The King of Oil: The Secret Lives of Marc Rich

reevaluate Rich’s case. According to Quinn’s memos, Holder believed that the federal prosecutor’s refusal to meet with Rich’s lawyers was “ridiculous.” Shortly after their discussion, Quinn sent Holder a memorandum explaining his position. Holder replied that “we’re all sympathetic” and that the “equities [are] on your side.” 18 However, Holder made it clear that he could not force the Southern District of New York to meet with Rich’s attorneys.
    When Rich decided to petition for a presidential pardon in the late fall of 2000, Quinn asked Holder for advice as to how he should proceed. “Deputy Attorney General Holder advised that it should be submitted directly to the White House,” André A. Wicki, Rich’s attorney in Switzerland, told me. Holder would play a crucial role in Rich’s pardon on January 19, 2001—one day before Clinton would leave office—when he received a call from White House Counsel Beth Nolan. She wanted to know Holder’s position on a possible Rich pardon. When he was later called before the House Government Reform Committee hearings on February 8, 2001, Holder informed the assembled committee members of his opinion. “I ultimately told Ms. Nolan that I was now neutral, leaning toward favorable, if there were foreign policy benefits that would be reaped by granting the pardon.” 19 In his testimony, Holdertold the committee that it was Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s call to the president that had swayed him. He later claimed that he had been unaware that he was the only Justice Department official whose opinion President Clinton had sought while considering Rich’s pardon. The deputy attorney general did not seem to have been aware of the importance the president placed on his opinion. Nevertheless, many observers believed that Holder’s involvement in the affair spelled the end of his career in public service, and Holder seemed inclined to agree with them. He claimed he wanted to “climb into bed and pull the covers up over my head. I’m done. Public life is over for me.” 20 In the end Holder was accused of acting in his own interest. It was claimed that he was seeking the position of attorney general in a possible Al Gore administration and that he had been trying to seek the favor of Jack Quinn, Gore’s former chief of staff. (Holder was appointed attorney general by President Barack Obama in 2009.)
    As a result of the tremendous public outrage, the Rich pardon was subject to an unprecedented amount of scrutiny. The powerful House Committee on Government Reform initiated an investigation and held hearings in spring 2001 to determine what had actually transpired and eventually published two reports consisting of over 1,500 pages. 21 Hearings were also held by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Justice Department’s Southern District of New York even saw fit to open a criminal investigation. All of the accusations were thoroughly reexamined. Had corruption played a role? Had Denise Rich “bought” her ex-husband’s pardon? Was Marc Rich the true source of the money Denise had donated to the Clintons and the Democratic Party? Did Rich pay Denise for her support? Was Rich an arms dealer? Was Jack Quinn guilty of ethical misconduct? Did Clinton break the law by pardoning Rich?
    Instead of the mountain they had hoped for, investigators were left with a molehill. The hearings determined that several White House advisers—including Beth Nolan—had in fact advised Clinton
against
issuing the pardon. Despite the combined efforts of the House of Representatives,the Senate, and the Department of Justice, the investigations were never able to come up with proof of bribery, arms dealing, or any other misdeed. Rich’s decision to directly petition the president may have been unusual, but it was by no means illegal. Clinton’s decision to pardon Rich without seeking extensive counsel from the Department of Justice was also well within the law. The wording of the U.S. Constitution is quite clear. It explicitly grants the president the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” 22
President Clinton’s Motivation
     
    Clinton sought to explain his decision to pardon Rich in an extensive op-ed article published in the
New York Times
in which he included many of the legal arguments that Rich’s legal team had sought to employ over the years (see chapters 10 and 13). 23 Clinton interpreted