Republicans Consider Ways to Punish Clinton for Pardons

Former President Clinton’s last-day pardons are final and irrevocable, but congressional Republicans are exploring legal options that could lead to sanctions against Clinton or the prosecution of anyone who sought to buy such favors.

With the pardon of fugitive commodities broker Marc Rich causing the greatest outrage, House investigators issued subpoenas Tuesday aimed at determining whether large donations from Denise Rich, the former fugitive’s ex-wife, were made with his funds or with the specific purpose of winning his pardon.

The subpoenas were drafted by staff attorneys for the House Government Reform Committee, chaired by longtime Clinton foe Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.). The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hear testimony this morning on the question of whether to pursue financial sanctions against Clinton or even a second impeachment of the former president.

President Bush, however, suggested Tuesday that he has little interest in the congressional probes of the Rich case. “I think it’s time to move on,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One. But he acknowledged that “Congress is going to do what it’s going to do.”

Indeed, serious questions remain about how Rich, a multimillionaire who has lived overseas for the last 17 years on the lam from tax-evasion charges, managed to obtain clemency when top Justice Department officials harbored reservations or were openly hostile to his petition.

Was money paid outright to gain the pardon or were contributions funneled through third parties to presidential charities such as the Clinton library foundation? Such actions could lead to charges of bribery or violations of campaign laws, legal analysts said.

If funds from one of Rich’s companies were used, a contribution to Democratic candidates or to Clinton’s presidential library could be deemed an illegal foreign gift.

Mary Jo White, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, would not comment on reports that she is considering a grand jury investigation of the Rich pardon and the financial donations that preceded it. White, whose office was prepared for years to prosecute Rich for tax evasion, has said she was “totally unaware” that the White House was considering pardons for Rich and his business partner, Pincus Green, although the Justice Department is supposed to be alerted to pardon requests. Such pardons compromise “the appearance of evenhanded justice,” she said.

Specifically, Republicans want to learn whether the Rich pardon was influenced by about $1 million that Denise Rich contributed to Democratic candidates and a pledge of $450,000 she made to the presidential library fund.

A House committee official said its subpoenas to the foundation that oversees fund-raising for the library in Little Rock, Ark., would seek all correspondence, memorandums and other data the foundation has relating to Denise Rich and other members of the Rich family.

The panel also is asking for data on all donations and pledges of more than $5,000 for Clinton’s presidential library. The committee is also subpoenaing two banks in which Denise Rich held accounts, as well as records of her contributions to the Democratic National Committee.

Other subpoenas were directed Tuesday to the National Archives for any presidential papers or e-mail messages relating to Marc or Denise Rich, and to the Secret Service for any records of White House visits by Denise Rich or other family members.

David E. Kendall, an attorney for the Clintons, has said he will challenge subpoenas for the library foundation’s records on the grounds that disclosure would violate the donors’ free-speech rights.

With Denise Rich refusing to testify, citing her constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination, House Republicans would like to offer her immunity for her account of how her former husband was able to secure a pardon. But they first would like to have assurance from Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft that he would not oppose it.

Ashcroft told reporters on Monday that he would like to cooperate but that the issue needs more study. A potential Justice Department prosecution of Denise Rich or others could be jeopardized by congressional immunity, some lawyers said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a leading member of the judiciary panel, has raised the possibility of impeaching Clinton a second time if investigations uncover evidence of criminality in his last-minute grants of 176 pardons and commutations. Aides to Specter say that constitutional experts have told him that impeachment of a former president is “technically possible” and would involve stripping Clinton of his pension and other rights and benefits.

Other legal experts expressed doubts about the strategy. Plato Cacheris, a Washington attorney and veteran of the previous Clinton impeachment proceeding, said he thinks Specter’s theory is “far out” and predicted that “nothing will come of it.”

Cacheris, who represented former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky, added, “In dealing with a former president, it would seem preferable to handle any evidence of criminality in the courts.”

Paul Rothstein, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, said the question of a post-presidential impeachment is disputed by authorities.

“It doesn’t seem to be intended by the framers” of the Constitution, Rothstein said. “Impeachment is designed to remove a president from office to prevent further harm to the nation. There’s really no precedent for doing this to a former president.”

A more likely sanction, Rothstein said, would be for Congress to pass legislation reducing Clinton’s post-presidential benefits.

Specter said Tuesday that he recognizes that “the constitutional grant of pardon authority to the president is absolute,” so that any effort by Congress to limit that power would likely require a constitutional amendment.

“I would not propose to amend the Constitution lightly,” he said. “I’m reserving judgment until we hear the constitutional experts.”