Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge: Documents Must Be Turned Over to Grand Jury Investigating Clinton Pardon
AP News ^ | Published: Dec 14, 2001

Posted on 12/14/2001 1:13:17 AM PST by Bad~Rodeo

NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge said lawyers for Marc Rich acted "principally as lobbyists" in helping the fugitive financier win a pardon from President Clinton and must hand over documents withheld from a grand jury investigating the controversial pardon.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said attorney-client privilege does not protect the materials from release.

"The Marc Rich lawyers were acting principally as lobbyists, working with public relations specialists and individuals - foreign government officials, prominent citizens and personal friends of the president - who had access to the White House," Chin wrote. "They were not acting as lawyers or providing legal advice in the traditional sense."

After the ruling, which did not give details of what is in the materials, Rich lawyer Laurence Urgenson said: "We're reviewing the opinion and considering our options."

Rich was indicted in 1983 on federal charges of evading more than $48 million in income taxes and illegally buying oil from Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis. Rich, ex-husband of Denise Rich, a major financial contributor to the Democratic Party, left the United States before he was indicted and has been living in Switzerland.

He received one of 176 pardons and clemencies Clinton issued on his last day in office, Jan. 20.

The pardons and commutations prompted congressional hearings and an investigation by federal prosecutors in New York.

Clinton said in February that he granted the Rich pardon based "on the merits as I saw them, and I take full responsibility for it."

He rejected any suggestion that he granted the pardon because of political contributions to the Democratic Party or donations Rich's ex-wife made to the Clinton library foundation.

Clinton spokeswoman Julia Payne referred queries to the former president's lawyer in Washington, David Kendall, who did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

Former White House counsel Jack Quinn, whose work on behalf of the Rich pardon received special note in the judge's ruling, also did not return a call.

The judge said Quinn was hired not because of his legal skills but because he was "Washington wise" and understood "the entire political process."

"He was hired because he could telephone the White House and engage in a 20-minute conversation with the president," the judge said. "He was hired because he could write the president a 'personal note' that said 'I believe in this cause with all my heart,' and he would know that the president would read the note and give it weight."

Quinn and Denise Rich have denied allegations that the pardon was tied to her political contributions.

Lawyers for Rich's pardoned business partner, Pincus Green, also must release documents, the judge said.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

1 posted on 12/14/2001 1:13:17 AM PST by Bad~Rodeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
"They were not acting as lawyers or providing legal advice in the traditional sense."

This sounds kind of convoluted to me. I wonder what the precedents are.

2 posted on 12/14/2001 1:24:28 AM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
Ditto!
3 posted on 12/14/2001 2:00:33 AM PST by Bogie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
"They were not acting as lawyers or providing legal advice in the traditional sense."

Sounds like a self serving statement to make these creeps sound like honest citizens.

4 posted on 12/14/2001 2:28:43 AM PST by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
We can bring a 7-page indictment against a French terrorist in less than 3 months, but it takes almost a year to get simple documentation from a Fiend of Bill on the Pardongate matter.
5 posted on 12/14/2001 2:34:33 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: abwehr
Putting someone with a law degree on retainer and then using the lawyer client privilege to engage in a criminal conspiracy to bribe public officials is not my idea of what lawyer client privilege is all about.

True, but there's already laws against lawyers engaging in crime with their clients, and the attorney/client privilege is invalid in such cases. This judge seems to be talking about something different.

7 posted on 12/14/2001 2:44:36 AM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
In my opinion, the judge is trying to give the attorneys an "out" on this case. One thing that is not mentioned, but could have been is that there is a crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. Given the political nature of the Rich pardon and the others, and the money involved, fraud in obtaining the pardons was likely; O.K., almost a sure thing.
8 posted on 12/14/2001 2:51:33 AM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
The lawyers were not representing Marc Rich in an active or concluded case in any court, so there is no basis for attorney-client privilege.
9 posted on 12/14/2001 2:54:03 AM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: abwehr
Click on Clinton's latest stained lady and go to: That's Rich - Will Mary Jo White find out if Clinton took cash for pardons? ~ WSJ.


Mary Jo White ~ Janet Reno's MiniMe

.

DOJ Under Janet Ashcroft - Has Anything Changed?

.

10 posted on 12/14/2001 3:21:59 AM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
"The lawyers were not representing Marc Rich in an active or concluded case in any court, so there is no basis for attorney-client privilege. "

Not to be captious, but where did you learn law? Your statement is completely ridiculous. Attorney-client priviledge exists in all matters of discussion between the two whether there's a court case or not.

Frankly, I loathe all the players in this scandal; Clinton, Rich, and Quinn, as well as the corrupt bargain they struck. But as someone who's had many dealings with lawyers in business, I know that lawyers are hired as de facto lobbyists all the time, but that doesn't nullify priviledge. A good lawyer is simply well-connected and can get results. A ten minute call from a lawyer may cost you $100, but may get more accomplished than you could do yourself in a month's work. A good lawyer is worth every penny of their fee.

This sets a frightening precedent that this judge had no right to set. I question the judge's understanding of the role of lawyers in business.

I believe Rich, Clinton, and Quinn need to pay for their criminal conspiracy, but undermining attorney-client priviledge for the expediency of catching one high profile criminal is not worth it.

There is no way this ruling can stand or the legal profession and business as we know it now is over. Could you ever confide in your attorney again if you have to wonder whether some judge is arbitrarily going to rule your conversation is not covered by attorney-client priviledge? Scary.

11 posted on 12/14/2001 3:22:00 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Hate to say it, but I cannot help but agree with your analysis (and I only say "hate to say it" due to the "players" in this instance; a rather despicable bunch........but the law is the law).
12 posted on 12/14/2001 3:30:11 AM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: abwehr
Marc Rich was not facing prosecution. He was not even engaged in civil litigation. He was hiding in Switzerland and seeking to do an end run around federal prosecution.

Marc Rich was a fugitive from justice and on the FBI most wanted list.

According to Dan Burton there was an incident where the U.S. Marshalls in a jet were birddogging Marc Rich in an effort to arrest the fugitive Rich (in his private jet) which resulted in Rich being forced to return to his Swiss safe haven.

13 posted on 12/14/2001 3:43:53 AM PST by Donald Stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
"...which did not give details of what is in the materials..."

These documents could be anything... from personal communication notes to a connection between Rich and OBL. One has to wonder if the documents even 'exist' anymore.

14 posted on 12/14/2001 3:58:33 AM PST by WIMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Didn't mark rich disavow his US citizenship? And if so, why does he or anybody else for that matter who is not a US citizen get all the rights afforded US citizens? Seems unfair to we, US citizens, that foreigners should enjoy all of our hard won rights.
15 posted on 12/14/2001 4:01:59 AM PST by Samizdat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
If I hire someone to clean the gutter in front of my house and he happens to be a lawyer is there any attorney-client privilege? Just being a lawyer doesn't establish privilege.
16 posted on 12/14/2001 4:08:30 AM PST by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
I guess Bill Clinton's legacy is still being decided. We won't know what that legacy is, that the president who promised us the "most ethical administration in the history of the US," until the final scandal is uncovered!
17 posted on 12/14/2001 4:28:25 AM PST by Robert357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
Remember who controls the Judicial System.It is controlled totally by lawyers and in our lifetime we will never see what they do not want us to see.They have their ways and means to tie things up in the system for years and years.Plus the ABA polices itself there are never any laymen involved.Asking a lawyer to turn on another lawyer is like asking a snake to bite itself.They are one big happy family and a brotherhood more secret than the Blue Wall of silence.
18 posted on 12/14/2001 4:41:54 AM PST by gunnedah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
"If I hire someone to clean the gutter in front of my house and he happens to be a lawyer is there any attorney-client privilege? "

Would you really hire someone who charges $200 a hour to clean your gutters? Do you think someone who can make that much would clean your gutters?

19 posted on 12/14/2001 4:47:33 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
If there's ever a time, God forbid, that it's your skin on the line, do you want some judge to pick and choose which of your conversations with your lawyer are priviledged or not?

That doesn't seem like American justice to me. That's third world justice.

20 posted on 12/14/2001 4:50:08 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson