Justin Levi Levi is a political science
student who believes that money and politics are a recipe for
disaster. Help fight the corruption, and e-mail him at [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Justin Levi
Loyal readers of my column know by now that I don’t
consider myself a big fan of former President Bill Clinton. You can
imagine, then, my lack of surprise when I found out that Slick
Willy was able to screw things up right up until his very last day
in office.
Now, to be fair, there hasn’t been a president in recent
memory who did not spark some sort of controversy regarding his
last minute pardons. Indeed, George Bush’s pardon of Caspar
Weinberger and Gerald Ford’s pardon of Dick Nixon rank right
up there with the most severe. But, that doesn’t absolve
Clinton in any way, and it is therefore up to his critics to point
this out and make one last ditch attempt to tarnish his legacy.
On the eve of Clinton’s leaving office in January, he
issued 140 different presidential pardons to convicted (and
not-so-convicted) criminals. What Clinton demonstrated, perhaps
even better than any president before him, is that Clinton has
misunderstood the purpose and scope of the presidential power to
pardon. The purpose of this section of the Constitution is to allow
convicted criminals to be released if they were falsely convicted,
they did not receive a fair trial, or they have served an
excessively long sentence, inconsistent with the Eighth
Amendment.
It seems only pertinent to focus our attention on what is
clearly Clinton’s most controversial and outlandish pardon,
that of fugitive Marc Rich. Rich, listed on the Justice
Department’s Web site as an international fugitive, has been,
according to CNN, accused of “conspiring with the Iranian
government in 1980 to fraudulently purchase six million barrels of
oil despite a trade embargo against the country.” He then
fled to Switzerland in 1983 upon his indictment on tax and fraud
charges.
Right here, we run into problems. What is crucial to remember is
that Rich has never even stood trial, even though his crimes are
egregious. The absolution of a man who has not stood trial is a
gross distortion of the power of pardon, and it is a shame that
President Clinton chose to circumvent the very legal process that
holds this country together.
Anyone who values the rule of law in this country must then ask
themselves how such a thing could have happened. Remember who
we’re talking about. This is the same portly president who
solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even millions,
in illegal overseas campaign donations. Then again, listing all the
scandals that corrupted the Clinton administration would take up
too much space.
 Illustration by ERICA PINTO/Daily Bruin Ergo, knowing
Bubba, it seems only logical that there must have been money
involved in this arrangement, a little quid pro quo. Hey, why not
start with the $1 million that Rich’s wife, Denise, has
donated to Democrats over the years, including, drum roll please
… Bill and Hillary Clinton?
This, of course, has prompted many Republicans to begin
investigating whether or not Clinton accepted any bribes on behalf
of Rich. Unfortunately for Democrats, they are no longer able to
hide behind the vague language of “high crimes and
misdemeanors.” Bribery is clearly spelled out in the
Constitution as an impeachable offense, and although Clinton is not
president anymore, the just course of action would be to
investigate this incident. If anything is found, Clinton must be
required to stand for his crime, something he has yet to do, in a
purely legal sense, for any of the scandals associated with
him.
If you need more evidence that at least an investigation is
needed, look no further than the other side of the Clinton family,
specifically, Hillary’s bro, Hugh. This Rodham received over
$400,000 to lobby on behalf of Glen Braswell, who was pardoned, and
Carlos Vignali, who had his sentence commuted, as well as two other
potential pardons that were ultimately not granted. Of course, Bill
and Hillary were quick to deny any knowledge or involvement. Hey,
after this many scandals, denying such events must be second nature
to the Clintons.
In the Clintons’ world, it is indeed the golden rule that
applies: he who has the gold makes the rules. And apparently, the
Clinton’s are not the only ones that Rich has shamed in this
fiasco, especially since the Clintons, as we now know, are
incapable of shame.
Tragically, Rich has also succeeded in tainting the Jewish
community by reviving the age-old Jewish stereotype of money and
connections. In an Op-Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times on Feb. 25,
Walter Reich, the former director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Museum, addressed this issue. As he points out, the cast of
characters who lobbied on behalf of Rich is a veritable
who’s-who of the Jewish world, namely Ehud Barak, Abraham
Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, and the worst example, Rabbi
Irving Greenberg, the current director of the Holocaust Museum, who
wrote letters on Rich’s behalf printed on Museum stationary.
As Reich explains, Greenberg asked Clinton to “perform one of
the most God-like actions that anyone can ever do.”
On top of being a purely absurd comment, this implicit
invocation of the Holocaust is truly disgraceful, as it dishonors
the memory of the six million Jews and five million non-Jews who
perished under the Nazi flag, and is a slap in the face to
survivors everywhere.
For those who are unaware, Jews for years have been attempting
to destroy this false stereotype of money and covert influence.
Clinton, among others, has severely hindered such efforts.
These attempts for normalization by the Jewish community are not
helped, either, by the commutations of the sentences of four
Hasidic Jews convicted of stealing several million dollars in
government funds. Members of the same Hasidic community in New York
reportedly met with Hillary about commutations. Not so ironically,
this community voted overwhelmingly Democratic. I must say to my
fellow Jews that praising Clinton for his work on behalf of the
Jewish community is not only ridiculous, as these recent events
demonstrate, but also sets a dangerous precedent.
The inevitable backlash I will get for this column is the old
argument that “Clinton has suffered enough, and why
can’t you right-wing Republicans lay off him?” First of
all, I am not a right-winger, nor am I a Republican. Secondly,
there is a more fundamental principle at work.
Democrats must finally realize that the only reason they are
constantly forced to defend Clinton is because he is constantly
doing something wrong. Yes, there have been many presidential
scandals throughout history, yet no president has come even close
to Clinton in terms of sheer numbers.
If we ever hope to have a president who truly respects the
office, we must demonstrate now that corruption and criminal
activity will not be tolerated, nor will the endless cycle of
corruption that results from the influence of money in politics. At
the very least, the relentless pursuit of Clinton might just
prevent him from attaining that legacy he so desires, yet in no way
deserves.