home

Libby, the Marc Rich Pardon and Congressional Hearings

There is a lot of media chatter about Rep. John Conyers' decision to hold hearings next week into the use of the Presidential pardon power, including Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. TChris wrote earlier about Tony Snow's uninformed reaction. There's also a lot of chatter and criticism about President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Since the Rich pardon and the congressional hearings about it occurred several years ago, I decided to do a little research. Here's the transcript of the second Congressional hearing into President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

I think it's significant that President Clinton waived executive privilege for the hearing and allowed his aides who participated in the Rich pardon discussion to testify, no holds barred.

Will Bush do the same next week?

More...

Now, on to the Marc Rich pardon. The Congressional committee was investigating whether President Clinton could have had a good faith belief that Marc Rich deserved a pardon, or whether the pardon was so off the wall that it could only have resulted from bribery in the form of financial contributions or other illegal motive.

As I wrote earlier, Rudy Giuliani, as head of the prosecutor's office that charged Marc Rich, continues to criticize Rich's pardon. One person who testified at the Congressional hearing and who agreed Clinton had a good-faith basis for pardoning Rich was Scooter Libby. (No wonder Rudy practically chokes every time he has to support Bush's commutation of Libby.)

Before getting to Libby's comments, I think some obvious differences between Libby and Rich should be made. (The statements that follow come from the congressional hearing transcript linked above.)

First, Marc Rich was never convicted. He left the country before he was indicted. He never had a trial. (Technically, I think there may be an issue as to whether he even was a fugitive since since he left the country before the Indictment was returned.)

Marc Rich's companies were charged with tax offenses, pleaded guilty and paid a $200 million fine. Rich, probably seeing the writing on the wall, left the country, went to Switzerland and attempted to renounce his U.S. citizenship. The Indictment against him is here and here (pdf).

After Rich was charged, while he was overseas, his lawyers, including Scooter Libby, tried for years to settle the case with Giuliani's office but they could never agree on terms.

Rich's lawyers then decided to try to convince Main Justice the charges against Rich were not well founded. It appears Main Justice wouldn't discuss the facts of the case with the Rich defense team.

It was only when all of those attempts, which occurred over years, failed that Rich lawyer Jack Quinn decided to apply for a pardon. At that point, Libby recused himself from representing Marc Rich because he was working at the Defense Department.

But Libby was an important witness at the Congressional hearings because as one of Rich's lawyers on the criminal tax charges he had a huge amount of knowledge about the criminal case and Rich's available defenses.

Libby was asked at the hearing whether he thought Marc Rich was guilty of the charges in the Indictment. His answer (after a lot of hemming and hawing) was "No."

LIBBY: I believe that the Southern District of New York misconstrued the facts in the law, and that looking from all of the evidence available to the defense, he had not violated the tax laws.

....LIBBY: I do not believe that these two gentlemen, based on all the evidence available to me, were guilty of the charges for which they were indicted.

Libby goes on to say Giuliani's office should have dropped the charges against Marc Rich. In a bit of doublespeak, Libby also says he thinks Marc Rich is a traitor to the U.S. because of a trade he made with Iran, but that the trade wasn't illegal.

LIBBY: Sir, my understanding is that the conduct in which he engaged was not illegal, but I agree with the description that you could consider him a traitor for trading with Iran during that period.

While Libby wouldn't say whether he thought Rich should have been pardoned, he did testify that he agreed with the reasons given by President Clinton for the pardon in a New York Times op-ed. In other words, he disagreed with those who said there was no way Clinton could have made the decision to pardon Rich in good faith.

LIBBY: I have been convinced that if I sat down with them [Main Justice]and they laid their cards out and we laid our cards out, that we would win, but I don't know.

SCHILIRO: But so I understand, had you been in the position where you were pursuing the pardon, based on everything you know in this case, you think you could have put together a good strong case for a pardon and a defensible case if the president so issued, based on what you know?

LIBBY: Yes.

He also said that he didn't believe Marc Rich's companies were guilty even though they pleaded guilty.

LIBBY: I believe that all the evidence available to me indicated that his companies were not guilty of the crimes for which they had been indicted.

Among the Clinton aides who testified were former counsel to former president Clinton Beth Nolan, former Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey and former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta. Former Deputy AG Eric Holder testified at an earlier hearing.

All said they were part of the Rich pardon discussions. Rich's pardon application was submitted by lawyer Jack Quinn in December, 2000 to the White House rather than to the Pardon Office. Quinn had told former Eric Holder and Beth Nolan of his intent to submit it directly to the White House. The Pardon Office had been ridiculously backed up since October and wasn't timely churning out the reviews. Clinton had expressed to his staff his desire to grant more pardons before he left office.

Also, since Rich hadn't been convicted, the aides testified the application wasn't one the Pardon Attorney likely would handle. Rather, the deputy attorney general, the White House counsel's office, and the President would be the appropriate ones to consider it.

The application was submitted five weeks before President Clinton acted on it.

Podesta, Nolan and Lindsay all repeatedly denied hearing about any financial consideration from Denise Rich to the Clinton Library or anywhere else:

I just want to go back to this, to you, Mr. Podesta, to you, Mr. Lindsey and to you, Ms. Nolan--I just want to make sure the record is clear for the person who just tuned in, that during these discussions with the president, there was no, to your knowledge, there was no mention of contributions made by Ms. Rich to the library or to the first lady or to the president of the DNC? I think I got everything there.
PODESTA: That's correct.
CUMMINGS: Is that correct, Mr. Lindsey?
LINDSEY: Yes, sir.
NOLAN: Yes, absolutely no mention.

While neither Podesta, Lindsay or Nolan agreed with Clinton about granting a pardon to Rich, they believed, as Jack Quinn testified:

This process could have worked an awful lot better. We know that. A lot of things went wrong. But a case was presented on the merits. I happen to believe that the president decided this for reasons with which everybody in the Congress may disagree, but which were wholly appropriate for him to base his decision on.

So, President Clinton's actions in pardoning Marc Rich (and several other persons) were thoroughly investigated, Clinton waived executive privilege and allowed his aides to testify, and while almost no one (except perhaps Scooter Libby and Jack Quinn) agreed with the reasons for Clinton's decision, no wrongdoing by Clinton was found to have occurred.

Now it's time to put President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby to the same test with a congressional hearing. Those whom Bush consulted should testify. Bush should waive executive privilege.

Was Bush's commutation of Libby's jail sentence just bad judgment? Or, did he do it to silence Libby and prevent him from spilling the beans on Cheney or Bush himself in PlameGate?

The public is entitled to know.

Think Progress has a lot more history on the Rich pardon and the congressional and DOJ investigations into it, including a link to the final March, 2002 House Government Reform Committee Report, Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House. Also check out Dan Froomkin today, The Clinton-Did-It Flimflam.

< Perjury Trap? | The Remedy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hoisted (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 02:50:45 PM EST
    Is what they will be, on their own petard for making the silly comparison between Rich and Libby. What is germane, and the ingredient that will shoot the comparison in their own faces is this:

    I think it's significant that President Clinton waived executive privilege for the hearing and allowed his aides who participated in the Rich pardon discussion to testify, no holds barred.

    Will Bush do the same next week?

    Any bets?  Oh, I guess it was a bad comparison after all....

    How About this one :

    Following is a statement by the independent counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, regarding pardons granted today by President Bush.

    Weinberger's early and deliberate decision to conceal and withhold extensive contemporaneous notes of the Iran-contra matter radically altered the official investigations and possibly forestalled timely impeachment proceedings against President Reagan and other officials. Weinberger's notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest-ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public. Because the notes were withheld from investigators for years, many of the leads were impossible to follow, key witnesses had purportedly forgotten what was said and done, and statutes of limitation had expired.

    Weinberger's concealment of notes is part of a disturbing pattern of deception and obstruction that permeated the highest levels of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. This office was informed only within the past two weeks, on December 11, 1992, that President Bush had failed to produce to investigators his own highly relevant contemporaneous notes, despite repeated requests for such documents. The production of these notes is still ongoing and will lead to appropriate action. In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations.

    NYT


    How Clinton can shut up Tony Snow (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by uberskeptic on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 05:40:19 PM EST
    President Clinton should go before as many cameras as he can attract and announce that he will acknowledge the equivalence of the Rich pardon and Libby commutation - if Bush testifies submits to questioning under oath before congress as he did.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 10:13:46 PM EST
    ... It is so moving to see how a willing executioner can soften into a man of compassion - for cronies ....

    Or for people that can do sever political and legal damage.

    Elizabeth Vega Chimes In (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 11:55:00 PM EST
    And boy is she mad.

      Just how egregious was the president's unapologetic and cavalier act of favoritism for a wealthy and powerful friend? To ask the question is to answer it, but to fully appreciate the extent of corruption inherent in the president's recent shameless exercise of noblesse sans oblige, one needs to know a bit about Bush and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.....

      ......But, up until July 2, 2007, when he decided to take the law into his own hands, President Bush loved the sentencing guidelines. Bush and the Republicans have, for years, been insisting that the guidelines be applied rigidly - the president was simply not going to have any of this unseemly leniency that was beginning to infect the federal system under his watch.

    truthout

    sorry beefeater (3.66 / 3) (#2)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 04:10:05 AM EST
    but your logic in item one is fatally flawed. being a lame-duck president provides no shield from criminal charges. had evidence come to light, during those hearings, of bribery, mr. clinton would have been sitting in the docket.

    with respect to item 2: beats me, i haven't a clue, nor do you.  the last time i checked, "a grudge" doesn't meet the tests for the federal rules of evidence, so i doubt the jury would have heard about it.

    if mr. fitzgerald is anything like the DOJ attorneys i deal with, and my colleagues and i, probably not. it's a job, nothing personal. you eat your losses and move on to the next case. my professional ego might get a tad battered, but somehow, i'll live.

    once you become emotionally invested in one, you've lost your objectivity. you should be removed, if you haven't asked to be recused already.

    2 items (2.33 / 3) (#1)
    by beefeater on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:58:18 AM EST
    1st: Clinton had his bags packed and was on the way out the door when he waived executive privilege and allowed his aides to testify, he had nothing to lose.

    2nd: Do you think that Patrick fitzgerald, being one of the prosecuting attorney's "overturned" by this pardon, helped in part by Libby, would hold a grudge against him?

    The Wrong Pardon (2.33 / 3) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 08:17:29 AM EST
    Everytime I start to think that maybe the WH is actually involved in conspiracies, they do something dumb enough to prove me wrong. The Marc Rich pardon was about money. His wife contributed a $1,000,000 to Clinton's Presidential Library. That's pretty plain selling and buying, eh?

    But the commutations of the PR terrorists was politics, something the Demos accuse the Repubs of. And many claimed that Bill did it to help Hillary with the PR vote:

    The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[4] members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator.[5] Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.[6][7] The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.[8] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group

    Now, what will Conyer say if Bush claims executive privilege and the DOJ  prevents anyone, much less the FBI from testifying??

    Link

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TomStewart on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:54:00 PM EST
    Where are you getting this '1,000,000' figure? I can't find that anywhere, not even in your link. I've found 400,000, and I found 40,000, but not a million.

    Got a link?

    Parent

    TomS (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:28:39 PM EST
    Marc Rich's socialite ex-wife has donated an estimated $1 million to Democratic causes, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's successful Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund. She also lobbied heavily for Marc's pardon. Investigators want to know if Denise's contributions led to a direct quid pro quo exchange for her ex-husband's pardon.

    Time

    You may now wiggle and claim that Clinton had no interest in the $520,000.

    Parent

    Jim, Jim.... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by TomStewart on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 06:58:04 PM EST
    What Clinton did was stupid, but I still don't see:

    One: what it has to do with Libby (that old excuse,  
         well he did it too! Is no excuse, and doesn't
         really apply here)

    Two: So, it wasn't a million to the Clinton
         Library, as per your previous claims? I didn't  
         think so. Thanks!

    Parent

    TomS (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:04:23 PM EST
    My point has been that the Marc Rich scandal is the wrong one for the Repubs to be talking about.

    The PR terrorists is a much more juicy with the DOJ not allowing the FBI to testify and Clinton cliaming executive privilege.

    Rich is just garden variety stuff.

    Of more interest will be the two dudes Hillary's brother represented for $200K each. The heat got so hot on that one her brother gave the money back.

    Executive's selling pardon's for cash is an old southern tradition. See Ray  Blanton in Arkansas' neighboring state of Tennessee. Heck, Clinton probably didn't even think Rich was a big deal.

    Parent

    Nope, no making up the facts to suit your argument (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:38:24 PM EST
    Gotta play em as you were dealt.

    I trust JM's recitation of the facts:

    Clinton waived executive privilege for the hearing and allowed his aides who participated in the Rich pardon discussion to testify, no holds barred.

    versus making up the facts to suit your argument:

    Clinton cliaming executive privilege

    Caught ya red handed. Up against the wall.



    Parent

    Uh, Jim..? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 03:22:18 AM EST
    Maybe you should send the info to the corporate masters of the RNC, rather than post it here, as much as we appreciate it.

    Really, they don't seem to be getting any traction with Rich, maybe Hillary's brother could put them over the top?

    Oh, where do you get the idea that Clinton claimed executive privilege on this? More RNC talking points? Drudge maybe? This isn't the Bush administration you know...

    Parent

    Tom - Ask and ye shall receive. (1.00 / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 12:08:04 PM EST
    Actually Tom whether or not you appreciate my comments has never entered my mind.

    My point has been that the Marc Rich scandal is the wrong one for the Repubs to be talking about.

    The PR terrorists is a much more juicy with the DOJ not allowing the FBI to testify and Clinton cliaming executive privilege

    Perhaps the late hour impaired your reading ability. Enjoy this:

    The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.[8] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

    Link


    Parent

    Here we Go Jim... (none / 0) (#79)
    by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    Here's Time magazine on the Pardons:

    Time

    And the money quote:

    "Clinton waives his claim to executive privilege, saying three of his former aides are free to supply Pardongate testimony to Dan Burton's House Government Reform Committee."

    Not sure where the mighty Wikipedia got its site, but there ya go.

    Oh, my reading ability/comprehension is just fine, but thanks for the concern.

    Parent

    Tom - Thanks for the link (1.00 / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 04:16:07 PM EST
    I am always concerned about the health of my fellow bloggers...

    Interesting.. Note the link goes to 2/27/01.

    I would say that since he was no longer President, his claim of EP would be null and void. So he is giving nothing away. Typical.

    However, the best I can tell the comment goes only to the Marc Rich scandal.

    Clinton waives his claim to executive privilege, saying three of his former aides are free to supply Pardongate testimony to Dan Burton's House Government Reform Committee. At the same time, Marc Rich announces that "on the advice of his lawyers" he will not testify before Burton's committee.

    BTW - Wikipedia said NOTHING about Clinton and EP re Marc Rich.


    That comes from the PR terrorist commutation. So perhaps your eyes do need checking.

    The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.[8] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

    However...you still have trouble...

    BETH TAKES THE FIFTH ROUTE (2/26/01):  Key Pardongate figure Beth Dozoretz informs the House Government Reform Committee that she will take the Fifth if asked to testify in the Marc Rich investigation.

    And thank you, thank you, thank you for the link.

    A VOICE FROM THE PAST (2/28/01 [a.m.]):  Former housing secretary Henry Cisneros, who was among those granted last-minute pardons from the former president, tells the Dallas Morning News that Clinton granted his pardon in part to remedy the "extremes" of the independent counsels. Clinton reportedly told Cisneros (who was accused of lying to the FBI about payments he allegedly made to a former mistress) that he suspected the HUD chief was investigated because he was close to Clinton.

    Do you think Bush subscribes to Time?? ;-)

    And even better:

    Parent

    As to Cisneros and EP... (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:31:03 PM EST
    The SP was on a witch hunt, spending 30,000,000 and finding next to nothing (you don't remember this case? It was still ongoing after Clinton left. The SP wanted another few million to continue). The SP found that Cisneros had a mistress and accepted some football tickets. It was an embrassment that even the Repubs wanted to go away. It was part of a hunt after anyone connected to Clinton, and was a shame.

    Wikipedia said nothing about Rich and Clinton and EP? Probably nothing to be said, it was waved, lit the cite said. I find the mighty Wiki-p suspect, and usually go to whatever they're citing, rather than take their word for it (I'm working on a book about Robert E. Howard, and their entry is notorious for mis-information. I've corrected it myself several times just to see it reverted back by someone else). Again, I don't know where they get their cite on Clinton claiming  EP for those pardons. Here's a better one:

    CNN

    The ones offered clemency, btw, were not ones who committed acts of violence (which doesn't mean they were angels either):

    CNN

    But that still brings us back to the matter at hand (you know, the topic), should Bush have granted clemency to a man who has never served a day in jail for his offense, and could be considered a co-conspirator?

    Really, who was Scooter lying to protect if not the Pres and VP?


    Parent

    TomS (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:39:39 PM EST
    Yes, I remember Henry...

    I also remember Libby...

    Too bad you can't be honest enough to admit the similarities....

    But then I guess only an Independent can do that.

    BTW - How can a NON-president waive EP??

    He can't. He doesn't have any. Wow. Why is that so hard for you??

    Both CNN and wiki say he pulled the EP card in the PR terrprosts matter.. Are you claiming he let the FBI testify?? LOL

    And now you are going to defend these people?? Why am I not surprised??

    As for comparing Rich and Libby...

    should Bush have granted clemency to a man who has never served a day in jail for his offense, and could be considered a co-conspirator?

    Rich fled the country and lived in Switzerland.

    And your next point is???

    As for co-conspirator... really?? Shall I laugh now or wait until the end of the joke.

    And I don't think he was lying.

    Parent

    What the F**k (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:47:40 PM EST
    are you talking about? First you call me a liar, then you seem to call my intelligence into question? Huh? I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Really? A non-president wave EP? Clinton was president when the call for an investigation in the clemency for the FALN members was taking place, in September of '99. I said before that Clinton was wrong to grant them clemency, but I can understand why he did it. I'm honest enough to admit that.

    The similarity between a guy who had done next to nothing wrong and was pardoned to get a persecutor off his back, and a guy who was caught lying his ass off for his bosses and got nailed for it, then granted clemency by that boss, and will never serve a punishment for his crimes. Shame you're too partisan to see it.

    Yes, I think that posting in posting my link I was pointing up the fact that Clinton claimed EP in the FALN case, sorry I didn't use block letters, I will next time.

    You don't think Scootie was lying? Then that explains why you think it was a miscarriage of justice for Scoot to be even charged. You really believe that 'I can't remember' defense? Really. You may wait, but I'll laugh now.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Ah, that's better.

    Parent

    Ox and goring... (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 03:31:44 PM EST
    Of course you expect to see Conyer say something like:

    Just as President Clinton did in the PR terrorists commutation investigaton, President Bush has followed in his foot steps.....

    LOL  ;-)

    Thread Hijacked and Cleaned (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:51:31 PM EST
    This thread has been cleaned of off-topic comments and insults.

    The topic is Bush's pardon of Libby and Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

    If you have something to say about it, feel free. If you want to discuss something else, please do it on an open thread.

    Also, personal attacks on other commenters aren't allowed here.

    How is continually (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:03:02 PM EST
    bringing up P.R terrorists not a hijack?

    Parent
    Bush vs Clinton (none / 0) (#103)
    by TomStewart on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 08:57:47 PM EST
    Clinton could take him in a cage match, no contest, but I'm beating Bush would cheat his butt off.

    Clinton's pardon of Rich was politically a stupid move, giving the Repub's yet more ammo against him, and in a Republican administration probably would have passed unnoticed. But...

    But, it was not the same thing as the Bush clemency.

    Bush granted clemency to a a staffer from his own administration, one who was found guilty of lying under oath to protect the very man who granted him clemency.

    A closer comparison would be with Bush the 1st and his pardon of Casper Weinberger and others in his administration, men with a lot of dirt of George the 1st.