Judge: Documents Must Be Turned Over to Grand Jury Investigating Clinton Pardon

AP News ^ | Published: Dec 14, 2001

[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.

[Donald Stone]

The ABA considers self-policing, self-protection !!!!!

Just like the Blue Wall of Silence !!!!!!!

[eureka!]

Re#37 W has pretty much kept his word so far and will in the future. There is lots of time ahead...

[The Real Deal]

Hang Rich and Clintoon, and hang um' high.

[Donald Stone]

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

Me Too !!!!!!

LOL !!!!!!

I've had extensive personal dealings with some of the most high priced, politically well connected lawyers both, Republican & Democrat in Maryland, Washington D.C. and Florida and the ones that are the most corrupt scream the loudest when you ask the federal judges to hold them accountable for their conduct.

Lawyering in Washington D.C. is not so much about smarts or a level playing field, it's simply all about political connections that are used to circumvent the "RULE of LAW" and the CONSTITUTION

[rottweiller_inc]

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.

frightening to whom? out of control trial lawers?

[Landru]

"I've had extensive personal dealings with some of the most high priced, politically well connected lawyers both, Republican & Democrat in Maryland, Washington D.C. and Florida and the ones that are the most corrupt scream the loudest when you ask the federal judges to hold them accountable for their conduct."

Your statement here is nothing but the Gospel's Truth, Don.

...under the *fancy* veneer is the cheapest of particle board with these bloodsuckers.

[connectthedots]

Did you know that there is an excellent argument that "the practice of law" is a basis constitutional right rather than merely a privilege? If so, anyone could practice law without having to go to law school or some other formal training program. It would appear that at most, a state could require the passing of some sort of examination such as a bar exam based on a states right to regulate business. Because the right to have legal representation is a right under the constitution, it is even posible that a person could hire someone to represent them in court even if that "counselor" was not a member of a bar association. A key case in this regard is Hampton v. Virginia Board of Election Officials, a 1966 USSC case that basically stated that once the constitution grants a franchise, the government cannot impose any requirement that would hinder the excercise of that right.

Lest some claim that my argument cannot possibly hold up, I would point out that there are some relatively recent USSC cases which state that the USSC has never been called upon to determine whether "the practice of law is a basic constitutional right or just a privilege". That being the case, if a requirement to be a member of the bar in order to represent another party was ever challenged in a U.S. District Court, the USSC would be almost compelled to accept review of a rejection of that argument in a U.S. District Court case.

[connectthedots]

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

Anyone with half a brain can learn enough about the law in three months to pass the bar exam.

[connectthedots]

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.

At least he didn't use the operator of a honey wagon as his example.

[stands2reason]

I was just thinking that. There should be no reason anyone should be able to hire a lawyer to act as some sort of "agent" so as to cover improprieties by lawyer-client privilege.

[stands2reason]

You gotta point there. At the risk of being called a "slobbering Bush cheerleader no better than any one of the Clintonistas", I will at least refrain from maligning Bush until I catch him in a lie. I guess in answer to those paleo and libertarian idealists I would say--As a student of human nature, I know idealism rarely succeeds. Changing the way most of Americans think won't happen overnight, and if you try to force it in a free country it will backfire. If you want your ideals to take over America, you need to steal the playbook of the socialists. They were very successful in this country--they slowly turned up the heat until our frog was cooked. And that frog sat there and took it.

[monkeyshine]

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."

merit \Mer"it\, v. i. To acquire desert; to gain value; to receive benefit; to profit. [Obs.] --Beau. & Fl.

[eureka!]

My thoughts exactly. Incrementalism works both ways and takes time. Until shown otherwise, I am trusting W--all the while understanding he will need to choose his battles, especially with childish b*ttwipes like Dasshole and Leahy....