Posted by Curt on 7 December, 2008 at 4:33 pm. 11 comments already!

The NYT’s does it’s best to show the people of this country why they should be marginalized with this ridiculous op-ed piece by Seth Lipsky who argues that the Marc Rich pardon was right, and Eric Holder, Obama’s pick for Attorney General, should defend it:

There are, however, those of us who have long maintained that Mr. Clinton was right to pardon Mr. Rich and his partner, Pincus Green. Having covered the case for years, I, for one, came to view the attempt to prosecute them as an error and a tragedy — and Mr. Clinton’s decision as precisely an example of how the pardon power was intended to be used.

Of course Seth fails to mention the 450 grand in contributions Denise Rich made to Hillary, and Bill’s library fund. He doesn’t like the fact that RICO was used in the prosecution but again fails to mention why a person who evaded his taxes should NOT be prosecuted at all. I mean were talking about 48 million dollars in tax evasion.

This part is a doozy:

I met with them a number of times in the years after in the hope that they might be willing to go on the record to The Journal and tell their side of the story. I was not successful, but I came to like them both.

Ohhhhh, that changes everything then.

Eric Holder shouldn’t be put down for his help in getting the pardon because the pardon was just and Marc Rich is a swell guy.


Powerline quotes from George Lardner’s post, A pardon to remember, which describes Holder part in this whole thing, including how Holder helped Rich circumvent the Justice Department:

On Nov. 18, 2000, Mr. Quinn told Mr. Holder that Mr. Rich was going to go for a pardon, a step his team had been contemplating for months. After the conversation, Mr. Quinn told colleagues that Mr. Holder had advised him to “go straight to” the White House and that the “timing is good.” On Dec. 11, just over a month before Mr. Clinton was to leave office, Mr. Quinn delivered the pardon papers to the White House. “The greatest danger lies with the lawyers,” Mr. Quinn wrote in an e-mail message to an aide to Mr. Rich, referring to the prosecutors in New York. “I have worked them hard and I am hopeful that E. Holder will be helpful to us.”

Under the rules governing pardon petitions — rules that were approved by Mr. Holder’s office — the views of United States attorneys “are given considerable weight” because of the “valuable insights” they have. And yet Mr. Holder did not consult Ms. White and her colleagues about the Rich pardon petition; they did not know of it until it had been granted.

Then, on Jan. 19, 2001, Mr. Holder delivered his pardon assessment to the White House, telling Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, that he was “neutral leaning favorable” on the Rich pardon. His decision, he added, was influenced by the support of Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister.

The people in the United States attorney’s office in New York weren’t the only ones surprised by Mr. Holder’s decision. Deborah Smolover, his top deputy for pardon cases, did not find out about the pardon for Mr. Rich until the White House called to inform her of it after midnight on Jan. 20. (Mr. Green won a pardon, too.) After the pardon was signed, Mr. Quinn has testified, Mr. Holder called him to commend him on “a very good job.” Mr. Holder also asked Mr. Quinn to consider hiring two former aides, one of whom had already contacted Mr. Quinn on Jan. 2 “at Holder’s suggestion.”

Yes, the President can pardon who he wants. But that doesn’t preclude the citizens from criticizing the pardon and the way it came about, which in this case appeared sleazy as hell.

Meanwhile the NYT’s stock keeps sliding, and they wonder why.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x