Clinton: Pardon for fugitive was 'right thing to do'

By MARY DEJEVSKY

WASHINGTON - Bill Clinton has strongly defended his controversial decision to pardon a fugitive businessman as law enforcement authorities in New York confirmed that a criminal investigation into the affair was underway.

Mr Clinton has said he would co-operate with any "appropriate inquiry", but denied that money had been a consideration in granting the pardon to the Swiss-based financier Marc Rich, charged in the 1980s with multi-million dollar tax evasion.

"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 DNC [Democratic National Committee] or my library had anything to do with the decision are absolutely false. I look forward to co-operating with any appropriate inquiry," he said in a statement released today.

The office of US Attorney Mary Jo White, the top federal prosecutor for the Manhattan district of New York, and the FBI said yesterday that they wanted to determine whether there had been "any violations of federal law" in the decision to pardon Mr Rich.

The investigation appears to derive from reports that Mr Rich's ex-wife, Denise, a US citizen, made large contributions to the Democratic party, and specifically that her most recent donations included support for Hillary Clinton's successful Senate campaign and a sum of $450,000 donated to Mr Clinton's as yet unbuilt presidential library.

The investigation allows Ms White to request and examine telephone and banking records and other documents.

The investigation comes in addition to two Congressional inquiries that are in progress into the circumstances of Mr Clinton's last-minute pardon for Mr Rich and his business partner, Pincus Green.

On Wednesday, grilled by the Senate judiciary committee, Mr Rich's lawyer and former White House counsel, Jack Quinn, said that he had presented the arguments – and Mr Clinton had considered them – purely on their legal merits; personal, political or financial considerations had not entered the discussion.

While Mr Quinn's account was not contested by the Senate committee, the US judicial officer who advises on pardons procedures testified that he had not been consulted about Mr Rich and that his name had come up only in the early hours of Saturday, 20 January, Mr Clinton's last day in office.

Mr Rich has run a highly successful business empire from his base in Switzerland since fleeing the United States in 1983, shortly before he was indicted on charges of fraud and massive tax evasion by the US authorities.

He settled with the US tax authorities and other creditors in the United States, but still faces a battery of criminal charges relating to illegal trading with Iran, Iraq and Libya, bypassing US embargoes.

The judicial investigation emanates from the same New York attorney's office that investigated Mr Rich's case in the first place and where feelings still run high about his successful escape from US justice. It also embroils Mr Clinton in the judicial system all over again, barely three weeks after he negotiated a settlement of all legal problems then outstanding.

In a deal with the independent prosecutor's office just 24 hours before he left office, Mr Clinton accepted that he misled the courts about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. His licence to practise law in his home state of Arkansas was suspended for five years, and he was required to pay legal costs associated with the investigation. In return, he was granted immunity from prosecution in that and any related investigations. The settlement was greeted with sighs of relief from Democrats and Republicans alike as ending what seemed an interminable legal saga.

How far the new investigation will proceed is a separate question. A President's power of pardon is held to be an absolute prerogative that is not subject to oversight by the judiciary and Congress.