NY Times points out lies in Clinton pardon editorial - in small print naturally:
Editors' Note
An Op-Ed article by former President Bill Clinton yesterday about the
pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green stated erroneously in some
editions that "the applications were reviewed and advocated" by three
prominent lawyers, Leonard Garment, William Bradford Reynolds and
Lewis Libby. Mr. Clinton's office and the lawyers are in agreement that
none of the three men, former lawyers for Mr. Rich, reviewed the pardon
applications or advocated for the pardons. During the press run, Mr.
Clinton's office asked that the reference to "applications" be changed to
"the case for the pardons" to try to clarify Mr. Clinton's point. Even the
revised wording, however, could be read as leaving the impression that
the lawyers were involved in the pardon process, which Mr. Clinton's
spokesmen said was not the intended meaning.
The revised wording, according to those spokesmen, was meant to refer
to the underlying legal case developed by Mr. Garment, Mr. Reynolds
and Mr. Libby, among others, in past years that argued that the criminal
indictment of Mr. Rich was flawed. That legal analysis, according to Mr.
Clinton's spokesmen, formed part of the argument that Mr. Rich's
lawyer, Jack Quinn, adopted in applying to Mr. Clinton for the pardon.
nytimes.com |
