ERNEST GREEN, DONOR
11:00 PM, Mar 30, 1997 • By BYRON YORK
There is reason to believe that it was Green's letter that made the difference. In response to questions from congressional investigators, the State Department said that Trie's letter "had no bearing on the issuance of Mr. Wang's visa"; it declined to say the same of Green's letter. Says a congressional investigator following the case, "The State Department response eliminates Charlie Trie as the person who brought Wang Jun into the country. They say the letter Trie wrote had nothing to do with [the visa], but they didn't knock down Ernie Green."
Sources close to Green don't deny that Green played a role in bringing Wang to the United States. But the question remains, Who got Wang into the White House?
Congressional investigators believe the first Post story. "Wang Jun, perhaps not familiar with Western media, lets fly with a far-ranging interview," says a congressional investigator. In the interview, Wang stated clearly that Green played a part in arranging the White House-coffee invitation. Then, the investigator speculates, Chinese officials realized that the interview might be damaging to Lehman Brothers and Green, who could be important to business ventures. "There's panic," the investigator continues, "and then the catch-up article in the Post to pin it on Charlie Trie."
But Green's lawyer denies that Green played a role in bringing Wang to the White House coffee (which Green did not attend). At this point, it seems impossible to reconcile Wang's initial account -- the one believed by congressional investigators -- and Green's position. The key piece of evidence could be the $ 50,000 contribution. Knowing its origin may be crucial to understanding Green's role in the Wang Jun affair.
Some congressional investigators strongly believe that the donation was Chinese money laundered through Green. But as of now they have no hard evidence to support that belief. All they have is (1) the fact that Green helped Wang come to this country; (2) the fact that Wang went to the White House to visit Green's friend Bill Clinton; and (3) the fact that the contribution coincided with the visit.
But those bits of evidence don't necessarily add up to money laundering. A source close to Green calls it "connecting dots without information." This, according to the source, is Green's account of what happened:
In November 1995, at a Washington, D.C., fund-raiser, Green made a commitment to make a large contribution to the party. He planned to actually deliver the money in early 1996, when he got his end-of-year bonus from Lehman Brothers. He received the bonus -- which was well into six figures -- on January 31. He deposited the Lehman Brothers check in the bank, and it cleared on February 6. That morning, as planned, Green's wife Phyllis, using the couple's joint account, wrote the $ 50,000 check to the DNC. Green hand- delivered the check to a party official with whom he had scheduled a breakfast. The source says Green did not know that Wang planned to attend the coffee, which was to be held at 4:45 in the afternoon. The source says that Green and Wang held a business meeting in Lehman Brothers offices earlier in the day and that it was then that Green learned Wang would be going to the White House.
Neither Green nor his wife had ever made such a large contribution (his status as a top 10 party supporter came from his fund-raising efforts, not his contributions). But the source says Green wanted to play an even larger role in the Democratic party than he had in previous years, and that he believed the contribution would be part of that role.
On the main issue, the source is direct: "It was [the Greens'] money. Simple. There was no reimbursement. It was something they wanted to do" -- besides which, the source says, Green has documents to support his version of events.
Even if Green's account checks out, there is plenty of room for skepticism. Just what was Green's relationship with Charlie Trie? Did Green know of any other contacts between Wang Jun and the White House? Did Green really think he had to become a big contributor to get ahead in the DNC, given his status in the party?
The answers could give us a better understanding of the Wang Jun episode. This could be a case of a legitimate contribution. Or -- like so many other contributions to the Democratic party -- it may not.
Byron York is an investigative writer for the American Spectator.