Chen Shui-bian, How Do You Plead?

Chen Shui-bian, How Do You Plead?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 19, 2009

Today, the Taipei District Court will hear the Chen Shui-bian corruption case. First, it will hold a three day long preparatory session. This is the first time a former president has faced justice for corruption-related crimes. Needless to say, it is an event of major significance, and represents an evolutionary step in our constitutional order.

The judges have investigated the people involved. As usual, they will ask the accused Chen Shui-bian: How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty?

If Chen Shui-bian pleads guilty to the prosecutor, he may begin a process of plea bargaining. If he does not plead guilty, the trial will begin, and Chen Shui-bian must offer a defense.

The judge will ask the defendant, "How do you plead? Guilty, or not guilty?" Although it is a mere formality, for the Chen Shui-bian corruption case it of enormous significance. Because whether Chen Shui-bian pleads guilty or not bears on the issue of justice, particularly political justice. If Chen Shui-bian pleads not guilty, even a harsh sentence will not restore political justice.

Judging by Chen Shui-bian's current attitude, he will not plead guilty. But judging by developments so far, he will have a hard time being found not guilty. That is why a few days ago his lawyers said he may wear a surgical mask marked with an "X" over his face as a silent protest, rather than put up a defense.

Chen Shui-bian's main argument in his defense is that the money in his secret accounts were "campaign contributions," and that their purpose was a "nation-building fund." His first priority is to help Chen Chih-chung escape prosecution. His second priority is to help himself avoid responsibility. As a last resort he will transfer all blame onto Wu Shu-chen. The Chen family is counting on the fact that no one has the political courage to demand that Wu Shu-chen serve time in prison.

None of the funds in the Chen family's four corruption scandals can be passed off as "campaign contributions." In the State Affairs Fund scandal, the Chen family used phony receipts to dip into the state treasury. What does this have to do with "campaign contributions?" In the Longtan Land Purchase scandal, Ming-Jer Tsai and Leslie Koo confessed to paying the Chen family "commissions," not campaign contributions. In the Nankang Exhibition Hall scandal, Minister of the Interior Yu Cheng-hsien leaked a list of the review board members. Was the payment for this inside information a "campaign contribution?" In the Chen family's money-laundering case, numerous instances of dirty money flowing into the Chen family's secret coffers have already been identified as "not campaign contributions." Chen Shui-bian wants to cite "campaign contributions" as a means of pleading not guilty in all four cases. But is anyone going to believe him?

Now let's look at the issue of responsibility. In the State Affairs Fund scandal, Ma Yung-cheng, Lin Teh-hsiung, and Chen Cheng-hui have already confessed they carried out orders handed down by President Chen Shui-bian. Otherwise, who would have dared to give the State Affairs Fund balance sheet to Wu Shu-chen to read? Who would have dared to move State Affairs Funds into the Yushan official residence? Chen Shui-bian wants us to believe his subordinates committed these crimes, and are now passing the buck over to him. How does he think the public will react when it hears such arguments in court? In the Longtan Land Purchase scandal Chen Shui-bian argues that the president was not authorized to decide whether to purchase the land. The powers and responsibilities belong to the Executive Yuan. Does that mean that the "commission" Wu Shu-chen pocketed ought to be turned over to Yu Shyi-kun? Does that mean Yu should be the one to go to prison? In the Nankang Exhibition Hall scandal, Chen Shui-bian suggests that the bidding on the exhibition hall was not part of the president's authority, therefore Wu Shu-chen could not have charged a "commission" on that basis. Chen suggests that Yu Cheng-hsien did everything on his own initiative. As for the Chen family money-laundering case, Chen Shui-bian claims he learned about the matter from Ye Sheng-mao in December 2006. How can he possibly shift all blame onto Wu Shu-chen?

In sum, for Chen Shui-bian to offer a not guilty plea is already impossible. If Chen knows it is impossible but attempts to bluff his way through anyway, Chen Shui-bian and Chen Cheng-hui will be at each others' throats throughout the trial. Chen will have to shift all responsibility onto Wu Shu-chen, the crippled mother of his children. Chen will have to shift all responsibility for the Longtan Land Purchase scandal onto Yu Shyi-kun. In the Nankang Exhibition Hall scandal, Wu Shu-chen has framed Yu Cheng-hsien, saying he was a Yes Man who twisted the meaning of her words. Wu Shu-chen and her own brother Wu Ching-mao have become mortal enemies. Former friends Wu Shu-chen and Tsai Ming-Jer have also turned on each other. Such ugly and pathetic scenes will play out in court. No wonder Chen Shui-bian is thinking about wearing a mask. Does he really think he has room to equivocate? Does he really want to preside over this ugly farce, in open court?

Chen Shui-bian has persisted in hiding behind the smokescreen of alleged "campaign contributions." But when these four cases are argued in open court, Chen Shui-bian will have a hard time proving the kickbacks Wu Shu-chen extorted in the State Affairs Fund scandal were "campaign contributions." He will have a hard time proving the kickbacks the Chen family received during the Longtan Site Preparation scandal and the Nankang Exhibition Hall scandal were "campaign contributions." Given the facts of the case, does Chen Shui-bian really intend to enter a plea of not guilty?

Moreover, these four cases are merely appetizers. The entrees are yet to come. The Second Financial Reform scandal, the Diplomacy scandal and other main dishes will soon be served up. Are the funds involved in those scandals also "campaign contributions?" Are they also part of a "nation-building fund?" The more Chen Shui-bian pleads not guilty, the more he exposes his ugly greed.

Chen Shui-bian may as well take off his mask and plead guilty. Otherwise, the public will be treated to the ugly and pathetic spectacle of former masters and dogs tearing into each other in open court.

法官問：陳水扁你認罪嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.01.19 02:01 am

台北地方法院今起審理扁案，首先將連開三天的準備庭。這是首次發生卸任總統因任期內的貪汙罪行而面對司法審判，當然是民主憲政深具升級晉階意義的重大事件。

法官在作完人別查證後，照例將訊問被告陳水扁：你認不認罪？

如果陳水扁承認檢察官所控之罪，即可進行「認罪協商」之類的程序；若不認罪，即進入審判程序，陳水扁就須作無罪之抗辯。

法官問被告「認不認罪」，雖然只是例行的過場，但在扁案卻具重大意義。因為，陳水扁認罪與否，不僅有涉司法正義，尤其攸關政治公道。陳水扁若不認罪，即使最後被判重罪，卻畢竟不能還國人以政治面的公義與公道。

顯然，就陳水扁目前的態度來看，他必不認罪；但就案情的發展來看，他卻已經很難抗辯為無罪。因此，日前律師透露，陳水扁可能戴著畫╳的口罩出庭，抗議而不抗辯。

陳水扁抗辯的大架構是：錢的來源皆是「政治獻金」，錢的去路則是留為「建國基金」。至於行為責任部分，首先要為陳致中脫罪，再排除陳水扁的責任，萬不得已則把一切責任推給吳淑珍。扁家料定，反正你們不敢叫吳淑珍坐牢服刑吧？

但是，扁家四弊案，一字排開，卻沒有一案能夠解釋為「政治獻金」。國務費案，是用假發票從國庫詐取所得，豈是政治獻金？龍潭購地案，則蔡銘哲與辜成允皆已供認是「佣金」，亦非政治獻金；南港展館案，則又豈有政治獻金竟以內政部長余政憲洩漏評議委員名單的方式取得？至於洗錢案，已經查出多筆「非政治獻金」的贓款滾入「汙水庫」中。然則，陳水扁若欲以「政治獻金」抗辯四案無罪，誰其能信？

再談行為責任。國務費案，馬永成、林德訓及陳鎮慧皆已供認由陳水扁總統指使；倘非如此，誰敢將國務費收支表呈吳淑珍閱？又誰敢將大筆國務費現金搬入玉山官邸？陳水扁竟欲辯稱，這是「底下的人」要他擔罪，此話在法庭上眾目睽睽之下如何啟齒？龍潭購地案，陳水扁則辯稱，決定購地個案非總統之職務所轄，而係行政院的權責；這難道是說，由吳淑珍收「佣金」，卻讓游錫?去坐牢？南港展館案，陳水扁更儼然主張，由於展館開標非總統之職權，因而吳淑珍亦非因總統的權勢而收取「佣金」，彷彿一切皆因余政憲主動逢迎所致。至於洗錢案，已證實陳水扁「至少」在二○○六年十二月已從葉盛茂處得知，又豈能一切皆推給吳淑珍？

綜上所論，陳水扁若欲作無罪抗辯，委實已無可能。如果明知其不可為而勉強為之，則在庭訊過程中，勢將可見到陳水扁與陳鎮慧等舊屬互咬，陳致中將一切罪行推給殘障母親吳淑珍，陳水扁又把龍潭購地案的主導責任賴給游錫?，吳淑珍則就南港案誣陷余政憲曲意逢迎；更將可見到吳淑珍、吳景茂手足反目，及吳淑珍、蔡銘哲等膩友翻臉等種種醜惡又悲慘的場景。難怪陳水扁可能戴上口罩出庭，他難道還有置辯餘地？他難道想要在公開當庭辯論中親自領銜主演這一齣悲醜鬧劇？

案情發展至今，陳水扁一直在「政治獻金」上打煙幕戰；現在，四案在審判庭上公開辯論，陳水扁恐怕不易證明吳淑珍從國務費中詐取的是「政治獻金」，同樣亦不易證明扁家自龍潭案及南港案中所取得的「佣金」是「政治獻金」。就案論案，就法論法，陳水扁認不認罪？

何況，今日四案尚只是扁案大宴的開胃菜而已，未來二次金改、外交弊案等大菜即將上桌，難道那些也皆是「政治獻金」與「建國基金」？陳水扁愈作無罪抗辯，恐怕愈將醜態畢露。

陳水扁何不脫下口罩，誠實向法官認罪，否則，國人就可看到一齣骨肉主僕相互撕咬撲噬的悲醜大戲了！