Marc Rich or Martin Luther — The Price of Pardon

When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses of Contention on the Wittenburg Church door, it began the Reformation of the Catholic Church, and the attempt to remove the corruption from the most powerful force in Medieval Europe.

Luther’s objections included the selling of indulgences, the Middle Ages version of a “get out of hell free card.” Individuals could buy “indulgences” from the Church to offset any outstanding sins that might be held over the buyer at the time of his death. If the person himself was not prudent enough to buy the indulgence before death, their grief-ravaged relatives could buy them on behalf of the deceased to release the soul of the departed from its state of purgatory.

Martin Luther found this custom fundamentally flawed because of the obvious reason of exclusion: the people that were able to purchase the penance were the wealthy. Luther believed in an equitable religion for all, but the practice of buying forgiveness was afforded to only those of privilege. His attempt to shed light on hypocrisy of the catechism was rewarded with a decree of excommunication. The Pope evidently objected to Luther’s desire to interrupt the corrupt practice that brought tremendous wealth to the Vatican coffers.

Although it took a religious reformation of several centuries, the Catholic Church no longer embodies the practice of indulgences, but the politicians of today do as seen in the case of Marc Rich and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Despite attempts to the contrary, Judicial Watch has finally obtained from the machinations of the Clinton archives

the official pardon application submitted to the Clinton White House by attorney Jack Quinn December 11, 2000, on behalf of former fugitive Marc Rich, who fled the United States in 1983 to avoid prosecution on racketeering, wire fraud and tax evasion charges. The fugitive Rich was one of about 140 criminals who received pardons from Bill Clinton in the last hours of his administration on January 20, 2001.

While the official pardon outlined several reasons to grant Rich’s request, the primary points evolved around his charitable and philanthropic activities which were indeed substantial. Making money was evidently not a problem for Rich but his ability to do so within the legal guidelines made his departure and lengthy exile from the United States a necessity.

It is important, however, to look at the other recipients of Rich’s generosity. Just like the Catholic Church was the ultimate destination of the practice of indulgences, Bill and Hillary Clinton were the beneficiary of Rich’s desire to pay for his sins. The proof can be found through the donations made to the Democratic National Party through Denise Rich, Marc Rich’s wife and an someone seen often in the company of the Clinton’s during their tenure in the White House. According to the Federal Election Commission, Mrs. Rich has contributed $1,140,000,000 between July 1993 to November of 2000 with the majority of the money going to the DNC.

The contributions were not illegal and their influence on the outgoing President Clinton’s mind as he considered the pardon requests at the end of his tenure can only be speculation at this point. Coincidentally, however, the generosity of the Riches to the Democratic Party has dried up to a paltry $3,000 since the Clintons left office. The scandal, known as Pardongate, has been thrown in the closet with the rest of the Clintons’ combined indiscretions by their wide range of apologists in hopes that time would dull the memories of the voting public. In fact, there were so many that it is hard to keep them straight, but most circled around the root of all evil: money.

And the old adage of “follow the money” still applies whether it is in the Medieval corruption of a powerful institution or the modern corruption of a political couple.