A November 20 Washington Times article by Jerry Seper repeated accusations in a House Republican report of wrongdoing by Eric Holder, who is reportedly President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general, in the context of President Clinton's 2001 pardon of Marc Rich. In doing so, Seper suggested that Holder had illicitly worked with Rich attorney Jack Quinn to bypass career Justice Department officials and falsely suggested that Holder had written an email telling Quinn that “the 'timing is good' for Mr. Rich's request for a pardon.” In fact, Holder did not write the email that Seper cited, and according to testimony by former White House counsel Beth Nolan, pardon applications were directed to the White House because the Justice Department's pardon office stopped handling new applications in the fall of 2000.

Seper reported that "[t]he former prosecutor whom President-elect Barack Obama wants to run the Justice Department bypassed the agency's career lawyers during one of the most controversial final decisions made by President Clinton in January 2001 -- the pardon of billionaire fugitive financier Marc Rich, congressional records show." He later claimed that evidence in a Republican-led House Government Reform Committee's majority report on the pardon “included an email in which Mr. Holder told Mr. Quinn to 'go straight' to the White House and that the 'timing is good' for Mr. Rich's request for a pardon.” In fact, the email was not written by Holder. Rather, Quinn sent it on November 18 to several recipients not including Holder.

According to the majority report, the subject line of the email was “eric,” and the body of the email said: “spoke to him last evening. he says go straight to wh. also says timing is good. we shd get in soon. will elab when we speak.” The majority report said, “assuming the 'eric' referenced [in the email] is Eric Holder, this e-mail contradicts the heart of Holder's defense.” While Seper noted that Holder “told lawmakers during the investigation that he thought he had done nothing wrong” and that Government Reform Committee report “was approved by Republicans, led by Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, over the objections of Democrats,” Seper did not note that the Minority Views Report -- signed by 14 members of the committee -- stated that it is “unclear that 'eric' even refers to Eric Holder” and that "[a]ssuming the e-mail accurately reflects the words of Mr. Holder, it shows that he advised Mr. Quinn to submit the pardon petition directly to the White House. But this is not proof of wrongdoing." The minority report continued: “As Beth Nolan testified, the Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department had indicated by then the he would not process any more pardon applications, while the President was continuing to accept clemency applications at the White House.”

Indeed, according to the Nexis database transcript of a March 1, 2001, Government Reform committee hearing, then-committee ranking member Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) asked Nolan: “Did the pardon attorney's office tell the White House in September or October of 2000 that they couldn't take any more pardon applications and that they weren't going to be able to review them or get the information to the White House?” Nolan responded: “They told us that sometime in the fall, I'm not sure of the exact date.”

From the Minority Views Report:

The evidence before the committee also does not prove the majority's accusation that Mr. Holder worked with Mr. Quinn to cut other Justice Department officials out of the pardon review process. In retrospect, it is clear that Mr. Holder should have done more to include other Justice Department officials in the review process. Indeed, Mr. Holder conceded as much during testimony. This mistake in judgment is not evidence of misconduct.

The majority points to a November 18, 2001, email message as proof of a conspiracy between Mr. Holder and Mr. Quinn. The subject line reads “eric.” The text of the message reads: “spoke to him last evening. He says go straight to wh. Also says timing is good. We shd get in soon. Will elab when we speak.” Neither Mr. Quinn nor Mr. Holder testified about this message, however. Indeed, as the majority itself acknowledges, it is unclear that “eric” even refers to Eric Holder.

Assuming the e-mail accurately reflects the words of Mr. Holder, it shows that he advised Mr. Quinn to submit the pardon petition directly to the White House. But this is not proof of wrongdoing. As Beth Nolan testified, the Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department had indicated by then the he would not process any more pardon applications, while the President was continuing to accept clemency applications at the White House.

Seper also reported that "[t]he House committee concluded in the March 2002 report that Mr. Holder played a significant role in facilitating the pardon, first by recommending Mr. Quinn to Mr. Rich's legal representatives." Indeed, the majority report read: “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.”

Seper did not note that the minority report, however, stated the following of the claim that Holder “recommended” Quinn: “To reach the conclusion that Mr. Holder 'recommended' Mr. Quinn to Mr. [Gershon] Kekst, the majority ascribes great significance to a chance social encounter in late 1998 between Mr. Holder and Mr. Kekst, who had never before met.” It continued:

According to Mr. Kekst, he found himself seated next to Mr. Holder at a large corporate event. After Mr. Holder indicated that he “worked at Main Justice,” Mr. Kekst recalled asking him general questions about the system of accountability at the Department of Justice and, in particular, to whom U.S. Attorneys were responsible. Mr. Holder apparently responded that they were accountable to him; that was his job. He recalls asking Mr. Holder what a person would do if he believed he was the victim of an overzealous prosecutor. Mr. Kekst said that Mr. Holder suggested hiring a lawyer in Washington, D.C., who knows the process. He recalled that Mr. Holder then spotted Jack Quinn and said words to the effect of, “There is Jack Quinn, someone like that.” According to Mr. Kekst, Marc Rich's name never came up in the conversation.

From the House Committee on Government Reform's March 1, 2001, hearings on President Clinton's pardons (from Nexis):

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA): Did the pardon attorney's office tell the White House in September or October of 2000 that they couldn't take any more pardon applications and that they weren't going to be able to review them or get the information to the White House?

NOLAN: They told us that sometime in the fall, I'm not sure of the exact date.

WAXMAN: And so around the time that the pardon attorney's office at the Justice Department was telling the White House that it would process no more pardon applications, the president was seeking out more applications and there was also an increase in pardon requests. Isn't that right?

NOLAN: Right, there had been in fact a great increase all through the year in applications, so the pardon attorney's office had more applications and hadn't been able to move them in any significant, faster rate.

WAXMAN: In December and January, did you feel overwhelmed by the amount of pardon requests that you were asked to process?

NOLAN: We were really inundated with pardon requests, and, in fact, sometime around Christmas week, I think, I spoke with Mr. Podesta and said, “We have to have a cut off. We can't possibly finish what we have, if more pardon requests come in and...”

WAXMAN: Where were they coming from?

NOLAN: They were coming from everywhere, Mr. Waxman. We had requests from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and both Houses. We had requests from movie stars, newscasters, former presidents, former first ladies. There wasn't anybody -- I refused to go to holiday parties because I couldn't stand being -- nobody wanted to know how I was, thank you very much. They wanted to know about a pardon. So I just didn't go.

WAXMAN: So let me make sure I understand this. The White House was involved in closing up its operations, but still trying to issue new regulations and negotiating a Middle East peace agreement. The president was insisting that you consider as many pardon applications as possible, despite the fact that the Justice Department wouldn't take any more applications after October of 2000, and you were being besieged by members of Congress and others to consider an ever-growing number of pardons. And on top of that, I suspect you weren't even aware of some of the pardon activities. Is that a fair statement of what was going on at the White House?

NOLAN: I think that is a very fair statement. I would add that we were also doing this shortened transition period and trying to work with the incoming administration, so that was another...

WAXMAN: And, Mr. Podesta, is that an accurate statement from your point of view?

JOHN PODESTA (former White House chief of staff): I think that's accurate, yes.

WAXMAN: You were hearing from members of Congress, and I even called you on behalf of a constituent, who I thought deserved consideration for a pardon, Mike Milken, who did not get a pardon.

NOLAN: That's right.

WAXMAN: And I understand you got calls from congressman and senators. Did any of them suggest you not follow the Justice Department Guidelines?

NOLAN: Yes, certainly. Several of them suggested that they knew it was too late, really, to go through the Department of Justice, but they wanted to send the pardon application directly to the White House.

WAXMAN: How many contacts, if you know, did you get from members of Congress, House and Senate?

NOLAN: I don't no, sir. I had probably 30 or 40 phone calls. And I think I took less than half of the calls. I just couldn't possibly respond to all the calls I had.

WAXMAN: Mr. Podesta, do you have any idea of how many calls you...

PODESTA: I would guess it's in the high double or in the triple digits.

WAXMAN: Were there any examples that stand out in your mind of congressman or senators that were asking you to issue pardons and not follow the Justice Department guidelines?

PODESTA: Well, let me clarify one thing. I don't think that members of Congress said, “Please issue a pardon, and, by the way, don't follow the Justice Department guidelines.” I think they basically just didn't care whether we followed the Justice Department guidelines.

For example, I think in one particular case in which we did issue a pardon for Mr. Lake, that was done at the end, and I think did not go through the Justice Department. I think both the chairman and the Senate Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the counterpart committee to your committee in the Senate called on his behalf, or at least made their views known on his behalf.

WAXMAN: Senator Hatch?

PODESTA: Senator Hatch and Senator Thompson. I don't think they really cared whether that had gone through the Justice Department guidelines or not.

From the Times article:

The former prosecutor whom President-elect Barack Obama wants to run the Justice Department bypassed the agency's career lawyers during one of the most controversial final decisions made by President Clinton in January 2001 -- the pardon of billionaire fugitive financier Marc Rich, congressional records show.

Eric H. Holder Jr., then the deputy attorney general, worked with former White House Counsel Jack Quinn to ensure that department officials -- particularly federal prosecutors in New York who handled the Rich case -- “did not have the opportunity to express an opinion on the Rich pardon before it was granted,” the Republican-led House Government Reform Committee concluded in a 467-page report in 2002.

The committee's evidence included an e-mail in which Mr. Holder told Mr. Quinn to “go straight” to the White House and that the “timing is good” for Mr. Rich's request for a pardon. Normally, pardon requests are reviewed by career prosecutors before a recommendation is forwarded to the White House.

Mr. Quinn responded in a typewritten note to Mr. Holder, just 10 days before Mr. Clinton issued the pardon, “Your saying positive things, I'm told, would make this happen. Thanks for your consideration.”

Mr. Holder was not available for comment on Wednesday. But he told lawmakers during the investigation that he thought he had done nothing wrong.

[...]

The House committee, which finished its investigation in 2002, concluded from its interviews and the documents that Mr. Holder helped bypassed the normal procedure for pardons in Mr. Rich's case. The report was approved by Republicans, led by Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, over the objections of Democrats.

“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,” the report said.

[...]

The House committee concluded in the March 2002 report that Mr. Holder played a significant role in facilitating the pardon, first by recommending Mr. Quinn to Mr. Rich's legal representatives, and by delivering what it called a favorable opinion of the last-minute pardon to the president from a position of authority.