Chinagate witness ‘speechless’ at deposition

John Huang, the ex-Democratic National Committee fund-raiser who was
first deposed in October of 1996 for his knowledge about the Chinagate
scandal, refused to answer whether he was truthful in another hearing
yesterday.

Upon first being questioned about his truthfulness by Larry Klayman,
chairman of the legal watchdog Judicial Watch,
Huang refused to respond. However, he later
pleaded the Fifth Amendment to all subsequent questions.

“On the advice of counsel,” Huang began, “I exercise my right under
the Constitution of the United States to refuse to answer on the grounds
that my answer may tend to incriminate me, and to the extent the
question is related to any statement I have made previously that is
found to have been incriminating, answering the question places me in
danger of further incrimination.”

Seeing Huang’s statement as an attempt to avoid all questions,
Klayman appealed to District Court Judge John Facciola that Huang had
previously waived his Fifth Amendment privilege to self-incrimination by
testifying at his first deposition. However, Ty Cobb, counsel to Huang,
argued that a previous court case — United States v. Perkins — gave
his client the right to seek Fifth Amendment privileges.

Cobb stated that Huang intended not to answer any substantive
questions and “assert his constitutional privilege which applies to
Asian-Americans as well as all Americans.” Klayman, taking issue with
Cobb’s remark, asked the court what Cobb’s remark had to do with the
current deposition. Facciola, wondering the same question himself, told
Cobb that his statement was not necessary. Cobb immediately apologized.

After further debate, Facciola allowed Klayman to continue his
questioning, but when Huang was asked whether or not he received a copy
of the subpoena and notice of the deposition requiring his attendance at
the hearing, Huang again gave Klayman the same answer as before. When
Klayman asked Huang if he had produced any documents in response to the
subpoena, Huang again answered in similar manner, claiming he had Fifth
Amendment privileges.

After it was apparent that Huang would not answer any of the
questions, Klayman responded by saying, “It’s quite clear to me that
they intend to invoke a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege. I could ask
him what color tie he’s wearing today, and he would take the privilege.”

Facciola agreed that all questions would be responded to with a Fifth
Amendment plea. The judge ordered, therefore, to move the date of the
deposition to April 15, tomorrow, giving himself as well as Klayman and
Huang’s attorneys more time to investigate the legalities of Huang’s
Fifth Amendment privileges.

At the end of the day’s session, Huang and his attorneys attempted to
stop the public release of the transcript and videotape of the
deposition by claiming that it would amount to “McCarthyism.” Facciola
didn’t buy the argument, however, and issued an order releasing the
deposition transcripts and videotape to the public.

Commenting on the hearing, Klayman said, “Mr. Huang’s claims of
privilege — which are frivolous — is part of the continuing course of
conduct to trifle with the court.”

This continuous “trifling” was first addressed by District Court
Judge Royce C. Lamberth who said last Friday the court remembered
Huang’s “shenanigans” during his first deposition in October of 1996.

“A repeat performance will not be tolerated,” Lamberth said.