Segment 3 Of 3 Previous Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 878 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
JOHNNY CHUNG: HIS UNUSUAL ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, HIS POLITICAL DONATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1997
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:25 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, McHugh, Horn, Souder, Pappas, Barr, Waxman, Lantos, Kanjorski, Maloney, Norton, Fattah, Cummings, Kucinich, and Turner.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Richard Bennett, chief counsel; Dudly Hodson, chief investigator; Barbara Comstock, chief investigative counsel; Judith McCoy, chief clerk; William Moschella, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; Teresa Austin, assistant clerk/calendar clerk; Will Dwyer, director of communications; Ashley Williams, deputy director of communications; Dave Bossie, oversight coordinator; Robert Rohrbaugh, James C. Wilson, and Uttam Dhillon, senior investigative counsels; Charli Coon, Jennifer Safavian, Kristi Remington, and Bill Hanka, investigative counsels; Phil Larsen, investigative consultant; Jim Schumann, investigator; Robin Butler, office manager; Carolyn Pritts, David Jones, and John Mastranadi, investigative staff assistants; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; Agnieszka Fryszman, Kristin Amerling, Christopher Lu, Andrew McLaughlin, Michael Raphael, Michael Yang, and Michael Yeager, minority counsels; Harry Gossett, minority professional staff member; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa and Andrew Su, minority staff assistants; and Sheridan Pauker, minority research assistant.
Mr. BURTON. The committee will come to order. A quorum being present, we are now in session. Today's session is a continuation of yesterday's hearing regarding Johnny Chung and his unusual access to the White House.
Page 879 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Before I welcome our guests this morning, I would like to say that the questions which will be asked today will not in any way be taken from the interview we had with Mr. Chung this morning. We have agreed, Mr. Waxman, myself, our staffs and our colleagues, to keep the contents of that interview confidential and we will abide by that agreement.
We will be meeting with Mr. Chung later today to go into it further, but at this time, with our witnesses today, we will refrain from raising any issues that were raised in that confidential interview.
I would like to welcome Brooke Darby, former Executive Assistant to Nancy Soderberg at the National Security Council, and Robert Suettinger, former Director of Asian Affairs for the National Security Council.
We really appreciate your being here, and would you both stand to be sworn, please?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. BURTON. On behalf of the committee, we welcome you here today. You will each be recognized, if you so desire, to give an opening statement of 5 minutes. If you have a statement that is longer than that, we will be happy to insert that into the record.
So with that, which one of you would like to go first?
Ms. DARBY. I have no statement to offer, sir.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Nor do I, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. You do not have a statement?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I do not have a statement.
Mr. BURTON. OK. I guess we will start with our investigative counsel, Mr. Rohrbaugh. I will recognize you—incidentally, you have counsel with you?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, we do.
Mr. BURTON. Would you like to introduce your counsel?
Page 880 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. This is Mr. John Sparks from the National Security Council.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Sparks, you are welcome to assist your clients in any way that you see fit.
Lt. Col. SPARKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. You are welcome as well.
STATEMENTS OF BROOKE DARBY, FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO NANCY SODERBERG AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL; AND ROBERT SUETTINGER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF ASIAN AFFAIRS FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY LT. COLONEL JOHN SPARKS, DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Rohrbaugh.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Good morning, Ms. Darby, Mr. Suettinger, Mr. Sparks, we met out in the hall briefly. I introduced myself out there. My name is Bob Rohrbaugh, and I am just going to ask some questions of you today. Hopefully, we will try to be brief so the Members can go back home.
I am going to start with you briefly, Ms. Darby. Could you briefly tell me your educational background and your work experience?
Ms. DARBY. Yes, I graduated in 1992 from Mount Holyoke College.
Mr. BURTON. Ms. Darby, would you pull the microphone closer to you so we can hear you clearly? Thank you.
Ms. DARBY. Sure. I graduated in 1992 from Mount Holyoke College. I am currently pursuing a law degree in the evening division at Georgetown Law School.
My first job after graduating was working for the campaign in Little Rock, AR, the Clinton/Gore campaign, where I worked as a foreign policy assistant in the foreign policy office. I later joined the transition team, where I continued to work for Nancy Soderberg, who was director of the transition in Little Rock for foreign policy issues.
Page 881 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Thereafter, I joined the National Security Council staff working as Nancy Soderberg's special assistant and then later as her executive assistant.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Do you still work at the NSC?
Ms. DARBY. No, I don't. I currently work at the State Department in the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. When you were employed at the NSC to whom did you report?
Ms. DARBY. Nancy Soderberg.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Who at the NSC would interact with the White House?
Ms. DARBY. Well, both of us interacted with the White House, and both of us had a number of people who we had worked with on the campaign who later got jobs in the White House, and they would frequently call us if they had any issues with foreign policy implications.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And you are familiar with an e-mail dated April 7th, which we are going to display at the present time?
Ms. DARBY. Very familiar, sir.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Very familiar with that. You have been deposed before; you are very familiar with that e-mail.
First of all, can you tell me what prompted your sending that e-mail of April 7th that appears in front of you?
Ms. DARBY. Yes, I was approached one evening by Kelly Crawford from the President's staff. She said—she basically conveyed the information that's in this e-mail, which is that there had been a radio address, approximately a couple weeks before. The Friday night before the radio address—the radio addresses are at 9 a.m. on Saturday mornings—the Friday night before the President's office had gotten a request from the DNC that the people on this list in the e-mail be invited to the radio address and they were invited.
Page 882 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
And as a routine part of the radio address, the guests get their pictures taken with the President afterwards. It usually takes a couple weeks for those photos to be developed. Those photos had been developed and Johnny Chung was coming in to see Nancy Hernreich the following day to pick up the photos. And she conveyed to me that the President had some concerns about us perhaps not wanting the photos of him with the individuals circulating, and asked for our guidance on whether we should—whether the President's office should give Johnny Chung the photos when he came to Nancy Hernreich's office the following day.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And who asked for your guidance on that?
Ms. DARBY. Kelly Crawford.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. In the past—before I get to that, prior to these individuals having actually come into the White House, had the NSC been asked to vet or check out these individuals?
Ms. DARBY. With respect to the radio address?
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DARBY. Not that I'm aware of. She indicated to me that they had not—because of the lateness of the request, coming in on a Friday night before the radio address on Saturday morning, that contrary to their normal procedures they hadn't had an opportunity to check the names with us first.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. OK. So it was the normal procedure that, especially when foreign nationals would come into the White House, the NSC would be asked to check or vet these people?
Ms. DARBY. Not necessarily. If anyone had a concern about any of the individuals involved, then they would contact us. But it was not routine practice for us to vet the names of people coming to a radio address, for example.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. How often would this vetting be asked of the NSC by the White House?
Page 883 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. DARBY. I don't think I probably handled all of the vetting, but in terms of my own participation in the vetting process, I would—it is hard to quantify it, but I would guess probably four to eight times a month. If I had to guess. But that really is just an estimate.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. So it would not be unusual for the White House to actually ask the NSC to vet the people before they came in?
Ms. DARBY. That's right.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Now, on exhibit No. 196, that is in front of you, your e-mail.
[Exhibit 196 follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 85 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Ms. DARBY. Yes.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. It starts off by saying ''An odd situation'' developed. Do you see that phrase?
Ms. DARBY. Yes, I do.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. What was the odd situation that developed?
Ms. DARBY. The odd situation was that the President's office had some concern about these individuals and they hadn't come to us in advance to ask for our guidance before these individuals were invited into the White House.
And usually, if they had a concern about someone, they would make every effort to contact us first so we would have an opportunity to comment before the individuals were invited.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And if I can, in the second paragraph, it says they, which I believe refers to the President's office, ''Did so, not knowing anything about them except that they were DNC contributors.''
Page 884 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Did you know anything else about these individuals other than they were DNC contributors?
Ms. DARBY. I didn't know anything about them, sir. I tried to convey the information that Kelly Crawford had offered to me. I presume she used the term DNC contributors, because I would have had no independent basis for knowing whether they were or were not.
But I don't recall in detail what her words were to me other than what's written in this e-mail, which may or may not have reflected her exact words.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And if I can show you a larger version of the same exhibit, at the bottom paragraph it says, ''for your information these people are major DNC contributors,'' and it goes on, which basically indicates that the President would like to give the photographs out, if possible.
From whom did you get the information that these individuals, the people that you listed, the Chinese delegation, were major DNC contributors?
Ms. DARBY. Again, I can only presume that that information was conveyed to me by Kelly Crawford because, again, I would have had no independent basis for knowing whether these people were contributors or not. Again, I'm not sure those were the exact words she used, but that was the impression that I got from her.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. You sent this e-mail, I believe, to Mr. Suettinger, among others?
Ms. DARBY. Yes, I did. I sent it to the entire Asia Office, because it was something that required a prompt response, and I wanted to make sure that if Bob wasn't around, that someone in the office got it.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And I believe you sent it on April 7th at approximately 10:12 in the morning; is that right?
Page 885 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. DARBY. That's what this e-mail would indicate, yes.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Did Mr. Suettinger respond to you?
Ms. DARBY. Yes, he did.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And how soon after you sent your e-mail did he respond to you?
Ms. DARBY. This e-mail indicates that he responded at 11:24, which would have been, I guess, about an hour and a half later.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And you are referring to exhibit No. 198 that shows Mr. Suettinger's response to you; is that correct?
[Exhibit 198 follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 86 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Ms. DARBY. 197.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. OK, 197–198 are the same.
Ms. DARBY. Both. Yes. Yes.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Now, I will get into with Mr. Suettinger exactly what he responded, but based upon what Mr. Suettinger responded to you, what did you do?
Ms. DARBY. I got back in touch with Kelly Crawford and I conveyed to her the nature of Bob's response. I believe I quoted pieces of the response back to her.
She's not—the White House and the NSC are on separate e-mail systems because our system is classified. So there was no way for me to directly send a copy of this on to her electronically. But I believe I conveyed the substance of it to her and gave her an opportunity to pick up a copy of the text of the e-mail if she wanted it. And I don't recall whether she picked it up from me or not.
Page 886 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. In front of you is the larger version, exhibit C–79, of Mr. Suettinger's response, and it indicates that he, referring to Johnny Chung, is a hustler. That's Mr. Suettinger's quotation, I believe, that has now become rather famous.
Did you relay that information on to Kelly Crawford?
[Exhibit C–79 follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 87 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Ms. DARBY. I believe I did so. That would have been a major piece of information that she would have needed. So I believe I—I don't have a specific recollection of passing that on, but I'm quite sure that I would have.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Did you make a recommendation to Ms. Crawford as to whether or not these photographs should be released?
Ms. DARBY. I believe I gave her a personal recommendation that we probably would not recommend that they release them.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. OK. Now, in Mr. Suettinger's e-mail, he generally indicated that he didn't think there would be a major problem. But you took it upon yourself to recommend that the photographs not be released?
Ms. DARBY. It was not a strong recommendation on my part. Ultimately, there was nothing in Bob's e-mail that conveyed to me that Johnny Chung or any of the individuals involved represented a national security risk or that they were criminals of any kind. But given that, my impression from his e-mail was that he would perhaps attempt to exploit his contacts with the President through these photos, that it might be better to err on the side of caution and not give them to him.
But it didn't pose a serious security risk, and that is what she came to us to give a recommendation on.
Page 887 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Prior to your making that recommendation, did you contact or talk with your supervisor, Ms. Soderberg?
Ms. DARBY. Not that I can recall.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. So it was basically your personal recommendation that you passed on that the photographs not be released?
Ms. DARBY. Yes.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Mr. Suettinger, let me just address a few questions to you. Can you briefly tell me what your background is and where you're presently employed?
Mr. SUETTINGER. You want my educational background?
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Yes, please.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I graduated from Lawrence University in Wisconsin in 1968. After a stint in the military, I attended graduate school at Columbia University, where I received a master's degree.
In 1975, I joined the Central Intelligence Agency as an analyst, principally on Chinese matters, and had several different jobs within the agency and at the State Department. In 1994, Mr. Stanley Roth asked if I would assist him at the National Security Council, which I did, beginning in 1994, and continuing until late September 1997.
I am currently employed at the National Intelligence Council, which is located in Langley.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. So for the period of roughly 1994 through 1997 you were at the NSC?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. At the White House. And can you tell me when the first time was that you heard of Johnny Chung?
Page 888 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. I can't give you a specific date, because my first contact with Mr. Chung, I believe, was via a telephone call that he made to the National Security Council requesting a meeting with Mr. Roth.
Again, I cannot remember either the specific context of that telephone call or whether it was repeated, but I know that his name was familiar to me when it came up later on.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Have you ever met Mr. Chung?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I have not.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And approximately how many times have you spoken to Mr. Chung, then?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I would guess at most two, perhaps three. He was somewhat persistent, as I recollect, in trying to get a meeting with Mr. Roth, he and a couple of other people, and I fended off those requests.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Let me refer your attention to exhibit No. 250, which is in your book, and it is an e-mail dated February 2, 1995, from Calvin Mitchell. Did you get a copy of that e-mail?
[Exhibit 250 follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 88 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, I do.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. In that particular e-mail it indicates that there would be, the chairman of the Chamber of International Commerce might be coming to see the President. Did you know who—first of all, had you ever heard of that organization, the Chamber of International Commerce?
Page 889 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. I had not.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Did you know the individual who was listed in that particular e-mail?
Mr. SUETTINGER. His name is vaguely familiar to me.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And that was through your employment?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. At that time, which is February 2, 1995, did you undertake any type of investigation or vetting of this particular individual who is listed on this e-mail?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I did not.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And I won't pronounce the name. I will leave that to you.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Zheng Hongye.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And why was it that you did not do any investigation or vetting of Mr. Chung at that time?
Mr. SUETTINGER. First of all, at that time, this was just a heads-up, rather than a request that this individual would be vetted. I didn't—and, quite frankly, I had not even remembered the existence of this e-mail until it was brought to my attention earlier this week as an FYI. I just basically disregarded it.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Are there resources at the NSC which would permit the NSC to actually vet individuals?
Mr. SUETTINGER. There are some at the NSC and some available via other means, phone calls and so forth.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. OK. And without getting into any classified information, those resources were readily available to you at the NSC?
Page 890 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. OK. When did you first become aware that Mr. Chung intended to bring a Chinese delegation into the White House?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was not aware of that until Ms. Darby wrote me the e-mail.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. So the first time you heard about that at all is when Ms. Darby sent you that e-mail?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And, again, just for the record, let me show you exhibit No. 196, and that's the e-mail that you received from Ms. Darby?
[Note.—Exhibit 196 may be found on p. 715.]
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, it is.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. To your knowledge, had anyone at the NSC or the White House or anybody else vetted these individuals prior to their coming into the White House?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I'm not aware of that having been done.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And as you know, maybe you don't, the Secret Service does a criminal background check before individuals come into the White House. Is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I don't know whether they do them for people from foreign countries. Certainly I know they do that for domestic visitors.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And, to your knowledge, that's the extent of the background that the Secret Service does on individuals coming into the White House?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I really am not qualified to comment on that, sir.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. I understand it—well, is one of the purposes of vetting a person, to use that Washington term, actually to protect the President and the President's reputation?
Page 891 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. My understanding of the process is that it is to make sure that people who have criminal records or who are intelligence personnel or who are otherwise considered for whatever reason unsavory characters are not put in the proximity of the President.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Let me refer you to your e-mail, which is exhibit 198. Is that your response to Ms. Darby's e-mail?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, it is.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. In your response, you indicate that all the Chinese on the list, with one possible exception, appear to be bona fide present or former Chinese officials. How did you come to that conclusion?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I came to that conclusion, one, by recognizing some of the names in the list; or by looking them up in a directory, an unclassified directory of Chinese officials that I had available to me; or, three, by determining that the organizations that they worked for were organizations that I recognized, I had heard the names of before, and seemed to be bona fide organizations in China.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And I believe there was one exception in your e-mail; is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And who was that?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That was Mr. James Sun, who was described as a self-made millionaire from Xinjiang province. I had no record of him nor any way of checking on him.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Was that the reason why you had some suspicions or some concerns about Mr. Sun?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Well, the other reason was that there are relatively few self-made millionaires in the People's Republic of China. So that term would be—was somewhat jarring and kind of grabbed my attention.
Page 892 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Let me show you a portion of a videotape.
[Video tape presentation was shown.]
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. The last individual on that tape, I hope that you heard, Mr. Chung introduced him as being his brother. Had you ever heard that Mr. Sun was Mr. Chung's brother?
Mr. SUETTINGER. No, I had not.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Do you have any information one way or the other as to whether, in fact, Mr. Chung and Mr. Sun are brothers?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I have no information to that effect. Chinese often refer to close friends as brothers.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Had you ever seen this videotape prior to coming in today?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I had not.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. One of the individuals in the Chinese delegation was described as the vice president of CITIC; is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And who was that individual?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is Mr. Huang Jichun. Or Jichun Huang, as it's written here.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Is CITIC an entity that is at least partially controlled by the State Council of the PRC?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I believe that's correct.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And do you know approximately what percentage is owned supposedly by the State Council of the PRC?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I do not.
Page 893 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And what is the State Council of the PRC?
Mr. SUETTINGER. The State Council is the official governing organ of the People's Republic of China. It is headed by the Premier and is in charge of all the Government ministries and many other organizations within the People's Republic.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Now, if I can, let me jump ahead to another incident that occurred in 1996 involving Wang Jun, do you remember that incident?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I do.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. OK. Mr. Wang Jun, who was the purported arms dealer, was also involved in CITIC; is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I believe he's the chairman of CITIC.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Back in 1995, after you got the list of names from Ms. Darby, did the fact that the vice president of CITIC was seeing the President, did that cause you any concern?
Mr. SUETTINGER. It did not.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Let me go back to your e-mail, exhibit No. 198. In your e-mail you indicate, but a word of caution, a warning of future déjà vu, and you indicate that Mr. Chung should be treated with, quote, a pinch of suspicion, unquote.
What did you mean by that?
Mr. SUETTINGER. As I spelled out subsequently in the e-mail, I was concerned that Mr. Chung might have been making use of his political connections to further his own business interests. And I was concerned that those business interests were not known to many people and that they might not be of the sort that the President would want to be associated.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Did you ever find out or learn of the various entities that Mr. Chung was involved in?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I did not.
Page 894 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And I believe in that same paragraph you also used that infamous term, hustler; is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct, sir.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And was that for the same reason?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Basically, yes.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Now, I just asked you about whether you were aware of some of the entities that Mr. Chung was involved with. Were you aware that just prior to Mr. Chung giving the DNC a $50,000 contribution, he had received through the bank of China-Beijing $150,000?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was not aware of that.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Let me, if I can, just show you quickly, exhibit No. 175. Exhibit No. 175 is a wire transfer from the Bank of Beijing, and at the bottom indicates payment of goods Haomen Group, Shan Tang. Do you see that?
[Exhibit 175 follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 89 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. SUETTINGER. I only see—yes, I see that. Is it Tang Shan?
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Tang Shan, I'm sorry.
Mr. SUETTINGER. S-H-A-N? I don't have that on my screen.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. OK. Are you familiar with what the Haomen Group is?
Mr. SUETTINGER. No, I'm not.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Are you familiar with the fact that in December 1994, Mr. Chung had brought to the White House, I believe it was the president of the Haomen Group?
Page 895 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was not aware of that at the time. I'm aware of it now. I did not associate the term Haomen with those individuals.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Do you presently or at the time in April, when you wrote your memo, did you know whether Mr. Chung had actually, and I hate to use the term, sold the Haomen Group any goods?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was not aware of it.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Let me ask you a couple more questions about, if I can go back to exhibit No. 198. Your e-mail continues by stating, the joys of balancing foreign policy considerations against domestic politics. Did you often have to do that at the National Security Council?
Mr. SUETTINGER. No.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. What did you mean by that term?
Mr. SUETTINGER. The situation was that these individuals had come in without my being aware of it. We were being asked as a matter of domestic policy and, in particular, DNC policy, to make a judgment call as to whether or not photographs should be given. That was not a task that I relished.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Why not?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I simply considered it to be outside the scope of my own responsibilities.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. How much weight did the DNC carry when it came to deciding who would meet with the President?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I can't answer that question.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. After your warning of April 8th, do you know how often Mr. Chung would then go into the White House?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I did not know that at the time. I have obviously learned it subsequently from newspaper accounts.
Page 896 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. So you are aware that it would be approximately 20 additional times he entered the White House even after your November 8, 1995, warning?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I'd have to take your word for that.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Were you also aware that in July 1995, or did you become aware in July 1995 that Mr. Chung was attempting to negotiate the release of Harry Wu?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I did become aware of that.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And how did you become aware of that?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I received, in fact in two separate copies, some correspondence from the Chief of Staff 's Office, I believe, I'd have to refer to the documents in particular, indicating that Mr. Chung had sought some credentials from the DNC to undertake this kind of mission.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Let me show you exhibit No. 251. It's a memorandum from Janice Enright at the Office of the Chief of Staff of the President, to Anthony Lake. Did you ever see that document before?
[Exhibit 251 follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 90 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, I have.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And when did you see it?
Mr. SUETTINGER. It would have been around the time, probably very shortly before my response. Somewhere between July 21st and 24th.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. And you made a response to this memo, then; is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. This memo was sent on to me through the system, as we call it in the National Security Council, and I responded to it, and I'm sorry, I had my date wrong, July 31st.
Page 897 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Let me show you exhibit No. 252. Can you tell me what that is?
[Exhibit 252 follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 91 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is a memo that I wrote to Mr. Lake in response to the memorandum from Ms. Enright that was sent on to me.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. What was your reaction about Mr. Chung attempting to negotiate the release of Harry Wu?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was quite upset.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Why?
Mr. SUETTINGER. We had been engaged in a very quiet persistent and complex set of signals and negotiations with the Chinese Government trying to ensure that Mr. Wu was released as soon as possible, and it struck me that Mr. Chung might be capable of interfering in that process.
I had no idea of what message he thought he was delivering to the Chinese Government, and thought it could only confuse the matter; and I was worried that this process might be upset by the intrusion of somebody who had no knowledge and no responsibilities for what happened.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Were you concerned that Mr. Chung was not a professional diplomat?
Mr. SUETTINGER. It wasn't so much that he was a professional diplomat as that he seemed to believe that he had some sort of a mission, and it was a mission that I didn't believe that he had; and that I was concerned it would complicate what we were trying to do in our own appropriate channels.
Page 898 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Your memorandum is actually written, I believe at the very bottom it says, Mr. Chung had already left for Beijing at the time you had written your memorandum. Is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. If that's the case, why did you feel the need to write that memorandum?
Mr. SUETTINGER. One, it was sent to me for action and, generally speaking, when we were given an assignment for action we tried to respond, to answer the mail, if you will; and I also thought that I wanted to convey to Mr. Lake my concerns about this sort of thing because I certainly didn't want a repetition of it.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. At the bottom you indicate that you had the concurrence of Alan Kreczko; is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Who is Mr. Kreczko?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Mr. Kreczko was the Senior Director, Legal Assistant, to the National Security Council.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Why did you feel that you had to have the concurrence of Mr. Kreczko?
Mr. SUETTINGER. It involved an American citizen. Two American citizens.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Did you ever find out who Mr. Chung met while he was in Beijing or what he did?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I only read one newspaper account, and I don't know whether it was credible or not.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions. Thank you.
Page 899 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BURTON. I would like to use some of your time on the Republican side, if I might.
I want to make sure I understand this. This Mr. Zheng Hongye.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Zheng Hongye.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. He was chairman of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, the CCPIT, an organization set up by the Chinese Communist Party to coordinate lucrative deals and funnel profits back into the party's leadership. Are you aware of who he was?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Your definition of that organization, sir, is not one that I had heard before. My understanding of the CCPIT is that it was an organization that was set up to promote international trade. It sponsored business delegations coming to the PRC and also Chinese delegations going overseas.
Mr. ROHRBAUGH. It was a part of the Communist Government.
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. BURTON. I think that says it. He was an adviser to the PRC State-owned China Ocean Shipping, COSCO, which wanted to lease the Long Beach Naval Shipyard.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was not aware of that, sir.
Mr. BURTON. He was vice chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultant Conference of the PRC's Communist Party for the Subcommittee for Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao Compatriots and Overseas Chinese. Were you aware of that?
Mr. SUETTINGER. No, I was not.
Mr. BURTON. You were not aware of that either.
Mr. Jichun Huang, he was director and vice president of China International Trust and Investment Corp., CITIC. You knew that?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, sir.
Page 900 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BURTON. And CITIC is the largest state-run business in the PRC with diversified holdings in banking, energy production and the United States real estate market, and the president is the alleged arms smuggler, as was mentioned before, Mr. Wang Jun. You are familiar with that?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I'm familiar with the fact Mr. Jun is the chairman of CITIC.
Mr. BURTON. And Mr. Renzhong Wang served as superintendent of the China Aviation Industry Ministry, part of the Chinese Communist Government, in Harbin. You are familiar with that?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Renzhong Wang is a rather common name, and there are a number of them who have been in different offices. I will take your word for it.
Mr. BURTON. That is what our information shows.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I will take your word for it.
Mr. BURTON. And of course Jianiong Yu oversees the activities of the COSCO shipping company, the Chinese shipping company.
The reason I bring all this up is these people have been alleged to have been part of a beer operation over there, but they had far-reaching responsibilities in China and ties to the Chinese party. They are coming in to meet the President. They meet with the President and he greets them warmly. And then after pictures are taken, he doesn't want the pictures to be given to them, and you didn't think the pictures should be given to them, I guess, as well.
Mr. SUETTINGER. My e-mail suggests that I didn't think there would be any lasting damage from providing the photographs to these individuals.
Mr. BURTON. I have no further questions.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 901 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Today's hearing is a continuation of a hearing we held yesterday, and both days are looking at a man by the name of Johnny Chung, who seemed to have an extraordinary amount of access to the White House and gave large amounts of money to the Democratic party.
Mr. Suettinger and Ms. Darby, you are here—oftentimes witnesses are invited to come and testify because we think maybe they did something wrong, but you are here to give us your professional judgment from the National Security Council about some matters that took place involving Mr. Chung.
And, Mr. Suettinger, you said in a memo that I think counsel has already referred to, that when you gave your impression of Mr. Chung you said, my impression is that he's a hustler and appears to be involved in setting up some kind of consulting operation.
Well, I think you are exactly right. Nothing we have learned or in the materials the committee has received indicates anything else. I don't believe this is a hearing about economic espionage or foreign agents or conspiracies to infiltrate our political system, or any of these more sensational charges that have been bandied about.
What it appears to me is that we have a man who was out to try to make a buck; he was a hustler. And the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of hustlers around, especially in this city. There is nothing illegal in being a hustler, even if we might not approve of it.
Now, the two of you are here to testify on one very narrow issue in particular, and that is the fact that Mr. Chung took a bunch of people in to listen to the President give a radio address to the country. And from the testimony yesterday, after that radio address, the President, after meeting these people, said that he felt something was inappropriate. And Ms. Hernreich told somebody, I guess Miss Darby, to find out whether they should release these photos to this man.
Mr. Suettinger, you were asked your opinion about that, and I gather you agreed that the photos could go to Mr. Chung and his colleagues; is that correct?
Page 902 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. WAXMAN. Now, Mr. Suettinger, you are here because you are one of the leading experts on China. You made this your career. You speak Mandarin, you speak Cantonese; you are, I think fair to say, you serve as one of the NSC's top experts on east Asia. Is that an accurate statement?
Mr. SUETTINGER. It is not for me to say, sir.
Mr. WAXMAN. Don't be immodest.
In April 1995, you were asked by Brooke Darby to give your professional opinion as to whether the White House should release these photos to Johnny Chung. And you concluded in April 1995, quote, ''I don't see any lasting damage to U.S. foreign policy from giving Johnny Chung these pictures.'' Is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. WAXMAN. In the second paragraph of your April 7, 1995 e-mail you did state some reservations about Mr. Chung, and you were concerned he was trying to use his White House contacts to enhance his business; is that correct?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. WAXMAN. But your reservations had nothing to do with Mr. Chung trying to influence U.S. foreign policy; is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. WAXMAN. Was your e-mail intended to be a general directive to all White House staff to avoid contacts with Johnny Chung?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I'm not sure I'd go that far, sir. I just wanted to raise some concerns that had been brought to my attention that I thought others should know about what Mr. Chung might be up to.
Mr. WAXMAN. It was a simple response to a request for advice about the release of these photos?
Page 903 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. WAXMAN. Now, was Brooke Darby's request for advice about the release of photos a matter of high importance to you as a member of the National Security Council?
Mr. SUETTINGER. No, it was not.
Mr. WAXMAN. Every day the NSC has to deal with the most sensitive and pressing national security matters facing this country. Isn't that a fair statement?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I believe that's fair, sir.
Mr. WAXMAN. So the release of photos is one of the least important questions you had to grapple with.
Mr. SUETTINGER. It was not one that I thought was of burning national interest.
Mr. WAXMAN. Based on your expertise, were the businessmen who accompanied Johnny Chung senior members of the Chinese Government?
Mr. SUETTINGER. They were senior members—yes, they were either senior members or former senior members. It's hard to draw a sharp distinction between what are essentially government-owned corporations and the Government itself. They have no governing authority, but they certainly have plenty of State backing.
Mr. WAXMAN. Can you give us your views as to the relative importance of these businessmen within China?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Relative importance in terms of what, sir?
Mr. WAXMAN. How important figures were they? We just had a visit from the President of China. He is obviously the most important.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Way below that.
Mr. WAXMAN. Pardon?
Page 904 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. Far below that.
Mr. WAXMAN. Far below that. In July 1995, you drafted a memo concerning a request for Presidential credentials letter for Johnny Chung. He was interested in a letter from the President because he wanted to go to China to see if he could free jailed dissident Harry Wu; isn't that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. WAXMAN. In your July 31, 1995 memo to Anthony Lake you referred to Mr. Chung and said, ''No one in the administration has any idea of what he plans to say on the subject of Harry Wu, and I doubt the President did more than shake his hand in a receiving line.'' Did that statement correctly reflect your views in July 1995?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is correct.
Mr. WAXMAN. In other words, you had no reason to believe that the President ever encouraged Mr. Chung to go to China. In fact, you had no reason to believe the President was aware of anything about Mr. Chung.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was—I had no reason to believe that at the time, no.
Mr. WAXMAN. Subsequent to July 1995, have you learned of anything that causes you to believe that the President encouraged Mr. Chung to go to China?
Mr. SUETTINGER. As I said, the only information that I have received about Mr. Chung's travel to China has been what has been published in the newspapers, and I have no way of assessing its credibility.
Mr. WAXMAN. You know Mr. Chung had a letter from DNC Chairman Don Fowler. Was this letter the kind of credentials letter that is provided to diplomats?
Mr. SUETTINGER. No.
Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, traditional diplomatic credentialed letters are provided by governments rather than political parties.
Page 905 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is correct.
Mr. WAXMAN. And you yourself wrote to Mr. Lake and said that ''Chung's credentials,'' meaning Chairman Fowler's letter, are ''thin.'' What did you mean by that?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I thought that they would not be interpreted by the Chinese Government as representing the views of the President or the Government of the United States.
Mr. WAXMAN. Some Republicans have suggested that Johnny Chung, who is an American citizen, should somehow have been restrained by the administration from traveling to China on his own to pursue his own private efforts concerning Harry Wu. In your experience, does it sometimes happen that American citizens undertake their own private diplomatic efforts?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I would say there are probably examples of that; yes, sir.
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, you call them free-lancers.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes.
Mr. WAXMAN. There are a lot of free-lancers around who promote their view of what diplomacy ought to be, aren't there?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, there are.
Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, in your interview, you called these kinds of individuals free-lancers because you're generally skeptical about the efforts of these free-lancers. They are not operating consistent with what U.S. Government policy might be.
Mr. SUETTINGER. That's correct.
Mr. WAXMAN. Now, free-lancers are not something unique to this one case. You have encountered free-lancers from the American business community. In fact, didn't Ross Perot once organize a rescue mission to free some of his employees from captivity in the Middle East? Wasn't that an example of free-lancing?
Page 906 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. I would not want to characterize that, sir.
Mr. WAXMAN. OK. When people in the academic community go off on their own, are they free-lancers as well?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I think we need to draw a distinction between going out—I mean, everybody who travels to China is not a free-lancer. What I'm concerned about is when they're dealing with or trying to deal with an issue of particular national importance, such as the release of Mr. Wu. In those cases, I consider interference or efforts to be influential in that process to be free-lancing.
Mr. WAXMAN. It is the same as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or a Member of Congress acting on his own but not in sync with the American Government, going and doing what might be called free-lancing.
Mr. SUETTINGER. The difference between Mr. Chung's case and those is that Mr. Chung was going out representing himself as being on a mission that was connected to the White House, at least via the DNC, and I thought that was of considerable concern.
Mr. WAXMAN. I concede that point, and I think it is a valid one.
I am going to yield to Mr. Lantos to pursue further questions.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much for yielding.
Well, today's episode of Trivial Pursuit deals with pathological preoccupation with photo opportunities. Now, I find these particular photo opportunities paling into insignificance when compared to the photo opportunities that the President of China just had during the course of his visit to the United States. As a matter of fact, prior to his visit, I publicly pointed out that having himself photographed at Williamsburg or at the Liberty Bell or at the White House or at Wall Street will do nothing to diminish our outrage at Human Rights violations in China.
Page 907 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
And, of course, in terms of who has himself photographed with the top man in China, certainly there was a state dinner at the White House where everybody tried to get himself photographed with him. He visited here in the Congress, where the Speaker took him around. He had breakfast with several of us. And of course when he went to New York, the cream of the crop of the American business and financial community busted its gut to get into that dinner and to get themselves photographed with the top man in China. So, quite frankly, I sort of fail to get excited over the fact that a group of third-rate Chinese officials stood by while the President was reading a prepared 5-minute radio talk.
I do want to spend a minute on the Harry Wu case, because while I find the rest of this ludicrous, ludicrous beyond words, I mean it doesn't rise to the level of anything worthy of any serious discussion, Mr. Chung is a cheap and, unfortunately for him by this stage, an unsuccessful hustler, and he was collecting photographs all over the political landscape, from Presidential Candidate Dole to distinguished Republican Governors, Speaker Gingrich, the First Lady and whatnot, and putting them together in a brochure. And that is what he was selling. He was selling the illusion.
If I were to characterize him, I would call him an illusion merchant. He was selling an illusion that since Senator Dole happened to have his picture taken with him, somehow he had influence with Senator Dole or Newt Gingrich or the First Lady, which was about as absurd a suggestion as anything that could be made.
But the Harry Wu thing annoys me, and I tell you why it annoys me. Harry Wu is one of the heroes of our age. He has given many, many years of his life because of his commitment to democracy and freedom. In his attempt to demonstrate the slave labor system in China, he spent many years of his life in the most miserable Chinese prison conditions. And the very best people in this Congress, on both sides of the aisle, in both the House and the Senate, and many people in the private sector have busted their guts for years to get Harry Wu out. And the notion that Johnny Chung, this quintessentially cheap self-promoter, played the slightest role in the liberation of Harry Wu is a notion that I find repugnant and obnoxious. This is the notion of the rooster who claims that the sun rises because he crows. This does not even rise to the level of absurdity. It is beyond absurdity.
Page 908 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
But, since we need to go on with today's episode of Trivial Pursuit, I would like to place into the record, Mr. Chairman, the article of October 30 from the Washington Post entitled ''Business Mixes With Pleasure at the White House Dinner, China's Jiang Gets a Taste of Corporate America,'' which describes in detail how diners of our major multinational corporations were anxious to have their pictures taken with the President of China, who I think is a more significant figure than the small entourage that got into the radio studio.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BURTON. Without objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to Mrs. Maloney, the next senior member, for questioning.
Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you for yielding to me.
I would like to ask Mr. Suettinger, earlier we were talking about the gentlemen that were with Mr. Chung, and many of them were associated, you said, with the Chinese Government, but it is a Communist country, and the Communist country owns all if not or most of the businesses there. And are most of the people in business in China associated with the Chinese Government? Is that a fair statement, would you say?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I don't think so.
Mrs. MALONEY. So there are a lot of private businesses?
Mr. SUETTINGER. There is a growing amount of private enterprise in China; that is correct.
Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to ask both of you the same question, first Ms. Darby and then Mr. Suettinger.
Do you have any reason to believe that Johnny Chung was an agent of the Chinese Government, Ms. Darby?
Ms. DARBY. No, I do not.
Page 909 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Suettinger.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I do not.
Mrs. MALONEY. Do you believe that he tried to seek any favors for China, Ms. Darby?
Ms. DARBY. I really have no basis for knowing. I have no idea.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Not having been present at any of Mr. Chung's meetings, I can't answer the question.
Mrs. MALONEY. Do you believe that it was unusual for Johnny Chung to seek to have his picture taken with the President, the First Lady or other members of the administration? And do you believe that Johnny Chung was unique in seeking to obtain those photographs?
Ms. DARBY. From what I understand in press accounts recently, it doesn't sound like this was an unusual situation.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Again, I have no basis on which to make a judgment on that.
Mrs. MALONEY. Do you think it is unusual for a businessman to display a photograph of himself with the President, the First Lady or Members of Congress or leaders in the administration?
Ms. DARBY. No, I do not think it's unusual.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I would think not.
Mrs. MALONEY. Is there anything illegal or unethical in seeking to obtain such a picture or to display it?
Ms. DARBY. I don't believe so.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Not to my knowledge.
Mrs. MALONEY. Do you believe that the White House typically asked for guidance with respect to people granted access to the President?
Page 910 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. DARBY. They sought access on some—they sought our opinion on some occasions, whenever they had a concern.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I would have to defer to Ms. Darby on that.
Mrs. MALONEY. Do you think that it was common for people to gain access to the President without being screened by the National Security Council?
Ms. DARBY. That I really wouldn't know. I'm sure there are many people who are not screened by the National Security Council, but in terms of foreign nationals or others, I really wouldn't know.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Nor do I.
Mrs. MALONEY. And what do you think the White House should do to make the vetting process more effective? Do you have any ideas in that direction?
Ms. DARBY. I understand that Sandy Berger, the current National Security Adviser, has instituted some new vetting policies. I'm not sure what those are. I believe it's to make more routine inquiries into people who are coming in to see the President, who have a foreign connection of some kind.
Mrs. MALONEY. Could you forward those recommendations to the committee so we could look at them or get them for us?
Ms. DARBY. I believe they are recommendations that have already been made by Sandy Berger, so.
Mrs. MALONEY. So they have already been made. I would just like to see them, that's all. I guess we can get them from him.
Ms. DARBY. Yes. I don't work for the National Security Council any longer.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Nor do I.
Mrs. MALONEY. Do you have any ideas of how we should improve their vetting process or do you think it needs to be improved? I am talking to Mr. Suettinger.
Page 911 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. Oh, I'm sorry. I would have no recommendations on that score.
Mrs. MALONEY. You have no recommendations.
I would like to ask Ms. Darby, when you worked at the National Security Council, could you describe your duties and exactly what you did there?
Ms. DARBY. Sure. I handled Nancy Soderberg's schedule, at least part of the time; would make sure that she had briefing papers for her meetings. I generally did not prepare those. Those were prepared by the professional staff members with the policy expertise. I was not a policy adviser of any kind. I would prioritize paperwork for her. I would help screen requests from the staff who wanted her advice on something and prioritize things for her.
I was also occasionally a liaison between other parts of the White House with Nancy Soderberg and members of the National Security Council staff, based primarily on the connections I had made on my days on the campaign and on the transition.
Mrs. MALONEY. Did you serve as a contact person for White House staff who needed to direct requests for guidance to the National Security Council?
Ms. DARBY. Sometimes. It was not an official responsibility that I would say I had. But, more informally, I think that I often became a conduit for those kinds of requests.
Mrs. MALONEY. And when you received those requests, how did you handle them?
Ms. DARBY. I would staff them out to the relevant policy office. In the National Security Council there are both regional offices that handle, obviously, regions, and functional offices that handle things like defense issues, nonproliferation issues. And on the basis of the request that I received, I would make a determination about which office needed to handle that request and I would farm the request out to that relevant office.
Page 912 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mrs. MALONEY. How often did the President's office ask for guidance from the National Security Council with respect to a visitor or a letter?
Ms. DARBY. I really don't recall any specific—it is hard to put a number on it. If I had to guess, I would say maybe four to eight times a month.
Mrs. MALONEY. Did you usually receive a request for guidance before the event?
Ms. DARBY. Yes. We generally did. I mean that was the purpose of us providing guidance. Providing guidance after the fact isn't exceedingly helpful, so.
Mrs. MALONEY. And under what circumstance would a request for guidance typically be made?
Ms. DARBY. It's hard to say. I mean, for someone with a foreign tie, who wanted to come in and see the President, and it came through another office in the White House and they just wanted to check with us to make sure that there was nothing about the person's background that would lead us to have any concerns about the President meeting with somebody, or other senior people within the White House.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Suettinger saw no lasting damage to U.S. foreign policy from giving Johnny Chung the photos. Why did you consider that a negative recommendation?
Ms. DARBY. I think his using the term hustler; the fact that this person was probably going to exploit the photographs for his own personal business interests. Again, it was really my own personal recommendation to Kelly Crawford that if I were in her situation, I wouldn't want this person continually harassing me for photographs of himself with the President.
So better to err on the side of caution from my own personal benefit, if I were Kelly Crawford.
Page 913 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mrs. MALONEY. In your own experience, was a request for guidance about the release of a Presidential photograph one of the most important matters confronting the National Security Council in April 1995?
Ms. DARBY. No, it certainly was not, and I didn't independently recall this incident at all until I saw the text of my e-mail published in the New York Times.
Mrs. MALONEY. Well, getting back to your e-mail, you wrote in your e-mail message that these people, referring to Johnny Chung and his group, were major DNC contributors; is that correct?
Ms. DARBY. That's what I wrote, yes.
Mrs. MALONEY. How did you know that? Did you have actual knowledge that this fact was correct?
Ms. DARBY. No, I did not. I have no idea who contributes to the DNC. And I believe the only way I would have known this was if Kelly Crawford conveyed it to me. If not in those specific terms in more general terms that I took to mean that they were DNC contributors.
Mrs. MALONEY. Because of—so, in other words, she conveyed that information?
Ms. DARBY. I presume so. I don't have an independent recollection, but the fact it is in the e-mail and I would have no other way of knowing they were contributors or not.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mrs. Maloney, I wonder if I could yield to Mr. Fattah in the time that we have allotted on this 5-minute round.
But in doing so, I just want to make a comment so that no one misunderstands. There are a lot of people who use photos for their own promotional activities. Lobbyists do it all the time. The reason people go to political fund-raisers is often just so they can get a picture of the President, Senator Dole, Newt Gingrich, and then they hustle it to see how far they can go with it just to promote themselves.
Page 914 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. Let me welcome you both here today. It is interesting, as times change, I guess Ms. Darby, you, unfortunately, have been consorting with known Democratic sympathizers. The Congress at another point in its history was interested in those who were sympathetic to the causes of another political party.
And I want to focus in on this, the Communist Government of China, because it is of interest to me, given the context of our relationship since President Nixon opened up our relationships with this country, there have been a succession of Presidents who have moved, continued to move in that direction. And of interest is this discussion about this supposed arms dealer, Wang Jun.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Wang Jun.
Mr. FATTAH. Of this CITIC.
Mr. SUETTINGER. CITIC.
Mr. FATTAH. I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, a number of newspaper articles which I am going to refer to; one from the Chicago Tribune, another from the Portland Oregonian, and they outline, first of all, that George Bush had dinner with this gentleman who we are now wanting to raise a lot of concerns about him having a picture taken with President Clinton.
In fact, he says that Henry Kissinger is a good friend of his. There are a number of important political figures in our country who are on the advisory council for this corporation, like former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of State Alexander Hague. There are a number of other people who have close ties to the Republican party, like a gentleman by the name of Mr. Greenberg, who is the head of AIG, who is a well-known and very substantial contributor to the Republican party, who is also on the board.
And I want to enter these into the record, because first and foremost there was never a meeting—let me ask for permission they be entered into the record.
Page 915 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BURTON. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 92 TO 102 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. First and foremost, contrary to all of these statements that the President had a meeting with these people, there is nothing anywhere in the record to suggest that there was a meeting. They were in the audience when there was a radio address. They got a picture taken and they left.
The President then said to his closest aide that he had some concerns about the appropriateness of their visit, which, therefore, got the two of you involved in an after-the-fact request as to whether or not the picture should be released.
But I do want to note, since there seems to be such an interest in our interrelationships between the People's Republic and particularly these group of businesspeople, that if the committee is interested, maybe there are some other people who we could call in and ask, because they seem to have a lot of knowledge about how this corporation functions and particularly this gentleman.
This is not something we dug up anywhere. These are articles that appeared and are available. I know the committee has a large staff, so I am sure that the majority has knowledge of these contacts, even as it attempts to infer some inappropriate behavior on behalf of the President, when everything suggests to the contrary, as based on this record, that this gentleman did nothing more than get his picture taken. But he is someone who has had extensive contacts and business relationships with major leaders in the majority's party.
So I think that we would want to have a chance—he also had, at this dinner, the former National Security Adviser; Brent Scowcroft was also present, as reported in this Chicago Tribune article that was dated March 23, 1997.
Page 916 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The other article from the Portland newspaper is dated March 16. I want to ask you, because you are, to the best of my knowledge, the first person that has appeared before us who really has any knowledge about China to answer some questions about this Nation's relationship, even though we continue to talk about the government as if it is a government that we have no ongoing relationship with.
Isn't it true that for the last few decades we have had the policy—the foreign policy of our Nation has been to reach out and to be involved in constructive engagement with the People's Republic of China?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is correct.
Mr. FATTAH. And isn't it true that we allow free travel between citizens of our country, particularly American businessmen who, by the thousands, go to China, seeking and, in many cases, winning business over there?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That also is correct.
Mr. FATTAH. Because when the President of China came here and he came to my district. He signed a contract with Boeing for a few billion dollars. I didn't notice anybody in the majority party jumping up and down about this relationship with the Communist Government of China. They were clapping and being pleased that there was going to be this business deal with the Boeing Corp.
So the inference that is being drawn here, that any association, anything having to do with the People's Republic of China having to do with the Clinton White House is somehow inappropriate, isn't that contrary to everything that has been done since President Nixon went to China and President Ford continued that relationship and President Carter, President Reagan and President Bush? Didn't we continue to encourage, at almost every level, interactions with the People's Republic of China, their Government, their citizens and their various institutions?
Page 917 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. The policy of engagement with China has been consistent over the last several administrations, sir.
Mr. FATTAH. Can you help me then understand, even as the Congress voted to continue most-favored-nation status, and it is clear that these persons who were here and who got their picture taken with the President—and as you have indicated, you don't have any reason to believe that the person who arranged this, Johnny Chung, was an agent of the Government in any way, is it the practice of the People's Republic of China, based on all of your studies and knowledge, that they would attempt to, as part of their activities, interfere in the internal political workings of the United States?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I don't really think I am in any way able to answer that question in the way that you would like it to be answered.
Mr. FATTAH. Just answer it truthfully. That is fine with me.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I am trying to be truthful, sir. It calls for a judgment that involves information that is classified. It calls for a judgment that requires study way beyond what I can do.
Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman will yield, there were press reports that there might have been Chinese intelligence people or Government officials of some sort trying to look at how to influence Congress. There was never any report, that I saw in the press, that said they were trying to do something to influence the Presidential elections.
Mr. FATTAH. That is correct. But we won't press in relationship to any classified information. Let's just deal with what is obvious.
Johnny Chung has been accused of essentially trying to use his relationship with important, powerful political figures to make money. Do you think that there may be a few other thousand people who come into this city who have relationships with political figures who, from time to time, are then known to try to make a buck?
Page 918 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. I have to defer to others' judgment on that, sir.
Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank you for your testimony. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Barr.
Mr. BARR. During the time period that we are talking about here, that is, during 1995, what security clearances did each of you possess?
Ms. DARBY. I had a Top Secret SCI clearance.
Mr. BARR. That means Top Secret Codeword?
Ms. DARBY. Yes.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Suettinger.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I have full clearances, sir.
Mr. BARR. Top Secret Codeword?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes.
Mr. BARR. And that entitles you to see a fairly wide range of classified materials maintained by our Government?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is correct.
Ms. DARBY. Yes.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Suettinger, would you please enumerate for me the number of countries in the world whose national security concerns and whose economic, political, diplomatic and military interests coincide 100 percent with those of the United States at all times?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Zero.
Mr. BARR. Could you please enumerate for me the number of countries in the world that would have absolutely no interest whatsoever at any time in making policies of this country more favorable toward theirs?
Page 919 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. I am not sure I understand your use of the term making them ''more favorable.''
Mr. BARR. You can interpret it any way you like. What I am trying—my point is, and I would presume you—and tell me if you don't. My point is, and I presume you would agree with me, that at some point in time every country with which we deal, or virtually every other country in the world, at some point in time has policy matters and interests that may differ from ours and for which they would like to see our policies change and become more favorable to what they would like to see and to coincide with their interests. Would that be fair to say?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BARR. It is essentially the nature of politics, Hans Morgenthau wrote about it two generations ago, and it is the nature of national sovereignty.
In exhibit 198, if we could have that up again, please, you posed the question, ''Who am I to complain?'' I think you are a very appropriate person to complain, to be very honest with you. You have a very substantial background and understanding of foreign relations. You have access to very important classified information of our Government that bears on the highest levels of international security. You have people, such as Ms. Brooke, who turn to you for guidance; and I think you have a very clear responsibility to the President, whoever that President is. And I know from your background also that your interest in national security and in providing the unvarnished information and advice to the administration, the President, is not motivated by political concerns for one party or another; is that correct?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is correct.
Mr. BARR. Therefore, I think that the answer to your question posed in that e-mail, ''Who am I to complain?'', I think you are a very appropriate person to have complained.
Page 920 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
It isn't so much that the other side indicates that all sorts of people want to have their picture taken with the President. We all know that. I apologize for your having to sit there and hear them endlessly go on and on about that. We also know that there are all sorts of people who try and get access to the President, and a number of those succeed. That is not the point here either.
My concern right at the moment does not really have anything to do with Mr. Johnny Chung either. It has to do with what seems to be a complete lack of process and lack of safeguards in protecting the President. And I may disagree with this President rather strenuously in a lot of areas, but I do think, as the leader of this country, he needs to be protected. He needs to have people like you complaining when it is appropriate.
We have people who had gotten in to see the President, apparently without any background check whatsoever. Apparently. From Ms. Brooke's testimony earlier, we may provide a slightly—we may provide a higher level of protection for people improperly getting in to the President for our citizens and foreign citizens, which strikes me as very, very odd.
My point is, you say that who are you to concern, and then you go on to say, they seem to be bona fide Chinese officials. How were you able to reach that conclusion? It is my understanding that no checks were made on these people.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Well, let me say two things.
One, I had at my—in my office a handbook, unclassified handbook of Chinese officials. I found some but not all of the individuals on this list, as I explained before, in that book and was able to verify that either through that resource or from my own memory of the Chinese Government and its organizations that the individuals, or the organizations that they represented, were in fact bona fide organizations, noncriminal, not intelligence-related so far as I could determine. That is the basis of my judgment.
If I may just say that my question in there which you referred to, the ''Who am I to complain?'' was entirely meant in sarcasm.
Page 921 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BARR. Well, but then you didn't complain really. I mean, I just think that the process that seems to have been in place at that time really ill served the President where people could get in to see him; and again, it is not a matter of everybody likes to get in to see the President and then may be doing something with those pictures.
These were officials of a Communist Government whose national policy interests frequently don't coincide with ours, and yet there seems to have been virtually no effort made.
This isn't necessarily your fault, Mr. Suettinger. I am talking about the process that seems to have been in place at that time, very similar to what Mr. Aldrich wrote about in Unlimited Access, that I think raises some very serious concerns. That is the reason that we are looking into this.
It is not trivial. I think it goes to the heart of national security concerns of our country.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I, too, want to thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Suettinger, I just want to ask you, you said a little bit earlier something that was very interesting. You said that when you looked at these folks who took the pictures with the President, you said—in answer to another question as to how high-ranking they may have been with regard to the Government of China, you said they were far below that. Those were your words. In other words, far below the President.
Can you elaborate on that a little bit, please?
Mr. SUETTINGER. The power structure——
Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you recall?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, I do recall my answer.
Page 922 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The power structure in China is one that places the party obviously at the peak of the government structure. Also there is a separate but related structure of government, i.e., administrative offices, that take place. Since the beginning of what is called the reform period of China, which is about 1980, there has been an effort to split off and to sort of, the proper term is not privatize, but at least separate the operations of organizations such as business organizations or even, in some cases, ministries from the direct control of the party, because it was found that that was not a particularly efficient way to do business. So some of these organizations that were formally established—CITIC grew out of that kind of a process, to allow enough leeway for these individuals and organizations to make decisions that made sense in a business context and separate them from a political context.
These individuals were—I would say the equivalent of people perhaps at the deputy assistant secretary level would be comparable here, or perhaps even, in some cases, below that. They were not—they are not individuals who have significant political power or influence within the Chinese Government. They are people who are responsible for attracting business to China and for making sure that China receives investment from outside the country.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I think Mr. Fattah was mentioning a little bit earlier about when the President of China came here and how a lot of people were—elected officials, and many of them in this Congress—very happy to see him because he was bringing business opportunities to the United States. And I think Mr. Fattah mentioned Boeing in his district.
I wonder, is this something very unusual, in other words, for foreign governments to want to try to do business with the United States of America and its companies here? I am just curious.
Mr. SUETTINGER. My sense is, it is not unusual at all.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So I take it, when you went through the book, that you said you had some kind of document, a book in your office that basically gave you certain information about who some of these people may have been. Did you—looking at that book, did you get the impression that some of these folks were business people?
Page 923 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, in the particular context of China's business operation.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And so it didn't strike you as odd that maybe these people, while going through Mr. Chung, this fellow who you called ''The Hustler,'' were perhaps looking for some possible business opportunities; is that correct?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is correct.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And now, was that a concern of yours, the fact that maybe they may have been looking for some business opportunities?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Not particularly a concern except insofar as it was involving the President.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me ask you this. You used the word ''hustler,'' and it is a really interesting word. And I take it that you felt that this was someone who was trying to, I think, make himself out to be—talking about Mr. Chung now—a lot more than what he was; is that right?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I used the term in the pool hall sense, sir.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I don't know what you mean by that.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Somebody who may be doing something different than what he appears to be doing at the outset and may have a private agenda that is not immediately evident.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So when you saw this, you wanted to make sure that your opinion was stated; is that correct?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is correct.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And do you know whether anybody listened to your opinion or acted on your opinion?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Ms. Darby suggested that she had.
Page 924 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Darby, your job was basically to kind of do some screening; is that correct? Is that part of your job?
Ms. DARBY. Screening in terms of paperwork, yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And so when you were dealing with this issue, was there anything to cause you to feel that perhaps these were some fellows that were just looking for some business opportunities?
Ms. DARBY. The impression I got from Bob's response to my e-mail was that these were people who—or Johnny Chung, in particular, might try to use the photograph to put up on his wall to show that he had access to the White House and is friends with the President. But that is something that a lot of people do, and so only in that context.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So you didn't—so what you just said, that thought process that you just told us about, you didn't find that to be anything unusual, in other words, that people would want to try to use a picture of the President to make themselves look good and perhaps have certain influence in certain circles that they might not normally have; is that correct?
Ms. DARBY. That is correct, sir.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am going to pursue some questions that concern Harry Wu.
As I recall, Mr. Suettinger—and we have gone over this memo of April 7, 1995 quite a bit—you had some suspicions about Mr. Chung. I assume that you might recall that Irene Wu, who is a staff member of Mr. Chung's firm, wrote a letter to Betty Currie, who is the secretary to the President, saying, ''Please have President Clinton write me,'' this is write Johnny Chung, ''a credential letter for my trip to China. I have enclosed a letter dated October 3, 1994, which I cannot use for this trip because it is for Taiwan. Thank you very much for your help.''
Page 925 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Do you recall that you were consulted at all when the Wu situation of Harry Wu came up in relation to Mr. Chung?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was not.
Mr. HORN. You don't recall anything on that?
Did you ever see the fax I just mentioned, which is exhibit 204? And 205 is a letter. That could have well come with the one from Irene that would give Mr. Chung a glowing letter when he goes to China.
And if you look at 206, we have on stationery, Bill Clinton, October 3, 1994, to Mr. Chung, signed Bill, ''Please let me extend my appreciation to you for your participation in my birthday celebration with your family on August 2nd. Your outstanding support and dedication to this administration is benefiting Americans across the Nation. I also want to express to you how essential your role has been in helping to bridge our countries' diverse communities. Your efforts to open lines of communication between our administration and the Taiwanese-American community are very much appreciated. Again, thank you for your support, for a job well done.''
Then we get to 207 in the exhibit list, which is Johnny Chung to Betty Currie, secretary to the President, reference letter from the Democratic National Committee, thank you.
Now, here is the Democratic National Committee one: Dear—Mr. Johnny Chung, Chairman, CEO, Automated Intelligence Systems, so forth. ''Dear Johnny, thank you for stopping by my office. I really enjoyed meeting your guests. You are to be commended for your efforts to build a bridge between the people of China and the United States. I want to express my appreciation to you for being a friend and great supporter of the Democratic National Committee. Good luck on your trip to China. Keep me informed.''
Then we get to the White House memorandum of Janice Enright, Office of Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta, to Anthony Lake, the National Security Advisor. That is exhibit No. 251, dated July 24, 1995.
Page 926 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I received a telephone call this morning, says Janice Enright, from Bobby Watson, Chief of Staff, Democratic National Committee, concerning the release of Harry Wu. Apparently Johnny Chung, a DNC trustee, is traveling with a group of people to China, meeting with the President of China this week. His mission is to negotiate the release of Harry Wu.
Now, was the National Security Council and you, as an agent expert there and a China expert, were they ever consulted that Johnny Chung was interested in a mission to China to help Harry Wu?
[Exhibits 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, and 215 follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 103 TO 108 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. SUETTINGER. The ''they'' being? I am sorry.
Mr. HORN. Was the NSC staff——
Mr. SUETTINGER. No, it was not.
Mr. HORN. You don't recall this then.
Now, what it says here is, Mr. Watson wanted to alert us that Mr. Chung plans to represent to the President of China that he is sanctioned by President Clinton in his efforts to get Mr. Wu released. He bases this representation on the fact that he recently saw the President during his trip to California, mentioned it to him, I believe, in a photo line, what he was doing in this regard. Apparently the President was supportive. To that extent, it is unclear, but nevertheless it is being construed as a validation that he will be the representative that way to the President of China.
Then we have a July 31, 1995, memorandum from you to Anthony Lake. That is exhibit 252. And you say, re the Democratic National Committee trustee, Johnny Chung, and the Harry Wu case, this memorandum also covers a response to package 5908 request for Presidential credentials letter for Johnny Chung. Memo from Leon Panetta's office—and then you give a tab A there on Chung—and his intent to try to get Harry Wu released is very troubling, in part because I was not able to contact the Democratic National Committee in time to get them to discourage Chung from involving himself in this diplomatically difficult, high-stakes issue.
Page 927 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Does that ring any memories——
Mr. SUETTINGER. Of course.
Mr. HORN [continuing]. With you at all?
How did you feel about that? Were you happy? Were you displeased, et cetera?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was quite concerned.
Mr. HORN. And what were your reasons for concern?
Mr. SUETTINGER. My reasons were, as I indicated before, that I was concerned that an effort that had been ongoing since Mr. Wu's arrest, to get him released in the quickest and most appropriate way, might have been compromised or might have confused the Chinese Government by the intervention of Mr. Chung. And I thought that the DNC credentials letter was even more than I would have liked him to have in terms of his own travel to China.
Mr. HORN. Well, when they had that letter that just has ''Bill Clinton'' at the top of the stationery, was that ever discussed by the staff of the NSC, that is October 3, 1994, and that's just really, thanks; I assume that came out of the Democratic National Committee, but I am not positive.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I don't know the origin of the document, sir.
Mr. HORN. Really a political letter. Anyhow, you say here in this July 31st memo, I believe Chung means well, something of a self-appointed Ambassador of goodwill.
Now, what did Mr. Lake do about that?
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired. We will let him answer the question.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Mr. Lake called me later on in the evening after he received that package, that memorandum from the—and asked if it was my view that we should try to contact either Mr. Chung or the United States Embassy in Beijing to try and forestall or prevent Mr. Chung from engaging in any efforts on that supposed mission.
Page 928 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I replied that I didn't know where he was, I didn't know when he was going to arrive. I indicated that I doubted that he would see the President of China, and that it would be very difficult and might even further complicate efforts if we made strong efforts to try and prevent him from seeing anybody. So I thought there was probably little we could do.
Mr. HORN. I thank you. We might pursue some more of this later, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Kanjorski.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just listened, Mr. Suettinger, to your comments. And it strikes me that you seem to be a man who believes in doing everything through the normal order of things. There is a book of procedure and you follow the process; is that correct?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I try to be.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Have you dealt in political life as a nonprofessional? What did you do before you were at the NSC?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Before I went to the NSC, I worked at the National Intelligence Council, and prior to that, the Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. KANJORSKI. But you haven't really been in politics, have you?
Mr. SUETTINGER. No, sir.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Would you be surprised to know that Members of Congress occasionally will arrange visits, private visits with heads of state from around the world through their own communications without having any contact through the State Department or the embassy in the area or anybody but private-sector individuals?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I am aware that that has happened.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Why would you assume that an American of Taiwanese ancestry, doing business and having quite a promotion—I am impressed with Mr. Chung's promotion—may not just convince some high-ranking officials and political operatives in China that if this would affect business in some way, this is something that should be handled?
Page 929 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Why would you conclude that that would not be strong or a possibility?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I am not sure I understand the thrust of your question, sir.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Well, I know that some members of the committee are shocked and think that it is impossible, what Mr. Chung may have done or could have done to have an impact. But I have seen that type of impact occur between private individuals and political individuals of other countries in dealing with very touchy questions. I could give you a perfect example myself.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Are you speaking of the Harry Wu case?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes, I am talking of the Harry Wu case.
It wouldn't seem unreasonable to me that if a well-connected, active American-Chinese businessman sat down with someone in the hierarchy of the Chinese Government or the business community and said you are really making it very difficult for us to try and develop business relationships here because you have this political prisoner and the people in the bureaucracy don't seem to be paying attention or sensitive to the problem; and I am telling you as a businessman that this is—we don't know what your political problems are, but as a businessman, you are causing us a disconnect here.
Wouldn't that be a reasonable thing to happen?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Certainly there are circumstances in which that might be true.
My concern in this particular case was, one, that Mr. Chung seemed to have indicated that he was going to represent himself as somebody on a mission from the President, which was certainly not the case. It was also the case that Mr. Chung did not know what the administration had been doing to try to gain Mr. Wu's release, and his idea of what was appropriate might not be at all consistent with ours.
Page 930 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. KANJORSKI. What if in fact he wasn't trying to really represent himself as an emissary from the President, but merely that he knew the President, or was a friend of President, quote, ''friend of the President''? Would you still try to stop him, or do you think he would have no impact?
Let me give you an example. I referred to it earlier. Right after the Polish situation I was on a CODEL, an official congressional trip to Eastern Europe. The Members of that CODEL wanted to have an opportunity to meet with the political leadership, the head of Solidarity, Lech Walesa. At that time he was an unofficial, unelected individual in Poland and attempting to consolidate political influence. And regardless of how they tried, they couldn't get an audience with him.
I happened to know a friend. There was a businessman who has since become an American citizen, and he knew Lech Walesa, or anyway he purported to know him to me. And so since I was going to be over there, I said, I would like to try and have a meeting with him. This is the same individual who said, look, if you ever go to Rome, I would like to take you to meet the Pope. I didn't go to Rome and I didn't think I would get in to see the Pope that easily.
But I happened to call this fellow just by chance, and I said, look, I am going to be in Europe and let's break away from this trip for a day. I would like to fly up to Gdansk and have a meeting.
He called me back in 25 minutes and he said, you arrive at the airport, the car will pick you up, they will take you to Solidarity headquarters, and the leader will be at your disposal for any number of hours. You can select a group of four people, which I did, another Member of Congress and myself. We flew into Gdansk and we spent a very enlightened 4 hours with Lech Walesa.
The Ambassador to Poland couldn't get us there. The State Department, Secretary of State, couldn't get us there, and no one in the Congress of the United States could get us there.
Page 931 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Now, that is a personal experience I have had. I told the story about the Pope—since that time, many of my friends have taken up this friend and, by golly, they do go and spend time with the Pope.
So people in private life do sometimes have connections or appearances of being able to still the waters. There is a sequence here that you can say is coincidental, could be a seizure of opportunity, someone trying to get in on a good thing, taking advantage, because we are dealing with someone here that, quote, is ''a promoter,'' but there is also an outside possibility that the Chinese Government and Chinese business community would take more stock in something a Chinese-American businessman would be telling them than all officialdom, who they are dealing with on a regular basis and may not be impressed with.
Haven't you had those experiences down there?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I readily concede the point that unofficial and informal communications can sometimes have a very beneficial effect on the development of relations. In this particular instance, I was not persuaded that Mr. Chung was operating on the same wavelength as the rest of us, that he fully understood the complexity and nuance of American policy or that, indeed, he had been given such a mission by the President. And so I thought it was appropriate for me to raise a warning flag for Mr. Lake, and that is what I did.
Mr. BURTON. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. McHugh.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to followup on a couple of comments you made earlier. In response to some of the questions, you said that you did not know that Johnny Chung was an agent of the Communist Government, true? Both of you, I believe, said that.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I have no basis on which to make such a judgment.
Page 932 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. MCHUGH. Ms. Darby, you said that as well. Do you have any basis on which to say he is not an agent?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Similarly, no.
Ms. DARBY. Nothing.
Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Suettinger, you defined a ''hustler,'' I think, very appropriately, someone who has an agenda that may not be readily apparent. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, sir.
Mr. MCHUGH. Did you have an opportunity or cause to speculate as to what Mr. Chung's hidden agenda might be?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I did not have any specific indications of his agenda other than, as I outlined it in the e-mail, which was based on an earlier conversation.
Mr. MCHUGH. In that e-mail, you made the comment that you felt that the President might not wish to be associated with some of these business undertakings; do you recall that statement?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes, I do.
Mr. MCHUGH. What speculation were you assessing there? How did you come to that judgment and what kinds of business undertakings were you concerned might not be appropriate for the President to be associated with?
Mr. SUETTINGER. It was really a generic kind of comment on my part. As I indicated earlier in the e-mail, I was concerned that Mr. Chung would do this repeatedly and would bring a series, a sequence of individuals in to see the President. And I certainly had no confidence that we would be able to verify that all of them were bona fide officials or engaged in legitimate business operations.
I was just concerned with protecting the President from future problems that might exist because of the association with Mr. Chung.
Page 933 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. MCHUGH. So you were concerned where the situation might lead rather than where you could definitively say it was at that moment?
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is correct.
Mr. MCHUGH. OK. Earlier you talked about the recent separation in mainland China, the PRC, between the structure of the political party and the business side of the society, trying to provide the business undertakings with a certain freedom from the political apparatus; is that correct?
Mr. SUETTINGER. Yes.
Mr. MCHUGH. Is my understanding correct, however, that ultimately it all does come back to the party, that indeed any indigenous Chinese business undertaking not only is concerned but ultimately responsible to the political structure?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I think, as a general statement, yes, that is correct.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.
Ms. Darby, how long were you at NSC?
Ms. DARBY. From February 1993 until August 1995.
Mr. MCHUGH. During your time there, how many opportunities did you have to do a vet such as this, where you were asked to look over a particular—appropriate individuals and make a recommendation as to whether or not the President should be associated in this instance with the pictures?
Ms. DARBY. This situation, I don't recall ever having a similar counterpart during my tenure at the NSC. Again, this was an after-the-fact request for guidance and the standard practice was that we were consulted prior to any events like this taking place. As I said earlier, my contacts with the President's office where senior White House staff would have been maybe four to eight times a month maybe. It is really hard to say. It varied a lot.
Page 934 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. MCHUGH. Were your recommendations generally accepted?
Ms. DARBY. I wouldn't say in particular that they were my recommendations. I was not a policy specialist at the NSC. I relied on the guidance of the policy staff of the NSC, and if something required a real policy decision, I would refer it to Nancy Soderberg or another senior person on the staff.
Mr. MCHUGH. You made a recommendation in this case?
Ms. DARBY. It was more of a personal recommendation rather than—there were no real foreign policy concerns that I could see. Johnny Chung did not appear, from Bob Suettinger's e-mail, to pose a national security risk, so it really wasn't so much a question of whether, for foreign policy reasons, they should not be delivered.
Mr. MCHUGH. Was this the first time you had to make a personal recommendation during your time there?
Ms. DARBY. I really don't recall.
Mr. MCHUGH. Do you have any observations about this case where your personal recommendation was not apparently observed?
Ms. DARBY. About this case?
Mr. MCHUGH. Yes.
Ms. DARBY. I do not know what the disposition of the photos was, so I really couldn't comment.
Mr. MCHUGH. I see.
I have a very brief amount of time left. Mr. Suettinger, let me return to you very briefly. There seems to be a lot of concern about the situation where people you described as free-lancers go out and undertake certain missions unto themselves. I think we would all agree that that does happen very frequently, whether they are officials of Government or whether they are private business people. But I believe I am hearing you say, at least from your perspective, this one was of particular concern and somewhat unusual in that it was a national political party providing a letter of introduction or at least some form of credential.
Page 935 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Did I hear you correctly, listing that as an unusual concern on your part?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was concerned that there was a credential in the form of a letter from the DNC.
Mr. MCHUGH. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I think we have exhausted our 5 minutes on the first round. You still have a Member who has not yet used their first round.
Mr. BURTON. You also have 5 minutes, even though you spoke during the 30 minute round.
Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if you insist.
Let me proceed forward on this. I do want to say that, notwithstanding our legitimate interactions, I think that—there is one issue that I think that we could share in and that is that this committee, even though it has spent a few million dollars in the beginning of its investigation, we have a number of intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies that have multibillion dollar budgets. And if there is information that the FBI or the CIA or the National Security Agency or anyone has that could be useful to the purposes that the chairman has outlined in terms of trying to filter out whether or not there was foreign—illegal foreign activities vis-a-vis our election, that information should be brought forward.
Plus it might help us that if, with all of their ability, they haven't found anything, then maybe we could put this to rest sooner rather than later. So either way, it may be of some use.
I do want to get to the point that was raised, and that is that under questioning from the gentleman from Georgia, he got you to admit that at all times there are foreign governments who from time to time might have or may want us to have a different viewpoint about a certain matter; and they have very legitimate and appropriate ways in which they can communicate their viewpoints to our Government.
Page 936 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I guess the question really is, under this investigation, we are trying to determine, since there have been allegations made that the Chinese Government wanted to influence Members of Congress, they were concerned about these votes on the most-favored-nation, or whatever the case may be, or their relationships generally with the Congress that they wanted to have an impact.
In terms of this matter with the photos and with Johnny Chung, is there any information that somehow this had something to do with the People's Republic of China, either legally or illegally or inappropriately trying to influence the Congress of the United States?
Mr. SUETTINGER. With all due respect, Congressman, your question takes me somewhat beyond the scope of what I have been asked to testify about.
The simple answer to your last question is, I have no way of knowing.
Mr. FATTAH. OK. Well, I have no way of knowing either, because we are really hung up on the fact that these gentlemen got into this radio address and that they got in through Johnny Chung's entre, through the DNC, and that they got a picture taken.
And then there is a lot of question what happened to the picture—whether they got the picture, whether they didn't—and we have been going back over this for at least 2 days now. We are not even clear whether or not the pictures were ever released to the gentlemen involved. But it doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with the central question of our investigation.
So I realize that you may be at a loss, but I am also at a loss. It may be useful, I guess, to just run through it one more time.
You had nothing to do, Ms. Darby, with approving these gentlemen to go into the radio address?
Ms. DARBY. No, I did not.
Mr. FATTAH. You were not present at the radio address?
Page 937 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. DARBY. No, I was not.
Mr. FATTAH. Your only responsibility in this matter was that you were asked by Ms. Crawford whether or not since the President had raised a concern whether or not these photos should actually be released, and you said, look, we have a lot of other important things to do around here. Why don't you err on the side of caution and not release the photos? And you sent a memo that said, look, you don't see any lasting harm in the photos being released and neither one of you have any idea what the actual disposition of the photos is at this time; is that correct?
Mr.
4Suettinger. That is correct.
Ms. DARBY. That's correct.
Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank you for your presence here today. I want to thank the chairman for yielding me our due 5 minutes. We will not even use it all. We yield it back.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Souder.
Mr. SOUDER. Yesterday in the testimony we heard from Nancy Hernreich that apparently at least one of the photos was released. Does that bother you, Ms. Darby?
Ms. DARBY. I was not aware that there was more than one photo. It doesn't bother me. As I say, I don't think there were foreign policy implications that Bob made me aware of in this e-mail about the photos being released.
Mr. SOUDER. Is it typical that when you would express caution and suggest that it might not be wise to release them that the White House would release them anyway?
Page 938 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. DARBY. I really have no idea. I didn't usually, I didn't get followup information on whether they took my advice or not, but again generally it was not my advice as an NSC foreign policy specialist.
Mr. SOUDER. Well, it was certainly Mr. Suettinger's e-mail, as well, expressing concerns. Do you know very many other times that you may have expressed concerns regarding certain photos at the White House?
Ms. DARBY. I don't recall any other specific incident, sir.
Mr. SOUDER. So this may be in-fact the only case where you expressed concern to the White House about a photo and they didn't listen?
Ms. DARBY. I am not sure that they didn't listen.
Mr. SOUDER. If indeed the testimony yesterday was accurate that at least one photo has been released, then they didn't follow your caution at least. Would that not be a fair statement?
Ms. DARBY. Again, it was my personal caution. It was not based on any foreign policy implications I saw in turning the photograph over.
Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to ask you one other question as well. Clearly, there was a kind of a flurry of activity here around April 7 because Mr. Chung was coming in. Had they requested this earlier, an opinion from your office? Was it sitting on a desk among other requests, or why was this almost a month later?
Ms. DARBY. I am not aware of any other request relating to this other than the one that we have been discussing and is reflected in this e-mail. But I think the sense of urgency was probably because the photographs take several weeks to be developed and they probably had just been developed and Johnny Chung was coming in the following day to pick them up.
Mr. SOUDER. So you are saying it isn't correct that the White House contacted you right after the photo to do a background check about releasing it? There was certainly the implication under testimony here that there was an immediate contact to your office rather than a delay of almost a month.
Page 939 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. DARBY. There wasn't a contact that I am aware of, no.
Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.
Mr. Suettinger, I think your e-mail was, which is exhibit 198, was very informative. In other words, you said you didn't have any direct evidence, but you expressed future concerns, which I would hope that any White House would take seriously, coming from the National Security Council.
One of the statements that you made to Mr. McHugh is that while you didn't have any evidence that these people were agents, you didn't have any evidence that necessarily they weren't. I heard you say earlier, too, that you felt they were relatively low level or less powerful. Wouldn't it be true that if somebody wanted to try to start to influence a system that in fact if they would have sent more powerful people or people who had more of a history that, in fact, you would have caught them, and wouldn't that argue not that they are but that this is one way you could do it? In other words, it would have flagged your system, had they been higher up. Why would that argument not be a concern as well?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I am really not in a position to speculate about whether there was a conspiracy afoot in this case to utilize a photo opportunity toward broader purposes. My understanding is, I answered the e-mail, was that there was no national security concern with regard to the individuals involved and that remains my view.
Mr. SOUDER. My point, however, is that had they had a record or been more influential, you might have said definitely, no, to the photos?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I was not in a position—I see, I am sorry. I misunderstood you. It is very difficult for me to speculate on what might have taken place had circumstances been different. I responded to the circumstances as I understood them at the time.
Mr. SOUDER. Isn't that what your e-mail does? It is speculation. You say that there could be other individuals, there may be times, would be ones the President would support. You were concerned about how this could not only go long-term with Johnny Chung, but how this process could be misused.
Page 940 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. My concern was really in making sure that the President was protected more from kind of perhaps shady business deals than from an effort to influence his opinion in any way, shape or form.
Mr. SOUDER. Don't you think that when they contacted your office they were concerned about national security things, not just whether or not they were——
Mr. SUETTINGER. You mean when Mr. Chung contacted my office?
Mr. SOUDER. When the White House asked about using these pictures, do you think they were asking you whether or not you—they wanted your advice on how business deals were going, or do you think they were asking your advice on national security matters?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I really can't speculate on what prompted them to raise the concern or in what context. I responded to the question again, as I indicated earlier, from a national security perspective. But in my comments vis-a-vis Mr. Chung, I was really thinking more of repeat performances that might have a different cast of characters.
Mr. SOUDER. Do you get questions about businessmen on a routine basis on most of the requests that come to you related to national security?
Mr. SUETTINGER. There have not been that many. You are referring to requests for vetting?
Mr. SOUDER. Yes.
Mr. SUETTINGER. Most of them involve individuals who are not known to be Government officials. In other words, they would be more businessmen and private individuals, academics and so forth.
Mr. SOUDER. But you are vetting for national security, not for hustling?
Page 941 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. That is correct.
Mr. SOUDER. Because, and it is not—it is hard to be in the position of not wanting to question an individual's integrity, yet based on what we saw this morning that, in fact, we do have agents of influence trying to influence things and that some of that information was withheld. We need to be as aggressive as possible in asking some of these questions and laying this out as this hearing goes through.
I yield back.
Mr. BURTON. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Waxman is the next.
Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to correct the record. I think the gentleman mistakenly misspoke in that the testimony yesterday from Mrs. Hernreich was not that the photos had been released. In fact, her testimony several times yesterday was that she was not at all, it was not at all her belief that the photos were ever released. She did not even acknowledge that they had been released. I just wanted to correct the record as to whether or not these photos were ever released and we are going to continue to search for the truth in this regard.
Mr. SOUDER. My understanding was one photo. If I said photos, it was a mistake. One photo.
Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, just also for the record, the only thing that we had in the newspaper today was that the FBI didn't give some information to this committee, and I think it is a big leap from that to say that we learned about spying because we didn't learn about that. We may, but no one knows that at this point. So we don't know whether the photos were ever released. We do know Mr. Suettinger was asked whether they should be released and he said he didn't think any lasting damage would be done to U.S. foreign policy if they were released to Johnny Chung. I want to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Cummings.
Page 942 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Waxman.
First of all, let me take a moment. This hearing, I think, will be winding down very shortly, but I want to thank you both for your service to the United States of America. I know that this is not the most pleasant situation for you. But I think you symbolize the very best that America has to offer. I do mean that. It was just, someone just said a few minutes ago, Mr. Suettinger, that you were a person, I think it was Mr. Kanjorski who said that you were a person that went by the books. And I think the same thing can be said of you, Ms. Darby. I just want to thank you on behalf of all of us. I am sorry that you have to go through this, but this is, I guess, a part of the process.
Mr. Suettinger, I want to also say to you that I really admire you for your ability to kind of figure out who is a hustler and who is not. It is interesting that Mr. Chung is an equal opportunity hustler. Because he has a book, I don't know if you have seen this document. But it is automated, it is called Automated Intelligence Systems, Inc. I think this was his corporation. Have you seen this? It is a brochure.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I have not, sir.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I think your worst fears about what a hustler does is epitomized in this document because he not only has pictures of him, it is full of pictures, by the way, and he not only has pictures of him and the President, but he has a picture of him and our illustrious Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. He has a picture of him and the Governor of California, Pete Wilson. He has a picture here of he and the majority leader, former majority leader and former Presidential Republican Candidate Bob Dole. So he really made sure that he did exactly—and I admire you for figuring this out, that this guy was a hustler, equal opportunity. It is very interesting.
I also want to note something else. I was wondering, exhibit 215, are you familiar with this? This is a document which is apparently from, it is dated November 22, 1995. It is apparently to a Lori Weiner from a Kathleen Hennessey. I take it that this is from the photography shop in the White House. Are you familiar with that document?
Page 943 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. I have not seen this document before, sir.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me just read it. It says, ''as of 11/22/95, per Bob McNeely,'' do you know who that is?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I do not.
Mr. CUMMINGS. ''We will not honor requests from Johnny Chung. He has been CEO of this corporation. He has been improperly using the photo of the business people and the President. Bob suggests telling him the photos were ordered and sent out and cannot be reordered. He has been asking through the west wing office, but he might find our office at some point. Thanks, Kathleen.''
So again, I go back to your fears and your concerns. It appears that the photo office in the White House, again, later on, found a way to kind of block this hustler that you talked about. Yesterday it was brought up, I don't know whether you reviewed the testimony yesterday on C–SPAN, but it is also interesting to go back to this whole question of the equal opportunity hustler.
In a letter dated April 6, 1994, but from all people, the Governor of the State of California, Pete Wilson. I just want to reiterate it so that the record will be clear that he not only was trying to pimp the President, but he was trying to also do the same thing with Mr. Wilson, Governor Wilson. I just want this, again, to be reiterated.
It is addressed to Mr. Chung. It says,
Dear Mr. Chung: It is my understanding that you have been nominated as entrepreneur of the year. Congratulations. It is a well-deserved recognition. My communications and press offices inform me that you and your team have performed in an outstanding manner. Your good work in turn has enabled my office to serve the people of California effectively and efficiently, especially during California's recent disasters. Again, you have my appreciation for a job well done.
Page 944 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
And that is signed by the Governor of the great State of California, Pete Wilson. So again, I know that it may sound like there was a little bit of sarcasm, but I do admire both of you for what you have done. I thank you for being the good employees that you have been for the United States of America and, again, on behalf of all of us, I thank you for your testimony today. I yield back to the ranking member.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. I have the last 5 minutes and I will yield my time to Mr. Barr.
Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a major difference, just for the record, between what was just stated with regard to the Governor, former Governor, whatever, of California. He was not the recipient of $3 or $400,000 in Mr. Chung's largess. That makes a big difference.
Going back to SINOPEC, this is not a small corporation, is it, Mr. Suettinger? Is it not the fourth largest petrochemical company in the world?
Mr. SUETTINGER. If that is information that you have derived from other sources, I have no means—I mean it is a large—it is a large state entity.
Mr. BARR. Commercial entity, dealing in the billions of dollars? Dealing in the billions of dollars?
Mr. SUETTINGER. I would assume so. The oil business does make lots of money.
Mr. BARR. You can assume that since particularly in October 1997 SINOPEC announced an agreement with Exxon and ARAMCO for a joint feasibility study for a refinery and petrochemical complex in east China's coastal Province of Fukien, which will involve a total investment of $3 billion. So somewhere along the line SINOPEC has done real well.
Page 945 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
SINOPEC was, as you all may or may not know, the corporation that wanted the meeting with Energy Secretary O'Leary at which time Mr. Chung was directed to contribute $25,000 so that that meeting could take place, that $25,000 was given to Africare, Ms. O'Leary's favorite charity, at her direction, picked up by an employee of the Energy Department.
So there is a lot more at stake here than just a two bit hustler and a few photographs. There are billions of dollars at stake here and the national security interests of at least two of the major powers of the world, the United States and China, and also Saudi Arabia. That was also part of what SINOPEC was after.
So it still leads me to scratch my head and figure out why no red lights went off. I know that the e-mails we have been talking about here postdate by a month the meeting at the White House, but we now know that there was an awful lot that took place subsequent to that such as the payment at the direction of Ms. O'Leary, a number of other efforts by SINOPEC and by Mr. Chung involving perhaps Ron Brown and others, according to letters that are in exhibits here. And I would ask Mr. Suettinger, if you had before you all of the information that we now have and if you had this information not on April 7, 1995, but on March 7, 1995, would the attitude have been the same in responding to Ms. Darby's e-mail.
Mr. SUETTINGER. With all due respect, Congressman, you are asking me again to speculate on what I would do in different circumstances. It is very difficult for me to do that, certainly, given the way the information has been, the way that you have characterized the information.
Mr. BARR. You can characterize it anyway you would like. All I am saying is, is there anything that you have become aware of or just based on your review of who these gentlemen were, do you still believe them to be essentially two bit players that have no real interest beyond just getting a picture with the President that would cause you to have given a different recommendation if you had had that information before you on March 7? Yes, I am asking you to speculate.
Page 946 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. Again, my remarks at the time were based upon my understanding of what constitutes a photo opportunity: a handshake, a friendly word and then head for the door. So it is not my belief that there was anything politically significant likely to transpire during the period of a photo opportunity. So even had I been asked in advance, I don't think I would have changed my view.
Mr. BARR. Then I take back some of the nice things I said earlier. I think that your work and your statements indicate that there is not an effort to really serve the national interest of this country well. You understand even in your e-mail that there was a political effort here by contributors to seek access to the President. We know now that some of those contributors were, wanted things involving billions of dollars from this country that would benefit the Communist Chinese Government at a minimum in a major economic way, and you are still saying that that would not cause you to recommend that they not have access to the President. I must admit, I am just flabbergasted. I yield back.
Mr. SUETTINGER. I would certainly——
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, would you yield some of your available time?
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Horn needs some time. I will yield to Mr. Horn. If I have any left of course, I will yield to you.
Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question because I am curious as to the relationship with Mr. Chung that crossed your desk before the April 7th memorandum in which you say, having recently counseled a young intern from the First Lady's office who had been offered a dream job by Johnny Chung, I think he should be treated with a pinch of suspicion.
Now, we read into the record earlier the memorandum you wrote to the President's National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake, on July 31, 1995. I am curious what came before April 7 that you remember, what came after July 31, 1995, that involved Mr. Chung that you remember? Is this all that you were involved in? Obviously, you counseled this intern before April 7. That helped lead you to a conclusion about Mr. Chung. What happened, anything else before April 7? Anything else after July 31st? Anything in between?
Page 947 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. SUETTINGER. As I indicated, I had some phone calls from Mr. Chung that caused me to be concerned about his own agenda. Again, I can't—I did not put them on the record at the time and they are not available either to my recollection or to any other record.
The meeting with the intern from the First Lady's office is likewise not on record. She called me in the morning, said that somebody had suggested she come to talk to me, and I did so. She described a position that she was being offered by Mr. Chung that caused me some concern, that appeared she was going to be hired as someone whose principal responsibilities would be to provide some sort of escort for some of these individuals coming into town, and that her service, at that point, former service, with the First Lady's office would also be used as an entre to get some of these individuals to see people in the First Lady's office.
I found that to be something that aroused my suspicion. She was about my daughter's age and so I counseled her that the jobs that seem to be too good to be true usually are not true, and that she ought to find out as much information as she could about what was being offered and what was going to be expected of her before she accepted any kind of a dream job. As I say, that sort of colored my perception of what Mr. Chung was up to, to a significant degree. And after July 31st, according to your question, I have had no contact with anything to do with Mr. Chung, other than what I have been able to read in the newspapers.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much.
Mr. BURTON. All time has expired. I want to thank both of you for being with us today. We appreciate your candor, and hopefully we won't have to bother you again, but if we do, we will try to make sure we accommodate your schedules.
Per our agreement with the minority, I ask unanimous consent that the depositions of Ari Swiller, Dick Morris, and Eric Sildon be made public. Without objection, so ordered.
Page 948 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The continuation of the meeting with Johnny Chung will be in the lounge of the committee, so those who want to attend and participate in that discussion will go there immediately upon adjournment. This committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:29 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The depositions of Ari Swiller, Dick Morris, and Eric Sildon follow:]
Executive Session
| Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, |
| U.S. House of Representatives, |
| Washington, DC. |
DEPOSITION OF: JACOB ARIEH SWILLER
The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10:00 a.m..
Appearances:
Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: James C. Wilson, Senior Investigative Counsel; Miki White, Investigative Counsel; Christopher Lu, Minority Counsel; and Michael J. Yeager, Minority Counsel.
For MR. SWILLER:
STUART F. PIERSON, ESQ.
Levine Pierson Sullivan & Koch, L.L.P.
1155 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
Mr. WILSON. Good morning. On behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I appreciate and thank you for appearing here today.
Page 949 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
This proceeding is known as a deposition. The person transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and notary public. I will now request that the reporter place you under oath.
THEREUPON, JACOB ARIEH SWILLER, a witness, was called for examination by Counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Mr. WILSON. I would like to note for the record those who are present at the beginning of this deposition. My name is James Wilson. I'm the designated Majority counsel for the committee. I'm accompanied today by Mickey White, who is also with the Majority staff. Mr.——
Mr. Lu. Lu.
Mr. WILSON. Christopher Lu and Michael Yeager are with the Minority staff. And Mr. Ari Swiller is accompanied by Mr. Stewart Pierson.
Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you have been placed under oath, your testimony here today has the same force and effect as if you were testifying before the committee or in a courtroom. If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past and you're unable to recall the exact words used in the conversation, you may state that you are unable to recall those exact words and then you may give me the gist or substance of any such conversation to the best of your recollection.
If you recall only part of a conversation or only part of an event, please give me your best recollection of that conversation or that event or the parts of the event or conversation that you do recall.
If I ask you whether you have any information about a particular subject and if you have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding that subject or have seen correspondence or documentation regarding that subject, please tell me that you do have such information and indicate the source, either a conversation, documentation or otherwise from which you derive such knowledge.
Page 950 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Before we begin questioning, I would like to give you some background about the investigation and your appearance here. Pursuant to its authority under House rules 10 and 11 of the House of Representatives, the committee is engaged in a wide-ranging review of possible political fund-raising improprieties and possible violations of law.
Pages 2 through 4 of House Report 105–139, summarizes the investigation as of June 19, 1997, and encompasses any new matters which arise directly or indirectly in the course of the investigation. Also, pages 4 through 11 of the report explain the background of the investigation.
All questions related either directly or indirectly to those issues or questions which have the tendency to make the existence of any pertinent fact more or less probable than it would be without such evidence are proper.
The committee has been granted specific authorization to conduct this deposition pursuant to House Resolution 167, which passed the full House on June 20, 1997. Committee Rule 20 outlines the ground rules of this deposition.
Majority and Minority counsel will ask you questions regarding the subject matter of the investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel has finished. After the Minority counsel has completed questioning, a new round of questions may begin. Members of Congress that wish to ask questions will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask their questions. When they are finished, committee counsel will resume questioning.
Pursuant to the committee's rules, you are allowed to have an opportunity present to advise you of your rights. Any objection raised during the course of the deposition shall be stated for the record. If the witness is instructed not to answer a question or otherwise refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine whether the objection is proper. If Majority and Minority counsel agree that the question is proper, the witness will be asked to answer the question. If an objection is not withdrawn, the Chairman or a Member designated by the Chairman will decide whether the objection is proper.
Page 951 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
This deposition is considered as taken in executive session of the committee, which means that it may not be made public without the consent of the committee. Pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule 11, you are asked to abide by the rules of the House and not discuss with anyone other than your attorney or attorneys this deposition and the issues and questions raised during this proceeding.
Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the Chairman. The transcript will be available for your review at the committee office. Committee staff may make any typographical or technical changes requested by you. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a statement of your reasons for each proposed change.
A letter requesting any substantive changes must be signed by you. Any substantive changes made shall be included as an appendix to the transcript, conditioned upon your signing of the transcript. It's my understanding that you've come from a long distance, and at the conclusion of these proceedings we'll make arrangements for you to review your deposition transcript in a way that's convenient for both yourself and your attorney.
Do you understand everything that we've gone over so far?
The WITNESS. I do.
Mr. WILSON. Do you have any questions about anything I've discussed so far?
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. WILSON. I've got a few preliminary questions to ask of the witness. Does anybody else have any statement or comment at this time?
Mr. Lu. Not at this time.
Page 952 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. PIERSON. I do. First of all, your preliminary instructions to the witness about what you would like him to say if he should answer a particular way are general questions that typically you find at the beginning of written interrogatories and are easy for a respondent to attend to since they'll be right there before him in writing.
I would expect that if Mr. Swiller gives you an answer that he either doesn't recall or doesn't know or is not sure, that you will be appropriately following up with questions about what he does know or what he may remember so that he will not have to remember specifically every item of your preliminary instructions.
With respect to the transcript, I appreciate your indication that you'll make it available to him since he's in California currently. He lives there now and has a residence there. He is also getting married at the end of this month and will also not be accessible for a while afterward, as you expect. We appreciate you making appropriate accommodations for reading the transcript.
Finally, I refer to my letter, July 3, 1997, to the committee in which I responded to dates of Mr. Swiller's deposition. Among other things, I have advised the Chairman that he should be advised Mr. Swiller testified extensively recently in depositions taken by the Senate committee inquiring into this.
We would be pleased to give you permission to read the transcript of that deposition and thereby to avoid the inevitable repetition that would result as you pursue the same lines of inquiry. I take it, counsel, that you have not undertaken to read the transcript of Mr. Swiller's deposition in the Senate.
Mr. WILSON. We have not been given a copy of Mr. Swiller's deposition transcript from the Senate. And I appreciate your initial offer. And we would certainly have taken up your suggestions. But we have not been permitted to see or review a copy of that deposition.
Page 953 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. PIERSON. Can you tell me whether the Senate committee has been advised whether we would be given permission to do so?
Mr. WILSON. I honestly don't know specifically in your case. But there have been a number of witnesses who have made similar offers, and we have advised the Senate in each instance that there have been no objections and my understanding is that there's a matter of Senate protocol and the particular rules under which they are functioning and that specific investigation in which Mr. Swiller gave his deposition. At this point, we do not have access to most of the depositions taken. Some have been released. And those have involved individuals who have testified publicly. Unfortunately, Mr. Swiller's is not one of them.
Mr. PIERSON. Finally, I understand that under the rules, this deposition is being taken in executive session. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the instructions. Of course, Mr. Swiller is entirely at liberty to talk to anybody about what he has said here today at any time. Moreover, if any report of his testimony should be leaked from the committee or from its staff, we will consider that executive session instruction to be devoid.
Mr. Lu. If I may, I would just like to second Mr. Pierson's concerns about Mr. Swiller's deposition in light of the Senate deposition. The Democratic staff has always believed that these depositions should be put off until after the release of their Senate depositions. Obviously, we have not had our way. So I would simply just second that. We appreciate you coming in. We realize this has been a burden for you, especially since a lot of the testimony you'll be giving today will be duplicative testimony to the Senate.
Mr. PIERSON. That's all I have.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Mr. Swiller, I'll be asking you questions concerning the subject matter of this investigation. Do you understand?
Answer. Yes.
Page 954 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. If you don't understand a question, please say so, and I'll repeat it or rephrase it so that you are able to understand the question. Do you understand that you should tell me if you do not understand my question?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The reporter will be taking down everything we say and will make a written record of the deposition. You are asked to give verbal, audible answers because the reporter cannot record a gesture or nonspecific answer. Do you understand that you should not answer uh-huh or provide a gesture to answer one of my questions?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If you can't hear me, please say so and I'll repeat the question or have the court reporter read the question to you. Do you understand that?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Please wait until I finish each question before answering it, and I will wait until you finish your answer before I ask the next question. Do you understand that this will help the reporter to make a clear record because she cannot record what we are both stating at the same time?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Your testimony is being taken under oath as if we were in court, and if you answer a question, it will be assumed that you understood the question and the answer was intended to be responsive to it. Do you understand that?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Are you here voluntarily or are you here as a result of a subpoena?
Answer. Voluntarily.
Question. Do you have any questions about this deposition before we begin the substantive portion of the proceeding?
Page 955 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. Please state your name and spell it for the record?
Answer. It's Jacob Arieh, A-R-I-E-H, Swiller, S-W-I-L-L-E-R.
Question. Have you in the past used any other name or gone by any other name?
Answer. Ari Swiller is what I generally go by. It's A-R-I, same last name.
Question. What is your date of birth?
Answer. [Redacted].
Question. What is your current address?
Answer. [Redacted].
Question. What was your last address in Washington, D.C.?
Answer. [Redacted].
Question. Have—have you lived for a period of more than 6 months out of the United States?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Did you attend college?
Answer. I did.
Question. Where did you attend college?
Answer. [Redacted].
Question. And when did you graduate?
Answer. [Redacted].
Question. Have you received any other degrees?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Please briefly describe your employment history after college?
Page 956 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. My first—after college, I traveled for a few months and moved to Washington in early 1992. I was an intern for the office of Matt McHugh, a Member of Congress from the State of New York. At the same time I began to volunteer at the Clinton for President Campaign.
In approximately April or May of 1992, I became a full-time staffer in the Clinton for President Campaign in the Finance Department. We transferred to the Democratic National Committee following the 1992 convention in New York. After the November election, I worked for the Presidential inaugural committee. Following the inaugural, I stayed on the staff of the inaugural until approximately April again.
In April of 1993, I started work for Steny Hoyer, a Member of Congress from Maryland. At the time, he was chair of the Democratic caucus and I served on his caucus staff. I worked there until December of 1993, at which time I joined the Democratic National Committee. I worked there until March of 1997 at which time I joined the Rouse Grocery Company as Vice President of External Affairs. That's my current position.
Question. Have you spoken with anyone other than your counsel about this deposition?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you reviewed any documents in preparation for this deposition?
Mr. PIERSON. I will tell you that yesterday he had an interview with the FBI at which time he was asked to examine documents which you may be interested in.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you have any documents that are—DNC documents currently in your possession?
Answer. I do not.
Page 957 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you leave all of your work-related materials in your—with your former place of employment?
Answer. I did.
Question. What documents did you review with the FBI?
Mr. PIERSON. He may not remember. I can perhaps help him. There was a memorandum in July 1995 by a Landroca Steel to Donald Fowler. There was a memorandum he wrote to a counsel at the DNC concerning Pauline Kanchanalak following 1996 election. Was there anything else?
The WITNESS. Staff list.
Mr. PIERSON. Oh, yes, they showed him a staff list of the DNC and asked him to indicate which ones were fund-raisers and which were not.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. How did you come to work at the DNC?
Answer. At which time period?
Question. In your final—your final stint at the DNC as a paid employee?
Answer. I had worked with a few of the staff members of the DNC during the '92 campaign. When I went to work with Mr. Hoyer, I stayed in touch with them. Around December of 1993, a little bit earlier, a friend of mine, Laura Hartigan, became finance director and at that time asked me to rejoin with her at the staff of the DNC. I accepted her offer in the beginning of December of 1993.
Question. Did you interview with anybody for that position?
Answer. I interviewed with Laura Hartigan and David Wilhelm who at that time was Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Question. And referring, and I'll try and be specific, but I'm referring to your final employment at the DNC, what was your title?
Page 958 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. For most of the time, I was director of the Trustee Program. Or director of large donor efforts.
Question. Did you have any other titles?
Answer. No.
Question. Who did you report to?
Answer. When I first started at the DNC, I reported to Laura Hartigan. Following the spring of 1995, there was a transition, and the new finance director was Richard Sullivan, who I reported to until I left.
Question. Could you provide a general description of your office? And by that I mean were there other individuals who worked with you in your capacity as——
Answer. There were two people under my direction. When I first started, they were Jennifer Scully and Jay Webber. The following time, Mr. Webber left, and a gentleman named Mack Gobush, G-O-B-U-S-H, joined the staff. Following some time, there was another transition in the spring of '95, an Anne Braziel and Nancy Burk joined the staff with me.
Question. In a spatial sense, where were they located in relation to where you worked? Were you all in the same office?
Answer. I'll refer to the last part of my year and a half.
Question. Okay.
Answer. Ms. Braziel and I shared an office. And Ms. Burk was stationed at a cubicle within approximately 12 feet of our office.
Question. Did you type your own letters and memoranda?
Answer. For the most part, I did. However, at times, I was assisted by both Ms. Braziel and Ms. Burk in some of the memoranda and letters that were sent under my name.
Question. Did you fax your own fax transmissions to other people?
Page 959 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Same, the previous answer. I did most of it. But they also assisted.
Question. Did you have someone who would take messages for you from the telephone?
Answer. I did not. We had a voice mail system.
Question. Did you use an e-mail system at the DNC?
Answer. It was available. I was not a frequent user of it.
Question. Did you have any—and, again, I'll just refer to the period during which you were the—the director of the Trustee Program. Did you have any official contact with White House employees?
Answer. What do you mean by official?
Question. Business-related contacts, where you would discuss matters with them or they would discuss matters with you?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Was there a specific liaison in the White House to deal with you in your office?
Answer. There was not.
Question. Were there—was there any one person or were there any select number of people that you would deal with regularly?
Answer. I dealt for some time with Brian Bailey, with a woman named Tracy LeBreque, with a gentleman named Donald Dunn. Those were my primary contacts.
Question. Do you recall any dealings with other employees at the White House?
Answer. I mean,—I mean, for instance——
Mr. PIERSON. Are you asking about any contact or regular contact?
Page 960 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. Regular contacts.
The WITNESS. I mean I was friendly with a number of people through my work on the campaign. As far as business-related matters, the majority of my contacts are with the people I stated already.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever attend regularly scheduled events at the White House?
Answer. Events meaning meetings or——
Question. Well, I'm trying to eliminate a random event that might be a Christmas party or a single type event, but a weekly scheduled event or a monthly type scheduled event, something that would occur on a regular basis?
Answer. For a time, Mr. Bailey arranged for meetings that included and arranged political staff representatives, congressional liaison staff representatives. The point of the meeting was to gather lists of names for upcoming social events that may take place at the White House.
Question. How frequently did such meetings occur?
Answer. They were scheduled, I believe, to take place every other week. Invariably, my meetings were canceled pretty often, and they did not run—I believe this program did not run more than 6 months.
Question. Did you have a pass to allow you access to the White House?
Answer. Never did.
Question. How did you gain access to the White House?
Answer. I was usually cleared through Mr. Bailey's office.
Question. And how would that process work?
Page 961 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. After I was notified of a meeting, someone from his office would call and request my date of birth and Social Security number. They would tell me the time to enter and which gate of the White House to enter. I would present ID when I'd enter and be directed to the room where the meeting would take place.
Question. Please provide an overview of the Trustee Program at the DNC.
Answer. Trustee Program was a group of the highest donors to the Democratic Party or highest fund-raisers. The—there were two levels within the Trustee Program. There were trustees who contributed $50,000 or raised over 100,000. And managing trustees who contributed 100,000 and raised over 250,000. The program consisted of, by the time the '96 election, approximately 800 people from across the country.
Question. Did individuals who were members of the Trustee Program receive regular materials from the DNC? By that, I mean mailings and the sort?
Answer. We had a tally or sometimes every other day fax service with talking points regarding pertinent political issues. When we knew of—ahead of time of scheduled events such as the national galla in Washington, they received the date of that event as far ahead of time as we could provide it so that they knew of an invitation to that event.
Question. The daily faxes that you just referenced, who was responsible for sending the fax transmissions?
Answer. I believe they were written in the Research Department. And I don't know the process by which they were then faxed. But it was on a massive scale to not just trustees, but all financial supporters as well as political supporters and constituents.
Question. Who was the individual or who were the individuals who composed the fax transmissions?
Answer. I would be speculating. I'm not sure who in the Research Department.
Page 962 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you ever have occasion to discuss entries in the fax transmissions with people who would be authors of the fax transmissions?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Do you know who did?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Did you receive regular copies of the fax transmissions?
Answer. They were supposed to be provided regularly. I don't think I saw—I probably saw half of the transmissions that were sent.
Question. Do you recall whether you retained any of the faxes that went out to the trustees for your records?
Answer. No. I did not.
Question. No, you don't recall?
Answer. I did not retain them.
Question. While you were at the DNC in your position as Director of the Trustee Program, did you have any responsibility for any other programs or initiatives at the DNC?
Answer. The one other program I was involved with was an effort to raise money from the Jewish constituency. It had varying titles. One we used most frequently was Jewish Leadership Forum. It was not a scheduled or defined job description. It just was a general—part of a general effort to raise money within the Jewish community?
Question. Did you regularly receive requests from members of the Trustee Program to obtain assistance with various types of things that they would like to do with the White House? And I realize that's about as unspecific as you can possibly make a question. So I'm just trying to gather whether there was a type of system that you used when people would call you up and ask you to do something for them, if they did ask you to do something for them. And that could be a tour of the White House or something like that or—just starting with that, if people called you up and asked you for a tour or perhaps an opportunity to get a photograph. Did you have a regular procedure that you would follow to respond to that request?
Page 963 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. PIERSON. Are you talking about trustees calling.
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
The WITNESS. Well, let's take them—as far as tours, we tried to accommodate. Nancy Burk, Ms. Burk was the woman in my office who handled, who contacted the White House, receiving an allotment of some of the tickets which the White House provided the DNC to our trustees to have ticketed tours of the White House. Ms.—If—when you say photograph, you mean just a still photo of the President?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Yes.
Answer. If it's just a still picture, again, I would probably ask Ms. Burk to retrieve one from the file and address a letter, an envelope to the requester.
Question. Did you—did you have a system to handle requests? And by that, I mean, did you use forms to track a request that would come in, a form would go out to a particular individual, or would it be fair to say that you responded to requests of you on an ad hoc basis?
Answer. Ad hoc basis.
Question. Did you have a system in place to determine whether it was appropriate to help an individual with a request that might be made of you?
Mr. Lu. I'm not sure I understand the word, ''appropriate.'' But if you do, please answer it.
Mr. PIERSON. I also have an objection. Is the ''you'' directed to him or is it directed to the entire DNC?
Mr. WILSON. To Mr. Swiller.
Mr. PIERSON. Did he personally have a system?
Mr. WILSON. Personally. Just was there a fail-safe mechanism system that you had in place to screen and determine whether it was appropriate to assist somebody with a request that they might make of you.
Page 964 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. PIERSON. He's asking about you personally.
The WITNESS. No.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Was there a DNC system that you would follow to determine whether it was appropriate to assist anybody with the request?
Answer. No.
Question. Were there ever occasions in which an individual might call you and ask—asking for you to help with something, and you were uncomfortable with providing assistance to them?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If you could, please describe those situations.
Mr. PIERSON. Try and give some examples.
The WITNESS. Frequently,—not frequently. That's overstating it. A few times, people would request to speak directly with the President, the Vice President, even members—most senior staff members at the White House, and ask for my assistance in providing those meetings. I always felt those requests were inappropriate and do not recall ever acting on one of them.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you have any examples or do you recall any situations where an individual made a request of you and you were concerned about following up on that request because of something you knew about that person?
Answer. I don't know if I understand the second part of your question. You mean something I knew in their past?
Question. Yes, pre-existing knowledge of something that they had done or place that they had been or position that they had held which made you uncomfortable with continuing to assist them or assisting them in the first place.
Page 965 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I generally acted that if I felt uncomfortable with a request, I didn't do it, regardless of whether it was something in their background or if their request was, I felt, inappropriate, I didn't act on that.
Question. Trying to move away from situations where people were asking you things that you found to simply not be possible or request that you felt was just not something that could be realized, do you recall any situations where an individual made a request of you and you thought that you or the DNC did not want to be involved with helping that individual?
Mr. Lu. Because of their past?
Mr. WILSON. Because of anything.
Mr. Lu. Because of anything.
Mr. WILSON. Anything that you knew or have knowledge of.
The WITNESS. Could you restate the question? I'm sorry.
Mr. WILSON. I'll ask the reporter to read it, if I may.
[The reporter read back as requested.]
The WITNESS. Could you possibly restate that?
Mr. WILSON. Well, I'm not trying to be hard here. If you thought simply this is a person I don't think we should be involved with, and either you decided not to help or you discussed with somebody else whether that person should be assisted.
The WITNESS. I don't recall anyone that I flatly denied assistance.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever talk to any colleague at the DNC about an individual and about whether it was appropriate to provide assistance to them?
Answer. I don't recall any specific conversations.
Page 966 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you ever personally do any background checks on individuals who you came in contact with in your position as the director of the Trustee Program?
Answer. I do not personally, no.
Question. Did you ever request that anybody at the DNC to provide background information on the people that you came into contact with at the DNC?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Who would you make such requests of?
Answer. I tended to work with the Research Department at the DNC, different individuals who had access to Nexis-Lexis within their department.
Question. Do you recall the names of individuals you worked with?
Answer. I don't. Oh, that I worked with?
Question. At the DNC. On this matter of getting background information?
Answer. A name that I recall is Tom Janenda was the Deputy Research Director.
Question. Do you recall any other individuals that you might have made background requests for background information?
Answer. He was my primary contact. That I recall.
Question. Did you ever have anybody in your immediate office, the individuals you described previously as working with you, did you ever ask them to do any background checks on individuals?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Did you keep files of biographical information on individuals who were members of the Trustee Program?
Page 967 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I did.
Question. And—and what form did you keep that information in?
Answer. It was in a file cabinet, each donor member of the Trustee Program had a file with their name. And as many cases as we had a bio, a bio accompanied the file.
Question. So is it fair to say that if there were approximately 800 individuals who participated in the Trustee Program, that there were approximately 800 files on the individuals?
Answer. Approximately, yeah. But not all of them had bios. We may have had an empty file.
Question. What types of information would you keep in the file?
Answer. Bio information. If they had been sent a photograph or some other letter inviting them to an event, we may keep a copy on file. And in some cases, not in all, we—if they were trustees because of a donation, we kept a copy of the check and the check-tracking form in the file.
Question. Do you recall any other types of information that was kept in the files?
Answer. That was primarily it.
Question. How would you obtain the biographical information?
Answer. We would request it directly from the office or from—from the office of the individual for the—from the individual, him or herself.
Question. Did you have a standard form that you would send to them to fill out?
Answer. I believe Ms. Braziel designed a form that also requested that they provide us with their date of birth, Social Security number, as well as their address, home address, business address, telephone numbers, spouse's name, et cetera.
Page 968 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. How did you keep track of the individuals who were participants in the Trustee Program?
Answer. We had a computer data base system?
Question. What—did this data base produce an aggregate list of trustees that was—that you had access to?
Answer. It could, uh-huh. Yes.
Question. Did you keep such lists?
Answer. I did.
Question. Were these lists updated on a regular basis or were they just lists that if you had a need for them, you would request a new list to be generated?
Answer. Generally, I received a list when I requested it. There was not a scheduled updating.
Question. Were there any lists generated by the data base you described or in any other way that described the aggregate amount of contributions that come, that had come from the Trustee Program?
Answer. I'm not sure if I understand.
Question. Just whether at any particular time during the year, could you get a printout or a list that said—that told you this year, X amount of dollars have been raised through the Trustee Program?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Did you ever create such a list yourself based on numbers of participating trustees?
Answer. I may have tried to create lists broken down by contribution and then the sum of their contribution. But contributions were not made directly to the program in many cases. They were made in conjunction with an event, a fund-raising event anywhere in the country. But if someone had raised the necessary funds to become a member or contributed the necessary funds, they became a member, whether or not it was a direct to joining the program.
Page 969 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Is it fair to say, then, that if somebody that made a contribution, that it was of the requisite amount, $50,000, for example, for the Trustee Program to attend a dinner, a fund-raiser, that they would then become a member of the Trustee Program?
Answer. Uh-huh. That's correct.
Question. And how did—how did you keep track of those types of transactions? How did you know whether people would become eligible to be a member of the Trustee Program or not?
Answer. I mean, it varied case to case. Some individuals sent their contributions directly to me or a list of what contributions they had raised. And I had direct contact. In cases where events were held around the country, individual fund-raisers were responsible for that event. Following the event would provide me a list of new members or people who had renewed their membership through the event which they had just coordinated. Those are the primary ones.
Question. Did you circulate among other offices at the DNC the list of trustees?
Answer. On occasion, the chairman's office would request a list. Other than that, the lists were in the Finance Department. No one else requested them.
Question. Did you ever send a trustee list to the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. There's a term of art that I've seen on documents, and it's the fund-raiser account. Do you know what that refers to?
Answer. I don't.
Question. You mentioned earlier that there was a computer system that kept track of the managing trustee lists. Was that the AS–400 system?
Answer. The AS–400 system was a system at the DNC. Within the Trustee Department, we had a separate data base that was more flexible to our needs of generating labels and quick lists that we used. It was a Paradox-based data system.
Page 970 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you receive regular information from the AS–400 system?
Answer. I used it to reference—it was a good reference for when contributions were put in, because all contributions were posted in the AS–400. So I had access to it from the main frame at my desk. So frequently, I would access information off it.
Question. Were printouts of contributions generated by the AS–400 system the source of information that you used to determine who had contributed money and who would be eligible to be in the Trustee Program?
Answer. At times, yes. It was a source of information for that, yes.
Question. If you could, just describe what would happen if you had dealt directly with somebody and discussed making a contribution, and they hadn't made a contribution, sent you a contribution——
Answer. And they hadn't——
Question. And they had sent you a contribution. What would you do to ensure that that was entered into the AS–400 system?
Answer. I actually had no direct connection to the entries into the AS–400. My only assurance was I'd give approximately a week's time from when I had received the check—from the time from when I submitted the check, and checking the AS–400 was my only safety net in making sure. And I don't recall situations where checks did not appear after a week or maybe in some cases 2 weeks, but——
Question. When a check, and this is assuming first of all, did you receive checks directly from donors?
Answer. I did.
Question. When you did receive such a check, what was the mechanical process of handling that check? What would you do with that?
Page 971 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. We—I would attach a donor information sheet check tracking form and add with it their name, company, phone number, which event the contribution related to, or was it part of their membership to the Trustee Program as indicated on the sheet. Then photocopied batch checks if I had more than one, and submit them to—I don't know the title, but the person within our—the Finance Department who maintained the list of what checks had come in.
Question. Who was that person?
Answer. The last person serving that was a woman named Theresa Stirk.
Question. And do you recall who was in a similar position before that?
Answer. During my time there were two other people that held it. First, it was a gentleman, Jeff King. And Susan Ochs, O-C-H-S.
Question. Did you ever receive lists of individuals generated in or by the White House?
Mr. PIERSON. Any kind of lists? Just a list that came from the White House.
Mr. WILSON. [Indicating in the affirmative.]
The WITNESS. Yes.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. What types of lists did you receive?
Answer. On occasion, they would submit to us a list of individuals who might be attending an upcoming White House event.
Question. And why would you receive such information?
Mr. PIERSON. If you know.
The WITNESS. In some occasions, we provided some names to be included in events they submitted since they were responsible for invitations and receiving regrets. They would provide a list identifying who was coming.
Page 972 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall receiving any other types of lists from the White House?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Did you ever receive any lists of individuals who were suggested individuals to approach to ask for donations——
Mr. PIERSON. From the White House.
Mr. WILSON. From the White House.
The WITNESS. No, I did not.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know what the system at the DNC is now for screening campaign contributors, people who have contributed——
Answer. Today, I do not.
Question. Okay. Prior to November of 1996, did—do you know at the time what the system was for screening contributions?
Mr. PIERSON. Are you talking appropriateness or legality?
Mr. WILSON. Well either, actually.
Mr. PIERSON. Well, you probably ought to take them one by one.
Mr. WILSON. Well, we will then.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Appropriateness screening for appropriateness?
Answer. Extended to our own discretion to decide on whether we're comfortable with a person's contribution. When I say our, I mean the individual fund-raiser dealing with that contribution.
Question. And staying on the issue of appropriateness in terms of screening contributions, do you recall examples or situations where it was determined—where you had discussions with people about the appropriateness of a—of a contribution?
Page 973 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I may have at times conferred with the—Mr. Sullivan or Marvin Rosen, the finance chair. But it was very infrequent.
Question. And do you remember the subjects of those inquiries?
Answer. Sometimes, there—if individuals were making a contribution that we needed—I'm trying to think. We needed more information on the individual or the corporation giving the contribution to make sure that it was a U.S. subsidiary.
Mr. WILSON. Excuse me, this is a reinforcement reporter.
The WITNESS. Oh.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall any individual contributors that were discussed during these meetings with Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. PIERSON. Are you talking about natural persons or just specific instances.
Mr. WILSON. Natural persons, yes.
The WITNESS. I don't recall specific conversations about individuals or any individuals.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Turning to legality, what was the system for screening contributions for legality of contribution?
Answer. I'm not sure what it was. I'm not an attorney. I don't know what the process was.
Question. Did you ever have any training during which legality of contributions was discussed?
Answer. I did.
Question. And with whom? Who conducted this training?
Page 974 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. The general counsel and the deputy counsel, Joseph Sandler and Neal Rieff.
Question. Do you recall any instances where a Lexis-Nexis search was done to determine background information to assess either the legality or appropriateness of the contribution?
Mr. Lu. By anyone—I'm sorry.
Mr. PIERSON. Let's break it down. Ask about Lexis-Nexis.
Mr. WILSON. Stay with one.
Mr. PIERSON. Search before you ask other purpose. Because you'll get a complicated or nonresponsive answer.
Mr. WILSON. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. I know you did mention before that there had been Lexis-Nexis searches. Did you ever request any Lexis-Nexis searches to be performed to supplement information that would be transmitted on the check-tracking forms that you filled out?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you request Lexis-Nexis searches for any other purposes?
Answer. I remember a few occasions requesting the context being a person was going to be attending an event at the White House. And required more biographical information on the individual.
Question. Do you remember the individuals that you requested searches about?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Do you know whether at any time the DNC stopped performing Lexis-Nexis searches to determine the legality of campaign contributions?
Page 975 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't recall starting points. I don't recall an ending point. I don't recall there being a program of it.
Question. But do you know whether at any time such searches were stopped?
Answer. I do not.
Question. I provide the witness with a document that was a single page of handwritten notes, and it is marked DNC 3049787.
Just requiring you to read the whole thing, do you recognize the handwriting on this document?
Answer. I do not.
Mr. PIERSON. Are we going to mark this for the records?
Mr. WILSON. No, actually we will not. What I can do is two things, actually. I will defer to what is convenient for you. Documents that I show the witness that become immediately apparent have no relevance to his testimony, I can simply move on from, or else I can include them in the record if it is a convenience to you when you go back and review the record.
Mr. PIERSON. I don't think the record will be complete unless you do include it, because you have testimony about it. If the record says, there is a question, do you recognize the handwriting, there won't be any indication of what handwriting he was looking at, unless you include it. So you should.
Mr. WILSON. I am perfectly willing to do that. I will mark this document Exhibit AS–1 for inclusion in the record.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–1 was marked for identification.]
[Note.—All exhibits referred to can be found at end of deposition.]
Page 976 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. Just by way of background, we actually keep the documents. We don't let you take them.
Mr. PIERSON. The Senate lets us have them.
Mr. WILSON. Sorry. We are less accommodating on that front.
Mr. PIERSON. So am I.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Are you familiar with FEC reporting requirements that apply to the DNC?
Answer. I am familiar with general requirements, yes.
Question. What reporting requirements applied to you in what you were doing as director of the Trustee Program?
Answer. I don't recall direct requirements. What I recall is that information such as occupation, employer of an individual, their address, the phone number and fax number, were required information for all contributions made, or if it was a corporation, the corporation's address, and that that was required for every individual that would then be submitted by the DNC to the FEC. So my requirement in relation to the FEC, as I recall it, was providing complete information on contributions.
Question. Apart from filling out check tracking forms, as you have described it previously, did you have to do anything else to ensure compliance with FEC provisions?
Mr. PIERSON. You are asking him——
Mr. WILSON. That you know of, that had been communicated to him.
Mr. PIERSON. As his responsibility? Witness will correct.
Page 977 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Not that I recall, no.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you have to produce any reports that you knew were going to be used for the purposes of FEC filing?
Answer. Other than the tracking form, nothing else was required that I recall.
Question. Are you aware that the accounting firm of Ernst & Young prepared materials that discussed contributions by individuals during the 1996 election cycle?
Answer. My only—and this is very second and thirdhand knowledge of Ernst & Young's connection with the DNC, is that they, after there were concerns about some donations, they reviewed those as an accounting firm following the '96 election. That is the only knowledge I have of any work they did with the Democratic National Committee.
Question. Did you ever meet with any Ernst & Young personnel while you were an employee at the DNC?
Answer. I had a contact there who was a contributor, but not in the context of your earlier stated question.
Question. Not in the context of the report or the materials prepared by Ernst & Young?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Were you ever contacted by any Ernst & Young employee in regard to the work that they were doing vis-a-vis the '96 campaign contributions?
Answer. Never.
Question. Were you ever—did you ever discuss with any of your colleagues the work that Ernst & Young was doing?
Page 978 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. Were you ever asked to provide anything for the Ernst & Young report?
Answer. Never.
Question. Can you just generally recount the discussions you had with colleagues about the Ernst & Young process?
Answer. We, the colleagues I tended to discuss it with were within the finance department that I worked with. My discussion, the context, we were discouraged at how they were proceeding with their report. We felt that it was detrimental to the DNC, it was offending donors who were contacted, and I believe at the time some of our Asian American donors felt that they were being harassed by some of the Ernst & Young employees who were proceeding with that, and it was, you know, to our dismay.
Question. Was this your belief?
Answer. Being I had no direct contact, I had no notion, but, you know, after hearing that there were donors who were upset, then became my belief, sure. Yes.
Question. Do you know if individuals communicated that to Ernst & Young personnel?
Mr. Lu. You mean donors themselves, or do you mean people at the DNC?
Mr. WILSON. People at the DNC.
Mr. PIERSON. Time out. What is the ''that'' we are talking about? The last thing we testified to is his feeling.
Mr. WILSON. That is quite right.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know if DNC personnel communicated to Ernst & Young personnel that there was a sense of dissatisfaction with the way the process was proceeding?
Page 979 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I have no knowledge of that.
Question. Did you ever participate in any discussions during which it was discussed the threshold of contribution that Ernst & Young reviewed during their review process?
Mr. Lu. First of all, do you mean a monetary threshold?
Mr. WILSON. Dollar amount.
The WITNESS. I was not in formal discussions. I think informally, again, all the information we received was secondhand on their inquiries, and I believe we thought it was somewhere either over 5,000 or over 10,000. But I don't ever remember having direct knowledge of what the threshold was. But there was discussion of how they were proceeding.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know who set the level of monetary contribution that would be examined?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Aside from what you might have learned subsequently in media accounts, at the time did you know that—at the time, I am speaking of any time you were employed at the DNC, sort of in your knowledge of what people were telling you among your colleagues, did you know that checks were recommended to be returned?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you know whether the DNC returned all checks that Ernst & Young had recommended be returned?
Answer. I am not privy to that. No, I don't know that information.
Question. Did you have any discussions with your colleagues about whether Ernst & Young was distinguishing between illegal contributions and contributions that were deemed inappropriate?
Page 980 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't recall that discussion, no.
Question. What was Scott Pastrick's position at the DNC?
Answer. He had an unpaid volunteer position of treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, which I believe began in the spring of '95.
Question. Do you know whether he signed FEC reports?
Answer. I have no knowledge of that.
Question. Were you aware of any discussions that——
Answer. May I go back to that?
Question. Certainly.
Answer. Scott at one point in a conversation with me made light of the fact that he was supposed to sign FEC reports, but I think there were reports that were passed on that he did not sign.
Question. Did he tell you why that was?
Answer. I don't remember that, the context of why it was.
Question. Did you have any conversations with other colleagues about whether Mr. Pastrick was signing or not signing FEC reports?
Answer. No.
Mr. PIERSON. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Back on the record.
Have you ever met Mark Middleton?
Answer. I have.
Question. When did you first meet Mr. Middleton?
Answer. I first met Mr. Middleton in the course of the 1992 Presidential campaign. We both served on the fund-raising staff for the Clinton for President. My position was in the mid-Atlantic region. Mark was the director of fund-raising in the State of Arkansas. We probably first met either at a national event we did for fund-raisers here in Washington or June or at the convention in July.
Page 981 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Middleton was affiliated with the DNC in 1996?
Answer. I believe he was not.
Question. Did Mr. Middleton, do you know whether he was asked to serve on the 1996 finance board of directors?
Answer. I believe he may have been.
Question. Do you know whether he actually did serve on the finance board of directors?
Answer. I don't believe so.
Question. Did you have any discussions with him about whether he would or would not serve on the '96 finance board of directors?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you recall whether Mr. Middleton did any fund-raising for the DNC in the 1996 election cycle?
Answer. I recall that he was—when Truman Arnold served as finance chair, he and Mark, he and Mr. Middleton had a close association from Arkansas. Mr. Arnold asked Mr. Middleton to assist in some fund-raising efforts when Mr. Arnold was chairman. But I don't recall—what was the last part of the question?
Question. I think that is pretty responsive right there. Did Mr. Middleton assist in organizing any fund-raising events in the '96 election cycle?
Answer. Not that I know of.
Question. After Mr. Middleton left the White House, he formed a business called CommerceCorp. Did you ever visit Mr. Middleton in his business place?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Did Mr. Middleton ever contact you to request assistance on behalf of clients or associates of his?
Page 982 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. Did anybody else from Mr. Middleton's office ever contact you to request assistance?
Answer. No.
Question. When Mr. Middleton worked at the White House, did Yusuf Khapra ever contact you to arrange for assistance on behalf of any matter brought to your attention?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you know Yusuf Khapra?
Answer. Not well, but I know him, yes.
Question. When did you first meet him?
Answer. Sometime during my service at the DNC, I believe in 1994, during that year.
Question. Did he ever contact you for any reason?
Answer. My recollection is that he worked with Brian Bailey in setting up the meetings regarding—that I described earlier, and that was the context of our contact, was to invite me to the meetings and make me aware of them.
Question. Did you ever receive any contacts in 1995 to provide assistance to the Widjaja family?
Answer. The what?
Question. The Widjaja family. Did anybody ever contact you and mention the Widjaja family that you know of?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. I provide the witness with a document, a memorandum to Richard Sullivan and Mr. Swiller from Anne Braziel, marked DNC 1809003. Take just a moment to look through those.
Page 983 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
This memorandum is undated, and it is the only copy that has been provided to us. Do you recall ever having received this memorandum?
Answer. It does not look familiar.
Question. Are you able to tell me the year, date of the memo?
Answer. I am not.
Question. The first sentence of the memorandum is that Mark Middleton spent some time with me and pledged to help in raising money.
Assuming that that is Anne Braziel he spent some time with, do you recall having any conversations with Anne Braziel about Middleton pledging to help raise money?
Answer. It sounds familiar.
Question. Do you recall whether he ever did provide any assistance in giving you names of potential donors to the DNC?
Answer. Not that I had direct contact on. But Mark, having previously assisted in fund-raising, we were, you know, requesting of him to help—I requested him to help from time to time on some additional efforts. Like when I described earlier, Mr. Arnold brought him in to assist.
Question. Do you recall having conversations with any DNC colleagues about Mr. Middleton providing names for telephone solicitations?
Answer. I don't remember those conversations, no.
Mr. WILSON. I will mark this document Exhibit AS–2 for the record.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–2 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever have any conversations that involved the Sinar Mas delegation or Sinar Mas entity?
Page 984 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know what Sinar Mas is?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know whether Mark Middleton ever raised funds for the DNC or any political party outside of the United States?
Answer. This will help, maybe. I don't recall Mark ever raising money in the last 2 years I worked with him, meaning from when Mr. Arnold brought him. So globally I have no knowledge of him ever raising money.
Question. That does help. I can't take away quite as many as the last time, but that does help.
When did you first meet Charlie Trie?
Answer. Sometime after I rejoined the DNC in 1993. Sometime in 1994. I don't recall the first meeting.
Question. Do you remember who introduced you?
Answer. I don't. I very well may have introduced myself, being that I was the director of the trustee program. Mr. Trie was a member of the program, and I had not met him yet. I may have introduced myself or been introduced by someone. I don't remember the context.
Question. Do you remember when you first solicited a contribution from Mr. Trie?
Answer. I don't recall ever soliciting contributions from Mr. Trie.
Question. I show the witness a document which is marked Bates Number DNC 3078818, and the title is ''DNC Finance Executive Summary.''
Mr. PIERSON. For the record, Counsel, it shows an apparent date in the upper left-hand corner of 12–3–96.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Page 985 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. If you could, explain what the terms ''solicitor'' and ''fund-raiser'' mean in this, in the context of this document?
Answer. One of the areas we filled out in our AS400 sheet for assistance in tracking was a solicitor. If someone made the request of a donor to make a contribution that was in the context of trustee, membership could be allocated by money raised. So this was an area that tracked that.
Fund-raiser was the contact or the individual person who received the check, filled out the form, and submitted it.
Question. Is it fair to say that if you received—if somebody transmitted a check to you and you filled out the tracking form, that you would generally be listed as the fund-raiser for that event?
Answer. For that event?
Question. The event being the filling out of the tracking form for the particular receipt of that check.
Answer. If I filled out a form, I put my name as the fund-raiser.
Question. Do you recall any conversations with Mr. Mays on the contributions given by Mr. Trie in 1994?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Do you know Richard Mays?
Answer. I do.
Question. When did you first meet Mr. Mays?
Answer. I believe I met him during the 1992 campaign cycle.
Question. The entry on this document indicates that—actually it doesn't indicate anything. It states, health care campaign.
Could you provide a little bit of explanation of what the health care campaign entry on this document means?
Page 986 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. PIERSON. Counsel, for the record, it says 1994 health care campaign.
Mr. WILSON. Correct.
The WITNESS. We had different efforts constantly going for raising money. It could be a gala event that was upcoming, it would be, as this indicates, the health care campaign effort. If it was a topical effort at the time and the contribution wasn't made in direct correlation to an event, they would attribute it to the issue that we were raising money for at that time.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Who would make the decision to allocate it to one area or another area?
Answer. It tended to be made either by the fund-raiser or the finance director.
Question. Do you recall in this example why the money contributed by Mr. Trie was allocated to the health care campaign in 1994?
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. Do you recall whether all funds that you received that were not designated to go to a particular source were allocated to the health care campaign in 1994?
Mr. PIERSON. Could you repeat the question again? I am sorry, I think there was a double part. Could you ask it again, please?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Sure. Was all money that was not allocated to a certain—was not designated by the contributor to go to a certain account allocated to the health care campaign in 1994?
Page 987 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't know. I don't know that it was or was not.
Question. Do you recall the dates that contributions were accepted for the 1994 health care campaign account? Maybe instead of just being quite so obtuse, if you could just explain what the 1994 health care campaign was. Was that literally a separate account into which money would go?
Answer. I don't believe it was a separate account. I believe it was separate internal accounting, but I believe all the contributions were to the Democratic National Committee campaign—I mean Democratic National Committee bank accounts. I don't think there were separate accounts. I think internally, just for our accounting, we had separate designations.
Question. Is it fair to say the money wasn't segregated into one particular place? The check would be deposited into a general account?
Answer. That would be my understanding of it.
Question. Do you recall whether there ever were any separate designated accounts into which checks were deposited? And I am asking for at any time during your working at the DNC.
Answer. My knowledge of accounts were there was a DNC Federal account, DNC non-Federal account, corporate account, there may have been a PAC non-Federal account. But those are the different accounts I recall.
Question. Do you recall any specific issue accounts, for example, health care campaign or media fund purchases or anything?
Mr. PIERSON. You are talking about bank accounts or internal accounts?
Mr. WILSON. I am talking about bank accounts.
The WITNESS. As I stated earlier, my knowledge of accounts is what I laid out. This designation is not referring to a separate bank account, I don't think. My knowledge of seeing this is it was a separate internal account within the finance department for internal tracking. That would be my understanding of reading it today.
Page 988 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. On this format, the end of the lines, indicating contributions to the health care campaign, there are what appear to be codes. One is F–01 and the other is N–03. Do you know what those mean?
Answer. I don't know for certain, but my understanding would be that these were probably personal, as it says in the top right corner, individual contributions. So there is a $20,000 limit that an individual can give to a party in a year. So that was probably, then the ''F'' would mean the Federal account, and then the remaining money would be designated, I assume, non-Federal and would be put into a non-Federal account. That would be my read of it.
Question. Do you know what the numerals mean after the letters?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know whether there was a system for providing codes of this sort with a meaning?
Answer. I know that you needed to designate Federal from non-Federal money. Other than that, I am not familiar with how accounting is done.
Question. Is this a number that you would have entered on the check tracking form?
Answer. No. It may have been required to enter in certain cases if it was a Federal or non-Federal contribution, but I never made these designations.
Mr. WILSON. I will mark this document Exhibit AS–3 for the record.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–3 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. What was the health care campaign?
Answer. As you may recall, the President had an initiative to reform health care. Internally, we thought that we may be able to, for lack of a better word, like spice up our fund-raising if we talked about a certain initiative that was going on that the committee was supporting. So the campaign fund then became sort of a reaction to that.
Page 989 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. If we could go off the record for just a moment.
[Brief Recess.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Back on the record.
I will show the witness a document which is marked DNC 3078820. The heading is DNC Finance Executive Summary, date 12–3–96.
Have you ever met Mr. Trie's wife, Mrs. Wang Mei Trie?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Again, you are listed on this document as the fund-raiser for a contribution of $20,000 from Mrs. Trie. Did you have any contacts with her about this contribution?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you know who the solicitor of this contribution was?
Answer. It is not listed here, and I don't recall the contribution or the transaction of it.
Mr. WILSON. I will mark this document Exhibit AS–4.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–4 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you attend the June 22nd, 1994, Presidential gala, DNC gala?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Did you contact Mr. Trie regarding a $100,000 contribution that he gave to the DNC in May of 1994?
Answer. I don't recall that contact, no.
Page 990 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you recall discussing Mr. Trie's attendance at the 1994 gala?
Answer. No, I don't. Discussing——
Question. With Mr. Trie.
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. Do you recall having discussions with any of your colleagues about Mr. Trie's attendance at the gala in 1994?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Were you ever asked to provide a recommendation for Mr. Trie for an apartment that he was attempting to be the renter of at the Watergate?
Answer. I did not. I don't recall that. It doesn't sound familiar.
Question. Did you know that David Mercer and Susan Levine had been asked to provide a recommendation for Mr. Trie?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever attend any events at Mr. Trie's apartment in the Watergate?
Answer. Never.
Question. Did you ever speak with Martha Shoffner regarding Mr. Trie's move to Washington?
Answer. I am not familiar with that individual.
Question. Have you ever met Martha Shoffner?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you recall having any contacts with Mr. Trie in relation to the August 1994 Presidential birthday fund-raiser?
Answer. No, I do not.
Page 991 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. I would like to provide a document for the witness. It is marked DNC 1275756. It is a memorandum to Martha Shoffner from David Mercer. It does not have the witness' name on it. I would ask you to just take a moment to look through the content of this memo.
The memo discusses a meeting between Mr. Mercer and Mr. Trie in 1994. Did you attend this meeting?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you ever attend any meetings with Mr. Trie in the accompaniment of Mr. Mercer?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. The memo refers to a number of events or subjects, and I just want to very quickly ask you a few questions about some of the referenced issues.
In the first paragraph, there is a reference to a meeting before Mr. Trie left for Beijing. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Trie any travels that he took?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Were you aware in 1994 that Mr. Trie was planning to travel to Beijing?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. And the fourth paragraph of this memorandum discusses a request for a letter inviting Mr. Trie to serve on the finance board. Were you ever a participant in any discussions about Mr. Trie becoming a member of the finance board at the DNC?
Answer. I was in discussions on the finance board as it relates to Mr. Trie. Individually, I don't have a specific recollection of specific conversations regarding it.
Question. Who was in charge of determining who would be on the finance board of directors?
Page 992 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. It was a collective effort of DNC staff.
Question. And who were the staff?
Answer. It would be Ms. Hardigan, Richard Sullivan, David Mercer, Erica Payne, Peter O'Keefe. Any of the fund-raising staff, up to 20 individuals.
Question. Were you involved in that process?
Answer. Yes, I was.
Question. Were there any prerequisites for becoming a member of the finance board of directors?
Answer. There weren't prerequisites, but we were going to ask members to see if they could raise above the limit—not limit, above the threshold for the trustee program; we were going to ask them to raise I believe it was $350,000 in a year.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Trie made a request to be put on the finance board of directors?
Answer. I don't recall that. It was not made to me, but there was a request made.
Question. The fifth paragraph of this memorandum discusses a mission to China, and it refers to a Commerce Department mission to China which was to commence on August 27th, 1994.
Did you have any discussions with Mr. Trie about his participating in this Commerce Department mission to China?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you know at the time that there was going to be a Commerce Department mission to China?
Answer. I know there has been one. I don't recall when I became aware of it.
Page 993 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you recall any conversations or discussions about this particular Commerce Department mission to China?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. Do you recall whether you made any telephone conversations on behalf of Mr. Trie about this trade mission to China?
Answer. Not that I——
Mr. PIERSON. Made or had?
Mr. WILSON. Made.
Mr. PIERSON. Telephone calls on behalf of Mr. Trie?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
The WITNESS. Not that I recall, no.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Were you involved in any conversations by telephone or in person during which Mr. Trie's interest in any type of trade mission or foreign trip with American governmental employees was discussed?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever discuss Mr. Trie's financial contributions with anybody at the White House?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Mr. WILSON. Just to back up for a moment, I will mark the document we are discussing, Exhibit AS–5, for inclusion in the record.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–5 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Have you ever met an individual named Ng Lap Seng, also known as Mr. Wu?
Page 994 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Have you ever had any telephone conversations with Mr. Ng Lap Seng?
Answer. No, I have not.
Question. Do you recall whether Mr. Trie was ever invited to become a member of the finance board of directors?
Answer. I believe he was. My recollection is he was.
Question. Do you know an individual named Ernest Green?
Answer. I do.
Question. When did you meet him first?
Answer. I believe I met him upon my return to the DNC, subsequent to that, sometime in 1994.
Question. Do you know Jude Kearney?
Answer. I am sorry?
Question. Do you know Jude Kearney, K-E-A-R-N-E-Y?
Answer. I know him, yes.
Question. Have you met Mr. Kearney in person?
Answer. Yes, I have.
Question. And where have you met him?
Answer. In the '92 cycle, as I stated earlier, I was a fund-raiser in the mid-Atlantic region. At that time Mr. Kearney was based in D.C., and I believe I met him in events and he assisted in some fund-raising efforts.
Question. Did Mr. Kearney, after you first met him in, I believe you said 1992, did he obtain a job with the government in Washington?
Answer. That is my recollection, that he did.
Page 995 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you know where he was working after 1992?
Answer. I believe it was either the Commerce Department or at the Treasury Department.
Question. Did you attend a breakfast with Mr. Green, Mr. Kearney, Mr. Trie, and Mr. Ng Lap Seng in October of 1994 at the Hay-Adams Hotel?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Do you know Allen Weinstein?
Answer. The name is not familiar.
Mr. Lu. Was that Allen or Ellen?
Mr. WILSON. Allen.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know Nancy Jacobson?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. Who is Ms. Jacobson?
Answer. She was my supervisor in 1992 when I worked on the Clinton campaign. She was again the finance director of the Inaugural Committee when I served as the deputy finance committee. We stayed friendly while I lived in Washington, but I have not spoken to her since approximately 6 months or longer.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know where she works?
Answer. My last knowledge of her employment was that she was employed individually, working for herself on a contract basis.
Question. Does she have a connection with an organization called Center for Democracy?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of. Not that I know of.
Page 996 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you know of an organization called Center for Democracy?
Answer. It's a familiar name, yes.
Question. Do you know what it does?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Have you ever discussed the activities of Center for Democracy with Mr. Trie?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Mr. PIERSON. Have you ever discussed contributions that Mr. Trie might or—might have made or might have been considering making to the Center for Democracy?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you participate in setting up a meeting between Mr. Trie, Winston Bank and Chairman Fowler in 1995?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever participate in any discussions with Mr. Trie about setting up a chapter of an organization called Democrats Abroad in Taiwan?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you know of an organization called Democrats Abroad, based in Taiwan?
Answer. I know of an organization called Democrats Abroad, but not one based in Taiwan, no.
Question. What is Democrats Abroad?
Answer. Just that. It's registered Democrats who are abroad for work in countries throughout the world.
Page 997 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Is it an organization that's independent of the DNC?
Answer. That's my understanding, yes.
Question. Did you assist with organizing a fund-raiser in November of 1995 at the Car Barn in Washington, D.C.?
Answer. What was it?
Mr. PIERSON. November of 1995. November 8, 1995.
The WITNESS. Not that I recall.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. Trie about an individual named Wang Jun, W A-N-G, J-U-N, attending a Presidential coffee?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Have you ever had—have you ever met a Wang Jun?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Have you had any conversations with him?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Do you know who he is?
Answer. I don't.
Question. How many times do you recall being contacted by Mr. Trie or one of his representatives in 1995 and 1996?
Answer. I don't recall one contact.
Question. You don't recall any contacts at all?
Answer. That's correct, I don't recall any.
Question. Have you ever met an individual named Antonio Pan?
Answer. Not that I recall, no, the name is not familiar.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Trie was ever invited to use the President's box at the Kennedy Center?
Page 998 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Not that I know.
Question. Just generally speaking, was Mr. Trie considered a member of the Trustee Program?
Answer. Yes. The time I was there, he was.
Question. And covering the entire time you were employed by the DNC, do you recollect, and this is personally, any interaction with Mr. Trie at all?
Answer. I saw Mr. Trie at some of our events. I think that was the limit of our interaction. He may have stopped by the DNC—he did stop by the DNC a few times where I would say hello, chat with him for a few minutes. But I was primarily not a major contact of his at the DNC, so I didn't have many conversations with him.
Question. Who did Mr. Trie contact at the DNC?
Answer. My recollection is that the majority of his contacts were, I believe, with Mr. Mercer.
Question. Do you know whether he had contacts with Mr. John Huang?
Answer. Whether who did?
Question. Mr. Trie.
Answer. I have no knowledge if he had contacts or not.
Question. Do you know of any situations in which Mr. Trie contacted any members of your staff?
Answer. Meaning Ms. Braziel, Ms. Burke?
Question. Correct.
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Mr. WILSON. I'm providing the witness with a document which is marked F 0015575. It's dated, or at least there is a number at the top, 7–21. It says, ''Notes for Ari.''
Page 999 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. And if you would, there's an arrow pointing to an entry about halfway down the page?
Answer. Uh-huh.
Question. It's an arrow that was on the document as produced to us, and it says, ''Charlie Trie has 4 SP and 2 WH,'' dash, dash, ''is this right? I''—question mark. ''I thought it was 4 total,'' question mark.
Do you know what this means?
Answer. My understanding what this document looks like is—it was regarding the events at the convention. Anne Braziel, myself, Nancy Burke worked in coordinating some of the hotel accommodations for trustees at the convention. Two of the hotels that we worked with were Sutton Place and the Whitehall Hotel in Chicago. So my read of this would be that, as it says, Charlie Trie has four Sutton Place rooms and two Whitehall rooms. Is that right? I thought he only had four rooms. That was her—this looks like a document that would have been put together by Ms. Braziel. She was sort of coordinating the hotel efforts hand on.
Question. Do you recall providing any assistance for Mr. Trie at the convention?
Answer. Not as an individual; provided assistance to trustees collectively. I don't recall specific assistance to Mr. Trie.
Question. Do you know whether he made any requests of you—of you?
Answer. Not that I have knowledge of that I recall, no.
Question. Did he make any requests of any of the people that you were working with at the convention?
Answer. Well, it looked, from this document, it looks like he made hotel requests, which we probably assisted him with. Other requests are not familiar to me.
Page 1000 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. This document is marked Exhibit AS–6.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–6 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did Mr. Trie ever discuss his desire for appointment to a commission or board, a Federal commission or board, with you?
Answer. I don't recall any discussion about this.
Question. Do you know of any conversations in which Mr. Trie's name was brought up in conjunction to possible appointment in a commission or a board?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you know that Mr. Trie was interested in being appointed to a Federal commission or board?
Answer. I think I've learned that information subsequent to the campaign in some of the news accounts of it, but not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever have any discussions about Mr. Trie with the White House Office of Presidential Personnel?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Do you know whether either yourself or any individuals in your office were contacted by the White House Office of Presidential Personnel about Mr. Trie?
Answer. I don't recall any contacts, no.
Question. Do you know of anybody else at the DNC who was contacted about Mr. Trie by the White House Office of Presidential Personnel?
Answer. Not that I recall or have any knowledge of, no.
Question. Do you know of Mr. Trie ever making a contribution to the DNC before 1994? And I'm just asking you, when—I mean, the question really should be, do you recall when Mr. Trie first made a contribution to the DNC?
Page 1001 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. My recollection is that Mr. Trie was a member of the Trustee Program and returned to the DNC. Whether that was through contributions or funds raised, I don't recall.
Question. Have you ever met an individual named Tony Shsu, S-H-S-U?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Have you ever heard of an organization called the Chy Corporation, C-H-Y Corporation?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know Pauline Kanchanalak?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. When did you first meet Ms. Kanchanalak?
Answer. I believe I met her in the '92 campaign, somewhere when I was serving as a fund-raiser in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Question. Do you recall where you met her?
Answer. I don't recall the circumstances of meeting her. I know that she was involved with some of the events in some of the fund-raising we did in the D.C. metro area.
Question. Do you recall whether she was a contributor, a financial contributor, in 1992?
Answer. That would be my, in retrospect, reflection now, my understanding why I would have met her, because she was a contributor.
Question. Did Ms. Kanchanalak or her sister-in-law Mrs. Kronenberg or any of her employees ever contact you or anyone in your office while you were an employee at the DNC?
Answer. The second time or any time?
Page 1002 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Actually, let's—we'll break that down. The first time you were at the DNC, and I'll ask you——
Answer. I believe I had some contacts with her during the time. I don't recall the context of them. But she was an individual who we may have asked her to participate. I can't remember the contacts because I didn't do that year, but I don't know.
Question. And turning to the second stint, your second stint at the DNC, do you recall whether she or her sister-in-law or any of her employees contacted you?
Answer. I did have some contact with Pauline and with Ms. Kronenberg.
Question. And do you remember the context of any of those contacts?
Answer. I remember few. One was a request by Ms. Kanchanalak to attend a luncheon that the White House was hosting with the Queen of Thailand. She wanted to be—she requested me to assist her in being included in that event. I recall discussing with her an upcoming White House event which she was going to receive an invitation to. And I had a—my final contact with her was subsequent to the '96 election. She—we had a discussion about her contributions to the DNC at which time she inferred that they were not her contributions, but her mother-in-law's contributions.
Question. Do you recall whether you ever arranged for Ms. Kanchanalak to meet with administration officials?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Was it ever brought to your attention that Ms. Kanchanalak had an interest in the Bureau of Labor Statistics and becoming somehow involved with the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Answer. I don't recall that at all.
Question. Did you ever organize lunches for any DNC contributors at the White House Mess?
Page 1003 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I was aware that some lunches were attended by donors, but I'm trying to recall when I participated in setting them up, and I don't.
Question. Do you have any recollection of—of Ms. Kanchanalak or Ms. Kronenberg attending a White House Mess luncheon?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Mr. WILSON. I provide the witness with a document which is marked F 0040590. It's a memorandum to Mr. Swiller from Georgie Kronenberg, dated May 11, 1995.
Mr. PIERSON. My I make a suggestion that we mark the exhibit when you first identify the document. That way we will have a number we can refer to.
Mr. WILSON. Certainly. I'll mark this exhibit as AS–7.
Mr. PIERSON. Thank you.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–7 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. The part that I'm particularly interested in is the postscript at the very end of the memoranda which states, ''On a different matter, please let me know the amount to reimburse you for the luncheon at the White House Mess which Susan Lavine has kindly organized for us.''
Mr. PIERSON. Have we established whether or not he's seen this before?
Mr. WILSON. I was just about to ask.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Are you familiar with this document, that exhibit?
Answer. It's not familiar to me. But——
Question. Do you recognize there's a handwritten notation on the—towards the top of the first page that says, ''File,'' and that's underlined?
Page 1004 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. Is that your handwriting?
Answer. It looks like it is, yes.
Question. Do you have any recollection of any discussions about Ms. Kronenberg providing reimbursement for a White House Mess lunch?
Answer. It—it's not familiar, no.
Question. Do you know how—how you would have resolved the request that is made in the postscript? Do you recall passing this along to somebody else's attention?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. Did you ever have any involvement with people's reimbursements for White House mess lunches that you remember?
Answer. No, I don't.
Mr. WILSON. I have a document which is marked Exhibit AS–8, which is provided to the witness. It's a memorandum to the file. It's been premarked F 0018925. It's from Mr. Swiller, and it's regarding a conversation with Ms. Kanchanalak.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–8 was marked for identification.]
Mr. PIERSON. Can I see the last document, please, just for a moment?
Thank you. Sorry.
Mr. WILSON. Sure.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. The memo refers to a telephone conversation that you had with Ms. Kanchanalak on November 14, 1996. Do you know—assuming that the—the information contained is correct, did you, in fact, call Ms. Kanchanalak?
Page 1005 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. My recollection is she called me.
Question. And do you know why she called you?
Answer. Yeah. The context of this memo, she had received some calls about contributions that were being indicated that she had made to the Party. She indicated to a reporter that they were, indeed, not her contributions, but that of her mother-in-law. I guess that became an issue because in our FEC reports or in our internal reporting, it was reflected that the contributions were under Pauline's name and not Praitun's name, which I believe is the name of her mother-in-law. So this was then a conflict which was brought to the attention of our press department, brought to the attention of our counsel, and my conversation clearly states, you know, the context of it—this document states the context of the conversation.
Question. Do you know whether Ms. Kanchanalak called anybody else at the DNC before you to impart the information contained in this memo?
Answer. Not that I have knowledge of, no.
Question. Okay. Do you know whether she had any subsequent conversations with other DNC employees about the issues discussed in this memorandum?
Answer. Not that I know of, no.
Question. Do you know why she called you?
Answer. I believe she had tried to call a few people at the DNC, and some others may not have been available. And I doubt if I was available. And the fact that I had been one of the many contacts of the DNC, she called me as well.
Question. Prior to your telephone conversation on November 14th with Ms. Kanchanalak, were you under the impression that contributions that she had conveyed to you were made by her?
Answer. That was very clearly my understanding, yes, that the contributions she made were her contributions.
Page 1006 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Had she ever told you that the contributions were made by her?
Answer. I don't recall that as a topic of discussion in specific, no.
Question. Did Ms. Kanchanalak, during the discussion on November 14, make any reference to Ms. Kronenberg's contributions and the source of Ms. Kronenberg's contributions?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Do you know whether the memo that we're reviewing now embodies all of the things that Ms. Kanchanalak and you discussed, or were there other matters that you discussed during the telephone conversation?
Answer. No, I believe this covers—the memorandum pretty well covers the conversation, yes.
Question. Did you ever, subsequent to your telephone conversation with Ms. Kanchanalak on November 14, '96, did you review her past contributions to the DNC?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you prepare a memorandum or any written work product that came from that review?
Answer. I don't recall written work product, no.
Question. Did you discuss this conversation with anybody else at the DNC?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And who did you talk with at the DNC about your November 14 conversation?
Mr. PIERSON. Counsel, the DNC is not represented here. You may be inquiring into frivolous conversations, and the privilege may be waived, but we're in a position where, if this—if you're asking about conversations with counsel for the DNC, I'm going to have to instruct the witness that he's going to have to decline to describe the content in order to reserve the privilege. It's not ours, but it's also not ours to waive.
Page 1007 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. I understand.
Mr. PIERSON. So any conversations you had with any lawyer for the DNC about this subject, you can describe who you talked to and that this was the subject, but beyond that, we'll assert the privilege.
Okay. Can you answer the question?
The WITNESS. I had a conversation with the counsel.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. And the counsel is?
Answer. Joseph Sandler.
Question. Did you have any conversations with anybody else at the DNC about your conversation with Ms. Kanchanalak?
Answer. As I recall, I had conversation with Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Supina, S-U-P-I-N-A.
Question. In your conversations with Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Supina, did they indicate to you whether they were under the expression that Ms. Kanchanalak was making the contributions personally?
Answer. Yes, they were under the same impression I was, that her contributions were made personally.
Question. Now, subsequent to the conversation, you indicated that you did check into Ms. Kanchanalak's previous contribution history. Did you accumulate any materials at this time?
Answer. I recall reviewing some of the past check tracking forms that were attached to contributions she had made, yes.
Question. Did you create a file and put the information into a—into an individual file?
Page 1008 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't recall the creation of a file. I recall reviewing the documents.
Question. The document we're reviewing now is—has a title which is ''Memorandum to the File.'' Do you recall where it—where you put this document after you had drafted it?
Answer. I—my recollection is that I submitted it to our legal counsel.
Question. Did you keep a copy of this document for your own files?
Answer. I believe I may have, yes, as I said earlier, and it would have been in the files under ''trustee donor,'' so I probably put it in the Kanchanalak file.
Question. Did you provide a copy of this document to anybody else at the DNC, apart from Mr. Sandler?
Answer. I may have—as I recall, I reviewed the document with Mr. Sullivan, but I don't recall providing him an individual copy.
Question. Did you transmit this document to anybody outside of the DNC, give it to anybody outside of the DNC?
Mr. PIERSON. Other than counsel?
The WITNESS. No.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. When you looked back over Ms. Kanchanalak's previous contribution history, did you come across any indication of the material that she communicated to you during your conversation on November 14th, any indication that she had communicated to anybody that she would not be making the contributions in her own name?
Answer. No, I did not.
Page 1009 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. When—when Ms. Kanchanalak mentioned to you that she had made an arrangement with Mr. Riser during——
Mr. PIERSON. Raiser.
Mr. WILSON. Raiser. Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question [continuing]. During the 1992 campaign, did she tell you whether this was communicated to anybody else at the time?
Answer. My recollection is that she indicated it was just a discussion between the two of them, and that was the limit of the communication.
Question. And do you know what position Mr. Raiser had in 1992?
Answer. Mr. Raiser was one of the two finance cochair's for the Clinton for President campaign. He was based in Washington, D.C.
Question. Now, you've indicated that you had discussions with Mr. Sandler about your telephone conversation from November 14th. What did you tell Mr. Sandler?
Mr. PIERSON. We have to assert the privilege. And it's—it's only because we're preserving it for the DNC. It's not our privilege to waive.
Mr. WILSON. So it's fair to assume that anything related to the context of Mr. Sandler will be covered by—you will assert privilege over it at this time?
Mr. PIERSON. Yes, on this topic.
Mr. WILSON. Sure.
Mr. PIERSON. And I should tell you that there are circumstances on the Senate side in which the DNC has waived the attorney/client privilege, but since I don't know what those are, and I don't know what the attitude towards the House side is——
Mr. WILSON. Right.
Mr. PIERSON.—I just have to preserve the privilege.
Page 1010 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. Certainly.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Have you had any subsequent conversations or conversations subsequent to November 14 of 1996 with Ms. Kanchanalak?
Answer. No, I have not.
Question. Do you know where she called from? The memo says Thailand, but do you know where in Thailand she called from?
Answer. No I don't.
Question. Did she indicate to you whether she intended to return to the United States at any time?
Answer. I don't recall that being part of the discussion.
Question. Did she discuss with you why she was in Thailand?
Answer. I don't recall that either.
Question. After the November 14 conversation, did you communicate the contents of the telephone conversation to Ernst & Young, the accounting firm conducting the background review of campaign contributions?
Answer. As I stated earlier, I don't recall having any contact whatsoever with any member of Ernst & Young.
Question. Do you know whether anybody else at the DNC communicated the contents of your telephone conversation with Ms. Kanchanalak to Ernst & Young?
Answer. Not that I have knowledge of.
Question. Did you discuss with Mr. Sullivan or Ms. Supina whether anybody should communicate the contents of your telephone conversation with Ms. Kanchanalak to Ernst & Young?
Answer. That was never part of a discussion as I recall.
Page 1011 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. PIERSON. Can I have just 2 minutes to talk to Minority counsel just outside in the hallway? It will take 2 minutes.
Mr. WILSON. Yes, if we can go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
[Brief recess.]
Mr. WILSON. Back on the record, please.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know John Huang?
Answer. Yes.
Question. When did you first meet Mr. Huang?
Answer. I believe I first met Mr. Huang during the 1992/93 Inaugural Committee, my service there.
Question. When did you first hear about Mr. Huang?
Answer. Probably prior to that, part of my responsibility is we're coordinating lists of the top fund-raisers and contributors for—across the country, for the finance department of the Inaugural Committee. I believe that's when I probably first ran across the name.
Question. Did you ever have any contacts with Mr. Huang while he was employed by LippoBank in California?
Answer. Not that I recall, no. Let me restate. I believe that my contacts with him during the Inaugural, my understanding is that he may still at that time have been an employee of the bank.
Question. Were—were those social contacts, or did you have any fund-raising contacts with him?
Answer. He assisted in a contribution that I believe came from the LippoBank or from him for part of the events going on during the Inaugural Committee, so—as far as fund-raising, that was the context of it.
Page 1012 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you speak with anybody regarding Mr. Huang's appointment to the—his position at the Commerce Department?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you have any contacts with Mr. Huang while he was at the Commerce Department?
Answer. I don't recall the specific conversations, but I believe I did have a contact with him.
Question. Did he contact you this period?
Answer. I believe I made the initial outreach to Mr. Huang in the context of my returning to the DNC in '93, '94.
Question. And if you could describe in more detail the reason for your contacting him?
Answer. Mr.—My—there are two contacts. My recollection is that Mr. Huang had been a fund-raiser for the '92 campaign effort. I called him, I believe, to secure from him any names that I may then reach out to in the context of my position at the DNC, and also his wife was a contributor to the party at that time, but lived in California. So I may have made contacts to him in reference to his wife's participation with the party.
Question. Did you—have you ever communicated directly with Mr. Huang's wife?
Answer. I have met her. I've talked to her.
Question. Where have you met her?
Answer. I met her at functions in Washington, galas.
Question. Did you ever seek Mr. Huang's assistance in setting up meetings while he was at the Department of Commerce?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Page 1013 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you ever contact Mr. Huang about arranging for individuals' participation in trade missions while he was at the Department of Commerce?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. How did Mr. Huang come to be hired as a fund-raiser at the DNC?
Answer. I only know what I've learned in the last few months. I don't—didn't know the context then. So if you want me to reflect upon what I——
Question. If you would. What do you know now about Mr. Huang's coming to be hired as a fund-raiser at the DNC?
Mr. Lu. And you want his recollection even if it's from news accounts?
Mr. WILSON. Well, I would like to know what he knows now, yeah.
Mr. Lu. Okay.
The WITNESS. As I said, my recollection is what I've heard in the news, that Mr. Huang was brought to the attention of Mr. Sullivan by I believe it was Mr. Ickes or someone else that he was someone interested in assisting in fund-raising.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Were you aware of—of Mr. Huang meeting with individuals at the DNC just prior to his being hired at the DNC as a fund-raiser?
Answer. No. I—not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever see him over at the DNC prior to his being offered the position as a fund-raiser of the DNC?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did Mr. Huang ever visit you at the DNC?
Answer. Prior——
Question. Prior to his becoming a member of the fund-raising staff?
Page 1014 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you ever visit Mr. Huang at the Department of Commerce?
Answer. No I did not.
Question. Did Mr. Huang ever speak with you about his becoming a member of the fund-raising staff at the DNC prior to his becoming a member of the fund-raising staff?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. When Mr. Huang was hired by the DNC, did you ever have discussions with him about fund-raising staff training?
Answer. He and I individually?
Question. Yes.
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. Huang about the law as it applies to fund-raising in political campaigns?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you know whether he was given instructions on the law as it pertains to fund-raising and political campaigns?
Answer. I don't recall his specific tutoring of those laws. We, on a—maybe once a year, as a finance staff got together and briefed in a group. But I don't know of John receiving any specific individual instruction on the law.
Question. Do you recall ever—do you recall ever attending any seminars or instructional meetings about the law and campaign financing with Mr. Huang?
Answer. I don't recall if Mr. Huang was at any of them. My recollection would be that he would be, because the whole staff was invited to them. But Mr. Huang traveled a bit, so I don't know if he was at the ones which I attended.
Page 1015 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did Mr. Huang ever seek your advice or counsel on any campaign contributions that he was soliciting?
Answer. No, he did not.
Question. Did he—did he ever discuss with you—did he ever discuss with you your fund-raising activities?
Answer. Not that I recall, no. He—but—I was being the director of the Trustee Program, he may have had individuals who he solicited contributions that made them trustees, then he would then provide myself with those names. That would sort of be the context.
Question. Aside from the transmission of the name and the check and basic information about the contributor, did you have any discussions with Mr. Huang about any individuals who were being solicited for campaign contributions?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Do you remember whether he ever sat down with you and had a conversation about what he was doing as a fund-raiser at the DNC?
Answer. I don't recall it.
Question. Do you recall whether you called him and asked him things about—how his job was going or what he was doing as fund-raiser for the DNC?
Answer. I don't recall that type of conversation.
Question. Is it—is it fair to characterize, then, your recollection is not having any contacts with Mr. Huang at all on any substantive issues while he was employed at the DNC?
Answer. We had social contacts, but substantive, that's correct.
Question. Do you know anything about Mr. Huang's compensation at the DNC?
Answer. Only what I've read subsequent to the campaign in the news.
Page 1016 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Prior to November of 1996, did you know anything about Mr. Huang's compensation?
Answer. I remember knowing that he was a compensated employee and wasn't in the position as a volunteer, but I didn't know the sum that he was being compensated.
Question. Did you know—did you know whether there was an agreement to supplement his compensation, depending on how much—how many contributions he raised?
Answer. I had no knowledge of that. If I had, I would have asked for it for myself.
Question. Were you ever involved with Mr. Huang in setting up fund-raising events?
Answer. The only context I can think of was when we worked—when the finance staff as a team worked on the large gala. He and I directly on one specific event, no, there was never an occasion with just the one of us.
Question. And that was the 1996 gala that you're referring to?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Were you aware of any controversy within the DNC regarding Mr. Huang's being involved in setting up events that included the President?
Answer. Not prior to November of '96.
Question. Did any of your DNC colleagues have discussions with you about Mr. Huang's job performance while he was a fund-raiser at the DNC?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you ever have any communications with White House employees during which you discussed Mr. Huang's performance as a DNC fund-raiser?
Answer. No, I don't recall any.
Page 1017 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you have any conversations with any employees of other executive branch agencies during which you discussed Mr. Huang's fund-raising responsibilities?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Did Mr. Huang ever request you to provide him with lists of contacts in order for him to approach people to solicit donations?
Answer. I believe it—we may have discussed a list of California contributors, but I don't recall him requesting contacts from me to provide them.
Question. Did you ever provide him with any information?
Answer. I believe we had a discussion on who were active trustee participants from California, since he had participated in that region.
Question. Did you send him anything written following this discussion?
Answer. I may have provided him a copy of the State lists for California of trustees.
Question. Did Mr. Huang specifically request information about California?
Answer. I can recall that being a—a discussion in the context that he had been active in California fund-raising prior.
Question. Did you ever send Mr. Huang a list of all of the trustees or managing trustees at any time when he was a fund-raiser at the DNC?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Do you know whether he ever requested such a list?
Answer. I have no recollection of such request.
Question. Did—are you aware of any contacts between Mr. Huang and any of the individuals that you have named as being part of your office staff?
Page 1018 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No, I'm not aware of contacts.
Question. Did Mr. Huang ever share any information with you? Did he ever provide you with a list of individuals or names?
Answer. I don't recall ever getting names from him.
Question. Do you recall ever receiving any information from Mr. Huang?
Answer. As I mentioned earlier, in the context of being a trustee director and providing people that made the requisite contribution, that was the context, I believe, the information he provided me.
Question. Did he ever provide anything other than a check and a check tracking form, if indeed he provided you that? I mean, did you receive checks and check tracking forms from Mr. Huang?
Answer. No. I never received checks from Mr. Huang. I don't remember the format he used to provide the names and addresses. They may have been photocopies of check tracking forms, or he may have typed out a list, but I don't recall.
Question. Now, why would Mr. Huang have occasion to provide any information to you?
Answer. All fund-raisers provided the trustee department with information of, you know, as I stated earlier, people who had raised the requisite amount of money or contributed, so that they were correctly listed, properly listed on our trustee list. So in that context, he would have had provided that information.
Question. Did he send you the check tracking forms of all of the people that he solicited contributions from?
Answer. No, he did not.
Question. Did he—did he send you check tracking forms from a number of individuals from whom he solicited contributions?
Page 1019 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. As I stated earlier, I don't recall how he provided the information for the trustee lists, whether it was photocopies of tracking forms or if it was a typed list. People provided that information to my department both ways. Some just gave us an additional photocopy, others would do a more thorough-type list, and I don't remember how John, Mr. Huang provided that information.
Question. Do you recall whether he ever provided for you additional biographical information on any individuals?
Answer. I don't recall that.
Question. Did you ever participate in any discussions with DNC colleagues about whether Mr. Huang was providing information sufficient to provide the FEC with the required information on campaign donors?
Answer. I don't recall such discussion. I don't recall.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Huang traveled out of the United States while he was employed as a fund-raiser at the DNC?
Answer. I have since read about that since the November election, but prior to that I did not know that.
Question. Do you recall any discussion about Mr. Huang traveling prior to—and this—this I'm asking for your recollection. Prior to November 1996, do you recall any discussions relating to Mr. Huang and his travel schedule?
Answer. No, I don't recall any.
Question. Do you know who would have approved Mr. Huang's travel requests?
Mr. PIERSON. Any travel requests?
Mr. WILSON. Correct.
The WITNESS. No, I—in the context of how I would do it, it would be the finance chairman or the finance director. I don't know if it was the same for John, but I—I don't know how he had his travel approved.
Page 1020 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. And does your answer indicate that that's the process that you would follow——
Answer. Un-huh.
Question [continuing]. When you were seeking——
Answer. Correct.
Question [continuing]. Travel approval?
Answer. Correct. The process I assume most finance staff proceeded with.
Question. What did you have to do to obtain approval for travel?
Answer. Generally, you didn't have to obtain it, you were told that you were going somewhere, so you needed to just fill out a form that was then submitted to the person who had purchased the tickets with your times and dates of departure.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Huang ever solicited contributions—strike that question, please. was there a system at the DNC to keep track of how much individual fund-raisers raised?
Answer. I don't know if there was a system set up for that, but you could run that, my understanding, through the AS400. And as we looked at documents earlier, where it said ''fund-raiser,'' you could, I believe, sort by that field and get a list run of who was involved in raising what funds.
Question. Do you recall ever seeing a list of the aggregate contributions raised by Mr. Huang?
Answer. No, I don't recall ever seeing that.
Question. Did you ever print up for yourself a list of the aggregate contributions for which you were named as the fund-raiser?
Page 1021 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I would have to request that, because I wasn't familiar with running the lists on the AS400 system.
Question. Did you ever request that for yourself? And I'm speaking about for yourself as the fund-raiser, not Mr. Huang at all. But did you ever request that you run a list of all of the contributions that you were listed as the fund-raiser of?
Answer. I never requested it. I recall seeing one, but it was not at my request.
Question. Where did you see the one that you recall seeing?
Answer. I believe Ms. Stirk may have had a copy of it.
Question. Do you know if she—why she would have had a copy of it such a list?
Answer. I don't recall. No.
Question. Do you know whether spreadsheets indicating aggregate contributions produced by individual fund-raisers were printed up for everybody?
Answer. I have no knowledge of that.
Question. The printout that you just mentioned with aggregate contributions wherein you were listed as the fund-raiser, did that include all of the years for your employment as a fund-raiser at the DNC?
Answer. I believe it was—as I recall, it was in—sometime in '95, so it included the year and a half prior to it.
Question. Did anybody at the DNC ever tell you that Mr. Huang might be accepting contributions from non-U.S. citizens?
Answer. No. I don't recall ever having such a discussion.
Question. Did anybody from outside the DNC ever tell you that Mr. Huang might be accepting contributions from non-U.S. citizens?
Page 1022 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Do you recall any discussions during which it was suggested that Mr. Huang might be accepting contributions from non-U.S. citizens?
Answer. No. I don't recall it.
Question. Do you recall when you last had personal contact with Mr. Huang?
Answer. I believe it was sometime during the summer of '96.
Question. Did you ever visit him in his offices when he was a DNC fund-raiser?
Answer. As I recall, he did not have an office. It was sort of in a cubicle area. And I may have visited him and seen other people or—but I don't recall him having a physical office space.
Question. Where was the cubicle located?
Answer. My recollection is it's in the basement level of the DNC.
Question. And where was your office?
Answer. On the third floor.
Question. And the cubicle that Mr. Huang used, what office was it attached to? Or who was—who had the other cubicles around that cubicle?
Answer. The—what we call like the road staff, the road fund-raisers, people who travel in and out from events around the country. There was an area where they had a desk for a little while while they were in town .
Question. Were you aware if Mr. Huang had an office at another location in Washington?
Answer. I was not aware of that.
Question. Do you know if anybody at the DNC has been in contact with Mr. Huang subsequent to November of 1996?
Page 1023 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't know of any contacts.
Question. Have you had any contacts with Mr. Huang since November of 1996?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. Huang as to why he left the Department of Commerce?
Answer. I don't recall such a discussion.
Question. Did you ever express any concern to either Mr. Huang or DNC colleagues about a fund-raiser at the Sheraton Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C., that Mr. Huang was an organizer of?
Answer. I don't recall the event.
Question. Did you know of the event at the time?
Answer. It does not sound familiar.
Question. Were you aware of Mr. Huang's participation in organizing a fund-raiser at the Shilla temple in California? Were you aware prior to 19—to November of 1996 about this particular fund-raising event?
Answer. I was not.
Mr. WILSON. I've provided the witness with a document which has been marked exhibit AS–9. It was premarked with a Bates number that was cut off in the copying process, not cut off by us, but cut off by the people that copied it before it was transmitted to us. Its Bates Number begins DNC 312837, and then the other numbers are obscure. It's titled ''DNC Finance Executive Summary,'' and there's a handwritten notation on the bottom.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–9 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recognize the handwriting on this?
Page 1024 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I do.
Question. You do.
Answer. Uh-huh.
Question. And whose handwriting is that?
Answer. To me it looks like the handwriting of mat Gobush Matt Gobush.
Question. And who is Mr. Gobush?
Answer. He had served at some—for some time as the staff assistant for the trustee program.
Question. What is the TRULIST?
Answer. It would it would be trustee list. My recollection would be an abbreviation for trustee list.
Question. And do you know why this notation has been written on this document?
Answer. No, I don't recall.
Question. Was—was Mr. Huang a member of the Trustee Program prior to his going to the Department of Commerce?
Answer. My recollection was that he was on the trustee list when I returned to the DNC in November of—in December of '93.
Question. And do you recall whether his name was taken off the trustee list?
Answer. I recall that he may have—in looking at this, he may have lapsed as a trustee, because he did not maintain the level of contribution or fund-raising necessary to be a trustee. So, you know, it would lead me to think that this was then—he was then deleted from the trustee list, because he was no longer an active participant at the requisite level.
Page 1025 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you know if anybody contacted him to attempt to obtain from him requisite contributions to get him back on the trustee roster?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. When—when Mr. Huang was an employee of the DNC, were you aware of whether he had any relationship with Charlie Trie?
Answer. I did not know if they had or did not have a relationship.
Question. Do you know whether they ever had worked together on a fund-raising issues?
Answer. Not that I'm—not that I have specific knowledge of, no.
Question. Did Mr. Trie in any of his conversations with you ever mention Mr. Huang to you?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did Mr. Huang in any conversations with you mention Mr. Trie?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. I would like to go off the record if we could.
[Discussion off the record.]
[Lunch recess, 1:00 p.m.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. If we could go back on the record, please.
Have you ever met Johnny Chung?
Answer. I have.
Question. And where have you met Mr. Chung?
Answer. I met him at a few events we did while I was at the DNC, and I also met him when he came to the DNC. I visited with him there. I also paid a visit to his office in California.
Page 1026 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. When did you visit his office in California?
Answer. It was while I was working on an event in California in spring, I think either late March-April of 1995.
Question. And why did you visit his office?
Answer. I was responsible for a fund-raiser that we were working on in California, in Los Angeles, so I was contacting all of the trustees who had been supportive in the past, trying to get their support for that event, or to identify other individuals who may also want to be supportive.
So in that context, I contacted all the trustees on the list, and Johnny was one of many who I visited with.
Question. What was the fund-raiser that you were working on?
Answer. We did a high dollar couples events at the home of Steven Spielberg that the President attended. The contributions were made to the DNC for those who attended.
Question. And when you visited Mr. Chung, what did you discuss at his office?
Answer. I remember discussing a few things. I remember he had an office that had pictures of Mr. Chung and every elected official I think since Lincoln on the walls, Republican and Democrat, and I mean we discussed the fund-raiser. I remember he was bringing additional couples and I told him that that would require additional contributions for the event.
Question. Do you recall how much Mr. Chung contributed to that event?
Answer. My recollection is he made one individual check contribution of $125,000.
Question. And how many individuals did he take as guests to that fund-raiser?
Page 1027 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I believe total there were three couples, he and his wife included.
Question. When you visited him at his office, was it a few days before the fund-raiser you are speaking of, or was it well in advance of the fund-raiser you are speaking of?
Answer. I was only in California about two weeks prior to the event, and it was in that time frame, so in the two weeks prior.
Question. Did Mr. Chung ever visit you in your office at the DNC?
Answer. Yes, he did.
Question. And approximately how many occasions did Mr. Chung visit you in your office?
Answer. We had—no visits were necessarily scheduled for me. He would come to the DNC on occasion by himself or with a few individuals and would stop by. So I would say maybe three or four times that he stopped by my office to say hello while he was visiting the DNC.
Question. On these occasions, did he ever bring other individuals with him?
Answer. On a couple I recall he did.
Question. Who did he bring with him on the visits he made to your office?
Answer. I remember him—I don't remember the individuals, but I remember him identifying them as being partners of his or business associates.
Question. And did he discuss what their businesses were?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Do you have any general recollection of what the individuals that came with him to your office did for a living?
Page 1028 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't.
Question. Approximately how many contributions—actually, if you could, just describe the various contributions that you solicited from Mr. Chung?
Answer. I don't recall other contributions that I solicited directly from him. That was the major contribution that I was involved with. There are other people who worked with Mr. Chung. I am trying to think—I don't remember dates and other contributions, that is one that sticks out, the one I described earlier.
Question. Who else at the DNC worked with Mr. Chung?
Answer. Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Fowler, Mr. Fowler's executive assistant, Carol Khare. Those were the primary contacts.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Chung ever contacted members of the staff in your office?
Answer. No, I believe he dealt with me in my department.
Question. Did you keep a trustee file for Mr. Chung?
Answer. I am sure it was included with the other members of the trustees, yes.
Question. Do you recall the contents of this file?
Answer. I assume like other files, it would have, as I discussed earlier, copies of checks, tracking forms, a bio. If we sent letters or correspondence to him, we may have kept a record of those.
Question. Do you recall whether you kept any photographs of Mr. Chung with other dignitaries?
Answer. I don't recall keeping any photographs at all of any individuals, so I don't think I would have any.
Question. Did you, prior to November of 1996, have any misgivings about Mr. Chung as a contributor?
Page 1029 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Had you ever asked anybody to perform any background research on Mr. Chung?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you ever receive any background research about Mr. Chung?
Answer. I don't recall that.
Question. From other offices?
Answer. No, I don't recall ever receiving any.
Question. How frequently would you communicate with Mr. Chung?
Answer. It was sporadic. I tended to communicate with him closer to an event that may be in California that he would be interested in participating in, and at that time I could contact him maybe two or three times in the weeks prior. Other than that, it was infrequent. Once every other month would be a high number, I think.
Question. I have a document which I will mark Exhibit AS–10.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–10 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. I will provide that for the witness. It is a memorandum to Richard Sullivan from David Mercer, and it is a list that had been requested purportedly by Mr. Sullivan for a Vice Presidential luncheon on 9–21, which is presumably 1994. The document is dated September 14, 1994.
It mentions that this is a pool of some of the best raisers and writers to draw from.
Do you recall ever having seen this document?
Page 1030 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I do not.
Question. Was there a list kept of the more significant contributors or the best campaign solicitors from outside of the DNC staff that you were aware of in the DNC?
Answer. Not to my knowledge, no.
Question. Did colleagues of yours at the DNC have any discussions with you about Mr. Chung and mention to you that he was one of the better or best fund-raisers from amongst contributors to the DNC?
Answer. We discussed that he made large contributions. I don't recall him being much of a fund-raiser.
Question. Are you aware of Mr. Chung ever soliciting contributions from anybody else?
Answer. Not that I can recall, no.
Question. Is it fair to say then that your interactions with him led you to believe that he was contributing money merely himself and not soliciting funds from anybody else?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Did you ever have any concerns that funds contributed by Mr. Chung might not be his own funds?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Did you ever have any conversations where anybody else at the DNC expressed concerns that funds contributed by Mr. Chung might not be his own funds?
Answer. No, not that I can recall.
Question. Did you ever have any conversations with anybody outside of the DNC about Mr. Chung's fund-raising contributions?
Page 1031 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Not that I can recall, no.
Question. Do you have any recollections of whether anybody at the White House ever contacted you to ask you any questions about Mr. Chung?
Answer. No, not that I can recall.
Question. Do you know whether anybody from any of the Executive Branch agencies contacted you and asked questions about Mr. Chung?
Answer. I don't recall that.
Question. Do you recall any instances where Mr. Chung asked you to do anything for him?
Answer. No, I don't recall specific instances. I recall—Johnny—Mr. Chung was always concerned with receiving photographs of events, so he was always calling after events to get—to expedite sort of getting him photographs of himself with the dignitary at the event. But those were the events that come to mind.
Question. Did you ever help to arrange for Mr. Chung to meet with any administration employees?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever receive any requests from Mr. Chung about government trade missions?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Did Mr. Chung ever mention John Huang to you?
Answer. I don't recall that in any conversation, no.
Question. Do you recall whether you ever made any requests of any White House employees on behalf of Mr. Chung?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Were you aware in 1995 that Mr. Chung and a number of Chinese businessmen attended a Presidential radio address?
Page 1032 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I have subsequently found out about it, but at the time I didn't. I don't have a recollection of knowing about it.
Question. Do you recollect any conversations wherein somebody else might have mentioned Mr. Chung's attendance at a radio address with the President?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. In the subsequent knowledge that you have gained about this particular event, did you know—do you know any of the individuals that Mr. Chung attended the radio address with?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. Had you ever met any of those individuals?
Answer. I may have, but none of the names are familiar to me.
Question. Were you aware of any requests being made by anybody at the DNC of the National Security Council about Mr. Chung?
Answer. No, I was not.
Question. Did anybody ever mention to you prior to November of 1996 that Mr. Robert Suettinger had once described Mr. Chung as a hustler?
Answer. No.
Question. Were you ever aware that—did anybody ever suggest to you that Mr. Chung had ever been approached by either White House or DNC employees in conjunction with contributions to retire debts from the White House Christmas party?
Answer. That is not something I am familiar with, no.
Question. I am providing the witness with a document marked Exhibit AS–11.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–11 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Page 1033 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. This is addressed to Mr. Johnny Chung. It is dated August 21, 1995, and the signature blocks are those of Richard Sullivan and Mr. Swiller, and the text of the letter is one sentence: ''Thought you would be interested in the enclosed.'' Do you have any recollection of signing this letter?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Do you have any recollection of this letter at all?
Answer. No.
Question. This takes me away from Mr. Chung for a moment, but did you keep copies of signed letters in your files?
Answer. On occasion. As I referred to earlier, and this may be a case of it, we would send letters accompanying photographs from events that were DNC-sponsored events in which donors would attend the event with the President. This may be such a case where enclosed items were photographs.
Question. Did you personally keep a correspondence file of all the correspondence that you sent out to individuals?
Answer. I didn't, because the scale was so high, and, you know, it was letters like these which really were one sentence, two sentence letters. It would have been, I think, a wasteful exercise.
Question. What types of signed correspondence would you keep?
Answer. I would once in awhile keep similar correspondence like these or letters of invitation to an event. I would sometimes keep those on file because people would sometimes say they never received them and I could refer back to the reference point.
Mr. Lu. Before we move away from this document, I think all of us concede the document is unsigned. I just want the record to be clear that is an unsigned letter and there has been no testimony it was even sent out.
Page 1034 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Were you aware or have you ever been aware that Mr. Chung spoke with Richard Sullivan about going on a trade mission to China with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown?
Answer. That is not something that is familiar to me, no.
Question. I am providing the witness with a document marked Exhibit AS–12, which is a March 1, 1995 dated document to Kathleen from Richard Sullivan/Ari Swiller.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–12 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall ever having seen this document before?
Answer. I don't recall it.
Question. The memo refers to a planned meeting between—or a meeting requested by Mr. Chung. Do you know whether this meeting ever took place?
Answer. I can't say for certain.
Question. Did you typically prepare briefing materials for Chairman Fowler or any other DNC employees involving meetings with individuals who were trustee members?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you recall ever participating in any meetings with Mr. Chung and Chairman Fowler?
Answer. I can—there is one that comes to mind, yes.
Question. Do you remember when that meeting was?
Answer. I believe it was sometime in 1995. I don't remember the exact date.
Page 1035 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And what was discussed at that meeting?
Answer. The reason why it comes to mind, I remember Mr. Chung informing Mr. Fowler that he was going to make a personal effort to try to win the freedom of a gentleman named Harry Wu, I believe—Henry Wu or Harry Wu. At the time he had become imprisoned and it was a highlighted case by the Chinese government.
Question. And do you recall what Mr. Fowler said in this meeting?
Answer. I don't recall what he said to Mr. Chung. I recall afterwards we were sort of in disbelief at Mr. Chung's idea that he could play a role. But I am sure, you know, Mr. Fowler was pleasant in his conversation with him.
Question. Do you have a recollection of the sense of what was communicated to Mr. Chung?
Answer. I am sure Mr. Fowler thanked him for his support of the DNC and wished him luck in his endeavors, but I don't recall any offer of support from the DNC, because we never got involved in those sorts of affairs.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Fowler told Mr. Chung that the DNC would not be supportive of Mr. Chung's endeavors?
Answer. I think it was understood. I don't remember him directly saying that.
Question. Do you know if Mr. Chung met with Richard Sullivan and Chairman Fowler at any time in 1995 at the White House mess?
Answer. I don't have recollection of such a meeting, no.
Question. You had mentioned earlier that Mr. Chung had made—I should ask you this, because I don't recall exactly what you said. But did Mr. Chung ever contact you specifically about obtaining photographs that had been taken with himself and other individuals?
Page 1036 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes, he did.
Question. Did he ever contact you in regard to photographs that were taken of himself and business associates at the Presidential radio address?
Answer. No, he did not, that I recall.
Question. Do you recall which photographs he did contact you about?
Answer. The photographs I recall being requested were ones in connection to the event where I solicited the contribution from Mr. Chung at the home of Mr. Spielberg.
Question. Do you recall any other requests from Mr. Chung about photographs?
Answer. No, that is the one that comes to mind.
Question. Did Chairman Fowler or Richard Sullivan ever request that you find photographs involving Mr. Chung?
Answer. Not that I can recall, no.
Question. Did you ever provide photographs for Mr. Fowler or Chairman Dodd or Mr. Sullivan for their review prior to their being sent out to individuals?
Answer. Not as far as Mr. Fowler or Mr. Dodd. On occasion if I couldn't identify certain people in a group of photos I was given, I would ask Mr. Sullivan for his input on who they might be. But I don't recall ever being requested to provide them with photos, no.
Question. I will ask the same question for after photographs have been sent out. Did anybody after the fact ask you to find a photograph or track down a photograph that had been sent out previously to an individual for purpose of reviewing the photograph?
Answer. ''Anyone'' meaning?
Question. I apologize, ''anyone'' meaning Chairmen Dodd, Fowler, or Mr. Sullivan?
Page 1037 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Mr. Sullivan may have. I don't recall requests like that ever coming from Mr. Fowler or Mr. Dodd.
Question. Do you know an individual whose name is Sheng Huaren, S-H-E-N-G H-U-A-R-E-N?
Answer. The name is not familiar to me, no.
Question. Are you familiar with the China Everbright Group?
Answer. I am not.
Question. Do you recall whether you have ever heard that name before?
Answer. I don't recall hearing it before, no.
Question. Do you recall ever having heard the name of a Mr. Qiu Qing, which is spelled Q-I-U Q-I-N-G?
Answer. No, I don't recall that name.
Question. Have you ever met Roger Tamraz?
Answer. Yes, I have.
Question. Where have you met Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. I met Mr. Tamraz for the first time at the Democratic National Committee.
Question. Was this the convention or a meeting?
Answer. At the committee. At the headquarters.
Question. Okay. And what was the occasion of meeting Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. I had, as my department often did, sent solicitations to businesses across the country informing individuals and corporations about the program and encouraging them to support it. In response to that, I received a call from a partner of Mr. Tamraz who indicated to me that he or his partner were interested in participating at the trustee or possibly the managing trustee level and wanted to come to Washington to discuss that.
Page 1038 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Since the level is high, they had offered to come to Washington, I asked to set up a meeting with Mr. Fowler at the DNC. The person who came representing the company was Mr. Tamraz, and that is the first time I met or spoke to him, was when he came to the DNC.
Question. The initial contact from Mr. Tamraz or his associate, what was the form of that contact?
Answer. They phoned me.
Question. And do you recall when Mr. Tamraz came and met with you?
Answer. It was in July of 1995.
Question. How long was the meeting after the telephone call took place?
Mr. PIERSON. Are you talking about the meeting in Chairman Fowler's office?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. No, let me clarify this, because I don't want to muddy this issue. Is it correct to say that you met with Mr. Tamraz, just the two of you the first time?
Answer. That is not correct.
Question. Okay. Just if you could, just explain. Mr. Tamraz came in and met with yourself and other individuals. Who were the other individuals?
Answer. His initial meeting was with myself and Chairman Fowler, and after that meeting, there was immediately following a follow-up meet with myself and Mr. Tamraz which Mr. Pastrick attended part of.
Question. And the first meeting, where did that occur?
Answer. In Mr. Fowler's office at the Democratic National Committee.
Page 1039 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And where did the second meeting occur?
Answer. It occurred in an office adjacent to mine that was used—that was set aside for the finance chairman.
Question. Did you ever prepare any memoranda about the initial meeting with Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. I don't recall in this case the memoranda I proposed for this meeting, but it was customary that I did provide a little bit of information.
Question. I will provide the witness with a document which was marked Exhibit AS–13. If you could take a minute just to look at this.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–13 was marked for identification.]
Mr. PIERSON. For the record, counsel, this is several documents. The first one is DNC 3116350. The last one is DNC 3116355. They appear to be sequential.
Mr. WILSON. Just to clarify, it appears the last two pages of the document may be out of sequence, 55 followed by 54. I just want to check that you have the same.
Mr. PIERSON. Mine are in sequence.
Mr. WILSON. Okay.
[Discussion off the record.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. The first page of that which I provided you has just the handwritten notation ''Roger Tamraz'' on it. Do you recognize this writing?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Turning your attention to the document marked DNC 3116354, which is a memo from Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Swiller, to Roger Tamraz, it discusses contributions and the date is March 28th, 1996. Do you recall preparing this memorandum?
Page 1040 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I recall being asked for the information on this memorandum, correct.
Mr. PIERSON. That wasn't what he asked you. He asked you whether you prepared it.
The WITNESS. I don't believe I prepared this memorandum.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you supply the information that is in this memorandum?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Who asked you for that information?
Answer. My recollection is that Mr. Sullivan did.
Question. Did you keep records of contributions that Mr. Tamraz made to organizations other than the DNC?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. And for what purpose did you keep such records?
Answer. To keep a sum of contributions Mr. Tamraz made to Democratic affiliated campaigns.
Question. Who provided you with this information?
Answer. In the case of a lot of these contributions, Mr. Tamraz forwarded them to the DNC office.
Question. What did Mr. Tamraz forward to the DNC office?
Answer. The contributions.
Question. And by that do you mean he actually forwarded a check directly to the DNC office?
Answer. Correct.
Page 1041 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And in situations like that, what would the DNC do with those things?
Answer. They tended to be sent to the entity that they were directed to with an accompanying letter.
Question. Were records of those contributions kept by the DNC?
Answer. I believe in some cases they were, yes.
Question. And how were the records kept?
Answer. My recollection is that there was a list comprised by a woman named Theresa Stark of contributions sent to DNC that were for entities that weren't the DNC.
Question. Do you know whether this information was entered in the AS 400 computer database?
Answer. I don't know for certain, no.
Question. Did Mr. Tamraz ever discuss with you campaign contributions?
Answer. Yes, he did.
Question. Did you have discussions about campaign contributions to entities other than the DNC?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Did you provide any recommendations as to whom he should make campaign contributions?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Why did you—the campaign contributions, just referring to the ones on the memorandum we are examining, the March 28, 1996 memorandum, why did you suggest that Mr. Tamraz contribute to the entities listed on this memo?
Answer. I don't recall the exact conversation on the ones that sit on this memo.
Page 1042 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Had you ever received instructions from any other DNC employees as to where campaign contributions might be made?
Answer. From Mr. Tamraz?
Question. From anybody, other than the DNC.
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Who would give those instructions?
Answer. The ones I recall were either Mr. Fowler or Mr. Sullivan.
Question. Did you ever receive any memoranda that outlined these types of instructions?
Answer. Not that I can recall, no.
Question. Is your recollection that the communications you had were solely verbal?
Answer. Yes, that is correct.
Question. Did you discuss these particular contributions with Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. The ones listed on the memorandum?
Question. Yes.
Answer. I don't recall a specific discussion of these.
Question. Did you forward this memorandum to Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. I did not forward it to him.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Sullivan is responsible for forwarding this to Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. My only recollection is he requested some of the information. I don't know if it was then forwarded.
Question. Do you know why it was suggested that he provide a contribution to the Virginia Democratic Party?
Page 1043 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I recall there being a request that he provide it to the Virginia Legislative Campaign Committee in connection with the '95 election cycle, but I don't recall that specific to the Democratic Party contribution.
Question. And was that information communicated to you or the suggestion that Mr. Tamraz—if you could just state again, who was it that suggested to you that Mr. Tamraz might make a contribution to the Virginia Democratic Party?
Answer. My recollection is that direction came from Mr. Fowler.
Question. Do you recall whether you had a meeting with Mr. Fowler to discuss where campaign contributions should be directed?
Answer. I don't recall a formal meeting. I recall sort of a meeting in passing.
Question. Do you know if Ms. Khare, Carol Khare, was in contact with Mr. Tamraz at any time in 1996?
Answer. I don't know for certain, no.
Question. Did you ever discuss Mr. Tamraz with anybody at the DNC except for Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Fowler?
Answer. I discussed with Mr. Pastrick and Marvin Rosen.
Question. The meeting that you earlier described between Mr. Fowler, Mr. Tamraz and yourself, do you recall the date of that meeting?
Answer. I don't recall an exact date. I believe it was in July of 1996.
Question. Do you recall how long the meeting lasted?
Answer. I believe it was a half-hour to 45 minutes.
Question. And what was discussed at that meeting?
Answer. I remember that Mr. Tamraz stated that he was very interested in being supportive of the President and of the party, that he was encouraged by the President's policies. He went on to describe how he wanted to be financially supportive.
Page 1044 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Fowler thanked him for that. Mr. Tamraz went on to discuss and provided a copy of a Newsweek article, I believe he had the magazine with him, which talked about a pipeline construction that his company was undertaking in Russia, and I remember him describing that the project hadn't physically started, but that the steps to get it were well on their way, and that he had many corporate clients who were supporting his effort. He was just informing us of sort of who he was and what his business was.
Question. Do you know how many times Mr. Fowler met with Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. I don't.
Question. If you could just—the document I provided you earlier, which was provided because I believe it came from a file of some sort, you have indicated that you don't recognize the handwriting on the first page of it, but the second page, the third page and the fourth page have what appear to be a memorandum to Mr. Fowler from Alejandra Castillo. If you could take just a moment to review that memorandum.
Mr. PIERSON. For the record, these are pages DNC 3116351 through 6353.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you receive a copy of this memorandum?
Mr. PIERSON. At any time before——
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. At—well, I must be clear on this. Did you receive a copy of this memorandum at any time in 1995?
Answer. I don't recall specifically receiving it.
Question. Do you recall receiving a copy of this memorandum at any time before November of 1996?
Page 1045 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't recall a specific time of receiving it.
Question. But do you recall whether you did receive this memorandum?
Mr. PIERSON. Before the election?
Mr. WILSON. Before the election.
The WITNESS. I don't recall a certain time of receiving it, no—or receiving it.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. The third page of this memorandum, in the second paragraph, in the conclusions section, states that, in a conversation held with Ari Swiller yesterday, Mr. Tamraz has expressed his desire to contribute $300,000 to the DNC. Did you speak with Ms. Castillo about your meeting with Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. I recall having discussions with Ms. Castillo about Mr. Tamraz. I don't recall the specific discussions.
Question. Do you recall what she asked you?
Answer. I think she was inquiring whether I knew some of the information that has been provided in this document, and I believe it may have been the context of my discussion with Mr. Tamraz.
Question. The first paragraph of this conclusion section on the third page of the memorandum indicates that it is clear that Mr. Tamraz has several problems pending before the international business community. Did Ms. Castillo discuss with you any of the specifics of what she knew about Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. I remember either seeing in news articles or hearing from her some of the items that are brought up in this document that refer to business problems or problems pending in the international business community.
Page 1046 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. In the first paragraph of the memorandum, in what is the second sentence, it states, as a potential managing trustee member, Mr. Tamraz' business dealing may have potential, if not definite—if not definite political and ethical implications on the DNC fund-raising operations.
Did you have any discussions with anybody at the DNC prior to November of 1996 about the implications Mr. Tamraz' business dealings might have for the DNC?
Answer. I believe I did, yes.
Question. And who did you talk to?
Answer. I believe I talked to Ms. Castillo and possibly—my recollection would be Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Pastrick.
Question. And what was discussed when you spoke with Ms. Castillo?
Answer. As I stated earlier, some of the concerns that she highlights in this memo I think are part of that discussion.
Question. Now, had she communicated these concerns to you for the first time? You had not heard of these concerns before she spoke to you; is that correct?
Answer. As I recollected—in reflecting, that's correct. I may have seen articles. I don't know the timing—if I saw the articles, we had the discussion, she brought them up with the articles. I don't remember the sequence, but—I didn't have a long-standing prior knowledge, no.
Mr. PIERSON. May I have a moment, please?
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
Mr. PIERSON. If you would like to add to your answer please.
The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. Tamraz, during our discussion, mentioned—I'm sorry, during my meeting with Mr. Fowler and Mr. Tamraz, he mentioned sort of in passing that he had a controversial background, which is something that I think came up in discussions following with Ms. Castillo—in the following conversations that I may have had with other DNC folks, that we mentioned that as well.
Page 1047 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Prior to your meeting with—the first meeting with Mr. Tamraz, a meeting that Mr. Fowler attended, did you yourself do or did you request anybody else to do any background research on Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you communicate to anybody the nature of the controversial background that you just mentioned Mr. Tamraz brought to everybody's attention?
Answer. I don't remember him—sorry. Restate the question.
Question. My understanding from what you just said was that Mr. Tamraz himself brought up controversial background in your meeting with yourself and Mr. Fowler. Once you learned of that during that meeting, did you bring that to anybody else's attention?
Answer. I don't recall specifically doing that. I may have brought it to the attention of Ms. Castillo as she was preparing this memo. In follow-up, I may have also mentioned it to Mr. Pastrick following our meeting with Mr. Tamraz, that he had mentioned something about this.
Question. Did Ms. Castillo tell you or mention to you that she was preparing a memorandum about Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. I don't remember her telling me before preparing it or providing it and saying, I have a memorandum. I don't remember there being a sequence where she first informed me and then provided it.
Question. Did you provide her with any information prior to the drafting of this memorandum?
Answer. In my conversation, I may have referenced the article in NewsWeek which Mr. Tamraz had referenced in his discussion with Mr. Fowler and I, and I may have had some discussion with her about the context of our conversation with Mr. Fowler.
Page 1048 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Had you seen the NewsWeek article?
Answer. Not prior to my meeting with Mr. Tamraz.
Question. After you met with Mr. Tamraz, did you see that NewsWeek article that you just discussed?
Answer. He had it in the meeting.
Question. Did he provide a copy of the article to you?
Answer. I believe he left a copy, yes.
Question. Do you recall whether he left any other material or information?
Answer. Not that I remember, no.
Question. Did you have any discussions with Ms. Khare about Mr. Tamraz' background?
Answer. I don't recall any discussions with Ms. Khare, no.
Question. Do you know whether Ms. Khare made any inquiry's about Mr. Tamraz' background of anybody else other than yourself?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of, no.
Question. Do you know—do you have any knowledge of whether this memorandum was circulated to anybody other than the addressee of the memorandum, other than to Mr. Fowler?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Do you know if Mr. Tamraz had subsequent discussions with either yourself or Chairman Fowler about his oil pipeline proposal?
Answer. I don't know of his discussions with others. I do not recall any discussion with me about the pipeline following that initial conversation.
Question. Do you know if Chairman Fowler ever offered any assistance to Mr. Tamraz in meetings with the Federal officials? And I ask that in terms of did you know that before November of 1996?
Page 1049 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Did Chairman Fowler tell Mr. Tamraz or discuss with Mr. Tamraz contributions to the DNC at the meeting you attended with the—the first meeting you attended with Chairman Fowler and Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. Did Mr. Fowler discuss it?
I think Mr. Fowler thanked him for Mr. Tamraz' willingness to be supportive. I recall that during—the figures and how contributions were made were not discussed at that time.
Question. Is it correct to say that, at that point, Mr. Tamraz had not made a contribution to the——
Answer. That's correct.
Question [continuing]. To the DNC?
Did you have—ever have any discussions with anybody at the DNC prior to November 1996 of whether the—anybody in the Clinton administration was being supportive of Mr. Tamraz' oil pipeline project?
Answer. I don't—no, I do not.
Question. Did you ever talk to anybody in the administration—and by that I mean any executive branch or agency officials, nonDNC employees—about the Tamraz oil pipeline proposal?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever get any requests from anybody else outside of the DNC prior to November of 1996 about the Tamraz oil pipeline project?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever have any discussions about Mr. Tamraz being banned from a commerce trade board?
Page 1050 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I'm not familiar with that. No.
Question. Do you know if Ms. Khare had any discussions with Department of Commerce Employees about Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. Not that I'm familiar with.
Question. Just referring back to the meeting between yourself and Mr. Fowler and Mr. Tamraz, what did Mr. Tamraz indicate that he was willing to contribute?
Answer. During my meeting with he and Mr. Fowler, there was—no indication was made.
Question. Was there any discussion at that meeting of contributions to entities other than the DNC?
Answer. There was not.
Question. Do you know why Mr. Fowler later communicated that some of Mr. Tamraz' contributions would be—it would be appropriate to have them routed to other entities than the DNC?
Answer. My understanding in the case of the Virginia legislative campaign committee - or council—it was designated there because their election was—they had a '95, an off-year election. So there was a certain urgency to support their campaign effort.
Question. And what about the Louisiana contribution? Was there a reason for that?
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. Do you know if anybody other than Ms. Castillo in the format of the memorandum that we've just been discussing brought any concerns about Mr. Tamraz to Mr. Fowler's attention?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of, no.
Question. Did anybody communicate concerns about Mr. Tamraz to you directly?
Page 1051 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Other than in conversations with Ms. Castillo I'm not aware—I don't recall anyone else communicating concerns.
Question. Once—once Mr. Tamraz did make his contributions, is there any one person that was designated the primary contact between the DNC and Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. Initially, I was his contact. But subsequent to my first few contacts with him, I think he began to work more exclusively with Marvin Rosen.
Question. And in light of the concerns that Ms. Castillo outlined in her memorandum to Chairman Fowler, did you think it was appropriate for the DNC to accept contributions from Mr. Tamraz?
Mr. PIERSON. Can I just interpose an objection?
Mr. WILSON. Sure.
Mr. PIERSON. We've got a temporal disconnect. He was—he can tell you that he saw the Castillo memorandum. So he can't tell you that, in light of what's in the memorandum, he thought anything. But I know he has some substantive testimony to give to you on the subject, so I don't want to interrupt your line of questioning here.
Mr. WILSON. Right.
Mr. PIERSON. I just think the two don't connect.
Mr. WILSON. I understand.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Given your communications with Ms. Castillo about Mr. Tamraz, did you have any concerns about Mr. Tamraz contributing to the DNC?
Answer. I recall having some reservations, yes.
Question. Did you communicate those to anybody?
Answer. I believe I communicated them to Ms. Castillo. I may have communicated them to Mr. Sullivan.
Page 1052 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And did you tell anybody else about your concerns?
Answer. Maybe Mr. Pastrick. But I'm not even sure there. But those would be the people, I think.
Question. Did you ever speak with Sheila Heslin or anybody else at the National Security Council about Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. I'm not familiar with her. I don't recall any conversations that I had with people at the National Security Council, no.
Question. Prior to 19—November of 1996, do you recall anybody contacting you about Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. Anyone?
Question. And—I'm puposefully being very broad. Anybody from——
Mr. PIERSON. Outside the DNC?
Mr. WILSON. Yeah. Outside the Democratic National Committee.
The WITNESS. Outside—I don't recall, outside of the people we've discussed, anyone making inquiries of me of Mr. Tamraz.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Apart from the—the communications that we've just discussed with Ms. Castillo, did you ever hear anything about Mr. Tamraz seeking political leverage to advance his oil pipeline proposal?
Mr. PIERSON. Up to the election?
Mr. WILSON. Prior to November, 1996.
The WITNESS. No, I don't recall asking for a leverage.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Were you in contact with Mr. Tamraz after the—after the meeting with Chairman Fowler and Mr. Tamraz and yourself?
Page 1053 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yeah, immediately following the—that meeting, Mr. Tamraz—as I stated earlier, Mr. Tamraz, Mr. Pastrick and myself had a separate meeting where we discussed contributions more directly.
Question. Do you know if Mr. Tamraz attended DNC events at any time after your initial contact with him?
Answer. Yes, I believe he did.
Question. Do you know what events he did attend?
Answer. I can't recall the specific events, but I do recall seeing him at events. I don't know which ones exactly.
Question. What type of events do you recall seeing him at?
Answer. Fund raisers. Fund-raising galas with dinners.
Question. Do you know—did you know, prior to November, 1996, whether Mr. Tamraz met with nonDNC officials or government employees after the time that you first met him and before November of 1996?
Answer. No, I was not aware of it.
Question. Did you ever have any discussions with Chairman Fowler about Mr. Tamraz visiting the White House?
Answer. I don't recall specific discussion regarding that, no.
Question. Just very generally, do you have any recollection of—of Mr. Fowler discussing Mr. Tamraz and attempts to meet with people in the White House?
Answer. No, I don't have any recollection of that.
Question. Were you aware at any time before November, 1996, that the White House did have objections to Mr. Tamraz attending events in the White House?
Answer. No, I was not aware of that.
Question. Do you have any knowledge of meetings involving Mr. Tamraz and Mr. Sullivan and Marvin Rosen in October of 1995?
Page 1054 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I'm not aware of those specific—that specific time or meeting.
Question. Do you have any knowledge, just in a general sense, of Tamraz meeting with Richard Sullivan and Marvin Rosen?
Answer. As I stated earlier, I was initially his contact at the DNC. But, soon after, his primary contact became Mr. Rosen; and I know that they he met or spoke on the phone on occasion. I don't know the specific times or—or who else was in attendance, but I know that his primary contact became Mr. Rosen.
Question. Are you aware of any telephone calls made by Mr. Fowler to employees of the National Security Council?
Answer. Not prior to recent revelations of it, no.
Question. Did—did Chairman Fowler ever ask for information about Mr. Tamraz—ask you for information about Mr. Tamraz after that initial meeting that you attended with Mr. Tamraz and Mr. Fowler?
Answer. I don't recall any requests, no.
Question. Did Chairman Fowler ever communicate any concerns to you about Mr. Tamraz at any time after the initial meeting that you—that the three of you had?
Answer. Not that I can recall, no.
Question. Do you recall any discussions with Mr. Fowler about Mr. Tamraz or that involved Mr. Tamraz after your initial discussion or after your initial meeting?
Answer. As I stated earlier, Mr. Fowler at some point had indicated to me that a—that I make a request of Mr. Tamraz to designate some of his contributions to Virginia legislative campaign. That's a conversation that sticks to mind. Other conversations, I don't recall.
Page 1055 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
3Question. Do you recall whether there were any conversations?
Answer. I don't.
Are you finished with this?
Question. I think we are. Let me just have a quick review of it.
Do you—do you recall whether you kept a file for Mr. Tamraz among your trustee files?
Answer. I don't—I—I'm sure I did. I don't recall specifically, but he was a trustee, and we had files on all of them. Yes.
Question. Do you know Eric Hotung?
Answer. I know who he is.
Question. Have you ever met him?
Answer. No, I've not.
Mr. PIERSON. Counsel, when you come to a convenient stopping place, can we have several minutes, please?
Mr. WILSON. Let's go off the record.
[Recess.]
Mr. WILSON. If we can go back on the record, please.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Just one follow-up question on the materials we were discussing about Mr. Tamraz and Exhibit 13. If I could provide again the memorandum from Ms. Castillo to Chairman Fowler, the cc is to yourself and to Carol Khare. Why would Ms. Khare have received this memorandum?
Mr. PIERSON. If you know.
Page 1056 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. To the extent you know.
The WITNESS. To the extent I know, she was Mr. Fowler's executive assistant and sort of like an alter ego. She received some of the information Mr. Fowler received.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know whether in Mr. Tamraz' case she did any follow-up investigation about Mr. Tamraz for Chairman Fowler?
Answer. Ms. Khare?
Question. Yes.
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Did you ever speak with Mr. Hotung?
Answer. No, I had never done that.
Question. Had you ever received any contacts from Pat O'Connor about Mr. Hotung?
Answer. No I have not.
Question. Do you know Pat O'Connor?
Answer. I do.
Question. And do you know what he does for a living?
Answer. My understanding is he is an attorney and a lobbyist.
Question. And how do you know Mr. O'Connor?
Answer. He's been a long-time Democratic fund-raiser and supporter. I've met him through DNC events and his support of the DNC and fund-raising efforts.
Question. Has Mr. O'Connor ever had any official discussions with you outside of the social context because he—had you ever worked with Mr. O'Connor in an official capacity?
Page 1057 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't believe I have, no.
Question. Do you recall whether you helped to arrange any meetings for Mr. Hotung?
Answer. No, I don't recall that.
Question. Have you had any interaction at all with Mr. Hotung?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Do you know either James or Mochtar Riady?
Answer. I know who they are.
Question. Have you ever met either James Riady or Mochtar Riady?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Have you ever spoken with either of them?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Have you ever been asked to arrange introductions for them to administration officials?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Do you recall ever having assisted them in any way?
Answer. No, I do not recall that.
Question. Do you know either Arief or Soraya Wiriadinata?
Answer. I do not know them. They at some point became trustees, but I've never met with them or spoken with them.
Question. Did you solicit contributions from them?
Answer. Never.
Question. Do you know who did?
Answer. My recollection is that John Huang did.
Page 1058 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you recall whether you've ever had requests to do anything for Mr. or Mrs. Wiriadinata?
Answer. I don't recall that at all.
Question. Do you know Yogesh Gandhi?
Answer. Only what I've read. I've never met him, and I've never been involved with him.
Question. Have you ever been asked to assist him in any way?
Answer. No, I've not.
Mr. WILSON. I've given the witness a document that's marked Exhibit AS–14. It is a letter to President Clinton from an individual named Richard Agins. It does not have Mr. Swiller's name on it anywhere. If you could take just a moment to review this.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–14 was marked for identification.]
Mr. PIERSON. For the record, it is dated August 14, 1996; and it bears number EOP 05587. There may be another number, but that's all that appears.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. This is a letter from an attorney in New York to President Clinton, and it discusses a purported arrangement between Chairman Fowler and an organization wherein Chairman Fowler was purportedly promised two videotaped addresses in exchange for a campaign contribution. Do you have any familiarity with the Hermes Enterprises, Limited, organization?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Have you ever heard or seen the name Richard Agins, A-G-I-N-S?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Do you have any familiarity with a dispute involving a Greek-American group and either the President or the DNC?
Page 1059 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know an individual named Ramesh Kapur?
Answer. Yes I do.
Question. Have you met Mr. Kapur?
Answer. Yes, I have.
Question. Where did you meet Mr. Kapur?
Answer. I don't know the first time, but he was a trustee who I saw often at events. He visited the DNC a few times where I would see him. He also attended events around the country where I saw him.
Mr. WILSON. I have provided the witness with a document which is marked Exhibit AS–15. It's a fax cover sheet dated 7/18/95, marked with the Bates Number DNC 3235705.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–15 was marked for identification.]
Mr. WILSON. It—the fax transmission——
Mr. PIERSON. 5707.
Mr. WILSON. Oh, pardon. Correct. Pardon.
Mr. WILSON. The fax transmission indicates that there are five pages included with this sheet, and it's my understanding that all we have received is a single page of a fax transmission cover. If you could take just a moment to look at that.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. The fax cover sheet indicates that there are two topics of discussion with Mr. Roger Johnson. Do you recall discussing with Mr. Kapur the contents of this fax cover sheet?
Answer. No, I do not.
Question. Do you recall—do you know whether you ever approached Roger Johnson about arranging a meeting between himself and Mr. Kapur?
Page 1060 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I do not recall that at all.
Question. Did Mr. Kapur discuss with you getting more Indian-Americans into high-level positions at the GSA?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. The second topic mentioned in this fax cover sheet is about preventing Indian-American businesses from being pigeonholed into smaller contracts when they are capable of handling larger contracts. Did Mr. Kapur have any discussions with you about this subject?
Answer. No. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Do you recall receiving this fax transmission?
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. Do you have any recollection of receiving a resume? This fax cover sheet indicates that a copy of a resume is attached to the fax. Do you recall receiving a resume from Mr. Kapur?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Did——
Mr. PIERSON. Excuse me just a minute.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Kapur about meetings that he had with administration officials?
Answer. No, I don't recall it.
Question. Do you recall ever assisting Mr. Kapur in setting up a meeting with any Clinton administration employee?
Answer. No, I don't recall it.
Question. Do you recall receiving any requests from Mr. Kapur for assistance on any matter?
Page 1061 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Mr. Kapur would request special preferential seating at events we would do around the country. He would request—he was another person who requested photos and multiple copies of photos. That was probably the extent of the requests that I dealt with.
Question. Do you recall whether you helped him with those requests?
Answer. If those sort of requests—I probably would have helped, maybe not with the seat—giving him preferential seating, but I probably would have heard him out.
Question. Do you recognize the handwriting on the document in front of you?
Answer. I believe I do, yes.
Question. And there is a note at the middle, in the middle on the right-hand side of the document; and I believe it says Ramesh requested trustee as well. Do you recognize that handwriting?
Answer. No. I—if they're the same handwriting, this one is more familiar to me.
Question. And do you know whose handwriting is on the bottom right-hand section of the fax cover sheet?
Answer. It looks to me like the handwriting of Anne Braziel.
Question. Do you know whether Ms. Braziel ever scheduled meetings with administer—between Mr. Kapur and any Clinton administration officials?
Answer. Not that I can recall, no.
Question. Do you know an individual named Mansoor Ijaz? That's I-J-A-Z?
Answer. Yes, sir, I know him.
Mr. PIERSON. Ijaz.
Page 1062 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. I was going to help with the pronunciation of his name because I'm always sensitive to that.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Have you met with Mr. Ijaz?
Answer. Yes, sir, I have.
Question. Where did you first meet Mr. Ijaz?
Answer. I believe I first met him with at a joint DNC-DCCC—D triple C—event in Washington.
Question. And have you met with him on subsequent occasions?
Answer. Yes, I have.
Question. Where have you met him?
Answer. I met with him in my office at the DNC. I met with him on occasion when I was working in New York in his office in New York, and he hosted a fund-raiser at his home with the Vice President. So I met with him at his home prior to the event.
Question. Do you know if Mr. Ijaz ever met with Nancy Soderberg?
Answer. Yes, he did. I believe he did.
Question. Did you know that prior to November of 1996?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Did you assist Mr. Ijaz in meeting with Ms. Soderberg?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Did he request that you provide assistance in setting up a meeting?
Answer. Yes, he did.
Page 1063 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Why did he ask you to set up the meeting with Ms. Soderberg?
Answer. Mr. Ijaz believed that he had some concerns that—about nuclear technology development in Pakistan that he thought should be brought to someone's attention. He was working international affairs there.
Question. What is Mr. Ijaz's business?
Answer. My understanding is that he directs a large fund. He's a fund manager. He raises large sums of capital and invests it.
Question. Do you know if Mr. Ijaz has any business and trusts in Pakistan?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of, no.
Question. Did Mr. Ijaz ever discuss South Africa with you?
Answer. I know that he had business trips there. That was the extent of the discussion.
Question. Do you know if he ever traveled to South Africa with a Commerce Department delegation?
Answer. I don't recall that.
Question. Did Mr. Ijaz ever request your assistance in obtaining a space on any Commerce Department travel events?
Answer. No, he did not.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Ijaz ever attended—well, do you know whether he attended a Washington lunch with the Vice President and South African Vice President Mbeki?
Answer. I believe he did attend that event, yes.
Question. Did he discuss this event with you?
Page 1064 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I believe so, yes.
Question. Did he ask for your assistance in obtaining an invitation to this lunch?
Answer. Yes, he did.
Question. Did you help him with this request?
Answer. I believe I did, yes.
Question. Who did you contact on his behalf, if anybody?
Answer. I believe I contacted staff. I don't remember the person—well, staff in the Vice President's office.
Question. Do you know whether you were—provided any indication of Mr. Ijaz's request to any of your DNC colleagues?
Answer. I may have mentioned it to Mr. Sullivan.
Question. Did Mr. Ijaz speak with you about the Vice-Presidential lunch after the event?
Answer. I believe he did speak with me, yes.
Question. And what did he tell you?
Answer. He was encouraged, thought it was a historic moment and was happy that he had the opportunity to be there.
Question. Do you know if Mr. Ijaz ever met with Chief of Staff Leon Panetta?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of.
Question. Do you know an individual named George Chu, C-H-U?
Answer. I know he was a trustee. I know—I do not know him.
Question. Have you ever spoken with him?
Answer. I have not.
Page 1065 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you—do you know who, in the DNC, was responsible for contacting Mr. Chu initially?
Answer. My recollection—Mr. Chu, I think, lives in south San Francisco; and his contact was our fund-raiser for that area, a gentleman named Mark Thomann.
Question. Have you had any correspondence with Mr. Chu?
Answer. Correspondence similar that I would have with general correspondence to all trustees.
Question. Did Mr. Chu ever make a request of you or your office?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of, no. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you know an individual named George Gruggiero?
Answer. You can see that—I believe you may be referring to a gentleman named Joseph Ruggiero. If it's an individual at the IMPAC Group.
Question. It's an individual at the IMPAC, yes.
Answer. My contact there was a man named Joseph Ruggiero.
Question. When did you believe you first met him?
Answer. I believe I first met Mr. Ruggiero during the '93 inaugural.
Question. And did you have subsequent contacts with Mr. Ruggiero?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Mr. WILSON. I would like to provide the witness with a document. It's marked Exhibit AS–16 and indicates very clearly that it's Joe Ruggiero and certainly not George. The date of the document is April 3, 1996. It's Bates Number DNC 3063532.
Mr. PIERSON. Through 34.
Mr. WILSON. And subsequent pages, correct, through 34.
Page 1066 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–16 was marked for identification.]
Mr. WILSON. The first of the three pages that I've provided to you—actually, I'll give you longer to look at it.
The WITNESS. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. The first of the three pages I've given to you indicates that when you met with Mr. Ruggiero the previous year, which would have been 1995, Mr. Ruggiero had complained about his treatment from the DNC during the previous 2 years. Do you have—do you know what this refers to?
Answer. As I recall, Mr. Ruggiero was very insistent that the—that his participation with the RNC, he received much greater access to President Bush and to administration officials, to Senators, to Members of Congress than he did with his contributions with the DNC.
I remember him indicating that he was a member for what was called Team 100, which I believe was a top-level RNC contributor group, and that through his support of it had opportunities to have photos in the Oval Office with the President, was often included in small meetings with the administration officials, and that he felt that his support of the DNC, he did not receive the same response or access; and it was very discouraging for him.
Question. Did you discuss Mr. Ruggiero's complaints with Chairman Fowler?
Answer. I believe I had conversations that sort of indicated things similar to these lines in the document.
Question. The third page, the three documents I—the three pages I provided to you is what appears to be a letter dated March 8, 1996, from Chairman Fowler to Ambassador Shearer in Finland?
Page 1067 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Uh-huh.
Question. Were you aware at the time that Chairman Fowler wrote to Ambassador Shearer?
Answer. I was aware that a request was made for Mr. Fowler to write such a letter. I was not aware that a letter was sent or that it was ever completed.
Question. Do you—do you have any knowledge of that which is referred to in this letter, which is a libel case involving the company, Integrated Control Systems, Incorporated?
Answer. I recall there being a concern that his company was falsely being accused in Finland. But I don't recall the greater details of it.
Question. So it's your recollection that this involved a legal lawsuit in Finland?
Answer. That's my recollection, yeah.
Question. Do you recall whether you had any subsequent conversations with Mr. Ruggiero or the other individual referred to in this letter, Mr. Erwin, or any other members of IMPAC Group about the libel case in Finland?
Answer. No, I don't recall that.
Question. Did you make any contacts to Ambassador Shearer in Finland?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Do you know whether anybody else in the DNC made contact with Ambassador Shearer?
Answer. No. I don't recall that.
Question. One—just a question, a general question, about this particular letter. It is unsigned. Was it—was it a practice of—to the extent you have any knowledge at all, was it a practice of the DNC to retain unsigned correspondence in people's personal files?
Page 1068 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. It wasn't a practice.
Question. It wasn't a practice.
Mr. PIERSON. Counsel, I do not want the assumption to remain in the record that this came from a file. It could well have come off a database.
Mr. WILSON. It could, and I was actually going to follow up and ask that. It's entirely possible that this is printed off of a computer database.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. And I'm just trying to get any elucidation on whether—in your case, I asked you earlier whether you kept signed correspondence; and you provided the answer for that. Do you know whether database files were purged in your computer system on a regular basis or whether they were retained just as a default mechanism in the computer system?
Mr. Lu. Are you asking him whether he purged them or whether the system——
Mr. WILSON. No, no. Whether they were purged as a default mechanism of the computer system. Not whether Mr. Swiller had any part in doing any purging of any memorandum.
Mr. PIERSON. Do you understand that the question is asking whether it was done as part of a default mechanism? Not whether somebody came in and sat down and did it but whether the system had a purging mechanism within it?
The WITNESS. Not that I'm aware of.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you have any knowledge of a meeting between Ambassador—between Chairman Fowler, John Huang and Ambassador March Fong Eu in April of 1996?
Answer. No, I don't.
Page 1069 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you ever receive any requests from Ambassador March Fong Eu?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Did you have any contacts with Ambassador March Fong Eu?
Answer. I met her in 1992 during the campaign; but, following, I don't think I ever saw or spoke to her again following the '93 Inaugural.
Question. Did you ever have any contacts with an individual named David Lai, L-A-I?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know Joe Giroir?
Answer. I know who he is.
Mr. PIERSON. Have you met him?
The WITNESS. I believe I have met him.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did Mr. Giroir ever contact you at the DNC?
Answer. Never.
Question. Have you ever met either Nora or Gene Lum?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Have you ever had any contacts with Nora or Gene Lum?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Are you——
Answer. Let me correct—may I?
Question. Certainly.
Answer. I may have—I knew their names because they had at some point before my return to the DNC—being trustees of the party, as I did with a lot of people who had stopped contributing, I frequently sent them requests to renew their contributions to the DNC. So I may—at some point, they would have been included in that correspondence. But I had no conversations with them, no follow-up conversations, and never spoke with them directly.
Page 1070 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you know an individual named Al Wong, W-O-N-G?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you know an individual named Ray McClendon? That's M-C, capital C, L-E-N-D-O-N?
Answer. The name is familiar. I believe he's a member of a firm that was supportive of our efforts, but I don't know him.
Question. Do you recall any specific contacts between yourself and Mr. McClendon?
Answer. No, I do not.
Question. Do you know James Staffors, who is with the company, American Home Products?
Answer. I don't know him. I know that they were trustee-level contributors. I don't recall ever meeting him or ever having any conversations with him.
Question. Do you recall any requests that came from either Mr. Staffors or any other employee of American Home Products of you or your office?
Answer. No, I do not.
Question. Have you ever met James Belcher?
Answer. I have never met him.
Question. Mr. Belcher is with a number of companies. One is called Peat Rubber Company. Another is called N. R. Latex. Do you know of any contacts between Mr. Belcher and either yourself or your office?
Answer. He became a trustee level contributor while I was at the DNC, so I assumed he received the similar correspondence that other trustees received after he became a trustee.
Question. Did either Mr. Belcher or any other member of his—any of his firms contact you with any manner of requests in either 1995 or 1996?
Page 1071 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Let me correct that. A gentleman named Chris Martin, I was introduced to by an attorney of his, and he requested of me information about the trustee program, which I discussed with him, with Mr. Martin.
Question. Did Mr. Martin contact you?
Answer. A trustee in Connecticut introduced us. She introduced me to Mr. Martin under the pretense that he was interested or had a client that was interested in becoming a DNC supporter.
Question. Where were you introduced to Mr. Martin?
Answer. At the home of Sandra Murphey and Bill Bryant in Connecticut.
Question. What was the circumstance of this meeting?
Answer. They were hosting a fund-raiser for Senator Kennedy. They invited me to come so that—I had known Mrs. Murphey for a few years and her husband. She was—they were active contributors as well as fund-raisers. They invited me there because they thought that Mr. Martin had a client who would be interested in participating as a trustee and being that I was their trustee liaison, they thought it would be proper to make that introduction.
Question. Did Mr. Belcher or one of his companies ultimately become a trustee participant?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you receive any communications about any of Mr. Belcher's enterprises subsequent to Mr. Belcher becoming a trustee participant?
Answer. Not that I recall specifically, no.
Question. Did you receive any requests regarding Mr. Belcher from any Congressional staff?
Answer. Can you restate the question?
Page 1072 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you have any contacts regarding Mr. Belcher or Mr. Belcher's enterprises with Congressional staff?
Answer. Following the election, I was contacted by members of Senator Dodd's staff, because there had been some concerns raised that Senator Dodd was involved in soliciting contributions from Mr. Belcher, and they were asking me sort of what I knew about Mr. Belcher and the history. That was the only Congressional contacts I think I had regarding that.
Question. What did you tell them?
Answer. As I recall, I had this first introduction with Mr. Martin, followed up with a phone call, maybe more than one phone call, which were not returned. And subsequently, not through any contacts of mine, Mr. Belcher became a trustee, and I never spoke to Mr. Martin or Mr. Belcher again.
Question. Did you make any telephone calls or write any letters or make any communications whatsoever on any matter that pertained to any of Mr. Belcher's enterprises?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Do you know who solicited the contributions from Mr. Belcher?
Answer. My recollection is that Mr. Huang did.
Question. And do you know anything about Mr. Huang's solicitation of this contribution?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Huang traveled to Connecticut to speak with Mr. Belcher?
Answer. I did not know it at the time, but as I just stated, I had some conversations about sort of how Mr. Belcher became involved. In that I found out Mr. Huang made that travel to Connecticut to meet with Mr. Belcher.
Page 1073 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you have discussions with Mr. Huang about the solicitation of a contribution from Mr. Belcher?
Answer. The only conversation I can recall is subsequent to an initial contribution from Mr. Belcher, I remember just acknowledging to Mr. Huang that I had met and associated with Mr. Belcher and Mr. Martin, and that that was the extent of my contact, serving knowledge that I guess I was encouraged that he finally made a contribution.
Question. Did anybody—you mentioned one Congressional contact. Prior to your leaving the DNC in March of 1997, had anybody else contacted you about Mr. Belcher or Mr. Belcher's companies?
Answer. No, not that I recall. No.
Question. Have you heard of the Ellicott Machine Corporation?
Answer. That is not familiar to me, no.
Question. Or the principal of the Ellicott Machine Corporation, the CEO is a person named Peter Bowe, B-O-W-E. Do you know Mr. Bowe?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. Do you know Mark Nichols?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. And when have you met Mr. Nichols?
Answer. I have.
Question. Where did you first meet Mr. Nichols?
Answer. At a DNC gala, I believe.
Question. Do you remember when that was?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Have you ever met with Mr. Nichols at the DNC?
Answer. No, I have not.
Page 1074 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Have you ever met with Mr. Nichols outside of social circumstances such as the DNC gala or fund-raising event?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Do you recall ever having helped Mr. Nichols set up meetings with any Clinton Administration employees?
Answer. No, I do not.
Question. Have you had any contacts with Mr. Nichols outside of the social meeting you described at the very beginning of this line of questions?
Answer. I happened to have run into him at a DSCC event recently while I was in California, where it was a social visit. But I barely—I don't recall it.
Question. Did you have any discussion with him at that time?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. And what did you discuss?
Answer. He—actually I recall now he requested of me if I could assist him in getting a photo of himself from an event with the President that took place in Los Angeles that I had actually worked on, which would be another event where I saw him, a fund-raiser in the fall of '96, and he had remembered that—he remembered that he hadn't received a photo, that I was at the event, and he asked if I could assist in getting him a photo.
Question. Did you attend any meetings with Mr. Nichols and Chairman Fowler?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Are you aware of meetings between Mr. Nichols and Mr. Fowler?
Answer. I can recall that he, Mr. Nichols, came to the DNC, but who he met with, I don't recall if it was Mr. Fowler or not.
Page 1075 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Earlier I asked you if you knew Mr. Patrick O'Connor, and you indicated that you did. Did Mr. O'Connor ever have any conversations with you about tribal, Indian tribal gaming concerns in Wisconsin and Minnesota?
Answer. He did not.
Question. Did you ever have any discussions with Mr. O'Connor about any Indian tribal concerns?
Answer. No.
Question. Did Mr. O'Connor ever ask for your assistance on any matter?
Answer. No, he did not.
Question. Prior to November of 1996, were you aware of any litigation involving a Chippewa Indian tribe in Wisconsin and Minnesota?
Answer. I was not.
Question. Were you aware, and again prior to November of 1996, that Chairman Fowler had been threatened with a subpoena and a lawsuit involving Indian tribal issues in Wisconsin and Minnesota?
Answer. No, I was not aware of that.
Question. Was there anybody at the DNC who was the principal contact between the DNC and Native American campaign contributors?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Do you remember any DNC fund-raisers being in contact with Native American fund-raisers, or Native American contributors?
Answer. I had some contact with some, and I don't—I think other staff fund-raisers in the field did, yes.
Question. Did any Native American tribal representatives become trustees or managing trustees?
Page 1076 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you recall who they were?
Answer. Well, I think Mr. Nichols or his tribe contributed. Skip Hayward, who represented the Mashantucket Pequot tribe. The Sioux, the Saint Sioux tribe in Minnesota. I don't recall at this time other tribes, but there may have been a few others that contributed at the trustee level.
Question. Did you ever receive any requests from any of the individuals that you have just mentioned?
Mr. PIERSON. Of any kind?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Of any kind.
Answer. Yes. Mr. Hayward had a representative, or his tribe had a representative named Chris McNeil in Washington, who I remember requested a meeting with chairman—through me with Chairman Wilhelm, and I can remember I attended, and with Chairman Fowler.
Question. Do you remember what the meeting was about?
Answer. The first meeting with Wilhelm?
Question. Yes.
Answer. I remember they described the success of their casino, how they had—I remember what sticks out in my mind is that they referenced a number of like $140 million they had written to the State of Connecticut because they are a tribe. I remember their concern that they felt that they did not have a contact in the White House who was well versed on Indian, Native American, Indian concerns and issues.
Question. And referring to the second meeting that you mentioned, what was discussed at that meeting?
Page 1077 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I remember there being some follow-up to the original meeting, feeling that they had been supporters, but that these concerns that they laid out earlier had still not been addressed, that there were not people who understood their concerns.
Question. Did you ever have any contacts with Tom Collier, either when he was Secretary Abbott's chief of staff or when he was in private practice in a law firm in Washington?
Answer. The name is familiar, but I don't recall contacts with him.
Question. Have you ever had any contacts with a woman named Gretchen Lerach, L-E-R-A-C-H?
Answer. She was an employee at the DNC part of the time that I was at the DNC, yes.
Question. Who did Ms. Lerach work for?
Answer. My recollection is that she served as an assistant to the chief of staff, B.J. Thornberry, when she was employed at the DNC.
Question. Do you know whether she was still employed at the DNC when you left in March of 1997?
Answer. No, I believe she left previous to my departure.
Question. Did you have any knowledge prior to November of 1996 that Indian tribes were considering forming a PAC to advance tribal issues?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Do you know an individual named Richard B-E-R-T-S-C-H, Bertsch?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. Who is Mr. Bertsch?
Answer. He was someone who was involved in politics and some fund-raising in Los Angeles.
Page 1078 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Have you met him personally?
Answer. Yes, I have.
Question. When did you first meet Mr. Bertsch?
Answer. I believe I recall him screaming at me at a fund-raising gala at the Washington Hilton, and I think that gala was in the spring of '94. That was my first introduction.
Question. And what facilitated the manner of introduction?
Answer. I believe he didn't like his seating and felt I was responsible or I was the closest staff person to him at the time.
Question. Did you ever—have you ever solicited contributions from Mr. Bertsch?
Answer. No, not that I recall. No.
Question. Have you ever either yourself or have any of your staff conducted background research on Mr. Bertsch?
Answer. No, not that I can recall.
Question. Did Mr. Bertsch ever request that you provide assistance in setting up a meeting between himself and any member of the Clinton Administration?
Answer. No, not that I can recall.
Question. Do you know Richard Park?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. When did you first meet Mr. Park?
Answer. I believe he was accompanying Mr. Bertsch at that first fund-raiser that I described earlier.
Question. Have you ever solicited contributions from Mr. Park?
Answer. Yes, I have.
Page 1079 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Have you ever conducted any background research or any of your staff members conducted background research on Mr. Park?
Answer. No, not that I can recall.
Question. Has Mr. Park ever contacted you to request your assistance?
Answer. When I was at the DNC?
Question. When you were at the DNC, right.
Answer. No, not that I can recall.
Question. Do you recall ever helping to arrange meetings for Mr. Park with any Clinton Administration officials?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. Are you aware that the President attended a series of coffees held at the White House during 1995 and 1996?
Answer. Yes, I am.
Question. Do you know whether the coffees were a part of the DNC's major donor program?
Answer. No, they were not.
Question. They were not. Did you ever send out any correspondence or information to any of the managing trustees or trustees about presidential coffees?
Answer. We had—regarding coffees? No, not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever have any contacts with any of the trustees or managing trustees about presidential coffees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And what were the circumstances of those contacts?
Page 1080 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. As I stated earlier, the President attended a number of coffees. From time to time, I had the opportunity to include long-standing supporters or people that I thought would be potential supporters in those coffees. So I would invite them to attend a certain coffee.
Question. And mechanically speaking, how would you go about inviting the individual?
Answer. Over the phone, through a phone conversation.
Question. Would you follow up that telephone conversation with a letter?
Answer. We would sometimes follow up with a fax explaining where to enter the White House and also requesting them to fax back social and date of birth information for them to be waved into the White House.
Question. Did you discuss your intention to contact people about coffees in advance of your contacting them with anybody else at the DNC?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Who would you discuss those people with?
Answer. Frequently with Mr. Rosen, Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Braziel. Those are probably the majority of the contacts.
Question. Did you ever provide anybody else in the DNC with a list of suggested attendees for coffees?
Answer. Others than I mentioned?
Question. Well, actually, no, I am including those people. Did you provide them with a list——
Answer. Of prospective invitees?
Question. Exactly.
Page 1081 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes. I would provide on occasion a list to Mr. Rosen or Mr. Sullivan about some people that I would want to include.
Question. And this would be in the form of a written memorandum?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you keep copies of such memoranda in your files?
Answer. No, I don't think I kept printed copies. As I talked about earlier, they were saved automatically on the computer.
Question. Do you recall whether your suggestions were generally accepted?
Answer. I think generally they were, yes.
Question. Did you attend any of the White House coffees?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Do you recall the occasions that you attended coffees?
Answer. I believe I attended one coffee that was attended by the President and Vice President in August of 1995.
Mr. PIERSON. You are talking about White House coffees now, right?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. And do you recall any of the other attendees at that coffee?
Answer. Mr. Fowler was there. Truman Arnold, who at the time was the finance chairman, was there. I remember Gail Zappa was in attendance, Carol Penskey, Bill Doctor. I believe Rich Keating. Those are the names I remember. There would be I think about a dozen people all together.
Page 1082 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. When you compiled lists of suggestions for coffee attendees, did you have any criteria that you went by to assist you in putting a name on the prospective list?
Answer. I tended to put people on who had been long-standing supporters. I viewed it as quite an awesome event to go to, so I would allow people who had been with the DNC and trustees for a long period of time. Those were the names I tended—my personal criteria for putting them on the list.
Question. Did you ever suggest to any individuals that were ultimately invited, and that you had suggested, that they should make a campaign contribution in association with attending the coffee?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Do you know whether the individuals that you suggested as attendees of the coffees ever received formal invitations from either the DNC or the White House to attend the coffee?
Answer. My recollection is they did not receive formal invitations.
Question. I provide for the witness a document marked Exhibit AS–17, which is marked EOP 035478, dated September 28, 1995, and it appears to be a list from a computer database that is not addressed to anybody in particular.
Answer. I don't think it is a list.
Question. I mean it provides fields, entry of data, for an addressee. It is not an actual letter that went out to anyone.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–17 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. I show you this to ask you if you have seen letters like this that have gone out to coffee invitees?
Page 1083 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Not like this, no. As I stated earlier, the letters we would send were in the form of a memorandum indicating where they should enter. I don't recall sending a formal letter like this.
Question. Was there anybody at the DNC that was responsible for issuing the invitations or collecting information from the individual invitees?
Answer. At the DNC?
Question. Yes.
Answer. It tended to be myself and Ann Braziel.
Question. Did you have any—do you have any knowledge that any individuals at the DNC were linking attendance at a coffee with a contribution of any sort?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. I provide the witness with an exhibit marked AS–18.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–18 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. This is premarked with a Bates Number DNC 3098456. If you would take just a moment to look at that. This appears to be a call sheet. It is not specifically addressed to an individual. It is prepared by Ann Braziel.
Do you recall call sheets of this nature being prepared?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. Did you discuss with Mr. Braziel—with Ms. Braziel call sheets of this nature?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. And did you discuss with her language that is set out at the bottom, the reasons for call. Here it indicates that an individual is interested in participating in convention but is not sure about membership. Ask them to begin renewal of his trustee membership at 25 K and attend the coffee with the President on, and three dates are listed.
Page 1084 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Were you aware of any situations where when calls were made, attendance at coffee was linked with renewal of trustee membership?
Answer. I don't have knowledge of that.
Question. Did you ever discuss with Chairman Fowler the relationship between membership or being included in the trustee program and attending coffees?
Answer. He knew that in my role I included trustees in those coffees, so the participation of trustees was sort of a natural thing for us to discuss, because they were the donors I worked with.
Question. You mentioned before that you tended to include long-standing trustees as possible invitees to coffees. How would you determine what would qualify as a long-standing trustee contributor to be included in your list of invitations?
Answer. Their length of time for when they contributed. If they had been a contributor for two years, a year. People that got involved more close to the date of a coffee, I would move them sort of towards a later date. People who had been continual contributors, renewing every year, were my first priority.
Question. And did you have a cutoff in your own mind as to years of participation for inclusion in the list of potential attendees that you submitted?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever receive information, financial information, that projected income for coffees that the President attended?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Did you ever receive any spreadsheets or financial data that listed coffees?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Do you have any recollection of receiving any types of financial data or spreadsheets, apart from that which we have already discussed, which were the lists of trustees that could be generated at your request?
Page 1085 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. No.
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you ever have any discussions with your colleagues about financial projections for coffees or indications of money received from coffees? And I refer exclusively to before November of 1996.
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Are you aware of whether the Vice President hosted coffees for DNC supporters?
Answer. Yes, he did.
Question. Did you ever submit any lists of suggested attendees for those coffees?
Answer. I did.
Question. And what criteria did you use to determine who you would put on the list?
Answer. Similar criteria. I tended to defer to, in the case of coffees with the Vice President, contributions that were not made by the individual, but if there was like a Washington representative of a company that had been a long-standing contributor, that is where I tended to include them on the list.
Question. Have you ever heard of the term of art ''servicing'' used in conjunction with either presidential or vice presidential coffees? And, if so, do you know what it means?
Answer. I have heard the term ''servicing.''
Mr. PIERSON. Have you heard it applied though to coffees?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Page 1086 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. And do you have an understanding of what the term ''servicing'' means?
Mr. PIERSON. As applied to coffees?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. As applied to coffees.
Answer. It would mean an opportunity to include donors at an event where the President would be attending and it would not be a fund-raiser.
Question. Have you ever seen any lists of coffees where the term ''servicing'' is applied to one of the presidential or vice presidential coffees?
Answer. I don't recall such a list.
Question. Do you recall ever having discussions with any of your colleagues as to whether either a presidential or vice-presidential coffee would be designated as a servicing event?
Answer. No.
Question. There was a coffee on May 13, 1996, that included a number of prominent bankers. Did you submit any suggestions or names for that particular coffee?
Answer. I did not.
Mr. PIERSON. Counsel, it is now about 4 o'clock. I would like to ask on the record counsel for the Minority whether they will have any examination based on how the testimony is going so far?
Mr. Lu. I think we will, yes.
Mr. PIERSON. Can you give me an estimate of how long?
Mr. Lu. At this point, 15 to 20 minutes maybe, possibly a little bit more, a little bit less.
Page 1087 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. PIERSON. Okay. I haven't talked to Mr. Swiller about how he is feeling, but I am getting weary. I am just writing notes. What I would like to do is take about a 2 or 3-minute break and go until 5 o'clock, and whatever line of questioning you have at that time we would be happy to let you finish, and let the Minority do some questioning. Unless it opens some area that is legitimate for you to pursue, I would like to end.
Mr. WILSON. I am in agreement to continue on after a short break. I hope I can wrap up within the next hour. I can't make any representations to that.
Mr. PIERSON. Fair enough.
[Brief recess.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Back on the record, please.
Did you ever have any interaction with Harold Ickes?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Did you ever place any calls or make any contacts with Mr. Ickes' office?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. And what were the circumstances?
Answer. I believe I spoke with an assistant to him, John Sutton. I think it was regarding a tour request that he was going to do for some contributors, supporters.
Question. That Mr. Sutton was going to——
Answer. Yes.
Question [continuing]. Organize for contributors? Did you ever——
Mr. PIERSON. You have to speak audibly.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Page 1088 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you ever have any contacts with Janice Enright?
Answer. Socially, but not that I recall in her office, work.
Question. Did you make any requests of her?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Do you recall whether she made any requests of you?
Answer. No, I do not recall any.
Question. Did you ever prepare call sheets for the President, Vice President, First Lady or Vice President's wife?
Answer. I believe I prepared call sheets for the President and Vice President, yes.
Question. And——
Answer. I did.
Question. And how did you determine who would be put on call sheets?
Answer. In discussions with Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Rosen.
Question. Did you keep track of the results of what happened after call sheets were sent out?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. How did you do that?
Answer. We had a binder in the office that had copies of call sheets, and at the front of it was a spreadsheet that indicated if a call was made and what the response was.
Question. And was the binder divided into sections depending on President and Vice President, First Lady, or who the person to make the call was?
Answer. Since there were only calls to my knowledge made by the Vice President, it was all calls referring to him.
Page 1089 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And who generated the spreadsheet that you refer to as being at the front of the binder?
Answer. Ms. Braziel.
Question. When you provided call sheets through the Vice President, did you provide any additional instructions or materials in addition to the one-page call sheet?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. I provide for Mr. Swiller a document marked Exhibit AS–19, which is marked as a DNC call sheet for Vice President Gore.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–19 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. It has been premarked with the Bates number EOP 049239. It is dated December 1, 1995.
Do you recognize the handwriting at the bottom of the page?
Answer. It looks like it could be the handwriting of Anne Braziel.
Question. And if you could, please tell me how the call sheets were treated once they were sent out? Did you request the calls be made by a certain time?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. How would information as to whether the calls had been made or not made be transmitted back to your office?
Answer. It generally tended that a gentleman named Peter Knight would assist in that. He would provide information if calls were made or not.
Question. Did you ever discuss with Peter Knight the call sheets and fund-raising efforts made pursuant to the call sheets?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Page 1090 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. What did you discuss?
Answer. In regards to the call sheets?
Question. Yes.
Answer. He would inform me if a call was made, if the Vice President connected with the individual who the outreach was made to, what the result of that call was, if it was favorable or not favorable.
Question. And do you recall whether he contacted you exclusively, or did he sometimes contact Ms. Braziel?
Answer. I think he sometimes contacted Mr. Sullivan, but I think he generally contacted myself and talked to me.
Question. This particular call sheet lists as a reason for the call to ask an individual to contribute an additional $50,000 to the DNC Media Fund.
What was the Media Fund?
Answer. It was a similar internal campaign line of funds we were trying to raise. I don't think there was a separate account for it, and I think it was just internally attracting that we were doing.
Question. Did you receive copies of separate accounting for funds that had been raised in the Media Fund?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Did you ever suggest to any individuals that they make contributions to not-for-profit organizations?
Answer. If individuals were interested in organizations that were not-for-profit, there were times when I would offer them names of such organizations.
Question. Did you keep a list of names of organizations that were not for profits that you suggested people to contribute to?
Page 1091 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I did not.
Question. Did you have a memoranda that you could provide for people with names and addresses?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. When you made suggestions to individuals about a particular not for profit to which they might contribute, did you verbally tell them what the organization was and other information about the organization?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. Did you ever keep any records of whether people you discussed not-for-profit contributions with actually did contribute to the not-for-profit group?
Answer. I don't recall a separate recording for that, no.
Question. Do you recall whether there was an accounting of any sort within the DNC that kept track of contributions made to not-for-profit organizations?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. Did you ever see any spreadsheets that listed not-for-profit contributions?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Did you keep any information in the trustee files about whether individuals made contributions to not-for-profit organizations?
Answer. I may have, but I don't recall any specific.
Question. You suggested earlier you would provide the names of organizations to which contributions could be made. What are the names of those organizations?
Answer. The ones I recall are the William Randolph Black Coalition for Black Voter Participation, the A. William Randolph Coalition for Black Voter Participation, and I think there was another organization called Vote '96.
Page 1092 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you ever suggest individuals make contributions to an organization called Defeat 209?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever suggest individuals make contributions to an organization called Participation 2000?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Why did you ask individuals or corporations to give gifts to not-for-profit organizations?
Answer. I never asked them to.
Question. Is it fair to characterize what you said earlier that you merely responded to their questions of who might I contribute to for a not-for-profit contribution?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. Have you ever met an individual named Warren Meddoff?
Answer. No, I have not.
Question. Have you been contacted about a possible contribution from Mr. Meddoff prior to November 1996?
Answer. By whom?
Question. By anybody. Prior to November of 1996?
Answer. Mr. Fowler contacted me about it.
Question. And what did he ask you or tell you?
Answer. He asked if I had heard the name Meddoff, or I believe there was another individual working with him who had indicated that they may make a large contribution to the DNC. Mr. Fowler was concerned because of the size of the contribution and the timing of the contribution and the fact that Mr. Meddoff was not known to myself and other individual fund-raisers at the DNC. He had some suspicions about their motives, their sincerity, and whether they were for real or not.
Page 1093 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. What did you tell Mr. Fowler?
Answer. I told him that I did not know Mr. Meddoff. I don't recall the company he represented himself aligned with, but I didn't know that either. As I said earlier, there was another gentleman involved, and I did not know that gentleman either.
Question. Did Mr. Fowler ask you to do any research on Mr. Meddoff or Mr. Meddoff's associate?
Answer. Yes. They sort of I guess indicated that they were in the financial field, so he asked that I call, if I could request of donors who were also in the finance field if they knew of these individuals.
Question. And did you make calls to——
Answer. I recall two calls that I made, yes.
Question. Who did you call?
Answer. A gentleman named Steven Rattner, and a gentleman named Elliott Wolk.
Question. The spelling of the second gentleman's name is?
Answer. W-O-L-K.
Question. And what did they tell you about Mr. Meddoff?
Answer. Neither of them had heard of him or the company which they represented.
Question. Did you communicate this to Mr. Fowler?
Answer. I did.
Question. And did he ask you to do anything else?
Answer. He did not.
Question. Did you have any—did you receive any requests from anybody outside of the DNC about information pertaining to Mr. Meddoff prior to November of 1996?
Page 1094 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No, I—no.
Question. Do you know whether the DNC ever provided a list of Chinese American trustees to anyone at the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Do you know an individual named Andrew Hsi, spelled H-S-I?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Have you ever had any contacts with Andrew Hsi?
Answer. No, I have not.
Question. Do you know an individual named Steve Boyd?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Has Mr. Boyd ever asked you to provide a list of trustees to him?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Boyd asked you to provide a list of trustees to anyone else?
Answer. Not that I have any recollection of.
Question. I provide the witness with a document which has been marked Exhibit AS–20.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–20 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. It has been Bates marked DNC 1761511. It is a memorandum to Ari Swiller from Matt, dated April 21, subject, loose ends. If you can take just a moment to review this document.
Page 1095 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Okay.
Question. Do you know who the individual was, ''Matt,'' at the top of the memo is?
Answer. Yeah. It's Matt Gobush.
Question. Do you recall ever having seen this memo?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. Referring to the last bullet mark paragraph of the memorandum, it states that ''Steve Boyd has requested a list of Chinese-American Trustees for Andrew Hsi of the Secretariat of Taiwan per the request of Jim Brady, DNC Vice Chair.''
Do you recall having any conversations about Mr. Boyd requesting a list of Chinese-American trustees?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Do you remember having seen this at the time that the memorandum was given to you?
Answer. I——
Question. This statement.
Answer. This statement. I don't have a recollection of it, but I remember seeing a memorandum.
Question. Did you ask Mr. Gobush for further information about this, the request about a list of Chinese-American trustees for the Secretariat of Taiwan?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did Mr. Gobush provide any additional information to that which is in this memorandum?
Answer. Not that I can recall.
Question. Do you recall having any conversations with anybody or contacts with anybody about providing lists of trustees for somebody in the Secretariat of Taiwan?
Page 1096 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No, I do not recall any.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Gobush sent over such a list to the Secretariat of Taiwan?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Do you recall whether at the time that this struck you as being an unusual request?
Answer. It strikes me now as one. I don't recall my reaction to it at that time.
Question. Have you ever provided a list of trustees to any organization outside of the DNC?
Answer. Not to my knowledge. I was very protective of the list.
Mr. WILSON. I've given the witness a memorandum which has been marked AS–21. It's premarked DNC 1781772. It's a memorandum dated April 24, 1995, to Steve Boyd from Mr. Swiller and Nancy Burke. It's re: Chinese-American trustees. This memorandum lists three—actually five individuals: Mr. Johnny Chung, Mr. Charlie Trie, Mrs. Wang Mei Trie, Dr. C.J. Wang and Dr. Mildred Wang.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–21 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall ever having seen this memorandum?
Answer. No, I don't recall seeing it.
Question. Who is Nancy Burke?
Answer. She was my assistant on the trustee program after Mr. Gobush left. She worked at my direction.
Question. Did Ms. Burke and Mr. Gobush overlap in their terms of employment?
Page 1097 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Maybe by a week as a transition period.
Question. Do you recall whether Ms. Burke ever discussed with you sending names of Chinese-American trustees to Mr. Boyd?
Answer. I don't recall the conversation, no.
Question. Referring back to the previous document, the date is not specific. It says April 21st, and a year is not included in the first document. The second document is dated April 24 of 1995. I believe April 21st is a Friday and April 24 is a Monday. Is there—.
The WITNESS. Excuse me one second.
[Witness and counsel confer.]
The WITNESS. Sorry.
Mr. PIERSON. Perhaps, counsel, it might be more useful if you're trying to fix the year to ask the witness if he recalls when Mr. Gobush was employed at the DNC.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. When was Mr. Gobush employed at the DNC?
Answer. He was employed at the DNC through—through the end of April, I believe, in 1995.
Mr. PIERSON. And he began at what time?
The WITNESS. He began in—about a year prior.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you have a recollection of the month that he began his employment?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Okay. Who is Steve Boyd?
Page 1098 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I believe he worked in the Office of the Secretary of the DNC.
Question. And what is the Office of the Secretary in the DNC responsible for doing?
Answer. I don't know. They are responsible for making sure that the Secretary of the DNC is well seated at all DNC events. Other than that, I think they maintain the bylaws of the party, but I'm not sure what their day-to-day responsibilities are.
Question. Did you receive other requests from Mr. Boyd—well I shouldn't say other requests. Did you receive any requests that you recollect from Mr. Boyd during your employment at the DNC?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you know Anne Lewis?
Answer. I know who she is.
Question. Have you ever met her?
Answer. I believe I have, yes.
Question. Do you know Lynn Cutler?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Question. And do you know her personally?
Answer. Yes I do.
Question. Do you know of any donations—did you ever recommend donations be made to the Back to Business group.
Answer. No I did not.
Question. Were you ever part of any—of discussions wherein it was suggested the DNC donors made contributions to the Back to Business organization?
Answer. Yes, I believe I was—yes.
Question. And if you could, please describe those discussions.
Page 1099 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I believe Ms. Cutler at some point made a request for some names that may be outreached to for that organization.
Question. Did Ms. Cutler make the request directly of you?
Answer. As I recall, yes.
Question. And how did you respond?
Answer. I did not respond.
Question. Did you send her any names?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you suggest any names that she might contact?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you recall in a general sense what you told her?
Answer. I think it—when she asked, I said I would look into it. But I remember feeling that it would be counterproductive to my efforts to raise money, so I—I don't recall her ever following up, so I didn't do any proactive follow up.
Question. When you left the DNC in March of 1997, or at any time previous to your leaving the DNC, did you sign a memorandum about the retention or nondestruction of documents?
Answer. Yes, I believe so.
Question. Do you know when you might have signed such a document?
Answer. Prior to leaving the DNC.
Question. Do you remember when—when the document was circulated for you to be signed?
Answer. Around the new year, December, January; maybe earlier.
Question. And do you recall signing this document?
Page 1100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I believe I did, yes.
Question. When you—in 1995, were you aware of a suggestion by campaign consultant Dick Morris about a large-scale media purchase for the end of 1995?
Answer. At that time, no.
Question. And I'm speaking specifically about that time.
Answer. No, I'm not.
Question. Did you become aware of such a suggestion at any time before November of 1996?
Answer. I became aware that the DNC was making large purchases of TV time. I don't know at what point that I became aware it was at his suggestion. I knew we were doing it, and when I became aware of that Mr. Morris was involved in that discussion, I can't recollect exactly when that was.
Question. Did you contact any of the trustee donors to provide additional contributions for media purchases at the end of 1995?
Answer. As I recall, no, there was no direct contributions made to direct media purchases. There was general fund-raising that was always at an increase because we always needed more money. As we started to, as I recall, buy more media time, our expenditures grew, so we were required to raise more money. I don't know that that—I can't recall directing anyone that their funds would go to media purchase, because I don't believe that that was ever the case.
Question. Do you know whether anybody at the DNC was involved in keeping track of funds or monies to be directed towards media purchases at the end of 1995?
Answer. Not that I have knowledge of, no.
Question. Do you recall whether there were any specific accounting systems set up to keep track of funds that might be expended in media buys at the end of 1995?
Page 1101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. Did you have any involvement with funds being wired to State parties to implement media buys at the end of 1995?
Answer. I don't recall that.
Question. Did you have any direct contact with any State party officials in terms of providing contributions to the State parties from the DNC?
Answer. No. I don't recall speaking to State party officials.
Question. Were you involved in any discussions of sending DNC monies to State parties?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Mr. PIERSON. May I hear the last question and answer, please?
[The reporter read back as requested.]
Mr. PIERSON. Excuse me just a moment.
[Witness and counsel confer.]
Mr. PIERSON. Are you asking for his discussion with anybody inside the DNC, any contributors, anybody in the world?
Mr. WILSON. Any——
Mr. PIERSON. Because he's already testified about the Tamraz situation.
Mr. WILSON. Correct. Any of the DNC colleagues.
[Witness and counsel confer.]
Mr. PIERSON. Start your question again, because I think he's thinking about something different than you're asking. So ask again if you would, please.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Were you involved in any meetings or discussions with DNC colleagues about—about forwarding DNC monies to State parties?
Page 1102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. PIERSON. What you're talking about is money that has gone into DNC accounts and thereafter would go to State parties?
Mr. WILSON. Correct.
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. PIERSON. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Unfortunately, this is depressing for me to go back and look at the pile that I went passed earlier, but a couple of quick questions on a few more issues.
Mr. PIERSON. Far more depressing to us.
Mr. WILSON. I'm hoping to come within the last 4 or 5 minutes of my questioning.
Mr. PIERSON. Good.
Mr. WILSON. Maybe a little longer.
Mr. PIERSON. Good.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever draft, suggest a list of DNC contributors to stay as overnight guests in the White House?
Mr. PIERSON. Do you mean did he ever propose names for overnight stays in the White House?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Well, the first question is did you ever send the list or draft lists of suggested overnight guests at the White House?
Answer. I don't recall drafting it, no.
Question. Did you ever make suggestions of individuals to be overnight guests at the White House?
Page 1103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. On occasion, yes.
Question. Do you recall specifically who you suggested as an overnight guest?
Answer. No. My recollection would be that there had been long-standing fund-raisers and trustees who have been significantly supportive throughout the years.
Question. And to whom would you communicate your suggestions?
Answer. I think initially I communicated suggestions to Ms. Hartigan and Mr. McAuliffe; subsequent to the transition, to Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Rosen.
Question. Did you ever communicate directly with the White House with suggestions of potential overnight guests?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever receive telephone calls or contact from the White House about suggested overnight guests?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever travel on Air Force One or Air Force Two?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever suggest individuals to travel on Air Force One or Air Force Two?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. And what criteria would you use to make such a suggestion?
Answer. Same criteria as I stated earlier: People who had been long-standing supporters or longtime fund-raisers of the party.
Question. And who would you communicate your suggestions to?
Page 1104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. As I stated earlier, at first I—I would to Mr. McAuliffe and Ms. Hartigan; following the transition, to Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Rosen.
Question. Did you ever discuss requests for positions on boards or commissions with DNC donors?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. And who did—who did you discuss board or commission positions with?
Answer. I can't recall all the donors. I remember Ms. Betsy Cohen made a request about an inquiry. I think Elaine Shuster.
Question. Do you remember any other names?
Answer. I believe there may have been others that I spoke with about it but not coming to mind.
Mr. WILSON. I've given the witness a document which is marked Exhibit AS–22. It's been Bates marked DNC 3052822, memorandum to Mr. Swiller and Richard Sullivan from Eric Sildon and Jay Dunn, dated January 24, 1994.
[Swiller Deposition Exhibit No. AS–22 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall ever receiving requests from the Commerce Department for potential board members?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. Do you recall having seen this memorandum?
Answer. I do not recall it.
Question. Do you remember whether you ever submitted names of individuals as recommendees for the President's Export Council?
Answer. I don't recall it.
Page 1105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you remember any—anybody following up on this request—any request for names to be submitted for the President's Export Council?
Answer. I don't recall it.
Question. Did you ever suggest that DNC donors attend White House movies?
Answer. No.
Question. Are you familiar with the term of art ''White House database''?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you ever have access to any materials produced by the White House database?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And what materials did you have access to?
Answer. I remember—I didn't have physical access, but requesting of someone who had access to see whether certain people had been invited to certain events at the White House.
Question. And did you make a request to obtain this information?
Answer. Yes I did.
Question. And who did you make the request of?
Answer. A gentleman named Donald Dunn.
Question. And who is Mr. Dunn?
Answer. At that time he worked in the Office of Political Affairs at the White House.
Question. And did you make requests on more than one occasion of Mr. Dunn to provide this information?
Page 1106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. What was the format of the information that he provided?
Answer. There was no format. He would—it was voice conversation.
Question. Is it fair to say that you provided him with a name, and he provided you an answer as to——
Answer. Correct.
Question [continuing]. Whether the person had or had not been invited?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Did you ever provide information to be included in the White House database?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did Mr. Dunn ever make requests of either yourself or staff in your office to provide any information?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you recall speaking with Mr. Dunn on more than the one occasion that you just discussed?
Answer. I spoke to Mr. Dunn probably half a dozen times.
Question. And was it always for the same reason?
Answer. Some—no, at certain times I made a request of Mr. Dunn to provide a White House tour for family or individual donors.
Question. Did you ever receive any lists of names or information that was generated by the White House database?
Answer. I don't know if it was generated by the database, but I received a list of names from the Office of the Social Secretary.
Page 1107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And what were these lists of names for?
Answer. On occasion they would request of us lists of possible invitees to events that the White House would be hosting. They would send back a response list.
Question. Do you know whether the DNC had an autopen for the President's signature?
Answer. My recollection is that we did not have one.
Question. Regarding materials that had the President's signature, and I'll ask you specifically about photographs that were signed by the President, when you were attempting to obtain photographs for people, who would you make your requests of?
Answer. For the photographs?
Question. Yeah.
Answer. Sometimes Mr. Dunn. There was a woman at the DNC that I worked with, a woman named Brooke Stroud, who would assist in obtaining photographs from the White House.
Question. Just a—I think my last question on this go-around, you mentioned at the very beginning when we were discussing Ernst & Young and the materials Ernst & Young prepared that you knew of an Ernst & Young individual who was a trustee. Who was that individual?
Answer. His name was Jeffrey Hershberg.
Question. And when did you meet him, or have you ever met him?
Answer. I have met him. I believe I didn't meet him until I returned to the DNC. He was already a trustee at that time. So subsequent to my return, beginning of 19—end of 1993, beginning of 1994.
Question. What was his job at Ernst & Young?
Answer. He was vice president—vice chairman was his title. I believe he directed the Washington office, lobbying office, for the company.
Page 1108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you know if he is still an Ernst & Young employee?
Answer. When I left here 5 months ago, he was. I have not had contact with him in 5 months since I left, so today I do not know.
Question. How did you obtain your current job in California?
Answer. I knew an individual who was working with the same company who had the position basically as I have it now. And he was leaving the position to assume a different role and approached me about filling the position.
Question. And who was this individual?
[Witness confers with counsel.]
Mr. Lu. Counsel, I don't know how much you're going to——
Mr. PIERSON. Just let him answer this question.
The WITNESS. The gentleman's name is Darius Anderson.
Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. That concludes my round of questioning.
Mr. Lu. Can we take just a quick 5-minute break while I confer with counsel?
Mr. WILSON. Can we go off the record for a second?
[Discussion off the record.]
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Lu. Let's go back on the record.
Mr. Wilson, I—you're done with your questioning?
Mr. WILSON. Yes, I am.
Mr. Lu. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MR. LU:
Question. Mr. Swiller, on behalf of the Democratic Members of the committee, I want to thank you for coming in today. I realize this must have been a great burden on you coming from the west coast, but we appreciate your time.
Page 1109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Just a couple clarifying questions I want to ask you. Can you tell me again how many trustees or managing trustees there were at the DNC during the time you worked there?
Answer. It grew during the time I was there. By the time I was finished, or by the time in the '96 election, it was approximately around 800.
Question. About 800.
Mr. Wilson has asked you about a number of them today and a couple of more newsworthy ones. At the time that you worked at the DNC prior to November of 1996, had there been any news accounts about Johnny Chung, Pauline Kanchanalak, Charlie Trie?
Answer. Not that I recall, no.
Question. So at that time, you, prior to November 1996, you had no particular reason to pay special attention to correspondence that you received from them or requests that you received from them any more than from any other trustee?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. I would like to ask you to clarify the terms ''trustee'' and ''managing trustee.'' When I think about a university having a board of trustees or a company having a board of directors, I have a sense that these people play a role in the day-to-day operations of a university, a corporation, what have you, and especially when I think about the terms ''managing trustee'' or ''managing director.'' My understanding, however, is that with regard to the DNC, the use of the term ''trustee'' and ''managing trustee'' is more of an honorary term. Is that consistent with your understanding?
Answer. No. My understanding is they are—the names were consistent with the level of contribution or level of funds raised for the party.
Question. Well, no, I think what my question was really getting at is whether those people had a role in the day-to-day operation of the DNC?
Page 1110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Absolutely not.
Question. With regard to Pauline Kanchanalak, I gather that she was a trustee at the time that you joined—you rejoined the DNC in December of 1993?
Answer. That's my recollection, correct.
Question. So from there on out, when you received checks from her that were P. Kanchanalak, you had no reason to believe that they were anything other than checks from Pauline Kanchanalak?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. I believe you also testified that you attempted to contact Mr. John Huang when he worked at the Department of Commerce; isn't that correct?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. Did you actually getting ahold of Mr. Huang that one time you tried to call him?
Answer. I never did.
Question. With regard to Johnny Chung, I believe you said when you visited him at his office in California in spring of 1995, you chuckled because you saw a whole wall full of photos that he had taken. You mentioned that there were some of Republican leaders. Did he tell you or did you ask him how he obtained those photos?
Answer. No, I don't recall that conversation.
Question. Did you have any understanding as to whether he had given money to the Republican Party or attended Republican fund-raising events?
Answer. Judging from the pictures, they were very similar to DNC-type staged pictures, so I assumed that—it was just an assumption on my own, but not a discussion—that they were—you know, that he received pictures like that at fund-raising events.
Page 1111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. When we spoke about Mr. Ruggiero, Mr. Joseph Ruggiero, you explained that had he complained that he had received much better treatment by the RNC in getting access to the Bush White House. And you—I believe you had mentioned some of the perks that he had received as a result of giving money to the RNC.
Other than your conversation, that conversation with Mr. Ruggiero or that understanding as a result of Mr. Ruggiero, do you have any understanding of the types of perks that the Republican National Committee offered to its large donors?
Answer. My understanding was that they included many more of their financial supporters at events at the White House, at small delegation meetings, meetings with Members of Congress much more frequently as a system of their fund-raising apparatus.
I also recall, when we were discussing the possibility of putting together a brochure for our trustees, we referenced the RNC Team 100 brochure, which, as I recall, had a picture of what they called a trade mission. It was a picture at the wall of China of approximately 50 people standing at the wall and indicated that, you know, their—through the RNC's efforts, these donors met with the highest-level officials in other countries.
Question. And did you gather from that photo that that RNC trade mission included officials of whether it be the Reagan administration or the Bush administration?
Answer. I couldn't draw that conclusion, no.
Question. Were you aware of any perks that the RNC offered to its large donors that the DNC did not offer to its large donors?
Answer. I don't recall ever having the opportunity to bring individual donors to the Oval Office to provide photos there. It was always joked about, and I don't know the truth of this, that the Republicans were much better at giving large contracts to their supporters than we, and we couldn't figure out how to do that, which I just took it as that and never looked into it or did anything to follow up if that was true.
Page 1112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. With regard to these—I think you said these meetings that—your ability to bring people to the Oval Office to meet with the President, I believe you had earlier testified that some contributors had asked you for—to set up meetings with the President and the Vice President, and you had declined those requests because you thought that was inappropriate?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. Okay. With regards to government boards and commissions, the fact that you or someone at the DNC submitted a name for a government board did not necessarily mean that the White House would accept that name; isn't that correct?
Answer. More often than not there was no response to my request, or the name was not accepted.
Question. In fact, when there's—typically when there's an opening on a government board or commission, many people both inside and outside the administration submit names for boards and commissions; isn't that correct?
Answer. That's my understanding correct.
Question. Mr. Swiller, the last set of questions I have for you are requested by Congressman Condit. He's asked us to ask these of all the witnesses that are testifying before us.
I believe you've told us that you've provided deposition testimony to the Senate; isn't that correct?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. And I'm curious, when you first learned that this committee wanted to take this deposition, did you wonder why you needed to be deposed again after you had already been deposed by the Senate?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Page 1113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Can you estimate for me just very roughly what percentage of the questions you were asked today were also asked by the Senate?
Answer. 80 percent.
Question. 80 percent. And I also understand you've been interviewed by the FBI?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. And I gather a lot of the questions that the FBI asked were the same ones that have been asked today?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. Have you been notified of any other testimony that you're scheduled to give in the future?
Answer. Not yet.
Question. And I believe that when—I believe that you were at the DNC when some of the first congressional document requests were served upon the DNC; is that correct?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. Do you recall how much time you spent searching for documents at the DNC responsive to those requests?
Answer. Probably each request required half a day of work.
Question. Can you estimate a total of——
Answer. Four hours. I think there were three requests.
Question. Four hours for each request?
Answer. Right.
Question. Okay. And since you have left the DNC, have you spent any time searching for documents responsive to document requests?
Page 1114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I no longer have any documents.
Question. Other than the time that you've spent in this deposition, how much other time—well, actually let me stop that question.
In connection with this entire investigation, can you give me an estimate of how much time you have spent? And that would include the Senate testimony, the FBI testimony, your testimony here, all the preparation time, all the travel time, conversations. We'll leave it at that.
Answer. Probably 2 weeks of time.
Question. And I assume this is the time that you have not been able to spend at your job?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. Other than your time, this 2 weeks that you've said, have you—I've assumed you've incurred other expenses to come here, travel expenses, hotel expenses, things like that?
Answer. Most of the travel expenses have been incurred by the committees that have requested my presence, and the majority of the burden of my expenses has been placed on the DNC.
Question. And obviously there's the time off from work I gather?
Answer. Oh, yeah. I mean, that's probably the greatest expense, my lost time.
Question. And if it is available, will you seek reimbursement from this committee for your time?
Answer. Yes.
Mr. WILSON. I have nothing further. Thank you again for coming today.
Page 1115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Sure.
Mr. PIERSON. Sorry for coaching.
Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Swiller.
Mr. PIERSON. Thank you, gentlemen.
[Whereupon, at 5:12 p.m., the deposition concluded.]
[The exhibits referred to follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 506 TO 540 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
[The deposition of Dick Morris follows:]
Executive Session
| Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, |
| U.S. House of Representatives, |
| Washington, DC. |
DEPOSITION OF: RICHARD S. MORRIS
| Thursday, August 21, 1997 |
The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 9:15 a.m.
Appearances:
Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Barbara Comstock, Chief Investigative Counsel; Kristi Remington, Investigative Counsel; Michelle E. White, Investigative Attorney; Greg Zoeller, Majority counsel; Elliot Berke, Majority staff; Kenneth Ballen, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel; Andrew J. McLaughlin, Minority Counsel; Phil Schiliro, Minority staff director; David Sadkin, Minority counsel; and Kristin Amerling, Minority counsel.
Page 1116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Also present: Representative Cummings.
For MR. MORRIS:
DAVID LENEFSKY, ESQ.
Attorney & Counselor at Law
18 East 48th Street
New York, N.Y. 10017
Ms. COMSTOCK. On the record. Good morning, Mr. Morris. I would like to begin by thanking you on behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for appearing here today. I am going through an opening statement here we read to all our witnesses.
This proceeding is known as a deposition. The person transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and notary public. I will now request that the reporter place you under oath.
THEREUPON, RICHARD S. MORRIS, a witness, was called for examination by Counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Ms. COMSTOCK. I would like to note for the record those who are present at the beginning of the deposition. My name is Barbara Comstock. I am the chief investigative counsel on the committee. I am accompanied today by Kristi Remington as Majority counsel and Michelle White, who is also Majority counsel.
Ken Ballen is the designated Minority counsel for the committee this morning, and he is accompanied by Andy McLaughlin.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Andrew, actually.
Ms. COMSTOCK. With the Minority staff.
The deponent is represented by Mr. Lenefsky.
Page 1117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, your testimony here today has the same force and effect as if you were testifying before the committee or in a courtroom.
If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words used in the conversation, you may state that you are unable to recall those exact words and then you may give me the gist or substance of any such conversation to the best of your recollection.
If you recall only part of a conversation or only part of an event, please give me your best recollection of those events or parts of conversations that you do recall.
If I ask you whether you have any information upon a particular subject——
Mr. LENEFSKY. Can you identify the gentleman who just walked in?
Ms. COMSTOCK. It is another Majority member of the committee.
The WITNESS. What is your name?
Mr. BERKE. Elliot Berke.
The WITNESS. Member or counsel?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Staff member of the committee, on the Majority staff.
If I ask you if you have any information upon a particular subject and you have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding it or seen correspondence or documentation regarding it, please tell me that you do have such information and indicate the source, either a conversation or documentation or otherwise, from which you have derived such knowledge.
Before we begin the questioning, I would like to give you some background about the investigation and your appearance here.
Page 1118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
We have another staff member.
Mr. BALLEN. David Sadkin.
Ms. COMSTOCK. He is with the Minority staff.
Pursuant to its authority under House Rules X and XI of the House of Representatives, the committee is engaged in a wide-ranging review of possible political fund-raising improprieties and possible violations of law within the committee's jurisdiction.
Pages 2 through 4 of House Report 105–139 summarizes the investigation as of June 19, 1997, and encompasses any new matters which arise directly or indirectly in the course of the investigation. Also, pages 4 through 11 of the report explain the background of the investigation.
All questions related either directly or indirectly to these issues, or questions which have a tendency to make the existence of any pertinent fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, are proper.
The committee has been granted specific authorization to conduct this deposition pursuant to House Resolution 167, which passed the full House on June 20, 1997. Committee rule 20, of which you have received a copy, outlines the ground rules for the deposition.
Majority and Minority committee counsel will ask you questions regarding the subject matter of the investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel has finished. After the Minority counsel has completed questioning you, a new round of questioning may begin.
Members of Congress who wish to ask questions will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask their questions at any time when they may be present. When they are finished, committee counsel will resume questioning.
Pursuant to the committee's rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights. Any objection raised by your attorney during the course of the deposition shall be stated for the record.
Page 1119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
If the witness is instructed by his attorney not to answer a question or otherwise refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine whether the objection is proper. If Majority and Minority counsel agree that a question is proper, the witness will be asked to answer the question.
If an objection is not withdrawn by the witness' attorney, the chairman or member designated by the chairman may decide whether the objection is proper.
This deposition is considered as taken in executive session of the committee, which means it may not be made public without the consent of the committee, pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule 11. You are asked to abide by the rules of the House and not discuss with anyone, other than your attorney, this deposition and the issues and questions raised during this proceeding.
Finally, no later than 5 days after——
Mr. LENEFSKY. Excuse me.
The WITNESS. Just one second.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. LENEFSKY. Please continue.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the chairman.
I would just like to let you know, with agreement of counsel, we have been waiving that 5 days, if you need additional time. Also, we can make arrangements to mail the transcript to you so you can have an easier time reviewing it.
We do ask, however, that you sign a form, that Majority and Minority counsel have agreed upon, that asks both you and the client to sign a form saying you haven't shared the deposition with anybody when we let it out of the committee offices.
Page 1120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The transcript will be available for your review at the committee office.
Also, committee staff may make any typographical and technical changes requested by you. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a statement of your reasons for each proposed change.
A letter requesting any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments must be signed by you. Any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments shall be included as an appendix to the transcript, conditioned upon your signing the transcript.
Do you have any questions about anything we have gone over so far?
The WITNESS. No.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I just want to go through a few ground rules. I just want to indicate for the record that the House committee may regard this as an informal setting, but it seems pretty formal to me.
Mr. BALLEN. I just want to add to the remarks, so that you and your counsel are aware, that under House Rule 11(2)(K)(8), any objections as to relevancy or pertinency are a matter for the committee to decide and rule on.
Mr. LENEFSKY. I understand, reading the rules, it would first go to the chairman.
Mr. BALLEN. First goes to the chairman and then is appealed to the committee. Some issues are for the chairman. But objections as to relevancy or pertinency do go to the committee ultimately.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I will be asking you questions concerning the subject matter of this investigation. I would ask, if you don't understand a question, you please say so, and I will repeat it or rephrase it so you do understand the question.
Page 1121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The reporter will be taking down everything we say and will make a written record of the deposition. You must give verbal, audible answers because the reporter cannot record what a nod of the head or other gesture may mean.
Do you understand that you must give audible answers?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Ms. COMSTOCK. If you can't hear me, please say so, and I will repeat the question or have the court reporter read the question to you.
I would ask that you wait until I finish each question before answering. I will wait until you finish your answer before I ask the next question. Do you understand that this will help the reporter make a clear record because he cannot take down what we are both saying at the same time?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay.
Mr. BALLEN. Kristin Amerling with the Minority staff.
Ms. COMSTOCK. We have another Minority staff member arrive.
Your testimony is being taken under oath today as if we were in court, and do you understand that your answers will be assumed to be responsive to the questions?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Are you here voluntarily or as a result of a subpoena?
The WITNESS. Voluntarily.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Do you have any questions about the deposition before we begin?
Mr. LENEFSKY. No.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK
Page 1122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Could you please state your full name and address for the record?
Answer. Richard S. Morris, M-O-R-R-I-S.
Question. And do you have any other addresses?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Could you provide those for the record?
Answer. [Redacted.]
Question. Can you provide your phone numbers for each of those addresses, please?
Answer. [Redacted.]
Question. Has that been the same from approximately 1994 to the present?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Okay.
Answer. [Redacted.]
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me, Counsel. I want to add something for the record here. I assume that before—if these depositions are ever voted on to be publicly released by the committee—last time they were placed on the Internet—that Mr. Morris, in the interests of privacy, his home numbers be removed from any such public release.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Thank you for that information. I didn't realize there is a possibility this would be on the Internet or, in fact, released to the public.
Mr. BALLEN. There certainly is. If the committee votes to do that, these depositions could be publicly released.
The WITNESS. Particularly if it is in the section on cybersex, I would like it deleted.
Page 1123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. COMSTOCK. I would say for the record, last year that was by agreement of the Majority and Minority Counsel that all of the depositions be made public, and no questions had been raised at that time. But we will be happy to entertain any concerns in that matter.
The WITNESS. I would request the phone numbers be deleted. Yes, go ahead.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Could you provide for us any cellular phone or other phones you may have had between 1994 to the present?
Answer. Oh, I had one during the campaign, but I don't recall the phone number and I don't have it any more.
Question. Do you know who paid for that cellular phone?
Answer. Yes; Clinton/Gore.
Question. Was that one number that you had throughout the——
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you know approximately when you got that phone number?
Answer. Early '95.
Question. And do you know how long you kept it?
Answer. Until August 26th, '96.
Question. Those phone bills were all paid for by Clinton/Gore?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And to your knowledge, did Clinton/Gore maintain all of those?
Page 1124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes. I also have a car telephone, and the phone number in the car is [redacted], and I have had that continuously since '94.
Question. All right. Have you discussed this deposition this morning with anyone other than your attorney?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you——
Answer. With my wife, but no one else—no, no, I am sorry; yes, I did. I was interviewed by the Washington—somehow, the Washington Times and the New York Post and USA Today all learned of the deposition and they all called me for comment, and I did interview them about this deposition.
Question. About this deposition or yesterday's deposition?
Answer. They actually called knowing about today's, not yesterday's, and I told them about yesterday's.
But this was before yesterday. Is that clear?
Mr. BALLEN. For the record, yesterday being the Senate?
The WITNESS. Yes. In other words, they had information about the House deposition, not about the Senate.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay. Could you please describe your employment history from college forward?
Answer. After college, I worked as a research analyst at the New York City Citizens Budget Commission, a civic watchdog group. After that, I was employed by—I was basically self-employed, and my company was called Public Affairs Research Organization.
In 1977, I joined another firm that I owned called Dresner, D-R-E-S-N-E-R, Morris, Tortorello, T-O-R-T-O-R-E-L-L-O. I worked for them through the end of 1982.
Page 1125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
From 1983 on, I have been self-employed either through my own name or Dick Morris Consulting or Message Advisers. And in 1995, in July of 1995, I became an employee of the Clinton/Gore campaign and remained in their employ until August 1996, and I have been either self-employed or unemployed, as you wish, since then.
Question. When was the first time you met President Clinton?
Answer. In November—roughly November 1977.
Question. And were you working for him on a campaign at that time?
Answer. I was asking to be hired by a campaign at that time, and shortly thereafter I was.
Question. And could you describe in your history working with Mr. Clinton from that time forward?
Answer. He engaged me about December of 1977 to advise him on his gubernatorial race in 1978 in Arkansas. I did so. He dismissed me sometime in 1979; I don't recall exactly what month. Then he hired——
Question. The circumstances, you just stopped working?
Answer. No; he fired me.
Question. And is there any reason?
Answer. He didn't—he felt that he wanted to hire someone else who had more of a national reputation, and he disagreed with one of the recommendations I gave him, which is that he should not raise taxes, and he felt that it was unduly intrusive of me to make recommendations of that sort.
He rehired me the day after Election Day in 1980, after his defeat, and I was in his employ as a consultant more or less continuously between then and January 1991.
I say more or less because there were times during that period when I was paid a monthly retainer, and there were times when I was not, I was just paid on a poll-by-poll basis.
Page 1126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I stopped work for him professionally in January of 1991. I had no professional involvement with him between January of 1991 and November 1994—I am sorry, October 1994, and—although I did chat with him and advise him over the phone just as a friend.
Then I worked for him part-time between November '94 and June '95 and full-time from July '95 until August '96.
Since August '96, I have no professional relationship with him. As before, we continue to talk, to chat.
Question. Okay. You said throughout the eighties, essentially, you were either on a monthly retainer or paid on a poll-by-poll basis.
Answer. Correct.
Question. Were you paid by Mr. Clinton's campaign operation?
Answer. I don't recall. Generally speaking, yes, and I was never paid by the State of Arkansas, never paid by tax money. I cannot recall the names of the different campaign committees that paid me though, but it was always by some committee that he controlled, whether it was a campaign committee or committee for education in Arkansas or something like that.
Question. Okay. Do you know if you were ever paid by any independent sources or independent expenditure-type money?
Answer. I can't be completely certain, but I have no recollection of ever having been paid by any such entity. I don't believe that I was. But I did receive probably 1,000 checks from him over the course of the eighties, and it is conceivable that one of them might have been something like that, but I have no recollection of it.
Question. When you said you thought you may have been paid by an education committee, was that something separate from a campaign committee?
Answer. Yes. I don't recall how he paid me, but in 1983 I worked with him on ads, very similar to the ones we ran in '95, which were issue advocacy ads in connection with his desire to increase the sales tax in Arkansas and test teachers. And there was a committee that was separate from the campaign that raised money for that effort. And he might have paid me through that, or I might have been paid through his campaign; I don't recall.
Page 1127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you have any knowledge of who contributed to those committees?
Answer. No.
Question. In any of the work you did for Governor Clinton, did you ever work with an individual named David Watkins?
Answer. Yes.
Question. On what occasions did you work with Mr. Watkins?
Answer. Constantly, throughout the whole period. He was the person who produced the advertisements for Clinton, and in virtually—in any of the campaigns, except for the 1978 campaign, which is to say in the '82, '84, '86, and '90 campaigns, he would be in virtually all of the meetings that we had in the 2 or 3 months before Election Day, and he and I would work together to produce the ads for Clinton.
Question.
1And were you aware of him working in the '92 campaign?
Answer. Yes. I had one occasion to be aware. He called me—he had occasion to call me at one point in roughly February of 1993—1992.
Question. And——
Answer. It was right before the New Hampshire primary, and he was seeking advice and basically asked me if I would receive a call from Governor Clinton, and I said I would. And the next—I was in France, so I remember it. The next day, the Governor called and we talked for about 40 minutes or an hour or so on this campaign, and I gave him political advice at that time.
But other than that, I had no contact with Watkins during the '92 campaign.
Question. All right. Have you been in touch with Mr. Watkins recently at all?
Page 1128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No. I called him after—a couple of months after he had to resign. I forget when that was, I think it was in '94.
Question. May of '94, he left the White House.
Answer. So I called him at one point toward the end of '94 just to tell him I still liked him and cheer him on, and I had—I think I may have called him back a few weeks later in the same vein. But since that, I have had no contact with him.
Question. Did you ever talk with him about any investigations at the White House?
Answer. No, except to tell him that I thought that the President acted precipitously in discharging him.
Question. Regarding the helicopter incident?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you have any knowledge of that incident——
Answer. Just what I read in the paper.
Mr. BALLEN. I object to that line of questioning. I didn't know this committee's charge was to reopen that, the Watkins matter.
You can proceed, Counsel.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Other than this call that you said in 1992, did you have any other role in the 1992 campaign?
Answer. Yes. I spoke with the President five or six times during the '92 campaign, and with the now First Lady probably a dozen times, just on the basis where I was just offering advice and counsel. It was not a paid relationship or a formal one.
I didn't meet with either of them during 1992, but I did have those occasions to speak to them, to give them political advice.
Page 1129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. All right. And in 1992 or any time you worked during the 1980s on Clinton campaigns, did you ever have an opportunity to meet with someone named John Huang?
Answer. No.
Question. You have never met Mr. Huang?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you have any knowledge about Mr. Huang's fund-raising?
Answer. Just what I read in the paper.
Question. Did you ever have any occasion to meet any member of the Riady family?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you have any knowledge about any fund-raising by the Riadys?
Answer. No. The only person vaguely in that ilk who I have ever met was, I may have met Mr. Trie, because I ate at his restaurant and I may have seen him then, but I didn't know it was him until—I still don't know if I have ever seen him. He is a smiling guy that greeted you as you walked in. I didn't know if it was him.
When you are in——
Question. He also has restaurants in Beijing.
Answer. When you are in Arkansas, you eat Chinese food.
Question. Do you have any knowledge of any particular people or groups of people who are involved in fund-raising throughout the eighties, any core group of people in Arkansas that you knew of?
Answer. Well, I knew that Betsy Wright was heavily involved in the fund-raising. I knew that Maurice Stans was involved—is that the Nixon person? No, Maurice somebody or other.
Page 1130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Maurice Stans was a Nixon fund-raiser.
Answer. It was an old codger named Maurice something or other, who hung around, who was supposed to have access to money. I just vaguely knew that the two of them were doing something in raising money.
I knew that Clinton required constant badgering to make fund-raising phone calls, and I would just periodically tell him, you know, I hope you are raising money. A couple of times I would be recommending media expenditures, and he would be saying, I don't have the money for those, and then I would say something like, you better go out and borrow the money for those, because we got to put those ads on, because we will lose if we don't.
But other than demand for money on the expenditure end, I had no knowledge at any time of where any of the money came from in terms of donors, fund-raisers, parties, or anything like that.
Question. And when you made recommendations such as you just relayed about that the President better, or at that time the Governor, needed to spend the money or borrow it, that this was essential, did the President usually—did Mr. Clinton usually take your advice?
Answer. The Governor did, almost all the time.
Question. He had trust in your judgment on those types of matters?
Answer. Yes. See, unlike you, I am used to calling him Governor.
Question. Get the names and time sequences correct.
Okay, could we move a little, going to when you first started to work for Mr. Clinton as President Clinton.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Can you describe how that came about?
Page 1131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. During—shortly after the '92 election, I met with the President-elect and the First Lady-elect in Arkansas, and we had a meeting of an hour or two hours, and the President-elect asked me if I would occasionally call him with ideas and advice and meet with him from time to time and keep a more regular contact with the First Lady to provide a channel of advice for him.
During 1993 and 1994, through October—through the last week of September 1994 would be the end of this period—I had occasion to meet with the President probably 8 to 10 times, meet with the First Lady three or four times, speak to the President by phone three or four times, and speak to the First Lady by telephone 30 to 50 times. None of that was paid, and in all of the conversations I was just offering advice on matters that had occurred to me and things that I had thought of. Virtually all of the contacts were initiated by me.
So I think that describes our relationship during that period. Shall I pause?
Question. Did you have a particular phone line that you called them on?
Answer. No.
Question. You just called the main switchboard and would—who did you usually contact to try to get through?
Answer. To speak to the First Lady, I would call Pam Sipareti, I think, or something like that, who works for the First Lady. [Redacted] was the number I would use. And when I was calling the President, I would call, the switchboard, and get connected through that way.
Question. You would usually go through Ms. Hernreich or his main office?
Answer. Usually Ms. Hernreich or Ms. Currie.
Question. Okay. Why don't you continue on?
Page 1132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Okay. In the last few days of September or the first few days of October of 1994, the President called me and asked me to do a survey for him, the first professional engagement I had had with him since January of 1991. And I did the survey concerned the positioning that he and the Democratic Party should assume in the '94 bi-year elections.
I did the survey. I briefed he and the First Lady on the results and was paid for the survey.
Question. And who paid you for that?
Answer. I am afraid I recall neither end of that transaction. I don't recall who paid me, and I don't recall who they paid. I don't recall whether the check was—I only charged him the actual cost of the interviews, and I may have told them to send the check to the interviewing house I used to do the survey, which was called Action Research in Melbourne, Florida, which is the interviewing house I usually use.
Or I may have asked him to send the check to me, and I may have then paid the interviewing house. I don't recall which one it was. And I don't recall which entity paid for the survey, whether it was DNC or Clinton campaign or anything of that sort. I have no recollection of that.
I think that, but I am not sure, the check was probably paid directly to the interviewing house rather than to me, since I do recall that I decided not to make a profit on it, because I felt that by holding the price down, I would encourage him to seek my services more frequently in the future.
Question. At that time, was there any concern about paying you directly, going to the DNC or Clinton/Gore and putting you on the payroll?
Answer. Yes, I think probably one of my motivations, if I did have them pay the interviewing house—in fact, as I recall, I think I did, now that you mention that.
I was concerned that I didn't want to be publicly identified as working for Clinton at that point, so I may have had them pay the interviewing house directly. To make sure that it was honest, I then didn't take any money for it, so it was not like a subterfuge. I was just doing my polls for free, and he was paying me, the vendor, directly.
Page 1133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And you briefed the President and the First Lady on this poll?
Answer. As I said, yes.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Can you identify that person?
Mr. BALLEN. Phil Schiliro with the Minority staff.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Now the Majority is the minority.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Now I am the minority.
Okay. Can you continue what the professional relationship was here?
Answer. After the election, I met with the President and the First Lady during November and early December to explore working together on his 1996 campaign.
My next professional involvement with him—that is, next paid involvement—came in early December of '94 when he asked me to conduct a survey in connection with the middle class tax cut speech that he gave to the Nation in the middle of December, to advise him on the content of that speech. I did, and I was paid for that.
And I am unsure whether I did the polling through the Melbourne, Florida, interviewing house or through Penn & Schoen, the polling company I subsequently used. I know that the third poll I did for him, which was in January, was through Penn & Schoen, but I am unsure of who was the vendor on the second poll. And I believe that the way I was paid for that poll, again, was that the interviewer was paid directly for that survey.
No, as a matter of fact, as I think about it, no, something reminded me which I had forgotten yesterday; it was Penn & Schoen for that poll. So that I went to Penn & Schoen, the interviewing firm, polling firm, and asked them to conduct the survey, and I would write the questionnaire, they would field it; they received the money from Clinton; I don't know what entity paid him; and they then paid me as a consultant to them on this polling project.
Page 1134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And Penn & Schoen is based in——
Answer. New York.
Question. New York.
Answer. Two N's.
Question. Did you advise Mrs. Clinton at all on her health care reform policies?
Answer. Yes. A lot of our phone conversations in '93 and '94 related to that.
Question. And were you aware of any particular media efforts or fund-raising efforts directed towards media for health care?
Answer. Paid media.
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me, Mr. Morris. I am going to object to this line of questioning on relevancy and pertinency. There is nothing in the committee's resolution authorizing the taking of depositions or in the report that remotely touches upon health care policy and any advice Mr. Morris might have given with regard to that in 1994.
We are very far afield here. We have had about 40 minutes of questioning, and Mr. Morris has already said he didn't know Mr. Huang, Mr. Trie, or the Riadys, which are the subject matter of this investigation. I haven't objected until now because I allowed counsel, except for the Watkins matter, some latitude to get into background.
At this point, discussing health care campaigning and any advice Mr. Morris gave on that, we will object as to relevancy and pertinency to this deposition.
Ms. COMSTOCK. We were talking about health care fund-raising being done as well as Mr. Morris' knowledge of any efforts to raise money for health care media campaign.
The WITNESS. Shall I answer the question?
Page 1135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. LENEFSKY. Yes.
The WITNESS. I am not aware of any efforts to raise money for the health care media campaign. I did have occasion to speak to Mandy Grunwald, who was producing the health care ads. I wrote one or two commercials that I sent to her which she then did not use.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you paid at all for those?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know—do you have any knowledge about Charlie Trie providing money for the health care funding, health care media campaign?
Answer. No. As I testified before, I know absolutely nothing about Charlie Trie except he makes good lo mein at his restaurant.
Question. In the summer of—can you recall when you worked with Mandy Grunwald on this media effort?
Answer. Sometime—I am not sure, but I think it was probably sometime in early '94.
Question. Why don't we pick up from the December '94 middle class tax cut speech and the assistance you provided there.
It is another court reporter. They just keep going out.
Answer. Okay. I then—in early December, the President asked me to become involved as a consultant in his re-election campaign, and we agreed that the relationship between us would be a private one, which is to say secret one, because neither of us were really prepared for it to be public at that point.
I wasn't prepared for it to be public at that point because most of my clients were Republicans, and I knew that if I crossed the divide to go to work for the President, that that would end my ability to work in the Republican Party, and I wanted to be sure that it would be possible for me to give him meaningful advice and that I wouldn't just be chewed up and spit up, as previous advisers had been.
Page 1136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
He, from his point of view, I think, didn't know if I could handle play at this level, because I had only worked with him in one State, and I think he wanted to take his time before he formally committed to me, both because any involvement with the President usually is blown up by the media, and if he brought me in and then cut off the relationship, it would appear like vacillation on his part, and bringing me in would cause him no end of grief with the liberal Democrats on his staff because of my previous Republican affiliations and my moderate political views.
I think he was unwilling to incur that political harm until it was clear that I was important to him in the campaign and would work out. So by mutual agreement, we did not publicly reveal the relationship.
We agreed that I would be paid on a poll-by-poll basis, and that the polling would be conducted by Penn & Schoen, and that I would be paid as a contractor to Penn & Schoen. That was both how I often was paid and it was a convenience so that my name would be disclosed at the time that the Federal filings took place, but not before.
To my knowledge, Penn & Schoen, when they filed, indicated that they had paid me in their filing, or at least we submitted that information to the campaign to be filed.
But had the campaign issued checks directly to me, I think the President and I were both concerned that somebody would leak that that was taking place.
Question. And you had discussions with the President about this?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What concerns did he express?
Answer. He said that he wanted—he said that he was concerned that he did not want his staff to know at that point that I was working for him, and that he wanted the relationship to be secret between us, and that was the nature of what he said. And then I said, I suggest that this is the way that you pay me so that it is not—so that we don't release the story simply by the act of somebody writing a check.
Page 1137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I did a survey for him in January of 1995, under this arrangement, with the survey conducted by Penn & Schoen, and then throughout the rest of '95 until the end of June, I conducted with Penn & Schoen probably five or six surveys for him, and Penn & Schoen received the payments for those.
Question. Was that on a flat fee basis then?
Answer. No. It was a cost per poll, and some polls were more expensive than others because some were longer than others.
Question. Who worked out the cost arrangements on those polls?
Answer. I worked out the charges with the President, and pursuant to that, Shoen then would bill the President for the amount we had negotiated together.
Question. So you personally discussed the payment levels with the President?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And agreed upon them solely with the President?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And then you relayed that back to Penn & Schoen, who would then bill the Clinton/Gore campaign or the DNC?
Answer. They sent the bills, as I understand it—this is second hand—to Nancy Hernreich, and I do not know what happened to them then. I don't know who paid them, when they were paid, or how they were paid. I just gathered that they were paid.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Excuse me for a minute.
[Brief recess.]
The WITNESS. My counsel reminds me that this arrangement continued until the end of March 1995. At the end of March, the President revealed to Harold Ickes that I was working for him and at that point all billings were handled directly to Harold and Penn & Schoen would send their bills to Harold.
Page 1138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. At the White House?
Answer. I don't know where they sent it.
Question. Do you have copies of any of these bills yourself?
Answer. No.
Question. All of the billings then would have been maintained by Penn & Schoen?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And then Penn & Schoen would send them to initially Nancy Hernreich and then following that, directly to Harold Ickes?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Okay. And then you would be paid directly by Penn & Schoen after they had been paid by whoever paid them?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And your testimony is that you do not know who paid Penn & Schoen, whether it was DNC or Clinton/Gore?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. So all of the checks that you would have been getting for these surveys were all checks that came from Penn & Schoen?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And then during the time, through March of 1995 when the bills were being sent through Nancy Hernreich, did you ever discuss any aspects of the bills with anybody at the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. Or why certain matters, how the billing was done?
Page 1139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No. I did have to speak to the President once or twice, because they hadn't been paid, and Penn & Schoen advised me that they had not been paid, and I mentioned it on one or two occasions to the President, and then shortly after, Doug Schoen told me that they had received payment, and then he paid me.
Question. Do you know what type of lag time you are talking about in terms of payment?
Answer. I can't be certain, but I think it was in the range of somewhere between 60 and 120 days.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Excuse me.
[Counsel and witness conferring.]
The WITNESS. Yeah, right. I'm not sure how long—it was in yesterday's deposition. I saw a document from Penn & Schoen to Ickes complaining that they hadn't been paid in a long time, and actually it did—it was more than 120 days, but I don't really know how long, because it wasn't, it wasn't my bill or wasn't my company.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. All right. Now, was their payment, though, contingent upon Penn & Schoen getting paid or did Penn & Schoen pay you immediately?
Answer. I think that what worked out was because the cash flow was limited that they advanced monies to me from the—once they got one or two checks, they advanced monies to me for the polling, for the future polling, because they were in a sense postponing taking their profit and paying me first. So it wasn't directly contingent, one wasn't directly contingent on the other.
Question. Okay. And when these bills were late, you mentioned that you went to the President about those bills?
Answer. Yes.
Page 1140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me, Mr. Morris. I am going to object to this line of questioning.
Counsel, I have let it go forward here for a little while because I thought it was exploring the nature of the background of Mr. Morris' relationship to the President. But I thought—and the resolution, if you can point to me in the resolution or the report where we are investigating campaign expenditure, polling expenditures, the billing of polls, whether those polls were late or paid in a timely fashion, what conversations Mr. Morris may or may not have had with the President, if these somehow constitute an impropriety or a violation of the law or fund-raising impropriety, a campaign impropriety or a violation of the law, let me know, because then I would be happy to withdraw my objection as to relevancy. But I don't—I fail to see how this is relevant or pertinent to the scope of our investigation.
Mr. LENEFSKY. May I take a 2-minute break to consult with my client?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Sure. We can go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. COMSTOCK. This is another Majority counsel, Greg Zoeller, Z-O-E-L-L-E-R.
The WITNESS. So Minority counsel had just objected.
Mr. LENEFSKY. What was your last question?
[The reporter read back as requested.]
Ms. COMSTOCK. Your counsel is the relevant counsel here in terms of answering questions.
Mr. LENEFSKY. I instructed him to answer the last question.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. And in these discussions, what was your understanding of what the President did following your discussions?
Page 1141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't know. The bill—I don't know what he did, but I know that the payment flow improved.
Question. And what was your understanding of fund-raising activities at the White House at that time?
Answer. None.
Question. And would you get the payments within a week or so, or do you have any sense of the time?
Answer. No. There was still a lag, but since I didn't receive the payments, I didn't monitor it closely. If they were unduly late, Schoen would complain to me and I would mention it to the President, and if they continued to be late, he continued to mention it to me, and when he stopped mentioning it to me, I stopped asking him about it.
Question. Did you ever write any memos or——
Answer. I never did.
Question. Did Mr. Penn?
Answer. I saw yesterday in the deposition in the Senate some memos that Penn & Schoen had sent to Ickes in connection with the delayed payments, but that was the first I knew—it was the first I saw of those memos.
Question. This would have been after the March '95 time when the bills were sent to Mr. Ickes as opposed to sent through Ms. Hernreich?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Okay. And could you tell us when the bills started going through Mr. Ickes, did any problems arise in that context?
Answer. Well, I became convinced over a period of time that Ickes was deliberately slowing the payment process of the bills in the hopes that we would become discouraged, die of cash flow starvation and go away, and I voiced those suspicions to the President, and that was part of the process of payment being speeded.
Page 1142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I do recall one time, sometime in the first half of '95, where I was particularly vociferous in my criticism of Ickes to the President, and accused him of manipulating the cash flow so that we couldn't afford to continue to work for the President. Because we were—Penn & Schoen were incurring huge interviewing costs that had to be paid when the survey was done, and if the payment wasn't received for 6 or 8 months, and we were doing a survey virtually every month, they would owe hundreds of thousands of dollars that they would have paid out to the phone company and to their interviewers that they had not been reimbursed, and at some point that nut would become so large that they would have to stop doing polling. So I advised the President that that was a possibility, and then as I recall, a number of checks came through to Penn & Schoen shortly after that conversation.
Question. All right. Did you ever have conversations with Mr. Ickes about these matters?
Answer. No.
Question. You went directly to the President?
Answer. Not that I can recall. I could have, but I tended to avoid conversations with Mr. Ickes.
Question. And so you would go directly to the President about these matters?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And what was the President's response?
Answer. There was one time when he said that's just outrageous that you are not being paid for this work, you should be paid for this work; I will take care of it. Other times he would just say, I will take care of it, in a more muted tone, but once he expressed some anger that we had not been paid.
Question. Okay. Now, initially you had said you had agreed upon the payment rates with the President?
Page 1143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did that continue throughout your time at the White House?
Answer. No. After—well, why don't I just do a financial narrative through the end of the time and then you can backtrack.
Question. Okay.
Answer. After March, after mid-March, the billings were sent to Ickes, no longer to Hernreich, but it was still on a poll-by-poll basis, and the costs of the poll were still agreed between the President and myself. Then, at some point, and I don't recall when, but it would have been around mid-1995, Harold secured—Harold was vested by the President with the authority to approve polling—to approve polling, and his approval was required before any poll could proceed.
Question. Is this any poll for the Clinton/Gore campaign?
Answer. Any poll that we undertook, that Penn & Schoen or I undertook at the President's request, and I was not aware then, nor am I aware now, of in the early days of who was the vendor on that poll, who was paying for the poll.
Question. So you aren't aware in the '95 time frame whether it was Clinton/Gore or DNC who was actually paying?
Answer. I'm not aware through about June of '95, before June of '95 who paid for it, roughly.
Question. Okay.
Answer. Then, at that point, the price negotiations as to what would be charged for each poll were handled between Schoen and Ickes, or Penn and Ickes, and I was no longer involved in that.
Let me just continue the polling piece of it.
Page 1144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
At the end of June 1995, I stopped being paid as a subcontractor to Penn & Schoen and established a direct financial relationship with the Clinton/Gore campaign, which I will explain in a minute. But let me continue the polling piece straight through.
After May or June of 1995, a procedure was developed by Ickes where each poll that was conducted under this arrangement with the President would be allocated retroactively to one—either to the DNC or to Clinton/Gore, and each questionnaire was scrutinized, I gathered by Lynn Utrecht and her staff question-by-question, and a percentage of that survey questionnaire was assigned to DNC and a percentage was assigned to Clinton/Gore.
Then I gather, although I didn't actually receive the checks, that proportionate payment would be rendered by each of those committees. The reason I know this is that a bottleneck developed and Utrecht was very slow in making that assessment, and that caused cash flow problems for Penn & Schoen that I again had to go to the President over and, again, he had to speak to Ickes, and again, the bottleneck eased for a short time.
Question. So each question was allocated as a DNC or a Clinton/Gore question?
Answer. That's my understanding.
Question. And then payments would be split?
Answer. That is my understanding. Now again, I was not directly involved in it. This is secondhand.
Mr. BALLEN. Mr. Morris, Lynn Utrecht was a counsel?
The WITNESS. Counsel for the Clinton/Gore campaign.
My understanding is that each polling questionnaire had a separate ratio of the two committees.
My financial relationship changed in—starting July 1st, 1995. I became a consultant to—I became a consultant to the Clinton/Gore campaign and was paid $15,000 a month by that campaign, and that arrangement lasted until I resigned at—until I was fired at the end of August. That was one source of compensation for me.
Page 1145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The second source of compensation was that when advertisements were placed in connection with this process, whether by Clinton/Gore or by the DNC, a commission arrangement was negotiated for each flight of television, for each purchase of television, and those commissions were then retained at first informally and then formally, by a collection of the campaign consultants who I had brought in to work on the advertising.
When I say informally, we at some point early on we would just split the commission and then after a while we set up an entity called the November 5th Group that had a contractual division among the various consultants participating of each of the media commissions. The source of the money for those commissions, of course, related directly to who was paying for the advertising flight, so that if the Democratic National Committee were paying for it, the commissions would come from them, and if Clinton/Gore were paying for it, the commissions would come from them.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. It was the same rate for each?
Answer. Yes. And that arrangement continued straight through the end of my tenure, so that I was compensated in those two forms through the commissions and as a direct consultant for the Clinton/Gore campaign.
Question. There was a commission for each flight of media and that was split among the consultants?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. And how did you determine how the split?
Answer. We negotiated a split.
Question. Was that done by you among the consultants or was that done by the White House?
Answer. Me among the consultants. We at one point, Erskine Bowles asked us what the splits were and I told him. But they were determined among the consultants.
Page 1146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And the actual commission itself was negotiated with the White House?
Answer. Yes, between—our negotiators for that—I felt that it was unwise for me to negotiate this directly with Ickes so I appointed Mark Penn and Bill Knapp, K-N-A-P-P, as the negotiators for us, and they met with Ickes and Bowles and then Ickes and Sosnik after Bowles left, and negotiated the commissions on a flight-by-flight basis. That was very frequently an acrimonious negotiation, and on several occasions the—and there was a great deal of friction in connection with those discussions.
Question. And where did that friction come from?
Answer. Ickes trying to hold the figure down and we trying to move the figure up.
Question. And can you just describe generally some of that friction, you know, what occurred, the outcome of it?
Mr. BALLEN. I am going to object again. This is very entertaining; we have been going on for half an hour on this. But I fail to see—I am happy to withdraw my objection if Majority counsel is simply willing to state how this relates to campaign fund-raising, fund-raising improprieties, I emphasize the word ''fund-raising'' and possible violations of law. There is absolutely no plausible basis to articulate that there is any possible violation of law here. If there is, we would certainly be interested in hearing it because we are interested in that. But there is no issue as to coordination or anything that suggests it is a possible violation of law.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Mr. Morris is free to answer.
The WITNESS. I was never present in these negotiations, so it is secondhand, but at one point Ickes got so furious that he slammed the door of his office as deputy chief of staff and broke the door frame and contractors had to come in the next day and repair it, and there was one occasion when Ickes refused to allow the time buy to proceed unless we agreed to a lower commission rate, and we refused to agree to a lower commission rate, and the President was confronted with the decision that he would go off the air unless he resolved the dispute. And he did resolve the dispute by ordering Ickes to accede to our requests and the advertising continued uninterrupted.
Page 1147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you recall when that time frame was?
Answer. Sometime around May or June of 1996. But those kinds of disputes were relatively frequent and I believe that they were a deliberate attempt by Ickes to sew discord between myself and the President and to try to disrupt my relationship with him.
Question. Now, back in the May-June, the summer of '95 time period, did there come a time where you advocated some large media buys at that time?
Answer. Yes. When I—the President had always known during his—from the days of his relationship with me in Arkansas, that I believed the campaign should be mainly waged over television and that anything else you spend money on is more or less a waste of money, and that I believed in heavy media expenditures, heavy paid media advertising.
When he hired me back in November and December, I told him that we would have to—I said we should make this the first fully televised Presidency in American history. Literally from wall to wall, we should just be constantly on television using paid media as a new form of Presidential communication, very much like Woodrow Wilson invented when he delivered the State of the Union message in person as opposed to sending it in writing. I recall citing the ratcheting up of Presidential communications over the course of the 20th century.
But in November and December, January and February, we were so focused on the State of the Union speech, the response to the Republican contract proposals, and the development of our rhetorical theme in opposing those or in accommodating them and opposing them, that there really wasn't a lot of time for us to focus on the issue of paid media.
In early March of 1996, I began a much more insistent request for us to begin advertising, and I proposed——
Question. March of '96?
Answer. '95, excuse me. I proposed in early March of '95 that we—that the Clinton/Gore campaign purchase $2.5 million of ads to stress the President's anticrime record, and I recommended that those ads run during April. April became May, May became June, and I finally got permission to run the ads starting in the last few days of June, and they ran throughout the month of July, paid for by the Clinton/Gore campaign.
Page 1148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. At this time were you aware that the Clinton/Gore campaign had resources to pay for this media?
Answer. I was not advised that they didn't have resources, but I was unaware until—I was unaware of the precise financial condition of the Clinton/Gore campaign until a meeting I had with Terry McAuliffe at some point during the middle of 1995, at which point he briefed me on the financial status of the Clinton/Gore campaign. And his briefing was a very optimistic one, that they were going to reach their maximum probably by the end of the year, and after that, there would be a little bit of—the end of '95, and that there would be a little bit of additional fund-raising, but that would trickle in through direct mail and he wouldn't have to bother with it.
In March, April, May, June and July, I waged a vigorous campaign, not just to get on the air, but to urge the President to reject Federal matching funds. I felt that—and during the course of that period I said that the Federal matching funds which would permit only about $30 million to be spent in nonfund-raising costs in the preconvention period was an unduly low restriction and would not afford us the capacity to advertise that we need it.
I said that since we likely did not have a primary, I felt the public would be perfectly happy for us to say we don't have a primary, so we are not going to take Federal funds to fight a primary.
Particularly when budget cuts were reigning down on the country, if the President said, I would like that $11 million to go to the Head Start program instead, that that would be a very good position for him to take. I battled incessantly to get us not to accept Federal funding.
Question. And that would be so that you could have a larger media?
Answer. Yes.
Page 1149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And you spoke with the President about this?
Answer. Frequently.
Question. So did you mainly speak with the President about it, or were others involved in those conversations?
Answer. These conversations all tended to take place at weekly strategy meetings that we held.
Question. And who was involved in those?
Answer. Okay. At the—in November of 1994, the President, the First Lady, and me. In December 1994, the same. In January of 1994, the First Lady——
Mr. LENEFSKY. January of '95.
The WITNESS. '95, excuse me. The First Lady stopped attending and she never attended again, and they would be just between the President and myself.
Starting in the middle of February of '95, Doug Schoen was added to the group and it was the President, Schoen, and myself. In about the early part of March, and I could be wrong on these dates, but roughly early March, Leon Panetta was added to the group, and at the end of March, the Vice President, Erskine Bowles, Harold Ickes, and the Vice President's chief of staff at the time, Jack Quinn, was added to the group. Quinn continued to attend meetings until he left as chief of staff for the V.P., at which point I believe David Strauss replaced him for a few weeks, and after that, Ron Klain served in that position.
Question. So once Mr. Quinn moved over to be White House counsel, he no longer attended these strategy meetings?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. Okay.
Answer. The meetings gradually expanded. I think the next expansion was in September when Doug Sosnik and George Stephanopoulos started to attend, and then the meetings expanded month-by-month, and I can't really keep track of the actual expansion. If you hand me my book, I will tell you the full list of people who attended these meetings.
Page 1150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. LENEFSKY. It is there on Page 26.
The WITNESS. It is written in there. It would be easier than trying to remember it.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I had it marked.
The WITNESS. I can find it faster than you. I wrote it.
Okay. Eventually included in these strategy meetings were the President, the Vice President, Leon Panetta, Harold Ickes, Evelyn Lieberman, George Stephanopoulos, Don Baer, Doug Sosnik, Ron Klain, Sandy Berger, Senator Chris Dodd, John Hilley, Maggie Williams, Mike McCurry, Henry Cisneros, Mickey Kantor, Mack McLarty, Peter Knight, Anne Lewis, Ron Brown, and myself, Doug Schoen, Mark Penn, Bob Squier, and Bill Knapp.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Just for the record, it is on Page 26.
The WITNESS. And these——
Ms. COMSTOCK. Page 26 of Mr. Morris' book, which is entitled ''Behind the Oval Office,'' is what we have been referring to here.
The WITNESS. So these discussions increasingly took place in these strategy meetings or in telephone conversations with the President.
Shall I continue with the narrative on that?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes.
The WITNESS. In early July of 1995, even as the Clinton/Gore campaign ads were running on crime, Erskine Bowles called me and told me that I was going to loose my battle to get us not to take Federal funds and that the President had decided that he wanted to take Federal funds, or actually Bowles predicted that would be the President's decision, and he said, I think you should come up with a plan B.
At that point, I revisited an issue that I had vaguely heard about prior to that time where I had vaguely heard that there was some advertising capability at the DNC, that there was some type of ads that could be run by the Democratic National Committee, but I hadn't focused on it until then, because I was determined to not take Federal funds and do it all through the Clinton/Gore campaign.
Page 1151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
At that point, in the middle of July, I spoke to a number of people to learn what the laws were regarding DNC advertising. Since I'm not an attorney, and I'm not an election lawyer certainly, I had no previous knowledge of that. This was my first Presidential campaign, so I—and I never worked for the party, per se, for either party committee much, so I didn't really know it, so I needed to learn it.
I can't recall exactly who said what to me when, but among the people who I consulted to learn about it were Lynn Utrecht, the campaign counsel, Joe Sandler, the Democratic National Committee counsel, and Bob Squier, who was doing our media creation, and Bill Knapp, his partner, and they had a longer institutional memory of this because they worked for the party for many years. Doug Sosnik and Erskine Bowles as well were sources of information for me on this.
At that point, I learned that there was such a thing called ''issue advocacy advertising'' which could be done by the Democratic National Committee, and I was informed that that advertising had to be related to an issue that was currently hotly in play in Congress, that it had to articulate a party-wide position, not just a position of one candidate, that it had to draw a contrast between the position of the other party or the other point of view, and that it could not be expressly designed to facilitate the re-election of the President or the defeat of a particular Republican.
Well, when I heard that, I was overjoyed, because this is precisely the description of the advertisements I used to run all the time in Arkansas. In 1982, when the Governor was elected, after he had been defeated, he was confronted with the necessity of raising the sales tax on education and he came to me and said, the first thing I am going to have to do when I take office is raise taxes again. I am going to get killed for that. I said, well, what I think you really need to do is explain to the people of the State why you are doing it and what they are going to gain by it. He said, well, the press isn't covering me much on this; they don't get my message out. I said, I think you should buy advertising time explaining this, and the Governor followed my advice and did, and that became something that really he and I more or less invented. I don't think anybody had ever done it before in the country, that a sitting Governor would actually use ads to push his legislative program way away from the re-election, having nothing to do with a re-election campaign. That came a constant political strategy that he and I used in the '80s.
Page 1152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Then when I found that there was a law permitting precisely this type of advertising, I said great, and I went to the President and I said, you know, maybe we don't have to spend all this money out of Clinton/Gore, because all I want to do in these ads is win the budget fight. I am not particularly concerned at this point about re-election. The issue now is winning the budget fight. I told him that if he didn't win the budget fight, I would urge him not to run for a second term, that the only important thing was to win this fight.
I reminded him that he was heavily outgunned during the health care fight and ran relatively little in the way of ads, and that the ads that were run were often done by independent groups like the AFL, and the message was I felt botched by them, and it wasn't the President's message, it was their message, and it wasn't a message that—and I said, if you let me put our message on and you let me formulate the message, we can win.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Meaning the President's message?
Answer. Yes, we can win the budget fight. Parenthetically, I ought to note at this point that I had just concluded a very vigorous effort to get the President to endorse a balanced budget within a certain number of years, and most of the White House staff opposed that, and in June of '95 he overruled their objections and delivered this speech.
So my concern was that if we didn't do advertising on the budget, that the AFL–CIO would, and I was about—I was equally afraid of the AFL's ads as I was of potential Republican ads, because the AFL would say, fight these cuts, and we would go into a class warfare kind of thing and we would never talk about tax cuts as being good things or balancing the budget as being something good. I said, we have to get out the message that we are for tax cuts and we are for balancing the budget, but we are opposed to certain of the specific cuts the Republicans are trying to make, particularly in education, environment, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Page 1153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. At this time, did you have any doubt that the President was going to be running for re-election?
Answer. Oh, yes. Absolutely.
Question. In 1995, that he was considering not running for re-election?
Answer. I don't know if he was considering it, but I was sure considering advising him not to if we didn't win the budget fight.
Question. Did you ever have any discussions with the President that you thought that he was considering not running in 1996?
Answer. No, but I did tell him flat out that if we didn't win the budget fight that he might as well save himself the time and trouble, and I made clear to him that unless the Democrats and he, particularly he, won the budget fight going on in Congress, that there was no point in even looking at a re-election campaign.
So I at that point insisted and pushed hard for advertising by the DNC on the issue of the budget fight, and we retargeted——
Question. Are we talking about approximately September of '95?
Answer. July, August, and September.
Question. All right.
Answer. And we retargeted the advertising that we had done in the Clinton/Gore phase at States where moderate Republican Senators, moderate Republican Congressmen, and Republican freshmen and conservative Democrat boll weevils or yellow dogs or whatever they call them, blue dogs, lived, and targeted the media in those States deliberately to try to hold the conservative Democrats so that we could block a veto override, and to bombard the moderate Republicans so that we could break their discipline.
Question. Did these also happen to be target swing States?
Page 1154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Some were and some were not, many were not. For example, we advertised in Rhode Island, which is a Democratic State. We advertised in Vermont, which is too small a State to fuss with as a target. We advertised in New Mexico, which was at that point not a target State. We advertised in South Dakota, which we had no prayer of carrying. We advertised in Texas, which we never felt we could carry. So that about half of the media was aimed—was targeted based on Congress.
The other half was targeted on what we could do to most influence national public opinion, because the polling that reflected national public opinion would, I felt, be the barometer of who wins or loses this fight. We knew that in the States where swing voters lived, we would have a much better capacity to be able to influence the national polls, because it is a hard sell in North Dakota to sell a Democratic alternative; it is an unnecessary sell in Rhode Island, but you have a pretty good shot of selling that kind of idea in a State like Missouri, which is a swing State.
But the whole point of the—and at one point I submitted a memo to the President where I said these ads are reaching 97 swing Republicans, 18 swing Republican Senators, Congressmen and Senators.
At first, Ickes strongly opposed this—Ickes always strongly opposed this advertising campaign and the strategy meetings increasingly assumed the aspect of debates between Ickes and me over this. Panetta and Stephanopoulos gradually came around to the view that we should be doing the advertising, because they felt that it was the only way to win the budget fight, and I told them that I felt it was crucial that the President veto the Republican budget, and that the veto not be overridden, and that he be willing to accept a government shutdown and survive a government shutdown. The only way you are going to get the President to stand firm with this kind of courage is if there are ads running in the country and he knows that he is carrying the majority of the people with him. Otherwise, he will be perceived wrongly. He will sense it, and he will crack, and we will lose.
Page 1155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
And after I explained that to Panetta, I think at one point I said decisively to Leon, when Clinton is on the air, he has got a lot of guts, and that was a quote, I think, and as a result of that lobbying I think of Panetta, he and Stephanopoulos sort of switched and advocated the ads running, and that was really the key switch and with that there was a consensus for which Ickes absented himself for this advertising to proceed.
But during this entire process, it was an issue advocacy effort in just the same way as if we had advertised for health care reform in 1994, or for the stimulus package in 1993. Did it help the President get reelected? Yeah, anything a President does helps the President get reelected. Was it expressly designed for the President to get reelected and the substantive battle merely invented as a ruse? Absolutely not. Because the entire concept of Clinton's re-election had to hinge on a victory in this fight. We couldn't even reach the issue of re-election given the President's popularity numbers until we won this fight.
Question. And during the issue—well, we can come back to that. At this time when you said Mr. Stephanopoulos and Panetta changed and came around to your view, was there a discussion of a $10 million media budget for the fall of '95?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And just so—I know the Minority has expressed some concerns to date on—this morning on going into this, and I would like to spend some time talking about this $10 million budget. I think that's a lot of what we have been leading up to here in discussing, is your advocacy of that and the President's acceptance of that and others at the White House accepting that and clearly that led to some, you know, fund-raising efforts. And we have particular interest in that time frame. We would just like to go into that at some length here now, if you could.
Do you recall in early September having some meetings on this $10 million budget?
Page 1156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. Of '95?
Answer. In early September of '95, Erskine Bowles came to me and said, you can't go on piece by piecemeal advising that we spend this amount of money and that amount of money.
By way of background, we had spent $2.5 million from Clinton/Gore in July and had spent $800,000 from DNC during the Senate—during the congressional recess in August. I pushed for that money because I wanted to hit Republican Congressmen and Senators when they went home to their districts.
Question. These were on Medicare ads?
Answer. Yeah. And I wanted people to be hollering at them about Medicare cuts so that when they got back to Washington, they would be less likely to be disciplined.
My whole hope was to break the cohesion of the Republican Majority that they could not pass a budget, that we would have to veto, and then if that failed, which it did, my next hope was to have a strong enough base of public support so that the President could veto the budget and could block its being overridden, and could win the public relations war over that, and we did succeed in that.
Question. The $800,000 Medicare ad campaign you said was paid for by the DNC?
Answer. That's right. Because they were clearly issue advocacy ads and they were entirely aimed at influencing the Senators and Congressmen during the recess.
Question. Was the President involved at all in working on that ad campaign?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Could you describe that——
Page 1157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me, Counsel. I am going to object. I think Mr. Morris has already made clear, and I am going to make clear, that there is absolutely no violation of law in regard to these kinds of activities. I am going to cite the opinions, because I want to know, and I think the Minority is entitled to know, how this violates the law and how this relates to our inquiry about campaign fund-raising improprieties.
Relevant FEC decisions, Advisory Opinions 1985–14 and 1995–25, make it absolutely clear that coordination with political parties and their candidates concerning contents of placement of advertising is entirely legal as long as the advertisements in question do not cross the line of express advocacy. Even when coordinated, party-funded ads do not constitute contributions towards expenditures on behalf of the candidate unless the ad expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office. This understanding of the law has been reiterated by the FEC and the Department of Justice in the March 1996 Supreme Court brief.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Obviously, Mr. Ballen, these are fact-based questions and the witness is someone who has information on facts and you are making conclusions before we have the facts. I am trying to find out the facts on this matter.
Mr. BALLEN. That is absolutely incorrect. You are asking him a line of questions that go into areas that are not comprehended by the resolution or by any—or the report that was under consideration here. And if you could articulate how this relates to what we are investigating, I would be happy to withdraw my relevancy objection.
But I don't see how, and my consultation with the Minority members of this committee, this line of questioning—I know maybe perhaps the committee or certain people would like to relive the last election and uncover why the President won and the Republican candidate lost, but I did not understand that to be the purpose of our inquiry. Our inquiry was looking into campaign fund-raising improprieties or possible violations of law, period, not the strategy. Mr. Morris is a brilliant strategist I have no doubt, but that is not the purpose of what this investigation is supposed to be about.
Page 1158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. COMSTOCK. Well, that includes FEC, possible FEC violations and, as you said, we have to know what the facts were so that we can know what we are talking about here.
Mr. BALLEN. The point is here you haven't articulated what the possible FEC violation could be.
Ms. COMSTOCK. If we could move on.
Mr. BALLEN. I mean, I would like to hear what possible violation. If you can articulate that, then I will stop objecting. I mean, if there is a nexus, if you have some good faith reason to believe that there were possible FEC violations committed by this witness or the campaign, lay them out and then the Minority would be happy to join in investigating any possible FEC violations, but these questions don't go to possible FEC violations.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Mr. Ballen, I think you are familiar with civil deposition practice. We are looking at anything that relates directly or indirectly. This witness has a lot of information as to how the ad campaigns which were driving fund-raising which he himself has discussed as driving fund-raising were conducted and how, the interaction between the various campaigns, and that is what we are discussing here, and I would like to move forward on that.
Mr. BALLEN. I understand that you are discussing that by eliciting the fact that he has already testified about the $10 million budget, and then you can move on from that. What the strategy of the ads were, the content of the Medicare ads have nothing to do with any possible violation of law.
Ms. COMSTOCK. We are talking about who created the ads.
Mr. BALLEN. What does that have to do with it?
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 1159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. If you could tell us what the President's role was in the Medicare ad that you were speaking of in August of 1995.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Answer the question.
The WITNESS. The President's level of investment in the Medicare ad, and in all of the DNC advertising, and in all of the Clinton/Gore advertising, except for the first flight of Clinton/Gore which ran in July, could be described as follows: He received drafts of the text of the ads, and he edited them, he changed them, he adjusted the wording, and he received a description, a story board description, which is a rough description, of what the visuals would be.
Subsequently, in preparing later DNC ads, the story board was replaced with something called an animatic, which is a very cheap, inexpensive simulation of what the ad will look like, usually involving borrowed or stolen footage that you couldn't put on the air, but that you could have for private use, in other words, someone else's footage that we would just dub in. So based on the animatic or the story board and the text, the President then approved the advertisement.
At that point, the advertisement would then go through a vetting process. First, it would be vetted—and I'm speaking of this ad and all subsequent DNC ads. First, it would be vetted for factual accuracy through George Stephanopoulos, Rahm Emanuel and/or Gene Sperling.
Secondly, it would be vetted for its legality by Lynn Utrecht and Joe Sandler. After a few weeks of this, Joe—I made a decision to ask Joe Sandler to actually attend the meetings at which we designed these ads, and we would have these creative meetings where the consultants would meet to design the advertisement and Sandler was literally in the room when that was taking place. Every moment when we looked at an ad, someone came up with an idea, we would flesh out the idea, and then I would go to Sandler and I would say, is this okay for DNC? And he would say, no, this goes over the line to express advocacy of a candidacy; you got to take the picture out, you got to shorten the thing. You have Clinton on for 7 seconds; he can only be on for 2 seconds. You have Dole on, but you don't have Gingrich on, so it is anti-Dole as opposed to anti-Republican leaders in Congress.
Page 1160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. You actually have seconds and times that he had this all worked down to?
Answer. Precisely. And these all flowed from a series of meetings that took place in the office of Lynn Utrecht at which present were Utrecht, Sandler, Ickes, Sosnik, me, Tom Freedman, Mark Penn, Bill Knapp. And at those meetings, and there may be some other people, sometimes Jane Sherburne came.
Question. Jane Sherburne, special counsel at the White House at that time?
Answer. Yeah. I think she was there at one or two of them. Actually, no, Jane wasn't. There was somebody else.
Question. Cheryl Mills?
Answer. Cheryl Mills was there at one or two of them.
Anyway, at those meetings, Utrecht and Sandler would lay down the law in terms of every specific part of that ad. They would tell whether we can use the President's picture, whether we can have the President speaking, how many seconds you can have the President on, whether we could use Dole, whether we could use Gingrich, and they would work on the guidelines and copy, and then those guidelines would then be enforced on an intimate involvement in the creative process by Sandler being there at every step.
So the President, after he signed off on the rough text and the animatic or the story board, this would then be resubmitted to Sandler who had been present during the story boarding and the animatics and the scripting and——
Question. Okay. And when the President—would you give him the copy? Would you physically give it to him and then he would make the changes on that?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And then who would you give that copy to?
Page 1161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I would then—these were typically done at the strategy meetings, and the President, the Vice President, Senator Dodd, and Ickes and Stephanopoulos and Panetta all assumed active roles in dealing with, in discussing the text of the ads.
I would then have—these meetings were generally at night, the strategy meetings. Then I would have a creative meeting——
Question. Were these Wednesday night or Thursday night meetings?
Answer. They had been called that in the press, but they were often on Monday evenings or Tuesday evenings as well.
Question. When you physically gave the documents to the President, would you take them back from him yourself, the changes that he made?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And where did you physically take those to?
Answer. Oh, you mean his handwriting? No. I would just be sitting with the ad copy and as people agreed on changes I would be making the changes, yeah. And they would be rough—they wouldn't be the actual changes, they would be the concept, because I wasn't about to time it to be sure it came in at 30 seconds while the President was sitting there.
But we got the point that, you know, this is too heavily anti-Dole, or I don't want you to use that old picture of Dole, it looks like we are using the age issue against him, or you used this word and I want this kind of sense. It wasn't a text by text thing, it was a—it was conceptual, and when it was textual, he would usually include so much language that you couldn't fit it in a 30 second spot. So I would copy all of that down, and then the next morning we would have a creative meeting with the political consultants. Attending those meetings were Bob Squier, Bill Knapp, Mark Penn, Doug Schoen, Tom Freedman, Joe Sandler, one or two members of Squier's staff, and usually one or two other members of my staff. And later in the process we were joined by the opposition research experts at the DNC.
Page 1162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
At these meetings, we would then take the input that had been given by the participants in the strategy meeting and accepted by the President and we would then redraft the ad so that it came in at 30 seconds and it took account of their concerns. We would then also note changes in the visuals that needed to be made. Then, we would call by phone usually Stephanopoulos, Sperling or Emanuel and get their specific factual changes, if there were any factual issues. Then we would take that entire product and run it by Sandler again, and he would then say, well, this and this change you have made are over the line, you have got to pull it back, and so on.
At that point we would then come up with a text and a visual concept. I would then leave, and the actual media creators would then take that and fashion it into an ad, and they consisted of Bill Knapp, Hank Sheinkopf, who was at the creative meeting as well, and Marius Penczner, who was at the creative meeting. The three of them would actually go into the editing room and design and produce the ad. Usually Knapp would call me and would say, this ad is too long, you got to take some words out, or this doesn't work with the visual, you got to change the copy, and again the copy would be changed. Or he would say, we don't have a particularly good visual of this, we need something of that, and we would change the visual.
Then, that advertisement, when it finished with that process, would then be put on the air without prior approval from anybody except me, and the ad would run and we would show the ad to the strategy group, which included the President, at the subsequent session of the group, usually after the ad was actually running.
So the President was heavily involved at a given point in the process, but in almost every case, the ad that ultimately ran was significantly different, both in visual content and in text, from the ad he had seen and approved several weeks—several days before. It was only one——
Question. That ad that he had approved, was it his understanding that these were DNC ads?
Page 1163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes. Clinton/Gore ads followed the exact same approval process.
Question. And during this time frame when you were doing the issue advocacy ads, were you also doing polling of the President's numbers?
Answer. Yes. But perhaps I could just summarize the content portion of it. My point about the content is that the inputs on the content were very pluralistic. There were probably 30 people or 40 people that had some role of input to the process.
Question. I understand.
Answer. And while the President had a significant role in that, it was as the first among equals, and he was not the final arbiter went on, because he never saw what finally went on because his schedule didn't permit it.
Question. Did you maintain copies of documents of these various ads as you prepared them?
Answer. No. I am not now in possession of any such documents. Bill Knapp was the one who kept those documents, because he was sort of the operating officer in charge of the ad campaign, and a number of other documents of that sort were documents that I had at my campaign office, but when I was fired, the campaign office was sealed and I have had no access to my papers since then. But you probably have a bunch of scripts lying around that office.
Question. What do you mean your office was sealed?
Answer. There was a padlock put on it and I was not permitted access to it.
Question. So your Clinton/Gore office was sealed by Clinton/Gore officials?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And could you describe what happened with that?
Answer. I don't know. I was never there; I was just told that I could have no access to it and I have never tried.
Page 1164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And that happened immediately—in the August 26th time frame when you were leaving Chicago?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And you came back and you never were able to get into your Washington, D.C., office?
Answer. Well, I came back to Connecticut and New York, I didn't go back to Washington, but I was told it was sealed and I never tried to—I was told—I never physically went there to, you know, to challenge the padlock, but I was told it was locked and sealed.
Question. And who told you that?
Answer. Peter Knight.
Question. And what did he say to you?
Answer. Your office has been sealed, and we have had to seize the documents, and you can't have access to them.
Question. Do you know who seized the documents?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know where those documents are now?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you heard anything about what was done with those documents?
Answer. No.
Question. Okay.
Answer. So——
Question. At the time when you—we haven't really directly addressed that, but you had said both, when you resigned and when you were fired in August of '96. How would you—how do you characterize it?
Page 1165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I was fired.
Question. And who fired you?
Answer. The President.
Question. And what did he tell you in terms of firing you?
Answer. He sent Erskine Bowles to say that he was requesting my resignation.
Question. And at that point you resigned?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did anybody else talk to you about the President's wish for you to resign?
Answer. Subsequently Jack Quinn came in to talk to me as well about it.
Question. And at that time Mr. Quinn was the counsel to the President?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And what did he tell you?
Answer. At the first conversation, Erskine and I were alone and he said, the President wants me to request your—wants to request your resignation. Then I objected to that and asked them to revisit the issue with the President and several hours later, Bowles and Quinn came back and said, we have revisited the issue with the President and the President wants to offer you the alternative of either resigning or taking a leave of absence during which you will seek counseling and therapy and after that, after a suitable interval, you might be able to rejoin the campaign, and in the interim between those two meetings I had made a judgment that I needed to resign. So when they came back and offered that, I said, that's fine, I will just resign.
Question. Did you speak with the President prior to resigning?
Page 1166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. Could you just tell us briefly, when you left the campaign at that time, what documents you can recall being in your office at that time?
Answer. A relatively complete or perhaps fully complete set of the agendas that I prepared for the President's review, which would be strategic documents that we used at the weekly strategy meetings.
Question. And where was your office located?
Answer. In the Clinton/Gore campaign office on 20th and M, and——
Question. Did you have an office at the White House at all?
Answer. No. So the agendas were there. Probably I would think all—my staff kind of decided what they were keeping and what they weren't keeping, so I am not fully familiar with it.
[Discussion off the record.]
The WITNESS. I am fairly certain that all of the memos from Sandler and Utrecht as to what the ground rules were for DNC advertising were there. Most likely all copies of the surveys were there. Most likely all memos that I had sent to the President, giving him advice on different topics, were there.
I would send the President four or five notes every day, short little notes, just as things arose during the course of the day, and probably most of them were there. And assorted other things, analyses of the nightly TV news, analyses of the content of local newspaper, issues memoranda on different substantive issues we were working on, a variety of things like that; nothing linked to fund-raising at all, because I never had any involvement with that.
Question. Did these memos to Mr. Sandler you said involved—would be in your documents?
Page 1167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes. The memos from Sandler and Utrecht outlining—or from Bill Knapp summarizing the conversation with Sandler and Utrecht for their approval, the memos for their approval.
But documents that laid down the ground rules for DNC advertising, we had several meetings on that, seven or eight, because as the time frame unfolded, the ground rules changed, because the circumstances changed. The Republicans had a nominee, or there were primary fights going on, and the ground rules to which we were subject evolved over that period. These documents traced that.
Question. Is that the full extent of the documents you believe were maintained in your offices?
Answer. I am sure——
Question. To the extent you can recall.
Answer. I am sure there is probably a lot of other stuff hanging around there, but that is the main stuff.
Question. Did you maintain copies of documents, notes the President had written to you, things like that, in your office?
Answer. The President rarely did that. In fact, he really—oh, yes, a lot of the things that might be there might be articles that the President sent over to me with his writing on it saying, you know, please note this, and generally those were on issues or ideas. But, yes, there would be some of those.
Question. Did you have a separate phone number for the Clinton/Gore office?
Answer. Yes, but it was—yes, there were phone numbers where one could call directly and reach my office, yes.
Question. And what was that phone number?
Page 1168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. Did you have somebody who maintained your files for you at the Clinton/Gore office, or did you do that yourself?
Answer. No. Two people who did, Tom Freedman, my chief of staff, and—I am blocking out his name.
There was a guy who was on my paid staff, and I can't remember his name, who kind of was in charge of the office. I am sorry; I will remember his name.
Mr. LENEFSKY. We will provide that.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. When you had mentioned your staff, can you provide the names of the other staff who were the individuals who generally were working with you?
Answer. Actually, if I can have my book?
Question. Yes.
Answer. Thank you. Just a minute.
The name of the gentleman I was groping for, who kind of ran the office, is Brian Lee, L-E-E, and my other staff members were Mary Smith, Matt Levine, and Mark Schwartz.
Question. You had said you did not have an office at the White House. Did you have occasion, though, to spend a fair amount of time at the White House in 1995 and 1996?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And where would you be physically based when you were at the White House?
Answer. Well, I never had a hard pass, so I was only——
Question. At any time?
Answer. At any time. So I would always have an appointment with somebody, and I would enter pursuant to an appointment.
Page 1169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Who would that be? Why don't we start with initially when you started, sort of the secret phase when people didn't know you were there, who you would go to.
Answer. Nancy Hernreich, and thereafter it would depend on who I was seeing. Leon Panetta in June of 1995 had a meeting with the President and Bowles—with the President, myself, and the Vice President, and asked that I spend as little time in the White House as possible, and that I not roam the halls of the White House catching people at random, but I only go in to see specific people.
At that point, I opened an office at the Clinton/Gore campaign, and I spent most of my time either there or in my hotel. I only entered the White House or the OEOB for specific meetings with specific people, and it was not my practice to linger there.
Question. And during this time, I guess starting from November '94 time frame forward, were you staying at the Jefferson Hotel generally when you were in town?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Who were paying for those bills?
Answer. The Clinton/Gore campaign had a per diem maximum of, I believe, $185 a night, and my hotel bill was 200-something dollars a night, and they paid up to $185, and I paid the rest of it out of pocket, as well as any other expenses in connection with that out of pocket.
Question. Do you know where the bills that the hotel had—where they were sent to?
Answer. Yes. They are in the possession of my—I think they are in the possession of my assistant, and if you want me to furnish them to you, I would be happy to.
Question. That would be Tom Freedman?
Answer. No; my personal assistant, Maureen Maxwell.
Page 1170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Okay. And how did you take those bills and then get reimbursed for them? What was that process?
Answer. Maureen would send those bills, as well as air receipts and other expenses, to Joan Pollitt at the Clinton/Gore campaign, and she would then reimburse the portion of it that the campaign deemed reimbursable.
Question. Those bills were sent to Joan Pollitt, as opposed to the consulting bills that went through Harold Ickes?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. Okay. So from the start, like in November, December, '94, those bills went to——
Answer. No. This arrangement started in July of 1995. Prior to July of '95, I received no reimbursement for expenses.
Question. So when you were staying down here, that was out-of-pocket expenses for you?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Starting in June of '95——
Answer. July.
Question. You sent the bills to Clinton/Gore?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And at any time did you learn of anyone reviewing your hotel bills?
Mr. LENEFSKY. Can we go off the record now?
[Discussion off the record.]
The WITNESS. What was your question?
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 1171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Were you aware of people reviewing your hotel bills?
Answer. Yes. I became aware of that. Yes, I was aware of that.
Question. How did you become aware of that?
Answer. Ickes—well, first Ickes would send me memos objecting to things in my hotel bill, and at first the campaign was paying my full hotel bill, and then Ickes said, we will only pay it up to $185, and then I said I would like to pay the rest of it out of pocket, and he said that was okay.
And then I became aware that Ickes was reviewing them because of his feedback on them. And then I had occasion to read in the Washington Post an account which indicated that I had charged mini bar expenses and pornographic movie rentals to the campaign.
In fact, I never received reimbursement for anything above the $185, so uses of the mini bar, which were generally Diet Pepsis, were not reimbursed in any case by the campaign, nor were movie rentals of any description reimbursed.
I showed the hotel bill to the Washington Post, and it became clear there were no movie rentals on the hotel bill.
Question. Do you know who at the White House was working on that for Harold, who reviewed bills in general, whether it was the hotel bills?
Answer. No.
Question. Or the other bills sent over to Harold Ickes?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know someone named Jennifer O'Connor who worked for Mr. Ickes?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you have an understanding of what her role was working for Mr. Ickes?
Page 1172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. My only interface with Jennifer was when Harold was asked by the President to review a proposal for a public statement that I would make, an issue proposal that I would make.
Part of my job was to recommend issue positions to the President, to speeches or proposals he made, and when Ickes was charged with reviewing those proposals, as he was with some of them, he would delegate that task to Jennifer O'Connor. That was my sole involvement with her.
Question. And did you have any understanding of her being involved in reviewing bills at all?
Answer. I have no idea.
Question. I am going to return a little to the—I think we diverged a little bit when we were talking about the issue advocacy ads and whether or not there was polling done of the President's numbers.
Answer. Yes.
Question. As these ads started appearing.
Answer. We polled constantly. Every week we polled.
We polled weekly, and at the beginning that would be spelled W-E-A-K as well as W-E-E-K.
And in that polling, we had about 30 different measurements that we included every week to measure what was going on. Those included the President's favorability, the President's job rating; we would ask, whose plan to balance the Federal budget do you approve of more, the President's or those of the Republicans in Congress? Who do you trust more to balance the budget, the President or the—President Clinton or the Republicans in Congress? Who do you trust—who do you think will do the better job of holding down taxes, the President or the Republicans in Congress? Who do you think would do the best job of balancing the budget in a way that preserves our values?
Page 1173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Were these the ads that were then broken down between DNC——
Answer. These were the polling questions.
Question. And then they would be allocated?
Answer. That is right.
Question. Part of this, though, was determining the President's general favorability numbers?
Answer. Well, what I am saying to you is, there were about 30 different questions that we routinely and repetitiously asked each week, and we tracked and monitored fluctuations in those numbers and briefed the President at the strategy meetings on those changes. One of them was the President's favorability. One of them was his job approval.
But I was giving you the list of questions that we tracked. So they were the ones on the budget; they were the ones on the tax cut.
Then we would read people summaries of the President's and the Republicans' budget positions and say, who do you agree with more? We would say, who do you blame more for the shutting down of the Government, the President or the Republicans in Congress? Who do you feel is doing the best job of protecting Medicare? Who is doing the best job of protecting Medicaid? Who is making the best job of promoting education?
We would have a whole series of questions, largely issue questions, which were designed to track how the advertisements were affecting the perception of the President's issue position vis-a-vis the Republicans.
We did not in most of these polls ask head-to-head questions at that point in that period, if only because they were too dire for us to contemplate, and also, we didn't know the name of the Republican opponent yet.
But the President's favorability or job rating were components that we reviewed to assess the progress of the weekly campaign. But they were only 2 of about 30 questions, and the other 28 virtually all related to the issue differences between the two.
Page 1174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And then were these polls used to develop the issue advocacy ads?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Getting into the President's review of these ads, did you sometimes meet with the President, just by yourself with the President on these, or was it usually with a group of people who were reviewing the ads?
Answer. I very rarely, if ever, met alone with the President about the ads. They were either—I either met with him in the strategy group, or in '96, as the need for changing ads became more immediate, Nancy Hernreich would arrange a 10-minute gathering in the Oval Office or adjacent to it, where as many of the strategy meeting participants as could be summoned would come into the room and actually look at animatics and scripts and make a judgment there on the media. But generally these were done at the strategy meetings.
Question. And your experience with Governor Clinton, you had worked on writing ads with the President?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Is that correct? And you recall the number of anecdotes in your book about when the President's polling—I think it was in the 1990 campaign—when the President's poll numbers had fallen quickly, you had woken him up at 2:00 in the morning and wrote an ad together?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And during the '95–96 time frame, did you also write some ads like that with the President?
Answer. Well, I have tried to lay out for you—I have tried to answer that question previously. I walked you through the process, and that is the process we followed.
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me—all right.
Page 1175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. What was Mr. Ickes' role in this process of approving the ads?
Answer. He attended the strategy meetings and occasionally had comments on the text or the visuals in the ads, and he also had to receive final texts of the ads and a video of the ad before the ad ran.
Question. And he would have his input?
Answer. He would have made his input at the strategy meeting. I can't recall any instance in which he had any changes when he received the final copy.
Question. If we could return now to the September '95 time frame when you were working on advocating the $10 million budget, you spoke of the initial meeting with Mr. Panetta and Mr. Bowles and Mr. Stephanopoulos where they came around to your thinking on this.
What was your understanding of the President's position at that time?
Answer. Generally he was in favor of the advertising, but he was concerned about whether we could afford it, and his mind was open at that point on the question of how much we should do and when we should do it, and he was following the debate among his advisers.
Question. And did that debate include that the DNC financial situation was not great in the fall of '95?
Answer. Not in front of me, it didn't. The President at the strategy meeting in September said, as I recall—at one point, Ickes spoke of the financial difficulties the DNC was facing, and the President said, ''Hold it. I don't want to have that discussion here. We are going to have a separate meeting where we are going to focus on that.''
And then there was, I have since heard, a separate meeting, to which I did not attend—I have read this in the paper—at which that was reviewed and discussed.
Page 1176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
If you will pardon the President, the President, he recognized a Chinese wall between me and the fund-raising.
Mr. BALLEN. So you did not have any involvement in the fund-raising? Just to make that clear on the record.
The WITNESS. I had absolutely no involvement in the fund-raising at all, nor knowledge about it.
[Discussion off the record.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay, we can just move along. I just have a New York Times article in April of this year which discusses some of the matters that you have been relating, some of the meetings that you have been discussing. What can you tell me about what you know about the subsequent meeting on how the DNC was going to come up with the money to pay for the $10 million budget once that had been approved?
Answer. I know nothing about what went on in that meeting. I did hear at one of the strategy meetings that the DNC had acquired a line of credit of $7 million and that it was planning to use that line of credit to help finance the advertising.
I do know that at one point in late 1995, Ickes was opposing my request for advertising money and said, ''This will mean the DNC could be 7 to 9 million dollars in debt at the end of the year.'' And I answered, ''I would rather the DNC be in debt than the Republicans win the budget fight and the DNC be dead.''
But those two were the only insights I had into the DNC's financial condition during that period.
Question. Okay. Did you have any knowledge about a meeting that Mr. Ickes and Don Fowler and the President and the Vice President had on this budget shortly after it had been approved in early September?
Page 1177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. On September 13th, 1995, the President, it has now been reported—and the committee received a number of documents relating to it—there was a meeting with the President, James Riady, John Huang, Bruce Lindsey, and Joe Giroir, and in this meeting one of the topics discussed was John Huang raising money for the DNC.
Mr. BALLEN. Hold it. I object. Is that your testimony? How do you know?
Ms. COMSTOCK. It has been reported that is what was discussed in those meetings. Unfortunately, some of the principals are no longer in the country, are not available, and I believe the President has said after a number of disagreements among staff that this topic was discussed, fund-raising and Mr. Huang going to the DNC, as well as there has been a fair amount of testimony in the Senate on that last month.
At any rate, at any time in or around September of 1995, did you learn that there had been some kind of fund-raising solution that had been found for the DNC?
Answer. No.
Question. Or any people that were going to be involved in raising money?
Answer. Absolutely none.
Question. Were you aware of Bruce Lindsey meeting with anybody regarding fund-raising efforts?
Answer. No. I am not trying to give a specific denial to a specific question. I never knew anything at all about how the money was being raised by the DNC. I never knew the names of the donors, the modalities that we used in raising the money, the projections of how much they expected to raise, or any of that information.
Question. So you had no knowledge of Mr. Ickes meeting with Mr. Huang at any time?
Page 1178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I had no knowledge of that or any other fund-raising discussion.
Question. You said you did learn about the DNC obtaining a loan regarding——
Answer. I heard at the strategy meeting—I have answered that question.
Mr. LENEFSKY. It was a line of credit, I think.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you know who told you about that in the strategy meeting?
Answer. It was in the strategy meeting.
Question. Do you know who raised that?
Answer. Ickes, I think, but I am not sure.
Question. Did Ickes ever raise any concern about that line of credit?
Answer. Yes, as I think I was just testifying, he said he would end up in debt at the end of the year, and that was the reason not to do the advertising. As I said, I said I would rather the DNC be in debt than the DNC be dead.
Question. It was your understanding the line of credit had been extended and Mr. Ickes was trying to cut back on how often the line of credit was utilized?
Answer. I have no idea.
Question. Do you know a woman named Janice Enright?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And do you know who she is?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Could you tell us your understanding——
Page 1179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. She was Harold's chief assistant, Harold Ickes' chief assistant. Her office was located inside his office, their desks were joining, and she was virtually constantly with Harold, and I would deal with her frequently to get messages to Harold.
Question. And what was your understanding of what her role was?
Answer. His executive secretary.
Question. And to your knowledge, did most—if you have any knowledge—of the documents that went into Harold's office, did she deal with them generally?
Answer. I don't know.
Question. When you were at the White House, did you have any particular phones or faxes that you were supposed to use, if you indeed did use any at the White House?
Answer. No. I always charged calls to my credit card, my campaign credit card, when I made them from the White House.
Question. Did you ever have occasion to use faxes when you were at the White House?
Answer. I might have. Yes, I probably did.
Question. Do you know if you were directed to any particular faxes which you were supposed to use at the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. When you first began working with the President in late '94 and '95, you have written that when you were working on this State of the Union address, you were faxed things back and forth and there was a lot of faxes that went to the White House from you to the President. Did you have a particular fax line that you were directed to?
Answer. That I was supposed to send to?
Question. Yes.
Page 1180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you remember what the number was?
Answer. [Redacted]. But I would ask, in your final report, you not make that number public, because it still is the fax number of the President's office.
Question. I understand. Is that in his private office or in the residence?
Answer. It is in the Oval Office.
Question. And do you know if there was a fax machine in the residence that the President utilized?
Answer. Yes, there was, in the Usher's Office. I would frequently fax things to the Usher's Office as well.
Question. Do you know what that fax number is?
Answer. I don't have it memorized. I knew it and used it, but I don't know what it is.
Question. Can you recall how frequently you sent documents by fax to either of those numbers or other numbers?
Answer. Three or four times a day.
Question. In that late '94/early '95 time period?
Answer. Constantly, from late '94 through August of '96.
Question. And do you have any knowledge as to how those documents were maintained or who maintained them at the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. Would the President send you back faxes?
Answer. Yes, but not in that way. The documents I received from the President were usually memos—they were usually documents that he had—almost always they were like a magazine article or something that he had read, and stamped ''the President has seen,'' and he would write my name next to it that I should be sent a copy of that.
Page 1181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The President almost never sent me any documents. It just wasn't his style, to actually put something in writing and send it to me. It was kind of a one-way street. I was sending him documents, papers, constantly.
Question. Did you maintain any of the documents that were sent to you from the White House?
Answer. A great many of them, but they are all in my office.
Question. So you maintained none of your documents, in the entire time you were working for the President, at your home?
Answer. No.
Question. Or in any other personal office?
Answer. No, except I do have an incomplete set of the agendas for the Oval Office, for the Wednesday night meetings.
Question. Those were the only documents you maintained personally?
Answer. That is right. Occasionally—a few other random documents. I think I have a copy of the draft—the initial drafts and edits of each of the State—two State of the Unions I worked on, and I have some personal notes that he sent me just of a personal nature, birthday present and stuff like that, but nothing systematic; I kept all of that at my office.
Question. And you said your assistant that you mentioned earlier, Maureen was it?
Answer. Maureen Maxwell, yes.
Question. Is she based in Connecticut?
Answer. No; she lives in Pennsylvania.
Question. So the bills that you would send for her to handle were sent to Pennsylvania?
Page 1182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you have any knowledge of what Ms. Enright's role was in terms of Mr. Ickes' interactions with the DNC, if she had a role?
Answer. None. I have no idea.
Question. You have no idea, not that she had no role?
Answer. I have no knowledge.
Question. What is your understanding of what Doug Sosnik's role was in relation to the DNC and the work you were doing?
Answer. He was the political director at the White House, and he functioned as Ickes' number two in command. By that, I don't mean his chief of staff, or that would have been Enright, but his number two professional person.
And my understanding was that he frequently transmitted instructions from Harold Ickes to—certainly to me and to the other consultants, and I have no knowledge that he transmitted them to the DNC, but it would have been reasonable to assume that he did.
Question. And what was your understanding of Mr. Ickes' control over the DNC?
Answer. That it was total; that he was the moment-by-moment, day-to-day manager of every aspect of the President's campaign, whether that campaign related to activities of the Clinton/Gore campaign or to the extent that it related to DNC activities.
I know that in my personal bailiwick we needed Harold's approval for every poll, every focus group, every mall test of ads, every production of ads, every animatic that we produced, every media buy; any expenditure of any amount of money other than petty cash, we needed Ickes' approval.
We would go about that by submitting the information to Sosnik, and Sosnik would then get back to us—Sosnik would either approve it on Ickes' behalf, which he was permitted to do by Ickes, or earlier, before he got that authority, he would go back to Ickes and would get back to us with Ickes' approval.
Page 1183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And did you have an understanding of the President's knowledge of Mr. Ickes' role?
Answer. I believed that the President—I believed that Ickes was given this authority by the President.
Question. The President had an understanding that Mr. Ickes did have the type of control that you have described?
Answer. Yes. In general, I was under that impression. I know that specifically the President directed that Ickes was to approve all polling questionnaires and all polling expenditures in advance.
I know that because I opposed giving Ickes that authority and objected to the President over it, and the President overruled me and ordered me to deal with Ickes on the polling issues.
Question. I am showing the witness EOP 34213, which is an April 17, 1996, memo to Chairman Fowler, cc'd to Chairman Dodd, B.J. Thornberry, Marvin Rosen, Brad Marshall, Doug Sosnik, Karen Hancox, from Harold Ickes dated—the memo is dated April 17th, 1996, regarding an April 15th, 1996 meeting.
This document discusses a meeting that apparently occurred between Mr. Ickes and Mr. Fowler and Doug Sosnik, in which it was agreed that all matters dealing with the allocation of expenditures and monies involving the DNC are subject to the prior approval of the White House.
Do you know if this is the time frame when this discussion occurred, April 1996?
Answer. I have no knowledge of this document nor of this procedure, and it is my impression that the requirements that were imposed upon my consulting group predate this significantly.
Page 1184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. COMSTOCK. I guess I can make that Deposition Exhibit Number 1.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Are you marking this?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Actually, we have to keep the documents. I think there is a different process in the Senate.
Mr. LENEFSKY. There sure is.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Document protocol does not allow us to disseminate the document.
Mr. LENEFSKY. That is a new one on me.
Ms. COMSTOCK. You can keep it to look at for now.
[Morris Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.].
[Note.—All exhibits referred to can be found at end of deposition.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Are you familiar with the documents Mr. Ickes has turned over to this committee at all and the Senate committee?
Answer. No.
Question. Other than seeing them, did you have any knowledge of them before news accounts?
Answer. I don't know what documents were turned over, so I can't answer the question. There may be documents that he turned over that I know of, but I don't know that I know of them.
Question. Maybe an easier way would be, while you were dealing with Mr. Ickes, did you have occasion to receive memos on a regular basis from Mr. Ickes?
Page 1185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. What type of memos did you receive from Mr. Ickes?
Answer. Memos which would clarify campaign procedures, approvals, memos which would lay out policies for reimbursement, memos which would be instructions to campaign staff people, things of that sort.
Question. Okay. Do you have any knowledge if Mr. Ickes maintained these types of documents?
Answer. I have no knowledge.
Question. Do you know, have you heard from any source, whether or not these are some of the documents Mr. Ickes took with him when he left the White House?
Answer. I have no knowledge.
Question. Do you have any knowledge about Mr. Ickes taking his documents from the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. On a July 18th, 1997, article in the Washington Post——
Mr. LENEFSKY. '97?
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. '97, I am sorry—last month, you were quoted as saying, ''If Harold really unloaded, there would be a whole lot more going on now than there is. If Harold ever broke with Bill Clinton, you would know it, believe me.'' Can you tell us what you meant by that statement?
Answer. That it is my impression that Harold has had a long and close relationship with the President and has been privy to all of the President's political operations over a long period of time, and that if Harold—what I meant in that is that if Harold Ickes were to reveal everything that he knows, my impression is that the time period covered and the substance covered would go far beyond the scope of the document release he was alleged to have made pursuant to the committee's request.
Page 1186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And what type of matters are you referring to?
Answer. Matters that would relate to the 1992 campaign, that would relate to the Democratic convention and the President's strategy there in 1992, things that would relate to the President's fund-raising operations.
I believe that someone who is in Ickes' position would have access to far more material than was released pursuant—was released in connection with the document release that Ickes made after—he was alleged to have made after he left the White House.
I do not, however, know of any specific piece of information that Ickes might possess which could be injurious to the President.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Can you tell me which page you are on?
Ms. COMSTOCK. It is——
The WITNESS. Could I ask for literally a 2-minute recess? I just need to return a page. I will be back.
[Brief recess.]
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay, we can go back on the record. Congressman Cummings has joined us. I will turn the questioning over to him.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon—good morning, rather.
Mr. Morris, I just wanted to stop by here to ask you a few questions.
The WITNESS. Sure.
Mr. CUMMINGS. While I am a lawyer with 20 years of criminal practice, I am not here in that capacity today but as a member of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. I am just interested in this case.
It is my understanding, over the last 2 and a half hours of questioning there have been no real questions about campaign fund-raising. While Mr. Morris has stated he has no knowledge of John Huang, Charlie Trie, the Riadys, or any other matter related to possible campaign fund-raising, it is my understanding Mr. Morris has testified about political strategy, advertising and polling, all matters of which neither this committee or the full House authorized an investigation.
Page 1187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Morris, I would like to ask you some questions about fund-raising that you may actually have some knowledge about.
It is my understanding you worked for the Bush campaign—is that correct?—back in 1988?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Did you work for George Bush's Presidential campaign—is that right?—in 1988?
The WITNESS. Yes. But I am——
Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me say this. If I ask you anything and you are not clear, I am sure your counsel advised you, you can ask me to rephrase it.
The WITNESS. Yes, I know. I worked to help Bush get elected, but I cannot recall whether I was paid by the Bush campaign or by the Republican National Committee.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. Do you recall what your responsibilities were?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. What were they?
The WITNESS. I was—I advised Lee Atwater, the campaign manager, and Roger Ailes, the media creator, on the content and timing and issues of the negative campaign against Dukakis.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And so you provided advice as far as negative campaigning is concerned; is that what you said?
The WITNESS. Yes. I had worked for Weld, who had defeated Dukakis for Governor of Massachusetts, so I was sort of the house expert on how to beat Dukakis.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Were you involved in any way or did you have any knowledge of the type of fund-raising conducted in that campaign?
Page 1188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you remember what Robert Mosbacher's role was in the campaign?
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. CUMMINGS. What kind of access did you have to the Vice President, Bush, during that campaign?
The WITNESS. None. I have never met him.
Mr. CUMMINGS. You never met him?
The WITNESS. Nor spoken to him.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Are you familiar with Team 100, the group of $100,000 contributors to the RNC?
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you know whether any large contributors were made specific promises by the Bush administration? That is, people that contributed to the Bush campaign?
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Would you know whether any were promised ambassadorships? That is, large contributors?
The WITNESS. No. I know as little about the Bush campaign fund-raising as about the Clinton campaign fund-raising.
Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Let me just go to something else. I just want to go—I had an opportunity to read some documents from ''Crossfire'' back on March 3rd, 1997. I just want to ask you, do you remember that?
The WITNESS. I am sorry?
Mr. CUMMINGS. You appeared on ''Crossfire;'' is that right?
Page 1189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And there is a quote, and I would like you to tell me whether it is accurate or not. This is a quote that is attributed to you, and I just wanted to know whether you made this. It says, ''I have sat in the room with six different currently serving Republican Members of United States Senate in their Senate offices, and they pick up the telephone, and they ask somebody for a campaign contribution.'' Do you remember saying that?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And can you identify who those Congresspeople were that you were talking about?
Mr. LENEFSKY. Wait a minute. Congressman, with all due respect, I don't understand the relevance of this line of questioning. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the committee's jurisdiction was fund-raising improprieties or illegalities with regard to the 1996 Presidential election. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, as I sat in the committee, we said we would take this anywhere it went. And that is my understanding; it is not limited.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I think the witness may be confused, because previously Minority had objected to this line of questioning.
Mr. BALLEN. No, I did not. I objected to the question. Absolutely untrue. I objected to a question that didn't relate to fund-raising. Mr. Cummings' questions relate to fund-raising.
We have asked as well—it is well established there have been questions about 1992 and beyond.
So we also had questions about the 1980s and 1970s, what was done for President Clinton.
Page 1190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. LENEFSKY. I would like to consult with Mr. Morris for just a moment, please.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. LENEFSKY. Can we have the question read back?
[The reporter read back as requested.]
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And who were they?
The WITNESS. Well, after I had made the statement, the statement was a spur-of-the-moment statement in which I was in the heat of argument with Haley Barbour, and Mr. Barbour had professed shock and indignation about the Vice President's making calls from his office. And I said, ''It is the routine practice of Members of Congress to make phone calls from their offices for fund-raising, and you know that.'' And I am under the impression that that is the routine practice.
I blurted out a figure without necessarily concocting it in my mind. Subsequently, I had an opportunity to reflect on it and figure out who I actually have seen physically picking up the telephone, talking into the phone, and asking people to do fund-raisers or to contribute money in their Senate office, and I come up with three names: Senator Phil Gramm of Texas; Senator Paula Hawkins of Florida; and at the time, Congressman Buddy Roemer of Louisiana.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, let me make sure I am clear on what you just said, that although you mentioned, you said—talked about six, actually there were only three that you could remember?
The WITNESS. Yes, that I could actually say I sat in their office and watched them make fund-raising phone calls.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, let's go back to these three people for a second. As to Senator Phil Gramm, can you remember when it was that you observed the fund-raising calls? First of all, do you remember whether it was more than one? I am specifically talking about Senator Gramm.
Page 1191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Yes. I cannot fix a date. I had occasion to meet frequently with Senator Gramm during the Kay Bailey Hutchison campaign when she was first elected to fill an open seat, and I was employed by the Republican Senate Campaign Committee as a consultant to them in working for the Republican candidate in that race.
As you recall, there were three Republican candidates and three Democrats, and the top two, one from each party ran it off.
But the Republicans did not have a specific candidate, so I was kind of in charge of the negative campaign against Kruger, who was the most likely Democratic opponent. And I had run a campaign that had defeated Kruger before, so, again, it was useful for me to do that.
In the course of that period, whatever date that campaign was—I even forget the year, but you can check it, when she was first elected—I was in Gramm's office a lot, like five or six or seven—five or six times, maybe seven or eight times. And it was my specific recollection that we would be meeting, and then somebody, his secretary, would buzz in and say Mr. X is on the telephone, and then I would see him lean back in his chair and say, ''Hi, Charlie, how are you doing,'' and basically ask him either to set up a fund-raiser or to give money.
I do not recall with any specificity whether he was asking to arrange a fund-raiser or solicit a contribution, ask someone to contribute to a Republican Senate candidate, since he was head of the Senate campaign committee, or to contribute to his own campaign. But I was constantly—the meetings were constantly interrupted by fund-raising phone calls by the Senator.
Now, when Channel 7—ABC, rather—called me after this ''Crossfire'' and said now, can you recall whether—exactly the nature of the conversation? the gentleman—the reporter told me it would be illegal if he actually asked someone for funds; but if he asked someone to set up a fund-raiser party, that might not be illegal; and if he asked him to give money to another person, another campaign, that might not be illegal. And I can't recall which of those activities the Senator engaged in.
Page 1192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, when you said you were in his office, was this here in Washington?
The WITNESS. Yes, in his Senate office in the—I believe it is in the Russell Senate Office Building.
Mr. CUMMINGS. With regard to Senator Gramm, when you saw this take place, did you comment on it at all?
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Within the office?
The WITNESS. No. It is my understanding that this is——
Mr. LENEFSKY. The answer is no.
The WITNESS. The answer is no.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So can you tell us about the circumstances, what you observed with regard to Buddy Roemer.
The WITNESS. He was a candidate for Governor of Louisiana in 1983. At that time he was a Democrat, he has become a Republican subsequently, and I was a consultant on his campaign.
And, once again, I recall strategy meetings with him being interrupted by callbacks from contributors where he would take the call and he would discuss a campaign contribution or a party or some fund-raising issue in the middle of the meeting that I was having with him.
I recall these because the interruptions were annoying to me and I just wanted to have my meeting and not have to sit there and listen to phone calls.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And where did those calls take place?
The WITNESS. From his congressional office in one of the House office buildings.
Page 1193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. CUMMINGS. And Paula Hawkins?
The WITNESS. I worked for Senator Hawkins on her initial election campaign in 1980 and her re-election in 1986, and during the period of '85 and 1986 I met with her almost weekly in her Senate office, and I recall her making calls in connection with fund-raising from that office.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to go back to Phil Gramm for a second. You said that you heard the callbacks. Did you hear—did you observe any calls being made with regard to fund-raising, if you can recall?
The WITNESS. No. I don't think that he actually interrupted a meeting with me to say, please wait while I call this person. I think what would happen is that his secretary would buzz him and say, Mr. Jones is returning—is on the line, and then he would speak to Mr. Jones, and I inferred that it was a callback of a call he had originally placed. It might not have been.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, would that be the same for Paula Hawkins?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So you don't recall—you don't remember hearing or seeing her actually make a call out.
The WITNESS. That is correct.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, are you aware of any other instances where Congressmen have engaged in fund-raising phone calls in their congressional offices?
The WITNESS. I have never directly witnessed that, but it is my impression that it is the routine practice engaged in by, as I have said, the vast majority of the House and of the Senate.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Back on March 3rd, 1997—let me go back to what you just said. Is there—I mean, when you say it's your—you said it's your impression——
Page 1194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. [Affirmative nod.]
Mr. CUMMINGS. Strike that. On March 3rd, 1997, the edition of ''Crossfire,'' you said, ''Every single Republican Senator spends about 80 percent of his time, including Senator Nickles, raising money, from those high-back chairs in the United States Senate office.'' What did you mean by that?
The WITNESS. Well, some of it might have been hyperbole. I don't know if United States Senators spend 80 percent of the time while they were in their office making fund-raising phone calls. It is my impression that when candidates are up for re-election, Congressmen or Senators, they end up spending, if they are in contested races, sharply contested races—they end up spending a huge proportion of their time dealing with fund-raising, and they—and my impression is that a vast amount of that is from the Senate office.
As I'm saying that, I recall that—I recall learning from somebody that Senator Cranston was legendary for sitting in his office and making millions of phone calls—thousands of phone calls to donors. I remember at one point someone telling me, I don't remember who, that Cranston would literally treat his office like a fund—his fund-raising headquarters.
So I was expressing on the program that when Senator Nickles, in particular, expressed shock that the Vice President was doing it, was making calls from his office, I think on the program I said it was akin to the scene in the movie ''Casablanca'' where Humphrey Bogart, with a French cop, bursts in and says he was shocked to hear that gambling is going on, and the hotel clerk interrupts him and says, ''Here are your winnings from last night, sir.''
Mr. LENEFSKY. Claude Renee?
The WITNESS. Yeah, that's it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I think back on that program you also said that six Members of the Senate, including half of the Republican leadership—do you remember that?
Page 1195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Yes. What I had in mind when I said that was, Phil Gramm was part of the leadership and I did not—it was hyperbolic.
I have been asked in the past whether that included Trent Lott, because I have been Senator Lott's consultant and I have said on the record and would affirm now that I have never seen Trent Lott make a fund-raising call from his office. I suspect that that's largely because he has never had to.
Mr. CUMMINGS. You worked for Congressman Dickey also?
The WITNESS. What?
Mr. CUMMINGS. Congressman Dickey.
The WITNESS. Yes, Jay Dickey.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And when was that?
The WITNESS. In 19—in his 1994 re-election campaign.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And what were your responsibilities there?
The WITNESS. I did his polling and oversaw his advertising.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you remember whether Congressman Dickey made any fund-raising calls from his office that you would know of?
The WITNESS. I remember that he did not.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay.
The WITNESS. I only met with him two or three times in his office in Washington, and most of the rest of our meetings were in Arkansas, and I know that those meetings in Washington were not interrupted by fund-raising calls.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Did you do any kind—type of fund-raising for him?
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. CUMMINGS. You worked for Senator Helms, too?
Page 1196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And when was that?
The WITNESS. In his re-election campaign of 1990.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And what were your responsibilities with Senator Helms?
The WITNESS. I conducted some of his polling and advised him on his advertising.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, do you recall him making fund-raising calls from his office or receiving callbacks?
The WITNESS. No. I only met with Senator Helms once, which was in his Senate office. It was a meeting of about an hour, and that was the only time I have ever seen Senator Helms. He did make no fund-raising phone calls. My contacts were with his campaign staff in North Carolina.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So you had nothing to do with any campaign fund-raising for him; is that correct?
The WITNESS. That's correct.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Are you aware of whether anyone affiliated with the 1990 Helms campaign provided information to the Christian Coalition about needs, plans, or projects on the campaign?
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So you have no knowledge of that whatsoever?
The WITNESS. That's correct.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Give me one second, please.
You worked for Senator Wilson; is that right?
The WITNESS. Yes, but I worked for him only in his campaign to be elected to the Senate. I never worked for him after his election to the Senate. When I worked for him, he was mayor of San Diego.
Page 1197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. CUMMINGS. And what did you do for him?
The WITNESS. I worked on his polling and on his advertising.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So as far as fund-raising is concerned, nothing?
The WITNESS. No connection at all to his fund-raising.
To spare you, I would be happy to list my Republican clients, but I have never worked on anybody's fund-raising in either party. It is not what I do, and I know nothing about it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So you don't even get involved in that at all?
The WITNESS. That's right. There are occasions, and there have been candidates, none of the ones you mentioned, where I am invited to speak at a fund-raiser to urge a candidate's donors to give money. I did that, for example, for Warren Rudman when he was running for the Senate for the first time. But I never know who is in the audience, I never view the invitations, and I never receive the checks or raise the money, I just give a speech as to why I think he can win.
Mr. CUMMINGS. You generally paid close attention to television advertisements, ads by the Republican Party and its candidates for President in 1995 and 1996, didn't you?
The WITNESS. Yes. Rather close attention.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And why was that?
The WITNESS. Well, I was running the President's advertising, so I needed to know what the other side was doing.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So you personally reviewed many of the Republican television spots in 1995 and 1996?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And when you would review them, what were you reviewing them for?
Page 1198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. To find out what they were saying about President Clinton so that I could respond to them in the President's advertisements.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you recall seeing ''Dole for President'' spots during the Republican Presidential primary?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. One of Dole's ads was a biographical spot produced by Don Supple. Do you remember that?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And does—I mean, can you tell us about it, as best you can?
The WITNESS. Yes. I believe what you're referring to was a 60-second advertisement that was run by the Republican National Committee under the same rubric of issue advocacy advertising that the Democrats did for President Clinton.
It was notable in my recollection because it systematically violated every single one of the ground rules that Lynn Utrecht and Joe Sandler, the counsel for the campaign and for the Democratic Committee, had laid down for us and that we had to abide by.
It was a spot that had absolutely no issue content at all. It was a warm and fuzzy biographic spot talking about where Senator Dole grew up and his background and his war record and a lot of things like that, and it had no reference that I can recall to issues at all.
I remember being outraged by it, and I called Utrecht and Sandler, and I said, why are we being barred—I wanted to run an ad for Clinton that talked about—that he was born poor, that he worked his way up, that he went to school on scholarships, and flesh out some of his background so that we could present that.
I was told by Utrecht and Sandler that if we did that, it would have to be out of Clinton/Gore because it was not issue advocacy, and I accepted that. But then when Dole did the exact same thing, I said, why are you unilaterally disarming us?
Page 1199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I would like to state, in answer to your question, a little more broadly, that whereas the Clinton—the Democratic National Committee ran about $30 million of advertising that were issue advocacy ads, the Republican National Committee ran between 20 and 25 million dollars of advertising for Dole, which were issue ads, and whereas the Clinton/Gore DNC issue ads—that is, the DNC issue ads that I supervised—were run largely during the budget fight, the Republican ads were run—80 percent of them were run after June 1st, 1996, when it was clearly re-election ads. During much of it the Congress wasn't even in session, so there wasn't even an issue advocacy possible.
So I do want to point out that all of the accusations that have been made about the Democrat issue advocacy advertising being thinly-veiled re-election commercials, which I believe not to be true in our case, were overwhelmingly and abundantly true in the case of the Republicans.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So you really are concerned about that, huh?
The WITNESS. What?
Mr. CUMMINGS. You sound like you got very upset about that.
The WITNESS. I got very concerned when, in the last 3 months before the Democratic convention, we were being outspent by 3-to-1 on issue advocacy ads by the Republican Party.
I also was interested to note in the Washington Post today that the Democratic Party spent 122—raised $122 million in soft money and only $14 million of that went to the advertising campaign. We spent $45 million in pre-convention ads, 15 from Clinton/Gore, 30 from DNC, and of the 30 from DNC, $16 million was hard and $14 million was soft. So the parent to the advertising campaign was only responsible for about 11 percent of the total expenditures of soft money by the DNC.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, you said you did run a biographical ad on Bill Clinton; is that right?
Page 1200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. No, we never did. I wanted to, but we couldn't unless it was Clinton/Gore money, and we elected not to do so.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And the 1995–1996 DNC issue advertisements, I take it that they focused on legislative issues; is that right?
The WITNESS. Yeah, they were overwhelmingly focused on the budget fight, and they exclusively related to the contrast between President Clinton's plan and the Republican plan to balance the budget, and they would summarize the salient elements of each and advocate the President's plan as opposed to the other plan.
For example, I remember that we could never use the name ''President Clinton,'' we had to say, President Clinton, apostrophe s, plan—''President Clinton's plan''—because it had to be related to the substance of the issue rather than the personalities involved.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, you just laid out—the answer you just gave, you said it had to be, and what are you basing that on? What were the ground rules, and where did those ground rules come from?
The WITNESS. Lynn Utrecht, the campaign counsel, and Joe Sandler, the DNC counsel, had presided over a series of meetings at Lynn Utrecht's office, the sole purpose of which was to discuss what was permissible in DNC issue advocacy advertising and what was not. They laid down rules that were subsequently incorporated into memoranda that was circulated that provided the ground rules as to what we could or couldn't include.
Further, Mr. Sandler was present at each of the creative meetings where we worked on developing these ads and constantly was editing and fine-tuning the most minute details of the advertisements, text and visuals, as well as its placement, in order to observe those ground rules.
For example, I was—we were instructed that Democratic National Committee issue advocacy ads could not run within the 28 days prior to a primary contest in a given State, and that if we chose to advertise within 28 days of the primary, even though Clinton was unopposed in the primary, we would have to use Clinton/Gore money.
Page 1201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
So, for example, we would refute—we couldn't advertise in the Philadelphia media market during the New Jersey primary, the Pennsylvania primary, and the Delaware primary. Even though the Delaware was just a minute little portion of the Philadelphia media market, we couldn't be on in the entire media market for the 28 days before the Delaware primary, because of Joe Sandler and Lynn Utrecht's rules.
The Republicans, on the other hand, ran their issue advocacy advertisements on cable throughout this entire process and in Washington, D.C., throughout the whole country, regardless of when the primaries were taking place, and in the D.C. media market, even though it was run on occasions that were proximate to the Maryland, D.C., and Virginia primary dates.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Help me with something. I'm just curious. What—you keep referring to Joe Sandler, and I think he was the general counsel for the DNC. Is that right?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. When you began your work with President Clinton, were there discussions with regard to what your relationship would be with regard to Joe Sandler as far as advice? I mean, were there guidelines set out from the very beginning? because it sounds like Joe Sandler was very much involved in what was going on here, and I was just wondering, how did that relationship start with regard to you?
The WITNESS. When the advertising—when the decision was made by the President to engage in issue advocacy advertising through the Democratic National Committee, Sandler and Utrecht were appointed as a—by the President and Ickes to be a group—to be the arbiters of that campaign and to set the rules, the legal rules.
And then I suggested that rather than make that an ex-post-facto review of the script or of the spot—not ex post facto, but a last-minute review before it went on the air, which would inevitably cause major revisions and delays, that we actually take the unprecedented step, from my political career, of actually having the DNC lawyer, Sandler, sit in meetings so that he was present at every instant while the ads were being developed and, rather than just give this commentary at the end, would comment literally as we had the visual on a freeze frame, and he would say, you are leaving that on for 4 seconds, you can only put it on for 2 seconds, or that ad says President Clinton, it's got to say President Clinton's plan, or that picture is Bob Dole's picture and Bob Dole has retired from the Senate and you can no longer use Bob Dole's picture in your ads, because he is not a Senator anymore, and therefore you cannot be engaging in legislative advocacy by using his picture.
Page 1202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Those are all specific examples of the kind of ruling that Sandler insisted upon while we were actually creating these advertisements.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So the kind of meeting that you just spoke about, would that be considered a creative meeting? Is that what they are called?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And you said—I think you used the word ''unprecedented'' for you.
The WITNESS. Yes. I had never had a lawyer in the room when I'm writing ads. It was a unique experience.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And why did you have a lawyer in the room here? I mean, why were you——
The WITNESS. Because we were instructed by the President to follow the specific advice of the attorney in the DNC advertising so that we did not engage in any advertising that was over the lines drawn by the Federal Elections Commission.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So I take it that Sandler and——
The WITNESS. Utrecht.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Newtrecht.
The WITNESS. Utrecht—U.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Were engaged in all of these creative meetings.
The WITNESS. No. Only Sandler was, but Utrecht, in addition to Sandler, cleared all scripts and all visuals before the advertisements were permitted to run.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And I take it that you, a few questions ago—answers ago, you talked about the detail of looking at each advertisement as it was developed. Was that the process that was—was that the pretty much consistent process, for Mr. Sandler to look at every single aspect of the ad?
Page 1203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Yes. It was not pretty much consistent, it was completely consistent. Not a single DNC ad was ever run where Sandler was not intimately involved from the very beginning in the formulation of the ad, except for the first ad that was run in August, which was before there had been that kind of input. But Sandler and Utrecht approved that ad before it went on.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, did there ever come a time when you disregarded Mr. Sandler's advice?
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Why not?
The WITNESS. Because I wasn't allowed to. My instructions were that I had to obey every ruling of Sandler and Utrecht, and I did, down to the last detail.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to go back to just one thing for a second. We talked about the Republican ad, the one that you were kind of concerned about.
The WITNESS. The Dole ad, yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you believe, based upon—I mean, apparently you had some concerns, and I take it that you don't believe that they met the letter of the law.
The WITNESS. I can't comment on that, Congressman, because I'm not an attorney. They certainly went far over the line that was drawn for us by the counsel to the Democratic National Committee. I don't know if his opinion was accurate, but if he were their counsel, he wouldn't have let them do any of the things that they did.
Mr. CUMMINGS. When you—let me talk about Joe Sandler a bit, just ask you a few questions.
You gave us examples of things where Sandler said, look, you have got to stay within a certain situation, and I think you referred to the State races and the media markets and whatever.
Page 1204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Were there other examples of what—of when Mr. Sandler said, look, you got to stay in this box?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you give us some examples of those instances?
The WITNESS. Before he would let us do an advertisement on a subject for issue advocacy, we had to establish that the subject was a current subject of political controversy in the U.S. Congress, not simply that a bill had been introduced but that it was actually before the Congress in an active and aggressive way.
So, for example, after the welfare reform legislation was passed and signed by the President, we could not run ads on issue advocacy relating to welfare reform, because it was no longer a question before the Congress; it had been passed. Even though the President continued to want changes in that legislation modifying the cuts, we were not permitted to address that in the advertising. We were only permitted to address topics that were front stage before the Congress.
Another example was that we were required in our attack, whenever we presented Dole's picture, to present Gingrich's as well, and whenever we mentioned the name ''Dole,'' we had to also mention the name ''Gingrich,'' to emphasize that we were mentioning the name ''Dole'' not in the context of his Presidential candidacy but in the context of his position as majority leader in the Senate.
As another example, Sandler and Utrecht, when it looked as if Lamar Alexander might be the Republican candidate, they told me at that point that we could not mention Lamar Alexander's name in our issue advocacy ads because he was not a Member of Congress and had not been a Member of Congress and was not—didn't have—and even though he had positions on the issues before Congress, he was not a participant, and therefore we could not mention his name.
Page 1205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
At one point, I was terribly concerned that if he were the nominee, he would be able to use issue advocacy ads to attack Clinton because we were President but we could not use issue ads to attack him because he wasn't in Congress.
Those are all examples. I could literally give you 50 more.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, what about as to the Dole ad—and I know you're not a lawyer, but based upon your knowledge of what you—the ground rules that you were working under, can you give us examples of the things that concerned you there?
The WITNESS. First, that they—well, all I can tell you is examples of what they did that Sandler wasn't letting us do.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I understand.
Mr. BALLEN. You mean the RNC, sir?
The WITNESS. The RNC. First, the RNC advertised in States immediately prior to their primaries; we did not; the DNC did not.
Secondly, the RNC permitted biographic ads to be run that had no issue advocacy by the RNC; the DNC was not permitted to do that.
Thirdly, the RNC ran an advertisement that showed Bill Clinton saying, ''We can balance the budget in 7 years,'' and then there were films clips of him giving different time deadlines: We can balance it in 10 years, 7 to 10 years, 8 years. And there were film clips of Clinton contradicting himself on when the budget would be balanced. It did not indicate the Republican position on the issue; it did not discuss the President's position on the issue; it was a negative ad out of the blue.
We would never have been permitted to run that ad. We would have had to state what our position was and what the conflict was.
So there were, long after—long after the welfare bill had been passed, the Republicans were running ads attacking Clinton on welfare reform with DNC—with RNC funds paying for it, and we were not permitted to reply to it effectively because we could not address that with a DNC ad, we had to use Clinton/Gore ads to deal with welfare reform, because it was no longer in play before the Congress.
Page 1206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I would go to Sandler and I would say, ''They are running an ad attacking us on welfare reform with an RNC label. Why can't we reply to that ad with a DNC label?'' And he would say, ''You can't.''
I actually had occasion to—at some point, to speak to the President and say we were being unilaterally disarmed by Utrecht and Sandler and being required to be held to a standard that the Republicans were nowhere near approaching. I said, ''Mr. President, we are being outgunned 3-to-1 here in quantity and we are fighting with one hand tied behind our back because of the''—''our inability to do what they are doing, what the Republicans are doing.'' He said to me, ''I don't care. Follow their instructions.''
Mr. CUMMINGS. I'm just curious, did you ever go to Sandler and Utrecht and say look, guys, basically what you just said? Did you ever say, look, you got—I mean, our hands are tied behind our backs?
The WITNESS. Constantly. I recall one meeting with Utrecht where we had one of these legal meetings where we literally screamed at each other. I shouted at her. I said, ''You are deliberately trying to sabotage this advertising campaign because you are a pawn in a tool of Harold Ickes''—Ickes was there—''and you are using this legal fiction that you are developing as a tool of emasculating our advertising campaign because Ickes opposes it and you are following his orders.''
And she screamed back at me that that was outrageous accusations, Ickes was furious, and everybody's tempers cooled after a little while, but it was tremendous friction of my resentment against what I considered to be their unreasonable imposition of rules that the other side wasn't following.
I was perfectly willing to follow their rules, but only if the other side did, and when the other side broke them, I didn't see any reason that we should be subject to them. But we were, and we continued to be, and I didn't like it one bit, but I had to follow it.
Page 1207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. CUMMINGS. I take it that you had—you just used a term that I hadn't heard before in your testimony. You used the term ''legal meeting.''
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Is that what you said? So I take it you had the creative meetings, which was creating the ads, and then there were legal meetings.
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. What are legal meetings?
The WITNESS. I testified on that earlier.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Oh, I'm sorry.
The WITNESS. It's okay. The legal meetings included Ickes; Sandler; Utrecht; Cheryl Mills; sometimes Jack Quinn; sometimes Ron Klain; myself; Tom Freedman, my chief of staff; Mark Penn, our pollster; and Bill Knapp, our media creator; and also the gentleman who was our time buyer-,—I forgot—Jamie Sperling I think was his name, our time buyer who worked for Squier, and we had six or seven of those over the course of the campaign.
Every time the campaign entered a new phase, the primaries were here, or Dole was the nominee, or the budget, you know, different phases as the campaign progressed, when the circumstances changed, we would have a meeting to outline the ground rules of the new situation.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Going back for a moment, I guess you felt kind of pressured with the President over this whole issue of counsel restricting you and——
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. That really bothered you, huh?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And the President's—it was basically almost, from what you said, when you told the President, look, our hands are tied behind our backs, I take it that there was very little discussion, except you got to follow the law?
Page 1208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. So did you get the impression from your discussions with the President when you complained that he had full confidence in these two counsel?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I don't have anything more. Thank you very much.
The WITNESS. Thank you very much. Good to meet you, Congressman.
Mr. CUMMINGS. My pleasure.
The WITNESS. Hey, off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you familiar with many of the various campaign accounts that were being used to pay for ads by the RNC?
Answer. No.
Question. Were there any written legal opinions regarding the rules of issue advocacy ads that you discussed?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And would those be some of the documents that I think we previously discussed would be at your office?
Answer. Yes. There are other places they would be. Lynn Utrecht would have them, Joe Sandler would have them, and most likely Bill Knapp of Squier, Knapp, Ochs would have them.
Question. Were there discussions over the use of coordinated accounts?
Page 1209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No. There were—with one exception, which I will get to in a minute, we were—I was never involved, nor were—to my knowledge, were any member of our media team, ever involved with the formulation of any coordinated expenditure—any independent expenditure.
That's what you mean, right? Not coordinated, but independent expenditure by the AFL, or any other—Sierra Club or any other group.
Am I responding to your question? You said ''coordinated.'' It just dawned on me.
Question. The coordinated accounts.
Answer. I don't understand the question.
Question. Talking about the coordinated accounts run by the States and the soft money that——
Answer. Oh, yes, I did know about that. There was—we were informed at some point in September or October, I believe, of '95, I believe by Ickes, that when a State party ran an ad, under its disclaimer as opposed to the Democratic National Committee, the ratios of hard and soft money were less—were less onerous, and I was informed at that time that we had no problem having enough soft money, but the hard money which was Federal money was a problem, and that if the ad were run by the State party, you had to have less hard money in it.
Therefore, we were requested to prepare separate ads for each State party. The media people would then prepare an ad sponsored by each State party. There would be a separate disclaimer line for each State party, and the ads would be identical except for a different disclaimer, and therefore the buy was technically 30 or 20 separate buys, one for each State. I was aware of that.
Question. These were generally the same ads?
Answer. They were always the same ads.
Page 1210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay. I'm showing the witness DNC document 310398 through 701. I may have given somebody my copy, I'm sorry. Can I check these again? I'm sorry.
[Brief pause for document examination.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. The front page of this is a handwritten note, apparently Don Fowler of October 12th, '95, and it's attached to an information sheet in the memo to Bill, Bill somebody. It says, ''Thank you for returning my call today. Attached is an info sheet about our efforts to raise money to fund 10 million of paid TV ads over an 8-week period during October and November. This effort is at the specific direction of the President.''
Was that your understanding of this media buy in October of '95? Was it at the specific direction of the President?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And it continues, ''We would like for you to give some more, if you can, but more important, get some others to help. We really need another $250,000. Thanks, best wishes, Don.''
Then it is attached to a memo that is to Chairman Don Fowler from Squier, Knapp, Ochs Communications, and that memo is dated October 5th, 1995.
Were these the kind of State buys that you're referring to that you were discussing just a moment ago?
Answer. Yes.
Mr. BALLEN. Could you ask the witness if he has ever seen this document before?
The WITNESS. Are you asking me? No, I have never seen this document before.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I am asking if this is the type of media buy that you were talking about.
Page 1211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Yes.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay. And the States outlined here the States for an early October media buy, October 3rd through October 12th, '95; is that correct?
Answer. Yes.
Question. I think earlier when we discussed some of the States, you had mentioned Vermont and Rhode Island as being among the States that were selected. Directing your attention to DNC 3103700, at the bottom, it talks about—under New York, it has ''Burlington-Plattsburgh market.'' Was that the Vermont reference——
Answer. Oh, Burlington. Yes, of course, Burlington, Vermont. Right, that is correct.
Question. To your knowledge, does that market also expand into New York State?
Answer. Yeah, but very limited. They really should have listed Vermont; it gets virtually all of Vermont.
Question. And then on Rhode Island, does that market, the Providence market, extend at all into the Connecticut area?
Answer. A small amount. This document illustrates the point that I was trying to make, that these buys were primarily targeted at Republican and conservative Democratic Senators or Congressmen.
The Arkansas buy was not targeted at individual Senators, but there was a Republican Congressman from Little Rock who we were targeting.
In California, I don't recall the Congress people from these markets, but I think that's how we arrived at these markets.
In Colorado, we were targeting Nighthorse Campbell to hold him as a conservative Democrat, and we had high hopes of breaking off Hank Brown.
Page 1212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Again, I'm afraid I don't recall the names of the Congressmen, but I do know the Senate strategy.
Question. Was Colorado also a swing State in '96 that you were focusing on for the President?
Answer. It is, but it is not the reason—well, yes, it is, and that is part of the reason it is included here, not because it was a swing State we were focusing on for the President, but because when we are trying to move national poll numbers, the best place to move them is in swing States.
When you have a State that is determinantly Republican or determinantly Democrat, you are going to have less movement on national polling numbers on the budget packages if you go into those States than if you go into swing States. But most of this buy was particularly animated by a desire to move Congressmen.
We were in Iowa because the Republican primary was in Iowa, and we felt that if we could make Iowa hate the Medicare cuts, Dole would find it difficult to push those cuts, because he had to win the Iowa primary.
In Illinois, these markets correspond to Congress people who we were attempting to target. If we were attempting to do Illinois, we would push Chicago as a swing State, but we were trying to hit Congressmen.
Kentucky, we were trying to hold Ford and we were trying to get at McConnell.
Louisiana, we wanted to make sure that Bennett Johnson was not tempted to vote for an override and that Breaux was not tempted.
In Maine, which, goodness knows, is not an important State in a Presidential contest, we were going after Olympia Snowe, and I forget who the other Republican Senator was from Maine at that point.
Page 1213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Senator Cohen?
Answer. Senator Cohen, of course, the two liberal Republicans we had a pretty good shot at.
Michigan, that was much more to hold the Democrats.
Minnesota, we were targeting both for congressional reasons and for Senate reasons.
Missouri, I know we had an extensive discussion about the chances of moving Ashcroft to support the budget—the President's budget.
In New York, these are tiny New York markets, and the goal was to make it hard for D'Amato, whose political base is upstate New York, to support the budget and to move over people like McHugh and Houghton and other moderate Republicans.
In Ohio, we were attempting both to make sure that we could hold Glenn's support on this issue and to give us a realistic shot at DeWine.
In Oregon, that was exclusively dominated by our efforts to get Packwood and Hatfield to support the President from the Republican position.
In Pennsylvania, these individual local markets were largely dictated by congressional considerations and the fact that we had a very good shot, we thought, of making this vote one that Specter would have difficulty casting.
Rhode Island is completely a Democratic State, it is never in play in a Presidential race, and we did this exclusively to influence Chafee.
In Tennessee, we were trying hard to influence Thompson and to affect some of the congressional people.
Washington, I don't recall the targeting thinking there. And Wisconsin, again, I don't recall it specifically.
But the point is that these buys, these little picayune markets, each place which were aware of the advocacy issue ads ran in 1995 were largely dictated by my strategic view that I would frequently articulate at strategy meetings, and I remember I did so rather colorfully. I said, our goal is to split the Republican majority into small hunter-gatherer groups that we can pick off one at a time. And that phrase sort of stuck with them. And I was predicting the dismemberment of the Republican majority into hunter-gatherer groups with some optimism in September and October. Unfortunately, I underestimated the proclivity of the Republican Party for suicide.
Page 1214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay, I will make this document Deposition Exhibit Number 2.
[Morris Deposition Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Could you describe what you know about how financially these media buys were paid for by the States and how that money was sent back to Squier, Knapp or Penn & Schoen?
Answer. I only know it secondhand. Bill Knapp was in charge of that, and he would receive money from the State parties, and that would fund the time buy.
The only reason I know that is that, after we had run this for a while, there were a number of State parties that were slower than others in paying, and I—he acquainted me—Knapp acquainted me with that, and I mentioned it to Sosnik, and he followed it up, and that was the last I had heard of it.
I don't know the mechanical process by which the money was given.
Question. I want to show you CGR 010924, a document the committee received from Mr. Ickes dated June 26th, 1996, a memo to Chairman Dodd, Chairman Fowler, B.J. Thornberry, and Brad Marshall, cc to Doug Sosnik, Karen Hancox, and Jennifer O'Connor, from Harold Ickes, and it is regarding bills for Squier, Knapp and Penn & Schoen.
Have you seen this document before?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you recognize any of the handwriting on the document?
Answer. No.
Question. You're not familiar with Mr. Ickes' handwriting generally?
Page 1215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. Okay. This document reads, ''Until further notice, I request that you hold payments on all bills of any kind, other than for time buys owed to Squier, Knapp and to Penn & Schoen until they have clarified a number of questions and provided adequate documentation regarding bills they have submitted.''
Do you recall any discussions about that?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Could you describe those?
Answer. Yeah. This was during a period of fairly acrimonious negotiations and discussions between the consultant group and Ickes over the issue of the media commissions that we would be permitted to retain as compensation, and I suspected at the time that Ickes was deliberately using the facade that this document speaks of, that there was inadequate documentation as a method of slowing or stopping payments for polling and production costs to these two companies, Penn & Schoen and Squier, Knapp, Ochs, as a way of pressuring them to come to a quick agreement on his terms over the commissions that they would be permitted to retain.
I harbored these dark suspicions during this period and yesterday was shown a document which was a memorandum from Ickes to the President in which—at the Senate deposition, I was shown this document in which Ickes specifically said, ''I am holding up further payments to Squier, Knapp, Ochs and Penn & Schoen for their polling and their production as a method of bringing pressure on them to get them to agree to a contract on our terms.''
And that was very enlightening for me to see, because it was precisely what I thought was happening then, and it turns out that I was correct in that supposition.
Question. Can you generally tell us what the difference is between what you were asking for in terms of money and what Mr. Ickes was trying to bring it down to, generally, if you can give us ball park figures?
Page 1216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't recall, because they involved a minutia of discussions, but ultimately I think the average commission that the consultant group received on the entire flight of Clinton/Gore and DNC pre-convention media ended up being about 7 percent, and I think Ickes wanted it to be more like 5 or 6 percent.
Question. Initially, had you all asked for something like 15 percent?
Answer. In the first buy, which was the crime ads, the Clinton/Gore ads, we were paid 15 percent because we had been working for a considerable period of time without any compensation on the media for Squier, Knapp in particular. Then in the—then for a long time starting in August, it was pegged at 10 percent.
Question. August of '95?
Answer. Yes. And then I believe it was at 10 percent for the next 12 or 13 million dollars of media, and then after that, it dropped to 6 or 7 percent, and then it dropped further. The average was a little over 7 percent, as I understand, over the entire process.
Question. And was part of what Mr. Ickes was trying to do because of pressures from DNC fund-raising, to your knowledge?
Answer. I have no idea. I don't know. I felt that it was not a good-faith effort on his part. I felt that we were talking about a $45 million time buy that was ultimately spent, $30 million of it from DNC, and a 1 percent difference on half of the buy would amount to $1 million.
I didn't think that that was his motivation at all. I felt that his motivation was to try to raise a thorny issue to interrupt the smooth flow of my relationship with the President and to use the disagreements over money as a method of antagonizing the President, of making the President antagonistic toward me and toward the consultant group. He didn't succeed in that, but I felt that was why he was doing it.
Page 1217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. So you think the amount of difference was somewhere in the ball park of $1 million that he may have been——
Answer. Yes. Probably even less, because as time went on, the amount of money—for example, this memo was June 26th. We knew that we would stop any advertising other than—we knew that in the general election we would have a completely different commission arrangement. So this pressure would have been designed for a 2-month period, and in that 2-month period we probably sent about $6 million. So a 1 point difference over $6,000,000 is a $60,000 difference.
When I suspected that he was playing hard ball over $60,000, it was not because he genuinely wanted to save the $60,000, it was because he wanted to find an issue where he could try to impair my relationship with the President.
Question. Were you aware at this time, at or around late June, early July of 1996, Don Fowler putting a lot of pressure on both the fund-raisers at the DNC to raise a lot more money?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you have any—have you learned at all about any particular pressure that was put on John Huang to raise money in July of '96?
Answer. No.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I would like to make this document Deposition Exhibit Number 3.
[Morris Deposition Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. By the way, it is 12:53. Maybe at 1 o'clock we could break for——
Ms. COMSTOCK. I know you do want to get out at 4:00, so if we could go until about 1:30, and then we can see where we are at.
Page 1218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. 1:00, if you would.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay.
The WITNESS. I have a phone call that I scheduled at 1 o'clock.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I'm just showing you for reference purposes, because I'm talking about a document and these are Mr. Sandler's handwritten notes, I have no reason to believe you have seen these or you don't know anything about them, so we can say that at the outset.
But in here, this is DNC 3096675 through 81. It's talking about FEC reports and State committees and how the money is spent at the State level. We were just talking a little bit about how the States were doing media buys and then the bills were being—they would send the payments back to Penn & Schoen.
I was wondering if you ever recall hearing any discussion about that the FEC doesn't usually audit State committees in any way?
Answer. No, nothing.
Question. Directing your attention to the—I mean, there are some handwritten notes here.
Answer. Yes, I read that. As you can tell, I have been reading through the document, and I see nothing here that I'm familiar with.
Question. So in terms of any of your discussions with Mr. Sandler, these—I will let you look through the document here initially and maybe just ask you if you generally recall some of the topics that are referenced here, if any conversations you had with Mr. Sandler, if these topics may have come up.
Answer. No.
Page 1219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. So I will just allow you to—I think one of the issues is, the FEC doesn't audit State committees.
Another issue——
Mr. BALLEN. I want to state for the record, since the witness doesn't know anything about this document, hasn't seen it, I don't want any inferences drawn as to the meaning of the document or what Mr. Sandler intended or——
Ms. COMSTOCK. I think that is clear from the record. I am just using this as a point of reference to see if any of these topics may refresh his recollection as to any topics that Mr. Sandler may have raised with you.
The WITNESS. No, in answer to FEC audit, and nothing that I can see in the document.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you recall any—in regards to the State parties, do you recall there ever being any effort to have some type of State party coordinating body that would filter out everything and that there would be some counsel that would work with the State parties at any time?
Answer. No.
Question. Okay. Were you aware of Mr. Ickes having meetings with Mr. Sandler separately to discuss these State party issues and how they would get the money out to the State parties and back to Penn & Schoen and Squier, Knapp?
Answer. Squier, Knapp, but no.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay. I will go ahead and make that Deposition Exhibit Number 4.
[Morris Deposition Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.]
Ms. COMSTOCK. I guess we are at a breaking point.
Page 1220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Okay. So 1:30?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Do you want to do 1:30?
The WITNESS. Good. Okay.
[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the deposition was recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. We can get back on the record. I am going to pick up on something we were on before the break, before Mr. Cummings came in. We had been discussing a Washington Post article that had appeared, July 18, 1997, about Harold Ickes, and we had been discussing the comment you made about if Harold really unloaded, there would be a whole lot more going on now.
I think you pretty much completed going through that, but I was wondering if you had any particular knowledge about any information Mr. Ickes had about any investigation into the President or the First Lady?
Answer. None.
Mr. BALLEN. It has been asked and answered.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. In the past you had been reported by, I believe it is Republican operatives or whatever, saying you thought the President might be indicted. Did you ever say that to anyone in public?
Answer. The allegation was I said that to Governor Weld. That is the allegation that appeared in print.
Governor Weld and I have both denied it on the record. Governor Weld's denial appeared in the Boston Herald a few days later. I do not recall making such a statement to anybody.
Page 1221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I think I did during the course of my work with Republicans in '93 and '91 and '93 and '94 indicate that I thought that Clinton would be perpetually grilled for scandal-type investigations because I knew all of the controversies that surrounded him and I was aware of those before the world at large was just simply because I was with him in Arkansas and I knew what was publicly reported then.
But this was never derived from any inside knowledge or inside information about any of these scandals. It was just that I read the press on Clinton a lot before anyone else did, because I was working for him for 20 years.
Question. Do you know anything—do you know a group called the Back to Business Committee?
Answer. I don't think so.
Question. And Louis and Lynn Cutler were affiliated with?
Answer. I have heard about that, yes.
Question. Do you know if Penn & Schoen or Squier Knapp ever did any work for the Back to Business Committee?
Answer. No, I don't. I would be surprised if they did because they never told me they did, but I don't.
Question. Did you ever do any work for the Back to Business Committee?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you have any knowledge about any of the polling that you did being shared with the Back to Business Committee at any time?
Answer. No. Could you clarify for me the time frame of when they operated?
Question. I believe it was somewhere around 1994 to—I am not quite sure when they disbanded.
Page 1222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Well, my polling really was only there in '95.
Question. They definitely were in existence in '95.
Answer. Were?
Question. Yes.
Answer. Yes, I have no knowledge of it being shared with them. The reason I say that is, and Lewis had access to all of our polling data after September or October of '95 when she joined the White House staff.
Question. She would have had access to the polling, but you have no knowledge of anything related to Back to Business?
Answer. No.
Question. Aside from the fact that Ms. Lewis is associated with Back to Business?
Answer. Yes.
Mr. BALLEN. For the record, it is clear the witness stated she had access to the polling after she joined the White House in September or October.
The WITNESS. Yes, but not before.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. And did you conduct polls regarding Whitewater or Filegate or other matters that arose, investigations——
Answer. Yes.
Question [continuing]. During your polling? And do you recall who paid for those polls?
Mr. BALLEN. I am going to object. We are now into discussing the actual kinds of questions that were on the polls?
Ms. COMSTOCK. I am asking about who paid for the polling.
Page 1223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BALLEN. He already testified as to his knowledge of the payment of the polling.
The WITNESS. I can short-circuit the debate by saying as I mentioned each question was allocated to one or the other, and I have no knowledge of how those particular questions were allocated.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. So you don't, for example, if a Filegate question, Craig Livingstone would be a DNC question or a President Clinton—Clinton/Gore question?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. I believe you have made statements, public and reported, regarding Harold Ickes and his temper. I believe you said he exercised a reign of terror at the White House. Is that an accurate portrayal?
Answer. It is accurate that I said it and it is an accurate portrayal.
Question. Could you just briefly describe why, the kind of things that led you to say something like that?
Answer. When I got to the Clinton operation in 1994 and early '95, and I began to interact with the staff, with the White House staff, everybody on the staff was terrified of venturing forth with any ideas that would be moderate or centrist in nature, because they were certain that they would be fired, in particular Don Baer, who was the first White House staffer that I dealt with concerned about it.
I remember being shocked about it, because the way I met Baer was that the President called Baer and had him up to the White House with me, and he said, I would like you two to meet each other, and he turned to Don and said, I would like you to work as closely as you possibly can to Dick and listen to what he says and work very closely with him. And I said great, and we left and went to Squier's office to work together on our first speech. And he said, ''you mustn't tell any one that I am doing this.'' I said, what could you mean? He said, nobody should know that I am working with you. I said, the President just told you to work with me. And he said, no, no, if Ickes finds out, I am dead meat, I am out of here. No way—I said, you are following the President's directive, Don. And he said, yes, but tell that to Ickes.
Page 1224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
That was repeated, that kind of thing was repeated a dozen times, that people were—that people were terrified of advancing any political idea, other than left wing Democratic Party liberal approved thinking. There was, as I said, a reign of terror going on, and many White House staffers who were closet moderates greeted my emergence with some power in the White House with a great sigh of relief, because they could finally come out of the closet and share their real opinions with people.
In fact, many of the moderates had resigned by the time I got there, Galston among them, in despair at their ability to have any influence in moderating the left wing drift of the White House.
Question. Were you ever concerned that given—and did Harold use his temper, I think you described previously the situation where the door had to be fixed and that kind of situation. Were you ever concerned that his behavior and the way he treated staff might cause people to do things that they—in response to him that maybe they shouldn't or would get the President in trouble because they were trying to respond to Harold, that they wouldn't be using judgment?
Mr. BALLEN. I am going to object to this entire line of questioning. We are now in an investigation that is supposed to be about campaign fund-raising. We are getting into Mr. Morris' insights, which are quite interesting, into an area that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of this investigation, Mr. Ickes' temper, his temperament, how he conducted himself, whether a door was rattled or not.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I am asking about the climate created by the central person which this person has testified is in charge of the budget of the DNC, and I would like to discuss the climate he was creating.
Mr. BALLEN. That is not what he testified to. He didn't say he was in charge of the budget. There is no relationship of these kinds of questions to the subject matter of this investigation.
Page 1225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. LENEFSKY. You can answer.
The WITNESS. I was rather hoping someone would be mad enough at him to shoot him, but other than that I didn't have any serious concern he would turn people off the President, no.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you concerned that actions taken by anybody would not be consistent with the law or doing things the right way, because if Harold told you to jump, you were going to jump, regardless. Did you ever have any concerns like that?
Answer. It makes sense now, but I sure didn't think of it then.
Question. You hail from New York as well as Mr. Ickes does. Are you familiar with his—do you have any personal knowledge about any legal problems in his background?
Mr. BALLEN. Objection.
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. BALLEN. Objection. Relevancy. Mr. Ickes' personal legal problems are not a subject matter of this investigation.
The WITNESS. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Have you talked recently with the President about Harold Ickes and these documents that were turned over to Congress?
Answer. I don't understand the question.
Question. Have you talked with the President about Harold Ickes' documents that were turned over to the Congress?
Answer. No.
Page 1226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Have you talked with the President about Harold Ickes since January 20th of this year?
Mr. BALLEN. Objection, relevancy.
Mr. LENEFSKY. I have no problems with that.
The WITNESS. No.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. How often do you currently speak with the President?
Mr. LENEFSKY. How often——
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you currently talk to the President?
Mr. LENEFSKY. You can answer, if you recall.
The WITNESS. I would rather not answer it.
Mr. BALLEN. I object as to the relevancy.
The WITNESS. I would rather not answer that question.
Mr. LENEFSKY. You don't have to explain.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Are you instructing your client not to answer?
Mr. LENEFSKY. Yes.
The WITNESS. If you want to ask me about specific topics that I may or may not have spoken to the President about, feel free to do that, and I will answer, but I don't want to answer an open-ended question of how often we speak or an open-ended question about what we talk about.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I understand that.
The second one, I am not going to be going into it, the whole array of what you may talk about. I would like to just get a general idea how often——
Page 1227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I would rather not answer that question.
Mr. LENEFSKY. I object.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Have you talked with the President about anything relating to the general matters that are under investigation by this or the Senate committee?
Mr. LENEFSKY. By this committee?
Ms. COMSTOCK. This, the Justice Department, the Senate. The general fund-raising matters, the matters re the John Huang, John Trie, Harold Ickes' documents.
The WITNESS. Yes, I have.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Can you describe what those conversations were and when they occurred?
Mr. LENEFSKY. Do you want to talk outside?
The WITNESS. Yes.
[Discussion off the record, 1:50 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.]
Mr. BALLEN. Before you answer or not answer, let me just raise something. White House, for your consideration, White House counsel has requested to be at depositions of White House employees or people who have worked for the White House in order to be able to assert any claims of executive privilege——
Ms. COMSTOCK. I don't believe Mr. Morris testified he ever worked at the White House.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The opinion of the D.C. Circuit judge extends the privilege to lawyers——
Ms. COMSTOCK. To campaign consultants?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN [continuing]. To people working for the President giving advice.
Page 1228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. LENEFSKY. I have reviewed Mr. Morris' response to the question. I have no objections whatsoever to Mr. Morris responding. I don't think the President would have any objections. I don't think the Senate Majority would have any objections. I don't think they are objectionable anyhow.
The WITNESS. So I choose to respond. I have had—I cannot recall when, but these conversations took place subsequent to the 1996 election. In one conversation I advised the President that I felt the way to defeat the partisan attempt of the Republican investigating committees is to outflank the Republicans by stronger advocacy of campaign finance reform.
I remember telling the President that the Republicans don't really want campaign finance reform, they just want to narrow the focus to scandal, and if possible only the Democratic scandals, and that the public doesn't particularly care about the scandal, they care about finance reform. And by playing what I called jujitsu, which is harnessing the enemy's strength against him, he can take the impetus of your investigations and turn it against the Republican Party by taking advantage of the elevation of the germaneness of the issue of campaign funding reform and becoming a better advocate of it than the Republicans are. I went through that. That is essentially what I said to him.
The second——
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Somewhat like what appeared on the front page of the Washington Post this morning?
Mr. LENEFSKY. That is the article I told you about.
The WITNESS. I didn't see it. I had nothing to do with that story.
And then the second time that we discussed it——
Page 1229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. What was the President's response?
Answer. He just listened. Generally when I speak to the President and give him advice, sometimes he will question it or he will comment about it, but most of the time he will just listen and he will just say okay, what else.
And then the second thing was that at least one and perhaps two or three junctures since the election I have told the President that it is my opinion that he should continue to oppose the appointment of a special prosecutor; that sooner or later the Justice Department will actually begin to produce indictments, and once they do, everybody will accept their investigation as being intensive, intrusive, and legitimate.
I also said that I felt that in opposing the campaign—the appointment of a special prosecutor, he should stress Senator Helms' involvement in that process through the judge, whatever his name is, and that in focusing on—the way I urged him to frame the issue was, who do you want to name the prosecutor, Janet Reno or Jesse Helms, and we would come out ahead in that comparison. And I said I felt that the special prosecutor's position had so diminished in public prestige that he should not feel under compulsion to urge that appointment.
He then replied to me that he felt that he agreed with me, that he felt that there was ''nothing there,'' and that the investigation—that sooner or later people would get that the investigation was a very aggressive one.
I then cracked a joke to him where I said, Mr. President, there were times during the first term when I had the impression you would have welcomed a special prosecutor assuming some of the jurisdiction that Ms. Reno assumed. You would have probably gotten a better break from them.
And he didn't laugh.
Question. I believe you had been quoted as making some comments about why Janet Reno didn't appoint a special prosecutor and about meetings she had with the President.
Page 1230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. LENEFSKY. Do you remember any quote?
The WITNESS. Yes. I was quoted in the National Review on it.
Yes, I can't recall what I said or didn't say at that juncture, but let me answer your question. I believe that subsequent to Election Day, the President had a meeting with Janet Reno, which was unusual because they had been on very icy terms during the last 2 years of his first term, and to my knowledge there was a time when they were really basically not speaking to each other. I mean, they just didn't talk. It was done through intermediaries.
They had a meeting and it was my impression that—actually the President told me that the air—that that had cleared the air and he felt much better about Reno, and that he felt that she—that he wanted her to stay. I said that I felt that their relationship had improved since Election Day.
I specifically at the same time said I did not feel—that I had no information and I would doubt very much that any specific issue about a special prosecutor was discussed between the two of them. I don't think the President would discuss that, and I don't think Reno would permit him to discuss that. But I do think the relationship warmed considerably, and I was surprised at that.
I think that what happened was during the period when Reno was being considered, was looking at reappointment, I think that she—I think that she began to reflect on the President's merits and he began to reflect on her merits, and I think there was a more of a bond developed.
That is what I said and what I know.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. You said they previously had spoken through intermediaries. Did you have any knowledge as to who those intermediaries were?
Answer. Yes, only insofar as we are talking about crime issues, public policy issues. And in that interface, it was usually through Rahm Emanuel——
Page 1231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. But in terms of these investigations, you don't know of any intermediaries speaking with the President on Ms. Reno's behalf?
Answer. No. Correct. You have to understand that I kept as far away, not just from fund-raising, but from the whole issue of Whitewater and scandals, as I possibly could in the White House. I used to tell people my job is to man the pump and engines, not to repair the hole in the bottom of the boat.
Question. Earlier you appeared on Fox News where you had discussed polling. You said your polling shows that this fund-raising scandal doesn't make any difference about how people feel about the President.
Are you conducting polling for the President or for the DNC on any of these matters?
Answer. No.
Question. What type of polling was that that you were referring to?
Answer. Since I left the White House, I have made it a practice on six or seven occasions to do polling at my own expense on my own to get data which I then use in my public comments on radio, TV, and in print. Shortly after the, in fact, the day after the Woodward story broke in the Post about first suggesting that there was an organized effort by the Chinese government to influence American politics and to funnel money to politicians, including the President, I polled that and I asked people if it made a difference to them, if it made them more or less likely to support Clinton and all of my usual way of examining that. And I found that the majority said it made no difference and that the people that said it made them less likely to vote for or support Clinton, were people that were against him before they were asked that question.
So on that basis, I was on the McLaughlin TV program that weekend, and I quoted that information, and indeed gave it out over the air. I sent a copy of that information to the President, and I have sent copies of all my polls to the President, but he has neither authorized the polling nor reviewed the questions nor asked me to poll nor paid for it. I just pay for it out of my own pocket.
Page 1232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And have you discussed these with the President at all?
Mr. BALLEN. I object. I think this is really very far afield, what his discussions now are with the President about polling, about——
Ms. COMSTOCK. The issues that are raised in terms of fund-raising matters.
The WITNESS. I think I may have called his attention to that particular piece of data verbally.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I think in this same Fox News Sunday show, March 2nd, 1997, you were discussing Vice President Gore's phone calls. I believe you indicated that you did know that the Vice President was making phone calls.
Do you recall when you became aware that the Vice President was making phone calls for the DNC?
Answer. Well——
Question. For fund-raising?
Answer. In the show I indicated that I knew that the Vice President was making phone calls, but that I did not know from where he was making the calls, because the issue at that time was not that he was making the calls, but that he was making them from his office. I said I don't know where he made them from.
The way I came into knowledge about it was that at some point, and I can't be very precise about the time, I was talking to either Bob Squier or Ron Klain or Jack Quinn, I can't recall who I was talking to, but those would be the people who would have been one of that cast of characters, and one of them mentioned to me that the Vice President was working very hard at raising money, making all of these phone calls, and he felt the President really wasn't working as hard as he needed to work and wasn't making phone calls. And he indicated the Vice President had a certain amount of resentment, that he was doing his job and the President was not aggressively working on raising money, on making phone calls. And I replied that the President never—that as Governor, Bill Clinton hated making fund-raising calls, and it was pulling teeth to get him to do it, and that was a casual conversation and that is what I related on Fox News.
Page 1233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. I am showing the witness DNC 3234267, a document, a memo of November 20, 1995, to Harold Ickes from Don Fowler, Marvin Rosen, Scott Pastrick, and Richard Sullivan, regarding additional DNC fund-raising requests. It references 18 to 20 phone calls by the President were needed and 10 calls by the Vice President. This was a proposal apparently submitted by Mr. Fowler, et al.
Answer. I have read the document.
Question. Had you seen this document?
Answer. No.
Question. Were you aware of efforts, from the conversation you had with Mr. Klain, was it, did you——
Mr. BALLEN. He said he wasn't sure who it was with.
The WITNESS. It was one of three or four people.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. From this conversation, was it your understanding that the President had been asked and had agreed to do some fund-raising calls? Or hadn't? But hadn't been living up to that agreement?
Answer. I don't know whether he had agreed to make them and had not made them, or if he simply had not made them. The purport of the comment that was made by Klain or whoever was that he was not making the calls, whether it was things he agreed to do or not, I don't know. This is the first I have heard of this—first I have seen of this memo or the first I have known of any of the substance it contains.
Question. You were not aware of any calls or anything like that that were ever provided to the President?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. In your book you discuss conversations you had with the President about how much fund-raising he had to do and how unpleasant this was for him. Aside from those conversations that you recounted in your book, did the President ever discuss with you in general what he was doing to raise money?
Page 1234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes. He was constantly complaining about the amount of his time that had to be spent on fund-raising and the physical strain that it took on him, but I always had the impression that those complaints related to his physical appearance at fund-raisers. It was a grueling task. The fund-raisers, I went to six or seven fund-raisers, always as a donor paying my own way, and I used to use it as an opportunity to introduce family members of mine to the President and kind of, you know, make up for some of the absences that I was going through. And I would always make a point of going after the paying customers, the ones who were really major donors who had shaken his hand.
What would happen, there would be an event, he would come in, and then the guy would stand there for 3 or 4 hours, standing, posing for pictures and shaking hands with each person as they walked through.
And I would—at one event—I live in Stanford, Connecticut—I decided I would stand just as long as he was standing so I could have some appreciation of what he was going through. And I wanted to lean against the wall. I wanted to sit down. I was going crazy. And when I came up to him, I said, your feet must be killing you. And he said, I hate it. I just hate it. I have to stand here.
And a lot of times he would complain. He would say, I haven't slept in 3 days; every time I turn around they want me to be at a fund-raiser. At one point I quote in the book he said, you want me to issue these executive orders, I cannot think, I cannot act, I can't do anything; every minute of my time is spent at these fund-raisers.
But I didn't have the impression, do not have the impression, he was complaining about phone calls. He was complaining about the number of fund-raising events and the physical wear it took on him.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I am going to go ahead and make this document Deposition Exhibit Number 5.
Page 1235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
[Morris Deposition Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you aware of events at the White House, the White House coffees that have been generally referred to now?
Answer. Not at the time. Only subsequently in reading about them.
Question. You have no knowledge other than the public accounting that has come out in the past few months?
Answer. That is right. The only connection I had with those kinds of private raisers, the seven or eight fund-raisers I attended were all large ticket public events, $1,000 a head events with hundreds and thousands of people in the room. In fact, one of the reasons I went, in addition to the opportunity to introduce members of my family to him, was that I would, after I became well-known, I would walk up and down the receiving line and just thank everybody for their help and shake hands and stuff.
The only times that I was ever involved in small—that I have any knowledge at all of these small fund-raisers, was two or three occasions I would stop by a fund-raiser he was having at a hotel and just pass a note in to him through the Secret Service, because he wouldn't get home until late at night and I didn't want to have him call me at 1 o'clock in the morning so I passed him the note that evening so I wouldn't have to bother him.
Question. Were these fund-raisers at the Jefferson Hotel?
Answer. One or two at the Jefferson, one or two at the Hay-Adams. I was never in the room. I passed it through the Secret Service.
Question. Do you have any idea who these small fund-raisers were with?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever attend the President's birthday party fund-raising events?
Page 1236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes, I attended his 50th birthday party fund-raiser.
Question. Would that have been last year, in '96?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Were you aware of Johnny Chung being a sponsor of that event?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you ever met Johnny Chung?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know anything about Johnny Chung's fund-raising?
Answer. No.
Question. Or frequent visits to the White House?
Answer. Nothing.
Question. Did you have much contact with the First Lady's office when you were——
Answer. Yes.
Question [continuing]. Working for the Clinton/Gore campaign?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And what kind of contact was that?
Answer. I met with the First Lady subsequent to June of 1995. I met with the First Lady about every 2 or 3 weeks to give her political briefings. Maggie Williams was occasionally there, Melanne Verveer was more often there, and usually Mark Penn was there with me. Since she didn't attend the strategy meetings, I would summarize what we were thinking and what we were planning for the campaign.
I also would give her personal recommendations as to things that I thought she should do, issues I thought she should talk out about, and advice on public policy positions that she should take. I worked extensively with her staff to work on getting her speeches down and her rhetoric down on public policy.
Page 1237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I never participated in any advice sessions concerning her handling of any of the scandal issues, her testimony or anything like that.
Question. Did you ever hear from anyone, were you aware of her participation in fund-raising events at the White House, lunches or coffees or anything like that?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever hear from any of her staff about whether it was Johnny Chung, or if he didn't have a name identified with it, somebody who was making—coming by frequently——
Answer. No.
Question [continuing]. And making a nuisance of himself in any way?
Answer. No. The only indication I had that she was doing fund-raising actually was the passage I quote in the book, the President after he said he couldn't think and spend time, he said, Hillary can't, Al can't, none of us can. And I was surprised when he said it, because it hadn't occurred to me she was spending a lot of time on fund-raising.
Question. I wanted to show the witness another document dated December 20, 1995, DNC 3234272, a memo to Harold Ickes and Karen Hancox from Marvin Rosen and Richard Sullivan regarding DNC finance update. Again, this goes through some of the money that needs to be raised by the end of the year, apparently.
I guess directing your attention to Terry McAuliffe and it discusses received from labor on Thursday re Terry McAuliffe.
Were you aware of Terry McAuliffe doing any fund-raising from the labor groups for the $10 million media fund you were trying to get raised in the fall of 1995?
Answer. Not particularly from labor. I was of the opinion that McAuliffe was the President's best fund-raiser, and I thought it was silly that he was spending his time raising money for Clinton/Gore when we wouldn't be spending Clinton/Gore money until later in the process; that in 1995 the major need was for money at the DNC in order to pay for the media and the other expenses that were being incurred then.
Page 1238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I remember mentioning to the President that it would be good—I thought it was silly for McAuliffe to be concentrating his energies on Clinton/Gore when he should be concentrating them on the DNC. And I had that conversation with the President sometime around October. That is the only knowledge I have had of McAuliffe being involved and not with the DNC.
Question. And what did the President say?
Answer. He didn't comment. He just heard it.
Question. Directing your attention to the Vice President calls, it indicates received to date at this time were $195,000 from the calls and commitments from the Vice President; calls that had not yet been collected at that time were approximately $65,000.
Do you recall ever hearing about a figure that the Vice President raised in terms of money?
Answer. No.
Mr. BALLEN. I want to point out for the record the witness testified numerous times he wasn't involved with fund-raising and didn't know about fund-raising. In the interest of his schedule and everyone's schedule——
Ms. COMSTOCK. I will make this Deposition Exhibit Number 6.
[Morris Deposition Exhibit No. 6 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you aware of the Lincoln bedroom being used as a fund-raising opportunity——
Answer. Not until I read about it.
Question. You have made comments regarding that.
I show the witness a February 27th, 1997, NBC news report by Jim Miklaszewski, M-I-K-L-A-S-Z-E-W-S-K-I. Directing your attention to the second page, you are quoted as saying, ''I am surprised he didn't auction off places in his own bedroom. He would probably sleep on the floor if someone would give him a million.''
Page 1239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. That was a joke.
Question. Did you ever talk to the President about those comments or anything about them?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever spend the night at the Lincoln bedroom?
Answer. No.
Question. Or any of the bedrooms in the residence?
Answer. No. I was having problems enough in my nights at the Jefferson.
Question. You have no knowledge—do you have any knowledge of donors or people, large dollar donors who being at the White House, regardless of whether you knew they were any kind of entrance fee or payment?
Answer. None, none, none.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I will make that Deposition Exhibit Number 7.
[Morris Deposition Exhibit No. 7 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Can you describe George Stephanopoulos' role in the work you did while you were working with the Clinton/Gore campaign and the DNC?
Answer. There were essentially four operations with which I was involved that were relatively discrete operations that were part of the message, getting the President's message across, which was my mandate.
One was paid media, which Bill Knapp was the sort of COO of, chief operating officer. The other was the President's speeches, which Don Baer was in charge of. The third was rapid response, which Stephanopoulos was in charge of. And then the fourth, which was outside of any jurisdiction of mine and I never was involved in, was Whitewater response, which Ickes and a variety of other people were in charge of.
Page 1240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
So Stephanopoulos was essentially the person who was in charge of rapid response. The President had given him that task. And what that meant was that when the Republicans did anything, he would orchestrate the rebuttal, the reply, the answer, to feeding their attacks on a day-by-day basis.
In addition to that, Stephanopoulos was in charge of coordinating the activities of the government so that they went toward the substantive agenda the President had in mind. So he was the one that would sort of send the President's line out and make sure that everybody was echoing it, that everybody was on the same page. And when somebody was off the page or said something that the President would not have wanted them to say, they would get a call from George and he would urge them to take a different approach in public.
Question. Do you know——
Answer. He also was the fact checker on our ads and he also worked very closely on all aspects of the positioning that the President took on substantive issues.
Question. Do you know anything about his roles that would have him in contact with somebody like John Chung for any reason?
Answer. I have no idea.
Question. Do you know anything he was working on matters related to China?
Answer. No.
Question. Did there come a time when Mr. Stephanopoulos told you about the discovery of life on Mars?
Answer. Yes.
Question. You are recounted that incident in your book?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did he ever mention anything to you about this being classified information or that it couldn't be shared with anybody?
Page 1241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No. He told me that he wanted it to be kept secret so that it would not be released to the public until the start of the Republican Convention, and his thought had been that the story would break on Monday of the Republican Convention and would drown out coverage of the convention. But he cast that in a political context, not in a national security context.
Question. So he never told you that any of that information was classified?
Answer. No. He also was aware that I had no security clearance nor had I sought it, even the lowest level, and I would doubt—and I doubted that he would ever share with me classified information, because it would be illegal, so I inferred that this was not classified.
Question. After this became public that he had discussed this with you, did anyone ever raise this issue with you from the White House?
Mr. LENEFSKY. What is the relevance of this?
Ms. COMSTOCK. National security issues.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Is that within the purview?
Ms. COMSTOCK. It actually is. National security.
Mr. BALLEN. I join in counsel's objection.
The WITNESS. The generic answer is I never had access to national security information that I knew was national security. The President never shared classified information with me, and I never, as I sit here now, I do not know that I ever was in possession of national security information.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. But it was clear to everybody at the White House that you had not had a clearance, you had not ever gone through anything.
Page 1242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Correct.
Question. There was no reason for anyone to think you had a clearance?
Answer. That is correct.
Mr. BALLEN. I may want to note on the record that life on Mars has nothing to do with national security.
The WITNESS. It depends on what it is.
Mr. BALLEN. One cell life.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you recall raising issues about Mr. Penn's work for foreign—on foreign elections?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Can you describe what issues you raised and why you had concerns about that?
Answer. It arose in two contexts. One was that I was requested to make a public disclosure of my income sources and my assets and clients, and that request, to my knowledge, was also addressed to the other consultants who worked with me. I had an extensive discussion with Mr. Penn about his compliance with that directive, and he indicated to me that he was working for a candidate in Turkey and that the terms of his arrangement were such that the relationship had to be secret while the election was going on and that the election was being held in the third week of December of 1995, and that therefore he would rather that he not make his disclosure until after that date, where he would disclose the Turkish relationship, but it was subsequent to the Turkish election and therefore would not be embarrassing to his candidate in Turkey. I told him I thought that was okay.
Secondly——
Page 1243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Who was that candidate?
Answer. The woman in Turkey. I forgot her name.
Then secondly, in September or October of '95, he took a walk-in closet in Doug Sosnik's office, which was a political office, and converted it into an office space for him, and he told me that he had brought in the campaign computer and the campaign-dedicated phone line and had had it installed in that walk-in closet and made it a little office for himself.
I was concerned about his having an office in the White House for a variety of reasons. I felt it was a bad idea. I told the President that I thought it was a bad idea because he had conflicts of interest in terms of his commercial clientele and his foreign clients, and I particularly cited his work for ATT and his work in the Turkish elections.
Since the political office was right next to the communications office and those issues were being reviewed in the communications office, I thought that it was inappropriate for him to have an office in the White House.
The reason I raised it with the President was I knew Penn would not like my telling him he had to close his office, and I wanted to be certain I had the support of the President in doing that. The President told me that he supported me. I asked Penn to remove himself from the office and he did.
Question. Did Mr. Penn have a White House pass at that time?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Ms. COMSTOCK. If I could take a brief 5 minutes here and see if we are close to wrapping up.
[Brief Recess.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. You know Susan Thomases, is that correct?
Answer. Yes.
Page 1244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And how long have you known Ms. Thomases?
Answer. Since the early '80s.
Question. And do you have any knowledge about any work that Susan Thomases did for the Lippo Group or the Riadys?
Answer. No.
Question. And do you know Webster Hubbell?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How long have you known Mr. Hubbell?
Answer. I just met him once, and have never spoken with him, other than at a White House reception a few weeks after he resigned.
Question. Did you ever talk to anybody at the White House about Mr. Hubbell's legal problems?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever——
Answer. Yes, I did. I met with the President sometime in—this is before I worked there regularly, but I met with the President at some point before Hubbell resigned, I met with the President and the First Lady, and I urged them to fire Hubbell, Kennedy, Altman——
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me?
The WITNESS. Altman. This was after Nussbaum had left. I urged him to fire Kennedy, Altman, and Hubbell, and I said rather than doing this piece by piece, get rid of them all so that you don't—so that you can stay ahead of the investigation. Don't do what Nixon did and wait until they come to your door with each individual one, because you will suffer 20 times more.
He rather heatedly replied that he wasn't going to ruin people's reputations by getting rid of them when they had done nothing wrong, and this was a witch hunt, and why did I think that he was prepared to injure people and wound them and destroy their reputations to save his skin from some bad publicity, when there was nothing there and they had done nothing wrong.
Page 1245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you have any other discussions about Mr. Hubbell at any later date after he had pled guilty?
Answer. No.
Question. Were you aware of anyone at the White House assisting Mr. Hubbell with finding work after he left the Justice Department?
Answer. No.
Question. Regarding the——
Answer. When I say ''no'' to any of these, it means other than what I have read in the paper.
Question. I understand that, and I hope that is clear for the record. I am after your personal knowledge, or if you have other knowledge, to tell us it is only from newspaper accounts.
Regarding the issue of whether or not Webb Hubbell was paid sort of what was generically referred to as hush money, you made the statement in reference to the President saying he is too much into denial on one hand and too much of an ingrate on the other.
What did you mean by that?
Answer. That the President, that I doubted seriously that the President was involved in any payment of hush money to Hubbell; that it is not his style. On the one hand, he never believes that he has done anything wrong, and he is constantly of the opinion that he has always acted properly. Because that is always his opinion and everybody doesn't always act properly, I have to believe there is a certain amount of denial involved.
Secondly, I have always felt that he is a bit of an ingrate, that when people work hard for him and help him and they finish their usefulness to them, he basically does not feel personally obligated, he feels that they are helping the country and they are doing their civic duty, and other than a sort of polite thank you, there is no great sense of personal obligation.
Page 1246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
So I summarized it pithily in that statement. I felt that hush money requires a certain guilty conscience that the President never has.
Question. Are you aware—there have been reports, and the committee has received documentation indicating that Mr. Hubbell was receiving quite a large amount of money in 1994 from various sources. Did you have any knowledge of this in 1994 or '95?
Answer. No, none.
Question. Do you know of any other—you spoke of the President often didn't treat people well after they had left. Do you know of any other people who kind of got this kind of treatment, from all the President's friends getting jobs and things like that?
Answer. Yes—oh, that was given good treatment or bad treatment?
Question. Good treatment.
Answer. No.
Question. In terms of being hired——
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me, I am going to object to that question. You are assuming a fact not in evidence. Mr. Hubbell got good treatment by the President? We don't know that and the witness doesn't know that.
The WITNESS. In any case, I don't know.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Have any of the President's friends, when you left in August, did they come and offer you consulting contracts?
Answer. No.
Question. Or offer to give you——
Answer. No.
Question [continuing]. Jobs?
Page 1247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No. I might just indicate I know several examples of people who were very intimately involved with all of the President's affairs who, when they left their employ, couldn't get the right time of day from him. And quite the opposite of hush money, I felt that there was a tremendous amount of ingratitude in the way he dealt with them.
Betsy Wright, David Watkins, David Gergen, are all good examples of that. And I was, frankly, shocked at the callousness with which the President treated Betsy Wright and David Watkins after I personally witnessed 15 years of the most loyal kind of help of him by them.
Betsy Wright probably knew everything that the President did during the period he was Governor. If there was anything he was trying to hide or use hush money to hide, she would be a pretty good candidate for recipient of hush money.
Not only wasn't she getting hush money, she couldn't talk to him. He was never returning her calls, he wouldn't see her, she wasn't invited to the White House social events.
Question. Do you think Mr. Hubbell was being treated like Betsy Wright or David Watkins?
Answer. I never knew Hubbell. I know Betsy Wright and David Watkins were considered good friends.
Question. Have you ever talked to the President about how he treated David Watkins or Betsy Wright?
Answer. Betsy Wright, frequently. I would always say she treated you incredibly, and you will not give her the right time of day. He would say, I will call her, and he never would. It caused Betsy a great deal of personal agony.
Question. In your book, revisiting a little bit the ad campaign, you wrote on page 144 that ''the President became the day-to-day operational director of our TV ad campaign. He worked over every script, watched each ad, ordered changes in every visual presentation, and decided which ads would run and where.''
Page 1248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Do you recall discussing with the President the particular markets where ads would run?
Answer. Yes. I outlined earlier the process of his control over content in the media and the fact that he had tremendous input, but ultimately never saw the final ads before they ran, even though they changed significantly.
In terms of the time-buy, he was always shown the time-buy, he reviewed it, and he would occasionally ask for specific changes, some of which I thought made no sense, but he wanted to do them and we went and did them.
But as I said, while his inputs on this matter as well as the content of the ads was significant, he was really the first among equals in terms of the approval process.
In terms of the actual formulation of the advertisement, he had a much smaller role than any of the consultants did, and in terms of the allocation of where the money was spent, he had a much smaller role than Mark Penn or Doug Sosnik, who really were more effectively in charge of that.
Question. I am showing the witness a document from the DNC, 309623 through 38, which is Squier Knapp DNC media buys. As you review that document, you mentioned the President reviewed these often. Are these backward checks on these, are those checks that you recognize as the President's check mark?
Answer. It is clearly by a lefty. The President's check marks usually have a sharp downward check and then a check like that. These seem to be just like that. The President's check marks are usually down, ''boom.'' I don't think translates well. They are usually down and diagonally up to the upper left. So I would not conclude from this that these are necessarily his check marks.
Question. Do you know somebody else reviewing the media buys who is a lefty that made the kind of checks?
Page 1249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BALLEN. I object.
The WITNESS. I don't know if anyone else is left-handed, no.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. These are not your checks?
Answer. No. But I have testified that it was routine for the President to review the time-buys.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I would like to make that Deposition Exhibit Number 8.
[Morris Deposition Exhibit No. 8 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you have any knowledge of how the President's legal defense fund was being handled? Did you ever have any discussions with anybody about that?
Answer. None whatsoever.
Question. I believe there have been news reports that some of the phone records from your hotel showed you calling Bob Bennett.
Mr. LENEFSKY. What was the name?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Bob Bennett, the President's attorney.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Did you ever talk with him about legal defense fund or any matters related to the President's defense?
Answer. Not the legal defense fund. I did speak to him about the Paula Jones case.
Mr. BALLEN. I object to any questions in that regard on relevancy grounds.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 1250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did you talk with him about—is that the only matter you talked with Mr. Bennett about?
Answer. I think it would be better if you asked me what I did talk with Mr. Bennett about. Again, not an open-ended question.
Question. If you can just tell us——
Answer. I did not speak to Mr. Bennett about anything related to fund-raising, the fund-raising investigation, fund expenditures.
Question. Actually I am more interested in the President's legal defense fund.
Answer. No.
Question. And what did you speak with Mr. Bennett about, then?
Mr. LENEFSKY. I am going to object.
The WITNESS. I did not.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. You did not. Aside from the Paula Jones matter, were there other matters you discussed with Mr. Bennett?
Answer. Yes.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Mr. Morris said he would answer questions perhaps if you identify a subject matter of discussion between he and Mr. Bennett.
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me——
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Aside from the Paula Jones matter and any allegations regarding the President and First Lady, did you ever talk with Mr. Bennett about that?
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me. The witness was in the middle of the sentence when counsel asked a question.
Page 1251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. LENEFSKY. Let me go outside.
Mr. BALLEN. Let me finish for the record. He began to state that he did not discuss with Mr. Bennett any of the fund-raising, of campaign fund-raising or fund expenditures. I believe he was in the middle of completing the thought of the subject matters of these investigations.
The WITNESS. I would rather answer—I would rather if you asked me did you talk to Mr. Bennett about this particular Filegate or Whitewater or any of the specific things, I would be prepared to give you yes or no answers to that. But I would rather not answer the open-ended question of what did I talk to Mr. Bennett about.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay. Because Mr. Bennett is the President's attorney, I on the Paula Jones matter, I am not asking you about the Paula Jones thing, so I will just make that clear. But did you have frequent contact with Mr. Bennett?
Answer. I met with him on two or three occasions, and I spoke with him on eight or nine occasions.
Question. Did you speak with him on matters related to Whitewater?
Mr. BALLEN. Objection. Relevancy.
Mr. LENEFSKY. I would like to discuss something with my client outside.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Just for the record, the committee scope does include investigations of the President and First Lady.
[Brief Recess.]
The WITNESS. What was your last question? I believe your last question was did I ever speak to Mr. Bennett about Whitewater.
Page 1252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Yes.
Answer. The answer to that question is yes.
Question. Okay. Can you just generally tell us what you were talking with——
Mr. BALLEN. Before he answers, I am going to object to relevancy. I do not believe Whitewater is a subject matter of this investigation in any way, shape, or form, and I am going to renew my objection as to relevance.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Just a minute.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. LENEFSKY. Mr. Morris will answer the question.
The WITNESS. The question was what—the content of the conversation. I asked Ben if he thought that the President or Hillary were in any trouble over Whitewater that I need to take account of in my political consulting work, and he analyzed the situation for me and was largely positive and reassuring on the subject and said that he did not feel that they were in any kind of serious trouble.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Did you speak with David Kendall about this, also?
Answer. No, I have never spoken with David Kendall. I don't think I have ever spoken with David Kendall. I don't recall.
Question. Was this a number of occasions then you spoke with Mr. Bennett about those matters? You indicated there were a number of conversations.
Answer. Yes. I would routinely be in touch with him whenever there was a major new development to get his take as to whether there was something I needed to worry about politically, and he was always, and so far it has turned out accurate, reassuring on this subject and positive or optimistic about whether the President or First Lady were in any serious difficulty.
Page 1253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Was that something you incorporated into your polling, was that just information?
Answer. Well, if he told me he felt there was a serious chance of something legally adverse happening to the First Lady or to the President before the 1996 election, it would have been important for me to develop contingency plans as to what to do. His assurance that was unlikely satisfied me and I did not spend much time developing contingency plans.
Question. Do you recall generally when these calls occurred?
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me. I object to this line of questioning, asking the witness about political strategies.
The WITNESS. Think I have answered. They occurred while I worked form Clinton, '95 and '96, but I don't know the dates. I mean—yes.
Mr. LENEFSKY. There is no question before you.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you know a gentleman named Jack Palladino?
Answer. No. I think he is some way involved with the DNC, but I don't know who or what.
Question. Do you know of any private investigators that were ever hired to investigate any Members of Congress or anybody who was investigating the President or First Lady?
Answer. Do I know of any private investigators that were ever hired to do what?
Question. Who were ever hired by anyone affiliated with the Clinton campaign or the DNC or any private friend of the President or First Lady to investigate any Members of Congress who were conducting investigations?
Page 1254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Of any Member of Congress?
Question. Of the President and First Lady.
Answer. Yes. In other words, investigate the investigators?
Question. Exactly.
Answer. No.
Question. There was testimony last month about the IGI group, Terry Lenzner's group, investigating Senator Nichols. Did you have any knowledge of anything like that going on in the '92 or '96 campaigns?
Answer. No. I believe I knew that Terry Lenzner was hired to do investigative work and was serving under Ickes' direction, but I had no idea what he was investigating.
Question. Do you know about Mr. Ickes hiring Mr. Lenzner?
Answer. I heard that he had done so. I don't know where I heard it, but I knew that he had, and I don't know anything further about it.
Question. Do you know who you heard that from?
Answer. No. I think I may just have read it in the newspaper earlier, while I was working there. But while I was there I knew the name Terry Lenzner and I knew that he worked for Ickes. I don't know how I knew it. I did know.
Question. Do you know anything——
Mr. BALLEN. This is not firsthand knowledge?
The WITNESS. No. I have no idea what he is doing. I have never spoken to him or anything like that.
[Discussion off the record.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Was your understanding that Mr. Lenzner was hired in connection with the DNC work that Mr. Ickes was overseeing?
Page 1255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't know.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I believe that is all I have for now. Thank you.
The WITNESS. Thank you. Thanks very much.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN
Question. Mr. Morris, just a few questions. I want to, first of all, take this opportunity to thank you. Your testimony has been very forthcoming. We appreciate your coming and taking your time from your busy schedule. On behalf of the Minority members, we thank you for that.
You mentioned to Representative Cummings that you offered to list to him the Republican campaigns that you have worked on for years. I would like to take you up on that offer, if you could go through chronologically the significant Republican campaigns.
Answer. My memory of winners is better than losers.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Your memory is far better than most.
The WITNESS. Why don't I go through winners, or people that are serving in office.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN:
Question. That would be good.
Answer. In 1980, I worked for Paula Hawkins, Senator from Florida, in her election as Senator from Florida. I worked for Senator Warren Rudman from New Hampshire, Senator Paula Hawkins from Florida, and Senator Mark Andrews from North Dakota.
In 1982, I worked for Senator Pete Wilson from California. In 1980——
Question. That is all right, the dates.
Answer. '86, I worked for Governor Arch Moore of West Virginia. In 1988, I worked for Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, and I worked for President Bush. In 1990, I worked for Governor William Weld of Massachusetts, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, and Senator Hank Brown of Colorado.
Page 1256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
In 1994, I worked for—I worked for no successful Republican—no, I am sorry, 1992, no successful ones. In 1994, I worked for Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, Governor Don Sundquist of Tennessee, Senator Trent Lott, and Governor William Weld.
Question. Any Members of Congress? You mentioned Senators and Governors. Any Members of Congress? I believe you testified Congressman Jay Dickey.
Answer. Jay Dickey.
Question. Any other Members of Congress?
Answer. Congressman John Mica of Florida, who is a member of this committee.
Mr. LENEFSKY. Did you work for Ed?
The WITNESS. He is asking about Republicans.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Are you only asking Republicans?
Mr. BALLEN. That was my question.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Did you work for Mr. Schumer at some point, Chuck Schumer?
The WITNESS. Yes, I did, but he is only asking about Republicans. Congressman from Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Republican Congressman from Baton Rouge.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Tauzin?
The WITNESS. No, a next-door neighbor.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Baker?
The WITNESS. Richard Baker of Louisiana. That's it.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN:
Question. We have——
Answer. I am sorry, there are other Members no longer in the House. I worked for John Ashbrook of Ohio and maybe some other Republican House Members that are no longer serving, but I don't—that would take a whole other time for me to think about.
Page 1257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. I don't want to take any more time. I will note for the record we started this deposition at 9 o'clock. We are now at 3 o'clock. Most of the time you have been here you have discussed in detail the content of, over the objections of the Democratic side, you discussed the consent of ads that you reviewed with the President, political strategy, the markets, where those ads were run, the time-buys, polling, advice, considerations of political strategy, the formulation of advertisements, where the money was spent on advertisements, and I would assume, and correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Morris, that with all the names that you just mentioned, Senator Lott, Senator Coats, you also testified you consulted with Senator Gramm, Congressman Mica, et cetera, you had similar discussions with those candidates on their campaigns; is that correct?
Answer. That is correct. I never worked for Senator Gramm on his own campaigns. I worked for Senator Gramm in connection with the Republican Senate Campaign Committee.
Question. But you would have had similar conversations with Senator Gramm concerning the work on the Senate campaign committee on how ads were constructed, on coordination between the committee and other groups, and other candidates, et cetera. You would have had discussions with all of these candidates. Would that be a fair statement, sir?
Answer. Well, it is, except for when you get to the issue of coordination. I never engaged in any campaign discussions about coordination between expenditures of the campaign and independent expenditures, because I know that that's illegal.
Question. And that's the same case with the President's past campaign in 1996; is that correct?
Answer. Well, there was one occasion where there was an activity that smacked of coordination in which I was engaged that I rejected. There was a meeting in the Roosevelt Room——
Question. Why don't you describe that?
Page 1258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. There was a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, and I do not recall the date, it was late '95 or early '96, that Mr. Ickes convened, at which he invited five or six people from the labor movement, from the labor community. I don't recall the names of the people, because I didn't know them, but there was somebody from AFSCME, there was somebody there from one of the teachers' unions. There was somebody there from COPE, C-O-P-E, the AFL, and I believe there was somebody there from the media firm of Victor Fingerhut, F-I-N-G-E-R-H-U-T, who does the advertising for the AFL, and I attended, Mark Penn attended, and I believe Bill Knapp attended.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Was the LIUNA union involved?
The WITNESS. What's LIUNA?
Ms. COMSTOCK. International——
The WITNESS. Labors International? I don't think so.
And from the White House there was Ickes and Sosnik, and Stephanopoulos may have been in that meeting, I'm not sure.
The purpose of the meeting was for the labor people to show us the ads that they had run and were planning to run, and I criticized their ads, because they failed to mention the balanced budget or tax cuts, and I felt they relied too much on rhetoric against tax breaks for the rich, which is something I was constantly opposed to our talking about.
They then invited me to coordinate my time-buying plan, our time-buying plans with them on a basis where, for example, they suggested we want to advertise in Vermont to go after Jeffords, and you don't care about winning Vermont particularly, so why don't we take Vermont, but you take, you know, Missouri, where it is a swing State. And I rejected it because—first of all, I rejected it partially because I felt it was not lawful, and, secondly, because I felt that their media was not only not helpful to the Clinton campaign, but destructive.
Page 1259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I am of the opinion that at this moment the Democrats would control the House of Representatives if the AFL–CIO never ran an ad. I believe their advertisements had more to do with the Democrats losing Congress in '96 than any Republican ad. And I felt that the stark left-right comparisons that they were attempting to make were totally against the strategy I had in mind, and in fact, I decided that when I learned that they were advertising, I'd make a point that we would advertise to repair the damage. But that was the only—and that meeting ended on a rather unhappy note, because I did express my views fairly frankly, and there was, in fact, no coordination, but that's the only time when I have ever been in a meeting in connection with coordination.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN:
Question. And at that meeting, you rejected that firmly?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What happened as a result of your rejection?
Answer. I don't know, but I know that I was never involved, nor were any of the consultants that worked with me to my knowledge ever involved in any coordination with any independent expenditure, including the AFL.
Question. So you were comfortable with the fact that you were never involved or anyone you were in contact with was involved with any coordination with the AFL or any other group like that?
Answer. That's right. That's correct.
Question. And no one asked you to coordinate at any time subsequent to that meeting?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. So back——
Answer. And it should be noted that the request for coordination did not come from Mr. Ickes, it came from someone from the labor community.
Page 1260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And you rejected it?
Answer. Yes.
Ms. COMSTOCK. What was Mr. Ickes' response.
The WITNESS. I don't believe he had one. The minute they mentioned it, I jumped all over it, because I hated the ads.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BALLEN:
Question. And that was the end of it as far as you knew?
Answer. Yes.
Question. But back to, let me just review and then I think you already answered the question, but the kinds of issues that you discussed at great length today about assistance and advise that you gave the President in the 1996 campaign, you could also discuss with all the other people that you represented in varying degrees over the years; isn't that correct?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. There is nothing particularly—I mean, there may be unique features to the President's campaign, but there is nothing particularly unique about the kinds of issues or strategy or ad concerns or other things that you discussed; is that correct?
So if you were asked—let me finish this. If you were asked at a future date to describe what ads were run for Senator Lott or what ads might have been run for Senator Coats or what discussions you may or may not have had with Senator Coats or Senator Lott, you could answer those questions?
Answer. Yes, I could. The only unique feature of the Clinton campaign was that I never previously worked on an issue advocacy advertising campaign for a national committee.
Question. All right. And you have already testified in length as to that?
Page 1261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Mr. BALLEN. Thank you very much.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I just have a few follow-up questions.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. In any of those other campaigns that you were talking about, were you aware of millions of dollars being returned after you had worked on the campaign?
Mr. BALLEN. I am going to object because he has testified he wasn't involved in fund-raising.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I am just saying if he is aware or any knowledge, or learned from it.
Mr. BALLEN. From reading the newspapers?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Exactly. If he was aware of millions of dollars of campaign contributions——
Mr. BALLEN. Well, you can ask him about anything in the newspapers, if he has personal knowledge.
The WITNESS. I have no knowledge of millions of dollars being returned.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. On the meeting that you talked about with Harold Ickes, the labor meeting, was it your understanding that Harold Ickes set up that meeting?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And do you recall who asked you to come to the meeting?
Answer. No. I mean, someone on Ickes' staff told someone on my staff that I had to come. It was not Harold who personally invited me, but I don't know who from their staff spoke to who on my staff. I just was told by someone on my staff that Ickes wanted me at this meeting.
Page 1262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Who usually invited you? I mean, who from Ickes' staff contacted your staff when he invited you to meetings?
Answer. He very rarely did, but when he did, it was usually Janice Enright.
Question. And she would contact one of your assistants?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And you had previously testified that usually you tried to avoid each other, essentially?
Answer. Yes. We communicated with each other chiefly through leaks.
Question. Are you aware of Mr. Ickes working with any voter participation groups?
Answer. Not specifically, but I—that would have fallen within his mandate.
Question. Do you have any knowledge of him—do you know anyone named Gary Barron?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you have any knowledge, prior to the news reports, about the situation with Warren Meddoff receiving the fax from Mr. Ickes asking for contributions to a number of groups, including Vote Now and an antiproposition 209 group? Did you have any knowledge about those events prior to the news reports?
Answer. No.
Question. Okay. Have you learned of anything about—since the news reports or through any source about Mr. Ickes coordinating with any of these voter participation groups?
Answer. No.
Page 1263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you know how he would have gotten their bank account numbers or have any of that type of information?
Answer. No.
Question. In your book, you described the President is very hands-on and very involved in his re-election campaign. Is that a fair characterization of his participation?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And is very detail oriented and attentive to a lot of the things that you were working on?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And very interested in what you were working on?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And wanted to know on a day-to-day basis what it was that you were working on, or week-to-week?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Was that your understanding of how he dealt with Mr. Ickes, also?
Mr. LENEFSKY. If you know.
The WITNESS. I was not really privy to his discussions with Ickes, so I really can't comment on—I can't comment on that.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. From your discussions with the President, did you have a sense of how often the President spoke with Harold Ickes?
Answer. Whenever I was—yes, I had the sense, both from personal observation and from times that I would call Ickes' office and learn that he wasn't there, that he saw the President at least every day and usually very frequently throughout the day.
Page 1264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did he often travel with the President during the campaign?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And did you have one of your assistants traveling with the President also during the campaign?
Answer. On political trips only paid for by the Clinton/Gore campaign. I was not permitted to have anyone travel on official trips, and where the trip was funded by the DNC, I was also generally not permitted to have someone there.
Question. Was that Tom Freedman who usually went on those trips?
Answer. Tom Freedman most often. Sometimes Mark Penn.
Question. Did either Tom Freedman or Mark Penn ever tell you about donors flying on Air Force One or anything to that effect?
Answer. No. I never flew on Air Force One.
Question. All right.
Again, you were describing that the President was very involved in the details. I was wondering, do you have any reason to believe that the President has any memory problems or any problem with recalling events?
Mr. BALLEN. I am going to object to that kind of a question.
Mr. LENEFSKY. I will object, also.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. From your experience of knowing the President for over 20 years, does he have a good memory?
Answer. Yes.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I believe that's all I have today. Thank you for your time.
Page 1265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]
[The exhbits referred to follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 541 TO 573 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
[The deposition of Eric Sildon follows:]
Executive Session
| Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, |
| U.S. House of Representatives, |
| Washington, DC. |
DEPOSITION OF: ERIC SILDON
The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10:00 a.m..
Appearances:
Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: James C. Wilson, Senior Investigative Counsel; Miki White, Investigative Counsel; Maria Wusinich Intern; Kenneth Ballen, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel; and Christopher Lu, Minority Counsel.
For MR. SILDON:
JUDAH BEST, ESQ.
DeBevoise & Plimpton
Attorneys at Law
555 13th Street, N.W., Suite 110 E
Washington, D.C. 20004
Page 1266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. Good morning. On behalf of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I appreciate and thank you very much for coming here today.
This proceeding is known as a deposition. The person transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and notary public. I will now request that the reporter place you under oath.
THEREUPON, ERIC SILDON, a witness, was called for examination, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Mr. WILSON. I would like to note for the record that those who are present at the beginning of this deposition are James Wilson, the designated Majority Counsel for the committee. I am accompanied by Miki White and Maria Wusinich, who are both with the Majority staff.
Christopher Lu is the designated Minority counsel for the committee, and the deponent is represented by Mr. Judah Best.
Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you have been placed under oath, your testimony here today has the same force and effect as if you were testifying before the committee or in a courtroom.
If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words in the conversation, you may state that you are unable to recall those exact words, and then you may give me the gist or substance of any such conversation to the best of your recollection.
If you recall only a part of the conversation or only part of an event, please give me your best recollection of those events or parts of conversations that you recall.
If I ask you whether you have any information upon a particular subject and you have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding it or have seen correspondence or documentation regarding it, please tell me that you do have such information and indicate the source, either a conversation or documentation or otherwise, from which you derived such knowledge.
Page 1267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Before I begin the questioning, I want to give you some background about the investigation and your appearance here.
Pursuant to its authority under House Rules 10 and 11 of the House of Representatives, the committee is engaged in a wide-ranging review of possible political fund-raising improprieties and possible violations of law. Pages 2 through 4 of House Report 105–139, a copy of which you have received, summarizes the investigation as of June 19, 1997, and encompasses any new matters which arise directly or indirectly in the course of the investigation.
Also, pages 4 through 11 of the report explain the background of the investigation. All questions related either directly or indirectly to these issues or questions which have the tendency to make the existence of a pertinent fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, are proper.
The committee has been granted specific authorization to conduct this deposition pursuant to House Resolution 167, which passed the full House on June 20, 1997. Committee Rule 20, of which you have received a copy, outlines the ground rules for the deposition.
Majority and Minority counsel will ask you questions regarding the subject of this investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel has finished.
After the Minority counsel has completed questioning you, a new round of questioning may begin. Members of Congress who wish to ask questions will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask their questions. When they are finished, committee counsel will resume questioning.
Pursuant to the committee's rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights. Any objection raised during the course of the deposition shall be stated for the record. If the witness is instructed not to answer a question or otherwise refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine whether the objection is proper.
Page 1268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
If Majority and Minority counsels agree that a question is proper, the witness will be asked to answer the question. If an objection is not withdrawn, the Chairman or a Member designated by the Chairman may decide whether the objection is proper.
The deposition will be held open subject to rescheduling for the purpose of resolving any disputed issue.
This deposition is considered as taken in executive session of the committee, which means it may not be made public without the consent of the committee, pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule XI.
You are asked to abide by the Rules of the House and not discuss with anyone, other than your attorney, this deposition and the issues and questions raised during this proceeding.
Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the Chairman. The transcript will be available for your review at the committee offices. Committee staff may make any typographical and technical changes requested by you.
Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a statement of your reasons for each proposed change.
A letter requesting any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments must be signed by you. Any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments shall be included as an appendix to the transcript, conditioned upon your signing of the transcript.
Do you understand everything we have gone over so far?
The WITNESS. I do.
The WILSON. Do you have any questions about anything we have gone over so far?
Page 1269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. WILSON. I am prepared to begin asking some preliminary questions. Do you have any initial comments?
Mr. Lu. No, not at this time.
Mr. WILSON. I will be asking you questions concerning the subject matter of this investigation. Do you understand?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. WILSON. If you don't understand a question, please say so and I will repeat it or rephrase it so that you do understand the question. Do you understand that you should tell me if you do not understand the question?
The WITNESS. I do understand.
Mr. WILSON. The reporter will be taking down everything we say and will make a written record of the deposition. Please give verbal, audible answers in that the reporter cannot record what a nod of the head or a gesture means.
Do you understand that you should give audible answers?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. WILSON. If you can't hear me, please say so and I will repeat the question or have the court reporter read the question to you. Do you understand?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. WILSON. Please wait until I finish each question before answering, and I will wait until you finish your answer before I begin the next question.
Do you understand that this will help the reporter make a clear record because she cannot take down what we are both saying at the same time?
The WITNESS. Absolutely.
Mr. WILSON. Your testimony is being taken under oath, as if we were in court, and that if you answer a question, it will be assumed that you understood the question and the answer was intended to be responsive to it.
Page 1270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Do you understand that?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Mr. WILSON. Are you here voluntarily or are you here as a result of a subpoena?
Mr. BEST. He is here voluntarily.
Mr. WILSON. Do you have any questions about the deposition before we begin the substantive portion of the proceeding?
The WITNESS. Not based on what you have said so far.
Mr. WILSON. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Please state your full name and spell it for the record?
Answer. My name is Eric, E-R-I-C, Kasle, K-A-S-L-E, Sildon, S-I-L-D-O-N.
Question. Have you used or gone by any other names?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you been known to others by any other names?
Answer. No.
Question. What is your date of birth and Social Security number?
Mr. Lu. Counsel, let me interrupt you a second. I am not sure why you need Mr. Sildon's Social Security number or frankly, for that matter, any witness' Social Security number.
The WILSON. Verification for information we might receive.
Mr. Lu. Could you make some kind of proffer as to what type of information that would be? I would understand if Mr. Sildon was a target of this investigation, but he is not. And as you know, once you have obtained somebody's Social Security number you can, you know, run all kinds of credit reports and, you know, other invasive types of searches on him.
Page 1271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WILSON. I am actually not sure whether I can run any credit reports or invasive searches with a Social Security number, but to the extent that it is an identification of materials and business, I ask for it. It is a common thing in depositions and I never heard you object to it before.
Mr. Lu. Is this—do you intend to ask for this for all witnesses?
The WILSON. I may and I may not. But I would ask, counsel, Mr. Best, are you instructing your client?
Mr. BEST. No, I am just speaking to him.
The WILSON. I apologize for that. Are you instructing him not to answer my question about his Social Security number?
Mr. BEST. I am interested to hear this colloquy. Do you intend to check his credit references?
The WILSON. I do not. I do not intend to check credit references.
Mr. BEST. Do you intend to use his Social Security number in some fashion?
The WILSON. I don't know.
Mr. BEST. What would you do if you did?
The WILSON. To the extent that it might be an internal identification device, it might be relevant.
Mr. Lu. I am not sure I understand. I mean, is there any sense that there is another Eric Sildon out there that you might need to verify that this is the actual one who might appear on a document?
The WILSON. Not at this point, no.
Mr. Lu. Well, I am not sure I have heard a sufficient reason, but I am going to object to the question. I am going to leave it up to Mr. Sildon as to whether he wants to answer it or not, that part of the question.
Page 1272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Well, I——
Mr. BEST. One second.
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
Mr. BEST. Mr. Sildon has expressed a concern with regard to the answers regarding the potential use of his Social Security information, and at this point would prefer not to divulge that information.
The WILSON. Are you instructing your client not to answer the question?
Mr. BEST. I never instruct a client. I just recommend to him and it is the client that makes a determination based on that. I recommend that he not answer the question.
The WILSON. I am prepared to go on in that I am satisfied to have the deposition left open pending resolution of this matter, if I decide to continue, which I may or may not.
The WITNESS. That's fine.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. What is your current address?
Answer. I live at [redacted].
Question. How long have you lived at that address?
Answer. [Redacted].
Question. Have you lived outside of the United States?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you attend college?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Where did you attend college and what degree did you receive, if any?
Page 1273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I graduated from [redacted] with a Bachelor of Science in business administration.
Question. When did you graduate?
Answer. [Redacted].
Question. Do you have any post graduate degrees?
Answer. No.
Question. Please briefly describe your employment history after college.
Answer. I came to Washington, D.C. in the fall of 1985 and worked as a paid intern for Congressman Alan Wheat, then- Congressman Alan Wheat, while I was looking for a more permanent position. I was hired in late December, 1985 and began work on January 2nd, 1986, for then Congressman Dan Glickman. I worked for Congressman Glickman until March of 1992. I left Congressman Glickman's office to be a legislative representative for the National Federation of Independent Business. I was with NFIB until the fall of 1992, when I went to work for the Presidential Inaugural Committee to work on the 52nd Presidential Inaugural.
Mr. BEST. That would not have been the fall of 1992, would it?
The WITNESS. That is correct. It was in November of 1992. After the inauguration, I was offered and accepted employment at the Democratic National Committee, where I worked until September of 1995. I left the DNC in 1995 and went to work for the Democratic Governors Association. I worked at the DGA until the 53rd Presidential Inaugural when I was asked to come back and help produce an event. I was at—after the Inaugural Committee, I have worked a succession of political and event-resulting jobs, basically working for myself as a consultant with a series of clients that I have represented.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Could you please provide an approximate month date for your tenure at the DGA?
Page 1274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Sure. September 1995 is when I was hired. I actually may have begun work in early October there, but right around the first of October, end of September, and I was at the DGA until early December 1996.
Question. Did you review any documents in preparation for this deposition?
Answer. Just a few documents.
Question. Where did you review these documents?
Answer. At the office of my counsel.
Question. Do you keep work-related files in your personal residence?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you have any papers from your time at the DNC at your personal residence?
Answer. No. And I have made a search to confirm that, and I do not have any documents.
Question. Who approached you formally about taking your position at the DNC?
Answer. A woman named Nancy Jacobson contacted me.
Question. And who is Nancy Jacobson?
Answer. At the time, Nancy was—Nancy had been placed as the National Finance Director for the DNC and I knew Nancy from my days working on Capitol Hill. She had been a fund-raiser for one of the Members of Congress, and I had worked for a reelection of his.
Question. And did you receive any recommendations to work at the DNC?
Answer. I am not sure I understand your question.
Page 1275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did any—apart from speaking with Ms. Jacobson, did anybody recommend you for the job or a job at the DNC?
Answer. Sure, Nancy—I am sure Nancy called my references.
Mr. BEST. Do you know that for a fact?
The WITNESS. I do not know that for a fact.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know if anybody submitted a written recommendation on your behalf?
Answer. I do not know if anybody had submitted a written recommendation.
Question. Did you interview with anybody prior to being offered the job at the DNC?
Answer. Other than Nancy?
Question. Well, in addition to.
Answer. Nancy Jacobson asked me to come in and talk to her about the position and talk to her about my experiences, and also talk to her Deputy Finance Director, a woman named Hannah Spillman, I believe, and just my conversations with them.
Question. Do you recall interviewing with anybody else?
Answer. I don't recall if I interviewed with anybody else.
Question. What were your job responsibilities at the DNC?
Answer. Would you like all my responsibilities?
Question. Yes.
Answer. From day one on?
Question. If you could provide a general overview.
Mr. BEST. He had different positions.
The WILSON. I understand that.
Page 1276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. If you could break down your different positions and overview of your responsibilities?
Answer. I worked on the fund-raising staff from 199—from early 1993, early February 1993, until, I would say, early 1994. I then left the finance staff and went to work in the office of the chairman where I worked until I left the DNC in 1995.
Question. What were your—what were your job titles?
Answer. In the Finance Division, my job title was Regional Finance Director. When I moved to the chairman's office, my title was Director of National Membership Services.
Question. Did you replace anybody in the position of Director of National Membership Services?
Answer. No. It was a new—newly created office.
Question. Who did you report to in your first job as Regional Finance Director?
Answer. I reported to Nancy.
Question. And who did she report to?
Answer. I am sorry. Who did Nancy report to?
Question. Correct.
Answer. I don't know the hierarchy structure of who she directly reported to.
Question. I think you stated before that—I am just wanting to clarify for myself. She was the National Finance Director at the time?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And in your position as Director of the National Membership Services, to whom did you report?
Page 1277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I reported initially to Martha Phipps who was, I believe she was Deputy Chief of Staff, but more specifically she was, and I am not certain what her exact title was, but she essentially ran the office of the chairman's office.
Question. You said initially you reported to her. After Martha Phipps, did you report to somebody else?
Answer. I did. Martha left the DNC at some point in late 1994, I believe, or perhaps early 1995—I am not certain of the date—but when she left, she left around the same time that a new chairman came to the DNC and he brought with her a staff woman named Carole Khare, I think it is K-H-A-R-E.
Question. In your position as Regional Finance Director, and I will—once we finish this, I will try not to jump back and forth so much——
Answer. Okay.
Question [continuing]. Did you have any subordinate employees?
Answer. I did. Well, as—I should actually restate that. I didn't have subordinates who necessarily reported directly to me on a full-time basis. However, when I would go out and work on an event, there would always be a lead on the event and a few other staff people, and I was always an event lead—I shouldn't say ''always.'' When I was an event lead, there were other staff people working on the event who would report to me about that event as a—in developing kind of a hierarchy tree of who reported to who, there was no one underneath me per se whose responsibility was to report to me on a full-time basis.
Question. When you were working with colleagues in your position as Regional Planning Director, who were you working with? What were the names of the people that you were working with?
Answer. Well, first of all, generally it was a rather small staff so we all would be working with each other. But on specific events, I worked with Sam Newman and Jay Dunn and Peter O'Keefe, and I believe on one event I worked with Erica Payne.
Page 1278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you recall any other individuals that you worked with at that time, and I am asking for your immediate office?
Answer. I want to make sure that I understand what you are asking. Are you talking about for these specific events or are you talking about my day-to-day responsibilities as part of the Finance Committee?
Question. In your daily responsibilities on the Finance Committee.
Answer. Without trying to be too vague, I worked with everyone on the staff. It is a small staff. Just as, for example, you may be working with lots of people on the committee staff, you come in contact with them or you have a conversation with them. I mean, you know, we were a staff of, I don't know, approximately 15, 20, 25 people, in a space no larger than this room. So we would see each other every morning or have, you know, a staff meeting a couple times a week. Somebody would call in and you would happen to answer the phone and somebody would be on the other line.
Question. In your position as Director of the National Membership Services, who else worked in the office of National Membership Services?
Answer. For a period of time, Jay Dunn, who I had previously mentioned was the Deputy Director of the program, and after—after a period of time, Jay left the program—you have to understand, the program left the Finance Division and Jay was really more interested in doing finance than staying necessarily with this program. And so he went back over to the Finance Division and a new deputy was assigned to me, and her name was Brook Stroud.
Additionally, another woman came on board at the DNC and she was assigned to the program as well. Her name was Susan Lavine.
Was National Membership Services originally a part of the Finance Division?
Page 1279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes. National Membership Services initially was—the answer is, yes.
Question. Could you explain the chronology or how—where National Membership Services was located in the DNC flowchart when you arrived at the DNC, and then until the time you departed from the DNC?
Answer. National Membership Services did not exist when I arrived at the DNC. The program was created initially in the Finance Department because that's where I worked, and it was created in early 1996, because I was still fund-raising around the country in 1995. It was created in early 1996 and within a matter——
Question. If I could?
Answer. I am sorry. In 1993 I was fund-raising around the country. In early 1994, as I best recall, the program was created in the Finance Division, primarily in response to the fact that I was tired of being out on the road and I worked for Nancy in the Finance Division and she wanted me to stay on board and I had expressed an interest in doing more constituent types of work, but almost immediately, within I would say 8 to 12 weeks, approximately 8 to 12 weeks, it was moved from Finance to a broader location within the DNC so that it truly could provide services to all the members of the DNC, not just people on the Finance staff or contributors of the DNC.
So sometime in early 1994, maybe the spring of 1994, it was moved out of Finance and into the Chairman's office.
Question. When this move, presuming there were discussions about this move, who took part in discussions to move the NMS from Finance Division?
Answer. Initially, I had those discussions with Nancy. Again, I had—she was my superior. I had an interest in not traveling as much as I had been traveling as a regional finance person; spoke with her. She said, well, I would like to keep you on board. You know, I think you are an asset to the organization.
Page 1280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
After speaking with her, because obviously we were at some point in time, when we were interested in—when I was interested in moving it out of the finance division, then we talked to the Chairman's office and probably the Chairman himself and certainly Martha Phipps about the idea of bringing the program to a broader position at the DNC.
Question. Who did you speak with in the Chairman's office?
Answer. Martha Phipps, as I recall, was the initial contact. I really don't recall if I talked to Chairman Wilhelm about it or not or if Martha did. But I know a discussion was had within the Chairman's office about, this is a new area; where is the most appropriate place for it. And a decision was made that their office would be the best place.
Question. Where physically was NMS located compared to the Chairman's office in the DNC?
Answer. Down the hall—the Chairman's office, his personal office, was at one corner of the building and there was a hallway leading to it and you passed a series of secretarial kinds of cubicles and at almost a semicircle around his office in the corner were a variety of other offices of people who reported to the Chairman, and I was in one of those offices.
I was essentially four offices away from the Chairman's office.
Question. In your position at the NMS, did you type your own letters and memoranda?
Answer. Occasionally.
Question. If——
Answer. I did not have a secretary per se, but I—you know, there were—I had obviously staff, as I have mentioned previously, who worked for me and occasionally they would type a memo putting their name and my name on the memo, or my name on the memo, to someone.
Page 1281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did anyone, other than Jay Dunn, Brook Stroud or Susan Lavine prepare written typed materials for you?
Answer. Not that I am aware of. You mean with my name on it, in other words?
Question. Correct.
Answer. From me or authored by me?
Question. Correct.
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. Did you fax your own material?
Answer. Again, often I would fax my own material. Again, I did not have a secretary working for me, and I tried not to have those other people treated as assistants to me. So I did my own faxing, typed my own memos, but occasionally somebody would be going to the fax machine, and I would say can you do me a favor, fax this. Or they would do a memo in my name, show it to me or verbally say, this is what we—you know, this is what he said. I am going to send this fax to whoever. I would say, that's fine.
Question. Did you use e-mail in your position as Director of the NMS?
Answer. Internal e-mail within the DNC, I did. I actually did not send e-mail outside of the DNC.
Question. In your position in the fund-raising aspect, as Regional Finance Director, did you have contact with White House employees?
Mr. Lu. You mean in his professional capacity as opposed to a personal capacity outside the office or something like that?
Mr. WILSON. In his position as Regional Director.
The WITNESS. Yes. As I recall, I had occasional conversations, frankly not too many because issues—you know, I am in a location, be it Miami or Philadelphia or Minneapolis doing what I am doing. The answer is, yes, to your question.
Page 1282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Who did you speak with on the White House staff?
Answer. Oh, I would talk to people in the Vice President's office because he was a principal coming to a fund-raising event and we needed to coordinate schedules, arrival time, the hotel logistics, movements, things like that. So I don't recall specifically who on his staff 4 or 5 years ago I spoke to about that, but I would talk to that person.
I mean, candidly, I don't recall the specific people 5 years ago that I talked to. I just know that there was need to have contact with the White House dealing with logistical aspects of the events that we were preparing. At the time, early at the DNC, when we had a fairly small staff, we didn't have an events staff as they then started to put into place a year or two later.
So it was up to the fund-raisers to deal with some of the logistics. It also was up to the people in Washington. So very often I talked to Nancy Jacobson or her deputy, Hannah, or people who were back here in D.C. to say here are a variety of issues that we need to get answered in advance of the Vice President's arrival for an event.
Can you get us answers to these? Again, I don't specifically recall who I talked to, which conversations I may have had with the White House versus which ones I had at the DNC, but they were all primarily logistics-related conversations, as I recall.
Question. In your professional capacity as Director of the NMS, did you have contact with White House employees?
Answer. I did.
Question. And with whom would you—who would you contact at the White House?
Answer. Well, that's a fairly broad question. I can—I would be happy to tell you offices that I had contact with. I can try to recall specific individuals within these offices.
Page 1283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Actually, to short-circuit, I will ask you questions about specific individuals later.
Answer. Okay.
Question. But if you could give me a broad sense of the offices that you would interact with.
Answer. I probably interacted most often with the Office of Political Affairs, because they were the ones that were deemed to be the appropriate source of some of the issues that we were discussing. I also dealt with the White House Photo Office, the Office of Correspondence, the Office of Public Liaison. You know, again, in my professional capacity, that certainly is a good indication of the majority of the places that I contacted.
I had, of course, over the years developed friendships with people who happened to work in the White House and, you know, may have occasionally called them because I knew they were a pal and, you know, they could help get an answer for me to something or explain something that was going on that I was, you know, hearing about on television. I would say primarily those four offices are most directly—also the Office of Scheduling and Advance.
Question. Were you the primary person in your office to either contact or be contacted by the White House?
Answer. While I was the primary person, again, as I mentioned previously, I like to empower people and allow people to grow in their jobs. I wasn't looking to have a bunch of assistants with me. So everyone on our staff had a relationship with people at the White House. So not only did I call political affairs, but I know Brook also would call political affairs, and I know Susan would call political affairs and, frankly, they may have called—they had their own contacts as well.
Question. Did your colleagues have areas of particular responsibility or expertise that would have them interacting more or less constantly with anybody at the White House?
Page 1284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Well, the—of all of us, the only person who had specific responsibilities was Susan Lavine because she was responsible for conducting tours of the White House on behalf of supporters, political supporters or what have you.
That was primarily her sole responsibility. She may have had other areas where she assisted, but if a tour request came in, it went to Susan. If any other kind of request came in, Brook and I would figure out who had what on their plate, who might be too busy to handle a specific request. We would just kind of assign that out accordingly.
Question. Did you ever attend meetings at the White House?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you attend regular—aside from meeting about a particular individual, did you attend regularly scheduled meetings?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And what were those meetings?
Answer. Initially, I was able to attend a daily scheduling meeting that occurred in the morning that was run by the President's Scheduling and Advance Office. But this was not a meeting where decisions were made as much as a meeting where the President's schedule, frankly which was a public schedule, was disseminated just a few extra days in advance. So on a Monday they might discuss that whole week's schedule and that meeting was attended by lots of offices within the White House.
I think there were even other outside people who were not permanent White House staff that were able to attend this meeting to understand where the President might be traveling to or the kinds of big public events that he would be doing. In fact, there would be lots of discussion where the President will have private time from this and they would not discuss what was going on in the private times.
So this was discussions about we are going to have a big event on the south lawn and a thousand people are coming for this event and then tomorrow the President is traveling to this location and that location. And I attended that—I was allowed to attend it on a regular basis. I did not actually travel over to the White House every day to attend the meeting, but a couple of times a week I would attend that meeting.
Page 1285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Then there was a series of meetings in—I don't remember—I don't recall if it began in 1994 or early 1995, but at some point there was a series of regularly scheduled meetings dealing with upcoming events at the White House. It was a chance, again, for all the different departments within the White House, as well as some outside organizations, to come and hear about—a little less about the minutia of the scheduling, a little bit more about there is an event 2 weeks from Wednesday and there is a dinner 3 weeks from Friday, for a broad discussion about upcoming public events, not private scheduled events.
Question. Just asking a quick question about the previous category, you discussed the scheduling events. Were those daily meetings?
Answer. As I understand, those meetings were held daily. There may have been days when they were cancelled, but it was known that at a certain time every day in a certain room, there was a meeting hosted by the scheduling—Office of Scheduling and Advance, primarily the scheduling staff, to discuss the President's upcoming immediate schedule in the upcoming—immediate meaning the next week.
Question. Who—for the immediate, who chaired the meetings?
Answer. They were run by the scheduling staff. The Director of Scheduling was never in those meetings. They were run by various members so on a particular Monday it might have been run by one person. I recall Stephanie Streett, for example, would run a meeting and then on another day a different person might have run the meeting. Just I think—I don't know how their office decided who would run the meeting.
Question. And the second category of meetings you were describing, the meetings about impending events at the White House, were they regularly held meetings? For example, weekly or monthly?
Answer. They would be held weekly or every couple of weeks. It was usually decided at the previous meeting, okay, we will next meet at. So in that sense, there was a scheduled time for a future meeting. It wasn't necessarily every Tuesday or Thursday at 3:00 or every other Monday. It was just agreed upon when the next time a meeting needed to be held.
Page 1286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Were there any other recurring types of meetings that you attended at the White House?
Answer. No—well, in 1994, I attended meetings in the Office of Correspondence, just on one special project, and that was the White House Christmas card project. And we did meet weekly for a period of maybe 3 to 4 months.
Question. Did you have a pass to gain access to the White House?
Answer. I did not have a hard pass which had my picture on it, which allowed me into the White House.
Question. Did you have any type of pass?
Answer. I did have a security clearance to allow me to present my driver's license to a Secret Service desk once you enter the White House, which would then be run through the system where I had—where I was on what was called an access list and they would then present me with essentially a temporary pass that I wore while I was in the White House and returned when I left the White House.
Question. Did you ever receive any type of background check for that pass?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And who conducted the background check?
Answer. As I understand, the FBI conducts that background check. I was interviewed by an FBI agent to get my information. I know that people such as former employers or people at my university were contacted by the FBI. I don't know if other law enforcement organizations were involved in that background check.
Question. Do you know of any other DNC employees that had—I shouldn't say any other because you told me you didn't have a hard pass, but do you know of any DNC employees that had a hard pass to get into the White House?
Page 1287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Lu. You mean all employees at the DNC?
Mr. WILSON. Correct.
The WITNESS. I know that Susan Lavine, while she was working with me for a period of time, had a hard pass with her photo on it. She had previously worked at the White House. Candidly, I wasn't sure what the arrangement was, but she had it and seemed to be able to use it. I don't know anyone else who had a hard pass with their photo on it.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did Susan Lavine have a hard pass for the entire time you worked at the DNC?
Answer. I don't recall. She certainly had a hard pass when she began at the DNC and she certainly had a hard pass at least 6 months into her job at the DNC, but it had to be reviewed at—I don't know if the White House renews their passes on some regular basis, and I am not certain if her hard pass was reviewed. It is not something you wear around the DNC. You don't keep your White House hard pass hanging around your neck. So I don't know at what point—she may have, she may not. I just don't know.
Question. And did you ever discuss with Susan Lavine, Lavine, where she had the hard pass?
Answer. I generally recall having conversations with Susan, since she was conducting tours, and helping with tour aspects, you know, this hard pass and how great it must be to have a hard pass and be able to have the ability to give these tours. You know, you have to understand what we were trying to do in the national membership service was be responsive to requests, just as when I worked on Capitol Hill. Constituents would call and they would want a tour of the—or they would want a tour of the Capitol and it was nice to be able to provide that tour. Susan had that ability at the White House.
So in that sense, I recall—generally recall discussing with her how she got the pass, and she had explained that she had worked for Mack McLarty, who was at one point the Chief of Staff to the President. She had worked in his office and had the hard pass and when she came over to the DNC, I did not know her prior to her arriving. I did not hire Susan. She came with a hard pass and I assumed she was supposed to have it.
Page 1288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did any of your DNC colleagues ever ask you about why she had such a pass?
Answer. I don't recall if they asked me why she had such a pass.
Question. It is my understanding that a significant part of your job was handling requests made by financial contributors or donors to the DNC. Is that correct?
Answer. I would not characterize it that way. I would say that a significant part of my job was to handle requests provided to me from all departments within the DNC, be it political affairs, the Office of State Chairs, the Communications Department, the Finance Department.
Question. When a request was made of you that involved an individual, for example, for a tour or for some type of event, did you have sort of a standard operating procedure for how to handle that request?
Answer. Well, for tours we had a standard procedure. I would pass the request along to Susan and she would—you know, we had a specific number of tour tickets each week. Just as when I worked on Capitol Hill, as all Members of Congress get a small allotment of tickets they can provide to constituents, the DNC also got a small allotment of tickets that we could provide to our constituents. So if a tour request came in, in that sense, yes, there was some kind of a regular logistical practice of taking requests and moving it. For all other kinds of requests, it really was an issue of what is the request, how do we best handle the request, and there was not a specific practice.
Question. Did you ever do any background check or analysis of any individuals that were mentioned in requests?
Answer. I did not, but part of that—part of the reason for that was because it really wasn't my responsibility, and I do not say that somehow to sound like I did not want to take responsibility. If someone came to me with a request, I trusted that they vetted it. If they thought it was so important that this person got some of our limited tickets to take a White House tour or attend an event that was occurring at the White House, they must feel that that person is important enough to them that they know that person well enough that they have done the background information they need to do that they are confident that they can submit it to me for me to provide that name to the White House or try to resolve the request.
Page 1289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Lu. Mr. Sildon, when you just said someone, were you referring to another office in the DNC, when another office provided you with a name?
The WITNESS. Correct. When another office, such as the Office of Political Affairs, had a specific request, I trusted that they did whatever background check needed to be done, that they vetted whatever information needed to be vetted and they provided it to me.
My role in our office, in membership service, was really to be the office that tried to do the physical work to get things accomplished. We didn't—I didn't meet with contributors in long meetings and then go and try to arrange things for them. I did not meet with people who might be a State chair or a strong political supporter out in the country. The request came—I basically dealt with DNC staff. So they would come to me with requests, ''they'' meaning various DNC staff members. I would try to resolve that request for them, figuring they had done whatever appropriate background needed to be checked to determine that it was appropriate to submit the request to me.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Lu, to the extent that I ask egregiously unclear questions, I have never objected to people clarifying them, but you will have an opportunity to ask questions later and would it be appropriate to leave your questions for your round?
Mr. Lu. Well, I like to think that was a clarifying question that actually helped the answer. Obviously, I will keep my questions to a minimum, but I think I am perfectly entitled to clarify the record. I think in this instance, actually, it actually helped.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall whether there were any instances where you did express concern over a particular request made of you and called somebody back to ask questions of them about an individual involved in a request?
Page 1290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEST. You are asking him about where he had a concern about an individual or about the particular kind of request?
Mr. WILSON. About the individual.
The WITNESS. Could you repeat the question?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Were there any instances where a request was made of you for something and it involved an individual and you were—had concerns or wanted some clarifying information about the individual? I am not asking about what their Social Security was or for a White House tour or something, but any type of substantive concern about the individual, whether you, yourself, wanted to pass that individual along down the food chain.
Answer. Not that I recall on specific requests.
Again, many of these people I did not even know who they were. Their names were provided to me by a department within the DNC and as I previously stated, I trusted that that department did whatever vetting they needed to do so that they were comfortable to provide the name to me.
As I said, I knew very few of these people and, therefore, would not have had any concerns about any of these people. They were just another name to me.
Question. Was there a system within your office to keep track of requests made of National Membership Services?
Answer. Initially, we had—we, being Jay Dunn and I, when Jay was the deputy, we set up kind of a spreadsheet where we tried to list individuals' names and what we might have been able to help them accomplish, just to—I did not want to get the same person on a White House tour eight different times for all of their friends.
At some point, you say, look, on November 22nd and sometime in December and sometime in January we have gotten you tours. I am just not going to help you this month. That was the only time that we actually had some kind of tracking system like that.
Page 1291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Examination by the time the program moved over to the chairman's office, as I indicated, which was only a few months after the start of the program, the process of tracking really was that we simply tried to keep files with contributors' names on it, just so we didn't throw out the paper and we knew who we had previously helped on certain projects.
Mr. BEST. You indicated, in answer to Mr. Wilson's question, that you kept files on contributors. Did you only keep files on contributors?
The WITNESS. Actually, no. We kept files on any individual that we tried to help with a request. Really, any request that came to me, regardless of what department it came from, I would simply start another file in the drawer so we had a reference of maybe a letter that they had sent or a thank you note or, you know, background information.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Was there a standard method of making requests of your office? Did people use a form or did you require people to submit something to you?
Answer. I required DNC staff—''required'' is a strong word. I asked DNC staff to try to fill out a form that we had created that basically provided the supporter's name and address and a phone number and a fax number, in case we ever needed to deal directly with them. And there were occasions when I did deal directly with these people either to get follow-up information or to, you know, get a piece of information back to them.
And so I asked staff to try to provide me with all the kind of logistical background.
Question. Did you provide these forms to the other offices of the DNC?
Answer. We created a general form and kept it in the office. If you want a White House tour, there is a tour form to fill out, the date you would like the tour and all available dates and is there a local phone number. I believe we had a form for general requests, you know, nature of the request, background, information that we would need to know, again, you know, pertinent logistic kinds of information; name and address information.
Page 1292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Were these hard copy forms, forms on paper that you would actually distribute to the offices?
Answer. Uh-huh.
Mr. BEST. You have to answer, yes, to that. You went ''uh-huh.'' You two have begun a discussion rather than a question and answer.
The WITNESS. I am sorry. Okay. Yes, there were forms on paper. Initially, late in my tenure with the program, I tried to create a form on the internal e-mail so that anybody could log into the database and get the form and type it at their desk and not have to come down to my office and fill out a form.
It was not used very widely among DNC staff.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Were the hard copy paper forms used fairly widely?
Answer. We asked them to. There were people who just—they were too busy to fill out the paper. But, yes, we asked them to fill—I would say a majority of the time, a request came with some kind of paper documentation.
Question. And if there was no paper request, how would they make the request?
Answer. They might stop by my office. They might—again, I shared an office with Susan and Brook, so they might poke their head in the office and talk to one of my colleagues, who might verbally pass it on to me or they might stop in the office and deal directly with Susan, because people at the DNC knew that she was conducting the tours and handling the kind of hospitality aspect.
Mr. WILSON. I am showing the witness a document, which is—it is a copy of a check with information about a contributor underneath.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Page 1293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And there is a notation on the side that says, ''in,'' and I think it is ''AS–400.'' And I am wondering, what is—what does the AS–400 refer to on this form?
Answer. First of all, I want to be clear, this is not my document or my form. Since we just had a discussion about forms, I want to make sure that—this is not a form that I have ever seen before.
But to answer your question, AS–400 was the internal DNC database. That was the name of the complete database, but not everyone at the DNC had access to every aspect of the DNC database. You had to have a password and so, for example, people in—in Political Affairs, I don't believe, could just get on to AS–400 and get access on a contributor's background information.
Mr. BEST. Let me also state that this document that you have shown the witness bears dates on it in 1996, a period well after his termination, his conclusion of his service at the DNC.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did your office have access to the AS–400 system?
Answer. Generally, our office had access to the AS–400 system. I never—first of all, I didn't have a password. Once I left the Finance Division in early 1994, I did not have a password and I actually did not use the AS–400 system for probably the last year and a half of my employment at the DNC.
We had access to AS–400 and my staff may have used it because, again, that was the complete database. If you just needed to get a name and address for, you know, a political supporter from back in the Midwest from 5 years ago, that's where you would find their name and address. And as I understand the AS–400 was also used by, for example, the direct marketing people, who were receiving thousands of correspondence from around the country.
Page 1294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Was a password required to access it?
Answer. You had to have a password to get on to AS–400. As I understand, that password only gave you access to certain accounts. As I recall, that's how it worked. So certain staffs had access to certain information. Other staffs to other information.
Question. Did you regularly—and when I say regularly, I am not asking if you called somebody up and said, could you give me some information on so and so—but did you regularly receive material that was produced by the AS–400 system?
Answer. I never received information that was produced by the AS–400 system, other than perhaps trying to track down a name or address. But I never ever received any kind of printed information from AS–400. There were not regular reports, at least that I saw. There aren't regular reports.
Question. Are you referring now to your time as Director at NMS?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Did you receive AS–400 material when you were in your position as Regional Finance Director?
Answer. Yes.
Mr. BEST. When you say AS–400 material, you mean computerized data derived from the AS–400?
Mr. WILSON. Correct.
The WITNESS. The AS–400, like any spreadsheet—like any data system, can provide information in any manner you want it provided. So, for example, when I was on my way to Miami, Florida, to run a fund-raiser, I would want to get the list of names of past DNC supporters who lived in Florida or lived in the region.
So in that sense, I could go into AS–400 and call up everyone in the State of Florida who had supported the DNC since year X, whatever X is, and I could get a printout of those names or names and addresses or just phone numbers, just like any kind of data search.
Page 1295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
But, again, that was while I was part of the Finance Committee, doing fund-raising in specific cities.
When I stopped—when my role as a fund-raiser ended, and I became Director of National Membership Services, I did not have an account at AS–400, with AS–400, because I didn't need it. It wasn't part of my role to get any kind of background. It was up to the staff to give me name and address and I didn't need any other background information.
Mr. Lu. Counsel, could I interpret, whenever we reach a good stopping point, can we take a break?
Mr. WILSON. Absolutely.
The WITNESS. At some point, I would like to take a break, if you think there is a natural break point, I would appreciate that.
Mr. WILSON. If we can go off the record now, that would be acceptable.
[Recess.]
Mr. WILSON. Are we ready to go back on the record?
Mr. Lu. Absolutely.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. In your—when you were Director of NMS, did you receive contribution records of individual donors?
Answer. No.
Question. Generally, were there limited spaces available for tours or other types of visits to administration buildings that you would arrange for people to go on?
Mr. BEST. I am not sure I understand.
Page 1296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Lu. I am not sure I understand that. Do you mean the public tours? And I am also not sure what you mean by administration building.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Administration building, buildings such as the Holocaust Museum or the White House or Old Executive Office Building, if people requested to have a tour of those types of things, was there generally limited availability for those types of tours?
Answer. There were a specific limited number of tickets that we were allowed to have for tours to the White House, the same ''VIP,'' in quotes, tours at the same times that Members of Congress, Republicans and Democratics, also had access to; 8:15, 8:30, 8:45 in the morning. There were a limited number of tour tickets for that. There were not—we did not have any kind of regular allotment of tour tickets for any other site in the city.
Question. Who set the number for the tickets that you were provided access to?
Answer. Someone in——
Mr. BEST. You are talking about the tours now?
Mr. WILSON. Correct.
The WITNESS. Are you talking about tours for the White House?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Yes.
Answer. Somebody in the White House visitors' office.
Question. How would you prioritize among multiple applicants? Do you have more requests for a particular tour than you had tickets available?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How would you determine between the requests?
Page 1297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Very often it was first-come, first-served, just as it used to be when I worked on Capitol Hill. Occasionally, we would maybe have a few remaining tickets left, you know, two or four of our allotment left and we would have on the same day a request for 10 different tickets and then we would try to figure out who should get those tickets. But there was no particular way that we qualified who got those tickets.
Maybe somebody had tried a month before and didn't get them so we would provide them to that particular person the next time around. Or somebody who was traveling all the way from California and they were only going to be here for one day and that was the only day they could go and we happened to have two tickets for that day. So primarily it was first-come, first-served, though.
Question. Was the size of a financial contribution ever used to help make the determination?
Answer. Well, again I did not have access to the financial records and I think there were times when we knew that based on, you know, someone saying, look, I really would like to help this person get a tour, you know, they are—you know, they are strong supporters of the party, but I never knew specific dollar amounts, who gave what. Very often I wouldn't find that information out until I read it in the paper when the Post would do their quarterly list of contributors.
Question. When people used the request form that you provided to the various offices for making requests for tours, or whatever else the request forms were used for, was there a system for people to indicate how much they wanted you to be able to respond affirmatively?
Answer. Well, I provided a space for—I don't recall specifically what I called it, but, you know, additional information or background or something—whatever they wrote, they wrote. But I did not have a specific language that asked for a contribution level and, again, I want to remind you I was taking care of—or trying to help all departments within the DNC. So contributions were not the sole focus on what I was looking at.
Page 1298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I also would like to maybe state the obvious, which is while finance may have thought that their group of constituents was the most important, so did political and so did the Communications Department. Political didn't care how much money someone gave. They were more interested in the person who went out and put door hangers on 10,000 houses. To them that was important. So it did not matter to me how much money someone gave. I was just trying to be responsive to all the different staff people at the DNC who were trying to be responsive to all of their constituent bases around the country within their divisions.
Question. Did you ever receive instructions or any type of indication from the White House that somebody should be given priority to receive a particular type of—to be helped by your office?
Answer. Absolutely not.
Question. Did you ever have access to any computer databases of names of individuals generated by the DNC?
Answer. Well, as we talked about before, the AS–400 system was the database collection and repository for the whole DNC.
Question. I am asking you—you have indicated you didn't have a password. Was there any other type of database or repository that you used that gave you names of individuals?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. What do the terms ''trustee''—and these are terms of art ''trustee'' and ''managing trustee'' mean?
Answer. Those were donor councils at the DNC.
Question. Specifically, do you recall what trustee category—what was required to be in the trustee category?
Answer. I don't recall because their requirements changed over the course of the years and, again, that wasn't relevant to my responsibilities.
Page 1299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you recall what was required to be part of the managing trustee category?
Answer. Again, as I just stated, A, I was not a member of the Finance Division beyond 1993, and B, the amounts that were requested of members—or requested of supporters to become members of these donor councils was changing.
Question. Did you ever arrange for meetings between individuals who were referred to your office and White House staff?
Answer. I generally recall trying to make a connection between two people. I don't specifically recall who in the White House I might have asked to meet with someone, but, again, that would have only been because a DNC staffer would have come to me and said, I really need person X or can you help me get person X to meet with staff person X.
Mr. Lu. Counsel, I am not sure if your question is looking at the—are we now focused strictly on the national membership's time as opposed to a specific fund-raiser?
Mr. WILSON. I am actually wanting to focus at this point on the National Membership Services.
Mr. BEST. His answer seems to be with regard to meetings with regard to DNC staff personnel and White House personnel. You used the word ''individuals'' and I am not sure what you meant by that.
Mr. WILSON. Right. And I will re-ask the question for clarity's sake.
Question. Did you ever receive names of non-DNC employees for suggested meetings with White House staff?
Answer. I don't specifically recall that occurring. It certainly may have, and if someone knew that perhaps I knew someone at the White House, a staff person might have got in touch with me on behalf of one of their constituents, again, be it the political division or the communications division.
Page 1300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you recall whether the request forms that you circulated to the offices were ever used to make a request of your office that you facilitate or set up a meeting between a non-DNC employee and somebody in the White House?
Answer. It's possible. I don't specifically recall, but it certainly is possible.
Question. Do you recall whether there was anyone at the DNC who was in charge of facilitating meetings between non-DNC employees and administration officials?
Mr. BEST. Now we are going from meetings at the White House?
Mr. WILSON. I am asking again about the NMS staff.
Mr. BEST. You have now enlarged it from White House staff to administration officials?
Mr. WILSON. Correct. Correct.
The WITNESS. There were times when I was responsible for that. There also were a lot of people at the DNC who had relationships around town. They had worked with these people during campaigns or they knew them socially and also formed a professional relationship where they would just call them directly. So there were certainly times when I would make phone calls out into the administration. And as I previously indicated, it is certainly possible that I made phone calls to staff people at the White House on behalf of the DNC constituents who, as I indicated, could be from political or any other department, the chairman's office.
But that doesn't mean that I exclusively, I, meaning I or my staff, exclusively were the ones who made such contacts because there were all kinds of people out there who had their own relationships.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Well, avoiding personal contacts where somebody might call a friend and attempt to get something done, was your office the office that people would turn to if they wanted to suggest that a non-DNC employee meet with a White House or an administration employee?
Page 1301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Even making the void which you just made, there is nothing which prohibited some, you know—not that—not that a staff person is a lone ranger, but nothing to prohibit some staff person from picking up the phone and calling an office around the administration. So while sometimes staff would come to me and help me to ask with an initial phone call, for all I know they were making their own phone calls and calling out to the administration themselves, or the White House to a staff person themselves.
Question. Understood. I am just trying to get a sense of whether that was one of the purposes or functions of the request forms that you circulated to other offices, was to be used for that type of purpose, if somebody wanted to use it for any purpose.
Answer. I believe this will help answer the question. That request form was a catchall request form. If you have either seen it or will see it, it is a very vague, general form that asks for people's names and addresses and phone numbers and nature of the request. And so it could be for anything, and we got requests for anything: Can you recommend a good golf course? I am coming to Washington. Somebody would write it on paper and give it to me and I would have to respond to it.
You know, or my kids are coming to town, what are fun things to do with kids for 3 days in Washington? Or it certainly is possible that the form could be used for anything, including interest in having a meeting or getting a tour or the kinds of things that we were talking about.
Question. Did you ever have discussions with DNC colleagues while you were director of the NMS about using White House, for want of a better term, perks as a means of raising financial contributions?
Mr. Lu. I am not sure I understand the term ''White House perks.'' I mean, if the witness understands that term.
Page 1302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEST. I have less problem with that aspect of your question than the portion that deals with raising money. I am not sure if you are saying that you—the use of this, that it should be linked to the availability of a tour of the White House.
Mr. WILSON. Or just using the carrot of a visit to the White House or a night in the Lincoln bedroom or a visit to a particular event as a means of stimulating people to contribute money.
Mr. BEST. And the question is: Have you ever had conversations of that nature?
The WITNESS. Well, I don't recall having such conversations. Again, I was not concerned about the fund-raising aspects exclusively. I was trying to be helpful to all of our constituents and figure out ways that we could be responsive to all of our constituents. So I don't recall having conversations.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Understood that you weren't concerned about fund-raising exclusively, but to the extent that you were concerned about fund-raising, did you have discussions with how—and again this is in the time that you were director of NMS—White House benefits, benefits being access to the White House or any other type of—you know, that somebody might not have public access to but might like to have access to, how they might be used to stimulate people to contribute money?
Mr. BEST. I am sure that the witness has testified that he had a concern about fund-raising, which was one of the predicates of your question that you just formed. I believe his testimony has to do with providing service to the finance department, as well as the other departments and offices at the DNC.
But to the extent that you can answer his question, you may do so. Perhaps the best thing is to maybe reformulate it.
Page 1303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. Just to clarify, Mr. Sildon indicated that he wasn't exclusively concerned about something, and I interpret that to mean that, therefore, there was some concern, given that it wasn't exclusive, there was some small concern.
The WITNESS. Perhaps I choose—this was a matter of semantics. I probably should have said specifically concerned about fund-raising as opposed to exclusively. Again, I trusted that the people who worked at the DNC in the finance division were doing their job to raise whatever money they needed to raise. My responsibility was not necessarily one of making sure that they were meeting their financial targets.
Mine was a responsibility of being responsive to that department, as well as the chairman's office, and political, and the Office of State Chairs, and anyone else at the DNC that might seek some kind of assistance for them to all better do their jobs.
And so maybe exclusively was the wrong word. I guess I should say I wasn't specifically aware of the financial implications and how it might help a division, because that wasn't my specific charge as Director of National Membership Services.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever make any suggestions to any of your—of DNC colleagues, either in NMS or in other divisions, as to how you might use to better advantage for fund-raising purposes access to the White House or other similar and for want of a better word I will use perks?
Mr. Lu. I am sorry. Could you read that question back.
[The reporter read back as requested.]
The WITNESS. Again, it was not my responsibility to be—I was trying to be responsive.
Mr. BEST. No. He asked you if you had conversations. You are explaining why you didn't have conversations but you never say whether or not you had such conversations.
Page 1304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Thank you. And, no, I have not—I don't recall having such conversations.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know if the White House mess was ever used to entertain supporters, DNC supporters?
Answer. I don't know. I didn't have mess privileges.
Question. Did you ever facilitate individuals—any individual's use of the White House mess?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you know if anybody in your office helped people to go over and eat at the White House mess?
Answer. Again, I don't recall.
Question. Did you ever send any names of people to be considered as White House overnight guests, send to the White House such names?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever receive requests—a request from anybody at the DNC about having somebody spend the night at the White House?
Answer. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question?
Question. Did you ever receive a request from anybody at the DNC about helping somebody to go and spend the night at the White House?
Answer. Again, I don't recall that.
Question. Do you recall whether you ever received a request from a non-DNC person to help them to spend the night at the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know how somebody who is interested in spending the night at the White House might go about getting an invitation to spend the night at the White House?
Page 1305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't.
Question. Did anyone ever discuss with you whether the President was interested in having people stay at the White House?
Answer. No. I don't believe I ever had such a conversation.
Question. Do you know if places were reserved on either Air Force One or Air Force Two for DNC supporters?
Answer. I am not aware of spots being reserved.
Question. Did you ever have any discussions with DNC colleagues as to whether it was a good idea to have Air Force One or Air Force Two places reserved for DNC supporters?
Answer. Actually, I should tell you that in 1993 I was told specifically by—well, I remember this information being discussed. I don't recall who I talked to about it, but we were told—I was told that DNC supporters were not going to be able to be on Air Force One, and I never thought twice about it again.
It was someone at the White House, I believe maybe in political affairs. The discussion came up while I was fund-raising for an event in Miami, one of the first events. The President was going to fly down. There were discussions about, well, the Republicans used to have people fly up to Washington and get on Air Force One with the President and travel with him to event sites, and there were all these people in Florida who knew that that occurred, and they wanted to go to Washington to get on Air Force One or actually in this case to get on the Vice President's plane and fly down with the Vice President so they could get off the plane with the Vice President and walk down the steps with the Vice President in their hometown.
And I was specifically told, though I don't recall by whom at the White House, I was specifically told by the Office of Political Affairs that will not happen. And don't ask. And I never asked again, ever.
Page 1306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And to the best of your recollection, was this—did this take place when you were regional finance director?
Answer. Did what take place?
Question. The conversation or communication that you have just alluded to.
Answer. Yes, that was while I was in the finance division trying to deal with logistics of a particular event.
Question. Do you know if places were reserved at White House private dinners for financial contributors to the DNC?
Answer. I know that the——
Mr. BEST. He is asking about financial contributors. Listen to the question.
The WITNESS. I appreciate that.
Mr. BEST. Okay.
The WITNESS. There were no spots ever reserved for DNC people, period. There would be times when the White House might say, we are having a dinner and if there are people that you think are important to attend the dinner, you might provide us with a few names. But there was no guarantee that the names that we sent over would get into the dinner.
There were no specific slots assigned; gee, we have got X number of slots which you can fill. And certainly, those people, if we did send over names, weren't necessarily finance contributors. The White House would say, if you want to send over a few names, you can send over a few names. They might all be from the chairman's office or they might all be political supporters. And there is no guarantee that any of them got in. And, in fact, frankly a lot of times our names weren't put into events.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Page 1307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Are you aware of this from your time as director of the NMS?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And did you sometimes receive phone calls like the one you have just described or communications like the ones you have just described?
Answer. We had previously discussed meetings that occurred about events at the White House. During those meetings, they would indicate, there is a dinner in 3 weeks and there is a large event on the South Lawn in 6 weeks and if you want to submit some names, we will consider them among the many names that we are considering for an event.
So while I was—those conversations occurred while I was director of the program, attending those meetings.
Question. While you were director at NMS, did you ever receive a request from the White House to provide names of certain categories of financial contributors for one of these types of events?
Answer. I am sorry. I need you to repeat the specific question again.
Question. I will ask the reporter to help me out.
The WITNESS. No.
Mr. BEST. What do you mean by specific categories?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever get a phone call where somebody might have said something like, we are having a dinner, can you send over some names of managing trustees?
Answer. No.
Question. And going from that, that is a specific question going to a very general question. Do you recall any instance where the White House mentioned that there would be an event of any sort and they were interested in having names that would be delineated by amount of contribution or amount of support to the DNC?
Page 1308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Lu. I am going to object to that question. I think Mr. Sildon has already testified repeatedly that the services were not distributed based on financial contributions. In fact, he never even had access to that information. So if he wants to answer the question, he can.
Mr. WILSON. That wasn't my question. That wasn't even implicit in my question.
Mr. Lu. You are asking him whether the White House called asking for names of people based on contributions.
Mr. WILSON. Correct.
Mr. Lu. What I am saying is that Mr. Sildon has already testified he never had access to financial information about the supporters.
Mr. WILSON. That wouldn't prevent the question being asked of him.
Mr. Lu. I will object to the question.
Mr. WILSON. That wouldn't prevent the question being asked of him at all.
Mr. Lu. I think we have gone through this.
The WITNESS. I will——
Mr. BEST. Let them finish.
Are you finished?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
The WITNESS. My answer is no.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever discuss requests made on behalf of individuals for the individual being put on a board or a commission?
Page 1309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Well, I generally recall discussions about boards and commissions, but I don't remember if that was just hearing conversations or somebody specifically asked me. But I didn't handle boards and commissions.
Question. Do you know who at the DNC might have been more directly involved in handling requests of that nature?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Did the DNC ever use the President's box at the Kennedy Center?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Just by way of background, because I literally don't know this, how often did the President or does the President have access to events at the Kennedy Center?
Answer. I don't know, because I don't work for the President—I didn't work for the President.
Question. Have you ever had conversations with people who do work with the President where they have indicated to you that the President has access to the Kennedy Center?
Answer. I don't recall those conversations.
Question. You mentioned the DNC did use the President's box at the Kennedy Center. For what purpose?
Answer. To allow supporters to watch events that were occurring at the Kennedy Center.
Question. How frequently did that occur?
Answer. How frequently did what occur?
Question. DNC supporters using the President's box?
Page 1310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Maybe a couple of times a month. You know, there were—there were three halls at the Kennedy Center so I would say a couple of times a month total amongst all three halls, matinee and evening and weekend performances.
Question. That actually goes to my earlier question. Again, I don't know what the background is, but is it your understanding that the President has space reserved for all performances in all venues within the Kennedy Center?
Answer. Well, your previous question was, how often does the President have access to these. And I answered, I don't know how often President Bill Clinton had access to his box. If you are asking about the President's box, I mean, it is his box. They don't rent that out to other people. They don't sell that to the public. That's a privately reserved box, just as any corporation, I assume, can lease a box at the Kennedy Center.
So he, therefore—I don't know about him and that's why I answered your previous question as I did. If you are asking about other things, if you want to restate the question, I would be happy to try and answer it.
Question. That gives me all the background I need.
Who, within the White House, was in charge of access to the President's box?
Answer. A woman named Debi Schiff was the person to whom I believe the Kennedy Center sent the tickets.
Question. Did she ever contact you offering you use of tickets——
Answer. Yes.
Question [continuing]. For events?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you ever contact her asking for tickets for specific events or specific nights?
Page 1311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. How often would you do that?
Answer. Well, I certainly probably contacted her a few more times than she was able to help out. There appeared to be many people, including White House staff and administration staff, who also put in requests to get—sit in these seats, and so I don't recall specifically how many times I contacted her. It wasn't a significant number, but it was an occasional number. Someone was in from out of town.
Question. Did you send out formal invitations to the people for whom you were helping to get tickets to the Kennedy Center?
Mr. BEST. What is a formal invitation as compared to just a regular invitation?
Mr. WILSON. Actually, I will rephrase that.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you send out invitations of any sort to people, written, in advance invitations?
Answer. Not that I recall. And very often we did not get these tickets until the very last moment. You know, a phone call at 4:00 for a 7:00 performance. And oftentimes we were called to say if a staff person wanted to go, is there someone over there who would like to go? We have two tickets for tonight that aren't going to be used.
Question. Do you recall whether there was a special arrangement between the White House and the DNC for access to Presidential tickets on any particular night of the week?
Answer. We are still referring to the Kennedy Center?
Question. Yes.
Answer. Again, not that I recall. I mean, I don't think the Kennedy Center had a regular schedule so that we could have automatically had, you know, every Saturday matinee, for example, because they might not have a Saturday matinee.
Page 1312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. I would just like to provide Mr. Sildon with a document. It is a memorandum to Eric Sildon from Jay Dunn dated September 2, 1993.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. It is my understanding that this is—was a memo that you had received when you were regional finance director in the finance department. Am I correct on that time frame?
Answer. That—the time frame would look right, that's correct.
Question. And the bit I direct your attention to is the first sentence on the second bullet point, which reads, we have the box every Thursday evening for performances at the Kennedy Center.
Is this an accurate statement?
Mr. BEST. Is what accurate? Did he get the memo or was Dunn correct when he made that statement?
Mr. WILSON. Correct.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Was Dunn correct when he made this statement?
Answer. I have no reason to think that Jay would have written that to me if that wasn't the case, but it doesn't refresh my memory.
Question. Do you recall receiving this memorandum?
Answer. I don't recall receiving it, but I am—no, I don't recall receiving this memo.
Question. Do you recall any conversations that you participated in wherein it was discussed having regular access to a box on a particular night of the week at the Kennedy Center?
Mr. BEST. We are now referring to the period in 1993, when he was regional——
Page 1313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. To any time at all during employment at the DNC.
The WITNESS. About a specific evening?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Right.
Answer. Again, I don't recall such conversations.
Question. Did you ever receive any requests from Mark Middleton expressing an interest in having financial contributors to the DNC use the President's Kennedy Center box?
Mr. Lu. Again, we are talking about this time in September of 1993 or at the time that he was in National Membership Services?
Mr. WILSON. If you could read the question, I believe I asked ''did you ever.'' So my question is, did you ever.
If I could ask the reporter to read the question back.
Mr. BEST. We will assume that's what you asked in terms of responding.
The WITNESS. I don't recall having such conversations with Mark.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall any conversations where Mr. Middleton requested that you help him obtain Kennedy Center Presidential box tickets?
Answer. Well, I don't recall such conversations and I—not to belabor this point, but Mark worked at the White House in the chief of staff's office. I don't know why Mark would call me to get tickets that were at the White House. First of all, we didn't get tickets very often, as I have previously stated; just a couple of times a month. So I don't see any logic to why he would have contacted me to get something that, frankly, his place of work controlled.
Page 1314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you know who invited DNC supporters to Presidential radio addresses?
Answer. No.
Question. Did your office ever invite individuals to attend Presidential radio addresses?
Answer. Well, I need to clarify for just a minute. We never invited anyone. If somebody came to us and said—if a DNC staff person came to me and said, there is somebody I would like to try to get into a radio address, I just as a matter of form had a memo to a staff person at the White House that I just would change the person's name and send it over with their date of birth and social security asking the White House to consider inviting them. It didn't mean that the White House necessarily did it. I couldn't issue the invitation because I didn't have a regular slot to put people into a radio address.
Question. Do you recall who your form memorandum would be addressed to?
Answer. Well, there were a couple of different people, I believe, who were working that department. David Levy was the person who most often, I believe, I sent the memos to. But David wasn't there the entire time. I don't think he was in that role initially, and there may be others as well. But I do recall David Levy.
Question. Do you know what people were instructed to do if they were to attend a radio address? I am asking for mechanics here, where they would go, who they would report to, what they would have to do to actually listen in to the address?
Answer. I am not sure how this is relevant to my job at the DNC.
Question. No, I am just asking you whether you do know, to the extent you might have forwarded requests along to help facilitate somebody attending a radio address. Do you know what they had to do when they actually attended?
Page 1315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I generally know what they had to do.
Question. And in a general sense, what was required of them?
Answer. They would go to a previously designated gate, White House gate, as determined by White House staff, where they would present identification. I am guessing there was some kind of list but I don't know that for certain.
They would then be directed towards the—towards the West Wing lobby, I assume, and then somebody from the West Wing lobby would take them from there to wherever they needed to go, wherever the radio address was occurring.
Question. Do you know where the radio addresses were broadcast from?
Answer. I understand the location of the radio address has changed based on a variety of circumstances.
Question. Do you know whether the President held any regular lunches for CEOs or for businesses?
Answer. I very vaguely recall hearing about—well, perhaps I more generally recall hearing about—that there was some kind of gathering for CEO lunches. Frankly, that rings a bell.
Question. Do you know if DNC supporters were invited to any of these lunches?
Answer. Well, again I just—I kind of generally remember that these lunches were occurring, but I don't think I have enough recollection about the lunch to be able to specifically answer a question like that.
Mr. BEST. Was it something that you did in your position in Membership Services?
The WITNESS. I really don't recall. It wasn't something that I did regularly. Like if you asked me, did we handle White House tours, I could tell you yes because we did it every week. I don't recall any kind of regular lunch or that I was responsible for placing people in any kind of lunch like that. But I will say that it does sound familiar that such a lunch may have occurred, but I don't know if it was on a regular basis or who attended. But I do recall that there—generally recall.
Page 1316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know if any spaces at these types of lunches were set aside for DNC supporters?
Answer. I don't. I don't know that.
Question. Did you ever——
Mr. BEST. You used the term ''supporter'' and you have used it before, and I take it you mean a fund—in a fund-raising capacity. Because the term ''supporter'' is a more generic term in the political business. I understand to include as a supporter someone who goes out and does political outreach is a supporter. So that I am a little—I am a little concerned that what you mean by the term ''supporter'' when you use it.
Mr. WILSON. Well, what I do mean is that a financial contributor would be a subset of the term ''supporter'' and the term ''supporter'' is a very wide universe of people who could be volunteer workers or columnists who write articles favorably. It could encompass many different things. If there was indication, I would probably attempt to go and be a little more definite. I ask these across the board. If I am asking these questions and there is just a straight no, then that enables me to move on.
The WITNESS. Great.
Mr. WILSON. And I will attempt not to belabor points that are just completely unknown to you.
Mr. BEST. That's helpful. Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know, did you ever help to arrange for meetings with the Vice President? Having just come down from this supporter dialogue, any type of individual that would be referred to you as somebody, I would like you to help this individual to get a meeting with the Vice President, who is a supporter?
Page 1317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Lu. I think he has already testified in his capacity as a fund-raiser that he arranged events for the Vice President. I assume you are talking about in his second role at the DNC.
Mr. WILSON. Well, my understanding is that if somebody arranged events for the Vice President that doesn't necessarily mean that he is helping an individual get a meeting with the Vice President.
Mr. Lu. Well, I don't know if we have established it or not, but what Mr. Sildon testified to——
Mr. WILSON. So I asked a very different question.
The WITNESS. Why don't you tell me if—are you asking in my role—I am sorry. But we just keep jumping back and forth between my fund-raising responsibilities in 1993 and my service and constituent responsibilities in '94 and '95.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. It makes it difficult.
Answer. Yes, it does make it difficult.
Question. I will ask one and then I will ask the other.
Answer. Okay.
Question. In your role as regional finance director, did you ever set up meetings between an individual and the Vice President or help to set up meetings?
Answer. One-on-one meetings?
Question. Yes.
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever set up small group meetings between individuals and the Vice President?
Answer. In advance of a fund-raising event, there might be a small gathering of 20 people in a room to greet the Vice President when he arrives at a hotel to shake his hand.
Page 1318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. In your capacity as director of the NMS, did you ever attempt to facilitate one-on-one meetings with the Vice President?
Answer. Again, not that I recall.
Question. Did the DNC ever issue invitations to people to attend movies at the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever help to facilitate people going to attend a movie at the White House?
Answer. Candidly, I may have, but I don't recall.
Question. Do you know if you ever received schedules of movies in advance?
Answer. No.
Question. You don't know or you didn't receive any schedules?
Answer. I don't believe that I received a schedule of movies indicating that on this night they are showing this movie and on this night they are showing that movie.
Question. Do you recall whether you ever helped—and this is exclusively at the time period when you were director of NMS—to facilitate a lunch between somebody and Mack McLarty?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever receive any requests for individuals to have lunch with Ira Magaziner?
The WITNESS. Can we take a break for just a minute?
Mr. BEST. Sure. We can take a break any time.
Mr. WILSON. That's all right.
The WITNESS. Excuse me just one second.
Page 1319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. Surely.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. WILSON. If we could go back on the record. If you will, please, read back the last question that I asked.
[The reporter read back as requested.]
The WITNESS. I don't recall that, but I need to state, you know, this was 3 and 4 years ago and I just don't recall every request that came to me or every memo I may or may not have written. If you have information that you would like to provide to me or show to me, if there is something I ought to see, I would be happy to look at it and try to respond. But as far as generally what do I recall from a job that occurred in some cases more than 3 years ago, I don't recall that.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever have requests brought to your attention for people to use the President's box at the Warner Theater or Wolf Trap?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Did you ever work to—did you ever help people to have their photographs taken with the President?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How did that process work?
Answer. Well, I am not sure it was a process. That was a pretty general question. You know, if somebody is attending an event that's at the White House and they want to get their picture taken with the President, I might contact someone at the White House and give them that head's up.
But, again, it was simply to pass along information to someone over there to make them aware of it.
Page 1320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEST. Let me ask this: A photo opportunity with the President was not a—was not an isolated event; was it? It was always in conjunction with attendance at another function at the White House?
The WITNESS. As far as I know, that's correct.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Which anticipates my next question. Were there situations where you would get a request for an isolated event for somebody to go up and have their picture taken with the President, outside of an event, outside of some prescheduled event?
Answer. You mean that someone, a staff person at the DNC would contact me and say, we have heard from so and so and they would like to go over to the White House and get their picture taken with the President?
Question. Correct.
Answer. It is possible. I don't think that there was any kind of specific formula for that. I don't—I certainly on a regular basis was not sending requests over to the White House that a certain person wanted to come over and have a one-on-one and while they were there have their photo taken.
Question. Do you remember any specific instances where somebody did go over and have their picture taken outside of going to an official event?
Answer. I don't recall any situation like that.
Question. Did you have any requests while you were director of NMS to get photographs signed by the President?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And how would you generally get that done?
Answer. All photos I would send over to the Office of Political Affairs and let them handle it however they did, whether it was an auto pen or a real picture of the President. That was something that they handled.
Page 1321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And by that, do you mean the Office of Political Affairs in the White House?
Answer. I am sorry, in the White House, correct.
Question. Do you recall whether DNC supporters were ever sent birthday cards from the President?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you know how people were selected to receive a birthday card from the President?
Answer. Are you talking about people meaning DNC supporters?
Question. Yes.
Answer. I would simply send a request over to the White House and, you know, somebody said to me that for something innocuous like a, you know, a form—it is not an actual letter from the President. Usually it was a card or maybe it was some kind of form letter that they just ginned out, you know, send a request over to political affairs and say this person is turning 65 or 80 or 50 or their child is turning 16, can the President send a birthday letter?
Question. Was this always done on a case-by-case basis?
Answer. Well, again, it wasn't up to—as I previously stated, I wasn't the person vetting the request. If somebody thought it was important enough that they came to me, you know, I would send it over. It is up to the White House whether or not they want to fulfill the request. And it was up to some person previous to me as to whether it was worthwhile enough to submit to me to submit to the White House. I was simply being a conduit between departments that had requests and the appropriate place at the White House that would consider whether they wanted to resolve the request.
Question. Did you ever receive requests for a card to go to more than one individual at any one time? And by that I mean, did anybody ever give you a list of people and say, could you please arrange for these people to get birthday cards from the President?
Page 1322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Well, we only—I mean, it is possible. Is there more—I tended to make a request for a birthday card around the time of somebody's birthday. Are you asking did I send over a list of 10,000 people and say, here are the birthdays, fire at will? I don't recall doing that.
Mr. WILSON. I would like to show the witness a memorandum, which it is dated November 29, 1993, and it is to a number of people who are not designated by last names from somebody named Tara.
The WITNESS. I see it.
Mr. WILSON. There is a handwritten note on the bottom of this memo that reads, ''Eric, Pls. see me about the birthday project Ceandra started,'' and ''Thx,'' I believe, ''Martha.''
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. First does the ''Eric'' referred to in this note refer to you?
Answer. I don't know. I would assume so.
Question. Do you recall seeing this particular memorandum?
Answer. I actually do not recall seeing this.
Question. Do you know what the birthday project was?
Answer. I do not.
Question. There is what I believe is a name here in this note. I think it would be pronounced Ceandra, C-E-A-N-D-R-A.
Answer. Correct.
Question. Who is that individual?
Answer. Well, I only know one Ceandra, so I am assuming it is Ceandra Scott, who did work in the chairman's office at the DNC and reported to Martha Phipps. And at the top of the memo it indicates Martha Phipps, so I am assuming.
Page 1323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you recall any discussions about something that was termed ''the birthday project''?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you recall whether you ever sent a list of DNC trustees to the White House?
Answer. If I sent a list of DNC trustees to the White House?
Question. Yes.
Answer. The complete trustee list?
Question. Well, any list. You know, I am not asking for knowledge of a specific list, but do you recall whether you ever sent over a list of trustees, be it inclusive or partial, to the White House?
Mr. BEST. You mean in response to this memorandum——
Mr. WILSON. No.
Mr. BEST.—of 11–29.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. No. In general, do you recall ever submitting a list of trustees, DNC trustees, to the White House for any reason?
Answer. I don't recall that but—I don't recall that.
Question. Do you recall whether there was any discussion among your colleagues in the general time period that this memorandum is dated, and the memorandum is not dated—I will make that clear for the record—it is dated November 29, with no year. There is a fax transmission at the top which indicates that it was faxed from somebody to somebody on November 29, 1993. So, again, I assume this is the time that you were regional finance director at the DNC.
Do you recall whether there were any conversations that either you participated in or you overheard that involved having a list of trustees sent to the White House?
Page 1324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No. And I also would like to add, I can recall that around that time I was in Philadelphia because I was responsible for a fund-raising event with the President in Philadelphia that occurred, I believe, the first week in December 1993, and I was in Philadelphia for about 3 weeks. I mean, I remember coming from Philadelphia to Washington to come home for Thanksgiving and then driving back to Philadelphia. So on 11–29 I would not have even been in Washington.
Question. When you were regional finance director, do you recall whether the White House ever provided the DNC with a list of birthdays?
Answer. I don't recall that.
Question. Speaking of either when you were regional finance director or director of the NMS, did you ever see any list of names that were provided to you or to the DNC by the White House?
Mr. Lu. What types of names?
Mr. BEST. Yes.
Mr. WILSON. Names of individuals, people.
Mr. BEST. For what purpose?
The WITNESS. From the White House back to me?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Correct.
Answer. That's such a vague—it's such a broad question. I mean——
Mr. BEST. Can you elucidate in any way?
Mr. WILSON. I am trying to be very vague, actually. Thus far, I think my understanding is that there have not been lists of any sort passed back and forth between the DNC and the White House that you are aware of.
Page 1325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Now, I should clarify that. I could take that out of your—the realms of when you were in the fund-raising capacity because I have no interest in knowing whether there were names sent back and forth when you were a fund-raiser at the DNC.
But from the time that you were director of National Membership Services, do you recall whether you would get a database or a spread sheet of names from the White House for any purpose? And, you know, to not be so mysterious, my understanding is that a lot of what you were involved in doing was facilitating requests, helping people get things done, and pretty much ad hoc situations where a few people would do one thing or maybe more than a few people, but I am trying to determine whether there was a reason for the White House to send you any list of names of individuals.
The WITNESS. Not that I recall.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Are you familiar with the White House database?
Answer. I am only familiar with it in the sense that I have read about it in the newspaper.
Question. Is your knowledge of the White House database, then, confined exclusively to media reports about its existence?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. Do you know if anybody in your office ever had access to the White House database? And your office being the National Membership Services office.
Answer. I need you to define what the White House database was.
Question. Well, I mean I am asking you that question, in terms of are you familiar with something that was called the ''White House database''?
Answer. As I previously stated, the only information I know about, a broad database referred to a term of art, the White House database, is what I have read in the newspaper.
Page 1326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did either you or any of your employees or colleagues in the NMS have access to any White House computer database?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And what was that?
Answer. In the social secretary's office, there was a—as I understood it, it was their own internal list of people that had attended social secretary events such as a jazz festival for a thousand people on the South Lawn or fireworks on the 4th of July or a private dinner. And there would be occasion to almost exclusively call over to the White House and say, in response to a White House request from a different area, without getting into too many tangents, somebody at the White House would say there is an upcoming event and if you would like to submit a few names, you may do so.
Again, as I previously stated, no guarantee that those people were getting in. Those weren't names submitted for specific slots; it is just we are doing an event, if you would like to submit some names we will consider them in the big list of names.
So in trying to figure out who to submit, I think there was an interest not to keep putting in the same people. It wasn't fair for someone to go three times if someone else hadn't gotten to go to the South Lawn.
In that regard, we might call over and say, here are 10 names but we only get to submit 3, can you help us figure out who has been, because we might think that a person, a DNC supporter, had never been to the White House and later we find out they have been four times because we didn't invite them, the White House, of course, invites them. So we wanted to try to preclude the same people being invited over and over again.
So I might occasionally call over to say, I have a chance to submit a few names as a request in response to—in response to a request from a different department. Can you help me find out if any of these people have been there at all? And they might respond back accordingly.
Page 1327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And who did you call for help of that nature?
Answer. Oh, just staff in the social secretary's office.
Question. Did they ever send you lists of names so that you could check yourself as to whether people had attended or not?
Answer. No. And as a matter of fact, they were pretty clear about the fact that that was not the kind of information that they could ever provide to us.
Question. When you were making requests of that nature, checking to avoid duplication of people who would attend events, did you ever have discussions with people in the social secretary's office or did they ever ask you to send over names of individuals that they could enter into their whatever type of database they were using to help avoid duplication?
Answer. In the social secretary's office?
Question. Yes.
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know if any other DNC officials or colleagues of yours ever would get lists of names from the White House to help facilitate attendance at White House events?
Answer. I wouldn't know.
Question. Do you know if there was any political information, such as whether a DNC—whether a person was a DNC trustee, whether that type of information was contained in the information that the White House kept on computer?
Mr. Lu. Are you referring to the social secretary's computer that he has testified about or any other database?
Mr. WILSON. Any other.
Mr. BEST. Do you know?
Page 1328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. I don't know.
Mr. BEST. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever work with Truman Arnold on providing names of individuals to the White House for events that the White House was hosting?
Answer. I never directly worked with Truman Arnold.
Question. Did he ever work with anybody in the National Membership Services?
Answer. He may have but I am not aware of any.
Mr. WILSON. I will provide the witness with a letter from Al Gore to B.J. Thornberry. If you would take just a moment to read through this letter, please.
The WITNESS. Uh-huh.
Mr. BEST. You understand that this letter was written after this witness left the Democratic National Committee?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
The WITNESS. Okay. I see the document.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Bearing in mind that this letter did go to the DNC after you had left, do you know of any discussions during your tenure as director of NMS about a database kept by the Vice President?
Answer. No.
Question. Were you aware that such a database existed?
Answer. I was not aware of it until you presented this piece of paper to me.
Mr. BEST. This is almost a year after this witness has left the Democratic National Committee.
Page 1329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. In arranging activities for DNC members, did you have any contact with Ann Stock?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you recall what her position was?
Answer. She is—was, as I understand it still is, White House social secretary.
Question. Why did you interact with Ms. Stock?
Answer. Because she, as White House social secretary, was responsible for the planning of practically all the events at the White House.
Question. Was her authority more or less over all of White House events or did she have an area of concentration or expertise?
Answer. Well, I am sorry, it would be difficult. You would have to talk to Ann Stock about what her responsibilities are. I just know her as the White House social secretary.
Question. Did you have any contacts with Ricki Seidman——
Answer. No.
Question [continuing]. When you were at NMS?
Answer. No. I am familiar with her name. I did not have any direct contact with Ricki.
Question. Do you know if any of your colleagues in NMS contacted or worked with her at any time during your time at NMS?
Answer. What was her role? I don't know.
Question. Okay. Do you know—do you know who Mike Lufanio is?
Page 1330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. And who is he?
Answer. There was a period of time, I believe, that Mike Lufanio was either—he was a senior official in the Office of White House Advance.
Question. And did you have any reason to contact him when you were at NMS?
Answer. Well, I don't recall. I mean, I—I knew Mike outside of my role as director and so I may have had contact with him, but I don't specifically recall if there was a reason why professionally I may have contacted him.
Question. Do you know whether or not he had any role in arranging for people to fly on Air Force One or Air Force Two?
Answer. I don't know. I certainly didn't have any kinds of conversations with him like that.
Question. At the time you were director of NMS, did you have any conversations with Alexis Herman?
Answer. Not—not directly.
Question. Did you have any—did you relay requests to her indirectly?
Answer. No. But she was in charge of the Office of Public Liaison, which is, as I previously stated, was an office I did have contact with. So, you know, my requests would be sent to the Office of Public Liaison for which he was—whatever her title was, director, but I did not have direct conversations—she didn't call me; I didn't call her. I didn't bump into her in the hallway and stop and, you know, have a conversation with her about anything.
Question. What does the Office of Public Liaison at the White House do?
Page 1331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I don't—you would have to ask them specifically. Generally, they handle outreach to the various constituent groups.
Question. Did you have any contacts, at the time you were director of NMS, with Patsy– Thomasson?
Answer. I was introduced to Patsy. I specifically recall it was just at a meeting and she was there, and I was introduced to her. And I never had any kind of direct——
Mr. BEST. The extent of your contact with her was this introduction?
The WITNESS. It was.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall whether any of your colleagues at NMS had any contacts with Patsy– Thomasson?
Answer. I don't recall. Certainly it is possible but I don't recall that.
Question. Earlier you mentioned the name David Levy. I believe I recall that you mentioned it in connection with radio addresses.
Answer. Correct.
Question. Did you contact him on any other matters while you were director of NMS?
Answer. Well, I would like to restate something I said earlier, which is I don't recall that. He was in the Office of Communications. It is possible that I perhaps contacted him on something else that fell into the purview of the Office of Communications just because he was a contact that I knew would take my call. We had a friendly relationship. So it is possible I may have contacted him on something else. I don't specifically——
Question. I may have misspoke. I didn't mean to put words into your mouth and I may not recall correctly. So I wasn't trying to characterize what you said about David Levy. I just remember you brought the name up before.
Page 1332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Sure.
Question. What was his position?
Answer. Well, I don't know his specific title but he did work in the—and I am not even certain of the exact title of the office but it was basically the communications office. And, you know, we had common interests so we would strike up conversations every once in awhile about things totally unrelated to work. So it is possible that I may have contacted him on something else, but I don't recall specifically any reason to contact him professionally for anything other than to submit those radio address requests.
Question. At the time you were director of NMS, did you have any conversations with Jack Quinn?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And what did you discuss with Mr. Quinn?
Answer. In that sense, I definitely don't specifically recall.
Question. And do you recall why you contacted Mr. Quinn?
Answer. Well, he had a variety of responsibilities during his tenure at the White House, including responsibility, I believe, as chief of staff for the Vice President and, again, you know, in 19—oh, you asked as director of Membership Services.
Question. Just director of Membership Services?
Answer. It is hard for me to separate the time lines. You know, I have—you know, I have—I don't recall. It is possible.
Mr. BEST. That's fine.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know who Marge Tarmey is?
Answer. No.
Question. At the time that you were director of NMS, did you have any conversations with Maggie Williams?
Page 1333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Yes.
Question. And do you recall the subject matter of any of these conversations?
Answer. I do.
Question. Could you please recount any of the conversations you do recall, of the conversations you do recall?
Answer. The only conversation that I do recall, not that I specifically recall the content of the conversation, but I remember Maggie attending a meeting, one of the final meetings, of the White House Christmas Card Project, as I refer to it, and I think something may have come up in that conversation.
Question. Do you recall what you discussed?
Answer. I really don't. I mean, again, it—it couldn't have been very substantive and it was at least 3 or 4 years ago.
Question. To the best of your recollection when you were director of NMS, was that the one conversation you had with Ms. Williams?
Answer. That was actually the only time I believe that she and I attended any kind of meeting or—yes, that's correct.
Question. Do you know Jodie Torkelson?
Answer. I know the name.
Question. Do you recall having specific conversations with Ms. Torkelson?
Answer. I don't recall having any conversations with her.
Question. As director of NMS, did you have conversations with Nancy Hernreich?
Answer. Yes.
Page 1334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And what did you discuss with Nancy Hernreich?
Answer. I probably discussed a variety of things. She was in the President's personal office.
I remember there was one DNC supporter in particular who had golfed with the President once, and during the course of their outing this particular supporter said to the President, I really would love to have you come to my club once and play golf, and the President said, I would love to do that, and I recall specifically this supporter contacting me and said the President said it, he said it himself, could you please call over and see if he would like to come and play golf with me at my club. And I remember having that conversation with her.
I am certain I reached out to her on other times, you know, to say that I had sent a photo over to the political affairs office but it really would be great if the President could personally sign it, and I know they would be getting in touch with her, those kinds of things; real small things to try to be responsive to people's requests.
Question. Aside from the sort of back and forth of responding to a particular request, do you recall whether she ever contacted you to ask anything—to ask you to do anything?
Answer. Well, she may have had. I wouldn't preclude that. But I don't have a specific recollection.
Question. Do you know Doug Sosnik?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you, at the time you were director of NMS, have conversations with Doug Sosnik?
Answer. Well, I am sure I did. Again, I don't—I don't recall what we may have talked about. You know, these are people who may be at meetings that I am at. You know, I just——
Page 1335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEST. You don't have to explain.
The WITNESS. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. BEST. Just answer his question.
The WITNESS. Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall any specific requests Mr. Sosnik might have made of you during the time that you were director of NMS?
Answer. I don't specifically recall requests that he may or may not have made.
Question. Do you recall whether Karen Hancox ever called you and asked you to do something?
Answer. I can't imagine that she would have called me to ask me to do something for her.
Question. Do you have any recollection of specific requests that you made of her?
Answer. Well, Karen was—I need to clarify this. Karen was a name who I was told I should send memos to if I was sending a memo to the Office of Political Affairs. So Karen and Doug Sosnik as well would often be names on my ''to'' line on a memo. It doesn't necessarily mean I was really requesting anything of Karen or Doug. I was just told formally, if you are sending a request to the Office of Political Affairs, send it to Karen or Doug. It would go to a staff person. Whether it ever made it up the food chain to those folks, if they ever saw my memos, I don't know.
Question. What type of memoranda would you send over to the White House Office of Political Affairs?
Answer. These are all the kinds of things we have discussed, somebody would like to get a birthday card for their 80-year-old mother. Somebody would like, you know, to—whatever, attend—I know, go to the President's box at the Kennedy Center. All of those kinds of requests I would submit to the Office of Political Affairs for them to decide how to appropriately disseminate and handle the requests or not handle the requests in the White House. Once it got sent to Political Affairs, they did whatever they did and they would provide the answer.
Page 1336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
So I would send these memos of all different kinds of nature to Karen or Doug. I just want to be clear about that in case you have a series of memos with my name on it to Karen or Doug that, you know, I probably talked to Karen Hancox half a dozen times in my whole life. But I have probably sent several memos to her. I just want to clarify that.
Question. Where else would you send written memoranda in the White House, if anywhere?
Answer. Memos could have gone to Debi Schiff who, as we talked about, was in charge of Kennedy Center tickets. It could have gone to the photo office where sometimes the photos that we were seeking could be found and purchased by the DNC, just as any outside person could call the White House and say, I was at an event. Can I have a photo? Sure, $8.80. That was my responsibility to go to the photo office and perhaps look for a photo for someone, and perhaps send a memo along with it. Maybe someone in the Office of Political Affairs, public liaison, you know, we have talked about Ann Stock and the social office, because I submit names for events. Mostly there was a lot of hierarchy just as anywhere in the work world, there is a lot of—I might have to put names on memos because I was told you need to make sure this person gets copied and this person gets copied, but it is not like I was dropping off that memo to all of their services. I would send one memo over to one contact at the White House. However they disseminated it, it was up to them.
Mr. WILSON. If we could go off the record for a moment.
Mr. BEST. Yes.
[Off the record.]
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the deposition recessed to reconvene at 1:45 p.m. this same day.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know whether regular meetings were held at the White House to discuss invitation lists?
Page 1337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I need you to be more specific regarding invitations.
Question. To discuss any type of list of names that would be invited—to people who would be invited to attend events at the White House.
Answer. Yes.
Question. And did you attend such meetings?
Answer. Occasionally.
Question. Where were such meetings held?
Answer. They were either held in a room in the Old Executive Office Building or they were held in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing.
Question. What types of events were discussed?
Answer. Upcoming dinners, events on the South Lawn, events like that.
Question. Were there ever spaces allocated for different types of attendees at such dinners?
Answer. There were spaces allocated for the number of names we could submit to attend such events, but I don't know if the White House allocated a certain number of spaces.
Question. Were there different numbers allocated for different—for official events as opposed to private events?
Answer. No, the difference in any kind of allocation number would be, you know, the location of the event. A South Lawn event obviously could accommodate more people than a—than a dinner in an interior room could accommodate.
Question. Were bill-signing ceremonies discussed during these meetings?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you know whether the DNC used the Indian Treaty Room for any purpose?
Page 1338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I believe that they did.
Question. And do you know for what purpose?
Answer. I don't, but the Indian Treaty Room was used by all kinds of groups for, you know, receptions, and I'm sure the DNC—I recall the DNC, you know, hearing about the fact that the DNC was going to do events there, but I don't know specifically what the events were.
Question. Do you know whether the DNC had an auto pen for the President's signature?
Answer. At the DNC?
Question. Yes.
Answer. Not that I'm aware of. I would say no.
Mr. BEST. Do you know? Do you know whether they had the pen?
The WITNESS. I can't say with certainty, but I don't believe that there was such an auto pen.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you or your colleagues at NMS ever draft letters to be signed by an auto pen with the President's signature?
Answer. No.
Question. Did the National Membership Services' office ever handle letter requests to go out to individuals, series of letters that would be sent to a group, a number of people at one time?
Answer. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Question. Did your office ever have letters go out over the President's signature?
Answer. No.
Page 1339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did your office ever generate any letter that was signed either by the President or the auto pen using the President's signature?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of.
Question. Did your office ever draft notes that ultimately would be sent out over the President's name?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. I ask this because my understanding is, there are many pieces of correspondence and they aren't necessarily drafted always by the same person who signs them; and I'm just trying to get a sense of whether there was anything that went out of your office that ultimately—a form letter of any sort that would be signed by the President.
Answer. I—not that I'm aware of. Again, I appreciate that, but not that I'm aware of.
Question. Are you aware of your office procuring gifts of any sort for DNC supporters?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What types of gifts would your office get for supporters?
Answer. Well, actually, we initially, in '94 in the initial stages of the program, helped try to obtain items that the DNC was paying for that the White House was giving out as gifts, a business card holder, presidential cuff links. Events like—or gifts like that.
And there was a feeling that if the DNC was paying for these items, maybe we could try to get some items too. But I didn't actually—so perhaps a modification of the previous question, I didn't actually procure these items. I didn't actually purchase the items, but initially, when the DNC kind of got into this business of having to pay for these items, some of those items ended up in my shop.
Page 1340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And——
Answer. That actually stopped, though, pretty quickly. Somebody else—it wound up being that the Chief of Staff had responsibility, or the Chief of Staff's office at the DNC had responsibility for procuring, obtaining, holding those items.
Question. And when did the change occur?
Answer. Well, I don't specifically recall, but sometime in '94.
Question. How would you determine who received one of these types of gifts?
Answer. Well, again, that was—that was part of the reason why we wound up not having responsibility for that for very long because it—it really wasn't something appropriate for us to decide who should or should not have gifts, because we didn't really have relationships with any of these people.
You know, the reason I initially got involved in it was because they saw me as someone who would try to help, you know, resolve the situation. And I—somehow it just ended up on my desk.
It was just basically assigned to me, you will get the gifts. Okay, fine, I'll get the gifts. Not purchase, but when they arrive, we are going to give you some of the gifts.
So when they arrived, they were put in my office and, well, I didn't know what to do with them. And meanwhile everybody else wanted to have their hands on the cuff links and the other gifts, so they were pretty quickly taken from our shop, not because we had done anything wrong, just there was no real reason for us to have them.
Question. When you did have control of the gifts, did people ever make requests of you on the forms that you sent around to the various offices, the request forms that the offices had to give something to somebody or send something to somebody?
Page 1341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No, not that I recall. I mean, they may have, but it wouldn't have been my responsibility to provide it, again, to the supporter out there. So somebody came down and said, gee, I'd like to have one of those pens with Bill Clinton's signature on the pen. It was—that's why they had been given to me and stuck in my drawer. It's not like it was a candy jar where people could come take them, but there were very limited numbers and they were there. And I wasn't the person reordering them, and I wasn't restocking them. It really was not something that was around for very long.
Question. Do you recall at the time you were Director of NMS whether you actually did directly give one of these types of gifts to somebody who wasn't a DNC employee?
Answer. Yes. I don't specifically recall, but—who, but, yeah, you know, there was a drawer full of these, and I'm sure, you know, they were——
Question. Do you recall how you got the gift to the recipient?
Answer. I don't.
Question. Did you ever help arrange for DNC supporters to watch sporting events in the White House residence?
Answer. No.
Mr. BEST. I take it you're referring to televised sporting events. Or actual boxing matches at the White House?
Mr. WILSON. I was being very general, not aware of any boxing matches at the White House. I would have been interested in the response if there was such an event.
The WITNESS. I do want to be clear that there are sports teams that come to the White House.
That's not what you're talking about? You're talking about watching an event that's on TV at the White House?
Page 1342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
The WITNESS. No.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. You had mentioned earlier that you attended on occasion the daily scheduling meetings for the President. Did any other DNC employees go with you to attend these meetings?
Answer. Yes, initially Jay Dunn went with me and then later, after Jay had left the program, and Brooke was—Brooke Stroud, who I previously mentioned, became the Deputy, she would attend those meetings.
Question. After attending such meetings, did you serve as a liaison to other offices within the DNC to communicate information to them about the President's schedule?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How did that work?
Answer. Well, sometimes verbally I would say—you know, pass on information I had learned. Sometimes maybe I'd send a memo to department heads and say, this is what we've—you know, this is what we've learned in the meeting, whatever the appropriate information was.
Question. Did you have a usual practice?
Answer. Well, I know that I tried to forward schedules on to people as schedules were made available for us, all internal, not to be distributed outside the DNC. But sometimes it would just be verbal or there actually wouldn't be a printed schedule.
Question. Was there a distinction between the official and private schedules for the President when you attended the meetings that you attended?
Answer. Well, the only schedules that I saw were the ones that they were willing to also let the Office of Public Liaison and the DNC and other offices know. So I never—I don't know the term of art, ''private schedule,'' I don't know how that is necessarily defined. But I would not be given information about, you know, certain private meetings that the President might be having. During certain blocks there would just be something like private time or down time in some of the schedules, as I recall.
Page 1343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Were you ever the DNC liaison for official overseas delegation trips by senior administration officials?
Answer. Just, it's been so long, it's just—I don't remember a specific trip where I may have been.
Question. Do you recall whether people contacted you and told you that there was a trip, an upcoming trip about to occur, and asked for any input as to whether you had any suggestions for people to go on the trip?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And on what occasions; do you recall?
Answer. Well, I do recall specifically there was a gentleman named Howard Glicken who wanted to go on a trip to South America, and he was—you know, he had contacted the DNC several times and was trying to also deal with the White House. And I think he was looking for every possible open door that he could find to help try to move his name along.
Question. Did he contact you directly?
Answer. Howard did, because I knew Howard from my previous role at DNC. Others generally were supposed to contact a relevant department within the DNC, because again I didn't know many of these people, these names, so they wouldn't have known me to call me; but had they called me, I wouldn't have known who they were.
And again, I wasn't the final decision-maker on that. I might forward information along, I've been contacted by someone, he's interested.
Question. Do you recall other people that you were contacted by in relationship to trips?
Answer. Well, he's the only one I specifically recall.
Question. Do you recall whether you were ever contacted by Ernest Green in relation to a trip?
Page 1344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Do you recall whether anybody mentioned to you Mr. Green's interest in being part of an official delegation on an overseas trip?
Answer. Again, I don't recall that right now.
Question. Do you know if any DNC employees went on official delegation trips abroad?
Answer. What do you determine an official delegation trip?
Question. Well, any——
Answer. Paid for by the administration?
Question. Paid-for-by-the-administration trip?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of.
Question. Do you know of any DNC employees accompanying officials who were going overseas to perform some type of government function, attend an event, attend a funeral, attend a meeting or a conference or that sort of thing?
Mr. Lu. When you say ''DNC official,'' would you include Chairman Dodd as a DNC official?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
Mr. Lu. Okay.
The WITNESS. Well, I still don't—the answer is no, even including the Chairman. He kept his own schedule; I wasn't aware of it, and at this point, I don't remember the trips that the Chairman may have taken a few years ago.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Have you ever met Mark Middleton?
Answer. Yes.
Question. When did you first meet Mr. Middleton?
Page 1345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I vaguely remember in 1993, perhaps maybe '94. Sometime in the first year that I was at the DNC, a year or two, so I would say probably 1993—probably.
Question. Did you ever work with him on any project?
Answer. I may have. I may have, but I don't specifically—I can't recollect a specific project that I might have been working with him on.
Mr. BEST. I'm not quite sure I understand what a ''project'' is as you have used the term. Trying to get someone a seat on a tour might be a project as you have defined it.
Mr. WILSON. I was going to follow up and ask whether——
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. And my understanding is, Mr. Middleton was a White House employee at the time you were the Regional Finance Director?
Answer. Right.
Question. And so did Mr. Middleton ever make requests for you to do anything on his behalf?
Answer. Really not that I recall.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Middleton was affiliated with the DNC in 1996?
Answer. I didn't work at the DNC in 1996, so I don't know.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Middleton assisted in organizing any fund-raising events for the DNC?
Answer. I'm not aware of him doing that.
Question. Are you aware of whether Mr. Middleton hosted any fund-raising events on behalf of the DNC?
Page 1346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I'm not aware of Mark Middleton hosting any events.
Question. Do you recall whether Mr. Middleton ever contacted you to arrange tours of the White House?
Answer. No, he did not contact me to arrange tours. And as I stated before, when we went kind of down this line of questioning regarding the President's box at Kennedy Center, he had worked in the Chief of Staff's office at the White House. So if you are asking about the period while he wasn't at the White House, he wouldn't come to me—because he worked at White House—looking for a White House tour. He wouldn't have called the DNC. And he never came to me after he left the White House, and I'm assuming because he knew dozens and dozens of people at the White House, including his former boss, Mack McLarty, whom he could have called.
Question. Do you know whether he contacted any of your colleagues at NMS after he left the White House to help arrange for tours or, well, to help arrange for White House tours?
Answer. I don't know if he contacted any of my colleagues. I do know he did not contact me.
Question. Do you know who Holli Weymouth is?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know if Yusuf Khapra ever contacted you to arrange tours of the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. You know that he did not contact you to arrange tours?
Answer. Yeah, Yusuf didn't contact me to arrange tours. He only—my knowledge of Yusuf was in his role when he worked for the Chief of Staff.
So, again, just as I previously answered with Mr. Middleton, I don't know why someone from the White House would contact someone from the DNC to get a tour of the White House. And those people were all capable of giving—you know, they all had hard passes, and they could conduct a tour themselves. So I don't know why they would call me, with limited White House tickets and no White House access, to give a tour.
Page 1347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Did Mr. Khapra ever contact you for any other reason?
Answer. He was a staff person in the Chief of Staff's office who I occasionally had conversations with. But I don't remember if he called me or I called him and I certainly don't recall any kind of specific conversation with him.
Question. Why did you have conversations with Mr. Khapra?
Answer. I know this is going to sound crazy, but I don't know why I had conversations with him. He was a White House staff person that I had come in contact with, so—but I don't recall the specifics of our conversations that occurred more than a couple of years ago.
Question. Do you recall anyone making a request of either you or your office to make arrangements for a White House tour for the Widjaja family in 1995?
Answer. When in 1995?
Question. Late, late in the year.
Mr. BEST. He left in September.
The WITNESS. Well, I left the DNC in September of 1995.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Again, I will ask you—I'm not certain of the time myself—do you recall anybody making a request of your office to arrange for a tour of the White House for the Widjaja family?
Answer. No. And again tours, even though they were officially under my jurisdiction, I just—whenever a tour request came in, I would provide it to my staff person who was responsible for all aspects of tours. I didn't feel like I needed to check with her to find out who she was providing White House tickets to.
Question. Are you aware any of member of the Widjaja family contacting any DNC employee?
Page 1348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I'm not. And I also have to tell you, I've never heard the name before until you mentioned it about two questions ago.
Question. That helps, and I'll move on.
Answer. Sure.
Question. Do you know Charlie Trie?
Answer. I've never met him. I am aware of Charlie Trie, but I became aware of Charlie Trie just in name only.
Question. Have you ever spoken with Mr. Trie?
Answer. No.
Question. Are you aware of any of your colleagues at the NMS being in contact with Mr. Trie?
Answer. I am not aware of any of my colleagues—in the National Membership Services program dealing directly with him. Again, it is possible, as we talked about earlier, but I—I—you know, my staff had their own conversations that I wasn't fully briefed on, but I'm certainly not aware of it.
Question. Are you aware of any White House tours that were arranged for Mr. Trie or on behalf of Mr. Trie?
Answer. No.
Question. Are you aware of any occasions in which it was arranged for Mr. Trie to have lunch at the White House mess?
Answer. No.
Question. Are you aware of any occasion on which Mr. Trie used the President's box at the Kennedy Center?
Answer. No.
Mr. WILSON. I'm showing the witness a memorandum to Debi Schiff and Donald Dunn for Mr. Sildon.
Page 1349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Does this—do you remember drafting this memorandum?
Answer. Well, I don't remember it, but that's certainly a form that I used, and I'm—I will tell you, I'm confident I wrote that, but I would like to comment on it if I can.
The White House asked me, whenever someone used the President's box, to report back to them the name. In other words, the White House might call and say, we have two tickets for tomorrow night's performance; would you like them? And I would then go to different departments at the DNC, maybe the Chairman's office or Political or Finance, and say, listen, we've got two tickets, and if somebody can use them, let me know. And then somebody might come back to my office or call me on the inside line and say, okay, we can use them.
Let's take, for example, Political would say, yep, we can use the two tickets; and I'd say, great, and I'd get the two tickets and I'd provide them to the person in Political Affairs, DNC Political Affairs. And when I handed them the tickets, I would say, here are the tickets, here is the information on the show, but you need to provide back to me the name of the person who's using the tickets; and they would say, fine, and then after the fact, or on the day of the fact or whatever, they would say, okay, this is the name of the person we've given the tickets to.
So, I do see this, I did write this memo, I'm confident I did because it's that, but I didn't do anything other than provide two tickets to a staff person at the DNC, who did their job and reported back to me the name of the person who used the tickets.
Mr. BEST. When, in September of 1995, did you leave the DNC?
The WITNESS. And I left right around that date. I actually was hired sometime in mid- to late-September, and I don't recall the exact date; but I think it was around the 20th of September that I was hired by the Democratic Governors Association, and I actually started working there the next week.
Page 1350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEST. So the record is clear, the memorandum which is EOP 051237 is dated September 15th, 1995.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. When you received indication that there were tickets for an event, did you have a usual method of letting other people in the DNC know that you had those tickets?
Answer. Yeah, I'd send out a memo or an e-mail. I might e-mail department heads and say, I've been contacted by the White House, and I have two tickets for—using this example, two tickets for tomorrow night's performance of something, of the National Symphony Orchestra; if you would like the tickets, if you can use the tickets, please contact me.
Question. And how did you decide who would end up getting the tickets?
Answer. Well, it was always first come, first served. If somebody raced down and said, we definitely have somebody who wants them, I'd say, that's great, here are the tickets; or I'll get the tickets sent over, and I'll get them to you.
Question. Did Susan Lavine ever discuss with you being on the permanent admit list to Charlie Trie's Watergate apartment?
Answer. No.
Question. Were you aware during the time that you were Director of NMS that she was on the permanent admit list to Mr. Trie's Watergate apartment?
Answer. No, I was not while I was Director. And, in fact, I will tell you, I did not know that until you just told me that. Nor did I even know Charlie Trie had a corporate apartment at—where did you say, the Watergate Hotel?
Question. Watergate.
Answer. I was not aware of that until just this moment.
Page 1351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Do you know Pauline Kanchanalak?
Answer. I have met her before.
Question. Where did you meet her?
Answer. I met her at—I don't recall the exact—the specific function, but I know I met her while I was fund-raising for the DNC.
Question. Did you ever have any conversations with her when you were the Director of the National Membership Services?
Answer. I may have. I—I don't recall specifically whether I did or not.
Question. Did you ever arrange introductions for Ms. Kanchanalak to meet administration officials?
Answer. Again, not that I recall specifically. I don't believe that I made a phone call on her behalf. I really didn't know—I mean, I met her, but I didn't really know her.
Question. Do you have any general recollections of requests made by Ms. Kanchanalak to meet with administration officials?
Answer. Can I have a moment?
Question. Sure.
[Witness confers with counsel.]
The WITNESS. I don't recall.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did Ms. Kanchanalak ever ask you to assist her in any way?
Answer. No, the only time I spoke to her, again, was just at some event prior to my days before National Membership Services.
Page 1352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. Providing the witness with a document. It appears to be a memorandum to Mr. Sildon from Luren Supina. If you would take a moment and review the document.
The WITNESS. Okay. I see this document.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall Ms. Kanchanalak's name coming up in relationship to the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Answer. I see it here. It does not refresh my recollection.
I also will indicate that despite the fact that Luren Supina says in her memorandum that Pauline Kanchanalak mentioned that she's working with me, if you'll notice, the handwritten notes down below indicate that I was not speaking with Pauline; I was speaking with someone on her staff who never sent a request over in writing and, therefore, I never provided it.
On September 9th, I indicated if she wanted me to try to do anything, she would need to send it over in writing; and on the 15th, I called to say we discussed this a week ago and I don't have any written information. The assistant indicated that he wasn't going to put the request on paper, and I indicated that I'm not proceeding ahead with it. And I do see it here, but I don't recall it.
Question. Do you know whose handwriting this is?
Mr. BEST. Where?
The WITNESS. Where?
Mr. WILSON. On the document.
The WITNESS. The handwriting below the line and, for sure, the handwriting where it says ''9/8'' is mine.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know, I'll work from the top of the document down. There's a telephone number written right next to Ms. Kanchanalak's name on the ''re:'' line. Do you know whose handwriting that is?
Page 1353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I know this may sound interesting, but it may be my handwriting, but I'm really not certain. It looks like it has the potential it could be mine, but it looks like either I was writing quick or somebody else wrote that. That doesn't really look like my handwriting.
But from ''9/8'' down, I would say that's probably my handwriting and certain—''9/9'' and ''9/15,'' that is certainly my handwriting. But again, even though I see it here, it doesn't refresh my memory.
Question. Do you recall whether you made any contacts with other DNC employees about this general subject matter?
Answer. You mean this specific request?
Question. The mention in the memo, yes.
Answer. I mean, I may have discussed it with Luren Supina who sent the memorandum to me.
Mr. BEST. Do you have a recollection of that?
The WITNESS. But I don't recall that.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. What was Ms. Supina's position at the time the memo was drafted?
Answer. Luren was the director of a program that was called something to the effect of the Women's Leadership Forum; they changed names during the course of that period of time that I was Director of National Membership Services, but she was essentially—that's a donor council within the DNC, and she was—she had gotten it up and running and was its Director, or whatever the title may be, but she ran the council.
Question. Do you know why she would have directed this memo to your attention?
Page 1354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Again, because as Director of National Membership Services, I think she was hoping that I could—I don't know why she——
Mr. BEST. Do you know?
The WITNESS. No, I don't know why she sent me the memo.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall having any conversations with any employees of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1994?
Answer. No.
Question. Were you aware at the time that Ms. Kanchanalak expressed an interest in being invited to a lunch at which the Queen of Thailand was also in attendance?
Answer. I have a vague recollection of that.
Question. Did Ms. Kanchanalak contact you directly about this event?
Answer. I don't believe she did.
Question. Do you recall whether she contacted anybody else in your office about the Queen of Thailand lunch?
Answer. I really don't recall. I just don't recall.
Question. Do you know whether you ever helped to arrange for Ms. Kanchanalak to meet with any administration officials at the time you were Director of Membership Services?
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. Do you recall whether you helped Ms. Kanchanalak to meet with any administration officials at the time that you were Regional Finance Director?
Answer. No, I would not have done that.
Page 1355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Were you aware at the time that you were Director of NMS that Ms. Kanchanalak was a financial contributor to the DNC?
Answer. Yes, I knew that she was a contributor.
Question. Did you know whether or not she was—she herself was making contributions to the DNC?
Answer. I did not know the source of the contribution.
Question. Was it your understanding at the time that she was making—she was, herself, making contributions to the DNC?
Answer. Well, it's not something that I ever would have thought about. You know, some people are members of our Donor Council because they raise a lot of money and they never write a check themselves. So I don't look at people and figure out, who is a raiser and who is a writer; they're a member of the Donor Council. I had no reason to assume that either she did write checks or she didn't write checks, or that she raised—it just wasn't a factor, and particularly when I was a Director of National Membership Services, I didn't care about the money. I just wasn't focused on that.
Question. Do you know John Huang?
Answer. I have met John Huang. But I met John Huang after I left the DNC.
Question. When did you meet Mr. Huang?
Answer. When I was working for the Democratic Governors Association in 1996.
Question. Did you at any time speak to Mr. Huang when you were the Director of NMS?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Are you aware of any arrangements made by any of your colleagues at NMS on behalf of Mr. Huang?
Page 1356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I—I'm not aware of it, no.
Question. Do you know whether any of your colleagues at NMS spoke directly with Mr. Huang?
Answer. I can't—I can't speculate on what my colleagues at NMS did, whether or not they talked to him.
Question. But you have no recollection or knowledge of whether they did or did not?
Answer. That's correct.
Mr. BEST. You understand that Mr. Huang did not become an employee of the DNC until after the witness left the DNC, and so you may be asking him about conversations, if any, that took place after his employment at the DNC?
Mr. WILSON. Right. I do understand that.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Are you aware of either your colleagues or anybody at the DNC making any arrangements on behalf of Mr. Huang to visit the White House or meet with anybody at the White House?
Answer. No, I'm not aware.
Question. Are you aware of any requests made either to yourself or colleagues at the NMS on behalf of the Riady family?
Answer. No.
Question. Specifically are you aware of any requests made on behalf of James Riady?
Answer. No.
Question. Are you aware of any requests to either visit the White House or meet with any government official on behalf of Mr. Mochtar Riady?
Page 1357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. Do you have any knowledge of whether anyone suggested that the Riady family be invited or any members of the Riady family be invited to the White House?
Answer. Can you read the question again?
[The reporter read back as requested.]
The WITNESS. No.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know what the TRULIST was, spelled T-R-U-L-I-S-T?
Answer. No.
Mr. WILSON. I'm providing the witness with a document that is titled at the top DNC Finance Executive Summary dated 7/26/94. And the record can reflect, this does not indicate that Mr. Sildon's name appears at all on this document.
There is a handwritten notation at the bottom deleted from TRULIST, 7/26/94.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Does this provide any additional assistance to your being able to recall what the TRULIST is?
Answer. It doesn't. I don't recognize that at all. And again, I was not a member of the Finance staff in July of '94, so it could be something that was—that they were aware of. I'm not. I don't know what that is.
Question. Do you know why Mr. Huang was invited to attend the state ceremony for the arrival of Boris Yeltsin in 1994?
Answer. No, I really don't.
Page 1358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. I'm providing the witness with a document that's a memorandum to State Arrival Coordinating Committee from Mr. Sildon, and it lists Mr. Huang as an individual who did not pick up tickets for the state arrival ceremony for Boris Yeltsin.
Mr. BEST. So the record's entirely clear, Mr. Huang's name is one among something like 50 names on a list on this document, which is F 0013666.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall receiving a list of potential invitees to the state arrival ceremony for Boris Yeltsin?
Answer. Well, I need to explain how this works, and I think this is important to do.
The White House would invite literally somewhere between 6- and 10,000 people to the South Lawn to watch an arrival ceremony, including members of the public, but you actually had to have a ticket to get onto the grounds.
As the Director of Membership Service, I was the one responsible for sending a memo to all departments at the DNC saying, we have X number of tickets, which usually was 300 or more, to be among the 6-, 8-, 10,000 people on the South Lawn to attend an arrival ceremony. It's not like you're up close; you're just on the lawn.
And I would offer to all department heads the opportunity to provide me with some certain amount of names, and usually it was divided evenly; Political could have 50 names and Finance could have 50 names and the Chairman's office; and everybody could have whatever the appropriate number was, and all they had to do was simply give me a name, date of birth and Social Security number. And I provide that to the White House, and they do their own background check with the Secret Service to make sure that the person could get on the lawn which they would fill out with the person's name. So I get a list back for Robert Clay, Joan Coplan, Elizabeth Dozoretz and Paul Equale—I would get a list with 300 names on it, and then people could come over to the DNC and collect their ticket.
Page 1359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
I simply have sent this memo to the State Arrival Coordinating Committee. All those names in the upper right are people who are heads of departments at the DNC so you can see it went to literally like 10 or 12 different departments at the DNC saying—I don't even know who gave me these names; I am going to tell you, all the names didn't get their tickets, so if you happen to recognize their names, you can do whatever you need to do, but we have a ticket downstairs in the lobby, approved by the Secret Service that they are not a security risk, that they can be one of 6-, 8-, 10,000 people on the South Lawn. That's what this memo is.
So I see here that John Huang's name's on there, but as my counsel pointed out, he is one of 50 names. Don Fowler, before he was Chairman of the committee, is one of the people whose name's on here. I didn't even know Don Fowler in 1994. He was some gentleman from South Carolina, and I didn't pick up his ticket. I didn't know how to get in touch with Don Fowler.
I appreciate that John Huang's name's on this memo, but that is because I'm going through a list and seeing it on a list and going through the memo.
Mr. BEST. Half of humanity is on this list.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. What was the State Arrival Coordinating Committee?
Answer. That's just a name made up for the people in the DNC for who is going to be the liaison from Communications and from Political Affairs, and then the state chairs, and——
Question. You mentioned earlier that you might have as many as 300 tickets to allocate. Would you send over a list to the White House of all of the DNC invitees?
Answer. Yes, because the White House had to run—as I previously stated, the White House had to run that list through Secret Service, checking out their date—I had to provide to the White House their name, date of birth and Social Security of the people that we wanted to have fill those slots; and this was really one of the only times where the White House would say you get this many slots and that many people can go.
Page 1360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
We previously talked about dinners. It's not that I had a slot for a dinner; they'd just say, provide a name and we'll see whether they fit in. But for arrival ceremonies, when Boy Scouts would come and out-of-town guests would come, they said, look, we are going to print 6,000 tickets and you can have 300 of them.
Question. Did the White House ever reject any of the suggestions that you sent over to them?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. BEST. Is there a difference between rejecting and not giving a ticket to?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Yes, I'm specifically asking, did you ever get an indication, call, memorandum back saying, you have indicated that you want so-and-so invited, and we do not want that person invited?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Did you generally prepare a memorandum indicating who had not picked up tickets for large events that had multiple tickets to be given out to people?
Answer. Well, I actually think that I stopped doing the memorandum because, as you can see, a fourth of the list doesn't pick up their tickets, you know. And so after a while, people didn't really care.
They wanted to offer someone—people in the DNC didn't care if someone did or didn't pick up their ticket. If they offered a ticket to Joe Smith, as far as the person in the Office of Political Affairs of the DNC's concerned, that's good enough. They've offered Joe the ticket. If Joe doesn't pick it up, Joe doesn't pick it up, but he had a chance to go.
So I stopped writing these memos because nobody cared about the information. It wound up being a waste of my time.
Page 1361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. I'll mark this document as Exhibit ES–1 and submit that for inclusion in the record.
[Sildon Deposition Exhibit No. ES–1 was marked for identification.]
[Note.—All exhibits referred to can be found at end of deposition.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know Mr. Johnny Chung?
Answer. I do.
Question. Where did you first meet Mr. Chung?
Answer. He was introduced to me at some point by someone on the finance staff. I met him after I became director of National Membership Services.
Question. Did you meet him on more than one occasion?
Answer. After I initially met him, I did see him on other occasions.
Question. Approximately how many times would you have met him?
Answer. He would just show up at the DNC, so I would say probably half a dozen times, give or take one or two. But, you know, approximately half a dozen times.
Question. Did Mr. Chung ever telephone you?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Approximately how many times did he call you?
Answer. I couldn't recall with certainty, but approximately the same number of times.
Question. And why did he call you?
Answer. Well, I—I—he had a variety of requests.
Question. If you could, be a little bit more specific on the types of requests and the specific requests that he made of you.
Page 1362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Well, let me say I don't recall why he called me every time. I do recall at least one specific time and, candidly, I—I recall it and it has been further reinforced by all the news articles that have been about a particular time.
He—he went to a White House radio address that I was not responsible for submitting his name for. I did not even know he went to the address until he called me to say, last week I got to go to the radio address, and I really would like to get—and my picture was taken with the President, and I had a few friends there, and their pictures were taken with the President; can you help me get the pictures?
This was—this was not highly unusual that someone who goes to a radio address gets their picture taken with the President, little kids, basically if you're in the room, the President if he has time will shake everyone's hand and you get your picture taken or maybe you brought your own camera. Usually a picture is taken.
So I called over to the White House in response to a phone call I got from Mr. Chung asking for his photos.
Question. Do you recall when that was?
Answer. The only reason I recall it is because I've read in the newspapers approximately the date, and that was March of 1995.
Mr. WILSON. Providing the witness with a document, it is a—this is a letter to Mr. Sildon from Johnny Chung dated February 27, 1995.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you recall receiving this letter?
Answer. I actually do recall receiving this. Can I tell you why I recall it?
Question. Absolutely.
Answer. Because it was one of the most preposterous letters I had ever received in my life. Somebody just calls me and says, I want to meet with the President and the Vice President. You know, I had never seen anybody who thought that all they had to do was send a letter and then they could meet with the President. I have never arranged a meeting with the President, so I also thought it was, I mean, with all due respect, a little laughable, that somebody would send me a letter thinking I could just pick up the phone and arrange a meeting with the President on his behalf, regardless of the merit of whether or not such a meeting should occur.
Page 1363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. What did you do after you received this letter?
Answer. Well, I believe I did not move very hard—very—I was not very active to pursue these requests. It is possible that—first of all, I know that I talked to Martha Phipps, who was my supervisor, and showed it to her. I may have talked to others about it. And I believe that I probably tried to get him a tour of the White House, and it is—anything else beyond that point I don't particularly recall.
Question. Do you recall whether you replied in writing to him?
Answer. I would be very surprised if I replied in writing, because I seldom had time to do my job as it was, let alone take time to sit down and write letters to people who contact me. Plus, again, just I can't imagine I would have considered it a very serious request.
Question. Did you discuss this request with anybody else at the DNC?
Answer. Besides Martha Phipps, who I previously mentioned?
Question. Yes.
Answer. I may have. I don't recall.
Question. Do you recall receiving other faxes or letters from Mr. Chung?
Answer. If you have something to show me, I would be happy to respond to it. I don't particularly recall whether or not he sent another fax as a follow-up to this or any other kind of request.
Question. You discussed earlier the Presidential radio address and photographs that were taken at the address. Did you know in advance of the radio address who Mr. Chung's guests were?
Answer. No. Are you talking about these business leaders from China, as he describes in this letter?
Page 1364 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Actually, I have moved from this. I am not referring to this document at all at this point.
Answer. Okay.
Mr. BEST. There is a problem with your question because he does not know of the radio address until after the event when Mr. Chung calls him and seeks the photographs. Implicit in your question is that he had some knowledge prior to the radio address, and he has already testified the first thing that he knows about it is subsequent to the event when Mr. Chung calls him.
Mr. WILSON. Actually, just to clarify that for myself.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Short of going back, was the first time you knew of the photographs and the radio address after the actual event?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Were you made aware, when you did learn about the event, of who the guests of Mr. Chung were?
Answer. No. And I actually even today don't know who they are, other than having read in newspaper articles within the last few months.
Now—you know, I did not know who these people were; basically still don't. I couldn't tell you today what any of those people do and if they are from China; I couldn't tell you what they do right now even having read the newspaper articles. I don't know who these people are.
Question. Did Mr. Chung request directly of you to get help to get the photographs from the White House?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And how did he do that?
Page 1365 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. He called me. He either called me or stopped by my office. That, I don't specifically recall. But I do know that he issued the request.
Question. And what did he tell you at that time?
Answer. It was just—he made it sound very innocuous. He had been to a radio address and pictures were taken, could I help him obtain the picture. It sounded at the time innocuous to me because that's—as I indicated before, that's standard practice, if you go to a—not standard but pretty common practice, if you go to a—if you go to a radio address, you can get your picture taken.
Question. And what did you do?
Answer. I called over to the White House to see if we could help him get his pictures.
Question. And what were you told?
Answer. After somebody said that they would check on it, they called me back and they said that those pictures wouldn't be made available.
Question. Did they give you a reason why they wouldn't be made available?
Answer. They did. They—I actually do recall this because it's the first and only time it has been told to me. They said, the pictures aren't available because the President doesn't want them released and the National Security Council is—does not believe they should be released to him. They are concerned about his guests.
Question. And who told you this?
Answer. I don't recall. It was someone in the President's personal office.
The reason I don't recall is there were two different staff people I would often call for these kinds of requests, something that happened like a radio address with the President. I just don't remember which staff person it was.
Page 1366 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. And when they told you this, what did you do next?
Answer. I immediately told Johnny that I was not going to be able to get his pictures, that the National Security Council was uncomfortable with him having those pictures.
Question. What did he say?
Answer. I don't recall what he said, but it didn't matter to me because I disengaged at that point. I figured if the NSC—I wasn't asking questions. It wasn't my situation. I didn't put him in the radio address. I was doing my job trying to resolve a constituent request. The request was to have photos. The National Security Council said he shouldn't have these photos. That was good enough for me. I provided the answer. I considered that as a closed issue and I disengaged.
Question. Did Mr. Chung make any further requests of you about these photographs?
Answer. He did not. And I assumed he did not get his photos.
Question. Were you aware at any time before the—were you aware at any time in 1995, at the time you were director of National Membership Services, that Mr. Chung had been described as a quote, hustler, unquote?
Answer. No.
Mr. BEST. He is asking—okay. You have answered it.
Mr. WILSON. I will provide the witness with a document which has been premarked E0P 005439, which it is indicated that the sender was a Mr. Robert L. Suettinger.
Mr. Lu. For the record, this document, so the record is clear, this document was produced by the White House.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Have you ever seen this document?
Page 1367 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know if Mr. Chung was ever solicited regarding debts from White House Christmas parties?
Answer. I don't know.
Question. Do you know, and this is returning to the subject we were discussing a moment ago, the radio address photographs, do you know whether anybody else at the DNC made any requests to the White House for Mr. Chung to get his photographs?
Answer. I am sorry, can you repeat that question? I was reading this document. I apologize.
Question. Sure. Do you know of anybody else at the DNC who made requests for Mr. Chung to get the photographs that were taken at the radio address?
Answer. Just because I want to be able to answer your question, I apologize for doing this. I need you to read it back one more time.
[The reporter read back as requested.]
The WITNESS. I do not.
Thank you. I am sorry. I just wanted to make sure I understood the question.
I do not.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you have any conversations with anybody else at the DNC about Mr. Chung's desire to get the radio address photographs?
Answer. I did. I know I talked to Richard Sullivan, and I believe at the time he was deputy finance director, eventually became finance director, but I don't think at that time he was. And I also talked to—I believe I talked to Carol Khare, who was the chief of staff in the chairman's office. She ran the chairman's office. Again, that's to whom I reported to as my supervisor, just to bring them both up to date, particularly Richard, because he was the first person who had kind of been the connection for Johnny Chung to the DNC. In other words, when you make an initial contribution, you are a member of a donor council which was the head at one point of the Business Leadership Forum. Mr. Chung was a member of that donor council. So I always assumed Richard to be a staff contact.
Page 1368 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. What did Mr. Sullivan tell you when you explained the situation?
Answer. I really don't recall. I mean, I—you know, I provided the information. Johnny Chung called me. I made a phone call. I got an answer that I felt was good enough for me. I passed that information along. I just wanted to make the two of them aware of the situation. I wasn't looking for any kind of response back from them. If they gave me one, I don't recall.
Question. Why did you call Ms. Khare?
Answer. Because she was my supervisor.
Question. Do you know Roger Tamraz?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you ever spoken with Mr. Tamraz?
Answer. No.
Question. Apart from subsequent media accounts, did you at the time that you were the director of NMS, did you know of anybody else at the DNC attempting to arrange introductions for Mr. Tamraz to meet administration officials?
Answer. No.
Question. Had you ever heard the name ''Roger Tamraz'' when you were at NMS?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Had you ever heard the name ''Eric Hotung'' when you were at NMS?
Answer. No.
Question. Had you ever heard the name ''James Riady'' when you were director of NMS?
Page 1369 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Well, I don't recall. Because I have heard his name so often recently in the news, I don't recall if I had heard it before, but I don't believe so.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. James Riady made any requests of you or your colleagues at NMS?
Mr. BEST. You have already asked him earlier if he had ever spoken with Mr. Riady. Now you are coming back around to the same——
Mr. WILSON. With his colleagues, correct.
The WITNESS. Prior to this conversation today, prior to this deposition, I was not aware of that. Based on information you told me earlier in this deposition, I would say now obviously I am aware of that, but prior to today, during my time at the National Membership Services, as director of the program, I was not aware of him having any kind of direct contact with my colleagues on my staff.
Mr. BEST. Riady, are you talking about? Was that your question?
Mr. WILSON. It was my question, and there might be clarification in order there.
Mr. BEST. I don't believe you have made any assertion of a prior contact.
Mr. WILSON. I don't believe I have, either.
The WITNESS. I apologize.
Mr. WILSON. I don't believe I have, either.
The WITNESS. I apologize. In just recalling what we spoke about earlier today——
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Trie.
The WITNESS. It was Charlie Trie and I was thinking James Riady. I don't have any reason to know that James Riady had any conversation with any people on my staff. I apologize about that confusion.
Page 1370 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Is your answer the same for Mochtar Riady?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you know, either or both, Arief or Soraya Wiriadinata?
Answer. Again, I have no recollection of that name.
Question. Do you recall hearing the name ''Wiriadinata'' when you were director of NMS?
Answer. No.
Mr. BEST. Since the first contributions were made by the Wiriadinatas after this gentleman left the DNC, it is most unlikely that he would have heard of them.
Mr. WILSON. Well, that's something I don't know and presumably that's something that you don't know. I think it has to be determined.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Have you ever heard anybody discuss whether Arief Wiriadinata attended a movie at the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know Yogesh Ghandi?
Answer. I have heard the name in recent news reports. I had not heard the name prior to reading them in Washington Post news stories during the course of this spring and summer, 1997.
Mr. Lu. Again, I would just make the same point that Mr. Best made, which is, that Mr. Ghandi's contributions to the DNC came after Mr. Sildon left the DNC.
Mr. WILSON. Could I just ask for a clarification?
Page 1371 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. Lu. Yes.
Mr. WILSON. I am just wondering how that has any bearing on my question as to whether he has ever heard the name before.
Mr. Lu. It is just not clear to me why he would have heard the name if Mr. Ghandi's involvement with the DNC came after he left.
Mr. WILSON. He might have met him.
Mr. BALLEN. He might have met anyone in the world. Are you going to ask him everybody in the phone book?
Mr. WILSON. That's why I am asking the question.
Mr. BALLEN. This deposition—I am going to say something. This deposition has gone on twice the length of time than a much more prominent person. There has to be some reasonableness to the questions that have to relate to knowledge the witness reasonably could have. You could ask the witness does he know about Mount Vesuvius if you want, but you have to conduct a deposition that is fair to the witness and we are going on and on and on with no end in sight. That's the purpose. That's the clarification.
Mr. BEST. Let me say this for the record: We want to give you every opportunity to ask reasonable questions, but I certainly know, and I would have thought that you would know, that in the first instance the Wiriadinatas first make their first contributions to the Democratic National Committee in November of 1995, and after this witness has left the Democratic National Committee and Yogesh K. Ghandi makes his contribution in May of 1996, almost a year before this—after this witness has left the Democratic National Committee. That clearly still leaves open the question whether or not he knew these people prior to the time that they made the contribution, so that there is a basis for you to ask the question. But the likelihood that he would know them is so improbable under all of these circumstances that given the length of this deposition I object, so that the record is clear, to the questions as they are going on. You are just trolling for information at this point.
Page 1372 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. Well, at the extent of drawing this out even further, when individuals make contributions in excess of $300,000 as their first contribution, it is not out of the realms of possibility that somebody has met them, heard of them, come across them, seen them, sometime within the past 1-year period. I mean, that's just my common sense, which obviously from your perspective is not very common. But it is a simple one-line question that could have been answered no and we could have continued on to the next phrase. That's all I am interested in.
Mr. BEST. That's always the response when you point out the improbability of the question, that you are wasting more time with the objection. But you have got to make the objection so as to perhaps bring this back to a sense of reality. But go ahead. Go ahead with your questions.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Are you aware that the President attended a series of coffees held at the White House during 1995 and 1996?
Answer. Only because I have read about them in the newspaper.
Question. Did you know of the coffees at the time that you were director of NMS?
Mr. BEST. When you say ''coffees'' now, you must understand that there were a whole raft of coffees at the White House, some sponsored by the Democratic National Committee, according to the facts as I know them, some by the Clinton/Gore campaign and by other organizations as well. So when you say ''coffees,'' are you only referring to those sponsored by the Democratic National Committee or generally coffees with a whole group of other sponsors as well?
Mr. WILSON. I was being inclusive.
The WITNESS. That occurred in 1996?
Page 1373 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. 1995 and 1996.
Answer. I was not aware of those coffees occurring while I was in my role as director of National Membership Services.
Question. Did you have any knowledge at the time you were director of NMS that the DNC was paying for the costs of coffees held at the White House during 1995?
Mr. BEST. You mean reimbursing for costs?
Mr. WILSON. Correct.
The WITNESS. Well, I wasn't aware of that. Again, I wasn't on the fund-raising staff and wasn't—I had nothing to do with the coffees so I wouldn't know about any of the other aspects.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you on any occasion, when you were director of NMS, see any memoranda or spreadsheets that alluded to any financial returns from coffees that were held at the White House?
Answer. No.
Mr. BEST. See what a good no does for you.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did you ever have any interaction with Harold Ickes?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you met Mr. Ickes?
Answer. I have met him.
Question. When have you—when did you first meet Mr. Ickes?
Page 1374 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Again, I don't recall specifically when I met him, but—and it could have been in either role. You know, you meet someone and then you know you have met them. I can't tell you now, 4 years later, tell you while I was fund-raising or while I was director of Membership Services, but I had some occasion to meet him.
Question. Did Mr. Ickes ever call you when you were the director of NMS?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever call Mr. Ickes when you were director of NMS?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you ever recall Mr. Ickes contacting one of your NMS colleagues directly?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you ever recall one of your NMS colleagues contacting Mr. Ickes directly?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever discuss—did you ever have any discussions with colleagues at the DNC about contributions or donations to tax-exempt organizations?
Mr. Lu. While he was a fund-raiser or while he was with NMS?
Mr. WILSON. Ever.
Mr. Lu. Ever? Okay.
The WITNESS. I am sorry. Would you repeat the question?
Mr. WILSON. Could you repeat the question, please.
[The reporter read back as requested.]
Page 1375 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
The WITNESS. No.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Did the NMS office collect or have any information about tax-exempt voter registration organizations?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know what the arts project was?
Answer. I don't, based on that title. I mean, if you have a document that might refresh my memory, I would be happy to look at it. I mean, is that an official title or is that just a term of art?
Question. There is no mystery. I don't know, either. So I am asking you.
Answer. Okay.
Question. It appears to be a term of art, and if you don't know, you don't know.
Mr. Lu. Counsel, if we are at a breaking point now——
Mr. WILSON. Actually, you will be very happy to know that I have two questions and I am happy to take a break.
Mr. BEST. No, I am perfectly happy.
Mr. WILSON. I will soldier on.
Mr. BEST. March.
Mr. Lu. Please.
The WITNESS. I am not aware of a project officially called the arts project.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you have any knowledge of whether anyone at the DNC, at the time you were regional finance director or the time you were director of NMS, provided a list of Chinese American trustees to anyone at the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S.?
Page 1376 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question?
[The reporter read back as requested.]
The WITNESS. I do not.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Have you ever heard the name ''Andrew Shi,'' S-H-I?
Answer. No.
Mr. WILSON. That concludes my round of questioning.
If you would like to take a break before yours, I would be happy to.
Mr. Lu. No. I would just as soon we wrap up.
The WITNESS. Good.
EXAMINATION BY MR. LU:
Question. Mr. Sildon, thank you for coming today. On behalf of the Democratic members of the committee, I would like to thank you. I know this has been an imposition on you and your time, and I will try to keep my questions reasonably brief.
Answer. Thank you.
Question. And we will wrap this up.
Answer. Thank you.
Question. As I understand your testimony, one of your goals in setting up NMS was to separate these services from the finance department; isn't that correct?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. In fact, I believe you have testified that you did not want these services to be—or decisions about how these services were to be provided to be based on the amount of money that a supporter had contributed; isn't that correct?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. And, in fact, when the supporter called your office asking for assistance or asking for a tour to be arranged, you didn't check first to see how much money that supporter had given.
Page 1377 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Correct.
Question. In fact, I believe you testified that you did not even have access to that type of financial information.
Answer. That's also correct.
Question. And I believe, if my understanding is correct, that's why throughout this deposition you have been using the term ''supporter'' or ''constituent'' as opposed to ''contributor'' when you talk about the type of services that your office provides.
Answer. That's correct.
Question. Isn't it true that the arrangements your office made for supporters were similar to the types of services that a Congressman or Senator's office would make for his or her constituents?
Answer. I had worked on the Hill for 7 years. I understood about constituent service. You don't—you don't ask someone when they call a Member of Congress' office if they made a contribution to a recent campaign or election. I just—if people need help, I want to try to provide it.
If someone contacted me, that's correct, I tried to simply take the request and fulfill it regardless or irregardless of other factors, such as contributions.
Question. And would I be correct in guessing that the Republican National Committee probably provides the same types of services that the DNC or Congressman or Senator's office also provides for its supporters?
Answer. That's not only correct but a lot of the impetus for starting a program like this was because they had done that as well, and they had paved the way and we understood that those kinds of opportunities existed and had been done so in the past.
Question. And when you say that they paved the way, can you elaborate for me on what types of services you are aware of that the RNC provided for its supporters?
Page 1378 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. I had seen a brochure of a group called Team 100 and the Eagles, which talked about all of these opportunities people would have, you know, with the President and, you know, be it tours or going to events. I was simply interested in moving this away from the finance division of the DNC and being responsive to people just as previous—previous—previously had been done by the RNC.
Question. Just so the record is clear, when you were talking about Team 100 and the Eagles have access to the President, you meant President Bush or President Reagan?
Answer. Correct. Correct. And I had seen that in brochures that the RNC had put out.
Question. Can you recall any other types of, for lack of a better word, perks that were available that the RNC provided to its supporters that you read about in those brochures?
Answer. Well, I really don't recall others that they offered that we didn't offer or vice versa. They were very different administrations, you know, with different staff and a different President. It just—it was trying to respond to the fact that we now were looking for ways to be responsive to our constituents, just as the RNC had always been, just as when I worked on Capitol Hill when a constituent contacted a Member's office and they wanted information or to be pointed in the right direction.
You know, this program, everybody keeps talking about this program, and I won't belabor this point, but everybody keeps talking about this program that we were putting people in radio addresses and doing these other things. We were doing things like helping an out-of-towner figuring out what is a good Italian restaurant to go to in Washington or what is something interesting so their kids won't be bored all weekend long when they come to town or what is appropriate for a 5-year-old to do versus a teenager to do.
Page 1379 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Our program did so much more than just radio addresses and putting people in South Lawn events, as we discussed this morning. Our program was to try to be responsive to anyone. We were the catchall when somebody called the DNC; nobody knew who to turn to, let's have them be able to talk to National Membership Services. Maybe they will have an idea for them.
We have got a list of 50 fun things to do in Washington, D.C., that we could send any constituent who called. It didn't matter if they wrote a $100,000 check or, you know, they were just some little old man out in the Midwest who was coming to Washington for the first time.
That's why we started the program and I did not want it to be tied to money. That's why I left the finance department. That's specifically the reason why I talked to the chairman and, as I previously testified, to Martha Phipps and to my former boss, Nancy Jacobson, and we decided to move it out of the department, because it didn't have to do with money. And we didn't want there to be this perception that we were telling people where to eat or trying to help them get a tour at the White House simply because they wrote a check.
Question. And I don't mean to belittle the work your office did, but it sounds as if a lot of the services your office provided were similar to what perhaps a hotel concierge would provide.
Answer. Exactly right.
Question. Let me just go back for another second or to the discussion we just had about the RNC's services. Would it surprise you if I told you that the RNC had special briefings for administration, Bush administration briefings, for its large contributors?
Answer. It doesn't surprise me because I know it happened.
Question. Do you know a specific example in which that happened?
Page 1380 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Well, I have knowledge from my days when I was a lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Business that I would go to White House briefings on the fourth floor of the OEOB when, you know, the—I mean, there was one time when President Bush himself came, but where they would have, you know, somebody from the—you know, Carla Hills was at one of the briefings, and I just—you know, that's what they did. They held briefings, and I sat in those briefings when I was a lobbyist, and I also knew from people who were supporters of the DNC, who would, you know, look, a lot of these people are interested on both sides. So they—you know, they supported the RNC and they supported the DNC and they would come say to us, look over at the RNC, they are doing all of these things for us; you guys have got to get on the ball; you guys need to be responsive to our interests as well.
Question. And would it surprise you if I told you that the RNC had staff members who also arranged services or performed services, made arrangements for its large contributors or arranged meetings with Members of Congress?
Answer. It would not surprise me.
Question. Did your office ever provide services to a supporter so that supporter might encourage foreign nationals to contribute money?
Answer. Absolutely not. In fact, I knew that was illegal anyway, so we certainly wouldn't have done anything for those reasons.
Question. And to your knowledge was there ever any communication or any hints from the President or the Vice President that the DNC should use their office in that way to encourage foreign nationals to give contributions?
Answer. No. And to follow up on something you said a minute ago, and I don't think it belittles the program either, I doubt the President or the Vice President even knew our little shop existed. We were there to provide constituent service to all kinds of people. I am pretty certain they did not know that this little shop of three people was over at the DNC helping people figure out a good restaurant to go to or who should come to the South Lawn along with 6,000 other people to see Boris Yeltsin shake the President's hand.
Page 1381 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. At the time your office made tour arrangements and provided other services, we have talked about Charlie Trie today, Johnny Chung, Pauline Kanchanalak, had there been any news stories, media accounts about them?
Answer. No.
Question. Can you estimate for me the number of requests for all types of services that your office received during the time that you worked there? Would it be fair to say it was thousands?
Answer. Yes. Which is part of the reason I have a difficult time recalling when all of these names are asked. We probably had, no exaggeration, 3 dozen requests a day, or a couple dozen requests a day for, again, all kinds of things. We were usually some of the last people there, because we were at 7:00 or 8:00 at night still trying to be responsive to people, whether we were able to get them that White House tour the next day or where they should go to dinner or something upcoming that weekend.
We had dozens and dozens of requests that had nothing to do even with politics, you know, a golf course to play on, you know, did we have a connection to help somebody get a ticket to a sold-out Orioles game because they were coming to town? I mean, just all kinds of little things that every project took 20 minutes. And we had 3 dozen a day to do.
Question. So as far as you know, there was no reason your office should treat Mr. Trie, Mr. Chung, Ms. Kanchanalak, any different from these thousands of other requests that you received?
Answer. Correct, because at the time I certainly was not aware of the things that now, because of recent newspaper articles in 1997, 2 years after I left the DNC, I have since learned. But at the time they were supporters, just as I have said before, the little old man from out in the Midwest who did door hangings before elections every 2 years for the last 50 years, just as he was a supporter. It was my responsibility to be responsive to all supporters of the DNC. And that's why—and I didn't have access to the money. I didn't know how much these people gave, and it wasn't an issue because money wasn't an issue. I took care of—I didn't take care of Pauline Kanchanalak or any of the people that you have previously mentioned, frankly I don't think I did anything for them, but I wouldn't have taken care of them any better than I would have somebody that the DNC Political provided to me or the Office of State Chairs or any of the other departments. They all were important to me. It was my job to try to respond to as many requests as I could do, to try to be responsive and fulfill these people's requests.
Page 1382 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. I believe you have also testified that you were involved in trying to acquire Mr. Chung's photos from the Presidential radio address. Is that correct?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And at that time, or any time when you worked at NMS, did you have any suspicion that he might be an agent for the Chinese government?
Answer. No, absolutely not. He just—he just was—just, I think, always looking to speak to someone, you know, and for awhile I was talking to him and after me I am sure there was somebody else and probably somebody else. I had no knowledge of his—the question that you asked. I would not have known that.
Question. I just have a few more questions. These are some questions that one of the Members on our committee has asked that we ask all the deponents.
If you could just hold on a second.
If I can, before I do that, let me just jump back a second to some of the answers you just gave me. You mentioned that when you were at—when you were legislative representative for a group here in town that you attended some special briefings at the Bush White House. Isn't that correct?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And you mentioned one specific briefing with the President, President Bush, another one with Carla Hills. Can you give me—can you think of any other specific examples of briefings that you attended with Bush administration officials?
Answer. I have a vague recollection of also attending a briefing, a labor-related briefing, up on the fourth floor of the OEOB. But I—I don't recall specifically who was there or what the—what the topic of the briefing was.
Mr. Lu. Actually, can we go off the record for just a minute, please.
Page 1383 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
[Off the record discussion.]
Mr. Lu. Let's go back on the record. Could you read back the last part of his answer.
[The reporter read back as requested.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. LU:
Question. Were these briefings that you attended because your organization had given money to the RNC or to other Republican groups?
Answer. Well, I am not sure I could say that that is the reason why. We were involved in legislative efforts that were similar to legislative objectives and interests of the Bush White House, and so we were, as one of the friendly organizations, invited to substantive issue briefings, updates, at the White House.
Question. I believe you also mentioned earlier, when I asked you some questions, that you knew of some DNC supporters that had also supported the RNC and that some of these—sometimes these DNC supporters told you about the services that had been provided to them by the RNC. Are you able to describe for me any of those types of services that those supporters mentioned?
Answer. Well, one supporter mentioned that he was able to play tennis on the South Lawn at the White House, and that was certainly something I was not aware would even be a remote possibility. And as it turned out, I did not ever really pursue that ability, that opportunity. I didn't get people into the White House so they could go play tennis on the South Lawn, but I was told that the Bush administration had—that President Bush had allowed people to come over and play tennis with him, with others, on the tennis court.
Question. And other than playing tennis on the South Lawn, can you recall any other services that these supporters had mentioned that the RNC had provided them?
Answer. Well, I thought I remembered that actually supporters got to fly on Air Force One, but, again, that was not something that I was responsible for at the DNC so that didn't really matter. And I don't recall specifically all the things that were said, but somebody handed me the Team 100 and Eagles brochure from prior to 1993 when President Bush was—and his administration were here in town, and it showed a variety of these benefits.
Page 1384 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Some of which the DNC provided and some of which the DNC did not provide?
Answer. Correct.
Question. As I stated earlier, one of the Democratic Members of our committee has asked us to ask all the deponents some questions and they are pretty standard questions.
Have you been asked by any other official investigative body to testify or provide evidence on any of the fund-raising or other matters being investigated by this committee?
Answer. No.
Question. So you have not been interviewed or deposed by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Or the Department of Justice?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And I assume, because you are not a current employee, you also did not provide any documents to this committee?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Although I believe you said you searched your own personal records for those documents.
Answer. I was told I needed to do that to see if I had any documents, and if I had them I would have been happy to provide them, but I didn't think I did.
Question. And have you received any requests to provide documents or be interviewed or be deposed by any other investigative body in the future?
Answer. No.
Question. Can you estimate how much time—how much of your time you have spent in preparing and attending this deposition?
Page 1385 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Besides the daily anxiety of anticipating a deposition and then my deposition last week being postponed because the morning deposition was running too long?
Question. Yes.
Answer. You know, I have been here all day and I have had to have two meetings with counsel, rearrange schedules. I actually was supposed to be out of town today, flying back in this morning actually, but I flew in yesterday so I could make this deposition. So time wise, you know, 15 or 20 hours.
Question. And I think you told us at the outset of your deposition that you are self-employed as a consultant?
Answer. Correct.
Question. So in terms of any costs to your employer, those would be really costs to you?
Answer. True. But my costs is that I am not working today and I am not either seeking clients, which are my sole source of income, and I am not working for the few clients I have to help them, you know, finish up projects I am working on for them.
Question. Has this committee offered to reimburse you for your time and/or expenses?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. If it is available, will you seek reimbursement from this committee for your expenses?
Answer. Probably not. I don't know. I would like to reserve judgment on that. At this time, that's not something that I was considering.
Mr. Lu. No further questions.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Was there any distinction between the types of events that you helped people attend at the White House in terms—and that's a self-imposed distinction, a hierarchy where one was more important than another in your mind?
Page 1386 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. BEST. Do you want him to distinguish in terms of importance? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. WILSON. I am asking whether the NMS staff prioritized or had a hierarchy of the different types of events that you helped people—facilitated for people.
The WITNESS. I would say only one kind of event would be considered more important to us than any other, and that's a State dinner, and they are obviously important enough that the guest lists are published in the Washington Post and it is always a big story in the Style section when there is a State dinner. Other than that—and this President hasn't done many State dinners. He didn't do one his entire first year in 1993, so they are much more few and far between compared to other kinds of events.
Beyond that, no, all events are the same.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. You mentioned earlier that Mr. Chung's laundry list of requests was—it is my words, not yours, but somewhat farfetched. Were you aware of any other requests by DNC supporters that were simply deemed inappropriate? And I am not asking whether they were not possible but just simply inappropriate.
Mr. BEST. Deemed by him inappropriate?
Mr. WILSON. Deemed by Mr. Sildon to be inappropriate.
The WITNESS. Requested of me?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Correct.
Answer. Since some requests may have come in that DNC staff never submitted to me?
Question. Yes.
Page 1387 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Answer. Well, I don't—I don't recall. I certainly don't recall. There either may have been some—I am sure there were some. I am sure there were requests that came in that you just looked at and went, I don't think so, but I don't recall specifically such requests.
Question. Do you recall requests being made by individuals that any of your DNC colleagues thought were inappropriate because of who the person was who was making the request?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. Was there any distinction that you knew of, when you were at both NMS and in your position as regional finance director, where there were distinctions drawn between facilitating meetings for a policy nature or for doing something that was more of a spectator sport type of request, for example, going on a tour or visiting a building?
Answer. I am sorry. I actually need you to rephrase the question.
Question. I don't think anybody would have understood that question. was there a distinction drawn by anybody at the DNC that you knew of, for the entire time that you were there, between the types of events that involved meeting with policy-type employees and simply attending events or going to look at a building?
Mr. BEST. Are you characterizing a meeting with a policy-type official as an event?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
The WITNESS. I want to make sure I understand the question.
It appears to me what you are asking is, did I weight equally, providing—helping provide a tour and meeting with an administration official? Is that your question? I want to make sure. Is that your question?
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Page 1388 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. Right.
Answer. No, I would say I probably would not have weighted those equally.
First of all, again, I very, very seldom asked to arrange for a meeting for someone, but if I was, and there was—first of all, I didn't arrange any meetings. All I did was forwarded information on to an office on behalf of some constituent for that office to decide whether or not they wanted to take a meeting.
But if I was asked on the same day to help get somebody a tour and to help forward information along for a meeting, I would certainly do the tour without qualification and I would want to—I would want someone to tell me that I was supposed to make a call for a meeting.
Again, I did it so seldom, but when I did do it, it would have been because there was some reasonable explanation for why this person needed to or wanted to meet with that person in the administration. And it was not for any reason other than whatever they put in their letter to whoever they sent a letter to at the DNC that got forwarded to me that I simply put in a fax and sent along. Then at that point it was up to that administration office to decide whether or not they wanted to have a meeting.
Question. Were you aware of any guidelines when it came to facilitating a meeting between a DNC supporter and an administration official?
Answer. Self-imposed guidelines, DNC guidelines?
Question. Either self-imposed or written or verbal or any type of guidelines.
Answer. Again, I wasn't trying to arrange meetings. I was simply forwarding letters.
Question. Were you aware of any guidelines?
Mr. BEST. With regard to forwarding letters?
Page 1389 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Mr. WILSON. No, with regard to facilitating meetings with administration officials.
The WITNESS. Can I have just a moment?
Mr. WILSON. Absolutely.
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
The WITNESS. Okay. When I received a request, I would only forward requests along that were not competitive in nature where it looked like the DNC was representing one company, corporation, individual versus others in any kind of—if there was—we weren't allowed to—if somebody had a contract with the Federal Government, we weren't allowed to contact that agency on their behalf. We weren't allowed to—in that sense, there were those guidelines. But those weren't the kinds of things that ever came to me. I mean, that's not what people were bringing to me when someone from the Office of Political Affairs at the DNC or whatever would hand carry over a letter and say, I received this letter, it is addressed to me but I want to pass it on to you, can you forward it on to so and so in the administration? And, sure, put a cover note on it and say, this has been sent to us, we are sending it to you. This person would appreciate having a chance to talk to her. Here is their phone number. It is up to you.
But I certainly didn't forward things along if it had to do with—they had a bid or a contract with the government. I mean, another guidelines is, we weren't supposed to ever contact the Department of State, the Department of Justice or the Defense Department. I mean, those were just hands-off agencies. We weren't going to get involved in foreign policy decisions or recommending people, anything, at the State Department, Justice Department or Defense Department. We just wouldn't even consider forwarding it, even a letter, even just a letter that someone wanted to send out.
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Page 1390 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
Question. How would you know if somebody had a contract with the Federal Government?
Answer. In that sense, I probably wouldn't. I wouldn't know if someone had a contract, but if in a letter it said, we would like to talk to you about the contract which we have with you, which—I don't know whatever they could say in the letter, that would be something that I wouldn't forward along.
But, sure, you are right, if—this didn't happen but if the chairman of a large corporation like AT&T called me and said he wanted a meeting, I wouldn't know whether they have or don't have a contract unless the text of the letter said we want to talk about it.
Question. Do you know if the DNC made any attempt to screen political contributors from meeting with administration policy staff?
Mr. BEST. Screening? What do you mean by ''screening''?
Mr. WILSON. To either seek to learn what their interests were or—I will leave that—seek to learn what their interests were before they went to do whatever it is they were going to do.
Mr. BEST. You are assuming that such meetings took place?
Mr. WILSON. Yes.
The WITNESS. I don't know, because, again, I—I certainly wasn't involved really in this aspect. And I didn't set up meetings. You know, I forwarded a couple of letters along during the course of 2 years in the job role. So I appreciate the question you are asking me. Since I had very little, if any, experience with it in the first place I certainly don't know about the pre-vetting process for any of the other kinds of meetings that might have been set up by others.
As we discussed before, there were a lot of people at the DNC who had relationships around the administration and they would just call. They would call on their own.
Page 1391 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
EXAMINATION BY MR. WILSON:
Question. Do you know of any situations where the DNC made an attempt to prohibit a political contributor from meeting with any administration policy staff?
Answer. No. I don't know of—no, I don't know of such a situation.
Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much on behalf of the Majority. I appreciate your coming here and taking your time to speak with us.
I don't mean to cut this off.
Mr. Lu. We have nothing. Thank you.
Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]
[The exhibits referred to follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 574 HERE
[The official committee record contains additional material here.]
45–667 CC
1998
JOHNNY CHUNG: HIS UNUSUAL ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, HIS POLITICAL DONATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON
Page 1392 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
NOVEMBER 13 AND 14, 1997
Serial No. 105–69
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
JOHNNY CHUNG: HIS UNUSUAL ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, HIS POLITICAL DONATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
JOHNNY CHUNG: HIS UNUSUAL ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, HIS POLITICAL DONATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
JOHNNY CHUNG: HIS UNUSUAL ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, HIS POLITICAL DONATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
JOHNNY CHUNG: HIS UNUSUAL ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, HIS POLITICAL DONATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
JOHNNY CHUNG: HIS UNUSUAL ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, HIS POLITICAL DONATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
Page 1393 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 3
JOHNNY CHUNG: HIS UNUSUAL ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, HIS POLITICAL DONATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS