The Pending Marc Rich Attack

There's a talking point that the more complicit or credulous among the press corps are propagating: It suggests Libby is a really nice (or really clever) man because of the work he did getting Marc Rich pardoned. In placing the Rich pardon at the center of pre-trial coverage, though, I suspect Libby's team wants to suggest that Libby's indictment was direct retaliation for the work Libby did to get Rich a pardon.

This point is made explicitly in the WSJ's recent opinion piece.

As it happens, Messrs. Fitzgerald and Libby had crossed legal paths before. Before he joined the Bush Administration, Mr. Libby had, for a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s, been a lawyer for Marc Rich. Mr. Rich is the oil trader and financier who fled to Switzerland in 1983, just ahead of his indictment for tax-evasion by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bill Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich in 2001, and so the feds never did get their man. The pardon so infuriated Justice lawyers who had worked on the case that the Southern District promptly launched an investigation into whether the pardon had been "proper." One former prosecutor we spoke to described the Rich case as "the single most rancorous case in the history of the Southern District."

Two of the prosecutors who worked on the Rich case over the years were none other than Mr. Fitzgerald and James Comey, who while Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Southern District for five years starting in 1988, at the same time that Mr. Libby was developing a legal theory of Mr. Rich's innocence in a bid to get the charges dropped. The prosecutors never did accept the argument, but Leonard Garment, who brought Mr. Libby onto the case in 1985, says that he believes Mr. Libby's legal work helped set the stage for Mr. Rich's eventual pardon.

Whereas the NYT simply uses the Rich pardon to highlight how clever and selfless Libby is.

Between government stints, Mr. Libby practiced law with the firm of Leonard Garment, counsel to President Richard M. Nixon. Mr. Garment remembers him as “reliable, immensely hard working and guarded.”

Presented with the seemingly intractable tax problems of a fugitive commodities trader, Marc Rich, Mr. Libby “went off for a year and worked on it, closeted with his own intellect,” Mr. Garment said.

He emerged with a creative  analysis, Mr. Garment added, that would ultimately help persuade President Bill Clinton to pardon Mr. Rich, an act that Republicans criticized because Mr. Rich’s former wife, Denise, was a Democratic donor.

[snip]

As a lawyer and an aide, he has generally advocated for others, whether Mr. Rich or Mr. Cheney.

Some of you may be wondering ... WTF? Why would Libby's team focus their pre-trial publicity campaign on reminding American readers that Scooter Libby's spent several years getting paid $585/hour getting a tax dodger who traded with Iran? You'd think the optics would be somewhat dangerous. And it's not like the framing that Paul Gigot and friends and Scott Shane give this talking point really makes sense. Scooter's so clever for for dreaming up some scheme that says people like Marc Rich shouldn't be subject to the same rules of accounting the rest of us should? This is heroic, clever, charitable? And nevermind that Fitzgerald appears not to have had the same central role in this as Comey...guilt by association you know.

Here's where I think this is going.

At least from a PR stance, they're trying to argue that Fitzgerald and Comey selectively prosecuted Libby--and not Armitage or any other shiny objects--because they were still pissed about Rich. Libby's minions will make the case--at least in the public sphere--that this is all one big revenge prosecution.

But it may not just be a matter of public sphere. You see, Libby's lawyers are threatening to call Fitzgerald to the stand, under the guise of challenging his assertion that Judy tried not to testify. They want to get Fitz on the stand--so they can turn this into a trial of his decisions.

Too bad for Libby this smear is so patently stupid. I'm still working on the Marc Rich stuff. But the other accusation is easy to dismiss. Here's the claim.

But Mr. Libby and Mr. Comey tangled more recently as well. In 2004, as Mr. Fitzgerald was gearing up his investigation, Mr. Libby was the Administration's point man in trying to get Justice to sign off on the NSA wiretapping program. In early 2004, Mr. Comey was acting Attorney General while John Ashcroft recovered from gall bladder surgery, and Mr. Comey reportedly refused to give the NSA program the greenlight, prompting the White House to seek out Mr. Ashcroft in the hospital in a bid to circumvent Mr. Comey.

Motive is a difficult thing to gauge. We don't know whether this long personal history played any role either in Mr. Fitzgerald's single-minded pursuit of Mr. Libby, or in Mr. Comey's decision to grant the prosecutor plenary power even though the central mystery of the case had already been resolved.

Get it? Comey was so pissed that BushCo overrode his decision on NSA domestic spying that he gave Fitzgerald more power--and precisely the power he needed--to be able to indict Libby in the Plame Affair.

Only problem is the Wingnuts are in one of their time machines again. The date when BushCo overrode Comey's non-authorization of domestic spying? Sometime after March 4, when Ashcroft was hospitalized for gall bladder surgery. And the authorization for Fitzgerald to pursue charges of perjury and obstruction? February 6.

Interesting rules of physics, these Wingnuts. The WSJ would have you believe Comey authorized Fitzgerald to investigate perjury and obstruction in retaliation for an event that happened a full month later.

Comments

[Jeff]

This is so awesome.

[QuickSilver]

Marc Rich as a character witness. Ha!

[TheOtherWA]

The wingnuts screeched and jumped up and down they were so angry Marc Rich got a pardon, so how can they now claim to love the attorney representing the guy who got the pardon? The mental gymnastics you have to do to be a good conservative these days...

[oldtree]

strange how many of us would consider all these acts to be the subjugation of law, or aiding and abetting, a criminal conspiracy, fraud, bribery, and other catchy phrases the police use to book and swear to in court to have ordinary criminals incarcerated?
but no, these men's virtues are held up high and praised for such acts.

it seems our civilization has walked east to the ocean, and never thought to stop. I believe I will go west.

[Jodi]

Why does everyone here paint people with such broad character brushes?

It is a overly simplistic viewpoint.

(And I know DemFromCT would chide me and say ~This is a political blog, so what do you expect?~ But silly me, I do expect some semblance of logic from most people.)

[Swopa]

Great sleuthing on the Comey-NSA angle, EW.

[John Casper]

"Why does everyone here paint people with such broad character brushes?"

Please be specific Jodi. Who is painting with a broad character brush? Who are they painting unfairly?

[Jeff]

Why does everyone here paint people with such broad character brushes?

What are you talking about? What are you talking about? I see so broadbrush treatment from the post here. It seems like the only person slinging insufficiently precise criticisms is you.

And it's not a failing of logic to adopt an overly simplistic viewpoint, by the way. It's a failure of logic, for example, to equate a failure of logic with an overly simplistic viewpoint.

[mhpcr]

As I give hope for JaneH, I offer prayers for strength and wisdom for PJF. He and his team's ongoing pursuit of justice must be burdensome, and I can only hope for them to be healthy and focused as they continue. I am extremely grateful for their lives and even that such people exist to take on this labyrinthian trial. We, as a country, are fortunate, indeed, to have these worthy people who are dedicated to working so tirelessly for the cause of the greater good. My thanks go out to all who are involved; I beleive that our country and the spirit of our country is indebted to you.

[jackie]

A couple of things re; the Marc Rich defense thing,
1. Interesting timing, as Hilary has just gone all presidential on us, wouldn't this open up some interesting connections to Bill and her?
2. Wouldn't it also reopen connections that neither side (Bushes and Clintons) would want to be reopened?
So, who is really screwing who?

[pdaly]

It makes me think that the terms 'Libby' and 'Presidential pardon' have a long history together. Can he ever succeeded without one?

[DeanOR]

To "complicit or credulous" I would add "or lazy". It is easy to write a talking point story instead of doing the work of real news analysis or reporting. Lazy reporting turns to old canards of conventional cynical wisdom along the lines of "both sides are just as bad, or as good", "nothing ever changes in Washington", and "see how balanced we are". They count on us being lazy readers of their lazy reporting.
Or am I being too charitable?

[looseheadprop]

Jackie,

When the defense does not have facts or law on their side, it is a classic technique (I para phrase LAwrence WAlsh here) to attack the prosecutor.

You can accuse him of doing a sloppy job and indicitng the wrong man (look! It's Armitage!)

You can accuse him of not understanding the things he thinks he knows in hteor proper context (look! I was busy with IMPORTANT stuff!)

You can accuse his motivations (Look! I did things that did not make his best friend happy!)

These are classic techniques. They reach this in law school (or at least post law school CLE) it's not a secret.

It's not even aprticularly original. It recycled, hackneyed cliches.
And a measure of how few and small the arrows in their quiver.

Marcy has done a great job of exposing how pathetic and anemic thos latest smear attempt is.

The fact that bringing up the Marc Rich stuff screws the Clintons more than it even hurts Fitzgerald, must make that editorial feel like a win-win for the WSJ, which is rapidly losing all pretense of being anything other than organ of the RNC.

When will Fox and WSJ be subject to campaign finance reporting rules? That's what I want to know? Bring back the "Fairness Doctrine!"

[looseheadprop]

Oh damn! Forgot my favorite (look! It's calss warfare! he hates us cause we are rich and powerful!)

They haven't used that one in a while. It's getting rusty

[katie Jensen]

Logic

1) Clinton was thoroughly criticised for his pardoning of Marc Rich. Which is it republicans?

2) What does any of this have to do with the question of whether or not Libby lied. Revenge or not...what the dems accepted with the impeachment of Clinton was accountability. He was impeached for lying to the grand jury. He lied and we all knew that some consequence was necessary. Impeached as sitting president. That's a fact. Clinton's lie was not one blocking the view of a bigger crime. It was a lie about his private life. Libby's lie is a lie that could have grave consequences for this country. "Could have"...can we at least admit that?? That the questions being asked are relevant to the security and safety of this country and must be cleared up?

3) Libby has to go to trial and pay the consequence regardless of motive just like the Clinton's did during their administration. That kind of accountability can only be good for the country.

4) Accountability is key. Did he lie or not? What were his lies and how did they affect the investigation into one of the most serious matters that this administration or any administration ever faces. War.

It does seem simple to me. Let's stay focused, Jodi, shall we??

[looseheadprop]

Well said Katie.

The latest WSJ peice is just more shiny metal chaff dispersed to try to confuse the guidance system on the really big missile that is gonna Fitz them.

We, in the reality based community, will just continue to keep our eye on the ball.

[lespool]

... Or perhaps these are long winded boring attempts to suggest that Libby went out of his way to get a criminal off the hook so why on earth won't Bush pardon a perjurer. --- A viable question that needs to be asked, answered --- or at least debated instead of going on and on relentlessly. Pragmatically speaking it makes no sense for Bush to tarnish his evil image further by allowing this trial to go forward, as it will only stir up passions for impeachment. So I suspect one of two things maybe in play.

The first being (rather inconceivable --- if not down right dreadful) that Libby's trial will somehow manage to illuminate Bush in a favorable light (--- don't ask me what that could possibly be). However, it is far more likely that Bush made a deal to avoid Rove's indictment, (who waived all rights to the statutes of limitations for his crimes) promising Fitzgerald he would not pardon Libby even if convicted and providing his administration's full complete cooperation (think Cheney and his sociopathic staff of criminals). That's the real reason I think Rove was never indicted, leaving Libby blowing in the wind.

[Old Atlantic]

The following is speculation. The Rich pardon may reflect information arbitrage involving Marc Rich, Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, John Yoo, Israel, Russian oligarchs, etc.

Marc Rich had a relationship with Russia starting in the 1980's, and already the elites in Russia were moving money out of Russia offshore. In the 1990's, Russian oligarchs got billions in loans for shares starting in fall 1995. This may have reflected their using old academic kompromat files on two econ profs in control of the loans, Stanley Fischer at IMF and Larry Summers at US Treasury.

Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul's father knew of earlier incidents and that Russia may have used these to pressure Summers' uncles, Arrow and Samuelson to nominate Kantorovich for the 1975 Nobel Prize in econ. Boris Berezovsky had a Ph.D. in math from Moscow State, and worked at Institute Control Sciences which analyzed academic misconduct in the US. Berezovsky had the idea to use the old files to get the IMF loans and then get Russia's oil and gas as his cut.

Libby and Wolfowitz were pals. Rich may have known about the kompromat plan from his Swiss contacts, since profs in Switzerland knew some of this in the 1990's.

Starting in spring 97, the USAO Mass started investigated Harvard econ grant to aid Russia run by Shleifer. Shleifer hired Chubais in Jan 96 briefly on Harvard's payroll. Chubais negotiated the IMF loans and gave out the loans for shares. Putin was likely cut in in 1998. By the spring of 1998, people knew that Clinton profs and Harvard were likely holding back from USAO Mass. LTCM was buying Russian govt bonds in Aug 98.

The neocons got the Iraq Liberation Act in fall 98 during Clinton impeachment. During Bush v. Gore, John Yoo may have learned of this from a prof at Berkeley, where these issues were well known. He may have told Scalia or Hatch or Silberman. Clinton may have heard chatter from NSA wiretaps, but the Gorelick Wall Memo kept that from USAO Mass.

Marc Rich and Libby may have passed this information to Israel to get Israel to pressure Clinton, not their cover story that Rich passed other info. In Switzerland, its a crime to engage in spying, so they couldn't tell the real truth while Rich was hiding out there.

At the time of the Clinton pardon of Rich, the USAO Mass was still investigating Harvard. Summers was appointed President of Harvard by Gorelick. USAO Mass investigation continued to Aug 2005, when they settled with Harvard. The above is speculation.

Search on Russia plagiarism files for more detailed info including their possible use to gain atomic know-how during the WWII era.

[Scooter Libby's Crutches]

Our little Jodi is projecting again.

The tie that binds Libby and Marc Rich is Israel/Zionism. There was no paradox in Scooter defending Rich.

[Scooter Libby's Crutches]

Forgot to mention: this is all setup for the "Fitzgerald is an anti-semite!" smear that will be coming down the pike.

You heard it here first.

[Robin]

George Orwell coined the term Double Think to describe exactly what we see happening in Republican's brains today.

So simultaneously believe in two opposing thoughts: 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, without a moment of doubt.

The Republicans are masters of Double Think.

[Rayne]

Wow, twice inside the last four weeks WSJ has become a sockpuppet for Dick Cheney. Sure looks like his handwriting, doesn't it?

[And here I thought EW's "minder" had moved on, too...apparently not.]

[Old Atlantic]

Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan. The Fed has had several high level profs in the 1990's and 2000's at high level positions, including Bernanke now as Chairman and Blinder as Vice Chairmmen. They have links to Princeton, Harvard, etc.

One of LTCM's top people was a former Fed board member. The LTCM bailout was arranged in fall 98 while the IMF loans to Russia hearings, Clinton impeachment hearings, and Iraq Liberation Act hearings were held. All the while USAO Mass was investigating. USAO SDNY also investigated money laundering by oligarchs. SDNY had protested the Gorelick Memo. All during that time, the Gorelick memo meant that any intelligence information like NSA wire taps on foreign profs or even Marc Rich couldn't be passed to the Assistant US Attorneys or prosecutors at USAO Mass or SDNY.

The Fed, however, knew of some of this history itself from its academic and Wall Street ties. They wanted to hush up the LTCM and loans to Russia cases in fall 1998. They arranged the bailout. Goldman Sachs paid Bush Sr 100,000 dollars to speak in Moscow during the 1990's. Jack Abramoff took Tom Delay to Moscow on a trip to get Delay to keep US funds flowing to the IMF. The IMF was giving Russia so much money it had to get additional funds from the US. The Fed knew what was going on.

In spring 2001, USAO SDNY investigated the Marc Rich pardon. All of the above was concealed from it by both the Clinto and Bush teams. USAO Mass was still investigating Harvard until August 2005.

Above is speculation.

[Jeff]

Old Atlantic

Please spare us your speculation. It's totally off topic, and frankly unhelpful.

[Beel]

All this very interesting speculation on the deep (money) politics of things makes me think I was right to see Clinton as a Rockefeller Republican all along. All the roiling about Monica was purely about power, not in the least about structural views. Will Hillary do Iran better?