. Can you give me some facts on that? 

Answer. No, I don’t have no facts. I don’t remember. Probably just my brother 

had—or somebody might have mentioned something to me, but—— Question. I understand. I just want to explore what your understanding of that 

was about. 

Do you believe that your brother’s relationship with Governor Clinton was such 

that he was a political supporter of Governor Clinton in Arkansas? 

Answer. I don’t know if political supporter at first. I think they were just friends. 

They played basketball together or something like that. 

Question. And how often would he play basketball with Governor Clinton? 

Answer. I don’t know. See I moved away from Little Rock. 

Question. In 1983? 

Answer. 1983. 

Question. President Clinton was then the Governor of Arkansas? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. And your knowledge in terms of his playing basketball, I think that 

your brother—you have a niece named Darcy Trie; is that correct? 

Answer. Say that name again. 

Question. Do you have a niece named Darcy Trie? 

Answer. No. 

Question. What are the names of the children of your brother? I am sorry; does 

your brother have any children? 

Answer. He has one daughter. 

Question. What is her name? 

Answer. E-Mei. 

Question. E-Mei. I am sorry; I thought her nickname was Darcy Trie. She is actually a student at the University of Arkansas? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And do you recall a relationship between your brother and President 

Clinton, then Governor Clinton, that would cause them to play basketball together? 

Answer. I think it was a comment that was made. I don’t know. Just back in my 

mind seems like they played basketball together. 

Question. The simple fact is, then, that your brother, apart from the comment that 

the President made to you last year at the party in Hillsborough——

Answer. Uh-huh. 

Question [continuing]. In terms of his friendship with your brother, your brother 

clearly considered President Clinton, then Governor Clinton, to be a friend; isn’t 

that correct? 

47

Mr. STEVENS. Don’t speculate. It sounds like you are asking her to read someone 

else’s mind. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. We will step back. I usually interpret people who play basketball together and are political supporters to be friends. And I’m asking you, given what 

the President of the United States said about his friendship with your brother, Ms. 

Foung, clearly there must have been some comments by your brother with respect 

to how he felt about Governor Clinton, if he played basketball with him. That’s my 

question to you. 

Answer. Okay. Could I give you a little background? 

Question. I would like it. That would be fine. 

Answer. I have been away from Arkansas since 1983. And since 1983 until now, 

I spoke to my brother maybe three times, four times a year. Mostly he will call me 

and say, how you doing? And half of the time it is answering machine, because I 

am working. So we have very little discussion on a lot of things, not to mention the 

President of the United States. 

So I really—I was under the impression that my brother and Mr. Clinton, they 

know each other. And he’s very loyal to the President, and a supporter. But I really 

cannot tell you anything more. 

Question. What does the phrase ‘‘lao ke’’ mean? 

Answer. I don’t understand what that is. 

Question. Again, if you don’t, I will be up the creek because I don’t. L-A-O, and 

then ke, K-E. It is my understanding that it is a term of endearment in the Chinese 

language, but obviously you would know that better than I. 

Mr. STEVENS. ‘‘Lao ke,’’ does that mean anything to you at all? 

The WITNESS. No, no. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Do you know exactly how Charlie Trie ever met Governor Clinton? 

Answer. No, I don’t know. 

Question. Do you know the facts surrounding your brother’s appointment to any 

boards? Apart from Federal boards in Washington, any State boards, for example 

the Fire Extinguisher Board? Do you have any knowledge of any of that? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know exactly why he sold his restaurant business? 

Answer. Not really, but I was under the impression same reason—he got tired of, 

I guess. I don’t know. 

Question. Do you know anything about the businesses that he went into after or 

he tried to establish after he sold his restaurant? 

Answer. I remember he was trying to manufacture some kind of a tool that somebody had a patent on it. 

Question. Do you know any of the specifics of whether he procured the patent or 

whether he manufactured the tool or not? 

Answer. I believe they got the patent. 

Question. Who’s ‘‘they’’? 

Answer. My brother and somebody else. Whoever invented the tool. 

Question. Okay. 

Answer. And they were talking about going to China to have—hopefully to have 

it manufactured there. 

Question. But you don’t have any knowledge of that? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you have any knowledge of Daihatsu International Trading Company? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what knowledge do you have of that company? 

Answer. Just the letterhead, the envelope. 

Question. Did you ever see the offices of Daihatsu International Trading Company? 

Answer. I seen the office. I don’t know that that’s what it is. Remember, I told 

you back in Christmas ’94, I was in Little Rock visiting my mother. I visited his 

office. 

Question. Your brother’s office? 

Answer. My brother’s office. 

Question. And there was an office. Did you see the sign ‘‘Daihatsu International 

Trading Company’’ on the door? 

Answer. I didn’t. I didn’t see. 

48

Question. I understand. And do you know whether that business was successful 

or not? 

Answer. It looks very successful to me. It is a very impressive envelope and letterhead. 

Question. Apart from seeing the envelope and letterhead, did you see any offices? 

Answer. The office——

Question. Did you go—you said you went to your brother’s office? 

Answer. Yeah, the business office. 

Question. Did you see, were there many employees there? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. 

Answer. I met at least 10 people, maybe. Big office. 

Question. And to your knowledge, this was the Daihatsu International Trading 

Company? 

Answer. I was under the impression. 

Question. Okay. I don’t want you to speculate. I’m just trying to ask you. Do you 

know anything about San Kin Yip International? Does that name ring a bell to you? 

Answer. Not really. 

Question. How about America-Asia Trade Center, Incorporated? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Sanyou Science & Technology? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Premier Advertising? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know if your brother has any family sources of income? Does 

your mother have a great deal of money that she gives you and your brother and 

your sister? 

Answer. No, I know my mother received some kind of something from the Chinese 

government for my father’s death, some kind of death benefit. 

Question. And how long ago was that? Does she still receive such benefits? 

Answer. I’m not so sure. Maybe. I don’t know. 

Question. I guess my question to you is in terms of——

Answer. I think it was a yearly distribution or something, I don’t know. 

Question. I understand. But apart from that, is your mother an independently 

wealthy woman? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And to your knowledge there is no family source of money that comes 

to your brother or to your sister or to you? 

Answer. Not to me. 

Question. And do you have any knowledge of your brother receiving money from 

your mother in terms of some family source of money? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. You don’t have any knowledge of that? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you discussed with your brother at any time his involvement in 

the election and re-election campaigns of President Clinton in 1992 and 1996? 

Answer. Not at all. 

Question. And I gather that that would also apply with respect to Mrs. Clinton 

or any other members of the Clinton family? You have not discussed your brother’s 

involvement with any of them at any time? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you have any knowledge as to why your brother moved to Washington in the summer of 1994? 

Answer. I didn’t know he moved to Washington. As far as I know, he lived in Arkansas—I mean, his residence is in Arkansas. 

Question. Until when? 

Answer. Still now; isn’t it? 

Question. As a matter of fact, I was going to ask you that. 

Answer. His house is in Arkansas, but he’s out of the country the majority of the 

time. 

Question. When was the last time your brother was in the country? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. When’s the last time you spoke with your brother? 

Mr. STEVENS. In person or on the telephone? 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. On the telephone. 

49

Answer. On the telephone? I think it was after I spoke to the investigator. He 

called me one night. 

Question. Okay. Do you know how your brother would have known that you spoke 

with an investigator? 

Answer. Because I told my mother. I asked my mother if my brother calls, please 

give me a call. 

Question. Let me ask you again. You spoke with investigators in the latter part 

of August last month; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And then you called your mother? 

Answer. Yes, I didn’t call her—I called her after I find out I have to go to Washington for a hearing. 

Question. And you spoke with your mother. And what conversation did you have 

with your mother concerning your brother? 

Answer. Basically how ridiculous the whole thing was—is—or was—is. 

Question. And you spoke with your mother about that? 

Answer. Uh-huh. 

Question. And did you ask your mother to get in contact with your brother? 

Answer. I asked my mother if my brother calls her, have him give me a call. Because I’m really—— Question. I understand. 

Answer [continuing]. Trying to find out what is going on. 

Question. Do you know if your mother has the telephone number for your brother 

where she can reach him if she desires? 

Answer. No. 

Question. You don’t know the answer to that? 

Answer. I don’t know the answer, but I don’t think so. 

Question. She has to wait for your brother to call her? 

Answer. My mother rarely call us. We call her, any one of us. 

Question. Do you know if your mother has the ability to contact your brother in 

the event of a family emergency? 

Answer. I never asked that. But my brother calls my mother sometimes. 

Question. I am going to get into that in a minute. My question is, is there any 

member of your family that has the ability to contact your brother in the event of 

any kind of an emergency? 

Answer. I don’t know. I only know I don’t. 

Question. Do you know if your sister has the ability to contact your brother? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Getting back to the matter of after you were notified that you may have 

to attend a hearing, in fact that was the earlier part of this month, wasn’t it in September? 

Answer. Something like that. Has to be. 

Question. So in this month when an initial appearance had been scheduled for you 

before a hearing before the committee, you contacted your mother? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And you asked that the next time your brother called, that he call you? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And how soon after that conversation did your brother call you? 

Answer. A few days. 

Question. A few days later? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Where was he calling from? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Do you know whether or not he was overseas? Do you have any idea? 

Answer. I believe he was—he didn’t tell me. Did I ask him? I couldn’t remember. 

I might have asked him, ‘‘Where are you?’’

Question. And what did he say? 

Answer. I don’t remember he said anything or not. Maybe he say Taiwan, maybe 

Singapore. I don’t know. 

Question. But you believe you asked him where he was and you believe——

Answer. I couldn’t remember because our normal conversation whenever he calls 

me I always say, hey, where are you, where are you now? He will tell me San Francisco or Washington or Taiwan or China, Hong Kong, or wherever he was. But there 

is so many. 

Question. Certainly in this conversation in this month of September, he didn’t indicate he was in San Francisco or Washington; did he? 

Answer. Oh, no, no. I believe he was overseas. 

Question. And did you ask him when he was coming back to this country? 

50

Answer. No, I didn’t ask that. In fact, the conversation was very brief. He indicated he shouldn’t be talking to me, because I am a potential witness. So he doesn’t 

want to say anything to influence me. 

The only thing—the only reason he say he called is he recommend I speak to an 

attorney. That’s basically the reason he called. 

Question. Did he indicate to you whether he had been speaking with anyone else, 

other than your mother, concerning your situation? 

Answer. Concerning my situation? 

Question. I guess, specifically, your brother called you? 

Answer. Uh-huh. 

Question. After you called your mother? 

Answer. Uh-huh. 

Question. Did your brother indicate to you that he had spoken with anybody 

else—strike that. 

Did your brother indicate to you that he had even spoken with your mother? 

Answer. I—we didn’t discuss that, I would assume so, otherwise——

Question. But you don’t know? 

Answer. No, I don’t know. 

Question. When he called, did he indicate that he was aware of the fact that you 

were about to be called before a hearing? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And did he indicate whether or not he had spoken with anybody about 

your being called for a hearing? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. Maybe—maybe he mentioned his attorney or something. 

Question. Do you believe he spoke with his attorney concerning your coming before the hearing? 

Answer. I don’t know. He asked me to call—call attorney. 

Question. Let me ask you this, Ms. Foung. I want to get back to this conversation, 

but have there been any other conversations with your brother, apart from this conversation, this month? 

Answer. Oh, no. The last time I spoke to him I think was earlier in the year, February or March. 

Question. Well, obviously you spoke with him in August because you had the 

transaction with the $10,000 check. 

Mr. BALLEN. ’97? 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I’m sorry; excuse me, that was ’96. So, you believe that prior to this 

phone call with your brother in September of this year, that the last time you would 

have spoken with him would have been February or March of 1997? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. And except for this one particular phone call, you have not spoken with 

him any other time? 

Answer. No, no. 

Question. Now, in terms of his knowledge of your having been called before a 

hearing, did he specifically say with whom he had spoken concerning your having 

been called? 

Answer. I think he did mention he had his attorney—he had spoken to his attorney. 

Question. And do you know whether he called his attorney or his attorney called 

him? 

Answer. That I don’t know. 

Question. Did he indicate that he’d spoken with anyone else concerning your having been called? 

Answer. No, no. 

Question. And what exactly did he say to you in connection with your coming before the committee before a hearing? 

Answer. Like I said earlier, he said he cannot discuss anything me because I’m 

a potential witness, and I need to speak to attorney. 

Question. Did he recommend any particular attorney for you to see initially? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did he indicate that he had spoken with anyone else about your seeing 

an attorney? 

Answer. No, the conversation was very brief. 

Question. Did he ask you if you had been asked any questions? 

Answer. No. 

51

Question. And he did not discuss the content of the statements you made to investigators? 

Answer. Not at all. 

Question. And you don’t have any knowledge of any other individuals speaking 

with your brother? 

Answer. Say that again. 

Question. Do you have any knowledge of any other individuals speaking with your 

brother over the past 6 weeks? 

Answer. My other family members? 

Question. Any other people, family member or—— Answer. Oh, no, I wouldn’t know at all. My mother would be the only person that 

I would know that speak to my brother periodically. 

Question. And apart from your mother having spoken with him, you don’t have 

any knowledge of anyone else having spoken with him? 

Answer. No, not at all. 

Question. Do you know what your brother’s source of income is now? 

Answer. I don’t. 

Question. Is his wife still living in this country? 

Answer. No. 

Question. His wife has also left? 

Answer. She’s—she’s always staying overseas the past few years. 

Question. Where does she reside? 

Answer. She—she go to Taiwan sometimes. She’s in China sometimes. I don’t 

know, I never keep track of that. 

Question. And what is her name, I’m sorry? 

Answer. Wa Mei. 

Question. And there is only one child of that marriage and that is Denise who 

goes to the University of Arkansas? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. That is the only child? 

Answer. That I know of. 

Question. That you know of. I understand. I understand. I’m not going to get into 

that. Believe me. I’m not going to begin to get into that. 

To your knowledge that is the only child he has? 

Answer. That’s correct. 

Question. Do you have any knowledge of his financial situation? 

Answer. No, not at all. 

Question. Would you know where your brother would have—I guess you’ve read 

all the reports about your brother and the large contributions that he made or 

sought to make? 

Answer. To be honest with you, I never did. 

Question. You say you have never read all the press reports about that? 

Answer. No, I never did. 

Question. Do you have any knowledge of where your brother would have access 

to hundreds of thousands of dollars? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Do you know, has he ever mentioned the various political groups that 

he’s been involved with or efforts in terms of Vote Now ’96, or Defeat Proposition 

209 here in California? 

Answer. Not at all. We never discussed. 

Question. Never discussed political matters with him? 

Answer. Never discussed political matters. I asked him, do you think Mr. Clinton’s going to win? He feel confident he will. That is the extent of our discussion 

as far as political. 

Question. Have you ever discussed his foreign trips with him in terms of his frequency of foreign trips? 

Answer. Like I said earlier, we spoke to each other three, four times a year. And 

we really don’t discuss much. I’m not that curious. I’m more concerned about my 

personal business. 

Question. Sure, I understand. Since 1993, you have spoken two, three or four 

times a year? 

Answer. Maybe more or less. 

Question. Has he spoken to you in terms of any of his person or business problems? 

Answer. No. 

Question. He hasn’t discussed any financial matters with you or his financial matters or problems? 

Answer. No. 

52

Question. Have you ever had any knowledge of his being in financial trouble? 

Answer. No, but earlier in the year he told me that he would have to obtain an 

attorney and it is very expensive. As far as I know. 

Question. Have you ever loaned him any money? 

Answer. I might have in the past, but I couldn’t remember. 

Question. In the last 2 years—— Answer. Oh, no. 

Question [continuing]. Have you loaned him any money? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Are you aware of any times he has had to borrow money from any of 

his friends? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And you indicated you don’t know who Mark Middleton is? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Would you know why Mr. Middleton might be giving your brother $5,000? 

Answer. I have no idea. 

Question. And you have never discussed that with your brother? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And you have never discuss Mr. Mark Middleton with your brother? 

Answer. No, I never know that person. 

Question. Has your brother ever discussed with you the group Suma Ching Hai? 

Answer. No. 

Question. How about in September of 1995? According to our records, your brother 

attended a conference, actually with Mrs. Clinton. Do you remember discussing that 

with him in any way? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And you have not discussed any of his business trips to China or Hong 

Kong with him? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did he ever discuss with you his appointment to a Presidential commission in terms of people who assisted him in that regard? 

Answer. I think he mentioned something about they have a very thorough background check, so they might check me as a sister. 

Question. And did he speak to you about that? 

Answer. Maybe, yes, I think so. 

Question. And what kind of conversation—basically, what was the content of that 

discussion? 

Answer. I couldn’t remember. It was something that I’m not interested in. 

Question. Okay. Did you ever discuss with him his effort to assist the Presidential 

Legal Expense Trust in terms of President Clinton’s legal expenses and a trust created for that? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever discussed the late Secretary of State, a gentleman who 

died, a gentleman named Ron Brown? 

Answer. No. I saw on the TV. 

Question. That he died in the plane crash? 

Answer. That he died, yeah. That’s all I know. 

Question. You never discussed Ron Brown with your brother? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know of any contact which your brother has had with President 

Clinton over the last year? 

Answer. My brother’s what? 

Question. Do you know of any contact which your brother has had with President 

Clinton in the last year? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know if he has had any contact with President Clinton? 

Answer. I don’t know. I have no interest in that. So I wouldn’t—the time he speak 

to me, the time is so precious, I wouldn’t be asking something that I’m not interested. 

Question. I understand. Hold on just one second. 

Just a few things. One, you don’t have any knowledge of your brother’s financial 

affairs in terms of whether or not the restaurant was successful or not? 

Answer. I believe the restaurant was successful. 

Question. But you don’t know——

Answer. While the time I was there. 

Question. When you were there, from ’77 to ’83? 

Answer. Yes. 

53

Question. You don’t know any financial facts in terms of his sale of the restaurant? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And with respect to your niece, the daughter of Dai Lin Outlaw, Elaine 

Outlaw, do you know how old she is now? 

Answer. 20-something. 

Question. Do you know where she works? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know whether or not she’s ever worked for the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. Not as I know of. 

Question. Where does she presently live? 

Answer. Elaine? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. I thought it was Virginia. 

Question. Do you know where in Virginia? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And with respect to your attendance at any political or business events 

with your brother, I gather from your answers you have not attended any political 

events with your brother? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Ever? 

Answer. Never, except the one in Hillsborough. 

Question. And he was not there, but you were there? 

Answer. No, he wasn’t. No, never together. 

Question. Have you ever gone—has your brother ever shown you photographs of 

him with the members of the Clinton family? 

Answer. No. He showed me the picture of him and Mr. Clinton and himself. 

Question. Okay. And when was that? First of all, when did he show you the photograph? 

Answer. Years and years ago. 

Question. And this would have been when President Clinton was Governor Clinton or would have been when he was President Clinton? 

Answer. President. It would be between ’90—I think it was in California; yeah, 

I was in California. So it would be after ’90. 

Mr. BENNETT. Hold on one second. Ms. Foung, I have no further questions. As I 

mentioned to you when we started, Mr. Ballen may have some questions. Maybe I 

will wind up. 

Ken, do you have any questions? 

Mr. BALLEN. I do, if we could just take a moment before we begin. Maybe a 5-

minute break. Thanks very much. 

[Brief Recess.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. First of all, I want to very much thank you for coming here this morning. I realize this is an imposition on your time. And on behalf of the Democratic 

Members of the committee, I would like to thank you. 

I think your answers this morning have been very candid, very honest, very forthcoming. Sometimes what is not reflected in the bare record of a deposition is the 

effort a witness makes and the facial expressions a witness may make to try to 

search for the truth. And I think we would all agree, both my counterparts on the 

Republican side and your own attorney, that throughout this deposition you have 

searched your memory very carefully and tried to come forward with truthful and 

complete answers, and I think we all appreciate that. 

Answer. Thank you. 

Question. And, frankly, I’d like to say that based upon what you have said, we 

are not sure why at this point you are being called or your life is being put under 

the kind of microscope that it is. 

Mr. BENNETT. Objection. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. Well, Mr. Bennett is entitled to his objection, but, we are not sure. We 

don’t see, based upon the record, the necessity for that. 

But maybe can I go to a bottom line here, if you will. As I read to you earlier 

in this deposition, Mr. Bennett’s boss, Chairman Burton from Indiana, has said that 

there may be a conspiracy of the Chinese government at work here and that your 

brother is part of it. 

54

I want to emphasize that there is no particular evidence of that fact, and the 

Democratic Members have seen no evidence to support it, but I want to ask you 

about your knowledge of that. 

Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe that your brother is an agent or 

a spy of the Government of China? 

Answer. No. 

Question. I notice you’re smiling. 

Answer. I think it was ridiculous. 

Question. And why do you think it is ridiculous? 

Answer. Just knowing my brother for being a brother-sister for 40-some years, 

that’s not him. 

Question. And you see no evidence to indicate that? 

Answer. Oh, no, absolutely. 

Question. How about of the Government of Taiwan? Is there any evidence whatsoever to show that your brother may be an agent or spy of the Government of Taiwan? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Government of Indonesia? 

Answer. I don’t believe so. 

Question. Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe that the money that your 

brother reimbursed you for on the contributions came from the Government of 

China or the Government of Taiwan? 

Answer. No. China and Taiwan both are friendly with the United States. Why 

would they wanted to have a spy or anything like that? It’s something beyond my 

understanding. 

Question. Okay. As far as you know, I believe you testified the money that your 

brother gave you, you thought came from him? 

Answer. I believe so. 

Question. And you still believe that now? 

Answer. Yeah. 

Question. Because he was doing—he has his own businesses, correct? 

Answer. Yeah, I don’t know anything otherwise. 

Question. I’m sorry? 

Answer. I don’t know otherwise, of why it would be from anywhere else. 

Question. All right. So you knew he had a business, and you knew he asked you 

to make some contributions and he reimbursed you for the contributions? 

Answer. Yes. And I viewed it no different than if he’s late for his PG&E bill and 

asked me to pay the money and he reimbursed me. To me it was the same thing 

and I didn’t think anything of it. 

Question. And you didn’t——

Answer. I didn’t explore any further. It was just something that was not that important to me. 

Question. And that’s all you know? 

Answer. That’s all I know, uh-huh. 

Mr. STEVENS. Just in case, Counsel, don’t appreciate the reference to PG&E, 

that’s a utility company. The reference was to making a utility bill payment on a 

timely manner. 

The WITNESS. Or house payment. If he saw some way he couldn’t make that check 

in time, he asked me to advance the check. To me it was no difference to me at 

the time. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. Because this was something he was interested in doing, make these contributions? 

Answer. Yeah. I wasn’t. 

Question. And so he asked you to do it? 

Answer. Yeah. 

Question. And that’s basically all you know about this whole affair? 

Answer. Right. 

Question. And because you know that, your life has been put into turmoil; hasn’t 

it? 

Answer. It has been very, very difficult. Stressful, and a lot of worries. I lost a 

lot of money, financial loss and everything. It wasn’t pleasant. 

Question. This has been quite an ordeal for you; hasn’t it? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And you talk about worry and stress. Could you tell us about that a 

little bit, about what this has done to you? 

55

Answer. My job is on the line. It’s very—because a word has been mentioned 

about I being used by my brother, which I don’t believe is true. If he knew it would 

cost me—if something was wrong or something, he would not ever ask me to do it. 

He would not use me. He always do things for me in the past. 

And I’m worried about my job because of the negative publicity, and I’m worried 

about—prior to getting the immunity, I didn’t know I was in violation of anything. 

And it turned out to be I could have faced jail time. I could have faced a big penalty 

that I couldn’t afford. Who’s going to take care of my son, you know? All those 

things just back and forth in my mind. 

Question. You are a single mother? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And when you have to come and give the deposition or meet with your 

lawyer or go to Washington, that’s time away from your job? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And does that put your job in jeopardy in any way? 

Answer. More than in jeopardy. 

Question. How so? 

Answer. First of all, I am not getting paid for the time I’m away from my job, 

because it’s not like a sick or something that is covered. 

Then I have to arrange all kinds of child care for my son. And at my job, I am 

the person responsible for that unit. If I’m not there, they have to hire overtime people, somebody has to be there, and it was my responsibility to take care of it. So 

I tried to always be dependable being there. 

Question. So in other words, these repeated inquiries from the committees, this 

is a real problem for you on your job? 

Answer. It hasn’t been because in the past the investigator has been very accommodating toward my schedule, although I still have—facing the graveyard, I still 

have to be up all night working and come back on days, and I couldn’t rest. I have 

to worry about it. It was very stressful. It is what is in the future? What impact 

is going to be on my life, my job and everything? 

Question. Let me ask you this, I mean, if you had to go back to Washington——

Answer. That’s what I mean. That’s my biggest concern. 

Question. What would that do for your job? 

Answer. First of all, my son is year-round school. October is their offtrack, so he 

has no school daytime then—so he’ll be out of care for 24 hours. I have to arrange 

24-hour care for him, which will be very difficult. 

I’ll be away from my job. Not only I don’t get paid for, also I have been having 

a perfect attendance award for the past years I have been with [Employer’s name] 

and I will have to lose that and I’m not willing to, because this job means a lot to 

me. 

Not only my whole family depends on this job, also I like the job very well. I like 

the people I work with. I like the people I work for. And that’s, I guess, the most 

important thing to me. 

Question. So it’s your hope that you don’t have to come back? 

Answer. I hope, since I don’t think I can offer information that they are looking 

for, I really think it is a waste of everybody’s time for me to be there. 

Question. And more than a waste of time, you’re talking about your son and your 

job and——

Answer. My life, yes. 

Question [continuing]. Your life. The disruption that might occur as a result of 

that? 

Answer. And the negative publicity that probably can hurt me for a long time. 

Question. I see this has made you quite upset? 

Answer. Very upset, because I love my brother very much. And seems like I am 

kind of being made to hurt him or to against him. And for Chinese tradition, that 

is something you shouldn’t be doing. 

But I’m here to tell the truth, and I told the truth. Whatever I know, has very 

little impact on the overall case. I just don’t know why I’m being treated like somebody so important or something like that. I mean, I like the attention, but not this 

type. 

Mr. STEVENS. But you could live without it? 

The WITNESS. Uh-huh. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. In fact, you would rather live without it? 

Answer. I rather this not happening. 

56

Mr. BALLEN. Maybe we can clarify right now what the plans are for Ms. Foung. 

Do you know the plans whether to bring her back to Washington or not? 

Mr. BENNETT. I have no intentions of telling you that, Mr. Ballen. I would like 

to know, first of all, when you say ‘‘We’re not sure why you are being called,’’ just 

for the record, are you as a counsel for this committee saying that you are not sure? 

Is that what you think Congressman Waxman—or was that you as a lawyer for the 

committee? 

Mr. BALLEN. Well, that’s me as a lawyer. And if I talked to Congressman Wax- man—— Mr. BENNETT. I have no doubt about Congressman Waxman’s position. I am wondering if you as a lawyer are representing as a lawyer for the committee, that you 

are representing that you as a lawyer are not sure why this witness is being called. 

Mr. BALLEN. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. In response to that, we have two clear indications of the laundering 

of money through this witness by Charlie Trie. We also—her brother. We also have 

indications that this witness’s name was used illegally to make a contribution to a 

United States Senator. 

I’ll wait until Mr. Barnett finishes, so I can address you. I want to make sure 

you hear me. 

It doesn’t really strain my background to understand why it would be relevant 

for a witness to testify as to two clear violations of law committed by her brother 

who, incidentally, Ms. Foung, so you know, it was on national television with Tom 

Brokaw. Did you see your brother on national television? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Your brother was seen on national television saying, I quote, ‘‘They’ll never find me.’’ And he was interviewed on national television by Tom 

Brokaw of NBC News and it was a topic of a great deal discussion in terms of your 

brother’s boast that he will never come back from China and that ‘‘They’ll never find me.’’

To put on record to this witness as lawyers, apart from the politics, as lawyers 

that you are not clear why the witness is being called, I must tell you, Ms. Foung, 

that the reason you are being called is because you were used—you did nothing 

wrong as far as we’re concerned, but you are used by your brother with respect to 

two particular transactions. And before the committee, you will see that the $25,000 that came for the February payments, in fact, was placed in an account by an individual named Antonio 

Pan and within minutes of a $25,200 deposit, within minutes, $25,000 was taken 

out of that account and sent to you. 

So we’re not going to sit and debate the entire case with you other than to tell 

you that we believe as lawyers for the Majority that those indications of a violation 

of law are a piece of the puzzle. No one is casting aspersions on you, but it is my 

judgment as a lawyer, and Mr. Wilson’s judgment as a lawyer, totally apart from 

the politics of the situation, that the testimony is relevant. 

And we don’t expect you to have any knowledge of any allegations about what 

your brother did or did not do in China. I don’t know that you would have knowledge of that. But you may not have seen your brother on national television, but 

he was interviewed by Tom Brokaw, as I say, of NBC News, interviewed at length, 

and was the topic of a great deal of national discussion about his interview and the 

fact that the government would never find him. And it’s because of that, and because of your involvement in these two transactions with your brother, as well as 

the other matters that have come to our attention, that we believe that you have 

relevant testimony to offer to the committee, because it is our job to present facts. 

So, my role here is not to get into a political debate over the merits of Republicans 

versus Democrats. We are here as lawyers trying to present evidence. And I apologize to you that to the extent that you have been inconvenienced, unfortunately 

many times when facts have to be brought to light, unwilling or unwitting participants are dragged into the process, and that is unfortunate. 

We are doing everything we can to minimize your inconvenience. We have two 

lawyers and an investigator for the Republican side of the committee and three lawyers for the Democratic side of the committee out of the committee’s budget, all of 

whom have flown here to California to interview you because we wanted to make 

it convenient for you. 

I will tell you that we were asked to have you come to Washington earlier and 

do it in Washington. We’ve come out here. We are trying to make things as convenient to you as possible and I apologize for any inconvenience. 

So in response to Mr. Ballen’s question about when we are going to tell him when 

you will be called, given the pattern of conduct on the part of some of the people 

with whom Mr. Ballen works, we will let you know as quickly as possible in terms 

57

of when you will be called before a hearing. But you will need to come before the 

committee. No one at the committee level, either Republican or Democrats, I don’t 

believe is going to be yelling at you or casting aspersions on you. 

It is my professional judgment as a lawyer, totally apart from the politics of the 

matter, that I believe you have relevant testimony to offer. I can assure you that 

that judgment is made by me as a lawyer. It would be made by me as a lawyer 

whether I was an Independent, a Republican, a Socialist or a Democrat. And because of that, that is why you are being called. Do you understand that? I am trying 

to be as honest with you as I can be. My judgment as a lawyer is that you have 

relevant testimony as to offer and you will be called a witness and we regret the 

inconvenience. 

Are you finished with your questions, Mr. Ballen? I wanted to respond to your 

inquiry to me directly. 

Mr. BALLEN. You haven’t responded and I would like to know, sir, what is your 

basis, when the Democratic Members vote, and the committee voting unanimously 

to grant this witness immunity, what is your basis for not informing us and informing this witness when she is going to be called? 

Mr. BENNETT. I will certainly, as soon as that decision—— Mr. BALLEN. Are you saying that you don’t know? 

Mr. BENNETT. I don’t know yet. My point is that once I know the decision by the 

Chairman, and the Chairman advises me what his decision is about when she 

should be called, I will let you know within 2 minutes, either this afternoon or tomorrow. And I will let Mr. Stevens know immediately. I can’t represent to you the 

exact day. I have reason to believe it will be next week, but until that decision is 

made by the Chairman, I can’t let you know that. So I can’t respond to you on that. 

Mr. BARNETT. We were advised last week that we would begin the hearings on 

the 7th, and then the 8th and the 9th would be days when Ms. Foung would testify. 

Has there been a change in the plans? 

Mr. BENNETT. For the record, not having introduced himself for the record, that 

is Mr. Phil Barnett, Minority counsel who has just spoken. That is not a change 

in plans now. I believe that is the case, but I need to confirm that. We can probably 

confirm that before we leave Mr. Stevens’ office here today. But I am not prepared 

to respond directly this minute in terms of the actual day. I have reason to believe 

that is correct, but I want to confirm that with the Chairman. 

Mr. STEVENS. May I suggest that we finish with the questioning of Ms. Foung so 

she can get back to work? She was planning to get back to work. Her place of employment is waiting for her. And then we can continue this illuminating discussion——

Mr. BALLEN. I have no further questions. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am just responding to a direct——

Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate that. I know you need to state your intentions. 

Mr. BENNETT. I’ve not had a lawyer direct an inquiry to me like that on the 

record, so I want to make sure that the record is clear back in terms of that direct 

question of me. 

Mr. STEVENS. I think it is wonderful that I don’t have to go watch C–SPAN to 

hear these kinds of arguments. 

Mr. BENNETT. Hopefully you will see lawyers conduct themselves as lawyers, and 

not on political side. 

Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate that. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. And a quick question to you, Ms. Foung. I’m frankly surprised, you’re 

not aware then of your brother’s interview with NBC News? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did you see the broadcast with Tom Brokaw? 

Answer. No, I wish——

Question. I assumed you had seen that. Perhaps someone could get a tape of that 

for you and you could see it and see the manner in which he presented himself to 

the American public in terms of his response. 

Do you know when your brother might be coming back from China, Ms. Foung? 

Mr. BALLEN. Objection. You’re assuming she knows where he is. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. You can answer the question. 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Has your brother indicated to you, in light of his comment to Tom 

Brokaw of NBC News that, quote, ‘‘They’ll never find me,’’ end of quote, and his 

58

intention to stay in China, do you know whether—has he ever made that representation to you or your mother that he does not intend to come back to this country? 

Answer. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. I have no further questions. 

Do you have any further questions, Mr. Ballen? 

Mr. BALLEN. No, I do not. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Ms. Foung, you have a right, obviously, to review this transcript. We 

will see that we get a transcript to you as quickly as possible, and as I advised you 

at the start, you will have an opportunity to review the transcript with Mr. Stevens, 

and if there are any errors in transcription or what have you, we will make sure 

that you are given an opportunity to do that. And I thank you very much for your 

patience here today. 

Mr. BALLEN. Did you have something you wanted to say? 

Mr. STEVENS. Off the record for a second. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. BENNETT. I don’t want counsel to think I knew all the detail. We should note 

on the record that any reference to Ms. Foung’s employer should be deleted and just 

reference to ‘‘her employer.’’ It need not name her specific employer and all such 

references shall be stricken, and I assume the court reporter will see that that is 

done. 

Mr. STEVENS. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]

[The exhibits referred to follow:]

59


g:\graphics\44833.007
60


g:\graphics\44833.008
61


g:\graphics\44833.009
62


g:\graphics\44833.010
63


g:\graphics\44833.011
64


g:\graphics\44833.012
65


g:\graphics\44833.013
66


g:\graphics\44833.014
67


g:\graphics\44833.015
68


g:\graphics\44833.016
69


g:\graphics\44833.017
70


g:\graphics\44833.018
71


g:\graphics\44833.019
72


g:\graphics\44833.020
73


g:\graphics\44833.021
74


g:\graphics\44833.022
75


g:\graphics\44833.023
76

EXECUTIVE SESSION

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC. 

DEPOSITION OF: JOSEPH RAYMOND LANDON, JR. 

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1997

The deposition in the above matter was held in the offices of Charles J. Stevens, 

Esq., 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1450, Sacramento, California, commencing at 1:20 p.m. 

Appearances: 

Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: James C. 

Wilson, senior investigative counsel; Richard D. Bennett, special counsel; Charles F. 

Little, investigator; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; Phil 

Barnett, minority chief counsel; and Christopher Lu, minority counsel. 

For JOSEPH RAYMOND LANDON, JR.: 

CHARLES J. STEVENS, ESQ. 

Stevens & O’Connell 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1450

Sacramento, California 95814

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Landon, good morning. On behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I thank you very much for coming 

here today. 

This proceeding is known as a deposition. The person transcribing the proceeding 

is a House reporter and notary public, and I’ll now request that he place you under 

oath. 

THEREUPON, JOSEPH RAYMOND LANDON, JR., a witness, was called for examination, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 

Mr. WILSON. I’d like to note for the record those who are present at the beginning 

of this deposition. My name is James Wilson. I’m the designated Majority counsel. 

Appearing with me today are Mr. Richard Bennett and Mr. Chuck Little. 

Mr. Landon is represented by Mr. Charles Stevens, and appearing on behalf of 

the Minority are Ken Ballen and Christopher Lu. 

Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you have been placed under oath, your testimony here today has the same 

force and effect as if you were testifying before the committee or in a courtroom. 

If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past, and you are unable 

to recall the exact words, you may state that you are unable to recall the exact 

words, but then please give me the gist or substance of that conversation to the best 

of your recollection. If you recall only part of a conversation or only part of an event, 

please give me your best recollection of either the conversation or the event. 

If I ask you whether you have any information about a particular subject, and 

you have overheard conversations about that subject or have seen correspondence 

or documents about that subject, please tell me that you do have such information 

and tell me the source from which you derived such information. 

Before I begin questioning, I want to give you some background on the investigation and your appearance here. 

Pursuant to its authority under House Rules X and XI of the House of Representatives, the committee is engaged in a wide-ranging review of possible political fundraising improprieties and possible violations of law. Pages 2 through 4 of House Report 105–139 summarize the investigation as of June 19, 1997, and describe new 

matters which have arisen in the course of this investigation. Also, pages 4 through 

11 of the report explain the background of the investigation. All questions related 

either directly or indirectly to these issues, or questions which have the tendency 

to make the existence of any pertinent fact more or less probable are proper. 

The committee has been granted specific authorization to conduct this deposition 

pursuant to House Resolution 167, which passed the full House of Representatives 

on June 20, 1997. The committee Rule 20 outlines the ground rules for this deposition. 

The Majority and Minority counsels will ask you questions about the subject matter of this investigation. Majority counsel will ask questions first, and then when 

77

we are finished, Minority counsel will follow and ask whatever questions they have 

to ask at that time. After they have finished, a new round of questioning may begin. 

Pursuant to the committee’s rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present, 

and as we mentioned at the beginning, you are accompanied today by Mr. Charles 

Stevens. 

Any objections raised during the course of the deposition shall be stated for the 

record. If the witness is instructed not to answer a question, or otherwise refuses 

to answer a question, the Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine 

whether the objection is proper. If the Majority and Minority counsels agree that 

the question is proper, the witness will be asked to answer the question. If an objection is not withdrawn, the Chairman or a Member designated by the Chairman may 

decide whether the objection is proper. 

This deposition is considered as taken in executive session of the committee, 

which means that it may not be made public without the consent of the committee 

pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule XI. You are asked to abide by the rules 

of the House and not discuss with anyone other than your attorney this deposition 

and the issues and questions raised during this proceeding. 

Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed and you have 

been notified that your testimony is available, you may submit suggested changes 

to the Chairman. Practically speaking, the transcripts will be turned around very 

quickly. I imagine we will be able to Federal Express a copy of the transcript to 

Mr. Stevens within a day or two, and you will have an opportunity to review the 

deposition to ensure that the statements you made are correct. 

The committee staff may make any typographical or technical changes requested 

by you. Substantive changes or modifications, clarifications or amendments to the 

deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting 

the changes and a statement of your reasons for the proposed changes. A letter requesting substantive changes or modifications must be signed by you. Any substantive changes, modifications clarifications or amendments will be included as an 

appendix to the transcript of the deposition conditioned upon your signing of the 

transcript. 

Do you understand everything we have gone over so far? 

The WITNESS. Good enough. 

Mr. WILSON. Are there any other statements or observations to be made? 

Mr. BALLEN. Yes, I do have a brief statement. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Landon, on behalf of the Democratic Members of the committee, I want to 

thank you for being here today. I represent the Democratic Members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. 

As you may know, every committee in the Congress is represented by two parties, 

the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and the Republican Party is in the 

Majority and in control of the committee in terms of deciding what witnesses to call 

and what hearings to have. And Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bennett represent the Republican Majority. 

I do not represent either the Democratic National Committee or the current administration, but simply Democrat Members of the House who sit on our committee. 

Some of them you might be familiar with are from California. Our Ranking Member 

is Mr. Waxman from Los Angeles. We have other Members from this area, Gary 

Condit and Mr. Tom Lantos from the Bay Area. 

We want to take this opportunity at the outset to apologize because we know this 

has been an inconvenience on your time and your life. 

I don’t know what, if anything, you have been informed, but certainly if you have 

any questions, what the nature of any proceedings might be if you have to come 

back to Washington in terms of testifying in a committee room with some 40-odd 

Members of Congress, and possibly television cameras or reporters or things along 

those lines, so if you have any questions in that regard, we would be happy to help, 

and certainly from our point of view, we will try to make this process as painless 

and as simple as possible in terms of what is in our control. 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

Mr. WILSON. I will be asking you questions concerning the subject matter of this 

investigation. 

Do you understand? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WILSON. If you don’t understand a question, please say so, and I will repeat 

it or rephrase it so that you do understand the question. 

Do you understand that you should tell me if you don’t understand my question? 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

78

Mr. WILSON. The reporter will be taking down everything that we say and will 

make a written record of the deposition, and I’d ask to you give verbal and audible 

answers so that the reporter can adequately transcribe all that takes place today. 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

Mr. WILSON. If you can’t hear me, please say so, and I will repeat the question 

or have the court reporter read the question back to you. 

Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WILSON. Please wait until I finish each question before answering, and I’ll 

try to wait until you finish your answer before I ask the next question. 

Do you understand that this will help the reporter make a clear record of the 

questions and answers today? 

The WITNESS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. Your testimony is being taken under oath as if we were in court, 

and if you answer a question, it will be assumed that you understood the question 

and the answer was intended to be responsive to it. 

Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WILSON. And it’s my understanding that you are here voluntarily today; is 

that correct? 

The WITNESS. That’s correct. 

Mr. WILSON. Do you have any questions about this deposition before we begin the 

substantive portion of the proceedings? 

The WITNESS. Nope. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: 

Question. Just to begin, I’d like to ask you a few background questions for the 

record. 

Could you please state your full name and spell it for the record? 

Answer. Joseph Raymond Landon, Jr. 

Question. And what was your birthdate? 

Answer. 3/27/49. 

Question. And if you could, give me a brief explanation of your employment history from the time of secondary school until the present—high school until the 

present. 

Answer. Out of high school I worked for a couple of electrical companies. Then 

I went down to the Navy, talked to the recruiter. And just so happens that the 

Army sent me a draft notice, and the next day I was supposed to go to the Navy, 

so I spent 20 years in the military; 20 years and 3 months. After the military I 

worked two technical jobs on the outside. I retired in ’89. 

Question. You retired from the military in 1989? 

Answer. Correct. 

Question. And where did you live when you were working with the military? 

Answer. After boot camp I was stationed in Georgia, Rhode Island; spent a few 

years in Antarctica. I was on the USS Midway, the Coral Sea, the USS California. 

I was stationed in Mare Island for a few years, I taught there, and I got out in Alameda. 

Question. And Alameda was your final posting? 

Answer. It was final. I was on the USS California there. 

Question. And after you retired in 1989, where did you work up until the present? 

Answer. I worked for George Martin Engineering Company, Mar Wais Steel, Current Affairs Electric. I had a bunch of temporary jobs, small jobs, and I’m currently 

with [Employer’s Name]. 

Mr. STEVENS. Do we have the same stipulations? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, if we could go off the record for a moment. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. WILSON. We just had a conversation about Mr. Landon’s employment, and it’s 

agreed by all present that his employer will not appear in the transcript of this deposition if possible. Please insert ‘‘his employer’’ if that subject does come up again. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: 

Question. Now, from 1989 to the present, where did you live in the different positions you have had? 

Answer. ’89 to present? Up to ’89, I was in the barracks. Then I lived in Vallejo 

from 1986 to present. I’ve also lived with Ms. Foung in Cordelia. 

Question. When did you first meet Ms. Foung? 

Answer. I think it was ’94. 

79

Question. Okay. Prior to 1996, had you ever made any political contributions? 

Answer. No. I think it’s only a dollar or whatever on the 1040. 

Question. Had you ever participated in any political activities or political campaigns? 

Answer. No. I don’t talk good enough for that. 

Mr. WILSON. I’m providing the witness with a document which has been marked 

Exhibit JL–1. 

[Landon Deposition Exhibit No. JL–1 was marked for identification.]

[Note.—All exhibits referred to may be found at end of deposition 

on p. 89.]

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: 

Question. And if you would take just a moment to review this. Let me just explain 

what it is. It is a one-page copy of a check, and then at the bottom of the page there 

is what is headed ‘‘Check Tracking Form,’’ and it is a document that was provided 

to this committee by the Democratic National Committee, and it represents some 

background information on the check and the contribution that appears to be made 

by Mr. Landon. 

Bearing in mind it’s very difficult to see this check, do you recall writing a check 

to the DNC on February 19, 1996? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Just if you could, give me the general background to why you came to 

write this check to the DNC in February of 1996. 

Answer. Ms. Foung asked if I would. I did it as a favor to her. 

Question. And beyond that, were you aware at the time of why she asked you to 

write this check? 

Answer. No, sir, at the time I didn’t even know what the DNC was. 

Question. Have you had any subsequent conversations, any conversations since 

you wrote this check, about why she asked you to write the check to the DNC? 

Answer. She said it was for a function in Washington for someone overseas. I assumed at the time it was her brother, but I wasn’t positive. 

Question. Did she mention to you around the time that you wrote this check that 

it had something to do with her brother? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did you have an understanding, did you know whether or not in February of 1996 that you would be reimbursed for this check? 

Answer. She told me I would be. 

Question. And what did she tell you? 

Answer. Well, she said if I write, I could be reimbursed within a couple of days. 

Question. Do you recall whether she gave you any explanation about why you 

would be writing a check and you would be reimbursed a few days later? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did you ask her any questions about why she wanted you to write the 

check and then you would be reimbursed right afterwards? 

Answer. No, I figured that was her business. 

Question. Now, once you wrote this check, if you could, again, just give me a description how you were reimbursed for the check that you had written. 

Answer. It was two $5,000 checks and $2,500. 

Question. Actually I’ll show you in a moment some checks just to help us walk 

through this process, but before you actually got the checks, or before you were, in 

fact, paid back, were there any conversations during which you discussed how you 

were going to be reimbursed? 

Answer. How? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. No, she just told me I would be. 

Question. So it’s fair to say she told you you would be reimbursed if you wrote 

the check, and you expected that to happen? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Apart from Ms. Foung making the request for you to write this check, 

do you remember any other names that came up at the time? Did she describe anything else about this check or this contribution beyond what you have told us so 

far? 

Answer. No, she just said it’s something to do with the Democrats, because I 

asked her what the DNC was. I didn’t know. And she said it’s just something to 

do with the Democrats. 

80

Question. Do you know whether she had had any conversations with anybody affiliated with the DNC——

Answer. No. 

Question [continuing]. Before that? 

Answer. No. 

Mr. WILSON. I’m giving Mr. Landon a document which has been marked JL–2 for 

the record. It is a copy of two cashier’s checks from the Amerasia Bank. And if you 

could take just a moment to review that. 

[Landon Deposition Exhibit No. JL–2 was marked for identification.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: 

Question. Do you remember how you received these checks? 

Answer. They were given to me by Ms. Foung. 

Question. Do you know how she got the checks? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did she tell you at any time whether it was by mail or delivery or anything about how she got the checks? 

Answer. No, she just gave me the checks. 

Question. Now, when she gave you these checks, you had previously written a 

check for $12,500, and the two checks that have your name on them are for a total 

of $10,000, two $5,000 checks. Did you have any discussions with her about the balance of your contribution? What was your understanding of how you would get paid 

the balance of the contribution you had made? 

Answer. She gave me the difference. There was two $5,000 checks, and then 

$2,500 she gave me. 

Question. And how did she give you that? 

Answer. I think it was a check, her personal check. 

Question. Had you had any discussions about the reimbursement or the circumstances of the reimbursement before she got the checks and gave you the two 

$5,000? Actually what I’m trying to find out is did the $2,500 come to you about 

the same time as these two $5,000 checks? 

Answer. Yeah. She handed me those two and I’m pretty sure a personal check 

for $2,500 all about the same time. 

Question. So you were—just going back over what we’ve looked at, you wrote a 

check on February 19 of 1996, and you received a check from Amerasia Bank on 

February 22nd of 1996. So you were reimbursed right after the time that you wrote 

the check originally? 

Answer. Yes, just a couple of days. 

Question. Speaking about or just turning your attention to that same time period, 

did you know whether Ms. Foung also made a contribution to the DNC? 

Answer. I think she did. 

Question. And did you have any discussions with her about whether she was making a contribution to the DNC? 

Answer. If she was? 

Question. Making a contribution in February of 1996? 

Answer. No, no. 

Question. Did you know that she also wrote a $12,500 check to the DNC? 

Answer. She told me that she did. 

Question. Did she tell you that at same time that she was asking to you write 

your check? 

Answer. She might have. I don’t remember for sure. 

Question. Do you remember when you first knew that she was going to be making 

a contribution in the same amount that you were making the contribution? 

Answer. She didn’t tell me what amount, if any, she was going to write it for. 

Question. But it’s fair to say you knew that approximately the same time that you 

were writing your check that she was going to be doing the same thing? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And was it your understanding that she was also going to be reimbursed for the check that she wrote? 

Answer. That I don’t know. 

Question. I won’t spend too much longer on this, but you wrote a check for 

$12,500, and you had the understanding that you would be reimbursed. Did you 

have—do you recall when you first, if you ever did, have a conversation with her 

when you found out that she was going to get paid back for her contribution? 

Answer. My only concern was covering my check. She said, yes, that she was to 

get reimbursed. 

81

Question. Do you know whether she had—I mean, do you know whether she had 

concerns about covering the check that she wrote? 

Answer. That I don’t know. 

Question. When you wrote your check on February 19 of 1996, was there enough 

money in your bank account to cover the $12,500 check? 

Answer. No, there wasn’t. 

Question. Did you have any conversations with her about there not being enough 

money in your bank account to cover the $12,500 check? 

Answer. I told her that I didn’t, but she said just there’s a time period in there, 

and they just wanted to write the check just so it would be at a Washington function, and it would be reimbursed before the check was cashed. 

Question. Did she tell you then that your check would be held for a period of a 

few days? 

Answer. That I don’t know—well, she figured there would probably be a few days 

before it was cashed, so I shouldn’t have any problem covering the check. 

Question. How—do you know how your check was forwarded on to the DNC? Was 

it sent by mail or Federal Express or? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Do you know whether somebody picked it up or somebody did not pick 

it up? 

Answer. I have no idea. 

Question. Have you ever met an individual named Antonio Pan? The last name 

is spelled P-A-N? 

Answer. No. 

Question. In February of 1996, apart from your conversations with Ms. Foung 

about you writing the check, had you had any conversations with anybody about 

making a contribution to the DNC? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Later in the year, in August of 1996, Ms. Foung made a second contribution, a second contribution for her, to the DNC, and it was for an amount of 

$10,000. Did you have any conversations with Ms. Foung about the second contribution that she made to the DNC? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did you know that she made a second contribution to the DNC? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Between February and August of 1996—actually let me make that a little bit less broad. 

After you had written your check for $12,500, and after you had been reimbursed, 

did you have any other conversations with Ms. Foung about that check, about that 

process? 

Answer. No. I didn’t care. 

Question. Well, come to the present, actually. Let’s take it right to the present 

then. When did you first become aware that there might be an issue about the 

whole process of you writing the check and then you getting reimbursed for the 

check? 

Answer. I think it was the newspaper or something said that they were returning 

checks to certain people. I’m pretty sure it was the newspaper. I read it in the newspaper. 

Question. Something that you saw in the newspaper? 

Answer. Yeah. 

Question. And do you recall approximately when that might have been? Not the 

day, but the month is fine. 

Answer. End of ’96. Yeah, somewhere around the end of ’96. 

Question. Did you ever—before you saw something in the newspaper, did you ever 

get any telephone calls, or did anybody ever make any inquiry of you about these 

checks? 

Answer. Somebody called me at work. They said they were from the Washington 

newspaper. I don’t know if it was the Post, the Times, or something. 

Question. And when was that? 

Answer. About February of this year. 

Question. Do you remember whether they told you their name? 

Answer. They told me the name, but I’m not sure. I could only guess right now. 

I think it was an Asian name, but I’m not sure who it was. 

Question. At the time when they called you on the phone, did you make any notes, 

or did you write anything down? 

Answer. No, they left it on one of those memo pads and asked if I’d call an 800 

number somewhere back in Washington. 

82

Question. I’ll return in a minute to maybe some other contacts, but have you ever 

had any discussions with Ms. Foung about any other political contributions that she 

might have made? 

Answer. No. 

Question. I should simplify that question and actually make it easy for everybody 

to understand. Do you know whether she made any other political contributions 

apart from—I just mentioned two. She made one in February and she made one in 

August. Do you know of her ever having made any other political contributions? 

Answer. No, she didn’t mention anything. 

Question. Has she ever mentioned contributions to Senator Tom Daschle? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever heard her mention that name before? 

Answer. I have no idea who he is. 

Question. Going back into 1996, and I think I’ve asked you this, so bear with me 

if I have asked in this form, but did you get any calls or contacts at all in 1996 

about the check that you wrote to the DNC? 

Answer. Nothing. 

Question. Do you know whether Ms. Foung got any telephone calls or letters or 

any inquiry of any sort about the contributions that she had made to the DNC? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever met any of Ms. Foung’s relatives? 

Answer. Her mother and her brother. I met him twice. Twice—maybe three times, 

but I know of twice. 

Question. And when and where did you meet? When you say ‘‘her brother,’’ you 

are referring to Yah Lin Trie, who is known as Charlie Trie? 

Answer. Yeah. 

Question. When did you meet him, and where did you meet him? 

Answer. He came by her home Christmas one year. I can’t remember what—I’m 

not sure if it was this year. I know when he was there, I had to work, so I’m not 

sure if it was ’95 or ’96. And the other time is he flew into San Francisco, and we 

went down there. I think it was in ’95. Might have been ’94. 

Question. And do you know why he flew into San Francisco? 

Answer. No. 

Question. How long did you spend with him on that occasion? 

Answer. In San Francisco? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. There were—he had some people with him, but she didn’t talk to him 

too much. I mean, what they talked about, I have no idea. 

Mr. STEVENS. He just asked you approximately how much time you spent with 

Charlie on that visit. 

The WITNESS. Oh, with Charlie? Two minutes. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: 

Question. And where was it that you met Mr. Trie and the people that were with 

Mr. Trie? 

Answer. It was a hotel in San Francisco. Which one, I don’t remember. 

Question. Apart from meeting at the hotel, did you do anything with them at that 

time? 

Answer. We drove around; the beach, Golden Gate Park. 

Question. Was this—I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but was it a sightseeing type of visit? 

Answer. Yeah. 

Question. Were they there for business as far as you knew? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And who all ended up driving around? 

Answer. I drove. 

Question. So you drove. Who else was in the car? 

Answer. A few other people. Ms. Foung and some other people. 

Question. And one of them was Mr. Trie, Charlie Trie? 

Answer. No, he wasn’t in that car. 

Question. Do you remember the names of any of the people that were in the car? 

Answer. I have no idea. 

Question. Where was Mr. Trie? 

Answer. He stayed at the hotel. Yeah, he stayed at the hotel. We just drove 

around to different—I think it was Golden Gate Park and the beach. 

Question. Do you remember the relationship of Mr. Trie to the people that he was 

with? 

83

Answer. No. 

Question. You mentioned that you have met Ms. Foung’s mother on one occasion. 

Where was that? 

Answer. She’s come to visit a couple of different times. She came Christmas one 

year, and she came to her home last year sometime. 

Question. Have you ever met Ms. Trie’s—or Ms. Foung’s sister whose name is Dai 

Lin? 

Answer. Once. Yeah, I’m sure once. Question. Where was that? 

Answer. I met her in—I met her in Las Vegas. We were going to make a trip over 

there, and she said he would be there. 

Question. And was she there by herself, or did she have family members with her? 

Answer. I think her mother was with her. Yeah, her mother was with her. 

Question. Was her husband with her at that time? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever met Ms. Outlaw’s, Ms. Dai Lin Outlaw’s, children? 

Answer. Not that I know of, no. 

Question. Do you know whether Ms. Foung has ever attended any political events, 

fund-raisers or events that could be described as political gatherings? 

Answer. Yeah. There was a place, Oakland, Hillsborough around here close. ’96, 

the first part of ’96. The President was at somebody’s home. She was invited to that. 

Question. Who invited her? 

Answer. I have no idea. 

Question. And how did she go from where she lives to Hillsborough? 

Answer. I drove her. 

Question. And if you could just provide a little bit of background, where did you 

go? 

Answer. I wound up in the parking lot with about—I guess about 100 security 

people, and a bus came in and drove a bunch of them off. 

Question. Do you know where they went? 

Answer. Up the street. Don’t know. 

Question. Do you know what the arrangement was? Why you were in the parking 

lot? 

Answer. I guess you had to have an invite, and I didn’t get one. 

Question. I can understand. I’ve been in some parking lots, too, without invitations. 

When you got down to Hillsborough, did Ms. Foung meet with anybody? 

Answer. Nobody that I know of. 

Question. Do you know whether she was supposed to meet with anybody or talk 

to anybody? 

Answer. No, I don’t. 

Question. Once, just to summarize, it is my understanding that you waited in the 

parking lot until the event was over, and she came back to the car, and you drove 

back to where you lived; is that correct? 

Answer. Correct. 

Question. And did she tell you anything about the fund-raiser when you were 

driving back or about the event? 

Answer. She said the President was there, and she got a bottle of wine with his 

name on it. She didn’t mention anything—talking about anything. 

Question. Did she tell you whether or not she met the President? 

Answer. She said—let me see—I think she said she got to talk to him, but it was 

no big deal. 

Question. Did she tell you what he said to her? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know whether he made any comments to her about her brother 

Charlie? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Now, apart from that one event in Hillsborough in California, do you 

know of any other political event that Ms. Foung went to? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did she ever discuss with you her brother Charlie and whether he was 

appointed to a government commission or not? 

Answer. No. 

Question. I’ve got a short list of names, and not to be mysterious here, I’m just 

interested in finding out whether you ever met them or you know them. If you do, 

then I’ll ask you more questions. If you don’t, then I’ll move on. 

Have you ever met John Huang? 

Answer. No. 

84

Question. On that one name, it’s our understanding that Ms. Foung met Mr. 

Huang at the Hillsborough event while in the parking lot. Were you in the car during the whole time? 

Answer. I stayed in the car. She got out, and she was standing there at the bus. 

Question. Have you ever heard of an organization called the CHY Corporation, 

which is C-H-Y? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever had any contacts here, made calls yourself or received 

calls, from anybody at the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever heard the names David Mercer or Ari Swiller? 

Answer. Who? 

Question. Ari Swiller? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever visited Ms. Foung’s mother in Arkansas? 

Answer. No. I tend to stay away from the east coast. 

Question. Those of us from the true east coast, it is a long way from our home. 

That eliminated, I’m not going to ask you a lot of questions about people who live 

in Arkansas. 

Have you ever heard of George Chu, C-H-U? 

Answer. No. 

Question. He is associated with a company called Da Tung. D-A T-U-N-G. Do you 

know of that organization? 

Answer. Never heard of it. 

Question. Have you ever heard the name Mark Middleton mentioned? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know whether Ms. Foung ever attended any events with her 

brother? 

Answer. No. Nope. 

Question. Apart from the two times that you mentioned Mr. Trie being in the 

same place that you have been, do you know whether Ms. Foung visited Mr. Trie 

anywhere outside of California in the last 3 or 4 years? 

Answer. I don’t think so. I’m not sure, but I don’t think so. 

Question. How often did Mr. Trie call his sister Ms. Foung? 

Answer. I can’t say for sure. I don’t know what year it was, but he called one year, 

I guess it was around February, but he just wanted to wish her a happy new year. 

I answered the phone, told him, she’s in bed, she’s got to work on the graveyard 

shift. 

Question. So, I mean, if you have to characterize contacts, is it fair to say that 

they spoke fairly infrequently? 

Answer. Yeah. As far as I know; two, maybe three times a year. 

Question. Just turning for a minute to Mr. Trie and his background, did Ms. 

Foung ever discuss what her brother was doing from the time you knew her, from 

the time you have known her to the present? Did she ever tell what you his job 

was or what he was doing to make a living? 

Answer. She said he owned a restaurant back in Arkansas, and then he was 

international trade or something like that. Something to do with a tool, some kind 

of tool. 

Question. Did she ever tell you why he got out of the restaurant business? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And do you know anything about once he got out of the restaurant business what he was doing after that time? 

Answer. No. 

Question. What was—you mentioned the tool a minute ago. What did she tell 

about that? 

Answer. Something about he was trying to get it made or market it or something 

of that—I never really paid too much attention when she talks about it. 

Question. On the two occasions that you met him, did he ever tell you what he 

was doing? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever—and I’ll give you a couple of names of some companies 

just because I’m interested whether you know about them or what you know about 

them. 

The Daihatsu International Trading Company, have you ever heard of that name 

before? 

Answer. I saw it, I think, on an envelope. I can’t be positive, but I think it was 

on an envelope sent to Ms. Foung. I think Charlie wrote her a letter or something. 

85

Question. Did you have any understanding about what Daihatsu—what it did, 

what the company was all about? 

Answer. No. When I first saw it, I thought it was from a car dealer or something. 

Question. A company called San Kin Yip International, have you ever heard of 

them? 

Answer. No. 

Question. America-Asia Trade Center, Incorporated? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever heard of Sanyou Science & Technology? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Have you ever heard of Premier Advertising? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Apart from the tool that you were mentioning, do you know anything 

more about what that was all about, what Mr. Trie was trying to do with the tool 

that you mentioned? 

Answer. I don’t know anything else about it. He was trying to get it made or marketed or something to that effect, but I’m not positive. 

Question. Did you ever have any conversations with Ms. Foung during which she 

talked about how her brother was doing financially? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did she ever make any comments to you about how her brother was 

doing——

Answer. No. 

Question [continuing]. Financially or otherwise? In his life? 

Answer. She doesn’t say too much about him. 

Question. Did Mr. Trie, on the occasion you talked to him, did he ever make any 

comments about knowing President Clinton? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did Ms. Foung ever make any comments to you about her brother 

knowing President Clinton? 

Answer. She said he knew him from Arkansas when he was in the restaurant 

business. 

Question. Just sort of casting your mind back to that Hillsborough event, when 

you drove down and you were coming back, did Ms. Foung make any comments to 

you about anything the President told her about her brother? 

Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me; I’m going to object. I mean, I’ve tried to be patient with 

the questioning, but we have at length—this witness has been asked this question 

and many similar questions. We got Ms. Foung’s testimony. I mean, counsel’s not 

trying to—I don’t understand the purpose of these questions. Is it to trap Ms. Foung 

in an inconsistency? Why are we covering the same exact ground about what was 

said at the same time, especially multiple times? I guess I am going to enter an 

objection. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Stevens, do you have any objections? 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, it strikes me as long as it is a relatively quick in-and-out follow-up, appropriate follow-up, now that he has some material that might refresh the 

witness’ recollection as to what may have happened. My guess is the answer is not 

going to change, but I am happy to let him do it as long as we are not going to 

replow the whole prior event in Hillsborough, and I don’t think we are going to. 

Mr. WILSON. No. In fact, that was my last question, and I don’t know why we 

would take up any time discussing it. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: 

Question. Turning your attention to when your contribution was returned, and I 

should ask you first whether your $12,500 contribution was returned. Was it returned? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did you have, prior to that, any conversations with anybody about 

whether they were going to return, somebody was going to return, your money? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did you ever talk to anybody from the accounting firm of Ernst & 

Young? 

Answer. Not that I can remember. No. 

Question. How—when you got your money back, when was the first you realized 

that you were going to get your money back? 

Answer. It was when the reporter called. And they gave me the 800 number to 

call this woman back from The Washington Post or Washington Times. Surprised 

me. 

86

Question. Do you know whether that woman’s name was Sue Schmidt? Does that 

ring any bells? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And what did they tell you? 

Answer. They asked me if I knew I was going to get the money back, and I said, 

nope. 

Question. And then after that, after that exchange, what was the next sort of link 

in this chain of you getting your money back? Was there any other communication 

with anybody, or was it when you got the money back? 

Mr. STEVENS. This may seem like—you refer to it as ‘‘his money,’’ and you’re—

it may seem small, but I know from talking to him that he doesn’t view it as his 

personal money. 

Mr. WILSON. And I am being imprecise there, and I shouldn’t do that. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: 

Question. Thinking about the $12,500 that was sent to you, when was the next 

time that you knew anything about this $12,500? 

Answer. I got one of those yellow slips from the post office for certified mail, and 

it showed up in an envelope. 

Question. And what was in the envelope? 

Answer. A check for twelve-five. 

Question. Was there any communication in addition—any additional communication apart from the check? Was it just a check in the envelope? 

Answer. Just a check. 

Question. And was there any——

Answer. Well, it was a stub at the top. 

Question. Right. But was there any indication as to why the check was in the envelope and why you were getting this check? 

Answer. Not that I can remember. 

Question. Did you make any inquiries? 

Answer. Nope. 

Question. Did anybody—after you got the check, did anybody make any contacts 

with you to explain why the DNC—I should ask you that. Who sent you the check? 

Answer. I think it was DNC on the envelope. 

Question. Do you remember the account that the check was drawn on? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did anybody contact you at any time to explain why you received a 

check for $12,500? 

Answer. Just the reporter. 

Question. When you received the check for $12,500, what did you do with it? 

Answer. I put it in the bank. 

Question. And did you put it in your account? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what did you do with the money? 

Answer. It’s still sitting there. I brought it in the first day I saw Mr. Stevens. 

I wanted to know what to do with it, and he said put it back in your account, and 

it’s back in the bank. 

Question. Do you know whether any of the contributions that Ms. Foung made, 

the $12,500 one that was made at the same time that you made yours, and then 

there was a later $10,000 one, do you know whether any money was returned to 

her? 

Answer. I don’t think so. 

Question. Do you know whether she has been contacted by anybody at the DNC 

or affiliated with the DNC about these two——

Mr. BALLEN. I’m going to object to this line of questioning. The same objection 

I had before. We have been over this. And I don’t understand the purpose of questioning this witness. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I think these are new questions and entirely appropriate. 

Mr. Stevens do you have any objections? 

Mr. STEVENS. I’ve leave it to you folks. I’m along for the deposition. I’ll leave it 

to you two to work out your own objections. I am happy to be viewed as judge, but 

I don’t think this has reached the point of oppressing the witness. So I am happy 

to let both of you ask as many questions as you would like, until my boredom 

threshold kicks in, which is probably not too far away. 

87

EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON: 

Question. Did Ms. Foung have any contacts with anybody about the two checks 

that she had contributed to the DNC? 

Answer. Did anybody call her? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Not that I know of. 

Question. Did she ever mention to you any calls from anybody that she received 

about the contributions she had made? 

Answer. If anyone contacted her? No. 

Question. Did she ever tell you whether she was going to call anybody about the 

checks? 

Answer. She said she called back to the DNC a few times. 

Question. And what happened when she made the calls? 

Answer. She didn’t go into too much detail. She just said she’s waiting to contact 

somebody else or talk to somebody else about getting the money back, and that was 

it. 

Question. Did you ever have any discussions with her about why you got money 

back and she didn’t get money back? 

Answer. I thought it strange, but I didn’t ask any questions. 

Question. Did you have any discussions with her about that, though? 

Answer. Well, I guess she was curious why I got mine back but she didn’t, and 

that’s why she got in touch with the DNC. 

Question. And did she tell you at any time what they told her when she had contacts with the DNC? 

Answer. No. She just kept calling back. 

Question. Do you know whether she was ever told whether she would get her 

money back or that she would not get her money back? 

Answer. She never said. 

Question. Has Ms. Foung been in contact with her brother in 1997? 

Answer. I’m not sure. I really don’t know. 

Question. Do you know whether after you were first approached by investigators 

from this committee, do you know whether Ms. Foung made an attempt to get in 

touch with her brother? 

Answer. Not that I know of. 

Question. Do you know whether she called her mother suggesting—do you know 

whether she called her mother and discussed the visit of the investigators or whether she might or might not have to go to Washington? 

Answer. She calls her mother once in a while, but I don’t know what they talk 

about. 

Mr. WILSON. I don’t have any further questions for now. 

Mr. BALLEN. Could we have——

Mr. STEVENS. Want to take a short break? 

Mr. BALLEN. Yes, a 5-minute break. 

[Brief recess 2:20 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.] 

Mr. WILSON. As I stated before, I’ve finished with my questions. Mr. Ballen, if you 

have any questions. 

Mr. BALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. I just want to take this opportunity again to thank you for coming here, 

Mr. Landon. I’d just like to ask you two questions if I might. 

Has this whole process been a burden on you, sir? 

Answer. Well, it’s not something I’d want to do every day. 

Question. Why is that? 

Answer. Well, I guess I’m not the most sociable person. I’d rather be alone. 

Question. Do you have any concern about your job and missing time from your 

job? 

Answer. Well, whenever I’m away, I’m not making money. But I had a job when 

I came to this one. I’ll probably have a different one before I retire. So I guess the 

military gets you used to the idea that you need to work here; next week we’ll find 

some other place for to you go. And I’m used to traveling around. 

Question. Is there any danger of you losing your job by missing it? 

Answer. No, I’m a good worker. 

Question. So you’re not in fear of that? 

Answer. No, even when I worked unions, they didn’t want my name to come up 

on the list for me to leave. 

88

Question. Let me ask you this. What’s your impression of this whole process, as 

a citizen? 

Answer. It’s politics. I try to stay away from it. 

Question. I understand, sir. 

Answer. Every 4 or 6 years I’ll vote for somebody, and if he does a good job, I’ll 

vote for him again. 

Question. Thank you very much. I have nothing further. 

Mr. WILSON. I have nothing further apart from thanking you very much for being 

here today. 

[Whereupon, at 2:31 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]

[The exhibits referred to follow:]

89


g:\graphics\44833.024
90


g:\graphics\44833.025
91


g:\graphics\44833.026
92

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Ms. 

Foung and Mr. Landon, you’re accompanied here today, are you 

not, by your attorney here in Washington, Mr. Sedwick Sollers; is 

that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. And do you have the microphones turned on in 

front of you? 

Mr. BURTON. Ms. Foung, can you pull the microphone pretty 

close, because it does not pick up your voice unless it’s fairly close 

to your mouth? 

And you, too, Mr. Landon. 

Mr. BENNETT. Is that correct, Ms. Foung? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. OK. 

And Mr. Landon, Mr. Sollers is also representing you? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. At any time, if you have any questions, do not 

hesitate to ask your counsel for advice. 

Mr. Sollers, it’s nice to see you here. 

Mr. SOLLERS. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. I want to thank you very much for being here 

today. As you’ll recall, I met you both for the first time, I think, 

last week and had the opportunity to take your depositions in Sacramento, CA, along with Mr. Kenneth Ballen, the minority counsel; 

and I believe Mr. Phil Barnett, also minority counsel, was present. 

I appreciate your—and for the record, Mr. Jim Wilson of our staff 

was also there. 

I appreciate your being here today. As you know, we have asked 

that you appear before this committee today to discuss contributions which both of you made to the Democratic National Committee; and then a second contribution, Ms. Foung, which you 

made to the Presidential re-election campaign of President Clinton. 

Let me begin by asking both of you, I believe that this is, in fact, 

the second time you’ve been here in Washington in the past week; 

is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. And I believe that you also agreed to appear and 

were cooperative with a Federal grand jury and appeared before a 

Federal grand jury last Friday here in Washington; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. Is that correct, Mr. Landon? 

Mr. LANDON. Correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. And that was at the request of the task force of 

the Department of Justice looking into campaign fund-raising violations; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Foung, you are in fact the sister of Yah Lin 

Trie, also known as Charlie Trie? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And, Mr. Landon, you have indicated that you previously have met Mr. Trie and that you may have met him on two 

or three occasions; is that correct? 

93

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Foung, when was the last time that you saw 

your brother? 

Ms. FOUNG. I believe it was Christmas of 1995. 

Mr. BENNETT. And that would be the last time that you met with 

him in any fashion? 

Ms. FOUNG. I—the best I can remember, yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And, Mr. Landon, when was the last time that you 

saw Mr. Charlie Trie? 

Mr. LANDON. It was the same Christmas, 1995. 

Mr. BENNETT. And have you spoken with Mr. Trie since that 

time? 

Mr. LANDON. He called, I think it was January, February of this 

year to wish his sister Happy New Year. 

Mr. BENNETT. And let me ask you one thing, Ms. Foung. When 

was the last time that you would have spoken with your brother, 

Charlie Trie? 

Ms. FOUNG. I would say it was late August or early September. 

Mr. BENNETT. Of this year? 

Ms. FOUNG. Of this year. 

Mr. BENNETT. And was it in connection with your being called 

before this committee? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. I believe there may be some followup questions 

with reference to that, but let me ask you this, do you know where 

your brother was when he called you within the last 3 weeks? 

Ms. FOUNG. I was under the impression it was at Taiwan, he was 

in Taiwan. 

Mr. BENNETT. And did you make an effort to make contact with 

your brother? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And exactly how did you go about making contact? 

Because there are a few people trying to make contact with him, 

that’s why I’m asking. 

Ms. FOUNG. I asked my mother if my brother ever call her, give 

him the message I would like for him to call me. 

Mr. BENNETT. I believe your brother was at one time interviewed 

on NBC News and there are a few people in this room who may 

want to know, if he would return the phone calls if they’re contacted. Do you have any reason to believe he might be willing to 

return their phone calls? 

Ms. FOUNG. I don’t know. 

Mr. BENNETT. OK. Do you know whether or not your brother has 

any intentions of returning voluntarily to this country? Have you 

talked with him about that? 

Ms. FOUNG. I try to remember the conversation. 

Mr. BENNETT. Take your time. 

Ms. FOUNG. I mentioned it to him, that the investigator from the 

committee mentioned to me that, because of statute of limitation 

or something, he should be back here in a couple years. I mentioned that to him. But I don’t think he responded to that. 

Mr. BENNETT. He had no response to your discussion about a 

statute of limitations? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

94

Mr. BENNETT. And to your knowledge, does he intend to come 

back to this country within the next few years? 

Ms. FOUNG. I’m sure he would like to. But the past few years, 

he has been overseas the majority of his time and on a regular 

basis. So it would all depend on where his business is. 

Mr. BENNETT. And with respect to his activities abroad of the 

last few years, that would have been true even during the election 

year 1996, that he was generally abroad most of the time? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s the way I understood. 

Mr. BENNETT. How often would he have been in the country during 1996 to your knowledge? 

Ms. FOUNG. I don’t know his schedule at all. The only time I will 

know is if he call me and left a message on my machine, if he is 

passing through San Francisco. The majority of time, he call me 

from overseas. 

Mr. BENNETT. All right. Directing your attention to February 

1996, or in fact, let’s go back prior to February 1996. Before you 

made any contributions about which we’ll discuss today, Ms. 

Foung, had you, to your knowledge, ever made any contributions 

to any candidates or any political campaigns prior to February 

1996? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not that I’m aware—I can’t remember. 

Mr. BENNETT. And were you politically active? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Landon, had you, again, prior to February 

1996, had you ever made any political contributions to any candidate at that time or campaign prior to February 1996? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. And are you politically active? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. In fact, Ms. Foung, I believe that last week when 

I took your deposition in California, you indicated to me that you 

have at least, as of last week, never seen the tape of your brother 

being interviewed by Tom Brokaw of NBC News; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That is correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. Have you still not seen that tape? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. I don’t know how to get it. 

Mr. BENNETT. I think NBC might be able to accommodate you 

if you would like, Ms. Foung. 

Directing your attention to the time period of February 1996, I 

believe there came a point in time when both of you prepared 

checks made payable to the Democratic National Committee; is 

that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Landon. 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. What were the circumstances causing both of you 

to write checks to the Democratic National Committee? Ms. Foung, 

I’ll ask you first. 

Ms. FOUNG. My brother called me. 

Mr. BENNETT. If you can speak up a little bit into the microphone, I’m sorry. 

Ms. FOUNG. My brother called me, asked if I would advance a 

check to a certain place at a time. I wasn’t familiar, it was DNC. 

95

Mr. BENNETT. And it was the DNC. And what was the purpose 

of the check for in February 1996? Did your brother tell you that? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not really. 

Mr. BENNETT. And Mr. Landon, in connection with that same 

phone call to Ms. Foung, you were, in fact, asked also to prepare 

a check to the Democratic National Committee; is that correct? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes. Ms. Foung asked me. 

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Foung asked you. I’m now asking if we can 

have exhibit 68 on the screen, please? 

And Mr. Chairman, for the record, minority counsel has seen 

these exhibits and I believe we have an agreement with respect to 

the presentation of these exhibits here. 

Showing you first, Ms. Foung exhibit 68, looking at that exhibit, 

in fact, I gather you have a TV monitor in front of you. Can you 

see that? Mr. Sollers can your clients see that check on the screen? 

Mr. SOLLERS. Yes, they can, Mr. Bennett. 

[Exhibit 68 follows:]

96


g:\graphics\44833.027
97

Mr. BENNETT. Looking at that exhibit, in fact, that was a check 

which was drawn on your bank account, is it not, Ms. Foung, made 

payable to the Democratic National Committee? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. And that is, in fact, your signature on the check 

on the lower right-hand corner? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And I ask that exhibit 69 be—and that, I’m sorry, 

68, that’s in the amount of $12,500, correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. And was it your understanding that you were 

going to be reimbursed for this payment? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And did your brother indicate that he would see 

that you were immediately reimbursed? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And Mr. Landon, we’ll now ask that exhibit 69 be 

placed on the screen. 

And again, that is a check dated February 15, 1996. And I think 

the bottom half of that exhibit for the record, Mr. Chairman, reflects the DNC tracking slip in conjunction with that check. And 

Mr. Landon, that was drawn on your bank account in the amount 

of $12,500, as well; is that correct? 

[Exhibit 69 follows:]

98


g:\graphics\44833.028
99

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. And that is your signature on the check? 

Mr. LANDON. Can it get a little closer? I think it is. 

Mr. BENNETT. We’ll try. 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, as to both of you preparing these checks, Mr. 

Landon, did you, yourself, speak with Charlie Trie when he asked 

his sister to prepare these checks? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. So you did so basically at the instruction of Ms. 

Foung? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Did either of you at the time when you wrote 

these checks in the amount of, total amount of $25,000, did you respectively have that kind of money in your bank account at that 

time? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Foung? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Did either of you or were either of you aware of 

the fund-raising event at the Hay-Adams Hotel in Washington, DC, 

to which I believe Congressman Waxman made reference a few 

minutes ago in February 1996? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Ms. FOUNG. What was the question? 

Mr. BENNETT. Were either of you aware of the fund-raising event 

for the Democratic National Committee at the Hay-Adams Hotel 

here in Washington in February 1996? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. And clearly neither of you attended that event, did 

you? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. LANDON. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Foung did your brother talk to you about the 

event at the Hay-Adams Hotel? Did he explain to you why he was 

seeking to get checks to the Democratic National Committee? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, directing your attention for both of these 

checks in February 1996, Ms. Foung, first, as to you, you did have 

an understanding that you were going to be reimbursed, and, in 

fact, you were very quickly reimbursed; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. I’ll ask now if we can have exhibit 70. 

We’ll go step by step. First of all, I’m going to show you three 

exhibits, Ms. Foung, exhibits 70, 71, and 72. And each of these 

checks are, in fact, cashier’s checks drawn on the Amerasia Bank 

from the State of New York in the town of Flushing, I believe it’s 

Flushing, NY. Do you see that there, Ms. Foung? 

[Exhibits 70, 71, and 72 follow:]

100


g:\graphics\44833.029
101


g:\graphics\44833.030
102


g:\graphics\44833.031
103

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And as to each one of these cashier’s checks in the 

amount of $5,000, first as to exhibit 70, can you identify your signature on the bottom of the check—on the back of the check, I 

think it’s on the bottom of the exhibit? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And then looking at exhibit 71, and then 72, again 

these cashier’s checked were in the amount of $5,000, each dated 

February 22, 1996, a week after you made your contribution; is 

that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And you did, in fact, receive that money and were 

reimbursed as your brother had promised; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. Did you immediately deposit those into your bank 

account? 

Ms. FOUNG. I believe so. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, showing you exhibit 73, that’s your bank 

statement of your account at Travis Federal Credit Union, correct, 

Ms. Foung? 

[Exhibit 73 follows:]

104


g:\graphics\44833.032
105

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. For purposes of your own privacy, we agreed last 

week, Ms. Foung, I want to assure you we have deleted account 

numbers on that check for purposes of publication, but it does reflect that you deposited $14,500 of the $15,000 you received in 

cashier’s checks; is that right? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And the other $500 you kept for your own personal use? 

Ms. FOUNG. I think so. 

Mr. BENNETT. All right. At the time that you received the $15,000 in cashier’s checks from the Amerasia Bank in Flushing, 

NY, did you have any knowledge as to who had actually sent the 

checks to you? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. I thought it was my brother arranged it. 

Mr. BENNETT. All right. Did your brother ever mention the individual named Antonio Pan? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not that I can remember. 

Mr. BENNETT. What was the basis of your believing that this 

money came from your brother? Why did you believe that it come 

from your brother? 

Ms. FOUNG. Where else could it be? 

Mr. BENNETT. Essentially, you felt that he arranged to see to it 

that you were reimbursed for your check. 

Ms. FOUNG. I’m sorry. 

Mr. BENNETT. You felt he was keeping his word to you, you were 

being reimbursed for your check, and I gather you presume these 

cashier’s checks were from your brother. 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. From his business. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, you were, in fact, paid back, Ms. Foung, and 

I want to now, if I can for a second, move over to Mr. Landon. 

Mr. Landon, showing you exhibits 75 and 76, exhibit 75 is also 

a cashier’s check drawn on the Amerasia Bank from Flushing, NY, 

dated February 22, 1996. Do you see that, sir? 

[Exhibits 75 and 76 follow:]

106


g:\graphics\44833.033
107


g:\graphics\44833.034
108

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. And can you identify your signature on the lower 

portion of that exhibit which is the back of the check? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. And, in fact, you did receive that money? 

Mr. LANDON. I did. 

Mr. BENNETT. And also looking at exhibit 76, the same thing 

would apply. You received that cashier’s check from the Amerasia 

Bank and that is your signature on the back, correct? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, your contribution to the Democratic National Committee the week before had been for $12,500 and you had been 

promised that you would be repaid immediately. Those two cashier’s checks total $10,000. How did you get the remaining $2,500? 

Mr. LANDON. It came from Ms. Foung. 

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Foung, do you agree with that? You gave the 

other money to Mr. Landon in cash? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Before you wrote the check to the Democratic National Committee, you indicated you had never made a political 

contribution before and that was also true of Mr. Landon; is that 

correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. Are you asking me? 

Mr. BENNETT. Both of you. Neither of you had been involved in 

the political process, so this was your very first contribution and 

your first experience with anything like this, correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. To the best of my recollection. 

Mr. LANDON. Except for a 1040 box. 

Mr. BENNETT. All right checking off the $1 for contributions. 

Mr. LANDON. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Perhaps people will encourage more of that in the 

future, Mr. Landon. 

Now, do either—let me ask you this, I asked Ms. Foung, Mr. 

Landon, do you know an individual named Antonio Pan? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. I’m going to place on the screen now, if I can, some 

information. I need to know whether or not you have any knowledge with respect to some of the transactions surrounding these 

cashier’s checks. 

And I would ask that essentially there is information which has 

come to this committee in the course of its investigation thus far, 

and I would ask that exhibit 77, I believe it’s up there now on the 

screen. 

First of all, looking at the information from the Amerasia Bank 

in the State of New York, sort of tracking where this money came 

from that came to the two of you, it indicates that an individual 

named Antonio Pan opened an account at the Amerasia Bank with 

a deposit of $25,200 the same day of the cashier’s checks. And 

you’ll notice that the address at the top there of that account is 

listed as Hong Kong in the bank records. 

Do you see that there, Ms. Foung? The second line down underneath the name, Pan, Antonio, there’s reference to Central Hong 

Kong on the second line. 

[Exhibit 77 follows:]

109


g:\graphics\44833.035
110

Ms. FOUNG. OK. 

Mr. BENNETT. Do you see that? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And, Mr. Landon, do you see that? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Does that name, again the name, Antonio Pan, 

does not register with either one of you, correct? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. How about the address in Hong Kong? Do you 

know anyone at that address, Ms. Foung? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Landon? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. For your purposes, exhibit 78—if we put 78 on the 

screen—I believe some of these were matters that we went over 

with you both last week in California; is that correct? 

[Exhibit 78 follows:]

111


g:\graphics\44833.036
112

Ms. FOUNG. When we were in California. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. I’m trying to go—if you don’t understand my questions, Ms. Foung, let me know and Mr. Landon. Exhibit 78 indicates that on the same day that that account was opened by Mr. 

Pan and some attaching documents would show that within a matter of minutes after the $25,000 was placed into that account, the 

cashier’s checks were written and only $200 was left in the account. Have you all ever received any further funds from that particular account, from that account at the Amerasia Bank in New 

York? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. One second, please. Ms. Foung, after you made the 

$12,500 February contribution to the Democratic National Committee, did there come a time when you had any further political 

involvement in either attending events or making political contributions? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And what event did you attend? Specifically, directing your attention to March 1996, there was a fund-raising 

event in Hillsboro, CA; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. At the time, I didn’t know it was fund-raising. 

Mr. BENNETT. Let me ask you this, there was an event that you 

attended in which you had the opportunity to meet President Clinton; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And that, I believe, would have been approximately March 1996 in Hillsborough, CA. 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s right. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Landon, did you attend that event as well? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. I got as far as the parking lot. 

Mr. BENNETT. You got as far as the parking lot. 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. They wouldn’t let you go in. 

Mr. LANDON. I just drove Ms. Foung. 

Mr. BENNETT. I understand. You weren’t invited. Ms. Foung was. 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. Ms. Foung, did Mr. Landon wait for you until the 

event was over? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Did you at that time meet an individual or talk 

to an individual named John Huang in connection with that event? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. How did you speak with Mr. Huang? What caused 

you to speak with him? 

Ms. FOUNG. What do you mean by that? 

Mr. BENNETT. Did you know Mr. Huang prior to March 1996? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, I spoke to him over the phone. 

Mr. BENNETT. Had you ever heard of Mr. Huang? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. And what was the purpose of his call? 

113

Ms. FOUNG. He asked for some background information for a security clearance to attend that event. 

Mr. BENNETT. And exactly who asked you to attend the event 

given that you haven’t been politically active except for writing the 

check and being reimbursed the month before? Did your brother 

talk to you about attending this event? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes, he called me. 

Mr. BENNETT. And did he tell you that Mr. Huang would be calling you? 

Ms. FOUNG. I don’t remember. 

Mr. BENNETT. So you were ready for a call from Mr. Huang as 

a result of your brother putting you on notice that someone would 

be calling you. 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And did your brother ask that you attend the 

event? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Did you need to make any contribution to attend 

the event? 

Ms. FOUNG. Nobody mentioned anything about it. 

Mr. BENNETT. When you attended, you ultimately did attend this 

event? Did you meet Mr. John Huang at the fund-raising event in 

Hillsborough, CA? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Was President Clinton also at this event? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, Ms. Foung, you had occasion to especially 

speak with the President, at that time to President Clinton; is that 

correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, I think some other Members may have followup questions in terms of your conversations with President 

Clinton, so I’ll move on. But let me ask you this, after this fundraising event in March 1996, Mr. Landon, did you have any further 

political involvement in terms of driving Ms. Foung to any other 

political events? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Have you attended any other political events? 

Mr. LANDON. Just this one. 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Landon, did anybody ask—did you have to pay to get in here today? Did anybody 

ask you? Apart from Mr. Sollers, I don’t want you to get into that. 

You may have paid more than the rest of us for that. 

Ms. Foung, I would like to turn your attention now to August 

1996. Let me make sure that we’re clear, apart from the February 

1996 payment of $12,000, $12,500 to which you were reimbursed 

from the money from Mr. Pan and apart from the March 1996 

event in Hillsborough, CA, did you have any other political involvement in 1996 with respect to any other political candidates, to your 

knowledge? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Directing your attention to August 1996, did you 

in fact at that time make a second contribution at the request of 

your brother? 

114

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, directing your attention to exhibit 93, which 

I believe is on the screen, exhibit 93, in fact, is a check written out 

to the Birthday Victory Trust. Do you see that on your check? 

[Exhibit 93 follows:]

115


g:\graphics\44833.037
116

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And that is, in fact, your check? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. What was the reason for your preparing this 

check, Ms. Foung? 

Ms. FOUNG. My brother called me to see if I would advance the 

check. 

Mr. BENNETT. And was there indication that you were going to 

be immediately reimbursed as you were for the first check? 

Ms. FOUNG. Say that again. 

Mr. BENNETT. Was there an understanding that you were going 

to pay this money yourself or you were going to get the money 

back? 

Ms. FOUNG. I would be reimbursed, yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And who told you that you were going to be reimbursed? 

Ms. FOUNG. My brother. 

Mr. BENNETT. And did he indicate how quickly he was going to 

reimburse you? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. But I trust he will take care of it. 

Mr. BENNETT. And, in fact, did you have $10,000 in your account 

at that time to pay to the Presidential Victory Trust? 

Ms. FOUNG. I might. I might not. I couldn’t remember. 

Mr. BENNETT. We’ll go through some records in a minute. But, 

in fact, you were reimbursed the very same day, weren’t you, when 

you wrote the check? 

Ms. FOUNG. According to the bank statement, yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And I note that on that check, Ms. Foung, along 

with making it payable to the Birthday Victory Trust, were you 

aware of any birthday celebration or fund-raising event in connection with the President’s birthday in August 1996? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not very much, not, in fact, not really. 

Mr. BENNETT. I’m sorry did you, in fact, or were you invited to 

attend an event in New York City with connection with this event? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. And I notice that the word ‘‘Federal’’ is written on 

the bottom left-hand corner of the check that’s on the screen now. 

Do you see where the word ‘‘Federal’’ is written on the lower lefthand corner? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Why did you write the word ‘‘Federal’’ on that 

check? 

Ms. FOUNG. I was told. 

Mr. BENNETT. You were told by whom? 

Ms. FOUNG. By my brother. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, looking at exhibit 94, on the projector screen, 

in fact, there is a record of a wire transfer to you from the Riggs 

National Bank, which, in fact, went into your account that same 

day in August 1996. Is that correct, Ms. Foung? 

[Exhibit 94 follows:]

117


g:\graphics\44833.038
118

Ms. FOUNG. The document there, yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And according to your records, you were imme- diately reimbursed the same day for this $10,000 check, as your 

brother promised; is that right? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, do you know an individual named Ng Lap 

Seng, sometimes known as Mr. Wu, Ms. Foung? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Have you ever heard the name before? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not before the deposition. 

Mr. BENNETT. Do you know the individual—that individual from 

whose account this money apparently came into your account? Did 

you have any knowledge of the transfer of money from Riggs National Bank here in Washington to your account in connection with 

Ng Lap Seng? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. My brother does do business in China, Taiwan, 

Hong Kong, all different places. So I assume that was his bank 

back there, that he uses. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am going to ask if you can now look at exhibit 

96 and ask if you have any knowledge or information concerning 

some of the financial transactions. I know it is somewhat complicated, Ms. Foung, but if you will just look at this to make sure 

that you cannot provide the members of the committee with any information. 

There was, in fact, almost $200,000 wired from the Bank of 

China in Macao to the Watergate branch of the Riggs National 

Bank. Did your brother at any time in his conversations make reference, if not to Mr. Wu or Ng Lap Seng, if he made reference to 

the Riggs National Bank at any time with you? 

[Exhibit 96 follows:]

119


g:\graphics\44833.039
120

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. It was sent from the account of a company on the 

document—again, if you can look closely at it, a company called 

Investimento E Fomento to the account of your brother and Ng Lap 

Seng. Do you have any knowledge of the company Investimento E 

Fomento? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Have you ever heard your brother talk about that 

company? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. You can say—apparently according to the records 

of this committee, available to both the majority and minority 

Members, it was from this account that the $10,000 was wired to 

you. 

Finally, Ms. Foung, if I can put up exhibit 97 on the chart, and 

looking at exhibit 97, just again for your purposes, you will note 

that it does, in fact, indicate that the same day, on August 15, 

1996, that you wrote out the check to President Clinton’s birthday 

party at your brother’s request; that you received the wire transfer 

in that amount. Do you see that there? 

[Exhibit 97 follows:]

121


g:\graphics\44833.040
122

Ms. FOUNG. I remember in the past when we discussed this, the 

check was written first. I guess it just come to my bank at the 

same time. 

Mr. BENNETT. Finally, Ms. Foung, I will show you exhibit—I 

think it is marked C–28. Just so you understand, it is evidence before this committee at this time, in terms of the flow of money into 

a foreign account into an account here into this country, and ultimately into your account, from the Bank of China over to your 

brother and through accounts over to your account. 

Has your brother ever spoken to you about any foreign bank accounts? 

[Exhibit C–28 follows:]

123


g:\graphics\44833.041
124

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Has your brother ever discussed with you the 

source of money in terms of how he would have access to any 

amounts of money in terms of international wire transfers? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. But for business purpose, I am sure there is a 

reason. 

Mr. BENNETT. I believe my time has now expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. Trie. 

Thank you, Mr. Landon. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. We now have a vote on. What I would like to do, 

if it is all right with the minority, is to keep the questioning going; 

and those of us who want to run and vote right now, may. We will 

put somebody else in the Chair temporarily while I go vote, and 

then I will come back and then they can go vote, if that is all right. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I plan to pursue the questioning, 

and I have to vote and I prefer to start and not be interrupted. So 

if you would permit, let’s vote and I will get back here as soon as 

I possibly can. 

Mr. BURTON. The Chair will stand in recess until the call of the 

gavel. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BURTON. The committee will come to order. When we recessed, the general counsel for the committee, Mr. Bennett, concluded his first half-hour. We will now yield to the ranking minority member for his half-hour. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Ms. Foung and Mr. Landon, welcome to our hearing today. I appreciate your being here. As I mentioned to you during the recess, I am also from California and lived in Sacramento 

for a period of time. It’s a lovely place, and was also a long distance 

to travel to be here. 

When lawyers go into a court of law, if there is something not 

in dispute they have something they call ‘‘stipulate.’’ In other 

words, they don’t fight over every fact. They say we will stipulate 

to this fact. And we could have stipulated to everything you had 

to say as factual. 

The Senate had a hearing. I don’t know if either of you have 

been following the Senate hearings, but they had a hearing on July 

29th. 

Ms. Foung, are you—were you watching these Senate hearings? 

Are you familiar with them? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not until after I was involved. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, they had a hearing on the same subject, 

whether your brother had given money to pay for contributions 

that others had made. And they had a hearing on July 29th and 

had two witnesses, that I mentioned in my opening statements, 

testify; and I have to say that you have less knowledge about this 

whole business than those two witnesses. So we learned more than 

what you have told us. 

We already knew, in fact, what you have said to us about the 

fact that contributions had been made and that your brother was 

responsible for reimbursing the people that made the contributions. 

The reason I raise that issue is, it just seems to me a real waste 

to have this hearing, have you come all the way from Sacramento, 

125

CA, and tell the committee information that we already know 

about. 

We ought to be advancing our knowledge about the campaign finance matters rather than spend taxpayers’ dollars to learn what 

we already knew. 

Ms. Foung, I would like to begin by cutting to the heart of the 

committee’s investigation. On June 20th, Chairman Burton stated 

on the floor of the House—and I want to quote—he said, ‘‘We are 

investigating a possible massive scheme of funneling millions of 

dollars in foreign money into the U.S. electoral system. We are investigating allegations that the Chinese Government at the highest 

levels decided to infiltrate our political system,’’ end quote. 

Ms. Foung, Charlie Trie is your brother. You have known him 

your whole life. Do you have any reason to believe that he is an 

agent or spy of the Chinese Government? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, sir, not at all. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you have any reason to believe he is part of a 

massive scheme by the Chinese Government to influence our political system? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And I assume, Mr. Landon, you wouldn’t answer 

any differently? 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. As you testified this morning, I think you gave us 

good testimony, very direct. I had heard both of you had done that 

in your depositions, from my staff who were out there in California 

for those depositions, and you were straightforward. And I thought 

to myself, what if my sister had been called to answer questions 

about me? 

We are very close, but I don’t think she knows much about me, 

but I know how she would react if somebody called me a spy. How 

do you feel about these kinds of accusations? 

Ms. FOUNG. I have a lot of respect for this place, but I really felt 

my brother was overestimated, and the—whatever you call the 

Government or public official is underestimated, to believe that he 

could influence a big country, the biggest country in the world, like 

this by—according to the newspaper, his biggest contribution was 

$600,000. 

And knowing him for all my life, he has been nothing but a wonderful person to me, to everybody else. He would do anything for 

people, never expect anything in return. He has done everything 

that I asked for, or I don’t ask for it, to help me, to take care of 

me as a little sister. 

So I really don’t know what to say about it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You don’t believe he is a spy. You don’t know 

whether he is a spy, but you certainly don’t believe he is a spy? 

Ms. FOUNG. He is not material for that kind of thing. Ninety percent of the time he left the house, he couldn’t even find his key. 

He is not a spy material, I guarantee you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask you some questions about the money. 

The majority has tried to track down the source of the money 

that you were paid by your brother. And their effort has yielded 

the same results that the Senate efforts yielded last July. The 

money that appears to have come from a Bank of China account 

126

in Macao, and this bank account apparently belonged to Ng Lap 

Seng. Do you know Ng Lap Seng, sometimes called Mr. Wu? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, I don’t; never heard of him. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Have you ever met or talked to him, to your 

knowledge? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not as I can remember. 

Mr. WAXMAN. My understanding is, he might have been a business associate of your brother. Do you have any knowledge about 

your brother’s business dealings with him? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not to him. I just—I was under the impression that 

my brother was a successful businessman, and I was happy for 

him; but other than that, the detail of his business or what does 

he do when he travels is really none of my business, so I never 

really asked that question. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you have any knowledge at all about the source 

of money that was used to reimburse your contribution? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. I thought it was his, or part of the business. I 

really don’t understand all this. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Landon, those same questions? 

Mr. LANDON. The source? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you know Mr. Ng Lap Seng? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. To your knowledge, you never met him? 

Mr. LANDON. Never. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you know the source of the contribution, other 

than Ms. Foung’s brother? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. One of the contributions that you made for her 

brother was a contribution for $12,500 on February 18, 1996. This 

contribution was for a fund-raiser at the Hay-Adams Hotel in 

Washington, DC, on February 19th. 

Did either of you attend that fund-raiser at the Hay-Adams Hotel 

in Washington? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Ms. FOUNG. No, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. In the Senate hearings, two witnesses testified you 

made contributions for the same event after being asked by your 

brother to do so, and these witnesses were Yue Chi and Xi Ping 

Wang. These witnesses also were reimbursed for these contributions. Do you know either of these two people? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Now, in the Senate hearing, these two witnesses 

explained why they were asked to make the conduit contribution. 

These witnesses both said that they were asked to make their contributions so that a man named Ng Lap Seng could attend the 

fund-raiser and meet the President. 

Did your brother tell you that your contribution was so that Ng 

Lap Seng could go to the Hay-Adams Hotel fund-raiser? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, not at all. We didn’t even know—I didn’t even 

know anything about the fund-raising event. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did he give you any explanation at all about why 

he was asking you to make the contribution? 

127

Ms. FOUNG. I cannot remember the exact conversation we had, 

but it seems like the check has to be in by a certain day or something like that; and at the time, to me, there is no difference than 

I advanced the check for him for a utility bill or a house payment. 

I didn’t understand anything about the fund-raising or anything 

like that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Landon, did you get any explanation of why 

you were asked to write this check? 

Mr. LANDON. I—it was stated to me it was for a Washington, DC, 

function, and it was coming from someone overseas that wasn’t 

able to be there in time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you talk to Mr. Trie directly or just through 

Ms. Foung? 

Mr. LANDON. Ms. Foung. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to ask you briefly whether you have 

knowledge about your brother’s activities that you think would be 

useful to this committee. Let me ask you—I guess you have said 

this before—how often do you talk with him? 

Ms. FOUNG. Talk to him directly, I want to say three, four times 

a year. A lot of times he calls me he left messages on the answering machine to say, I am just calling you to say hello, because I 

work all the time and because the time difference with overseas, 

he never knows whether I am home or not. So he just occasionally 

called to let me know that he is fine or if I am fine. 

Mr. WAXMAN. One of the companies your brother is involved in 

is the Sin Kin Yap Corp. Have you ever heard of it? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Have you ever heard of it? 

Mr. LANDON. Never heard of it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Another company he is associated with is the 

America-Asia Trade Center. Have you ever heard of this? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. LANDON. Never heard of it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Have you ever discussed any of your brother’s 

business trips to Hong Kong or China with him? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Landon? 

Mr. LANDON. Never spoke to him about it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you even know the names of your brother’s 

business associates? 

Ms. FOUNG. I am sorry? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you even know the names of your brother’s 

business associates? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Back in 1995—no, back in Christmas of 1994, I went to Little 

Rock to visit my mother, and he took me to his office and I met 

all of his employees. There was about 1 in 10—maybe 10 or 15 of 

them, but I don’t remember it—I don’t remember it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me switch over to your knowledge of your 

brother’s political activities. 

First, let me ask you, you are not politically active yourselves, 

are you? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, sir. 

Mr. LANDON. No. 

128

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you discuss politics with your brother? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, never. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Landon? 

Mr. LANDON. Never. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Have you ever discussed with your brother his involvement in President Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 campaigns? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not in depth. He might have mentioned—he never 

even emphasized that much about they were good friends or anything like that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. He didn’t think he could impress you? 

Ms. FOUNG. The—not really, not really in depth. We really didn’t 

have the time to talk about things like that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you have any knowledge that your brother was 

trying to raise money for the President’s legal expense trust? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, I didn’t know. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Landon? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Aside from the two times that your brother asked 

you to make campaign contributions for him, do you have any 

knowledge at all about your brother’s political fund-raising activities? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, not at all. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Landon, you have heard this question I just 

asked. Is your answer the same? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, Mr. Landon, I believe that you testified at 

your deposition that when you made your contribution, you didn’t 

even know what the initials ‘‘DNC’’ stood for; is that correct? 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, after asking these questions, I really must say that I am really at a loss as to why we called these 

witnesses here today. Months ago, the Senate heard testimony 

from witnesses who knew a lot more about Charlie Trie’s activities 

than these two witnesses. 

We have spent millions of dollars on this investigation. We have 

been at work nearly a year with no hearings. If this is all we have 

to show for it, I find it hard to see how the taxpayer is being well 

served. 

I still have time, and I want to yield to Mr. Condit for some questions. 

Mr. BURTON. Will the gentleman yield real briefly for me? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, we have our time allocated. 

Mr. BURTON. That’s fine. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And I think we should pursue it here. 

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. I would like to first thank 

both the witnesses for being here today. I know you are here at 

great personal inconvenience, and I appreciate your being here 

very much. 

I have just a few questions and they will go pretty quick. I would 

like to first start with Ms. Foung and go through the series of questions with her and then, Mr. Landon, I will get to you. 

Ms. Foung, have you been asked for information by any other investigative body or have you testified before any other body besides 

this committee? 

129

Ms. FOUNG. No. No. 

Oh, I am sorry. The grand jury, I—— Mr. CONDIT. So, on the record, you have appeared before the 

grand jury, the Department of Justice grand jury; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONDIT. Have other’s requests for information overlapped 

with requests by this committee? In other words, are they asking 

for the same questions or the same types of questions or the same 

material that we have asked this morning? 

Ms. FOUNG. You mean besides the investigator that came over 

and the attorney? 

Mr. CONDIT. The other—— Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. CONDIT. Are we asking similar questions, the same questions 

that you have already been asked by the Department of Justice 

and the grand jury? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. CONDIT. So you—on the record, you are saying that the questions we are asking this morning are similar or the same as you 

have been asked by the other bodies; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. CONDIT. Can you estimate for me how much time you have 

spent responding to this committee’s requests for information? 

Ms. FOUNG. Do you mean including the flying back and forth to 

DC? 

Mr. CONDIT. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. FOUNG. Just coming here each time we will start 7 a.m., and 

we get here 7 p.m., and same thing for the returns, about an 8-

hour flight. I have been to DC twice; and I try to minimize the 

amount of time that I have lost on my job, so I usually do it in 2 

days, coming 1 day and returning 1 day. 

We had two trips here. Then we had the deposition in my attorney’s office, numerous phone calls, and try to gather together information that was requested. 

I am sorry. I didn’t keep a log of it, account of it. 

Mr. CONDIT. Would you say that it is a lot of time? How much 

work have you missed? Have you calculated how much work you 

have missed because of being deposed? 

Ms. FOUNG. Five days. 

Mr. CONDIT. Five days? 

Ms. FOUNG. Minimum, yes. 

Mr. CONDIT. Have you been reimbursed by anyone for that loss 

of time and for your cost of being here? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. CONDIT. Has being here and testifying before this committee, 

appearing before the grand jury caused you any problems at your 

job? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. CONDIT. Can you clarify for us what those problems might 

be? 

Ms. FOUNG. I had a perfect attendance at my job for every year 

that I was there; and now I have to take time off, which I feel terribly about it and the loss of wages, or my vacation time I have 

to use. It is just no use to get into. 

130

Mr. CONDIT. Can you respond to all the publicity that you have 

received because you have been here? How has that affected your 

life and your children’s life? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s the reason I requested not to be broadcast or 

anything because I never was looking for—never cared for publicity, and I would rather just be my own—I have very private life. 

I would just rather keep it that way. And since I was forced to 

come here, I tried to limit the damage in that respect as minimum 

as I could. 

Mr. CONDIT. Have you—obviously you have incurred some expense by coming here and all the things that you have had to do 

for this committee. Have you—can you tabulate for us or give us 

an estimate of how much you have spent in preparing materials, 

legal counsel, travel, hotel expense? Can you tell us how much approximately you have spent? 

Ms. FOUNG. To the best—I understood all the expense, as far as 

the travel and hotel is being—is paid for. Right? I mean, I haven’t 

seen the reimbursement, but I understood it will be reimbursed. 

Mr. CONDIT. Can you clarify that for me? Who is reimbursing you 

for the cost of that? 

Ms. FOUNG. My last trip, I understand, will be reimbursed by the 

Department of Justice and this trip will be reimbursed by the committee or something. 

Mr. BURTON. Point of order. Just for the gentleman’s edification, 

the committee is going to be paying their expenses as part of the 

expenses of the trip for all witnesses. 

Mr. CONDIT. Well, let me finish this and I may have an attitude 

or a problem or a suggestion or a question about that. 

Let me finish up with Mr. Landon. 

I—first of all, Ms. Foung, thank you very much. I know this has 

been a hardship on you and I appreciate you being here very much 

and I appreciate you trying to be as candid as you can with the 

questions. 

I would like to ask Mr. Landon, if I can, have you ever been 

asked by any other official investigative body to testify or provide 

information on matters being investigated by this committee? In 

other words, are we duplicating the other committees? Can you respond to that? 

Mr. LANDON. Some of the questions are the same, but I am talking a lot less here. 

Mr. CONDIT. Are you—can you tell me, identify for me, what 

other committees you have appeared before? 

Mr. LANDON. The Department of Justice, I went before the grand 

jury, and the attorneys in Sacramento during the deposition. 

Mr. CONDIT. And can you clarify for me, maybe in a little more 

detail, have there been requests for information of this committee 

that overlapped the requests of the other bodies? 

Mr. LANDON. Some of the questions are close to being the same. 

Mr. CONDIT. Have you provided documents, information or testimony to this committee that you have previously provided to other 

investigative bodies? The answer would be, yes, I take it? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONDIT. Can you estimate how much time you have spent 

in responding to requests from this committee? 

131

Mr. LANDON. The same as Ms. Foung. 

Mr. CONDIT. She has missed 5 days of work and travel time. Was 

that similar? 

Ms. FOUNG. Four to—4 days travel time, yes, sir. 

Mr. CONDIT. Time off work? 

Mr. LANDON. I took vacation. 

Mr. CONDIT. Heck of a way to spend your vacation. 

Have you incurred expense in responding to demands from this 

committee? 

Mr. LANDON. Rooms, taxis and so forth. 

Mr. CONDIT. Are you being reimbursed? 

Mr. LANDON. I haven’t. 

Mr. CONDIT. Has anyone indicated to you that you are being reimbursed? 

Mr. LANDON. The possibility was mentioned, but I don’t know by 

who. 

Mr. CONDIT. Do you think you should be reimbursed? 

Mr. LANDON. Well, I don’t know. 

Mr. CONDIT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate my earlier statement regarding the unnecessary burden that I think we 

have placed on these two individuals and our ranking member, Mr. 

Waxman, I think, pointed out earlier that he is not real sure why 

these two people are here, because in all due respect to them, and 

I don’t mean this in any bad way at all, but they really have not 

added anything new that we didn’t already know. 

Once again, I think that we have indicated—it indicated to us 

that we have sort of flattened out here. This has not offered us any 

new information that we didn’t already know and I think it is a 

great expense to these two people, not to mention the inconvenience on their personal life to have to come here. I am real saddened that we have started this hearing off like this. It proves that 

we could have taken the other road and the other road would have 

been to have been cooperative and not duplicate what the other 

body is doing, and I think this is evidence that we have got massive problems with duplication of witnesses and information and on 

and so forth. 

The other thing I would like to add, what is going to be the policy? Mr. Waxman, can I——

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let me ask this of you. I think we ought to 

have an answer to that question, but I do want to yield to other 

Members while these witnesses are here—— Mr. CONDIT. OK. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. To pursue any matters they want to 

ask of the witnesses. Then we ought to pursue from the chairman 

what our policy is going to be. 

Mr. CONDIT. OK. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Because we are clearly inconveniencing a lot of 

people and causing them to spend money. 

Mr. Lantos, I want to yield to you. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Waxman. 

We are dealing with conduit payments in the 1996 Presidential 

race, and as I raised the point yesterday, a company in Pennsylvania, a landfill company, paid $8 million in fines for making illegal conduit payments. 

132

Now, one of the items that the other side repeatedly raises is 

that we are talking about the notion that, well, maybe there are 

problems, but everybody does it and, of course, they very self-righteously say, but of course, everybody doesn’t do it. 

Well, on the front page of the Washington Post, the story details, 

how the Dole-Kemp campaign received $80,000 in conduit payments, the Clinton-Gore campaign only $10,000 in conduit payments from this landfill company. And then it goes on to tell us 

that six Republicans: Senator Specter, Senator Santorum, Senate 

candidates Haytaian and DuHaime and Congressmen Fox and 

Paxon combined received $35,000 and two Members of Congress, 

who are Democrats, Mr. Baucus of Montana and Mr. Pallone, received a total of $4,000. 

Now, it seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with 

these issues and with these facts. It so happens that having served 

with former Vice Presidential Candidate Jack Kemp and with Vice 

President Gore, those two are good friends of mine. I think Mr. 

Clinton and Mr. Dole would also qualify as friends. 

There is no doubt in my mind that not one of those four gentlemen would, for a moment, have entertained the notion of having 

their campaign committees receive conduit payments, for two reasons: 

First, because they are honest people, and this is against the 

law. And I would bet my bottom dollar that Dole and Clinton and 

Gore and Kemp have the same view that every Member of this 

body has, that we would not engage in illegal transactions. Receiving conduit payments is an illegal transaction. 

The second reason why they would never do it, of course, is because this is absurd and counterproductive. This can cost them the 

election, unbelievable embarrassment afterwards as we are now 

seeing. 

It seems to me that this morning I got my answer as to whether 

this is Alice in Wonderland or the Theater of the Absurd. 

I want to express my apology to the two of you. You are two fine 

citizens. You should be more politically involved and active than 

you have been. I am a little disappointed that you are as apolitical 

as you obviously are. You should be making contributions to the 

party of your choice. You should support candidates vigorously of 

your choice and that’s really the only disappointment I have; that 

you are wonderful people, hard-working, honest and all that, but 

you are nonpolitical and perhaps—and perhaps this experience will 

make you want to become politically more active, so such Theaters 

of the Absurd will not be inflicted upon others. 

I might mention, by the way, that the party you attended, Ms. 

Foung—and you got to the parking lot, I understand, Mr. Landon—

in the town of Hillsborough is my hometown, but I was not invited 

to the party. So I met neither of you; nor the President nor anybody else who was at that event. 

I must say that this hearing is so profoundly embarrassing and 

disappointing. Not a single shred of new fact or evidence has come 

forward and here we are going through this circus. 

Now, since the circus also relates to the Bank of China, I would 

like to request that a letter to our ranking minority member from 

133

Professor Naughton of the University of California at San Diego be 

admitted in the record. 

Mr. BURTON. Reserving the right to object, may I see the letter, 

please? 

Mr. LANTOS. You certainly may. 

This letter outlines Professor Naughton’s understanding of the 

Bank of China which, of course, is one of the large international 

banks on the face of this planet with 12,300 offices in China, 525 

branches overseas, including two branches in New York City and 

one in California. 

Presumably, Professor Naughton says, anyone, including you or 

I could walk into the New York branch on Madison Avenue and 

open an account. 

I think it is sort of important for all of us who are looking at 

these issues with a degree of maturity and knowledge and understanding is to recognize that while there are probably not many in 

the Congress who are as opposed to the policies of the current 

China—Government in China as I am, it is important to realize 

that the Bank of China, quoting again, ‘‘it is unreasonable to assume that the Chinese Government or its officials would have direct knowledge of any individual wire transfer or any other transaction from an individual or corporate commercial account at the 

Bank of China. Such transfers are routine and occur millions of 

times each day at the bank.’’ There is nothing to prevent the Chinese Government from using 

the Bank of China to transfer funds internationally, but it is equally true that the Chinese Government could just as well use any 

other international commercial bank for the same purpose. 

Now, the point of my raising this issue is very simple. I detest 

the Government in China. Unlike some—many of my colleagues 

here, I have voted against Most Favored Nation treatment and I 

will vote for the package of anti-Beijing measures that we will be 

debating on the floor soon. And it was my resolution that resulted 

in the President of Taiwan being allowed to get a visa and come 

to Cornell to obtain his honorary doctorate. So I have very little 

good to say about the Chinese Government. But I think it is part 

and parcel of this attempt to blow smoke and create this mysterious impression that since the transfer came from the Bank of 

China, this, chances are, could be Chinese Government money. 

Well, it could be, but it could just as well be money of an American business corporation or a citizen of any country who chose to 

engage in the transfer. 

I again ask, Mr. Chairman, to place the letter in the record. 

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The letter referred to follows:]

134


g:\graphics\44833.042
135


g:\graphics\44833.043
136


g:\graphics\44833.044
137

Mr. LANTOS. Final observation. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. I would just like to clarify one point before we go 

to our next questioner, and that is that the grand jury that is investigating campaign finance problems came to us after we had 

started our investigation and found these witnesses and asked us 

for the information pertaining to Ms. Foung, Mr. Landon and Mr. 

Wang. 

We provided them with the information. The Justice Department 

asked us for information we had and not the other way around. 

And also, the information that goes to the grand jury is secret and 

it is not a two-way street. We gave to them. They cannot give to 

us. 

Mr. Cox, you are recognized for 10 minutes. 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a brief amount 

of time unlike the preceding questioners, so I will try and be brief 

in my questions and permit you to answer as fully as you can. 

On this last point, it is the case, is it not, that when this committee’s investigators contacted both of you, you had not been contacted by either the FBI or the Justice Department? 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. COX. But now that this committee has brought your identity 

as Charlie Trie’s sister to the attention of the authorities, they 

have contacted you; is that right? 

Let me rephrase the question. Have you been contacted by the 

FBI or the Justice Department? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, not by those two agencies. 

Mr. LANDON. The Department of Justice asked for us to appear. 

Mr. COX. So you have been contacted by the Justice Department, 

Mr. Landon. But you have not? 

Mr. LANDON. Well, it was just a subpoena to go before the grand 

jury. 

Ms. FOUNG. Oh, so the FBI and Justice Department are the same 

thing? I thought they were two different——

Mr. COX. Have you been contacted by either one? 

Ms. FOUNG. The Justice Department, yes. 

Mr. COX. The Justice Department. OK. But we contacted you before they did and they did not contact you before we did? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. COX. All right. I just want to straighten that out. 

I wonder if I might ask you, Ms. Foung, when you met President 

Clinton, did he say anything to you about your brother? 

Ms. FOUNG. Very briefly, something like the—your brother has 

been a—I don’t remember—a good friend or a close friend or a 

long-time friend for 20 years or two decades. 

Mr. COX. He said that he had been a close friend of your brother’s for 20 years? 

Ms. FOUNG. I don’t remember if it was a good friend or a close 

friend. 

Mr. COX. Either a good friend or a close friend? 

Ms. FOUNG. Or long-time friend, something like that. 

138

Mr. COX. All right. You said a moment ago that you think people 

overestimate your brother. What do you mean by that? 

Ms. FOUNG. The brother—my brother, the one I know, is just a 

down-to-earth, good person. 

Mr. COX. Do you mean that he is not politically sophisticated? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not as I know of. 

Mr. COX. Do you think it is odd for somebody who is not very 

sophisticated to be friends with the President of the United States? 

Ms. FOUNG. They both came from the same place. They met in 

his business as a restaurant owner. 

Mr. COX. But your brother is not the kind of person who would 

be friends with other political figures? 

Ms. FOUNG. He never mentioned anything to me about it. 

Mr. COX. So you wouldn’t say, for example, that he would be 

tight with officials of the Communist party or the People’s Republic 

of China? 

Ms. FOUNG. I have no knowledge of anything like that. 

Mr. COX. Would it surprise you if he were? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. COX. Do you know how many legal political parties there are 

in the People’s Republic of China? 

Ms. FOUNG. I know there is Communist Red China and Taiwan 

is the Republic of China. 

Mr. COX. Right. In the People’s Republic of China, there is just 

the Communist party, is that your understanding, as far as political parties go? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s all I know of. 

Mr. COX. So if you were friends with government officials in 

China, you would be friends with members of the Communist 

party, presumably, right? 

Ms. FOUNG. Do they have a Congress party? 

Mr. COX. Communist party. That’s who runs the People’s Republic of China. 

Ms. FOUNG. It is such a big country. I don’t know, how does it 

work? I really have no knowledge of that country. I was born in 

Taiwan. 

Mr. COX. Earlier on, you were asked whether your brother might 

have any involvement with Communist officials in China, and I 

wonder—and I took it, you said, that you think not? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not that I am aware of. He never mentioned anything like that to me. 

Mr. COX. Would it surprise you that he put out a bio on himself 

just a couple of years ago that says, ‘‘Over the course of time I have 

developed a personal relationship with a number of government officials throughout China’’? 

Ms. FOUNG. I have no comment. 

Mr. COX. Is that a surprise to you? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. COX. It comes as a surprise? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. COX. Is it a surprise to you that he has moved to the People’s 

Republic of China? 

Ms. FOUNG. Is it surprise to me what? 

139

Mr. COX. That he moved there, that he lives there now? Had he 

ever lived there before? 

Ms. FOUNG. I understand he spent a lot of time there for business reasons. 

Mr. COX. Was it ever his residence, his home? 

Ms. FOUNG. His residence is in Little Rock, AR, I thought. 

Mr. COX. And he is a U.S. citizen, isn’t that right? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes, that’s correct. 

Mr. COX. So his moving to the People’s Republic of China, is that 

unusual? 

Ms. FOUNG. The way I understood it, it was for business reasons, 

for business needs. 

Mr. COX. Now, you have talked to him a few times on the telephone and have done so regularly over the years. And when he 

talks to you, he is calling lately from the People’s Republic of 

China; isn’t that right? 

Ms. FOUNG. I don’t know. I only talked with him twice this year. 

Mr. COX. Let me put up on the screen, if I might, the picture 

that shows where the money came from that you ended up giving 

to the DNC. 

You’re familiar with what’s in front of you on the TV screen, the $200,000 moved from the Bank of China in Macao, as the ranking 

member said—and he’s no more sure of it than I am, but it’s our 

suspicion that this money came from Ng Lap Seng, that $200,000 

moved from the Bank of China eventually to you. 

Are you familiar with how that works now, having had it all covered in the weeks since we’ve contacted you? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. The screen is, the screen that you come up was, 

I’m looking at it. That’s all my knowledge. 

Mr. COX. You don’t remember the questions that Mr. Bennett 

asked you? 

Ms. FOUNG. Could you repeat that question? 

Mr. COX. Didn’t you just go over these transactions earlier? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yeah, we went over this screen before. 

Mr. COX. Yes. Thank you very much. 

Now, you therefore understand at this point that you and Mr. Landon laundered $35,000? 

Ms. FOUNG. Could you repeat that? 

Mr. COX. Are you familiar with these transactions now? 

Ms. FOUNG. I only am familiar with my part. 

Mr. COX. Yes. And do you think that your part involved giving 

money through your checking account that wasn’t yours? 

Ms. FOUNG. Like I testified earlier, the only knowledge I have is, 

I have——

Mr. COX. You’ve been granted immunity, so we’re not trying to 

trip you up. 

Ms. FOUNG. No, you’re not, but it seems like you’re putting words 

in my mouth that I have no idea of any laundering activity or anything like that. 

To me, I simply did my brother a favor; and I will do things for 

him because he’s done things for me over time as a family. 

Mr. COX. Ms. Foung, I want to believe, as the minority has suggested, that you’re an honest person. 

Ms. FOUNG. I am. 

140

Mr. COX. And everyone in this room looking at this and understanding these transactions and looking at the exhibits and looking 

at the checks and knowing that your brother promised to reimburse you and did so, for amounts of money to you and Mr. Landon 

totaling $35,000, means that you laundered money. It wasn’t your 

money; it was somebody else’s money. 

You gave it politically. And I, for one, think that it’s one thing 

to not know it at the time; it’s another thing weeks later to suggest 

that you don’t know what the hell’s going on. At some point, it’s 

got to become clear, because I’d like to encourage you also to be involved in politics, but I don’t want to encourage you to be involved 

in politics if you still haven’t figured out that this is money laundering. 

It’s a serious problem to us because, according to our most recent information, over $900,000 went from Ng Lap Seng to your brother 

just in the years that he was raising money. You know that your 

brother was a 20-year friend of the President of the United States. 

You personally talked to the President of the United States about 

it. And I hope that, in addition to the information that you provide 

today, that you will work with us, because we’re after information 

from your brother who is now hiding in the People’s Republic of 

China. We want to get him back. It’s something of sufficient importance that the President of the United States hopefully will raise 

it with Jiang Zemin when he is visiting in just a few weeks. 

So I look forward, particularly in light of the grant of immunity 

that the minority and majority Members agreed jointly to extend 

to both of you, to your thorough cooperation on this matter. I yield 

back. 

Ms. FOUNG. Could I respond to that? 

Mr. COX. Of course you may respond. My time is up, but yours 

is not. 

Ms. FOUNG. First of all, I am a very honest person. I believe everybody here already checked my background, checked my record. 

I’m clear as a piece of paper. Never had any unlawful activities. I’m 

a hard-working blue collar; and I pay my taxes, I pay my bills. And 

I don’t know what you are trying to say that I’m lying. I really cannot, even if I wanted to. 

I have no more information to offer to you than I already did. I 

don’t know anything. 

To me, my brother asked me for a favor, to advance a check. I 

didn’t even know what DNC means. I asked him, what does it 

mean? And I don’t know how else I can explain to you. 

Something like that really wasn’t important to me at all. And 

you make it like I should have known what’s going on. I didn’t 

care. This whole fund-raising thing is like a football game that I 

don’t understand. I’m not interested. I turn away every time it 

shows up on the TV. That’s the extent of my understanding of this 

whole thing. 

Mrs. MORELLA [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Waxman for extended questioning for 10 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I’m going to have to hold on asking 

the questions, because we’ve got the people that we’re going to 

yield to running back onto the House floor. 

141

Let me say, I don’t agree with anything that Mr. Cox just had 

to say to you and I want that very clear. We’re going to withhold 

on asking questions at this moment. 

Mrs. MORELLA. The committee will now recess subject to the call 

of the Chair. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. The committee will resume its business. 

Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I want to note for the record that there’s been another violation of our committee rules. You told us a few minutes 

ago that you provided materials about these witnesses to the grand 

jury. Under paragraph C(3)(a) of the document protocol we adopted 

on April 10, the chairman is required to notify me before—at least 

24 hours prior to releasing committee documents. I did not receive 

any notice of this release, as required by our document protocol. 

And Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I would have objected, but I 

just wanted to point that out for the record. 

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman will yield real briefly? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. BURTON. I stand corrected. The only thing we gave them 

were the names of these people, so they could contact them. I did 

not give them any documents. 

Mr. WAXMAN. All right. I’m pleased to hear that. 

Mr. BURTON. Our document protocol allows us to give documents 

of any kind to law enforcement agencies. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to take issue with Mr. Cox’s 

inference about Charlie Trie’s connection to the Chinese Government. In the July 29 Senate hearing, it was revealed that Ng Lap 

Seng, sometimes referred to as Mr. Wu, sits on a local provincial 

advisory committee in China. This, of course, shouldn’t be surprising; since China is a Communist country, anyone wanting to do 

business with China would be foolish not to have some friends in 

government. However, this does not mean that Ng Lap Seng is a 

high-level Chinese official. 

It’s absurd to suggest that simply because Charlie Trie is a business partner of Ng Lap Seng that Charlie Trie has connections to 

the Chinese Central Committee. It’s like saying because someone 

is on a school board that therefore they know the President of the 

United States. 

As Ms. Foung correctly stated, China is a big country. There are, 

no doubt, millions of people who have some connection to the government, as indeed 3 millions of people in the United States who 

have some connection to the Government, as there are millions of 

people in the United States who have some connection to the Government as well. 

I want to yield now to the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. 

Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. I would like to ask Manlin Foung, 

have you ever met the First Lady? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, ma’am. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Have you ever met the Vice President? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Have you ever been to the White House? 

142

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mrs. MALONEY. So I take it you’ve never had coffee at the White 

House? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, madam. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And you never slept in the Lincoln Bedroom? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Did you expect to receive any political favor as 

a result of your contribution? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Did you ever ask anyone else to make a contribution to the DNC? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, except Joe. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Do you have any personal knowledge of any donations other than ones that you made and your friend, Mr. 

Landon? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not at all. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to ask Mr. Landon, did you ever expect to receive any political favors as a result of your contribution? 

Mr. LANDON. None. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Did you ever ask anyone else to make a contribution? 

Mr. LANDON. No, ma’am. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Do you have any personal knowledge of any donations other than the ones that you and Manlin made to the 

DNC? 

Mr. LANDON. No. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I have no further questions. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

I want to yield to Mr. Barrett. 

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, like probably most people in this room, have made mistakes in 

judgment in my life. And I will probably continue to make mistakes 

in judgment. In fact, when constituents from time to time either 

compliment me on the job I’m doing or am critical, I tell them, 

don’t worry, I will make a mistake someday. 

I believe that you both made a mistake. I don’t know whether—

whether you knew it was wrong, but it was a mistake to do what 

you did for your brother. I probably would do the same for my 

brother if my brother asked me to do something. But it was a mistake. 

My concern goes more to the fact that you made these contributions, but to what it shows about our political system. And what 

concerns me about these hearings today is that it does, I think, 

quite effectively—and maybe some of my colleagues on this side of 

the aisle disagree, but I think it quite effectively shows some of the 

cancer in our system. 

It is wrong for the Democratic National Committee or wrong for 

anybody on this side of the aisle to take contributions that are not 

legally given. But this hearing process is a charade; and the reason 

it’s a charade is because someone in this room would be left to believe that the Democrats are the bad guys and the Republicans are 

the good guys, and the reality couldn’t be further from the truth. 

We’ve heard people mention this morning the headline in the 

Washington Post today, and it talked about contributions, $120,000 

143

in contributions, I think was the figure. $80,000 in contributions to 

the Dole campaign, exactly the type of contributions that you made 

where someone was asked to make a contribution, and they were 

reimbursed; $35,000 in contributions to Republican Senate and 

congressional candidates, $4,000 to Democratic Senate and congressional candidates. 

We will hear nothing about that in this hearing. We will hear 

nothing about money that has been illegally given to Republicans, 

because that’s not the purpose of these hearings. 

And, Mr. Landon, when you said that this was only the second 

time that you’ve been to a political event, this is a political event. 

That’s what this is today; this is a political event. Because this is 

not a serious attempt to look at the systemic problems in the system, because if it were, we would be trying to get at ‘‘Firm to Pay $8 Million Fine for Illegal Campaign Gifts.’’ We would be trying to 

deal with that. We would be bringing employees from that company 

here to talk about it. But that’s not what this is about. 

I’m sorry you made a mistake; I hope that it was an innocent 

mistake. Obviously, the committee unanimously felt that you were 

not crucial cogs in any sort of scheme, or we wouldn’t have given 

you immunity. But just as I will make mistakes in the future, I assume you will. 

But I want to thank you for being here today. But what I want 

to say is, don’t make the same mistake twice. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I also, I want to associate myself with the words 

of Mr. Barrett, who just spoke. I don’t have any questions, because 

I mean, I’m a trial lawyer. I practiced for 20 years. And I’ve listened to your testimony, I think you’ve been very candid with us. 

And we really appreciate your testimony. 

I think for me to sit here and to ask you any questions is merely 

taking up more of your time, taking more of the time of this committee when we need to be getting on to other things. 

I’m a new Member of the Congress, and I must tell you that I—

and this is more to our committee, and I’m very, very disappointed. 

I am sure that there will be other questions trying to solicit information, but basically, I think any—most people who know anything 

about testimony would probably pretty much conclude that we’ve—

I mean, through the questioning that has already taken place, 

we’ve gotten about as much as we are going to get. 

But, again, I thank you all for being here, and I hope that you 

can go on with your lives. Thank you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of moving forward 

with this hearing and not wasting any time, we yield back the balance of our time. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

Mr. Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

Ms. Foung, it’s true you’re not Webster Hubbell, who’s refused to 

cooperate with the Justice Department and the committee, a major 

figure in this investigation. 

It’s also true you’re not John Huang, who’s taken the fifth and 

refused to cooperate. And it’s also true you’re obviously not Charlie 

144

Trie, who—your brother who has fled the country, a major figure 

in our investigation. 

And it’s also true you’re here at great inconvenience of your time. 

That’s true. 

But you’re also here because both of you collectively laundered 

$35,000. And in my way of looking at it, $35,000 is a lot of money. 

And it was laundered money; this money was not your money, correct? 

Mr. LANDON. Correct. 

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Foung, was this your money? You don’t need a 

long time to answer it. Yes or no. 

Ms. FOUNG. Would you repeat your question again, without all 

that statement prior to that? 

Mr. SHAYS. No, I’m not going to repeat the question again. 

You testified to that. 

Ms. FOUNG. OK. I’ll answer your question. 

No, I did not—I didn’t think I was laundering money. That 

wasn’t my money. I was simply doing my brother—did my brother 

a favor. 

Mr. SHAYS. You testified to Mr. Waxman that your brother was 

a successful businessman. What was his business and where did he 

get his money? 

Ms. FOUNG. That is none of my business. I don’t know. 

Mr. SHAYS. How do you know he’s a successful businessman 

then? 

Ms. FOUNG. I told you, back in 1994, I had gone to Little Rock 

for Christmas. He showed me his office. It was a big, good-looking 

office with—full of employees. 

Mr. SHAYS. You testified in deposition and before this committee 

that your brother asked you for money for a house payment. Why 

would he have asked you for money? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. Apparently you misunderstood. I said this is—

to me, is the same as if he could not come back to the country, he 

asked me to advance a house payment until he can get back, reimbursement to me. 

Mr. SHAYS. So you said, it is not testimony that he borrowed 

money from you, you likened the laundering of $35,000 to a campaign in your name as the same as his borrowing money for your 

house? 

Ms. FOUNG. Could you repeat that? I really lost somewhere what 

we’re trying to find out. 

Mr. SHAYS. I’m not going to repeat the question. 

Ms. Foung, according to your deposition and testimony, other 

than your two contributions to the Democratic National Committee, 

the DNC, on February 1996 and on August 1996, you have never 

made any other political contribution; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. To the best of my recollection, that’s correct. 

Mr. SHAYS. To the best of your recollection. So you stand on 

record that you’ve contributed on two occasions 10—10, $12,000, 

$12,500 on February 19th, which was money that you got from 

your brother, and on 8/18/96, $10,000. That’s the extent of your political contributions? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

145

Mr. SHAYS. Are you aware that Federal Election Commission 

records show you making two $1,000 contributions to the minority 

Leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle, on June 26th, 1995? 

Ms. FOUNG. I saw the document, yes. 

Mr. SHAYS. Did you make that contribution? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not to my knowledge—my recollection. 

Mr. SHAYS. Well, I mean, did you or didn’t you? 

Ms. FOUNG. Like I said, not to the best of my recollection, no. 

Mr. SHAYS. See, you’ve been immune from testimony, so——

Ms. FOUNG. Exactly. 

Mr. SHAYS [continuing]. So you don’t need to keep anything from 

us. 

Wouldn’t you know if you made a contribution? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes, if I made contribution, I would know. 

Mr. SHAYS. Did you know? 

Ms. FOUNG. I’m speaking under oath. I don’t want something I 

didn’t remember to come back to me as I’m lying. 

Mr. SHAYS. It’s possible you made a contribution? 

Ms. FOUNG. To the best of my recollection, no. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Are you aware that Federal Election Commission 

records show that Dai Lin Outlaw, your sister, contributed $1,000 

to Mr. Daschle on 6/26 and another $1,000 on 6/26. Are you aware 

of that? 

Ms. FOUNG. To the extent if you’re showing me the document. 

Mr. SHAYS. Have you been told that this happened? 

Ms. FOUNG. I might have. I just——

Mr. SHAYS. Did you ask your sister if she made this contribution? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. SHAYS. Are you aware that Federal Election Commission 

records show that Jim Outlaw, your brother-in-law, made two 

$1,000 contributions on the same date? 

Ms. FOUNG. If that’s what the record reflects. 

Mr. SHAYS. Are you aware that that contribution——

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. SHAYS [continuing]. Was made? 

Are you aware that the Federal Election Commission records 

show that E-Foung Do Trie, your mother, made two $1,000 contributions to—again, to Mr. Daschle’s campaign in 1995? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, I’m not aware of it. 

Mr. SHAYS. No one on this committee has asked you about these 

contributions? 

Ms. FOUNG. They probably have. I’ve been asked a lot of questions. I answered it. 

Mr. SHAYS. Well, so, you were asked and you remembered, or you 

don’t remember? That’s kind of a surprising thing to forget, isn’t 

it? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not really. All this fund-raising thing might be very 

important thing to you, but it’s not to me, except to the extent that 

it affects my life greatly. 

Mr. SHAYS. Well, it affected your life greatly because your brother asked you to commit a felony. 

Ms. FOUNG. No, my brother didn’t. If my brother knew that, he 

would never ask me something like that. 

146

Mr. SHAYS. No, your brother asked you to launder money, and 

to put it in your name. And it wasn’t your money. 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. SHAYS. That’s what your brother did. That is a felony. 

Ms. FOUNG. My testimony is, my brother asked me a favor because he cannot make those checks in time. That’s the extent of 

what he asked me. He did not ask me to launder money. If he 

knew—— Mr. SHAYS. When you—— Ms. FOUNG [continuing]. That he was going to get me in this position, he wouldn’t ask me. 

Mr. SHAYS. Your testimony is, your brother didn’t know he was 

asking you to launder money? 

When I asked you—when you met the President, according to 

your deposition, President Clinton knew your brother. What did he 

say about your brother? 

Ms. FOUNG. Just what I testified earlier. 

Mr. SHAYS. Why don’t you do this? Why don’t you turn to page 

29 of the deposition, since you have a hard time remembering 

things you said to us, and tell me if, when the question was asked, 

exactly what did the President say to you about his relationship 

with your brother back in Little Rock, AR, days. 

Your answer was—excuse me, it’s on page 30; I’m sorry, on page 

30. 

Your answer was: He said my brother, Charlie Trie, is a close 

friend of his in two decades. Is that the answer you still stand by? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. And I believe that was the answer I gave you 

earlier. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. No, it wasn’t, because I didn’t ask that question. 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes, I did. 

Mr. SHAYS. Have you had any contact with the Democratic National Committee, the DNC? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes, I did. 

Mr. SHAYS. Who initiated that contact? 

Ms. FOUNG. I did. 

Mr. SHAYS. Why did you initiate that contact? 

Ms. FOUNG. Because there’s a combination of several reasons. 

The first reason was, I thought maybe the DNC had made a mistake that had overlooked my contribution. So I wasn’t—— Mr. SHAYS. Was that your contribution? 

Ms. FOUNG. English is my second language. If you’re picking on 

what I said all the time, I am sorry, it will be very difficult to me. 

Mr. SHAYS. I’m sorry, too. But the bottom line is, I only have 10 

minutes. 

You can complete your story here. You called them because you 

wanted your money back? 

Ms. FOUNG. I want my brother’s money back. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. And why do you think your brother was entitled 

to his money back? 

Ms. FOUNG. To the best of my knowledge, that was his money. 

Mr. SHAYS. Well, but he gave it to you to give to the party. And 

why wouldn’t you just be happy with your contribution? Why would 

you have made the contribution then, and felt good about it; and 

now want your money back, which wasn’t your money? 

147

Ms. FOUNG. No, I didn’t feel good or bad. I had no feelings. I simply did a favor for my brother. 

Mr. SHAYS. So your brother wanted his money back? 

Ms. FOUNG. And it turned out to be—no. 

Mr. SHAYS. Did your brother ask you for the money back? 

Ms. FOUNG. I thought that was the way it was supposed to be 

handled. My limited knowledge of that was, they were refunding 

money related to my brother. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Ms. Foung, did you receive—excuse me. 

Mr. SOLLERS. Mr. Landon. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Landon, I’m sorry. 

Did you receive—have any contact with the DNC? 

Mr. LANDON. No, I did not. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Did the DNC return the money that you 

laundered to the DNC? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, they did. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Did they explain why they were doing that? 

Mr. LANDON. All I got was the check is in the mail. I got no communication with the DNC. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. 

Ms. Foung, have you received any money back from Senator 

Daschle? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. SHAYS. Are you inclined to ask him for your money back? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. How come? 

Ms. FOUNG. Because that’s something I’m not aware of. 

Mr. SHAYS. Would you like—I would like to yield to Mr. Cox. 

Do you have a question? 

Mr. COX. I just wondered, as a followup, Mr. Landon, when you 

got the check, did you keep it? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COX. Do you still have it? 

Mr. LANDON. I put it in the bank, and it’s still there. 

Mr. COX. Boy, good for you. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. I thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Mr. Barr. 

Mr. SHAYS. Isn’t it on that side, Mr. Condit? 

Mr. CONDIT. I can wait. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr. 

Mr. BARR. Point of order, are they yielding back their time? 

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman, Mr. Condit——

Mr. CONDIT. No, I would like to claim my time. 

Mr. BARR. I’m sorry. 

Mr. BURTON. OK, Mr. Condit, then we’ll go back to your side. 

Mr. CONDIT. Are you yielding to me Mr. Chairman at this point? 

Mr. BURTON. We recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONDIT. Pardon? I would like to take my time, Mr. Chairman, and clarify something we started a little bit ago with you, if 

I may; I’ll do it now, if you like, or—I can do it now, or you—— Mr. BURTON. You can take your 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONDIT. What is the policy of the committee on how we reimburse these witnesses? What are the guidelines? Do we intend to 

148

reimburse Ms. Foung for her child care, her travel and the hotel; 

and Mr. Landon, too? Is that the policy of the committee. 

Mr. BURTON. We reimburse for travel, hotel, meals, and incidental expenses for their trip out here. 

Mr. CONDIT. How about her time off work and her child care? 

Mr. BURTON. We provide what the rules of the House and the 

Government normally require. 

Mr. CONDIT. And what is that? 

Mr. BURTON. What I just stated. Travel, hotel, meals and 

incidentals. 

Mr. CONDIT. Do you intend to do this for Mr. Landon, as well? 

Mr. BURTON. Yes. 

Mr. CONDIT. And all witnesses that appear here? 

Mr. BURTON. All witnesses that we subpoenaed and have come 

before the committee. 

Mr. CONDIT. It was my understanding Ms. Foung, there was a 

commitment made to her about her son traveling with her, that she 

would be allowed to bring her 9-year-old son, later was told that 

she couldn’t do that. She had to get child care to take care of him 

for 24-hour periods. 

Mr. BURTON. That was discussed. But under the rules of the 

House and the rules of the investigation, that’s not allowed. The 

only thing is allowed is for witnesses. We did look into some other 

way to facilitate that, but there was no other way to do it. So we 

provided transportation, hotels and meals and incidentals for Ms. 

Foung and Mr. Landon. 

Mr. CONDIT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. CONDIT. Yes. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Barr. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Landon, just to followup briefly on the previous questions from my colleagues, Mr. 

Shays and Mr. Cox here, that $12,500, is that in a bank account 

over which you have control? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Has that been declared as income to you? 

Mr. LANDON. No, it’s not mine. 

Mr. BARR. Who’s is it? 

Mr. LANDON. I assume it’s Charlie Trie’s. 

Mr. BARR. Is he the one you received it from? 

Mr. LANDON. No, I got it from Ms. Foung. 

Mr. BARR. What information is available to you that it is Mr. 

Trie’s money? 

Mr. LANDON. Just she said it was. 

Mr. BARR. OK. 

Mr. LANDON. I assume from what I’ve read in the paper that it 

belongs to him. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Nothing that you’ve gathered through these hearings or through the grand jury proceedings would lead you to that 

conclusion. 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BARR. You testified earlier, Mr. Landon, I think it was in response to some questions my colleague, Mr. Waxman, had asked 

149

you that you understood that the checks that you received were 

from overseas. 

Mr. LANDON. Yes sir. 

Mr. BARR. OK. You don’t know from who they were from, 

though? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BARR. OK. But it’s your conclusion now that they were from 

Mr. Trie? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARR. OK. During the course of your discussions with your 

attorney and with the Department of Justice, and I presume that 

you have had discussions concerning immunity; is that correct? 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. BARR. OK. And it’s your understanding that you are immunized and that means safe from prosecution for anything that you 

talk about here; is that correct? 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Are you aware that it is illegal under the laws 

of this country to make political contributions in the name of another person? 

Mr. LANDON. I am aware. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Are you also aware that it is against the laws of 

this country to launder money? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARR. OK. And are you aware that there are, indeed, criminal penalties that attach to violations of those U.S. laws? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Do you know what those penalties are? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BARR. OK. But you—it is your understanding that you are 

here under a grant of immunity so you are not to be prosecuted— you cannot be prosecuted for any of these offenses. 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. As long as I tell you everything I know. 

Mr. BARR. OK. 

Ms. Foung, is that your understanding also that you are here 

under a grant of immunity and that you cannot be prosecuted for 

violation of election laws or money-laundering laws of this country? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. BARR. OK. And are you aware, as Mr. Landon has testified 

that he is aware, that it is indeed against the laws of this country 

to make contributions, political contributions in the name of another person? 

Ms. FOUNG. I do now. But I didn’t know then. 

Mr. BARR. Nobody has made you aware of that up until this 

point today. 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. Not today, until the whole thing that 

happened to me. 

Mr. BARR. Sure. In other words, but you’ve had discussions, I 

presume, with your lawyer and so forth about these various laws 

that you are being immunized from. 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Are either of you familiar with—familiar with the 

gentleman named Antonio Pan? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

150

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Ms. Foung, you previously testified that you and 

Mr. Landon were reimbursed for your two separate February 1996 

contributions to the DNC in the amount of $12,500 each for a total 

of $25,000. And I believe those checks have already been shown. 

Were you, Ms. Foung, aware of before being informed by this committee that Antonio Pan was the source of that $25,000? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BARR. And Mr. Landon? 

Mr. LANDON. No. 

Mr. BARR. OK. And are both of you under the impression that 

it was your brother’s money, Ms. Trie—— Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. Ms. Foung? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. OK. As has been discussed previously before today, 

the committee has learned through the bank records of February 

22, 1996, Antonio Pan, a former Lippo associate and close executive 

to John Huang and your brother, Mr. Trie, opened a savings account at Amerasia Bank in Flushing, NY, with an initial deposit 

of $25,200 cash. If we could see document 78 please? Within minutes of that initial deposit, Mr. Pan withdrew $25,000 

from the savings account and purchased from Amerasia Bank five 

sequentially numbered $5,000 cashier’s checks totaling $25,000. 

Three of the cashier’s checks totaling $15,000 were made payable to you, Ms. Foung, and two totaling $10,000 were made payable to 

you, Mr. Landon. 

If we can see briefly documents 70 to 72 and 75 and 76. And let 

me add this question to both of you, please. Would it surprise you 

if you discovered that the money sent to you was, in fact, your 

brother’s and that Antonio Pan was merely assisting your brother 

in sending the money? 

[Exhibits 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, and 78 follow:]

151


g:\graphics\44833.045
152


g:\graphics\44833.046
153


g:\graphics\44833.047
154


g:\graphics\44833.048
155


g:\graphics\44833.049
156


g:\graphics\44833.050
157

Mr. LANDON. It would be a surprise to me. 

Mr. BARR. Would that surprise you, Ms. Foung? 

Ms. FOUNG. Are you talking about back then or now? 

Mr. BARR. You have to testify truthfully. So it doesn’t matter. 

Would that surprise you now? 

Ms. FOUNG. Back then, his name is not there, so, no, I—it didn’t 

surprise me. But now, yes. Maybe they do business together or 

something, I don’t know. 

Mr. BARR. OK. It’s interesting to note that except for the $25,200 

deposit and the $25,000 withdrawal, from this particular savings 

account established by Mr. Pan on February 22, 1996, no other activity whatsoever has ever occurred in that account, except for the 

minimal payment of interest on the $200 that he left remaining in 

the account, as we can see from documents 115, and 119. 

No other deposits or withdrawals were ever made after the establishment of the account and purchase of the $25,000 in cashier’s 

checks that were sent to you, Ms. Foung and Mr. Landon. Just so 

the American people and you will know, Antonio Pan’s business 

card indicates that he is the executive director of your brother’s 

company, America-Asia Trade Center Inc., as can be seen from document No. 60. 

Another one of Mr. Pan’s business cards indicates that he is the 

chief executive officer of Daihatsu International Trading, Inc., another company established and owned by your brother, Ms. Foung, 

Mr. Trie, as shown in document 61. 

Antonio Pan is relevant to Mr. Wang’s testimony that we’ll hear 

later today, as well as the testimony by the two of you. According 

to Mr. Wang, Mr. Pan accompanied then DNC executive, John 

Huang, to Mr. Wang’s car dealership in California where John 

Huang solicited a $5,000 contribution for the DNC from Mr. Wang 

and a $5,000 contribution from Mr. Wang’s friend David Wu. 

Later that same day, and again a few days later, Antonio Pan 

delivered envelopes of cash totaling $10,000 to reimburse both Mr. 

Wang and Mr. Wu for their contributions. Evidently, your brother 

was a friend of John Huang, as well. He served as a fund-raiser 

for the DNC and in doing so worked with John Huang. In fact, 

your brother wrote a check for $1,775 to John Huang from his 

America-Asia Trade Center checking account held at Riggs Bank. 

Document 53. The committee continues to investigate this check. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that Antonio Pan visited the White House on at least eight occasions between August 

1995 and October 1996, including one occasion with Mr. Charlie 

Trie. Document 67. 

Mr. Chairman, with today’s hearings, we see the introduction of 

another key player in this campaign finance scandal, ex-Lippo executive, Antonio Pan. What is particularly interesting is the two 

friends of the Riadys, both ex-Lippo executives, Antonio Pan and 

John Huang, appear to be working in concert with the President’s 

long-time friend, Mr. Charlie Trie. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[Exhibits 115, 119, 60, 61, 53, and 67 follow:]

158


g:\graphics\44833.051
159


g:\graphics\44833.052
160


g:\graphics\44833.053
161


g:\graphics\44833.054
162


g:\graphics\44833.055
163


g:\graphics\44833.056
164


g:\graphics\44833.057
165


g:\graphics\44833.058
166


g:\graphics\44833.059
167


g:\graphics\44833.060
168


g:\graphics\44833.061
169


g:\graphics\44833.062
170

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

Does anyone on the minority side seek time? If not, anybody on the 

majority side seek time? Mr. Shadegg, or excuse me, Mr. Mica. 

You’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, I know it appears 

that both of you innocently participated in this activity, at least 

that’s what you’ve testified to today; is that correct? 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. And I know you’ve been inconvenienced, both of you. 

You said 4 days or 5 days and other disturbances to you personally. 

That’s correct? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes. 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. LANDON. Yeah. 

Mr. MICA. Did anyone tell you what the penalty would be if you 

did not cooperate, if you did not have immunity, and you, you had 

a problem facing you, a legal problem facing you? 

Ms. FOUNG. I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. 

Mr. MICA. Did anyone tell you the severity—I mean, you are 

clearly, it appears, innocent participants in this. But you were 

granted immunity both to come before this committee, and I understand that you have immunity, I guess, with the Department of 

Justice. 

Mr. LANDON. Correct. 

Mr. SOLLERS. Correct. 

Mr. MICA. OK. But did anyone explain to you that there might 

be some penalty for what you did or your participation? 

Ms. FOUNG. I was told by your investigator over and over I didn’t 

do anything wrong. 

Mr. MICA. No. But again, you were granted immunity. 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. From possible prosecution. I mean, if you did nothing 

wrong, there would be no reason to really get immunity from the 

Department of Justice. They’ve basically provided you cover, and 

this committee has, to come before us, tell us the truth, and you 

will not be prosecuted. But what you did, it’s been explained to you, 

is basically served as a conduit. And your action has been illegal. 

It is illegal. Do you understand this, Mr. Landon? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. What you did was not right. 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. MICA. So you could have been inconvenienced a great deal 

more, I—if. 

Mr. LANDON. That is correct. 

Mr. MICA. If the Department of Justice wanted to——

Mr. LANDON. Without the immunity, that is correct. 

Mr. MICA. That’s my understanding. Now, I heard about the 

money coming back. Now, you have $5,000 in an account or $1,000? 

Mr. LANDON. $12,500 in an account. 

Mr. MICA. You have $12,500. Do you have any money in an account? Did you get any money back? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. MICA. And you called DNC and asked for your money back? 

171

Ms. FOUNG. Well I better make this clear. My brother’s money. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Well, but did you get the money back? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. MICA. You never got anything. 

Ms. FOUNG. Not yet. 

Mr. MICA. And how did you get your money back? Did you place 

a call, too? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir, I didn’t. It was sent to me in, I believe, it 

was June of this year. 

Mr. MICA. Now, the only way you can get in trouble, I guess, is 

if you don’t tell the truth or you change your story. When you 

talked to your brother, he didn’t say anything about not cooperating with anyone, did he? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. He emphasized over and over that he will not 

discuss anything with me, because I’m a potential witness. He don’t 

want to influence me. 

Mr. MICA. But he said to—did he say to cooperate with us? 

Ms. FOUNG. I don’t believe we discussed that. 

Mr. MICA. But did he say anything about you being able to get 

your money back? Is that what prompted you calling DNC, to get 

the money back? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, he didn’t indicate one way or the other. 

Mr. MICA. How did you find out about the ability—how did you 

find out you could get the refund? 

Ms. FOUNG. That was in the paper, isn’t it, that they were refunding anything relating to my brother. 

Mr. MICA. Did you just call DNC and—— Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. MICA. Do you remember who you talked with? 

Ms. FOUNG. Joe Sandler. That was the counsel for DNC. 

Mr. MICA. They put you in touch with DNC counsel? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes, he put me in touch with DNC counsel. That’s 

correct. 

Mr. MICA. I guess you—you two must have a pretty close relationship, because she asked you to participate in this, right? 

Mr. LANDON. Correct. 

Mr. MICA. And did you have any clue of what you were doing 

might be—I mean—— Mr. LANDON. At the time, no, sir. 

Mr. MICA. But I’ve got good friends and I’ve never had anybody 

ask me to write a check for $12,000——

Mr. LANDON. She asked me to write the check. My only concern 

when I did her this favor was make sure I got my money back, to 

cover the check. 

Mr. MICA. Did you ask her any questions about it? 

Mr. LANDON. She——

Mr. MICA. You testified earlier——

Mr. LANDON. She mentioned something, it was something for the 

Democrats. 

Mr. MICA. It was something for the Democrats. 

Mr. LANDON. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. But again, it was your close relationship, she told you 

it was something for the Democrats so you wrote a check for that 

amount? 

172

Mr. LANDON. Correct. 

Mr. MICA. And didn’t question the source? 

Mr. LANDON. Well, my initial was I didn’t know what the DNC 

was until she mentioned that it had something to do with the 

Democrats. 

Mr. MICA. Wait, she testified earlier that she didn’t—she didn’t 

even know what the DNC stood for. 

Mr. LANDON. I’m pretty sure. 

Mr. MICA. I thought I heard her say that. 

Mr. LANDON. Something to do with the Democrats. 

Mr. MICA. And she told you that. I’m afraid my time is expired, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Foung, I wanted to followup briefly on a question that Mr. Shays had asked. When he asked you whether you 

were going to request your $1,000 back that was sent to Senator 

Daschle, you said you weren’t; is that correct? There is $1,000 that 

was sent to Senator Daschle from you. You said you weren’t going to request that $1,000 back. 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. SOUDER. That pretty strongly suggests that you earlier answered that you didn’t recollect and that the reason you didn’t 

want to say that you flat out didn’t know about the contribution 

is you didn’t want to discover later that, in fact, you did know; is 

that not true? In other words, when he asked you did you know 

about the $1,000 that was sent to Senator Daschle, you said to the 

best of your recollection, you don’t remember. 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. SOUDER. Do you write a lot of $1,000 checks? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. My house payment is over $1,000 every month. 

Mr. SOUDER. But that’s—do you write a lot of $1,000 checks that 

aren’t repetitive? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. SOUDER. In other words, my house payment check is over a $1,000, too, and occasionally you have a major thing. But a $1,000 

check pretty likely you would remember it; isn’t that true? 

Ms. FOUNG. Exactly. 

Mr. SOUDER. So most likely, even though you said to the best of 

your recollection, especially since that you aren’t asking for rebuttal, it means you almost are 100 percent certain that you didn’t 

write that check. It would just be a fluke of memory that if somebody came back to you, because you really don’t remember that 

check. 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. SOUDER. And so most likely it was sent by somebody else on 

your behalf using your name, and that’s why you aren’t asking for 

the refund. 

Ms. FOUNG. I’m sorry. I didn’t understand that part. 

Mr. SOUDER. Most likely that check was sent by someone else 

using your name, and that’s why you don’t—aren’t asking for a refund, and that’s why you don’t remember. 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Your brother. 

173

Mr. COX. I’m sorry, would you yield for just a moment? 

Mr. SOUDER. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. COX. For the record, my understanding of the witness testi- mony to Mr. Shays was there was two, $1,000 checks to Mr. 

Daschle written on the same day in the witness’ name. And I yield 

back. Thank you. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I understand that you earlier said that 

you felt your brother’s influence was overestimated. Had he spoken 

to you or others in the past about any of his opinions on China policy? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. SOUDER. You’ve never had a discussion about those issues 

anywhere in family discussions over the years? Do you know if he 

has been active in any other organizations? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. SOUDER. To your knowledge, not only about American politics, but do you have any information about how he felt about 

China? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. SOUDER. The—— Ms. FOUNG. Let me correct that. We grew up in Taiwan. We were 

brought up to believe Red China is a different country, is our 

enemy. But as I grow up, it’s not as important to me anymore. 

They’re old China. 

Mr. SOUDER. Does it surprise you that your brother would have first raised, which has been reported, fairly extensively $460,000 in 

checks for the Presidential campaign and then followed that with 

a letter to the President urging restraint in how they handled 

the—when Mainland China threatened, at least—at least blustered 

a threat at Taiwan, and that he would have been interested in trying to influence that policy in the United States? 

Ms. FOUNG. For the best interest of the United States, the experience that we learned from China—learned from Vietnam war and 

Korean war, wouldn’t that be the best interest of the United States 

to not get involved with the war or something like that? And he 

is citizen of the United States. He and me both love this country 

very much. I’m sure his way of thinking is maybe most of the 

Americans’ here thinking too. So how come when he say something 

like that, it’s influencing policy. If it’s American people so nice to 

me say the same thing, it’s not influencing policy. So are we being 

separated from—just because we’re Asian-American? 

Mr. SOUDER. He absolutely has a right to speak. And all Americans have the right to speak. But when you bring checks in for 

$460,000, at the time you’re influencing policy, and you raise that 

money from overseas sources, it’s a little bit different. That’s what 

we’re trying to get to. 

Ms. FOUNG. Right. I understand. 

Mr. SOUDER. It’s not about Asian-Americans. In fact, I want to 

say this for the record. I think Asian-Americans have been used by 

this administration. We don’t see other continents and people from 

other types of nations being drug through this like this. AsianAmericans like you were used to launder money. And it’s a discredit to this administration the way they’ve abused the AsianAmericans. And with that, I yield back. 

174

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

Mr. Shadegg. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by establishing that, first of all, when you wrote this check, you wrote 

two checks, one for $12,500, and later, one for $10,000; is that 

right? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. SHADEGG. And as I understood your earlier testimony, when you wrote the $12,500 check, you did not have $12,500 in your account; is that right? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. SHADEGG. And I guess you weren’t clear as to when you wrote the $10,000 check as to if you had money in your account at 

that time. You might or might not have. 

Ms. FOUNG. I might or might not have. 

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Not sure. Mr. Landon, when you wrote the $12,500 check, as I understand it, you did not have $12,500 in your 

account. 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I want to ask another question of you, ma’am. As 

I understand it, you did not get paid any money for doing this. 

Your brother did not offer you any money for doing this, did he? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, my brother does give me money periodically, you 

know, being gifts or being just help me out and things like that. 

Mr. SHADEGG. So he does make gifts to you or sometimes gives 

you money. 

Ms. FOUNG. To my kids or, yes. He’s a very generous person. 

Mr. SHADEGG. How much has he given you over time? 

Ms. FOUNG. Thousand, a few hundred, and—I didn’t keep track 

of it. Or if I need, I ask him to give the amount he can afford. 

Mr. SHADEGG. When he asked you to write this $12,500 check to 

an entity you didn’t know the name of, did you have and—and 

didn’t know what it was, did you have a belief or understanding 

that if he did that, he might later make a gift to you or to your 

children? 

Ms. FOUNG. I didn’t expect anything. 

Mr. SHADEGG. You didn’t expect anything. 

Ms. FOUNG. Huh-uh. 

Mr. SHADEGG. You were doing this because you care about your 

brother and he’s family and this was a favor to him. 

Ms. FOUNG. It was something small. I have no financial loss. 

Why not? If I knew it was wrong, I’m sure I wouldn’t do it. He 

wouldn’t ask me. That’s the extent of what I believe in. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I know you’re here under a grant of immunity and 

you’ve been protected and I don’t—and I appreciate you coming forward, as our colleagues on the other side have expressed. 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I have to tell you that I’m a little concerned that 

you’re caught up in a web of serious conduct here, which I think 

goes to the integrity of this Government. If we corrupt the political 

process in this country, people won’t have faith in the Government, 

and I think it has serious consequences. 

You say it wasn’t anything wrong, it was a little thing. For most 

of us—you described yourself as a blue collar worker. For most of 

175

us, writing a $12,500 check, later writing a $10,000 check, is not 

a little thing. It would not be a little thing particularly to a group 

we had never heard of. So I am having some trouble. 

I believe you. I believe the speech you made earlier about you are 

an honest person, but there are other people out there in America 

who may get used, next year or today, like it appears you got used; 

and quite frankly, what is evident here, whether you like it or not, 

is that your brother corrupted the American political process. And 

that does serious damage. 

And when you say, well, there was nothing wrong, it was a little 

thing, I guess I have to ask you, did it occur to you that it might 

not be a good idea to write a check for $12,500 to an organization 

you didn’t know what it was when you didn’t have $12,500 in your 

bank? 

Ms. FOUNG. I guess there would be several answers to your question. It’s a long question. When I said—I said at the time when I 

did it, it was a small thing to me because there is no financial impact to me. I didn’t know it was wrong. I thought I was simply putting a check in for him because of time, and what was I—and I 

think I repeated over and over, if I knew it was wrong, it wouldn’t 

have happened. I wouldn’t be sitting here. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Let me go to that, because my time is beginning 

to run out here. 

Most of us know that it is not right to write a check out of our 

account for an amount we don’t have in the account. And so most 

of us would have been very concerned about—that’s called kiting 

checks. It is improper. 

I am a little stunned that you would sit here and say, well, I wrote a check for $12,500 knowing I didn’t have it in my account. 

I am a little worried about that. And if other people across America 

are going to get asked to do it, I hope that, as a result of this hearing, they will ask themselves, even if it is their brother, gee, I don’t 

think I ought to write a check for $200 that isn’t in my account, much less $12,500 that isn’t in my account. Why don’t you just 

write the check? 

And I think it should have been a clue to you, and I hope is a 

clue to future Americans, that if somebody asks them to write a 

check, they are really making a statement that I think is fundamentally dishonest. When I send a check to somebody, I am 

claiming that’s my check; and to do that to the tune of $12,500, 

when I don’t have that in my bank, I ought to be asking a few 

questions. 

You know, what is this organization? You would have us believe, 

for example, that you didn’t really care whether this group was nuclear terrorists. Your brother asked you and you did it, even though 

the check itself was a crime; and I just am concerned about that, 

and I hope other Americans will understand that there are consequences to their conduct, and that money laundering in this 

country, whether it is for political purposes or otherwise, is dangerous. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. Does anyone on 

the minority have any desire for time? 

If not, who seeks time on the majority side? 

176

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Does Mr. McHugh? Mr. Pappas. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Yes. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Pappas. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I would like to 

get back to something we spoke about earlier. 

At the time, Mr. Landon, you received the request by Ms. Foung to make this, I guess it was a $12,500 check, you said that she 

asked you to make a check out for, I guess it was the DNC, and 

you obliged. 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Did you ask—would you tell me again what—did 

you ask her any questions? Did you ask her to elaborate? 

Mr. LANDON. Well, when I first got the—saw the DNC, I didn’t 

know what it was. And she says it was coming from something 

overseas—someone overseas was requesting it, and it was to be 

sent to Washington, DC. 

Mr. PAPPAS. And did you know—I guess you assumed that you 

would be reimbursed? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PAPPAS. And did you know within what timeframe you would 

be reimbursed? 

Mr. LANDON. I believe she told me it was a couple of days. 

Mr. PAPPAS. OK. And were you made aware that her brother was 

in any way involved in this, at the time? 

Mr. LANDON. At the time, I am not sure she specifically said her 

brother. I think I might have assumed it was her brother because 

that was the only one she had ever mentioned overseas. 

Mr. PAPPAS. OK. 

Ms. Foung, I guess the same question for you—and these may 

have been questions you probably have been asked many times: It 

was your brother who was the one that made the request that you 

write this initial $12,500 check? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. PAPPAS. And at the same time, did he ask that you have Mr. 

Landon do the same? 

Ms. FOUNG. I have to say yes, because otherwise I have no other 

reason. 

Mr. PAPPAS. OK. And did you ask him why? 

Ms. FOUNG. I might have. 

Mr. PAPPAS. OK. Do you remember if he had told you, or did 

he—in response to a question that you asked him, did he tell you 

why? 

Ms. FOUNG. He might have told me something that I—it just 

didn’t mean anything to me. I didn’t understand the whole thing. 

Mr. PAPPAS. And do you remember if your brother specifically 

gave a reason, even if you did not ask him a question, why he was 

asking you to do this? 

Ms. FOUNG. I honestly didn’t pay attention. I really didn’t at the 

time. I didn’t pay attention. 

Mr. PAPPAS. And assuming—I think that’s what you said earlier, 

that you did not believe, or you weren’t sure whether you had that 

amount to cover that check, did you know within what timeframe 

you would receive a reimbursement? 

177

Ms. FOUNG. My brother has never cheated me with money, and 

if I write a check that has—it bounces, it doesn’t do him any good, 

it doesn’t do me any good. 

Mr. PAPPAS. So you assumed, based upon your experience with 

your brother previously, that that would be something that would 

be resolved quickly? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. PAPPAS. OK. Did you wonder when the money appeared—

evidently it was wired into your account. Did you wonder where it 

came from? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Can you tell me why you didn’t wonder? 

Ms. FOUNG. Why should I wonder? My concern is that the check 

was covered. 

Mr. PAPPAS. So at the time you were not specifically concerned 

where that money may have been wired from or from whom? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. PAPPAS. OK. And shifting gears a bit, you mentioned that 

you were aware that your brother had a relationship with the 

President in some way. 

Ms. FOUNG. I didn’t say ‘‘relationship.’’ Just what——

Mr. PAPPAS. Friendship, acquaintanceship, whatever. I am not 

trying to put words in your mouth, but some sort of contact. 

Ms. FOUNG. I know my brother knew Mr. Clinton ever since—

back in Little Rock. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Right. And are you aware of whether your brother 

had any acquaintanceship or friendship or working relationship 

with any other public figure or—any political or public figure? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not at all. 

Mr. PAPPAS. OK. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

Does anyone else seek time? 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Cox. 

Or Mr. McHugh, did you seek time? 

Mr. MCHUGH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. Let me go to Mr. McHugh first, and then I will 

could come back to you. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I was—under what I assume is the protocol of this 

committee, I was going to yield to Mr. Cox. 

Mr. COX. I think, as it happens, we have reached the end of the 

first round, so it would be the same result in either case. 

Mr. BURTON. OK. Who seeks time? Mr. Cox. 

Mr. COX. I will seek time. Thank you. 

Ms. Foung, you said earlier that you contacted the Democratic 

National Committee because you wanted your money back. And 

what did you propose to do with the money if they gave it back to 

you? 

Ms. FOUNG. That would be up to my brother to decide. 

Mr. COX. And how would you work that out with your brother? 

Ms. FOUNG. I don’t know. I never had a problem with getting in 

touch with him in the past. 

Mr. COX. It is pretty easy to get in touch with him? 

178

Ms. FOUNG. I wouldn’t say ‘‘easy.’’ If there was some emergency, 

I must talk to him, I usually just ask my family member if my 

brother calls, have him give me a call. 

Mr. COX. Like the time you asked your mother—— Ms. FOUNG. Right. 

Mr. COX [continuing]. ‘‘Have him call me,’’ and he called you 

right back? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. COX. So you get in touch with him, you discuss with him, ‘‘I got the money back from the DNC; what do you want me to do 

with it?’’ Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. COX. And since you have said it is not your money, would 

you probably want to give it back to him? 

Ms. FOUNG. It is up to him to decide. 

Mr. COX. Maybe he will make a gift of it to you, maybe not? 

Ms. FOUNG. It is up to him. 

Mr. COX. I am just trying to—what are the options? It is up to 

him. His choice is, let you keep it, have you send it to him; any 

other options that you can think of? 

Ms. FOUNG. I don’t know. I haven’t thought about it. 

Mr. COX. OK. So those are pretty much the main options then, 

either you keep it or you send it back to him. 

If you send it back him, how might you do that? 

Ms. FOUNG. I am sorry? 

Mr. COX. If he said, I want the money back, how would you send 

it to him? 

Ms. FOUNG. I don’t know. I am sure he will let me know how. 

Mr. COX. Give you some specific instructions on how to wire it 

or something? 

Ms. FOUNG. Probably, yes. 

Mr. COX. OK. Now, since apparently you can get in touch with 

your brother like this, will you undertake to help this committee 

get in touch with your brother? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes, I did. I tried to get in touch with him is because 

of doing something for this committee. 

Mr. COX. On a continuing basis, in the future, will you help us 

to get in touch with him? 

Ms. FOUNG. That, I don’t know. 

Mr. COX. You don’t know whether you will help? Will you try to 

help? 

Ms. FOUNG. I have very bad experience with this whole thing, so 

I really—it is to be determined. 

Mr. COX. Well, we have had a bad experience, as well. We are 

trying to locate a man who has fled to the People’s Republic of 

China for the purpose of avoiding the process of this committee. 

And it is not just the House of Representatives, it is not just this 

committee; it is also the U.S. Senate and the Department of Justice, and the FBI. So you would be helping your Government if you 

would—because we have given you immunity from prosecution by 

your Government, if you would assist us in locating the man who 

is the reason you are here today, who unwittingly used you to launder money. 

So do you think you might be willing to help us? 

179

Ms. FOUNG. I have done everything I could so far. 

Mr. COX. I am sorry? 

Ms. FOUNG. I have done everything I could to be cooperative as 

I could. 

Mr. COX. And as you can tell from the comments of the committee, we are appreciative. But what we are particularly interested in—and this is a matter between our two governments right 

now, between the United States Government and the Government 

of the People’s Republic of China—is getting your brother to return 

to the United States. And we need to get in touch with him for that 

purpose. 

We have been unable to get in touch with him. Do you think you 

could put us in touch with your brother? 

Ms. FOUNG. Like I said, I tried already. I already told him exactly what your investigator told me, that he is not what you guys 

are really looking for and they wanted to talk to him anywhere, 

like anywhere outside the country, outside the United States; and 

I repeat that to him. 

And he said—I remember he said something about, yes, I tried— we tried over and over, wanted to talk to him, but it hasn’t been 

successful. So I don’t know what the true story is. 

Mr. COX. Well, I do hope that you will. Because this committee 

and this Government has been very generous to you in being sure 

that you will not be prosecuted in return for your cooperation, I 

hope you will, in fact, provide cooperation with us on this very important matter. 

In March 1996, you attended this event with the President and 

talked to the President there, as we have covered here. And you 

also at that event talked to John Huang; is that right? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. COX. And you talked to John Huang on the telephone before 

that event; is that right? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. COX. And you talked to John Huang on the phone after that 

event; is that right? 

Ms. FOUNG. I believe so. 

Mr. COX. In connection with all of this, did you learn that your 

brother had introduced Wang Jun, who is the head of one of the 

largest parts of the Chinese—the People’s Republic of China’s military-industrial complex, to the President, at a White House coffee 

just a month before? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. COX. My time has expired. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Mica. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I seek time. 

Mr. BURTON. Do you seek time? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. When the second round comes up. 

Mr. BURTON. We will give you time right now, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I wasn’t going to ask you any questions but after 

all this series of questions, I just want to clear some things up for 

the record. 

Ms. Foung, when you did this for your brother, you did not know 

that you were committing any kind of crime; is that correct? 

180

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. I also didn’t cover anything up. Everything was very clear, what I had done. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. But now looking at it in retrospect, 

having gone through the grand jury, spoken to your lawyer, you 

understand that you probably did do something wrong. And I take 

it that if you had it to do all over again, you wouldn’t do this, is 

that right, that is, the writing of the check? Is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. 

Mr. Landon, you are a Navy veteran; is that correct? 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You don’t have a criminal record? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Never been in any trouble with the law? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so—and when you did this, you didn’t even 

know what the DNC was; did you? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so did you know that you were possibly violating the law when this took place? 

Mr. LANDON. Not at the time, but I found out real quick since 

then. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And I take it that if you had to do this again you 

wouldn’t do it based upon the knowledge that you have today; is 

that correct? 

Mr. LANDON. That’s very correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, you are retired from the Navy? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Honorable discharge? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You served your country? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, let me ask you this, Ms. Foung: There have 

been a number of questions asked with regard to your brother and 

your knowledge of all his political goings on. I take it that you 

didn’t have a lot of knowledge about what he did politically; is that 

correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So did you—so you didn’t have regular discussions about what his involvement was with the Democratic party 

or President Clinton or anything of that nature; is that right? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. I don’t have anything else. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

I think we have one more questioner, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Ms. Foung, I have previously referred to you as rather 

innocent in this process, and now I am reviewing some of the documentation that we have received at this hearing, but I find that 

on—in June 1995, you, in fact, gave $1,000 to—well, $2,000 on that 

date to this—a lot of people supporting Tom Daschle; is that correct? 

I will put up exhibit 110. 

[Exhibit 110 follows:]

181


g:\graphics\44833.063
182

Ms. FOUNG. This one is the first time I have seen it. 

Mr. MICA. So back in 1995, June 1995, you were giving $2,000 

in this—into a campaign. You got that money from your brother, 

too? 

Mr. SOLLERS. Congressman, she has already testified that she 

did not recall giving that money. It has already been made clear 

on the record. 

Mr. MICA. Now, this Dai Lin Outlaw; that’s your sister? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. MICA. And your brother-in-law is Jim Outlaw. Did you talk 

to them? They both gave the money on the same day. Did you ever 

talk to your brother—your sister or brother-in-law about giving 

money back in 1995? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, never talked about it at all. 

Mr. MICA. Have you ever talked to your brother or sister-in-law? 

Ms. FOUNG. My sister and brother-in-law. 

Mr. MICA. Your sister and brother-in-law, you have never talked 

to them about it? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. MICA. What about—your mother gave $2,000 on the same 

day? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. MICA. And you have never discussed with your mother the 

giving of any contribution? 

So according to the records we have, the whole family gave on 

that day, just coincidentally. 

Then on—the next experience is February 1996, we have the 

$12,500, which you, Mr. Landon, you sent $12,500 in February the 

19th and you sent $12,500 the 19th of February; both the same 

date; is that correct? 

Mr. LANDON. I believe that date is correct. 

Mr. MICA. Is that correct, Ms. Foung; $12,500 was your first——

Ms. FOUNG. I don’t remember. 

Mr. MICA. This was your second experience? This is a year later. 

You didn’t remember the first one. 

Ms. FOUNG. I remember, according to the record, it was the day 

after. 

Mr. MICA. So we go back to June 1995, and we have a record of 

contributions that suddenly appear under each of the family member’s name; February. Then we get to August 1996, a little over a 

year ago, the $10,000. And you do recall that, Ms. Foung; is that 

correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. So it is sort of a trail of doing this over and over again 

and you never had a question about it? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. There was only two times. 

Mr. MICA. Now. We all sympathize with your inconvenience, but 

the law—and I asked for a copy of it—here says that any person 

who knowingly or willfully violates—commits a violation of any 

provision of this act, which involves making, receiving, or reporting 

any contribution or expenditure aggregating $2,000 or more during 

a calendar year, shall be fined and imprisoned for not more than 

1 year or both, and the amount of the fine shall not exceed $25,000 

183

or 300 percent of any contribution or expenditure involved in such 

violation. 

That could be a lot more inconvenience than 4 or 5 days; couldn’t 

it? 

Ms. FOUNG. There is a word ‘‘intentionally.’’ Mr. MICA. You don’t have to answer, because you didn’t—you 

didn’t violate it to the degree. I mean, you only did $12,500; is that 

right? 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. MICA. Well, OK. The other assumption is that there is nothing new here today. So you testified and you testified that no one 

contacted you prior to our committee contacting you; is that correct? 

Ms. FOUNG. That’s correct. 

Mr. MICA. That’s correct? 

Mr. LANDON. As far as? 

Mr. MICA. Anything about this matter, the FBI, the Department 

of Justice. 

Mr. LANDON. A newspaper reporter. 

Mr. MICA. Oh, a newspaper reporter got to you first? 

Mr. LANDON. It was back in February of—February of this year. 

Mr. MICA. Tell me which one just for the heck of it. Do you remember? 

Mr. LANDON. It was a Washington paper. I don’t know Post, 

Times or what it was. 

Mr. MICA. All right. We want to give the Times full credit. They 

are beat up lately. 

Now, the first contact that took place with you from any official 

body was this committee, correct? Is that correct? On this matter? 

The first contact with you from any official Government body was 

this committee; is that correct? 

Mr. LANDON. Well, the Department of Justice got in touch with 

me, too. 

Mr. MICA. But no, who got to you first? Do you remember when? 

Mr. LANDON. When did you guys? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes, the investigator. 

Mr. MICA. When? 

Mr. LANDON. Sometime in September, I believe. 

Ms. FOUNG. I am sure your record will—— Mr. MICA. September of this year? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. Your record should have shown the date. They 

came to my house. 

Mr. MICA. OK. We will just say 2 or 3 months ago. 

Has anyone from the Senate investigations, Senate committee, 

contacted you? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Have they contacted you? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. MICA. OK. And when did the FBI or the Department of Justice contact you? Can you remember? A month ago or 2 months 

ago? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, they didn’t. 

Mr. MICA. They have not contacted you? 

Ms. FOUNG. No, except we know we went to the grand jury. 

184

Mr. MICA. When you were called into the grand jury? 

Ms. FOUNG. Uh-huh. 

Mr. MICA. The same with you? 

Mr. LANDON. Correct. 

Mr. MICA. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And I guess we have one last questioner, Mr. Barr. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Foung, who do you work for? You talked about your job but 

I don’t recall—— Mr. BURTON. We agreed to keep the witnesses’ employment confidential. 

Mr. BARR. OK. What is the nature of your duties, without disclosing who you work for? What is the nature of your employment 

duties? 

Ms. FOUNG. It is real complicated. We do mechanical maintenance work. 

Mr. BARR. I am sorry, what? 

Ms. FOUNG. Mechanical or maintenance or operator. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Have you worked for an insurance company or 

companies in the past? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. OK. USF&G? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. Any others? 

Ms. FOUNG. St. Paul, Aetna. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Approximately how many years total were you in 

the insurance business? 

Ms. FOUNG. Approximately 8 years. 

Mr. BARR. OK. If we could have up the Birthday Victory Fund check. Is that August 15th, 1996, for $10,000, the one, Ms. Foung, 

that is noted at the bottom, ‘‘Federal.’’ You testified, I think earlier 

today, and I believe also in your deposition, that the word ‘‘Federal’’ was written in the lower left-hand corner because your brother had asked you to put that there? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. Did he offer any explanation at all about what that 

meant? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BARR. Did you ask him? 

Ms. FOUNG. No. 

Mr. BARR. Is your brother a fairly particular type person? In 

other words, if he says something, is there usually a reason for 

what he says? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. OK. So you figured—you would agree with me that 

there was a reason why he asked you to put ‘‘Federal’’ on the check 

there? He didn’t just pull that name out of the air? 

Ms. FOUNG. Yes, I agree with you. 

Mr. BARR. OK. The check is made out to the Birthday Victory 

Fund. Whose birthday is that? 

Ms. FOUNG. I believe he mentioned that something was to Mister—the President’s birthday. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Did you ask him about that at the time? 

185

Ms. FOUNG. About what? 

Mr. BARR. Did you say, Charlie, whose birthday am I giving this 

to, or something like that? 

Ms. FOUNG. I probably did. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Why did you ask him about that and not the rest 

of the information on the check? You don’t know? 

Ms. FOUNG. Birthday, that’s interesting—that’s something interesting me more than politics. 

Mr. BARR. Well, I don’t know that birthday means politics to 

most of us. But asking you to put the word ‘‘Federal,’’ which could 

relate to the Federal Government, that didn’t interest you? 

Ms. FOUNG. Not really. I thought it was a part of a business. 

Mr. BARR. What business is that? 

Ms. FOUNG. His business. 

Mr. BARR. Well, what business? 

Ms. FOUNG. A lot of corporations or businesses have a lobbyist, 

contributions, things like that; is that right? I mean, that’s something I don’t understand. So if it is something I don’t understand, 

I don’t ask. 

Mr. BARR. A lot of us don’t. That is why we are trying to sort 

of be able to ask him directly. 

Ms. FOUNG. I am not talking about him. I am talking about corporation in this country in general. 

Mr. BARR. I am talking about him. I am talking about this check 

and this incident. 

Ms. FOUNG. Until this moment, I still don’t know what that ‘‘Federal’’ means. Maybe you can explain it to me? 

Mr. BARR. I could explain to you but I doubt that our colleagues 

on the other side would be interested. 

What I am interested in is what you know about the check, what 

you knew about it at the time and what he intended, and we have 

covered that. 

Mr. Landon, if I could, refer back to another document, and I 

apologize—I don’t recall whether we looked at this earlier, but you, 

I believe, testified that you don’t know Mr. Huang; is that correct? 

Mr. LANDON. That’s correct. 

Mr. BARR. Prior to all of this happening, did you ever—had you 

ever heard his name before? 

Mr. LANDON. No, sir. 

Mr. BARR. Yet you are now aware that this document, which details the check to you—from you coming in for the dinner was attributed to Mr. Huang’s account, as it were? 

Mr. LANDON. I know it was given to the DNC. 

Mr. BARR. I am sorry? 

Mr. LANDON. I know it was wrote for the DNC. 

Mr. BARR. Right. Do you see there where Mr. Huang’s name appears on the bottom left? 

Mr. LANDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARR. OK. Does it at this point bother you that you have apparently been, to some extent, used by somebody that you don’t 

even know? 

Mr. LANDON. If you mean do I wish I hadn’t wrote the check, 

that’s correct. 

Mr. BARR. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

186

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

I want to conclude this part of our hearing today, by thanking 

Mr. Landon and Ms. Foung. I know you had a couple of uncomfortable moments. I apologize for that, but we really appreciate your 

cooperation. And Mr. Sollers, we appreciate your being here. We 

will stand in recess until 3 p.m., so we can get a bite to eat. 

[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene 

at 3 p.m., this same day.] 

Mr. BURTON. The committee will reconvene. Would the officers 

shut the doors, please? 

We are now ready for our second panel that consists of Mr. David 

Wang. Mr. Wang, please approach the table, please. 

Mr. Wang, would you raise your right hand? 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. BURTON. On behalf of our committee, Mr. Wang, we welcome 

you here today. We understand that you may be in need of an interpreter and one has been provided for you. And I ask that all 

Members who are going to be questioning the witness be as patient 

as they can because there will be a translation, in many cases, necessary. 

I now recognize the committee’s chief counsel, Mr. Bennett, for 

30 minutes. 

[The deposition of David Wang follows:]

EXECUTIVE SESSION

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC. 

DEPOSITION OF: DAVID WANG 

MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1997

The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office 

Building, commencing at 1:05 p.m. 

Appearances: 

Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Richard D. 

Bennett, chief counsel; James C. Wilson, senior investigative counsel; Barbara Comstock, chief investigative counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; Christopher Lu, minority counsel; Michael T. Yang, minority counsel; Andrew 

Su, staff assistant; Michael J. Raphael, minority counsel, Phil Schiliro, minority 

staff director; Agnieszka Fryszman, minority staff; Phil Barnett, minority staff. 

Also Present: Paul N. Herbert, criminal investigator, Department of the Treasury. 

Interpreter for the Witness: Herman Liang. 

For DAVID WANG: 

MICHAEL CARVIN, ESQ. 

R. TED CRUZ, ESQ. 

Cooper & Carvin 

Suite 401

2000 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006

For DAVID WANG: 

MARK T. FLEWELLING 

Walker, Wright, Tyler & Ward, LLP 

Suite 900

626 Wilshire Boulevard 

Los Angeles, California 90017–3209

187

THEREUPON, DAVID WANG, a witness, was called for examination by counsel, 

and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 

Mr. BENNETT. Good afternoon, Mr. Wang. I’m Dick Bennett, chief counsel for the 

Government Reform and Oversight Committee. On behalf of all of the members of 

the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, I want to thank you for appearing 

here today. The record should reflect that you have a translator who has been provided by the committee seated to your right and if you would identify yourself 

please, sir. 

The INTERPRETER. Herman Liang. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Liang is here to translate any questions which you don’t understand or translate your answers. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Do you have a working understanding of the English language so 

you believe you understand what I have said thus far? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Also, we should note that you are appearing here pursuant to an 

immunity order signed by Judge Johnson of the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia, a copy of which has been provided to your counsel, Mr. Carvin. 

Is that correct, Mr. Carvin? 

Mr. CARVIN. Yes, that’s right. 

Mr. BENNETT. This proceeding is known as a deposition, Mr. Wang. The person 

transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and notary public. You have been 

placed under oath. 

I would like to note for the record those who are present at the beginning of the 

deposition. As I said, I am Dick Bennett, chief counsel for the committee. To my 

right is Jim Wilson, chief assistant Majority counsel for the committee. I am accompanied here today by Mr. Paul Herbert, who is a criminal investigator with the Department of the Treasury and I believe you have met Mr. Herbert before, correct? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Also, Mr. Ken Ballen and Mr. Chris Lu are Minority counsel for 

the committee, and they are accompanied by, and perhaps I should make sure I 

have the names correctly. 

Mr. BALLEN. Michael Yang, Andrew Su, and Michael Raphael. 

Mr. BENNETT. For the record, Mr. Wang, you are represented here today by? 

Mr. CARVIN. Michael Carvin, Cooper & Carvin, with my associate Ted Cruz. And 

Mark Flewelling, who is Los Angeles counsel. 

Mr. BENNETT. I would advise you, first of all, Mr. Wang, that although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you have been 

placed under oath, your testimony here today has the same force and effect as if 

you were testifying before the committee or in a courtroom. Do you understand 

that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And for the record, as a courtesy to Congressman Waxman, Congressman Waxman of California has arrived, Congressman, it is nice to see you, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. BENNETT. In a minute, Congressman, I’ll defer to you, if you have any questions. 

But in advising the witness in terms of the procedures to be followed, if I ask you 

or anyone asks you any questions about conversations you have had in the past and 

you are unable to recall the exact words used in that conversation, you may state 

that you are unable to recall those exact words and then you may give the gist or 

substance of any such conversation to the best of your recollection. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. If you recall only part of a conversation or only part of an event, 

please give me your best recollection of those events or parts of conversations that 

you recall. 

If I ask you whether you have any information about a particular subject and you 

have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding that subject or 

have seen correspondence or documentation about that subject, please tell me that 

you do not have such information and indicate the source from which you derive 

such knowledge. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

Mr. BENNETT. Before we begin the questioning, I want to give you some background about the investigation and your appearance here. Pursuant to its authority 

under House Rules X and XI of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

188

Government Reform and Oversight is engaged in a wide-ranging review of possible 

political fund-raising improprieties and possible violations of law. 

Pages 2 through 4 of the House Report 105–139 summarizes the investigation as 

of June 19, 1997, and describe new matters which have arisen in the course of the 

investigation. Also, pages 4 through 11 of the report explain the background of the 

investigation. All questions relating either directly or indirectly to these issues, or 

questions which have the tendency to make the existence of any pertinent fact more 

or less probable than it would be without the evidence, are proper. 

Mr. Liang, I think in an abundance of caution, if you will translate that for Mr. 

Wang as well, because that was somewhat involved. 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. The committee has been granted specific authorization to conduct 

this deposition pursuant to House Resolution 167 which passed the full House on 

June 20, 1997. Committee Rule 20 outlines the ground rules for the deposition. 

Majority and Minority committee counsels will ask you questions regarding the 

subject matter of the investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel has finished, which means after I ask questions, then Mr. Ballen or Mr. 

Lu will ask questions. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. As a matter of courtesy to a Member of Congress, Congressman 

Waxman in a few minutes will be accorded the opportunity to ask questions initially, or Congressman Waxman at any time may interject questions that he has. 

Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. After the Minority counsel has completed questioning you, a new 

round of questioning might begin. As I said, Members of Congress who wish to ask 

questions will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask their questions. When 

they are finished, we may continue to ask questions. 

Pursuant to the committee’s rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present 

to advise you of your rights being here today. Any objection raised during the course 

of the deposition shall be stated for the record. So I note your attorneys are here, 

and if your attorneys object or instruct you not to answer, then you are not to answer. Absent your attorney objecting or instructing you not to answer, you should 

answer the question. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. If the witness is instructed not to answer a question or otherwise 

refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine 

whether your attorney’s objection was proper. If Majority and Minority counsels 

agree that a question is proper, the witness will be asked to answer the question. 

If an objection is not withdrawn, the Chairman or a Member designated by the 

Chairman, in this case Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana, may decide whether 

the objection is proper. 

Again, Mr. Liang, in an abundance of caution, if you would translate that again 

to make sure Mr. Wang understands. 

Mr. Wang, continuing, this deposition is considered as taken in executive session 

of the committee, which means it may not be made public without the consent of 

the committee pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule XI. You are asked to abide 

by the rules of the House and not discuss with anyone other than your attorney this 

deposition and the issues and questions raised during this proceeding. 

Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed and you have 

been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes 

to the Chairman. The transcript will be available for your review at the committee 

office. The committee staff may make any typographical and technical changes requested by you. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments 

to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting those changes and a statement of your reasons for each proposed change. 

A letter requesting substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments must be signed by you. Any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, 

or amendments shall be included in an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon 

your signing of the transcript. 

In light of the fact that you have been called as a witness before the full committee this Thursday, October 9, I have indicated to your counsel that a daily copy 

will be provided by tomorrow to your attorney for you to have an opportunity to review that. 

Do you understand what I have said? Again, Mr. Liang, if you could translate. 

The INTERPRETER. By Thursday you will provide? 

189

Mr. BENNETT. By the end of the day tomorrow, he will be provided a copy of his 

testimony transcript because he will be testifying as a witness on Thursday. Do you 

understand what I said, Mr. Wang? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Wang, do you understand everything we’ve gone over so far? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. CARVIN. Let me if I may just ask for the record, are you following, Mr. Wang? 

Are there any problems that you have with the translation or are you understanding everything he says? 

The WITNESS. In fact, there are something here, some words. 

Mr. CARVIN. In English? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. CARVIN. But you are following everything he said carefully? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. CARVIN. Thank you. 

Mr. BENNETT. And if at any time you don’t understand, please just raise your 

hand and indicate. You don’t have any questions about anything we have gone over 

so far? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just a few other housekeeping matters. I will be asking you questions concerning the subject matter of this investigation. If you don’t understand a 

question, please say so and I will repeat it or rephrase it. 

As I said, the reporter will be taking down everything we say and he will make 

a written record of the deposition. Therefore, you must give verbal answers. A mere 

nod of the head or a gesture—you have to give an answer so the court reporter understands. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. As I said, your testimony is being taken under oath as if you were 

in court. If you answer a question, it will be assumed that you understood the question and the answer was intended to be responsive. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Are you here voluntarily or here as a result of a subpoena? I think 

the record should reflect that you have a subpoena to appear before the committee 

for a hearing on Thursday. I don’t believe you are here pursuant to a subpoena for 

the deposition, however. Is that correct, Mr. Carvin? 

Mr. CARVIN. There was a Notice of Deposition, but after the immunity order was 

entered, we are here cooperating voluntarily. 

Mr. BENNETT. I thank you for that. 

As a courtesy to Congressman Waxman, who is present, I shall defer questioning 

to Congressman Waxman at this time. 

Congressman, if you have any questions. 

For the record, Mr. Ballen, designated Minority counsel. 

Mr. BALLEN. If we could have on the record the translator’s qualifications and credentials, where he is employed, I think that will be helpful. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. 

The INTERPRETER. I’ve been contract interpreter for State Department for the past 

15 years. I work over at USIA. I have translated for Presidents and Vice Presidents, 

both past and present, from President Reagan until President Gore’s last trip to 

China. Also, for former Secretary of State when they have visited China or when 

they had Chinese delegations visiting over here on a variety of subjects, and for the 

executive—different branches of the executive branch, different heads. And also for 

the Navy on a very wide range of issues, from the launching of satellites to maybe 

gasification. 

Mr. BALLEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CARVIN. Just to clarify the record, what particular language are you speaking? 

The INTERPRETER. Mandarin. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank, Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. Wang, I’m a Congressman from your area, Los Angeles, not precisely your 

part of Los Angeles, I’m from West L.A., I’m also the senior Democrat on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. I want to thank you for your assistance 

in this investigation. I appreciate your being here. 

I wanted to ask you some questions briefly, and I appreciate counsel allowing me 

to do it. You met on August 15 with two investigators from the committee, Paul 

Herbert and Jim McFadden; is that correct? 

The WITNESS. Yes action. 

Mr. WAXMAN. They wrote up what is called a Memorandum of Interview that 

summarized their interview with you. I have a copy here and I would like to give 

190

it to—I understand your lawyer was given a copy of this document before the deposition. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just for the record, Congressman, I note that the document we received actually has all three interviews stapled together; is that correct? 

Mr. LU. That is correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. They being August 15, 1997, August 19, 1997, and September 2, 

1997; is that correct? 

Mr. LU. That is right. 

Mr. CARVIN. This procedural question. The Congressman will you be asking questions about this document. I was just wondering if we were going to make this an 

exhibit to the deposition assuming there is reference to it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Why don’t we make that——

[Minority Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.]

[Note.—All exhibits referred to may be found at end of deposition 

on p. 217.]

Mr. WAXMAN. When you met with our committee investigators, did they tell you 

it was important to tell the truth? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you tell the truth when you answered the questions to the investigators? 

Mr. CARVIN. I am going to seek a clarification. We are talking about three different meetings here over a space of time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m merely asking when he talked to them. 

Mr. CARVIN. And if there was a particular question, it may help focus the witness 

on—I’ll note, for example, on the August 15 memo, there are inconsistencies between the first part and the second part of the meetings after the 10-minute break. 

I just don’t want my witness to get tripped up on technicalities. And I know that 

is not your intent, but if perhaps you could focus in on something more specific, that 

would be helpful. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to go through some basic questions with you about your contribution to the Democratic National Committee. My question is based on the statements you gave the committee investigators and my questions will ask you some 

of the same things the investigators asked you. I apologize for going over this with 

you again, but since we are having this deposition, I wanted to hear it, exactly what 

happened. 

In your statement to the committee investigators on August 15, you said that you 

knew John Huang and had met him; is that correct? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I think the statement said that you socialized with John Huang a 

couple of times at the 888 Seafood Restaurant in the San Gabriel Valley; is that 

correct? 

The WITNESS. This question, named some restaurant, I’m not sure of the 888. 

Mr. WAXMAN. That’s not important. But you knew him and you socialized with 

him at a restaurant. 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. In the statement you also said that your brother-in-law John 

Liu——

The WITNESS. John. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Also knew John Huang; is that correct? 

The WITNESS. In fact, he also met on some social party. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Then he had met him? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Does your father or other members of your family know John 

Huang? 

The WITNESS. I think my father. My father. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Your father. Does your father know John Huang? 

The WITNESS. Same thing like me, we met on a social party at a restaurant. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I see. Your father, your brother-in-law, and you? 

The WITNESS. In fact my brother-in-law, I’m not so sure, because one thing I must 

correct because one time we met on John Huang, me and my father, the meeting 

in a restaurant. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You and your father met him in a restaurant? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Your statement said that you met with John Huang in August 1996 

and that John Huang asked you to make a contribution to the Democratic National 

Committee; is that correct? 

191

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Your statement also says you made a contribution of $5,000 to the 

DNC and we have a copy of your check to the DNC. It is dated August 16 and it 

is check Number 178. 

Did you write a check to the DNC on August 16, 1996, for $5,000? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Why don’t we make that Exhibit 2. 

[Minority Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.] 

Mr. WAXMAN. Your statement says that John Huang and another man picked up 

the $5,000 check from you at your place of employment; is that correct? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I take it that John Huang picked up the check to the DNC on August 16, 1996, the same day you wrote the check; is that right? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The check is dated August 16. Did he pick it up that same day? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you have a different meeting with John Huang when he asked 

you to write a check? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So he asked you to write the check on that date, you wrote the 

check, and then he took the check? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And that was on August 16, the day the check was written? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Where did this occur? 

The WITNESS. In my office. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you remember what time of day it was, morning, afternoon? 

The WITNESS. Morning. In the morning. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Who was there? Who was present when you met with John Huang 

and he asked you to contribute to the Democratic National Committee? 

The WITNESS. Me and my father. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Your father was there? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Is this a different meeting than the time you were at a restaurant 

together? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. John Huang asked you to give money, you wrote a check, and he 

took it all in the same day? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Now, I want to ask you about whether you were reimbursed for 

your contribution. At this point I’m a little confused because you gave two different 

statements to the investigators. First, you said you weren’t reimbursed, then when 

the investigators came back you said you were reimbursed. I want to ask you some 

questions to clarify exactly what happened. 

Were you reimbursed for your contribution? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Why did you first tell the investigators that you had not been reimbursed? 

The WITNESS. Because I think that maybe give me some trouble. But later I 

think, be honest. Honest is everything, it’s good. So then I change. I got the money 

back. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Could you describe when and how you received the reimbursement? 

The WITNESS. After they took the check and they come back, and for the cash. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Was that the same day or another day? 

The WITNESS. The same day. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Was the day that they took the check from you the day they gave 

you money, the same day? 

The WITNESS. The same day. They come that afternoon. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Were the people that took your check the same people that came 

and gave you money? 

The WITNESS. In fact, money come to person and that afternoon only that Mr. 

Pan, he come back. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Was Mr. Pan at the meeting in the morning? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. He was with John Huang? 

The WITNESS. You mean afternoon? In the morning? 

192

Mr. WAXMAN. You’re confusing me. In the morning John Huang asked you for the 

check, you wrote a check, and he took the check. In the afternoon you said somebody 

came and gave you money. You said that was Mr. Pan? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Was Mr. Pan—had Mr. Pan been in the meeting in the morning? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. He was with John Huang? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And that was the same day? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you receive the money all at one time? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. How much money did you get? 

The WITNESS. Totally $10,000. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You got $10,000? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Was that in a check or in cash? 

The WITNESS. Cash. 

Mr. WAXMAN. How do you know you were reimbursed by Mr. Pan? He introduced 

himself as Mr. Pan? 

The WITNESS. Your question means I know how he is Pan? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. 

The WITNESS. That’s before we know each other in the social party. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You knew him before? 

The WITNESS. In a social party. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me see if I understand everything. John Huang and Mr. Pan 

together asked you and your father for a contribution? 

The WITNESS. Yes, in the morning. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And then you wrote a check and they took it that morning, yes? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. That afternoon, the same day, Mr. Pan came in and gave you 

$10,000? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Was that August 16, the same day that you wrote the check? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. When you met with John Huang, did you discuss reimbursements 

with him and did John Huang say that you would be reimbursed for your contribution? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The translator told you that I asked whether John Huang told you 

that morning you would get money back? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. CARVIN. That was a compound question, and I think it was asked and answered. The first time the question was asked was whether Mr. Pan or Mr. Huang 

said they would be reimbursed, and I believe the second time it was that Mr. Huang 

would say it, and I would like to clarify for the record whether or not the witness 

recollects whether it was Mr. Huang or Mr. Pan who said that you would be reimbursed for your contribution. Can you do that? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me just for clarity of the record, let me make it as simple as 

I can. Do you recall if it was Mr. Huang or Mr. Pan who said you would be reimbursed? 

The WITNESS. I’m not so sure who exactly say they reimbursed me, but I know 

one of them said the money can be reimbursed, so that’s why I make the check. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you know where the money came from that was paid to you for 

reimbursement? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. According to your statement, you also received reimbursement for 

a contribution to the DNC made by Daniel Wu. Can explain what you know about 

Daniel Wu’s contribution and the reimbursement he received? 

The WITNESS. Daniel Wu? 

The WITNESS. Yes. I made the check for Daniel Wu. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You made a check for Daniel Wu? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You wrote it out of your account? 

The WITNESS. From his account. 

Mr. WAXMAN. From his account? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

193

Mr. WAXMAN. You wrote a check from his account. You were able to sign your 

name on his account or did you sign his name? 

The WITNESS. I signed his name. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you know who Charlie Trie is? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. CARVIN. Just again to clarify, there has been some publicity about Mr. Trie. 

I take it your question is whether he has personal knowledge and acquaintance with 

Mr. Trie? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Have you ever met or spoken with Charlie Trie? 

The WITNESS. No. The name only shows on the newspaper I know. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you know if Antonio Pan worked for Charlie Trie? 

The WITNESS. No, I don’t know. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you know Mr. Pan’s first name? 

The WITNESS. Before in fact, before I did know him as Mr. Pan until later on, 

they said I know his first name. 

Mr. WAXMAN. When later on did you learn his first name? 

The WITNESS. In fact after the investigator. 

Mr. WAXMAN. That was after the investigators came to talk to you? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. But when you were at a social occasion with Mr. Pan, you didn’t 

know his first name at that time? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Have you told about these answers to these questions to anyone 

other than the investigators and your attorney? 

The WITNESS. The people, in fact, my family? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. 

The WITNESS. Yeah. Besides my family, I don’t talk to anybody. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So you’ve talked to investigators and your family and your lawyers? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And no one else? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you again for cooperating with this investigation. We all 

want to know all the information that will help us decide what the best policy 

should be to change the campaign finance laws or if there are violations of laws, 

to be sure that the laws are enforced. You have been very helpful. Thank you. 

Mr. BENNETT. Congressman Waxman, I’m not sure if you intend to stay for the 

whole deposition, but if you were going to leave I wanted to clarify one point in case 

you wanted to follow up on one question. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Sure. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Mr. BENNETT. One point, in fairness to you, if you wanted to follow up, Mr. Wang, 

I’ll start with a little more background and go through step by step but, so Congressman Waxman has the opportunity to follow up on a question, you gave out of 

your own account a total of $5,000, correct? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And you had the power of attorney for a friend of yours named 

Daniel Wu; is that correct? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And so pursuant to that power of attorney, you made a $5,000 contribution for Daniel Wu as well; is that correct? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And in terms of the two individuals, Mr. Huang and Mr. Pan indicating to you that you would be reimbursed, you were advised that you would be 

reimbursed for both your check and Mr. Wu’s check; is that correct? 

Mr. CARVIN. Just for clarification, Dick, are you asking whether or not there was 

specific conversation on reimbursement for both checks or whether that was Mr. 

Wang’s impression from the general conversation? 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Mr. BENNETT. Be fine if it’s his impression. I’m trying to follow up Congressman 

Waxman’s point about the $10,000 he received. 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. So if the Congressman understands, when you received $10,000 

back, that was not just for you, it was also for Mr. Wu? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

194

Mr. BENNETT. I just wanted to clarify that, Congressman, in case you had any 

other follow-up questions. I don’t want you to misunderstand. 

Mr. WAXMAN. No, I understood that. 

Mr. BENNETT. Going back, Mr. Wang, I want to thank you also on behalf of the 

Republican members of the committee and thank you for coming here. Congressman 

Waxman asked a question concerning an interview that was conducted of you by 

joint detailees, people who are assigned to work for both the Republicans and the 

Democrats on the committee. In fact, Mr. Paul Herbert, the record should reflect, 

is here behind me. Do you recognize Mr. Herbert? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. CARVIN. I’m sorry to interrupt, Dick, but there’s some other folks who haven’t 

been identified. For the record, I don’t know who they’re with, but it would be helpful for my purposes if I knew who they were. 

Mr. BENNETT. I’m not sure if I can identify them all. 

Mr. BALLEN. You want me to do it? 

Mr. BENNETT. Perhaps. 

Mr. BALLEN. Phil Schiliro, our staff director, Agnieszka Fryszman, Minority staff, 

and Phil Barnett, Minority staff. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Ballen. 

With respect to Mr. Herbert who’s here in the room, as well as any other individual who accompanied him, for the record they are required to report to both the 

Republican and Democrat members of the committee. Do you understand that? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just for their own professional reputations, was Mr. Herbert and 

the other people who were with him, were they polite and courteous to you at all 

times? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. They were? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. At any time did they threaten you or frighten you in any way? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Carvin, for the record, do you make a contention that your client’s constitutional rights were violated at the time of any of his interviews? 

Mr. CARVIN. We do not make such a contention. I do not, of course, waive any 

arguments that we may make in any subsequent civil or civil prosecutorial enforcement, but for purposes of these proceedings, as I say, we’re perfectly content to let 

the record speak for itself and have David straighten out things. 

I do want to put on the record notwithstanding the good faith of the investigators 

that Mr. Wang is a recent citizen, he has limited English proficiency, he was caught 

by surprise, and although I don’t think anybody intended to threaten him, there is 

inherently some concerns by recent citizens when visited by the government and 

there was not an attorney present during any of these conversations. So to the extent there are potential inconsistencies that have been alluded to, I think those can 

be contradicted to those factors. 

Mr. BENNETT. I understand. I can certainly understand that. But you do not contend that his constitutional rights were violated? 

Answer. No. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. If I could have some background, Mr. Wang, what is your date of birth, 

sir? 

Answer. February 11, 1963. 

Question. And where were you born? 

Answer. In Taiwan. 

Question. Are you a United States citizen? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. When did you become a citizen? 

Answer. August 9, 1996. 

Question. When did you come to this country? 

Answer. December 1988. 

Question. I’m sorry, December 1988? 

Answer. Uh-huh. 

Question. And you actually became a naturalized citizen about a week before two 

individuals came to see you concerning this contribution; is that right? 

Answer. Yes. But I turn out application a whole year. 

195

Question. I understand. But you officially became a naturalized citizen on December 9, 1996? 

Mr. CARVIN. I’m sorry, December 9? 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. August 9, I am sorry. 

Answer. August 9. 

Question. Are you married, sir? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you have any children? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How many children do you have? 

Answer. One. One daughter 2 years and next month will be another one. 

Question. That’s wonderful. Good luck to you. 

Answer. Thank you. 

Question. What is your educational background, sir? 

Answer. I graduate in Tangshung University in Taiwan, in banking department. 

Question. You are presently employed in the car business in California; is that 

correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And how long have you been a car salesman and in the car business? 

Answer. Since I come to the United States. 

Question. Since 1988? 

Answer. 1988. 

Question. Can I have the names of your—are both your parents here in the 

United States now? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And the names of your parents, please? 

Answer. Father, James Wang. 

Question. And your mother’s name? 

Answer. Shirley Chen. 

Question. Do you have any brothers or sisters? 

Answer. Yes. One, my elder—my older sister is Diana Wang and the elder brother 

Joe Wang. 

Question. Your siblings, your brothers and sisters, are they United States citizens 

now? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Are your mother and father, United States citizens? 

Answer. My father. My mother is not yet. 

Question. Where do your mother and father reside? 

Answer. Also living in Los Angeles. 

Question. Do your siblings, your brothers and sisters, do they live in the Los Angeles area as well? 

Answer. Yes. Yes. 

Question. Directing your attention to, first of all, August 16, 1996, about what you 

testified earlier in response to the Congressman’s question, let me ask you to go 

back a few months prior to August of 1996. 

Mr. Liang, you might wand to translate that for him. 

Answer. Okay. 

Question. Prior to August of 1996, had you been involved in politics? 

Answer. Political? 

Question. Political involvement, had you made any contributions to any political 

candidates prior to August of 1996 to your knowledge? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. The answer is yes? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How many political candidates? 

Answer. A number one time for the city. I think city council, for our city, the 

mayor election. 

Question. In the city of Los Angeles? 

Answer. The city of Rosemead. 

Question. City of Rosemead? 

Answer. Yes, small city. 

Question. You made a political contribution to a candidate running for political 

office in Rosemead, California? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Any other political contributions that you know of? 

196

Answer. No. 

Question. When did you first meet John Huang? Not the day when he came to 

your house but just step back. When was the first time you met him? I believe you 

said you met him at a social party; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. When would that have been? 

Mr. CARVIN. I’m sorry, just to interrupt and clarify your prior questions, when you 

were asking about contributions, would that encompass writing checks for other people to attend fund-raisers and those kinds of things? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. 

Mr. CARVIN. The President’s birthday party, even though you didn’t attend? 

Mr. BENNETT. That would be separate from the August 1996 event. 

Mr. CARVIN. For your brother-in-law? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. CARVIN. Why don’t you relate the circumstances of your brother-in-law going 

to the President’s birthday party? 

The WITNESS. Oh, yes, write a check. I think I write it for party, for President 

Clinton in Los Angeles. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. For President Clinton? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How much was that check for? 

Answer. For $300. 

Question. $300? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did you attend that event? Did you go to it? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did you send someone in your place to go? 

Answer. Yes. That time my brother-in-law, and also he bring two friends. 

Question. So the three of them were permitted to go to the birthday party for 

$300? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And that would have been before August 16, 1996? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Any other contributions? 

Answer. I talk to you for city. 

Question. I’m just clarifying. So we have the contribution for a local candidate, 

we have a $300 check for President Clinton’s birthday party in Los Angeles, and 

to your knowledge they are the only political contributions you would have made; 

is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How did you know about the birthday party for President Clinton? Who 

called you? 

Answer. The President come to L.A. for big event in the Chinese community and 

everybody heard about it in the news and everybody wanted to go there. So, so far 

I don’t remember exactly who tell me, just say, friend, everybody say you want to 

go. 

Question. You did not attend that event, though? 

Answer. No. Suppose I called. 

Mr. BALLEN. Could we ask when? When was the event? I’m sorry. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just for the record, as Mr. Ballen and I discussed in California, 

many times we have Majority finish with questions and then the Minority has questions. I have no objection to Mr. Ballen interjecting a question at an appropriate 

time to allow for flow of information, Mr. Ballen. 

Mr. BALLEN. Thank you. When was this event that you made the contribution, 

sir? 

The WITNESS. I think in July. The day of my check, 22nd or 26th. That’s the day 

the President come. 

Mr. BALLEN. Was this the month before you made the August 16 contribution, one 

month before? 

The WITNESS. Yes, almost a month. 

Mr. BALLEN. Thank you. 

197

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. When was the very first time that you believe—I think I had asked this 

before and Mr. Carvin wanted to clarify a point. When was the very first time that 

you met John Huang? 

Answer. About, I think 1996, June or July. Exactly I don’t remember. 

Question. Just to the best of your knowledge. 

Answer. Yes, in a Chinese restaurant. 

Question. Sometime in June or July of 1996, you met Mr. John Huang, and you 

believe it was at a restaurant? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. When was the first time you ever met a gentleman named Antonio Pan? 

Answer. In fact the same day. 

Question. The same day? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Mr. Pan and Mr. Huang. I don’t want to get yet into the matter of when 

they came to visit you on August 16, 1996. I’m trying to go back before that. Just 

so I understand, and if I’m not correct, correct me, you would have met Mr. Pan 

at the same time you met Mr. Huang at this restaurant? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what type of an event was it? Was it a political event? 

Answer. I think just very, a social party. No political. 

Question. But the two of them were talking there at the event at the restaurant 

when you met them? 

Answer. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Just a clarification. You met them both at the party, that’s what 

you said? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. When you were at the party, were the two of them together when 

you met them or just you met them both at that party? 

Mr. CARVIN. As best you can recall. 

The WITNESS. If question, I don’t—two sit together, one here and one there. I can 

recall they were there in the restaurant. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Did you talk to both of them at that time? 

Answer. Yes, I think so. 

Question. Do you recall what conversation you had, first of all, with Mr. Huang? 

Answer. I’m not—I not remember very well. Common social. A conversation. Not 

special talking about other thing. 

Question. What about Mr. Pan? Do you remember the conversation you had with 

Mr. Pan? 

Answer. I do not remember. 

Question. When was the next time you saw either Mr. Huang or Mr. Pan? Was 

it August 16 when they came to visit you? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did you recognize both of them from having met them the previous 

month or two at the restaurant? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. So this would have been the second time you saw Mr. Huang and the 

second time you saw Mr. Pan? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Going into the matter of their initial meeting with you on August 16, 

1996, I’m going to show you, if I can, three exhibits, and I want to go through with 

you the events of that day as you look at these exhibits, sort of going back over what 

Congressman Waxman went over with you a few minutes ago. 

Perhaps you want to explain that to him, Mr. Liang, in the process. 

For the record, Congressman, I’m showing the witness what has been marked already as Exhibit DW–1, which is in fact the same document I believe as Minority 

Exhibit 2, previously shown to the witness, but since these are already tabbed, I’ll 

do that, if you don’t mind. 

[Wang Deposition Exhibit No. DW–1 was marked for identification.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I’m showing you that exhibit, first of all, Mr. Wang. At the top there, 

do you recognize your check to the Democratic National Committee for $5,000? 

198

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And then at the bottom—so you understand, is some tracking information from the Democratic National Committee. You’ve not seen that prior to today, 

I gather; is that right? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. When you were first approach by Mr. Huang and Mr. Pan, with respect to the matter of reimbursement in terms of reimbursing you for your $5,000 check, 

did they ask you at that time if you had any friends who might also be willing to 

write a check for which he or she might be reimbursed? And if you’ll translate that 

for him, Mr. Liang. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Counsel, that was a confusing question. Because you said, when he 

was first approached, and then was he asked whether he had friends on August 16. 

We don’t know whether that’s all the same day or another day. 

Mr. BENNETT. I believe it’s all the same day, Congressman, but I’ll rephrase it. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Directing your attention to August 16, 1996, as you indicated to Congressman Waxman earlier, there was a discussion about your writing a check and 

then being reimbursed for the money; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. At that time, that same time, when you were talking with Mr. Huang 

and Mr. Pan, you indicated you don’t recall which one said that to you; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. But both of them were present when whichever one would have said 

that to you, and you probably should translate that, Mr. Liang. 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Regardless of which one actually said they were going to reimburse with 

the other one being present, was there a discussion also about whether or not at 

that time you may have had any friends, a man or a woman who might also write 

out a check for which they would be reimbursed; isn’t that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And did you give them a name of Mr. Daniel Wu? 

Answer. Yes. 

Mr. CARVIN. Again to clarify, when you say, give him the name, did he verbally 

use, state the name Daniel Wu or did he write a check at that time in the name 

of Daniel Wu? Did you mention the name Daniel Wu to Mr. Huang and Mr. Pan? 

Do you recall? 

The WITNESS. I talked to him as a friend, and he also can do the contribution. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Was Mr. Wu present when you spoke with Mr. Pan and Mr. Huang? 

Answer. No. 

Question. To your knowledge, did Mr. Pan or Mr. Huang know Daniel Wu? 

Answer. No. 

Question. If I can show you Exhibit WD–2, showing you, if you can, you have to 

take a minute to look through it, and your counsel, Exhibit DW–2. For the record, 

it being photocopies of your account information from the China Trust Bank of California. 

[Wang Deposition Exhibit No. DW–2 was marked for identification.] 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. For the record, by the way, one of the things we may want to do, counsel, is I would suggest that, unless Minority counsel has any objection, we can line 

out Mr. Huang’s home address in terms of certain privacy considerations for Mr. 

Wang. If the court reporter wants to line out the home address. 

Mr. CARVIN. Yes, we would appreciate that and I would note that would be on 

the first page and the second page. 

Mr. BENNETT. Perhaps we should do that now in the abundance of caution, if the 

court reporter would do that, please. 

Mr. CARVIN. Can I make a similar request for Exhibits DW–1 and the one that 

is Exhibit 2. As you can see underneath David Wang’s name on both of those 

checks, it has a phone number in it and a home address. Is there any way to do 

that? 

Mr. BENNETT. That is fine. We can take the home telephone number out. Do you 

have any objection to that, Mr. Ballen? 

199

Mr. BALLEN. No, I have no objection. But one thing to make clear for the record, 

I think you already did, Mr. Bennett, but just in the abundance of caution here, Minority Exhibit 2 has a different Bates Stamp than the Majority Exhibit DW–1. I believe that was, the check, so they reflect the same document that we are all referring to and I believe you stated, just so the record is clear, you should probably pen 

both documents. 

Mr. BENNETT. For the record, you are quite right. Your exhibit had the DNC 

Number 1804366 and our document doesn’t have a DNC number. It just has 

0000323, marked confidential. I think that is the distinction; isn’t that correct? 

Mr. BALLEN. I think so. I think they are both from the DNC. 

Mr. BENNETT. I believe that is correct. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Looking at Exhibit DW–2, that in fact represents, does it not, copies of 

account information for you dated August 16 and September 17, 1996; is that correct, Mr. Wang? 

If the translator would translate that and if you would look at that for a minute, 

please? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And, in fact, this reflects deposit information in your account out of 

which you had written the $5,000 check; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Well, strike that. 

It is a different account, but it represents information concerning your receiving 

money back in return for your $5,000 check; is that correct? 

Mr. CARVIN. Are you asking about the deposits? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I am. 

Mr. CARVIN. I think it might help things, counsel, if you could point him just to 

the line you are referring to. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am about to. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. To refresh your recollection, the $5,000 check was written on August 16, 

1996, correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And in response to questions from Congressman Waxman you indicated 

that you were told by Mr. Huang and Mr. Pan, one of the two said to you that you 

would be reimbursed? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And the other who did not speak sat there while the other person who 

did speak told you that? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And looking at the first page of DW–2, in fact, that reflects a $3,000 

deposit back to you the same day; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And the second page of DW–2 reflects a $2,000 payment back to you 

4 days later; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And if you will explain the circumstances pursuant to which you received money back on those 2 days, do you recall who—I think Congressman Waxman asked you a question as to whether or not you recalled who came back to give 

you your money and I believe, and if I am incorrect, correct me, I believe you said 

that Mr. Pan came back and brought you money; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How many times did Mr. Pan return? 

Answer. He returned only one time. 

Question. My question is, you received $3,000 or you deposited $3,000 on August 

16, and then you deposited $2,000 on August 20th, and I am trying to clarify whether or not Mr. Pan returned to your home two times with money or one time with 

money. And perhaps to assist you in that regard, Mr. Wang, if I can show you Exhibit DW–3. That is for the reporter right there. Your attorney has that. 

[Wang Deposition Exhibit No. DW–3 was marked for identification.] 

200

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Can you identify Exhibit DW–3? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. For the record, it appears it is being a calendar—photocopies, 2 pages 

of calendar entries from August 15 to August 21, 1996; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And reviewing that, what notations do you have on August 16 and then 

on the second page, August 20th? 

Mr. BENNETT. If you will translate for Mr. Wang to assist him, please. I’m not 

sure if the court reporter got that. 

Mr. CARVIN. I think it might be more helpful if you spoke more slowly. On August 

16th you did what? 

The WITNESS. On August 16th, I deposited cash for I think it was $3,000, under 

David, $3,000, and then on August 20, it was for David $2,000 and then Daniel 

$2,000. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. And the Daniel you are referring to is Mr. Daniel Wu; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And I will get his financial matters in a minute. But then there was 

one deposit on August the 16th for you and Mr. Wu for reimbursement and there 

was a second deposit on August 20 for you and Mr. Wu; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And then having looked at the documents, can you recollect the circumstances and who came to your home to give you the money for reimbursement? 

Mr. CARVIN. Can you clarify that, ‘‘came to his home?’’

Mr. BENNETT. Wherever, I’m sorry. Your home, your office, first of all, August the 

16th, when you received $3,000 for yourself and $3,000 from Mr. Wu, who came to 

your home? 

Mr. BALLEN. I am going to object, that wasn’t his testimony. 

Mr. CARVIN. It might be simpler, if you don’t mind. 

Mr. BENNETT. Sure. 

Mr. CARVIN. Mr. Pan came back in the afternoon. 

The WITNESS. [By the witness] Yes. 

Mr. CARVIN. How much money did he give you at that time? 

The WITNESS. A total of $10,000. 

Mr. CARVIN. He gave him $10,000. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. That’s what I am trying to clarify. He came one time and gave you 

$10,000? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And then what did you do with the $10,000? 

Answer. He told me don’t deposit at one time. 

Question. Who told you that? 

Answer. Pan. 

Question. Mr. Pan told you not to deposit it all at one time? 

Answer. Yes, so I just spread out for 2 times, $3,000 and $2,000 thousand. 

Question. So you had all the $10,000 for both you and Mr. Wu, and pursuant to 

Mr. Pan telling you not to deposit the $10,000 at one time, you made two different 

payments or deposits for both yourself and Mr. Wu; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you know why you were told not to deposit it at one time? 

Answer. No. No. 

Question. And with respect to the money, this $10,000, do you know the source 

of that money? 

Answer. No, I don’t. 

Question. When Mr. Pan told you not to deposit it all at one time, did he discuss 

with you whether or not you should discuss this with anybody? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I’m sorry? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what did he say, sir? 

Answer. He said just don’t tell anyone. 

Question. When Mr. Huang was speaking with you, did Mr. Huang ever make a 

reference to this repayment of money as being a secret? 

201

Answer. Well, in fact, I am not sure I remember that he tell me it was a secret 

or something like that. 

Question. I’m sorry? 

Answer. He didn’t mention this is a secret or something like that. 

Question. When was the first time you were told not to tell anyone? 

Answer. This is Mr. Pan. 

Question. When Mr. Pan came to your home? 

Answer. Yes, he put the cash back. 

Question. Do you know whether or not these contributions, these two $5,000 

checks, for which you and Mr. Wu were reimbursed, do you know if it was related 

to a particular fund-raising event, a particular party? 

Answer. Well, in fact, as I know, he told me this for the President. 

Question. When you say he, who is he? 

Answer. Either Pan or Huang. 

Question. In other words, either one, you are not sure, one of them told you it 

was for the President’s what? 

Answer. The President, the campaign, the fund-raising. 

Question. Fund-raising for the President? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And it would have either been Mr. Huang or Mr. Pan and you are not 

sure which one? 

Answer. No, I am not sure. 

Question. But whichever one said it, was the other then present when the first 

person spoke? 

Answer. Yes. 

Mr. BALLEN. Can I just clarify? 

Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely. Go right ahead. 

Mr. BALLEN. And when did that occur, sir? 

The WITNESS. August 16. 

Mr. BALLEN. That was the morning meeting at your office. 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Any other questions, Mr. Ballen? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Was it related to a party or an event or just a contribution? 

The WITNESS. Contribution. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did they talk to you in English or in Chinese? 

The WITNESS. Chinese. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Both Mr. Huang and Mr. Pan? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Both in the morning and the afternoon, Mr. Pan spoke to you in 

Chinese? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. If counsel wouldn’t mind, before that, you had given another contribution for a party that the President attended in Los Angeles that you didn’t go 

to, but the President was there. 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you get reimbursed for the money you paid for that? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did anybody suggest to you that you might get reimbursed? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And how was it that Mr. Huang and Mr. Pan came to see you that 

morning? Did they call for the appointment or did they just show up? 

The WITNESS. Well, before they come, they must make a phone call. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Who called you? 

The WITNESS. I think it is Huang. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And when was that, the same day or week? 

The WITNESS. Same day. 

Mr. WAXMAN. He said I am coming by this morning. 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did he tell you why he wanted to come by and see you? 

The WITNESS. He said he was around that area and he wanted to come to my 

office to visit. 

Mr. WAXMAN. He didn’t say why? 

The WITNESS. No. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And had you ever heard about anybody else getting paid back for 

the money they gave to the campaign at that time? 

The WITNESS. No. 

202

Mr. WAXMAN. And when you gave the contribution earlier to the party for the 

President, where he attended, where the President attended, who asked you to give 

to that? Did John Huang ask you to give to that or someone else? This was in July? 

The WITNESS. Well, in fact, at that time, I am not so sure, just before I answered 

the question, for that particular event, everybody knows, and the event, I am not 

so sure who would go together by who, and—so we know to go there, bring a check, 

pay to DNC, and just go there. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So you wrote out a check and your brother-in-law took it? 

The WITNESS. Took it, yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And you don’t know who asked you to do that, you just heard about 

the event? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. BENNETT. Any other questions, Congressman? 

Mr. WAXMAN. No, those were some questions I figured I would ask. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Mr. Wang, did you have any contact with the Democratic National Committee concerning these contributions when you wrote out the two $5,000 checks 

that morning, August 16th? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did Mr. John Huang at that time——

Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the answer. 

Mr. BENNETT. He said, no. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Did Mr. Huang, John Huang, at that time, indicate what his position 

was with the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did Mr. Huang subsequently call you to thank you for your contributions for which you were reimbursed? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And do you know where he was when he called you to thank you? 

Answer. No. 

Question. After you were reimbursed for the $10,000, were you ever contacted by 

anyone from the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you have any understanding about who John Huang was or who Antonio Pan was with respect to President Clinton’s campaign or the Democratic National Committee? It is a compound question and I guess it covers the territory. I 

am just asking what his understanding was, Counsel, as to John Huang or Antonio 

Pan? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. What was your understanding, first of all, as to John Huang, who was 

John Huang, what was his position? 

Answer. Well, in fact, during that time, John Huang, in the Chinese community, 

they have some newspaper, and also on TV, they interview John Huang, he is the—

I think he is the—he do election for the President and he is a very, like, well-known 

person in the Chinese community. 

Question. And do you know what his position was with either the Democratic National Committee or with President Clinton’s re-election campaign in August of 

1996? 

Mr. CARVIN. Clarification. Did he know what was his understanding at the time 

or what has he learned subsequently? 

Mr. BENNETT. At the time. 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. I’m sorry, you need to translate his answer. It doesn’t require a, 

yes, response, Mr. Liang, so if you could. 

The WITNESS. Well, it seemed to me that at that time, he was on the campaign 

trying to be either the Vice Chairman on the National—Democratic National Committee or trying to be a Deputy Secretary for Commerce. 

Mr. BALLEN. Can we ask how he knew that? 

Mr. CARVIN. Yes, and, first of all, did you just say that to him? Are you giving 

your understanding of what you knew in August of ’96 or what you have learned 

subsequently in the newspapers? 

The WITNESS. Before, prior to August 16th. 

203

Mr. CARVIN. What was your understanding, can you say it in English, please? In 

English, what was your understanding? 

Mr. BENNETT. He need not say it in English. He can have it be translated. If he 

doesn’t think he can express it in English, the translator can translate for him. 

Mr. CARVIN. That is fine. I am a little concerned about clarity here. 

The WITNESS. During the time, I mean, August 16th, before, even the social party, 

we know John Huang, he is a very important person. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. And now the translator indicated that you had knowledge that he was 

either the Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee or an Assistant 

Secretary of Commerce; is that correct? 

The INTERPRETER. Sorry, correction. I didn’t say he was. He was trying to get a 

job of campaigning for the job. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I understand. So you did not know what position he had at the time? 

Answer. No, only I know he is a very important person in the Government. 

Mr. BALLEN. Can I just ask, how did you know that, did he tell you that or did 

you read it in the newspapers? 

The WITNESS. From the newspapers. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Did John Huang tell you he was trying to get an important Government 

job? 

Answer. No, no. 

Question. When were you first contacted by the Democratic National Committee 

or any representative of the Democratic National Committee in connection with 

these $10,000 in payments and the reimbursement? 

Mr. CARVIN. I object. It has been asked and answered. He said he wasn’t contacted by the DNC, unless you are including John Huang within the definition of 

people who represent the DNC. 

Mr. BENNETT. For the record, counsel, he clearly was contacted by Ernst & Young 

on behalf of the Democratic National Committee. I am about to get there and I am 

just trying to verify that is the very first time. 

Mr. BALLEN. Maybe say after the 16th then. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I don’t know how it can be any clearer. I will try again. 

Whenever you were contacted by any representative of the Democratic National 

Committee, after you made the payments of $10,000, and after you were reimbursed, I am just trying to find out when that might have been, whether it was 

today, yesterday, when was the very first time you were contacted by the Democratic National Committee or a representative of the Democratic National Committee. 

Mr. CARVIN. And I am really trying to streamline this and not complicate it. He 

already told you John Huang called him after August 16th and then I take it, included within your question of people who represent the Democratic National Committee would be the accounting firm working in connection with them, Ernst & 

Young. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just for the record, the witness has not said he knew that Mr. 

Huang was an official of the Democratic National Committee, so in fairness to the 

Democratic National Committee, I am trying to clarify when in his own mind someone called and said they were calling on behalf of the DNC. That is the nature of 

the question. 

Mr. CARVIN. Fair enough. 

Mr. BENNETT. So why don’t you translate that. I don’t want to trap the witness. 

I am trying to find out what the witness knows. 

The WITNESS. You mean besides John Huang. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. That is correct, sir, when was the very first time? Again, I am not trying 

to trap you, Mr. Wang. I am just trying to get the information when in your own 

mind you knew. Apart from John Huang, you were talking to someone else from 

the Democratic National Committee and I will show you what has been marked as 

Exhibit DW–4. 

204

Mr. WAXMAN. Before you get into that, Counsel, Mr. Wang’s attorney said he was 

called by John Huang afterwards and I didn’t know about that. 

Mr. BENNETT. For the record, I am sorry, Congressman Waxman. I asked if he 

was called later and thanked by John Huang and I think he said he was called and 

thanked. I assume that is what the witness is making reference to. We can clarify 

that if you want. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Is that correct? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did he say anything else to you other than thank you? 

Mr. CARVIN. Can you give him a time frame for the question? 

Mr. WAXMAN. After August 16th, did John Huang call you up? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And how long afterwards, a week, 2 weeks, a month, just generally? 

The WITNESS. Just a couple days, within 1 week, roughly. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And what did he say to you when he called you? 

The WITNESS. As I know, he just tried to say thank you for the contribution and 

that is all. The phone call was very short. He just wanted to say thank you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Before August 16, just so I have this clear, did you only meet John 

Huang that one time? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Before the day he came to your office, you had only met him one 

time? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. But you had heard about him. 

The WITNESS. Yes, sure. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And you knew he was an important person in the Democratic 

Party? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did he or Mr. Pan spell out $5,000 or did they just ask for a contribution? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. He asked for $5,000. 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And then asked if someone else could give more money, like another 

$5,000, a friend. 

The WITNESS. Yes, he asked do you know another friend or person who also wants 

to contribute $4,000 or $5,000. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. I’m sorry. 

Mr. BALLEN. So I’m clear, that was on the morning of August 16th. 

The WITNESS. Yes, in the morning. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I have to run to another meeting, but thank you very much and 

we will look forward to seeing you in a couple days. 

The WITNESS. Okay. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. And at that point during that conversation, just to go back for a second, 

either Mr. Pan or Mr. Huang then indicated that the full $10,000 will be paid back 

to you; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now showing you what has been marked as DW–4, if you want to 

take a look at that with Mr. Carvin, your attorney, it essentially is, I submit to you, 

a survey form with respect to efforts for the Democratic National Committee on a 

survey. Have you had a chance to look at this yet, counsel? 

[Wang Deposition Exhibit No. DW–4 was marked for identification.] 

Mr. CARVIN. Is it intentional that we are skipping every other page or is that a 

Xeroxing problem. 

Mr. WILSON. This is the way the documents are. 

Mr. BENNETT. For the record, that is how we got the documents and there is a 

gap in the numbering of pages which is of concern to us, but that is a totally separate issue. 

Mr. CARVIN. This is what you got. 

Mr. BENNETT. That is what we received on Majority side and in response to subpoenas to the Democratic National Committee. 

Mr. CARVIN. Just to clarify the record, there is a gap in both the Bates Stamps, 

and it seems as if the pages on the documents—and Counsel is indicating that that 

is how the document was received, so my suspicion is, this not a complete copy. 

205

Mr. BALLEN. And just so the record is clear, and counsel for the Majority said that 

is how the document was received by the Majority, the same document was produced to both Majority and Minority. 

Mr. BENNETT. And for the record, I cannot represent that—strike that. 

For the record, I cannot represent that this committee has not received—for example, these numbered pages are DNC 1804346, then 349, then 351, then 353, 355, 

356, 366 and 368. I cannot represent that the committee has never received or has 

not received some sequential pages in between there. I believe we definitely have 

missed pages, but I cannot represent all those pages are missing. Perhaps it is in 

terms of relevant documents being made a part of this exhibit. 

So I don’t want the record to reflect the Democratic National Committee has not 

given us any of the pages in between. I don’t believe we have all the pages in between, but it may be that some really weren’t relevant in terms of putting the document together in terms of the deposition. So I don’t want the record to reflect that 

I am making that accusation against the DNC, because I don’t have a basis for that. 

Mr. BALLEN. Just so you understand, Mr. Carvin, the DNC did withhold some 

documents from the committee on the basis of privilege so that may explain—I do 

not know why. 

Mr. CARVIN. Thank you. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Ballen. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Looking at this exhibit—particularly, if you will, look at answer number 

14, which is on document number DNC 1804351, there, the question from Ernst & 

Young, the accounting firm retained by the Democratic National Committee. The 

particular question is asked with respect to, can you confirm that all the money that 

was used to make this contribution was your money and did not come from some 

other source or person? And there you indicate, yes, you could confirm that; is that 

correct, Mr. Wang? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did you at any point in this survey from Ernst & Young—do you recognize your handwriting there? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And you in fact completed this survey and sent it back to Ernst & 

Young; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. At any point in this survey, apart from answering, yes, that it was your 

money, did you indicate anywhere that you had in fact been reimbursed the same 

day for your contribution? 

Answer. No. 

Question. No. 

And why was that, sir? 

Answer. Well, because I am afraid. 

Question. You were afraid? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I understand that. 

Did anyone from the Democratic National Committee ever get back in touch with 

you after this survey, after you filled this out? 

Answer. From my memory, I am not so sure, but after—the survey, I remember 

the survey; before, I forget that this was surveyed. And on a Friday, I mentioned 

they have phone-called me, but in fact I am not so sure—I mean, from the same 

company. 

Question. You say on Friday, you mean this past Friday? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I am going to get to that in a minute. But do you recall any other contact with the Democratic National Committee after you filled this survey out? 

Mr. CARVIN. You mean after his memory was refreshed on Friday? 

Mr. BENNETT. No, I believe the document has a draft date of December 6, 1996, 

from Debevoise & Plimpton, and I am trying to confirm or to find out if there was 

any other contact from the Democratic National Committee after December of 1996, 

if he knows. 

The WITNESS. I am not so sure. Let’s say they give me a phone call, but I don’t 

know if it is before this one survey or after the survey. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Who says that they gave you a phone call? 

Answer. On Friday. 

206

Mr. CARVIN. Let me help you. The Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mr. McNamara. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just for the record, you appeared before a Federal grand jury here 

in Washington this Friday, October 3, 1997; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And how long did you appear in front of the grand jury? 

Answer. About 30 or 40 minutes in grand jury. 

Question. And during that period of time, did you have a translator there with 

you? 

Answer. Unfortunately, no, because Friday, there be no translating. 

Question. And at that time, someone indicated to you that perhaps you had received a telephone call from the Democratic National Committee in addition to this 

survey? 

Answer. Well, in fact, one thing I want to say, before this one event, this is from 

the DNC, because the head-letter says Ernst & Young—I don’t know if this is from 

DNC or not—and only the survey and also the one phone call to call me. 

Question. Okay. And who gave the one phone call to you when you were called, 

who called you? You say one phone call; who called you? 

Answer. In fact, I don’t remember the phone call, but they say they have a phone 

call in this one. 

Question. ‘‘They,’’ who is ‘‘they,’’ sir? You say, the Assistant U.S. Attorney? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Tom McNamara, Assistant U.S. Attorney? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I am trying to make sure we are clear. In fact, within the last week, 

one of the lawyers for the Minority called you or called your father; is that correct? 

Mr. CARVIN. I don’t know if he understands the term ‘‘the Minority.’’

Mr. BENNETT. Either Mr. Ballen or Mr. Lu; is that correct. 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Within the last week? 

Answer. Last week, Friday. 

Question. All right. And who called you, or did they call you or call your father? 

Answer. Called my father. 

Question. Okay. I am not referring to that phone call when I ask you about the 

Democratic National Committee. I am trying to make sure we are talking about two 

separate phone calls. 

Mr. BENNETT. Why don’t you translate that, Mr. Liang? 

The WITNESS. Yes. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Okay. You didn’t get a phone call from Mr. Ballen or anyone? Your father got the phone call? 

Answer. Friday, yes, my father, he received one phone call. 

Question. One phone call? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Who did he receive the phone call from; do you know? 

Answer. As I know, he told me he called Mr. Lu. 

Question. Mr. Lu called him? 

Answer. Yes. In fact, this is two persons; one speaks English and the other, Mr. 

Lu, he can speak a little Chinese. 

Question. Okay. 

Answer. Because my father’s English is no good. 

Question. So your father was called by two lawyers, Mr. Lu and another lawyer, 

last week? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what day of last week would that have been? 

Answer. Last Friday. 

Question. This past Friday, October the 3rd? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Were you able to talk with your father about what the nature of that 

phone conversation was? 

Answer. My father, he told me it’s about when my father met John Huang, about 

how he met John Huang and how many times they see each other. 

Question. Was your father present when you met with John Huang and Antonio 

Pan on August 16, 1996? 

Answer. Yes. 

207

Question. Do you know whether or not your father was asked about that last 

week? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And do you know what your father responded, what he said to the lawyers who called him last week about whether or not he was present when you met 

with John Huang and Antonio Pan? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what did your father say to them? 

Answer. He said he is also in a meeting. 

Question. He said he was present? 

Answer. He was present on August 16. 

Question. So, to your knowledge, your father told the lawyers who called him last 

week that he was present at the meeting of August 16th? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. Was anyone else present at the meeting apart from your father? 

Answer. No. 

Mr. CARVIN. And Mr. Huang and Mr. Pan. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Yes, the meeting with Mr. Huang and Mr. Pan, was there anyone else 

present besides you and your father? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Was any money ever returned to you by the Democratic National Committee? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Now there have been references—we will go back now if we can, to discussions about—let me get these exhibits, if I can. 

Now, Congressman Waxman previously asked you and I asked you about Mr. Wu, 

the individual for whom you wrote the second $5,000 check and which was also reimbursed. 

Let me first of all show you, if I can, Exhibit DW–5. 

[Wang Deposition Exhibit No. DW–5 was marked for identification.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. In fact, Mr. Wang, you have the power of attorney, do you not, for Mr. 

Daniel Wu? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And do you still hold the power of attorney for Mr. Wu? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And why is it that you have his power of attorney? 

Answer. Well, I think that the reason is for immigration purposes, because he is 

a green card holder, and he wants to open the account here; and in his bank, they 

have some transaction that looks like he is living in the United States. 

Question. Does he live in the United States? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Where is he presently residing? 

Answer. I think in Taiwan. 

Question. What is your relationship with him? 

Answer. Just friend. 

Question. And how often do you see him? 

Answer. In fact, sometimes we use a phone call. But he is busy; he not come here, 

not so often. 

Question. And do you know what he does for a living, what is his occupation? 

Answer. Exactly, as I know, he is a businessman in Taiwan. 

Question. And what is his business in Taiwan, sir? 

Answer. It is like a trading company. I am not sure what kind of thing—I mean, 

project he does, but I know he does the trading company. 

Question. And exactly what does he trade? In terms of having a trading company, 

what does he trade? 

Answer. I don’t know. 

Question. Okay. And when is the last time you saw him? 

Answer. I think about 2—almost 2 or 3 years ago. 

Question. Two or 3 years ago? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. So when you wrote out the check in August of 1996 for Mr. Wu, you 

had not seen him for over 2 years; is that right? 

Answer. Yes. 

208

Question. And you did not need to speak with him about this because you already 

had the power of attorney; is that correct? 

Answer. You mean about——

Question. About the $5,000 check? 

Answer. Yes, I didn’t talk to him. 

Question. Because you had this power of attorney, as reflected by Exhibit DW–

5, you were able to write out the $5,000 check and then put the money back into 

his account when you were reimbursed the same day? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I will show you Exhibits DW–6 and 7. 

[Wang Deposition Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7 were marked for identification.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Looking at DW–6 and 7, first, in DW–6——

Mr. CARVIN. Which we are not sure which is which. 

Mr. BALLEN. We don’t have a copy of both of these. 

Mr. BENNETT. I think you do have a copy of both. 

Mr. BALLEN. I just have one. 

Mr. BENNETT. Counsel, you have that now in front of you. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. On DW–6, there are entries similar to the entries of your account, reflecting—are there not, Mr. Wang—a deposit on August 16, 1996, of $3,000, and 

then August 20 of $2,000. Do you see that in front of you there, sir? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Does that reflect the same types of deposits you made into your account 

with respect to the $5,000 to Mr. Wu’s account? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And looking at Exhibit DW–7, that in fact reflects the check on Mr. 

Wu’s account of $5,000 that cleared through and for which you were reimbursed; 

is that right? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you know why the check was held until September 25, 1996? 

Answer. No, I don’t. 

Question. How often do you need to make deposits or withdrawals from Mr. Wu’s 

account, Mr. Wang? 

Answer. In fact, every month. 

Question. Every month? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what kind of transactions do you engage in every month for Mr. 

Wu’s account? 

Answer. Well, in fact, I use his name under the other company, like he is employee of our company; and then the company, they write the paycheck to his account. 

Question. If I can follow up on this, your company? 

Answer. Not my company, other company. 

Question. I’m sorry. 

Mr. BENNETT. To the extent that I can’t understand the witness, Mr. Liang, it 

might be helpful if you translate the answer for me, if you could, please? 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. With respect to the monthly activity into Mr. Wu’s account, what is deposited into Mr. Wu’s account, Mr. Wang? 

Answer. Another company would write a check out in Daniel Wu’s name, as an 

employee of that company; and that is when I would deposit that check into his account. 

Question. And you do that each month? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And what is the name of the company that issues a check to Mr. Wu? 

Answer. Ji Tai International Company. 

Question. And where is Ji Tai International Company? 

Answer. Also in Los Angeles. 

Question. Are there any other companies that issue checks to Mr. Wu besides Ji 

Tai International? 

Answer. There is another company, Bao Li Hang International, Bao Li Hang 

International. 

209

Mr. BENNETT. Perhaps, Mr. Liang, if you could try to spell both of those companies for the court reporter to the best of your ability. 

For the record, have we put in the names of both companies? 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. So I understand, the two companies, there are two companies which 

issue checks to Mr. Wu; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And they do it each month? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And you deposit those checks into Mr. Wu’s account? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And the names of the two companies are Bao Li Hang? 

Answer. Bao Li Hang. 

Question. Bao Li Hang, and the second company is? 

Answer. Ji Tai International. 

Question. Ji Tai International? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How much are those checks for, do you know, sir? 

Answer. I don’t remember exactly the amount. I have to look and see from the 

statement. 

Question. I’m sorry, do you know the approximate amount, sir? 

Answer. About $600 something. 

Question. $600? 

Answer. $600 something, yes, I forget. 

Question. Each one? 

Answer. Yes, the other is about $700 something. 

Question. Do you know what are these for? 

Answer. That is for the payroll check. 

Question. It is a payroll check? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do you know what Mr. Wu does for these two companies? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Does this money leave the account? Do you withdraw the money from 

Mr. Wu? 

Answer. Yes, and then I return to the two companies, return to them. 

Mr. BENNETT. I don’t understand the witness’ answer. You will need to translate, 

please. 

The WITNESS. I put the money into the account, and then I draw out money, the 

same amount of money that was put in, and return them to those two companies. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Correct me if I am wrong, you deposit two checks each month into Mr. 

Wu’s account from these companies? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And then you withdraw the same amount that you deposit out of that 

account? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And then what do you do with the money? You have cash, you will cash 

them in cash; is that correct? 

Answer. No, I just also make a check, write a check. 

Question. But you will put it into your account and then write a check? 

Answer. Yes, to Daniel Wu account and then use the Daniel Wu account to write 

a check the same amount for deposit. 

Question. And to whom do you send these checks, back to the companies? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Okay. Who is the individual with whom you have contact at these two 

companies? 

Answer. Well, it is just comes in my job, I just return the check to them. 

Mr. BALLEN. Can I ask a clarification? 

Why do you take the checks that you get from the company, deposit them to Mr. 

Wu’s account and then return them to the two companies? Why do you do that? 

Any time you don’t understand, please have it translated. 

The WITNESS. I can say this is for——

Mr. BALLEN. Please use the translator. 

210

Mr. BENNETT. And, Mr. Liang, it would be helpful—to the extent the witness has 

difficulty explaining his answer, it would be helpful not only to translate the questions to the witness but translate his answers for counsel here if you could. 

The INTERPRETER. Yes, sir. 

The WITNESS. So that the two companies make out a certain amount to me to Mr. 

Wu every month, and which I deposit into his account, and then write out two 

checks for the same amount that the companies gave Mr. Wu to return them. That 

was in order to prove to the Immigration Service that Mr. Wu was, in fact, physically in the United States and not outside the States. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just for the record, counsel, we don’t need to belabor this now, but 

if you can just supplement and make sure counsel here have the names and addresses of those corporations, if the witness can locate that information, if you can 

supplement his response for both the Majority and Minority counsel as to the names 

of the corporations. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I gather, then, Mr. Wu has not had any contact with the Democratic 

National Committee or Ernst & Young in terms of the survey? 

Answer. No. 

Question. And to the extent that the Democratic National Committee—and I will 

show you what has been marked as DW–8. 

[Wang Deposition Exhibit No. DW–8 was marked for identification.] 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. To the extent that Ernst & Young, on behalf of the Democratic National 

Committee, tried to locate Mr. Wu, it is clear from this document they were not able 

to locate Mr. Wu; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. The second page——

The INTERPRETER. To your question, Mr. Huang answered yes. 

Mr. BALLEN. I’m sorry, I didn’t understand you. 

The INTERPRETER. The question counselor raised——

Mr. BENNETT. They said that the Democratic National Committee was not able 

to get a hold—to contact Mr. Wu, and the witness said, that is correct, they were 

not able to get a hold of him. 

Mr. BALLEN. To his knowledge. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Looking at the second page of that document, DNC, Bates Stamp DNC 

1803072, the No. 818–571–2288; do you know whose number that is? 

Answer. Oh, yes, that is my company. 

Question. That is your telephone number? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And that was the telephone number listed with respect to the contribution initially? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I will go back. How would the Democratic National Committee have 

your telephone number in connection with this contribution, Mr. Wang? How would 

the Democratic National Committee have this telephone number in connection with 

the contribution from Mr. Wu? 

Answer. I don’t know. I don’t know how they get the number. 

Question. Mr. Wang, are there any other political contributions made by you that 

we have not discussed today? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Are there any other political contributions by Mr. Wu in the name of 

Mr. Wu that we have not discussed? 

Answer. No. 

Mr. CARVIN. To his knowledge. 

Mr. BENNETT. To his knowledge. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. The question meaning, have you used Mr. Wu’s account in any other 

manner like you did on August 16, 1996, in making a contribution? 

Answer. There was only a one-time shot, on August 16th. 

Question. And you have had no other activity in a political campaign or political 

involvement other than what you have mentioned thus far here today? 

211

Answer. No. 

Question. I am going to read some names to you and ask if you have any knowledge of these people, and if you have met them. And take your time; if you don’t 

understand or if I mispronounce someone’s name, I will do the best I can. And some 

of these you may have already been asked about. 

Do you have any knowledge of or relationship with Mr. Charlie Trie, Yah Lin 

Trie? 

Mr. CARVIN. One is the Americanization and the other is the Chinese name. 

The WITNESS. Well, this name I saw so many times in the newspaper, Yah Lin 

Trie. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. I think the Congressman asked you earlier, have you ever met Mr. Trie? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know anyone with the CHY Corporation? 

Let Mr. Liang translate for you, please. 

Answer. I heard the firm of CHY. I learned of this firm for the first time because 

the investigator, Mr. Paul Hubert——

Question. Might have asked about it? 

Answer. Yes, that is when I learned about it. 

Question. No other knowledge besides that? 

Answer. No. 

Question. All right. Huan Hsu, also known as Tony Hsu? 

Answer. No. 

Mr. CARVIN. Spell that, please. 

Question. H-S-U? 

Answer. No. 

Question. David Mercer or Ari Swiller? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Martha Shoffner? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Lorin Fleming? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Maria Mapili? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Jody Webb? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Yue Fang Chu? 

Answer. No. 

Question. An individual named Ng Lap Seng, also known as Mr. Wu? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Keshi Zhan? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Ming Chen? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Xiping Wang? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Zhengwei Cheng? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Charles T. Chiang? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Bei Bei Liu? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Zhengang Shao? 

Answer. No. 

Question. George Chu/Da Tung? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Peter Chen? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Sy Zuan Pan? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Yogesh Gandhi? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Lottie Shackleford? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Mark Middleton? 

Answer. No. 

212

Question. Ernie Green? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Mr. Wang, I want to thank you for your effort today. Now Mr. Ballen 

may have some follow-up questions. 

Mr. BALLEN. I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Bennett. If I could just have about 

30 seconds? I don’t even want to take a break. Just 30 seconds. 

Mr. BENNETT. Would you like to take a break? 

Mr. CARVIN. Let’s take a quick 5-minute break. 

[Brief Recess.] 

Mr. BALLEN. We are back on the record now. I just have several questions to follow up with you, sir. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. First, did you understand the questions that were posed to you today 

by both Mr. Waxman, Mr. Bennett, and myself and your own counsel? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. If there was ever a point when you did not understand the questions, 

did you consult with the translator who is sitting next to yourself? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I think the record should reflect that, and I do not know whether the 

court reporter indicated it or not, every time you consulted with the translator, but 

I believe all counsel would agree with me that it was frequent throughout the deposition. Is that correct? You did frequently consult with him on questions and answers? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. So that you feel you had the opportunity to understand each question 

and each answer that you gave here today? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And you had the opportunity throughout this deposition to consult with 

the translator sitting by your left? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Have you understood the translator at all times? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And you understand here that you are under oath today? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I notice the translator actually translated that question for you. 

Does the translator speak the same dialect of Chinese that you speak? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And you already stated that you understand your answers are under 

oath and that they must be truthful? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And you have given truthful answers here today, sir? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And you have understood both the questions and the answers and the 

nature of the answers you have given? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I would like to go back, I believe it is Exhibit No. 1, sir, your Memorandum of Interview. I will wait until you have it before you. 

Mr. BENNETT. For the record, it’s not his Memorandum of Interview. 

Mr. BALLEN. I’m sorry, I stand corrected, Memorandum of Interview you had with 

the two investigators. 

Mr. BENNETT. Actually for the record, the entirety of the exhibit is 5 pages, the 

first 3 of them are a Memorandum of Interview, both interviews on August 15, 1997, 

and then the 4th page is August 19, 1997, and the 5th page is September 2, 1997. 

Mr. BALLEN. That is correct. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. Sir, I am going to direct your attention to paragraph 4 and I will wait 

for the translator to translate. 

For the record, I believe the translator has just translated for you paragraph 

number 4 on the first 2 pages of Exhibit No. 1; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Now, in this statement you said you made a contribution for $5,000 because it was a chance to meet President Clinton, and you also said that the contribution bought you two tickets to a party, and you said that you went to the party 

but did not meet the President, is that correct, sir? 

Mr. CARVIN. Objection. Compound. 

213

Mr. BALLEN. I’ll ask him one at a time. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. In your statement you said that you made the contribution because it 

was a chance to meet President Clinton? 

Answer. Repeat the question. 

Question. Yes. The question is, in your statement you stated, is this correct, that 

you made the contribution because it was a chance to meet President Clinton? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Is that correct? Did you make it for that reason or not? 

Mr. CARVIN. There may be confusion. I take it you’re not asking him if the statement was made to the investigators but whether that was the real reason that he 

gave the donation. Or were you asking two questions? 

Mr. BALLEN. I asked two questions. The first question, did he make that statement to the investigators, the next question, is it a true statement? 

Mr. CARVIN. You want me to ask him again or do you want to go? 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. That is fine. Did you make that statement to the investigators? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Is it correct, sir? 

Answer. It is not correct. 

Question. The next question is, you also said to the investigators that the contribution bought you two tickets to a party. Did you tell that to the investigators? 

Answer. In that, yes. 

Question. You did say it? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Is it correct, sir? 

Answer. No. 

Question. In the statement you said you went to a party, a fund-raising party, is 

that correct, did you say to the investigators? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did in fact you go to a party? 

Answer. No. 

Question. So you never went to any fund-raising party for the President? 

Answer. Yes. I mean—— Question. Did you ever go? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Directing your attention, sir, to August 16, 1996, do you recall how 

long—you testified, I believe, that you received a phone call from John Huang before 

he came to your place of business on August 16? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How long before August 16? 

Mr. CARVIN. Objection. That mischaracterizes his testimony. He said before they 

came to the meeting. He didn’t say it was before August 16. 

Mr. BALLEN. The meeting was August 16. 

Mr. CARVIN. You can call at 9 o’clock, you can call at 10 o’clock. 

Mr. BALLEN. Let’s get that clarified. 

The WITNESS. I think not too long. I think within an hour. Within one hour of 

his phone call, he came to my office. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. John Huang called you on August 16, then, the same day he came? 

Answer. Yes, the same day, after the phone call and after, not over one hour, then 

he came here. 

Question. Came to where, sir? 

Answer. To the office. 

Question. Did he say where he was calling from, John Huang? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Did he say when he would come to the office? 

Answer. No. 

Question. He just said he would come that same day to the office? 

Answer. Yes. Because he was nearby in the area. 

Question. So on August 16 when he called you in the morning, he said he was 

nearby the office? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How did he come to your office? Did he come in a car? 

214

Answer. I’m not sure because I didn’t see how they used the car. They just come 

in. 

Question. When they left, where did they leave? Meaning they, John Huang and 

Mr. Pan on August 16, 1996. 

Answer. I don’t know. They just left the office. 

Question. Did they say how they arrived, whether they had arrived on foot or bus 

or taxi? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Just to go back one moment to my prior questions about your statements, sir, when you said to the investigators that you made the contribution to buy 

two tickets—because it was a chance to meet the President and because it would 

buy two tickets to a party and that you went to a party, that was not true, was 

it, when you told the investigators that? 

Answer. I beg to differ. I did not buy the two tickets to that party in the off 

chance that I might meet President Clinton. And it was a misstatement when I 

said—when I read in the report that I had attended the party. So I wish to correct 

these two points. 

Question. So that I understand, did you attend a party or did you not? 

Answer. No, I don’t attend. Sir, I did not attend that party. 

Question. Did you buy tickets to attend the party? 

Mr. CARVIN. Can I help here? 

Mr. BALLEN. Yes. 

Mr. CARVIN. Now he’s confused. Now we’re going back to the fund-raiser for the 

President, the hundred dollar ticket, you’re not asking about that? 

Mr. BALLEN. No. 

Mr. CARVIN. You’re asking about, was the $5,000 donation on August 16 intended 

to purchase a ticket for a party? 

The WITNESS. No. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. Let me go back to August 16 again if I can. You testified you received 

on the morning of August 16 a call from John Huang; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did John Huang call you? 

Answer. Yes. He called. 

Question. Did he call you or your father? Do you recall? 

Answer. He called us. 

Mr. CARVIN. It may be—who picked up the phone? 

The WITNESS. I picked up the phone first and then I transferred it to my father. 

So he called me or called my father. The same. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. Were you surprised when John Huang asked to meet with you on August 16? 

Answer. Yes. A little surprised and happy. 

Question. And happy? Why were you happy? 

Answer. I was happy because such a well-known person gave me a buzz. 

Question. And did he say in the phone call why he was coming, John Huang? 

Answer. No. 

Question. So you did not know why he was coming? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. He came within an hour of the phone call? 

Answer. Yes. It was within an hour. 

Question. Who did he meet with? You testified, I believe, your father, yourself, Mr. 

Pan, and John Huang? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Is that correct, sir? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Where did you meet? 

Answer. We met in the office, in my father’s office. 

Question. In your father’s office? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How long did the conversation occur? 

Answer. You mean on the telephone? 

Question. No, no. When you all met in your father’s office on August 16. 

Answer. Not so long. I would say about 20 or 30 minutes. 

Question. Do you recall who asked you to make a contribution first? 

215

Answer. I know, I don’t remember which, whether Pan or Huang exactly. 

Question. Did they ask you or did they ask your father? 

Answer. In fact we sit together. He asked my father and you interested, me and 

my father. 

Question. So they asked both of you? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Were you surprised when they asked you to make a contribution? 

Answer. Yes. Surprised. 

Question. How did you respond? Did you respond or did your father respond? 

Answer. I’m not so sure. The surprise not like this, but in my mind can feel what 

the contribution is so much about. 

Question. What did you say or your father say when John Huang asked for a contribution? 

Answer. Well, in fact we didn’t—although my father and I did not say it was quite a huge sum, $5,000, but from the expressions on our face which showed that we 

were a little bit taken aback by being asked for such a great sum or big sum. 

Question. Was it at that time that the offer for reimbursement occurred? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did you understand at the time when the offer for reimbursement was 

made that it was wrong? 

Answer. I didn’t know it was illegal but I had my suspicions about it. 

Question. You testified earlier in response to a question of Mr. Bennett about 

checks from two companies to Daniel Wu’s account and that the reason those 

checks—why don’t you—I don’t want to characterize your testimony. Why don’t you 

tell us again what the reason for the checks to Mr. Wu’s accounts were, why you 

were doing that? 

Mr. CARVIN. Just to clarify, you are now talking about the monthly deposits, nothing to do with the DNC checks? 

Mr. BALLEN. Correct, the monthly deposits that have to do with the immigration 

and naturalization. 

The WITNESS. I received two different checks from two different companies showing that Mr. Wu was on their payroll. And I put it—I put the checks into his account after which I reimbursed the two companies. The reason being that for immigration purposes, it would show that Mr. Wu was here in the States physically. And 

on the part—and that he was working in the States. And on the part of the two 

companies, it was to show they had an employee on the payroll which might give 

them a tax credit or a tax break. So it was for tax purposes. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. But if I understand your testimony correctly, Mr. Wu was not here 

physically in the United States while these checks were being paid, is that correct, 

sir? 

Answer. No, he is not here. 

Question. He is not? 

Answer. No. 

Question. So did you understand when you were doing that that it was wrong, 

too? 

Answer. No, I’m sorry, I didn’t. 

Question. I just have a few more questions, sir. 

I believe you told Mr. Waxman that you did not know Mr. Pan’s first name when 

you met him in 1996; is that correct? 

Answer. I don’t know his first name. 

Question. In fact, the only time you heard his first name was when the investigators from the committee asked you his first name; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. So you don’t know whether Antonio Pan is the first name of the Mr. 

Pan that you met; do you? 

Answer. On the day of August 16? Is that it? 

Question. Correct. 

Mr. CARVIN. Did he know on August 16 his first name or does he know today his 

first name? 

Mr. BALLEN. Did he know on August—let’s take them seriatim. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. Did you know on August 16 what his first name was, 1996? 

Answer. No. 

Question. Do you know today what his first name is? 

216

Answer. Yes. 

Question. What I am trying to establish is how do you know that is the same person today that you think it was then if you don’t know what his name was then? 

Answer. I could put it like this: I knew that it was the same Mr. Pan from the 

description of Mr. Pan that the investigators gave me. And I also learned from him 

that Mr. Pan’s name was Anthony. And afterwards, I got from my father’s place his 

business card, and that is how I also learned what his first name was. 

Question. Do you have his business card, sir? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Have you produced that to the committee? 

Mr. CARVIN. No. 

Mr. BALLEN. Mr. Bennett, would that be something then you can ask the witness 

to produce to the committee? 

Mr. BENNETT. That is fine. We can document that the money came from Antonio 

Pan, but certainly to the extent he can find the business card, if you have it, we’d 

love to see it. To the extent the witness recalls getting the business card and recalls 

it’s Antonio Pan, that’s sufficient as well. But, Mr. Carvin, if you could see if they 

have the business card, the committee would like to have it. 

Mr. CARVIN. In all candor, this came up on Friday in connection with the grand 

jury. We received today the original of the business card. The Justice Department, 

frankly, has first dibs on it. We’ll be happy to supply the committee with a copy. 

I don’t think there will be any questions as to authenticity. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. 

Mr. BALLEN. I have nothing further, sir. Thank you. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT: 

Question. Mr. Wang, when you were first interviewed on August 16, and it was 

paragraph 4 that was read to you by Mr. Ballen, the first paragraph, you at first 

were not truthful with the agents and then were honest with them when they came 

back the second time; isn’t that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And the second time they came back for further inquiry, then you told 

them the truthful story? 

Answer. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. 

EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN: 

Question. I just have one follow-up question. Today you’re telling us the truthful 

story; is that correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Mr. BALLEN. Thank you. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Wang, you have the opportunity to read and review your deposition, as we said in the start of the deposition. A transcript will be made available 

to your attorney within the next 24 hours so you will have an opportunity to review 

it and we will be in contact with Mr. Carvin with respect to your appearance before 

the full committee this Thursday, August 9. 

Mr. Carvin, you will try to supply the names of the two corporations he discussed 

as well as provide a copy of the business card which Mr. Antonio Pan left; is that 

correct? 

Mr. CARVIN. Yes. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]

[The exhibits referred to follow:]

217


g:\graphics\44833.064
218


g:\graphics\44833.065
219


g:\graphics\44833.066
220


g:\graphics\44833.067
221


g:\graphics\44833.068
222


g:\graphics\44833.069
223


g:\graphics\44833.070
224


g:\graphics\44833.071
225


g:\graphics\44833.072
226


g:\graphics\44833.073
227


g:\graphics\44833.074
228


g:\graphics\44833.075
229


g:\graphics\44833.076
230


g:\graphics\44833.077
231


g:\graphics\44833.078
232


g:\graphics\44833.079
233


g:\graphics\44833.080
234


g:\graphics\44833.081
235


g:\graphics\44833.082
236


g:\graphics\44833.083
237


g:\graphics\44833.084
238


g:\graphics\44833.085
239


g:\graphics\44833.086
240


g:\graphics\44833.087
241


g:\graphics\44833.088
242


g:\graphics\44833.089
243


g:\graphics\44833.090
244


g:\graphics\44833.091
245


g:\graphics\44833.092
246


g:\graphics\44833.093
247


g:\graphics\44833.094
248


g:\graphics\44833.095
249


g:\graphics\44833.096
250


g:\graphics\44833.097
251


g:\graphics\44833.098
252

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will try 

not to take the full 30 minutes, if possible. 

Mr. Wang, thank you very much for being here today. As you recall, I took your deposition on Monday of this week. 

Before we start, we should note that Mr. Liang, you are here as 

an interpreter, is that correct, sir? 

Mr. LIANG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. And just state your full name, for the record. 

Mr. LIANG. Herman H. Liang. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am sorry, sir. We can’t hear you. You need to 

pull up the microphone. 

Mr. BURTON. If you all will pull the microphone as close to you 

as possible. Just pull it up. 

Mr. LIANG. Herman H. Liang, L-I-A-N-G. 

Mr. BENNETT. And your background, sir, is I believe you are with 

the U.S. Information Agency; is that correct? 

Mr. LIANG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. And you have been a contract interpreter with the 

State Department for 15 years, is that correct, Mr. Liang? 

Mr. LIANG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Liang, in light of the fact that Congressman 

Waxman and I had the occasion to take, and also Mr. Ballen, minority counsel, your client’s deposition on Monday and my concerns 

with his understanding the English language, I would ask in the 

abundance of caution, if you translate as we go. I will try to go 

slowly. Sometimes it is difficult for me, but I will try to go slowly, 

and I ask that you make sure that you translate everything that 

I say for your client. Could you do that, Mr. Liang? 

Mr. LIANG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, sir. 

Again, Mr. Wang, we took your deposition on Monday of this 

week. Before we start, I would like to give you an opportunity to 

correct or further explain any of the answers which you gave during that deposition. 

To the best of your knowledge, are the statements made on Monday here in Washington, during the deposition, attended by me and 

Congressman Waxman and Mr. Ballen and other staff, are they 

correct, sir? 

[Unless otherwise indicated, all answers of Mr. Wang are in 

English.] 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. You need to speak more loudly into the microphone, Mr. Wang. You need to bring that closer to you, sir. 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Wang, as you know, this committee has an interest in the contributions that you made to the Democratic National Committee. I would like to ask you some questions in connection with the contribution which you made in August 1996 and 

also contributions made in the name of Daniel Wu. 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Do you understand that that will be the area of 

my questions? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

253

Mr. BENNETT. First of all, Mr. Wang, this is your second appearance, actually your third appearance, with respect to these matters 

here in Washington over the past 6 days. Is that correct? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And you are also represented—I meant to welcome 

you, Mr. Carvin; I am sorry—by Mr. Michael Carvin, an attorney 

here in Washington. 

You have had an opportunity to be with your client over the last 

week and a half, I guess, Mr. Carvin; is that correct? 

Mr. CARVIN. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. And did you accompany him to the Federal grand 

jury? 

Mr. CARVIN. Actually, my partner did, but he was represented. 

Mr. BENNETT. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, no lawyer could be in the grand jury with Mr. Wang; is that 

correct? 

Mr. CARVIN. That’s correct. 

Mr. BENNETT. And with respect to the matters of August 1996, 

Mr. Wang, directing your attention to August 1996, records obtained by this committee reflect that you made a contribution to 

the Democratic National Committee. Do you recall being asked to 

make a contribution to the Democratic National Committee in August 1996? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And I will ask that we put on exhibit 99 on the 

projector at this time. 

[Exhibit 99 follows:]

254


g:\graphics\44833.099
255

Mr. BENNETT. Let me ask you something first, Mr. Wang. Had 

you ever made a political contribution to a political campaign prior 

to August 1996? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And how many political contributions had you 

made prior to August 1996? 

Mr. WANG. One time. 

Mr. BENNETT. And that was for how much, sir? 

Mr. WANG. That—$99. 

Mr. BENNETT. And apart from that one $99 contribution, had you 

made any other contributions to any political candidates or political 

parties prior to August 1996? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. Another contribution for the President of the 

party for $300. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Liang, if you will help Mr. Wang with respect 

to that answer and translate that for us, please. 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] There was another contribution 

that I made that was for President Clinton’s birthday party and I 

made out a check for $300. 

Mr. BENNETT. For $300. 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, to your knowledge, Mr. Wang, apart from 

the $99 check and the $300 check for President Clinton’s birthday 

party fund-raiser—in fact, you made that contribution yourself; is 

that correct, Mr. Wang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Liang, verify that the client understands that 

no one reimbursed him for that contribution. Correct? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. No one did? If you will translate his answer, Mr. 

Liang, clarifying that there is no testimony that someone reimbursed him for that payment. Correct? 

Mr. LIANG. The answer should have been no because the differences in the two languages. 

Mr. BENNETT. All right. Thank you. Directing your attention now 

to exhibit 99, which is on the projector screen, this is, in fact, a 

check which you prepared dated August 16, 1996, paid to the order 

of the DNC, $5,000. 

Can you identify that copy, Mr. Wang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And so you understand, Mr. Wang, the tracking 

form on the bottom of that check is, in fact, the tracking form 

which we procured from the Democratic National Committee. Directing your attention to that check, you can identify your signature on the check? 

Mr. WANG. Yes, that’s my signature. 

Mr. BENNETT. And, Mr. Wang, when were you first asked and by 

whom to make this contribution? What were the circumstances surrounding your making this contribution? 

Mr. WANG. That’s on the day August 16th, and it had been—by 

Huang or Pan. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Liang, you will have to translate. I thought I 

understood him to say by Huang or Pan, but you will need to 

256

translate the answer. I am trying to ask who—what person or persons contacted Mr. Wang with respect to this check? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] It could be either one, either 

Mr. Huang or Mr. Pan. 

Mr. BENNETT. All right. Was it by telephone or in person? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] They came in person and asked 

me to make a donation. 

Mr. BENNETT. All right. Was there a telephone call prior to anyone arriving in person to visit with Mr. Wang? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Yes, there was a phone call. 

Mr. BENNETT. And does he recall who called him? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Mr. Huang. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, with respect to Mr. Huang, does he know 

Mr. Huang’s first name? Mr. Wang, do you know Mr. Huang’s first 

name? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] At that time, I knew only his 

name in Chinese. 

Mr. BENNETT. Directing your attention to August 16, 1996, which 

is the date of the check, did this occur the same day, Mr. Wang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Did you know an individual named John Huang 

prior to August 16, 1996? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And who was John Huang? I want to make sure 

we are or not talking about the same person. Who was John 

Huang, to your knowledge, on August 16, 1996, Mr. Wang? 

Mr. WANG. John Huang during that time—— Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Liang, I think you may have to assist him 

with this, if you will, please. 

Can you respond for your client, Mr. Liang? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] I think he was one of the better 

known persons or figures that was involved in raising funds for 

President Clinton’s campaign. 

Mr. BURTON. To make it easier for all the Members, would you 

pull the microphones, both of them, very close to you, please? Pull 

them close to you so we can hear you better. Thank you. 

Mr. BENNETT. Had you met Mr. John Huang before, Mr. Wang? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. And on how many occasions had you met Mr. John 

Huang prior to the visit by me and another individual, according 

to your testimony, on August 16, 1996? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Just once, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. And except for one time, prior to August 16, 1996, 

there was only one occasion that you had ever actually met Mr. 

John Huang; is that correct? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And where and when had you met him, sir? 

Mr. WANG. In Philadelphia about—at that time, I don’t remember, but June or July in 1996 in one Chinese restaurant. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Liang, I believe your client testified that he 

had met this individual one time before in June or July 1996 at 

a Chinese restaurant. Is that what he said? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. And that was in California? 

257

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Had you ever seen Mr. John Huang’s pictures in 

the newspaper? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Huang, let me ask you this: Does your father 

know John Huang? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. And if so, how? I don’t want you to get into the 

nature of your business because that is, I think, stricken from the 

record in terms of privacy concerns for this witness, Mr. Chairman. 

But how does your father known John Huang? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] It was at a social occasion and 

some friends introduced my father to Mr. John Huang. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, directing your attention to this particular 

day in August 1996, August 16, 1996, according to exhibit 99, did 

there come a point in time when you met with two individuals at 

your home or at your place of business? 

Mr. WANG. In the office. 

Mr. BENNETT. In the office? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And was it the same day of the telephone call? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And to the best of your knowledge, it was August 

16, 1996? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Huang, I should tell you that Tuesday, the 

day after your deposition, I was visited by John Huang’s attorney, 

whom I know personally, who insisted that his client was not with 

you in California on that particular day and that you are mistaken 

with respect to the identity of one of the two men whom you met 

on that day. 

If you will translate that for him, Mr. Liang? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] To the best of my knowledge, I 

took that person who came with Mr. Pan to be John Huang. 

Mr. BENNETT. I understand. Just, in fairness to your client, Mr. 

Carvin, I wanted to make sure he understood that. And just in further fairness to your client, Mr. Carvin, I received at lunchtime 

today, about 35 minutes ago, a copy of a letter which Mr. John 

Huang’s attorney, in fact, given to minority counsel last night, and 

I had not seen it, but in that—Mr. Cobb is an attorney whom I 

have known personally for some 20 years. He gave me the heads 

up and gave me a copy of it. So I only have the copy that John 

Huang’s attorney has given to me and I have provided a copy of 

that letter to your attorney, Mr. Carvin. 

Mr. Carvin, I am just trying to move forward here, but I want 

to make sure that no one tries to unfairly trap this witness with 

respect to the two people who visited with him. Absent any further 

inquiry you have, I am prepared to move forward with respect to 

the discussion of the events of that particular day. 

Mr. CARVIN. I have no further inquiry. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Carvin. 

Mr. WAXMAN. What was the counsel’s answer? I couldn’t hear 

him. 

Mr. CARVIN. I have no further inquiry at this point. 

258

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Wang, what was the name of the other individual with whom you met? You indicated that you believe that 

one—in your opinion, one individual was John Huang. Who was 

the other person who was with Mr. Huang on the day of August 

16, 1996? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] His family name is Pan. Mr. 

Pan, as I know him. 

Mr. BENNETT. P-A-N? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Wang, did you subsequently learn that the 

gentleman, the second gentleman, was a gentleman named Antonio 

Pan? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Did you have any knowledge of Mr. Huang’s prior 

employer, the Lippo Group? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] No, I didn’t know anything 

about it. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Wang, directing your attention, then, to August 16, 1996, the same day on which you prepared the check to 

the DNC in the amount of $5,000 on that day, did you have a discussion with these two individuals with respect to your immediately being reimbursed for this contribution? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] All I remember is that when I 

wrote out the check those two individuals said that the money 

would be reimbursed. 

Mr. BENNETT. And I am going to get to the later events of the 

day, but with respect to the two individuals who said you would 

be reimbursed, do you recall which individual said you would be reimbursed? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] I don’t quite remember, sir, but 

anyway, it was one of the two. 

Mr. BENNETT. Whichever one told you that, was the other one 

sitting there and present when the first person said that you would 

be reimbursed? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, then, in fact, you prepared this check in the 

amount of $5,000 and there was a second check also prepared by 

you, isn’t that correct, Mr. Wang, on this day? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Do you know an individual by the name of Daniel 

Wu, Mr. Wang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And, Mr. Wang, who is Daniel Wu? 

Mr. WANG. He is my friend. 

Mr. BENNETT. Did you discuss with these two gentlemen, when 

they met with you, whether or not a contribution to the DNC similar to that represented by exhibit 99 could also be made through 

any other accounts? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] At that time, so far as I recollect, those two individuals asked me if I had any friends who could 

make a donation, and at that time I brought up the name of Mr. 

Daniel Wu.

259

Mr. BENNETT. And I will ask if we can put an exhibit on the projector, exhibit 100. Looking at that exhibit, Mr. Wang, that is, in 

fact—well, why don’t you identify that? I believe it is a power of 

attorney form for Mr. Wu; is that correct? 

[Exhibit 100 follows:]

260


g:\graphics\44833.100
261

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. How is it that you have the power of attorney for 

Mr. Daniel Wu? 

Mr. WANG. Yeah, he is my friend. He want me—— Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] As he is my friend, or rather as 

I am his friend, he gave me the power of attorney for to act on his 

behalf in the United States. 

Mr. BENNETT. In fact, Mr. Wu has not been in this country for 

several years; is that correct, Mr. Wang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now then, showing you—did you, in fact, write out 

a check on Mr. Wu’s account also for $5,000? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And that was made payable to whom, sir? 

Mr. WANG. The DNC. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am sorry. The DNC? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And did you give both of those checks to the two 

individuals who were visiting with you in your office? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Now, then, I will show—ask that the projector 

place up on the exhibit screen exhibit 101. In fact, that account reflects a $5,000 transaction ultimately clearing your account with 

respect to the $5,000 payment you made; is that correct, Mr. 

Wang? 

If we can try to expand that in size a little bit on the projector? 

[Exhibit 101 follows:]

262


g:\graphics\44833.101
263

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Do you know whether the check you wrote out to 

the DNC on Mr. Wu’s account was cashed? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Let me just get into the matter of what occurred 

with respect to these payments. At the time you wrote the second 

$5,000 check on Mr. Wu’s account, did you have an understanding 

that this money would be paid back also? And who did you believe 

was going to pay the money back? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And who was going to pay you back, Mr. Wang, for the total of $10,000 in contributions to the DNC on August 16, 

1996? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] I am sorry to say, I don’t know. 

Mr. BENNETT. Ultimately, you were, in fact, paid back the same 

day, weren’t you, Mr. Wang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And the individual who paid you back and came 

back to your office, who was that person? 

Mr. WANG. Mr. Pan. 

Mr. BENNETT. You do not contend, nor did you contend in your 

deposition, that the individual whom you believed was John Huang 

brought back the $10,000. It is your contention that it is the other 

individual who you know by the name Pan, who brought the 

$10,000; is that correct? 

And I am saying that in such a lengthy fashion, Mr. Liang, so 

that you have an opportunity to translate that and make sure that 

he understands his response. 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] I believe it was Mr. Pan. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am going to ask to be put on the projectors, exhibits 102 and 103. 

First of all, 102, Mr. Wang, reflects a deposit by you directly back into your account on August 16th, the same day, of $3,000. 

Do you see that there, sir? 

[Exhibits 102 and 103 follow:]

264


g:\graphics\44833.102
265


g:\graphics\44833.103
266

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Exhibit 103, if we can put that up, reflects a de- posit back into your account of $2,000. 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Do you see that? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. If we can also—with respect to the other account, 

Mr. Wu’s account, if you will look at exhibit 106—looking at exhibit 106, that also reflects August 16, 1996, $3,000 is placed into Mr. 

Wu’s account and $2,000 was placed 4 days later on August 20, 

1996, into Mr. Wu’s account. Is that correct? 

[Exhibit 106 follows:]

267


g:\graphics\44833.104
268

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. When were you, in fact, paid the total of $10,000, 

back by Mr. Huang? 

Mr. WANG. August 16, 1996. 

Mr. BENNETT. You, in fact, received $10,000 in cash back the 

very same day from Mr. Pan; is that correct? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And why is it that you deposited $3,000 into your account and $3,000 into Mr. Wu’s account, waited 4 days, and then deposited $2,000 into your account and $2,000 into Mr. Wu’s account? What was the reason for the delay of 4 days? 

And if you will translate that for me, please, Mr. Liang? 

Mr. WANG. The reason is that Pan, he told me don’t deposit the 

money one time, total money one time. So that is why I spread two 

times for deposit. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Liang, if you could perhaps make sure we got 

that, if you could translate again and state what your client said? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Mr. Pan instructed me not to 

deposit the money at one time, in one lump sum, but to spread it 

out. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Wang, do you have any familiarity with respect to what are called ‘‘currency transaction reports’’ required by the U.S. Government for transactions of $10,000 or more? 

If you will translate that for him, Mr. Liang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. And, in fact, I will show exhibits 104 and 105, if 

I can, on the projector screen, reflecting entries on August 16 in 

your journal. And then exhibit 105 is August 20 in your journal, 

with respect to both of those account entries; is that correct, Mr. 

Wang? 

[Exhibits 104 and 105 follow:]

269


g:\graphics\44833.105
270


g:\graphics\44833.106
271

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Wang, do you have any knowledge as to where 

Mr. Pan would have gotten the money and where he would have 

received the money to pay you back? 

Mr. WANG. No, no idea. 

Mr. BENNETT. Did he tell you whether or not you should speak 

to anyone about this transaction? 

Mr. WANG. I don’t remember he tell me anything—I mean don’t 

tell anybody. 

Mr. BENNETT. Don’t tell anybody. And again that is from Mr. 

Pan when he came back, not Mr. Huang; is that correct? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] What Mr. Wang meant was that 

he does not—I do not recall that Mr. Pan told—instructed me not 

to mention this to anyone. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am sorry, Mr. Liang, you said he recalls Mr. Pan 

did or did not say that? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] As far as he remembers, he said 

he does not recall that Mr.—— Mr. WANG. Can you repeat the question again? 

Mr. BENNETT. Basically I am asking you—I believe at your deposition, page 48 of your deposition taken on Monday, you indicated 

to Congressman Waxman and me that Mr. Pan had indicated to 

you ‘‘just don’t tell anyone.’’ Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Wang, is there any doubt in your mind that 

you were visited by two individuals on August 16, 1996, with respect to your contribution to the Democratic National Committee? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, there is a doubt; or yes, you in fact were visited by two individuals? 

Mr. WANG. Yes, two persons. 

Mr. BENNETT. And with respect to those individuals, is there any 

doubt in your mind that you were asked to make a payment for 

which you were going to be reimbursed the same day? Is there any 

doubt in your mind about that, sir? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Again, I believe the response, Mr. Liang, should 

be from the witness, if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] It should have been no, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Finally, Mr. Wang—I didn’t mean to take up my 

whole time, Mr. Chairman, but I think I am about up—with respect to the identity of those two individuals, to the best of your 

knowledge and belief, you believe one of those individuals was John 

Huang and the other was an individual named Antonio Pan. Is 

that to the best of your recollection and belief? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just one last question and I will be finished, Mr. 

Chairman. 

When you received the telephone call from an individual whom 

you believed to be John Huang, did that individual identify himself 

to you as John Huang in that telephone call? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] He did, sir. 

272

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Wang. I have no further questions. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wang, good to see you again. I won’t go over all of the territory that counsel has just reviewed with you. 

As I understand your statement today, it is the same as your 

statement in the deposition on Monday to the effect that a man you 

believed to be John Huang and another man you believed to be Antonio Pan came to your place of business in the morning on August 

16, 1996, and that they asked you for a contribution, and you wrote 

out a check for $5,000 from your account, another $5,000 from Mr. 

Wu’s account, and you were told that you would be reimbursed. 

You gave the man you believed to be Mr. Huang the checks, and 

later that same day the man you believed to be Mr. Pan came back 

to your office with $10,000 in cash. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Wang, after your testimony on Monday, my 

staff looked into whether John Huang was in Los Angeles on August 16, 1996, and we prepared a report with a number of documents that we have given to you and to your lawyer. We will give 

them—— Mr. BURTON. For the record, we have not received those documents, but we will look at them right now. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You do have them. 

In this document, we have dozens of exhibits, including affidavits 

from eyewitnesses, expense account records, and photographs, all of 

which place John Huang in New York City, not in Los Angeles. 

One exhibit shows John Huang’s hotel bill from the Sheraton 

Hotel in New York which indicates he stayed there from August 

10, 1996, through August 18, 1996. This exhibit also contains Mr. 

Huang’s expense record from the Democratic National Committee, 

which shows him in New York City from August 10, 1996, to August 18, 1996. 

We have obtained affidavits from eight eyewitnesses, eight people who were with John Huang in New York City during this period, including from four witnesses who place him in New York 

City on August 16, 1996. 

For example, one of the exhibits is a statement from Erica 

Payne, who was in charge of the fund-raising for the Democratic 

National Committee for President Clinton’s 50th birthday gala. Her 

testimony, and I quote, was that ‘‘John Huang was continuously 

physically present in New York City conducting fund-raising for at 

least 5 days prior to the August 18th celebration.’’

Mr. SHADEGG. Point of parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. 

We will not take away from your time. Stop the clock, please. 

Mr. SHADEGG. The portion of the affidavit that the ranking member just read from has an introductory phrase which qualifies that 

rather dramatically. 

Mr. WAXMAN. This is not a parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I am wondering when I raise the point of order, 

the fact that that language has been omitted. 

273

Mr. BURTON. The language has been omitted, so the document is 

not correct; is that what you are saying? 

Mr. SHADEGG. From the question, the language was omitted in 

the affidavit; that is, he read just part of the affidavit, not the 

qualifying phrase. My question is, when can I raise the question of 

the propriety of that? 

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman has a full copy of the affidavit. 

Mr. FATTAH. So do the counsel and the witness. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will suspend. We are not going to 

take away from his time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. If I could read it in full—— Mr. BURTON. Wait just 1 second. 

Until the questioning starts, our parliamentarian has advised me 

that it is in order for someone to ask a question like this before 

questions are put to the witness. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I presume that would be if I were willing to yield 

to him, and I am not willing to yield at this time. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will proceed. He has to yield to you 

in order for you to be able to respond. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to read from the affidavit of Erica Payne 

and draw Mr. Shadegg and everyone else’s attention to her statement, ‘‘To the best of my recollection, John Huang was continuously physically present in New York City conducting fund-raising 

for at least 5 days prior to this August 18th celebration.’’ And then, to complete it, ‘‘I worked with and saw him each day 

during that period, and in fact approximately 2 to 4 days prior to 

the event.’’ We have another exhibit from—an affidavit from Ethel Chen. 

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, what are the rules in the House and 

in the committee to refer to documents that are mischaracterized, 

as the gentleman from California is doing? This is not a sworn document. This witness is not before us—there is no notary seal on 

this document. It does not meet the legal requirements of either 

testimony or affidavit or under oath; a document simply saying 

what it would like us to believe it is does not make it so. 

I think that there are rules of evidence that we use here that require that in order for something to be an affidavit under oath, or 

testimony, it has to be sworn to in an official capacity; and evidence thereof has to be either made in this committee or on the 

face of the document itself, neither of which is present here. 

Mr. BURTON. Just 1 second. We will refer to our counsel. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. BURTON. The hearsay rule does not apply, and if it is pertinent to the investigation and questioning, then it will be allowed. 

Mr. BARR. Another point of parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Maybe I can clarify the matter for the gentleman. 

Mr. BURTON. The Chair rules the gentleman may proceed. 

Mr. BARR. Further point of parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. BURTON. State your parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. BARR. Are there any rules that pertain in the House or committee thereof, both of which this body consists of, that require that 

if a document is not an affidavit or sworn to, that it be characterVerDate Sep 04 2002 16:54 Sep 20, 2002 Jkt 081028 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\44833 44833
274

ized as simply a piece of paper and not something that is actually 

sworn to or testified to or an affidavit itself? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think I can simplify the matter. 

Mr. BURTON. Just 1 second. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. BURTON. I think we will have to look at this as any other 

document that we are talking about before the committee. This is 

not a court of law. We will take it at face value, unless it is proven 

otherwise. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. 

I understand the discomfort of some of my colleagues on the 

other side. I would assume we are coming very close to the question of whether this witness may have committed perjury. I would 

suggest that Mr. Waxman be allowed to complete his examination, 

and then all of the documents he is using in that examination——

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman is out of order. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. The question of perjury has not even be raised 

and should not be raised at this point. 

The gentleman will proceed with his inquiry. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Point of personal privilege. This is an affidavit I 

am referring to by Ethel Chen, which was notarized. We are quibbling over whether it is called an affidavit or simply a statement. 

We have statements——

Mr. BARR. The document has not been notarized. 

Mr. WAXMAN. In this case, it was notarized. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from California has the time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I will leave it to a court some time to decide 

whether it is sufficient. But we have statements from these people 

that say that John Huang was in New York; and Ethel Chen, an 

Asian-American leader from Queens, met with John Huang on several occasions prior to the President’s birthday gala on Sunday, August 18, 1996. According to her statement, and I want to quote 

from the statement, ‘‘One of those meetings took place on the Friday before the event, August 16th.’’

This morning we received another statement from a gentleman 

named Tak Luk Cheng, an acquaintance of John Huang, who had 

lunch with Mr. Huang at a Chinese restaurant in New York, at 2 

p.m., on August 16th. The time of this lunch is critical because, according to you, Mr. Wang, John Huang was soliciting your contribution at almost the exact same time, 3,000 miles away in Los 

Angeles. 

Another exhibit we obtained earlier this morning is a letter from 

John Huang’s lawyer, Ty Cobb; this was referred to by Mr. Bennett, and it states his client was in New York, not in Los Angeles, 

on the days in question. 

We also have newspaper articles from Chinese language newspapers which contain photographs of Mr. Huang in New York 

City’s Chinatown between August 15th and August 17th. 

My point is clear. We have overwhelming evidence that Mr. 

Huang was in New York, not Los Angeles, on the day you said you 

met with him; and I would like to hear what your explanation 

might be of all of this evidence indicating Mr. Huang could not 

have been in your place of business on August 16, 1996. 

275

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] So far as I recollect, one of the 

two individuals that went to my office that day, I assumed—I assumed that he was Mr. John Huang. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You think you might have confused him for another person? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Sir, so far as I can recollect, it 

was Mr. John Huang. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the gentleman, if he would 

yield, to tell how any of this story that he—might be relevant to 

this question? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t yield to you. 

Mr. HORN. All right. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Wang, it seems hard to believe that it was 

John Huang, but you felt it was John Huang. You had met Mr. 

Huang before; is that correct? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] That is correct, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And how many times had you met him previous? 

Mr. CARVIN. In fairness to the witness, I think it is really important to clarify the record of the circumstances of the questioning 

that is going on now. We have had no opportunity to review the 

volumes of evidence that you are producing to us. Indeed it was 

handed to me only after I sat down at counsel table, but I would 

like to make a couple of points for the record before we pursue this 

line of questioning, certainly if there is going to be allegations of 

perjury bandied about. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Counsel, first of all, let me interrupt you. I have 

not made any allegation of perjury. We have a contradiction in testimony, and I haven’t asked you a question, and I only have a limited amount of time. I don’t want to stop you from making any 

statement you think is pertinent. I realize you didn’t have this information, but your client has testified that John Huang was in his 

office in Los Angeles on a date when it looks like he wasn’t in Los 

Angeles. 

I guess we have no explanation except we have Mr. Wang’s belief 

that John Huang was in his office, and an overwhelming number 

of others who have given statements to the contrary that Mr. 

Huang was in New York. 

Now, Mr. Wang——

Mr. CARVIN. There may be a difference of recollection, Congressman, but you did state this morning, as I understand it, that Mr. 

Wang misled the committee. Your staff has handed out statements 

saying other false statements by David Wang. So to suggest that 

you are not accusing him of misleading the committee, I would suggest, is disingenuous. 

I think in fairness to the witness, he should be given an opportunity to present the context in which these statements were made 

and to offer some chance of rebuttal. I would like a few minutes 

to do that. I am sure the chairman would not take it out of your 

time, and at that point you could obviously pursue any questions 

you want. 

First, as to the question of whether Mr. Wang——

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you want to make a statement now or recess? 

Mr. CARVIN. I would like to do it now. 

276

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you want a recess now or make a statement 

now? 

Mr. CARVIN. I would like to make a statement now. 

Mr. BURTON. The Chair will make sure that the gentleman from 

California’s time is reserved. Counsel for Mr. Wang is recognized 

to make a statement. 

Mr. CARVIN. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Could you identify the gentleman who just spoke? 

Mr. CARVIN. My name is Michael Carvin and I represent—— Mr. FATTAH. The gentleman who just spoke? 

Mr. CARVIN. That was my associate, Ted Cruz. 

First, the notion that Mr. Wang would perjure himself on this 

question seems to me so facially implausible as not to be seriously 

entertained. 

To say that somebody would falsely say that he was a conduit 

for John Huang is absurd. I can’t think of any person in the world 

that you would want to associate yourself with less than John 

Huang. 

If Mr. Wang could have possibly said that he didn’t know Mr. 

Huang and had not engaged in illegal transactions with him, I assure you, he would have done so. He would not be here today. He 

would not be in front of the grand jury, and he would not be in the 

largest problem he has ever faced. 

So you can argue plausibly that he is mistaken. What you cannot 

do is plausibly assert that he has willingly misled the committee 

or is otherwise perjuring himself. 

No. 2, the notion that he has benefited from the immunity that 

the committee has granted him is also demonstrably untrue. As 

you know, Congressman Waxman, Mr. Wang cooperated with congressional investigators before he was granted immunity and told 

this story. 

As I recollect, last week you made a impassioned speech about 

how unfair it was for the committee to take a person, a recent citizen with limited English proficiency, and run these questions by 

him without counsel present. Indeed, I think that was the reason 

that you suggested that immunity should be granted to him, which 

you subsequently voted for. 

Yet today I am handed a document which takes those statements 

from the investigation that was conducted without counsel present, 

and you use it to impeach Mr. Wang’s integrity and honesty. I am 

puzzled by that, and, indeed, I think it is somewhat hypocritical. 

Third, he wouldn’t have needed immunity if he had not implicated John Huang, because the investigators would have left and 

he would have gone on with his life. So the notion that he was 

somehow misleading the committee, implicating himself in a 

scheme with John Huang so he could then garner immunity, is, 

again, demonstrably untrue. 

As to the treatment Mr. Wang is receiving today, I can only say 

that it has the effect, although I am sure not the purpose, are frustrating uncovering illegal activity in connection with fund-raising 

activities. Although I know it is not your purpose to cover up illegal 

activity by the Democratic National Committee, if witnesses are 

dragged here and berated by the community, are falsely sandbagged with documents and have their integrity impugned, I think 

277

we will all agree it will deter people from voluntarily cooperating 

and bringing very important information to the light of this committee and the American public. 

So I think everyone should weigh their treatment of this witness, 

as well as their statements generally, before embarking on this 

very dangerous course. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. How much time does Mr. Waxman have remaining, 

does anybody know? 

The CLERK. Eighteen minutes. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman is recognized for the remaining 18 

minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Counsel, did you want to recess to talk to your client, or did you just want to make that statement? 

Mr. CARVIN. Recess for what purpose? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I thought you said you wanted a recess and you 

wanted to make a statement. 

Mr. CARVIN. No. I was just suggesting that. I didn’t want to cut 

into your time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. Counsel, the only thing I would point 

out is that I am not raising statements by Mr. Wang. I am raising 

statements by others that indicate that Mr. Huang was not in Los 

Angeles, but was in fact in New York. This is puzzling. 

Mr. Wang, this is not the only statement that you made to committee investigators that I see a conflict in. I would like to introduce as an exhibit the notes from the interviews that committee investigators conducted with you on August 15 of this year. During 

two interviews with committee investigators, you made other statements that appear to be false. 

The first false statement occurred when you originally were approached by the investigators. During your first interview, which 

lasted 1 hour, you—— Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I consider the Member harassing 

me. None of us have interrupted him in his many times during 

questioning. 

Mr. BARR. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. The Chair will ask the gentleman to state his parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. BARR. Might I inquire of the Chair as to what the rules of 

the committee and the House are with regard to reading from a 

Memorandum of Interview which has not been made public? Does 

that not require unanimous consent in order to disclose the contents thereof? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, these are committee documents. 

Mr. BURTON. The counsel has informed me that the committee 

protocol allows documents to be utilized during hearings of this 

type. 

Mr. SHAYS. Without unanimous consent? 

Mr. BURTON. Yes, without unanimous consent. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And during that interview, by our committee’s investigators, you told them during that hour period that you were 

not reimbursed for your contribution. Instead, you stated that the 

contribution was made with your own money. 

278

We know this was untrue. When the investigators came back a 

second time on August 15th, you told them you were reimbursed, 

but the reimbursement occurred in two different installments. You 

were given $6,000 on August 16, 1996, and $4,000 on August 20, 

1996. This is also apparently untrue. 

At your deposition you changed your story and you said you received the entire $10,000 at one time on August 16th, not in two 

installments. 

Another contradiction involves the contribution of Daniel Wu. In 

August you told the committee investigators that you were not involved in the $5,000 contribution that Daniel Wu made to the 

DNC. At your deposition you admitted you had power of attorney 

over Mr. Wu’s bank account, and that you, in fact, wrote the $5,000 

check for Mr. Wu. 

Finally, you told investigators that your brother-in-law, John Lu, 

was present on August 16, 1996, at the meeting with John Huang 

and Antonio Pan, or the men who were presumably John Huang 

and presumably Antonio Pan. At your deposition you contradicted 

yourself and you said that your father, James Wang, not your 

brother-in-law, was at the August 16th meeting. 

In fact, even this statement about your father is suspect. Two of 

my staff members have recently spoken to your father, and he has 

denied being at any such meeting with John Huang. I would like 

to introduce a statement from my staff member’s attesting to their 

conversation with Mr. Wang’s father. 

I could go on. Additional false statements are described in the 

minority staff report, and I know you only received that report 

today, but you did have the report from the investigators in advance. 

My point is clear, Mr. Wang. I don’t think you have been candid 

from day-to-day, from day one maybe. Each time we get a different 

version of what happened. 

Do you want to say anything in response to what I just said? 

Mr. CARVIN. Since it is not a question, I will try and respond. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I asked Mr. Wang if he wants to say something? 

If he doesn’t, it is OK. 

Mr. CARVIN. Thank you. I am not going to allow him to answer 

a compound question with, by my count, 23 sub-parts to it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I understand that. I appreciate that. I accept that. 

Mr. CARVIN. OK. 

Mr. WAXMAN. My point though, Mr. Wang, is that we have heard 

different stories from you. Unfortunately, we are faced with a situation that is even more serious than simply what may be false testimony, and that is something that I didn’t investigate on my own. 

It came up in the deposition. 

We granted immunity to you, but it appears you may have engaged in a conspiracy to violate our immigration and tax laws. 

These are criminal violations that are more serious than even conduit payments. They are criminal violations that no one on the 

Democratic side had any knowledge of when we were asked by the 

chairman to vote for immunity, and now, because of the grant of 

immunity, they are criminal violations that Mr. Wang can never be 

prosecuted for, as I understand it. 

279

Mr. Wang, I want to draw your attention to your own deposition. 

Counsel, I can refer to the pages, on pages 68 to 77 and 93 to 94, 

you discussed your relationship with Daniel Wu. I want to ask you 

some questions about that relationship. 

Mr. Wang, maybe you want to pull the microphone closer to you. 

Mr. Wu is a green card holder, a legal resident, who has been 

out of the United States for several years; is that correct? 

Mr. CARVIN. Before we go any further, I would really like to be 

able to respond to the numerous attacks on his character. First—— Mr. WAXMAN. Counsel, I am going to allow you to do that, but 

I would like to get these specific questions responded to, and then 

I will be glad to yield to you. 

Mr. CARVIN. I would like to ask the Chair if delegating questions 

of alleged illegality that have absolutely nothing to do with the jurisdiction of this committee is a proper line of inquiry, particularly 

since this information was voluntarily disclosed by the witness pursuant to a grant of immunity? 

No one would have ever known about any of these activities absent the granting of immunity. So the notion that somehow he is 

again benefiting from the grant of immunity is demonstrably false. 

No one would have, as Mr. Waxman points out, known anything 

about these immigration matters absent the grant of immunity. So 

if you had not granted him immunity, none of this would have 

come up. None of it has anything to do with campaign finance, and 

I ask the Chair to please restrict this line of questioning? 

Mr. WAXMAN. The other side of it, counsel, is from our perspective, if the committee had done a more thorough investigation of 

what was going on, we would have been informed. It just came up 

in the deposition, but we should have been informed in advance of 

this, before we went along with the immunity. 

Mr. CARVIN. Not if Mr. Wang was represented by legal counsel. 

Mr. WAXMAN. It came up by Monday. 

Mr. BURTON. Just 1 second. Point of clarification. I will not deduct from your time, but you have been aware of this, as well as 

the majority, since August. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I didn’t hear what you said. This matter came up 

in the deposition on Monday. It was a line of questioning to which 

counsel did not object at the time of the deposition. The information came out at that time, and I think it is important to pursue. 

It certainly goes to the credibility of the witness, as well as other 

matters that concern us as legislators. 

Mr. CARVIN. It cannot possibly bear on the credibility of the witness, because, as you just stated, he was the one who voluntarily 

disclosed this without objection. So it simply can’t bear on any 

credibility. It certainly can’t bear on anything relating to campaign 

finance. It is by definition irrelevant and immaterial. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Are you objecting to your client answering these 

questions? 

Mr. CARVIN. Yes, I am. 

Mr. WAXMAN. But he did answer these very same questions on 

Monday. His deposition speaks for itself. 

Mr. CARVIN. And I was under the impression pursuant to committee rules that the depositions were to be kept strictly confidential and not shared with the public. 

280

We were also appearing, as you know, at the time in a spirit of 

good faith to put all facts before the committee so that they could 

make a judgment. I had no idea at the time, Congressman, that 

you would parade this deposition in front of the news media as 

part of a sustained character attack on Mr. Wang, particularly 

since the week before the information you are now using to defame 

his character, you properly suggested, raised serious constitutional 

questions because it was induced by Government agents against a 

recent citizen without the benefit of counsel. 

So that is true. I did proceed in a spirit of good faith to give the 

committee the information it desired. I did not believe it would be 

used to later defame my client. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, there is a character question involved here, 

and this came out in the deposition itself, which the chairman 

made public this morning. I don’t think that anybody was told the 

depositions would not ever be made public. 

Now, these are questions—I shouldn’t say the chairman, this was 

a unanimous consent this morning. 

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman would yield, there was no indication to me or anybody else on the committee that the depositions 

should be kept confidential, because we all agreed we would make 

it public today during the hearing. If there was a misunderstanding, counsel, I apologize for that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you feel better, counsel? I shouldn’t be sarcastic. I apologize. 

Look, we are facing some apparently serious matters, if you were 

part of a scheme to deceive the INS or the IRS, or part of a conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service by using two companies. I gather one is called Ji Tai International, and Bao Li Hang 

International. And they got a tax break for Mr. Wu, even though 

he didn’t actually do any work for them. Is that right, Mr. Wang? 

Mr. CARVIN. My objection stands. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, objection has been made about the 

question I asked. 

Mr. BURTON. I am sorry, forgive me, I was talking to counsel. 

What was the objection, sir? 

Mr. CARVIN. That this has nothing to do with campaign finance; 

that it can’t possibly bear on any issue that this——

Mr. BURTON. I cannot, for the life of me, see why you continue 

to delve into other aspects of this gentleman’s character when we 

are talking about one specific period. If you are trying to criticize 

his character, I don’t think that that is a legitimate line of questioning. If the gentleman chooses to do that, I don’t think there is 

any rule against it. I would just say that I think it is something 

that should be thought out very thoroughly. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. BURTON. One more thing, counsel informed me that the 

questions must be pertinent to the issue at hand, and it 

stretches——

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. BURTON. Just 1 second. 

It stretches one’s imagination how some of these questions are 

relevant to the line of questioning or the issue at hand. 

281

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that this 

is a line of questioning your counsel pursued in the deposition 

itself, and the deposition is now public, so I guess I can let Mr. 

Wang’s statements speak for themselves. I am simply trying to understand what is going on, when we give immunity for a witness. 

That court order said David Wang may not refuse to testify and 

may not refuse to provide other information in proceedings before 

or ancillary to the committee on the basis of his constitutional 

privilege against self-incrimination. It seems strange that there 

would be an objection that it is not pertinent when your counsel 

asked those same questions in the deposition, Mr. Wang’s counsel 

didn’t object. They are already on the record. 

The fact of the matter is this is an extraordinary and incredibly 

embarrassing situation. In effect, this committee, I think, has been 

snookered. We have given Mr. Wang immunity for serious immigration and tax law violations, and we may well have gotten in return false testimony. I don’t know whether it is false or not, whether it is misunderstanding or not. I don’t know if it is perjury or not. 

What I do know is that Mr. Wang insists that John Huang was 

with him in Los Angeles at the same time a number of other people 

have given clear statements and all other evidence and photographs that indicate that Mr. Huang was in New York City. 

I know what it is like to go back and forth. You don’t do it on 

an hour’s flight. So I think that, it seems to me, is an inconsistent 

statement that we received from Mr. Wang, and hard to understand, and we haven’t been given an explanation. Mr. Wang maybe 

doesn’t know how to explain it because he evidently believes John 

Huang was in his offices. 

This is still my time, and I will reserve my time. 

Mr. CARVIN. I can only repeat, Congressman, it would have made 

no sense for Mr. Wang to make up this story so he could be 

dragged in front of this committee and defamed like this. If Mr. 

Huang wasn’t in the office, any rational person would have said he 

is not in the office. He would be selling cars in Los Angeles today, 

rather than being called a felon and a perjurer in public. So I don’t 

know who got snookered here, but I assure you, it was not the committee. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. I think Mr. Fattah brought up the point, the 

issue here is would we have granted immunity to this witness and 

would he be important except for the fact that he put John Huang 

in California as being part of a conspiracy to form a conduit for 

campaign contributions. If he said John Huang was never there, I 

would not think this individual would be a pertinent witness to 

this committee or process, and certainly we would not have given 

him blanket immunity. 

Now that we have given him blanket immunity, and the question 

raised there, the counsel is asking why would this happen, to get 

blanket immunity and talk about every criminal violation of law 

that he may have talked about so he can never be prosecuted on 

it? 

So I think it is very germane to find out what happened here 

from the staff’s standpoint; why didn’t we find out about this; why 

282

wasn’t it examined in depositions, obviously criminality was discussed, potential serious crimes by the witness; and whether or not 

this committee should have granted immunity. And I think it all 

goes back to that very essence, if he had not testified in his prior 

statements or interviews to the investigators that John Huang was 

in his office in California on August 16th, there would have been 

no reason for this committee to issue immunity and call him as a 

witness. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to reclaim my time and simply say I am 

not trying to embarrass Mr. Wang. I am just trying to get to the 

truth. The purpose of my being here is not Mr. Wang. My purpose 

of being here as a Member of Congress is to get to the truth. And 

the statement that we had earlier from witnesses is that they 

served as conduits, and I don’t find it incredible to believe that Mr. 

Wang also was a conduit for a contribution to the Democratic National Committee, and that he was paid back. But the issue is 

whether John Huang was in his office and participated in this personally. 

There have been a lot of allegations about John Huang. In fact, 

that is what this whole hearing is about, is an accusation against 

John Huang. If we are going to have an accusation against John 

Huang that hurts him, we ought to have the truth of the matter 

before us, and it appears, from all I can tell, from a whole stack 

of other people, and other evidence, that John Huang was not in 

L.A.; he was in New York. 

I hope we will find out further what happened. I think that is 

the dilemma before us. 

Mr. BURTON. Does the gentleman yield back his time? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield back my time. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Point of parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I understood from the ruling of the parliamentarian that this Memorandum of Interview taken by the committee 

staff automatically went into evidence, into the record, in this hearing, without being proffered or an offer of unanimous consent; is 

that correct? 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman asked unanimous consent that it be 

included in the record. 

Mr. SHADEGG. He did not do that. We are talking about two different things. There is the affidavit which I said it was a committee 

record, and I believe the Chair ruled it went in because it is a committee record. There is a huge packet of information which Mr. 

Waxman has characterized in a thousand different ways as saying 

it is stock full of sworn affidavits that show Mr. Huang was not in 

California, he was in New York City. It has photos that prove that. 

It has a number of people who say that. I mean, he characterized 

it, we agree with you, it was not a committee record. It was produced by the minority today and given to counsel at counsel table. 

My fundamental question, I know Mr. Waxman has not proffered 

this, he has not asked for unanimous consent to put this huge 

packet, as he described it, in the record. I am trying to find out if 

without him seeking unanimous consent to put it in, does it go in 

automatically? 

283

Mr. BURTON. These documents can only be entered into the 

record by unanimous consent, but the document that Mr. Waxman 

was alluding to falls under the rule of the committee protocol, and 

that is why part of it could be entered into the record. But that information you are talking about cannot be entered——

Mr. SHADEGG. All these sworn affidavits. 

Mr. BURTON. It cannot be entered into the record without unanimous consent. He has not sought unanimous consent for those 

records. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that 

it be accepted into the record? 

Mr. SHADEGG. Reserving the right to object. 

Mr. BURTON. Objection is heard. 

Mr. BARR. I object. 

Mr. BURTON. Objection is heard. Regular order. The Chair now 

wants to be heard for 5 minutes, just like everybody else, so I request my time. 

Will you put up on the screen exhibit No. 99, please. I hope everybody will take a close look at exhibit No. 99. Can you enlarge 

the screen a little bit down there? 

In that little right-hand corner, you will notice that the DNC contact for this contribution is John Huang, and that is his handwriting. Now, there may be some question among members of this 

committee whether or not that was John Huang in that office, but 

there can be no mistake about that. John Huang solicited that contribution and there it is, the DNC contact, in his handwriting. That 

is No. 1. 

Now, would you guys be quiet for just a minute, please? That is 

a DNC document. 

The second thing is, we could learn a lot if John Huang, a friend 

of the President, a member of the Commerce Department and the 

DNC, had not taken the fifth amendment. Now, if he wants to 

come before this committee at any time, I would love to have him 

here. And I will do whatever I can do to assist him in coming before this committee. Now, they are asking for immunity or partial 

immunity. We will look into that. But John Huang is the problem. 

He doesn’t want to testify, he has exerted his fifth amendment 

rights against self-incrimination. And this $5,000 contribution and 

the other $5,000 was solicited by John Huang, because there it is 

in writing. 

The final thing I want to point out to my colleagues is this: According to the USA Today, the Democratic figures who were interviewed said that they moved in July to limit Huang from fund-raising activities, before this took place. That was 3 months before 

press reports made Huang a central figure in the Democratic fundraising controversy. 

So the bottom line is we are not talking about some angel here, 

or some guy we shouldn’t be concerned about. John Huang did 

some things that are very questionable. He should come before this 

committee and he should testify and not take the fifth amendment 

against self-incrimination. That is John Huang’s handwriting on 

that DNC form and nobody can change that. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

284

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, a point of clarification. You said that 

it said that John Huang was the solicitor. It does list him as the 

DNC contact, but it lists apparently Charlie Trie as the solicitor. 

Mr. BURTON. It has Charlie Trie on there as well. But the handwriting is John Huang’s. There is no question about that. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I merely would like to ask some information, and then make a motion. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, the gentleman does not have the time. Does 

the gentleman seek time? 

Mr. LANTOS. I do, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, is he alternating? 

Mr. BURTON. Yes, but I was the one on our side. 

Mr. HORN. OK. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I would merely like some clarification. There are two names there. The contact is indicated as John 

Huang, and at the bottom it is Charles Trie. Does—the solicitor in 

this case is Mr. Trie. What does the word ‘‘contact’’ mean? Does 

that mean he is the person who actually solicited or is the person 

who solicits the contribution? 

Mr. BURTON. Is the questioner asking me that question? I would 

be happy to answer that. 

Mr. LANTOS. I would be very happy to have the chairman answer. 

Mr. BURTON. The witness testified when that the phone call was 

made to him, the man who made the call identified himself as John 

Huang. That sounds like a solicitation to me. 

Mr. LANTOS. Well, we are now relying on the witness’ statement. 

You were a minute ago introducing a document from the DNC as 

your proof. I am suggesting that the DNC document does not in 

any sense suggest or certainly does not prove that Mr. Huang solicited this contribution. All you have is the witness’ statement. That 

is all I wanted to clarify. 

Now I would like to make a motion that the minority staff report—OK, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

Mr. Cox. 

Mr. COX. I thank the chairman. I thank the witness. I apologize 

to the witness for any badgering that may have gone on. 

You may or may not be telling us the truth. I don’t know you. 

As with the preceding panel of witnesses, I hope that you are telling us the truth and your counsel lays out some persuasive reasons 

that you probably ought to be telling the truth. 

I want to recap the bidding, because there has been a question 

raised about the whereabouts of John Huang on August 16, 1996, 

when, according to your testimony, he solicited a contribution from 

you along with Antonio Pan. 

What we all agree on, the minority and the majority, as far as we understand the facts, is that you did in fact write two $5,000 

checks, one for yourself and one for Mr. Wu; that those $10,000 

checks were in fact received by the Democratic National Committee. The document that is up there on the screen, which is 

shown only in part, is a record of one of those two checks. It is one 

of the $5,000 checks. It makes it very clear that there was, in fact, 

285

money that went from the Bank of Canton of California and that 

you were the author of the check; that it went to the Democratic 

National Committee; that they cashed the check; that they recorded it; that they attributed to a particular event. This is because 

that is a DNC document which we obtained through discovery. 

Further, that the event it was attributed to is the President’s 

birthday party; that the DNC contact for this particular check is 

John Huang; the committee believes this is John Huang’s handwriting, so he is the person stating that he is the DNC contact on 

both of these checks; and the solicitor is listed as Charlie Trie, according to John Huang. 

I believe that to recap the bidding, that everybody agrees that we 

can stipulate, as the ranking minority member says, to those facts. 

So the only fact that is left for us to determine is your credibility 

on the point of John Huang’s physical presence in soliciting this 

contribution, although apparently John Huang himself says that he 

is responsible for collecting your check. He may have been responsible from long distance or he may have been responsible from 

California. 

I have gone through the packet of documents that the minority 

has provided, and nobody can provide us with evidence of the time 

in question to say that, I was with John Huang at the time that 

he was allegedly meeting with you. We know the night before he 

was at an event in New York, according to these things. We know 

the next day he was in New York. But we don’t have anybody who 

can say that I was there with this person, John Huang, at the 

time, at all times when he could have been with you. We have 

someone who said sort of generally I was with him at all times over 

a period of days, although that is obviously hyperbole, because that 

is not possible. He is also part of these things at other times. That 

is only one person. So we have circumstantial evidence on this one 

point that contradicts your testimony that John Huang was personally with you. 

I read through the deposition and the questions put to you in 

deposition by Mr. Waxman. Right now our only evidence of the 

date on which you met with Mr. Pan and Mr. Huang is the date 

on the check. The date on the check is the 16th of August. 

Do have any other reason to believe it was the 16th of August? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] From the bank statement, it 

can be seen that the money was deposited on the 16th, so there can 

be no question that the check was not written on August 16th. 

Mr. COX. I am sorry, can you repeat that answer? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] So there can be no doubt that 

the check was written on August 16th, because the money was deposited into the bank on the same day, and the bank statement 

says so. And also a journal book that he keeps. 

Mr. COX. I am a Congressman from California, and I travel a lot 

back and forth. In fact, this week I will have traveled four times 

across country. When I go out to California, sometimes I go out to 

make a speech at lunch, but I am still here in Washington in the 

morning. I can be there well before noon. I can also leave late at 

night, there are red eyes, all sorts of ways to get back and forth. 

Now, by the way, I don’t want to rehabilitate you as a witness 

or anything else, because I don’t know if you are telling the truth 

286

or not. I want to ask you whether or not in your experience it is 

possible to travel back and forth between California and Washington in less than a day? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] I’m sorry, sir. I don’t know, because I haven’t had that kind of experience. 

Mr. COX. You are very fortunate. 

I see that my time has expired. I just want to point out, at least 

on the basis of the documents that have been provided by the minority, it is possible to reconcile everybody’s stories. We don’t have 

any conclusive proof and that conclusive proof, because you are testifying as an eyewitness to a meeting with Mr. Huang, would be 

best provided by Mr. Huang himself, as it has been pointed out 

here. 

So I hope that we can get, as the chairman suggests, the testimony from Mr. Huang one way or the other, and I yield back and 

thank the chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair declares the committee in recess until after this vote. Please come 

back as quickly as possible so Members can get to their planes or 

whatever they want to do. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BURTON. The committee will come to order. The gentleman 

from California is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was interested in the discussion that has taken place as to where Mr. Huang 

was. I’m not sure where he was, but I would like to suggest that 

there’s one story by a reputable reporter that would claim, based 

on quotations, also from people in New York, that he was never 

there at the time. So let me go through this a little bit and lay it 

out. 

This is an article from USA Today, February 19, 1997. It’s by— the reporter is Thomas Squitieri. And it’s a rather extensive article, 

and I won’t read it all. I’ll just read a few key points here. ‘‘The Democratic National Committee had returned $1.2 million 

raised by Huang because of questions about the origins of the 

money.’’

And the, ‘‘Democratic National Committee Finance Chairman 

Marvin Rosen and Finance Director Richard Sullivan made the decision when they reviewed the guest list’’ for the New York function 

that they weren’t too keen—they didn’t stay for the dinner. They 

just went to the cocktail hour. And they weren’t too keen on having 

him near the President. 

So President Clinton did attend. And what is relevant to this is 

that it notes here, quote, ‘‘Many DNC officials were suspicious of 

Huang when he joined the Democratic National Committee because 

of his personal links to Clinton operatives from Little Rock.’’

Huang left his—unquote. ‘‘Huang left his Commerce Department 

job to work as a DNC fund-raiser,’’ all of which you know. 

Now, quote, ‘‘Huang was never told of the July decision made by 

Rosen and Sullivan,’’—namely to keep him out of there—‘‘but their 

decision had a quick impact.’’

Quote, ‘‘For example, Huang was a coordinator for the bash August 19th at New York’s Radio City Music Hall in honor of Clinton’s 50th birthday. But as the event neared, Huang never came 

287

to New York to help with last-minute fund-raising details, which 

surprised others on the DNC fund-raising team.’’ So that’s the story by a reputable reporter, and that’s one aspect. 

The other I would like to note is the survey that was done by 

the accounting firm—let’s see. Here we are. 

In the spring of this year, this is the Ernst & Young survey, and 

there are three questions that Mr. Wang answered: 

14. ‘‘Can you confirm that all the money’’—this is exhibit 113, by 

the way, Mr. Chairman. ‘‘Can you confirm that all the money that 

was used to make this contribution was your money and did not 

come from some other source or person?’’ The person that interviewed over the telephone checked yes. Presumably that’s the 

statement from Mr. Wang. 

16. ‘‘If you can recall, who was the person who asked or solicited 

you to make this contribution?’’ The answer written down by the 

survey team hired by the Democratic National Committee said, 

‘‘Mr. Huang.’’ That’s Mr. Wang’s answer. 

Now, the 17th was, ‘‘May we telephone you to ask any followup 

information?’’ And the person interviewing Mr. Wang checked ‘‘no.’’ Presumably that was his response at the time. 

So all I’m saying is, with that reputable story, it just seems to 

me that whatever evidence the minority has needs to be doublechecked and triple-checked, because this reporter and his sources 

had no reason to mislead anybody at that point. 

I yield back my time. 

[Exhibit 113 follows:]

288


g:\graphics\44833.107
289

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

Does anyone seek time on the minority side? 

Mr. Kanjorski, the young fellow with gray hair. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Wang, following up, earlier you testified that 

you knew John Huang, is that correct, John Huang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. And could you identify him if he walked into this 

room today? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. All right. 

Now, you further testified you didn’t know Mr. Trie; is that correct? 

Mr. WANG. No, I don’t know. I don’t know him. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Have you ever talked to him, communicated with 

him, written to him? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] No, sir. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Are you sure now? Maybe you called him from 

your place of business or maybe he called you and you talked. Are 

you sure now? It’s very important. I want you to know this is very 

important. 

Mr. WANG. No. But probably—in fact, I—in fact, I didn’t know 

Mr. Trie. And even—probably it’s my father sometimes he call. It’s 

my father, not me. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. And your father lives where? 

Mr. WANG. Also, he lives in Los Angeles. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. And does he have the same place of business 

that you have? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. So you’re both in the same business. You work 

with your father in that business? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Now, Mr. Cox wanted to suggest, I suppose, or 

give you the opportunity to reconstruct what you’ve previously testified to insofar as he suggests that you can communte—or transport between New York City and California in about 6, 7 hours. 

And it’s been known for people to fly one way and come back. 

Was there any suggestion, when you met with the man whom 

you identify as John Huang, that he had just flown in from the 

East and he just arrived? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] There was no sign that he had 

just flew in from New York, none at least that I could see of. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. OK. I’m going to send the photos down. There 

are two photos. I want you to take your time. I want you to look 

at them. They’re on the screen now. And as you look at the photos, 

I would like you to look at the person on the left and the person 

on the right and see if you can identify either one of them. 

[The photograph follows:]

290


g:\graphics\44833.108
291

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] I don’t know the person on the 

left. But the person on the right is John Huang. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. All right. Now, is that the man that you met 

with on the 16th of August? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] On the right side? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. The gentleman that you can identify on the 

right, you’ve identified as John Huang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Is that the gentleman that you met with on August 16th in California? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Without any question in your mind? 

Mr. WANG. Yeah. 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] To the best of my memory, 

that’s him. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. All right. Now, when you met, do you know exactly what time of day you met with him in California on August 

the 16th? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] It was in the morning. In the 

morning. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Was it before 9 o’clock? Was it after 9 o’clock? 

Was it just before noon? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] I’m sorry, I don’t recall the 

exact time. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Well, when you say it was a morning, was it 1 

a.m.? Was it dark out? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] It couldn’t have been that early, 

sir. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Well, could it have been 3 a.m.? 

Mr. WANG. No. 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] No, sir. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Since there was a check made out and deposits 

made, was it likely that it was sometime during banking hours? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Yes, sir. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

To the recorder, I just want to make sure that that entire exchange is in the record, including the photo. 

Mr. Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wang, you’re not Webster Hubbell. You’re not Charlie Trie. 

In fact, you couldn’t identify Charlie Trie. But you could identify 

John Huang. And neither of them is here. 

John Huang has taken the fifth. But he’s given information to 

his lawyer, and our esteamed colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle felt it very appropriate to allow Mr. Huang, who is taking the 

fifth, to present his arguments without being under oath, because 

his—some of the documentation by Ky Cobb—excuse me, by Ty 

Cobb, the entire statement for Mr. Huang was submitted. And it 

says, ‘‘I am’’—in the second paragraph—‘‘I am, however, grateful 

that you and the Ranking Minority Members have elected to pursue the unfortunate allegation that Mr. Huang was in Los Angeles, 

California.’’

So you have basically an agreement on the part of Mr. Huang’s 

attorney to represent his client with the minority on the other side 

292

of the aisle in spite of the fact that Mr. Huang has taken the fifth. 

That’s a real stretch for me. 

I would like to say to you that I don’t know if you are telling the 

truth. I don’t know if you are mistaken. I don’t know if you are 

simply those two. I don’t know if you’re telling the truth or not telling the truth, or you’re just simply mistaken. 

But the one thing I know, you’re the only person in this room 

right now, besides your translator, who is under oath. Your attorney isn’t under oath. Mr. Waxman isn’t under oath. I’m not under 

oath. So you have a lot more credibility to me at this point than 

people who have submitted documentation that was not sworn 

under oath, that were not affidavits. 

But, Mr. Chairman, if no one else does, I’m going to make a motion for unanimous consent to put all the documentation that Mr. 

Waxman put in into the record at some point before we adjourn; 

and then I think we should analyze some of that documentation. 

But the one thing that troubles me the most—— Mr. BURTON. The gentleman does not want to make that motion 

at this point? 

Mr. SHAYS. Not now, but I will, because I think it should be part 

of the record. And frankly it is. And I don’t know who’s right. 

I want it part of the record because I don’t want it around later 

on spread around this Capitol and maybe it wasn’t part of what he 

had submitted here. I want everything that he put in the record, 

because I think some of it is very weak. And some of it is very 

valid, and I want to know which is which. 

I want to focus in on the statement of Kenneth Ballen and Christopher Lu. They basically had a telephone conversation with your 

father; and according to their statement, their father—your father 

says he was not present at the meeting you said he was present 

at. 

Now, this is just a piece of paper. It’s no different than the piece 

of paper that Mr. Horn used. But, frankly, Mr. Horn’s paper is as 

valid as this paper. It’s not under oath. It’s not a sworn affidavit. 

So I would just like to know if you’ve seen this documentation or 

if your attorney has, and if you can speak to this? Because if you 

have an answer to this, I do think it needs to be put in the record. 

Mr. CARVIN. Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Wang has not seen the 

statement. I did have an opportunity to review it during the break. 

Mr. Wang’s father, James Wang, contacted me after he was contacted by the counsel for the minority and wanted to clarify his 

statements to them. 

Mr. Ballen and Mr. Lu represent, ‘‘James Wang told us that he 

was neither present at any meetings nor aware of any conversations in which John Huang asked David Wang to make a campaign 

contribution.’’ Mr. Wang’s father, James Wang, after having this conversation 

with Mr. Ballen, sent me a letter. I have the handwritten original 

here in which he states: ‘‘I am David Wang’s father. I was present 

at the meeting with my son and John Huang and Mr. Pan on August 16, 1996. At that meeting, John Huang asked for a donation 

to the Presidential campaign.’’ And it’s signed ‘‘Jim Wang, 10/4/97.’’

So the substantive point is that I don’t know—I wasn’t present 

at the conversation, so I don’t know whether this triple hearsay 

293

that the minority has introduced is accurate or not. I do have a 

handwritten statement from Mr. Wang directly refuting the substance of it. 

My procedural point is that Mr. Ballen waxed very eloquently 

with me on the phone about how unfair it was for committee investigators to contact recent immigrants with limited English proficiency without counsel present because of the severe constitutional issues that raised and the potential for inaccuracies. 

After having that conversation, of course, Mr. Ballen and Mr. Lu, 

who I think both are attorneys, did contact James Wang, a recent 

immigrant with limited English proficiency, and engaged in precisely the same behavior. They then faxed to Mr. Wang a statement which basically repeats what is in here. 

He did not want to sign that. Then he contacted me. And I have 

his letter. 

And if this material is going into the record, Mr. Chairman, and 

I’ll of course allow whatever objections to be made—— Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays has the time. If he chooses to ask that 

be submitted for the record, it shall be. 

Mr. SHAYS. I would ask that be submitted for the record, but it 

doesn’t address—— Mr. WAXMAN. I would object. 

Mr. SHAYS. Let me say this: I would postpone that because I 

think we should all have it on, Mr. Waxman, because I think we 

can have a very interesting dialog about the documents you want 

to submit. 

But let me just conclude by saying, the part that troubles me is 

the paragraph, which isn’t addressed there. It says James Wang 

also added that he was in Europe from July 23d, 1996 until August 

7th, 1996, and I request he fax us two pages from his passport 

which attest to this fact. And that does note the address. 

Mr. CARVIN. If I may, we can confirm he was, indeed, out of the 

country until August 7, 1996, but all agree that the relevant meeting was August 16th, some 9 days thereafter. 

Mr. SHAYS. So that last paragraph is irrelevant. 

Mr. CARVIN. It’s puzzling. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. Who seeks time 

on the minority side? 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Fattah, will you just yield to me on this very 

point? 

Mr. FATTAH. Yes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Our investigators were doing what they should be 

doing, trying to find out the accurate information. And they received information from Mr. Wang’s father, a statement that he’s 

now changed. But I do want to also indicate to the counsel that Mr. 

Wang, Sr. was talked to in Chinese as well as English, so there 

was no language difficulty in his understanding what our investigators were—— Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. I just want to make a couple of statements. One 

is—and questions. One is that, as I understand it, your client did 

294

take the fifth amendment prior to receiving immunity; is that correct, counselor? 

Mr. CARVIN. Well on 4—— Mr. FATTAH. Just a yes or no. Did he take the fifth? 

Mr. CARVIN. No. If you want to hear the answer—— Mr. FATTAH. OK. He refused to testify unless he got immunity. 

Mr. CARVIN. He talked to congressional investigators—— Mr. FATTAH. And that was very reasonable for him to do. 

Mr. CARVIN. If you don’t want an answer, then I’ll—— Mr. FATTAH. Let me say a couple of things. Your client, unfortunately, I think is just in the middle of a big political drama playing 

out. He’s an unfortunate player in it. Because conduit payments 

are not—this is not a unique circumstance when we talk about 

campaign irregularities. In fact, conduit payments are one of the 

more common features of campaign irregularities. 

In today’s news, we see a company from my own home State 

that’s paid an $8 million fine because she participated in a scheme 

to put tens of thousands of dollars into the Dole campaign. Another 

gentleman paid a similar multimillion-dollar fine, Mr. Fireman, for 

again running money through a Hong Kong bank into the Dole 

campaign. And conduit payments, as we’ve shown on some of the 

documents that we’ve given out, the FDC is investigating in numerous instances. 

The issue really, the reason why it rises to a point of a congressional investigation, is not the persons who participated in the conduit, but really what the source of the money is. Because the reason why this committee is sitting is because there was some belief 

that a foreign government was attempting to influence an American election. And what I would like to know is whether your client 

has any information that you’re aware of that he could share with 

this committee on the reason why we really spent our day here and 

why your client has had to go through this unfortunate set of circumstances. Whether he has any knowledge that the gentleman 

that visited him, whether that was John Huang or not, represented 

any foreign government or had any—any reason to believe that 

they were agents of a foreign government. 

Mr. CARVIN. I’ll allow him to answer, but the short answer is 

that he doesn’t know of the source of these funds or where they 

came from. And I don’t think he can bear any light on that question. 

Mr. FATTAH. And I appreciate your answer. Because what we 

have here is we have a circumstance in which, just like the people 

who testified before your client, they were participants in a conduit 

scheme. And, again, there is ample evidence on the record that the 

Dole campaign and the Clinton campaign were victimized by contributions that were made to those campaigns. 

And the U.S. attorney spoke in the matter that is publicized 

today and made it very clear that none of the campaigns involved 

had any knowledge that the checks that they were receiving—the 

Democratic National Committee received over 2.7 million individual checks; 130 or so of those checks, like the ones that were 

offered by your client, have come under significant questioning. But 

they represent a very small percentage of the old ball checks that 

were received. And there’s no information that President Clinton or 

295

high officials in our Government knew that these checks were, as 

they were, inappropriate. But that’s why conduit schemes take 

place, is they are an effort to hide the source. 

This committee wants to find out the source of those dollars. And 

I know that, even though there is a lot of partisan back and forth, 

there would be a lot of bipartisan support if we could get even close 

to the point of finding that a foreign government was actually trying to influence an American election. 

But as it appears, your client really has no information to share 

with us or that he’s just one more of many, many Americans who 

in their efforts to either do someone a favor or whatever the case 

may be have written checks to campaigns that really were not of 

their own inspiration or dollars that they generated themselves. 

And I want to thank you for your appearance. And, again, I 

think that some of what has taken place today has been unfortunate. But I do think that the committee hopefully eventually will 

get to the point of what it was that the chairman originally brought 

us together for, which was his impassioned plea that we have a 

real investigation to make sure that we didn’t have foreign influence in an American election. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

Mr. Barr is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania might want to contact the Vice President. I think we have 

a new defense here that the Vice President hasn’t thought of, the 

small percentage defense. 

It reminds me, Mr. Chairman, of a case that I prosecuted when 

I was U.S. Attorney. We had an individual who appeared before a 

grand jury. And he was asked a number of questions. After he was 

indicted, he counted up the number of questions that he was asked 

by the grand jury. And then he took out, identified the relatively 

small percentage of those on which he had lied. 

Now, he was convicted of lying before the grand jury, but his 

point to the jury, if not—and the news media, if I recall, was that 

he told the truth 98 percent of the time. And that would be an A 

in anybody’s book, and he should not be prosecuted because of the 

small percentage of questions in which he lied. 

I really would hesitate to believe that the gentleman from Pennsylvania truly believes that, as long as individuals or people commit a small percentage of crimes, that it’s OK. 

Mr. FATTAH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARR. No, sir. We really have very little time. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, since you have mentioned me I just think the 

gentleman has the courtesy——

Mr. BARR. That doesn’t give you—I’m sure somebody on your side 

will yield you some time. 

Mr. FATTAH. Small percentage is a little bit different than the defense of small-mindedness. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from Georgia has the time. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FATTAH. Committee protocol, Mr. Chairman, I think is when 

you mentioned that——

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from Georgia has the time. 

296

Mr. BARR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania also says that he 

hopes at some point that we’ll have a real investigation. We would 

hope that people on his side would, indeed, get serious and conduct 

a real investigation, not bring before us unsworn statements, letters, and so forth by people who do not have the backbone to come 

before this committee and testify under oath, as Mr. Wang has 

done. 

So I share the gentleman’s concern that there is no real investigation on the other side. And at such time as he and his colleagues get serious about this and help us get at the truth by 

bringing witnesses in and placing them under oath, as Mr. Wang 

has done, I will be the first to commend them on the other side for 

finally getting serious and conducting a real investigation. 

Mr. Wang, you have been granted immunity to appear here 

today; is that correct? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. OK. And you understand, of course, that, as part of 

that immunity, you cannot be prosecuted for the subject matters 

about which we’re talking. Do you understand that? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. OK. You do understand that it is now—you understand that it is against U.S. law for persons to make contributions, 

political contributions in the name of another person. Do you understand that to be a violation of law? 

Mr. WANG. Yeah. Today, I do. 

Mr. BARR. Let me—thank you. We’ve talked about a number of 

things today and then we’ve gone off on not a small number of tangents. Let me sort of summarize and bring us back down to the 

focus of where we started when the chairman of this committee 

laid forth this morning the mission today. 

Mr. Pan accompanied Mr. John Huang, then an official, an executive with the DNC, to your car dealership on August 16th last 

year; is that correct? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. OK. At that time, and at that location, did John 

Huang solicit from you a $5,000 contribution to be paid to the 

DNC? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. And did he also at that time and place solicit from you a second $5,000 contribution from Mr. Daniel Wu? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. And you wrote that check on behalf of Mr. Wu pursuant to the power of attorney. 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. OK. And is it also true that later that same day, August 16, 1996, and again later, Mr. Antonio Pan delivered envelopes of cash to you totaling $10,000? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. And was the purpose of this $10,000 cash delivered in 

envelopes to you for the purpose of reimbursing you for the two 

$5,000 checks to the DNC? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. And during those transactions with Mr. Pan, did he 

admonish you not to tell anybody about what was going on? 

297

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. And did he also at that time admonish you not to 

place all of the money in the bank at the same time? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. But to split it up so that certain reporting requirements that the banks are required to maintain would not be triggered? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know of a clearer case of money laundering and conspiracy to violate the election laws of this country 

could be made. And I commend the chairman for the work of the 

committee and the committee investigators for uncovering what the 

Department of Justice apparently is either unable or unwilling to 

uncover. And also to state for the record that Mr. Wang, if I’m not 

mistaken, testified before a grand jury and was not even afforded 

the opportunity to have a translator present. 

Is that correct, Mr. Wang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. We currently have a vote on the floor. We’ll recess 

until the vote is concluded. Please come back as quickly as possible 

so we can get this hearing concluded today. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BURTON. The committee will reconvene. Mr. Barrett is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the hour is late, 

and I just have a couple of comments and a few quick questions. 

First, I want to—and I am sorry my good colleague from Georgia, 

Mr. Barr, is not here, because he was basically stating that these 

documents that have been submitted in support of the assertion 

that Mr. Huang was not in Los Angeles on August 16th, that the 

witnesses somehow lacked the nerve to come before this committee, 

that if they felt so strongly they would have come before this committee to make these assertions. Of course the reality is they were 

not asked to come before this committee. This is a pretty exclusive 

club, and it is by invitation only. And I would not be surprised if 

some of the people would be willing to come here to state that. 

So I don’t think we should paint a picture as though they are 

somehow hiding behind their fear to present what is basically documentary evidence as to what they believe happened or what they 

assert happened. So I just want to make sure that the record reflects that. 

I also want to followup on a couple of questions that my good colleague, Mr. Condit from California, asked Mr. Wang, if I could. 

It is my understanding that the committee is paying for your airfare here; is that correct? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARRETT. Yes. And I also assume that they are paying for 

your lodging here as well, your hotel bill. 

Mr. WANG. Yes. And also the Justice Department. 

Mr. BARRETT. The Justice Department. 

Mr. WANG. Yeah. 

298

Mr. BARRETT. Your legal fees, are you paying for your legal fees, 

or are you receiving services for free? May I ask you, who is paying 

for your legal services? Is the committee reimbursing you for your 

legal services? 

Mr. WANG. I pay by my own. 

Mr. BARRETT. Paid by your own. So can you tell us how much 

you have incurred in terms of legal services? 

Mr. WANG. So far about—about 10 something. 

Mr. BARRETT. Ten something. 

Mr. WANG. Yeah, $10,000. 

Mr. BARRETT. That’s sort of a big range. $10—$10,000. 

Mr. WANG [through Interpreter.] Ten thousand something. 

Mr. BARRETT. Ten thousand. So your legal fees, you will be responsible. Those are not being provided for you by someone for free; 

is that correct? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. BARRETT. Yes. Counselor, I don’t mean—I assume you are 

not providing his services pro bono, or you are not receiving reimbursement from a third-party; is that correct, counselor? Counselor? 

Mr. CARVIN. Yes. 

Mr. BARRETT. So you are not receiving. Just so—I have two questions. You are not providing these services pro bono, correct? 

Mr. CARVIN. No. 

Mr. BARRETT. And you are not receiving compensation from some 

other party to provide his services; is that correct, counselor? 

Mr. CARVIN. Yes. 

Mr. BARRETT. Yes. OK. Thank you. 

I also think, Mr. Chairman, the record needs to be corrected. Mr. 

Cox has stated it is impossible to reconcile everyone’s theory about 

what is going on here. Mr. Cox suggests that it is possible for John 

Huang to have flown from New York to Los Angeles the morning 

of August 16th and returned to New York on the same day. 

What Mr. Cox has ignored is exhibits 10 and 11, which are statements from Bonnie Wong and Yungman Lee. These people were 

with John Huang in New York until 11 p.m., on Thursday night. 

Mr. Cox also ignores exhibit 24, the statement from Tak Luk 

Cheng. In this statement, Mr. Cheng states that he had lunch with 

John Huang in New York, Chinatown, at 2 p.m., on August 16th. 

Cheng even names the restaurant that they ate at. We also have 

exhibit 13, which is a statement from Ethel Chen, who met with 

John Huang on August 16th. 

As Mr. Cox can well attest, it is physically impossible to fly from 

New York to Los Angeles at about midnight on Thursday night and 

return in time, at 2 p.m., in Manhattan the next day. 

This committee has subpoenaed every record under the sun relating to John Huang. In addition to statements from eight witnesses, 

we have hotel and plane receipts placing John Huang in New York. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as far as the admissibility of the minority 

statement, and I hope that it is admitted in the evidence, I think 

that there has been a good give-and-take between minority and 

majority Members as to the weight of that evidence, but certainly 

not to its admissibility. 

299

I would like to yield to Mr. Kanjorski if he has any questions. 

I am sorry. I didn’t see you were there. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. 

Mr. Wang, I just want to make sure that we pin down this time 

that you saw John Huang. As I recall from testimony when I asked 

you last that it was in your opinion that it was definitely during 

banking hours in California that you met with Mr. John Huang? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. OK. And banking hours in California, would 

they be 9 to 4? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes. 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. And, further, as you heard Mr. Barrett, we have 

a sworn statement from an individual that says at 2 o’clock on August 16th, in New York, they were having lunch with Mr. John 

Huang. And if I am correct, that would be 11 o’clock Pacific time. 

So that we have direct contradiction between yourself and the 

sworn statements of these other individuals placed——

Mr. SHADEGG. Point of parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Is it permissible to repeatedly refer to a document 

that does not on its face claim to be sworn as a sworn document? 

Mr. BURTON. Do you want to refer to that as a sworn document? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. We have a statement that can be sworn. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I have got it right here. 

Mr. BURTON. Is it a sworn document? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. I am not familiar. 

Mr. SHADEGG. What I am holding here, it is not sworn. 

Mr. BURTON. Just 1 second. 

Mr. SHADEGG. It doesn’t claim to be sworn. 

Mr. BURTON. As far as the Chairs knows, it is not a sworn document. So if you will refer to it as a document. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Well, we have one sworn statement that—of that 

date that is sworn to, and the other statement is an unsworn statement. But——

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. KANJORSKI [continuing]. It is unimportant whether they are 

sworn to or unsworn. 

Mr. SHADEGG. If we are going to argue this point, he said the 

statement of Mr. Cheng about lunch was a sworn statement. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. I did not mention Mr. Cheng. 

Mr. SHADEGG. The only copy that the minority has given us is 

this copy, and it is not sworn. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Well, now, are you talking about Ethel Chen? 

Mr. SHADEGG. You referred to the luncheon that he had at approximately 2 o’clock on Friday, August 16. That is in the statement of Tak Luk Cheng, C-H-E-N-G. I do not know the pronunciation. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. I will make the point——

Mr. SHADEGG. The copy we have does not say——

Mr. KANJORSKI. Let’s not argue on my time. Are we on my time, 

Mr. Chairman? 

300

Mr. BURTON. Well, your time has expired, but I am going to give 

you a little latitude to get this clarified. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. That would not—now, Mr. Chairman, I would resist that from the standpoint this is a parliamentary inquiry. And 

from the point of the parliamentary inquiry, my time should survive. 

Mr. BURTON. Your time had expired at that point anyhow, but 

go ahead. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. OK. 

To respond, a statement made to a congressional investigator is 

taken with the full knowledge of the respondent that it is the 

equivalent of being under oath and subject to perjury and all other 

material. 

So that if that statement made by the individuals said they had 

lunch with Mr. John Huang is incorrect, they would subject themselves to perjury. There isn’t any question about that. Now, technically, whether we have an affidavit on it really doesn’t matter, 

because the criminal law would apply one way or the other. 

Now, what I want to know from you, Mr. Wang, so the record 

is very clear, you are stating that, clearly, you, during banking 

hours, were in California and met with Mr. John Huang, and these 

other two statements say that Mr. John Huang at that precise time 

of 11 o’clock Pacific time, within a 2-hour frame when you were 

supposed to meet with him at your place of business, that, in fact, 

they say he was in New York. You say you identified the photograph, and he was in California; is that correct? 

Mr. CARVIN. Are you asking the witness whether or not he knows 

the contents of the other statements, because I don’t believe he 

does. Or are you—— Mr. KANJORSKI. I can’t hear you. Would you speak up? 

Mr. CARVIN. I am sorry. The question referred to some other documents that I don’t believe the witness has seen. Was that the intent of your question? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. No. The intent is—we got off it. We have two 

statements taken by congressional investigators. One states that 

they were having lunch with Mr. John Huang at 2 o’clock Eastern 

standard time in New York, which would be equivalent 11 o’clock 

Pacific time on August 16th. 

The other statement is that they worked with Mr. John Huang 

during the day in—of August 16th in New York and were aware 

of his presence there. And now that seems to me that we are talking about it would take 6 to 7 hours to fly one way or the other——

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KANJORSKI [continuing]. And that we have excluded that 

possibility——

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman will state——

Mr. BARR. Do we have rules to pertain to Members continually 

and deliberately misstating evidence? 

Mr. BURTON. If it is proven—— Mr. BARR. There were no congressional investigators that have 

done what this, what the gentleman is saying. He is talking about 

other people who are not congressional investigators who claim to 

have been in one restaurant or another at a particular period of 

301

time. And I am inquiring as to whether we have any rules to discipline Members or address Members deliberately and repeatedly 

mischaracterizing evidence? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond? 

Mr. BURTON. Well——

Mr. KANJORSKI. These statements were taken——

Mr. BURTON. I have given the gentleman a great deal of extension on his time. If he wants to respond, make it quickly and we 

will get on to the next one. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. I will respond now to finish my examination. Mr. 

Barr seems it fit, every time we get on a course of conduct of examination here, that he is going to interpose some thought of his. I 

wish he would hold back. He has all the time in the world to take 

time from his side. 

Mr. BURTON. Your time has expired. Do you want to respond or 

not? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. No, I would like to finish my question. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, your time has expired. Mr. Shadegg. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There has been a great 

deal made today of the evidence as stated in the minority’s staff 

report dated today, which, and there were—establishes that the 

meeting with Mr. Wang—that Mr. Wang testified about could not 

have occurred, could not have occurred. 

I simply want to walk through that so-called evidence. The first 

document is a DNC document that says Mr. Huang was reimbursed $30 a day for a time period that includes this. It is beyond 

me how that proves that he was physically in New York. 

The second document is a hotel bill for a hotel which does establish that he paid for a hotel. That does not establish that he was 

physically present. 

He—the next document is a statement from Mr. Huang’s American Express card, which shows that he paid for a hotel room and 

it is kind of an interesting document because it shows he paid 

$8.73 for 10—I am sorry, for 9 nights. That’s a good rate. I would 

like to get that at a hotel in New York that Mr. Wang would stay 

at. 

The next is a document—Huang. Excuse me. The next is a 

Democratic National Committee travel request form. What that establishes is beyond me, but how it establishes Mr. Huang’s physical 

presence in New York is also beyond me. 

We next have a Worldwide Travel itinerary, which shows that 

Mr. Huang flew from Washington to New York and back during 

this period of time. I still don’t get how that shows he was physically present in New York on the 16th, 1 day that fell in between 

there. 

I have this funny notion that I could fly to New York today and 

8 days later I could fly to Phoenix and I could fly back to New York 

and still fly from Washington—from New York back down to Washington. What this proves, I don’t know. 

We then have the bill for that, and actually we have had a great 

deal of righteous indignation about how this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gentleman who is our witness is, in fact, a 

perjurer is what has been presented here today. This is a bill that 

302

says the ticket I just talked about was paid for. I am glad it was 

paid for. The DNC paid for it. 

This is a newspaper article that says Mr. Huang flew to New 

York sometime in a 2-week time period. I am glad we have a newspaper article that says that. It sure doesn’t prove he was physically 

there on the 16th. 

This is a series of newspaper articles, Chinese newspaper articles, which actually prove nothing beyond the fact that Mr. Huang 

had his picture taken in New York sometime prior to the 16th. As 

a matter of fact, they were all—three of the four of them or four 

of the four of them were published on the 16th. Now, I know the 

newspaper business is good, but it is tough to take a picture today 

and print it in the newspaper today. 

So these four proved that the picture was taken sometime before 

the 16th. They sure don’t prove where he was on the 16th. 

This one was published on the 19th, which proves it was taken 

sometime before the 19th, but it sure doesn’t prove where he was 

on the 16th. By the way, none of these have captions that say, picture taken on the 16th. 

This is a lovely one. This is a self-serving letter from Mr. 

Huang’s attorney at Hogan & Hartson, who is righteously indignant that his client is being accused of improper conduct and who 

says that while he has other evidence, exculpatory evidence, he 

says, and I quote, ‘‘I am not free to add that information to the existing and overwhelming proof that John Huang was in New York.’’ Well, I wish he were free. He is, in point, in fact free. He could 

come here tomorrow. 

Then we get to the sworn affidavits. The sworn affidavits are 

kind of interesting. We have three of them—imagine, we are told 

at the beginning of this hearing that there were four sworn affidavits that establish he was in New York on the 16th. 

Well, the first three of those, Mr.—Bonnie Gail Wong says, no, 

he was in New York on the 15th and she spoke to him on the 16th. 

She doesn’t even claim to have spoken to him in New York. She 

says, I spoke to him. I am glad she did, but she didn’t even claim 

that he was there on the 16th. 

The next one is Yungman Lee’s. He says that Mr. Huang was 

there on the 15th also. I am glad he was there on the 15th. Here 

is another one. He was there on the 15th. 

Then we have kind of a fun one. We have a statement from a 

lawyer that says he has talked to a person who said Huang—who 

says she recalls Huang was there. 

You know, this is hearsay on hearsay on hearsay, but the witness who said that is in Honolulu and headed for East Asia. That’s 

kind of interesting. 

We then have a sworn affidavit from an official at the DNC who 

says, in paragraph 5, this is exhibit 15–2, while I cannot tell when 

Mr. Huang actually received each check from the contributors, he 

goes on to say, it would appear that he was in New York City 

throughout this period. So we are impeaching a witness on what 

somebody else says it would appear. That’s a pretty far stretch. 

Now, we get down to what might be established in all of this. In 

the law in the United States, it is nice to have a witness to crossexamine. There are a couple—there is at least one affidavit here 

303

I would like to put up at the table, Mr. Chairman, to cross-examine. We first have an affidavit from Erica Payne. 

We had a great deal of discussion—we had an actual representation of this affidavit to the committee early in this hearing. It was 

specifically read to the committee. It was read to the committee 

and the quote begins, paragraph 6, I hope people will look at it, it 

said—it was held up. I have a sworn affidavit that says, quote, 

‘‘John Huang was continuously physically present in New York 

City conducting fund-raising for at least 5 days prior to the August 

18th celebration.’’

Well, I had some problem with that quote because it is qualified 

by the phrase, ‘‘to the best of my recollection.’’ It, by the way, is 

not notarized. 

We then have the statement that we were just discussing, the 

statement of Tak Luk Cheng. The statement of Tak Luk Cheng 

does not have—I don’t know what the rules of the House are, but 

in the real life world, I doubt if Mr. Cheng was warned, you are 

under perjury, because all he says is, ‘‘I recall that I had this 

lunch.’’ He doesn’t even purport to swear to it, and it has no notary 

and it doesn’t even say, I swear. He wasn’t even asked to swear 

from the surface of this document. 

And now, to give credit where credit is due, we have in this great 

grand pile of documents that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt 

that we are listening to a witness who is a perjurer, one, count it, 

one affidavit that purports to say he was in New York on the 16th, 

and it is sworn to by penalty of perjury. 

I happen to live in Phoenix, AZ. I know there is a 3-hour time 

difference from New York to Phoenix, AZ; a 3-hour time difference 

from New York to California. I can easily and have on many occasions gotten on a plane in Washington, DC, at 6 a.m., and been in 

Phoenix, AZ, at about 9:30 a.m., spent the entire day there and 

flown back that night. Quite frankly, I think Mr. Huang could have 

been in the hotel that night. 

We have made a lot out of very little. I yield back my time. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I would like to at this point ask unanimous consent that all the 

documents referred to us today, and other pertinent supplementary 

material, be included in the record. And in addition to that but included in that number, I would like to submit for the record the 

pictures referred to by Mr. Kanjorski, of Mr. Trie and Mr. Huang, 

of which the witness clearly identified Mr. Huang. 

And I would like to also have the counsel give me the handwritten note from Mr. Wang’s father that we can also add as an 

exhibit, along with all the others. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays reserves the right to object. Would you 

hand me that handwritten note? 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the right to object. 

Mr. BURTON. OK. 

Mr. SHAYS. I just want to know if it will include the letter that 

was written by——

Mr. CARVIN. It will——

304

Mr. SHAYS. Excuse me. I just want to know if it will include the 

letter that was written by Jim Wang or James Wang, the father 

of David Wang? 

Mr. BURTON. Yes, that’s included. 

Mr. SHAYS. Also, I want to know if it will include the statement 

of James Wang, that he never signed, that was submitted by Kenneth Ballen and Christopher Lu, a statement of James Wang that 

said, ‘‘I am David Wang’s father. I was not present at any meeting 

in August 1996 in which John Huang asked my son David to make 

a financial contribution for a fund-raiser for President Clinton,’’ which James Wang refused to sign. 

Is that going to also be included? 

Mr. BURTON. Yes, and also the statement of Ken Ballen and 

Christopher P. Lu will also be included. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Then I withdraw my reservation. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from Georgia is next reserving his 

right to object. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, reserving my right to object, if I might inquire of the chairman if the chairman’s unanimous consent request will include the documentation entitled, 

quote, Evidence that John Huang was in New York City on October 

15th, 16th, 17th and 18th, closed quote, that the gentleman from 

Arizona so eloquently demolished the credibility of just a few moments ago? Is that—will that be included? 

Mr. BURTON. Yes, that will be included as well. 

Mr. BARR. OK. And might I also inquire, of course, that the gentleman from Arizona’s eloquent demolition of those documents, including blowing through the pretense that this somehow proves 

anything at all, will be included in the record as well? 

Mr. BURTON. It will. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. I reserve—I remove my objection. 

Mr. MICA. I reserve an objection. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object pending 

a decision whether or not would be included in the record some of 

the background—a statement relating to some of the background of 

folks who have been contacted by the majority—I am sorry, the minority to provide information about the discussions here today: 

Fran Wakem, a DNC employee who may be involved with accepting Jorge Cabrera’s drug money; Erica Payne, a DNC employee 

who may be involved with Johnny Chung’s donations and Vice 

President Gore’s phone calls from the White House; Ethel Chen, a 

democratic district leader at large who may have been involved 

with Mr. John Huang in the Woman’s Leadership Forum, problems 

that are being looked at. 

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, they will be added to the list. 

Does anybody——

Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes. 

Mr. BURTON. Does the Chair hear an objection? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Kanjorski. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. I would like to have added to the list Section 

1001 of the Criminal Code, which sets forth that ‘‘whoever, in any 

305

matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the government of the United States knowingly and 

willfully makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the 

same to be’’—I am sorry, the word is out—‘‘materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined and subject 

to a 5-year imprisonment.’’ Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. I would like that section put in the record. 

Mr. BURTON. I am not going to object to any part of the code 

being put in the record. 

The gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. BARR. The chairman just echoed my sentiments. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. What? I am sorry. 

Mr. BURTON. We have no objection to any part of the code being 

put in the record. 

Does the Chair hear objection? If not, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

306


g:\graphics\44833.109
307


g:\graphics\44833.110
308


g:\graphics\44833.111
309


g:\graphics\44833.112
310


g:\graphics\44833.113
311


g:\graphics\44833.114
312


g:\graphics\44833.115
313


g:\graphics\44833.116
314


g:\graphics\44833.117
315


g:\graphics\44833.118
316


g:\graphics\44833.119
317


g:\graphics\44833.120
318


g:\graphics\44833.121
319


g:\graphics\44833.122
320


g:\graphics\44833.123
321


g:\graphics\44833.124
322


g:\graphics\44833.125
323


g:\graphics\44833.126
324


g:\graphics\44833.127
325


g:\graphics\44833.128
326


g:\graphics\44833.129
327


g:\graphics\44833.130
328


g:\graphics\44833.131
329


g:\graphics\44833.132
330


g:\graphics\44833.133
331


g:\graphics\44833.134
332


g:\graphics\44833.135
333


g:\graphics\44833.136
334


g:\graphics\44833.137
335


g:\graphics\44833.138
336


g:\graphics\44833.139
337


g:\graphics\44833.140
338


g:\graphics\44833.141
339


g:\graphics\44833.142
340


g:\graphics\44833.143
341


g:\graphics\44833.144
342


g:\graphics\44833.145
343


g:\graphics\44833.146
344


g:\graphics\44833.147
345


g:\graphics\44833.148
346


g:\graphics\44833.149
347


g:\graphics\44833.150
348


g:\graphics\44833.151
349


g:\graphics\44833.152
350


g:\graphics\44833.153
351


g:\graphics\44833.154
352


g:\graphics\44833.155
353


g:\graphics\44833.156
354


g:\graphics\44833.157
355


g:\graphics\44833.158
356


g:\graphics\44833.159
357

Mr. BURTON. Is there further discussion? 

The gentleman from California is recognized. Pardon me. One 

second. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. I want to go to the Democratic side. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman, Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I just wanted to, first of all—I know that the gentleman 

from—the gentleman spoke he had some concerns about the small 

percentage defense that was offered earlier, and I understand the 

enthusiasm of both sides on this issue, but small-mindedness is not 

something that should be associated with any Member of the Congress. I know the gentleman would have wanted to yield to me 

since he pointed me out verbally, and it is a courtesy of the Congress that Members be yielded to in those circumstances. So I just 

think in our passion we should be careful not to do damage, further 

damage, to the reputation of this committee. 

But I do want to get back to the point at hand, which is that the 

reason that this committee is interested in conduit payments, the 

reason why we are interested in the election itself, was this notion, 

this theory, this thought, that there were foreign dollars, orchestrated by a foreign government, to influence elections. And there 

are a number of instances in which foreign entities did make contributions in the last election, that the committee up to now has 

not looked into. 

We have a situation of a Mr. Kramer who is a German national 

who donated—who was fined some $300,000 by the FEC for making illegal contributions. This was the largest fine ever imposed on 

an individual. And he donated over $400,000 to Federal, State elections. And also the Florida Republican party was fined for $82,000. 

They had to return $95,000 of contributions from this foreign national. So if we want to look in the direction of foreigners involved 

in this election, that’s one place we might look. 

We had a British-owned company that gave a $1,013,000; 

$1,006,000 of that to the Republican party in the 1994 election 

cycle, which the committee might at some point want to look into 

it. That is Brown & Williamson Tobacco. We had a firearms company, that’s a Dutch entity that was fined $90,000 for funneling 

money, including money into the campaign of the Speaker of this 

House. 

Now, again, in all of these cases, as is the case in almost every 

conduit election investigation, the candidates themselves had no 

knowledge of the activities of the people who were participating in 

having illegal contributions made to their campaigns. 

And I want to ask the witness whether or not he has any reason 

to believe that the President or the Vice President had knowledge 

that he was reimbursed, in cash, for a check that he wrote to someone who he believes to be John Huang on August the 16th? 

Mr. WANG. I don’t know. 

Mr. FATTAH. It is clear that the witness that we have spent a 

large part of our day talking to has no knowledge about any foreign 

government trying to put money into the American election in the 

last cycle. Nor does he have any knowledge that the candidates 

358

who received this contribution had any knowledge of it. And yet he 

is before us. 

And I would hope that as we go forward, if we just want to look 

at conduit schemes, that this gentleman not be singled out; that 

there are plenty of other people who we can bring in here, who 

have been involved in these types of activities, and believe it or not, 

they have not just written checks to the Democratic party. They 

have written checks, in fact, almost $15 million in fines, directly 

associated with the Dole campaign which took place in 1996. 

We had Haley Barbour testify under oath in the U.S. Senate before the Thompson Committee that he went to a foreign land, sat 

in a yacht and arranged a multimillion-dollar contribution that 

eventually helped fund Republican campaigns in some targeted 

races in the 1994 election. 

So if our search is for foreign money, if our search is for money 

in which people are trying to cover over the original source thereof, 

there is ample reason for this committee to exist, for our investigation to go forward, and I have no problem rooting out any 

wrongdoings by the Democratic party, but I think that we should 

be fair-minded about it, and I would hope that as we go forward 

that we move away from the personality attacks. 

I have nothing against the gentleman from Georgia or anyone 

else in this committee. I just think that we should be fair and we 

should be forthright. If what we are chasing is foreign money, then 

let’s get after it and not pick out what is essentially almost a moving violation in terms of violation of the campaign election law. 

There are hundreds of cases of conduits—— Mr. KANJORSKI. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Of payments to campaigns. I will be 

glad to yield. It’s not my time. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. May I just add to the gentleman’s statement 

that yesterday the fine of $8 million to the Empire Landfill, 

$80,000 of that was conduit money to the Dole campaign of 1996; 

and the treasurer of Dole campaign’s corporation was fined $6 million as a conduit operation to the Dole campaign. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield back. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Horn. 

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have listened with interest to where might John Huang be on 

August 16th, and I assume in the record you have placed the personal statement of account on his American Express card and also 

the—I don’t know if you have placed in the telephone bill. I would 

like to refer to the telephone bill, and if it isn’t in, I would like it 

put in. 

Mr. BURTON. If it isn’t in, without objection, we will include it. 

So ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

359


g:\graphics\44833.160
360


g:\graphics\44833.218
361


g:\graphics\44833.161
362


g:\graphics\44833.162
363

Mr. HORN. It is fascinating in the sense that Mr. Wang, who has 

patiently sat here and listened to a lot of harassment, doubting his 

word, he has testified in depositions and interviews that John 

Huang visited his used car dealership in Los Angeles on August 16, 

1996, and solicited Wang’s $5,000 contribution to the Democratic 

National Committee. 

Now, in contradiction of Wang’s testimony, the committee’s minority and John Huang’s attorney claim that John Huang was not 

in Los Angeles, CA, on the 16th. They claim he was in New York. 

Well, where is the evidence? I read earlier into the record a story 

by a respectable reporter that learned from Democratic officials 

that he never went to New York and they were surprised that he 

had. 

Well, there are a few other things. David Wang had met John 

Huang at least two times prior to Huang’s solicitation of Wang. 

Wang knew what John Huang looked like and has testified under 

oath that Huang did, in fact, solicit a contribution from him. And 

that other item that I referred to, he had said it on the survey of 

the Democratic National Committee when they were going around 

checking large contributions. 

Now, Huang’s America Express card bill indicates that he reserved a room at the Sheraton New York Towers from August 10, 

1996, through August 19, 1996. Whether one is in town 1 day or 

1 hour, I don’t find that unusual. 

What I have found in American politics, on the Republican side 

as well as the Democratic side, is staff or people that are 

facilitators on getting money, often take this suite of rooms, which 

takes away from the net you would like to have in people’s campaigns, and they live high on the hog. Or they send the kids there 

or they send mama and the kids there, as the case may be. 

Now, we don’t know, and there is no evidence in the record, that 

he stayed at the hotel for the entire 9 days of his reservation; if 

he even stayed 1 day, 1 night, or had a hotel up the street for all 

we know. Strangely enough, the amount charged to Huang’s American Express card, as was noted earlier, I believe, was $8.73, not 

exactly a big deal in New York. 

That would help some of the homeless there but that is about it. 

The American Express bill shows no transactions from August 

11th through August 19th. It is entirely possible that John Huang 

was in Los Angeles during that period, as David Wang has patiently testified. 

On August 17, 1996, a telephone call was placed from John 

Huang’s residence in Glendale, CA, to area code (212) 681–6424, a 

New York City telephone number. When that number is now 

called, a recording states, quote, ‘‘the number you have reached, 

681–6424 in area code 212 has been changed. The new number is 

the area code (202) 863–8000.’’

Now, the number to which the caller is referred, (202) 863–8000, 

is the telephone number of the Democratic National Committee in 

Washington, DC. 

Now, what could have happened is, if somebody made that call 

from the home of John Huang, I look at the bill and it is down for 

2 minutes at 32 cents. That is sort of General Services Administration rates. It is a pretty reasonable telephone call. 

364

Now, who was in the home and who was at the other end, it is 

hard to say. If he didn’t go to New York, he was in the home and 

wanting to talk to one of the buddies in what was obviously the 

fund-raising suite or the fund-raising office which was arranging 

all of these things in New York. But he realized, as the story in 

USA Today says, that he was increasingly on the outs with the key 

leaders for finance of the Democratic National Committee. They 

sort of had their fill of him and didn’t like what he was doing. 

So he was getting the icy shoulder and the cold freeze and all 

the rest of it. 

Now, the other thing is, if he wasn’t in the home, maybe his wife 

was at home and just calling a friend in New York, if she met some 

that was with the Democratic National Committee, because it must 

have obviously been one of their facilities. Or he could have had a 

parakeet that just tried to dial the number and see what happens. 

Well, all I can say is, I haven’t heard any evidence on the other 

side that is worth much, and I thought I would add that to the 

record. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. HORN. Certainly. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

The pictures, it is my understanding that one of these pictures 

was taken on the 15th. I mean, you were explaining that. 

Mr. HORN. No, I don’t have that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You don’t have the pictures? 

Mr. HORN. No. I just get old numbers and telephone bills and 

things like that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Does the gentleman yield back the balance of his 

time? 

Mr. HORN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

Is there further discussion? Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Wang. 

Did—and I don’t know if he answered to this before. I may have 

missed it on a time-out from the committee proceedings. But did 

Mr. Huang call you before he was coming to visit you? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. And he visited you at your residence or your business? 

Mr. WANG. Office. 

Mr. MICA. At your office? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Did anyone else see him there, a secretary or anyone 

else? Or did he just come directly to you? Would there be someone 

else who could document that for us? 

Mr. WANG. My father. 

Mr. MICA. I am sorry? 

Mr. WANG. My father was there. 

Mr. MICA. Your father. Was there anyone else there besides your 

father, any other employees? How many employees do you have? 

Mr. WANG. During that time, in fact, only the——

Mr. MICA. Secretary, or? 

Mr. WANG. On that date, there was a secretary there. 

365

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] During the daytime, there is a 

secretary there. 

Mr. MICA. So there might have been someone else who could also 

verify, if our committee goes back to look at this? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] I don’t believe the secretary saw 

him because she works in another office. 

Mr. MICA. But he called you before. Did he tell you where he 

was? Was he in Los Angeles or New York? You don’t remember? 

Mr. WANG. No. 

Mr. MICA. He didn’t say. 

You did get a call from the Democratic National Committee, I 

guess in December, December 6, 1996, that they had contacted you 

or there was an inquiry by this accounting firm, Ernst & Young, 

and you answered some questions over the phone. Do you recall answering questions about your donation to the DNC? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] Sir? 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] I forgot about the telephone call 

in the beginning, but after they showed me the phone bill, the 

statement that is there, I recall that there was a phone call. 

Mr. MICA. So you did admit at another point that you had given 

money in the fashion that was described in this interview? 

Mr. WANG. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Is there any possibility that it might not have been 

a Friday; that it could have been Thursday, possibly a day before, 

as I think your—we have no record of—I mean, I have gone 

through and Mr. Shadegg did a great job of reviewing where Mr. 

Huang was, and we know he flew to New York on the 10th and 

we know he left on the 19th. We have these affidavits or statements by people who, in my opinion, are not very credible, from the 

15th or 16th to the 18th or 19th, and we have the 10th and we 

have the last call from his room on the 13th. 

Is it possible that he could have been there on Thursday or 

Wednesday, maybe you—are you sure it was a Friday? 

Mr. WANG [through interpreter.] I am sure it was on Friday, August the 16th. 

Mr. MICA. You are sure. OK. Well, I thank you for those comments. 

Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, some statements have been made 

on the other side about this hearing, and this hearing today is the 

beginning of trying to get at a long money trail. You are just a 

small part of it; Mrs. Foung and the other witness today are a 

small part of it. We maybe account for $50 or $60, maybe $70,000; 

we found $200,000 that came from the Bank of China, and we 

know that there were—there was $900,000 that came. 

And we have heard cited today from the other side the Florida 

case, which I am familiar with—I am from Florida—and people 

have been fined and penalized and the system worked. The landfill 

situation, people have been fined, penalized, and the system works. 

What we have here is the beginning of a situation where hundreds of thousands of dollars and people have given money at the 

beginning of the trail. We are trying to find where the money came 

from and link that to what Mr. Fattah is talking about, or where 

366

it went. And we do know the money went into the Halls of Congress. 

Roll Call printed March 6, 1997, this printout. We didn’t do it; 

they did it. There were three Republicans named. The balance are 

all Democrats, dozens and dozens. And of the Republicans, there is 

one error, I found out since that was not a Republican, it was 

Brian Bilbray’s brother who is a Democrat. So this is—this is what 

we are trying to find and uncover. 

We appreciate your cooperation. We appreciate your honesty in 

coming before this committee. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. Does the gentleman from California wish to inquire? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. I have one other document to ask unanimous 

consent to put in the record. It is the annual report 1996, the Bank 

of China. 

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The report referred to follows:]

367


g:\graphics\44833.163
368


g:\graphics\44833.164
369


g:\graphics\44833.165
370


g:\graphics\44833.166
371


g:\graphics\44833.167
372


g:\graphics\44833.168
373


g:\graphics\44833.169
374


g:\graphics\44833.170
375


g:\graphics\44833.171
376


g:\graphics\44833.172
377


g:\graphics\44833.173
378


g:\graphics\44833.174
379


g:\graphics\44833.175
380


g:\graphics\44833.176
381


g:\graphics\44833.177
382


g:\graphics\44833.178
383


g:\graphics\44833.179
384


g:\graphics\44833.180
385


g:\graphics\44833.181
386


g:\graphics\44833.182
387


g:\graphics\44833.183
388


g:\graphics\44833.184
389


g:\graphics\44833.185
390


g:\graphics\44833.186
391


g:\graphics\44833.187
392


g:\graphics\44833.188
393


g:\graphics\44833.189
394


g:\graphics\44833.190
395


g:\graphics\44833.191
396


g:\graphics\44833.192
397


g:\graphics\44833.193
398


g:\graphics\44833.194
399


g:\graphics\44833.195
400


g:\graphics\44833.196
401


g:\graphics\44833.197
402


g:\graphics\44833.198
403


g:\graphics\44833.199
404


g:\graphics\44833.200
405


g:\graphics\44833.201
406


g:\graphics\44833.202
407


g:\graphics\44833.203
408


g:\graphics\44833.204
409


g:\graphics\44833.205
410


g:\graphics\44833.206
411


g:\graphics\44833.207
412


g:\graphics\44833.208
413


g:\graphics\44833.209
414


g:\graphics\44833.210
415


g:\graphics\44833.211
416


g:\graphics\44833.212
417


g:\graphics\44833.213
418


g:\graphics\44833.214
419


g:\graphics\44833.215
420


g:\graphics\44833.216
421


g:\graphics\44833.217
422

Mr. BURTON. I want to end this hearing by thanking Mr. Wang. 

It has been a long day for you and for your counsel. We really appreciate your hard work in coming out here and your patience. And 

I want to also thank your interpreter, your translator, and your 

other counsel as well. Thank you very much. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ