THE ROLE OF YAH LIN ‘‘CHARLIE’’ TRIE IN

ILLEGAL POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 1, 2000

Serial No. 106–172

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

THE ROLE OF YAH LIN ‘‘CHARLIE’’ TRIE IN ILLEGAL POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

68–344 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

THE ROLE OF YAH LIN ‘‘CHARLIE’’ TRIE IN

ILLEGAL POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 1, 2000

Serial No. 106–172

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

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

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

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

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

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, JR., Tennessee

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

JIM SCHUMANN, Counsel

LISA SMITH ARAFUNE, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 1, 2000 .............................................................................. 1

Testimony of:

Trie, Yah Lin ‘‘Charlie’’ .................................................................................... 37

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

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

Exhibit 52 ................................................................................................... 126

Exhibit 56 ................................................................................................... 130

Exhibit 58 ................................................................................................... 133

Exhibit 59 ................................................................................................... 136

Exhibit 314 ................................................................................................. 235

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

Exhibit 54 ................................................................................................... 6

Exhibit 55 ................................................................................................... 8

Exhibit 269 ................................................................................................. 39

Exhibit 270 ................................................................................................. 41

Exhibit 271 ................................................................................................. 44

Exhibit 272 ................................................................................................. 46

Exhibits 273 and 274 ................................................................................ 48

Exhibit 275 ................................................................................................. 51

Exhibit 276 ................................................................................................. 53

Exhibit 277 ................................................................................................. 56

Exhibit 278 ................................................................................................. 58

Exhibit 280 ................................................................................................. 85

Exhibit 282 ................................................................................................. 88

Exhibit 283 ................................................................................................. 90

FBI 302 of Mr. Trie ................................................................................... 582

Letter from the Federal Election Commission ........................................ 15

Transcribed interview of Mr. Trie ............................................................ 256

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

California:

Exhibit 249 ................................................................................................. 241

Exhibit 250 ................................................................................................. 244

Hutchinson, Hon. Asa, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Arkansas:

Exhibit 140 ................................................................................................. 182

Exhibit 144 ................................................................................................. 188

Exhibit 145 ................................................................................................. 180

Exhibit 154 ................................................................................................. 193

LaTourette, Hon. Steven C., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio:

Exhibit 251 ................................................................................................. 202

Exhibit 252 ................................................................................................. 212

Exhibit 253 ................................................................................................. 216

Exhibit 255 ................................................................................................. 218

Exhibit 258 ................................................................................................. 198

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut:

Exhibit 14 ................................................................................................... 107

Exhibits 15 and 16 .................................................................................... 109

Exhibit 60 ................................................................................................... 247

Exhibit 62 ................................................................................................... 251

Page

IV

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana:

Exhibit 233 ................................................................................................. 156

Exhibit 235 ................................................................................................. 163

Exhibit 236 ................................................................................................. 171

Trie, Yah Lin ‘‘Charlie’’, prepared statement of ............................................. 25

(1)

THE ROLE OF YAH LIN ‘‘CHARLIE’’ TRIE IN

ILLEGAL POLITICAL FUNDRAISING

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, 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, Shays, Ros-Lehtinen, McHugh,

Horn, Mica, Souder, Scarborough, LaTourette, Barr, Hutchinson,

Terry, Waxman, Owens, Mink, Norton, Cummings, and Kucinich.

Also present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Daniel R. Moll, deputy

staff director; James Wilson, chief counsel; David Kass, deputy

counsel and parliamentarian; Kristi Remington, senior counsel; M.

Scott Billingsley, Kimberly A. Reed, and James J. Schumann, counsels; Maria Tamburri, assistant to chief counsel; Mark Corallo, director of communications; Nicole Petrosino and Caroline Katzin,

professional staff member; Lisa Smith Arafune, chief clerk; Robert

A. Briggs, clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; Michael Canty, staff

assistant; Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Leneal

Scott, computer systems manager; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; Kristin Amerling, minority deputy

chief counsel; Paul Weinberger, minority counsel; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa and Earley Green, minority assistant clerks.

Mr. BURTON. Good morning. A quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform will come to order.

Before the distinguished ranking member and I deliver our opening statements, the committee must first address a number of procedural issues.

First, the committee will enact a rule regarding the usage of the

new camera system that was installed at the end of last year. The

majority and minority staff have worked together and have arrived

at a rule that is agreeable to both sides and that will help ensure

that the system is used in a fair and balanced way.

I will now ask unanimous consent to amend Committee Rule 17

with the amendment that has been distributed to the members,

and without objection, so ordered—— Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. And I will not object, but I want to use this opportunity to enter into a colloquy with you that our staffs have worked

2

out so that we have very precisely in the record what the rules will

be.

I am pleased that we are able to reach agreement on new Committee Rule 17, which has been modified to address Internet broadcast of committee hearings and meetings. And before we approve

the new rule, I have a few comments and questions regarding the

rule.

First, I understand that clause 2 of the proposed new Committee

Rule 17 requires that Internet coverage of committee or subcommittee hearings and meetings shall conform with the provisions

of House Rule XI, clause 4. One of the provisions of that House

Rule XI, clause 4, provision (b), prohibits the use of radio and television tapes and television film of committee hearings or meetings

from being used or made available for use as partisan political

campaign material or to promote an individual’s candidacy for elective office. Provision (b) does not specifically mention Internet coverage, and I want to clarify that provision (b) of House Rule XI,

clause 4, would apply to Internet coverage under the new Committee Rule 17, clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, is this your understanding as well?

Mr. BURTON. That is our understanding.

Mr. WAXMAN. Second, our goal regarding the operation of the

committee’s own Internet broadcast system is to have independent

personnel run the system. The majority and minority have requested that the House leadership consider providing for such personnel. I understand that in the meantime the majority is currently exploring the costs of such personnel, and that unless the

costs of such service are prohibitively expensive or such services

are unavailable, the committee will hire independent personnel to

run the system for full committee hearings and meetings. Majority

and minority staff will run the committee broadcast system for subcommittee hearings and meetings.

Mr. Chairman, is this your understanding as well?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, that is our understanding, and we have agreed

for the time being to have the majority and minority staff work together until we get that worked out.

Mr. WAXMAN. Third, clause 3 of the new proposed Committee

Rule 17 requires that personnel providing coverage of committee

and subcommittee hearings and meetings through Internet broadcast other than through the committee’s own broadcast system

must be accredited. The intention behind the new proposed Committee Rule 17, clause 3, is that its accreditation requirements

shall be applied consistent with the accreditation requirements for

radio and television media coverage in House Rule XI, clause

4(f)(10).

Mr. Chairman, is this your understanding?

Mr. BURTON. That is our understanding.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you very much for the chance to clarify

these points, and I want to thank you personally for our staffs’

working together and reaching a consensus and understanding of

these rules, and I think it will help all the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.

3

Mr. WAXMAN. I withdraw my objection to your unanimous consent request.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman withdraws his objection. Without

objection, the rule is amended.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ and witnesses’ written opening statements be included in the record, and without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits, and extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the record, and

without objection, so ordered.

I 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 committee counsel as they deem appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60 minutes divided

equally between the majority and minority, and without objection,

so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that questioning in this matter

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 deem appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60 minutes equally divided between the majority and minority, and without objection, so ordered.

Today’s hearing is going to involve hearing testimony from Yah

Lin Trie, or Charlie Trie, as he is more commonly known. Mr. Trie

asserted his fifth amendment rights earlier with the committee. He

was 1 of the 122 people who either took the fifth amendment or

fled the country. Today he will testify under a grant of immunity.

It has taken a lot of perseverance, but finally the American people

will hear from Mr. Trie directly.

This will be the third time in the last few months that one of the

central figures in our investigation has testified. Johnny Chung

testified last May, John Huang testified last December, and we

learned a lot in those hearings.

Mr. Chung testified that a Chinese general, the head of their

military intelligence agency of the People’s Liberation Army, gave

him $300,000 to help the President’s campaign. General Ji said,

‘‘We really like your President. We hope he’ll be re-elected. I’ll give

you US$300,000. You can give it to your President and the Democrat Party.’’

Mr. Chung testified that he received the money through Liu

Chao-Ying, a colonel in the People’s Liberation Army, the daughter

of a very powerful general. He testified that Mrs. Liu told him they

were also working with other people. She referred specifically to

Mark Middleton receiving $500,000. He was at one time a senior

White House aide. He took the fifth amendment several times before this committee last year.

Mr. Chung said he was told by another person in China that

Charlie Trie had asked the Chinese Government for $1 million.

This was one of the issues we will ask Mr. Trie about today.

General Ji had a lot of problems since our last hearing—has had

a lot of problems. Less than 2 months after Johnny Chung testified, General Ji, head of the Chinese military intelligence agency,

was demoted. Now there are news reports coming out of China that

4

he has been caught up in a corruption scandal. He may be prosecuted for accepting bribes. It looks to me like they are trying to

make him the scapegoat. I think China is trying to make it look

like General Ji was a lone operator.

Given the absolute lack of cooperation we received from the Chinese Government in this investigation, I find it hard to believe that

General Ji was acting alone. They threatened to arrest our committee staff if they traveled to China to interview anybody. They

wouldn’t let us have any bank records from Hong Kong or Beijing.

I don’t think General Ji and Liu Chao-Ying were lone wolves.

John Huang testified in December. Again, we learned a lot. Mr.

Huang testified that his boss, James Riady, flew in from Indonesia

in August 1992. He took a limousine ride with Bill Clinton and offered him $1 million for his campaign. Mr. Huang said that he and

Mr. Riady then set out to funnel $700,000 or $800,000 through

Lippo Bank employees and companies. The money went to the

DNC and other Democrat campaigns in 1992, 1993, and 1994. It

all came from Indonesia.

He also testified that he continued to receive money from the

Riady family while he was under investigation. He wasn’t alone.

They paid Webb Hubbell $100,000 while he was under investigation in 1994. Antonio Pan was indicted along with Charlie Trie. He

fled the country. We now have learned that the Riady family has

put him on the payroll.

Former Governor Jim Guy Tucker of Arkansas and his wife

signed a lucrative deal with the Riadys shortly after he was indicted by Independent Counsel Ken Starr in 1996.

That is quite a pattern. It seems like everybody that is indicted

or gets in trouble is getting help from the Riadys and the Lippo

Group.

There is one final point that we learned during the John Huang

hearings, and it is a very important one. We learned that the Justice Department during two interviews with President Clinton and

three interviews with Vice President Gore never asked a single

question, not one, about foreign contributions. They didn’t ask

about James Riady or John Huang or Johnny Chung or Charlie

Trie or the Hsi Lai Temple. Again, we need to ask the Justice Department about that. I don’t understand.

Today we will hear from Charlie Trie. Last fall the Justice Department lifted its objection to the committee immunizing Mr. Trie.

We voted to grant him immunity in November, and I appreciate my

Democrat colleagues’ working with us toward that end.

Charlie Trie was a friend of the President’s from Little Rock. He

had wide-ranging access to the White House and Presidential advisers. Beginning in 1994, he donated about $230,000 to the President’s campaign and other Democratic campaigns. Most of the

money came from foreign sources. In addition, he arranged several

hundred thousand dollars in conduit contributions through straw

donors. Again, most of the money came from Asia.

In a few short years, Mr. Trie went from being the owner of a

Chinese restaurant in Little Rock to a mover and shaker in Washington, DC. He was well-known at the White House. He sat at the

head table at DNC fundraisers. He was appointed by the President

to a commission on trade.

5

Before 1994, Charlie Trie had never made a contribution to the

DNC in his life. Then he turned around and gave $100,000 in 1994.

It seems to me that this should have raised red flags with somebody.

The President knew Charlie Trie. The President must have

known that he didn’t have that kind of money himself. If the President didn’t suspect that anything was wrong with that contribution, he must have been tipped off when Mr. Trie brought a shopping bag filled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks and

money orders to the President’s legal defense fund. The White

House has said time and time again that they had no way of knowing that any of this was illegal. Well, if the President didn’t know,

he should have.

Mr. Trie was intimately involved in some of the most memorable

events of the campaign fundraising scandal. He escorted Wang Jun

to the White House fundraising coffee in February 1996. Wang Jun

is the head of China’s Polytechnologies. They were caught trying to

smuggle automatic weapons into the United States. They were

smuggling $4 million worth of automatic weapons to street gangs

in Los Angeles.

He escorted Yogesh Gandhi to a DNC fundraiser in May 1996. Yogesh Gandhi gave $325,000 to the DNC. In exchange, he got to

give the President a bust of Mahatma Gandhi. The problem is the

money wasn’t his. He served as a conduit. It came from a wealthy

Japanese industrialist. He delivered close to $700,000 in sequentially numbered money

orders and checks to the President’s legal defense fund. The money

was tied to a Buddhist organization in Taiwan.

Mr. Trie asked a colonel in the People’s Liberation Army, Lin Ruo Qing, to contribute $10,000 to the DNC. The DNC actively

participated in this solicitation. I want to show everyone a couple

of documents. Would you please put exhibit 54 up on the screen?

[Exhibit 54 follows:]

6

7

Mr. BURTON. This is a letter from Fran Wakam of the DNC to

Lin Ruo Qing. It is addressed to her in Beijing, and here is what

it says: ‘‘Thank you for your interest in the Business Leadership

Forum. I would like to make you aware of two upcoming dates for

lunch and dinner with the President and Vice President Gore.’’ Now, who writes to someone in Beijing and asks them to become

a fundraiser?

But that is not all. Now please put up exhibit 55 on the screen.

[Exhibit 55 follows:]

8

9

10

Mr. BURTON. This is a memo back to Fran Wakem from Charlie

Trie’s assistant. She appreciates the letter for Colonel Lin, but she

wants them to add an extra sentence to it, and here is what she

says: ‘‘Ms. Lin is currently working for a Chinese Governmentowned organization. Therefore, it’s difficult for her to apply for a

business visa. Your letter to her is a great help; however, I’m wondering if you’ll add one more sentence.’’ And the DNC did it. They

added the extra sentence and sent her the letter again. It is really

tough when your big contributors can’t even get a visa to come into

the United States.

The purpose of this hearing is not just to have Charlie recite all

of his sins. It is important to get a complete account from him. But

this is bigger than that. The DNC has said time and time again

that they had no way of knowing that they were getting foreign

money. They say they were victimized by Charlie Trie and John

Huang and Johnny Chung. But time and time again we see examples like the letters we have just shown you. They may not like to

admit it, but they knew.

Mr. Trie had two foreign nationals who were his primary financial backers. Both have ties to the Chinese Government. The first

is Ng Lap Seng—Mr. Wu. Ng Lap Seng is a wealthy developer from

Macau. He was born in China. He is a member of a Communist

Party organization there, the Chinese Peoples Political Consultive

Congress. He wired Charlie Trie more than $1 million from Macau

and Hong Kong. Over $130,000 of that money was funneled to the

DNC.

He went on several fundraisers with Charlie Trie. He was listed

as an ‘‘event benefactor’’ for the President’s birthday party fundraiser in 1994, even though he wasn’t eligible to contribute. Ng Lap Seng brought almost $350,000 in cash into the country.

On at least four occasions, Ng Lap Seng came into the country with

large amounts of cash and went directly to meetings in the White

House with Mr. Trie and Mark Middleton, who took the fifth

amendment before this committee several times.

Mr. Trie’s other foreign benefactor was Tomy Winata of Indonesia. Mr. Winata is a billionaire with close ties to the Indonesian

military. He is also reported to have connections with the Communist Chinese Government. Even more amazing, he had a business relationship with Liu Chao-Ying, the China aerospace executive, the daughter of one of China’s most senior generals who used

to be the head of the People’s Liberation Army, who helped funnel

the $300,000 to Johnny Chung, which later in part got to the President’s Re-election Committee.

In 1996, Mr. Winata sent $200,000 in traveler’s checks to Mr.

Trie from Indonesia. At least $50,000 of that money was used for

conduit contributions. Two of Mr. Winata’s aides went to a fundraiser and had their pictures taken with the President. Like Ng

Lap Seng, Mr. Winata also brought large amounts of cash into the

country, over $370,000. He also wired Mr. Trie $120,000. All told,

that is almost $700,000.

One of the things we will be asking Mr. Trie is what all this cash

was for. What Charlie Trie doesn’t say today may be even more important than what he does say. The Justice Department has asked

us not to question Mr. Trie about two individuals: Mark Middleton,

11

who took the fifth amendment several times before this committee,

and Ernie Green. He had extensive dealings with both of these

men. Both of these men appear to be under active investigation by

the Justice Department. We have agreed to that request.

Mark Middleton was a special assistant to the President. Then

he went into business for himself. He was close to Charlie Trie. He

was also close to James Riady and John Huang. He had frequent

meetings with all three of these people at the White House and had

lunch with them several times in the White House mess.

Ernie Green is a close friend of the President. He was a major

fundraiser for the DNC. Almost a year ago, I sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department on Mr. Green. I asked him to investigate false statements Mr. Green made during depositions with

this committee.

Obviously, these are areas we would like to go into today. They

are very important. However, we have told the Justice Department

we would work around them, and we will stick to that agreement.

I only hope that the Justice Department follows up thoroughly.

There are a lot of things we want to question Mr. Trie about. I

want to get to the questioning so I won’t talk too much longer here.

There are just a couple of things I want to mention.

As we have pursued this investigation, we have been watching

how the Justice Department has done its job. That is part of our

oversight responsibility. They have not done their job well. I don’t

think the problem is with line prosecutors or the FBI agents working on this case. I think the problem stems from the top, the Attorney General and her staff. We will be detailing all of these problems in a report later this year, but I want to mention just a few

of the major shortcomings that we have observed.

The Attorney General has refused to appoint an independent

counsel. The Director of the FBI advised her she needed to. So did

the top prosecutor on the task force, Charles LaBella. Mr. LaBella

told the Attorney General, ‘‘The contortions that the Department

has gone through to avoid investigating these allegations are apparent.’’

James Riady has never been indicted. John Huang’s testimony

was pretty clear. Mr. Riady orchestrated a scheme to funnel large

amounts of foreign money into the President’s campaign. Why

hasn’t he been indicted?

The Justice Department never even brought up the subject of foreign money when they interviewed the President and Vice President during five separate interviews. Not one single question. How

is that possible?

A search warrant for Charlie Trie’s home in Arkansas was

quashed by the Justice Department and the Attorney General lawyers at the last minute. Documents were being destroyed, and they

would not let the FBI go in and search and save those documents.

And they had to wait 3 months before they finally got in there, and

a lot of documents were destroyed in the interim.

When Democrats do get convicted—and this is very important—

they get very light sentences. When Republicans get convicted by

the Justice Department for the same conduct, they are given massive fines. Simon Fireman, a Republican fundraiser, admitted to

funneling $120,000 through straw donors. He got a $6 million fine.

12

John Huang admitted to funneling—working with James Riady and funneling more than $700,000 in illegal money to the Democrat Party. He got a $10,000 fine. Now, compare that. One person contributed $120,000 illegally and got a $6 million fine because he was a Republican. Another

funneled $700,000 in illegal money through conduits and only got

a $10,000 fine. That doesn’t sound consistent.

Empire Sanitary Landfill pled guilty to arranging $129,000 in conduit contributions, and they were fined $8 million. The Justice

Department wanted to give Charlie Trie probation with no fine.

The judge was so upset about it that he himself initiated and fined

Charlie Trie $5,000; $5,000 for all of that compared to $8 million

for lesser contributions.

Something is wrong here. The Justice Department needs to answer for all this. I won’t take any more time with it today, but I

want to assure my colleagues that we are going to return to that

subject.

Finally, I just want to say a few words about the process today.

This hearing will be very similar to the hearings we have held with

John Huang in December. Yesterday, for the first time, we got an

opportunity to interview Mr. Trie for the first time in 3 years. I

want to thank Mr. Trie and his attorneys for arranging that. I also

want to thank the Justice Department for their role in making that

possible.

However, there is a large volume of material for us to go

through. I expect this process to take 2 days, possibly 3. I reserved

a third day on Friday. I hope we won’t need to go into that. We

have talked to Mr. Trie’s attorney, and we may be able to accommodate him by shortening some of the questioning, if that is possible, and we are allowed to question Mr. Trie at length after the

hearing is completed.

We will begin today with extended questioning. I will ask questions for half an hour, and then Mr. Waxman will ask questions

for half an hour. Then we will go to the 5-minute rule, and, Mr.

Trie, the members on our side will have specific areas they will be

questioning you about. They will have to do that in their 5-minute

increments. Hopefully others will yield to them to extend their

questioning, if necessary. That is part of our rules, so they will be

returning to those areas their next time around.

We will try to move this process along so it doesn’t become too

cumbersome, but we also want to be sure that we are thorough because we have got a lot of ground to cover.

That is a brief description of how we will proceed. I will now

yield to Mr. Waxman for his opening statement. Then we will ask

Mr. Trie to make a statement if he wishes, and then we will get

on with the questioning.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the investigation into campaign finance violations of the 1996

election unfolded, three central figures emerged: Johnny Chung,

John Huang, and Charlie Trie. By the end of this week, we will

have completed over 50 hours of questioning of all three.

Johnny Chung had no information that in any way implicated

the President, the Vice President, the First Lady, any Member of

13

Congress, or any Democratic Party official in any illegal or improper activity. And the committee has no credible evidence that

would suggest that Mr. Chung was a Chinese spy or intentionally

endangered our national security.

John Huang had no information that in any way implicated the

President, the Vice President, the First Lady, any Member of Congress, or any Democratic Party official in any illegal or improper

activity. And the committee has no credible evidence that would

suggest that Mr. Huang was an agent of the Chinese Government

or took any action that endangered our national security.

It now appears that Charlie Trie has no information that in any

way implicates the President, the Vice President, the First Lady,

any Member of Congress, or any Democratic Party official in any

illegal or improper activity. And the committee has no credible evidence that would suggest that Mr. Trie was an agent of the Chinese Government or took any action that endangered our national

security.

We do know, however, that Mr. Chung, Mr. Huang, and Mr. Trie

broke the law by engaging in conduit campaign schemes. All the

members of this committee, Democratic and Republican, should

condemn those illegal acts and recognize that it is important that

we focus attention on them. But conduit schemes, no matter how

wrong, are not in themselves treasonous. They don’t automatically

threaten our national security. And absent additional evidence,

they don’t indicate misconduct by the President or other officials

that had no knowledge of these conduit schemes.

There are only two instances of conduit contributions that do

point to possible misconduct by an elected official or an official of

one of the major political parties.

The first involves Peter Cloeren, a Texas businessman and a conservative Republican. He has pled guilty to participating in a conduit scheme, and he has alleged this scheme was orchestrated by

House Republican Whip Tom DeLay. Chairman Burton, however,

has refused to investigate that matter and call Mr. Cloeren in for

a hearing.

The second instance involves Haley Barbour, the former head of

the Republican National Committee. It is clear foreign contributions were funneled into the National Policy Forum and used in the

1996 campaign, and evidence suggests that Mr. Barbour was personally involved in that effort. But the Republican members of the

Federal Election Commission have blocked any FEC action on that

matter, and Chairman Burton has refused to hold a hearing on this

conduit scheme.

Regrettably, instead of following the evidence where it leads, this

committee’s investigation has focused exclusively on one party and,

as a result, has been mired in partisanship.

At our first campaign finance hearing, 21⁄2 years ago, we heard

from Charlie Trie’s sister, Manlin Foung. She told us that her

brother had made illegal conduit contributions, but that he was not

a Chinese spy or part of a Chinese conspiracy. Today, 21⁄2 years

later, we will hear finally from Mr. Trie himself.

Investigations can be like drilling for oil. Sometimes you strike

it rich by discovering new evidence of wrongdoing or inappropriate

conduct. And sometimes you dig a dry hole.

14

Since Manlin Foung testified in October 1997, we have poured

millions of dollars into investigating Mr. Trie, Mr. Huang, and Mr.

Chung. Today we will learn whether we have found oil or dug one

of Congress’ most expensive dry holes.

I look forward to hearing Mr. Trie’s testimony, and I have had

a chance already to review it. And as the chairman indicated, our

staffs met with Mr. Trie and questioned him at length about everything that he could possibly tell us. Today in this open forum we

will hear from him directly, and if we can get some new evidence

today, then we ought to take it and move forward with it. But if

we get the same statements that we have heard from the other two

and which are in Mr. Trie’s statement so far, we have no evidence

other than a lot of surrounding circumstances and innuendo, but

no evidence that leads to some of the outlandish claims that have

been made on behalf of this investigation.

But the evidence is what we ought to see and follow, and the

statements of the three principals before our committee indicate, as

I mentioned, no information implicating the President, the Vice

President, or anyone else in illegal or improper activities.

I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to hearing from Mr. Trie.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from

the Federal Election Commission regarding Mr. DeLay which

clears him of any improprieties, and if you have not seen the letter,

I will be happy to let you see it.

Mr. WAXMAN. I have no objection to entering the letter, but I

want to take exception to the characterization that it ‘‘clears’’ him

of any improprieties. But I have no objection to the letter being—— Mr. BURTON. We will enter it into the record, and the record will

speak for itself.

[The information referred to follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Trie, would you rise, please?

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. BURTON. Be seated. Mr. Trie, do you have an opening statement you would like to make?

Mr. WEINGARTEN. Mr. Chairman—— Mr. BURTON. Excuse me, counsel. The rules of the House are that

only the person being questioned can speak, so we have to adhere

to that. You can confer with your client and have him speak.

Mr. WEINGARTEN. I was simply going to waive—Mr. Trie is selfconscious about his English, and I was simply going to announce

that he would waive the reading of the opening statement so long

as it is part of the record and all the Members have it. That was

all I was going to say.

Mr. BURTON. We will put his opening statement into the record,

and if Mr. Trie desires, we will go ahead with questioning immediately.

Mr. WEINGARTEN. That is his desire.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trie follows:]

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Trie, you do understand English?

TESTIMONY OF YAH LIN ‘‘CHARLIE’’ TRIE

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Mr. Trie, when did you first meet Tomy

Winata?

Mr. TRIE. 1994.

Mr. BURTON. After you met him, Winata suggested that you go

to work for him, didn’t he?

Mr. TRIE. Late—early 1995.

Mr. BURTON. And when he asked you to go to work for him, did he indicate that he was willing to pay you $50 million?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Why didn’t you take the $50 million job offer?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think I deserve.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t think you deserved it?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Winata owns a number of companies in Indonesia, including a satellite company and a bank. In fact, Mr.

Winata has close ties to the Indonesian military, doesn’t he?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know that.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t know whether he has close ties with the

Indonesian military?

Mr. TRIE. I wasn’t with him all the time.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ever see any Indonesian Army officers at

his home?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Pretty high-ranking officers?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know their ranking.

Mr. BURTON. But you knew they were military officers from the

Indonesian military.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. What does Mr. Winata have to do with the Suharto

family?

Mr. TRIE. They’re friends.

Mr. BURTON. Do they have any business connections?

Mr. TRIE. I cannot say it.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t know?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know.

Mr. BURTON. What does Mr. Winata have to do with the Riady

family?

Mr. TRIE. I think they’re friends.

Mr. BURTON. Are they business partners?

Mr. TRIE. No, not I—not that I recall.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall whether——

Mr. TRIE. Or that I know.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t know whether he is a business partner

in any way with the Riadys?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. What does Mr. Winata have to do with the People’s

Republic—the Government of Communist China, PRC?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think he has anything to do with PRC.

Mr. BURTON. He doesn’t have any contact or connections with the

PRC?

38

Mr. TRIE. Only I know they have the business deal, was trying

to have business deals with Ms. Liu. That was 1997.

Mr. BURTON. Liu Chao-Ying?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. The aerospace industry.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know what she do.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t know what she does?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 269 is a wire transfer of $70,000 from

Winata to your bank account dated February 14, 1995. Do you

know why he sent that money to you?

[Exhibit 269 follows:]

39

40

Mr. TRIE. Just a second.

Mr. BURTON. It is exhibit 269.

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall this wire transfer.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t—— Mr. TRIE. I believe I loan money from him.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall this $70,000 wire transfer?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. Did the Justice Department ask you about this wire

transfer?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. They ask a lot of bank record. I couldn’t recall

this one.

Mr. BURTON. Yesterday, my counsel tells me that you told me the

Justice Department did not ask you about this. You met—— Mr. TRIE. I told them yes.

Mr. BURTON. You told them yesterday that the Justice Depart- ment did not ask you about that $70,000.

Mr. TRIE. Because I don’t recall.

Mr. BURTON. Now you don’t recall?

Mr. TRIE. Because on that day, yesterday I don’t recall.

Mr. BURTON. You said yesterday you don’t recall?

Mr. TRIE. What’s your question?

Mr. BURTON. My question is: Did the Justice Department ask you about the $70,000 wire transfer from Mr. Winata?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall they ask this question or not.

Mr. BURTON. Well, that is different than what you told our staff

yesterday, because yesterday you told our staff that the Justice Department did not ask you that question.

Mr. TRIE. Is that—I thought that’s the same thing, which I don’t

recall.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Exhibit 270 is a translation of a note that was

written in Chinese, a copy of which was found in your office by the

FBI when it executed its search warrant. The note is dated May

9, 1995, and the note thanks Winata for introducing you to people

in Taipei. The note also states that you talked this over with Mark,

and he asked you to come to this country in the last 10 days of

May.

Were you talking about Mark Middleton?

[Exhibit 270 follows:]

41

42

43

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. You were talking about Mark Middleton?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Who did Winata introduce you to in Taipei?

Mr. TRIE. His business associate.

Mr. BURTON. And who was that?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall?

Mr. TRIE. Many people, many people.

Mr. BURTON. Many associates?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. How many times did Winata come to the United

States in the period of time that you dealt with him?

Mr. TRIE. Four to five time, I think.

Mr. BURTON. Four to five times?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. In the times that Winata came to the United

States, did you travel with him?

Mr. TRIE. Sometime.

Mr. BURTON. Did Winata give you money when he came to the

United States?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, he do—he does.

Mr. BURTON. How much?

Mr. TRIE. Sometime $10,000 sometime $20,000.

Mr. BURTON. More than $20,000?

Mr. TRIE. No, no; $10,000 or $20,000.

Mr. BURTON. $10,000 or $20,000?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. BURTON. Did you always report all this money on your income taxes?

Mr. TRIE. I did not.

Mr. BURTON. You did not?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did the Justice Department ask you about that at

all?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. What did you do to try to set up a meeting between

the President and Winata? Did you speak to anyone at the White

House?

Mr. TRIE. I think I speak to Mark.

Mr. BURTON. Mark Middleton?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you speak to anybody at the Democrat National

Committee?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so.

Mr. BURTON. Were you successful in trying to set up a meeting

between the President and Winata?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Winata visited the United States in December

1995, and exhibit 271 is a letter from Winata to you dated December 29, 1995. Winata thanks you for your hospitality during his recent trip to the United States. Where did you go with the Winatas

during the December 1995 trip?

[Exhibit 271 follows:]

44

45

Mr. TRIE. I think he came to Washington, DC.

Mr. BURTON. So you did bring him to Washington?

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t bring him. He just came to Washington.

Mr. BURTON. But you were with him?

Mr. TRIE. I was in Washington, DC, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you take him any place in particular, to the

White House or anywhere?

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at the document?

Mr. BURTON. Beg your pardon?

[Pause.]

Mr. TRIE. I don’t remember the date. I did take him—I don’t

think him, but his wife and family.

Mr. BURTON. To the White House?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 272 is a Treasury record indicating that Winata brought $35,000 in cash with him when he came on that

trip. Do you know what he did with that money? And did he give

you any?

[Exhibit 272 follows:]

46

47

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall, but maybe $10,000, what normally he

do. I couldn’t recall.

Mr. BURTON. He maybe gave you $10,000, but you don’t recall

how much?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall.

Mr. BURTON. Did he bring any other money with him that you

know of?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t. Maybe his family bring some, but I don’t know.

I didn’t ask.

Mr. BURTON. During any of Winata’s travels to the United

States, did you ever introduce him to any Government officials?

Mr. TRIE. I think Mark Middleton, maybe Jude Kearney.

Mr. BURTON. Mark Middleton and who else, sir?

Mr. TRIE. Jude Kearney.

Mr. BURTON. Jude Kearney?

Mr. TRIE. From Commerce.

Mr. BURTON. Commerce Department.

Mr. TRIE. And I couldn’t recall anybody else.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibits 273 and 274 are pages from the telephone

directory of Jude Kearney, and the directory indicates that he met

Mr. Winata, and you did introduce him to Mr. Winata. That is

what you just said, right?

[Exhibits 273 and 274 follow:]

48

49

50

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Why did you introduce him to Mr. Winata?

Mr. TRIE. That’s the person I know in Commerce.

Mr. BURTON. Was there any business that Mr. Winata wanted to

do and that is why he wanted to meet with Mr. Kearney?

Mr. TRIE. I think that Winata really did a lot of business within

the United States. I’m just his friend.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ever travel with Winata in Asia?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ever introduce Winata to any Chinese officials or Taiwan officials?

Mr. TRIE. He’s a very rich man. I don’t think he need me to introduce him over there, but in the United States I think I did.

Mr. BURTON. So he already knew a lot of people in—— Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON [continuing]. China and Taiwan?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ever travel with him? Did you travel with

him?

Mr. TRIE. Normally we didn’t travel together, but, you know,

sometime when he go somewhere, he call me. If I have the time,

I go there.

Mr. BURTON. Did he ever introduce you to any officials of foreign

governments?

Mr. TRIE. Everybody he introduced me is just shake hand. I don’t

know their—I don’t try to recall their names because they do business with him.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 275 is a memo from Susan Levine to Nancy

Hernreich dated December 7, 1995. In the memo, Levine states

that you would like to meet with the President between December

11th and 15th and would like to introduce a friend of yours from

Indonesia to the President. Was she referring to Winata?

[Exhibit 275 follows:]

51

52

Mr. TRIE. I think so.

Mr. BURTON. Did you bring Winata to the White House?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall?

Mr. TRIE. It never—I don’t think he went to White House.

Mr. BURTON. Did you take him to the White House to meet with

Middleton or anybody else?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t think so? You don’t remember?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t remember.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 276 is a Treasury record indicating that

Winata entered the United States in January, January 21, 1996.

Did you see him on that trip?

[Exhibit 276 follows:]

53

54

Mr. TRIE. I think so.

Mr. BURTON. The same exhibit shows that Winata carried with

him $78,260 in cash. Do you know what he did with that money?

And did he give you any?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know what he do with the money, but I couldn’t

recall that time.

Mr. BURTON. Did he give you any of that money?

Mr. TRIE. I can’t recall right—1996? No, I couldn’t recall that

one.

Mr. BURTON. Well, you said when he came to the country he gave

you between $10,000 and $20,000 on several occasions, and you say

you don’t remember whether he gave you any? I mean, if somebody

gave me $10,000, I think I would remember it.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall this time he did or not.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall.

Did you invite Winata to the February 1996 fundraiser at the

Hay-Adams that you and Huang were organizing?

Mr. TRIE. I did.

Mr. BURTON. Why did you invite him to that?

Mr. TRIE. He’s a friend of mine.

Mr. BURTON. Was it because he was a contributor, because he

was giving you money to give to the President or the DNC?

Mr. TRIE. Can you give me the question again?

Mr. BURTON. The question is: Did you invite him to the HayAdams fundraiser because he had given you money to give to the

President’s Re-election Committee or the DNC?

Mr. TRIE. No. Because he’s my friend.

Mr. BURTON. Because he was your friend?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you tell Winata that he could sit next to the

President at the head table?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. You told him he could sit next to the President——

Mr. TRIE. If he want to.

Mr. BURTON. If he wanted to.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. That was in lieu of the meeting that he wanted to

have with the President privately? That was in place of the meeting that he wanted to have with the President privately?

Mr. TRIE. I think so.

Mr. BURTON. Why didn’t Winata accept the offer to sit next to

the President and come to the fundraiser?

Mr. TRIE. You said why——

Mr. BURTON. Why did he not go to the fundraiser and sit next

to the President?

Mr. TRIE. He doesn’t want to.

Mr. BURTON. He didn’t want to?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did Winata send anybody else to the fundraiser?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, two of his associates.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ask Winata to give money for the fundraiser?

Mr. TRIE. Did I ask——

55

Mr. BURTON. Did you ask Mr. Winata to give money or to help

out with the fundraiser?

[Pause.]

Mr. TRIE. Your question is did I ask Tomy Winata for contribute

the money to—— Mr. BURTON. Did you ask Mr. Winata to help out or give money

for the fundraiser?

Mr. TRIE. I will tell him to—I told him to help out.

Mr. BURTON. What did that mean?

Mr. TRIE. My personal friend has problem.

Mr. BURTON. To give some money?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Did Winata send money with the people he

sent?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. How much?

Mr. TRIE. $200,000.

Mr. BURTON. $200,000?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. So he did help out quite a bit?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Why did Winata send $200,000? Why did he send $200,000?

Mr. TRIE. That’s what I asked.

Mr. BURTON. I know, but people don’t just give $200,000 because they like you. Why did he send $200,000?

Mr. TRIE. If he offer me $5 million, which mean he trust me, he

like me. So he give me the $200,000.

Mr. BURTON. He sent the $200,000 because he liked you?

Mr. TRIE. I think so.

Mr. BURTON. It wasn’t because he wanted some influence with

the administration or anything?

Mr. TRIE. I only tell him I need help.

Mr. BURTON. Was there an understanding between you and

Winata that you would have to use some of the money that he was

giving to you to purchase tickets for his employees and others?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. How did you use these traveler’s checks? You might

put that exhibit up on the screen there. That is exhibit 277. How

did you use the traveler’s checks?

[Exhibit 277 follows:]

56

57

Mr. TRIE. Yes, this is Jack Ho, Gem International, $25,000 to

DNC.

Mr. BURTON. That is $25,000 you gave to the DNC that was

given to you by Winata?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 278 is a set of 25 $1,000 traveler’s checks

that you gave to Jack Ho as reimbursement for a $25,000 contribution that he made to the DNC. Why did you use Winata’s traveler’s

checks to reimburse Mr. Ho’s contribution? Why did you use Mr.

Winata’s money to reimburse Mr. Ho?

[Exhibit 278 follows:]

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Mr. TRIE. OK. So his man can go into the event.

Mr. BURTON. So you were using Mr. Winata’s money, laundering

it through Mr. Ho?

Mr. TRIE. Can you give me the question again?

Mr. BURTON. You were using the money that was being

laundered or funneled through Mr. Ho for Mr. Winata?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t understand a few words.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I apologize. Maybe I haven’t made myself

clear. It was Winata’s money.

Mr. TRIE. Right.

Mr. BURTON. And you were giving it through Mr. Ho.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. So that nobody would know that it was Winata’s

money and it was going to the DNC as a contribution.

Mr. TRIE. I thought Winata give me the money, it’s my money

to give to Mr. Ho.

Mr. BURTON. So Winata gave you the money, and now you considered it your money, and then you were giving it to Mr. Ho?

Mr. TRIE. Correct. So purchase the two ticket.

Mr. BURTON. Did you use any other part of the $200,000 for political contributions?

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at the record?

Mr. BURTON. Sure.

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, Manlin Foung and Mr. Landon, $25,000 to the

DNC.

Mr. BURTON. So you gave $25,000 to Manlin Foung and Joseph

Landon to give to the DNC?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. What about the rest of the $150,000 that was left

over? It was $200,000 that you got. What did you do with the other

money?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, I couldn’t recall every one of them, but there’s

some document over here.

Mr. BURTON. Did you use all of the $200,000 for contributions to

the President’s campaign?

Mr. TRIE. No, no, no.

Mr. BURTON. What did you do with it?

Mr. TRIE. I think I spent it.

Mr. BURTON. You spent it?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. BURTON. Did you report it on your income tax?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. You also used at least $8,000 of these traveler’s

checks to funnel money to the President’s legal expense fund, didn’t

you?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. You just did that to help the President with his

legal expenses?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. In June 1996, a group of Mr. Winata’s friends and

family visited the United States. You have informed us that they

were visiting to see one of Winata’s satellites get launched from

Cape Canaveral. On the way to Florida, they stopped in Washington and got a White House tour. Did you set that up for them?

84

Mr. TRIE. I think so.

Mr. BURTON. How did you set that up? Through Mark Middleton?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t remember. They must have a record. But I

couldn’t remember that day. I don’t think even I went on the tour.

Mr. BURTON. I am sorry?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t even think I went to the tour.

Mr. BURTON. But you did set it up?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 280 is a wire transfer from Winata to you dated September 5, 1996, for $50,000. Why was he giving you this

money? Exhibit 280.

[Exhibit 280 follows:]

85

86

Mr. TRIE. I think I just want to get a loan from him.

Mr. BURTON. You just wanted some money and he gave it to you?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you use it for political reasons?

Mr. TRIE. That’s September 5th, which is the campaign finance

already broke off.

Mr. BURTON. Did you use any of the money——

Mr. TRIE. No, no, no.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t remember?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t think so?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. BURTON. So you kept it yourself?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you pay taxes on that?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. Did the Justice Department ask you about this wire

transfer?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall this one.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. According to the Justice Department records and

what you’ve told us, they did not ask you about that. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. You mean yesterday?

Mr. BURTON. No, not yesterday. Did the Justice Department ask

you about this wire transfer? In previous testimony you said no. I

think that was the FBI, wasn’t it?

Mr. TRIE. You mean yesterday, right?

Mr. BURTON. The FBI. When the FBI interviewed you, they

asked you if the Justice Department—they asked you about this.

You don’t know if the Justice Department asked you about that?

Mr. TRIE. You mean——

Mr. BURTON. The $50,000 wire——

Mr. TRIE. You mean the FBI interview, right?

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall this one. I don’t recall this at all. I don’t

think they——

Mr. BURTON. You don’t think they asked you a question about

that.

Mr. TRIE. Not this one, because we have 16 or 17 time. I couldn’t

recall this one.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t recall?

Mr. TRIE. Lots of documents they ask.

Mr. BURTON. In September 1996, you traveled with your colleagues on the Bingaman Commission to Asia, including Jakarta.

Did the Bingaman Commission delegation meet with Tomy

Winata?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, they do.

Mr. BURTON. They did?

Mr. TRIE. Part of them. I think two of them.

Mr. BURTON. Did you arrange for Winata to meet with the commission members? Did you arrange——

87

Mr. TRIE. Not arrange it, because Tomy Winata have a party at

their house, so I brought the two of them, my colleagues, into—— Mr. BURTON. So you arranged for them to come to the party?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. Correct.

Mr. BURTON. Exhibit 282 is a copy of an itinerary for Winata in

December 1996 that was taken from your office by the FBI when

it executed its search warrant. The itinerary reflects the fact that

Winata was scheduled to travel to San Francisco, Atlanta, and Los

Angeles in December 1996. Did he travel to the United States during that timeframe?

[Exhibit 282 follows:]

88

89

Mr. TRIE. The date, let me look at the date. December. Yes, I believe he was.

Mr. BURTON. And did you arrange any meetings for him while

he was here?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, yes.

Mr. BURTON. You did. Did he meet with anybody in Washington,

at the White House or anyplace?

Mr. TRIE. No. It’s just some—one of my friend own a bank, try

to start a bank, introduce him to Tomy Winata. I try to tell Tomy

Winata invest his bank.

Mr. BURTON. Investing in a bank?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. BURTON. What bank? You don’t recall?

Mr. TRIE. The bank is in L.A.

Mr. BURTON. Well, we’ll get the name possibly later, then, from

you or your legal counsel if you don’t recall.

Mr. TRIE. I know the person. His name is Yeh. Mr. Yeh.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Yeh?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Exhibit 283 is a Treasury record indicating that Winata was carrying $58,000 in cash when he came to the

United States on that trip. Did he give you any of that $58,000?

[Exhibit 283 follows:]

90

91

Mr. TRIE. I think $10,000.

Mr. BURTON. He gave you $10,000?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Did you pay taxes on that?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. By the time that Winata was making this trip,

there was press coverage of your involvement in the campaign

fundraising scandal. Did you talk about any of the problems that

you were having with Mr. Winata at that time?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, we did talk about that. In that time it was President defense fund. That’s the only news that broke out of—if I realize, of my side. That’s the date—that’s the time.

Mr. BURTON. Now, when you left the United States and went to

China when the investigation started in 1996, did you have contacts with Mr. Winata? Did you meet with him after you went to

China, fled the United States and went to China and Taiwan?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I went to Indonesia to see him.

Mr. BURTON. You went to Indonesia and saw him?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Has he given you any money since the campaign

finance scandal started?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I—I think so.

Mr. BURTON. How much?

Mr. TRIE. I remember one time in Taiwan—this was in 1998— I believe he gave me $10,000.

Mr. BURTON. Did you get a total over that period of time of maybe $40,000 to $50,000?

Mr. TRIE. I guess.

Mr. BURTON. Did you attend a dinner arranged by Winata in

Hong Kong in May 1997?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall the time. Yes, it is in 1997.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know who all was there, who was invited?

Mr. TRIE. I think Mr. William Bai and Ms. Liu Chao-Ying and

her associate. That’s the people I could remember.

Mr. BURTON. So Liu Chao-Ying was at the dinner?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. What was the relationship between Ms. Liu ChaoYing and Mr. Winata?

Mr. TRIE. Mr. Winata have a fishing company, and they need a

boat, and China have many of the fishing boat, so Mr. Winata’s

company tried to arrange it with Ms. Liu Chao-Ying to help on the

boat. That’s what I—— Mr. BURTON. So that was a business that they were trying to

enter into?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know of any other business connections between Liu Chao-Ying and Mr. Winata?

Mr. TRIE. Not I know.

Mr. BURTON. Did you know at that time that she was a colonel

in the People’s Liberation Army?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t know that she was in the aerospace industry in the People’s Liberation Army? You didn’t know her

father——

92

Mr. TRIE. I know her father is a military man, high-ranking military, I think the highest.

Mr. BURTON. Last question, and then I will yield to Mr. Waxman. Did you know about her role in funneling money to the DNC

through Johnny Chung?

Mr. TRIE. That’s what she told me.

Mr. BURTON. She told you that General Ji—— Mr. TRIE. No, no, no. I don’t know the whole detail. Only she say

she was investigated by the House investigator.

Mr. BURTON. And that she was instrumental in getting money to

the DNC?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. BURTON. Through Johnny Chung?

Mr. TRIE. I think so, yes, through Johnny Chung.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Trie, it is clear that English is not your first language. What

is your—— Mr. TRIE. Chinese.

Mr. WAXMAN. Chinese.

Mr. TRIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. And how long have you lived in the United States?

Mr. TRIE. Twenty-three years.

Mr. WAXMAN. Are you a citizen of the United States?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. How long have you been a citizen?

Mr. TRIE. Since 1984.

Mr. WAXMAN. 1984. And just as a point of clarification, were you

questioned by the Justice Department or the FBI with somebody

from the Justice Department present?

Mr. TRIE. FBI, also people from Justice Department.

Mr. WAXMAN. At different times or at the same time?

Mr. TRIE. I think at different times.

Mr. WAXMAN. Different times. So at some time you were questioned by people from the Justice Department, and another time

you were questioned by people from the FBI?

Mr. TRIE. But FBI, the people’s almost there.

Mr. WAXMAN. FBI people were present—— Mr. TRIE. Yeah. Every time the U.S. FBI agent was there.

Mr. WAXMAN. Your testimony indicates that you violated Federal

campaign finance laws. You have admitted that during the 1996

election cycle you used other people’s money to make and solicit illegal conduit contributions. Most if not all of this money was foreign money, and in total it appears that you were responsible for

hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions.

These are very serious offenses. In fact, they are felonies, and you

have pled guilty to a felony violation of the campaign finance laws

for making these conduit contributions. And no one should minimize or tolerate these violations. They are very serious and they

deserve punishment.

Do you agree with that?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. You——

Mr. TRIE. Please slow down.

93

Mr. WAXMAN. I should slow down. All right. Well, you have acknowledged that you have given money that was not yours but

came from foreign nationals and transferred it illegally to campaigns. Is that right?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. And you know now that it was wrong?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. And did you know then it was wrong?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. But you know now?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. I have had the opportunity to read your full statement, and you indicate in your written statement some regret. Are

you sorry you did what you did?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. But as bad as these actions were, you weren’t a

central figure in the allegations of campaign finance abuse during

the 1996 elections just because of these conduit contributions. We

looked in the Internet, and there is a site called LEXIS/NEXIS, and

we did a search of all the articles where your name was mentioned.

And since October 1996, there have been over 4,000 articles that

mention your name in newspapers around the country. And the

reason you have been the center of so much attention is that Republicans in the Congress and others have said that you were part

of a Chinese plot to influence our elections, that you were a Chinese spy, and that you were part of a conspiracy involving President Clinton and the Democratic Party to knowingly solicit illegal

contributions.

These are very serious allegations, and I want to ask you about

these allegations that have been made about you.

One of them is that you were part of a conspiracy. Do you understand what a conspiracy is?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. A conspiracy involving John Huang and Johnny

Chung to funnel illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese

Government to the Democratic National Committee for use in the

President’s election campaign.

Mr. TRIE. Can I address this question?

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to ask you about it and ask you your comments on it. Were you part of a conspiracy to raise campaign contributions from the Chinese Government?

Mr. TRIE. Can I address this question?

Mr. WAXMAN. Please do.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t want to use the words, but it is the—everybody

involved in the campaign finance, which is Johnny Chung, John

Huang, or me, we all born in Taiwan. Maybe John Huang is not,

but, you know, we both raised in Taiwan, and everybody know Taiwan and China is against each other. When we was a kid, all we

know is that China is our enemy. So I think this is—the whole

thing is the biggest joke because we raised in Taiwan, and we come

to the United States. We go back to China and the Chinese Government will invite us to be spy? They might looking for somebody else

born in China. It never will be us. They will never give—I don’t

know Johnny Chung, but I just don’t believe they will think, you

94

know, we give you money, you go to—also, influence the President

of the United States, maybe the money we receive is not even—it’s

a joke. I’m sorry for that.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let me ask you very specifically so we can

just have it on the record. Did you have any knowledge about efforts by the Chinese Government to make illegal campaign contributions to President Clinton?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. And were you part of a conspiracy to raise campaign contributions from the Chinese Government?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Were you part of a fundraising conspiracy involving John Huang, Johnny Chung, and James Riady, as has been alleged by many people? One allegation was that you all had strong

ties to China and with the President’s knowledge you were raising

Chinese-tainted cash for the Clinton campaign. Is that accurate?

Mr. TRIE. Total false.

Mr. WAXMAN. Another major allegation is that you were a Chinese spy. During a hearing of the Senate Governmental Affairs

Committee in 1997, for example, Senator Robert Bennett said that,

‘‘Mr. Trie’s activities are classic activities on the part of an Asian

who comes out of that culture and who embarks on an activity relating to intelligence gathering.’’

Are you now or have you ever been a Chinese spy?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Have you at any time ever given any classified information, directly or indirectly, to the Chinese Government?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t any—I don’t know any classified information.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did anyone ever ask you to pass classified information or any other information to the Chinese Government?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t look that smart, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. Pardon?

Mr. TRIE. No. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. You were helping the President. How did you know

President Clinton?

Mr. TRIE. I know President Clinton since the late 1970’s when

he was Governor of Arkansas, and I have a—I own a restaurant

which is one block from the State Capitol. He came to my restaurant, I think, all the time. And I know him.

Mr. WAXMAN. So you knew him because he was a customer at

your restaurant?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. And how did you get involved in campaign fundraising?

Mr. TRIE. In 1980, he lost the election of Governor, and he come

to my restaurant all the time. And in 1982, when he tried to run

for Governor again, his campaign staff come to my restaurant to

tell me to help. I said sure. So I do some donation money. I also

use my restaurant for the campaign fundraise place, to furnish the

food and the drink, and I also do the Clinton for Governor sign

around my restaurant. That’s all I do.

Mr. WAXMAN. And then later, when he ran for President, did you

get more involved in getting money to his campaign?

95

Mr. TRIE. No, not in 1992. Oh, I think I send a check for $1,000.

I have to see the record. But what your question again, 1990 when

he run for President?

Mr. WAXMAN. When he ran for President, you say the first time

you just sent him money. Did you raise money for him?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. How about when he ran for re-election?

Mr. TRIE. Re-election?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes.

Mr. TRIE. 1996, right?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes.

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I tried to help.

Mr. WAXMAN. And you tried to help by raising money from a lot

of different people?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Many for whom it was illegal to give a campaign

contribution because they were foreign nationals. Is that—— Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry. Can you—— Mr. WAXMAN. You raised money from people who could not legally give money to the President because they were foreign nationals?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Another allegation that I want to get your answer

to on the record, some people have said that the President and the

Vice President and the First Lady and the Democratic Party were

all involved with you in your efforts to make illegal campaign contributions. In effect, Chairman Burton and other Republicans have

said that the President, the Vice President, and the First Lady

were knowing conspirators or co-conspirators.

Was the President aware that you were making illegal campaign

contributions?

Mr. TRIE. Not at all.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you ever talk to the President about the source

of the money you were using?

Mr. TRIE. Never.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did he ever ask you to raise money that was illegal?

Mr. TRIE. Never.

Mr. WAXMAN. Was the Vice President aware you were making illegal campaign contributions?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you ever talk with the Vice President and tell

him the source of the money you were using to make campaign

contributions?

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry?

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you ever tell the Vice President?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. The source of the money.

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Did the Vice President ever ask you to raise

illegal campaign contributions?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Was the First Lady aware, did she know that you

were making illegal campaign contributions?

96

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you ever talk to her and tell her about the

source of the money that you were using to make the contributions?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did the First Lady ever ask you to raise illegal

campaign money?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. What about officials at the Democratic Party, the

Democratic National Committee? Did you ever tell them about the

source of your campaign money?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did anyone at the Democratic National Committee

ever ask you to raise illegal campaign contributions?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, if I read your testimony right—the written

statement—you actually took steps to stop the Democratic National

Committee from knowing about or questioning the source of your

money. According to your testimony, you started using others to

make conduit contributions ‘‘in order to prevent the DNC from

questioning my contributions.’’ Is that right?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you hide the illegal source of your contributions from the DNC by asking others to make the contributions for

you?

Mr. TRIE. Can you recall—I didn’t get it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you hide the illegal source of the contributions

to the Democratic Party by asking other people to make the contributions to the Democratic Party?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Trie, your testimony today refutes most of the

allegations that have been made about you. Before I end my questioning, I want to ask you to think very carefully about what you

have just said. You have been given immunity by this committee,

which means you cannot be prosecuted for what you tell this committee. There is only one crime that you can be prosecuted for, and

that is perjury, if you lied to us. If you are telling the truth, nothing can happen to you no matter what you may say or who you

may implicate. But if you are not telling the truth, you could be

subject to perjury charges, and perjury is a very serious crime.

I want you to think back about what you have said today. You

have testified you were not part of a Chinese conspiracy.

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. That you were not a Chinese spy or agent.

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. And that President Clinton, the Vice President, the

First Lady, and the Democratic National Committee did not know

about the source of your contributions. Knowing that you are under

oath and that you can be prosecuted only if you didn’t tell the

truth, do you stand by those statements?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. In other words, your testimony is the truth, the

whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

97

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to yield some of my

time to Mrs. Mink to pursue questioning.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Waxman.

The formal testimony, Mr. Trie, that you presented has a couple

of paragraphs and sentences in which you express your grave regret that all Asian Americans in this country have somehow been

smeared and tainted with all the accusations that have been leveled against you, and for that you asked for their forgiveness.

Mr. TRIE. Forgiveness.

Mrs. MINK. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. MINK. In some of the questions and allegations that have

been made against you, they suggest that because of your Asian

culture you got wrapped up into this business of being a facilitator

or a promoter of political campaign contributions. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry.

Mrs. MINK. I will rephrase that. People have alluded that it is

because of your Asian culture that you did all of these things that

they allege you have done.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK. And do you consider that an appropriate explanation

of the things that you admit you did wrong?

Mr. TRIE. No, just I make a mistake.

Mrs. MINK. So that as I read your testimony, you are saying that

it is absolutely wrong to incriminate a whole culture, a whole group

of Asians, for the mistakes that you made in this particular incident. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mrs. MINK. Because I believe that that is really one of the most

egregious wrongs that has come out of all of this investigation

about you and the others in the campaign contribution situations,

that all Asian Americans have somehow been tainted. In fact, the

hysteria went so far that the Democratic and Republican parties

would not accept contributions if the names of the people on the

checks looked suspicious. We went that far in this hysteria, and I

think that that is really one of the terrible things that has come

as a consequence of the charges that have been brought against

you. And all this spy, China spy allegations make it even more

harmful because not only is the campaign contribution facilitator

syndrome, which is now attached to all Asians because of a culture,

that somehow Asian-Americans who are loyal to this country and

want to be part of the electoral process might be incriminated because they made large contributions and were, therefore, linked up

to some wider conspiracy.

And so I think that the statement that you have made is most

helpful, and I just wanted to commend you for clearing up that

point and in answering the questions that Mr. Waxman has put to

you.

Now, the issue that has been repeatedly stated is that you are

part of a big conspiracy to try to promote the heinous policies of

Mainland China. Are you a part, do you consider yourself a part

of such a conspiracy?

Mr. TRIE. No, ma’am.

98

Mrs. MINK. Did you ever consider yourself being pulled into a

conspiracy unwittingly or unknowingly, a pawn to some sort of conspiracy, even though you are not? Did you ever think you were part

of a conspiracy?

Mr. TRIE. No, ma’am.

Mrs. MINK. Now, in looking at all of the funding that you received, which you have testified to both here and before the FBI

and the Justice Department, could you give us a wrap-up total of

the total dollars that are part of this discussion with regard to

campaign contributions that came through you or that you solicited

or that somehow are now involved in this investigation? Is there

a total figure that you can give this committee?

Mr. TRIE. I can give you the figure if we—after we take a break.

You know, we can add it together.

Mrs. MINK. All right. I will ask that that figure be provided at

this point in the record so that we can see what the total amount

was. Now, of the total amount that you will be giving to the committee, how much did you actually transmit, through conduits or

false names or whatever, to the Democratic National Committee or

any of those political committees? How much of it actually went to

the committees? Because you testified earlier—— Mr. TRIE. You mean DNC—— Mrs. MINK [continuing]. That much of it you kept. You testified

earlier in response to the chairman’s questions that much of it you

kept for your own personal use, for expenses, et cetera. So what I

am trying to find out is how much actually was sent to the various

committees?

Mr. TRIE. I give you when the break—this is only one of the persons wire money to me, so I don’t—I don’t—if you—DNC, right?

Mrs. MINK. All right. If we could get that response.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mrs. Mink, I wanted to yield some time to—— Mrs. MINK. All right. Fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Our colleague, Mr. Cummings. I yield

5 minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Trie, thank you, and I would like to ask you a few questions

about Liu Chao-Ying. Are you familiar?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me ask you this—let me just give you a little

background. Ms. Liu is an executive with the Hong Kong-based

subsidiary of the China Aerospace Corp., which is owned by the

Chinese Government. She is also an officer in the Chinese military

or PLA. When Johnny Chung testified before this committee last

year, he claimed that in August 1996, Ms. Liu routed $300,000 to

him from the head of the PLA’s military intelligence.

It appears that Mr. Chung used most of the $300,000 for purposes unrelated to campaign contributions. He did, however, make

a $35,000 contribution to the DNC in September 1996 from the

same account in which he had deposited this money.

You have indicated that you met Ms. Liu twice. These meetings

took place in 1997 after the campaign finance stories had started

appearing. You also testified that Ms. Liu had a business relationship with Mr. Winata, an Indonesian businessman who was a

99

source of some of your contributions. Apparently, Mr. Winata and

Ms. Liu were involved in a fishing venture in the waters of Indonesia, which ultimately failed.

Now, I have just a few questions for you. First of all, when Mr.

Winata gave you money for contributions, do you think he was acting as an agent of the Chinese Government or Ms. Liu?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Did Ms. Liu give you any money to make campaign contributions?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. CUMMINGS. When you made campaign contributions, were

you acting as an agent for Ms. Liu? I’m sorry. I didn’t hear you.

Mr. TRIE. Ms. Liu? No.

Mr. CUMMINGS. In fact, I understand that you first met Ms. Liu

in 1997 after the election and after you had stopped making contributions. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you have any reason to think that Mr.

Winata knew about Ms. Liu giving Johnny Chung money?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Liu has been linked to the Chinese Government. When you met her, did you have any reason to believe that

she was an agent of the Chinese Government?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, and I yield back.

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to, before my time is over, ask you a couple

more questions.

Mr. Trie, I am sure you are aware the press has focused a great

deal of attention on the Hsi Lai Temple event and whether Vice

President Gore was aware of any illegal fundraising. I would like

to ask you about your knowledge of this subject.

In your opening statement, you explain that you suggested to

John Huang that the Democratic National Committee organize a

fundraising event at the temple, but that after making the initial

suggestion, you had little involvement in organizing the event. Is

that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, as you understood it, the event was primarily organized by John Huang and Maria Hsia. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. You didn’t even attend that event at the Hsi Lai

Temple, did you?

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t attend.

Mr. WAXMAN. You note in your written statement you never

spoke to the Vice President about the temple event. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, you have never spoken to the Vice President about any aspect of fundraising. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. So I take it that you have no knowledge about

whether the Vice President thought the temple event was a fundraiser or a community outreach event. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct. I never talked to him.

100

Mr. WAXMAN. You never talked to him and you don’t know what

his——

Mr. TRIE. On this one, yeah.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you observe or learn of any evidence that

would suggest that the Vice President’s actions relating to the temple event violated the law?

Mr. TRIE. After the campaign finance broke off, investigation

broke off.

Mr. WAXMAN. What did you learn? Did you learn later—— Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. That there was some evidence that

Vice President Gore knew about the law being violated?

Mr. TRIE. No, I don’t—that’s not my—all I say on the event, I

don’t even—I didn’t even attend. But I didn’t get your—— Mr. WAXMAN. Did you find out later that—do you know now— I am trying not to confuse you. Your firsthand knowledge, what

you yourself know, is that you didn’t tell the Vice President anything about this event and he didn’t talk to you about it, so you

don’t know yourself whether he knew whether it was illegal or not?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. Correct.

Mr. WAXMAN. But do you know of any evidence that would suggest that even though you didn’t know yourself, that maybe he did

know it was illegal?

Mr. TRIE. He didn’t know illegal. We never think it was illegal.

Mr. WAXMAN. Given what you have told us today, do you know

anything more about this Hsi Lai event than what has already

been reported about in the press? Do you know anything that we

don’t know about the event that you—— Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Want to tell us about?

Mr. TRIE. No, no.

Mr. WAXMAN. There is nothing more to tell?

Mr. TRIE. No. Everything is in my written statement. Written

statement.

Mr. WAXMAN. You stand by your written statement?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. And you answered truthfully the questions I

asked you?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. I thank you very much for responding to the

questions, and what will happen is on the Republican side they will

have 5 minutes to ask questions. Then we will come back to this

side for 5 minutes, and members will want to pursue different

issues with you.

Mr. TRIE. OK.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you for your responses.

Mr. HORN [presiding]. I thank the gentleman and now recognize

the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, for 5 minutes of questioning.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. Trie, we are only given 5 minutes, so it is going to go back

and forth, and I would just suggest to you that you be as clear as

possible, and if I speak too quickly, you can ask me to wait. But,

I don’t want to keep coming over the same issue, and it is going

101

to be a little confusing because we will be going back and forth

with only 5 minutes.

I am asking you this question as an American citizen, and I am

asking you these questions, as an American citizen, and that is

where it begins and ends. You are an American citizen, I am one,

and that is how I am asking the questions. It has nothing to do

with race, culture, or anything else.

Now, you are before me as a convicted felon. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Who was part of the conspiracy to disguise hundreds

of thousands of dollars of illegal contributions. You conspired to

conceal illegal contributions. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. TRIE. I plead guilty the way—I plead guilty the fact what I

plead guilty for. I didn’t get the other words you say.

Mr. SHAYS. Isn’t it true that you conspired with others to conceal

illegal contributions? We are going to have a long day here if we

can’t even get the basic facts out.

Mr. WEINGARTEN. May I address Mr.—— Mr. SHAYS. No. I am asking the gentleman the question.

Mr. HORN. The gentleman must proceed through the witness.

Mr. TRIE. There may be other people with election contribution,

but everything, I did it. I’m the one did it.

Mr. SHAYS. I know you did it, but you conspired with others to

do it. You helped conceal the contributions that other people made.

I mean, let’s talk some basic—I want an answer yes or no.

Mr. TRIE. I want to be simple question—— Mr. SHAYS. I want a yes or no. Did you conspire with others to

conceal campaign contributions? It’s a basic, simple question. The

answer can be yes or no.

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t understand this question coming from.

Mr. HORN. The clock will stop when the attorney is giving guidance.

Mr. SHAYS. I did not say if you conspired with the President or

the Vice President or anyone else. I just asked if you conspired

with others to conceal campaign contributions. And I know it is an

obvious answer, and the fact that you are not giving me an obvious

answer makes me question your credibility. I start with the easy

questions, and then I go to ones that are harder. That is not a difficult question.

I still put it on the table. If your counsel can’t even give you the

advice on how to answer a simple question, we are going to have

a very long few days.

I will come back to this question. I will not leave it. I will come

back to it.

Mr. TRIE. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you accept through wire transmissions from

Tomy Winata $120,000 in wire contribution—did he wire you

$120,000?

Mr. TRIE. You mean the two separate wire, right?

Mr. SHAYS. Did they add up to $120,000?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. The answer is yes.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. He did. Did you report that as income?

102

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So besides being a convicted felon who conspired

with others, but has refused to answer that question, you are also

someone who has not reported income that all American citizens

have to make. It has nothing to do with your race or religion or

anything else, but as an American citizen, are you not required to

report income?

Mr. TRIE. Is this a question?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, I required to report income tax.

Mr. SHAYS. And you did not. When you had the $200,000 in traveler’s checks, did you report that as income?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SHAYS. When you had the $40,000 in cash, did you report

that as income?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SHAYS. When you had the $50,000 in cash, did you report

that as income? After the scandal. There was before the scandal

and after.

Mr. TRIE. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. Is it still going to be your testimony that you did not

know that when you were giving all this money—and we will come

back to it—to the Democratic National Committee and the President’s Legal Expense Trust, you did not know these were illegal

contributions? Is that going to be your testimony before this committee, that when you did it you did not know they were illegal?

That is what you said to Mr. Waxman. Did you know they were

illegal contributions when you made these contributions?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SHAYS. Your testimony is that you did not know they were

illegal contributions? Is that the answer to the question? I thank

Mr. Waxman for at least letting me know what the answer to the

question is. What is the answer to the question? You have had it

explained to you now in Chinese, in English. Did you know if these

were illegal contributions when you made all these contributions to

the Democratic National Committee and the President’s legal expense trust fund?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know the election law, and I did not know the

President’ defense fund.

Mr. SHAYS. Is your testimony that you did not know that these

were illegal? I am asking whether you knew that these were illegal

contributions?

Mr. TRIE. The money I received?

Mr. SHAYS. The money that was given to the Democrat National

Committee and the Presidential Legal Expense Trust. You made

contributions there. Did you know that they were illegal at the

time you made them?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so.

Mr. SHAYS. You don’t think so or you didn’t? What is the answer?

Either yes or no.

Mr. TRIE. At the time I did a contribution, I don’t know I’m violating election law.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. And I am going to just throw on the table—I realize my time is up. I want to know why you devised these absurd

103

conspiracies with others to disguise the contributions if you didn’t

know they were illegal. And I will come back to it.

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman, and now the gentlewoman

from Hawaii, Mrs. Mink, for 5 minutes.

Mrs. MINK. There was—I am not sure whose paper I just read,

but there was a suggestion that at one point you received a large

sum of money and that in order to comply with the requirement

that no one should give more than $1,000, it would have meant

finding 500 people to list for a contribution of $1,000, and, therefore, you declined to take that money. Is that a correct—— Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK [continuing]. Paraphrase of—— Mr. TRIE. Yes, yes.

Mrs. MINK [continuing]. What I just read?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK. So that money was returned.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK. So at that point, whatever the date was, you knew

that the contributions had to be in the sum of no greater than

$1,000?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK. And so is it safe to assume, then, that the primary

illegality was when you received the money in looking for conduits

to transmit it and coming up with, say, 25 names or 50 names.

That was the major offense that you committed. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. On the President’s legal defense fund, right.

Mrs. MINK. No. We are talking about campaign contributions.

Mr. TRIE. OK. Can you give me the question again?

Mrs. MINK. I am talking about the Federal election laws, not the

contributions to the legal defense fund.

Mr. TRIE. OK.

Mrs. MINK. Apparently you knew that there was a $1,000 limit.

Mr. TRIE. That’s the—that’s the defense funds, $1,000 limit.

Mrs. MINK. That is the defense fund you are talking about?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. MINK. Not the—— Mr. TRIE. No.

Mrs. MINK [continuing]. Political contributions.

Mr. TRIE. No. No.

Mrs. MINK. So then when you received the moneys and testified

earlier that you did not transmit the entire sums that you received

and that you kept some, what was the reason you kept some of

these moneys that were given to you and you never turned it over

to either the campaign committee or the legal defense fund?

Mr. TRIE. On the wire—you’re talking about on the traveler

check, right?

Mrs. MINK. Any of the funds. It seems you kept some in your

own business account and did not turn——

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK [continuing]. It all over—— Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK [continuing]. To the DNC or the legal defense fund,

but you felt they were gifts to you?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

104

Mrs. MINK. They were gifts to you?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK. For the services that you rendered or just plain gifts?

Mr. TRIE. Just friendship.

Mrs. MINK. Because of friendship?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK. Was this told to you explicitly or it is just an assumption you made?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, these are the words.

Mrs. MINK. It was an explicit——

Mr. TRIE. My understanding, yes. Yeah, every time it is only because I need help, I ask them. We are talking about Tomy Winata,

right?

Mrs. MINK. We are talking about what?

Mr. TRIE. Tomy Winata.

Mrs. MINK. Oh, yes.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK. So in that case where you did not receive the contribution and immediately turn the full amount over——

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK [continuing]. To either the National Committee or to

the legal defense fund, the moneys that you kept you assumed

were gifts?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK. To you?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK. And is that the reason you never reported it as part

of your income?

Mr. TRIE. I believe they’re saying that most of the money come

in 1996, and you should report tax in 1997. But in 1997, because

the press and the newspaper, I was in Asia. And at that time all

the FBI broke in—I mean, having search warrant, take all my document, and my accountant didn’t want to even work anymore. So—

and I came back in 1998. I was under investigation. I didn’t do

anything.

Mrs. MINK. So most of the funds that you are testifying today

came in 1996, and by the time taxes were due on it, you were gone.

Is that what you are saying?

Mr. TRIE. If you look at the record, I think the first—I think

$70,000 was earlier, but rest is somewhere after 1996. I can—I will

look at the record.

Mrs. MINK. Now, I understand that you are fully aware that

what you did was wrong——

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mrs. MINK [continuing]. And as a result you have pleaded guilty

to a number of these charges that have been made against you. Is

that correct?

Mr. BURTON. The gentle lady’s time has expired.

Mrs. MINK. We will come back.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Horn.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the 5 minutes to my colleague

from Connecticut, Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

105

Mr. Trie, I am going to give you a chance to re-answer this question because then I am going to talk specifics, and I don’t think the

specifics back up your answer. I may be wrong. I am going to ask

you that any time when you were making contributions to the

Democratic National Committee or the Presidential legal expense

trust fund or any other fund for the President or the Democratic

Party, did you know you were making illegal contributions?

Mr. TRIE. I plead guilty on the campaign financing—I plead

guilty under campaign election—the charge. But I didn’t—at the

time I do it, I didn’t know the election law.

Mr. SHAYS. I know you didn’t know election laws, but I think you

knew you were breaking the election law. I am not asking you if

you were an expert on the election law. I want to know if you knew

you were breaking the election law. And we are going to get to why

I would think you would have known. So I want the answer to that

question. Did you know you were breaking election laws?

Mr. TRIE. I feel the conduit is not right. Otherwise, I never think

I was breaking the election law.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Well, then, let’s get into it. You gave a contribution of $60,000 to the Democratic National

Committee in soft money. Whose money was that?

Mr. TRIE. What year?

Mr. SHAYS. 1994.

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at the record?

Mr. SHAYS. Sure. Can the clock stop?

Mr. BURTON. Right.

[Pause.]

Mr. TRIE. Yes, that’s—in that time it was Mr. Wu giving money,

but, you know, we are partner. I think—— Mr. SHAYS. Did you give it in Mr. Wu’s name or did you give it

in your name?

Mr. TRIE. My name.

Mr. SHAYS. Your name?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. His money?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And you didn’t think that was illegal? Why didn’t Mr.

Wu give it in his name? Why did they use you as a conduit for his

money?

Mr. TRIE. No. That’s not what I think.

Mr. SHAYS. What do you think?

Mr. TRIE. He give me money. I was——

Mr. SHAYS. So was this your money that you were giving?

Mr. TRIE. We are partner. He—I can use any money of the company. It’s supposed to be both of us. So that’s what I was telling

my counsel.

Mr. SHAYS. So are you treating this as your personal income?

Mr. TRIE. That’s company income—company—what you call, investment, investment into the company joint account in the 19—

you are talking about 1994.

Mr. SHAYS. And you are an officer of the company?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. What was your position?

Mr. TRIE. Which company you talk about?

106

Mr. SHAYS. The company you are talking about.

Mr. TRIE. I think I’m—I think I’m the president of—I couldn’t remember now. I don’t have—— Mr. SHAYS. No, no. You know—you can’t remember certain

things and not remember other things. You have just testified before this committee under oath that you were an officer of this company. I want to know what your position was.

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at record?

Mr. SHAYS. Sure. Could the clock stop?

Mr. BURTON. Right.

Mr. TRIE. We don’t have the record here. We need to go get it.

Mr. SHAYS. Look at exhibit 14. That is a corporate check?

[Exhibit 14 follows:]

107

108

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Or a personal check?

Mr. TRIE. Personal check.

Mr. SHAYS. Personal check.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. So it is your personal money?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. It is not the company’s money?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you report it as income?

Mr. TRIE. I have to see the—my income taxes. I don’t know now.

Mr. SHAYS. Why is the address crossed out? OK. That was done

by us.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS. So your testimony is that this $60,000 was your personal check?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, this check is my personal check, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. You gave $20,000, as well as your wife, in hard

money contributions as well. That is exhibits 15 and 16.

[Exhibits 15 and 16 follow:]

109

110

111

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, I see it.

Mr. SHAYS. First 15, and so it was your wife—Wang Mei—who

contributed $20,000 as well. No. 15 and No. 16. Was this your own

personal money?

Mr. TRIE. Mister——

Mr. SHAYS. Or had this been given to you by the company?

Mr. TRIE. No, they wire to my account.

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t want you to answer quickly on this because

this is going to be very important to you. You are going to need

to justify your answer to some other people, not us. I want to know

if this $20,000 was the company’s money, like you originally said

the $60,000 was and then you denied it, said it was personal. I

want to know if the $20,000 was personal or if it was the company’s money.

Mr. TRIE. Personal.

Mr. SHAYS. In both instances?

Mr. TRIE. All three check, right. Three check.

Mr. SHAYS. Those three checks, all of it—all of this, it is your testimony it was personal?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. You did not take it out of the corporate treasury

money? There is no corporate treasury money there?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. It was paid to you in income?

Mr. TRIE. Can I explain the relationship between me and Mr.

Wu?

Mr. SHAYS. Sure.

Mr. TRIE. OK. I met Mr. Wu in 1994, somewhere 19—I couldn’t

remember the date, but, you know, we met in Hong Kong and he

took me to his Macau project. He have a project, and they were

short of money, and they wanted help—wanted me to help raise

money from the United States. He was told by people there’s lots

of people will be investing in Asia. So he think I can help him. So

he say—even today if we can talk to him, he will say, you know,

Charlie, yours is—mine and yours all the same.

So what he tell me, he said you took everything in United States,

whatever money you need, I provide, because he doesn’t speak

English and he never been in this country before—what I believe.

So our agreement is at that time he say, you know, he will supply $20 million U.S. dollars to help me to get whatever I want to

use.

Mr. SHAYS. $20 million?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. That you have control over $20 million?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, yes, he said, you know, that’s the way to do business with me. He said you can—you know. But he never sent the

money. I was—I feel sorry for that, because if I have the money,

I can write my check. So your question is, is this money his or

mine, but under agreement between us, it’s ours. I can use as much

as I want.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, but it is his money. He is giving it to you, but

it is his money.

112

Mr. TRIE. You know, if you join company, some people have to

put money in, and some people have—do the job. Is that right? I

think that’s the way. He put assets for the company.

Mr. SHAYS. You are bringing a smile to my face because I don’t

know if that is the way. But I will come back to another question.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. I have 5 minutes. Do you need some more time?

Mr. SHAYS. No, I——

Mr. BURTON. OK. There is no one else. She has already has 5

minutes.

Mr. TRIE. Mr. Chairman, can I——

Mr. SHAYS. I would like the 5 minutes if I——

Mr. BURTON. Let me just make a couple comments and then I

will yield to my colleague, and then we will go to Mr. Barr.

You know, it is hard for us to understand that you received all

of this money from different sources, and instead of those people

who could not legally give money to the DNC or the President’s Reelection Committee, you got these large sums of money, and then

you wrote checks with their money that was given by you to the

DNC and to the President’s Re-election Committee and his legal

defense fund. You brought in a whole raft of money orders for the

President’s legal defense fund that were sequentially numbered.

They were numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. They all had the same handwriting, the same handwriting but with different names on them,

and yet you continued to plead ignorance, like, hey, I didn’t know

that there was anything wrong with this. The same handwriting?

Sequential numbers with different names on them? And the money

was coming in to you, and it was from people that couldn’t give

money, and you were giving that money to the DNC.

And then when all this came to light, instead of facing the music

and talking to the American people and our authorities in this

country, you fled to China, and you hid out in China for a long time

and wouldn’t come back.

You know, all of this adds up to real questions by this committee

and the American people. You continue to say, well, you know, they

gave me the money, it was my money, and I gave it to them. You

didn’t report it on your income tax. I mean, I am telling you, the

questions that have been raised in everybody’s mind—and I presume the American people if they are watching this—are

humongous. And you are an American citizen, and you don’t know

that this was illegal? If you didn’t know it was illegal, why did you

run to China? Why didn’t you stay here and face the music?

Mr. Shays.

Mr. TRIE. Can I go to the restroom——

Mr. SHAYS. Let me get right to that point, Mr. Trie. Mr. Wu gave

you money and you now have said it is a pot of $20 million that

you had. Is that correct? You said $20 million.

Mr. TRIE. That’s what—that’s what he say. He never delivered

that.

Mr. SHAYS. He never delivered $20 million.

Mr. TRIE. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. But, the bottom line, that is what your sphere of possibility was. You didn’t have to use all the $20 million.

113

Now, let me ask you this: When you gave—you have already tes- tified that the $60,000 and the two $20,000 were from Mr. Wu, but

you are calling it personal income, for some strange reason. And

you have said you made those contributions. Now I want to get to

the $12,500 contributions.

You took money and gave it to other people to give as contributions. Why didn’t you just make the contribution yourself? Why did

you give it to other people? Why did you give Mr. Wu’s money,

which you also say is your money, why did you give it to other people to contribute if you didn’t think it was illegal for you to contribute it?

Mr. TRIE. I already said in my statement, and I was uncomfortable after a while, every time we have the event, only a few Asian,

which I was in there. And I was the one always brought people,

because—and I think sometime I don’t have enough income coming

there, coming in Little Rock. I think 1 day people will ask me question. So I think, you know—— Mr. SHAYS. Well, wait a second. They will ask you questions. So

what if they ask you questions? You didn’t think you were doing

anything illegal. Why would you care if people asked questions?

Mr. TRIE. I do care.

Mr. SHAYS. Why? You believe that you weren’t doing anything illegal. Why didn’t you just give the President $1 million or the DNC $1 million or the Presidential legal expense trust fund? Why didn’t

you just write out a check for $1 million? It was—— Mr. TRIE. No, I—— Mr. SHAYS [continuing]. Your money, anyway, as you say.

Mr. TRIE. No, I find out I should tell Mr. Wu either wire the $20

million or $2 million to my account. I can do the writing. At that

time I just don’t feel comfortable.

Mr. SHAYS. Why?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t have—I don’t have money in my account. I don’t

want the check bounce. That’s why I think I tell Mr. Wu you bring

the cash in.

Mr. SHAYS. Wait a second. Mr. Trie, you said you gave money to

other people.

Mr. TRIE. That’s in the early part.

Mr. SHAYS. So what?

Mr. TRIE. It’s different.

Mr. SHAYS. You gave people $12,500.

Mr. TRIE. Uh-huh.

Mr. SHAYS. And how many people did you give $12,500 to?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall. I can add the number.

Mr. SHAYS. You can’t because there are so many, right?

Mr. TRIE. I will have to look; 10, 15, I don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, we will come back to it. We will go right

through the list.

Mr. TRIE. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. And we will tell you the number. But the point was

there were a lot of people, there were a whole host of people you

gave the $12,500 to. I don’t understand, using logic, why you would

go to the trouble of giving other people money and now making

them part of your conspiracy—— Mr. TRIE. See, I——

114

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t understand, why you would do that?

Mr. TRIE. Can I address this question? Everybody I give money,

nobody was—because the Chinese philosophy is give money never

was a wrong thing to do. OK. So I give the people—to people to

the money and tell them write a check, and nobody was questioning me. So I think that’s OK. That’s what—I feel comfortable for

I only have—— Mr. SHAYS. Is my time up?

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. TRIE. Mr. Chairman, can I go to restroom?

Mr. BURTON. Go ahead and finish your answer. Go ahead.

Mr. TRIE. I want to go restroom. Can I?

Mr. BURTON. Beg your pardon?

Mr. TRIE. Can I go to restroom?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, if you like. We will take a 5-minute break— in fact, I will tell you what we can do. We thought we would take

about a 25- or 30-minute break. Now, Mr. Barr hasn’t had his

questions yet. Would you like to do your questioning before we take

our lunch break, Mr. Barr?

Mr. BARR. I would hate to have the answers to my questions

prejudiced by the witness’ need to leave for a restroom break, so

I——

Mr. BURTON. No, we could take the restroom break. But would

you rather wait until after lunch for your first round of questioning?

Mr. BARR. I am, as any prosecutor, always flexible and leave that

up to the chairman.

Mr. BURTON. All right. Well, then, is it OK with you if we take

the lunch break?

We will come back, if it is all right with you, at quarter to 1.

Would that be all right with everyone? Let’s start at quarter to 1.

We will stand in recess until quarter to 1.

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON. The committee will be called to order.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Waxman for 5 minutes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that we have got a lot of confusion over different

terms—of what a conspiracy is, whether money was taxable or not

taxable, and related kinds of questions that are legal in nature. Mr.

Chairman, in the past, we have had a policy of not allowing the

attorneys to respond, but on occasion we have let attorneys respond. I wonder if we could let Mr. Trie’s attorney address these

questions that are legal in nature about conspiracy and what the

money meant and get a statement from—— Mr. BURTON. Well, the problem we have, Mr. Waxman, is if we

get into that, we are going to be doing that for other witnesses as

well.

Mr. WAXMAN. I have no objection to that. It seems to me the purpose of a hearing should be to clarify and cut through a lot of——

Mr. BURTON. Well, as long as this doesn’t set a precedent, if you

want to ask Mr. Trie’s attorney a question on a legal issue, that

is fine with me.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Mr. Weingarten, a lot of Members have gotten

very frustrated this morning over whether Mr. Trie was involved

115

in a conspiracy, whether he had money that was taxable. Do you

want to address those issues?

Mr. WEINGARTEN. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.

There is no question but that as a matter of law—and Mr. Shays

is correct—when there is a conduit contribution situation, there is,

as a legal matter, a conspiracy. There is no question also that Mr.

Trie bridled at that concept because he believes many of the people

he was dealing with, family members and friends, were completely

unwitting. He feels bad that they were involved in this enormous

investigation, and in his heart, he does not believe that they were

co-conspirators. So the issue with Mr. Shays and conspiracy was

clearly a matter of nomenclature.

We spent many hours with the staff yesterday in a good-faith effort to clarify such issues, and we have absolutely no intention of

trying to move away from legal responsibility.

In terms of the question of whether or not Mr. Trie believed he

was engaged in legal or illegal activity at the time, it should be obvious to the members of the committee—and I am sure it is—that

this is a man with absolutely no legal sophistication and only the

most rudimentary knowledge of the campaign laws. As Mr. Trie attempted to explain this morning, in 1994 and 1995, when he was

receiving large sums from Mr. Wu, he believed that was partnership or corporate money that he was free to use as he saw fit consistent with Mr. Wu’s interests and did not believe he was violating

the law.

It is also true, obviously, that Mr. Trie pled guilty to a felony in

U.S. district court. An element of that felony is criminal intent. He

has owned up to that criminal intent. In his statement to the committee, he admitted that he did wrong when he reimbursed a number of people. So there is no issue that when he made many of the

reimbursements to friends and family members, he knew in his

head that he was doing wrong and pled guilty, and that was obviously an element of the crime.

Finally, in terms of the tax situation, from the time of this investigation, Mr. Trie has not filed an income tax return, primary reason, his records were not available to him for a number of years.

We have advised the IRS of Mr. Trie’s situation. There is no question that when all of this is over, Mr. Trie’s tax situation will come

out in the wash with the IRS. But at least from 1996 forward, Mr.

Trie has not been able to come to terms with the IRS.

It is also true that Mr. Trie is not an accountant, has no sophisticated understanding of what income is and what income is not, and

from his perspective, many of the contributions that were made

were business expenses between Mr. Wu and Mr. Trie in pursuit

of their investment enterprises in the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I appreciate those clarifications, because I

think when we are sitting up here, either because we have a legal

background or we are dealing with laws, words mean something to

us that may not mean the same thing to Mr. Trie. So I appreciate

this clarification.

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing the attorney to respond because it seems to me that we cut through a lot

of confusion, and I could see how someone like Mr. Shays could get

116

very frustrated that he wasn’t getting the answer that he wanted

because Mr. Trie was thinking in different terms.

Mr. WEINGARTEN. Exactly.

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask you, Mr. Trie, some other questions

that I have, because I still have some time but not much. Mr. Trie,

most of the money that you used to make campaign contributions

came from Mr. Wu, and you used several hundred thousands dollars from Mr. Wu to make contributions yourself and then to reimburse other people to make these contributions.

Most people hearing about these conduit contributions might

wonder what was their purpose, and, in fact, there has been a lot

of speculation about what Mr. Wu wanted in return for his conduit

contributions. It has been suggested that perhaps Mr. Wu wanted

to influence United States policies or that he was even an agent

of the Chinese Government.

In your opinion, what did Mr. Wu want in return for the money

he put up?

Mr. TRIE. Mr. Wu is self-made businessman, and he depend on

lots of people to support. So when he know me and he think he can

have my help to get—to raise fund to finish is project, and that’s

all I know he do. I been with him for—from since 1994. I still

know—only thing I know, he was doing the real estate business,

buy and sell. And he wanted me to help him to find—locate investor. He doesn’t even speak English.

Mr. WAXMAN. He wanted things from you. Did he want anything

from the President?

Mr. TRIE. He don’t even speak English. He cannot—— Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. My time is up.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Let me take 5 minutes while we are waiting on Mr. Barr. The

first thing is—and I am not going to get into an argument or discussion with your counsel because we have already allowed him to

talk. But, Mr. Trie, did you pay taxes on the money you got in

1994, 1995, 1996 from foreign sources?

Mr. TRIE. Most time I was out the country. I don’t recall.

Mr. BURTON. The point is that you said earlier that the reason

that you hadn’t paid your taxes on this money was because all of

your records were taken. But they weren’t taken in 1995 or 1994

or 1996. So for you to hide behind that veil saying, you know, the

reason I didn’t pay taxes on this money that was coming in from

somebody else is because my records were taken. They weren’t take

until 1997, as I recall. So the fact is you avoided income taxes on

this money that you say was money to you in years when you

should have and could have paid taxes.

Now, let me get into one other issue, and I will let you respond

in just a minute. We have here three pages, three full pages, single-spaced, of contributions that you had laundered through other

people: Celia Chau, Charlie Chiang, Yue Chu, Tai An Lin, Terry

Lin, William Lin, Chin Chen Heu, Keshi Zhan, Jean Chiang, Ernie

Green, Jimswood International, Keshi Zhan, Manlin Foung, Joseph

Landon, Yue Chu, Ming Chen, Ziping Wang, Charlie Chiang, Shu

Lan Liu, $12,500.

All of these people, you were giving them money and telling them

to give it to the DNC or to the President’s Re-election Committee

117

under their names. You deliberately were giving them money saying, OK, here is money, you give it to the DNC under your name.

Why were you doing that with all these different people if you

didn’t think that you had something—that it was something that

shouldn’t be done? You must have known this was illegal; otherwise, you would have just given it in your name. Why didn’t you

give it in your name instead of running it through all these people?

Mr. TRIE. You want me to answer this question?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, I do.

Mr. TRIE. OK. In 1994, I wrote a check. I wrote many, many

check. In 1995 and 1996, I started to ask people for—help me to

write a check. I give—reimburse the money. Only thing I was

thinking in that time, I didn’t have enough income in my bank account. So every time because I was in Washington, DC, or in Asia,

my—the company—my own company, Daihutsu, is in Little Rock.

And I hardly go back there.

So very uncomfortable for myself. I already explained. Every

time I go into the party event, only few Asian people. Every time,

I was the only one everybody know.

So more and more uncomfortable, so, you know, if I keep wrote

this check and I didn’t have—because I have been bounced once— one check for $50,000, 1995. That check was bounced for $50,000.

So I was very uncomfortable this happen because I didn’t have

money coming in. So I start thinking—and I think it started— was—I think it was Celia Chau, we went to the party, and she

want to have a chance to take a picture. So I say, OK, you wrote

a check, I give the money. And she didn’t think anything, so she

wrote the check. That’s what I feel. And every time I think DNC,

they match the people, whoever give the check.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Trie—— Mr. TRIE. Yeah?

Mr. BURTON. Here’s $252,000 and here’s $782,500 that you ran

through, in large part, other people to give to the DNC and other

candidates. You were taking money, giving it to them, to the tune

of up to $1 million and having that money run through their accounts into the DNC.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t—I have to see the record because I don’t—— Mr. BURTON. Well, I have the records right here.

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, I know.

Mr. BURTON. This is it. And, you know——

Mr. TRIE. I don’t believe that much money.

Mr. BURTON. Well, we have the records.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. And you can give him a copy of this.

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at?

Mr. BURTON. But the point is Ernie Green on February 6, 1996,

$50,000 to the DNC, Ernie Green alone. Now, we can’t go into

Ernie Green. I am sorry. That is one of the things we agreed to

with the Justice Department, that and Mark Middleton, so I won’t

go into that.

But the fact of the matter is it stretches credulity for you to say

that you didn’t know that there was an illegal act taking place and

that you didn’t know that this was something that you shouldn’t

be doing when you did this. It just doesn’t make sense.

118

Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I share your confusion and the confusion stated

by Mr. Shays a little bit earlier with regard to what Mr. Trie knew

and when did he know it.

You did, Mr. Trie, enter a plea in Federal court in Little Rock

on May 21st, 1999. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. OK. And at the time you entered that plea and appeared before the judge, you were placed under oath. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry. I didn’t get the—— Mr. BARR. Were you under oath when you entered your plea?

Oath.

Mr. TRIE. Uh-huh.

Mr. BARR. Were you under oath when you entered your plea?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. Yes.

Mr. BARR. That means you swore to tell the truth. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. And you are under oath today, are you not?

Mr. TRIE. I am.

Mr. BARR. You have sworn to tell the truth today. Correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. OK. At the time you entered your plea in court on

May 21st of last year, you testified under oath that you knowingly

and willfully caused another person to make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations to the treasurer for the DNC and that you caused that person to submit a false

report to the FEC. Correct?

Mr. BARR. OK. That means that you testified in court under oath

that you knew what you were doing was against the law. Correct?

I am not trying to play word games with you. I think you are

trying to play word games with us. All I am trying to get at is you

knew that you were breaking the law and that is why you entered

the plea. Correct?

Mr. TRIE. I pleaded guilty because my counsel advised me to

plead guilty. I didn’t read the statement.

Mr. BARR. Did your counsel advise you to plead guilty and

state—will you pay attention here?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, I knew I did something wrong in that time.

Mr. BARR. OK. You testified under oath at the time you entered

your plea that you knowingly and willfully broke the law. Is that

correct? You knew that you had broken the law? Correct?

Mr. TRIE. I plead guilty in the court, which I did something

wrong.

Mr. BARR. Correct.

Mr. TRIE. Correct. But I didn’t know the campaign finance law.

Mr. BARR. Are you recanting today your testimony under oath on

May 21st, 1999 that you did know that you were violating the law

and that you willfully violated the law? Because that was your testimony under oath on May 21st, 1999. Are you recanting that testimony today?

Mr. TRIE. No.

119

Mr. BARR. OK. So you did know that you violated the law and

that you willfully violated the law pursuant to the terms of your

plea. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. I plead guilty not because I know the campaign finance

law, but I know I do something wrong.

Mr. BARR. I really don’t understand why we are going around

and around on this.

Mr. TRIE. Can I address my opinion about what’s happen?

Mr. BARR. Well, you will have plenty of opportunity to provide

us your opinion. All I am trying to get at is you knew that you violated the law and you willfully violated the law. Is that correct?

Yes or no. Now, if your lawyers tell you to say no, that is fine. We

know where we stand. That is all I am asking. Did you knowingly

and willfully violate the law?

Mr. TRIE. I knowingly I do something wrong, but I don’t know

the law.

Mr. BARR. Well, then, are you recanting your plea? Because in

your plea you said under oath that you knowingly and willfully violated the law. The court didn’t ask you if you knowingly did something wrong. That isn’t what they asked you. Your lawyer was

present with you in court on May 21st. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. My lawyer was in the court, correct.

Mr. BARR. There with you?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. And the court gave you full opportunity to explain or

ask any questions about your plea, did they not?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. OK.

Mr. TRIE. They tell me I—that the—following the—I made——

Mr. BARR. Well, we have to go vote.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, we have a vote.

Mr. BARR. We can continue this when we get back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. We will continue when we come back. We stand in

recess until the vote is concluded. We will be back in about 10 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. I would like to call this hearing to order,

and, Mr. Barr, had you finished your 5 minutes? Had the clock ran

out? I think it had.

Mr. BARR. I think we had concluded that 5-minute round. I

would defer to counsel. Had we finished that 5-minute——

Mr. SHAYS. So then we will—Mr. Burton is here, so if he has

questions, I guess do we go with you or Mr. Waxman?

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Trie, I was asking earlier about Mr. Wu when you said Mr.

Wu had a lot of money, and he was willing to give money to the

President. And I am trying to understand why Mr. Wu would give

so much money to the President’s campaign. Was he interested in

taking—was he interested in influencing the President, or was he

interested in taking photos with the President? What was his reason for wanting to give so much money?

120

Mr. TRIE. He interesting to knowing more people in the event

and then maybe take a picture—of course, take a picture is the

most honor thing for him.

Mr. WAXMAN. That was an important thing for him?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Why was it important?

Mr. TRIE. He feel good. He feel good.

Mr. WAXMAN. He feels good taking a picture with the President?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Would it help him in his business?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, yeah, help him business-wise, too.

Mr. WAXMAN. How would it help him?

Mr. TRIE. In Asia, if you put a picture on your office wall with

the President of the United States, it is very—very good thing.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did Mr. Wu have any contacts with the Chinese

Government or did he have a relationship with the Chinese Government?

Mr. TRIE. Not that I know.

Mr. WAXMAN. Not that you know. Do you have any reason to

think that he was an agent of the Chinese Government?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. You were asked about Tomy Winata, the Indonesian billionaire who provided you with a large sum of money,

some of which was used for campaign contributions. Why did Mr.

Winata give you the money?

Mr. TRIE. We are friend.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did he want to take a photo with the President?

Did he want to meet the President?

Mr. TRIE. He met the President before. I think he’s in Seattle,

APAC. I think he was a delegation from Indonesia. But I’m not

sure. I saw the picture.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did he have any interest in trying to influence

U.S. policy?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t believe so.

Mr. WAXMAN. And how is it that he could give such a large sum

of money?

Mr. TRIE. To who? To me?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes.

Mr. TRIE. I think I just asked him. He likes me a lot. That’s why

he offer me the job.

Mr. WAXMAN. When he gave you money, was he giving on behalf

of the Chinese Government?

Mr. TRIE. Not at all.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you have any reason to think he might have

been a Chinese spy or agent?

Mr. TRIE. He hardly go to China. He doesn’t believe he have—

because he speak Indonesian. He speak Chinese, but he think Indonesia his base.

Mr. WAXMAN. The chairman earlier when he questioned you, he

said you fled the country. Did you flee the country?

Mr. TRIE. I think—I’m a U.S. citizen. I’m entitled to go anywhere

I wanted to because it’s never been charge. It—today I know I

have—in that time I don’t know I have the fifth amendment. If I’m

in this country, I will use the fifth amendment. But in that time,

121

I just go—I want—I have hard time because reporter keep calling

me. They was in my house and bothers me, and I think in this

country, even now I hardly even find a job. So I think, you know,

I will be have hard time because I don’t know why my name always in the newspaper. So I think—that’s why I go to Asia where

I still have some chance to do business.

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask you about the President’s legal defense

fund, not the campaign but the legal defense fund.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Because it was reported that you played a role in raising over $500,000 for that, and it turned out that this money

was from other people. Did anyone at the White House ask you to

raise money for the legal defense fund?

Mr. TRIE. No, they didn’t ask me, but I just knew.

Mr. WAXMAN. You knew—— Mr. TRIE. I knew there is—because in the beginning, when I— I think I talked to Mark, and, you know, because I know he—I

knew he was doing the President library in Little Rock, raising the

fund. And I find out there’s another called President legal defense

fund. And I know he—they—he owe—in that time I think it is $2

million. That’s how I know.

Mr. WAXMAN. So you knew they wanted to raise money, but they

didn’t ask you to raise or give money?

Mr. TRIE. Maybe Mark asked me and say if you have a chance,

you know, help raise this money.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did anyone at the Democratic National Committee

ask you to raise money for this legal defense fund?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did any friend or associate of the President or the

First Lady ask you to raise money for—— Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. The legal defense fund? And as I understand it, the contributions came from a Taiwanese religious

group. Is that right?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. WAXMAN. Could I just ask two questions? Then I will be

through.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Just to finish these questions, and then I am going

to let the Republicans go with several rounds.

In your written statement, you said that the leader of this religious group, a Vietnamese woman name Suma Hai, wanted to help

the President because she thought he was a good man who had

been helpful to Vietnamese immigrants while he was the Governor

of Arkansas.

As far as you know, was she trying to change U.S. policy?

Mr. TRIE. Not at all. Let me talk about this because there is so

much in here. I recall she say—I remember Arkansas has refugee

camp called Fort Chaffee, and there’s many of the Vietnamese people was staying there, and many of them even work for me. So I

know she telling the truth, I mean, the way she tell me, she like—

because if you can check the record, she even went to Hong Kong

to tell the Hong Kong Government don’t send the refugee back to

122

Vietnam. So I know she was—loved her own people. That’s how she

wanted me, say, you know—— Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask you my last question. Were you trying

to help the President because you wanted to influence U.S. policy?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. To listen to you, Mr. Trie, when you went to China,

you are saying you just went because you wanted to go over there

and you wanted to avoid the press. The fact of the matter is you

had to know that this committee, the Senate committee, the Justice

Department, the FBI, all wanted to talk to you about the illegal

campaign contributions. We were talking to a whole host of other

people and subpoenaing people to come before these committees in

the Senate and the House.

For you to say that you just left because of press accounts doesn’t

make sense. And even if that were the case, you went over there

and you stayed over there after you knew that this committee, the

Senate committee, and the Justice Department and the FBI wanted to talk to you. You didn’t come back. And there were press accounts where you made some comments about staying over there.

And so, you know, I think it is hard for anybody who knows the

facts to believe that you just went over there simply because you

wanted to get away from the media. The fact is you were staying

over there because you didn’t want to be questioned by these committees and the Justice Department and the FBI because you were

afraid that you might be indicted or convicted. Isn’t that the case?

Mr. TRIE. Let me address this one. When they indict me, when

the Justice Department, DOJ indict me, I come back right away.

If I want to run away—but, you know, on the question—I know

there’s a fifth amendment. If I use the fifth amendment, even if I

am in Washington, DC, if I know you want to talk to me, if I use

the fifth amendment, doesn’t matter—I mean, here or not. But I’m

free to travel, is American citizen’s right.

Mr. BURTON. You know, when Tom Brokaw interviewed you

when you were over there, you said, ‘‘I could stay here for 10 years,

and they would never find me.’’ And you knew that people wanted

to talk to you, and you did stay there. You did finally come back.

That is good. You came back after you were indicted. That is good.

But for you to make—to leave the impression that you weren’t

staying away because you were concerned just stretches——

Mr. TRIE. If I want to stay there——

Mr. BURTON [continuing]. Credulity.

Mr. TRIE [continuing]. I could have stayed there. Is that—I make

a statement was right, correct. If I want to stay there, I can stay

10 year. But I came back when——

Mr. BURTON. OK. Well——

Mr. TRIE [continuing]. DOJ indict me.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Well, let’s talk about these people that were

giving you money. You said that you didn’t know Ng Lap Seng, better known as Mr. Wu, was connected to the Chinese Communist

Government. He was. He was a member of the CPPCC, the Chinese People’s Political Consultive Congress, which is a Communist

Chinese political organization. He was connected to that. You were

intimately involved with him. And I cannot for the life of me figure

123

out how you would not know of his involvement, especially in view

of the fact that he was giving you large amounts of money for business purposes or for conduit contributions to the President and the

DNC.

You know, it doesn’t make sense. He had business deals with the

Chinese state-owned companies like CITIC. You must have known

that. He told the FBI that he believed Wu—you told the FBI that

you believed Wu knew people in Chinese intelligence. So when you

told the FBI that, you must have known he had connections with

the Chinese Government. And today you are saying, well, you

didn’t know that. But you told the FBI that you believed—— Mr. TRIE. The question was this is high government official. I

don’t know what that means.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Let’s go on.

Mr. TRIE. He is, in Chinese culture, he is called the name you

mentioned. But the other one is just some—you know, you have to

understand what the Chinese people. Also, every—not every, 98-

some percent business are state-owned.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, I know.

Mr. TRIE. There’s no question. So everybody who do business,

even I do business, I have to do it with the Chinese Government.

Mr. BURTON. Liu Chao-Ying, who funneled $300,000 from General Ji through Johnny Chung, you knew Liu Chao-Ying. You knew

she was an executive for the aerospace industry. You also knew her

father was the head of the People’s Liberation Army and a high

government official.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. And you were dealing with her.

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry. I didn’t—wasn’t related with Liu Chao-Ying.

Mr. BURTON. Well, but you—— Mr. TRIE. I just met her through my friend.

Mr. BURTON. Tomy Winata.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. He has business deals with several Chinese companies. He knew Liu Chao-Ying, and he was involved with Liu ChaoYing in a business venture. You knew about that. He had connections to Chinese intelligence. You say you didn’t know about that.

These people were giving you large sums of money, hundreds of

thousands of dollars. You were intimately involved with them, and

you are saying you had no idea about this.

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t say I didn’t know about this.

Mr. BURTON. Well, tell——

Mr. TRIE. I knew her—OK. That was in 1997 after the campaign

finance broke off.

Mr. BURTON. Tomy Winata and Ng Lap Seng were before 1996.

Mr. TRIE. Yes, but I don’t know Tomy Winata do any business

with Chinese company. But that was—Liu Chao-Ying was—let me

say this: We are just—everybody do business that have to do something like—I have to worry about this kind of thing. Everybody is

state-owned business.

Mr. BURTON. Let me——

Mr. TRIE. It wasn’t meaning me to do business with state.

Mr. BURTON. Let me put it a different way. Ng Lap Seng, Mr.

Wu, was involved and was a part of an arm of the Communist ChiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:30 Mar 14, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\68344.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
124

nese Government. He was giving you a lot of money. He was doing

business with state-owned companies like CITIC, which is directly

connected to the leadership of the Chinese Communist Government. They were giving you large sums of money that was funneled

into the President’s Re-election Committee, and you are saying you

had no knowledge about that, it was just—— Mr. TRIE. That’s what I believe his money.

Mr. BURTON. It was just a coincidence that you were getting the

money and giving it to the DNC and the President’s Reelection—— Mr. TRIE. But I believe that’s his own money. Who he do business, make money off, I don’t know. He have so many business.

Mr. BURTON. So you just—all these people that were connected

to the Chinese Government, you didn’t know whether or not—— Mr. TRIE. He do—all he business, 99 percent was doing with the

Chinese people, and he—I think he entitled to do business with the

Chinese people.

Mr. BURTON. And Tomy Winata, who had connections to Chinese

intelligence, wanted to have a private meeting with the President.

He turned down sitting next to the President at a dinner because

he wanted to have a private meeting with the President, and you

didn’t see any concern about that?

Mr. TRIE. Didn’t work out. That’s what I know.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr. Excuse me. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I am happy to yield to Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman from

Connecticut.

Mr. TRIE. Excuse me. Can I answer your question before—— Mr. BARR. No, you don’t know what my question is yet.

Mr. TRIE. No, I mean the one before.

Mr. BARR. Well, let me get at it this way. I think there probably

is more than one way to skin a cat here.

Do you reaffirm your testimony given in court on May 21st of

last year at the time you entered your plea in all their particulars?

Do you reaffirm all of that testimony here today under oath?

Mr. TRIE. At the time—— Mr. BARR. Yes or no?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. OK. Thank you.

Do you know a lady named Lin Ruo Qing?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. OK. Ms. Lin was a senior official with the rank of senior colonel in the General Logistics Department of the People’s Liberation Army. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. You have provided previous statements to that effect.

Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. And at the time you dealt with her, you knew that she

was a senior officer in the Logistics Department of the PLA. That

is correct also, isn’t it?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. OK. And there is no doubt about it, I mean, she is—

was, that is, an official in the PLA.

125

Mr. SHAYS. Could the gentleman just yield a second? You said ‘‘incorrect.’’ Did you mean ‘‘correct’’?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. He in the record says ‘‘incorrect,’’ so I want to just

make sure.

Mr. BARR. I thought he said ‘‘correct,’’ but we certainly don’t

want to leave anything to misinterpretation.

She was an official with the PLA and you knew she was an official with the PLA. That is correct also, isn’t it?

Mr. TRIE. I think so, yes.

Mr. BARR. OK. In November 1994, you invited Ms. Lin, Colonel

Lin, to visit the United States. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. And, specifically, you sent her a letter—exhibit 52,

please—on November 7, 1994 inviting her to visit Arkansas. Is that

correct?

[Exhibit 52 follows:]

126

127

128

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at the record?

Yes.

Mr. BARR. OK. And there is a notation at the bottom of that letter, exhibit 52, in Chinese handwriting that says, in translation,

‘‘This is the second stage.’’ Is that correct.

Mr. TRIE. No. Second part.

Mr. BARR. Second part?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. The second part of what?

Mr. TRIE. It was the—I don’t know the first part. Let me look

at it. It can translate as ‘‘second stage’’ or ‘‘second part.’’ Mr. BARR. OK. The translation I have is, ‘‘This is the second

stage,’’ so that would be—— Mr. TRIE. Should be second part.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. A correct translation, right?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. It should be second part, if I understand.

Mr. BARR. So it certainly would be a correct assumption that this

was a continuing relationship. There were previous actions between the two of you.

Mr. TRIE. No, you have—I think you have to read the whole

thing. I didn’t pay attention because this is not my—I didn’t write

this letter. I believe maybe Jennifer Russell—— Mr. BARR. OK, well, let’s go back to basics. Is that your signature

on the bottom of exhibit 52?

Mr. TRIE. I can’t tell. I think it probably Dia Mapili, my secretary. She have a power of attorney to sign my letter.

Mr. BARR. OK. Are you disavowing the signature on that letter?

Mr. TRIE. I cannot—it doesn’t look like my—myself.

Mr. BARR. OK. Is it a forgery?

Mr. TRIE. No. She have my power of attorney to sign my—— Mr. BARR. OK. So this is either your signature or a signature

placed on this letter with your express permission?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, yes.

Mr. BARR. OK. So the notation at the bottom which translates to

‘‘This is the second stage’’——

Mr. TRIE. Or second part.

Mr. BARR. Or the second part, we could legitimately conclude

that there was a first part or a first stage.

Mr. TRIE. If you look at top on the right-hand corner, this says— that’s my secretary in Beijing. I believe he—let me see. I didn’t—— Mr. BARR. Well, let’s move on. We have established what it says,

and I think——

Mr. TRIE. OK.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. The reasonable conclusion.

There was further communication between yourself and the

Democrat National Party with regard to Colonel Lin. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I believe so.

Mr. BARR. OK. And you sought to have her join an organization

which is a part of the Democrat National Committee called the

Business Leadership Forum [BLF]. That is correct, isn’t it?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. Pardon?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

129

Mr. BARR. Yes. OK. Thank you.

And, for example, exhibit 56, which consists of a fax cover sheet

from the Democrat National Committee, Finance Division, to your

assistant, and which includes a letter signed by the Deputy Director of the Business Leadership Forum, clearly indicates that this

was a letter sent to Colonel Lin in Beijing with regard to her interest in joining the Democrat National Committee Business Leadership Forum. Is that correct?

[Exhibit 56 follows:]

130

131

132

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. OK.

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. BARR. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. I will yield to Mr. Barr now.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is also a letter dated November 16, 1994, which is exhibit

No. 58, which is a two-page letter, and insofar as there may be

some confusion, would you tell us if that is your signature on that

letter?

[Exhibit 58 follows:]

133

134

135

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BARR. That is not your signature?

Mr. TRIE. Should be Dia Mapili’s signature.

Mr. BARR. I am sorry?

Mr. TRIE. She sign for me, yes.

Mr. BARR. So it is either your signature or a signature placed on

that letter with your express permission?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. OK. And that letter then was followed by another letter, with a very poor copy found at exhibit No. 59, which is a letter

from you to David Mercer.

[Exhibit 59 follows:]

136

137

138

Mr. TRIE. Mm-hmm.

Mr. BARR. Stating that a check in the amount of $10,000 is included on behalf of Colonel Lin for her to join the BLF. Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. OK. Stating also in that letter that Colonel Lin is an ‘‘avid supporter of President Clinton.’’ Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. And is that an accurate characterization of Colonel

Lin’s view of Mr. Clinton?

Mr. TRIE. Because I like him, so she believe what I say.

Mr. BARR. OK. So it is an accurate representation of her—— Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. Feelings toward Mr. Clinton.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. OK. Colonel Lin has since been executed by the—— Mr. TRIE. I don’t know that she has been. She has been sentenced. That’s only I read on the news—newspaper.

Mr. BARR. OK. And what newspaper was that?

Mr. TRIE. I think it’s a Chinese newspaper.

Mr. BARR. OK. And what did that story indicate, that she had

been sentenced to death?

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t pay real attention, because the name catch me,

because—yeah, I think it is sentenced—death sentence. That’s all

I know.

Mr. BARR. OK. Do you know whether or not she has, in fact, been

executed?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. OK. Do you presume that she has?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t have no comment on this one. I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. OK. Isn’t it standard procedure in Mainland China

that when an article like that appears in the official newspaper

that it is a fact that the person has been executed normally?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. You’re not familiar with that?

Mr. TRIE. I cannot tell you this on this kind of thing.

Mr. BARR. OK. You have traveled extensively in Mainland China,

have you not?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, yes.

Mr. BARR. You are familiar with the general way the government

there operates, are you not?

Mr. TRIE. I’m not.

Mr. BARR. You’re not? OK. Is it your testimony that you would

have this committee believe that you are completely ignorant of the

Government in China?

Mr. TRIE. What this mean?

Mr. BARR. Is it your testimony to this committee and would you

have this committee believe that you are completely ignorant of

how the Government in China operates?

Mr. TRIE. Not on the death penalty. I never have face anybody

have a death penalty.

Mr. BARR. Well, I have no way of knowing. My question isn’t

whether or not you faced the death penalty. I presume that if you

had, you wouldn’t be here.

139

Mr. TRIE. But your question was the death penalty.

Mr. BARR. No, just generally. You seem to be trying to indicate

to us that you have no idea how the government in China operates.

Mr. TRIE. I do. I do.

Mr. BARR. OK.

Mr. TRIE. But not on the death penalty, because you was asking

the death penalty, she executed or not.

Mr. BARR. You would certainly agree, I presume, that when the

Government of China—Mainland China, that is—makes an official

statement or causes a particular fact to appear in the State newspaper, that it probably reflects what has actually happened?

Mr. TRIE. The question you are asking me, I don’t have no answer because I don’t run the government. Especially on this kind

of death penalty thing, I don’t have no idea she still alive or not.

Mr. BARR. OK. But you did see an article in the official paper of

China that Colonel—— Mr. TRIE. No, no, no, no, no. Is in the United States. The newspaper is in the United States, Chinese newspaper, in the corner.

Mr. BARR. OK. Not the Communist Chinese Government newspaper.

Mr. TRIE. No, no, no, no.

Mr. BARR. OK. In the newspaper in the United States.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. OK.

Mr. TRIE. That’s what I believe.

Mr. BARR. So, therefore, we can presume that it was accurate.

Mr. TRIE. What that?

Mr. BARR. Nothing. I am just saying, if it appeared in the newspaper in this country, can we presume that it was accurate?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. I don’t either.

Mr. TRIE. I just read the news.

Mr. BARR. We agree on that.

Mr. Chairman, I do have another line of questioning, but rather

than begin that at this point, what I prefer to do is yield back, and

then after we—do we have a vote on the floor?

Mr. BURTON. We do, and that will be the last vote of the day,

and we won’t be interrupted any further. So why don’t we stand

in recess for about 10 minutes? You can come right back, and then

if you choose, Mr. Souder, you can yield to—— Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is yield my

time to the discretion of the Chair so I can do a 5-minute on the

floor, and then I will come back.

Mr. BURTON. That would be fine. You are yielding that time to

Mr. Barr?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, or the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Then when we come back, Mr. Barr, you will

have 5 minutes and we will continue.

We stand in recess at the fall of the gavel.

[Recess.]

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. Thank you. I would like to call this hearing to order.

Mr. Trie, I basically started out this thinking that I would learn

some interesting facts and didn’t think I would want to go through

140

some of the information because it seems to me very straightforward.

I don’t quite understand why you would want to insist that you

didn’t know it was illegal to do all of this conduit funding. And I

don’t see kind of what you gain, so it is a real mystery to me, because you would have to be—the amount of money that you have

filtered into both the Democratic National Committee, over

$600,000, and to the President’s legal expense trust, over $640,000, we are talking about $1.2 million. And you have so many people’s

names on money that wasn’t their money, and it just would seem

illogical to me—in fact, I will say to you and I mean no disrespect,

but I just question your integrity on that issue. I don’t think you

are telling me the truth.

And it fascinates me why—I want to understand why this is— why you would want to insist this, because it is not logical to me.

But let me ask you this so there is no doubt: You have not reported

over $300,000 of income. You do know that is illegal?

Mr. TRIE. Can you separate the—— Mr. SHAYS. Yes, let’s do it step by step. The $120,000 that you

said was wired to you from—Winata?

Mr. TRIE. Winata?

Mr. SHAYS. Winata, who owns Satelindo, that is one of his businesses. I know he has a conglomerate, but that is one of his businesses. So Tomy Winata.

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. You got $120,000 that was wired to you by him?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. One time was 70 and one time was—yeah, two.

Mr. SHAYS. It added up to 120. There were two.

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, that was sent to you and you did not report it

as income.

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. And that is illegal, correct, because this was income

to you?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, it’s income.

Mr. SHAYS. So you do know that—— Mr. TRIE. You know, he give me money.

Mr. SHAYS. You do know that you broke the law. I mean, you are

an American citizen and you are supposed to report income.

Mr. TRIE. I just said, probably you wasn’t here last time, since

1976, this campaign finance law broke off. Since 1997 and 1998

and 1999, I didn’t file the income tax return, which we—we have

been—we talk to the—we talk to the IRS. After this investigation

finish, I will do the tax—income tax return.

Mr. SHAYS. But you were required to file an income tax.

Mr. TRIE. Because I don’t have no more paperwork. Everything

was being searched by the FBI.

Mr. SHAYS. Is it your testimony before us that the $120,000 total

amount—and is that the total amount that he wired you? Was

there more?

Mr. TRIE. One is 1976—1996, one is 19—I have to see the document. But it’s two separate wire.

Mr. SHAYS. So is it your testimony that you don’t legally have to

file an income tax statement with all this income?

141

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t say I—— Mr. SHAYS. I am just confused. I need to understand where your

mind is, and then I can figure out how I can evaluate the responses

to your questions. I mean, this is a gigantic mystery to me. You get

income. As an American citizen, you have to pay taxes on it. And

you are giving me some excuse as to why you didn’t file your income tax? What is this excuse?

Mr. TRIE. I think that’s the fact.

Mr. SHAYS. What is the fact?

Mr. TRIE. All my paper was not there.

Mr. SHAYS. When was the paperwork taken?

Mr. TRIE. Early in—or late in 1996.

Mr. SHAYS. When did they take your paperwork?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know. I wasn’t in this country.

Mr. SHAYS. Don’t say you don’t know. You can’t tell me one thing

and then another. What year did the—who took your paperwork?

Mr. TRIE. FBI, 1997.

Mr. SHAYS. OK, 1997. Did you file your 1995 tax returns?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall. I wasn’t in the country. Most time I

wasn’t in the country.

Mr. SHAYS. I give myself another 5 minutes.

Mr. TRIE. I think my lawyer told me the tax return has been

filed. The record has been produced.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you file your tax return in 1990?

Mr. TRIE. 1990? I believe so.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you do it in 1991?

Mr. TRIE. I believe so.

Mr. SHAYS. 19—you believe so? It is really a yes or no. I mean,

most Americans know if they filed their income tax.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t—I don’t remember.

Mr. SHAYS. You don’t remember. So it is possible you didn’t?

Mr. TRIE. I think there’s a record. I——

Mr. SHAYS. Pardon me?

Mr. TRIE. There should be record. I don’t know right now.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you file your tax return in 1992?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I do. I have accountant. Can I talk to my accountant?

My tax return have been provided to the investigator.

Mr. SHAYS. So? I just want to know if you filed them. Did you

file your tax return in 1994?

Mr. TRIE. My lawyer thinks so.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you file your tax return in 1995?

Mr. TRIE. I have accountant. I believe she will do her job.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me say something to you. That is not a good

enough answer, and if your lawyer is telling you to give those answers, that is just ridiculous. The bottom line is you are a witness

before us. You have been given immunity, and you are very uncooperative. I had no interest whatsoever in getting into the income

tax issue. But you are so cavalier about, well, I didn’t know about

the finance laws, and then we learn you didn’t report money as income that any other American citizen would have to report. And

so now I am going down this road, and I am going to stay down

this road until I get some answers from you.

Mr. TRIE. OK.

142

Mr. SHAYS. And it is going to get worse. It is not going to get

better. If you are trying to be cute, it is not going to be to your advantage.

So I want to know if you filed your income tax in 1995.

Mr. TRIE. I have to give—the answer is my lawyer thinks so, and

they produced to the——

Mr. SHAYS. Your lawyer thinks so? Why would you have time—

why would you have a hard—every American has to do it every

year. So if you asked me, I would say yes, because I had to do it

every year. That is the law.

Mr. TRIE. I know it’s the law. I been file tax since 1976.

Mr. SHAYS. Pardon me?

Mr. TRIE. I know it’s the law. I been file the income tax since

1976.

Mr. SHAYS. No, but that is what I want to know. You said you

have been filing the—your income tax since 1976.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And then when I ask you if you have done it, you

say you don’t know or ask your accountant to——

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, because she’s the one doing the job.

Mr. SHAYS. No, you are the one who has to—no, you can’t get

away with that.

Mr. TRIE. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. You can’t get away with blaming someone else for

your responsibility. And it has nothing to do with whether you

were a naturalized citizen or not. You are an American citizen. And

the question is: Did you file an income tax? And now you are telling me your attorney—you do not know yourself if you filed an

income——

Mr. TRIE. I really don’t know. I really do not know.

Mr. SHAYS. Why? Why don’t you know?

Mr. TRIE. Because my wife is the one in charge all the account.

Mr. SHAYS. And so it is possible you didn’t file your income tax

in 1994?

Mr. TRIE. I cannot tell you right now.

Mr. SHAYS. Is it possible—so you don’t know one way or the

other? That is your testimony?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, by the way, I recently received a State income tax,

call me, I owe 1994 tax, $2,800.

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t know why that is relevant. I don’t know

why—that State income tax isw relevant. I want to know as an

American citizen whether you were filing——

Mr. TRIE. I don’t even know that one I didn’t pay, so I——

Mr. SHAYS. Did you file your income tax statement in 1996?

Mr. TRIE. 1996? No. I informed the IRS. My lawyer informed the

IRS.

Mr. SHAYS. Have you informed the IRS that you may not have

filed income tax statements in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995? Why

would you—did you? Have you told them that you may not have

done it in those years?

Mr. TRIE. I never talked to the IRS.

Mr. SHAYS. You just told me you told the IRS and they——

Mr. TRIE. Lawyer.

143

Mr. SHAYS. Did your lawyers tell—why did they tell—let me

see——

Mr. TRIE. He represent me.

Mr. SHAYS. No, let me slow down.

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. SHAYS. I want to know why did you tell them that you didn’t

file an income tax statement in 1996, 1997, and 1998—and 1999

as well?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Those years?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. And tell me why you told them that you didn’t

file an income tax statement then when you may not have also

filed an income tax statement earlier? Why did you choose 1996

on?

Mr. TRIE. I do not remember I file tax in 1991, 1992, 1993, or

1994. I cannot give you this answer.

Mr. SHAYS. My time has run out. Mr. Barr, you have the floor.

Mr. BARR. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Well, what I am trying to understand is

why you would have told the IRS in 1996 on that you haven’t filed

income tax when you may not have filed it earlier, and I just need

you to explain. Why did you pick 1996 on to tell them? Why didn’t

you pick earlier?

Mr. TRIE. For my understanding, if you don’t file the tax, they

will call you or something. I didn’t receive any call, so I think I— and at that time I have accountant, so best my knowledge, it would

be my wife and my accounting doing the whole thing.

Mr. SHAYS. I know you are not a stupid man, sir, and I know

that you know that every American has to pay income tax.

Mr. TRIE. I know. I know every American citizen—— Mr. SHAYS. You know that it is not an excuse that someone

didn’t send you a form. That just doesn’t wash.

Now, why didn’t you file your income tax statement in 1996, the

one that you are willing to say you do know that you didn’t file?

Why didn’t you file in 1996?

Mr. TRIE. Because the investigation. I don’t have no more paper.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. TRIE. All the paper is gone.

Mr. SHAYS. When did they—give me the exact time they took

your papers.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know. I don’t have——

Mr. SHAYS. No, no. That is—give me the date when they came

and took your papers. You can’t keep saying ‘‘I don’t know.’’

Mr. TRIE. I was out of the country. I don’t know when they

search my apartment and my house.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Do you know what year it was?

Mr. TRIE. 1997.

Mr. SHAYS. When did you leave the country?

Mr. TRIE. 1996, end of 1996.

Mr. SHAYS. You left in 1996, and you were gone. And where did

you flee to?

144

Mr. TRIE. I never flee.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, you did. You left the country. You fled.

Mr. TRIE. I left the country. I’m American citizen. I entitled to

go anywhere in the world I want.

Mr. SHAYS. Oh, you can, right. And an American citizen also has

to file your income tax statement.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And you can’t say, well, I wasn’t sent a form. You are

an American—you can’t claim you are an American citizen and

have knowledge of some things and not others when they are so

all basic.

Now, when you fled the country, where did you go?

Mr. TRIE. Asia.

Mr. SHAYS. Where in Asia? Don’t be cute. Where did you go in

Asia?

Mr. TRIE. China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Macau.

Mr. SHAYS. You went to Hong Kong and where else?

Mr. TRIE. Macau, China, Taiwan, and Indonesia.

Mr. SHAYS. How long were you in China?

Mr. TRIE. Probably—approximately 4 or 5 months.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. When you were in China or one of the other

Asian countries, your apartment was broken into. Is that right?

Mr. TRIE. Not broken into. They have a search warrant.

Mr. SHAYS. They have a search warrant.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. They came in. And they took all your papers.

Mr. TRIE. I believe so.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. When was that?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS. You don’t know what month?

Mr. TRIE. No, I don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS. Why wouldn’t you know what month? I don’t understand. You mean—— Mr. TRIE. Nobody inform—nobody inform.

Mr. SHAYS. There was no one in your house?

Mr. TRIE. No. My apartment normally is empty.

Mr. SHAYS. So it was totally empty?

Mr. TRIE. I believe so.

Mr. SHAYS. But it had all your papers?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I believe so.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, how can it be empty and have papers? Maybe

I am confusing——

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman would yield, I think down in his

office in Little Rock he had a secretary. Maybe you are talking

about that.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, I am just trying to understand—I just want to

know when your papers were taken.

Mr. TRIE. I think FBI have the record, because I don’t know the

date.

Mr. SHAYS. Isn’t it a fact that the search warrant was October

1997?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, it was. So your income tax statement for 1996

was due when, Mr. Trie?

145

Mr. TRIE. I think April.

Mr. SHAYS. April 15th, what year?

Mr. TRIE. 1997.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. So you can’t give as an excuse that the government had your papers because they didn’t take it by the time you

were required to file it. Isn’t that true?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, in that case, yes, this would be true. If they come

in October 1997——

Mr. SHAYS. So I am asking you the question: Why didn’t you file

your 1996 tax statement?

Mr. TRIE. Because my tax statement, normally is my wife file.

Mr. SHAYS. So it is not now—you are changing your story. It is

not now that the IRS had your papers? When you start telling lies,

you get caught. When you start inventing things, you get caught.

And it just gets messy. You basically told me something that

wasn’t true. You told me you didn’t file your statement because the

IRS had your—the government had your papers. In actual fact, the

1996 statement was due in April, and they didn’t have your papers

then.

Mr. TRIE. In my knowledge, I don’t know when the search warrant come to my house.

Mr. SHAYS. I will come back.

Mr. Chairman, I will give him a chance to answer other questions.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr, did you have questions?

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire, for the record, the various exhibits, including those that I have referred to during my previous

round of questioning to Mr. Trie, exhibits 52 and 58, those will be

in the record? I do not have to move their specific admission?

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr, do you only want to submit questions for

the record at this point?

Mr. BARR. No, the exhibits.

Mr. BURTON. Oh, the exhibits. Without objection.

Mr. BARR. All of the exhibits that we refer to will be a part of

the record? OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Trie, are you familiar with a company called United Biotech?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I do.

Mr. BARR. This is, in fact, a corporation that you incorporated in

1992; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. Is it also correct that you listed United Biotech’s address at No. 6 Alice Court, a home that you owned in the

Broadmoor area?

Mr. TRIE. I cannot recall where the address is. I don’t recall the

address.

Mr. BARR. The address that you used also, though, as the incorporator for United Biotech was a false address; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry. I didn’t understand.

Mr. BARR. OK.

Mr. TRIE. Can we know the number?

Mr. BARR. Your address, which you listed as the incorporator,

was 5602 West 12th Street.

146

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at the record. I couldn’t remember that

time. What is the exhibit number?

Mr. BARR. Well, you can look at whatever records. I mean, all I

am saying is the address, this is your corporation.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. The address that was listed, that you listed as the incorporator, was 5602 West 12th Street.

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at the paper? I mean, that’s a long time ago.

Mr. BARR. Well, the fact of the matter is that the address was

listed as 5602 West 12th Street, which was an address that did not

exist. The people that reside in that neighborhood have never

heard of United Biotech.

What was the business in which United Biotech was involved?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, which is one biotech company in China, Northern

China, called Changchun City. I sold some equipment, fermenter—

fermenter equipment to them. And the director of the institute

wanted—he wanted me to buy, if I can buy some more for him. I

remember the case was—by the medicine bottle, clear bottle. So we

formed a corporation, joint venture, in Little Rock.

Mr. BARR. To do what?

Mr. TRIE. To sell the medical—like in that time we was talking

about buy the bottle, shot, you know, for the shots.

Mr. BARR. Some of the equipment that United Biotech was

formed to sell were what are called dual-use bio fermenters, correct?

Mr. TRIE. No. I believe that Daihatsu sell that.

Mr. BARR. What?

Mr. TRIE. That’s Daihatsu, my company, sell the fermenter.

Mr. BARR. I do not understand what you are saying.

Mr. TRIE. This ways, after United Biotech is after I sold the fermenter, we formed that.

Mr. BARR. After you sold the fermenter?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, we formed this company.

Mr. BARR. So the sale of the bio fermenter was before 1992?

Mr. TRIE. I think so, yes.

Mr. BARR. Well, was it?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I believe so. If I clear understand, we open this

Bio—United Biotech, it’s after he already sold the machinery to

him. He wanted to do more bottle.

Mr. BARR. What does it mean to say that something is a dualuse piece of equipment?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, I don’t—I don’t—at that time, I don’t know. I just

know that Biotech, the fermenter.

Mr. BARR. But you do know that ‘‘dual use’’ means that the piece

of equipment can be used both for civilian purposes, as well as

weapons-related or military.

Mr. TRIE. I do not know that, in that time.

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. Excuse me. I just need to point out to the

gentleman his time is up and say Mr. Scarborough has the floor.

Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield my time to Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman from Florida.

The fact of the matter is that a dual-use bio fermenter is dual

use because it can, in fact, be used for weapons-related purposes.

147

That is a fact, and the weapons-related purpose is production of

bacteria. That is a fact.

Now, you can sit here all day, as you do in all of these lines of

questioning, and profess ignorance. I do not buy it any more than

Mr. Shays buys it. You were in the business of selling, or attempting to sell, bio fermenters that have a known military weapons use.

Mr. TRIE. I know now, after you tell. Before today, I don’t even

know that were being used supposedly—— Mr. BARR. So it is your testimony under oath today that the first

you have ever heard of this is when I just posed these questions

to you?

Mr. TRIE. What you mean ‘‘this’’?

Mr. BARR. Is it your testimony that the first you have heard—— Mr. TRIE. Today. Today.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. Of this matter of dual-use bio fermenters,

which you were attempting to sell in China, was today during my

questioning? You had never heard of this before?

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t sell this fermenter in 19—I think either 1991

or early 1990. But today I never know this field. I just sell the machinery. They request me the machinery.

Mr. BARR. Maybe you could tell us what you thought you were

selling.

Mr. TRIE. It’s a fermenter.

Mr. BARR. Do you think you were selling automobiles?

Mr. TRIE. No, it’s a fermenter for the biotech use. I’m not in the

biotech field. He just gave me the spec, everything what he want.

Mr. BARR. Who is he?

Mr. TRIE. Mr. Chung. The director of the Changchun Biotech Institute. I thought this was used in for medicine.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit, for the record,

a letter, dated February 28th of this year, from Kenneth Alibeck

to Caroline Katzin of this committee regarding the bio use or dual

use for the fermenters, indicating that in the expert opinion of Mr.

Alibeck, these fermenters do have weapons-related use for the production of bacteriological weapons.

Mr. SHAYS. Without objection, so ordered. I notice that we are

not represented on the Democratic side of the aisle, but I make an

assumption there will be no objection.

Mr. BARR. OK. Thank you.

Would you please tell the committee who is Dr. Zhang Jiaming?

Mr. TRIE. He is the director of the Institute, of Changchun

Biotech Institute.

Mr. BARR. Is that the official Chinese Government Ministry of

Public Health Biological Research Institute?

Mr. TRIE. I believe so. I only know the Chinese words.

Mr. BARR. OK. When did you first meet him?

Mr. TRIE. Somewhere late in 1990.

Mr. BARR. 1990?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. OK. And did Peter Fu introduce you?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BARR. Who did?

Mr. TRIE. The name is Mr. Chi Ching [ph.]. He is the city government of the Changchun City.

148

Mr. BARR. Who is Peter Fu?

Mr. TRIE. Peter Fu is my friend in Little Rock.

Mr. BARR. OK. And it has never been your testimony or statement that Peter Fu introduced you to Dr. Jiaming?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BARR. What is the relationship between Mr. Fu and Dr.

Jiaming?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, just because I invite Dr. Jiaming come to the

United States so we can form the United Biotech. I tried to sell

some bottle for him. And Peter Fu is my real close friend. So I introduced to them because some of the technical words I might don’t

understand. Sometime I ask him to translate for me.

Mr. BARR. And Dr. Jiaming worked at the Changchung Biological

Products Institute; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. And what does that institute do?

Mr. TRIE. Some of the shots for like—for—hold on.

Mr. HASLER. May I repeat the translator, Mr. Barr, what he told

Mr. Trie?

Mr. BARR. Certainly.

Mr. HASLER. Serum and oral vaccines.

Mr. BARR. And is that Mr. Trie’s testimony?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. You can adopt that as your testimony. That is your

answer?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. Is the time up? Do I need to—— Mr. SHAYS. Excuse me. Your time is up, and I have the time. I

am happy to yield the time to you, my 5 minutes.

Mr. BARR. OK. Thank you.

Dr. Jiaming does hold a political position in China, does he not?

Mr. TRIE. I only know, in the time, I only know he is director of

the Institute.

Mr. BARR. But he is a deputy to the National People’s Congress.

That is not a question, that is a statement. He is a deputy to the

National People’s Congress.

Mr. TRIE. OK.

Mr. BARR. Have you ever visited the Changchun Biological Products Institute?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I did.

Mr. BARR. When did you visit?

Mr. TRIE. When we talking about this fermenter, I went to look

at the Institute.

Mr. BARR. When?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, I think late 1990 or early 1991.

Mr. BARR. And this was as part of your effort to sell a fermenting

machine to the Institute, correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. And that machine was actually sold in 1993; is that

correct?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t have a record, but I did sell to them.

Mr. BARR. Well, the fermenter was sold to them in 1993; isn’t

that correct?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall the date.

149

Mr. BARR. Actually—— Mr. TRIE. No, maybe earlier.

Mr. BARR. November 1992 it was sold—— Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. And delivered in July 1993.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know when the delivery because I don’t—— Mr. BARR. You sold it to them in late 1992.

Mr. TRIE. Yes. Yes.

Mr. BARR. OK. And why was it necessary for you to be involved

in this, if you do not have any particular background, as you have

testified, in bio fermenting machines?

Mr. TRIE. He just want to buy. I’m the—many, in the early

1990’s, hardly people going to Northeast China, and I was trying

to do my reach [ph.] in the city, and so I know some people. So people introduce me, say, since you from the United States. In that

time, not many people come to the United States as I think, you

know, especially in the Northeast Arkansas—I mean, not Arkansas—China. So they say, ‘‘You know, would you help us to locate

this product?’’ And I think I want to make money, so I was having

a trading company.

Mr. BARR. How much did your company make off of the sale?

Mr. TRIE. I cannot recall. I think, I sold him I think two, and I

think maybe somewhere around $15,000 each. I’m not sure now.

Mr. BARR. Approximately.

Mr. TRIE. I really don’t remember. Maybe $15,000 each.

Mr. BARR. $15,000?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. The bio fermenter was produced by the Sulzer Co.; is

that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. And where was it manufactured?

Mr. TRIE. I think it’s in Switzerland.

Mr. BARR. Was it shipped to China directly from Switzerland or

through the United States?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know because I don’t know where is the shipping.

Mr. BARR. Do you have a copy of your documentation from the

Commerce Department regarding this sale?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BARR. Can you produce that?

Mr. TRIE. Say again.

Mr. BARR. Can you produce the documents?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t have the documents. What your question is?

Mr. BARR. What we have here is a piece of machinery that can

be used for biological weapons.

Mr. TRIE. Uh-huh.

Mr. BARR. That is a military use that is regulated by Federal

law.

Mr. TRIE. As far as I’m concerned, at that time I do business, I’m

the broker. I just help putting two people together, sign the deal.

I don’t know how they send a ship to China. I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. Well, the fact of the matter is this is a piece of machinery with very serious military consequences. It can be used to

produce biological weapons. You were serving as a broker——

150

Mr. TRIE. Uh-huh.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. For the sale of this piece of dual-use machinery, with very serious national security consequences, regulated by U.S. law, which regulates its export or its sale, and you

are saying you did not have to go through any procedures in order

to secure proper documentation or approval from the U.S. Government.

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t go through this because this is Sulzer’s job. I—

my job is find a buyer and find a seller. As long as they agreed,

all I take is a commission. I didn’t produce the machine, I don’t

have to export the machine. I didn’t do the export machine. And

where they come from, I don’t even know.

Mr. BARR. Do you care?

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. And I think you

have the next time, Mr. Barr, so you are recognized for 5 more

minutes.

Mr. BARR. Thank you.

Do you care?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t even know what’s that. Until today, I didn’t

know it is a dual machine.

Mr. BARR. Do you have any concern?

Mr. TRIE. I think this is for medicine in that time. If people doing

medicine to help the people, I never think that’s a wrong thing to

do. And I’m just a broker. Somebody want buy something, I try to

sell.

Mr. BARR. So it does not concern you at all that this piece of machinery is now in the hands of the Chinese Government——

Mr. TRIE. To helping people, I don’t have no concern of that part.

But I don’t know the——

Mr. BARR [continuing]. And may be being used to produce biological weapons.

Mr. TRIE. I do not know it’s a weapon.

Mr. BARR. Does that concern you that that may be happening?

Mr. TRIE. Right now?

Mr. BARR. Right now.

Mr. TRIE. Ten years ago the business is—if it happens, something happens, I just sell the machine. What they do, I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. You know, we heard these defenses at Nuremberg too.

Mr. TRIE. No, no. The field I have, I do not know what they going

to do with it. But I know only thing they want to do is for the—

if they don’t buy from me, they will buy from somebody else.

They’re going to get it. What they going to use for, I really don’t

have a—I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. So in your view, we should not have any export controls at all because they will get it from somewhere else anyway.

Mr. TRIE. I thought they was making medicine. If they—if I

thought they would produce the poison thing for people, I would

not agree, and I would not do it.

Mr. BARR. Is that you or your attorney saying that? Because that

is not what you said just a few minutes ago, until your attorney

whispered it in your ear.

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, he told me that, and I agree.

Mr. BARR. He is a very smart attorney, I guess.

151

This really, I mean, this is amazing. You are saying people were

bringing money to you to make donations, people were coming to

you to ask them to get them on DNC committees, people were coming to you and asking to broker the sale of sophisticated machinery, and it is like you are walking around in a daze. You are wearing blinders, you have ear plugs, you have tape over your mouth,

you have gloves on your hands so that there are no fingerprints.

You have no idea what is going on.

This was a piece of machinery that is very clearly one with military applications. It is not a secret. It is a well-known piece of machinery. And you would have us believe that you were not even

concerned about it—— Mr. TRIE. Not until today—— Mr. BARR [continuing]. Until your attorney tells you you were

concerned about it.

Mr. TRIE. Not until today, I don’t know. I don’t know what the

machine. All I know the machine would help.

[Mr. Trie conferred with counsel.]

Mr. TRIE. All I know is the machine is used for fermenting pharmaceutical product.

Mr. BARR. Just not that you are concerned about it, but I will

have a copy of this letter delivered to your table. This is a letter

that I have already had introduced into the record, which says very

clearly that this is a piece of machinery that has weapons or that

can be used for weapons-related production of bacteria. And I think

it is a shame that you were engaged in this and, at best, had no

interest in what was going on here.

As Mr. Shays said, I do not think you are a stupid man, Mr. Trie.

I think you are very bright, and I think you know an awful lot

more than you are letting on today, and I think you knew an awful

lot more about what you were doing in these transactions than you

are letting on today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TRIE. Mr. Chairman, can we have a break?

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

You need a 5-minute break?

Mr. TRIE. Please.

Mr. BURTON. We will recess for 5 minutes and hope we can get

back promptly.

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON. The committee will reconvene.

We had talked to the counsel for Mr. Trie, and I want to make

sure that we have an ironclad agreement. And that agreement is,

as I understand it, that we will conclude the hearing today, but Mr.

Trie will remain under oath and that there would be up to 2 days’

questioning by majority and minority staff to conclude any additional questions that need to be answered by Mr. Trie and that

that would be presented to the committee after that is concluded.

And if that is agreed to by counsel for Mr. Trie, that is how we will

proceed. And we hope to finish, if that agreement is agreed to, by

no later than 6 tonight and probably a little bit earlier than that.

Mr. WEINGARTEN. It is agreed, Mr. Chairman. I would simply

add the interviews will be conducted similar to the interviews that

were conducted yesterday of Mr. Trie, counsel have agreed, and it

152

is the expectation that there would not be, absent extraordinary

circumstances that have been explicitly discussed with counsel,

there would not be further need for Mr. Trie’s public testimony.

Mr. BURTON. The only exception to that would be, after—we have

agreed with the Justice Department that, regarding Mr. Green,

and Mark Middleton and Jude Kearney, those three, we agreed

with Justice that we would not ask questions about those during

these hearings, which we will honor. But if after Justice concludes

their investigations there is a need, which we do not expect, then

we might ask Mr. Trie for additional information. But barring that,

we would not see a need to have him come back.

Mr. WEINGARTEN. We have an understanding.

Mr. BURTON. OK. We have an agreement then, and we will try

to conclude. And I will now yield—is Mr. Barr back? Are we going

to Mr. Barr or Mr. Souder?

Mr. Souder, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the chairman.

And, first, I want to express concern about some of the last questions with Mr. Barr because there are really two types of things we

are doing here. We are trying to see kind of—well, three—the global question of what this money might have been trying to do or accomplish. Were people trying to buy influence in some way? Was

it on purpose or accidental that some things got out, and national

security concerns?

The second thing is what is happening with the campaign finance laws and what do we need to do; and then, third, much like

in Watergate, what parts were covering up or trying to obstruct

justice so that we could not learn about the facts.

Now, what I was concerned about with Mr. Barr, and I will make

a brief comment and then yield so he can finish up, but that what

we saw in this last round of testimony is why many of us are concerned about some international trade agreements and things because it was kind of like I heard you say under oath that, well,

other people would have sold the stuff anyway. You appeared to

not have known what it could be used for, but you certainly did not

seem to want to ask very many questions.

That is similar to what the Cox report told us, which was is that

they are in a re-insurance case. They found one part that, in fact,

gave the People’s Republic of China the ability to reach our land

mass with nuclear missiles, but some people were so concerned

about their insurance policies, and so concerned about making the

sale and so concerned that somebody else might get it anyway, that

our national security was compromised.

And that is why part of the point of these kind of hearings in

oversight and reform is to say, look, our business community needs

to be more careful about what they are doing and ask more questions. It is not enough just to say other people are going to do it,

I did not know, because we have had serious breaches in our national security. And if biotechnology gets out and chemical weapons

technology that otherwise would not have been there, that is of

deep concern to our Government.

I yield to Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you.

153

Following on the discussion, Mr. Trie, of the bio fermenter, since

the sale of the bio fermenter that we were talking about earlier,

have you had any further dealings with Mr. Lohser?

Mr. TRIE. Mr.—what’s his name?

Mr. BARR. Mr. Rene Lohser.

Mr. TRIE. Is he from the Sulzer?

Mr. BARR. Biopro International, Inc.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall his name.

Mr. BARR. He was with Sulzer—— Mr. TRIE. Oh, yes, OK.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. Prior to that.

Mr. TRIE. No. Never. Never have I any contact.

Mr. BARR. OK. In other words, documents in 1994 between you

and Mr. Lohser would be fraudulent documents?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall. Can I look at the document?

Mr. BARR. The sale of the bio fermenter was concluded in, what

did we establish, 1992, you testified.

Mr. TRIE. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

Mr. BARR. Right?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, somewhere around that.

Mr. BARR. It was also your testimony that this was just a onetime deal.

Mr. TRIE. Yes. Correct.

Mr. BARR. OK. There are documents here from 1994, as late as

May 1994, between you and Mr. Rene Lohser discussing a continuing commercial relationship.

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at the letter?

Mr. BARR. Sure. And maybe then you can either change your testimony or tell us that these documents are fake, which would be

of concern to us.

Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Trie is reviewing those documents, I

would like to ask unanimous consent to have the packet included

in the record.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. TRIE. If my recollection was after we sold this machinery, I

believe, what’s his name, he wrote—Rene Lohser—he, I believe he

wrote a letter, and I didn’t read the letter, but he, in my memory,

he move or he be independent—he represent somebody else, that

may be the case, so he wrote me a letter. And maybe when we have

the people coming, which I tried to show people who we know, and

we probably wrote a letter to him. But I don’t believe we ever met.

Mr. BARR. But these documents before you, and in particular, for

example, the January 10th, 1994, memo to you from Mr.

Lohser——

Mr. TRIE. Uh-huh.

Mr. BARR. And the May 27th memo from Mr. Lohser to you, you

know do recognize those documents, correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct. I mean——

Mr. BARR. OK. So—— Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr, your time has expired. We will now yield

to Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

yield to my friend from Georgia, Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.

154

Mr. TRIE. And so why I have the—— Mr. BARR. These documents are evidence that your—— Mr. TRIE. Oh, OK.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. Relationship with Mr. Lohser did, in fact,

continue after the sale of the bio fermenter; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. On the letter, first, is Dia Mapili wrote. I tell her to

write to whoever we have contact with, but I don’t believe I ever

met him any more. The question you want—— Mr. BARR. I really did not ask you if you had met him.

Mr. TRIE. Oh, but my understanding was you think I met, you

know—— Mr. BARR. No. You are being very clever. Thank you. I never

asked you if you met him. What I am interested in is the continuing relationship between the two of you. People can have a relationship without ever meeting each other. They can communicate

through checks, through memos, through faxes, through phone

calls. These two documents reflect that you had a continuing relationship with Mr. Lohser that continued at least through May 27,

1994; isn’t that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. OK. This most recent document, dated May 27th,

1994, indicates very clearly that Mr. Lohser is corresponding with

you in an effort to have you assist them in procuring additional

equipment for sale to China; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. And he refers, at the last paragraph of that memo, to

President Clinton; is not that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. In the January 10th, 1994, memo, there are several

types of products in which you are engaged discussing with him,

including incubation shaker cabinets, fermenter systems—state-ofthe-art fermenter systems, that is—control systems, high-tech dryers and mixers for pharmaceuticals, sensors. Did you, in fact, provide any of that equipment?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BARR. So the relationship with Mr. Lohser did not go beyond

discussions of that possibility. You never consummated any further

deals.

Mr. TRIE. I think so.

Mr. BARR. You are sure.

Mr. TRIE. I am kind of sure because I only deal with him once.

One deal, that’s all I have.

Mr. BARR. Well, we have already established that that is not

true, so I would caution you not to——

Mr. TRIE. Sell the machinery, that’s only one deal. Right. OK.

Mr. BARR. But there were no further discussions with him and

no further sales.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t believe I have any sale.

Mr. BARR. Were there any further sales in which you were involved at all?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t—I don’t recall any.

Mr. BARR. Were there any?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so.

Mr. BARR. Were there any?

155

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BARR. Thank you. Were there any further discussions regarding further sales?

Mr. TRIE. This letter, yes.

Mr. BARR. Other than that?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t believe so.

Mr. BARR. Were there?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BARR. No. Thank you.

I yield back.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I would yield the balance of my time to Mr.

Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

As I explained, Mr. Trie, that one of the things is we are actually

having several different lines of questioning. And my line of questioning, for a period of time now, and we did this with Mr. Huang

and others, too, because different ones of us have a different section of this. My line of questioning is really going to be more after

the first articles broke, and I am going to be asking a number of

questions about things that happened after that because I am a little unclear on some of the facts.

Exhibit No. 233 was a story in 1996, on September 21st, in the

Los Angeles Times, that first mentioned John Huang. Is that when

you first learned about the story or when did you first learn? That

day? The next day? And what was your reaction? It is exhibit 233.

It is the first story that mentioned John Huang.

[Exhibit 233 follows:]

156

157

158

159

Mr. SOUDER. Apparently, yesterday—— Mr. TRIE. I don’t remember the date, but I remember the campaign finance broke the first day was September the 4th in the

Wall Street Journal, if I’m not wrong.

Mr. SOUDER. My question is it is clear you called John Huang on

September 23rd. Do you know what you discussed at that point?

Mr. TRIE. I cannot remember. Where he was? In Washington,

DC?

Mr. SOUDER. I do not know the answer to that question. The reason I am asking is because that is 2 days after the September 21st

story. What I am really trying to find out is did you, when you first

learned about this, did you talk to John Huang? Did you express

any concern to him about the story breaking?

Mr. TRIE. I remember it was, I say, ‘‘John Huang, you’re a big

man,’’ because he was on TV. I don’t think I read the newspaper.

Mr. SOUDER. On September 23rd, you do not remember what you

talked to John Huang about?

Mr. BURTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. But without objection, we will, since we have no opposition to time limitations, we

will yield the gentleman 15 minutes, without objection.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the chairman.

Because what it looks like is something triggered a series of

calls. On September 23rd, you called John Huang; on September

25th, you called Richard Sullivan at DNC; on September 23rd, you

called Mr. Riady; on September 26th and 27th, you called Joe

Giroir. That is a fast cluster of calls. And what I want to ask you,

you do not remember what you talked to John Huang about, other

than to say you think that may be when you said about TV, but

you are not sure.

Mr. TRIE. For my recollection was John Huang was stay at my

house. I tell him that. I talk to him. I don’t think I make a phone

call to him. Probably he stay at my house, use the phone to call

those people. I never call James Riady. I never call Joe Giroir. I

never call—who else was the name? I didn’t make the phone call.

Mr. SOUDER. Who was staying at your house that day?

Mr. TRIE. John Huang.

Mr. SOUDER. John Huang. So he was at—— Mr. TRIE. He probably call home.

Mr. SOUDER. So when the Los Angeles Times story broke, the

first national news story, on September 21st, John Huang was at

your house then the next few days?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. I don’t know. I do not remember the exactly date,

but he was staying at my house for I think for 6 or 7 days, if I’m

not wrong.

Mr. SOUDER. In September.

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I think so.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you invite him to your house?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Because of the news story that was breaking or how

did you invite him to—— Mr. TRIE. Well, I remember because he say he was under some

people was looking for him to talk about. He live far away. So he

say, ‘‘Can I stay at your apartment?’’ I say, ‘‘Sure.’’ My apartment

was empty, only by myself.

160

Mr. SOUDER. Where were you living at that time?

Mr. TRIE. Watergate complex.

Mr. SOUDER. And you believe that the calls, you say you did not

call Richard Sullivan.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall I call Richard Sullivan.

Mr. SOUDER. And you did not call Mochtar Riady.

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SOUDER. And you did not call Joe Giroir.

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SOUDER. On the 27th and 28th, there were four to five more

calls to Mochtar Riady, but—— Mr. TRIE. I did not make any of them.

Mr. SOUDER. Did Mr. Huang talk to you about those calls or

what he might have—— Mr. TRIE. No. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Did he tell you he was making those calls?

Mr. TRIE. No, he didn’t tell me because I was—sometime I go

out.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you know he was making all these long distance calls on your line?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Would that have bothered you?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SOUDER. So do other people use your phone? I mean, those

are to Indonesia—— Mr. TRIE. Yeah, many people—if they come to my house, they

use the phone.

Mr. SOUDER. On October 7th, John Huang’s name was mentioned

again in the national press, and you made another series of calls

to key figures in this investigation. And I am going to ask you

about a number of these calls too. You called Melinda Yee on October 10th. Now, did you make that call or was?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so. I didn’t recall I make the call.

Mr. SOUDER. Was John Huang at your apartment again then?

Mr. TRIE. I cannot remember the date. What’s the date?

Mr. SOUDER. October 10.

Mr. TRIE. I really don’t remember Melinda Yee or who else.

Mr. SOUDER. You called Cassidy & Associates three times on October 10th.

Mr. TRIE. Cassidy Associates, I don’t recall his name.

Mr. SOUDER. My next question was whom did you call, talk to

on those three calls. You do not know who you would have talked

to at——

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know.

Mr. SOUDER. Because the phone logs show that you called

Cassidy & Associates or someone in your apartment called Cassidy

& Associates three times in 1 day, and we wondered who——

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at the name of the associates. I may have

a memory on the telephone number.

Mr. SOUDER. Richard Mays. Richard Mays.

Mr. TRIE. Richard Mays? Who else?

Mr. SOUDER. Who else would be at the firm? It came up in John

Huang’s hearings, too, but I forget the—Maeley Tom, she worked

at the White House.

161

Mr. TRIE. I don’t believe that I made that call. I couldn’t remember, but I don’t believe I never—I don’t think I talked to Maeley

Tom.

Mr. SOUDER. It was at Cassidy—— Do you recall Cassidy & Associates at all, that you—— Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Who would be making these calls at your apartment? I mean, I am trying to understand. Do you have lots of people who come through your apartment? Is it a place where business

people stay? Is it a fairly rare thing? I mean, these are pretty highlevel calls to some pretty influential people who are involved in a

lot of this entanglement. And the first group of calls, John Huang

was in your apartment, and you were not aware of what the substance was and so on. Now, on October 10th, we have a whole

other flurry of calls that I have a whole series of questions about.

And who would be making these calls to these high-level people,

particularly high level in the Asian financial community?

Mr. TRIE. All those names you mentioned, I know them. Melinda

Yee, Richard Mays—— Mr. SOUDER. Maeley Tom. I forget—— Mr. TRIE. Tom—Maeley Tom.

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. TRIE. One more name?

Mr. SOUDER. Partly under our agreement, I cannot ask my next

question.

Did you call John Huang on October 10th?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t believe so. Where was John Huang? What’s

John Huang’s number?

Mr. SOUDER. Do you have a number for John Huang?

What happened is that same week is when the New York Times

and Wall Street Journal articles occurred. So the first rash of calls

came out of your apartment after the story broke nationally. And

then there was this rash of calls to a lot of the people who are

networked in this that we are trying to find out what their involvement was: Richard Sullivan, Mochtar Riady, Joe Giroir.

Then, on October 10th, two more stories break, and there is another bank of calls coming out of your apartment. And we are trying to see if they are related or who was making these calls then,

if it was not you at your number.

Mr. TRIE. Maybe John Huang stay longer than I think, but I

couldn’t recall the time.

Mr. SOUDER. Because you testified earlier you thought 6 days,

did you say, originally?

Mr. TRIE. I thought it was 6 days. I didn’t remember. That was

a long time ago. Because if people stay at my apartment, I never—

I mean, I don’t care.

Mr. SOUDER. Were you concerned that your name was going to

be tied in with his, since he was staying at your apartment and

your name had not surfaced yet?

Mr. TRIE. We are friends. I mean, I recall the words I used, ‘‘You’re a big man.’’ He laughing, and he say, ‘‘You’ll be next.’’ That’s all I know.

Mr. SOUDER. If we could put exhibit 235 up, which I believe is

actually in Chinese, but we have a transcription of it too. There is

162

a news article in which John Huang stated that at the time he was

staying in your apartment, you wore a disguise whenever you left.

Is that true? Did you wear a disguise during that period when you

left the apartment?

[Exhibit 235 follows:]

163

164

165

166

167

168

Mr. TRIE. Which part of this letter? Oh, the following page?

That’s not my writing.

Mr. SOUDER. It is in the last page, on page 4, in the English

translation. It says, ‘‘In the evening, when he had to buy food for

him,’’ that you had to wear disguises in order to avoid being detected. That is the translation. So it would be at the end—it is on

page 4, see in the third line down. This is the translation it says,

in the evening, you had, when you went to buy food for him, you

had to wear disguises in order to avoid being detected. Is that

statement true?

Mr. TRIE. Let me look at it.

I’m sorry. Let me clear this whole question. You think—I know

he was in newspaper, yes, and he stay at my house. But the question of this one was that——

Mr. SOUDER. My question is that, according to this article, while

he was staying, that in order to buy food for him, you had to wear

disguises in order to avoid being detected, and is that true?

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry. What is ‘‘disguise’’?

Mr. SOUDER. A disguise is something so people would not recognize you. It could be anything from a wig to a——

Mr. TRIE. I never—disguise, I never disguise.

Mr. SOUDER. So your testimony is that this is incorrect, whoever

made this statement.

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t—I buy food. I do. I did buy food.

Mr. SOUDER. But you did not try to hide from it. You just went

in as your normal self and——

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, I just—because I wasn’t——

Mr. SOUDER. See, what I am getting to, earlier I asked you were

you worried you were going to be caught up in this as well, and

when you said no, that did not reconcile with this statement that

said that you were afraid of being identified and detected during

that period while he was——

Mr. TRIE. No, no, no. I never was worried about myself. I don’t

have no—because I wasn’t in the newspaper. I don’t have to be

hide myself. I don’t know the reason I hide myself. I buy food for

him, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. So your testimony——

Mr. TRIE. I just go out. I always go out every day. I never, what

you call it? The disguise.

Mr. SOUDER. You said you had Mr. Huang there because he was

your friend. Were you close friends or how long had you known

him? What kind of relationship did you have?

Mr. TRIE. We knew each other since 1994. There was, I believe,

an Asian event or maybe people introduce him. But I know him.

I know his name.

Mr. SOUDER. And he——

Mr. TRIE. He was working, I think he was working Commerce

Department in that time. I have his card, and I went to his office,

I remember, maybe two times, maybe no more than three times.

We become friends.

Mr. SOUDER. Had he ever stayed at your apartment prior to this?

Before the scandal broke, did he ever stay with you at your apartment?

169

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall, but yesterday I did find out he was

staying there once with James Riady and who else? But I just let

him stay. I think because Antonio Pan was in the apartment.

Mr. SOUDER. But this was pretty extraordinary for him to stay

there a week, possibly, based on what you said a little bit ago, it

could have been even 3 weeks. You are not even sure because you

recollected at least 6 days, I think you said. And then when I asked

you about October 10th, you said, well, maybe he stayed longer,

which would be another 11⁄2 to 2 weeks. That was pretty extraordinary; in other words, he had never stayed with you 3 weeks prior

to the scandal breaking.

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. You told the FBI that when you teased Mr. Huang

about his name being in the papers, he responded, ‘‘You’re next’’;

is that true?

Mr. TRIE. Correct. Correct.

Mr. SOUDER. What did he mean by that?

Mr. TRIE. Asian community—I don’t know what he mean about

that, but he just say that. That’s what I recall.

Mr. SOUDER. Did it worry you?

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry?

Mr. SOUDER. Did you worry? Did it scare you? Did it frighten

you?

Mr. TRIE. Not in that time. I was thinking a newspaper is a—

that’s why I tell him he’s a big guy.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you discuss with Mr. Huang about how to avoid

being next, about how you might get entangled with this and what

could you do not to get caught up in what he was in?

Mr. TRIE. In that time, I think I was worried about him because

he was saying that the gentleman’s name called Larry Klayman

was—that’s what I tried to remember that, that conversation.

That’s all I know. He was—he say Larry Klayman want to interview him or something.

Mr. SOUDER. Did Mr. Huang tell you what he was going to do

if he was subpoenaed to testify?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, yeah. He—I remember the words. That’s the first

time I heard the words. He says he might use the fifth amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. And what did you interpret that to mean? If that

was the first time you heard the word ‘‘fifth amendment,’’ what did

you—did he tell you what that meant?

Mr. TRIE. Not a whole, whole lot because I don’t want to act like

I’m stupid or he say that I didn’t listen. I don’t think he explained

to me what’s the fifth amendment.

Mr. SOUDER. Did he describe it to you as saying that this means

we do not have to talk, we do not have to tell them anything?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall that, that way.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Huang whether he

was going to leave the country?

Mr. TRIE. No, I don’t think—him?

Mr. SOUDER. Yes.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so.

Mr. SOUDER. So——

Mr. TRIE. He’s just my friend. I don’t know what he want to do.

170

Mr. SOUDER. Did you drive him around town in October 1996

after his name appeared in connection? And why would you have

driven him around town?

Mr. TRIE. No, I remember he was saying he want to go to— there’s a Metro train station in near Maryland. He wanted me to

help me to go to his father-in-law’s house to get clothes, so he stay.

That’s why I drove him to there.

Mr. SOUDER. Could that be where any of the disguise question

came up? Was either you or he disguised so it would not be known

you were driving him?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SOUDER. On exhibit 236, the logs show that you called Mr.

Huang 15 times in 6 days, October 25th to October 31st. Do you

know what you were calling him about and what you discussed in

those calls? Do you recollect?

[Exhibit 236 follows:]

171

172

173

Mr. TRIE. No, I didn’t make the call.

Mr. SOUDER. I am sorry. We had to pull 236 prior to the other

agreement.

Because the log shows where some of the calls went and a few

of those we cannot discuss, could you say what the general purpose

of some of those calls were with Mr. Huang? What would you have

been discussing, do you recall?

Mr. TRIE. What’s the date?

Mr. SOUDER. October 25th was the first call, October 31st was

the last, and there were 15 in 6 days.

Mr. TRIE. From my apartment to where? To where? Can you tell

me to where?

Mr. SOUDER. We are checking. It could be either to his, they

would have been to his office. What was clear from our earlier testimony is he had multiple offices where he would be. He was working, while he was at the Commerce Department, he was also working with another agency across the street.

It was both his office and his home. The 15 calls were both to

his office and his home.

Mr. TRIE. From Watergate apartment?

Mr. SOUDER. Oh, you mean where was your call from?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Mr. SOUDER. It is from your apartment.

Mr. TRIE. From my apartment. I didn’t make those calls.

Mr. SOUDER. Who would have been at your—— Mr. TRIE. In that time, I don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. Excuse me. The gentleman’s time is up.

Mr. Hutchinson has 15 minutes. Without objection, and I do not

know if he would want to yield you any time to finish up.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman

from Indiana.

Mr. SOUDER. So this is another time now. Who would be at your

apartment during this period? I mean, let me just give you what

is troubling me. It is starting to look like Grand Central Station

of an organized operation. I mean, I am not saying anything, but

you are telling me that after the first story broke, John Huang is

at your apartment, and there are calls going to Richard Sullivan

at the DNC, to Joe Giroir, to Mochtar Riady, but you did not make

any of those calls.

Then, when we start to go through a series of questions to key

principals in investigation of October 10th, you did not make those

calls, and maybe John Huang stayed longer than you thought.

Now, I come to the end of the month, from October 25th to the

31st, and there are 15 calls to Mr. Huang and, once again, somebody at your apartment has made these calls. Did you have somebody else staying with you in that period that you know of or

who——

Mr. TRIE. Late in 1996, Antonio Pan was stay with me.

Mr. SOUDER. In October. So Antonio Pan—— Mr. TRIE. I mean, I’m not quite sure. But I’d say late 1996—since

1996, September, Antonio was there, but I don’t know when he left.

Oh, no, but in the—he probably already left.

Mr. SOUDER. What was the dates again?

Mr. TRIE. Antonio Pan.

174

Mr. SOUDER. Yeah, and what dates on Antonio Pan did you think

he was there?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t remember, but I should have record for that

when he go out of the country. But maybe John Huang stay longer.

I just don’t remember.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me, I am going to try to jump some questions

here. Did you talk to anybody at the Lippo Group during any of

this period, in September, October or November 1996?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SOUDER. When the scandal was first breaking. Did you call

anyone in China or Taiwan in that period in 1996, fall?

Mr. TRIE. If I see the name—telephone number, I will recall. I

will know it’s my call or somebody else call.

Mr. SOUDER. But you do not recall talking to anybody about the

press reports, the scandals breaking. You did not make any calls

that you know of to Taiwan or China about the press breaking in

this story?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t remember.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you speak to Mr. Wu—Ng Lap Seng?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall. But I went to Macao after I left the country.

Mr. SOUDER. What day did you leave again? I forget.

Mr. TRIE. One of them I remember was somewhere around December.

Mr. SOUDER. OK.

Mr. TRIE. But if I see this—— Mr. SOUDER. So it was after this critical period, but not very long

after.

Mr. TRIE. Uh-huh.

Mr. SOUDER. Did Mr. Wu or anyone else pay your attorney fees?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SOUDER. I am going to jump to another question. On December 16th there was a White House Christmas party where Simon

Chien attended that Christmas party. Did you use false identification to get him into the White House?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Whose identification did you use?

Mr. TRIE. Reynaldo Mapili.

Mr. SOUDER. Did anyone give you a hard time about getting into

the White House?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. SOUDER. Does he look like Mr. Mapili?

Mr. TRIE. It was a dark night.

Mr. SOUDER. Did it seem strange to you that there would not

have been more of a background check on a false ID going into the

White House?

Mr. TRIE. No, not on a social party. We just mentioned the name.

Mr. SOUDER. Why would you have used a false ID?

Mr. TRIE. I remember this might be, I don’t know if it’s right or

wrong, but I can check, this was for Arkansas people to go to the

party. So I think I used an Arkansas ID, which I have one.

Mr. SOUDER. Was Reynaldo Mapili, was he from Arkansas?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, he’s in Arkansas.

Mr. SOUDER. You were at that event, also, right?

175

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry?

Mr. SOUDER. At the White House Christmas party?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you see the President?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. And what did you tell him?

Mr. TRIE. All I remember is I say, ‘‘Sorry for the trouble we

caused.’’ Mr. SOUDER. What did he say?

Mr. TRIE. Something like he say, ‘‘I’m used to this kind of attack,’’ something like that.

Mr. SOUDER. Did you introduce Mr. Chien to him?

Mr. TRIE. No, not at that party.

Mr. SOUDER. You said, ‘‘Sorry for all of the trouble we caused’’?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Who is ‘‘we’’?

Mr. TRIE. This is campaign finance scandal.

Mr. SOUDER. Who is the ‘‘we’’? Usually, you use the first time

personal. Who is the ‘‘we’’ in that case?

Mr. TRIE. I just say it. I didn’t mean ‘‘we’’ or ‘‘I.’’ Mr. SOUDER. The ‘‘we’’ was not John Huang, and it is an interesting choice of words because it is different than what we had in our

previous depositions. And I know that is your testimony, that you

said ‘‘we’’ or ‘‘I’’?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall. Can I look at?

Mr. SOUDER. Well, you previously had said you had not said ‘‘we.’’ That was just, in your 302s, that you had said ‘‘I.’’ Mr. TRIE. Oh, I mean, ‘‘I.’’ Mr. SOUDER. One last question.

President Clinton said that you did not know whether what you

were doing was wrong, implying that it was a different culture. Do

you agree that you did not know what you were doing was wrong?

Did you think it was OK to have a false ID to come into the White

House when we have all kinds of security problems and concerns?

Did you think it was OK to break up the finance funding that we

have been hearing about here?

The President made a statement that, for example, Senator Bennett of Utah was taken to task for as being a prejudicial statement

as being a prejudicial statement that somehow, and you said in

your written statement, that, in fact, that this was, to some degree,

picking on Asian Americans.

Quite frankly, we are equal opportunity employers here. We pick

on everybody who has not followed the law, and I, personally, am

unhappy because I believe it is wonderful to have Asian Americans,

Hispanic Americans, all Americans involved in the political system.

But the question is what did the President mean when he said you

did not know that what you were doing was wrong?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t—I don’t see—I didn’t see this——

Mr. SOUDER. Do you agree with that?

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t see this comment.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you agree with that, that you did not know what

you were doing was wrong? And if so, why didn’t you know what

you were doing was wrong?

Mr. TRIE. Your question is this ID?

176

Mr. SOUDER. On the ID. Actually, I am asking you a whole series

of questions. I assume he was also talking about when you were

given large sums of money, you assumed that that money did not

need to be accounted for in the normal ways that we, I mean, the

way the law says; that the question is that the President implied

that that is because in the Asian culture you did not feel you had

to follow our traditional laws.

And the question is was that a biased statement coming out of

the President or is that, in fact, true that you thought—that, as

you have testified, you are an American citizen from Arkansas,

why would you not be following the same laws that everybody else

was following? The same rules that everybody else was following.

Or do you agree with the President that it was a cultural thing?

Mr. TRIE. I cannot comment on what he say. But at the time I

made the contribution, I knew it was—I knew I was doing something wrong, but I didn’t know, I didn’t understand the law of campaign finance.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman. Of course, one of the things

we will be probing here, as we go through in the additional attorney questions, is, to some degree, that is the problem of the National Democratic Committee, and the President of the United

States and other people who these calls were going to, to inform

you.

You, as a citizen, should know that, too, particularly with the

amounts of money you were handling. But that is also the responsibility of the people receiving the funds. And for them to excuse

it in saying, ‘‘Oh, well, their culture is different,’’ it is not. You are

just as much of an American as I am, and we are under the same

laws. And excusing it, that was a racial statement, not us trying

to get to the question of the laws.

But I thank you for your time, and I yield Mr. Hutchinson’s

time—— Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield for one brief question

from me, please?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Souder asked you who ‘‘we’’ was, and you said you were referring to just yourself. On most of the forms that I have seen at

the DNC, where John Huang was involved, it had your name and

John Huang’s name on them. Are you sure that you are only referring to yourself and not you and John Huang?

Mr. TRIE. That’s 1996. I couldn’t remember the exact words I

say. I just feel bad——

Mr. BURTON. Well, when you——

Mr. TRIE. I just feel bad this campaign finance, I was in there,

I was feel sorry for him to cause—because that right before the

election. It caused a lot of negative attention.

Mr. BURTON. I know. But when you said ‘‘we,’’ were you referring

to you and John Huang?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know the ‘‘we’’ because everybody was involved

in there.

Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I believe it is my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you for the recognition.

177

Mr. Trie, I wanted to go through a series of questions in a different area. I am Asa Hutchinson from Arkansas.

Mr. TRIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I want to cover the appointment to the Bingaman Commission. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I believe that the commission has the official

name of the Commission on United States Pacific Trade and Investment Policy, and that was by an Executive order in June 1995.

When did you first decide that you wanted to be appointed to a position in the Clinton administration?

Mr. TRIE. This was when I was in—I know there’s some appointee. I was try to just see if can I get appointee.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me see if I can put it in a context that

might be more helpful to you.

The Bingaman Commission was created in June 1995 by an Executive order, and I believe there has been some testimony,

through depositions and otherwise, that in 1995 or mid-1995 you

had expressed an interest in an appointment. Do you recall those

discussions?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. I think I talk to Charles Duncan.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And Charles Duncan is under Bob Nash, I believe, in the Office of Presidential Personnel?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And you talked to Charles Duncan. Did you

bring up the subject?

Mr. TRIE. Can you wait a minute?

[Mr. Trie conferred with counsel.]

Mr. TRIE. I think Mr. Duncan mentioned to me, ‘‘There’s a position. Are you interested to help on the—serve the committee.’’

Mr. HUTCHINSON. So Mr. Duncan brought up this specific Bingaman Commission to you. But prior to that, had you expressed a

general interest in an appointment in the administration?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And to whom had you expressed that general

interest to?

Mr. TRIE. I’m not supposed to mention the person’s name.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Very good. Thank you for steering me away

from where I am not supposed to go.

But is it safe to say that you initiated the general interest to

someone in the administration?

Mr. TRIE. Not in the administration.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. In the White House.

Mr. TRIE. Not—no.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Did you mention it to someone who had influence with the White House, your interest in an appointment?

Mr. TRIE. Some people in the Government.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Would you repeat your answer.

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry?

Someone who is not in the Government.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. But you understood that that someone not in

the Government had influence with the White House.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

178

Mr. HUTCHINSON. When you said that Charles Duncan, who is in

the White House, told you of the possibility of an appointment to

the Bingaman Commission, did you take that as being in response

to your previous expression of interest in an appointment?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And why did you want to have an appointment?

Mr. TRIE. I think it’s just an honor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And prior to this conversation with Charles

Duncan, I believe the records show that you had given somewhere

over $170,000 to the DNC; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t have the paper. Let me look at.

[Mr. Trie conferred with counsel.]

Mr. TRIE. That’s about right.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is about right.

Mr. TRIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Why did you give over $170,000 to the DNC?

Mr. TRIE. That’s a contribution.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You gave it as a contribution. Was the reason

that you gave it to the DNC versus, I mean, you are from Arkansas, a couple of Democrat Senators, Democrat office-holders from

Arkansas or other Democrats that you would want to support, is

there any reason you gave it to the DNC versus a particular candidate?

Mr. TRIE. For giving to the DNC most of the times they have a

function, like an event. So the DNC host the event, so that’s a contribution have to go to DNC so you can attend the event.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And some of those events were at the White

House?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. Wait a minute. Can I correct that one?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Certainly.

[Mr. Trie conferred with counsel.]

Mr. TRIE. Yes. Go ahead. I’m sorry.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Did you in your—and we will not mention the

individual that you talked to—but whenever you expressed your interest in appointment, did you describe what type of an appointment that you would like to have?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It was just a general—— Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And when Charles Duncan came back to you

and said there might be an appointment to the Bingaman Commission, was that something you had interest in?

Mr. TRIE. No. In that time, I didn’t know. I think that was involved Asia, that’s why he think I might be helpful because I’ve

been travel Asia. Most time, like when we have like a conversation

or we have a dinner together, they always ask me Asian—I mean,

how do to business with Asia, Asians.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And what was the reason that you were meeting with Charles Duncan whenever he brought up the Bingaman

Commission?

Mr. TRIE. No, if I’m correct, it was he call me. Most of the time

when we have a dinner, we just talking. But 1 day, if I’m correct,

he call me to his office, mentioned to me this Bingaman CommisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:30 Mar 14, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\68344.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
179

sion. Because in that time I didn’t know what would be the type

of—I say, ‘‘Yes, I’m interested’’ because it’s involving Asia.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. At what point did Mr. Duncan indicate to you

that you were actually going to get this appointment?

Mr. TRIE. That would be after—after the FBI and the IRS I submit my paper to the IRS. I think it’s the next year or somewhere

around there.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Early in 1996?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And, in fact, in 1996, exhibit 145, is an amendment to the Executive order that expands the Bingaman Commission to a larger number. And were you aware that they had to go

to the extraordinary lengths of having an amendment to the Executive order to expand it so that they could include you as an appointee?

[Exhibit 145 follows:]

180

181

Mr. TRIE. Could I look at the paper?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Certainly.

[Pause.]

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know that. I do not know this one.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. No one told you that they were—— Mr. TRIE. No one told me.

Mr. HUTCHINSON [continuing]. Having to expand the number on

the commission.

Mr. TRIE. No one told me.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Did you mention to Charles Duncan the

amount of your support for the Democratic Party?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Did you mention to anyone who was involved

in that appointment your support for the Democratic Party?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Did you assume that they knew this?

Mr. TRIE. I believe he knows I was President’s friend, long-time

friend.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And why do you say you thought he knew that

you are the President’s friend?

Mr. TRIE. They knew. He knew.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. They knew that. That was obvious.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. But did you also assume that Mr. Duncan

knew of your contributions to the Democratic Party?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know he knew or not. I never mentioned to him.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You did not mention it, and he did not mention

it, but did you assume that he knew?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t have no idea.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Now, in September 1995, while this appointment was still in that works, did you go to a White House event

for DNC contributors?

Mr. TRIE. What’s the month?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The month? It was September 1995.

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at the—— Mr. HUTCHINSON. If you wish. Exhibit 140 describes the list of

the people who attended the event. I believe this is the event that

you took Chong Lo with you to.

[Exhibit 140 follows:]

182

183

184

185

186

187

Mr. TRIE. Oh, OK. I remember Chong Lo there.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And so you went to this event at the White

House.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And did you speak to the President at the

event?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall. Normally, if I say, before the last one,

normally, I tell to him, ‘‘You look good.’’ That’s all I say.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Do you remember speaking to anyone about

your appointment to the Bingaman Commission at this White

House event?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. When were you informed that you were going

to be appointed to the commission? I think you said that was in

January 1996.

Mr. TRIE. No, I didn’t say January, but the early part of 1996.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And who told you that you were going to get

the appointment to the commission?

Mr. TRIE. I believe Charles Duncan.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And what did he say when he talked to you?

Mr. TRIE. He say you might have a chance to get into the appointee, to the committee.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And do you know who actually recommended

you as an appointee?

Mr. TRIE. Excuse me?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Do you believe that Charles Duncan was the

one who was pushing your appointment?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know the process because all I know is I send

all my information.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I refer you to exhibit 144. And in this—do you

have it before you?

[Exhibit 144 follows:]

188

189

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. At the bottom half of that exhibit 144 is what

appears to be a memo from Phyllis Jones, who I understand is with

the U.S. Trade Representative, to Jennifer Hillman, Thursday,

September 21, 1995. The subject is the U.S. Pacific Commission.

That is the Bingaman Commission.

And in this memo, the reference is, ‘‘Well, I spoke with Charles

Duncan about Bingaman late Wednesday. Here is the update. They

have not bumped anyone off of our list. However, they want to add

three people: Senator Sarbanes’ person . . .’’ and then it says, ‘‘. . . a DNC nominee,’’ and there is your name; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, that’s my name.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And preceding your name on this memo is a

designation, ‘‘DNC nominee.’’ Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And then later on the next paragraph it says, ‘‘Charles thinks . . .’’ referring to Charles Duncan ‘‘. . . the best

thing to do is to get the Executive Order amended so it can be increased.’’ That, of course, has reference to expanding the commission so that you and two others could be added to it.

Now, you are saying that you were never aware of the need to

expand the commission.

Mr. TRIE. I never aware.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. But, again, going back to the designation that

you are the DNC nominee, now, at this point in time, well, at least

prior to June 1995, you indicated you had given over $170,000 to

the DNC. Is it fair to say that people who were involved in your

appointment to the commission certainly knew of your connection

to and contributions to the DNC?

Mr. TRIE. Your question is, me, I know?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The question is, no, from this memo, is it clear

to you that those who were involved in your appointment knew of

your close connection to the DNC?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. On this memo, yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Did you ever discuss your appointment or potential appointment to the Bingaman Commission with anyone at

the DNC?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Did you ever discuss with anyone at the DNC

your interest in an appointment in the administration?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Now, you have mentioned some names previously that we are not going to mention.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. They were not connected with the DNC?

Mr. TRIE. Connected with the DNC.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.

Mr. TRIE. But I don’t believe he’s—like me, I connect with DNC,

but I don’t call myself a DNC.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Certainly, you are a supp—— Mr. TRIE. That’s the way I look at things. Yeah. OK, in view of

the question, yes, it would be yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You are a supporter of the DNC.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

190

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And you talked about your appointment to

other supporters of the DNC.

Mr. TRIE. Yes. Correct.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. All right. I mean, you have given a significant

amount of money—over $170,000 at that point and much more

since then—to the DNC. Who, at the DNC or who associated with

the DNC asked you to contribute to the DNC? In other words, who

solicited these funds?

Mr. TRIE. You want to know from the beginning of my

contribu—— Mr. HUTCHINSON. Was it a different one every time?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. Because the first one would be the Richard

Mays. That’s what, I believe, that’s what, yeah, that was $100,000.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And, Counsel, you tell me if I am getting in

an area I am not supposed to. But go ahead, if you can answer

that.

Mr. TRIE. And the rest of the time is just DNC will send like

events, so they fax to you the event, where, how much it will be.

That’s where all of the contributions comes from.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. So people at the DNC who are organizing

these events are soliciting you, as well as other individuals that are

trying to—— Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. HUTCHINSON [continuing]. Raise the money.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Do you know if anyone at the DNC ever contacted the White House about your appointment?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Does exhibit 144, which described you as a

DNC nominee, does that surprise you in any way that you are

des——

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, it surprised me.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Now, I want to go to your appointment to the

commission. Did you ever hear that there was resistance to your

appointment to the commission?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Steve—— Mr. TRIE. I mean, at that time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Steve Clemmons, a witness who worked for

Senator Bingaman, told the committee that when he heard that

you had been appointed to the commission, he had called you and

talked to you. Do you recall that?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You do not recall any conversation with Steve

Clemmons?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall, no.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Or anyone with Senator Bingaman’s office?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And so if he indicated that it was obvious to

him, based upon his conversation with you, that you were not

qualified, you would disagree with that?

Mr. TRIE. That’s his opinion maybe.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And he further told the committee that he had

called Charles Duncan and objected to the fact that you were being

191

placed on the commission and that Duncan said that you were an

absolute must appointment, whose name had come from the highest levels of the administration. Were you aware of that?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Did the Justice Department raise it in their

questions to you?

Mr. TRIE. Maybe. I can’t remember.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Now, after you began serving on the commission, you were a regular attender of the meetings?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And did you follow everything, all of the business that was being conducted at the commission meetings?

Mr. TRIE. I try.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And why do you say you tried?

Mr. TRIE. I try to make a business deal, too, in that time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am sorry? Say that again.

Mr. TRIE. During the period of serving on the commission, I’m

doing business too. So when the time—every time when they have

a meeting, most of the time I attend and would do everything as

much I can to learn.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. When you were there, though, did you follow

and understand what the commission was doing? Did you communicate well with the other members of the commission?

Mr. TRIE. I think so.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And did you ever have need anyone to assist

you with language translation in your meetings with the commission?

Mr. TRIE. Not the language, it’s just about the—to keep the

record. Yes, this lady called Julie she help me, but it was after several months later.

Mr. LATOURETTE [presiding]. Excuse me. The gentleman’s time

has expired. Without objection, he will be recognized for an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman.

Did you feel like you were qualified to serve on the Bingaman

Commission?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know there’s a limitation or what’s the requirement.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Are you asking me?

Mr. TRIE. No. I mean, I didn’t know there’s any requirement.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You did not know there were any requirements

for appointment to the commission. You were not aware of any particular qualifications?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Did Charles Duncan interview about your

qualifications for the commission?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, we talk. He wanted to know—he wanted to know

some people who know Asia, which I do. I do better than anybody

else in the commission.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I now want to talk about one of the meetings.

Exhibit 154 is a transcript from the commission meeting held on

June 12, 1996. And during that meeting you made a lengthy statement about United States-Chinese relations. I believe that is correct.

192

And in that statement is it true that you indicated that you

thought that we should find some way to work with China because

they will eventually dominate all of Asia?

[Exhibit 154 follows:]

193

194

195

196

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Certainly.

Mr. TRIE. Yes. That was my opinion.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. So, that was an opinion that you told the Commission?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, potentially.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And did you also tell the Commission that you

believe that the Tiananmen Square massacre was justified?

Mr. TRIE. I do not understand the words.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am sorry, what?

Mr. TRIE. I do not understand the words.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. OK. Did you tell the Commission that you believe the Tiananmen Square arrest and oppression of the dissident

students was correct?

Mr. TRIE. I do not understand the question. That is my own opinion.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is your opinion?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And did you share that with the Commission?

I do not know that you did. I believe you shared that in some

of your interviews. That is your opinion, though?

Mr. TRIE. I do not believe that was in the Commission meeting.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Fair enough and I am not trying to let you

know that I believe you did. I think you indicated that in some of

your interviews that that was your view. But you do not hide that

view. You are very honest in expressing that view to anyone who

talks to you about your view of China?

Mr. TRIE. If people talk about how I feel about China, I address

what are my view.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You tell them what you feel?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Just like you told me that you believe that

Tiananmen Square massacre or the Tiananmen Square oppression

and the way the Government handled it was correct, you would tell

that to anybody who asked you your feelings on it?

Mr. TRIE. I will say that.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And in your discussions with Charles Duncan

about your views on China, did you share that view with him?

Mr. TRIE. Never. We never discussed these things.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. In her interview, Ms. Woo Cummings told the

committee that you said you did not feel like you could speak in

front of the Commission and you thought about dropping out of the

Commission. Is that true?

Mr. TRIE. What is true? Also my time was very—I have to most

time I have to do business in Asia. I have to fly back and forth.

It is very tired, so, yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And did you ever consider quitting the Commission?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. I believe so, yes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. All right. And one of the reasons that you had

someone to assist you with your Commission duties is to help you

with your understanding of what was happening in the Commission?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

197

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And to help you with the English and the

different——

Mr. TRIE. Not only that because the document is a whole bunch

of documents every time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. OK. And did anyone, any other members of the

Commission express to you their concern about your appointment?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me just conclude, Mr. Trie, and let you

know a little bit of where I am coming from on this. You are an

American citizen. You are an Arkansas resident. And you wanted

to be engaged in the political process which you have an absolute

right to do and we ought to encourage everyone to do. You gave a

lot of money to the Democratic National Committee and you sought

involvement, which again there is nothing wrong with that. I think

that you have to wonder about the connection and whether the influence of money had something to do with an appointment of

someone who really did not feel comfortable to the point that you

wondered whether you should resign from the Commission. And I

think that that is an area of legitimate Governmental concern but

with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to turn back and yield back my

time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank the gentleman. He yields back the balance of his time. The Chair will now recognize himself for a period

of time.

Mr. Trie, I want to chat with you about the Lippo Group and Mr.

Riady and Mr. Huang. We had the opportunity to have John

Huang before the committee in late December of last year and, like

you, he acknowledged making conduit contributions to the Democratic National Party. His were prior to the 1996 Presidential Election. And I asked him, and just so that I set it up in context, it

occurred to me that he was essentially the man to see in the

United States when the Riadys wanted to make a political contribution to a political figure or party in the United States prior to

1996, when he then went to work for the Commerce Department

and then the DNC he stopped being that. And it occurs to me that

based upon what the records in front of us that I am going to go

over with you, that you then became that person that when the——

Mr. TRIE. And can you speak a little bit slowly?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Sure.

Mr. TRIE. I cannot catch up.

Mr. LATOURETTE. In 1996, for the 1996 election, the pattern of

your giving changed, the pattern of Mr. Huang’s giving changed

and that now it occurs that you, in 1996, became the conduit contributor. So, in other words, if the Riadys or the Lippo folks wanted

to make a contribution they came and gave the money to you. And

that is the context in which I am going to ask you a series of questions. And for you and your counsel’s convenience I am going to

focus on exhibits 251 to 258 during the course of my questioning

to you.

I want to begin with, first of all, if you could describe for the

committee and tell us when you first met John Huang and under

what circumstances?

[Exhibit 258 follows:]

198

199

Mr. TRIE. That was in 1994.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And—— Mr. TRIE. I think it will be in the CAPACI meeting. Sometime

we have a meeting and he show up which is we just talking about

the Asian Americans CAPACI agenda.

Mr. LATOURETTE. APAC?

Mr. TRIE. No, no, no. Not APAC. It is CAPACI. Then so, I believe

he give me the business card. I met him two times in his office,

two or three times, but I believe the first time was by myself. I

think one time I think I bring Antonio Pan with me because Antonio Pan know him when they were in Little Rock.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But that goes to my question. You indicated in

your 302 that you met Mr. Huang in 1994 and that would indicate

to me that you did not know him when he worked in Little Rock

and you had no contact or no meeting with him that you remembered prior to 1994?

Mr. TRIE. No. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You were aware that Mr. Huang was taken in

and hired by the Commerce Department; were you not? Did you

know that John Huang worked for the U.S. Department of Commerce?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you have the opportunity to visit with him

when he was at the Commerce Department?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. On how many occasions?

Mr. TRIE. Two or three times.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And during the time that you would have visited with him while he was at Commerce, did you discuss with him

any issues of trade?

Mr. TRIE. No. I just know him.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, what was the purpose of your meetings

with him when you were at Commerce?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, just ask him how I do, should do business and

something. Just ask him his opinion. And know him.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you ever discuss or were you ever invited

to any of the political events that you eventually made contributions for with Mr. Huang when he worked at Commerce?

Mr. TRIE. Not that I recall.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Huang the

Lippo Group and his former work and employment with the Lippo

Group?

Mr. TRIE. No. Because I don’t know Lippo.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK.

Mr. TRIE. I mean I know Lippo but I don’t know the people higher in the family.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Then you didn’t know or you are saying you

don’t know them now?

Mr. TRIE. No, I know them now.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. But you didn’t know them in 1994?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. All right. When did you learn that John Huang

was leaving the Department of Commerce—— Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t remember.

200

Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. And going to work for the DNC?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t remember.

Mr. LATOURETTE. All right. You don’t remember year, month or

anything?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But you became aware of that fact?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. He in the Commerce—I mean DNC, I think yes

we talk, you know, but I couldn’t remember the date.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did John Huang when he moved from Commerce to the DNC ask you to raise money for the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. TRIE. Can you ask the question again?

Mr. LATOURETTE. When John Huang went to work for the Democratic National Committee, did he call you and ask you to raise

money for the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you recall when that was?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall the time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Was John Huang the only one from the Democratic National Committee calling and asking you to raise money

or were there others also calling you about this same time?

Mr. TRIE. Because I think that he was the one hand over because

he always tell me, you know, we should put the event for Asians.

That is what I—that is why I found real hard. Otherwise I just because they have an event and they fax to me the event. I call them.

So, I will attend. So, I will know.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I want to talk a little bit about, if I can, about

your personal history of giving and how at least to me the records

show that it changed in 1996. In 1994 you gave almost $150,000

to the Democratic National Committee; would you agree with me

that that is a pretty accurate figure?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. That is about right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And then in 1995 you gave over $50,000?

Mr. TRIE. That about right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But you don’t have a history at least on any

of the Democratic National Committee tracking forms of being a

large, an individual who went out and did a lot of soliciting. You

gave a lot of money but you weren’t soliciting a lot of contributions

from other people prior to 1996; isn’t that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Well, why did that change? Why were you

content with being a big supporter and giving your money to the

Democratic National Committee before 1996 and then in 1996 all

of a sudden you become a fundraiser, you got out and solicited?

Who asked you to do that or why did you decide to do that?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, because we have the records so the Democratic National Committee give us—I have to see the paper, the type last

year for the——

[Witness conferring with counsel.]

Mr. TRIE. I was, the title was something like Vice Chair for the

Democratic National Committee Finance Committee.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And did you get that title Vice Chair of the

Democratic National Committee in 1996?

201

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall where in, maybe 1995. But in 1996, for

I remember because it was getting to elections so it is more involvement on the fundraising. That is why we been—and if you

look at the record most of the fundraising in the 1996 will be on

the Hay-Adams, Hay-Adams, that event. That was including

$325,000 I raised from the Gandhi. I don’t know. I forgot his first

name.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But going back to this Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee, is that something that you sought or is

that something that someone asked you to assume?

Mr. TRIE. I believe I saw on the fax paper. But I don’t have the

paper now.

Mr. LATOURETTE. No, no. I am saying is that a job that you

wanted and you asked for or is that a job that someone asked you

to take?

Mr. TRIE. No, no. They just say how much money you can raise?

You know, I think it is $100,000 or it will be—I don’t even remember the time. But I remember I see the paper.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Yeah. But I guess maybe we are talking past

each other. How did you become a Vice Chair of the Democratic

National Committee; how did that happen? Just by giving——

Mr. TRIE. I think they select people.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Yeah. But who selected, who told you that you

were a Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. TRIE. I believe I see the fax. I don’t remember who told me

but I see the fax.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So, 1 day you see a piece of paper that all of

a sudden boom, you’re a Vice Chairman of Finance for the Democratic National Committee?

Do you know? I mean it just showed up like an unsolicited——

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. Because I believe it was how much money raised

you will get it.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So, OK, well, that’s it. So, it’s sort of like a

membership that if you raise $100,000, you will——

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. Become a Vice Chair?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And what, if you raise $1 million you become

the chairman and is that the way it works?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. I don’t think you will ever become Chairman.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I wouldn’t think so. I wouldn’t think so.

OK. Well, going to exhibit No. 251, that is a 7-page exhibit or

maybe more but I want to direct your attention to the 7th page.

It is an article from the Washington Post dated November 3rd,

1995, and it talks about the soft money contributors to the Democratic National Committee and Diahatsu is listed as one of the

largest soft money contributors to the Democratic National Committee in the United States in that article.

Do you recall being a part of such contributions in 1995?

[Exhibit 251 follows:]

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

Mr. TRIE. 1995, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And after that article ran in 1995 that identified that contribution or that level of contribution to the DNC, did

that article or the fact that it was now public cause you any concern?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall. I couldn’t recall seeing this article.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Well, after the article was in the newspaper did anyone contact you expressing concern about the fact

that your firm was listed as one of the largest soft money contributors to the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you recall anyone at the Democratic National Committee telling you to stop making large, individual

contributions—— Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. And instead begin to solicit—if

you could just wait until I finish, then you can tell me no—and

begin to focus on other individuals to make contributions other

than yourself?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Richard Sullivan, you know who Richard Sullivan is?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I do.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Richard Sullivan testified and indicated to the

Senate that in 1994 and 1995 he asked you to raise money for the

Democratic National Committee but that you refused other than

making your own contributions; do you recall that conversation?

Mr. TRIE. Don’t recall that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did Mr. John Huang, who was also a Vice

Chair of Finance over at the DNC, if I understood him correctly

when he was here in December, did you recall any conversations

with him that they needed hard money; that they needed to raise

hard money for the DNC and that you should try and raise smaller

contributions rather than the larger soft money contributions?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did John Huang ever encourage—you have acknowledged making conduit contributions.

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, you have, haven’t you? Yeah, that is OK.

I am sorry, go ahead.

Mr. TRIE. OK. Can you?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Sure. You have acknowledged making a number of conduit contributions?

Mr. TRIE. Hmm-hmm.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. And just so that we are talking about

the same thing, I know your lawyers know what I’m saying, but

that is that a contribution comes from someone else to you and you

make it in a name other than the name of the donor or in an improper way; is that a fair observation? People would give you

money and you would make a donation but it wasn’t your dough.

Mr. TRIE. Maybe the opposite way.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You would give people money to make in their

names and it was your money that—— Mr. TRIE. Yes, yes.

209

Mr. LATOURETTE. All right. So, you were the money man in the

conduit contributions that were made as opposed to the person in

whose name they were given; is that right?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. That is what I plead guilty to, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Did John Huang ever have any discussions with you about what a conduit contribution was?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did he ever discuss with you what the fundraising rules were?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And specifically the conduit contributions were

not proper?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And I believe if we got your testimony today,

you didn’t know that that was wrong?

Mr. TRIE. Correct. No, I didn’t know what’s—you have to give the

same question maybe.

Mr. LATOURETTE. It’s no, you didn’t know that that was wrong?

Mr. TRIE. No. I know it’s wrong but I didn’t know it was illegal.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Well, maybe—— Mr. TRIE. I didn’t know the law.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think I did hear you say that a little earlier

and that puzzles me because if it’s wrong, I mean what would be

wrong about it if it isn’t illegal? Do you know what I mean? I guess

you are making a distinction I guess without a difference to me.

Wrong, because you’re not supposed to do it or wrong—I mean if

it’s wrong it’s also against the law is wrong.

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t know the election law until I talked to—I have

my lawyer since 19—late 1996. Now, I know that is illegal, that’s

the law.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. If you can just hang onto that but I want

to yield to the chairman for a question.

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman would yield?

Did you ever talk to Don Fowler?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I talked to Don Fowler.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ever talk to Mr. Sullivan?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I do.

Mr. BURTON. When you were talking to them did you ever talk

to them about contributions?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, we do talk about contribution.

Mr. BURTON. Well, you know they knew the law. Mr. Fowler was

the head of the DNC and Mr. Sullivan was one of the leaders over

there.

Mr. TRIE. Hmm-hmm.

Mr. BURTON. When you talked to them about contributions and

these large contributions didn’t they ever question you about where

you were getting the money or——

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. They never asked the question?

Mr. TRIE. No. I never, I have never recall.

Mr. BURTON. Did you ever talk to them about people that you

were giving the money to who were going to give money to the

DNC?

Mr. TRIE. No. They don’t ask.

210

Mr. BURTON. They didn’t ask?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. How many times did you talk to Mr. Fowler?

Mr. TRIE. Not many times.

Mr. BURTON. One time?

Mr. TRIE. No, more than that.

Mr. BURTON. Twenty times?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. Ten times?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t tell you the exactly time.

Mr. BURTON. But many times?

Mr. TRIE. Several time.

Mr. BURTON. And how many times did you talk to Mr. Sullivan?

Mr. TRIE. Not many times, five or six time.

Mr. BURTON. Five or six times. And when you talked to them

about contributions—— Mr. TRIE. No. They just tell me to raise money.

Mr. BURTON. But you were one of the vice chairman, right?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. I think they have many, many vice chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Trie, it just seems to difficult to understand.

You were picked along with John Huang to be very important people at the DNC. You were raising hundreds of thousands of dollars

and you talked to Fowler and you talked to Sullivan and nobody

ever questioned whether or not these contributions were conduit

contributions or how they were coming in or anything else; they

just took the money and ran, right?

Mr. TRIE. That’s what happens.

Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And just getting back to that vice chairmanship that you apparently were notified with a piece of paper, a fax. I mean did it come

with a starter kit, you know, sort of like congratulations, you are

now a vice chairman of the DNC or the rules? Nobody ever explained any rules to you?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. How about the rule—did John Huang ever sit

down with you and talk about the fact that the Federal Government is in the practice of monitoring cash transactions of greater

than $10,000; was that within your knowledge in 1996?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, getting back to where I left off before I

yielded to the chairman, this concept of wrong is troubling me, I

guess. And now, are you telling me that you knew that there was

something not right about you taking money and giving it to somebody else and having that somebody else donate money in their

name to the DNC, the President of the United States, whatever the

candidate of your—you knew that was not an appropriate thing to

do.

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Well, if you—I guess if you didn’t know

it was a violation of law—and I understand lawyers and lawyers

told you that it was a violation of the elections law and might have

shown you the section and things of that nature—but what rule did

you think you were breaking by making or participating in a conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:30 Mar 14, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\68344.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
211

duit contribution if it wasn’t a law of the United States of America?

I mean did you think it was one of the Ten Commandants or what?

Mr. TRIE. What the?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, what was wrong about it? If it wasn’t illegal—I——

Mr. TRIE. Maybe——

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, what is wrong?

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t know.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But you knew—well, OK. I got that. But you

knew it was wrong when you were doing it.

Mr. TRIE. Is something wrong, that is what I put on my statement. I don’t feel comfortable.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Well, are you now saying that you didn’t

know it was wrong, you just—you felt a little squeamish about it,

right? I will come back to that in a minute.

When Huang was working at the DNC, and apparently a Vice

Chair as you were, did he ever discuss with you the money that

he was raising from Ted Sioeng and his family? Did you ever have

a conversation with him about Ted Sioeng and his family?

Mr. TRIE. No. I—we met in the fundraising event. We just share

things, say what do you do, what do I do, that’s all I know.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But specifically did you have a conversation

with John Huang; did he discuss——

Mr. TRIE. No, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. Did Mr. Huang discuss with you

the money he was raising from Ted Sioeng and his family?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And similarly, the same question about the

Wiridinadas; did you ever have a conversation with John Huang

about the money that he was soliciting and raising from the

Wiridinada family?

Mr. TRIE. What’s the name?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Wiriadinata? W-I-R-I-A-D-I-N-A-T-A?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, I don’t know, I don’t know those people.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. During the time that he was at the Democratic National Committee and apparently you were too, did you

ever discuss with John Huang his relationship with the Riady family?

Mr. TRIE. No. Can I address on the Vice Chair? John Huang and

me is a total different thing. I think he is working there where I’m

not, which is something title. So, it’s a total different thing, too.

He—if I put it this way, he will get a pay in the DNC.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right.

Mr. TRIE. But I won’t.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. He was getting paid and you were doing

the paying; is that—but from what I’ve heard the case may be you

both were vice chairs of finance apparently of the Democratic National Committee. Did you ever provide any money to John Huang?

Did you ever give him any money?

And, specifically, so you don’t think it’s a trick, the next exhibit

is exhibit No. 252, dated June 26th——

[Exhibit 252 follows:]

212

213

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. $1,775.00 out of a check.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And what was that check for?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You don’t know?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. The exhibit is $1,775, right? But that is $1,775, that is a check drawn on your company for $1,775—— Mr. TRIE. Yes, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. To John Huang but you have—— Mr. TRIE. But I cannot recall the—— Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. No knowledge of the—— Mr. TRIE [continuing]. The purpose.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK.

Mr. TRIE. Can we take a break? I want to try to go to the restroom.

Mr. BURTON. Yes. If you want to go to the restroom we are trying

to accommodate legal counsel and everybody to adjourn, finish up

by 6 o’clock. So—— Mr. TRIE. I will be real quick.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Take your time. We stand in recess for Mr.

Trie. We will be back in just a moment.

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON. We will resume questioning with the irrepressible

Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Just to finish on that check for $1,775, if I understand your—what it is that you used to do for a living, you

owned a restaurant in Little Rock, AR. Was that right, for a number of years?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. How many years was that?

Mr. TRIE. Since 1978 until 1992.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And it was a small operation, small business?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, I guess so.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, what do you think your best year was?

I mean in terms of revenue from the Chinese restaurant?

Mr. TRIE. I believe it will probably be in 1990.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am sorry?

Mr. TRIE. 1990, 1991.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Yeah. I’m talking in dollars though. What is

the most money you think you made?

Mr. TRIE. I never do the accounting. My wife is the one to order.

She’s a cashier and the bartender.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The point I’m trying to get at, the $1,775

seems like a lot of money to me. I mean if I wrote a $1,775 check

to somebody it would hurt and, but you still are telling me you

don’t know why you wrote a $1,775 check to John Huang in 1996,

4 years after you are out of the Chinese restaurant business.

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t remember.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. When did you first meet James Riady?

Mr. TRIE. You mean met or see James Riady?

Mr. LATOURETTE. I mean meet him, like be introduced to him.

Mr. TRIE. The introduce was in I believe in 1996 in L.A.

214

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And, so, again that answer just like when

I was talking to you about John Huang you never had the opportunity to meet with James Riady or meet him in Arkansas when

you were both in Little Rock, AR?

Mr. TRIE. No, no.

Mr. BURTON. Excuse me, would the gentleman yield real quickly?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Surely.

Mr. BURTON. James Riady worked at the Worthen Bank in Little

Rock?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. And you are saying that you did not know him at

all?

Mr. TRIE. I know him but I never met him.

Mr. BURTON. Oh, you knew him but—— Mr. TRIE. I knew him, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Had he eaten in your restaurant?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so, I don’t recall.

But he loaned me the money.

Mr. BURTON. He loaned you—— Mr. TRIE. Not him loan me the money. Worthen Bank loaned me

the money after they join with the Worthen Bank.

Mr. BURTON. But you had never met him personally?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You are welcome, Mr. Chairman.

So, in 1996 at an event in Los Angeles is when you believe you

were introduced to him formally and met him although you may

have seen him at other occasions?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And his financial institution may have provided you with some loans to do some things that you were doing;

is that right?

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t get the last part.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thought in response to the chairman’s question that he gave you the money. You got some money from the

Lippo Bank. No?

Mr. TRIE. No, not Lippo Bank. It was from the Worthen Bank.

Mr. LATOURETTE. From the Worthen Bank?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Did you have the opportunity to see him

in 1993 at an APAC meeting in Jakarta?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But, again, that is seeing him; you weren’t introduced to him, you didn’t meet him?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Witnesses who were at that meeting indicated

that you greeted him like he was an old friend of yours, so, apparently he wasn’t an old friend of yours in 1993——

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. Because you hadn’t met him yet?

Mr. TRIE. No. I did not.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Did you have a discussion with Mr. Riady

at all in 1993 at the APAC meeting in Jakarta?

Mr. TRIE. No, I don’t recall at all.

215

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. I want to go now to an event that occurred

on September 26, 1996. It was a fundraising event for the Democratic National Committee and it was conducted at the Washington, DC, Sheraton-Carlton. And if it would assist you at all, it was

an event that was primarily organized by David Mercer and was

intended to, as most of its invitees, be members of the African

American community. Do you recall that event at all?

Mr. TRIE. No. Can I look the—— Mr. LATOURETTE. Sure. Oh, yeah. Sure.

Mr. TRIE. Is it page 6?

Mr. LATOURETTE. There is no specific exhibit. I’m talking at the

moment about a fundraising event at the DC Sheraton-Carlton

and——

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall that.

Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. And just so I’m not—I am not

going to attempt to followup or trick you; when John Huang was

here he indicated that he went with you to this particular event

and following that event he and James Riady both spent the

evening at your apartment at the Watergate. Do you recall such a

series of events?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall that one. In Sheraton—let me—— Mr. LATOURETTE. The Sheraton-Carlton Hotel in Washington,

DC, in September 1996.

Mr. TRIE. I know I don’t remember that one.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, specifically and maybe we can work

through some of the exhibits and get there from here. If you want

to look at exhibit No. 253, I believe, we will start there. That’s a

receipt from the Carey Limousine Co. And, again, Mr. Huang,

when he was here indicated that he retained the limousine for the

purpose of going out to the Dulles Airport, I believe, and picking

up Mr. Riady, and then they were joined by you and you all travelled to the Sheraton-Carlton for a fundraising event organized by

David Mercer and at the conclusion of that event you came back

and all of you spent the night at the Watergate.

[Exhibit 253 follows:]

216

217

Mr. TRIE. Watergate only have a two bedroom. I don’t believe I

was with them. You talk about the limousine, I don’t remember

that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, forget the sleeping arrangements for a

minute. Are you telling me that you don’t know—you have no

knowledge of being at a fundraising event for the Democratic National Committee on September 26th, 1996 at the Sheraton?

Mr. TRIE. No, I don’t remember.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I now want to—— Mr. TRIE. By the way, on the question—I forgot who was asking—that day was—somebody was asking the—this the one they

made, right, September the—phone call, telephone call to Indonesia, to Jim Riady, to some people?

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. That’s the same day and I—— Mr. TRIE. No, that day—so we are talking to other people and

saying—John Huang stay at my house would be late October, so

that phone call, that is when.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK, all right. Well, since you don’t remember

that particular series of events, Mr. Huang remembers them, but

I don’t—I mean, you’re not required to remember everything.

I want to turn to a document that the FBI took from your office,

which is another exhibit, and it’s exhibit No. 255, and exhibit No.

255 is a translation of a document, again, that was taken from your

office, and if you take a minute to study, and if you would be so

kind as to tell the committee who drafted that document?

[Exhibit 255 follows:]

218

219

Mr. TRIE. Your questions on this letter?

Mr. LATOURETTE. I want to know who wrote that?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know. I don’t think it’s me.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you have any idea how it wound up in your

office then, and it was taken by the FBI?

Mr. TRIE. No. Probably when this came probably wrote something, maybe a memo or something. I don’t believe it’s—— Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, let’s go through the translation, if we

could, and maybe some of it will come back to you. The first paragraph refers to opening a Wal-Mart in Shanghai. Did you ever have

any discussions with anyone at the Lippo organization about opening up a Wal-Mart Store in Shanghai?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Were you involved in any business ventures

between Wal-Mart and Lippo?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The second paragraph talks about buying and

modernizing a hospital in Shanghai. Did you ever discuss such a

venture with anyone at the Lippo organization?

Mr. TRIE. No. If—— Mr. LATOURETTE. No?

Mr. TRIE. No, no, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The fourth item discusses purchasing a hotel

in San Francisco.

Mr. TRIE. I do remember this one. This one I know if I try to recall. I’m thinking this whole thing, maybe Antonio Pan write note,

maybe Antonio Pan wrote the whole thing.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So in response to my earlier question about

who drafted the document, you now believe that Antonio Pan is the

author?

Mr. TRIE. Because I recall the fourth part, the hotel, because I

remember some people tell me the hotel is very small. In San Francisco is only $7 million, because in San Francisco $7 million cannot

buy a big hotel, so I remember this one. Somebody once mentioned

to me this hotel.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So just so I’m clear, so I don’t miss the opportunity to have the benefit of your refreshed memory, you still don’t

remember anything about the Wal-Mart?

Mr. TRIE. No, I cannot remember—— Mr. LATOURETTE. Or the other questions. But No. 4, the hotel in

San Francisco rings a bell?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, No. 4, even No. 5 I might understand this one because that’s LA Bank.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, that’s the next part, right?

Mr. TRIE. Right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, that item No. 4 on the San Francisco

hotel indicates—the document recommends finding six Chinese investors to put in $1 million each, and it states that they can use

that to then request immigration.

Did you ever discuss the San Francisco Hotel venture with anyone in the Riady family or in the Lippo organization?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you ever discuss it with Antonio Pan?

Mr. TRIE. I think Antonio Pan ask me, so I remember this.

220

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, when you say that he asked you, was Antonio Pan asking if you wanted to be one of the six investors at $1

million apiece?

Mr. TRIE. No, not just maybe locate.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Locate six investors?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Chinese investors?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Who is the document referring to—if you

go a little further down in the document, it talks about an individual by the name of Wang Jun; do you see that? Specifically, it says

that Wang Jun buy the Lippo Bank stocks with money as reinforcement to enter the U.S. market. Do you see that portion of the document?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, more likely I look at the whole thing, should be

Antonio Pan draft the whole thing.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I’m just asking if you see it. I want to ask you

some questions about that portion of the document. I’m asking if

you see that portion of the document so I can ask you a question.

Mr. TRIE. OK.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are we all set?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Who was Wang Jun first of all?

Mr. TRIE. Wang Jun is chairman of the CITIC, of Chinese corporation.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And you know him and knew him back at this

time period, did you not, 1996?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. What the document refers to, it says, ‘‘Knowing you have good relations with Wang Jun.’’

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you have good relations with Wang Jun?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Is that referring to you?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, you—me.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You as——

Mr. TRIE. Yes. I mean, should be is me, because I brought Wang

Jun to the White House coffee.

Mr. LATOURETTE. All right. But the document again, we’re still

talking about the San Francisco hotel, and it says the LA bank

stocks. The document says, ‘‘That maybe a part of the LA bank

stock can be sold to Wang Jun.’’ The LA bank is—first of all, what

LA bank is the document referring to?

Mr. TRIE. I believe it’s Mr. Yeh’s bank.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. whose bank?

Mr. TRIE. Yeh.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But it indicates that—it goes on to say, ‘‘Knowing that you have good relations with Wang Jun’’, and so the document’s referring to you, you believe; you’re the one with the good

relations?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The document also indicates proposing that

Wang Jun buy the Lippo Bank stocks with money as reinforcement

221

to enter the U.S. market and so forth and so on. He knows that

you have good relations with China?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And does that also refer to you?

Mr. TRIE. I believe so, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So Mr. Pan, in writing that document, is expressing the view that you have good relations with China?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Were you proposing a way for—were you attempting to find a way for Wang Jun to enter the United States,

the U.S. market; is that what this was about?

Mr. TRIE. This is just—from my look, it’s just a business potential, because there is a bank for sale. So, you know, if Wang Jun

have the money, can he buy this bank.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, that’s exactly what it is.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you ever discuss this proposal with Wang

Jun?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Are you aware of any relationship between

James Riady and Wang Jun?

Mr. TRIE. No, because Mr. Antonio Pan work for me. He used to

work for Jim Riady, and he probably—he know Wang Jun, because

when Wang Jun come to here, but he don’t have a chance to talk

to Wang Jun, so he let me know that this is a plan, that’s all.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And so this was something that had no—I

mean, other than the conversation with Antonio Pan, saying that,

‘‘Hey, here’s something that’s going on’’——

Mr. TRIE. Would you do it?

Mr. LATOURETTE. He asked you to do it?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But you didn’t do it?

Mr. TRIE. No, no, no. This never happened.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And again, just to finish this document,

and then I’ll be done with this series of questions. The last two

paragraphs talk about the possibility of followup meetings with

Riady and John Huang about these proposals. To your knowledge,

did any of those meetings take place, any meetings between James

Riady and John Huang concerning the proposals in the exhibit in

front of you, 250 whatever it is?

Mr. TRIE. I think this is just Mr. Antonio Pan was making some

deal, wanted for me to followup. I never went to New York with

John Huang—I mean, John Huang in New York of October 10th.

We never have a meeting with him.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You never had a meeting with him?

Mr. TRIE. Never had a meeting with John Huang in New York

on October 10th. I think the whole thing is just a planning, business planning.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Now, obviously, your name has appeared in a

number of newspaper articles concerning the campaign fundraising

scandal surrounding the 1996 Presidential campaign. Have you

had any conversations with James Riady concerning any of the articles?

Mr. TRIE. No.

222

Mr. LATOURETTE. Have you had any conversation with him concerning your involvement in the campaign fundraising scandal?

Mr. TRIE. No, he don’t know much about me.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Have you received any money from James

Riady or anyone affiliated with the Lippo Group, that either did or

didn’t make its way into the hands of the Democratic National

Committee?

Mr. TRIE. I received one of the wire money from—under—I think

1994 from—what’s his name? Yeah, Lucky Port. But I couldn’t recall.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Other than that recollection by you, no other

funds from James Riady or the Lippo Group?

Mr. TRIE. No, no, no, no.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And just then to close—and I appreciate your

patience—this whole notion of conduit contributions, just to go back

to that for a minute, if—and then maybe it’s a difference without

a distinction and maybe it’s a level of understanding that you have

that I don’t have—if there was nothing wrong with you giving

money to the Democratic National Committee in your own right— in other words, if you had $100,000 burning a hole in your pocket

and you wanted to see it get into the hands of the Democratic National Committee, why did you feel it was necessary to break it up

and give it to other people so that when the authorities who were

in charge with policing our Federal campaign laws looked at the report, they wouldn’t see $100,000 from Charlie Trie. They’d see

$10,000 from Charlie Trie, $10,000 for this person, $10,000—why

would you feel compelled to do that if you didn’t know it was

against the laws of the United States of America?

Mr. TRIE. Because, only because I think you not have—my bank

account don’t have that much money.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Because your bank account doesn’t have

enough money to cover the amount of contributions that was being

made?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. See, sometime five or six people call me, I cannot

write that much check.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But I guess now this causes me a bigger problem—sorry, Mr. Chairman—but earlier, when I asked you about

conduit contributions, you said that there’s two ways that conduit

contributions can go. You can either be the money man or sort of

the middle man, the bag man, and I understood you to say that you

were the man with the money, that gave money to other people to

give to the Democrats. Isn’t that the way this worked, as opposed

to——

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Well, then what do you mean you didn’t

have enough money in your bank account, because you not only

had enough money to cover yours, you were giving money to other

people to give, so your answer doesn’t make any sense to me.

Mr. TRIE. It’s a friend of mine, Mr. Wu, provide the money.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. So you’re not the man with the money;

you’re the middle guy. Somebody gave you money, and then you

took somebody else’s money and gave it to a bunch of other people

and they donate it; is that right? I mean, really, I just want to

know what you were doing.

223

Mr. WEINGARTEN. Mr. Chairman, I could explain this in 30 seconds.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, I’d be happy to have you explain it, and

I don’t have any objections to that, as long as your client then affirms your explanation, since he’s the one under oath.

Mr. WEINGARTEN. We’re talking about two separate—— Mr. BURTON. We’re breaking with normal tradition, but go

ahead.

Mr. WEINGARTEN. We’re talking about two separate

categories—— Mr. BURTON. Put the—would you hold the mic there, counselor?

Mr. WEINGARTEN. Thank you. We’re talking about two separate

kinds of conduct. Mr. Wu sent money into the United States. Mr.

Trie has testified here and elsewhere that he believed that to be

common money, and that he was able to make contributions as he

saw fit, because it was pursuant to a common goal with Mr. Wu.

Mr. Trie has testified repeatedly that in his mind, that was not illegal.

Second category of conduct is subsequent—mostly in 1996 there

were conduit contributions, wherein he would approach people,

sometime friends, sometimes families, and he would prevail upon

those people to make contributions, and later he would reimburse

those people. So we have both categories of conduit contributions

from some person’s eyes. It’s that second category that he pled

guilty to.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And is that your understanding, Mr. Trie,

that that’s what you think is—— Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. That’s the straight skinny, OK.

On that second category though, are you telling the committee

that the reason that you operated that way is because you

couldn’t—you wanted to make sure that at a certain fundraising

event the President of the United States and his party had

$100,000, and you didn’t have $100,000, and so a friend, where you

front the money, ‘‘I’ll pay you back later?’’ Because there’s nothing

wrong with that, right?

Mr. TRIE. OK. You have to—I let you know the circumstance on

that time. Sometime when the—well, let’s say the event, just like

the event at the Hay-Adams. Then some more money have to come

in, but I didn’t have the money in there, so Mr. Wu haven’t come

in yet, so I cannot write the check to people, so I tell people to

write a check, so I can reimburse when he come here and have the

cash, but my bank account doesn’t have the money.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. But you then paid them back when you

received the money?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And is it your testimony that the reason that

you went through that is because you didn’t have the money to

cover it at the time, and you had no interest in—I mean, you knew

from these fundraising events—I mean, you had been giving money

to the Democrats for a very long period of time. You know that

when you go to an event, you have to fill out who you are, where

you live, you know, that you work at a certain place, so that we

can keep track of that, or the Federal Government can keep track

224

of that, but you knew, under this scheme that you had going on,

that when we checked the records for an event at the Hay-Adams

or anything else, we’d see a lot of names with people whose money

wasn’t even their money that was being given to the Democratic

National Committee, right? You knew that.

Mr. TRIE. Yes. That was—— Mr. LATOURETTE. And you knew that it was wrong?

Mr. TRIE [continuing]. Wrong, yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The only thing that you haven’t been willing

to tell us, despite the fact that you apparently have immunity, is

that wrong doesn’t equal illegal to you; it’s some wrong out there

in the—— Mr. TRIE. OK. If I put it this way, like a wrong, you make a Uturn, but the law is different.

Mr. LATOURETTE. So you’re telling us that—— Mr. TRIE. I don’t think—I don’t know the election law until the— I find out this FEC.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. So you would have everyone that is interested in this, that these are errors of judgment, but certainly you

didn’t mean to break the laws of the United States, right? Is that

right?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Is that right? Am I correct in that statement,

sir?

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry, sir. Can you repeat?

Mr. LATOURETTE. I don’t think I can, but I’m going to give it a

shot. Are you saying that you’re asking those of us that are interested, that these were just errors in judgment, but certainly you

had no intention at this time, with these illegal—or these conduit

contributions—of breaking any rules or laws?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. You correct, this is the law.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I know I’m correct, but I was going to your intent. I think I’ve beat that horse enough. Thank you, Mr. Trie.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just—before I yield to—did you want to ask

questions, or do you want me to yield to Mr. Horn first? Mr. Horn

was next.

Mr. WAXMAN. Have him go, and then I’ll go.

Mr. BURTON. Before we yield to Mr. Horn, let me just say there

were three pages of conduit contributions that we gave to you. Are

you saying that all of those conduit contributions were because you

didn’t have enough money in the bank at that time, every single

one of them?

Mr. TRIE. Some of them is I didn’t give money for.

Mr. BURTON. I know, but are you saying all of the conduit contributions that you were involved in, all of them, were because you

didn’t have enough money in the bank at the time?

Mr. TRIE. Also I don’t think my name is—I want to be low key.

I don’t want my name always to have $100,000.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t want to have your name on them?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. In my—— Mr. BURTON. OK. Well, I think that’s a very important point, because you have been leading us to believe that the reason these

conduit payments took place was because you didn’t have enough

money in the bank——

225

Mr. TRIE. That’s one of the reason.

Mr. BURTON. But there were also a lot of conduit contributions

you made where you did have money, and you didn’t want your

name on them; isn’t that correct?

Mr. TRIE. That’s a part of the reason in my mind.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Mr. Horn.

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And Mr. Trie, my questioning will relate to the following premise

here, that between May 1994 and November 1996, Ng Lap Seng

wired $1,105,000 to you or his companies, and during that time Mr.

Wu also brought in another $382,929 in cash and travelers checks

to the United States during his visits. But I want to stick with Mr.

Ng Lap Seng, and I’d just like to go through some simple questions

with you.

When did you first meet Ng Lap Seng?

Mr. TRIE. Ng Lap Seng is 1994 or late 1993.

Mr. HORN. And where was that?

Mr. TRIE. I met him in Hong Kong.

Mr. HORN. In Hong Kong?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, airport.

Mr. HORN. You were there on business?

Mr. TRIE. No. Somebody introduced me, so I went to look him— he was waiting for me.

Mr. HORN. How did you happen to meet him in Hong Kong?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, it’s just people say he want to see me, so I went

to Hong Kong from Beijing.

Mr. HORN. So this was at his request?

Mr. TRIE. People introduce us. The lady introduce us is called

Maria Han.

Mr. HORN. When you first met him, did you know anything about

his background at that point?

Mr. TRIE. No, no.

Mr. HORN. Why did you go to Hong Kong and see him? What was

the purpose, money for the Democratic National Committee or

money for a hotel?

Mr. TRIE. No, not even a hotel. It’s just a friend introduced. I just

go to see him.

Mr. HORN. And you just felt this was another business person

you wanted to like or what?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, I just wanted to know him.

Mr. HORN. Now, what was your relation with him over time

then, once you met him in Hong Kong?

Mr. TRIE. We become real good friend, also a business partner.

Mr. HORN. What kind of a background did you find out that he

did have?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, everything I have is from him to tell me. He’d say,

in the late 1970’s, somewhere around 1976 or 1977, he and his

wife, I think swim from Tuhai to Macau, and they stay in Macau.

They do everything, and lately they do the textile. By late 1980’s

the textile business went down, so they start doing, you know, real

estate business, which is like buying to sell. And at that time, I remember is real estate is real downhill in Macau, Hong Kong and

China. So he become involved in that business, but he—because I

think he’s a very smart man, so he make a real good business.

226

Then 1990’s, I think in 1993, he involve in project called Nam Van

Lakes, which is in Macau. So when I met him, he say he needed

some investor from other country, especially if he can—he doesn’t

speak English, so he say, ‘‘You can help me to locate people to help

with this project.’’ So we went to Macau to see Nam Van Lakes

project. Also, when we come back here to the United States, I remember I brought some of the brochure of his project.

Mr. HORN. Do you know what year he arrived in Macau? Was

it about a year before you met him, or how long had he been there?

Mr. TRIE. 1976, somewhere, 1976, 1977.

Mr. HORN. 1976.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HORN. Where had he come from in China, which province?

Mr. TRIE. Guangdong Province, because he speak Cantonese. In

the beginning we met, he don’t speak well Mandarin.

Mr. HORN. Do you know how much money he’s worth, or was

when you met him?

Mr. TRIE. I cannot give exact number, but I think he worth like

a billion Hong Kong dollar at least.

Mr. HORN. Did he have a lot of buildings or industries on Macau?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, yes, yes.

Mr. HORN. And also in Hong Kong?

Mr. TRIE. And also in China.

Mr. HORN. And also in China?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HORN. How about Taiwan, did he have anything there?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HORN. Nothing in Taiwan.

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. HORN. How did Ng make his money then? Was it from some

of these industries? You’ve mentioned textiles, for example.

Mr. TRIE. No. Textiles he didn’t make money, but during the—

by that time nobody was involved in construction, but since 1991,

you know, the buildings come in so fast. I believe I have all his—

not all his—most of his bank record on file, because when we tried

to buy the Camelot Hotel, they request the background of investor,

so I think he have all the financial statement on his business.

Mr. HORN. Was he mostly putting the money from different investors in projects, or did he have already the money to spend on

the projects?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, I think he—people—because the way I look him,

first he work real hard, and second, he’s a very smart man. He

know the number real well. So I think people invite him to purchase, because sometime the Chinese people cannot go out of country. You know, at that time, it is not easy—even now is not easy

to go out of Hong Kong or out of Macau. Now Hong Kong is better,

but at that time is not easy. So people want to do business, they

always want to find some people can free travel. So he involved

Nam Van Lakes project.

Mr. HORN. Now, did you meet some of his business partners over

time?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HORN. What type of people were they?

227

Mr. TRIE. One person, he sell jewelry; one person, he is doing

travel agents; one people, he’s in partnership in Nam Van Lakes

project.

Mr. HORN. Did those business partners want to have opportunities in the United States or did they ever discuss that?

Mr. TRIE. No, no, no. They mostly—mostly they are interested

in—especially for Mr. Wu, all he want to do is buy, and all he

have—even now he have thousands unit of the apartment unit he

try to sell to people, thousands. So that’s all he concerned, to sell

his apartment. He don’t know—the way he told me, he didn’t have

education. All he do is know how to work, so his interested in that

real estate project. In that time, I think they are facing financial

difficult in Nam Van Lakes project, because it was a real big

project. So he was thinking, you know, there’s American people— because lots of American companies going to Hong Kong, but Hong

Kong real estate went so high in—almost three to five times more

than Macau, so he bought a lot of building. And sometime he

bought buildings not to say you pay how much, you just sign the

deal, then he resell to people real quick. But I think he stuck on

the Nam Van Lake.

Mr. HORN. Were these business partners from his province in

China? Were they friends from, say, a long time back?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, most of them are.

Mr. HORN. What type of backgrounds did they have?

Mr. TRIE. There’s some government official which is a city mayor,

I remember, a gentleman named—I couldn’t recall this minute, but

I know his name. And he—that’s where Mr. Wu from, and they

know each other a long, long time. So some people—most of the

people is business people, so what they do is—like I have a building, so I just tell you can you buy. That’s what happened under

Wang Jun. His assistant, she tried to buy his complex building in

Guangzhou, which is next to a subway. That’s how they do. If I

have a building, if your company want to buy, I just go ahead sell

to you. When I buy this guy, I probably don’t have to pay. But

when you buy it, you pay me, then I repay to them.

Mr. HORN. Did you ever have the thought that maybe money was

coming from China to go through them as a conduit, not for politics, but for business, and did you feel there was ever a

relationship—— Mr. TRIE. Never, because I been with him so long. The way he

spend money or the way he do business. The important thing, he

doesn’t even speak English. And we didn’t even get along together

under language because he speak Cantonese; I speak Mandarin.

But after he been with me, he learn Mandarin, but in Beijing everybody speak Mandarin. He had no way to go there and tell people, to influence in something he don’t even know. I don’t even

know, that’s a problem.

Mr. HORN. Well, it’s pretty well understood that the People’s Liberation Army in China have investments both in China and the

countries that ring China, and they had substantial money for this.

So I just wondered if any of your feelings were that money was

coming through the People’s Liberation Army?

Mr. TRIE. No, because when I know him, he already have so

many business. That’s not just a coincidence. He try to know me

228

and his daughter have money. Look, remember when I know him

not a long—a little bit later, we went to Little Rock, AR. His company have a financial report many years already, so, you know, I

believe he make the money already, not a coincidence, and the way

I feel is he is a real estate business, so we involve is try to sell real

estate in that time.

Mr. HORN. Well, he probably hit it at the right time of the market.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HORN. If it’s any relation to our economy. Did Mr. Ng have

any business with the Hughes Co., an American company?

Mr. TRIE. No, no.

Mr. HORN. Or any of its subsidiaries?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so. Everything I know he have is build

a building. He have a two building in Shanghai, in Chung Du and

Harbei and Guangzhou. He have many, many building in Macau,

and I don’t know Hong Kong. He have office in Hong Kong.

Mr. HORN. Were Mr. Ng’s Chinese business partners that had

not gone over the line to go to Hong Kong or Macau or wherever?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, they do. When they signed a contract with him to

buy the building, they are allowed to go there. Just like the United

States issued a invitation for them to come. Macau is real close, so

a lot easier than come to the United States.

Mr. HORN. It’s a beautiful place. Why does Ng—does he have any

business dealings that you know of with the Chinese Government

in terms of official government agencies that are letting him put

money in the area outside of China?

Mr. TRIE. No, I don’t know that.

Mr. HORN. How about money from Taiwan? They’re always looking for investments; did he ever have any money from Taiwan?

Mr. TRIE. Well, he—me and him does go into Taiwan, try to look

at the investor, but when people come in to—we did bring people

back to Macau to help him try to sell the building, but people

didn’t—far as I know, didn’t went through.

Mr. HORN. Do you have any feeling that he had relations with

Chinese intelligence officers?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall that, but you know, because of the way— if you look at him, you know, you will not deal with him in something like this, because he just straight business man, for I look at

him.

Mr. HORN. Well, if intelligence officers had money, would he be

looking for money from them?

Mr. TRIE. He might me introduce me as, you know, his friend,

but I never recall, just like if—he did business with CITIC chairman Wang Jun or not, I don’t even recall, because don’t worry

about what he do because all I try to do, find a—because it’s a big

commission if I find any people to go into the—the Nam Van Lakes

I think is $1 billion.

Mr. HORN. Well, it was shown, and still is, in Russia, when it

was the Soviet Union, and I think in China, the people that ran

the intelligence operations had a chance to leave the country, put

money in places outside of the home country, and also to take

money with them, because nobody was really going to search them

in terms of at least in China, or in Russia in the case. So I just

229

wondered if you felt in any way that he was involved with them

in planting money in projects, hotels, office buildings, whatever?

Mr. TRIE. Be honest with you, most time I see, he give money

to people because the people come to Macau need spending money.

I remember he have helped people, but I never see people give him

money, because he’s a huge businessman.

Mr. HORN. So he was investing his money, you are saying?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HORN. And was it mostly in Hong Kong, or was some in

China, I believe you did say?

Mr. TRIE. Most of the money is in China, but Macau have one

of the huge project.

Mr. HORN. Did much of the money go to Shanghai?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, he have two of the residential complex. One is

20 some floor and another one is 30 some floor.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Horn, if we could interrupt you, Mr. Waxman

has a couple questions, and then we’ll try to resume with you in

just a few minutes.

Mr. HORN. All right.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Trie, in October 1997 David Wang testified before this committee, and he was under oath, and he said that a Democratic National Committee fundraiser, John Huang, came to his place of

business in Los Angeles and gave him cash in return for a campaign contribution. And according to Chairman Burton, ‘‘Mr.

Wang’s testimony was the first time in my memory,’’ as he said,

‘‘that we have seen evidence of such blatantly illegal activity by a

senior national party official.’’ He was talking about Mr. Huang.

During the same hearing at which David Wang testified, however,

I introduced documents, including eyewitness statements, that

show that Mr. Huang was in New York on the day that Mr. Wang

claims that he met him. And in December, when John Huang testified, he told this committee that he had nothing to do with Mr.

Wang’s reimbursement.

Maybe you can help clear this up. I understand that you were

asked about David Wang’s contribution by the FBI. The 302 interview notes, the report of their interview with you, indicate that it

was you and Antonio Pan who reimbursed David Wang, not John

Huang. Is that right?

Mr. TRIE. Can I have a background on this Mr. Wang? Is he a

car dealer?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes.

Mr. TRIE. Oh, yes. That’s—is us. I didn’t give him—I didn’t reimburse him, but Antonio Pan reimburse him.

Mr. WAXMAN. And Antonio Pan was your employee, wasn’t he?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, sir. And Antonio Pan was the one introduced me

to meet him when we were in LA. I think it was, say, September

time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Was that the only occasion you met Mr. Wang?

Mr. TRIE. One or two time. I don’t remember. One time I was in

his car dealership, the lot.

230

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let me ask you this, just so we have it very

clear. Did you and Mr. Pan reimburse David Wang for his contribution to the Democratic——

Mr. TRIE. I believe so.

Mr. WAXMAN. Was John Huang in any way involved in or aware

of the reimbursement of David Wang?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I think that clarified what you had to say

and what Mr. Huang had to say, that there was an error in the

testimony we received from Mr. Wang. It wasn’t John Huang, but

Mr. Pan or you that was responsible for making the reimbursement

to him for his contribution.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman, and

yield back the balance of my time and let others pursue what they

wish.

Mr. BURTON. Thanks, gentleman.

Mr.—did you have further questions that you wanted to ask?

Mr. HORN. I do.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know how much time you will require?

Mr. HORN. Well, let’s see. We might have quite a bit more time.

Mr. BURTON. We are trying to conclude by 6, as close to that as

possible. Can we go ahead with—who’s next on the list? Could we

go ahead with Mr. Barr, and then come back and try to conclude

with some of your——

Mr. HORN. Do you want to do it next week or now?

Mr. BURTON. No, today. We’ll just try to come back and conclude

with you.

Mr. HORN. OK. So we’ll yield to Mr. Barr?

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. How much time do we have, Mr. Chairman, just so I

can gauge so that Mr. Horn and Mr. Shays——

Mr. BURTON. Well, we want to try to conclude by 6 o’clock or as

close to that as possible.

Mr. BARR. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have questions as well.

Mr. BURTON. I understand. Why don’t we try to—would it be possible for you to limit your questions to 10 minutes?

Mr. BARR. Certainly.

Mr. BURTON. OK.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Trie, I believe earlier, in response to some questions, the name was mentioned, Maria Han Xiao?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, Maria Han Xiao.

Mr. BARR. And she introduced you to Mr. Ng Lap Seng; is that

correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. You have known her for quite some time; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. You incorporated a company called Sanyou Science &

Technology Enterprises; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

231

Mr. BARR. Was one purpose of that company that you incorporated in the United States, to conduct business with the Sanyou

Scientific & Technical Industry Group in Beijing?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. And Ms. Maria Han is connected to the Sanyou Scientific & Technical Industry Group in Beijing; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. Did you also incorporate—or you did also incorporate

a company called Premier International Investment, Inc.?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. In 1995?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. Now, this company never did any active business, did

it?

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BARR. Who is Mr. Chen Zhu?

Mr. TRIE. He is one person I met in LA from a friend of mine

called Ding Xao Chiang. He’s kind of a super power—nature of

super power person. So we had been talking, you know, what’s his

super powers—like a religious, and he really know how to perform

under super power.

Mr. BARR. In China?

Mr. TRIE. No, in LA. I remember I brought him to Little Rock,

show the magic.

Mr. BARR. To do what?

Mr. TRIE. Do the super powers thing.

Mr. BARR. In Arkansas?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, in Arkansas, in Little Rock, AR. Also I remember bringing him to Washington, DC. You know, he just wanted to

know people. He wanted to try to do the show.

Mr. BARR. He was president of your firm, the Premier International Investment, Inc., was he not?

Mr. TRIE. Can I see the paper?

Mr. BARR. I don’t know that there’s a paper. It’s my information

that he was president of the firm; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Well, I don’t think so, but you know, maybe his friend

let him be the president. I remember there was agreement with another gentleman.

Mr. BARR. Well, let’s go back to basics then if you don’t know

that he was the president.

Mr. TRIE. Sure.

Mr. BARR. Who is the president? It’s your company.

Mr. TRIE. Normally I would be the one.

Mr. BARR. Are you the president of Premier International Investment, Inc.?

Mr. TRIE. I think so.

Mr. BARR. Well, are you?

Mr. TRIE. Because I have so many company, I don’t remember

this name—I remember this name, but who is the one president I

cannot tell you.

Mr. BARR. So you’re telling us you have so many companies, you

don’t even know what you’re the president of and what you’re not

the president of?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, some of them I know.

232

Mr. BARR. I commend you for being able to say that with a

straight face. I’m impressed.

Is Mr. Chen Zhu the president of Premier International Investment, Inc., or has he ever been the president of the firm?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t believe he actually do anything for this corporation.

Mr. BARR. OK. So if we have information to the contrary, that

information is false?

Mr. TRIE. We was working together, so I don’t know who is the

one, because this company never do any business. And that time

just some little company so they can come here to do business.

Mr. BARR. Who is Mr. Qiao Shi?

Mr. TRIE. He can pronounce better. I mean—I couldn’t recall this

name.

Mr. BARR. But you can recall the name of Chen Zhu?

Mr. TRIE. I can remember Chen Zhu, yes, Chen Zhu.

Mr. BARR. What is the name of his godfather?

Mr. TRIE. Oh. I couldn’t remember that name, because he just— that’s what—tell me.

Mr. BARR. Well, he told you it was Qiao Shi, did he not?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, yeah, also he say Qiao Shi, yes. But you know,

later I find out I don’t have to believe him.

Mr. BARR. And he is a high-ranking official with the PRC?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, that’s how many of these people use those people

name to support their—you know, activities.

Mr. BARR. And that would be a reason why you might have made

him president of your company, because—— Mr. TRIE. That’s not—that never will be the reason, because

when—— Mr. BARR. So when you say you brought people in because they

played the super-power game—— Mr. TRIE. Yeah, but I don’t believe he say that his godfather

would be somebody—you know, those people just say something.

But to this company we did together was another gentleman—I

couldn’t remember the name right now, but if I look at a document

I will know, I can point out that person’s name. It’s very common,

you know, to turn the joint venture to a company, but later on

maybe, you know, we don’t work together. This company never

done any business.

Mr. BARR. In certain types of industries it is common to create

a number of shell corporations, and I’m sure your attorneys are familiar with creating shell corporations that never do any legitimate

business. Sometimes we call them conduits for money laundering.

Sometimes they’re set up to launder money for campaigns. I understand.

Are you familiar with the Grand Union Corp., or is this another

one that escapes your recollection, the Grand Union Corp., incorporated in Washington, DC in February 1996?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, is me and Peter Chen form the company.

Mr. BARR. Peter Chen. OK, so you remember Mr. Chen?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, Mr. Peter Chen.

Mr. BARR. And he was president?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t remember who the president. I cannot remember who is the name under president.

233

Mr. BARR. I know, it’s very difficult, all these companies and

names floating around out there. You don’t recall describing him as

the biggest guy in the trade center?

Mr. TRIE. No, smart guy, smart, very smart.

Mr. BARR. A smart guy?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. And is that why you might have made him president

of Grand Union Corp., because he was a very smart guy?

Mr. TRIE. Could be.

Mr. BARR. Could be. Who was Mr. Mo Kin Ching?

Mr. TRIE. He’s a lawyer. He work with Mr. Peter Chen. They are

trying to buy building in Hong Kong.

Mr. BARR. Is he connected with a company under the control of

the Xin Hua News Agency in Beijing?

Mr. TRIE. Excuse me?

Mr. BARR. Is Mr. Mo Kin Ching connected with a company that

is under the control of the Xin Hua News Agency in Beijing?

Mr. TRIE. I met him several times. I know he’s a lawyer in

Sanzin. He was the first lawyer practice law in Sanzin City back

in the 1970’s. That I know, his background is a lawyer.

Mr. BARR. So you’re not aware of the fact that he is connected

with a company controlled by the Xin Hua News Agency; you’re not

aware of that?

Mr. TRIE. I couldn’t recall that because this was Peter Chen.

Peter Chen is my brother-in-law. Everybody he introduce me, I talk

to them.

Mr. BARR. OK. Let me move to one other company, the America

Asia Trade Center. This was incorporated in 1996 also, a banner

year for incorporations. Are you familiar with that company?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. And are you familiar with Albert Yeung, Y-u—— Mr. TRIE. Yeah, Albert Yeung. He’s in Hong Kong. Yes, I know

him.

Mr. BARR. You know him for a number of reasons, including that

he lent you $200,000 that you never repaid; is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. Did that company also—that is, America Asia Trade

Center, receive a $100,000 wire transfer from the CP Group?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. And the CP Group is a client of Pauline Kanchanalak;

is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know that.

Mr. BARR. Then you also would have no knowledge, I suppose,

of why the CP Group would send the $100,000 wire transfer to

you?

Mr. TRIE. I know that.

Mr. BARR. OK. Why was that?

Mr. TRIE. That’s when they were—at that time, if I remember

correct, is a shortage of cotton, which I did one time. They wanted

me to provide all the information out on the Mississippi River on

the cotton, where to buy it, where to—you know, just to work a

deal.

Mr. BARR. This $100,000 wire transfer, was it also connected to

a June 18th, 1996 White House coffee, or was that separate?

234

Mr. TRIE. June—can I look at—— Mr. BARR. June 18th, 1996. White House coffee.

Mr. TRIE. No.

Mr. BARR. The America Asia Trade Center did receive a $100,000

wire transfer from the CP Group on May 30, 1996; that is correct?

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. BARR. And we have exhibit 314, which shows that. Is it your

testimony that you had no knowledge that the CP Group was attending a White House coffee the very next month, in June 1996?

[Exhibit 314 follows:]

235

236

Mr. TRIE. We probably talk about the CP Group of two different

parties. One CP Group is in Thailand. Another CP Group is in

Hong Kong. I believe they are—the chairmen are brothers. I know

the person in Hong Kong, we probably—we have two separate

thing.

Mr. BARR. And, finally, also with regard to the America Asia

Trade Center, Mr. Marvin Rosen, you’re aware of him, are you not?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. The finance chair of the DNC. Did you ask him to

serve as general counsel for the America Asia Trade Center?

Mr. TRIE. I believe so.

Mr. BARR. And that was also in 1996?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BARR. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. Trie, I would like you to turn to page 6–7 of your statement,

and I’d like you to read a paragraph after I just read a first paragraph.

You said,

By mid 1995 I had been involved in political fund raising for about 1 year and

knew many officials at the DNC. Around that time I met a businessman who told

me he was working a project with Winston Wang in Silicon Valley. I knew that Mr.

Wang’s family owned a large company in Taiwan called Formosa Plastics. I was always looking for potential business contacts for my international trading company,

and I thought Mr. Wang may be a good person to get to know. Mr. Wang’s associates knew that—associate knew that I was a political fund raiser, and asked me

if I could try to arrange for his boss to meet the President. I agreed to look into

it.

I’d like you to read the next paragraph.

Mr. TRIE. Next?

Mr. SHAYS. Read the next paragraph, please. This is your statement that you didn’t read today.

Mr. TRIE. ‘‘I check with my contact in the DNC and find out

about the Presidential coffee. I’m not sure whom I spoke with, but

I think it was probably either David Mercer or Richard Sullivan.

I find out that for a $50,000 contribution to the DNC, it were possible to attend a coffee meeting with the White House—meeting in

the White House with President Clinton.’’

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, that’s fine. Now, is it your testimony that

you could basically, for $50,000, buy your way into the White

House and meet with the President?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. I’d like you to turn to page 11, and I’ll read a first

part, and then I’ll have you read a paragraph.

‘‘On our way back to the United States from a business trip in

Taiwan, we stopped in LA to visit the temple’’—now the temple—

‘‘visit the temple, where we stayed overnight. That night we were

able to meet Master Hsing Yun, who spoke to us and some other

guests about his religion and their faith. We did not talk about

fund raising or politics with the master. The next day’’—now, why

don’t you read the next paragraph?

Mr. TRIE. ‘‘The next day a couple of the master’s follower asked

Mr. Pan and I if we were interest in helping the temple organize

a fund raiser for President Clinton or Vice President Gore. They

237

told us that Vice President Gore had visited a Buddhist temple in

Taiwan when he was a Senator, and had said that he would try

to visit the Hsi Lai Temple in LA. They ask if I thought it was possible for them to get either the President or the Vice President to

attend event. I told them that if they were able to raise enough

money for the election, it might be possible, and agreed to help

when I got back to D.C.’’ Mr. SHAYS. Just read one paragraph, please.

Mr. TRIE. ‘‘When I got back to Washington, I called John Huang

at the DNC and told him about the temple’s proposed event. I told

him that the temple appear to have a lot of money and it might

be a good source for contribution. Mr. Huang told me he would look

into it and get back to me.’’ Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Trie. And then you point out later

that you were no longer contacted, but basically, you introduced

the idea of a fundraiser at the temple to the DNC; is that not correct? Is that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, to John Huang, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. So this whole event basically started as a campaign

fundraising event; is that not true?

Mr. TRIE. For me. For me?

Mr. SHAYS. The idea of this event was as a campaign fundraising

event, and you helped initiate it with the DNC; isn’t that correct?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I’d like you to look at the list of Trie contributions and solicitations. I think we brought it up earlier. I

would like to introduce into the record. And I want to say first, Mr.

Trie, it’s our understanding that basically from Mr. Wu you got about $1 million, and from Tomy Winata, you got approximately

$400,000 to $600,000. That’s kind of the range we’re at. And that

from Suma Ching Hai, you basically directed $600,000 to $800,000

to the President’s legal expense trust, a lot of money here. But this

is a list of the money that you say on the record you did not know

was illegal, but it’s all laundered money. It’s money that other people contributed originally and you paid them back. I think there

are one or two that we probably have to take off the list. Is there

any—I just want to ask you to start. I mean, some goes to the

DNC, Senator Daschle campaign, the Clinton/Gore campaign in

1996, the Matsui campaign, the Mark Warner campaign, the Fund

for Democratic Leadership, Tom Daschle, the Clinton/Gore, People

for Weiland, the DNC, the DNC, the DSCC—I guess that’s the

Democrat Senate Campaign Committee—Daschle for Senate, which

I guess may be different than Tom Daschle, a lot of those, Senator

Evan Bayh, Carol Moseley-Braun, a number, and then a lot for the

DNC. And we’re talking over $700,000.

Without being certain of every one on this list, does this list account for some of the money that you basically—I use the word

‘‘conspiracy.’’ I don’t think I’ve been able to get you to accept the

fact that it was a conspiracy, but it certainly was laundered money.

This is money that you gave through other people. Explain to me

one more time why all these different organizations had to have

other people give this money to them, and then why you had to reimburse them. I can understand your comments about the $12,500,

but why all the money to the Daschle for Senate?

238

Mr. TRIE. I think there is some mistake in this. More than half

of the money I didn’t reimburse. That’s just a mistake on the

record.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So you’re going to come back and say that half

of this is not money that you basically laundered; is that accurate?

I can think of a few. The Jim Woodson International, the CHY

Corp., probably, the Coopersmith. But any others?

Mr. TRIE. Like Yookers Candy, Pauline—I don’t know how to

pronounce—CHY——

Mr. SHAYS. Well, here’s what I want you to do. I’d like you to

come back to the committee, when you’re taking the deposition—

not deposition, but you’re being interviewed by our legal counsel—

and I’d like you to go through each one of these, and tell us which

ones were your money and which one wasn’t.

Mr. TRIE. I will.

Mr. SHAYS. I have another line of questioning, but I don’t think

I have the time, so I think I should probably——

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Shays. You’ve been very, very helpful today.

Mr. Horn.

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to move, since we don’t have much time, to the group that

is known as the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference

[CPPCC]. Were you a member of that and what is the purpose of

that particular group?

Mr. TRIE. Sir, I didn’t get the group.

Mr. HORN. The Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, OK. No, I am not a member of the group.

Mr. HORN. What is your understanding of the purpose of that

particular group?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, my understanding of those people is people after

they serve as Government official and they retire, they were going

to that position.

Mr. HORN. Are they advisors to the Chinese Government?

Mr. TRIE. I believe so.

Mr. HORN. On what fields?

Economic development, what?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know exactly but I know that they just a title

for people retire from the—like mayor or Governor—they retire and

they go into that.

Mr. HORN. So, it’s what we would call a very prestigious organization?

Mr. TRIE. Yes, yes.

Mr. HORN. These are people that have been Government

officials——

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HORN [continuing]. Military officers?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HORN. And what else would make up that group?

Mr. TRIE. Sometime people like——

Mr. HORN. Well, any Americans in it?

239

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know, might be, you know. American Chinese

can be doing that. But I never ask because I don’t think I would

be one.

Mr. HORN. Now, Mr. Ng became a member of that group.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HORN. Why, how did he get to be a member?

Mr. TRIE. I think if you do—I believe he contributed $20 million

to the police and the city so people give him honor because he from

the province, that’s how they give. It’s just a local. It’s not the, not

the high-level, it’s just a local. That is Hong Kong, the $20 million

Chinese dollar.

Mr. HORN. In Hong Kong dollars or United States dollars?

Mr. TRIE. No, no, Chinese dollar. Equal probably $2 or $2 million

U.S. dollars.

Mr. HORN. My notes here say from other sources that Mr. Ng

gave $2.4 million to a Chinese city Government; does that ring a

bell with you?

Mr. TRIE. You mean the United States?

Mr. HORN. Well, U.S. dollars, yes.

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. That’s what I heard from him say he, you know,

he been $2-point million to the Chinese Government. That’s why he

be honored to be the party you just mentioned.

Mr. HORN. Now, do you know the particular city Government to

whom he gave the money?

Mr. TRIE. I think it is Guang Jeu city because he have lots of

project in the Guang Jeu city.

Mr. HORN. What is the relationship of this conference to the

Communist Government that runs China? What’s the relationship?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, this is just a local, you know, I, as far as I know

in the Central Government they also have a—one of the new group

and there is another National Assembly. So, every city have the

same similar, this same group. But, you know, sometime it just a

whole bunch of people they been working there. It just an honorable title.

Mr. HORN. Let me move on here to another relationship. What

do you know about the relationship between Mr. Ng and Winata?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, Mr. Ng, ooh, I’m sorry. That is a different thing.

Mr. HORN. Go ahead.

Mr. TRIE. He no know, Tomy Winata was introduced by me.

When we went to the 1994, when the APAC, Mr. Wu never attend

any kind, this kind of meetings or he came with me to Jakarta. So,

we met Tomy Winata in that time. And I am not saying that I introduced him but we together so he know him. But hardly they

ever do any business.

Mr. HORN. Does the Consolidated Trust Co. mean anything to

you? Consolidated Trust Co.?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, Consolidated, yes. That’s his name is William Bai.

And he’s, he invited me to—after I introduce him to Mr. Wu he become Mr. Wu’s financial consultant.

Mr. HORN. Well, as I understand it, what kind of business does

Consolidated Trust do?

Mr. TRIE. Oh, Consolidated they do stock broker.

240

Mr. HORN. If we look at exhibit No. 249, there is a February

23rd, 1995, letter to Consolidated Trust from the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission and in February 1995 were you

made a director of Consolidated Trust?

[Exhibit 249 follows:]

241

242

Mr. TRIE. Correct.

Mr. HORN. So, that is correct. And according to Mr. Pei it was

so the company could establish business in mainland China, but he

and Mr. Ng thought that Mr. Trie had more connections there than

they did. So, they didn’t do much business apparently in China or

do you know differently?

Mr. TRIE. Mr. Wu mainly do business in China. William Pei don’t

do business in China. He doing business in Hong Kong because of

stock market in Hong Kong where he know more.

Mr. HORN. Now, moving to the United States, you and Mr. Ng

participated in the bidding of the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, AR.

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HORN. And what was Maria Xiao’s participation in that

project?

Mr. TRIE. Maria Han.

Mr. HORN. Yeah, Maria Han.

Mr. TRIE. Oh, yeah. Because she introduced me to Mr. Wu so I

was invite her to join Mr. Wu. She have a restaurant in—she do

a trading business also she have a restaurant in the Capital Hotel

in Beijing. So, she also invite the president of the Beijing Hotel,

president to come. I think he didn’t make it. He tried to come here

to look at the potential this Camelot Hotel can be renovate and the

purchase and what to do. So, we all come in at the same time.

Mr. HORN. Do you know if Maria Han Xiao has any relationship

with the Chinese Government?

Mr. TRIE. When I met her it was through the Chan city, Mr.

Soucheng and he introduced me to her. She have the call from

overseas trading company and also she have a restaurant in Beijing. But I—she told me she was in the military and that she retired from the military but she is—the time I met her she probably

was about 35 years old but she, I think she make a pretty good

business.

Mr. HORN. So, was she active ever in China in terms of projects

there?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. He, too, sell like a corn, commodity sell.

Mr. HORN. During Ng’s visit, did you meet in the Excelsior Hotel,

Excelsior Hotel with Ng, Lorin Fleming and Dwight Linkous?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HORN. And what was that all about?

Were they the investors?

Mr. TRIE. No. Mr. Fleming is my old friend. He’s own an electronic company, electrician. Also, he was trying to help us do—because the Camelot Hotel is have to totally renovate. He’s trying to

do the electrical part. Excuse me. Dwight Linkous, he’s one to help

us negotiate with the city because he used to be a city board director. He want ask to, he want to help us get the best.

Mr. HORN. And now, Linkous has said that Ng handed you cash,

maybe about $20,000 at the meeting in March 1994; is that true?

Mr. TRIE. That’s a real possible.

Mr. HORN. What did you do with the money?

Have a good dinner?

Mr. TRIE. Maybe he just try to pay the expense, you know, he

and a whole bunch of group people coming in with me. I don’t

know.

243

Mr. HORN. Didn’t go into a politician’s pocket? I mean what happened to the $20,000? Did—— Mr. TRIE. No, no. At that time I never do any contributions in

that time. Probably just spend it or maybe give it to the Fleming

or something. I couldn’t remember. But that is only what he say

but I couldn’t recall that. But that’s possible.

Mr. HORN. But you agree that it was about $20,000 that you

were given by Ng?

Mr. TRIE. I just don’t remember. I don’t remember.

Mr. HORN. How long did Ng stay in the United States during

that visit? He came over—— Mr. TRIE. Approximately a week or so.

Mr. HORN [continuing]. In March. How long did he stay in 1994?

Mr. TRIE. I think a week or so because we just look over the

Camelot and get all the paperwork and he provide what he needed

provide. I don’t think he was too long.

Mr. HORN. He travelled where besides Little Rock?

Mr. TRIE. Hawaii.

Mr. HORN. Hawaii?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. HORN. So, he got out of Arkansas and headed for Hawaii to

get back home; is that it?

Mr. TRIE. To go to Beijing, yes.

Mr. HORN. Well, if you look at exhibit No. 250, it’s a currency

transaction report for Mr. Ng. And I guess I would ask the question, were you aware that Ng brought $80,000 in cash with him to

the United States when he came over here on March 23rd, 1994?

Now, we know you got $20,000 of it, but there is $60,000 left

somewhere else. Is that in some politician’s pocket?

[Exhibit 250 follows:]

244

245

Mr. TRIE. At that time we don’t know nobody. That’s early—— Mr. HORN. You are saying none of that money went into Democratic politics; none of it?

Mr. TRIE. No, they didn’t, no.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Horn, are you pretty close to finished or—— Mr. HORN. Well, I will just do one last thing and that’s were individuals involved in the Camelot deal aware that Mr. Ng was the

source of the Daihatsu Group’s money?

Mr. TRIE. I’m sorry, sir?

Mr. HORN. In other words, were your investors in the

Camelot—— Mr. TRIE. No, no, no. I just will be the—in that time I didn’t have

a joint venture.

[Witness confers with counsel.]

Mr. TRIE. Oh, yes, Mr. Wu is the one, the big one.

Mr. HORN. Was the source?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah, people knows that. But only because we

don’t—— Mr. HORN. Had they given you any other money?

Mr. TRIE. Sir?

Mr. HORN. Have they given you any other money?

Mr. TRIE. Sir?

Mr. HORN. Had Diahatsu given you any other money?

Mr. TRIE. That—— Mr. HORN. But you admit they were the source of the money and

that was—— Mr. TRIE. First, they haven’t an American company. Mr. Wu, in

that time we haven’t formed any company here. Until try to purchase the Camelot Hotel. That is for the reason he come to the

United States.

Mr. HORN. OK. Well, I thank you and I know we are over the

time that we said we would adjourn.

Mr. BURTON. Well, we have just a couple of more things we want

to clean up but we really appreciate your participation, Mr. Horn.

Thank you very much and what you didn’t get to our staff will go

through with the lawyers and with Mr. Trie.

I’m going to take just a couple of minutes. I’m going to yield real

quickly to Mr. Shays who had just a couple of things he wanted

to followup on and then I will close.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. Trie, you’re going to get on your way real soon and I thank

you very much. You made it fairly clear in your statement that

Governor Clinton came into your restaurant but after he lost the

election he still kept coming and you got to know him as a friend.

And you got to know the then-defeated Governor and then you over

time as friends wanted to help him in his gubernatorial race and

ultimately Presidential.

I would like to know how long you have known Mrs. Clinton,

about the same amount of time?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. Sometimes she come with then-Governor Clinton.

Mr. SHAYS. Would she come often with the Governor or—— Mr. TRIE. No. She wasn’t often.

Mr. SHAYS. Would she come once a month to your restaurant?

246

Mr. TRIE. No, no, no.

Mr. SHAYS. You said you held about four or five fundraisers for

Bill Clinton in your restaurant; did Mrs. Clinton attend those fundraisers?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t think so.

Mr. SHAYS. You also said that you worked on Mr. Clinton’s campaign. Was Mrs. Clinton aware that you were helping her husband

in the campaign?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know because in that time I don’t even know— I just have some people asking me to put a donation of food. And

I do it in my restaurant.

Mr. SHAYS. In the 1994 Presidential Gala, the 1994 one, you

have a picture with the Clintons which isn’t unusual. That is the

one you contributed $100,000.

Mr. TRIE. Oh, OK.

Mr. SHAYS. You and your wife and then the $600,000—the

$60,000 in soft money. Did you speak to Mrs. Clinton at that

event? Did you have a chance to visit with her at all in 1994?

Mr. TRIE. Yeah. We, in the—I receiving line I take a picture with

her. She say something—— Mr. SHAYS. Did she recognize you as, you know—— Mr. TRIE. I think the President recognized me every time that he

saw me, he recognize me.

Mr. SHAYS. In exhibit No. 60 there is a list of attendees at the

February 16th, 1995, dinner at the White House for the DNC Managing Trustees. On the third page of the exhibit you are listed as

attending the event. Did you attend that event?

This is the 1995 DNC Managing Trustees.

[Exhibit 60 follows:]

247

248

249

250

Ms. HASLER. Was that exhibit No. 6, Mr. Shays?

Mr. SHAYS. That is exhibit No. 60. I apologize.

I could actually break through that and just do you remember

that event, Mr. Trie?

Mr. TRIE. Can I look at?

Mr. SHAYS. Did you visit with the First Lady at that event?

Mr. TRIE. I haven’t look at this one because—— Mr. SHAYS. OK. Well, why don’t we refresh your memory and

take exhibit No. 62 which indicates that you were seated at her

table.

[Exhibit 62 follows:]

251

252

[Witness consulting with counsel.]

Mr. SHAYS. Surely you would remember if you sat with the First

Lady of the United States.

Mr. TRIE. I know her. But I don’t——

Mr. SHAYS. But you don’t, you don’t remember sitting at the

table with her?

I mean unless our records are wrong.

[Witness consulting with counsel.]

Mr. TRIE. I don’t remember this event.

Mr. SHAYS. You don’t remember sitting at a table with Mrs. Clinton?

Mr. TRIE. I just don’t remember.

Mr. SHAYS. On May 19th, you arranged for a White House tour

for a large group of people, including your wife, Wang Mei Trie.

During this tour did the First Lady see your wife?

Mr. TRIE. Yes. That is what my wife tell me. I wasn’t there.

Mr. SHAYS. But as our records state she, Mrs. Clinton saw her

and went over to her and obviously she knew her. And she then

did what?

Mr. TRIE. I remember—I am sorry—I remember my wife told me

she brought a friend to the White House and the First Lady met,

saw her and just give her a hug and take her to the third floor to

show the residential floor.

Mr. SHAYS. I am going to close here, but that is an unusual opportunity to be invited into the personal living quarters of the

President and the First Lady. So, obviously, your wife knew her

fairly well. Did your wife know her better than you knew her?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know that.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. TRIE. Because we, we attend some like the, what you call

that one?

[Witness confers with counsel.]

Mr. TRIE. The 1994 and me and my wife sit in the table, we are

the only Chinese I think they remember, remember her, my wife.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. OK. Did you speak to the First Lady in Little

Rock about going to the Beijing Women’s Conference with her in

September 1995?

Mr. TRIE. I believe so.

Mr. SHAYS. And do you remember what she said to you?

Mr. TRIE. Let’s see, I tried to bring this one up. I try to remember that I used to say, I say I know you are going to China. I wish

I could see you in China. She say, yes, you will be more welcome,

you can—something like, you can talk to my staff.

Mr. SHAYS. So, you clearly had a relationship with the First Lady

if she was willing to suggest that you come to the—that, you know,

that you contact someone in the White House about going to Beijing. That is a heck of an opportunity for any American citizen. So,

I envy that you would have had a relationship with the First Lady

or President that would give you that opportunity.

Did you ask the invitation be extended to anyone else?

You wanted an invitation to go to Beijing; did you ask if anyone

else could come as well?

Mr. TRIE. No. I don’t recall that. Not to talk to her.

253

Mr. SHAYS. No. But did you, did you ask her if others could come

as well? Or did you ask the White House if you could get an invitation for anyone else to be in Beijing with the First Lady?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall that.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. I’m almost coming to a close. Around Christmas

time in 1995, did you send a pearl necklace to the First Lady?

Mr. TRIE. I believe so, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Why did you do that?

Mr. TRIE. I love them.

Mr. SHAYS. You love them?

Yes. And I appreciate that. They have done a lot for you and you

respected them a lot and you cared about them. What was the

necklace worth?

Mr. TRIE. Somewhere from $1,500 to $2,000, I think.

Mr. SHAYS. And do you know if the First Lady received that

necklace?

Mr. TRIE. No, I don’t know if she receive or not. Oh, yeah, I think

she received the one—— Mr. SHAYS. Did she—— Mr. TRIE. OK, go ahead.

Mr. SHAYS. No. I will wait.

Mr. TRIE. OK. I think that when they were in the receiving line

she say, thank you for the Christmas gift. So, I think I remember

a staff of her asking me how much is that worth? I say somewhere

around—the way I tell maybe is around $2,000.

Mr. SHAYS. So, it’s fair to say that the First Lady knew you?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. So, if she denied knowing you or having a difficult

time remembering you, would that surprise you?

Mr. TRIE. I don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, you gave her a $2,000—$1,500 to $2,000 gift,

she thanked you for the gift, she knew your wife and invited your

wife to her personal headquarters.

Mr. TRIE. I didn’t know when she say she didn’t know me. I

didn’t know the——

Mr. SHAYS. Yeah. But that would be—— Mr. TRIE [continuing]. I didn’t know the fact.

Mr. SHAYS [continuing]. That would be a surprise to you if she

would say that she doesn’t know who you are or doesn’t recall you

or doesn’t—— Mr. TRIE. The only thing I remember is she know my name is

Charlie.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Trie, I appreciate

your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you.

Let me end up by saying this has been a very frustrating day for

me. You know, you have what a lot of others who have testified before us have had and that’s what I call selective memory loss. They

remember things they want to and things they don’t want to, they

don’t remember. Let me ask you one real quick question. In May

1994, you went to a DNC gala and you took a bunch of guests with

you. You had one table. You gave $100,000 to the DNC and you

didn’t have a very good table.

254

Did you ask Terry McAuliffe to get you a better table?

Mr. TRIE. I did.

Mr. BURTON. How much money did you give him to get you a

better table?

Mr. TRIE. I think $500, $600, just for appreciate. He moved the

table.

Mr. BURTON. You gave him $500 or $600 because you appreciated him getting you a better table?

Mr. TRIE. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. He initially said that he—he said, everybody wanted to get a better table, didn’t he, initially?

He first said that everybody wants a better table; didn’t he?

Mr. TRIE. I guess so but I don’t know. I don’t really know. If I

can see the picture of the table, because there’s a picture in there,

I would know how far he moved. I couldn’t remember.

Mr. BURTON. At first he said, everybody wants a better table.

[Witness confers with counsel.]

Mr. TRIE. Oh, yeah. I think so, yes. I believe so.

Mr. BURTON. And, so, then you gave him a gift of $500 or $600

and you got a better table.

Mr. TRIE. I don’t recall. It was after moved the table or before

moved the table.

Mr. BURTON. Well, let me just conclude by saying that one of the

big concerns that we have had has been the connection between the

people that you got conduit contributions from and the DNC and

whether or not those people were connected to the leadership or

the Communist Party in China. Ng Lap Seng, who is Mr. Wu, gave

$15,000 to the DNC on October 10th, 1994; he signed the check in

Chinese and he was a member of one of the organizations in China.

The DNC records show that they even knew that the money came

from Mr. Wu, even though he was not a U.S. citizen. He was a

member of the Communist Chinese—of a Communist Chinese organization and he had contacts with a friend of his who he brought

to Washington and, I believe to the White House, Wang Jun, who

was the head of CITIC. This tied right in with the Chinese Communist leadership in Beijing and may have been connected to Chinese intelligence.

Colonel Lin Rou Qing, you gave her or asked her to give $10,000

and exhibit No. 59 indicates that you wrote a letter asking that,

saying that he was sending $10,000 and that Colonel Lin had

given—Colonel Lin was an official in the People’s Liberation Army

and the $10,000 did come, as I understand it.

Tomy Winata funneled at least $50,000 into the DNC through

three different contributors. Winata is an associate of Lu ChaoYing, who is a colonel—and is a colonel in the PLA, who funneled

$300,000 to Johnny Chung; is that correct? Winata has other contacts with the Chinese Government and was also known by the

Riady family.

These are three examples where foreign individuals with close

ties to the Chinese military or the Chinese intelligence organization made substantial contributions to the DNC. It seems very possible to me that, especially with some of them signing the checks

in Chinese, that the DNC knew what was going on. These are the

255

same people, DNC, who say they didn’t know what was happening

at the Hsi Lai Temple.

Vice President Al Gore said neither he nor his advisors knew

that that was a fundraiser and, yet, when Mr. Huang sat at the

very place where you are sitting, John Huang said that David

Strauss, Mr. Strauss, who used to be the head of the DNC, and

Don Fowler, both knew that that was a fundraiser as well as all

of the people that were associated or who were aides to the Vice

President knew that it was a fundraiser.

And, so, it’s very difficult for me and many members of the committee to believe that the Vice President didn’t know it was a fundraiser when it seems that everybody else who was there did know

it was a fundraiser.

As I said earlier, I’ve been very frustrated today because a lot of

the things we thought you were going to tell us today have been

like extracting a wisdom tooth from a person who has got it

wrapped around their jawbone.

But hopefully, because of the agreement we have reached with

your legal counsel our staff, working with you and your legal counsel, will be able to get answers to all the rest of the questions that

we are very concerned about, and that we will be reviewing those

after you complete that 1 or 2-day meeting with our legal staff and

your legal counsel.

With that, I think we’ve covered just about everything we can

cover today. We appreciate your being here and we stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 6:19 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The transcribed interview of Mr. Trie follows:]

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

[The FBI 302 of Mr. Trie, referenced throughout the hearing, follows:]

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

Æ