Segment 13 Of 22 Previous Hearing Segment(12) Next Hearing Segment(14)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 976 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. And would you define Ms. Mills as having been helpful in—I guess quite helpful in assisting you and orienting you to your job when you arrived?
Answer. I do think that's correct. She was helpful.
Question. And was she helpful to all the other members of the team in terms of assisting them with their duties as they arrived?
Answer. I think so.
Question. And all these people were arriving in February? You said you arrived on February 16th or somewhere between the 16th or the 18th?
Answer. Whatever that Monday is.
Question. I understand. And these others arrived after that through the month of March, I gather?
Answer. Mr. Racine came later.
Question. Essentially the month of February and March?
Answer. Essentially March and some in April.
Question. In terms of—in terms of the status of the investigations upon your arrival, Mr. Breuer, let me show you first what has been marked as Government Exhibits—strike that—Committee Exhibits or Deposition Exhibits 1 and 2.
Page 977 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
[Breuer Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.]
[Note.—All exhibits referred to may be found at end of deposition on p. 701.]
[Breuer Deposition Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.]
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I don't mean to be picky, but can we have the witness shown the ones with the yellow tabs?
Mr. BENNETT. I don't care. That's fine.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I'll take your word for it.
Mr. BENNETT. I can assure you they're the same copies, Mr. McLaughlin, but I have no problem with that.
Mr. Breuer, Mr. McLaughlin has requested that you look at the ones that have the yellow tab markers. For the record, we have accurate copies, but why don't you take those originals, if you will.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I have Exhibit 2 here. I don't think I have Exhibit 1.
Page 978 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. We'll do 1 and 2. We're handing out Exhibits 1 and 2 right now, copies 1 and 2.
We've handed all the copies of 1 and 2. Given Mr. Breuer has the originals, maybe we can—we need some more down here. We can—here's Exhibits 1 and 2, if anybody wants copies.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Now, Exhibits 1 and 2, in terms of the status of the investigations, I gather, that you reviewed when you arrived in mid-February, you attempted as best you could to determine what the status of the various investigations might be; isn't that correct?
Answer. I think that's fair to say.
Question. And you did that with respect to the investigations by the Independent Counsel?
Answer. Certain Independent Counsel.
Question. And—not all Independent Counsel?
Answer. I don't handle all the Independent Counsel inquiries.
Page 979 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. Who would handle any other Independent Counsel inquiries?
Answer. Well, I do deal with the Independent Counsel inquiries dealing with the issues you're concerned with here. Other lawyers that respond to Mr. Ruff would handle the others.
Question. Okay. Just without getting into the nature of those Independent Counsel inquiries, some of which are public record and some of which are not, obviously, which other lawyers in the White House would deal with any of those Independent Counsel inquiries?
Answer. It may be some—more often than not, it would be the same ones we've talked about here.
Question. In other words, either members of your team or Ms. Mills or Mr. Lindsey?
Answer. I don't know if Mr. Lindsey deals with that.
Question. Ms. Mills may?
Answer. She may.
Question. Okay. Anyone else besides you or Ms. Mills who would deal with Independent Counsel inquiries?
Page 980 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
[Witness confers with counsel.]
The WITNESS. Mr. Rob Weiner will on occasion deal with certain issues dealing with Independent Counsel inquiries.
Question. And I believe Shelly Peterson may as well?
Answer. She would be one of the lawyers——
Question. Okay.
Answer. Who I already mentioned.
Question. Rob Weiner is an individual who arrived——
Answer. On the exact day I did.
Question. You did not mention him as part of your team.
Answer. He's not.
Question. Okay. Is he in the Office of the Counsel of the President?
Page 981 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. He is. He's a Senior Counsel to the President and doesn't spend a lot of his time on such issues, but there has been some Senior Counsel to Mr.—he's Senior Counsel to Mr. Ruff.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Breuer misspoke when he said Senior Counsel to the President.
The WITNESS. Yeah, I think it's Senior Counsel to Mr. Ruff. Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. And I gather, in reviewing the status, you would have necessarily reviewed such directives as those from Mr. Quinn as reflected by Exhibits 1 and 2; is that right?
Answer. I think that's correct.
Question. And just for the record, I am—I'll identify the exhibits and didn't mean any disrespect. I'll let you identify the exhibits. What are Exhibits 1 and 2?
Answer. Number 1 is a directive dated December 16th, from Mr. Quinn to the Executive Office of the President. And Exhibit 2 is a January 9 directive from Mr. Quinn to the Executive Office of the President.
Page 982 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. And essentially these memoranda are memoranda throughout the White House seeking compliance with document requests from both this committee and the Senate as well as the Department of Justice; isn't that correct?
Answer. I believe that that is correct, Mr. Bennett, and that they would go out to the entire Executive Office of the President.
Question. Did you undertake steps with respect to determining whether or not there had been compliance with this directive—these directives from Mr. Quinn?
Answer. Can you—I'm not sure I understand the question.
Question. I guess my point is, when you arrived on February 16th or the 18th, did you undertake to review whether or not there had been compliance with the directives from Mr. Quinn in terms of document productions as to document requests not only from this committee, but the Senate and the Department of Justice?
Answer. Yeah, I think Mr. Ruff and I tried to orient ourselves by learning about the production, and to get a sense of, as best you can in a place as large as the Executive Office of the President, which with over 2,000 people working there over many different buildings, we try to get a sense of the production. That's correct.
Question. And so did you—did you undertake an inquiry to determine what the level of compliance had been with these two memoranda?
Page 983 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. Well, I'm not sure what an inquiry to the level of compliance is. I think we probably spoke with Ms. Mills and others about what had been done. At some point, as you know, we started to have extensive conversations with this committee. At that point I and other lawyers tried to learn how document productions were being done. We tried to educate ourselves about that.
Question. And again——
Answer. But I didn't go an office-by-office search.
Question. I understand.
Answer. I didn't want to leave the misrepresentation.
Question. I'm not suggesting that's what you did.
Answer. I want to be clear.
Question. Clearly again, there's an example, I guess, as you have indicated previously, where Ms. Mills was quite helpful in terms of trying to assist you in terms of what the status had been prior to your arrival in terms of some of these matters?
Answer. Yeah, to Mr. Ruff and to me and to others.
Page 984 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. So Ms. Mills was not only helpful to you, but to Mr. Ruff and others?
Answer. I suspect that's right, when we reached out.
[Discussion off the record.]
[Recess.]
Mr. BENNETT. For the record, if we can go back on, we have been joined here this morning by Congressman Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, and pursuant to the protocols, I yield now to Congressman Kanjorski with respect to any questions he may have.
Mr. KANJORSKI. At this point, since I just entered, just follow through and follow up on your questions.
Mr. BENNETT. Just for the record, Congressman Kanjorski, so you understand, we had tried to schedule this deposition consistent with Mr. Breuer's schedule, Mr. Lynch's, counsel for the Minority and Majority. We may or may not finish by lunchtime today. Mr. Breuer has a very important family engagement that he must attend in the afternoon today.
We have noted that there is a business meeting scheduled for the committee at 10:30. I have indicated we are fully prepared to stop at the time of that business meeting and adjourn and wait until the business meeting has concluded. Mr. McLaughlin has indicated he wishes to continue through. Whatever the wish of Minority is, we can undertake that, consistent with the protocols. And then we, I suspect, may come back Monday morning to finish up. That is the schedule we are on.
Page 985 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
The WITNESS. Obviously, Mr. Bennett, as you can imagine, I very much appreciate you taking my schedule into consideration. If there is a way to finish it, as I am sure it is not surprising to you, I would like to do that.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I just want to make clear that my preference is to proceed through, but that, of course, is subject to the wishes of any of the Minority Members to whom I report.
Mr. BENNETT. I guess where we will leave it is, if for any reason someone from the Minority wants us to stop at 10:30, we need not have any formal vote,, if just any Member, one Member, says, I prefer to have an opportunity to come up, then we will not go forward, and we will wait until the business meeting is over, and we will leave it at that.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Now, Mr. Breuer, with respect to the collection of documents seeking to comply with Mr. Quinn's document request as reflected by Exhibits 1 and 2, which are before you, were you able to locate where these documents were or whether they had been accumulated when you arrived at the White House?
Answer. As best as I recall, they were in an office or offices in the Old Executive Office Building. I may be incorrect, because there have been so many documents that have come through since I have been there. There may have been others that were still being collected pursuant to the Quinn directives, despite the return date, after I had come, but as I recall, the majority, or the vast majority of them, if not all of them, were in a couple of offices in the Old Executive Office Building.
Page 986 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. I may have asked this question before the break, and if I did, I will have to ask you again, because I don't recall. Were you able to determine the level of compliance with Mr. Quinn's memorandum at that time? Were you satisfied that all the documents had been collected, or did it appear that all the documents he requested had not yet been collected?
Answer. Mr. Bennett, I did my best, as did Mr. Ruff and others, to try to familiarize ourselves with the production as best we could. We spoke, in fact, to the committee about that. But, again, absent an office-by-office search, it is very difficult, probably it is the most difficult entity I have ever known, to try to figure out exactly how to identify all of the documents that are responsive. But having said that, I attempted to do it as best I could.
Question. According to your review, you were able to determine, were you not, that some of those documents that had been requested, in fact, were, in fact, already turned over to some entities, including the Department of Justice at that point in time? Isn't that correct?
Answer. I am not sure what you are referring to. I actually don't remember that.
Question. You don't?
Answer. You may be right. I am just not sure what you are specifically referring to.
Page 987 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. At any point in time, did you come to learn that some documents which had been included on Mr. Quinn's list had been turned over to the Department of Justice?
Answer. You are asking back in February?
Question. When you arrived, yes.
Answer. I don't remember that. That may be true, but given the number of materials I have reviewed, I don't have a specific memory of doing that, but that may well be the case.
Question. I gather, again, this is an area where Ms. Mills was of great help, because she was the only holdover, so to speak, who would be able to help you with respect to that when you arrived?
Answer. When I arrived, that is correct.
I should say one thing. There were other lawyers, I believe, who in the interim may have been of some assistance, a little bit of assistance, in this production, but really at a very minor level, much like at anyplace where, in a crunch, you may ask someone to help out.
But Ms. Mills clearly would have been the person who would have had the most knowledge about this; that's correct.
Page 988 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 3. You can put those in front of the court reporter, if you will.
[Breuer Deposition Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Directing your attention to Exhibit 3, for the record, a letter from Chairman Burton dated January 15, 1997, to both Mr. Ruff and Mr. Quinn, first, do you know whether Mr. Ruff had, in fact, arrived there in his position? I know it had been announced, but do you know if he had arrived there on January 15th?
Answer. I believe he had not. I am fairly confident Mr. Ruff was still the corporation counsel to the mayor.
Question. And the mayor being the mayor of Washington, D.C.?
Answer. The mayor of Washington, D.C.
Question. And did you have occasion to review this letter—well, I gather you must have reviewed this letter upon your arrival at some point in time—having to do with compliance with requests for documents by this committee?
Answer. I suspect I would have. I have no specific recollection, sitting here today, of reading this letter, but I am confident that sometime at or about the time that I joined the White House I would have reviewed this letter.
Page 989 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. If you want to take just a second to quickly look through it right now to see if it might refresh your recollection as to reading that at the time when you arrived.
Answer. Again, Mr. Bennett, I suspect I did read this letter, but I cannot state that I have at this point a specific recollection of reading—of reading this letter. I am sure—I try to make a practice of reading all correspondence from the chairman.
Question. In reviewing that, do you recall the matter addressed in this letter, again, as something that certainly was not discussed in the Senate deposition?
And I need to inquire into now, Mr. Breuer, this letter talks about an issue—it directs its attention in the third paragraph to a potential conflict of interest of Cheryl Mills with respect to her involvement in producing records in light of the fact that the chairman noted that she and Mr. Lindsey had attended a meeting in May of 1996 regarding fund-raising and Mr. Trie, Mr. Charlie Trie, and the Presidential Legal Expense Trust.
Without getting into the merits of whether there was or was not a conflict of interest, do you recall reading the letter where the issue of a conflict of interest was raised by the chairman?
Answer. Again, I am confident I would have read this letter. I don't right now have a specific recollection of reading this particular letter.
Page 990 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. Well, let me ask you this——
Answer. That's not to say I am not sensitive to the issue you are addressing, but I want to be clear that I don't remember reading this exact letter.
Question. I guess my question is: Did the matter of a conflict of interest, a potential conflict of interest with Ms. Mills and/or Mr. Lindsey, in terms of seeking compliance with certain document requests, in light of this issue raised by Congressman Burton—did that matter ever become a topic of discussion?
Answer. Well, members of this committee—the staff of this committee, Ms. Comstock and others, have on occasion raised their concerns about Ms. Mills and others in meetings, and Mr. Lindsey. They have stated that. And so I clearly recall, for whatever reason, whatever the history is there, that neither you or I are a part of, there clearly is a history there. It is unfortunate, but there is one.
Question. Well, my point is, I am not so much directing personal criticism at Ms. Mills right now. What I am trying to address is the question of when you arrived and the obviously thorough efforts you made to apprise yourself of the status of investigations.
Did you address the issue of the chairman of this committee noting his concern about a conflict of interest? Did you address that issue?
Answer. Well, Mr. Bennett, I am trying to answer the question; I truly am. I don't divorce what I am trying to say to you with what this issue is, and that is, I don't know whether or not there is a true conflict.
Page 991 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Mr. Ruff satisfied himself, I think, that Ms. Mills is an integral part of the White House Counsel's Office. She is his deputy and acts as such. And, candidly, it was Mr. Ruff's office, and he, I think, ought to decide how the staff of the White House Counsel operates. And I think it is for him to make those decisions.
Having said that, I think we were sensitive that there was a level of—I don't know if the right word is ''animosity,'' but certainly there is a history there that there have been staff on this committee who have been fairly candid, I think, about their views about certain people at the White House, and, unfortunately, Mr. Lindsey and Ms. Mills were two of those people.
It is in that vein, not specifically in this one, that that issue came up. But we did satisfy ourselves, I believe, that there were no true conflicts.
Question. And having satisfied Mr. Ruff—and, again, I am not getting into the merits of the decision.
Answer. I know you are not. Nor am I.
Question. Yes. But the point is that, having satisfied himself that he believed there was no conflict of interest, Mr. Ruff did not undertake any steps to preclude Ms. Mills' involvement in any of these matters; is that correct?
Answer. I——
Page 992 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. That's a poorly phrased question. Let me rephrase it. That was a legalistic question.
The question is: Cheryl Mills stayed actively involved with respect to these issues of document production, and Mr. Ruff basically disagreed with Chairman Burton's point and moved forward, and Ms. Mills stayed involved. Isn't that basically what happened?
Mr. LYNCH. That's also quite a compound question.
Mr. BENNETT. It isn't a question, it is a statement, as a matter of fact, and I apologize.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. You know what I am getting at. Why don't you respond then, Mr. Breuer.
Answer. Right. I think I do know. In this game—not this game. I don't mean that in a dismissive respect.
But in this exercise that we are—which some at this table have much more experience than I, and I think we can't discuss any of these issues, Mr. Bennett, without the political nature we are in—we are right now in a world where we at the White House are criticized because, on the one level, those at least on the Senate side think that someone like Ms. Mills should have known about things like videotapes, and did we speak with her, and we may be criticized if we did or did not speak with her.
Page 993 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
On the other hand, we are criticized by those who think we should not speak with her. So there is sort of this ying and this yang in this exercise that, no matter what we attempt to do, someone else will always find fault with it.
Ms. Mills is a member of the Counsel's Office, and Ms. Mills is the—one of the people who provides an institutional memory. I don't want to characterize how active or inactive, but clearly she remains a member of the Counsel's Office, remains Mr. Ruff's deputy, and, as such, is involved in the work of the Counsel's Office.
And just so I directly answer your question, the work of this chairman and this committee is part of that—is part of the work of the Counsel's Office, the part that I spent a bit of time on, and, as such, Ms. Mills has an involvement in that, yes.
I hope that answered your question fully.
Question. I think it did. I think it did.
What percent of your time, certainly in the early months, in February and March and April, were you spending on these investigations responding to the Senate and to the House, apart from the Department of Justice, just the Senate and House inquiries?
Answer. It is hard to divide up the Senate and the House and the Justice Department, but the vast majority of my time I was spending on what I will call the campaign fund-raising inquiries from the Senate, from the House, from the Department of Justice, from the press, and whatever ancillary other issues or bodies were interested in campaign finance issues, that, and then Independent Counsel Starr and other independent counsels I spent time on as well. But I would say the majority of my time was clearly on campaign finance issues.
Page 994 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. What was the status of grand jury subpoenas—strike that.
Were you aware that grand jury subpoenas had been issued in December of 1996, when you arrived?
Answer. If they were, I am aware of them. I received so many, literally hundreds of inquiries, that without looking at them, it is hard for me to remember when I got any one. But if they existed, I knew about them.
Question. And with respect to the level of compliance with grand jury subpoenas, again, I am not asking you to recollect the specific document productions, but did you undertake to determine the level of compliance with grand jury subpoenas when you arrived?
Answer. The exercise was the same as I described previously.
Question. And, again, with respect to—and you would check the dates of production, compliance with subpoena, or do the best you could to determine where the office was when you arrived in terms of complying with those subpoenas?
Answer. Mr. Bennett, as you know, from the moment I came here—and maybe your experience since you joined the committee is the same—from the moment I came to the White House, there was a remarkable flurry of activity, from this committee, from the Senate, from the House, from the press.
Page 995 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
So it is impossible for anyone to sit back, as one might in private practice or in another place, and sort of study everything that has occurred in the past. From the moment you walk into a place like the White House, you work remarkably long hours just trying to catch up with the day's events.
So I don't want to give the false impression that I was studiously left alone in my office for a very long period of time, able to do some sort of remarkable analysis of what had occurred before me.
Question. And in light of that, there, again, would lie the importance of Ms. Mills with respect to trying to assist you, because she was the only holdover from the previous administration?
Answer. And others and——
Question. That would be correct, would it not, with respect to Ms. Mills? She was of enormous help to you in trying to undertake these duties?
Answer. And, again, I don't want to say—I don't want to be too specific here, but she was of enormous help to the office. I think that that is the most accurate way—given the way that any office such as ours works—it may be a mini microcosm, indeed, Mr. Bennett, of what you had when you were a U.S. attorney. There are so many demands. Often during the days, I have to go to very many meetings with Mr. Ruff or others. So during that exercise, my lawyers also undertake to do stuff and there is an open level of communication between many different people.
Page 996 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
She would be of help not just to me.
Question. I am not suggesting that. The point I am making in terms of the pace of the office, for Congressman Kanjorski's benefit, because he wasn't here earlier this morning, that you literally have an entirely new team coming on board in February and March of 1997, an entire old team leaving. Ms. Mills being the only holdover, she obviously was enormously important in assisting you in these duties; is that correct?
Answer. Yes, it would be correct that she was of great help, as were others, given the fact that, like this committee has an enormous—has enormous resources to do its work and we, of course, have much more limited resources, with approximately six lawyers and three paralegals, you need to reach out, and we did that.
Question. Directing your attention now to the subpoena issued by this committee, reflected by Exhibit 4, this subpoena—in fact why don't we, to expedite matters, let me show you also Exhibit 5, if we can, please.
[Breuer Deposition Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Exhibit 4 is, in fact, the subpoena issued by this committee dated March 4 of 1997. Is that correct, from what you can see?
Page 997 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. Yes, it is.
Question. And we will go back into the specifics in a minute, but then Exhibit 5 before you, if you can identify that, please?
Answer. It is a letter that I wrote, it appears, on March 7, to Mr. Rowley, your predecessor. That's what it is.
Question. Essentially noting your effort to comply with subpoenas issued and responding.
So the subpoena was dated on March the 4th. The return date was March 24th. And you promptly replied on March 7th. So I gather that this—this subpoena had your immediate attention, and you gave it your immediate review immediately upon its arrival at White House Counsel's Office; is that correct?
Answer. I don't have a specific memory. If a pattern or if history is any guide here—and I don't mean this disrespectfully—more often than not we would receive subpoenas at least a day or two after the date on the subpoena, and often I would first learn about a subpoena through the press.
I don't know if on this—I suspect by the 7th I would have received the subpoena, but I don't know if I just received it that day.
Question. Just for your edification, I believe the records of the committee would reflect, not that I am trying to testify here, but just to move along, I think this actually was served on the White House Counsel on the 5th.
Page 998 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. Okay, on the 5th.
Question. I guess the point I am trying to address here is that in light of the subpoena being dated the 4th, service on the 5th, and your prompt letter dated March 7th, you gave this your immediate attention?
Answer. I did. I gave it—I don't have, again, any specific memory, but the letter would suggest that I at least reached out to Mr. Rowley in a fairly quick time.
Question. Now given that you had arrived on March—February 16th or February 18th, this is just 2, 3 weeks after your arrival that this subpoena is served on White House Counsel. Is that correct?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. And that would be your first involvement with a subpoena issued by this committee; isn't that correct?
Answer. I suspect that this was the first subpoena issued by this committee after I came on board.
Question. Do you recall whether or not you had dealt with any other subpoenas issued in connection with these matters by either the Senate or the Justice Department or Independent Counsel during those first 2 or 3 weeks?
Page 999 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. I suspect I did deal with other subpoenas. I can't tell you if they were campaign finance or if they were from independent counsels, but I suspect that I already was dealing with other issues, subpoenas for people or for documents or for related issues.
Question. Suffice it to say, you gave this your serious attention in that it was the first subpoena from the House of Representatives that you had dealt with?
Answer. Again, I have no specific memory, but I think it is fair to say that I would have looked at the subpoena; I would have spoken with people about the subpoena; and, indeed, I think as I have—I have always tried to do in my practice is, I reached out to this committee right away so we could begin a dialogue about this.
Question. If you will look through the subpoena—and I don't want to belabor this, because clearly this is established in the Senate deposition as well as in your public testimony 2 days ago before the Senate, but clearly the matter of this subpoena has not yet been discussed. This is our subpoena from this committee, and I need to inquire of you, Mr. Breuer, with respect to that.
Answer. I understand that, Mr. Bennett.
Question. On the first page of our subpoena which, for the record, predated the Senate subpoena—in fact, this subpoena does predate the Senate subpoena, does it not, Mr. Breuer? I would assume you are somewhat up-to-date on the Senate dates in light of your recent testimony.
Page 1000 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. I think it predates it.
Question. This committee subpoenaed—issued this subpoena prior to the Senate subpoena about what you were questioned 2 days ago; that's correct, isn't it?
Answer. Yes, though when you say ''subpoena,'' I was questioned about—you know, the Senate did not subpoena us in the beginning. We only really received a subpoena from the Senate in July. I was questioned, though, about many document requests that came much before, and that's the only reason I have hesitated.
Clearly, this predates the July subpoena, but many of the materials that are requested in this subpoena would have been reflected in correspondence that we had received from the Senate in formal requests.
Question. The point is, is that without getting into the dates of their request, this committee was well in advance of the Senate in terms of the particular subpoena; isn't that correct?
Answer. You were in advance in sending the document. Then, of course, after that, there was a subsequent history that this committee had dealings among itself, and so it is—we chronologically received the subpoena before the Senate subpoena.
Question. Directing your attention to the first page of the subpoena, paragraph 1, definitions and instructions, based on your extensive experience in subpoena compliance and your background in terms of white-collar criminal defense, you certainly read the subpoena, did you not, Mr. Breuer?
Page 1001 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. I am sure I read the subpoena.
Question. And in reading this subpoena, clearly the word ''record'' or ''records'' on the very first page, the very first paragraph of the subpoena, mentions items, and it has a definition that includes video or audiotape.
Do you see it there on the first page of the subpoena, paragraph 1?
Answer. Yeah, I see it on the 5th line, video or audio recording. Is that what you are referencing?
Question. I am actually looking where it says—the fifth line where it says, whether written, typed, printed, et cetera, et cetera, then video or audiotaped.
Answer. Oh, I see where you are.
Question. And then farther down it says, video or audio recording.
Answer. I do see that.
Question. So there are two different references; is that correct?
Page 1002 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. Yes. There is one reference of video or audiotaped, and there is one to video or audio recording.
Question. And also you would have read then, in terms of requested items, the particular items sought apart from the individuals listed. Paragraph 16, item 16 on page 5 of the House subpoena dated March 4, clearly also referred, and the very first words of item 16 are, all records relating to White House political coffees.
Do you see that?
Answer. I do see that.
Question. What steps did you take—after having been served with this subpoena and reading the subpoena, what steps did you take—and I guess maybe the best way to do this, as to the House subpoena, as I discussed with Mr. Ruff two and a half weeks ago in terms of our concerns in this regard, is——
Answer. And with me. I would like to think I was there.
Question. You were there; and Ms. Mills was there; and, for the record, Ms. Comstock was there and Butch Hodson and Mr. Ballen from the Minority.
What steps were taken, in terms of—for example, do you know who logged the subpoena in? Is there a log where you log in the subpoena and record its receipt?
Page 1003 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. I don't specifically remember who was involved in the receipt of the subpoena. Typically, someone from this office——
Question. Would there be a log?
Answer. I don't think there would be a log. More often than not—and Ms. Comstock may know better—more often than not, I think Mr. Ruff has been contacted when subpoenas have been received.
Mr. Ruff actually works in the West Wing of the White House. I work in the Old Executive Office Building. More often than not, I think someone from Mr. Ruff's office actually physically gets the subpoena. I think that's been the practice of this committee.
Some committees will call me or others, and so then my assistant or others may pick it up. I think it is more likely than not here—but I may be wrong—that probably someone from Mr. Ruff's office actually received the subpoena.
Question. Do you know if there is a log that's kept of subpoenas when they arrive?
Answer. There is no log I keep. Well, I will tell you what I have. What I keep is a book, where I keep all of the subpoenas. I keep all my correspondence in a loose leaf, I keep all the subpoenas in a loose leaf, and so I try to maintain all the correspondence that I have with respect to them.
Page 1004 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. I gather then, with respect to this subpoena, you would have done that?
Answer. I think—yeah, this would be in my records, that's correct.
Question. And apart from your own personal records, do you know if there are any White House Counsel records kept in that regard?
Answer. I don't know if I would call them White House Counsel records. I am confident that Mr. Ruff and/or Ms. Mills have a filing system where they maintain their records.
Question. I guess the point I am trying to inquire about is, at Covington and Burling, at your law firm, if a corporate client receives a grand jury subpoena or, for that matter, a congressional subpoena, there is a fairly careful indexing of, if you are going to receive a subpoena for a client, when you receive it, when it is logged in and the due date; is that correct, at Covington and Burling?
Answer. There is, and, Mr. Bennett, as I hope you are sensitive, the practice of law at a private firm is very different from the practice of law at a place like the White House.
Question. Why with respect to compliance with a subpoena, Mr. Breuer?
Page 1005 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. Well, it is not with compliance with the subpoena, but it is with respect to memoranda that are kept by lawyers.
Question. I am addressing, apart from the matter of memoranda or a different pace, why would there be any difference in terms of a compliance with a subpoena in the office of the White House or anywhere other than what you would normally do in the private sector?
Answer. I am not suggesting——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Bennett, you cut Mr. Breuer off, and you should give him a chance to answer your question.
The WITNESS. I am not suggesting, Mr. Bennett, I don't agree with your thesis. I am not saying that there was anything different. You are more than welcome to speak, and you are indicating you will—I am telling you what I do, and that's the best I can do. I think I keep pretty good records that establish when we receive information. I have no doubt I have this in my book, no doubt I have all the correspondence that reflects it, and so that's what I have in my book.
All I wanted to be clear of, in your question about the White House Counsel's Office, is I am sure Mr. Ruff and Ms. Mills as well maintained their own records about that.
Page 1006 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Do you believe that the same steps were taken by Mr. Ruff in terms of documenting the service of subpoenas, compliance dates, et cetera, as would have been taken at Covington and Burling?
Answer. Again, I am confident that Mr. Ruff would have followed the same—whatever his practice was at Covington, I suspect he would have followed a comparable practice. He and I have not talked about that.
Question. As far as you are concerned, as far as you are concerned, there would be an effort to maintain the same level of due diligence at the White House Counsel's Office as would be undertaken at Covington and Burling?
Answer. Right. I mean——
Question. Is that correct?
Answer. There would be the same attempt at complying in good faith with the subpoena. Mr. Ruff and I have the same devotion and dedication to complying with the subpoena in good faith, working in the White House, as we would have when we were at Covington and Burling.
Question. And the same level of due diligence would apply? As far as you were concerned, you would try to meet that standard to the best of your ability?
Page 1007 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. We would try to comply to the best of our ability.
Question. And meet that standard to the best of your ability?
Answer. I am not sure what the standard is that you are suggesting, so I will just simply say that we would do, and I did do, and the people in the Counsel's Office, as far as I am aware did, whatever we could to identify responsive materials and to produce them to you when we discovered them.
Question. Let me just fall back if I can on one question.
Answer. Sure.
Question. If you look at Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 in terms of Mr. Quinn's memoranda reflected by Exhibits 1 and 2, and Chairman Burton's letter of January the 15th, essentially the—Chairman Burton's letter mirrors essentially Mr. Quinn's memoranda.
And I guess my question to you: Even before the subpoena arrived in March, to your knowledge, why were no documents supplied in connection with Chairman Burton's letter in January and the memorandum from Quinn which actually predated your arrival? Why had no documents still arrived at the time that the subpoena ultimately had to be issued? Do you recall that?
Answer. As I recall—and I can only speak as to what happened when I came on board. As I recall, we had lengthy discussions with this committee about having some sort of a protocol that we could all agree upon about the use and sanctity of how documents would be cared for.
Page 1008 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
This was a new terrain for me, working at the White House, and I understood from those who were more schooled in this specific issue and had been dealing with it more that it was, indeed, routine, that when documents were produced to the committee that there would be an understanding both among the Majority and the Minority about how those documents would be maintained and that the White House would have a level of assurance that the documents would be maintained in a careful manner, given that, obviously, many of the issues that the White House deals with that could be contained in documents could be of significant import.
It was in that vein that we began to have a series of discussions and, in fact, negotiations. As I recall—and I may be—there may be other factors. I don't have the correspondence, but as I recall, when I came in, that that was actually one of the issues that Mr. Ruff wanted us to deal with with the committee and, indeed, the issue that for quite sometime we did.
As I recall, the chairman was taking the position, frankly, did he have the right to decide how documents would be dealt with, when they would be produced, when—released, when they wouldn't be released?
We did have some concerns about documents as being not dealt with very carefully, and as—I may not be right, but that clearly was one of the issues that we were talking about.
I think we were, frankly, Mr. Bennett—at least I was, though I may have been unskilled—very open about that in my dealings with at least Mr. Rowley, and I believe with Ms. Comstock as well.
Page 1009 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
There may well have been other issues, as you know, that this committee itself at one point said it was going to get us a protocol. Then I believe there was a lot of internal problems in this committee about getting a budget. I think we were in the middle of discussions when all of that occurred and everything stopped from the committee, and, indeed, we didn't then again hear from the committee until after your authorization.
I think that that is some of—not all, but some of the explanation that might affect the timing.
Question. Were the documents, in fact, still collected, however?
Answer. Some were, and we continued to—I tried, as best as I could, to try to continue to figure out how to collect documents. Some of them were collected. I don't remember exactly at what point.
Question. Clearly, some documents could be collected to turn over to this committee pending the resolution of some of those issues you are talking about?
Answer. Right.
Question. But the actual physical act of gathering documents, was there an effort to do that even during this time period?
Page 1010 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. There was some effort, though.
One of the things that we tried to do—and I don't know exactly at what point, he said it is very hard—people at the White House feel very much, it may be hard to believe, under siege. They feel that all the time that everyone is skeptical of what they are doing, and they feel that these many investigations take on lives of their own.
So one of the responsibilities that one has to do in the Counsel's Office is to attempt to gather documents, but also to enable people at the White House to continue to do their jobs.
It is not like a corporation, Mr. Bennett, where maybe there will be one or two subpoenas. At the White House, given all of the level of activity and all the investigatory bodies, literally, there are requests for materials constantly, constantly. One could literally be sending out directives constantly. And you——
Question. As to this committee, the——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Bennett, why don't you let him finish his answer before you interrupt.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. McLaughlin, you have noted your great concern for the time. I have no difficulty with allowing Mr. Breuer to answer any question as long as he wants. I can assure you now, sir, I don't intend to then be told at noon that we should stop the deposition. I don't believe I have interrupted the witness.
Page 1011 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Mr. Breuer, have I been rude to you this morning?
Answer. I don't believe you have.
Question. Thank you.
Answer. I hope you don't feel I am being overly wordy.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I will just state, I am interested in Mr. Breuer's answer. I was interested in what he was saying just now, and you produced—I think if the question is worth answering, you should let Mr. Breuer answer it in a way that he feels is complete.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Why don't we save the theatrics. We are trying to accomplish this to allow Mr. Breuer to move through this.
And my question is, with respect to—again, I haven't been rude to you, have I?
Answer. No, I don't think you have been.
Page 1012 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. With respect to the matter of the House, I understand the matter of all of the other documents——
Answer. Right.
Question. But as to the House, clearly the House question had been crystallized in terms of Chairman Burton's letter, and at least according to our review and your review, I gather it is safe to say we have Chairman Burton's letter on January the 15th reflected by Exhibit 3, and then we ultimately have the grand jury subpoena March the 4th; correct?
Answer. Right. But——
Question. So during that time period, at least as to the House, I am just trying to clarify that there wasn't any confusion over what the request was. There was a great deal of discussion about protocols, privilege, and what-have-you, and I guess my point is, you clearly knew what documents the House was seeking. Is that correct?
Answer. Not exactly. And let me just explain, Mr. Bennett.
Question. All right. Fine.
Answer. As you know that we received broad requests even from this committee, just so I can finish my answer, the last one.
Page 1013 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. Go right ahead.
Answer. We obviously don't send out directives for every particular inquiry. With respect to the requests even of this committee, at the same time that we were discussing appropriate protocols by which we could provide materials to you, we also were having discussions with you; and I am not going to represent exactly when. I can't leave——
Question. I am not expecting you to.
Answer. Okay. But we were, as I am sure is not a surprise to you, discussing the breadth of the inquiries. In fact, Ms. Comstock was a part of many of those discussions. So that even on paper if you would have asked for all the documents on X, Y, and Z, we would have discussions that would say, well, even though you asked for all the documents for X, Y, and Z, we would like to focus this with you.
So with respect to that, it was a dynamic process; it was one that we were both engaged in. That's my caveat, that it would not be clear to us as to what you were expecting, and, indeed, in the end, that's exactly what happened on a number of requests.
Question. Clearly, as to Mr. Quinn's memoranda that predated your arrival, Exhibits 1 and 2, it is clear what those memoranda required; there wasn't any ambiguity about those?
Answer. All that was clear was what Mr. Quinn's gathered. Obviously, merely because counsel gathers materials from the White House doesn't mean that we turn over all of those documents. A layperson could, you know, send us documents that say there are from John Huang about someone having nothing to do with the investigation, and obviously we would be duty bound not to produce those kinds of materials to you.
Page 1014 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
So it is not fair to say that even though materials were gathered, that there were no questions about them.
Question. The question precisely is, and then we can move on——
Answer. Okay.
Question. As to the matter of document collection, is it my understanding that in light of the Quinn memoranda—two memoranda, Exhibits 1 and 2, and the chairman's letter from this committee, Exhibit 3, that even during the discussion of the various issues that you raised, there was the physical act of gathering documents together?
Answer. There was the physical act of gathering certain documents together, yes.
Question. And who would have been engaged in the physical act of gathering those documents?
Answer. Well, a lot of these documents were coming in at this point. But depending on the different points that you are talking about the lawyers working with me and, frankly, the lawyers who preceded me, given the dates——
Question. The team you brought on in February and March would have been engaged at some point ultimately in further gathering of documents?
Page 1015 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. And ultimately what I—right. And the way you said it I am very satisfied with, which is, at some point subsequently. I am not going to say that it was continuous or at any point.
Question. I understand.
Answer. But certainly at some point we would have been involved in gathering materials for this committee and following up; not necessarily on the Quinn directives as much as on the directives, of course, that occurred after we all joined the White House.
Question. And getting back to the matter of subpoena compliance, did you assign a particular response with respect to this subpoena reflected by—from the committee, reflected by Exhibit 4? Do you recall whether you had a particular—whether it was Ms. Popp or Mr. Waitzkin, and you said, here, I want you to take steps to comply with the subpoena? Do you recall what you did?
Answer. I typically do do something like that, and I typically do assign people to specific tasks. In this particular case, I think a number of people would have been involved when we knew it was broad. Ms. Popp in the very beginning was, in fact, dealing with this committee.
I don't know, though, if it is fair to say that she was assigned to the gathering of the materials as much as she had been. In the beginning, as I recall, she had a fairly active dialogue with the committee. She may have had more of an active dialogue with the committee in the beginning than I, because I was working on other matters as well.
Page 1016 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. In light of the fact that this was only your third week on the job, to what extent did you seek assistance from Ms. Mills on these issues?
Answer. Here is what I think more likely would have happened. I would—more likely would have had discussions with Mr. Ruff, and I think Ms. Mills would have been a part of those discussions. I think that I probably did speak with her as well, but a lot of times, frankly, we wouldn't speak one-on-one. It might be more Mr. Ruff. And I think, frankly, lawyers, independent of me, which is my style, would have reached out to her. I am fairly open. I don't pretend to know——
Question. Which lawyers would have reached out to her?
Answer. I think at one point or another all of the lawyers would have talked to her, and again, it depends on the task. But I would be shocked—I mean, in fact, I am confident all lawyers have spoken with Ms. Mills, just like all lawyers have spoken with me and Mr. Ruff.
Question. I think you mentioned in your previous answer that it was—being that you were new on the job, and I think your words were, if I am not mistaken, this was new terrain and that there were others that were more schooled in this regard.
Answer. Particularly with respect to issues like the protocols and exactly—as you know, Mr. Bennett, when it comes to like grand jury productions, typically I would be less concerned about providing something to your office. I would get a subpoena; I would give it to you.
Page 1017 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. My prior office?
Answer. Your prior office, I am sorry. Here I understood there were many issues with respect to how documents should be handled, given the politicized nature of this, and that was one of the big dialogues.
Question. In light of Ms. Mills being the key holdover then, I gather, is she one of those more schooled, as you say, who you would have discussed this with?
Answer. I suspect I would have spoken with her about this, and others.
Question. And the members of the team, I gather that you—the new team that you had assembled, you let them know of her expertise, and you have indicated their contact with her. Was it a formal contact, or was it just on a daily basis for them to go see her if they needed help?
Answer. It is a very small office. We are not as large as your office, Mr. Bennett. There are just—even the whole Counsel's Office, there are not that many people. So people deal with one another regularly. I am frequently not in the building. I am often either helping Mr. Ruff or doing something else.
So to make the system work, so we can be as responsive as possible, lawyers are assigned tasks and they go about trying to identify, you know, how they can find materials. I am sure in that vein they would have spoken with her.
Page 1018 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. Let me just note just for one second, just pause for a second here. It is now 10:30. The Government Reform and Oversight Committee business meeting is scheduled to start at 10:30.
Congressman Kanjorski, I don't know what your pleasure is, sir. Would you like me to continue?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Continue.
Mr. BENNETT. If at any time you want me to stop, in light of the meeting, I will stop.
The WITNESS. I would appreciate continuing as well.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Do you know if any memoranda were sent out in connection with this subpoena? Did you send out any memoranda in connection with the House subpoena reflected by Exhibit 4?
Answer. I believe we sent out the directive in April to take those materials. I don't recall any other specific memoranda.
Question. Just one second, please.
Page 1019 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. I assume you mean internal memoranda.
Question. Just continuing on, do you know to whom those memos would have been sent, those directives?
Answer. I sent—well, I only mentioned one, the April 28th directive. That would have gone to everyone in the White House, in fact, of the—in the entire Executive Office of the President.
Question. Let me step back for a second.
Answer. Okay.
Question. Apart from the April 28th, 1997, directive from Mr. Ruff—excuse me one second here. I will address that in a second. But apart from the April 28th, 1997, directive, to your knowledge—and that was the directive from Mr. Ruff—I think you were questioned about that before the Senate this week.
Answer. I think that's correct.
Question. Apart from that directive from—your letter of March 7th, 1997, reflected by Exhibit 5, to the directive of Mr. Ruff dated April 28th, 1997, to your knowledge, were there any other memoranda or directives sent out in connection with any—well, that directive, I will have you testify about that in a minute, but were there any directives sent out specifically with respect to the House of Representatives subpoena that you had received?
Page 1020 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. I think not. I think that was a period of time that we were discussing issues with you like the protocol and other matters. I think you were having your internal debates at that point. So formal memoranda, no.
There are far fewer memoranda sent at the White House than would be in other places, and I don't recall any.
Question. Do you know who handles, for example, I gather, documents when they are produced are what are called Bates stamp? Are you familiar with that phrase?
Answer. Yes, I am.
Question. In the white collar criminal field there is Bates stamping religiously as to every piece of paper turned over, isn't there?
Answer. I think that's fair to say.
Question. Who was handling the Bates stamp at the White House?
Answer. The White House is a big place. Within——
Question. I am sorry. Specifically with respect to production and compliance with this subpoena of this committee.
Page 1021 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. To give you a level of—to give you a little flavor, unlike at a firm where we have machines that automatically Bates stamp documents as they go through the Xerox machine, the White House—literally, paralegals take stickers and put it on every piece of paper, because we don't have the facilities that other places do have. And that would have been the three paralegals who worked with us.
Question. Are subpoenas—as far as you were concerned, were subpoenas to be handled differently than document requests?
Answer. Again, there is no black-and-white answer to that.
All of the document requests that we get we attempt to address. All of them are dealt with in the dynamic process of contacting the committee and working with the committee.
We have received, for instance, very broad requests from this committee and others with very short turnaround times. With respect to that, I deal with that the way I would deal with other requests, which is to say, you know, we can't meet your deadline; let's talk about it.
I try on some level to gauge the priorities of the requesting body, and so I can't say necessarily that a subpoena is always dealt with differently, but they are dealt with very seriously, and I try carefully.
Page 1022 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. Is there any supervisory review? Given the new team that had just been assembled—this was literally the first month for many of these people—what role did you play in terms of a supervisory role in ensuring compliance with document production?
Answer. Well, what we attempted to do, as best we could, is—well, once we started—once we sent out the directive, we attempted to identify those offices that were more likely to have responsive materials. We attempted to go to those offices and speak to people about how they should go about doing their searches. We let people know that they could inquire of our lawyers on any questions they had. When we could identify places where we thought follow-up was necessary or when the committee and others called us, we attempted to follow up on that.
And so it was through that process of talking that we tried to identify those places in the morass of the Executive Office of the White House, including OMB and USTR and——
Question. Office of Management and Budget?
Answer. Exactly. We had literally enormous places, the New Executive Office Building. You try, as you would in other scenarios, to identify those offices that are more likely than not to have materials, to speak to those people you can and to really impress upon them the necessity of searching their materials carefully.
Question. Let me show you Exhibits 6 and 7 if I can, please.
Page 1023 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. Okay.
[Breuer Deposition Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7 were marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. If you will review Exhibits 6 and 7 just for a minute.
Have you had a chance to review Exhibit 6, Mr. Breuer?
Answer. Briefly.
Question. If you need some more time, tell me.
Answer. Do you want me to read the entire thing?
Question. I will ask you some questions about this.
Answer. Then I will probably violate my own cardinal rule that I tell my clients that they should read the entire document.
Question. Read the entire document if you want to.
Page 1024 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. I will if I need to.
Question. Do you want to take a break for a few minutes to do that?
Answer. No, no. I know I have the option. I am ready.
Question. Reviewing Exhibit 6, Exhibit 6 is a letter, is it not, to you from Mr. John Rowley, who was then acting as chief counsel to this committee—to the Majority of the committee?
Answer. It is.
Question. And that letter basically, does it not, sort of summarizes or tries to focus on particular areas and areas of dispute or contention, trying to focus on particular matters, does it not?
Answer. I think that's the intent, yes.
Question. And that was, in fact, the result of conversations which you had had with Mr. Rowley about the various issues which you addressed earlier in your deposition, was it not?
Answer. I think a group of us, Mr. Rowley, Ms. Comstock and Mr. Bossie from the House, and I, and maybe others on my team on my side. It wasn't just the two of us talking.
Page 1025 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That included Mr. Ballen and myself, too?
The WITNESS. Yes, and I do apologize, Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Ballen.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. McLaughlin was there, and Mr. Ballen was there.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Essentially this at least gives greater focus, does it not, or focus that you desired in terms of certain areas where this committee was requesting that you give your immediate attention? Is that right?
Answer. Well, I think we had had a dynamic process, frankly. I don't recall if this letter, in and of itself, represented more than our discussions back and forth.
I had a very, I thought, very good working relationship with Mr. Rowley. So we had had that process ongoing. I don't know——
Question. Exhibit 7 is your response basically noting your efforts in that regard? Not to belabor that point, but Exhibit 7——
Answer. It may be, among others.
Page 1026 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Just to interject here, I believe Exhibit 7 is in response to two subpoenas that this committee issued on April 24th, not the limiting letter of April 28th.
The WITNESS. That's too what I was going to say. I don't think it is a direct response.
As you know—and I can't tell the times—at different times, Mr. Bennett, we even had situations where we came to discuss matters with you and this committee, and Mr. Ruff was personally served with subpoenas at the end of the meetings, to our surprise.
So I don't know if this was in response to one of the short subpoenas we had received.
Question. You mean that predates my arrival?
Answer. All of this predates your arrival. I just wanted to be clear that it is not clear to me at all what this letter responds to.
Question. Let me perhaps assist a little bit just to move along.
With respect to the subpoenas that are referred to in Exhibit 8, the first sentence, they were, in fact—in fact, subpoenas with respect to Mr. Huang and Mr. Riady, weren't they? Do you recall?
Page 1027 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. I have no recollection. I don't even have a recollection of 7 as related to 6. We received a number of subpoenas, and I just don't remember which subpoenas those responded to——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Do you——
The WITNESS [continuing]. My letter of April 30th responds to.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I am sorry. I was just doing what I was complaining about before.
Mr. BENNETT. That's all right, Mr. McLaughlin. Go right ahead.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That happens.
Do you plan to introduce the April 23rd, April 24th or April 29th subpoenas?
Mr. BENNETT. With respect to those as to Mr. Riady and Mr. Huang, we are trying to stay focused of the subpoena that included the specific reference to the videotapes and videotaping.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I just want to note then, this is my representation for the record—and this letter from Mr. Breuer speaks for itself and is dated April 30th. I will represent that that was the return date on the April 24th subpoenas and that this letter is in response to those.
Page 1028 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
There is also a letter dated April 29th, which responds to the April 23rd subpoenas, also within the frame that—also on the return date listed on the subpoenas.
There is another set of two subpoenas, I believe, that is April 29th and the same series of targeted subpoenas, and, again, I believe that there was a responsive letter by the return date.
I just think that, in fairness to Mr. Breuer, the record ought to reflect those documents if you don't plan to introduce them.
Ms. COMSTOCK. We should also note for the record that——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I am sorry. Who is the designated counsel?
Ms. COMSTOCK [continuing]. Those subpoenas were also a subset of the items 1—the first few items on the letter of April 18th, as well as the March 4th subpoena.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Just to address the point, my next question is going to, I think, get to all of this, is that the second sentence of the letter, we have previously produced or made available for review all documents responsive to these subpoenas that we have thus far collected, I gather that that representation is, to the best of your ability, in terms of any subpoenas issued by this committee, be it the March 4th subpoena or any specific subpoena, is, as of April 30th, you were doing your best to tell Mr. Rowley that you had made available for review all documents responsive thus far?
Page 1029 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
I mean, I am just trying to summarize or point where we are in the chronology of compliance.
Answer. Let me tell you where I think we are. I think where we are is we are still, unfortunately, having a battle over protocol. We still feel that we would like some assurance on how our materials were going to be handled, and the committee has decided, the Majority has decided, that probably we should—probably what the White House wanted in a protocol was not going to occur.
I was struggling with a way of dealing with how to deal with documents but also show we weren't at least under—with my involvement that we were trying to make things available to you.
I think what I was suggesting here is, come look at everything; feel free to look at all of our documents, even if we are not going to give them to you yet because we haven't agreed on a protocol.
I think, but I am not positive, that that is where we are in the chronology by April 30th.
Question. With that status as of April 30th, come look at all of our documents, would that have included come look at any videotapes?
Answer. If I had known on April 30th that there were videotapes, it would have. I didn't know. But let me tell you, if someone had said—and your committee has been very good about telling us when you know of materials and us following up.
Page 1030 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
If someone had called me specifically and said, Lanny, there are videotapes responsive to this guy Riady, we want to look at them, I am sure I would have done what I always do. I would have said, I will get back to you. I would have said to someone, what are they talking about? I would have sure talked to Chuck Ruff, if not others, and then I think probably—I would have probably said, if responsive, you can't have them yet because we are negotiating the protocol, but come look at them. I think so.
Question. And with respect to that hypothetical about, come look at them——
Answer. And that's a hypothetical; right.
Question. I understand. In fact, it wasn't a hypothetical—and I will get back to this later either this morning or Monday morning, but it wasn't a hypothetical as of August 19th, when Don Bucklin from the Senate specifically addressed an inquiry about videotapes.
Answer. Well, when Mr. Bucklin talks about the videotapes on August 19th—well, he doesn't talk about August 19th. He writes a letter on August 19th, and we have spent many hours, and I think you probably have all deposed Mr. Ruff, so you know that—you know all what is going on there.
But we looked into it. We informed Mr. Bucklin on September 9, I guess. I didn't, but Mr. Bucklin was informed September 9 of the videotapes.
Page 1031 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I am going to interpose an objection that the conversations between Mr. Breuer and Bucklin and the other members of the Senate staff have been plummeted into great depth by the Senate in their deposition and in the public hearing. I don't think it does any good for us to go into that.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. With respect to the hypothetical—and we will address this later—the hypothetical you addressed on April 30th did, in fact, bear fruit, did it not?
In August there was a specific inquiry by someone from the Senate directed, I believe, to Mr. Imbroscio with respect to the matter of whether or not there were videotapes in existence. Without getting into the specifics now, that did occur, in fact, in August?
Answer. I think on August 19th is the first reference to videotapes. I think you are right, Mr. Bennett.
Question. We will get back to that, but just picking up on the fact when you said—if someone had addressed it on April 30th, obviously——
Answer. Well, no, if you had addressed it. I mean, part of the nature of this beast is that we get—for better or for worse, is we get so many inquiries all the time that we tend to associate requests with the individuals that make the request. So, Mr. Bennett, if you've never done it, I don't think you and I have ever chatted on the telephone, but if you called me and said, I want you to check into something, we would check into it, and we would get back to you, or I would try to get back to you personally. We have never had that actual exchange, but I would hope that's what we would do.
Page 1032 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. Let me show you now, if I can, Exhibit 8.
[Breuer Deposition Exhibit No. 8 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Exhibit 8 is, in fact, the Chuck Ruff directive of April 28, 1997; is that correct?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. And, essentially, it directs—it's very similar to the Quinn memoranda of December and January—December '96, January of '97 reflected by Exhibits 1 and 2; is that correct?
Answer. I'm taking——
Question. It is similar to the directives of Mr. Ruff's predecessor Jack Quinn reflected by Exhibits 1 and 2 of his deposition dated December 16, 1996, and January, 9, 1997; is that correct?
Answer. I'm not sure it's similar. I mean, I think it speaks for itself. It was an attempt to taking a myriad of requests, and putting them in an understandable format, and providing that information to the Executive Office of the President. I mean, 1 and 2 have a short paragraph each and then a listing of names and then some descriptive paragraphs at the end. Exhibit 8 has far more instructions on the first page and then has the requests on pages 2 through 4.
Page 1033 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. With respect——
Mr. LYNCH. Can you——
Mr. BENNETT. I'm sorry.
Mr. LYNCH. I think we ought to note Exhibit 8, the word ''all'' in the third line in the text has a box drawn around it.
Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. LYNCH. And I think we'll all agree that the actual original directive did not have any markings around the word at all.
Mr. BENNETT. I believe that's correct.
The WITNESS. Indeed, I can say it's pretty clear you got this from the Senate, because I think I'm the one who put the box by mistake around it during my last deposition.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. I can't represent source——
Page 1034 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. I'm pretty sure.
Question. Of—I know we've been seeking it from the White House. And I'm not criticizing Mr. Ruff, but whether Mr. Ruff finally sent it over or whether——
Answer. I think he did.
Question. Or whatever.
Mr. BENNETT. I concur, Mr. Lynch, that the box ''all'' as circled was clearly not in the original.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Directing your attention to—directing your attention to Exhibit 8, Mr. Breuer, why was this the first such memorandum submitted with respect to the—for example, the subpoena of this committee was dated March the 4th, received March the 5th. Why would it take 7 weeks, almost 2 months, for there to be this kind of directive, which is not just directed to the House subpoena, but is directed to all subpoenas? Why would there be such a delay in seeking this?
Answer. I don't think there was really such a delay if you were living through the process as we all were, in fairness, Mr. Bennett. There was first a dynamic process going on about discussion of protocols. In this committee—and I don't quite recall what was going on, Mr. Bennett——
Page 1035 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. I might help you in that regard. The protocols of this committee were passed in early April.
Answer. Okay. I know that for one point we were discussing with the protocols. And we may, and I'm not saying we were, but we may well have been talking to you about the requests themselves, and you were discussing them with us. And when—you, I'm talking about the committee, not you personally, Mr. Bennett, since you weren't here.
And then, frankly, there was an internal battle within the committee about various issues. And during that time, everything dropped. You didn't get back to us on a bunch of the issues. And we were waiting to hear back from you, whether about the protocol or about the scope of requests. That was all occurring.
At the same time that that was occurring, we were, indeed, receiving requests from the Department of Justice and from the Senate and from other investigatory bodies. And instead of sending out, you know, repeated document requests, in the same way that now, you know, a lot of people are having repeated depositions, we tried to get whatever materials we could to end our negotiations with the various investigatory bodies and send out a comprehensive directive.
And, indeed, if you look at the directive that we do identify, we tell people that certain documents they should give us from certain return dates, some as far back as January 1, '94, some from February of '95, others from January of '96, et cetera.
Page 1036 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
And that was an attempt in taking all of the requests from all the different bodies and trying to put it in one place so that we could provide the materials to you. Indeed, it may turn out that this directive was requesting more materials than are actually in your subpoena. I haven't studied it, but it may well be the case.
It was our attempt in one comprehensive way to make yet another directive, since Mr. Quinn had already had two himself; and, again, as I suggested, so that the White House doesn't continuously have directives. And, indeed, during this period there may have been directives sent out as a result of inquiries unrelated from Independent Counsels. I hope that answers your question.
Question. Yes. In picking up on that, of whether this directive of April 28th was more extensive, if you'll look at Exhibit 4, Mr. Breuer, the subpoena itself, looking at page 6, item 29, there is a specific reference to, for example, just as an example——
Answer. Right.
Question. To Webster Hubbell——
Answer. Sure.
Question. In that subpoena. If you'll look at the directive of Mr. Ruff reflected by Exhibit 8——
Page 1037 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. Right.
Question. I believe you could look and see for yourself,, but I represent to you that there's no reference——
Answer. Right.
Question. To Webster Hubbell.
Answer. Well, I'll try——
Question. I wonder why that might be.
Answer. Well, with Webb Hubbell, I'll try to give you the best example. I can't do it all the time. First, I initially told you that giving you all records relating to Webster Hubbell, I'm quite confident we had discussions with the committee, would be virtually impossible to do, given that Mr. Hubbell, for much of the periods of this administration, was, I believe, the Associate Attorney General. And there would be numerous documents, an enormous number of documents, having absolutely nothing to do with your inquiry and having everything to do with Mr. Hubbell's official responsibilities. And I think you acknowledged that.
Question. I'm sorry. Who acknowledged that?
Answer. The committee, not you, Mr. Bennett.
Page 1038 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
But I think we had discussions with this committee, frankly. And I think if you were to talk to your colleagues, that people would acknowledge that, indeed, you were not interested in all documents relating to Webster Hubbell as we described it.
Question. Let me follow up on that point.
Answer. Can I finish?
Question. Sure. Go ahead.
Answer. Let me finish.
So that's one point we would have talked about. But, secondly, there were other directives and other ways of getting materials. It is not—it should be of no surprise that Independent Counsel Starr, as one example, is interested in documenting dealing with Webb Hubbell.
I believe in the case of Webb Hubbell, in my attempt not to every day barrage people with directives, we knew you wanted Hubbell documents, and we would have attempted to gather those, I suspect, I could double-check, but I suspect through our inquiry or directive that was more focused on the request from the Independent Counsel. And so even though it wasn't in this directive——
Question. ''This'' meaning Exhibit 8?
Page 1039 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. This Exhibit 8. Webb Hubbell-related documents would have been captured by a directive that, for the most part, would have focused more on what the Independent Counsel was seeking.
Question. Did you draft this directive for Mr. Ruff, the April 28th directive?
Answer. I think. Mr. Imbroscio and Mr. Nionakis did the first draft, and Mr. Ruff and I did the other. I believe, more likely than not, I would have not been the first drafter of the directive. The lawyers who are most responsible for the directive would do it. They would then circulate a draft. I'm fairly confident that that would have occurred.
Question. You had some role to play in this directive?
Answer. I had an editing role to play.
Question. But you believe, even though it's your—so I understand your testimony, that with respect to Webster Hubbell, while the subpoena clearly called for records as to Webster Hubbell and the directive did not, you believe that was the result of conversations with staff on this committee as to how you were handling the Webster Hubbell?
Answer. No, I didn't say that. It has nothing——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Just before you ask Mr. Breuer, can I suggest——
Page 1040 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. Sure.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN [continuing]. That you also take a look at the April 18th limiting letter which also contains language limiting the request as to Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. BENNETT. That's fine. Sure.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. You talk as though the subpoena and directive are directly linked, but, of course, there is the intervening limiting letter.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Go right ahead, Mr. Breuer. You can address that.
Answer. We have a dynamic question. I don't think I said that. I think what I said, Mr. Bennett, is that I would have pointed out, I suspect—I don't pretend to remember everything I said. I talk a lot, as you can tell.
Question. You're doing fine. Go right ahead.
Answer. I think I would have had said, look, Ms. Comstock, or Mr. Rowley, you can't really want every document dealing with Webb Hubbell. There are millions of documents associated with the Attorney General that have absolutely nothing to do with this investigation. That I would have said.
Page 1041 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
I do not believe I would have said, oh, and by the way, this is how I'm going to go about putting it in a directive. That would not have been a part of my conversation. Instead we would have attempted to get those materials that were responsive. But I wouldn't have talked to you, the committee, about the means of doing that. I want to be clear about that. I'm not representing about what was or wasn't in the directive.
Question. Let me pick up on this. If you'll look at Exhibit 6, Mr. McLaughlin's point about the narrowing letter, page 5, where Mr. Rowley addressed the matter of Webster Hubbell, clearly there was not a withdrawal of requests as to Hubbell. In fact, Mr. Rowley narrowed it and limited as follows: For the period January 1, '94 to present, all records relating to Hubbell, except documents in connection with his official duties at the Department of Justice.
Do you see that?
Answer. I do see that. Now——
Question. My question is, again, in light of that narrowing, on April the 18th, why would there not be some reference to Webster Hubbell in the directive which followed 10 days later?
Answer. For the same reason that I said before, because I think we had probably attempted to gather Webb Hubbell documents. And I'm not convinced, by the way, Mr. Bennett, that this is exactly the narrowing of the—I just don't remember—of the Hubbell request. I mean, this inquiry, as I recall, is about campaign finance and improprieties and illegalities. I don't recall if the Webb Hubbell documents that we provided to this committee would have been documents that are connected to improprieties and illegalities. I mean, this committee in its prior iterations has investigated Hubbell and Whitewater and all kinds of other issues. So I want to be clear about that.
Page 1042 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. Just for the record, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, you're saying, has investigated Webster Hubbell?
Answer. I think under—I think Ms. Comstock has pointed out in the past that under Chairman Clinger, and I wasn't a part of it, that the White House had produced documents dealing with Mr. Hubbell and others.
Question. Let me ask you a specific question on Hubbell in terms of the—his nonlisting, his not being on the list of Exhibit 8, the directive of April 28th. Do you specifically recall, yourself, a discussion as to Hubbell not being listed?
Answer. No. I don't have a specific recollection, but I'm pretty sure he was captured in another body. I don't have a specific recollection. I thought I started by saying, I'm using your example of Hubbell. I have hundreds of conversations. And I give lots and lots of phone calls. So I want to be clear, I was giving you my sense of why that occurred.
Question. That is your sense of it. But you specifically don't recall a discussion as to whether Hubbell was to be listed or not listed——
Answer. I——
Question. On Attachment A to Ruff's memorandum of April 28th?
Answer. I suspect that I would have had a conversation at the time about how were we gathering the responsive documents for all of the inquiries. And either the person who handles Ken Starr's matters most would have said, through the directive I'm sending out, we will capture the Hubbell materials that will be responsive to the committee, or some analogous kind of a conversation would have occurred.
Page 1043 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. Let me give you another example in terms of a possible—some variance between the subpoena and the directive of Mr. Ruff. Item 34, you can look at item 34 on the subpoena of March 4th. And it's on page 6 of the Exhibit 4 there, as well——
Answer. Page—I'm sorry.
Question. Of the subpoena.
Answer. Yeah, I found it.
Question. It's page 6 of the subpoena, item 34. There is specific reference by the committee subpoena to Ron Brown documents. And then, if you look at page 6 of Mr. Rowley's letter of April 18th, there is an attempt to focus with greater specificity on the Ron Brown documents. Do you see that there, sir?
Answer. I do.
Question. And yet Mr. Ruff's directive of April the 28th does not make reference to Ron Brown documents.
Answer. It may well be. And I don't—again, it may well be that Brown documents, that if there were any such documents that were responsive, that they may well have been gathered either by someone who is dealing with the Independent Counsel who, at the time, was looking for Ron Brown, and so someone would have had those materials and could have made the determination whether they were or weren't—we did or did not have responsive ones.
Page 1044 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
In doing the directive, one of the exercises that would have been undertaken was to determine what documents had already been gathered for other reasons and to make a determination whether or not we had them or not. I also candidly don't recall in our discussions what we ultimately said about Ron Brown.
Again, I want to be clear that this limiting letter was not the end of the process at all. I think we continued to have discussions, as far as I recall. And so I want to be clear about that. And I don't really—I don't have a specific recollection of what we all decided or discussed about Ron Brown.
Question. So you, yourself, other than understanding your good faith effort here now to summarize what you believe might have occurred, you yourself don't have any specific knowledge as to, apart from Webster Hubbell, why the matter of Ron Brown documents were not listed on Mr. Ruff's directive?
Answer. Yeah, I don't. I don't know if we all—I don't remember if it's because we gathered it in a different way, whether we had narrowed it—that request in a different manner. And, indeed, there have been so many requests and so many directives that, you know, we could go all day and compare directives to requests, and I don't think I would be able to tell you sitting here today why we did something and with respect to a particular request one way or another.
Question. Did you reread—do you recall whether you reread the subpoena in connection with Mr. Ruff's directive at the time that the Ruff directive went out?
Page 1045 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. I don't recall. I suspect I did. I don't recall. I suspect that Mr. Ruff and I and others would have talked about the directive and tried to figure out the best way we could to capture the responsive materials.
Question. Was there any particular reason why the subpoena itself was not attached to Ruff's directive?
Answer. Yeah, a couple of reasons. One, the first directive I sent out made it in the newspapers. Prior to the time—the press received the copy of the directive prior to the time the people at the White House itself got it, so it becomes very disconcerting to people at the White House.
Second of all, though various committees have requested that we produce to them everything that the grand jury gets, that the grand jury requests, we feel an obligation not to announce to the world what the grand juries are asking us for.
And so to the degree we give a specific subpoena out, people will start figuring out what body is specifically asking for what. That's one reason.
The second reason is, Mr. Bennett, is you all asked for documents in one way. The Senate asked for similar documents in a second way. The Department of Justice asked for similar documents in a third way. If we were to have given all of that to everyone, it would have been total mass confusion, and I suspect you would have gotten very little.
Page 1046 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
That was the intent of the directive in trying to take all of these various requests and combine them. And I suggest that the White House people get too much paper anyway and get too many requests; that if we sent every one of the requests we get, that the response would not be a particularly good one.
Question. Clearly, you and I would agree, would we not, that with respect to matters of grand jury secrecy, first of all, there are no matters of grand jury secrecy as to a subpoena of the House of Representatives or from the United States Senate?
Answer. No, but I——
Question. That's correct; is it not?
Answer. That's exactly correct. But, of course, the problem is once I start producing all—once we produce documents to a body, and everybody knows what you have all asked for, then they can figure out by process of elimination what the Department of Justice has asked for.
But my main reason, that's one reason. And, frankly, we were very sensitive. You not so much, but the Senate very specifically asked us to hand them over everything we gave to the Department of Justice, and I was clear that, though we might try to do that, I didn't want to identify specifically what those documents were. But the main reason is because you all have overlapping requests. It becomes very confusing if you just hand out the actual requests to everybody.
Page 1047 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. With respect to the Senate, there was no Senate subpoena at that time; there had just been a request?
Answer. Right.
Question. But on April the 28th, again, not going into the matters of grand jury service upon the White House, and I'm not asking that, but as to the Senate, there was no Senate subpoena. The only subpoena was from the House of Representatives?
Answer. But there were requests. And we had said from the start, indeed, we hoped we could succeed with the Chairman—Mr. Ruff, I think in the meeting that you alluded to with the Chairman himself——
Question. The meeting of February the 6th?
Answer. I suspect. I don't remember the date. Mr. Ruff had said that he was very hopeful that you would not—I think he said, I may be wrong, but we were hopeful this committee would not issue subpoenas to the White House, but rather would give us requests, because we would deal with the requests in the same manner as we did with subpoenas. And, indeed, you all have given us subpoenas, and we dealt with them seriously. And we've received informal requests from you all, and we attempted to honor those as well.
Question. Did you ever meet, for example, in terms of the distribution with the directive and compliance of this subpoena, did you ever meet with Alan Sullivan, head of the White House Military Office, for example?
Page 1048 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Do you know Mr. Sullivan?
Answer. I do not.
Question. And, in fact, without going into all the details of the Senate depositions and your testimony before the Senate 2 days ago, you have heard, have you not, that those people who were seeking to gather materials or came up with the videotapes, who have said they are not aware of the subpoena and that they have not even seen the subpoena? You have heard that testimony, haven't you?
Answer. Well, I'm not sure what you're referring to. What I'm familiar is with the fact that we sent out the directive, that it went to Mr. Sullivan or Colonel Sullivan, the head of WAMO, that he got it, and that he sent out our directive; and that, in fact, the people who are most responsible for finding it stated that, had they received the full directive, including page 2, that, indeed, they would have produced the videotapes. I'm familiar with that. I'm not familiar with what you said. I have not received access to the depositions, so I haven't read them, but I know they're public statements.
Question. Did you at any time meet with Doug Sosnik or anyone in his office with respect to the matter of the subpoena?
Answer. I've met with Doug Sosnik.
Page 1049 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. Who is Doug Sosnik?
Answer. Doug Sosnik is one of the advisors, slash, counselors to the President.
Question. He's a political director; is he not?
Answer. I don't think he's currently the political director, though I may be wrong. I'm not sure he's currently in that position.
Question. He has been?
Answer. He has been the political director, that is correct.
Question. Have you ever met with him with respect to subpoena compliance?
Answer. I have met with Mr. Sosnik, and I have spoken to him in general about materials that would be in his possession or in control, and we've talked about that. Unfortunately, Mr. Bennett, from the very beginning, everyone thought that this is going to become highly politically charged and very cantankerous, so people from the start have their own lawyers at the White House. And one of the things that I deal with, frankly, Mr. Bennett, is often that I deal with people through their attorneys, because everybody suspects that they'll get to the point, as I am right now, where they're being deposed.
Page 1050 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
So either—and so I've dealt with Mr. Sosnik, I've dealt with Mr. Sosnik's lawyer, and I am sure I spoke to Mr. Sosnik about what responsive materials he had or his office had. And, in fact, we received those materials, I believe, from Mr. Sosnik.
Question. Let me pick up on this on that, if I can, with respect to dealing with Mr. Sosnik or his lawyer. Obviously, at some point in time, he didn't have a lawyer. He retained a lawyer at some point in time?
Answer. Pretty early on when this inquiry began. I think—I don't know specifically.
Question. When do you believe Mr. Sosnik retained a lawyer?
Answer. Early on. I think the Senate early on stated that they wanted to depose him.
Question. In terms of early on, I'm having a hard time identifying——
Answer. Probably within a month. I may be wrong. I may be completely wrong, given how many—certainly within a month or so of my joining the White House.
Question. So Mr. Sosnik had his own personal attorney, say, if you joined the White House staff at the White House Counsel's Office February the 16th, 1997, that was the date I think you gave; is that correct?
Page 1051 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. Yeah. Whatever that——
Question. I think the 16th or the 18th.
Answer. Right. We can all figure out that Monday.
Question. So to the best of your recollection, Mr. Sosnik had an attorney as of March 16th, or certainly by the end of March——
Answer. Right.
Question. To the best of your recollection?
Answer. Right. I mean, I don't think we should have—you've given Mr. Sosnik as an example, and suddenly we're talking about Mr. Sosnik as opposed to someone else.
Question. No, no. I want to follow up on what you said.
Answer. I think so. I could be wrong, but I think so.
Question. So with respect to the discussions on Mr. Sosnik, so I understand, I'm trying to pick up and follow to make sure I understand, you would have dealt with his lawyer before talking to Mr. Sosnik?
Page 1052 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Answer. No, not that. I just meant I would have talked to both. I would have talked to Mr. Sosnik directly about—or lawyers with me more often than I—about needing these kinds of materials. These are the materials that we need from your office, Mr. Sosnik, or from Political Affairs. Where are they?
Question. Did you ever talk about political coffees with him?
Answer. I'm sure—I don't know if the word ''political coffees.'' I think the discussion that I or others—I want to be clear here. I've talked to Doug Sosnik a number of times. I don't know if he and I sat down for a lengthy period of time where I would have said, Doug, we need various materials, and one of the lawyers is going to be contacting you directly or someone in your office directly. They're going to come visit your office. They're going to find out where responsive materials are, get them, assist you in that production.
I think that some combination of that occurred.
Question. Who were the people who might have assisted him? For example, was there a woman Karen Hancox, for example; would you have dealt with her perhaps?
Answer. Ms. Hancox had already left.
Question. All right.
Answer. I think she had already left the White House.
Page 1053 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
I would have dealt with Doug Sosnik. The lawyers working with me more likely than I would have dealt with Doug, and then the people under Doug who probably have a better sense of where the materials are. I think that's literally what would have happened.
Question. Directing your attention to immediately after sort of, I guess, right in this time period, continuing on in the chronology, in May—let me, if I can, show you Exhibit 9.
Answer. Should I put these aside?
Question. You can just keep them in order if you want, and you can put them aside.
Answer. All right. They're probably out of order now. I apologize. Which one are we up to now?
Question. We're on Exhibit 9, which is a May 14, 97 letter to the chair from Mr. Ruff.
[Breuer Deposition Exhibit No. 9 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Page 1054 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 13 Of 22
Question. Have you seen that letter before?
Answer. I'm sure I have.
Question. And, in fact, in May of 1997, there was an invitation of the committee for Mr. Ruff to appear and testify; is that correct?
Answer. There was.
Question. And, in fact, you were involved with Mr. Ruff, I gather, in his response with respect to the potentiality of contempt hearings. Do you recall that?
Answer. Yeah. I and others, clearly, that is right.
Question. So with respect to the potentiality of the contempt hearings as to the counsel and President, I gather that had some focus to it and caused people to try to get together and solve a problem; isn't that correct?
Next Hearing Segment(14)