Why did Clinton pardon Marc Rich for just $450,000?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GENIERE
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the controversial pardon of Marc Rich by President Clinton, particularly focusing on the implications of a $450,000 donation to Clinton's library and Rich's alleged involvement in the UN-Iraq kickback scheme. Participants explore the broader context of the oil-for-food scandal and the roles of various entities, including American oil companies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Clinton's pardon was influenced by a $450,000 donation from Rich, while others question the validity of this claim and request sources.
  • There are claims regarding Rich's significant financial dealings with Saddam Hussein, with one participant stating he received over $3,000,000 through the UN-Iraq kickback scheme.
  • Participants discuss the broader implications of the oil-for-food scandal, noting that over 2000 companies were involved, and some argue that the blame should not rest solely on Rich.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the motivations behind the investigations into American oil companies, suggesting a bias against the U.S. in the discourse surrounding the scandal.
  • One participant describes Rich as a "kingpin" in the smuggling of Iraqi oil, asserting that he played a central role in the operations, while others challenge this characterization.
  • There is a philosophical discussion about fairness and corporate behavior, with participants sharing differing views on the nature of fairness in the context of corporate and governmental actions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the motivations behind Clinton's pardon or the extent of Rich's culpability in the oil-for-food scandal. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the scandal and the roles of various actors involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the accuracy of claims made regarding financial figures and the involvement of different countries and companies in the scandal. There are unresolved questions about the definitions of fairness and the motivations behind corporate actions.

GENIERE
Clinton pardoned Marc Rich after he received $450,000 donation to his library. Now it is known that Rich received more than $3,000,000 from Saddam via the UN-Iraq kickback scheme.

“That SOB gets 3 mil and I get a paltry 450k. Hillary only got $70,000 that’s peanuts for all she’s put out with.”
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well that's just... source-o-rific.

Sourcetastic.

Sourcemobile

Whats your source.
 
GENIERE said:
Hillary only got $70,000 that’s peanuts for all she’s put out with.”
I didn't think Hillary put out. I mean, that's why Billy was cheatin wasn't it? :biggrin:
 
His appearance fees have declined sharply. He was in Texas yesterday signing books at the book festival for $130 a chair. It was a small room. The chef from Queer Eye had a bigger audience as did Kinky Friedman...and just about every other author did as well. Sources?!...we don't know no stinking sources.
 
Relatively detailed background...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21595
And as of today...
The report said Marc Rich & Co. financed 4 million barrels of oil under a 9.5-million-barrel contract awarded to the European Oil and Trading Co., a French-based shell company.
"Surcharges were imposed on the oil," the report said, and "Marc Rich & Co. directed BNP Paris not to disclose its identity to BNP NY in connection with its financing of the U.N. contract."
It added, "According to an individual familiar with the companies, EOTC and Marc Rich & Co. agreed that the premium paid to EOTC would cover a commission and a surcharge. The premium paid by Marc Rich & Co. of 30-40 cents per barrel was sufficiently high to cover both."
The company responded that it "continues to dispute vigorously" the report's conclusion.
The report named Daimler Chrysler for having "knowingly made or caused to be made a kickback payment of approximately $7,134."
The report said the payment was known to at least one managerial-level person working for the company in Germany.
The company issued as statement saying it was aware of the report and "in light of ongoing investigations" had no comment.
Volcker cautioned that just because a company's individual contract was identified as the subject of an illicit payment "doesn't necessarily mean that company made, authorized or even knew about the illicit payment."
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/oil.food.report/
It's Called http://www.GOOGLE.COM People!
Ofcourse it's always better if the poster supplies links, at the very least.
 
There is plenty of blame to spread on the oil for food scandal. over 2000 companies were involved in the kickbacks. Mark Rich was just one of many.

But the US was involved as well. According to a report released Monday by Democrats on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, US imports of Iraqi oil helped finance 52 percent of the secret deals made under the oil-for-food program.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0518/p03s01-usfp.html

The roles of several American oil companies, including ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil, are also under investigation. ChevronTexaco received subpoenas requesting information for two separate grand jury proceedings, and said they were cooperating fully with both investigations

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=295926&page=1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-10-21-oil-for-food_x.htm
 
Last edited:
Its called being lazy!
 
GENIERE said:
Clinton pardoned Marc Rich after he received $450,000 donation to his library. Now it is known that Rich received more than $3,000,000 from Saddam via the UN-Iraq kickback scheme.
“That SOB gets 3 mil and I get a paltry 450k. Hillary only got $70,000 that’s peanuts for all she’s put out with.”
First, when you make claims like this, you need to cite sources. Second, please clarify what it is you wish to discuss about this.
 
edward said:
There is plenty of blame to spread on the oil for food scandal. over 2000 companies were involved in the kickbacks. Mark Rich was just one of many.[/url]

That was a nice job of blaming America for everything when everyone else was actually to blame. No wonder there's so much Anti-Americanism... no one seems to want to tell the truth. I wonder why no Democrats are calling for France or Russia to be kicked out of the UN but the hell if they wouldn't want the US kicked out. Double standard or just ignorance? You decide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/i...=5fc1b7a9d673c5a8&ei=5009&partner=MSN_NYTHOME

The country with the most companies involved in the program was Russia, followed by France, the committee says in a report to be released Thursday.
 
  • #10
Pengwuino said:
I wonder why no Democrats are calling for France or Russia to be kicked out of the UN...

The country with the most companies involved in the program was Russia, followed by France, the committee says in a report to be released Thursday.
Just to clarify what looks like an incorrect piece of "supporting evidence".

To say that France and Russia had the largest numbers of companies involved in the program is not the same as saying they had the largest number of companies involved in the fraud.

The quoted statement thus has no relevance to the argument.
 
  • #11
Yes it was bad Pengwuino, but how can you say he is diverting the truth, when in fact you are ??

Double standard or just ignorance? You decide.
Double standards on your half

Why do you continue to troll, in every thread?
 
  • #12
GENIERE said:
Clinton pardoned Marc Rich after he received $450,000 donation to his library. Now it is known that Rich received more than $3,000,000 from Saddam via the UN-Iraq kickback scheme.
“That SOB gets 3 mil and I get a paltry 450k. Hillary only got $70,000 that’s peanuts for all she’s put out with.”
Geniere, finally we find each other. What was known in the industry from the beginning now slowly begins to trickle down. EVERYBODY in this business knew Marc Rich's involvement in the smuggling of Iraqi oil to the US. He was not just "one of many". He was the kingpin. He was the guy who assured that most of the smuggled oil went to the US, through all kinds of set-ups made to look like it were others, FRench, Swiss, Germans, you name it. And if I say "he" I mean of course his company by the same name. I have posted this I guess two years ago on this and other boards. At that time I was called a conspiracy theorist, just because I know what is going on in the energy world. My desillusion started with Clinton pardoning a crook like Marc Rich. Where does yours start?
 
  • #13
Mercator said:
...My desillusion started with Clinton pardoning a crook like Marc Rich. Where does yours start?

I don't think I ever became disillusioned. I observed that people endeavor to satisfy their needs whether for money, power, or whatever. Corporations and governments are extensions of their human components and acquire all the human qualities, the good and the bad. Of course words like good, bad, fair, humane have a dictionary meaning, but these abstract terms are not really definable. My definition of `fair’ may be similar to that of Russ-Water’s, but polar to that of Pattylou.

A corporation, a government, and a society will evolve a personality. I expect each to act in a manner I consider to be fair per my definition. I expect each will occasionally fail miserably and each will have brilliant successes. I’m never surprised, sometimes I’m saddened, and sometimes I’m elated. I expect corporate greed, I am quite sure it is a necessary element of success. I expect the greed to be well tempered by a good dose of fairness.


..
 
  • #14
Perhaps you would like to outline your definition of "fair" then?
 
  • #15
Anttech said:
Perhaps you would like to outline your definition of "fair" then?

Ladies first!
 
  • #16
GENIERE said:
Ladies first!
Ok, not a lady, but. Fairness is the opposite of greed, it is a measured response to any wrongdoing and takes different forms in different situations. My favourite definition is "The attitude of doing just for all."

An example:

Clinton lied about a jowblob, so it would only be fair that his wife would be angry, sue him, divorce him or forgive him, up to her and NOBODY else.
(And the fact that he made other blunders as a president has nothing to do with this, that's also fairness)

Bush lied so he could invade a country. His actions are the direct cause of thousands of deaths and he made the whole world a less safe place. It would be fair that the whole world would be angry at him, impeach him, sue him etc...
 
  • #17
Ladies first!
You think I am a woman? .. :smile:
Anyway, I am not the one who said:
I expect each to act in a manner I consider to be fair per my definition
For your post to be of any use you should define what you mean by "fair"