National Legal and Policy Center
Organized Labor Accountability Project
www.nlpc.org
 The Failure of the LIUNA “Internal Reform Effort”
2. LACK OF INDEPENDENCE
2.3 Luskin’s Ties, via Middleton, to the Clinton Campaign Finance Scandal
In light of the troubled nexus between Arthur A. Coia and Bill Clinton as detailed by Eugene Methvin, John Mulligan and Byron York (cited above), Robert D. Luskin’s representation of Mark E. Middleton, at reduced rates, furthers the argument that Luskin and the ”internal reform effort “ is not independent.

Middleton is a close friend of Bill Clinton.  Middleton came to Washington from Arkansas, worked in former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty’s office as an aide to Clinton, and has been entangled in the Clinton fundraising scandals with the likes of John Huang, the Riady family and others.  Middleton met with representatives of North China Power Group and Lippo Group in the White House on April 22, 1994. Allegedly, John Huang had a role in arranging the meeting as part of a larger campaign fundraising effort.  After leaving the White House, he traveled with Charlie Trie to Taiwan in an effort to allegedly raise campaign funds, and he reportedly passed out business cards stating he was a special assistant to the President in order to gain influence. He invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid Congressional investigators last year. See also: Eliza Newlin Carney and Peter H. Stone, “Blind Ambition,” National Journal Jun. 7, 1997.

In addition to Middleton, Luskin and his Washington criminal defense law firm, Comey, Boyd and Luskin, also represents/represented lesser Clinton scandal figures: 1) former DOJ official Philip B. Heymann when he testified before Congress on Whitewater; 2) Joel I. Klein -- now in DOJ's antitrust division but then a deputy White House counsel -- when he was queried about Whitewater documents. 3) an unnamed client in the independent counsel probe of former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy; and 4) Linda Medlar, the former mistress of former housing secretary Henry Cisneros. See: Harvey Berkman, “Scandals Give Him the Business,” National Law Journal Feb. 17, 1997.

There would be no problem with Luskin representing Middleton and these other Clinton friends who are involved in Clinton scandals, if Luskin was not already investigating another Clinton friends for ties to organized crime, namely Coia. It is as if Mr. Luskin was charged with overseeing a corrupt organization’s “reform effort” and at the same time serving as defense counsel to political allies of that corrupt organization.  Between Clinton, Coia and Luskin, the opportunities for improper influence and tampering with the “internal reform effort” are endless.  Here is just one possibility: the Clinton Administration could tell Luskin go easy on Coia or else undesirable and harmful information on Luskin’s client, Middleton, will be released.

Even more troubling is the fact that Luskin has admitted, in the Washington Post, to charging Middleton a reduced rate on his legal expenses. Could LIUNA and Coia’s lavish legal fees paid to Luskin, about $91,000 a month (See section 2.6), be paying for more than the “internal reform effort?”  Could Coia returning a favor to his “poor” friend Clinton by subsidizing Middleton’s legal bills in order to keep Middleton quiet?  There is no smoking gun yet, but the fact that such questions could be posed about Luskin is troubling enough for DOJ to doubt his independence in overseeing Coia and the “internal reform effort.”
 

Return to the index of this report.

Organized Labor Accountability Project