Posted on 03/12/2002 10:22:16 PM PST by kattracks
forthcoming Congressional report on the last-minute pardons by President Bill Clinton says Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was a "willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing" a pardon for Marc Rich, the financier.
The 476-page report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, harshly criticizes the Clinton White House for its handling of the 177 pardons and commutations granted on its last day.
But the report, by the House Government Reform Committee whose chairman is Dan Burton, the Indiana Republican who was a persistent critic of Mr. Clinton also takes the Bush administration to task for refusing to turn over pardon- related documents that may shed light on the White House deliberations. Mr. Clinton does not oppose the release of those documents.
The most controversial pardon went to Mr. Rich, a commodities trader who fled the country in 1983 rather than face trial on charges of tax evasion, racketeering and trading with the enemy. The report says that Mr. Rich's lawyers tried to circumvent prosecutors, who would oppose the pardon, and take their case straight to the White House.
Mr. Holder, the report says, played a major role, steering Mr. Rich's lawyers toward Jack Quinn, a former White House counsel. Mr. Rich hired Mr. Quinn, whose Washington contacts and ability to lobby the president made the difference, according to the report. It says that Mr. Holder's support for the pardon and his failure to alert prosecutors of a pending pardon were just as crucial.
The report says Mr. Holder became involved through a chance encounter with Gershon Kekst, a prominent public relations strategist who has advised Mr. Rich since 1997. The two men were seated together at a DaimlerChrysler dinner in November 1998, and Mr. Kekst asked what advice Mr. Holder had for someone who had been "improperly indicted by an overzealous prosecutor." Mr. Holder recommended hiring "a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, and we work it out." The report acknowledges that Mr. Holder did not realize he was speaking to someone in the Rich camp.
Pressed for a name, the report says, Mr. Holder pointed to Mr. Quinn nearby, saying: "There's Jack Quinn. He's a perfect example."
Mr. Holder's lawyer, Reid Weingarten, says the exchange was innocent. He said his client "was at a Chrysler dinner, and a total stranger came up to him and engaged him in conversation about how the world works and mentions Jack Quinn."
"Eric said positive things about Jack," Mr. Weingarten said. "But the idea that he was hustling business for Jack Quinn didn't happen."
The panel criticized Mr. Holder's conduct as unconscionable and cited several problems. It cited his admission last year that he had hoped Mr. Quinn would support his becoming attorney general in a Gore administration.
The report quoted an e-mail message on Nov. 18, 2000, that Mr. Quinn sent others on the Rich team as they wrote the pardon petition. In the message, Mr. Quinn recounts speaking to "Eric" the night before. "He says go straight to wh. also says timing is good," Mr. Quinn wrote, using shorthand for the White House.
Mr. Weingarten said Mr. Holder did nothing improper. "Eric never told Jack Quinn or anyone else to circumvent the Justice Department," he said.
The report faults Mr. Quinn for lobbying the White House at all in light of prevailing ethics rules that barred top aides from lobbying former colleagues for five years after leaving government. Mr. Quinn argued that the rules allowed flexibility for judicial proceedings. But Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court in Manhattan ruled in December that Mr. Quinn's role was more lobbying than lawyering.
The report also recommends that the Justice Department review its findings of "a number of potential violations of law" by Roger Clinton, Mr. Clinton's half-brother, in light of the criminal investigation being conducted by the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan.
The report said, for example, that Mr. Clinton, a musician, had failed to register as a lobbyist for two companies that paid him $30,000 to contact his brother and other officials about easing restrictions on dealings with Cuba. The "consulting agreement" that Mr. Clinton signed describes him as being "in the business of providing counsel and advice in the areas of International Business Relations with respect to the importing and exporting of goods to and from the United States."
Roger Clinton's lawyer, Bart Williams, said he would not comment until he had read the report.
The report provides the fullest account yet of Roger Clinton's involvement in pardons. Of 15 cases studied, the panel found 8 where he had weighed in. "Roger Clinton repeatedly treated his relationship to President Clinton as a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder," it said.
One episode documented by the committee concerned his efforts to obtain a $35,000-a-month contract from a local government group to help it snare a high-level administration official for a symposium.
The report also criticizes the "recalcitrance" of the Bush White House for refusing to turn over pardon-related documents that even Mr. Clinton has not sought to block. One batch pertains to Rosario Gambino, a heroin trafficker.
Roger Clinton lobbied heavily on his behalf at the Parole Commission and received cash and favors from the inmate's family. President Clinton did not grant Mr. Gambino a pardon or commutation. But an aide ordered a background check, indicating that he was being considered.
A White House spokeswoman, Anne Womack, said some unproduced files were highly sensitive and had yet to be formally requested by the committee.
The committee describes Roger Clinton as so eager to make money from pardons that he even approached Rita Lavelle, a former Reagan administration Environmental Protection Agency official.
Lavelle had been convicted of perjury in the 1980s, and she told the committee that she was approached by a Roger Clinton intermediary who asked for $30,000 for Roger to hand-carry her pardon petition to the president. She said she could not afford to pay that, but that Roger "agreed to deliver the petition anyway."
Then, on the last night of the Clinton presidency, Roger asked her, "Do you have $100,000 to get this through?" Being bankrupt, she laughed and said no. Her pardon request was not granted.
For instance, the committee said it found one e-mail from Holder to Quinn, written during the 2000 presidential recount, telling him to "go straight to wh [White House]" and that the "time is good" for a Rich pardon.
Holder is again exposed.
Of all the options we discussed, the only one that seems to have real potential for making a difference is the HRC option and even that has peril if not handled correctly ... As for contacting Rudy, that seems to be too fraught with peril, and I am against it unless someone has some inside information which would strongly suggest he is willing to stay on the side lines and we only want confirmation ... Frankly, I think we benefit from not having the existence of the petition known ...
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Avner
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 8:26 AM
To: Quinn, Jack; Fink, Robert NY
Cc: Rich, Marc; behan kathleen
Subject: Chuck Schumer
I have been advised that HRC shall feel more at ease if she is joined by her elder senator of NY who also represents the jewish population. The private request from DR shall not be sufficient. It seems that this shall be a pre requisite from her formal position.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Fink,Robert - NY
Sent: Wednesday, Dec. 27, 11:04 AM
To: Gershon Kekst
Cc: Avner Azulay, Jack Quinn, Kitty Behan
Subject: FW: Chuck Schumer
Here is another message from Avner which you did not receive. Avner is looking for suggestions on who could contact the senior Senator and ask for support so that the only request for help from the Jewish community is not to HRC. It may be that DR can play this role as well. What do you think?...
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: gkekst
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 5:20 PM
To: Fink, Robert NY
Subject: Chuck Schumer
Good point. Can quinn tell us who is close enough to lean on schumer?? I am certainly willing to call him but have no real clout. Jack might be able to tell us quickly who the top contributors are ... maybe Bernard Schwartz ??
Gershon
----------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Quinn
12/27/2000 08:14:35 PM
To: Avram, Robert Fink
Cc: Marc Rich, Kathleen Behan
Subject: RE: Chuck Schumer
CS was not as helpful to HRC as she was to him. There may be some feelings about this else I wouldn't be aware of it. Worry that we have no idea how CS will react. We shd contact him only if we have a VERY, VERY solid contact who can speak to him in the greatest confidence and we will then no doubt have to brief him very carefully. If we have no such close connection, I would be wary of this approach and I have to believe that the contact with HRC can happen without him after all, we are not looking for a public show of support from her.
----------------------------------------------------------
About 100 times smarter than her ex-husband's attorneys, Denise Rich, apparently in consultation with Beth Dozoretz, slams the whole idea of getting any of these individuals involved.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: Fink, Robert NY
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 2:12 PM
To: Avner Azulay
Cc: Marc Rich
I spoke to DR who was adamantly against the proposal. She is convinced it would be viewed badly by the recipient. Nothing good will come of the overture even with a good word from anyone in NY.
She said she is convinced of this and so is her friend who has advised DR not to discuss it in front of HRC ...
Dinner to Launch 40th Anniversary Celebrations
The Chaplaincy marks its 40th Anniversary in 2001 and, in recognition of this milestone, A Gathering of Friends will inaugurate a series of events over the next 18 months designed to increase public awareness of its mission, and celebrate its commitments to service and education. Caring for the Whole Person, a series of complementary programs on spirituality and well-being featuring The Chaplaincy's clinical staff, will reach out to congregations of all denominations and faiths. For profiles of the dinner's co-chairs-1999 Wholeness of Life community honoree Martin Lipton, Gershon Kekst, president of Kekst & Co., and James S. Turley, chairman elect of Ernst & Young
It seems The New York Times left out a small detail...
The committee said Roger "participated in a plot to obtain a $35,000-per-month contract" from an Alabama airport promoter in exchange for urging then-Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater to speak at a company gathering.
Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1503.
Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally (a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection...
So might this:
Section 1346. (This particular section of the U.S. Criminal code is one of the few good things for which we must admit Joe Biden did that was right. It applies to a citizen's intangible right to the honest performance of a public official's duties)
Definition of ''scheme or artifice to defraud'' For the purposes of this chapter, the term ''scheme or artifice to defraud'' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1503.
Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally (a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection...
So might this:
Section 1346. (This particular section of the U.S. Criminal code is one of the few good things for which we must admit Joe Biden did that was right. It applies to a citizen's intangible right to the honest performance of a public official's duties)
Definition of ''scheme or artifice to defraud'' For the purposes of this chapter, the term ''scheme or artifice to defraud'' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
If we slap wrists, it continues.
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.