House Panel May Face Wall of Silence in Rich Inquiry

Congressional investigators are hoping to learn more from former President Clinton’s top aides about what led to his last-minute pardons, but prospects of obtaining their testimony are far from certain.

The House Government Reform Committee has asked Clinton to waive any executive privilege claims that could keep aides such as former White House lawyers Bruce Lindsey and Beth Nolan from disclosing what they know, but the panel has received no response.

“No decision has been made on that,” said Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton.

Lindsey, a former Arkansas colleague who was Clinton’s closest confidant on matters attracting public scrutiny, fought hard against testifying three years ago before independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s grand jury in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation. But Lindsey ultimately was forced to do so when the Supreme Court refused to review a lower court’s decision compelling his testimony.

The high court said presidential aides have no privilege against testifying in a criminal investigation, but the justices did not address the right of aides to remain silent in a congressional inquiry.

Lindsey, Nolan and John Podesta, Clinton’s chief of staff, all refused to testify at the House committee’s first hearing Feb. 8 on Clinton’s controversial pardon of fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich. But officials of the panel said they will issue subpoenas to them next week for a second hearing on March 1.

None of the three could be reached for comment Friday.

Investigators believe that Lindsey privately recommended against a pardon for Rich after conferring with Arthur Levitt, then-chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, on Clinton’s last full day in office on Jan. 19. Rich and his business partner, Pincus Green, were fugitives in Switzerland for 17 years after being charged with tax evasion and trading oil with Iran in violation of a 1979 American embargo of that country.

Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), the committee chairman, wants to ask Lindsey whether Clinton indeed rejected his advice, according to spokesman Mark Corallo. And--if Clinton did reject Lindsey’s advice hours before he left office--why. The clemency for Rich and Green was among 176 pardons and commutations granted by Clinton in his last hours in the White House.

Roger C. Adams, the Justice Department official assigned to review all pardons, told a Senate committee Wednesday that he was surprised by the action in the Rich case. Adams told of receiving a post-midnight phone call from the office of White House Counsel Nolan asking for data on Rich and Green, whose names he did not recognize.

Corallo said the committee has postponed by one week seeking immunity for Denise Rich, the former fugitive’s ex-wife. Denise Rich has refused to answer questions about substantial political contributions that she made to the Democratic National Committee in the months preceding the pardon, as well as a gift of $450,000 to Clinton’s still-unbuilt presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., and about $100,000 to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s successful campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft asked for the brief postponement before he signs off on congressional immunity for Denise Rich, the potential target of a new grand jury investigation by federal prosecutors in New York.

Mary Jo White, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, is seeking financial records to determine the source of Denise Rich’s contributions and whether they were directly linked to the pardon application for the father of her children. Any effort to buy a pardon would amount to a criminal act. Political contributions made from funds originating from abroad also would be a criminal violation, officials said.

Denise Rich said through her New York attorney, Martin Pollner, that she has done nothing wrong and that she knows of no illegal acts by anyone else.

If Lindsey, Nolan and Podesta all should refuse to testify on grounds that their conversations with Clinton were privileged, legal experts believe they could be compelled to answer questions in the new grand jury case in Manhattan. But whether a congressional committee could pierce their silence is “legally uncertain,” said one attorney familiar with the issue.