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 previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: tdadams
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?

You make some good points. However, it seems to me there are some differences here. First of all, Marc Rich was not operating within our system of justice. He wasn't living here and facing the justice system and confiding in lawyers as part of his defense. He was a fugitive from justice, for goodness sake! There is something wrong, it seems to me, with the concept of using lawyers as a proxy to commit, or hide, criminal activity.

21 posted on 12/14/2001 5:26:07 AM PST by benjaminthomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
"There is no way this ruling can stand or the legal profession and business as we know it now is over."

Sounds like a good plan to me.
22 posted on 12/14/2001 5:28:07 AM PST by MamaLucci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: benjaminthomas
I agree with your points. There are noticible differences, but this still edges too close for comfort to setting the precedent (later to be abused casually) that when a lawyer is acting as a lobbyist, there is no attorney-client priviledge.

A lawyer (as an advocate) is almost by definition a lobbyist. Judges should not be given the lattitude to nullify attorney-client priviledge by simply declaring certain communications non-priviledged. That's too arbitrary and ripe for abuse.

23 posted on 12/14/2001 5:41:32 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
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.

Attorney Client Privilege does not exist in all matters of discussion between the two whether there's a court case or not. The communication must be made to a lawyer acting in a legal capacity. Thus, if a lawyer is giving business advice, as opposed to legal advice in connection with a business transaction, no privilege will attach to such communications. Also, the attorney-client privilege may not be used as a shield for a contemplated future crime or fraud. You should also understand that the Client, not the lawyer, is the owner of the privilege when and if it exists. Quinn is therefore in a rather precarious position if Denise Rich waives the privilege (assuming it exists) overtly or by remaining silent. One more important consideration which we can't determine based on this article is who was present when Quinn was discussing the matter with Denise Rich? If others who were not lawyers were present the privilege in all probability doesn't exist.

One more thing to consider is that Attorney Client Privilege appears on the surface to be a very simple concept yet it is one of the most litigated precepts of law in our courts.

24 posted on 12/14/2001 5:51:02 AM PST by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
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."

Hes never taken responsibility for anything.

25 posted on 12/14/2001 5:55:44 AM PST by cardinal4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
Everything you said is correct and I was probably not clear enough in my answer. My reply should be taken in the context of this situation.
26 posted on 12/14/2001 6:01:06 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
There is no way this ruling can stand or the legal profession and business as we know it now is over.

And this is bad? These people have been using the technicalities of the law to circumvent the law for too long. It's time we had some new guidelines.

27 posted on 12/14/2001 6:06:26 AM PST by Attillathehon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
. . . . . . on the merits as I saw them

More important is Clinton's oblique reference to Denise Rich's silicon enhanced breasts.

28 posted on 12/14/2001 6:07:19 AM PST by hflynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
"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."

These lawyers were actively participating in bribing a sitting president. That's criminal and breaks the atty/client privilege immediately.

I wonder every day how some of these idiots passed the bar.

29 posted on 12/14/2001 6:10:05 AM PST by japaneseghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
Your analysis is the correct one, although as a lawyer I kinda wish you could have used a little more upscale example for comparison.

This question arises most frequently in corporate counsel situations. The attorney-client privilege is recognized to apply to communications between corporate officers and corporate counsel where the subject involves matters traditionally performed only by an attorney.

For instance, discussions with the corporate attorney involving pending or threatened litigation are protected by the privilege. On the other hand, if a board of directors has an attorney as a member, materials related to board discussions are not thereby priveleged. (sound practice dictates that attorneys on a board of directors not render legal advice to the corporation and attorneys who render legal advice not serve on the board of directors)

Although avarice drives well-connected lawyers to it, lobbying is recognized as not constituting the practice of law. It's not illegal for attorneys to do it, but they're not acting as lawyers when they do.

30 posted on 12/14/2001 6:12:59 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
It appears to me that the judge has decided that these people who may have been lawyers were not engaging in the practice of law when they conspired to aid a criminal. I'll try to give you another analogy that may be easier to understand.

If you have a conversation with your neighbor about the weather is it privileged conversation? Is it privileged if your neighbor happens to be a lawyer?

31 posted on 12/14/2001 6:58:10 AM PST by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
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.

What's all the contention about? x42 has spoken.

I, along with all Democrats, believe every word he says.

You folks must be part of that vast conspiracy thing I keep hearing about.

Pardon me, no pun intended, but I need to go hurl now.

LVM

32 posted on 12/14/2001 6:59:29 AM PST by LasVegasMac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
FYI...
Nip & tuck, nip & tuck... all around the edges.
The way I see it, we have time on our side now -- to step back & closely scrutinize the 8 year criminal enterprise, the players, the laws broken.
And not just what happened in its totallity; but more importantly now, how.

...all the while X42's cloak of influence & *protection* continues to wane & dissipate.

;^)

33 posted on 12/14/2001 7:13:57 AM PST by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Landru
Good attitude, and true, IMHO...
34 posted on 12/14/2001 7:22:14 AM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: eureka!; Alamo-Girl
BUMP
35 posted on 12/14/2001 7:32:43 AM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
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

Forcing ethics out of lawyers.

If this is part of the Bush plan, my hat is off to him and I will sit down and be happy. (But how could he ...?)

36 posted on 12/14/2001 7:33:42 AM PST by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Why thank you very kindly, Sir/Madame.
Coming from you?
I'll take that as a high compliment.
But really; this tack was merely what DrW *prescribed* for his ailing patient, IMO.
Moreover, *someone* apparently forgot to teach these military leaders of our's the first tenent of middle & upper-management survival; "A new broom sweeps clean"
~And they had the gall to call this man, "dumb"?
Yea; that *dumb* Dubya's sure got-hold of their attention, alright. ;^)

...now to see this kind of decisive & courageous executive level leadership with the run amok Civil Rights commission?

37 posted on 12/14/2001 7:53:05 AM PST by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Free Paul might not hire an attorney at $200 an hour to clean his "gutters," but Rich and Clinton obviously have. And that's the point. The only difference between these sleazy criminals--Rich and Clinton--is that Rich buys his "justice" with his own, albeit ill-gotten, money, while Clinton buys his "justice" with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
38 posted on 12/14/2001 8:05:13 AM PST by agave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Landru
"The way I see it, we have time on our side...all the while X42's cloak of influence & *protection* continues to wane & dissipate."

You are wise beyond yer years, my LargeTriceppedFRiend...Justice fer Der SchleekMeister is Inevitable, and we shan't wait fer it to be doled out in the Great Hereafter...

WE SHALL NAIL CLINTON IN THIS LIFE!!! Then we'll let God--or Satan--deal with what's left over when we're done!!

I GARE-RON-FReepin'-TEE IT!!!

MUD

39 posted on 12/14/2001 8:07:55 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
bump!
40 posted on 12/14/2001 8:09:51 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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