-Caveat Lector-
NBC News Transcripts
SHOW: MEET THE PRESS (10:00 AM ET)
February 18, 2001, Sunday
LENGTH: 4108 words
HEADLINE: JOHN PODESTA DISCUSSES THE PARDON OF MARC RICH
BODY:
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Podesta, the president's Op-Ed piece has already
created some political firestorm as well. This is what he said:
"...the case for the pardon was 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."
The New York Times this morning has this to say--their reaction,
their response: "In the article, Mr. Clinton said that three
prominent Republican lawyers had favored the pardon. But all
three denied that today. Leonard Garment, a former official in
the Nixon administration who worked on Mr. Rich's behalf from
1984 to 1993, said, 'It is absolutely false that I knew about and
endorsed the idea of a pardon.' Ari Fleischer, the White House
spokesman, said that Mr. Clinton misstated the role of Vice
President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, a former
lawyer for Mr. Rich. 'While Mr. Libby was involved in the
original case concerning Mr. Rich, he was in no way, shape,
manner or form involved in the pardon,' Mr. Fleischer said. The
third Republican, William Bradford Reynolds, also denied tonight
that he played any role in the pardon."
Does President Clinton still insist that the case for the pardon
was reviewed and advocated by these three Republicans?
MR. JOHN PODESTA: Well, I think what the president was saying
there was that the underlying case that this should have been a
civil matter and not a criminal matter was reviewed and advocated
by these men. And I think that we've now created an "Alice in
Wonderland" situation in which I'm here defending the president's
right to issue the pardon, although my view was that we shouldn't
have had the pardon. These guys who have spent the last many
years--Mr. Garment himself after the pardon said he thought it
was the right thing to do--who have advocated on behalf of Mr.
Rich are now walking away from it. So I'm not sure exactly where
we are at this stage.
MR. RUSSERT: Whoa, wait a minute. Wait a minute. I spoke to...
MR. PODESTA: But Mr. Libby--look, Mr. Libby laid out the case to
Mr. Quinn. Mr. Quinn built his file around Mr. Libby's--what--the
information Mr. Libby supplied to him. Mr. Libby has said that he
believes Mr. Rich is innocent. He has said that he believes the
indictment shouldn't be brought. He has said that the--that he
thinks that this matter should have been a civil matter and not a
criminal matter. If he would like to change chairs with me, I'm
happy to have him come here and explain exactly what his position
is.
MR. RUSSERT: But words are important. When the president of the
United States says the case for the pardon was reviewed and
advocated by, that's not accurate. I spoke to Mr. Garment last
night. He said, "I always advocated Mr. Rich coming back here and
going on trial and defending himself. I never..."
MR. PODESTA: Oh, Mr. Garment also said--Tim...
MR. RUSSERT: "I never..."
MR. PODESTA: Mr. Garment also said that it was the right thing to
do after the pardon. So I think...
MR. RUSSERT: But he never advocated a pardon. Mr. Libby insists
he never advocated a pardon. Will the president at least correct
the record and say...
MR. PODESTA: Sure, I'll correct the record right now.
He'll--he--what I think--what the president had in mind, I think
maybe there was come confusion because of what Mr. Quinn said to
the president, was that these men had advocated what was the
underlying case for the pardon, and that is that the matter
should not have been indicted as a criminal matter. It should
have been brought as a civil case. Now, I think that--look. Look.
MR. RUSSERT: But did not specifically advocate the pardon?
MR. PODESTA: Tim, I think reasonable people could disagree with
that, but the president has taken responsibility for it. He laid
out his reasons. He said that, he--you know, at the end of the
day, for a long list of reasons, which he put in The New York
Times and laid out in some detail, he thought it was the right
thing to do and it was in the interests of justice to put this
back in the civil track. It had been languishing in the criminal
track for 17 years. But if they want to--if that's their beef,
let me settle that right here this morning.
MR. RUSSERT: All right.
MR. PODESTA: And I think that--but I do think it's important to
have these gentlemen step forward--Mr. Libby represented him for
many, many years. Let him lay out what he thinks of this case.
Does he think Mr. Rich was innocent or was guilty? You know, I
can only tell you that I've heard that he believes that he was
innocent and the indictment should never have been brought.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what the president said as to what
the criteria are for a pardon or a commutation in this morning's
article.
MR. PODESTA: All right.
MR. RUSSERT: A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is
warranted for several reasons. The desire to restore full
citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served
their sentences and lived within the law since. A belief that a
sentence was excessive or unjust. Personal circumstances that
warrant compassion. Other unique circumstances. Under which one
of those criteria does Marc Rich qualify?
MR. PODESTA: Well, I think, you know, this certainly wasn't done
on humanitarian grounds. I think that...
MR. RUSSERT: And he hadn't served a sentence.
MR. PODESTA: He hadn't--I think he...
MR. RUSSERT: So the first two are gone, so it's unique
circumstances?
MR. PODESTA: I think he believed--at the end of the day, he was
convinced that this indictment under RICO should not have been
brought, that the Justice Department abandoned that whole theory
sometime later--I think seven years after the indictment was
brought--that the matter should have been brought in a civil
context. That's why he asked Mr. Quinn to ensure that Mr. Rich,
if he did come back, would waive his--any defenses he had to
civil liability, and he did that. And that that was the
appropriate track to handle this matter in. He...
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Rich...
MR. PODESTA: I think that he was influenced by the fact that, as
the president said, men that he respected of great reputation in
both political parties in Israel advocated for it. I think that
that was a consideration. That wasn't why he did it. I think he
wasn't doing it for Ehud Barak, but the fact that Mr. Barak felt
strongly about it made the president think harder about it. Now,
there are those of us who thought that wasn't--you know, the
decision would have been better left going the other way. But as
I said, I think that it was a decision that was made on the
merits after a careful study of the case.
MR. RUSSERT: You raise the idea of foreign policy considerations
of Israel's support and its prime minister. Why didn't the
president consult Sandy Berger, his national security adviser?
Why didn't he consult the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright?
MR. PODESTA: Because I think what...
MR. RUSSERT: Or his Secretary of Defense William Cohen?
MR. PODESTA: I don't think he was trying...
MR. RUSSERT: Why not consult his foreign policy team if he's
using a foreign policy consideration?
MR. PODESTA: Well, I think I just answered that, but let me
answer it again, which is that I don't think that they--you know,
Mr. Berger certainly knew that Mr. Barak was advocating on behalf
of Mr. Rich. I don't think that this was--he wasn't trying to
improve U.S.-Israeli relations in granting the pardon, but it
meant something to the president that so many Israelis across the
political spectrum had something good to say about Mr. Rich. And
that's why I think he took it seriously. So I don't know that the
other people had anything particularly to add to this case.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe it was a consolation prize to Israel
because he wanted to pardon Jonathan Pollard but knew he couldn't
politically?
MR. PODESTA: No, I don't think so. I think that, again, the
Israelis did press both cases and Prime Minister Netanyahu and
Mr. Barak pressed the case on behalf of Mr. Pollard. But, again,
this was a very broad spectrum, Shimon Perez, Scholomo Ben-Ami,
the former minister, a very broad spectrum--the mayor of
Jerusalem--of people who were in support of this pardon.
MR. RUSSERT: Why couldn't...
MR. PODESTA: By the way, I don't think that means that that tips
the scale in favor of it. It's just one factor and there are
other factors that he laid out in The New York Times.
MR. RUSSERT: Why couldn't Mr. Rich come back and face trial?
MR. PODESTA: Well, I think...
MR. RUSSERT: Does President Clinton believe he could have gotten
a fair trial if he did that?
MR. PODESTA: I think that the president believes that this was a
matter better handled in the civil context. If you're asking me
why he couldn't, he could have.
MR. RUSSERT: Could he have gotten a fair trial?
MR. PODESTA: Of course, you can get a fair trial in the United
States.
MR. RUSSERT: Then why not allow that to happen?
MR. PODESTA: Well, I think, you know, that was a judgment call.
And I think that other people--obviously, a lot of people
disagree with the judgment call but it was a call made on the
merits.
MR. RUSSERT: What burns...
MR. PODESTA: Tim, this case was sitting there for 17 years in the
criminal context. It was going nowhere in the criminal context.
MR. RUSSERT: What burns a lot of people is that Marc Rich
renounced his US citizenship. "I am no longer a United States
citizen." Edward Bennett Williams, who was his attorney at that
time, said...
MR. PODESTA: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ..."You have spit on the flag." How could the
president of the United States pardon somebody who says, "I no
longer want to be a citizen of your country"?
MR. PODESTA: First of all, I don't think he was aware of the
Edward Bennett Williams' comment. I'm not sure about that.
MR. RUSSERT: Was he aware that he renounced his citizenship?
MR. PODESTA: Well, I think there's some dispute about that.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, the pardon application listed two countries as
citizenship, not the United States.
MR. PODESTA: You know, I think that--you know, as I said, there
are a plethora of factors. I think people could judge it the
other way. I think he got advice the other way, that it should
be--leave it where it is. Let it languish there in the criminal
context. If he ever comes back, he can be tried. He'll get a fair
trial. That's what a number of his advisors thought.
MR. RUSSERT: Roger...
MR. PODESTA: But I think that he thought on balance it made
sense.
MR. RUSSERT: Roger Adams, the pardon attorney of the Department
of Justice, came before Congress and talked about the pardon. He
was asked whether the procedures had been used and this is what
Mr. Adams had to say:
(Videotape, Wednesday):
MR. ROGER ADAMS: With respect to the pardon of Marc Rich and
Pincus Green, Mr. Chairman, none of the regular procedures that
I've just described were followed.
This case was clearly not--this was a very unusual situation. The
Rich and Green case were not handled anything approaching the
normal way.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Adams testified he learned at 1 a.m. on the day
of the inauguration that Mr. Rich was being pardoned. And let me
show you an e-mail that occurred on January 10. This is: "CR
called from Aspen. Her friend B - who is with her - got a call
today from potus - who said he was impressed by JQ's last letter
and he wants to do it and is doing all possible to turn around WH
counsels." Beth Dozoretz says the president didn't say that part
but that's in the e-mail.
MR. PODESTA: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: "DR thinks he sounded very positive but 'that we
have to keep praying.' There shall be no decision this wknd and
the other candidate Milik is not getting it." Why would the
president, on January 10, call a fund-raiser--in effect, the
ex-wife of Marc Rich--and not call the pardon attorney or the
U.S. attorney in the Southern District until 10 days later? It
was clearly on his mind and yet he was talking to fund-raisers
and not pardon attorneys.
MR. PODESTA: Look, I don't know what--I don't know--I have no
firsthand knowledge about this conversation or what was said in
it. You know, I think we have to wait to hear--and Miss Dozoretz
has said that he didn't say what he said in this e-mail. So, you
know, I don't know what the...
MR. RUSSERT: One piece of it, they didn't--but you were
opposed...
MR. PODESTA: I don't know where this thing stands, but let me
tell you--look, well...
MR. RUSSERT: ...to the pardon, right?
MR. PODESTA: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Beth Nolan, White House counsel, was opposed to the
pardon, reports that Bruce Lindsey, White House counsel, was
opposed to the pardon. If you were all opposed to the pardon,
weren't you waving red flags, saying, "Mr. President, don't do
this"? And he still did it.
MR. PODESTA: Well, I think that the--Tim, the truth is that over
the course of that time, it was on sort of a--you know, we
were--we had to--it was under consideration. I don't--I think
that, as the deputy attorney general has noted, the Justice
Department was aware that it was over there. I think it really
wasn't until the very end that it got serious consideration,
after Mr. Barak had asked the president to consider it. And then
it was discussed.
I think that the process--as the president said in his op-ed
piece, that he takes responsibility for it. On reflection, the
process should have included Mary Jo White, it should have given
Mr. Holder more time to consider the case. But he thought he had
the facts. He made the decision. He's taken responsibility for
it. He's not trying to lay this off on Mr. Holder. He took
responsibility for it. He discussed it with his counsel and
concluded it was the right thing to do. Now, you can disagree
with it, and virtually everybody in the country has disagreed on
it. But he did it on the merits.
MR. RUSSERT: Eric Holder testified that he would recommend
against the pardon if he knew everything he knew today. Will you
and Beth Nolan and Bruce Lindsey go before Congress and testify?
MR. PODESTA: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: One of the e-mails said--this is Jack Quinn--"I
think we've benefitted from being under the press radar. Podesta
said as much." Did you try to keep this quiet?
MR. PODESTA: Yeah, I--no, absolutely not.
MR. RUSSERT: Did you say that to Jack Quinn?
MR. PODESTA: I don't believe I ever talked to Jack Quinn, so I
don't know where that's coming from.
MR. RUSSERT: Where'd that come from?
MR. PODESTA: I don't know. I mean, I may have--I actually have no
idea where that came from because I do not believe I talked to
Mr. Quinn about this.
MR. RUSSERT: There were so many other pardons that occurred in
the last moment. Carlos Vignolla, 800 pounds of cocaine. His
father gave $ 160,000 in contributions. He's pardoned despite
opposition from prosecutors. Four Hasidic Jews who stole money...
MR. PODESTA: He was--but with support from a broad range of
people in Los Angeles, including, at the time, the U.S. attorney.
MR. RUSSERT: But the cardinal of Los Angeles has since retracted
his support.
MR. PODESTA: But the cardinal--but we've--you know, the cardinal
has retracted it after the LA Times has criticized the pardon.
MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me...
MR. PODESTA: The pardon--what we had in front of us at the time
was a letter from the cardinal asking for the pardon. So that's
what we considered. Not his retraction after it was criticized.
MR. RUSSERT: Four Hasidic Jews from New York area that voted
1,400-to-12 for Hillary Clinton over Rick Lazio. They met with
President and Mrs. Clinton December 22 in the White House. It
creates kind of a view of people that these pardons are for sale.
Glenn Broswell who...
MR. PODESTA: Well, let me talk about the four Hasidic Jews. They
came in, they asked for a pardon. The president did not pardon
them. He concluded that they had long prison sentences, they had
served a couple of years in prison. They all had a number of kids
at home. He saw no point in letting them sit in prison while
their children who are at home--he left in place their
restitution fine, and said, "I think, in this case, and in these
four cases, after the plea from those community leaders, that it
made sense to commute the sentence to time served." They had
served a couple of years each. And to send them home, let them
earn some money and pay the restitution and be with their
families. That was on the merits and that's what he did. He
didn't grant them the pardon that they had asked for.
MR. RUSSERT: Glenn Broswell, who was selling mail-order pills,
was under investigation at the time he was pardoned for another
crime.
MR. PODESTA: You know, I wasn't engaged in that. I don't even
remember discussing it. But I believe that the White House was
unaware that he was under investigation.
MR. RUSSERT: But they should have been.
MR. PODESTA: I don't know whether they should have been. He was
unaware--I think they did an NCIC check, which turns up
outstanding warrants, etc.--I believe they did; I'm not sure
about that--and nothing came up.
MR. RUSSERT: Here's one that Time magazine says today that you
were directly involved in. Harvey Wineig, who was facilitating an
extortion-kidnapping scheme and laundered $ 19 million from the
Cali Colombian cocaine cartel, that he was opposed by the pardon
attorney, by the U.S. attorneys in the Southern District...
MR. PODESTA: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...by Eric Holder, and that they came to John
Podesta and Bruce Lindsey and pleaded.
MR. PODESTA: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you involved in that?
MR. PODESTA: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: And you recommended such a pardon?
MR. PODESTA: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
MR. PODESTA: On humanitarian grounds, as the president laid out
in his piece. Mr. Wineig had served six years in jail, he had a
longer sentence, he had served more years than people who were
more culpable, I believe, in the crime. I read the file, but it
was done on the basis of a humanitarian plea that was made to us
by someone we knew who had rendered good public service and was a
relative of Mr. Wineig, and he made that plea to us and we
considered it. And, you know, I think it was a very close call.
Some of the people in the office--I don't know whether--I don't
remember what Mr. Lindsay's advice was. Some of the people in the
office thought it was a bad call, that it tilted the other way,
but for me it was a close call and, on a humanitarian basis, I
recommended it to the president and he granted it.
MR. RUSSERT: There's been--you know...
MR. PODESTA: And I think that what we forget about is of those
177 pardons, there were a lot of people like that who you've
never--you know, their names haven't surfaced, people who had
long jail sentences who were commuted because they were involved
in first-time offenses, etc. And, you know, those are pushed to
the side because we're going to go through and pick every one of
these apart. But the president is vested with the authority, and
that's why the Constitution gives him the authority to make these
tough calls, which inevitably will be criticized, and--as they
have been. You know, Harry Truman was criticized on the way out
the door for pardoning a bunch of people who were members of the
Democratic Party. It created a great brouhaha, but in retrospect,
nobody remembers it. Caspar Weinberger you mentioned, right in
advance of President Bush probably being called as a witness in
his trial, was pardoned.
MR. RUSSERT: But the people...
MR. PODESTA: It created a great brouhaha, but we didn't have what
we have in this case.
MR. RUSSERT: But the people who are criticizing President
Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich are not just the Republicans. Herb
Kohl, Charles Schumer, Barney Frank, Tom Daschle--they've all
done it. I--Tom Daschle, the leader of the Democrats--have all
been outspoken. Let me show you what Bill Daley, secretary of
Commerce to President Clinton, Al Gore's campaign manager: "It's
terrible, devastating, rather appalling. ...Bush ran on bringing
dignity back and I think the actions by Clinton of the last
couple of weeks are giving him a pretty good platform." These are
Democrats.
MR. PODESTA: I understand that. You know, I...
MR. RUSSERT: And if--is it warranted?
MR. PODESTA: I think the president made this call on the merits.
You can disagree with it, you can decide that, as Joe Biden said,
"What was he thinking about?" etc. But he made it--he made a hard
call. He made it on the merits. If you criticize him--look,
evidently, you know, we're going to spend the next four years,
like we spent the last eight years, going after decision after
decision that the president made. But I think, in retrospect,
when you look back at all the decisions that he made, he made a
lot of pretty good ones and he did a pretty good job for this
country.
MR. RUSSERT: The concern is on the way out, the immunity deal in
effect with Robert Ray, making sure he wasn't prosecuted, where
he acknowledged he didn't tell the truth under oath. His long
delayed departure on Inauguration Day ruffled a lot of feathers
on both sides, Democrats and Republicans. The gifts--receiving
gifts at the last moment before Mrs. Clinton became a senator.
The real estate--a penthouse apartment in New York, which he's
now backed off on and gone to Harlem. It has all come together in
a perception that is a negative one of the president. This is...
MR. PODESTA: And look...
MR. RUSSERT: This is--I'm going to give you a chance.
MR. PODESTA: All right.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what Time magazine has done. This is
the cover that's coming out tomorrow, The Incredible Shrinking
Ex-President. And...
MR. PODESTA: They did the same cover in 1993.
MR. RUSSERT: But...
MR. PODESTA: And look what happened in the next eight years.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me...
MR. PODESTA: Exactly the same cover, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: It didn't say ex back then.
MR. PODESTA: Yeah. It didn't say ex.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you...
MR. PODESTA: What happened in the last eight years? He did a
pretty good job for the American people.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you the latest polling. This is Bill
Clinton favorable, unfavorable. Clinton 48 percent favorable; 51
percent unfavorable. George W. Bush, same poll, 64 percent; 30
percent. And Mrs. Clinton, Siena Research has an approval of 39
percent; disapproval 33 percent. Her counterpart in New York
Charles Schumer, 57 percent; 21 percent.
All that being said, the Clintons can't be happy, what has
transpired this last month.
MR. PODESTA: Yeah. A lot of it is unfair, too. Let me--let's take
the gifts thing, for example. You know, this great story about
how they took all this stuff out of the White House. Well,
they're given a list and said you could--and I might add this was
not the Gilbert Stuart portrait of Washington. It was a, you
know, painted TV stand and a checkerboard.
MR. RUSSERT: But wait, wait, wait, wait.
MR. PODESTA: They were given a list and said, "You can take it or
it'll go to the archives' basement." They said, "OK, we'll take
some of these things and not the others." That was not their
problem. But they've been pilloried for it, vilified for it by
the press. And, you know, I just think it's a bum rap. Mrs.
Clinton has raised $ 25 million for the White House. She donated
her book proceeds, $ 500,000 of her own money, to the White
House, and they've been vilified for it. I think it's a bum rap.
The airplane story--it didn't--you didn't need President Bush to
go on Air Force One to find out
that that whole story was hogwash.
MR. RUSSERT: OK. But what...
MR. PODESTA: You could have gone and done it, but you didn't.
MR. RUSSERT: But clarify one point. In the final weeks, did
friends of Mrs. Clinton not solicit others and say, "Would you
please buy this silverware, these gifts for Mrs. Clinton for her
new houses?"
MR. PODESTA: Yes, that happened. And they were given the advice
that the Bushes have taken presents in the past. The Reagans have
done the same sort of thing. I think that was bad advice that
they got and they--you know, they paid a price for it and they
paid the money back, by the way.
MR. RUSSERT: As...
MR. PODESTA: They paid for those gifts. They didn't take them.
MR. RUSSERT: As the White House chief of staff, what has this
last month taught you?
MR. PODESTA: What has the last month taught me? I think that it's
taught me two things. One is that I'm still proud of all the work
we did at the end, on medical privacy and protecting our
country's natural resources, on worker safety and cleaning up the
environment. But I think that it also taught me that--the media
obsession with the Clintons and, frankly, that the people who are
out there really, I think, to kind of destroy and undermine what
he did as president--all the good things he did as president--are
ever present and we're just going to have to deal with that and
live with it, and probably adjust to it in the future.
MR. RUSSERT: John Podesta, we thank you for coming on and making
your defense this morning.
MR. PODESTA: Thank you.
--end file--
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
