Marc Rich's Pardon by Bill Clinton

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE PARDONS OF MARC RICH AND PINCUS GREEN

Marc Rich and Pincus Green have a history of illegal and corrupt business dealings
contrary to the security interests of the United States.
l Rich and Green have had extensive trade with terrorist states and other enemies of the
United States. Despite clear legal restrictions on such trade, Rich and Green have engaged in
commodities trading with Iraq, Iran, Cuba, and other rogue states which have sponsored
terrorist acts. By engaging in these activities, Marc Rich and Pincus Green demonstrated
contempt for American laws, as well as the well-being of Americans who were harmed or
threatened by these states.

l The Central Intelligence Agency provided the following declassified information about Marc
Rich to the Committee.
If President Clinton had checked with the CIA, he would have learned that Marc
Rich had been the subject of inquiries by various foreign government liaison
services and domestic government agencies regarding their ongoing investigations
of criminal activity.
In addition, President Clinton would have received information worthy of his
consideration in making his decision on the pardon. This information cannot be
declassified.
Marc Rich and Pincus Green were guilty of serious crimes and showed contempt for the
American justice system.

l Marc Rich and Pincus Green attempted to obstruct the criminal investigation of them in
every way imaginable, including attempting to smuggle subpoenaed documents out of the
country. Rich and Green’s tactics resulted in a record-setting contempt fine against them,
totaling $21 million. Despite these tactics, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
New York was able to indict Marc Rich and Pincus Green on 51 counts of illegal activity,
including tax evasion, mail fraud, wire fraud, and racketeering. The evidence against them
was overwhelming.

l Because of the strength of the case against them, Marc Rich and Pincus Green fled the
country rather than face trial. Rich’s own lawyer told him that by fleeing the country, Rich
had “spit on the American flag” and that “whatever you get, you deserve.” For the 17 years
leading up to his pardon, Marc Rich was one of America’s 10 most wanted international
fugitives. Although Jack Quinn, Rich’s attorney, argued that Rich did not flee the United
States to avoid prosecution, Rich’s ex-wife refuted this view, stating that Rich told her that
“I’m having tax problems with the government . . . and I think that we are going to have to
leave.”

2

l In order to avoid extradition or apprehension by United States law enforcement, Marc Rich
and Pincus Green attempted to renounce their United States citizenship. While this attempt
was rejected by the United States, it demonstrated that Rich and Green had no loyalty to the
United States, and viewed their citizenship as a liability to be discarded at will.
Rich and Green’s crimes were so serious that for seventeen years, the U.S. government
devoted considerable resources to apprehending them and closing down their business
activities.

l Rich and Green were such high-profile fugitives that on a number of occasions in the 1980s
and 1990s, the United States Marshals Service attempted to arrest them in various foreign
countries. A number of countries from the United Kingdom to Russia attempted to assist the
United States in these efforts. The pardons of Rich and Green have sent a sent a message
that individuals can go from the FBI’s most wanted list to a Presidential pardon if they spend
money and have the proper connections. This message undermines U.S. efforts to apprehend
fugitives abroad.

l Rich and Green were such high-profile fugitives that in 1991, the Government Reform
Committee, under Democratic leadership, held a number of hearings, and issued two reports
about the government’s efforts to apprehend Rich and Green. At that time, Democrats and
Republicans in Congress took the Bush Administration to task for not being aggressive
enough in hunting down Rich and Green, or shutting down their business interests in the U.S.

l While Rich and Green were fugitives from justice, the American government took a number
of actions against their interests in the U.S. The federal government seized Rich’s assets,
and shut down his trade in metals and grain with the government.
The United States government repeatedly tried to reach a plea agreement with Rich and
Green.

l For a number of years after Rich and Green fled the country, the U.S. government attempted
to negotiate a plea bargain to settle the case. The government made a number of concessions
in an attempt to reach a deal, but all offers were rebuffed by Rich and Green, who would not
agree to any deal that resulted in jail time. While lobbying for a pardon, Jack Quinn and
Rich’s other lawyers claimed that the Justice Department had not even negotiated with Rich,
and therefore, that a pardon was justified. Quinn and the other lawyers were misleading the
White House when they made these claims.
Jack Quinn misled the White House about the Rich case, and attempted to mislead the
Committee and the public regarding his work for Marc Rich.

l Marc Rich hired Jack Quinn after a recommendation from Eric Holder. After numerous
failed attempts to have his case settled, Marc Rich hired Jack Quinn to represent him. Quinn
was hired after a recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder. Gershon
Kekst, who worked for Marc Rich on the pardon matter, asked Holder for a recommendation
of how to settle a criminal matter with the Justice Department. Holder recommended that he

3

hire a Washington lawyer “who knows the process, he comes to me, and we work it out.”
Holder then explicitly recommended the hiring of Jack Quinn. While Holder did not know
that Kekst was referring to Marc Rich, it suggests that Holder was favorably disposed to Jack
Quinn, and would be very receptive to arguments made by Quinn, no matter how baseless
they were.

l Marc Rich was going to pay Jack Quinn for his work on the pardon. After the Marc Rich
pardon was granted, Jack Quinn claimed that he was not being paid by Rich for his work on
the pardon, and that he expected no future payment for his work on the pardon. However,
the Committee has uncovered evidence that Robert Fink, a lawyer close to Marc Rich, had
discussions with Rich and Quinn about paying Quinn for his work on the Rich pardon.
Documents which Quinn and Fink withheld from the Committee for over a year, and which
were produced only after a federal judge ordered them produced to a grand jury, shed further
light on the contemplated payment of Quinn. These documents indicate that Quinn raised the
question of his “status” with Rich, and asked that Rich pay him a $50,000 per month retainer.
The Committee attempted to interview Quinn about these documents, but Quinn refused to
meet with Committee staff.

l Jack Quinn may have been attempting to receive money from Marc Rich after the pardons
were granted. At the Committee’s February 8, 2001, hearing, Quinn pledged that “I will not
bill [Rich], and I will not accept any further compensation for work done on the pardon.”
This pledge surprised Rich’s lawyer, who expected that Rich would be paying Quinn for his
work. Indeed, records just produced to the Committee indicate that Quinn may have been
attempting to negotiate some payment from Marc Rich shortly after he pledged that he would
not take additional money for his work. A March 5, 2001, e- mail from Quinn to Rich states
“If you are agreeable, and I hope you are, I need to fax to you in the next few days a new
retainer agreement.” This e- mail raises the possibility that Quinn has been attempting to
obtain payments from Rich, in possible violation of his pledge to the Committee. The
Committee attempted to interview Quinn about this matter, but he refused.

l Jack Quinn’s work on the Rich pardon was in apparent violation of Executive Order 12834.
That executive order was enacted as part of President Clinton’s promise to create “the most
ethical administration in history,” and it prohibited former executive branch employees from
lobbying their former executive branch agencies within five years of their departure. Quinn
has claimed that his work on the Rich pardon came within an exception for “communicating
. . . with regard to a . . . criminal . . . law enforcement inquiry, investigation or proceeding[.]”
However, this exception was clearly intended to apply to appearances before courts, not
lobbying the White House for a pardon. The “revolving door” lobbying ban was intended to
apply exactly to cases like this, where a former White House Counsel could come back and
lobby the President to take an action that had no constitutional limits on it, largely based on
the President’s personal trust for that former staffer.

l The pardon petition compiled by Jack Quinn and the other Marc Rich lawyers was highly
misleading. Most of the arguments used by Jack Quinn to justify the Rich and Green
pardons were false and misleading. These arguments could have been completely refuted if
anyone in the White House had sought out any of the prosecutors familiar with the Rich case.

4

l The “letters of support” in the pardon petition were used in a misleading manner. Another
key element of the Rich pardon petition was a number of letters of support for Rich and
Green from prominent Americans and Israelis. Rich and Green used these letters to try to
show that their humanitarian activities justified their pardons. However, many of these
letters were obtained under false pretenses, and the writers of the letters were not told that
they were being used to obtain a Presidential pardon. In addition, a number of individuals
who wrote in support of Rich and Green received large amounts of money from them.
Marc Rich and Pincus Green used a number of different individuals with close personal
relationships with President Clinton and his staff to lobby regarding the pardon.

l The role of Denise Rich. Denise Rich played a key role in obtaining the Rich and Green
pardons. Denise Rich had a close relationship with President Clinton, which was based in
part on her role as a large-scale contributor to Democratic causes and the Clinton library, and
in part on her extensive personal contacts with President Clinton. The $450,000 given by
Denise Rich to the Clinton Library was an early and large contribution. Denise Rich used
her relationship with President Clinton to lobby for the Marc Rich pardon on a number of
occasions. She has refused to cooperate with the Committee, invoking her Fifth Amendment
rights rather than answer questions about her role in the pardon.

l The role of Beth Dozoretz. Beth Dozoretz, another close friend of President Clinton, played a
key role in obtaining the Rich pardon. Like Denise Rich, Beth Dozoretz had a relationship
with President Clinton built on personal ties and political fundraising. Dozoretz has raised
and contributed millions of dollars for the Democratic party, and has pledged to raise an
additional million dollars for the Clinton library. Beth Dozoretz also has close relationships
with Denise Rich and Jack Quinn. Dozoretz used her close relationship with President
Clinton to lobby for the Rich pardon. Because Dozoretz has invoked her Fifth Amendment
rights against self- incrimination, the Committee is unable to conclude whether or not
Dozoretz made any linkage between contributions to the DNC or the Clinton library and the
granting of the Rich pardon.

l The role of Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak spoke to
President Clinton three times about the Rich pardon. In his public statements about the Rich
pardon, President Clinton has pointed to these conversations with Prime Minister Barak as
one of the primary reasons he granted the pardon. However an examination of the transcripts
of the calls shows that Barak did not make a particularly impassioned plea for Rich.
Therefore, it appears that the President may be attempting to use Prime Minister Barak’s
interest in the Rich matter as a cover for his own motivations for granting the Rich pardon.

l Barak had met with Rich personally, and told Clinton that the Rich pardon “could be
important . . . not just financially, but he helped Mossad on more than one case.” Barak’s
statement raises the possibility that either Barak or Clinton acted on the Rich matter because
of some promise of future financial return.

5

Eric Holder and Jack Quinn worked together to cut the Justice Department out of the
decisionmaking process. Holder’s decision to support the pardon had a critical impact.

l Jack Quinn and Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder worked together to ensure that the
Justice Department, especially the prosecutors of the Southern District of New York, did not
have an opportunity to express an opinion on the Rich pardon before it was granted. The
evidence amassed by the Committee indicates that Holder advised Quinn to file the Rich
pardon petition with the White House, and leave the Justice Department out of the process.
One e- mail produced to the Committee suggests that Holder told Quinn to “go straight to
wh,” and that the “timing is good.” The evidence also indicates that Holder failed to inform
the prosecutors under him that the Rich pardon was under consideration, despite the fact that
he was aware of the pardon effort for almost two months before it was granted.

l Eric Holder’s support of the Rich pardon played a critical role in the success of the pardon
effort. Holder informed the White House that he was “neutral, leaning towards favorable” on
the Rich pardon, even though he knew that Rich was a fugitive from justice, and that Justice
Department prosecutors viewed Rich with such contempt that they would no longer meet
with his lawyers. Holder has failed to offer any credible justification for his support of the
Rich pardon, leading the Committee to believe that Holder had other motivations for his
decision, which he has failed to share with the Committee.

l Eric Holder was seeking Jack Quinn’s support to be appointed as Attorney General in a
potential Gore Administration, and this may have affected Holder’s judgment in the Rich
matter. On several occasions, Holder sought out Quinn’s endorsement to be appointed as
Attorney General if Al Gore were to win the November 2000 election. Quinn was a Gore
confidant whose endorsement would carry great weight. Holder’s initial help to Quinn in the
Rich matter predated the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, and accordingly, Holder
had some legitimate prospect of being appointed Attorney General when he was helping
Quinn keep the Rich matter from the Justice Department’s scrutiny. While Holder denies
that his desire to be appointed Attorney General had anything to do with his actions in the
Rich matter, it provides a much clearer and more believable motivation than any offered by
Holder to date.
President Clinton made his decision knowing almost nothing about the Rich case, making a
number of mistaken assumptions, and reaching false conclusions.

l The White House never consulted with the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York
regarding the Rich case. As a result, the White House staff was never able to refute the false
and misleading arguments made in the Marc Rich pardon petition.

l Every White House staff member who was working on the Rich pardon opposed it. However,
because they failed to do the necessary background research on the Rich case, they were
unable to refute the arguments made by Jack Quinn.

l President Clinton was misled by Jack Quinn in their negotiations regarding the Rich pardon.
Late in the evening of January 19, 2001, President Clinton and Jack Quinn had a telephone

6

discussion regarding the Rich pardon. During this conversation, Quinn repeated his usual
misleading arguments about the Rich case. Quinn also offered to make his clients subject to
civil liability for their actions. In furtherance of this offer, Quinn agreed to waive all statute
of limitations and other defenses, whic h Rich and Green would have as a result of their
fugitivity. President Clinton has cited this waiver as a key factor in his decision to grant the
pardons. However, if President Clinton or his staff had done even cursory legal research,
they would have understood that this was a hollow, meaningless deal. First, Quinn agreed to
waive defenses that Rich and Green did not have. It is basic legal doctrine that fugitivity
tolls the statute of limitations. Second, Rich and Green likely do not face any civil liability
for their crimes, since those fines were already paid by their companies. Third, Rich and
Green had been willing to pay $100 million to settle their case for years. A fine, even a large
one, would have had no impact on Rich and Green, and it would merely stand for the
proposition that the U.S. justice system is for sale.

l When the White House did finally provide the names of Marc Rich and Pincus Green for a
Justice Department background check in the middle of the night on January 19, 2001, the
check turned up new, troubling information which was disregarded by President Clinton.
When the White House requested the Justice Department to perform a computer background
check on Rich and Green prior to granting the pardons, the check came back with
information that they were wanted for “arms trading.” This was new information for all of
the White House staff, and it raised serious questions among them as to whether the pardons
should be granted. However, the only step the White House took to check on this allegation
was to call Jack Quinn. Quinn predictably denied that his clients were involved in arms
trading. Faced with this conflicting information about Rich and Green, President Clinton
instructed his staff to “take Jack’s word,” and issue the pardons.
President Clinton has failed to offer a full accounting for his decision to issue the Marc
Rich and Pincus Green pardons.

l President Clinton has failed to answer any questions about the Rich and Green pardons.
The few statements that he has issued have been misleading, incomplete, and raised more
questions than they answered. Given his complete failure to explain the pardons, the
Committee is left with serious unanswered questions regarding President Clinton’s motives.
ROGER CLINTON’S EFFORTS TO LOBBY FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
Roger Clinton engaged in a systematic effort to trade on his brother’s name during the
Clinton Administration.

l President Clinton encouraged Roger Clinton to capitalize on their relationship. At the
beginning of his second term, President Clinton instructed Roger Clinton to use his
connections to the Administration to gain financial advantage. According to the lawyer for
former Arkansas State Senator George Locke: “Roger related that Bill Clinton had instructed
him that since this was his last term in office, Roger should find a way to make a living and
use his relationship with the President to his advantage.” By suggesting that Roger Clinton

7

exploit his name, Bill Clinton encouraged the conduct described in this chapter. Roger
Clinton apparently took this advice to heart, telling one person from whom he solicited
money that he and the President “had only four years to get things done” and that they did
not care “about ethics or what appearances were.”

l Roger Clinton received substantial sums of money from foreign governments solely because
he was the President’s brother. When the FBI interviewed him, Roger Clinton admitted that
since the beginning of the Clinton Administration, he had received substantial sums of
money from foreign governments. Clinton told the FBI that “he knows he receives these
invitations [to make paid appearances in foreign countries] strictly because he is the First
Brother of the President of the United States.” Clinton also informed the FBI that in addition
to receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for musical performances from foreign
governments, he also received money for President Clinton from foreign governments.
Roger Clinton told the FBI that he had to be instructed repeatedly by the President or White
House staff that the President was not permitted to receive cash from foreign governments.

l Roger Clinton received at least $335,000 in unexplained travelers checks, many of which
were purchased overseas and likely imported illegally. The Committee uncovered at least
$335,000 in travelers checks deposited in Roger Clinton’s bank account. Most of these
travelers checks originated overseas, largely from Taiwan, South Korea, and Venezuela. The
travelers checks were not restrictively endorsed by the purchaser but were instead given to
Roger Clinton blank. This method of transferring large sums of money to Roger Clinton
appears designed to conceal the fact that the funds originated overseas and probably violated
criminal statutes requiring reports of the importation of monetary instruments. Roger Clinton
has refused to provide the Committee with any explanation of why he received these funds.
These suspicious transactions require a complete and thorough investigation by law
enforcement authorities, especially in light of his admissions to the FBI about receiving
money from foreign governments.

l Roger Clinton likely violated federal law by failing to register as required under the
Lobbying Disclosure Act. One company paid Roger Clinton $30,000 to lobby President
Clinton and others to loosen government restrictions on travel to Cuba. Although his activity
appears to meet the criteria outlined in the statute for those required to disclose their contacts
with covered executive branch officials, Roger Clinton did not register as a lobbyist and did
not disclose his paid lobbying contacts with his brother. His failure to register, therefore,
needs to be investigated carefully and completely by the Department of Justice.

l Roger Clinton participated in a plot to obtain a $35,000 per month contract in exchange for
delivering a cabinet secretary to a speaking event. The FBI briefly investigated Roger
Clinton’s involvement in a scheme with Arkansas lawyer Larry Wallace to pressure John
Katopodis, promoter of an Alabama airport project. Clinton and Wallace attempted to obtain
a $35,000 per month contract in exchange for Clinton’s promise to ensure that Secretary of
Transportation Rodney Slater would speak at a conference sponsored by Katopodis’
organization of local governments. When Katopodis refused to pay and Slater subsequently
refused to acknowledge the invitation, Katopodis suspected that Clinton and Wallace were to

8

blame. Wallace had told him that his project would remain at a standstill until Katopodis
“showed him the money.”
Roger Clinton lobbied for the release from prison of Rosario Gambino, a notorious heroin
dealer and organized crime figure.

l Rosario Gambino was a major drug trafficker. Rosario Gambino has been convicted in the
United States and Italy of heroin trafficking. Before being sentenced to 45 years in federal
prison, Gambino associated with known members of organized crime both in Italy and the
United States. His associates have described him as a member of the Sicilian Mafia. When
his brothers were convicted of racketeering, murder, illegal gambling, loan sharking, and
heroin trafficking in 1994, witnesses described them as “the main link between Mafia heroin
traffickers in Sicily and the American Mafia.”

l Roger Clinton received at least $50,000 from the Gambino family, and he expected to receive
more if he succeeded in getting Rosario Gambino out of prison. Tommaso “Tommy”
Gambino, the son of Rosario Gambino, approached Roger Clinton to help win the release of
Rosario Gambino from prison. Tommy Gambino promised Roger Clinton a substantial
financial reward if he was successful. Even though he never was successful, Tommy
Gambino provided Roger Clinton with $50,000, a gold Rolex watch, and an undisclosed
amount of “expense money.”

l Roger Clinton attempted to use his relationship to the President to influence the
decisionmaking of the United States Parole Commission (“USPC”). Roger Clinton lobbied
the Parole Commission to grant parole to Gambino. While lobbying Parole Commission
staff, Roger Clinton informed them that President Clinton was aware of his efforts on behalf
of Rosario Gambino and that the President had suggested that he contact the Parole
Commission members directly. Although the Commission staff tried to insulate the
Commissioners from undue influence, Roger Clinton clearly attempted to use his relationship
to the President to influence the Commission improperly and win Gambino’s release.

l The Chief of Staff of the Parole Commission hindered the FBI’s investigation. In 1998, the
FBI began investigating Roger Clinton’s contacts with the Parole Commission. However, it
met resistance from Marie Ragghianti, the Chief of Staff of the Parole Commission.
Ragghianti, who had participated in meetings with Roger Clinton on the Gambino case,
objected to the FBI investigation and successfully halted an FBI plan to have an undercover
agent meet with Clinton posing as a Parole Commission staffer. She also attempted to keep
the FBI from recording a meeting between Roger Clinton and a Parole Commission staffer.
Ragghianti’s efforts may have kept the FBI from reaching a full understanding of Roger
Clinton’s involvement in the Gambino case.
l Roger Clinton lied to FBI agents investigating his contacts with the Parole Commission and
his relationship with the Gambino family. When interviewed by the FBI in 1999, Roger
Clinton said that he had never represented to anyone at the Parole Commission that the
President was aware of his contacts with the Commission on behalf of Rosario Gamb ino.
This self-serving claim is contradicted by contemporaneous, written memoranda detailing

9

Clinton’s contacts as well as by the vivid and credible recollections of Parole Commission
staff. Clinton also lied about the purpose of a $50,000 check from the Gambinos, which he
deposited on the day of the FBI’s interview. While it is unclear whether he deposited the
check before or after the interview, Clinton told the agents that Tommy Gambino had offered
to loan him money for a down payment on his house. He repeated this explanation to the
media when news of the money became public in 2001. However, after reviewing both
Clinton’s and Gambino’s bank records, the Committee has found no evidence that Clinton
used the $50,000 for a down payment or that he ever repaid any of the money. Accordingly,
his claim to the FBI that the money was merely a loan is false. During his interview, Clinton
also told the FBI agents three separate and contradictory stories in response to questions
about his receipt of a Rolex watch from Tommy Gambino before finally producing a Rolex
to the agents and claiming he had bought it in Tijuana, Mexico.

l Roger Clinton apparently lobbied the White House to grant a commutation to Rosario
Gambino. In the last days of the Clinton Administration — after Roger Clinton had failed to
win parole for Rosario Gambino and after he had received a Rolex watch and $50,000 from
the Gambino family — the White House received a petition for commutation for Rosario
Gambino. Documents indicate that the White House lawyer responsible for clemency
matters requested a criminal background check on Gambino, which is normally done when
some serious consideration is being given to a grant of clemency. The obvious and logical
inference that explains how the Gambino petition garnered that level of attention at the White
House is that Roger Clinton was pushing for it. Because key Clinton White House staff have
refused to answer questions about this matter, it is unknown whether Roger Clinton handdelivered
the Gambino petition as he did with others or whether he brought it to the attention
of the White House some other way. Although the President did not ultimately grant
clemency to Gambino, the circumstances surrounding the consideration of his petition are
neverthe less suspect. The fact that granting clemency to a mobster and confirmed criminal
like Gambino was considered at all is disturbing enough, but the reason it was considered is
even more offensive. The Gambino family was apparently able to purchase access to the
parole and clemency processes with cash payments and expensive gifts to the brother of the
President of the United States. Moreover, despite an FBI investigation of the matter, the
Justice Department has, to date, been unwilling or unable to prosecute Clinton for any of his
activities.
Roger Clinton received a substantial portion of $225,000 that was swindled from the
Lincecum family in Clinton’s name with the promise of a pardon that never came.

l The Lincecum family paid $225,000 to obtain a pardon for Garland Lincecum. In 1998,
Garland Lincecum, a convicted felon, was informed that he could purchase a presidential
pardon for $300,000. Lincecum was told that Arkansas businessmen Dickey Morton and
George Locke, who had a close relationship with Ro ger Clinton, could obtain the pardon.
Lincecum borrowed $225,000 from his mother and brother and claims that a business
associate paid another $70,000 to Morton and Locke for his pardon. The money he borrowed
from his family constituted their life savings and means of support in retirement.

10

l Roger Clinton received at least $43,500 in proceeds from the Lincecums’ payments to
Morton and Locke. Dickey Morton, George Locke, and Roger Clinton divided the funds
among themselves with Roger Clinton receiving a total of $25,500 in checks and $18,000 in
cash. The Lincecums paid the checks to a company called CLM, which they were told stands
for Clinton, Locke, and Morton. Dickey Morton then disbursed the funds from the
company’s bank account to Clinton, Locke, and himself. Roger Clinton has falsely denied
any relationship with CLM while offering no explanation of why he received this substantial
share of an elderly woman’s retirement savings through CLM.

l Roger Clinton may have been involved in a scheme to defraud the Lincecums. Garland
Lincecum never received a pardon, and there is no evidence that Dickey Morton, George
Locke, or Roger Clinton ever submitted Lincecum’s name to the Justice Department or
White House for consideration for a pardon. Therefore, it appears that the Lincecums were
the victims of a scam perpetrated by Morton, Locke, and perhaps Roger Clinton as well.
Roger Clinton may have been involved in lobbying for as many as 13 other pardons and
commutations.

l Roger Clinton publicly admitted involvement in six clemency efforts, but the evidence
connects him to many more. Roger Clinton told the media that he had asked for pardons for
approximately six close friends and that he did so because of concern for them and not for
any personal gain. For example, Roger Clinton lobbied for pardons for George Locke and
Dan Lasater, two associates from Arkansas who were convicted of drug offenses together
with Clinton himself in the 1980s. However, the Committee has obtained evidence
connecting Clinton to many more pardon seekers. Some of the cases involve people who
were not his personal friends and some involve solicitations or offers of money and lucrative
business opportunities in exchange for his ability to place a clemency petition in front of the
President.

l Roger Clinton was asked to lobby for a pardon for horse breeder J.T. Lundy in exchange for
secretly sharing profits in a lucrative business venture. Lundy promised Clinton a share of a
the profits from a Venezuelan coal deal in exchange for Clinton’s help in obtaining a pardon
for him. Lundy suggested a scheme whereby the payments to Clinton could be concealed by
placing his share of the profits in Dan Lasater’s name. Lasater, who owned a 20 percent
interest in the venture, discussed the possibility of a pardon for Lundy with Roger Clinton.

l Roger Clinton delivered the pardon petition of former Reagan EPA official Rita Lavelle to
the White House. According to Lavelle, an intermediary for Roger Clinton asked her for a
$30,000 fee for him to hand-carry her petition to the President. Lavelle responded that she
could not afford to pay any money, but she said Clinton agreed to deliver the petition
anyway. On the last night of the Clinton presidency, Roger Clinton asked Lavelle “do you
have $100,000 to get this through?” Being bankrupt, however, Lavelle laughed at the
question. She did not pay Clinton any money and did not receive a pardon.

l Roger Clinton was asked to lobby for a pardon for Houston Real Estate Developer John
Ballis, and Ballis’ petition was seriously considered at the White House. After being

11

convicted of S&L fraud, Ballis married a former employee of Dan Lasater and friend of
Roger Clinton. Through his wife’s connection, Ballis sought Roger Clinton’s help. Clinton
first lobbied for Ballis before the U.S. Parole Commission, sometimes during the same
meetings in which he lobbied for mobster Rosario Gambino. Ballis credited Clinton with
helping him obtain early release and sought his help in obtaining a presidential pardon to
eliminate his parole supervision and restitution payments. While he was not granted any
form of clemency, the President reviewed his petition, and a White House lawyer called
Ballis’ lawyer two nights before inauguration day to ask if Ballis would accept a grant of
clemency that left intact his obligation to pay restitution.

l Roger Clinton lobbied his brother to grant clemency to Steven Griggs, the son of the chief of
an unrecognized American Indian tribe, who was in prison on drug charges. Like Ballis,
Steven Griggs was not a close friend of Roger Clinton’s but merely someone who knew
someone who knew him. Griggs also did not receive clemency, but Roger Clinton helped
ensure that Griggs’ petition was brought to the attention of the President even though Griggs
had been a fugitive for a year before being sentenced. Griggs argued in his petition that he
had received an unusually harsh sentence but failed to mention that he had fled after his
conviction. It is not clear what motivated Roger Clinton to assist Griggs, but some evidence
suggests that the tribe may have planned to open a casino when and if it were to become
recognized by the federal government.

l According to his former lawyer, Arkansas restaurant operator Phillip Young was approached
with an offer to obtain a pardon through Roger Clinton for $30,000. While Young denied to
Committee staff that he was actually approached by anyone with such a proposal, his denial
is not as credible as his former attorney’s version of events.
Both the White House and the Justice Department hindered the Committee’s investigation
of Roger Clinton by improperly refusing to produce key documents.

l For months, the Bush White House prevented the National Archives from producing even
non-deliberative, clemency-related records from the Clinton administration. The Committee
did not learn that President Clinton had been considering a clemency petition from notorious
mobster Rosario Gambino until after Archives personnel “inadvertently” produced
documents that President Bush’s Counsel had sought to withhold. The accidental production
also included documents relating to three other previously unknown individuals who had
sought clemency through Roger Clinton. The Bush Administration did manage to retain four
additional deliberative Gambino documents from the files of the Clinton White House,
refusing to produce the records even though they were not subject to any executive privilege
claim.

l The Ashcroft Justice Department produced certain Gambino-related records, but
inexplicably withheld others. After producing sensitive documents such as U.S. Parole
Commission files related to Rosario Gambino and a summary of an FBI interview with
Roger Clinton, the Justice Department ceased producing additional documents, claiming they
were related to an ongoing criminal investigation, even though the Clinton-Gambino matter
had reportedly been closed in 2000.