Clinton Explains Reasons for Rich Pardon

Feb. 17, 2001 -- Bill Clinton says he believes he acted "in the best interests of justice" when he pardoned the fugitive financier Marc Rich, and the move had nothing to do with political donations by Rich's ex-wife.

"Ordinarily, I would have denied pardons in this case simply because [Rich and an associate] did not return to the United States to face the charges against them," Clinton writes in a letter published in Sunday's New York Times and the paper's online edition. "However, I decided to grant the pardons in this unusual case."

Eight Reasons Include Pressure From Israelis

Addressing the controversy in detail for the first time, Clinton lists eight specific reasons for his pardon — ranging from the legal to the political.

"I am accustomed to the rough and tumble of politics, but the accusations made against me in this case have been particularly painful because for eight years I worked hard to make good decisions for the American people," Clinton writes. "I want every American to know that, while you may disagree with this decision, I made it on the merits as I saw them, and I take full responsibility for it."

Among the eight reasons, Clinton says he acted because of pressure from "present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish communities in America and Europe," who urged the pardon because of Rich's participation in charitable and civic causes.

Clinton says he believed subsequent investigations suggested Rich and another pardon subject, Pincus Green, may have been prosecuted improperly, and that their companies had paid millions of dollars in compensation to the government. He adds that his opinion was strengthened when three Republican attorneys he consulted also favored the pardons.

Possibility of Civil Charges

As a precaution, Clinton says he ensured that civil charges still could be pursued against Rich and Green, if necessary.

"I knew the men's companies had settled their disputes with the government, but I did not know what personal liability the individuals might still have for Energy Department or other violations," Clinton writes. "Therefore, I required them to waive any and all defenses, including their statute of limitations defenses, to any civil charge the government might bring against them.

"I believe my pardon decision was in the best interests of justice," Clinton adds. "If the two men were wrongly indicted in the first place, justice has been done. On the other hand, if they do personally owe money for Energy Department penalties, unpaid taxes or civil fines, they can now be sued civilly, as others in their position apparently were, a result that might not have been possible without the waiver, because civil statutes of limitations may have run while they were out of the United States."

Denies Connection to Contributions

Clinton's pardon of Rich, who has lived in Switzerland since being indicted on tax evasion and other charges in 1983, has prompted an investigation by the Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives, which held the first congressional hearings on the matter last week.

On Wednesday, the committee agreed to withold an immunity grant to Rich's ex-wife, Denise, who has donated more than $1.5 million to Democratic causes, including Bill Clinton's presidential library and his wife Hillary's successful Senate campaign.

Denise Rich earlier refused to appear before the House panel, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. If granted immunity, she could be compelled to testify.

A committee spokesman said the Justice Department had requested the committee not to grant Denise Rich immunity during a federal prosecutor's preliminary investigation of her husband's pardon.

In The New York Times, Clinton denies the contributions played any role in the pardon.

"In the last few months of my term, many, many people called, wrote or came up to me asking that I grant or at least consider granting clemency in various cases," Clinton writes. "These people included friends, family members, former spouses of applicants, supporters, acquaintances, Republican and Democratic members of Congress, journalists and total strangers.

"I believe that the president can and should listen to such requests, although they cannot determine his decision on the merits," he writes. There is only one prohibition: There can be no quid pro quo. And there certainly was not in this or any of the other pardons and commutations I granted."

ABCNEWS.com's Michael S. James contributed to this report.