by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 16, 2001
All Rights Reserved.

elegraphing revealing clues about the controversial pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, former President Clinton couldn’t restrain his prodigious smoke-blowing propensities. “There’s not a single, solitary shred of evidence that I did anything wrong or that his [Rich’s] money changed hands,” Clinton reportedly told Geraldo Rivera during a phone interview on his national cable show. Making his point but sounding more bizarre, “And there’s certainly no evidence that I took any of it,” said Clinton, raising questions how to interpret his remarks. No, investigators haven’t found Swiss bank accounts or cash stuffed in his mattress, but red lights are beginning to flash. Recall Al Gore’s denials about the notorious Buddhist Temple fund-raising affair. “I never saw any money change hands,” Gore told the FBI investigators, denying that he knew anything about illegal fund-raising. No, he probably didn’t turn any monks upside down himself or watch them whip out their checkbooks, but collection plates were definitely passed around. Just ask Clinton-Gore fund-raiser Maria Hsia who pled guilty to illegal fund-raising and took all the heat.

       When Clinton talks about shreds of evidence, what’s he referring to: Cancelled checks, finger prints, cash, deposit receipts, wire-transfers, e-mails, wiretaps, sworn testimony, tape recordings, etc.? Yes, at the moment, there's no concrete evidence because the information-gathering process has just begun. Without rushing to judgment, Clinton showed appalling arrogance, claiming he exercised his divine right just as other presidents. When Ford pardoned Nixon, did he receive whopping contributions to his library from Nixon’s family? No way. What’s the public supposed to think? Billionaires or their high-roller ex-wives don’t try to buy influence? Everyone knows that goes with the territory. But buying pardons crosses a different line. While President Bush feels it’s time to “move on,” the public has a right to know whether Clinton subverted the law by taking a bribe for a pardon. With his credibility already on shaky ground, the books must be fully opened to clear the air.

       While there’s no evidence yet, there’s an avalanche of bad publicity that doesn’t pass the smell test. When Rich’s ex-wife, New York socialite and Democratic fund- raiser Denise Rich takes the 5th to avoid testifying before Sen. Dan Burton’s (R-Ind.) Government Reform Committee, that doesn’t look too good. What’s she got to hide? It’s already well documented that she donated over a million dollars to the Democratic Party, $450,000 to Clinton’s presidential library fund, and $109,000 to Hillary’s run for senate. It’s the latest flagrant appearance of impropriety that’s landed Clinton back in the hot tub. In a carefully worded statement, “As I have said repeatedly, I made the decision to pardon Marc Rich based on what I thought was the right thing to do . . . Any suggestion that improper factors, including fund-raising for the [Democratic National Committee] or my library, had anything to do with the decision are absolutely false. I look forward cooperating with any appropriate inquiry.” Of course Clinton thought that pardoning Rich was the 'right' thing to do for himself, but that doesn’t erase all the swirling suspicions.

       “None of the regular procedures were followed,” said Justice Department pardon attorney Roger C. Adams to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) during a special hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggesting that Clinton pulled a fast one pardoning renegade financier Marc Rich. Sounding incredulous, Adams testified that he didn’t know that Rich was, in fact, a fugitive in the biggest tax evasion case in U.S. history. Getting back to Clinton’s statement, he said that he would cooperate with any “appropriate” inquiry—not another Ken Starr-type witch hunt. Clinton blamed partisan zealotry for causing his impeachment. Unlike Nixon’s pardon, Ford openly came before congress to explain himself—Clinton’s reluctant to follow his lead. Sounding conspiracy tones, Clinton said he was “bewildered” by the response to the Rich pardon and blamed his Republican enemies in congress. “I was blindsided by this,” said Clinton, “I just wanted to go out there and do what past presidents had done, but the Republicans had other ideas for me.”

       With U.S. Atty. [in New York] Mary Jo White launching a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s 11th hour pardon of Marc Rich and Pincus Green, it’s déjà vu all over again, harking back to the early days of the Lewinsky sex scandal. Appearing on Lehrer’s PBS NewsHour, Clinton emphatically denied a baseless rumor circulated by Internet gossip maven Matt Drudge about an affair with a White House intern. “I did not have sexual relations with that women, Ms. Lewinsky,” forcefully asserted President Clinton to a mesmerized national TV audience, leaving the public and press in shock and disbelief. On the heels of his calculated denial, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton made the rounds on morning talk shows claiming that “her husband was the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy.” While she’s now the distinguished junior senator from New York, her husband’s recent remarks cast further doubt over his credibility. Carefully worded press statements now have to be properly dissected.

       Clinton’s recent words raise more suspicions than they allay. Sounding the same old conspiratorial themes creates more doubts in skeptics already overdosed with spin from the Lewinsky sex scandal. Now that Clinton’s insisted that there’s no “evidence,” is he really denying that he took a bribe or simply reminding people that there’s no evidence? Judging by his past shenanigans, it’s difficult taking him at face value. Raising conspiratorial themes suggest that the president got caught in the cookie jar one more time. Cleverly worded denials still leave him some wiggle room should U.S. Atty. Mary Jo White find Clinton’s DNA on Rich’s moola. Only his spiritual advisor Rev. Jesse Jackson might join his paranoia, now that Jackson’s also under the gun. With key Democrats breaking ranks, Clinton’s still got a lot of explaining to do. “It makes a mockery of the system,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), expressing outrage over Rich’s pardon and reminding Clinton that he’s paddling alone this time around. Despite his fancy footwork, don’t be surprised to see the boom lowered one last time.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in political consulting and strategic public relations. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.