Documents on Elie Wiesel | |||
February 12, 2001 Elie
Wiesel Says He Did Not Contribute to Effort to
Secure Rich's Pardon By ALISON LEIGH COWAN ELIE Wiesel, the Nobel Prize
winner whose name has been mentioned in relation to
the Marc Rich pardon case, said yesterday
that he understood why the team trying to secure a
pardon for Mr. Rich sought his help, as documents
released last week by a Congressional committee
showed. But, contrary to the documents' assertions
that he had weighed in with the White House, Mr.
Wiesel said, "I didn't do anything." Mr. Wiesel, whose accounts of the Holocaust won
him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, was a frequent
guest at the White House and is close to former
President Bill Clinton and Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton. But he said in
interviews on Saturday and yesterday that from the
outset his intuition told him that Mr. Rich's
candidacy for a pardon was a long shot because Mr.
Rich was a fugitive. Besides, Mr. Wiesel said,
he
was concerned about diverting attention from the
person he really wanted pardoned, Jonathan J.
Pollard
(right). "I saw him twice in prison and I condemn what he
did," said Mr. Wiesel, referring to Mr. Pollard, a
civilian naval intelligence analyst who in 1987 was
sentenced to life in prison as a spy for Israel.
"Nevertheless, he suffered enough, and I thought if
I did anything else, it would affect Jonathan
Pollard." Mr. Rich was pardoned on Mr. Clinton's last day
in office, Jan. 20, the same day Mr. Clinton
announced the pardons of more than 100 people. Mr.
Rich's pardon and many others took law enforcement
officials and political leaders by surprise. Representative Dan Burton, Republican of
Indiana, whose House Committee on Government Reform
has been holding hearings on the matter, said
yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would
not rule out calling Mr. Clinton to testify. "That's
something we're not ruling in or out," Mr. Burton
said. "Now, unless we see something that looks like
there was a quid pro quo or something illegal that
involved the president, I'm not sure we need to
have him come and testify before the committee. But
if it is necessary, we'll consider that." He said the committee would consult the Justice
Department and vote on whether to grant immunity to
Denise Rich, Mr. Rich's former wife, who
last week declined to testify, citing her
constitutional protections against
self-incrimination. Mr. Burton has also said he intends to subpoena
the foundation that receives contributions to build
the Clinton presidential library. Yesterday,
David E. Kendall, who defended Mr. Clinton
in the impeachment proceedings and who is a lawyer
for the foundation, hinted that the documents may
not come without a fight. "We have received no subpoena," Mr. Kendall
said, adding, "There are significant First
Amendment protections for donor lists to charitable
organizations." A Democratic fund-raiser said Denise Rich gave
$450,000 to the foundation, but U.S. News &
World Report said in its Feb. 19 issue that she had
been asked for at least $10 million. Ms. Rich's
lawyer, Martin Pollner, said yesterday that
"such an allegation is ludicrous." Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a
Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, which
will conduct hearings on the pardon process on
Wednesday, told Fox News yesterday that Mr. Clinton
could face impeachment charges, for the second
time. "I'm not suggesting it should be done, but
President Clinton technically could still be
impeached," Senator Specter said. Meanwhile, Beth Dozoretz, who was finance
chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee for
much of 1999, released a statement denying that she
had told anyone that Mr. Clinton was trying to
"turn around" his lawyers on the question of a
pardon for Mr. Rich. An e-mail message dated Jan.
10 that was written by Avner Azulay, a
member of Mr. Rich's team, and released last week
by Mr. Burton's committee said that Ms. Dozoretz
had taken a phone call from the president
suggesting that he "wanted to do it" but that he
had his work cut out for him with his own legal
staff, who largely opposed the Rich pardon. The obvious choice,
they reasoned, was Mr. Wiesel, and they pressed two
friends of his to persuade him to receive Mr.
Azulay, a former Israeli intelligence operative who
now runs Mr. Rich's Israeli foundation, in his home
in Manhattan on Dec. 6. "Avner came to see me, and I had no idea what
this was all about," Mr. Wiesel said. "I had never
heard the name Marc Rich. I said: 'It's not my
field, my field is philosophy
and novels. Let me see what's happening.'
" Mr.
Azulay left Mr. Wiesel with a stack of testimonials
he had gathered on Mr. Rich's behalf. Mr. Wiesel
said he was struck by the quality of the
signatures, from high-ranking Israeli officials and
heads of charitable institutions. Mr. Azulay, he
said, also called back a few times to find out
where things stood. What happened next, Mr. Wiesel said, diverted
markedly from what was described in the many e-mail
messages exchanged by members of Mr. Rich's team.
Mr. Wiesel did, in fact, visit the White House on
Dec. 12 for a state dinner, as the e-mail messages
stated. But, contrary to what was contained in the
e-mail messages, Mr. Wiesel said he "didn't speak
to anybody in the White House about the
matter." After some reflection and consultation with
people he trusts, Mr. Wiesel said he concluded:
"Intuitively, I said, I don't think it can work. I
don't think he will get it. I felt somehow it's too
much, a man who is a fugitive, who is accused of
these things, I felt he wouldn't get pardoned." Mr. Wiesel, whose phone number is
unlisted and who could
not be reached for comment last week, said he was
taken aback to learn, after The New York Times
published an article about the documents on
Saturday, that he was the subject of no fewer than
nine e-mail messages among Mr. Rich's strategists.
"Again?" he gasped, each time a message including
his name was read to him by a reporter. "It's
annoying because I don't want to be connected to
all that, but it's funny to think that I'm so
important." The e-mail messages do describe Mr. Wiesel as
being reluctant to help, but, finally, the group
believed it had achieved success when Gershon
Kekst, a prominent public relations executive
in New York, informed the others on Jan. 9, "I am
'assured' that the call has been made by Elie." Mr. Wiesel described as "total fantasy" Mr.
Azulay's and Mr. Kekst's assertions in the e-mail
messages that he spoke up on Mr. Rich's behalf. Mr. Kekst could not be reached for comment
yesterday, and Mr. Azulay was not about to debate
Mr. Wiesel. "Somebody was mistaken," he said. "I don't recall every word I wrote and what you
have there is what there is," Mr. Azulay said. But,
he said, "Mr. Wiesel was approached and he did not
help." Struggling to make sense of it all, Mr. Wiesel
said bluntly, "I don't understand Clinton." To him,
if politics had carried the day and if the former
president were simply trying to appease the
Israelis, he would have pardoned Mr. Pollard, not
Mr. Rich. Mr. Wiesel said Mr. Rich's defense team
overestimated his influence. He said he was not
sure that if he had called the White House, Mr.
Clinton would "pick up the phone." Besides, he
asked humorously, "Had they believed that I did
have something to do with their 'victory,' how come
they never called to say thank you?" |