Democrats Fight Back
Cheney’s chief of staff called to testify at Rich pardon hearings.

February 16, 2001 7:00 p.m.

ne of the few defenses Democrats have mounted for Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich is that over the

Printer-Friendly York Archive

years the fugitive tax-evader was represented by Republicans as well as Democrats. The fact that people from both parties have at one time or another championed Rich's cause proves, according to some Democrats, that the pardon was not a corrupt act on Clinton's part but rather an act of questionable judgment based on legal positions that have been put forth by a bipartisan group of attorneys. The Republican that Clinton's defenders point to most often is Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich for several years and is now vice president Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Clinton himself has adopted the Libby-GOP defense in the few statements he has made on the matter. "I mean, [Rich] had three big-time Republican lawyers, including Dick Cheney's chief of staff," the former president told Geraldo Rivera on Thursday. "Marc Rich himself is a Republican."

Now it appears the world will get a chance to hear from Libby. Late Friday, Henry Waxman, ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to chairman Dan Burton requesting that Libby be called to testify at the committee's March 1 hearing on the Rich pardon. Former White House chief of staff John Podesta, former White House counsel Beth Nolan, and Clinton confidante Bruce Lindsey have already been subpoenaed to appear.

The Democrats' strategy is this: During the first round of pardon hearings on February 8, most committee members, regardless of party, found the defense of Rich made by former White House counsel Jack Quinn to be simply preposterous. The sheer silliness of Quinn's case tended to underscore the idea that the Rich pardon had no foundation in law and was therefore plausibly the result of a shady deal between Clinton and Rich. Democrats were left with no defenses. Now they hope to show that other attorneys, not connected to Bill Clinton, advocated similar points of view in the past, suggesting that there was a legitimate legal basis for the pardon. That would allow them to argue that Clinton's decision was an act of bad judgment — few want to defend that — but not of wrongdoing.

"[Libby] took positions similar to those that Mr. Quinn articulated to the committee regarding the Rich case," Waxman wrote in his letter to Burton. "Given your stated intent of conducting a thorough inquiry into the Rich matter...it would be appropriate to require testimony and records from Mr. Libby."

The strategy is a gamble for Democrats. So far, the only document that has been released relating to Libby's representation of Rich is an October 6, 1999 memo from Libby to the "M Rich Team" about Rich's efforts to persuade the U.S. Attorney's office in New York to drop its requirement that he come home before any plea-bargain negotiations could take place. The memo listed a number of cases in which the Justice Department reportedly negotiated with domestic or international fugitives. "These cases may prove helpful if we wish to argue that the United States government should forego the [New York office's] 'policy' of not negotiating with fugitives," Libby wrote.

But arguing that Rich should have the chance to negotiate a plea is far different than arguing he should be pardoned without any adjudication of the case. And that is the problem Democrats will face when they question Libby. "We don't know what his position on the pardon is," says a Democratic staffer. "Libby becomes relevant because of his view on the underlying theory." But if Libby testifies that he never supported seeking a pardon for Rich and does not agree with Clinton's decision to grant one, committee Democrats will find themselves right where they started — without a defense.

So far, Libby has not made any public statement about the pardon. But it is nearly a sure thing that he'll be testifying on March 1, because Republicans committee chairman Dan Burton is said to be inclined to honor Waxman's request. "I don't see the chairman saying no, because it would look kind of hypocritical," says a Republican source. "Apparently, [Libby] was just trying to talk to the Southern District of New York and get negotiations going with them." If that's all there is to it, Democrats will again find themselves on the losing end of the Marc Rich issue.