The criminal investigation opened by federal prosecutors in New York into whether the fugitive billionaire, Mr Marc Rich bought a pardon from former President Clinton is showing all the signs of becoming what is known in the US media as a "monster story". Every news bulletin and front page has seized the issue. People such as Mr Rich's former wife Denise and the US attorney in New York, Ms Mary Jo White, are on the verge of becoming national figures. This may be bad news for Mr Clinton but it is even worse for the Democratic Party.
After the defeat of its presidential candidate, Mr Al Gore, the Democrats had hoped to use Mr Clinton's immense popularity as its trump card in a campaign to regain control of Congress and the White House. The new investigation has already put paid to such hopes. For the first time in his career Mr Clinton may become a political liability. Many of Mr Clinton's supporters have claimed the latest moves are motivated by a spirit of vindictiveness on the part of certain Republicans whose hatred of the former President knows no bounds. There is little doubt that those Republicans will revel in Mr Clinton's plight. But Ms White, the prime mover of the action, is a Democratic appointee and indisputably there are serious questions to be answered.
The most important concerns donations made to the Democratic Party, Mr Clinton's library project, Senator Hillary Clinton's election campaign in New York and to the President Clinton Memorial Library fund by Mrs Rich. They were extraordinarily generous. The library fund, for example, received $450,000. In the dying hours of his administration Mr Clinton included Mr Rich in a list of 141 people to be pardoned. Mr Rich's misdemeanours were not minor. He fled the US for Switzerland in 1983, after being indicted on charges of racketeering and illegal oil trading. He also stands accused of failing to pay more than $48 million in taxes.
Moreover, the pardon was granted without consulting the Federal Prosecutors' Office in New York, which had brought the initial charges against Mr Rich. This move is understood to have incensed Ms White who now intends to examine bank and telephone records as well as a series of documents in order to discover if the pardon was given following an illegal transfer of money.
A Senate Judiciary Committee has heard that Mr Roger Adams, the lawyer responsible for pardons, was not informed by the White House that Mr Rich was a fugitive from justice. Mr Adams told the committee: "I learned that from the FBI". Mr Clinton's response has been that he made the decision to pardon Mr Rich because he thought it was "the right thing to do". Having committed himself to co-operation with any inquiry that may be set up into the allegations, Mr Clinton may become the focus of legal proceedings and consequent media attention over a protracted period. This is precisely what the Democratic Party does not want.