Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (131831)	3/14/2001 4:37:50 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on. Paper Trail Hints at Denise Rich Tie to Ex-husband's Holdings Eight-year-old legal records currently being reviewed by the U.S. attorney's office in New York suggest that million-dollar Democratic donor Denise Rich may still have a financial interest in the business dealings of her ex-husband Marc Rich, the fugitive billionaire pardoned by former president Clinton on Jan. 19. In a report that hit the Internet Tuesday afternoon, Village Voice investigative reporter James Ridgeway revealed the latest twist in the Pardongate probe, one that has investigators poring over documents connected to a 1993 lawsuit filed by Denise against Marc claiming he had defrauded her and her children. "The picture that emerges from the documents is that of an angry and feisty former wife who had herself been a knowledgeable stockholder, beneficiary, and player inside the Rich empire," Ridgeway reports. In an affidavit Denise filed as part of the lawsuit she stated, "Until 1990, I was a shareholder of MRCH (Marc Rich & Co. Holding AG) ... and I still maintain an interest in the company." Then there's the letter prepared by Denise's attorneys asserting that she owned nearly 14 percent of her husband's company, a financial interest she may still retain in the form of preferred stock. Any current financial tie between Denise and her ex-husband's company would only bolster suspicions that the money she gave to the Clintons and other Democrats may not have been her own. Such a link would certainly explain why Mrs. Rich invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination last month rather than testify to Congress. In other court documents, Mrs. Rich charges that her husband was trying to defraud the U.S. government and threatens, ironically enough, to blow the whistle on him to Congress. tom watson tosiwmee