The Stench Of Democrat Hypocrisy
July 3, 2007
There are some odors that just can’t be washed away.
WASHINGTON — Six years ago, the launch of Hillary Clinton’s career in the US Senate was marred by allegations that her brothers had received payments from people pardoned by President Bill Clinton in the waning months of his presidency.
Now, in the wake of the launch of her presidential campaign, the pardon controversy has reemerged in an obscure court case in which Senator Clinton’s brother Tony is battling an order to repay more than $100,000 he received from a couple pardoned by President Clinton.
Tony Rodham, who acknowledged approaching the president about a pardon for the couple, is the second of Hillary Clinton’s brothers to receive money from people who were eventually pardoned by President Clinton. Hugh Rodham received $400,000 from two people, one of whom was pardoned and one whose sentence was commuted.
But while Hillary Clinton immediately expressed chagrin over the news in 2001 that Hugh received the money — and asked him to return it — she said Tony was “not paid,” according to a congressional report. The Clinton campaign yesterday declined to comment on the case involving Tony Rodham.
Clinton critics have been seeking to revive an array of controversies, from the Whitewater land deal to the Monica Lewinsky case. The Clinton campaign has sought to depict them as old or moot cases. But the Tony Rodham case could be different because it is in court just as Senator Clinton’s campaign reaches full speed.
Yesterday, US Bankruptcy Court Judge Marian Harrison of Nashville ordered Tony Rodham to respond by March 16 to the allegation that he failed to repay a loan of $107,000 from the couple pardoned by Clinton, according to attorneys involved in the case.
President Clinton’s pardons have been a political issue for Hillary Clinton because of her ties to a number of the cases. In addition to the people who paid her brothers, those receiving pardons included commodities trader Marc Rich, a fugitive who was prosecuted for tax evasion by then-US Attorney Rudolph Giuliani and fled to Switzerland. Rich was pardoned after his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed heavily to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign.
Controversy over the pardons was reignited last week after Hollywood mogul and former Clinton supporter David Geffen criticized the Clintons for the Rich pardon.
“It is a legitimate campaign issue,” said Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. He said that Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers’ and her own involvement in the pardons because “the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained. “
The Tony Rodham lawsuit revolves around his work for a carnival company, United Shows of America, which was owned by Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory. The couple, who had been convicted of bank fraud, hired Tony Rodham as a business consultant and paid him $244,769 in salary over 2 1/2 years, according to a congressional report.
President Clinton pardoned the couple in March 2000. The Republican-controlled House Government Reform Committee issued a 2002 report that said Rodham had helped the couple obtain the pardon.
Edgar Gregory has since died, and his company is now bankrupt. The lawsuit against Tony Rodham, brought by the bankruptcy trustee, revolves around whether the Gregorys loaned Rodham $107,000, or whether that money was part of his salary. The trustee for the bankrupt estate says it was a loan that was never repaid and that, with interest, it would now be $153,000.
When Tony Rodham’s involvement with the Gregorys first became public in early 2001, Hillary Clinton said that her brother had known the couple “for some time . . . he has a personal relationship with them. He was not paid.”
The House Government Reform Committee report the next year, noting that Rodham had worked as a consultant to the Gregorys, said a further review should be conducted to determine whether Hillary Clinton “knew of the financial relationship between Tony Rodham and the Gregorys when Rodham was lobbying the President for pardons.” The report said Hillary Clinton’s “statement that Tony Rodham ‘was not paid’ is not accurate.”
Rodham yesterday did not respond to a request for comment. In 2001, he said on CNN that he had worked as a consultant for the Gregorys but that “on the pardon issue, I never received a dime from them.”
Rodham also said that he mentioned the pardon application to then-President Clinton. “Yes, I did,” Rodham said. “And I have no problem saying I mentioned it to the president.”
Attorneys for Rodham and the bankrupt estate said they have no plans to involve the Clintons in the case and declined to comment on the pardon.
“We are dealing with a bankrupt estate, so we are not going to be spending a lot of money to flesh out the pardon issues that are related to this,” Michael Collins, the attorney for the bankrupt estate, said.
Rodham’s attorney, Samuel Crocker, said in an interview yesterday that he believed the case would be settled. Crocker said he had “no interest” in involving the Clintons in the proceeding or delving into the pardon.
Groups critical of the Clintons have tied the case to questions about the pardons. Judicial Watch, a group that has targeted the Clintons for years, said the bankruptcy proceeding should prompt the Justice Department to review the circumstances of the pardon.
But a Justice Department official wrote to Judicial Watch on Jan. 16 that “it is likely that any new allegations would be outside of the five-year statute of limitations period.”
Judicial Watch last year tried to obtain unredacted documents related to the pardon of the Gregorys but were rebuffed by the Bush administration, which said releasing them would violate executive privilege.
The Clinton pardons were a major scandal in early 2001, as Hillary was beginning her term. She said she and the president did not know her brother Hugh had received $400,000 in fees from two people, one of whom received a commutation and one a pardon. Hugh Rodham has said he returned the money.
The Rich pardon received the most attention. Rich had been indicted in 1983 on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. Rich fled to Switzerland and never stood trial.
Before Rich received the pardon in January 2001, his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $70,000 to a fund supporting Hillary Clinton’s Senate bid, and also made a large contribution to the Clinton presidential library.
President Clinton has said he pardoned Rich at the behest of Israeli officials, and has denied any wrongdoing.
Right- the Israelis made him do it. Now that’s a culture of corruption, when you can blame a foreign government for your sins.
July 3, 2007 at 5:03 PM
James Taranto (Best of the Web, Opinion Journal, July 3) has more on a Clinton case. It is interesting because the motivation is a little different. He also talks about the congressional response.
July 3, 2007 at 8:04 PM
This belongs in the two wrongs make a right category. There’s no getting round the fact that Libby was found guilty by a jury of his fellow citizens of four counts of perjury and obstruction. The non elite, much beloved of the right wing commentators, get this simple fact. Obviously, this commutation, is very popular with his base. The problem is his base only represents about 33% of the electorate. For the other two thirds of the country it’s a blatant demonstration that there’s one law for the Libbys of this world and another for everyone else. In other words this ain’t going to do the Republican party much good in 08. Their candidates will be having to defend it and Mr Libby will be starring in lots of campaign ads. I wonder whether we really want to win the next election or are we more interested in self indulgences like pardons for Mr Libby.
July 3, 2007 at 9:36 PM
And O.J. got away with murder. Your point is?
You mean the double standard?
Are you saying Libby should have done time for a non-crime committed during a non-crime?
I’m not sure i understand.
July 4, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Once again, George Bush demonstrates his total disconnect from the rest of the country. Rather than let the courts adjudicate guilt and determine an offender’s punishment, George chooses to substitute his own executive judgment for that of the judge and jury.
Why is George so concerned about this “unfair sentence”? Thousands of people are incarcerated in the federal prison system today. Has George ever been concerned about any other offender than Scooter Libby to the point where he commuted their sentence before they even went to jail? I challenge anyone to cite me one other case in seven years where this happened.
This is “payoff” pure and simple by an unpopular president, removed from the needs of his people, to an “ivy league buddy” for being loyal. Yeah, Scooter did his job well. He refused to name Dick Cheney or anyone else as being involved in spreading the rumors about Valerie Plame.
This clown Bush is in a competition to see if he can be the only president in history to leave office with a single digit approval rating. Any bet takers here?
July 4, 2007 at 7:26 AM
Mark,
Just how old are you, anyway?
July 4, 2007 at 6:59 PM
[...] The Stench Of Democrat Hypocrisy There are some odors that just can’t be washed away. WASHINGTON — Six years ago, the launch of Hillary […] [...]
July 4, 2007 at 7:36 PM
> Mark, Just how old are you, anyway?
My guess is 21 going on 14.
I find it highly questionable that Libby did what he did, got the sentence he got, and yet Sandy Berger gets [gasp!! Bojemoi!!!] disbarred. Yep. there’s justice for you. Anyone says a word about Libby around me just gets “Sandy Berger” thrown right back in their face, with a suitably derisive sneer as garnishment.
>:-/
July 5, 2007 at 11:06 AM
What makes obloodyhell and winston smith elder statesmen–your uncanny abilities to regurgitate Bush’s pathetic arguments? The sooner you admit that Bush/Cheney are dedicated to the idea that ends justify means, and are therefore absolutely unprincipled, the sooner you’ll understand that “justice” has nothing to do with the last eight years.
July 5, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Crazy isn’t it?
July 6, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Umm. If you can not distinguish between the Libby decision and the Clinton pardons, you:
a) probably believe shooting a terrorist does not constitute any higher moral value than when the terrorist blew up a busload of children.
b) are inclined to agree that criminals are a product of their upbringing and therefore retain the right to spread their societal filth among us as opposed to going to jail.
c) probably feel that Libby really did out Plame’s name, even though the Democrat Armitage admitted he did it, and therefore should go to jail anyway. In fact, it was somehow a Bushitler plot from the beginning.
d) are highly delusional, and should not be allowed to operate any motorized machinery or procreate in any way.
July 6, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Well said, Jim.