Segment 12 Of 22 Previous Hearing Segment(11) Next Hearing Segment(13)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 887 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON. It is really way too late in the day for these kinds of speeches. If we could go off the record please.
[Recess.]
Mr. EGGLESTON. Let me just say that of the nine documents——
The WITNESS. Of the nine Hudson Casino related.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Hudson Casino related documents that are reflected on the privilege log, two of them have been provided to the private plaintiffs and were—and the Senate was authorized last week to use them in their hearing and, in fact, I think, used one of them.
And Mr. Nionakis can tell you which two those are. As to the remainder, they remain subject to privilege and at issue. And Mr.—just so that you know, Mr. Nionakis has been providing the process by which these decisions are made. He will not answer questions, and I will instruct him not to answer any questions if they have to do with discussions within the White House Counsel's Office over what kind of documents, why they asserted privilege—I'm sorry, why they deemed these documents subject to privilege.
Those substantive decision making by the White House Counsel's Office, he will not answer questions about those, and he will not answer questions about substantive communications with the Justice Department on this same issue.
Page 888 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON. Could I ask the basis for advising your client not to answer questions about conversations that occurred within the Counsel's Office?
Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, it is part of the decision-making process of the Counsel's Office, and it's also subject to a conversation that I had last week where I thought—where I thought I had agreement with Ms. Comstock where she would discuss these issues with Mr. Ruff. And it was my understanding that she talked about it with Mr. Ruff, and he was going to provide someone to address the issue generally.
In light of my conversation with Ms. Comstock, we've actually gotten much further into the Hudson Dog Track issues than I anticipated getting. Again, I had not wanted to get in the way of whatever you wanted to do, so I permitted him to answer process questions. But as to the substantive decision making by the White House Counsel's Office about why they treated these documents in one occasion or another and communications with the Justice Department, you should raise that issue with Mr. Ruff.
Mr. DHILLON. Yeah, just so I'm clear, I'm sorry I'm not, your objection, then, the basis for advising your client not to answer any questions—and I was—I do intend to ask a lot of those questions, so I want it to be very clear for the record—is deliberative process. Is that what you said?
Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, at this point, it's pursuant to an agreement with Ms. Comstock, where she was going to raise these issues with Mr. Ruff. And it was my understanding that she had done so. In addition, I think they're of subject to a variety of privileges, some of the attorney/client privilege, deliberative process, executive, Presidential communication, a variety of privileges. And I'm not going to limit myself to any one right now.
Page 889 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON. But you're including executive privilege in the basis—as one of the bases for instructing your client not to answer any questions?
Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, by not excluding any, yes.
Mr. DHILLON. Okay. All right. Given what you put on the record, I want to ask the questions, and I would like you to obviously assert whatever objections you deem appropriate. Do it, rather than one document at a time, all of them at the same time when I ask the questions.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I think that it would be fine.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Let's finish up with Exhibit 10. So I'm clear on the record. What is Exhibit 10?
Answer. I think I answered that question already.
Question. Actually I checked. You didn't.
Answer. Exhibit 10 is the log that we provided to this committee.
Question. That was?
Page 890 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. Dated October 21, 1997.
Question. And I would ask that exhibits—Exhibit 5 is before you. Exhibit 6 through 9 be placed before the witness.
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Now, I'd ask you to look at Exhibits 5 through 9.
Answer. I believe I only have——
Mr. EGGLESTON. We don't see a 7. Do you?
The WITNESS. No, I've got 7.
Mr. DHILLON. Counsel, if I may ask, some of these exhibits were not placed on the log, which is Exhibit 10. Is it your intention to still assert the same objection and instruct your client not to answer questions about those documents?
Mr. EGGLESTON. I don't think so. It was the privilege——
Page 891 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON. Okay.
Mr. EGGLESTON [continuing]. Issues that we're addressing.
Mr. DHILLON. In that case, I better do these one at a time. I was reminded by my counsel, co-counsel that not all of these are on the log. So some of the questions that you objected to would be appropriate as to those documents, not that I'm conceding that your objection is appropriate.
Mr. EGGLESTON. No, I didn't expect that.
Mr. DHILLON. For the record, I am not. But let's proceed and see how far we can get.
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Let's just go through them quickly. With respect to Exhibit 5.
Answer. Okay. Before we go on, I do want to note for the record that these documents are all in the possession of this committee, every single one of them.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The documents listed on the privilege list.
Page 892 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON. So noted.
The WITNESS. The documents related to the Hudson casino matter listed on the privilege log have all been provided to this committee.
Mr. EGGLESTON. And obviously documents——
The WITNESS. Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9——
Mr. EGGLESTON [continuing]. Have been provided.
The WITNESS [continuing]. Have been provided to this committee. So what's the issue?
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. With respect to Exhibit 5, who was involved in the decision to assert privilege over—to—I'm sorry. That question has been asked. Let me go to the next question.
What element of Exhibit 5 suggests executive privilege.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Instruct not to answer.
Page 893 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. And I object on the basis of relevance and on the basis of propriety.
Mr. DHILLON. Again, I would ask that all—on all occasions when counsel advises client not to answer, that an index of those events be made.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. And I would ask the court reporter make an index of all instances in which the majority counsel is challenged on the basis of relevance and declines to state for the record the relevance of the question propounded.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. What element of Exhibit 5 suggests attorney/client privilege?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection as to propriety.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Objection as to relevance. Objection as to—that question calls for privilege answers, and the witness is instructed not to answer.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. When was Exhibit 5 found?
Page 894 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection as to propriety.
Mr. DHILLON. We can just have a standing objection. If so, you don't have to say that all the time.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. If you're going to ask each question, I'm going to raise each objection.
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
The WITNESS. I don't know.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Do you know where it was found?
Answer. I don't know.
Question. Do you——
Answer. I don't recall, I should say.
Question. Do you know whose files it was found in?
Page 895 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection as to propriety.
The WITNESS. I don't recall.
Mr. DHILLON. Now, we'll move to Exhibit 6. That's already before you. I would ask that you please review it. That's a memo from a Chippewa Tribal Chairman to Loretta Avent.
[Nionakis Deposition Exhibit DN–6 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. I've reviewed it.
Mr. DHILLON. Do you recognize Exhibit 6?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection as to propriety.
The WITNESS. I recognize it as a document that we've produced to this committee.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Just in terms of how we proceed here, the privilege log that accompanied this document does not list it as a privileged document; is that correct?
Page 896 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. That's correct.
Mr. EGGLESTON. So, I mean, the privilege didn't accompany it. This document is produced to you. It's not listed as a privilege document.
The WITNESS. I want to state that we made a production of documents. And with that production of documents, we also provided you with a supplemental privilege log, which is something that we have done in the past, which is something that we do at a legitimate stopping point in the production.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Okay. Why was this document not produced with the documents in September? I'm referring to Exhibit 6.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I'm sorry. Objection as to relevance. Assertion of privilege. Witness is instructed not to answer.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I object as to relevance and object on the grounds it's not proper to ask that question.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Was Exhibit 6 given to the Department of Justice lawyers for their review?
Page 897 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. EGGLESTON. Objection.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I'm sorry. You go.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to propriety. And objection as to relevance.
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
Mr. EGGLESTON. Objection as to relevance and assertion of privilege. The witness is instructed not to answer it.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Did the Department of Justice conclude that Exhibit 6—I'm sorry. Did the White House Counsel's Office conclude that Exhibit 6 was privileged or that there should be an assertion or subject to privilege?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection on the grounds that the question is improper.
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
Page 898 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
The WITNESS. I don't recall.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. When was Exhibit 6 found?
Answer. I don't recall.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection as to——
Mr. DHILLON. Where was it found?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Can I finish my objections, Mr. Dhillon?
The WITNESS. That's my problem.
Mr. EGGLESTON. It wasn't directed to you.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I have an objection as to relevance. I'm still objecting to the prior question. Objection as to relevance. And objection that it is improper to use committee resources to pursue private litigation.
Mr. DHILLON. When? When was Exhibit 6 found?
Page 899 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance and propriety.
The WITNESS. I don't remember the——
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Where was Exhibit 6 found?
Answer. I——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. You're going to have to let me say this.
The WITNESS. Right. I want to make——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. So objections as to relevance and propriety.
Mr. DHILLON. Do you know whose files it was found in?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance and propriety.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. I ask you to review Exhibit 7, which is before you. And that is a memo to Loretta Avent, dated August 17th, 1995.
Page 900 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
[Nionakis Deposition Exhibit DN–7 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Would you please review it?
Answer. I'm sorry, Exhibit 7.
Question. Yes.
Answer. Okay. I've reviewed it.
Question. Do you recognize it?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance and propriety.
The WITNESS. I recognize it.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. And what is it?
Answer. It's a document that we produced to this committee.
Page 901 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. And, once again, is this Exhibit 7 listed on the privilege log which is marked as Exhibit 10?
Answer. It doesn't appear to be.
Question. Was Exhibit 7 a document that you or the White House Counsel's Office concluded was subject to some sort of privilege?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance and objection on the grounds that it is improper to ask that question.
The WITNESS. I don't recall.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Did the Department of Justice—was the Department of Justice provided with a copy of Exhibit 7?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection on the grounds it's improper to use taxpayer resources to pursue private litigation.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Objection as to relevance and, in addition, it's—that question is covered by applicable privileges. And the witness is instructed not to answer it.
Page 902 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. When was Exhibit 7 found?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection on the basis of impropriety.
The WITNESS. I don't recall.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Do you know where it was found?
Answer. I don't.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance and as to propriety.
The WITNESS. I don't recall.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Do you know whose file it was found in?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection on the basis of impropriety.
Page 903 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
The WITNESS. I don't recall.
Mr. DHILLON. Let's move on to Exhibit 8, which is already before you. It's a memo from Michael Schmidt to Cheryl Mills regarding a call from lobbyist, Pat O'Connor.
[Nionakis Deposition Exhibit DN–8 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Can you please review Exhibit 8?
Answer. I reviewed it.
Question. Who participated in the decision to make Exhibit 8 subject to privilege?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection on the ground it's improper to use taxpayer resources in pursuit of private litigation.
Mr. DHILLON. May I inquire, Mr. McLaughlin, is it the Minority's position that the timing of production of this committee is not relevant to the work of this committee?
Page 904 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Dhillon, if you are asking questions concerning the timing of production of documents, I might, once again, sit here quietly like a bump on a log. You are not, however, going into the timing of production of documents. You are going into the question of why documents were classified as subject to privilege, an ongoing private litigation in Wisconsin.
The committee has these documents. The questions regarding the designation ''subject to privilege'' are utterly improper, in my view, because the committee has them. I would encourage you to drop this line of questioning and to return to something which is even marginally relevant to the investigation.
Mr. DHILLON. Well, you've objected several times to my questions of when was the document found. So I'll try to——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Well, because——
Mr. DHILLON. Well, you can let me finish. I usually let you finish. In fact, I always have let you finish.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Fair enough.
Mr. DHILLON. I've asked that question several times, and you've objected to it. And you just said a second ago timing is relevant. It appears to me——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Well——
Page 905 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON. Sir, I'm not done. The timing of the production of documents has a direct bearing on whether this administration, this White House is cooperating with this committee or the Senate. It is patently relevant. If you want to continue making objections which are clearly baseless, you may continue to do so, and you may continue to waste everyone's time. You make quite a deal out of the resources being spent. Well, indeed, sir, your baseless constant objections are wasting time.
I would ask you, sir, as a courtesy to everyone here, if you want to continue to assert basis objections, place a standing objection on the record. I will stipulate to a standing objection. I'm sure counsel for the witness will stipulate to a standing objection. I'm sure everyone in this room will stipulate to a standing objection.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Dhillon, I will happily agree to your suggestion not to make baseless objections. I will continue to make objections supported by the law and facts on the questions you're raising. So I will not stop making objections on a question-by-question basis.
If you—because you are asking particular questions, I'm going to continue considering your questions on a question-by-question basis and raising what objections I deem appropriate.
Your charges of wasting time are not well taken. This deposition has been crawling along since the very beginning, and it's not the fault of the witness. The subject matter that you've gotten into is one which is so blatantly beyond the scope of the investigation that I've objected to your questions as to timely because they clearly come in a sequence of questions which is in its entirety outside the scope of this investigation.
Page 906 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Accordingly, I will continue to make my objections on a question-by-question basis in the probably vain hope that you will shift your questioning at some point or other to a relevant line of questioning. As to the proprieties objections, I think your objection to my objection is not well taken.
Mr. DHILLON. And so am I correct, then, because I think it's important, I usually don't think it's so important to get into one of the attorney things, so since you represent the Minority, it is important, is it correct, then, that the timing of production of documents, that it's your position that the timing of production of documents has no bearing at all, is not relevant to determine whether there has been cooperation with this committee or the Senate?
And I would further add that the question of whether videotapes were timely produced is absolutely no different from what I—the questions that I am asking now of whether these documents were timely produced. They may not have the same media appeal as the videotapes do, but, sir, I have little doubt that they are identical in terms of the timely production of discovery.
So is it the Minority's position that any questions that have to do with the timely production of discovery by the White House are simply irrelevant and not proper?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I'm not going to take your bait on that question, Mr. Dhillon. I will raise whatever objections are proper. This colloquy can best be served at a higher level than staff attorneys.
Page 907 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON. I know the answer to the question. Do you know what the answer is to the question? In other words, I know what's relevant. Do you?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I make objections based on the relevance.
Mr. DHILLON. You told me a second ago you wouldn't answer, you'll let someone answer.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. No, no. You asked me what the Minority's position on the matter was. I'm not going to engage you in the colloquy.
Mr. DHILLON. You're the Minority counsel.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. You're here to take the deposition of the witness. Speechification and throwing questions back and forth among the Majority and Minority counsel is not an efficient use of the witness' time, my time, or your time.
What I would continue to do is make objections on the basis of relevance of what you're asking. When the question is irrelevant, I'll object on the basis of irrelevance. When the question is improper, I'll object on the basis of impropriety.
Mr. DHILLON. Mr. McLaughlin, you've finally come to the realization that making long speeches on the record are not appropriate. Let's continue.
Page 908 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Okay. Were we on Exhibit 8?
Mr. EGGLESTON. I don't know.
Mr. DHILLON. I don't either.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes. I think you had just shown him Exhibit 8.
Mr. DHILLON. I didn't I think I had. I had.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Who participated in the decision to assert privilege over to—to place Exhibit 8 subject to privilege?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection on the grounds that it is improper to use committee resources to advance the interests of a private party in litigation.
The WITNESS. I only know that, with respect to the White House, this document is one of the documents that was part of that meeting that I previously testified to.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Ruff, Mills, Breuer.
Page 909 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON. Can I go off the record for a minute?
[Discussion off the record.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. The privilege log, which is Exhibit 10, indicates that executive and attorney/client privilege—that this document was subject to executive and attorney/client privilege. Why was that?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection on the grounds that it is improper to use committee resources to advance the interest of a private party in litigation.
Mr. EGGLESTON. And I object on the basis of relevance and the assertion of applicable privileges and direct the witness not to respond to the question.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Okay. Exhibit 9.
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
Mr. DHILLON. Is the White House instructing your client to assert executive privilege over any of these documents?
Page 910 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes.
Mr. DHILLON. Exhibit——
Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, I'm sorry. Not over the documents. I'm sorry. No. Over questions related to communications within the White House Counsel's Office about how to classify these documents for the purpose of private litigation and communications with the Justice Department with regard to that issue. It's not over the documents. You have the documents. They've been given to you. And privilege has not been asserted.
So, no, I don't want to be so flip. The answer to that question is, no. It's over communications related to how to respond to private litigation. That is the area of where privilege has been asserted.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Exhibit 9, if you could, it is before you, if you could review it, please.
Mr. EGGLESTON. That's 8.
The WITNESS. Oh. Excuse me. Got it. I've reviewed it.
[Nionakis Deposition Exhibit DN–9 was marked for identification.]
Page 911 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Why is—why was this document subject to executive privilege?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection that it—on the grounds that it's improper to use committee resources to advance the interests of a private party in litigation.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I object as to relevance and direct—and direct the witness not to answer because it raises applicable privileges and inquires into the process with the White House with regard to private litigation.
Mr. DHILLON. Who participated in the decision to assert executive privilege to make this document subject to privilege?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection on the grounds that it is improper to use committee resources to advance the efforts of a private party in litigation.
The WITNESS. This document was one of the documents that was part of the meeting that I have testified to earlier.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Same answer. He already gave you that answer.
Page 912 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. When was that document found?
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. Where was it found?
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. In whose files was it found?
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. Why was that document not produced with the documents in September?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Objection as to relevance. Objection on the grounds that it's improper to use committee resources to advance the interests of a private party in litigation.
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
Mr. DHILLON. Mr. McLaughlin, you've made a relevance objection. I asked when the document was produced. Why is that not a relevant question?
Page 913 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. This whole line of questions is irrelevant to the scope of this committee's investigation. These—we have the documents. The documents are sitting on the table in front of you. The White House produced them. You are probing into the production of documents that are also implicated in private litigation which is not—that the—the assertion of privilege in that litigation is not properly within the scope of this committee's investigation.
So, accordingly, when you ask questions that fall directly underneath the umbrella of objectionable and improper questions, I will raise the objection.
I'm fascinated that you're now paying so much attention to my objections. You stampede past them as you always do, as is you're right under the committee rules. I'm flattered as to you're now probing into the substantive basis of my objections. I'd be delighted to expound them to you off the record at some future time. I think the purpose of this deposition is to not waste any more of the witness' time. Why don't we keep going through your questions.
Mr. DHILLON. I look forward to the day we can sit down and talk about that. The reason I ask is because you previously said that the timing was relevant, and that was specifically a timing question. You objected to it on relevance grounds.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Certain issues of timing are relevant. Other issues of timing are not relevant.
Mr. DHILLON. Then I will ask that the question be answered.
Page 914 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, look, I think he's already given you an answer to that question, and I'm happy to have him give the answer. I think he gave the answer an hour ago.
Mr. DHILLON. I'd like to hear it again.
Mr. EGGLESTON. No, I'm happy for him to give it to you again.
The WITNESS. This was one of the documents that was part of the meeting that I testified to previously.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. So it was a document that the White House Counsel's Office believed was subject to some privilege?
Answer. It is one that became part of that process where these documents were turned over to or produced to the Department of Justice for its review.
Question. Other than your attorney, have you discussed this deposition with anyone else?
Answer. I have not—other than logistics and timing, I have not discussed my deposition with anyone else.
Page 915 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. You discussed logistics and timing with someone other than your attorney, but not the substance of your deposition?
Answer. Well, I couldn't discuss the substance of my deposition—I've been here all day. So, no, I haven't discussed——
Question. Prior to being deposed, did you discuss?
Answer. No, no. But when I—I don't mean to be flip, but timing and logistics, just simply I'm not going to be in the office after 1 o'clock because I'm going to be in a deposition.
Question. Have you contacted anyone in the Minority to discuss your deposition?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you had any meetings with Minority counsel about the videotapes?
Mr. EGGLESTON. Objection. I'm sorry, I fell asleep. I thought you were asking—I'm going to object to questions about communications with Minority, Majority staff about this. I really think that's quite inappropriate.
Page 916 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
My recollection is that, for quite some time, there's been an understanding in this committee that neither side is probing the activities of the staff of the other side. And I can't imagine that those understandings have been abandoned.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Well, I'll just note for the record the following objection which is that, actually, I'm happy to have the witness answer that question. But I will tell you that the Chairman has repeatedly taken the position that investigating Members of Congress is outside the scope of this committee.
If I'm wrong on that, I'll be delighted to learn that today and to hear that investigating the conduct of Members of Congress and with their staff is fully within the scope of this committee, because I assume that you must have some basis to think that something improper is going on with his communications with the Minority. But given that I know that not to be the case, I guess I don't have any objection to him answering the question. But perhaps Mr. Dhillon could clarify what is and isn't within the scope of the committee's jurisdiction.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Just—I'm happy to have him answer the question. I really must say this is another example where I cannot conceive of the relevance. It was not my understanding the Majority was investigating the activities of the Minority on this committee. If it is, that seems to me it ought to be more widely disseminated. With that said, I'm happy to have Mr. Nionakis answer the question.
Mr. DHILLON. That's two of the longest nonobjections on the record I've ever heard.
Page 917 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. EGGLESTON. I'm objecting as a matter of principle because I think it's quite inappropriate. Again, I have really tried very hard to let you get to the bottom of this.
You were asked about the——
The WITNESS. Right. The only discussion I recall with Minority staff about the videotapes is a discussion I had with Mr. McLaughlin in which I arranged to provide him—provide the Minority with a set of the videotapes weeks after a set was provided to the Majority.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. And that was in the nature of my complaining about your failure to produce those tapes.
The WITNESS. And, again, I apologize, Mr. McLaughlin, but with all due respect, yes, you were complaining quite vociferously.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Do you or your office—does anyone in your office or do you speak with defense counsel for any witnesses that have been named in subpoenas, for example, Exhibit 1? That was a long time ago, but that was the original subpoena from our committee?
Answer. The question is do we speak with defense counsel for any witnesses?
Page 918 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. Named in the subpoenas.
Answer. I imagine that we all have spoken with defense counsel for various witnesses. We, that is——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Are you using defense counsel as a term of art there? You mean personal lawyers retained.
The WITNESS. I mean private attorneys.
Mr. DHILLON. In the form of prosecutor, on the other side is the defense, you're right. Counsel for the witness. That's a throwback.
The WITNESS. You're absolutely right. They're not defendants. Private counsel for various witnesses, I imagine I have. And I imagine other people in the Counsel's Office have.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Are you aware of anyone in the Counsel's Office or have you ever spoken with any lawyer for a person who has taken the fifth before this committee?
Answer. I have not. And I'm not aware of anyone in the Counsel's Office who has.
Page 919 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. Same question except for somebody who has fled the country?
Answer. Same answer.
Mr. DHILLON. I probably have a few more minutes of questions. I would like to take a break. I've got a bunch of notes that I need to look at. So I'll need a break to decide which ones to ask, but I'm ready to defer to you.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Why don't we get all the questions out of the way. I have a tiny number of questions. And we'll be happy to wait until you're finished.
Mr. DHILLON. Shall we take five?
Mr. EGGLESTON. Sure.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Sure.
[Recess.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. There's been some discussion of a nonwaiver agreement that may apply to these documents. When I say these documents, I'm referring to the October 22nd dog track documents. Do you know what that nonwaiver agreement is?
Page 920 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. In this substance——
Mr. EGGLESTON. I'm sorry.
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
The WITNESS. I generally know, but I couldn't tell you sitting here exactly what it is.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Okay. Does it apply to an agreement not to produce documents over which the White House has, in fact, asserted executive privilege or a privilege?
Answer. I don't know.
Question. Okay. Do you know if it would apply to documents where—that are only subject to privilege?
Answer. I don't know. And don't recall.
Question. And just so we're clear, all the documents that we're talking about, I think they were Exhibits 5 through 9. Of the ones that were on the privilege log, there has been no actual claim of executive privilege as to those documents, correct?
Page 921 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. There has been no formal assertion of privilege with respect to those documents.
Question. Has there been a claim of executive privilege as to those documents?
Answer. The documents have been classified as being subject to privilege. That's—that's the best answer I can give you, to the best of my knowledge.
Question. If the nonwaiver agreement applies only to documents over which a claim has actually been asserted, then it wouldn't apply to documents 5 through 9, correct?
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
Mr. EGGLESTON. You just have to ask someone who's more familiar with this. I mean, rarely are we going to have a nonwaiver, we, the White House, have a nonwaiver over a document that has been asserted, because you won't have it to release. So it's kind of a silly composition.
Mr. DHILLON. And just for the record, I didn't bring it up. It was brought up by someone else——
Mr. EGGLESTON. No, I understand.
Page 922 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON [continuing]. Who started to complain about a nonwaiver agreement. And it seems to us, because I made certain assertions to you about it, that if we had been given those documents, and there's no subject—no privilege asserted, the nonwaiver agreement wouldn't have to apply.
The WITNESS. It applies only to documents that are subject to privilege, but over which privilege has not been asserted. That's you get them. The White House gives them to the committee subject to privileges that it is not waiving by turning them over to the committee.
So, in other words, it's an institutional accommodation where everybody's happy. The committee gets to see the documents. The White House doesn't have to waive privileges which it believes exists, but it nevertheless wants to make the documents available to Congress pursuant to its review and pursuant to the investigative oversight.
Mr. EGGLESTON. The rest of it is Congress is not allowed to release it. The other half of the deal is they're not subject to release by Congress. And that's my understanding.
Mr. DHILLON. The point I'm wanting to make is we're talking about documents that are subject to privilege not asserted.
Mr. EGGLESTON. But that's the point.
Page 923 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON. Right. No, I understand the point. I just wanted to be very clear about that. Because I understand, I think we're all sort of saying the same thing over and over again.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Okay.
Mr. DHILLON. I think we understand that.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. And just to be clear, so the privileges can be asserted over these to documents in other contexts. Do you understand, like, for example, civil litigation.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Do you know who a person named Dan Goldberg?
Answer. Don Goldberg.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I was going to tell you not to help him.
The WITNESS. I know a Don Goldberg.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. Does he work for the White House?
Page 924 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. I believe he does.
Question. Do you know in what capacity he's employed?
Answer. I don't know his official title.
Question. Do you know who he's employed with—is he employed with the Counsel's Office?
Answer. I don't know.
Question. Have you ever worked with him?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And in what capacity have you worked with him?
Answer. On these, on investigative matters.
Question. Is he a lawyer?
Answer. I don't know.
Question. What has he done for you or with you?
Page 925 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. [Witness conferring with counsel.]
I only know he works on legislative affairs type matters. And to the extent that his role overlaps with my role, we have worked together.
Question. Is he on the investigative group or team?
Answer. I don't think so, no.
Question. Do you know who he reports to?
Answer. No.
Question. I'll take you back to when we were talking about the process by which documents are produced pursuant to exhibit—I think it was Exhibit 4——
Answer. Is this——
Question [continuing]. Or Exhibit 3.
Answer. The directive.
Question. The directive, Exhibit 3. Did any documents come from an office that had already certified that it had produced all-responsive documents?
Page 926 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. Now, with respect to the documents that we were just talking about, exhibits, I believe, 5 through 9——
Answer. Uh-huh.
Question [continuing]. Who sent those documents to Department of Justice?
Answer. I did.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Although I should say I don't believe he testified as to all of them that they were sent to the Department of Justice. I think, as to some of them, we refused to answer. I directed you not to respond to that question.
The WITNESS. That's right.
Mr. EGGLESTON. So your question was overinclusive. He has not testified that all of those documents were sent to the Justice Department.
The WITNESS. That's correct.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Page 927 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. Did the Department of Justice make a document request to the White House regarding the Hudson Dog Track?
[Witness conferring with counsel.]
Mr. EGGLESTON. I'm sorry. I need to take a break.
Mr. DHILLON. Okay.
[Recess.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. There's a question pending.
Answer. Right. Which was? I believe your question was that the Department of Justice make a request for those documents. My response is that I think about—about a week and a half ago, the task force requested these documents.
Question. Did the Department of Justice request the documents—but the Department of Justice through the subpoena in the civil action had requested the documents prior to that?
Answer. But the Department of Justice did not. It's the private plaintiffs who asked for them.
Page 928 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. Right.
Answer. I need to be—I want to be perfectly clear.
Question. No, I understand.
Answer. The Department of Justice did not ask for these documents. The private plaintiff subpoenaed these documents. Your question now is, did the Department of Justice ever ask for these documents? My answer to you is, the only time the Department of Justice as an entity has asked for these documents is about a week and a half ago, and that would be the task force that asked for those.
Question. And were they produced to the task force?
Answer. Yes, they were.
Question. Are—have these documents been released to the press, and I'm referring to Exhibits 5 through 9, to the press by the White House?
Answer. To my knowledge, no.
Mr. EGGLESTON. That's been three.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Page 929 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. How did the Department of Justice communicate the civil subpoena to you?
Answer. We received copies of the subpoenas.
Question. From the Department of Justice?
Answer. From the Department of Justice.
Question. When?
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. The meeting you had with Mr. Breuer, Mr. Ruff, Ms. Mills regarding the documents that we've been talking about before they went to the Department of Justice, do you recall the month that occurred?
Answer. Actually, I don't.
Question. Was it—do you recall if it was summer?
Answer. I don't recall the month it was.
Question. Have you had any meetings or conversations with Loretta Avent about the subject matter of the Hudson Dog Track documents?
Page 930 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. I don't—I have not.
Question. Do you know if anyone else has had any discussions or communications with Loretta Avent?
Answer. I don't know. To my knowledge, no.
Question. Do you know what month the Department of Justice transmitted the civil subpoena to you?
Answer. I don't recall.
Question. Would there be such records at the White House about when those meetings occurred, that information?
Answer. I don't believe so. No.
Question. How about the subpoenas?
Answer. I don't believe so either.
Mr. DHILLON. No further questions.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Thank you, Mr. Dhillon.
Page 931 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
Question. Mr. Nionakis, I want to thank you for taking your time to come here. Your patience has been extraordinary in the case of what can only be termed a bizarre series of questions stretching well over an hour into the designation of documents as subject to privilege which have been turned over to this committee. And I congratulate you on your patience and forthrightness in responding to those questions nonetheless.
I just have two questions for you. First of all, are you aware of—have you—I'll rephrase the question. Have you knowingly withheld any responsive nonprivileged documents from this committee?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you undertaken your compliance with this committee's subpoena in a good faith manner and utilizing your best efforts at every step of the process?
Answer. Absolutely.
Question. Thank you. I have nothing further.
Mr. DHILLON. I have one follow-up question.
Page 932 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. EGGLESTON. It's hard to have a follow-up question to those two.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:
Question. With respect to Exhibit 10, which is the log——
Answer. Right.
Question [continuing]. Was that created by the White House or by the Department of Justice?
Answer. It was created by the White House.
Mr. DHILLON. Also, I would like to state for the record that this committee and myself and Mr. Dold have no interest in this private litigation. There's been references to that. I know the counsel for the witness has raised that question, and Mr. McLaughlin has certainly intimated there is some interest. There is—this deposition and deposition questions being asked were not asked to further any interest in any litigation. They were asked to further, we believe, the legitimate goals of the investigation. I just wanted you to know that, sir.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I think—I'll just note that the record speaks for itself. And this committee's interest is a matter of—is now a matter of record. Observers can draw whatever conclusions they deem fit.
Page 933 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. DHILLON. Well, with your permission, I'm sure they will. Is there any further questions we need to ask?
The WITNESS. NO.
Mr. DHILLON. Thank you very much, sir.
The WITNESS. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 6:03 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]
[The deposition exhibits referred to follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 278 TO 315 HERE
[The deposition of Lanny Breuer follows:]
Executive Session
| Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, |
| U.S. House of Representatives, |
| Washington, DC. |
DEPOSITION OF: LANNY BREUER
The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 8:45 a.m.
Appearances:
Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Richard Bennett, Chief Counsel; Barbara Comstock, Chief Investigative Counsel; Sophia Nelson, Staff Assistant; Kenneth Ballen, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel; Andrew J. McLaughlin, Minority Counsel; and David Sadkin, Minority Counsel.
Also Present: Representatives Barrett and Kanjorski.
For MR. BREUER:
MARK H. LYNCH, ESQ.
Covington & Burling
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20044
Mr. BENNETT. Good morning, Mr. Breuer.
Page 935 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. BREUER. Good morning.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Lynch, nice to have you here early in the morning on this day. Congressman Barrett is here. He's had his workout and run, so we're ready to get rolling.
On behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, we thank you for appearing today. There are certain preambles I just want to go over before we get started.
Obviously you recognize that this is a deposition, and you have been placed under oath—or will be placed under oath to answer these questions. And I would request that the court reporter place you under oath now at this time.
THEREUPON, LANNY BREUER, a witness, was called for examination, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Mr. BENNETT. I would like to note for the record those who are present here today with me. I'm Richard Bennett, chief counsel for the Majority; Ms. Barbara Comstock, chief investigative counsel. Ms. Sophia Nelson is here for the Majority. Mr. Andrew McLaughlin is here for the Minority, and Mr. David——
Mr. SADKIN. Sadkin.
Page 936 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT [continuing]. Sadkin is here, along with Mr. Breuer and his counsel, Mr. Lynch. And we're pleased to also have Congressman Tom Barrett of Wisconsin, if I'm not mistaken——
Mr. BARRETT. That is correct.
Mr. BENNETT [continuing]. Congressman Barrett here as well as well.
Mr. BENNETT. Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you've 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. Do you understand that, Mr. Breuer?
The WITNESS. I do, Mr. Bennett.
Mr. BENNETT. If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past, and you're unable to recall the exact words used in that conversation, you may state that you're unable to recall the exact words, and then you may give me the gist or substance of that 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 recall.
If I ask you whether you have any information about a particular subject, and you have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding that subject or have seen correspondence or documentation about that subject, please tell me that you do have such information, and indicate the source from which you derive such knowledge.
Page 937 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Do you understand that?
The WITNESS. I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can. I'm not sure if I'll remember all of your instructions, but I will try to answer everything the best I can.
Mr. BENNETT. I think the—the boilerplate is to the extent you were not in a conversation, but you have knowledge or reason to believe there was a conversation, to the extent you're able to provide us information, if you would do so. Do you understand that?
The WITNESS. I'll do my best.
Mr. BENNETT. Before we begin the questioning, I want to give you some background about the investigation and your appearance here and the authority pursuant to which we've asked you to be here.
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. Pages 2 through 4 of House Report 105–139 summarizes the investigation as of June 19, 1997, and describes new matters which have arisen in the course of the investigation. Also, pages 4 through 11 of the report explain the background of the investigation.
Page 938 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
All questions related either directly or indirectly to these issues, or questions which have the tendency to make the existence of any pertinent fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, are proper pursuant to the House rules.
This 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 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. When they are finished, committee counsel will resume questioning.
Congressman Barrett is here this morning. He will be given an immediate opportunity to ask questions. He will also be permitted at any time to interrupt or ask that he be able to follow up on a question.
Other Members of Congress may or may not attend this morning's session. In that regard, I would note that there is a business meeting scheduled for 10:30 this morning. It would be my intent, Mr. McLaughlin, around 10:30 to be prepared to stop for a period of time during the course of that business meeting pursuant to the question of some Members of the committee.
Page 939 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
I suspect that the business meeting may not start promptly at 10:30, so I would suggest that we sort of have someone monitor when the business meeting starts, and then we can stop and continue the deposition if you would like.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Bennett. Let me just note in that regard that the Minority Members of the committee had hoped that this deposition would not be scheduled to conflict with that meeting at all. Nevertheless, given the constraints of Mr. Breuer's schedule and your determination to hold the deposition on this day, I propose that we just simply plow ahead with the deposition and get it over as quickly as possible.
If any of the Minority Members wish to halt the deposition to be able to take part in that meeting, of course, I think we ought to honor that request. But barring such request, I would prefer to just plow forward and get it over with.
Mr. BENNETT. That's fine. In that regard, Mr. Lynch and I have spoken, and Mr. Breuer has probably the most important commitment of anyone here today. At noon, I have agreed that he can leave because he needs to be with children for a Halloween party.
The WITNESS. I appreciate you honoring that, Mr. Bennett.
Mr. BENNETT. Let me say that the committee is not a committee without a heart, so we will be stopping at noon anyway. In light of that fact, Mr. Lynch and I have discussed the fact that very likely we will be continuing Monday morning until, perhaps, lunchtime.
Page 940 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
So in that regard, I have no concern one way or the other about stopping during the course of the business meeting, because I suspect we may not finish by noon today anyway. So, again, Mr. McLaughlin, in that regard, if you desire for us to stop during the business meeting as a courtesy to Members of the committee, please let me know.
Mr. BENNETT. Pursuant to the committee rules, Mr. Breuer, you are allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights. And the record will reflect that Mr. Mark Lynch is here with you.
Any objection raised during the course of the deposition shall 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. In that regard, only your counsel has the right to advise you not to answer a question.
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, the chairman or a Member designated by the chairman, in this case, Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana, may decide whether the objection is proper.
This deposition is considered to be 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 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. Do you understand that?
Page 941 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
The WITNESS. I do.
Mr. BENNETT. 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. The committee staff may make any typographical and technical changes requested by you. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a statement for your reasons for each proposed change.
In that regard, Mr. Lynch, we have been adopting a policy pursuant to which we can send the deposition to you, and you can review it with your client in his office or yours. And then I ask you that you return that back to us. You don't need to come back and come to the committee room. So we'll extend that courtesy to you.
In light of the fact Mr. Breuer, as I indicated to Mr. Ruff last night, that the committee has noticed hearings for next Thursday and Friday, it's anticipated you will be called next Thursday, we will make this transcript available to you as quickly as possible, presumably today's transcript by Monday, and Monday's transcript by late Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning.
The WITNESS. I appreciate that.
Mr. BENNETT. Do you understand everything we've gone over so far?
Page 942 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
The WITNESS. I think so.
Mr. BENNETT. Have I gone through the preamble too quickly? I hope not.
The WITNESS. No. I think it's fine, Mr. Bennett.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Before you get to your substantive questions, Mr. Bennett, maybe I'll make my two points.
Mr. BENNETT. Sure.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The first point I want to make is my usual point, for Mr. Lynch's benefit; that is, pursuant to House Rule XI 2(k)(8), objections as to pertinence and relevance is the province of the full committee, and not merely the chairman, to rule on. Accordingly, any objection ruled on by the chairman is appealable to the committee.
My second objection is in the nature of a continuing objection. I just want to state it at the outset so I won't have to waste time stating it during the course of the deposition, and that is that Minority objects to any questions in this deposition that have already been asked in Mr. Breuer's Senate deposition or in the public testimony that he gave 2 days ago.
It's my understanding that the Senate deposition was made public. I was able to retrieve a copy from the hearing room, and I'm sure that you will have had a chance to review those depositions and we can avoid duplicative questioning. If necessary, I will be reiterate that objection, but I just want to get it out of the way at the beginning.
Page 943 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
It's the position of the Minority that redundant and duplicative questions should not be a part of this deposition in light of the fact Mr. Breuer has given testimony publicly under oath 2 days ago and under oath in a deposition last week.
Mr. BENNETT. And just in response to Mr. McLaughlin, I had a meeting with Mr. Ruff on Friday, October the 10th, which indicated that our concern with respect to the integrity and the process and subpoenas issued by this committee cover more than just a matter of videotapes. And Mr. Ruff has concurred. In fact, Mr. Breuer was present in that meeting.
With respect to the matter of redundancy, we will make every effort not to be redundant, but we're going to be looking into the entire scope of the compliance with our subpoena and procedures prior to and subsequent to.
So having said that, I think we'll move forward.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Mr. Breuer, without getting into a lot of your background, which, as Mr. McLaughlin notes, is a matter of public record, and your distinguished academic career at Columbia University and Columbia Law School, let me, if I can, just go immediately into the matter of first your employment background.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Bennett, we may have a vote.
Page 944 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. Excuse me, sir. I'm sorry. Excuse me, Congressman. I overlooked the fact that Congressman Barrett, as I noted, is here.
Congressman Barrett, if you would like to ask any questions, you may do so.
Mr. BARRETT. Thank you. And I appreciate that.
Mr. BENNETT. I meant to do that, and I apologize. I was just going to get the background out of the way.
Mr. BARRETT. Sure. It's about 3 minutes to 9:00, and we're scheduled to go in at 9:00.
Mr. Breuer, thank you for being here. Mr. Bennett, thank you.
It's my understanding, Mr. Breuer, you left your law partnership with Covington & Burling early this year to serve the President and spend many, many hours responding to that request from this committee, from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and from the Department of Justice, and I thank you for that. It's also my understanding that you have also appeared for a deposition before the Senate committee; is that correct?
The WITNESS. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. BARRETT. And how long did you spend in that deposition?
Page 945 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
The WITNESS. Approximately 2 hours——
Mr. BARRETT. 2 hours?
The WITNESS [continuing]. In the deposition.
Mr. BARRETT. And you appeared before the full Senate committee earlier this week?
The WITNESS. That's correct. I believe it was on Wednesday that I appeared before the full committee.
Mr. BARRETT. And how long was your testimony?
The WITNESS. I was part of a panel of three. And we were there for approximately 3 hours.
Mr. BARRETT. Okay. And that was televised on C-SPAN?
The WITNESS. Yes, so I understand; that's right.
Mr. BARRETT. I ask those questions simply because, Mr. Bennett, I don't know, have you got any copy of his deposition?
Page 946 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. Yes. I have a reviewed a copy of his deposition from the Senate yesterday.
Mr. BARRETT. And also his testimony before the Senate?
Mr. BENNETT. I have reviewed portions of a transcript of his testimony. I had not seen the entire tape.
Mr. BARRETT. I raise that simply because of the concern that was raised earlier. It is my hope that we do not have a rerun of that show. And I think it's valid certainly to go into areas that haven't been examined, but, as you know and as has been pointed out, part of our objection is that this is just a waste of time, waste of money. It may be good for the attorney here if he's billing on an hourly basis, but otherwise, I don't see where anybody benefits at all by simply going through it.
Mr. BENNETT. So I can respond to that, Congressman, if I can, our subpoena was issued on March 4th, 1997, before the Senate's subpoena was issued. The matter of the complaint to our subpoena is a totally separate question in terms of steps taken with respect to our subpoena, totally apart from the Senate subpoena, which was issued later, as well as dialogue that was held with the Senate with respect to their subpoena, two entirely separate issues.
Mr. Ruff and I, when we met on Friday, October the 10th, I think, had a fairly good understanding with respect to that. Ken Ballen, Minority counsel, was there. In fact, Mr. Breuer was present. And I indicated my concerns over the matter of compliance with our subpoena and some of the problems that this committee has had.
Page 947 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
And for the record, I believe that Congressman Waxman himself used the word ''inexcusable'' with respect to the nonproduction of matters for this committee, not directly necessarily with Mr. Breuer, but just generally the entire process.
So we think it's important for counsel for this committee to try to inquire as to subpoena compliance generally and procedures that are taken. The matters we will cover as quickly as possible will not just be the matter of White House videotapes and just a repetition of the events of the month of October 1997.
Mr. BARRETT. And I appreciate that and understand that, but, again, so you understand, our concern is that it's a waste of time and waste of resources if we're just going to be running reruns.
Mr. BENNETT. Right. And I will do my best to the extent possible not to have reruns. Meaning no disrespect to my counterpart in the Senate, there are some matters I would like to go into a little more in depth, perhaps, than Mr. Madigan choose to go into, so to that extent, it will not be a rerun.
Mr. BARRETT. Okay. I'll yield to you.
Mr. BENNETT. And at any time you want to interrupt and ask questions, just so you'll know, please.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Page 948 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. In terms of your background, Mr. Breuer, you were, for a period of time prior to your engagement as White House Counsel, with the law firm of Covington & Burling here in Washington; is that correct?
Answer. That's correct, Mr. Bennett.
Question. And you started with that law firm upon graduation from law school, or completion of a clerkship rather?
Answer. No, that's not correct. Upon graduating from law school in 1985, I joined the Manhattan District Attorney's Office where I was an assistant district attorney for 4 years where I prosecuted violent and organized crime and some white collar crime. I then joined the law firm of Covington & Burling in 1989. I became a partner of the law firm in 1995, and I left the law firm in February of 1997 to become Special Counsel to the President.
Question. And with respect to your private practice and experience, you indicated that you prosecuted white collar criminal offenses in the District Attorney's Office in New York?
Answer. Not in private practice, of course, but as an assistant district attorney, I did prosecute, yes.
Question. And with regard to your private practice experience with Covington & Burling, it's my understanding that you engaged in representation of clients that will be defined as in the white collar criminal arena; is that correct?
Page 949 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. Right. I did both civil and criminal, but that's absolutely right, I had a white collar practice.
Question. And in terms of a white collar criminal practice, that involves representing corporations or individuals with respect to government or corporate investigations as to alleged impropriety in what would be defined as the white collar area?
Answer. That's correct. And as you know, that area has become broader and broader, but in essence that's correct, Mr. Bennett.
Question. And with respect to that practice, it would involve, I gather, the dealing with and compliance with grand jury subpoenas and other subpoenas issued to your clients; is that correct?
Answer. It is.
Question. And what percentage of your practice was devoted to that area?
Answer. It's hard for me to give you a percentage. I would say that, in the early years, more of my practice was devoted to civil litigation. In the last years, probably more of it was dedicated to white collar criminal. It's a little hard for me to give you a percentage. At any different—at different points, the majority would have been civil in the beginning, and in the end, the majority would have been criminal or white collar.
Page 950 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. I gather, then, in light of your practice, it would be difficult for you to put a number on the number of white collar criminal investigations you've worked on?
Answer. Yeah. I mean, I—it would be hard for me to give you a number. I—well, a fair number.
Question. And you would then, I think, in terms of with the American Bar Association and with other professional associations, have held yourself out, properly so, I might add, as having expertise with respect to the practice of white collar criminal law; is that correct?
Answer. I don't know what I would say about expertise. I was one of the editors of the Complex Crimes Journal. And I was on the Steering Committee on the Criminal Law and Civil Rights here in the District of Columbia.
Question. And with respect to your editorship on the Complex Crimes Journal, essentially, that is a journal sent to other professionals who may engage in especially white collar criminal practice; isn't that correct?
Answer. I think that's probably correct.
Question. And, in fact, there were articles in that journal that relate to fairly esoteric white collar crime issues, including compliance with grand jury subpoenas, internal corporate investigations and things such as that; is that correct?
Page 951 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. That is correct.
Question. And can I ask, with respect to the nature of your practice at Covington & Burling, did you ever find yourself in the type of situation that, unfortunately, White House Counsel is in now with respect to the matter of compliance with the subpoena?
Answer. I'm not sure what you mean with regards—in your characterization. Obviously, one of the tasks that someone does in private practice is to comply with subpoenas, and I certainly was involved in that task. I've never before been deposed or challenged about—about activities involving what my colleagues or others have done in that pursuit.
Question. And have you, during your career in private practice with Covington & Burling, have either you or your firm ever been challenged by a U.S. Attorney's Office or by a court with respect to your compliance with a grand jury subpoena on behalf of a client?
Mr. LYNCH. Are you asking him to comment on the entirety of Covington & Burling's experience since 1919?
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Lynch, the point is well taken.
With respect to Mr. Breuer's involvement on the cases he's worked on at Covington & Burling.
Page 952 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
The WITNESS. I don't think so. I mean, there's always, as you know, Mr. Bennett, the natural tension between private practice litigators and U.S. attorneys. U.S. attorneys want more. Private practice litigators will try to work with the U.S. attorneys.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. U.S. attorneys generally are very compassionate people, though, generally?
Answer. And I'm familiar with your old office. So aside from the natural tensions that come into that dynamic, the answer is no.
Question. So is it safe to say, is it not, and I'm not casting aspersions on you, Mr. Breuer, believe me I'm not, I'm just saying that, just presenting the question, it's safe to say, is it not, the circumstances surrounding the matter of these videotapes and compliance with the subpoena are fairly unique in your legal career; is that correct?
Answer. Yes. Certainly I've never before been involved, Mr. Bennett, in a situation that's so highly politicized that, in the course of providing materials, that it becomes such a focus of public attention. And so it's a little hard to divorce the remarkable political atmosphere from the rest. And so with respect to that, for me personally this is a fairly unique experience.
Page 953 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. And I guess specifically my question is, apart from the matter of the public nature of this dispute and the politicization of it, with respect, again, to your practice as an attorney, this is fairly unique, is it not, in your career for there to be a challenge over clear noncompliance with a subpoena? You've never been in that position before; isn't that correct?
Answer. That is correct. I have—obviously, as I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Bennett, it's not unusual in a large production to find documents or materials subsequently; once you learn about them, to produce them. But you are right. I have never before been in this kind of situation.
Question. And, indeed, as a matter of public record, that in light of the events of October 1997, this is October 31st, and you started a rather eventful month with information on October 1 that came to your attention—the record should reflect that you're smiling in that regard about—but this has been a pretty active month for you in terms of this particular question; is that right?
Answer. That's right. I mean, every month since I've been at the White House has been very active. But the focus, of course, with this month with respect to the videotapes, it's been very active.
Question. Again in terms of—it's a matter of public record in terms of being called before a Federal grand jury. For example, never in your career before has a Federal grand jury called you to appear before it with respect to compliance on behalf of a client with a subpoena; isn't that correct?
Page 954 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
[Witness confers with counsel.]
The WITNESS. Mr. Bennett, without creating any sort of sexy issues, I do want to be clear that I have said earlier on, I may have said it to this committee, that early on I thought it was very important that, to the degree there were ever questions at the White House, that I would try to address them.
The White House does not have a custodian of records like many corporations do. A number of the lawyers who work with me are younger lawyers, and I, of course, report to Mr. Ruff. I had from the start said to the Justice Department and others that I would step forward if anyone had any questions.
So I just want it to be clear that, in going to the grand jury to do that, I, of course, can't read what are in other people's minds, but it was clear, I think, to those who had spoken to me before that, because the White House didn't have a custodian of records, because I didn't think we should put career people in that position, because I didn't think Mr. Ruff should be put in that position, and because I didn't think the younger lawyers should, that if at any point there were questions, that I would come up.
So I just want to be clear I think it's in that vein, in all fairness, that I did appear before the grand jury. And I just wanted to put that in the correct context.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Page 955 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. I understand. And I gather that what you're saying is that, with respect to the appearance before the grand jury, you were the representative of the White House Counsel's Office who appeared before the grand jury as a representative of the entire office?
Answer. Now, again, I don't—I'm not reading what is in the prosecutors' minds, of course, and I don't want to make any such representations, but, yes, I went in there as obviously, I thought, and, in fact, throughout this have acted as a representative of the White House. And it's in that capacity, my official capacity, that I appeared there, and, I would like to think, I'm appearing before you today.
Question. Certainly. So to your knowledge, no one else in the White House Counsel's Office was asked to appear before the grand jury?
[Witness confers with counsel.]
The WITNESS. I——
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. To your knowledge.
Answer. To my knowledge, I am, in fact, now aware that others have appeared.
Page 956 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. All right. Directing your attention to your employment at the White House in February of 1997, when you began working at the White House, who hired you? Who was your immediate supervisor?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I'm just going to note an objection. The background of Mr. Breuer's hiring at the White House Counsel's Office is part of the deposition and the hearing transcript before the Senate.
Mr. BENNETT. I've read the transcript, and I have follow-up questions, Mr. McLaughlin, as to that.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Mr. Ruff, I believe, preceded you, and you practiced law with Mr. Ruff at Covington & Burling, correct?
Answer. I did.
Question. And I think at the Senate deposition you indicated that you had spoken with people prior to Mr. Ruff, and then you arrived 1 week after him; is that correct?
Answer. That's exactly correct.
Question. And my question is, exactly with whom you had spoken prior to your arrival, because, obviously, Mr. Ruff wasn't there for you to speak with him?
Page 957 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. I initially was contacted about this position in December and asked if I would be interested in becoming Special Counsel.
Question. And who contacted you?
[Witness confers with counsel.]
The WITNESS. Judge Garland, before he was on the bench, we had had some professional dealings. And he was the person who contacted me and said he had heard that the White House was looking for a Special Counsel and would I be interested. Without belaboring it, as I was joking, I had just got my partner's desk and really wasn't looking to move.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. You became a partner in '95 but didn't get your desk until '97?
Answer. Yes. That's actually right. Right. It's a big firm.
Mr. LYNCH. It takes a while to clear the offices out.
The WITNESS. But—and it was in that vein that I was initially contacted, Mr. Bennett. I then, after speaking to a couple of people, including Mr. Ruff, by pure coincidence, decided to send my resume. I then spoke to Ms. Kathy Wallman, who, I guess, at the time was the Deputy White House Counsel. I spoke to her over the telephone. I then probably the next day spoke to Mr. Quinn, who I did not know.
Page 958 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Mr. Jack Quinn?
Answer. Mr. Jack Quinn.
Question. Mr. Ruff's predecessor as Counsel to the President?
Answer. That's exactly right. And I did not know him. And I met him in his office, and that's with whom I spoke.
It was soon thereafter, Mr. Bennett, that it was announced that Mr. Quinn was leaving the White House Counsel's Office, so I think my resume was held in abeyance or whatever. And then by coincidence Mr. Ruff, in fact, did become White House Counsel. And so at that point, I joined Mr. Ruff.
Question. And so the point I was trying to clarify, which was not clear from the Senate deposition, is that your hiring at the White House was totally—to your knowledge, was totally independent of Mr. Ruff going to the White House?
Answer. I don't think so. I think what happened, in all candor, is that Mr. Quinn was considering me when he made the announcement that he was leaving. And then, in fact, at that point, the decision was made that Mr. Ruff would make—the successor would make the decision.
Page 959 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Mr. Ruff came. I, of course, knew Mr. Ruff. So I think ultimately Mr. Ruff selected me. So I think, though I was initially contacted by Mr. Quinn, it was literally within a couple of days that Mr. Quinn announced that he was leaving the White House Counsel's Office. No one acted on my resume. And then after Mr. Ruff came on board, he asked—he formally asked me to join the White House Counsel's Office.
Question. Did Mr. Garland, then Mr. Garland, now Judge Garland, indicate why he had called or if anybody had said that you were looking for a position?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know what prompted his call?
Answer. We know one another, and many years earlier he knew—he has known that I'm interested in public service. I, in fact, was not looking for a position. I don't really know why he called other than he ultimately gave me a call.
Question. Who—exactly who were the people with whom you spoke at the White House, if you can remember those people with whom you spoke?
Answer. You mean prior to coming?
Question. Yes.
Page 960 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. I think it was——
Question. Did you speak with Bruce Lindsey?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever speak with Cheryl Mills?
Answer. No. I really do think that the only people I spoke prior to Mr. Ruff and I speaking and Mr. Ruff hiring me was Ms. Wallman and Mr. Quinn, and we only met on one occasion, which was within a day or 2, candidly, of when I sent my resume. And then I probably spoke to Ms. Wallman a couple of times just to find out if there was going to be any action on my resume prior to the time of the selection of a new counsel. I think it was something I had the understanding that there would not be. And then Mr. Ruff was named.
Question. To your knowledge, when was the first time you met Cheryl Mills or Bruce Lindsey?
Answer. I can't give you the date, but I think the first time I met them was——
Question. Let me step back. Maybe it will be easier for you. Did you meet them prior to your arrival at the White House?
Answer. I did. And I'm really trying to think. I began, I think, on approximately the 16th or 18th. And Mr. Ruff asked me probably a couple of weeks before I started to come in on a Saturday just to meet some people and to meet with him, and that's when I met with Ms. Mills. And I think, as I recall, Mr. Lindsey at some point walked into the room, and literally I just shook his hand.
Page 961 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. And what were their positions as you understand them?
Answer. I'm not sure then if I really did have, to be candid, an understanding who was what, but I soon learned that they were both the Deputy White House Counsels.
Question. And was it your understanding when you arrived that you would occupy a position subordinate to them?
Answer. I didn't really have that understanding one way or the other, Mr. Bennett. My understanding was that I would report to Mr. Ruff; that Ms. Mills was the Deputy White House Counsel, and that she assisted Mr. Ruff, but that I reported to Mr. Ruff, but clearly she works with Mr. Ruff.
Question. And in terms—and again it wasn't clear from the Senate deposition—in terms of the chain of command or the structure, then, you did not view Cheryl Mills as your superior?
Answer. You know, it's hard to say. And I'm not—it's hard to say, because on the one hand, I don't report directly to her. On the other hand, she's Mr. Ruff's deputy, and so she often will fill in for him. So that's right. I didn't formally think of her as my superior. On the other hand, as the Deputy White House Counsel, there are times she works closely with Mr. Ruff.
Page 962 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. Your title today is Assistant to the Counsel to the President?
Answer. No, it's Special Counsel to the President.
Question. Special Counsel to the President?
Answer. Right.
Question. She is, in fact, the number 2 person in the office. For example, she is the Deputy Counsel—deputy to Mr. Ruff who is Counsel to the President?
Answer. Right. And she, of course, has responsibilities for the entire office, whereas I, day to day, so to speak, head the team that deals with the investigations. But it's—it should be very clear that I always report to Mr. Ruff——
Question. So——
Answer. Who ultimately makes the decisions.
Mr. LYNCH. I don't want to belabor this point.
The WITNESS. That's right.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Page 963 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. So from your perspective, when you arrived on or about February 16th this year, it was your understanding that you would report directly to Mr. Ruff, and you did not feel that you needed to report to Mr. Ruff through Ms. Mills; is that essentially——
Answer. Yeah. I don't want to overplay this. The answer is I would report to Mr. Ruff, but it didn't occur to me that I was—that I was trying to sidestep anyone. But that's right, ultimately, I reported to Mr. Ruff. And to the degree Ms. Mills was part of that process or practice, you know, she would be informed just as well. But, yes, that's right, I don't go through——
Question. On any important matters, then, you would, not only report to Mr. Ruff, but keep Ms. Mills advised as best you could on important matters so that you wouldn't appear to certainly circumvent her; is that what you're saying?
Answer. Right. I'm fairly open in my style. I think I'm known for that. That's true, I would let people know. If people were interested in knowing, I would always explain to people what we were doing.
Question. Now, when you arrived on February 16th, there had been a meeting between Chairman Burton of this committee and Mr. Ruff just a matter of a week or 10 days prior to that; isn't that correct?
Answer. I actually don't remember that, but I'm sure if you say so, that's right. I just don't remember that right now.
Page 964 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. Well, I believe that you indicated in your deposition before the Senate that you were specifically hired to assist Mr. Ruff with respect to the handling of matters in connection with the congressional investigation; is that correct?
Answer. Among others. Among others.
Question. As well as Independent Counsel investigations?
Answer. That's correct. And other issues that could come up. That's right.
Question. But clearly—and correct me if I'm wrong, but how I understood your deposition before the Senate, but clearly your immediate task upon arrival was to deal with the matter of these investigations, whether they be Senate, House, Justice, or Independent Counsel?
Answer. Yes. I think that's fair.
Question. And they were the immediate duties that you assumed when you arrived?
Answer. Yes. That's correct, Mr. Bennett.
Question. So in that regard, you clearly would have been made aware at some point in time of dealings that Mr. Ruff had had with Chairman Burton of this committee with respect to issues; isn't that correct?
Page 965 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. Absolutely. And I just simply say sitting here I don't remember the timing of an initial meeting between the Chairman and Mr. Ruff.
Question. What individuals were present at that time who were to assist you in the handling of these investigations?
Answer. Well when I came, Ms. Popp, Karen Popp, was already there.
Question. Is she an attorney?
Answer. She is an attorney.
Question. If you can, in your answers to these questions, if you indicate those people who are attorneys and those people who were paralegals.
Answer. All right.
Question. Because I believe you had a staff of both lawyers and paralegals; is that correct?
Answer. Yeah, though when I got there—that's correct. When I got there, there were a number of people who needed to be hired. So Ms. Popp was already there. And Ms. Sally Paxton, who doesn't really work as directly with me, but who handles other issues that don't—that aren't the focus of the full committee was already there.
Page 966 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. When you say aren't the focus of the full committee, you mean the committee of the White House or this committee?
Answer. Your committee. She tends to work on some issues that I have absolutely nothing to do with and some issues that I have something to do with, but not——
Question. So Sally Paxton would not have been involved necessarily with respect to the investigations and compliance with subpoenas, say, as actively as Karen Popp would have been?
Answer. Well, she would have been, but she would have been more involved, for instance, in Chairman McIntosh's inquiry as opposed to Chairman Burton's or Chairmen Thompson's or the Department of Justice's. I'm not sure I would really focus on the specific issue she was handling.
Question. And Chairman McIntosh's issues being the White House databases?
Answer. Exactly.
Question. Right. Go ahead.
Answer. Certainly something I spend less time on that.
Page 967 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
So then with Mr. Ruff came Michelle Peterson, who I had known from Covington & Burling.
Question. Did she come from Covington & Burling?
Answer. Well, she came indirectly. She had left Covington & Burling to join Mr. Ruff at the Corporation Counsel's Office and then came with them there. But I had known her from the time she was at Covington & Burling.
Question. Who were the other individuals who were going to be on the team?
Answer. Michael Imbroscio, who joined me a few weeks later, who was an associate of Covington & Burling.
Question. So Mr. Imbroscio came after you?
Answer. That's correct. Dimitri Nionakis came after I did and came from the law firm of Howrey & Simon. Sometime after that, Karl Racine was hired, and he came from——
Question. These are all lawyers thus far?
Answer. These are all lawyers, that's exactly right—from the law firm of Cacheris & Treanor. And just so it's clear, these people are hired by the Counsel's Office. I don't have the authority.
Page 968 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. I understand.
Answer. Okay.
Question. I'm just trying to go over the team of people. Thus far, correct me if I'm wrong, all the people you've named thus far——
Answer. Are lawyers.
Question. Are all arriving sometime in February of this year or afterwards?
Answer. I would say February to March. I think that Ms. Popp was ahead of me. Ms. Paxton was here a while. I believe Mr. Imbroscio probably came in March.
Question. How about Mr. Buzz Waitzkin?
Answer. Mr. Buzz Waitzkin came sometime thereafter, and he was hired essentially to work on the issues dealing with the Vice President and works for the most part—he works—he was hired, I believe, out of the Counsel's Office, but essentially spends the great majority of time working on issues for the Vice President.
Question. And again, Mr. Waitzkin came sometime in February, March of this year?
Page 969 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. I don't—I don't think February. I think more like—I may be wrong. I think more like maybe late March or April.
Question. The matter that was unclear to me from the deposition before the Senate, Mr. Breuer, was—and you've confirmed my impression, but it wasn't clear from reading the transcript—is that all of the people on your team essentially in terms of working on these compliance issues with subpoenas from whatever source, they were all new to the White House, arriving after you did?
Answer. Except for Ms. Popp.
Question. I understand.
Answer. Who's also relatively new, that's right.
Question. And when did Karen Popp arrive?
Answer. I think late December, perhaps January.
Question. And who were the individuals whom they replaced; meaning who were the lawyers in the White House Counsel's Office that would normally have handled compliance with subpoenas from this committee, or the Senate, or the Independent Counsel, or the Justice Department?
Page 970 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. Mr. Bennett, as you may know, the institutional memory of the White House sometimes is a little thin.
Question. We sort of have noticed that in some of the depositions.
Answer. So I don't want to represent to you that I can give you by any means a full listing. Indeed, Ms. Comstock may be in a better position, seeing that you and I can name the players. But surely there was a woman Miriam Nimitz, who worked on compliance issues.
Question. Maybe I can save some time for you.
Answer. That would be great.
Question. Again, not to cut you off, I guess the point I'm making is that all of the people, is it safe to say—and I don't want to put words in your mouth, Mr. Breuer—but it appears—it did not appear and was not clear in the Senate deposition, but it appears from what you're saying that, with respect to lawyers dealing with these compliance issues in the area of white collar criminal investigations, that, essentially, all the people who had handled those matters by December of '95—by December of '96 or January of '97 were leaving, and there was an entirely new team coming in to handle these issues? Is that a fair statement?
Answer. It is, Mr. Bennett. I had been warned when I was still at Covington by someone, candidly, who had urged me not to take this job. The job becomes a very, very taxing and difficult job, not just because of the demands of the hours, but because in the highly politicized world we're in, that the actual lawyers and individuals become the focus themselves of questioning. And so that you have to really be willing to accept a lot of punishment, not just in the hours, but in sort of accusations that are made in a very highly charged partisan atmosphere. As a result, people don't stay very long. And people very much in the White House Counsel's Office wanted to leave and indeed did leave. So it was in that vein, in that environment, that new people were hired to take on the new challenges.
Page 971 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. And then, again, not putting words in your mouth, but essentially we had an entirely new team coming on board to handle any subpoenas that arrived at the White House essentially?
Answer. I think that's right, under Mr. Ruff's leadership. For the most part, that's correct.
Question. Now, then, correct me if I'm wrong, my—again, what was Mr. Lindsey's title? Mr. Lindsey is Deputy Counsel to the——
Answer. I think he has two titles, Mr. Bennett. I think he has the title of Deputy White House Counsel and also Assistant to the President.
Question. Is it safe to say, then, with respect to Bruce Lindsey and Cheryl Mills that, in terms of the structure of the White House Counsel's Office, when there was this transition from the old team to the new team of which you were a part, that Mills and Lindsey were basically the only two people left who were going to be staying there?
Answer. That's correct. And Ms. Paxton, who deals with not these issues, correct. I think that you are right.
Question. So then in terms of grand jury compliance, compliance with congressional subpoenas, Independent Counsel subpoenas, when the new team arrived, Mills and Lindsey were the only people who had been there previously who had dealt with those kinds of issues on behalf of the White House before?
Page 972 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. I—I think that's correct.
Question. Now, with respect to those individuals on the new team, Mr. Imbroscio, Ms. Peterson, and Mr. Nionakis, the entire group that we've named earlier, what was their level of experience with respect to white collar criminal practice? For example, Mr. Imbroscio, I believe you said, was an associate at Covington & Burling?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. He had not had, for example, meaning no disrespect to Mr. Imbroscio, he had not had the level of experience in dealing with white collar criminal investigations that you had had, for example?
Answer. That's right. But Mr. Imbroscio is a remarkably able and dedicated young lawyer, and I had had the opportunity of working with him on a very complicated criminal case and had worked with him on some civil litigation. And as you know, a lot of dealing with document production issues is taking young, very bright people who are highly motivated and have great energy levels and are willing to do what they need to do to perform well. And Mr. Imbroscio, I thought, had really stood out. And I had mentioned that to Mr. Ruff, who knew him as well. So given the way white collar practice works, one of the key points to it, I think, is to have young lawyers who show the kinds of traits that Mr. Imbroscio does have.
Question. Is it fair to state, though, with respect to all of these people, that they were fairly young and inexperienced when it came to complying with—certainly with congressional subpoenas? None of them had ever dealt with congressional subpoenas before; is that correct?
Page 973 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Answer. I'm not sure that is correct. I'm not saying you——
Question. I'm not questioning their abilities.
Answer. No, no.
Question. I'm saying their experience level.
Answer. I'm just trying to give you a full answer. Mr. Nionakis was a mid to senior level associate. Mr. Racine was a young partner of Plato Cacheris, which as you know is a very prominent white collar firm. Ms. Peterson had worked with me on the largest investigation of a pharmaceutical company that indeed came from—that was prosecuted by your illustrious office.
Question. For the record, that was the U.S. Attorney's Office from Maryland, not the office that I'm in now?
Answer. That's right.
Question. And Ms. Popp had been a Federal—had been an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell; had been a prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York, which she had prosecuted some of the most infamous organized crime cases; then had gone to the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, which you know has a very fine reputation, and had been practicing law as long as I have. So I'm not sure I would say that they're all inexperienced.
Page 974 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Question. To your knowledge, had any of them dealt with compliance with congressional subpoenas in their private practice?
Answer. I believe so. But—I believe so, but I can't tell you exactly who. For instance, I know Mr. Imbroscio had not. I suspect Ms. Peterson had not. I think some of the others may well have.
Question. Was Mr. Quinn still on duty at any point in time when you arrived, or he had completely left by that point in time? Mr. Ruff had replaced him?
Answer. That is exactly right.
Question. Now, upon your arrival, I gather, with the new team that had arrived, I would assume, then, that you—for a period of time, the new team needed to rely, including Mr. Ruff, for that matter—you know, given his extensive background, he was still new on the job as Counsel to the President. I assume that Ms. Mills and Mr. Lindsey were fairly helpful in trying to orient the new team, having been holdovers from the first administration; isn't that correct?
Answer. Yeah, I think people are helpful in general. Mr. Lindsey, I think it is fair to say, plays less of a direct role, at least with respect to the investigatory issues. And Ms. Mills, I think, was more helpful. Not saying Mr. Lindsey wasn't helpful, but she probably spent more of her time dealing with the kinds of issues that the team I work with was dealing with.
Page 975 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 12 Of 22
Next Hearing Segment(13)