Tag: marc rich
Why Trump Must Think Twice Before He Gives A Pardon To Mike Flynn

Why Trump Must Think Twice Before He Gives A Pardon To Mike Flynn

Ever since Michael Flynn departed the Trump White House under a cloud of disgrace last February, speculation has mounted that the president might pardon his former national security adviser. With Flynn’s guilty plea in federal court and disclosure of his cooperation agreement with special counsel Robert Mueller, conjecture about such a pardon is rampant. And for Donald Trump, who clearly assumes that he can get away with anything, the appeal of silencing a potential witness with the pardon power must be almost irresistible.

But he should hesitate before pardoning anyone who might testify about him or members of his family.

By now it must be obvious even to Trump that a pardon for Flynn – or any Mueller defendant or target — would put the final touch on an obstruction of justice brief against him. It would complete a damning timeline that began when he fired FBI director James Comey, after he tried unsuccessfully to suborn Comey into dropping the nascent investigation of Flynn. Such a blatantly criminal abuse of power might even compel the cowardly House Republicans to consider impeachment.

If Trump thinks he would escape impeachment anyway, he should mull the problems he might face after leaving the White House. Regardless of his immunity from prosecution as president, a suspicious pardon would leave him legally vulnerable as soon as his presidency ends.

And if his lawyers doubt that, they should ask Bill Clinton about what happened after he pardoned Marc Rich, the infamous fugitive financier.

There was nothing corrupt about the Rich pardon, which President Clinton signed on January 20, 2001, his final day in office. But Clinton’s critics in the media, Congress, and his own Justice Department, and many Americans who followed the news coverage, suspected he had issued that writ in return for millions of dollars in campaign and foundation contributions from Rich’s ex-wife Denise. Actually, Clinton pardoned Rich because Ehud Barak, then Israel’s prime minister, had requested that favor three times during the final months of their protracted Mideast peace negotiations (as reported in Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton, my book about his post-presidency, now in a paperback edition with a new afterword).

Among those most infuriated by the pardons was Mary Jo White, a Clinton appointee then serving as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Less than a month later, on February 15, 2001, White announced that she had opened a criminal investigation. On ABC News’ Good Morning America, Washington correspondent Jackie Judd interviewed a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and former prosecutor who offered the prevailing theory of the case.

According to then-Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions (R-AL): “If a person takes a thing of value for themself [sic] or for another person that influences their decision in a matter of their official capacity, then that could be a criminal offense.” Now that Sessions is attorney general, perhaps he will explain to his apopleptic boss how such a theory of corruption would apply to the matter of a Flynn pardon – or any pardon Trump grants in a scheme to hinder the special counsel.

Three days after White’s announcement in February 2001, Clinton published a 1600-word New York Times op-ed denying any corrupt motive and defending the Rich pardon (without mentioning the entreaties from Barak, which only emerged as a result of the parallel Congressional investigation). Evidently the prosecutors were unpersuaded by Clinton’s argument, since they continued to investigate him as well as Denise Rich and other donors to the Clinton Foundation for more than three years.

By the time that the pardon probe officially folded – without any wrongdoing uncovered – its demise was quietly announced by White’s successor, a George W. Bush appointee named James Comey. Under the Clinton rules, which unofficially stipulate that any finding favorable to the former First Family receives little or no media attention, that announcement got almost no news coverage.

Yet despite the fact that federal prosecutors could make no case against Clinton, what remains is a bipartisan principle articulated by Mary Jo White and Jeff Sessions and pursued rigorously by Jim Comey: a corrupt pardon issued by a former president is fair game for criminal prosecution.

Trump can only ignore that jeopardy at his peril.

What Sessions Should Tell Trump About Pardons — Before It’s Too Late

What Sessions Should Tell Trump About Pardons — Before It’s Too Late

When Donald Trump issued a tweet reminding everyone that as president he has “the complete power to pardon,” did he mean to suggest that he can pardon himself? Or simply to boast that he can issue pardons without consulting any other authority or facing any consequences?

The impact of Trump’s provocative statement — along with news accounts suggesting he may issue a flurry of pardons to stonewall special counsel Robert Mueller — forced a denial from his lawyer Jay Sekulow. But whatever impulse propels him now, someone ought to tell Trump that while the pardon power is indeed a solo prerogative of his office, it isn’t quite absolute. And should he appear to use that power for a corrupt purpose, such as obstruction of justice, he could place himself in serious legal jeopardy. Not only could he be impeached, since the Constitution specifically prohibits pardoning any impeached official, but he might just be criminally prosecuted as well.

If Trump has any doubts about that possibility, he should ask Bill Clinton or James Comey — or his own Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Within weeks after President Clinton pardoned the fugitive oil trader Marc Rich, on his final day in office, that widely denounced decision became the subject of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department. Acting on the premise that Rich might have bribed Clinton by channeling political contributions via his ex-wife Denise, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White announced the probe’s launch on February 15, 2001.

White House won't rule out pardons on Russia

A Clinton appointee, White was outraged by the pardon, like many of her colleagues in law enforcement, and determined to settle the score. Her office issued scores of subpoenas to the former president’s associates, donors, and friends, as well as to the Clinton Foundation, while FBI agents conducted dozens of interviews across the country, seeking any evidence that Clinton had sold the Rich pardon.

As for Clinton, he gritted his teeth and cooperated with the investigation, which added fresh legal bills to the enormous debt he already owed his attorneys.

Years later, after Comey had replaced White as U.S. Attorney, the pardon investigation finally sputtered to a close in 2005 when the government gave up looking for evidence that didn’t exist. (I examined the real motivation behind the Rich pardon, which had become obvious long before Comey closed the investigation, in my recent book Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton.)

The Rich pardon probe went nowhere, slowly. Yet for Trump its outcome isn’t nearly as important as the precedent it established. A president may issue a pardon to anyone (except perhaps himself), but if his purpose is corrupt then he is not necessarily exempt from prosecution.

Nobody appears to have disagreed with that judgment at the time, least of all the Congressional Republicans who were pursuing their own enthusiastic investigation of the Clinton pardons.

Among the prominent lawmakers who endorsed the pardon inquiry was none other than Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL), who offered his own theory of the case to ABC News: “If a person takes a thing of value for themself [sic] or for another person that influences their decision in a matter of their official capacity, then that could be a criminal offense.” And in principle, any criminal motive for a pardon could leave the president equally culpable.

Perhaps someone should ask Sessions on the record whether he still believes a pardon can be a criminal act — before Trump fires him.

Without Explanation, FBI Abruptly Releases Old Documents About Clinton Pardons

Without Explanation, FBI Abruptly Releases Old Documents About Clinton Pardons

Why would the FBI suddenly release hundreds of mostly blank pages of documents from its investigation of presidential pardons by Bill Clinton — a probe that ended without any prosecution almost 15 years ago — just one week before Election Day? On Tuesday morning, the “FBI Records Vault” tweeted a link to the bureau’s website where those documents were displayed with a short description, but no explanation for the abrupt release.

What little can be gleaned from the heavily redacted pages indicates they mainly concern the pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green, a pair of fugitive traders then living in Switzerland, although the pardon investigation undertaken by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in February 2001 dealt with other pardons as well.

In the hours that followed, the bureau failed to explain its decision to dump the pardon documents, despite many press inquiries. But the mysterious release immediately stoked fresh consternation about FBI director James Comey’s clumsy intervention in the presidential race on Oct. 28, when he sent a letter to Congress announcing that agents had discovered materials on a laptop owned by former Rep. Anthony Weiner that might prove pertinent to its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

Since then, Comey has been under increasingly direct fire from Democrats, former prosecutors, and Justice Department employees for ignoring ethical guidelines about interfering in elections. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and a former ethics counsel in the Bush White House have accused him of violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from using their office to intervene in elections.

Almost nothing in the released documents is new, beyond glancing references to bits of evidence (a “red rope”) that may or may not have anything to do with Rich, whose ex-wife Denise was a major donor to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation’s library fund. It was Denise Rich’s donations that spurred demands for an investigation.

Angry federal prosecutors in New York who had worked on Rich’s indictment were only too happy to proceed. Clinton’s failure to follow normal Justice Department procedures in awarding scores of pardons during the final hours of his presidency had aroused public suspicions and further enraged the prosecutors whose opinions he had ignored.

Mary Jo White, the U. S. attorney in the Southern District appointed by Clinton, opened the case within weeks after the pardons. At the time, Rich was living in a luxurious chateau in Zug, Switzerland, where he had fled to avoid trial on charges that he had done illicit business with Iran. He died in a Lucerne hospital in 2013, never having returned to the United States because Clinton’s pardon required him to pay a $21 million civil fine if he came back.

As the documents released on Tuesday attest, several squads of FBI agents across the country spent months serving subpoenas and interviewing witnesses in pursuit of evidence that the pardons were awarded corruptly. With its demands for information from the Clinton Foundation and its donors, the bureau effectively intimidated many from making additional contributions.

Yet while the investigation continued for months after White returned to the private sector and President Bush appointed a new U.S. attorney in her place, the case against Clinton was always weak. After all, he had rejected requests from personal friends who had given much larger sums than Denise Rich and then sought pardons for arguably more deserving convicts, such as financier Michael Milken and native American activist Leonard Peltier — both of whom, unlike Rich, at least had served time.

Most important was the pile of evidence, produced by a Republican-led Congressional committee investigating the pardons, that Clinton had actually pardoned Rich chiefly as a favor to Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, in the midst of Mideast peace negotiations. Barak had reached out to Clinton on three occasions, including the night before Clinton’s final day in office, to importune him on behalf of Rich — who was a longtime secret asset of Israeli’s intelligence services. (The full story of Barak’s campaign to pardon Rich is told in Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton, my new book about Clinton’s post-presidency.)

The underlying irony of the FBI document dump is that the pardon investigation ended in 2002, on the watch of James Comey, the newly appointed U.S. attorney in Manhattan. Having inherited the Clinton matter from White, he effectively closed the case before moving on, after less than two years in that post, to serve as deputy attorney general in Washington.

While this action was obviously intended to frame the Clintons again, it is more likely to embarrass Comey, as yet another bonehead move by a law enforcement leader who no seems able to conform to crucial standards of fairness.

Exclusive Excerpt: ‘Man Of The World: The Further Endeavors Of Bill Clinton’

Exclusive Excerpt: ‘Man Of The World: The Further Endeavors Of Bill Clinton’

In his new book Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton, published today by Simon & Schuster, National Memo editor Joe Conason tells the remarkable story of the 42nd president’s emergence from the dark days of his White House departure to become, perhaps, one of the most recognizable and admired men in the world. Conason examines Clinton’s achievements, his failures, his motivations, and why he continues to inspire (and infuriate) on a grand scale.

What follows is an exclusive excerpt from the book’s opening pages.

__

On the first morning he woke up as a private citizen there was nobody around to serve breakfast to Bill Clinton. For eight years he and Hillary had lived in the White House, where staffers and servants rushed to meet every need; and for ten years before that, they had lived in the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion, where similar if not quite equal personal service had always been available at any hour.

It was Sunday, January 21, 2001—and that was all over now.

Both Clintons rose to face their new life somewhat exhausted from the long ordeal of Inauguration Day, which had begun in the White House greeting the new occupants, then continued through the ceremonial investiture of President George W. Bush amid snow and sleet, a protracted farewell with hundreds of friends and staffers at Andrews Air Force Base, and an unusually long journey from Washington to their new home.

Under the foreboding sky, a freezing downpour had grounded the Marine helicopter that was supposed to transport them from the capital, and had later slowed the usual hour’s drive from John F. Kennedy Airport to Chappaqua, roughly forty miles north of the city. There they had ended the day dining late at a local restaurant with daughter Chelsea, their close friends Terry McAuliffe and his wife Dorothy, and Douglas Band, a former deputy assistant to the president who had agreed to stay with Clinton into his post-presidency.

Nobody had known just how tired the former president was until he fell fast asleep in the Chevy Suburban that brought them all from Kennedy Airport to Westchester.

When the Clintons came downstairs on that first morning, the former president and first lady realized that not only was there nobody available to prepare breakfast for them, but that they had no idea how to make even a cup of coffee in their sparsely furnished and rarely occupied new home. Neither did any of the others standing around in the kitchen with them. But everyone needed caffeine, badly.

“Let’s go get some coffee,” said Clinton.

The first executive decision of William Jefferson Clinton’s post- presidency was to venture into the snowy little town to visit the local delicatessen and bring back some coffee and sandwiches. Pulling on a bright yellow fleece sweatshirt over his T-shirt and jeans, Clinton joined Band in an armored Cadillac limousine, driven by a Secret Service agent, followed by another vehicle with four more agents.

Clinton noticed the first hint of trouble a few minutes later, when they arrived at Lange’s Little Shop and Delicatessen on King Street, the town’s main drag. The deli’s Sunday morning crowd of customers was friendly enough, with a few people shouting “Eight more years!” and “We love you, Bill!” But reporters were milling on the sidewalk, too. When they spied Clinton’s small entourage pulling up, a few began to bark questions. At first he could barely hear what they were saying.

“Why did you pardon Marc Rich?”

Alarmed, Doug Band leapt out of the back passenger seat and walked around to the other side of the car, where Clinton already had stepped out. He put an arm around Band’s shoulder and whispered softly but firmly: “I’ll give you five minutes to clear all this away.” He didn’t want the armored limousine and all the agents swarming around the closed street. He wanted to arrive in his new hometown more in the style of an ordinary citizen.

Minutes later, Clinton ventured into the crowded deli, where spontaneous applause lit his face with a smile. While Band placed their order, including an egg-salad sandwich for Clinton, he shook hands with his new neighbors, posed for cell phone snapshots, and signed autographs on scraps of paper.

There was no means of escape from the gang of perhaps a dozen or so reporters, which felt to Clinton and Band like a horde of hundreds who suddenly had total access to the former president. Nor did Clinton feel he could simply walk away without answering any of their questions—some friendly, some not so friendly. New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney, who had covered both Clintons for years, would later write that the president appeared “in a chatty mood,” relaxed and rested as he mingled with neighbors and reporters.

 “So far it’s been wonderful,” Clinton said of life after the presidency. On his first night in Chappaqua he had slept “like a rock,” he added— and no, he hadn’t bothered to read the Sunday papers or turn on the television yet.

With pleasantries out of the way, what ensued was an impromptu press conference. The journalists peppered a wholly unprepared ex-president with inquiries about the scores of pardons and commutations—totaling 177—he had signed during his last day in the White House. Mostly he responded to the questions in generalities, offering a promise to prepare a memo on the “pardon process” for his successor, and a short lecture on compassion toward former sinners.

“The word ‘pardon’ is somehow almost a misnomer,” said Clinton. “You’re not saying these people didn’t commit the offense. You’re saying they paid, they paid in full.” In fairness, he suggested, “we ought to be more open-minded” about individuals who have discharged their debt to society.

Perhaps those deserving of compassion included people like Susan McDougal, the Whitewater figure who had refused to implicate the Clintons in wrongdoing and spent miserable years in jail, or Henry Cisneros, the former housing secretary convicted of paying off a mistress with public funds, who had left office in disgrace. He had pardoned both of them. Arguably even a repentant narcotics smuggler who had done serious time might deserve consideration. That “paid in full” category, however, most assuredly did not include Rich, the “fugitive financier” holed up in a luxurious Swiss chateau while refusing to face multiple charges of tax fraud and violating the U.S. embargo against Iran.

Why would you pardon him?
“I spent a lot of time on that case. I think there are very good reasons for it,” Clinton replied, and referred further inquiries to Rich’s Washington attorney, Jack Quinn, who had formerly worked for him in the White House counsel’s office. Quinn could explain the legal theory behind the pardons of Rich and his business partner, Pincus Green, who had faced similar charges, fled to Switzerland with Rich, and received a pardon, too.

At last Clinton said he needed to go home, to continue the weekend’s work of unpacking with Hillary, who was thrilled to have a private home again and always loved to organize anything and everything. Sitting in the house were well over a hundred boxes of books alone. He needed time to get himself together, he chuckled, and get some more sleep.

But back on Old House Lane, reporters and TV crews would soon line up on the street, outside the tall white security fence surrounding the Clintons’ rambling Dutch colonial residence. Notoriously unfriendly to the press and sensing a media emergency, Band placed a call for help to Howard Wolfson—a tough and loyal pro who had handled press and communications for Hillary’s Senate campaign the year before. Wolfson dutifully drove up from the city and, before sundown, Clinton stepped into the chilly air outside for a photo opportunity and a few offhand remarks so that everyone else could finally could go home, too.

The newly sworn junior senator from New York stayed inside all day, wisely insulating herself from even the appearance of entanglement in her husband’s latest burgeoning crisis. That afternoon, a familiar atmosphere of tension loomed over the house, a feeling that things might be descending once again from bad into much, much worse.

Excerpted from Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton, by Joe Conason. Copyright © 2016 by Joe Conason. Excerpted by permission of Simon & Schuster.. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.