Libby, Rich and Clinton

On February 15, 2001, former President Bill Clinton phoned the live broadcast of cable television talk show host Geraldo Rivera and complained that he had been “blindsided” and “bewildered” by all of the criticism surrounding his pardon of multi-millionaire-fugitive-donor Marc Rich. Without much detail, Clinton told Rivera he had only done “what past presidents have done.”

But, three days later, Clinton attempted to explain himself further, in writing, with an editorial that appeared in the New York Times. Among other things, Clinton wrote:

The applications were reviewed and advocated not only by my former White House counsel Jack Quinn but also by three distinguished Republican attorneys: Leonard Garment, a former Nixon White House official; William Bradford Reynolds, a former high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department; and Lewis Libby, now Vice President Cheney's chief of staff.

CNN promptly reported that the attorneys in question acknowledged "representing" Rich, and "arguing to U.S. attorneys at the time that criminal charges should be replaced by civil tax charges." But, it was also reported that none of the three knew anything about any application for a pardon. Indeed, all of them contradicted the former president. Garment told CNN. "This is absolutely false. I had nothing to do with it." William Bradford Reynolds said, "I knew nothing about it. We never, never, never had any discussions about a pardon."

White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "In no way, shape or form was Mr. Libby involved in the pardon of Mr. Rich." He further explained that Libby represented Rich from 1985 until the Spring of 2000 but, during this time, was working entirely toward a plea agreement. Libby separated from Rich when it was agreed that negotiations with the Justice Department had reached an impasse. Likewise, Juleanna Glover Weiss, spokeswoman for Vice President Cheney noted the assertion that Libby "had any thing to do with the [Marc Rich] pardon is nonsense."

Eventually, former White House spokesman Joe Lockhart appeared on ABC's This Week to say Clinton had actually produced a "very poorly worded sentence." With respect to the three lawyers, Lockhart explained:

It was all of their work. It was their legal analysis and their tax analysis that formed the foundation of the pardon. So ... it is incorrect to say that they were part of the pardon application. That was something that [Rich attorney] Jack Quinn did. But it was all of their work that persuaded the president that he ought to grant the pardon.

In testimony before the House Government Reform Committee, Libby later reemphasized that he ended his advocacy on behalf of Rich well before the pardon effort began. Indeed, by that time, he was working for President Bush's campaign and working on the pardon would have clearly represented a conflict of interest. Libby reiterated, "We were not seeking a pardon but rather a negotiated settlement of the outstanding indictment."

When members of Congress attempted to harrass Libby for his willingness to represent Marc Rich in any capacity, Libby shared his view that prosecutors from the Southern District of New York had "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they prosecuted Rich. One of the prosecutors Libby negotiated with, over a period of five years, was none other than Patrick Fitzgerald.