Segment 14 Of 22 Previous Hearing Segment(13) Next Hearing Segment(15)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1055 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. I think it's fair to say I particularly took it very personally and wanted to get it resolved.
Question. What role or involvement did you have in seeking to prepare responses as reflected by Chairman Burton's desire in the letter of May 14th, Exhibit 9?
Answer. Are you talking about the privilege issue in particular?
Question. Yes.
Answer. I think what I tried to do is take whatever materials, given the speed with which we were—I was trying to get whatever materials had been withheld throughout the time of the collection, figure out what they were, figure out whether or not they should be put on a log. As you know, we didn't really want to have a log. The whole concept of executive privilege is a very dynamic process.
I think both institutions have an obligation not to come to loggerheads if it's unnecessary, and I very much wanted to provide whatever means we could in providing you all with the access to documents that you needed, but also being able to preserve legitimate deliberations and protect those from disclosure if not necessary.
We ultimately resolved that, I think, with this committee happily. It took 'til after all of this to occur. My involvement would have been to see how we could get to that point where we could give you what you all need, satisfy you that we weren't withholding documents pertinent to your investigation, but also enabling us to—what I think is a very institutional obligation—to preserve the deliberations of the White House. That's sort of a long-winded way of saying what my involvement would have been.
Page 1056 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. I don't think it was long-winded at all, and that was fine.
Directing your attention, I'll give you this exhibit, and then we'll go through the time period. I'll show you what's now been marked Exhibit 10.
[Breuer Deposition Exhibit No. 10 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. Thanks. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Directing your attention to Exhibit 10, that is, in fact, a letter of June 27th from Mr. Ruff to the Chairman with a copy to Congressman Henry A. Waxman, the Ranking Minority Member; is that correct?
Answer. It is correct.
Question. And it is essentially a letter in which Mr. Ruff uses the word ''certify'' to the best of his knowledge that the White House has produced all documents responsive to the committee's subpoenas. Do you see that? The first paragraph of that letter.
Answer. Yes, I do see it.
Page 1057 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Now, can you describe what steps were taken from the letter of May 14 from the Chairman to Mr. Ruff until June 27 to put Mr. Ruff in a position where he basically was prepared at that time to certify that there had been full compliance?
Answer. Yeah. I think he said, I think, certify to the best of his knowledge, with the caveat, which I think is in here——
Question. I understand.
Answer. But it's a very important caveat, particularly in a building that is as complicated and dynamic as the White House, that we have made—and I think he probably suggests, we will continue to make—efforts, always continue to produce materials.
The committee wanted Mr. Ruff to certify completion. I don't recall exactly what we did, but I suspect what we did is that we had lawyers go make sure that we checked the offices that were the most likely to have responsive materials; that we gathered certifications from offices that they had done their searches; that, in certain circumstances, we went back and made further inquiries.
I mean, I've said to this committee, I think I've said to Ms. Comstock and to Mr. Rowley and Mr. Bossie at the time of the issues of contempt here, and I've certainly said it to the Senate, that, you know, I wake up a lot—I haven't said this, but I do wake up a lot wondering about how we can comply as well as possible, and that I think we will always continue to find more and more materials. But the best we can do is to try as best we can to identify those places where there are responsive materials and to push. And with six lawyers and three paralegals, we do that. And I think we engaged in that kind of a process. We engaged in that kind of process when Mr. Ruff wrote this letter.
Page 1058 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. And did you help draft this letter?
Answer. I don't—well, help draft. I'm sure—I don't remember. I suspect that one of the—either one of the lawyers worked with me probably drafted it. Sometimes, as you know, letters go under my signature; sometimes they go under Mr. Ruff's signature. The process isn't always all that different between the two. When we write to the Chairman, pretty much we think it's appropriate for Mr. Ruff to do that. There's a lot of correspondence. So I don't really recall my exact role in this letter.
Question. As of June 27th, were you yourself comfortable with the fact that Counsel to the President had certified to the Chairman of this congressional committee that, to the best of his knowledge, there had been compliance, complete compliance, at that point?
Answer. Yeah.
Question. Were you comfortable with that at that time?
Answer. I never really wanted to certified, because I do think that, given the breadth of the request, given the volume of their requests, that we're always going to find more. I'm very open about that. I think anyone who is sitting in my seat and who worries about things that I do, we come out differently. But I understood sort of the necessity or the political necessity of doing that.
Page 1059 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Doing what, of certifying?
Answer. Of providing a certification because the Chairman wanted it. And there's no secret I would like to have good relationships with the committee. That's why we had Mr. Ruff certify to the best of his knowledge. We keep learning. The videotapes is a remarkable example, but an example of that. So I felt comfortable—to the degree we had to perform that exercise, I felt comfortable in it. I would have preferred not having to have done it at all, but to continue the dynamic process of providing materials as we discover them.
Question. You would concur, would you not, that the matter of certification or use of the word ''certify,'' in light of the comments you just made, it's an important word, it's an important concept, and I understand your professional reservations about using it, but were there discussions with Mr. Ruff and others about the position to take in terms of certification?
Answer. Again, I don't know at what point I should stop talking about the conversations.
Question. I don't want to know the——
Answer. Right.
Question. I'm not asking the contents of the conversations, but——
Page 1060 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. I think that I tried to be cautious. And I think I would have preferred not to have certified, simply because I think, frankly, as we sit here today, there very well be documents that someone will call me about at some point and tell me what they have that are responsive to this committee. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to call you or Ms. Comstock, and I'm going to say, I just found out about these, didn't know about them, and here they are.
Question. Let me follow up with that, if I can. On the matter specifically of—not getting into the future, but in terms of this June 27th certification——
Answer. Right.
Question. What—again, understanding your feelings as to the importance of that, and I respect that, what discussion—who were privy to discussions, again not the contents——
Answer. Right.
Question. But who would have discussed the matter of the Counsel to the President making that kind of certification? Would Mr. Lindsey have been part of a discussion with Mr. Ruff in that regard?
Answer. He might have. I don't suspect so.
Page 1061 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Would Ms. Mills have been part of it?
Answer. She may well have been. She may well have been. Obviously, Ms. Mills' office is next to Mr. Ruff's office in the West Wing, and Mr. Lindsey's is. I'm in the Old Executive Office Building, so I'm there a lot. I'm sure many times they run into each other, and I'm nowhere near there.
Question. Was that the location of their offices in June of this year?
Answer. Oh, sure.
Question. And it's still the location?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And do you recall in terms of a discussion about, apart from the political realities and necessities or whatever, about making a certification and bringing closure to this issue on June 27th, do you recall who, apart from Ms. Mills and yourself, Mr. Ruff would have discussed this with?
Answer. I want to be clear, I'm not even—I'm not remembering a specific conversation with Mr. Ruff and Ms. Mills and I sat together.
Question. I understand.
Page 1062 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. Having said that, I'm confident Ms. Mills would have been aware of this and would have talked to Mr. Ruff.
Question. Who also would have been aware?
Answer. My other lawyers working with me. That's really—I would have reached out to them. Typically, what I would do is say, you've got to satisfy yourselves. I mean, we would talk about the offices. They would reach out and ask people like Ms. Mills or others about where other things may be. At times, Ms. Comstock and I at different points have talked, and she would say that I think—or the Minority—I think that there are materials somewhere, and we go about and try to figure it out.
Question. And those other lawyers who would have been part of this discussion on certification you believe would have been those lawyers working in your group?
Answer. I think so.
Question. You would have tried to discuss it openly with all of them?
Answer. I believe—again, what I would have done is, there's no secret here, they know that I want us to have the responsive materials. And so I would have said—I typically don't go to the different offices. Typically the lawyers working with me will check. And I suspect, you know, we have lawyers go back. We had lawyers—even when others have said they completed production, we've gone back and found other materials independently. We followed up independently of any request. And so, in that kind of a process, we would—I assume that's what——
Page 1063 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was never the word ''certify'' or such certification with respect to the Senate; isn't that correct?
Answer. I think you're right. I think you are right.
Question. And doesn't the matter of this certification in late June relate to the potentiality of contempt hearings where there was an effort to bring closure to the matter of the subpoena and say——
Answer. Right.
Question. Have you complied with the subpoena or not? Isn't that really why the certification is there?
Answer. Yeah. I mean, it was involving requests—I think, you know, when Mr. Ruff and I came and met with the Chairman and others, we said, if you have concerns, let us know.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I'm sorry, we need to pause for a second.
[Pause.]
Mr. BENNETT. Just for the record, the pause is not because Mr. McLaughlin is in distress, it's because a member of Mr. Kanjorski's staff has arrived in the room, and we're pausing as a courtesy to Mr. Kanjorski.
Page 1064 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. This is for executive session, so——
Mr. KANJORSKI. Let the record show there's a vote on the floor, and I have to leave, and a second vote to follow.
The WITNESS. Thank you for coming.
Mr. BENNETT. Congressman, I gather you don't object to my continuing on?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Maybe let me make a note on the record. I've had the occasion to observe the deposition for approximately 2 hours, and I gather the contention is whether there was purposeful forgetting sources of information by the White House Counsel. And I've observed the demeanor of the committee chairman and the White House Counsel, and I see that he's fully cooperative in the spirit of examining the facts relating to it. And my own impressions are that, like many things in life, things appear to be obvious to many people and not obvious to those that are closely related to the information, so I wanted to have that on the record.
The WITNESS. I think I was in the middle of an answer, but I'm not sure.
Mr. BENNETT. Can you read his answer back?
[The reporter read back as requested.]
Page 1065 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
The WITNESS. For the record, I hate when you read them back. I realize how many times I stop in midsentence.
It was in connection with the threat of a contempt proceeding that we engaged in lengthy discussions. It was in that vein that we had said to the Majority and to the Minority that, to review your concerns, we wanted to know about them, that we would provide you the materials you wanted or continue to. In fact, we did provide to you those materials, and that, as we discovered materials, that we would continue to, you know—we would continue to look, and as we discovered materials, we would produce them. But it was in that vein that I suspect the request came to certify, and it was in that vein that Mr. Ruff would have written this letter.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Then showing you Exhibit 11.
[Breuer Deposition Exhibit No. 11 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. Can we take a 30-second break?
Mr. BENNETT. Sure.
[Recess.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Page 1066 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Directing your attention to the Exhibit 11, which is the letter of September 11 from Mr. Ruff to Chairman Burton.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Suffice it to say that—well, maybe you can characterize it. I don't want to characterize it. What does the letter represent in terms of the continuing dialogue, which is now after the certification letter by some 2 1/2 months?
Answer. I haven't read this letter in some time, but——
Question. If you want to take a minute to review it——
Answer. But I think I know what it is.
Mr. LYNCH. Dick, would it be helpful to have the September 2 letter?
Mr. BENNETT. It might, Mark, and I don't have it right in front of me, quite frankly. We don't need to go into the details of the matter, I'm just trying to get over the——
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Page 1067 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. I think it's clear for the record, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Breuer, the September 11 letter is a response by Mr. Ruff to Chairman Burton with respect to the issue of continued production; is that basically correct?
Answer. I think that is basically correct.
Question. If you want to take a second to look at the Exhibit 11, September 11 letter then.
Answer. I'll just be one more moment.
Question. Okay. Take your time.
Answer. Mr. Bennett, I haven't read the entire document, but let me give you my best of what this is. There are certain—the breadth of the requests that we have received from various bodies has required us to go back and continue to look for responsive materials. And, indeed, I had asked some lawyers, despite the press of time, to go back, even in offices where we have received materials, independently, frankly, and to go back, yet again, and double-check.
So I had one lawyer, for instance, to go back and review briefing papers, because if you look through computer database or you look at one point of time, and you may not have the proper context, you may go back and look at briefing papers again. So at some point I or Mr. Ruff, I don't remember, but I tasked at least one lawyer when things calmed down a little to just go back again and go through all the briefing papers, because you hear about a new event or a new event comes up in the news, and you realize you didn't have that focus earlier on. That was one of the exercises that we had someone do independently, where we ourselves took over the search—do you want me to wait?
Page 1068 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Go ahead.
Answer. So that—so that—and I think that, for instance, where Mr. Ruff talks about the Presidential diarist, it was us going back yet again. And I think Mr. Ruff says in this letter, what I thought, that when he certified, he said that that was everything as best as we knew at that time, but we would keep going back.
Electronic messages, as you know, the White House, for the most part, has the same e-mail system that we—that was adopted from the Bush administration, and during the Bush administration there was civil litigation, Armstrong litigation, to enable the administration to reconstruct its e-mails, which it had not done, and which it had not been producing in the Bush administration.
We are producing e-mails, but it's a very laborious process, both very costly and very time-consuming. Indeed, we only were able, I think, to produce—and my dates may not be exactly right—e-mails as far back as June of '94 only became physically possible, as I understand it, to reconstruct, review, and produce in approximately July of this year. And that's a—it costs literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, as I understand it. It's very laborious, not that I pretend to have firsthand knowledge of how it's done. That's why we produced you the e-mails as we did.
Phone logs for people at the White House who maintain them are kept for the most part separately in what's called the Office of Records Management. Typically when we get a search from you, given that there are millions of documents in the Office of Records Management, the Office, which is very good with career civil servants, will do index checks to see where are responsive materials. But with phone logs, you really can't do that because it's the most laborious process. You literally have to go through every page of someone's phone log, particularly if you have the cutouts where you might have four—I don't know if you know what I'm referring to, but you might have four phone logs on a piece of paper. And it literally requires a manual search where someone looks at every single piece of paper. And there are very many phone logs, and this committee and others were very interested in the phone logs of many people.
Page 1069 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
I suspect, and the letter references it, that at some point this would have been one of the examples we gave with one of the really truly remarkable tasks that has to be undertaken to comply with the subpoenas, and that it was going to take a long time. But, nonetheless, we did it. And I think we—I don't remember exactly when—we're pretty up front about that task.
The Vice President's Office tends, for the most part, to work a little bit independently. I think just historically Vice Presidents and Presidents have been working. So though we had been involved, the Vice President, too, had been continued to review materials.
And I think that that—and the reference here, frankly, are materials that we had only recently received. As you know, Senator Thompson has had hearings, and in the due course—in the course of that, we would receive materials from outside entities, or we might receive them, but at the time we had initially produced documents we did not have.
We produced those to you after we got them. Though an argument, I think, can be made they weren't in our custody and control, we didn't need to, I think the law suggested that—there is a lot of division in the law, and we did do that.
The McLarty and Trie, I think, are fairly syncretic examples. I don't I don't think I need to go into them. I think it, you know, speaks for itself.
So I think, in general, this was another attempt to go back and as best we could to provide to you materials. I want to be clear here that—that this is a sincere attempt, not a perfect attempt, but sincere attempt, to identify materials and get them to you. And in the course of time, you know, the more time we have, the more we can do. But e-mails and the phone logs are the two vaguest examples, plus the exercise that I had a couple of the lawyers undertake really the essence, I think, of what this letter was about.
Page 1070 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. And Mr. Ruff in his letter notes that he has revisited various offices to search for responsive documents. And he's even quoted as saying he's informed staff to let him know of, quote, any documents that had been overlooked. Do you know how he informed the staff of that? Did he send a memorandum out?
Answer. No. I think—I don't think he did. I think that was the exercise of me having various lawyers, or Chuck and I asking the lawyers to go to the offices that we identified in particular as the ones that would have the most likely responsive materials, such as the briefing papers of the President, the schedules of the President, the real essence of what the production is, aside from the, you know—an office that may have one or two documents, and really, instead of just sending a memo, really going in and trying to see what else there might be. I think that that was the exercise he's referencing here.
Question. Let me ask you this: In terms of this continuing exercise that you speak about, why would it be that other lawyers were not aware of the videotape request? Apart from the matter of WHCA and much of the discussion that was held with the Senate in public testimony 2 days ago, why were other lawyers not aware of the videotape request?
Answer. I can't obviously speak to what's in other people's state of mind. I can tell you that I've never seen video cameras when I've been with the President, and I've been with him as frequently as others. But I think for one, it isn't that obvious. I mean, I think somebody in the committee said that, indeed, the commander of WAMO and the commander of WHCA themselves weren't aware of the videotaping of coffees. I simply wasn't aware of the videotaping. Surely the lawyers who worked with me, I suspect, were not aware. I don't think it's really all that obvious, and if you were in the White House, I think that would probably become evident.
Page 1071 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Well, I guess——
Answer. With respect——
Question. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Answer. But I will say to you, it is clear, I want to be up front that early on in the process when we identified offices like the political office or the public liaison, I'm giving just examples, that I certainly didn't think the White House Military Office, which runs the Mess and all these other things, that that's an office that we ought to really focus in on.
Question. Just with respect to you, in terms of your lack of awareness of the videotapes, you yourself don't travel with the President that frequently, I gather?
Answer. I never travel with the President.
Question. And you yourself do not attend many social events with the President?
Answer. I have attended a social event with the President.
Question. And you yourself never attended any political coffees? You weren't there in the election season of '96?
Page 1072 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. That's correct. I was not.
Question. And just so I understand it, from your perspective, if you had been so privileged, then the matter of videotapes might have been in your mind-set because you would have been there, but you have not been so privileged, so you wouldn't have any knowledge of that?
Answer. Right. But let me be clear about one thing. As has been reported, much to my wife's chagrin, because she's a private person, I did take my family to a radio address recently. The only reason I point it out is that may or may not have been videotaped. I actually didn't notice it at the time, you know, whether it may have been or not. So it's not clear to me even if I had, I would have noticed it. But, you're right, I have not been privy to any of those kinds of events.
Question. Again, following up on what you have just said, if you had been—for example, if you had been in a receiving line with the President, or meeting people or whatever, and that type of social event with cameras being present and videotaping, then you would have had a different mind-set with respect to these matters; but you were not so privy to that or involved, so you didn't have that on your radar screen, so to speak? Is that basically what you're saying?
Answer. Yes and no. I mean, you're right, I wasn't a part of it. I can say, you know, hindsight is 20/20. You know, as you know, Mr. Bennett, the document requests that one gets, or subpoenas, define documents in very many ways. And I can't tell you that no matter how many of the events I would have been involved in, that I would have thought to myself one of the many definitions is videotapes, and I have been with the President at one of these kinds of events, and there were TV cameras. I don't think human nature is necessarily like that. Clearly, I didn't have the opportunity, so I clearly didn't, but I'm not even sure if I had the opportunity that I would have.
Page 1073 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. I guess my question to you is on the subpoena, March 4 subpoena, Exhibit 4 that we discussed——
Answer. Right.
Question. That right on the very first page, very first paragraph that you previously testified to earlier this morning, there's not one, but two different references to audio and videotaping?
Answer. Right.
Question. And the point is that if you had been so privy to those events, clearly, when you read the subpoena for the first time, you would have been aware that there was videotaping; but you yourself were not at those events, so you would not have been aware?
Answer. Right. I wasn't aware, so you're correct, I wasn't aware. I don't want to be saying I'm so special here. I don't know if I had been privy if I would have thought of it, because when you look at a subpoena, you look at the entire subpoena, and there are so many different references to documents. And, frankly, I don't know, it's quite likely that I wouldn't have thought of it.
Question. You don't know.
Page 1074 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. That's not my mind-set.
Question. And in terms of that answer, it is perfectly possible that you might have thought of it because you have said, ah, I was there, and I recall videotapes.
Answer. It's possible I might have; perhaps even more likely, in fact, that I would not have.
Question. Directing your attention to—well, let me pick up one other thing. I'm sorry.
Answer. Sure.
Question. The matter of the Presidential diaries, we're talking about the matter of compliance with this committee's subpoena——
Answer. Right.
Question. And we're talking about the matter of Presidential diaries, the daily recordings or musings of the President, whatever, however you define it.
Answer. They're clearly not that. I want to be clear. There's nothing about musings. Whether ''diary'' is a misnomer or not, I don't want to debate. But there is nothing—the person who is a diarist has no contact with the President as far as I know, works in the Old Executive Office Building. There are no musings or thinkings. It is simply what is on her computer, as I understand it. I have never had access myself, but as I understand, what is on her computer is a filing to—virtually an index that has enabled us to give the core source materials, I think approximately a thousand or so, that we've actually produced. That's my understanding of what she has.
Page 1075 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. When was the matter of the Presidential diarist discovered?
Answer. Well——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Let me just interrupt and interject my usual objection. This was covered quite thoroughly in the public hearings 2 days ago not only by Mr. Breuer, but also by Mr. Ruff and Mr. Imbroscio. Furthermore, I just want to note just in passing that the word ''diarist'' appears on page 2 of Exhibit 11, which is a letter sent September 11, and make it quite clear that diarist records have been turned over to this committee during the August production.
Mr. BENNETT. Your objection is noted, Mr. McLaughlin.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Mr. Breuer, I'll make sure I finish in the next 7 minutes for your noon appointment. But I'll——
Answer. Okay. And I can——
Question. I can't represent that I've reviewed all of your tapes, and I apologize if this has been repetitive. I've made every effort not to duplicate, but on this particular issue I'm not privy to all the facts.
Page 1076 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. And I can go a little after noon.
Question. Thank you.
Answer. I think the committee and others have, in fact, known about the existence of the diarist, because I think we've been producing materials to you from the start from the diarist. Those documents are the very documents that we've given you and I think—I think, I don't have them in front of me, would be reflected in production logs and others. So there is no mystery about that at all.
There are many data, there are many sort of computer-generated finding tools in any institution. When we have attempted, or paralegals or others have attempted, to find responsive materials to you, one of the ways of doing that is to ask the diarist if they can look at the computer. By looking at the computer, you can find out that a document or material exists and then try to get it for you.
So that's been an ongoing process. I think what happened is the Senate inquired about the actual what's on the computer, on the database. And I think that the Chairman thought, and I think mistakenly, that, in fact, this did contain the musings of the President. Indeed, it doesn't. There's—everything that's in the computer is simply duplicative—not even duplicative, but references, as I understand, the source materials that you all have. And that's, I think, what we're talking about here, to the best of my understanding.
Question. Thank you. I appreciate that. That only took a few minutes, and I appreciate that. And for the record, I have not had an opportunity to review all of your transcript of your testimony.
Page 1077 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. I hope you don't have to for your sake.
Question. With respect to the events now in August—just to wind up a little bit this morning, and we'll pick up again, for the record, by agreement of counsel and Mr. Breuer at 3 o'clock this afternoon—in terms of, directing your attention to August of 1997 and the matter of the existence of videotapes, I'll show you Exhibit 12.
[Breuer Deposition Exhibit No. 12 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. This is a matter, obviously, Mr. Breuer, that was addressed by the Senate in its deposition and in your public testimony. And we're not going to attempt to belabor many points, but it obviously relates to our subpoena of the House of Representatives as well, and that's why I need to inquire as to this. Directing your attention to Exhibit 12, that is a letter to you from Donald Bucklin, Majority counsel for the Committee on Governmental Affairs in the United States Senate; is that correct?
Answer. It is correct.
Question. And Mr. Bucklin addresses the meeting held on August 7th with respect to information that the Senate had received as to audio and visual support to the President. Do you see that there?
Page 1078 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. He references, just so it's clear, and I have said it, but I would like to say it again, I had actually called that meeting, because we received a subpoena from the Senate, and it was a very overencompassing subpoena. And I, in fact, in that meeting stated that I wanted to figure out what we should—what they wanted first, prioritize the requests of the Senate.
I also said at that meeting, coincidentally, I guess I had some ability at forecasting the future, that it would occur again that materials that were responsive to different committees would be discovered, and that, in the highly politically charged nature that we're in, whatever documents they were would become the cause celebre, and we would all find reasons, or those who want to find reasons would find reasons, why—if there's anything particularly special about the belatedly found material. But there was nothing we could do.
And I also said, and I explained the circumstances surrounding the Ng Lap Seng discovery, and Mr. Bucklin indeed said, had I had the opportunity to explain that, that a lot of the public commotion, in his view, would have been unnecessary.
Throughout that meeting Mr. Bucklin never raised any issue about taping or—he only did that after the meeting with Mr. Imbroscio. So I want to be clear, when it says at the meeting, it didn't occur at the meeting. It occurred after the meeting had ended.
Question. Again, not trying to repeat your Senate testimony, but to make sure we're clear on this, the matter of the August 7th discussion is between Mr. Bucklin and Mr. Imbroscio, correct?
Page 1079 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. Exactly. That's my point. Just the two of them.
Question. And exactly when did Mr. Imbroscio make you aware of the discussion held with Mr. Bucklin where the issue of videotapes had come up?
Answer. Well, I actually think, to the best I recall, Mr. Imbroscio and I had a discussion within a day or 2. But I think the focus of our discussion was that Mr. Bucklin thought there was secret taping in the Oval Office. That is the best of my memory. That is clearly the focus, as I took it, from what Mr. Imbroscio told me of what Mr. Bucklin was concerned about at that time. But it would have been within a day or 2 of the August 7 discussion between Bucklin and Imbroscio.
Question. So sometime, let's say, by August 9th, I believe is what you previously represented—if I'm misstating it, correct me—sometime between August 7th and August 10th, I think you said in your Senate deposition testimony, you became aware of an inquiry with respect to taping by Bucklin?
Answer. Yes. And the focus became secret taping. And my sense it would have been audiotaping; but secret taping, more likely audiotaping, in the Oval Office.
Question. And you'll note that Mr. Bucklin's letter talks about routine—not necessarily secret taping, but routine taping. I think you just indicated that you thought there might have been some inquiry as to secret taping. In fact, his letter—again, I know that you weren't privy to his conversation with Mr. Imbroscio, but his letter of August 19th addresses what he would define as routine audio and visual support, not secret taping.
Page 1080 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. Well, I don't take routine as not consistent with secret. I mean, I actually—it may well have been what Mr. Bucklin was concerned about is whether there was routine secret taping. That—the operative word to me wasn't ''routine'' versus ''extraordinary,'' but, rather, that there was some sort of secret taping system in the Oval Office. So I don't take this reference to be in any way different or inconsistent, from my understanding, with Mr.—from what Mr. Imbroscio told me.
Mr. BENNETT. Well, why don't we—it's noon. And we are—in light of the fact we're going to come back at 3:00, and I promised you could get to the children's Halloween party, why don't we stop promptly at noon so you get out of here, and start promptly at 3 o'clock.
Mr. LYNCH. Fine.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Let me make it clear, I have a 6 o'clock flight. If I leave here at 5——
Mr. BENNETT. We will be finished by 5 o'clock.
Mr. LYNCH. We have to leave here by 5 o'clock.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I would rather err a little light now or a little early before 3 to——
Page 1081 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. I think we will be fine.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. BENNETT. And I just want the record to reflect, Mr. Breuer, I appreciate the depth of the discussion as far as you recall at our meeting on Friday morning, October the 10th, at which Mr. Ballen was present. Our concern is—I think you well understand, is not just the matter of these White House videotapes, but the whole matter of compliance with the subpoenas of this committee, past, present, future, and I appreciate your candor thus far.
The WITNESS. And I want you to really know that I'm taking your questions very seriously.
Mr. BENNETT. I know.
The WITNESS. And giving you as full answers as I can.
Mr. BENNETT. I know. Thank you.
[Whereupon the deposition recessed to reconvene at 3 p.m. this same day.]
Mr. BENNETT. Okay. I think where we were——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Are we going back on the record now?
Page 1082 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. Yeah.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I just want to make one note. Mr. Kanjorski asked me to mention this.
Mr. Bennett, you've already graciously apologized to Mr. Breuer for the TV camera out front. I want to do the same and just note that I hope that it isn't going to be a practice for the committee to be notifying the media when people are giving depositions.
So far in my experience two TV cameras have shown up in this whole process, and it's both been times when a White House counsel person has shown. That's either remarkable sleuthing, or somebody somewhere along the line is giving the media a heads-up. On behalf of the Minority, I apologize for the camera.
Mr. BENNETT. In all candor, Mr. Breuer, I'm not sure where it came from. I can't tell you that it did not come from someone on the Majority staff. I just don't know. I know that there wasn't an announcement so a whole flock of media is there. But certainly there is one media crew out there in the hall. I think they're from—someone said they're from CBS is what I heard. I don't know whether they are or not.
So I feel badly they're out there. I don't know whether our staff was responsible for that leak or not, but if it was clearly an announcement, we would have far more than just one TV camera out in the hall, I suspect.
Page 1083 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Okay. I think where we were is the matter of the events of August 19. And I think if you want to take Exhibit 12 and look at that exhibit in front of you.
Answer. Okay.
Question. For the record, Mr. James Wilson, the Majority counsel, is also here for a portion of your deposition—is here in the room.
Directing your attention to August of 1997—if I am mistaken, correct me—I believe where we were, Mr. Breuer, when we took the break at lunchtime was that sometime during the period of August 7 to August 10, 1997, Mr. Michael Imbroscio advised you of the conversation you had with Donald Bucklin, Majority Counsel for the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, with respect to an inquiry as to routine audio and visual support on some inquiry which is made. Is that basically correct? Is that the time period?
Answer. That is the time period. And as I think I said at lunchtime, it's my recollection that, essentially, Mr. Imbroscio mentioned to me that Mr. Bucklin had inquired about secret taping—whether audio, visual, I don't recall—but secret taping in the Oval Office.
Question. And did you undertake to determine whether or not there had been any such secret taping?
Page 1084 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. Well, I told Michael Imbroscio that he should look into that. And, indeed, he proceeded to do that.
Question. Did you yourself make any inquiry, or did you speak with Mr. Ruff or Ms. Mills or anyone else regarding that matter?
Answer. I did not. I—well, I did not. I did speak with Mr. Ruff at some point within a week or so. I don't really recall exactly.
Question. Within a week of August 7th?
Answer. Exactly. Mr. Imbroscio and Mr. Ruff and I had a meeting where we're talking, as I recall, about a variety of issues. This was one of them. That would have occurred prior to the time of this letter.
Question. The time of the letter being August 19th?
Answer. The 19th, that's right. And at that time as well, Michael researched the fact that Mr. Bucklin had raised the issue of secret taping at the White House, and we all agreed that Michael would look into it. I personally did not look into it.
Question. When you say we all agreed——
Answer. Mr. Ruff and I.
Page 1085 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Sometime prior—in terms of a discussion, who—who were the attorneys who discussed this with Mr. Imbroscio in terms of the inquiry and the interpretation of whether or not there had been secret taping or not?
Answer. To put it in context, when we say ''discussion,'' there wouldn't have been a lengthy discussion, given the volume of requests we receive. The first time that Michael came to my office and mentioned this, I told him I thought he should look into it. Then, again, within a week or so of the 7th, when Michael and I were with Mr. Ruff, among the issues discussed, Michael mentioned the fact that Mr. Bucklin had made this inquiry of him. And, once again, with Mr. Ruff there, the three of us agreed that Michael should look into this matter.
Question. And with respect to inquiring as to the matter in terms of secret taping, you and Mr. Ruff and Mr. Imbroscio had all arrived in February of this year, correct?
Answer. That's correct, yes.
Question. And so——
Answer. Well, Mr. Imbroscio, I think, started in March, to be literal.
Question. Suffice it to say, all of you, the three of you mentioned thus far, were still, say, within your first 6 months of working at the White House; is that correct?
Page 1086 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. Right. I think that's right.
Question. Did you make any effort or were any efforts made—and again whether you were involved personally or have knowledge of or your impression with respect to discussions with people who were more experienced during the White House, had been there a longer period of time?
Answer. I certainly have no firsthand knowledge of that at all.
Question. When you say you have no firsthand knowledge, you weren't present?
Answer. I wasn't present.
Question. Is it your understanding that someone might have made that effort?
Answer. I think what Mr. Imbroscio did actually was, on his own, tried to identify the appropriate agency or unit that was in charge of taping. And I learned that it was WHCA and proceeded from there. And again, that's secondhand. Obviously, Mr. Imbroscio has not testified to that in a public forum.
I'm not aware of Mr. Imbroscio speaking to various individuals about this issue. I think he just attempted to identify the source and went from there.
Page 1087 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. I guess my question to you is that in light of personnel who were more experienced there, who had been there a longer period of time, it seems to me it would be logical, particularly in light of the proximity of offices, for someone to ask, is there such a thing as secret taping here at the White House?
Wouldn't you think that would be a logical thing for you or Mr. Ruff to ask?
Answer. Well, it would certainly be logical for us to do various things. Yeah, I think it is logical for us to do what I typically do when I get an inquiry of this sort, which is, I assign it to a lawyer, and frankly, I don't do anything more with it until the lawyer gets back to me. I tend to field a lot of inquiries.
Perhaps, in all candor, if you called me directly and said, Lanny, I really need you to get back to me on X, Y and Z, I might do it. More often than not, in all candor, what I do is, I have one of the lawyers or even a paralegal check into something, depending on the issue. More often than not, then they get back to me.
With respect to the Senate, in fact, this has been publicly testified, I had agreed to have Michael have an ongoing discussion dialogue with Mr. Bucklin. So it wouldn't, in that situation, at all be likely that, once Mr. Imbroscio was in charge, that I would start calling up.
Question. I think you testified earlier as to meetings that you and Mr. Ruff and the entire team——
Page 1088 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. Right.
Question. Of Karen Popp, Shelly Peterson, Cheryl Mills, Buzz Waitzkin, the entire team of people who would have meetings on matters——
Answer. Right.
Question. Correct?
Answer. Yes.
Question. There were such meetings?
Answer. There were such meetings on occasion.
Question. And I'm asking in terms of this particular matter——
Answer. Right.
Question. You've indicated that you recall—specifically recall, just the three of you—Mr. Imbroscio, Mr. Ruff and you—meeting on this matter. And I'm inquiring as to why there would not, to your recollection, have been a more general discussion, so you understand the nature of my question.
Page 1089 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. I understand. I do.
Question. It seems like it's not a minor manner. If someone said there was clandestine taping in the offices of the House of Representatives, to me, I would be wanting to know right away what they're talking about.
Answer. Well, putting it in context, I took that request to be a little off the wall. And I don't mean any disrespect; I just thought that there was virtually no likelihood at all that there was secret taping in the White House, in the Oval Office. And in the—and in the context of the requests we receive and given the fact that there were hearings about to begin again, which takes a fair bit of my time, there are various inquiries of the Vice President, the President, as has been publicly been disclosed, various actions of the Independent Counsel and various other requests, this particular request, in fact, did not seem of such moment.
Indeed, I think that when Mr. Imbroscio and I were meeting with Mr. Ruff, this was a minor issue. We were, I suspect, discussing more one of the issues that Mr. Imbroscio deals with having absolutely nothing to do with it this at all, we were exploring that. And then we followed on with Mr. Imbroscio referencing this.
In the meetings that we have, for the most part, it's not as if we run through every request. That's not what the meetings are. It's not as if we go through with Mr. Ruff every single request and go through them. I will, on occasion, have status reports where people will tell me, if you're in charge of this subpoena, you're in charge of this request, you'll let me know where you are. But it is not the practice that we go through all the correspondence en masse or at least with my lawyers and everybody starts talking about each of the requests. That's not the typical practice.
Page 1090 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Again, my question to you is this, precisely on the matter of steps taken. You have indicated that as—that the request of Bucklin wasn't so much we think they're—given what you have said was your impression, and if I'm putting words in your mouth, correct me if I'm wrong——
Answer. I will.
Question. I thought you said—this morning you said it wasn't a matter that someone said, oh, by the way, I think there are videotapes of political functions at the White House. Someone was talking about what you interpret to be ''clandestine''—I think was your word, your phrase—taping.
I guess my question to you is, in light of that interpretation that you gave it—and as you say this afternoon, you thought it was a little bit off the wall—I'm wondering why you would not have wanted to bring all the lawyers in to discuss a matter which could have certain implications, you know——
Answer. I think.
Question. Particularly lawyers who are more experienced as opposed to people who had only been there a few months?
Answer. I think the answer is—in fact, I know the answer is that, in the scheme of the requests we got, this one just didn't rise to the top. Mr. Bucklin himself—at least my impression is, after speaking with Mr. Imbroscio, Mr. Bucklin himself thought the request was off the wall. Now, again, we're separating the oral discussion between Mr. Bucklin—I want to be precise here—and Mr. Imbroscio on the 7th with the subsequent letter on the 9th.
Page 1091 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. I understand.
Answer. Just so we're clear.
With respect to that, in all candor, I thought that the odds of it were 99.9 percent it didn't happen. Frankly, I think Chuck Ruff had the exact same impression from his facial expression when he heard for the first time this inquiry.
As you can imagine, we sometimes get, and I don't mean it disrespectfully, other off-the-wall requests, and I don't really get everybody involved in a long discussion about off-the-wall requests; that's not my practice.
Now, I'm not suggesting to you that a perfectly reasonable approach may not have been to talk to other people to find out about it. I don't think, in that particular case, that Mr. Imbroscio—well, I didn't do any more about it, because I have utter confidence in Michael, utter confidence. He's an exceptionally talented young lawyer. He's very good at getting to the bottom of things.
He was handling a lot of matters; this was one of them. I left it to him. I knew he would get back to me, and proceeded to do what, in fact, without 20/20 hindsight, I think is a very reasonable thing, which is to try to figure out who's responsible and to talk to those people.
Question. Let me ask you this, then. Let's move up then when you get the letter of August 19th, continuing with the chronology, I think you're talking about the time frame—I think you just mentioned the time frame up to getting the letter, the letter of August 19th from Mr. Bucklin, as reflected by Exhibit 12. There is the reminder or the comment by Mr. Bucklin as to the discussion with Mr. Imbroscio, and there, it's with more specificity. And that says, it is not a matter of, you know, interpreting clandestine taping; it's with more specificity, routine audio and visual support and reference to the White House Communications Agency having this information.
Page 1092 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Now, once you receive this letter, I gather you were able to give Mr. Imbroscio a little greater definition of how he might undertake to follow up on this?
Answer. Well, actually, I would say that this letter is a broader request. I wouldn't call it more specific.
Question. Fine.
Answer. I actually would call it a broader request, at least, as I had understood the discussion between Mr. Bucklin and Mr. Imbroscio.
I don't have a very—in fact, I don't have a specific recollection at all of a discussion with Mr. Imbroscio once I got this letter, though I'm confident that when we got this letter, that I spoke to Mr. Imbroscio. I think Mr. Imbroscio stated publicly that he was a little disappointed in getting this letter so quickly, because he had been handling a lot of the requests from Mr. Bucklin; and I suspect that I asked Michael if he was going to pursue it. And I suspect—I don't have a specific memory, but I'm doing my best as your instructions in the beginning were—I suspect that Michael informed me that he was pursuing this.
I don't think, having said this, that I would have said to him now, I want you to do things differently. I'm quite confident that he would have, and indeed he did, contact WHCA.
Question. Before I get to the content of the letter, during the time period up until the letter, which I think really zeros in on the matter of the White House Communications Agency, did you ever inquire of any individuals, or the President, in terms of whether or not there is any such clandestine taping?
Page 1093 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. I did not. I never speak to the President about discovery requests at all.
Question. Do you know if anybody else did?
Answer. I'm quite confident nobody else did. But I only have firsthand knowledge, of course, of what I did. And certainly no one in my presence ever did, and I suspect no one did.
Question. When you received the letter of August 19th, Exhibit 12, again in terms of Mr. Imbroscio's steps to be taken, the clear stating of the White House Communications Agency, as far as you were concerned, would prompt Mr. Imbroscio to contact the White House Communications Agency and to determine if that information was present?
Answer. And, Mr. Bennett, I think he did. I think—the one thing that I tried to make clear during the hearing, I think what's very important, in fairness, is, we now all look at this document in isolation, and we act as if in the White House that's all people were dealing with. Indeed, at the time that we got this letter, we were really getting very many requests, particularly from the Senate.
We had just received a subpoena from the Senate. The Chairman had very publicly stated——
Question. There were no hearings in August, right?
Page 1094 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. There were no hearings in August, but we had just received—we had just ended the hearings. The Chairman had just given us a large subpoena and had stated to the Nation that he expected that we produce the materials.
Question. Chairman Thompson?
Answer. Chairman Thompson, exactly. Chairman Thompson stated very clearly that we respond very quickly and get him the materials responsive to the subpoena. Indeed, the very purpose of the meeting on August 7th that I had called in my office with Mr. Bucklin and with the Minority Counsel in the Senate was to address the issues that were contained in the subpoena. That was clearly the focus of us. And indeed, I think, in fairness, that was the focus of the Senate; and indeed that was the focus of Mr. Bucklin while, in addition, Mr. Bucklin and others were making numerous other formal and informal requests.
So when Mr. Imbroscio received this, he in fact, I think, did do the kinds of things that you're suggesting, that it would be unfair to say that this was the only thing on his or other people's plates. So that, in part, explains the period of time between the 7th and what—until he gives the status report to Mr.——
Question. Well, I'm getting to the period—I'm sorry.
Answer. Bucklin on September 19th.
I think you've probably deposed Mr. Imbroscio and know this probably better than I at this point, or someone on the committee.
Page 1095 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. My question is on Exhibit 12. This letter of August the 19th from Mr. Bucklin is more than the matter of just actually giving some definition to the matter of taping by the White House Communications Agency or the possibility of it. Because there, the specific request is identical to the request made by Congressman Burton and his letter in mid-January, as reflected by Exhibit 3, which you have in front of you if you want to review it, in that there—it's indicated to you that Senator Thompson wants the same kind of certification of compliance that was provided to Congressman Burton.
Answer. I'm—I apologize.
Question. If you want to look at the list——
Answer. I lost you.
Question. Look at the last paragraph, the last paragraph of Exhibit 12——
Answer. Okay.
Question. The letter to you——
Answer. Right.
Question. From Mr. Bucklin makes reference to your having ''assured Mike Madigan, Mark Tips, Majority Counsel for the Senate, and me,'' Mr. Bucklin, ''that a certification similar to that provided Congressman Burton would be provided,'' and similar to the certification as reflected in the exhibits here for this deposition.
Page 1096 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Do you see where it says that?
Answer. I do see that.
Question. And there's specific reference to ''certification similar to that provided''—there was actually a reference to Congressman Burton here. This was not just a letter to be lost among many letters. Here the Senate was now asking for the same type of certification that the House had required and, you know, Mr. Ruff had very carefully provided that type of certification in June of 1997, as reflected by one of the exhibits here. I'm not sure what the number is. It's one of the first 12 exhibits.
For the record Mr. Bob Dold, Majority Counsel, has arrived. It's D-O-L-D, not D-O-L-E.
The WITNESS. I was going to say, he looks great.
Mr. BENNETT. Off the record for one second.
[Discussion off the record.]
Question. Back on the record.
Answer. I don't think, Mr. Bennett, that if you were sitting in my chair, that that characterization is a fair one. I don't think the fact that there is a reference to a certification made this letter one of particular import. I think we treat the letters and the requests we get, or at least I do, quite seriously. But indeed, Mr. Bucklin and others had asked for a certification, and indeed, in the dynamic I experienced in the White House, there is a great amount, if not—I won't call it jealousy, but concern between the two bodies about who we were spending more time concentrating on; and the Senate was very concerned at different points about the amount of attention and timeliness with which we were providing materials at one point to you as opposed to them.
Page 1097 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
So this idea of the certification was, in fact, something that had been bantered about. But the reference here did not suddenly—and I take it very seriously, certification, but it wasn't as if this was the only reference to it. And frankly, in the reading of the letter, until you have just now mentioned the certification, I never really focused on it; and indeed, I don't think Mr. Bucklin or Mr. Madigan or others have. Because we've talked about this letter, as you know, both publicly in the hearings, I believe, and in the depositions.
So I want to be clear, you're absolutely right, it's a reference. This wasn't the only reference, as I used the term before. It was sort of a dynamic process. They would make requests of us; I would want to get back. It was hard to make a certification, particularly at that point, to them, given the flurry of activity, the number of subpoenas and requests we were getting.
So despite the requests, I don't want you to think that that, in and of itself, made this letter more than the kind of letter that I was receiving on quite a frequent basis from the Senate and, in addition, a number of other investigatory bodies.
Question. Now, in terms of this letter, Exhibit 12, the August 19th letter, and the reference to the White House Communications Agency, and with respect to any impression you had about an allegation of clandestine taping, up until that letter, it is my understanding that you never at any point in time ever spoke with any other lawyers at the White House concerning the potentiality of such a videotape.
Answer. I have no recollection at all of speaking with anyone else about this request, other than Mr. Imbroscio and Mr. Ruff.
Page 1098 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
I want to be clear here. I'm not definitively saying, it's impossible. I have absolutely no recollection, and indeed, I made no personal fact-finding mission. My involvement was literally tasking Mr. Imbroscio. And I recall, frankly, only speaking with him about it within a day or two after the 7th and again sometime about a week later. And then maybe at some point after that, he gave me some sort of a status report, but I don't have any specific recollection of that.
Question. Do you recall specifically whether or not you would have spoken in any general context, in any way, with Bruce Lindsey at the White House concerning this?
Answer. I'm positive I did not. I frankly don't speak very frequently with Mr. Lindsey; and I'm positive——
Question. Where is Mr. Lindsey's office in relation to Mr. Ruff's?
Answer. If, well, Mr.—Mr. Ruff's office is in one end of the second floor and Mr. Lindsey's is literally on the very opposite end of the floor—on that floor. When you get off the elevator, Mr. Ruff is all the way to the right, and Mr. Lindsey would be all the way to the left.
Question. With respect to Cheryl Mills, her office is, in fact, right next to Mr. Ruff's?
Page 1099 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. That's what I said to you earlier. That's right.
Question. And with respect to Ms. Mills, do you have specific recollection that you did not speak to Ms. Mills at any point in time concerning the inquiry as to the taping?
Answer. I do. As best as I can remember, I have a very specific recollection. If not, obviously this has become an issue, so I've thought about it pretty hard. I do, because frankly I wasn't making an inquiry of anybody about it.
The only conversation I remember having specifically about the videotapes until their discovery was the discussion with Mr. Ruff, Mr. Imbroscio approximately a week later. In fact, I don't think I had a specific conversation with anybody about the videotapes until October 1 in the evening when Mike Imbroscio came to my office.
Question. Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not Mr. Ruff would ever have spoken with Ms. Mills concerning videotape?
Answer. I—it is virtually inconceivable to me for the same reason. It's inconceivable to me that Mr. Ruff would have taken this request among the many, knowing that——
Question. This meaning the August 19th letter?
Page 1100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. Exactly, the request encompassed by August 19th. It's inconceivable that Mr. Ruff, given all of his responsibilities, would have, on his own, endeavored to make a factual inquiry of this, given Michael Imbroscio was handling it. I can't imagine that would have occurred.
Question. Do you know whether or not—do you have any personal knowledge as to whether or not Mr. Imbroscio ever spoke with Ms. Mills or anyone else at the White House?
Answer. I believe Mr. Imbroscio told me he had not, but I don't have any personal knowledge apart from that. It's my understanding that he did not speak to her about that.
Question. Now, just—as I understand it, then, after you received this letter of August the 19th, 1997, you had no further—and you spoke with Mr. Imbroscio about it and tasked him with looking into the matter.
I gather, then you had no further conversations with anyone on this matter having to do with the videotapes or the White House Communications Agency until October 1?
Answer. He—it is certainly conceivable, as I hope I said just a moment ago, and perhaps likely, though I don't recall, that at some point Mr. Imbroscio, who had come into my office fairly routinely, as with the other lawyers—given my style, I have a pretty open door—that among the issues he might have said something like, I talked to the WHCA people, or he might have given me a 2-minute status report.
Page 1101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
I don't specifically remember that, but I don't want to say that it did not occur, that between the week after August 19th and October 1 that there was no reference. Indeed, he might have said—he might have, I don't recall—said, you know, I'm meeting with Bucklin about a variety of issues. One of the issues we are going to talk about is WHCA and what I've learned as of this day.
Question. Is it correct to say then that with the exception of possibly talking with Michael Imbroscio between August 19, 1997, and October 1, 1997, that you would have definitely not had any conversations with any other individuals concerning WHCA or videotapes?
Answer. I think that's correct. I would be shocked if I had. I really don't recall any. I think that that's a fair characterization, what you've said.
Question. And with respect to the possibility of having any conversations with Mr. Imbroscio, you don't remember the specifics of any such conversations, but you believe they may or may not have occurred during that time period; you just don't recall?
Answer. That's exactly right. And to the degree they did occur, there would have been a very brief status report.
Question. In terms of the status report, it really wouldn't be that complicated, would it, as to WHCA and that if Mr. Imbroscio talked with WHCA——
Answer. Right.
Page 1102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Either they did or didn't talk about videotapes?
Answer. Right. And it wouldn't have been, oh, let me tell you about WHCA; it would be, I'm this far along on the phone logs, this is the story on E-mails, this is why we can't get E-mails out, there are four new press inquiries, there's this issue with—you know, Roger Tamraz or someone. I mean, that would be the most likely context in which this discussion, if it occurred, would have occurred.
Question. Directing your attention then to October 1, 1997, it is your recollection then that on October 1—Wednesday, October 1st, 1997, was the first time that you were contacted by Mr. Imbroscio in terms of the existence of videotapes?
Answer. That's right.
Question. And in fact, I believe that October the 2nd was Rosh Hashanah; is that correct?
Answer. The—yeah, the evening of October 1st is when it began——
Question. Is when it began?
Answer. And it goes to the evening of——
Page 1103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. To sundown the following day.
Answer. Right. Which is why I was rushing out.
Question. So, again I have made every effort not to repeat the Senate testimony——
Answer. That's fine.
Question. But so I'm clear on this, and I think you have to acknowledge I have a done a very good job of trying to avoid that, is that correct, I'm trying not to be redundant on this.
Answer. You've been very fine.
Question. With respect to sundown, October 1st, and then sundown October 2nd, how soon before sundown when you left the White House were you made aware by Imbroscio—I'm not sure if I'm clear on this, I'm having trouble getting a handle on this.
Answer. That's fine.
Question. The time period, as you're leaving the White House when you're advised, by the way, there are videotapes——
Answer. I'm smiling just because obviously this had come up.
Page 1104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. It's a rather hectic night, I would think.
Answer. It was. It probably is not a surprise, I don't have a very good record of getting out of the White House at a reasonable hour. And in my mind was that, given that and given that my wife has made that clear to me, I was really trying to get out for the holiday because we were going out with our children.
So I was, I think, literally packing my bag and trying to get out—and it may literally have been the earliest I've left the White House on a working day—when, as I recall, Michael Imbroscio walked in. And to the best I remember, he said something to the effect to me like, there may be videotapes of some coffees. He does not yet know.
And our conversation, in all candor, was very short. I said something to him to the effect—I clearly don't have the exact words—you know, you've got to find everything about this right away. Or you've got to find out everything about it, or figure it out, or something to that effect.
And, you know, it may well have been that other people before had talked to me about other things. But as I remember, that's about the last thing I remember doing that day. And I left.
Question. And did you talk with Mr. Ruff prior to leaving? As I understand it, you did not?
Page 1105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. No. I talked to Mr. Ruff——
Question. You talked to Imbroscio and left?
Answer. I didn't talk to Ruff about this. I talked to Mr. Ruff repeatedly every day, as I'm sure you can imagine. Literally, I think, after talking to Imbroscio, I left and got into my car.
Question. Just so I'm clear again in terms of what I understand the record to be thus far in your Senate deposition testimony and your testimony Wednesday this week before the Senate, as you understand it, your next appearance was—in the office, was Friday morning, October the 3rd?
Answer. That's exactly right. That's the first time I'm back in the office.
Question. And during your religious observance of Rosh Hashanah, you were not in telephonic communication with the White House or speaking about this issue with——
Answer. I was on one occasion.
Question. And with whom did you speak?
Answer. I spoke to Mr. Imbroscio from my car phone, coming back from Baltimore actually at approximately—this is rough—approximately a quarter of 5:00 or 5:00. And Mr. Imbroscio told me then that there were, in fact, videotapes, which is the first time he was now telling me that there were.
Page 1106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. This is Thursday, October 2nd?
Answer. This is Thursday, October 2nd. And he told me he had spoken to Mr. Ruff about it already and that he had already contacted the Senate.
So the Senate already knew about it. And we had a very brief conversation. I think I said, well, you know, we can talk about it tomorrow or something. And I probably, after that, talked to my assistant about other unrelated issues.
Question. Your assistant being——
Answer. Brian Smith. But he was not a part of that conversation. He literally would like put me through to someone, and then I might call them back or something. And that was the extent of my conversation on this issue with Mr. Imbroscio.
Question. There has been testimony received by counsel for this committee that officials from the White House Communications Agency said that Mr. Imbroscio was upset upon this discovery, I think he said, oh, and used an expletive with sort of an ''s''——
Answer. Right.
Question. When he heard about this matter.
Page 1107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. Right.
Question. Did he express his distress either Wednesday, October 1st, or Thursday, October 2nd, to you?
Answer. Yeah. I mean, I don't remember—I mean, he didn't say, oh, expletive to me. But I think it's fair to say that he was upset. Frankly, I was upset. You know, I was not happy—and I've been public about that—that, you know, we suddenly found that something we thought did not exist that existed. It unfortunately confirmed what I had said before, which is that, at a place like the White House, given its breadth and complexity, that it would be inevitable—discoveries of materials. But we were not happy about it.
Question. I understand.
Answer. We were not happy that we were discovering it in October, as opposed to in April, which frankly would have been a lot better. Because unfortunately, once again, from my vantage point, the process becomes the subject, which I think is unfortunate, most of the substance of the issues that we all at least supposedly running to address.
Question. And again, I think consistent with what you said this morning, you had never found yourself in a similar such position—in private practice at Covington & Burling, for example.
Answer. Well, I had found myself in positions—I want to be clear—in private practice where we would think that there were not responsive materials and that we would learn subsequently there were. I was never in a position that, as a result of that, it would be in the front page of every paper in the country and wild assertions would be made, as I'm sure you know, 99.9 percent of which were completely untrue. That's the problem, that that—despite best efforts, that everything becomes a remarkable incident. And regardless of the substance of the material, once there's late disclosure, by definition of the political exercise, those belatedly discovered materials become very significant to everybody.
Page 1108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
That had never occurred to me in private practice.
Question. Arriving at the White House Counsel's Office Friday morning, October the 3rd, how quickly did you meet with Chuck Ruff in light of this?
Answer. Well, to be honest with you—and maybe this gives you a little bit of flavor with my job—I ended up dealing with another problem totally unrelated to this. And so—in fact, I had to deal with an issue with respect to the Department of Justice having nothing—having nothing to do even with the task force. And that was actually the first thing that I dealt with in the morning. It took some time.
Question. And what time did you complete that task?
Answer. I never—no tasks get completed. I don't mean that to be flip, but tasks typically take a long time.
Question. What time did your attention to that matter terminate for that morning?
Answer. To answer your question, I probably got to Mr. Ruff's office somewhere around the 9 o'clock hour. In fact, I think, on that day, we had a meeting of 9 o'clock in Mr. Ruff's office with the investigatory team.
Question. And who would have been at that meeting? As I understand, the entire team was there, Cheryl Mills, Karen Popp, everyone was in Mr. Ruff's office; is that right?
Page 1109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. Right, I—I don't want to say exactly who was there because I don't remember. I think you're right, Cheryl Mills was there.
Question. Who else was there?
Answer. I think Ms. Popp was there. Mr. Imbroscio was obviously there. I think Ms. Peterson was there. Lanny Davis may have been there.
Question. Mr. Davis had not been part of the investigative team, had he?
Answer. No, but he is the press person. So for meetings of that nature, he will often come. He won't be a part of a meeting that I will have with respect to with—when I talk to my lawyers typically. But he'll come to meetings of that nature where we discuss things, sort of in general what's going on. And he, in fact, might tell us, you know, these are the issues that the press is interested in; here are the inquiries.
I think he was there.
Question. Was Don Goldberg there?
Answer. He may have been. He may well have been. I'm trying to visualize; I'm not positive, but he may have been. It would not surprise me at all if he were there.
Page 1110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. And reasonably it was a fairly significant meeting that morning, wasn't it? It was a situation you had to deal with immediately, and you had compliance issues to come up with?
Answer. Yeah. The answer is, absolutely, it was important. But in fairness, off—it was very important. But in fairness, a lot of times, we're dealing with issues that are very important and always become cause celebre from a public point of view. But either it's a logical matter or issues—most of the days that I'm at the White House, something I'm handling somebody thinks is something that they truly, really care about. And so I just want to put that in context.
Having said that, you're right, I think it's true to say it was important.
Question. Did anyone indicate that they were aware of these videotapes, that the existence of them was not a surprise?
Answer. No, no one said that.
Question. Did everyone express surprise at the videotapes?
Answer. There wasn't a lot, as I remember it, and maybe—maybe I'm not remembering it correctly exactly. I don't remember a lot of discussion about—I remember we were seeing the—Michael showed a couple of snippets of the videotapes. And my orientation in those situations, in all candor, is to try to figure out—not to second-guess what happened in the past, but I feel like I'm now confronted with a situation and I'm going to have to deal with it.
Page 1111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
And so I was focused on getting Michael—as was Chuck, I think—Michael and I—Chuck and I were focussing on getting Michael and others to figure out, what's our universe? How long is it going to take? These things—I'm not that technical. These things always take a lot longer than I think they're going to take.
So that was, to some degree, my orientation—in addition, in all candor, to other issues, such as the one I was handling earlier.
Question. So no one at the meeting expressed knowledge of the fact that there were such videotapes, and essentially everyone expressed surprise that there were such videotapes, to your knowledge?
Answer. Yeah, I want to be clear here that I don't purport to know what everybody said.
Question. I see.
Answer. I realize it's important. As I remember it, I do not personally remember anyone saying, oh, I knew there were videotapes. I suspect, if anyone said something like that, given the level of attention that has come on this issue, I would remember that. I have no memory of that. But I also don't have a memory of everyone talking.
I think that it was pretty clear that I was upset about it, Chuck Ruff was upset about it. I think that sort of sets the tone. The tone is, let's resolve—let's correct this problem. And at least frankly among the things I was dealing with, that was my orientation.
Page 1112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Once the tapes were found, what process was undertaken to review the tapes? For example, did you yourself have actual access to the tapes?
Answer. I never had—well, I—my access, let me describe what I did.
There is a room in WHCA that—the tapes remained under the control of the WHCA people. I don't know how they did it, but they were able to do something to the tapes so there could be no erasure or no changing of the tapes. I can't tell you technically how that happens, but that's my understanding. Those tapes were then put in machines within the WHCA office. Lawyers then looked at those tapes in the WHCA office.
Question. Lawyers from the White House?
Answer. Yeah. Our lawyers, because we had to immediately figure out—we are getting requests from everybody—which of the tapes are responsive, which of the tapes are not responsive? And that's exactly the exercise that we undertook.
Question. Which lawyers undertook to do that?
Answer. Dimitri Nionakis did it. Sally Paxton helped, because I was pulling in—even though, typically, as I said earlier, she would not work on this, some people were away for the weekend, and I wanted people really working as quickly as I could. So she agreed to look at them. Karl Racine looked at them. Michael Imbroscio looked at them.
Page 1113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Let me make sure I'm not forgetting anybody.
Question. Is it safe to say that they were more voluminous than you expected in terms of having to go through all of these tapes and determine the extent to which they would be responsive to a subpoena?
Answer. Well, I think it's fair to say that the coffee—the first process was simply to produce the coffee videotapes. It was inevitable that, once this became a cause celebre that everybody was going to ask for all videotapes of DNC events.
As you may know, WHCA has been videotaping forever, and it's my understanding, anecdotal at best, that under no prior administration has any administration ever produced videotapes. So under the Reagan administration, under the Bush administration, it never happened before.
Having said that, it was clear to me that once this happened, everybody was going to suddenly decide that every videotape was going to matter. We were getting requests. We got a request from this committee. We got a request from the Senate committee and from others to see, you know, a listing of everything ever videotaped that included the President.
So it's a little hard to say more voluminous. I expected that the requests were going to expand and continue to expand.
But the coffees, Michael was able to identify pretty quickly. And given the process, we were able actually to get them—I think it was out by—before Monday.
Page 1114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Who called the Senate? Did you make the call?
Answer. Well, Mr.—Mike Imbroscio contacted the Senate on Thursday, telling them of the existence of the videotapes, even before I found out about them. That was the first inquiry. So that's what—on Friday, because I knew Don Bucklin, this had been something he was dealing with, I called up actually Michael Madigan, who is the chief counsel on the Senate, sort of your counterpart on the Senate side, to say, look, Michael, I—these things just came up, and I would like to sit down with you and talk to you about it.
Question. I guess my question is, when you learned of the tapes on October 1st and then discussed them on October 2nd——
Answer. I didn't learn about the tapes on October 1st. It's very important. I only—when I left, Michael Imbroscio told me there may be videotapes of coffees. He did not——
Question. October 2nd, then.
Answer. October 2nd, I talked to him from my car phone, that's exactly right, at about a quarter of 5:00 or so.
Question. And by October 2nd, you clearly knew there were tapes?
Page 1115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. At about a quarter of 5:00 or so, from the car phone, I knew there were tapes.
Question. And why did you not then contact both the Senate and the House?
Answer. I didn't contact anyone, right. The Senate knew already. You did not know; that's correct.
Question. When you say me, you mean the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight?
Answer. Right. And I speak——
Question. I understand.
Answer. I never take—I never do anything personally.
Question. But clearly this committee wasn't notified on October 2nd.
Answer. That's right.
Question. And the Senate was notified exactly when again? I'm sorry.
Page 1116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. It was before—I think you've taken Mr. Imbroscio's deposition.
Question. I apologize if I can't recall the exact time.
Answer. No, no, that's fine. It's important. I was away with my family. So by the time I'm contacted on October 2nd, Mr. Bucklin has already been called. So I can tell you that—if I'm right in my rough estimate, that it was approximately a quarter of 5:00 that I'm driving back with my family, sometime before a quarter of 5:00 that day, is when the Senate was first contacted.
Question. And the Department of Justice was not contacted?
Answer. That's exactly right.
Question. And this committee was not contacted?
Answer. As far as I know, that's exactly right.
Question. And then there is the meeting on Friday, October the 3rd, in Mr. Ruff's office?
Answer. That's right.
Page 1117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. And, again, the—and I'll get back to this in a minute, but the Senate is not contacted until Saturday, October the 4th?
Answer. Now, the Senate was contacted——
Question. I'm sorry. Excuse me. The Department of Justice was not contacted until Saturday, October the 4th.
Answer. That's right. I only succeeded in contacting the Justice Department on Saturday. That's exactly right.
Question. When you say ''succeeded,'' what efforts did you make on Friday, October the 3rd, to call the Justice Department?
Answer. I called the Justice Department a couple of times. And let me——
Question. Who were you calling?
Answer. Let me explain. I called Bill Corcoran. If I had, in hindsight, thought that my contact with the Justice Department was going to be such a remarkably important event, or in fact—not that I should speak for him—I think if Mr. Ruff had thought of it, we could have all done something different.
But at the time that I was dealing with this issue among other issues, what I was focused on was the fact that we had a very specific inquiry from the Senate about it. That's not to say that it wasn't responsive to one of your many requests or that it was not responsive to one of the Justice Department's many requests. But it was the Senate that was really pushing, and it was the eve—they were about to have a hearing.
Page 1118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
There was nothing that seemed particularly timely to me, maybe it was erroneous, there was nothing that seemed particularly timely to me about informing the Justice Department or you, and we probably should. I think others at the White House acted accordingly, by contacting people immediately.
The Hyde letter, which has been the issue that has been raised in the press, frankly never was an issue that I considered. And what's more, it never would have occurred to me that if there was a discovery of these videotapes and they were relevant to an inquiry, that the Attorney General or anyone else would act any differently after the Hyde letter.
I mean, in retrospect, if I had thought of it, which I think, as a lawyer involving——
Question. When you say ''the Hyde letter,'' the letter from the Attorney General to Congressman Hyde?
Answer. Right. And I think, in all candor, Mr. Bennett, as a lawyer opposed to this political exercise, I think we would all agree that there's nothing remarkably significant about the date of the letter as a legal matter. The investigation continues.
So, A, I never thought about it; but B, even if I had thought about it, which I did not, I don't think the timing of it would have mattered. It was only as a political exercise that I think it mattered.
Page 1119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Having said all of that, I wish I had contacted and I wish I tried harder with the Justice Department. I called Mr. Corcoran.
Question. What is Mr. Corcoran's position?
Answer. Well he—I don't know his exact title. He was, until recently, he may still be, but until recently, he was the attorney who probably I dealt with most frequently, day-to-day. I would deal with either him or Ms. Ingersoll. But he was the attorney I dealt with most recently on just pure document-related issues. He was the person who would call up and say we're sending over a subpoena or sending over a document request. So he was the person who, more often than not, was a person I called. And he was a person I reached out here.
But I want to be clear here, and then I'll stop.
I reached out to him in a fairly routine manner. I called. He returned my call at some point. I called him back. And one of those calls, I said, there's been a development. He called me back, and we didn't hook up; and that frankly is the extent of my activity.
Question. When the effort—I'm sorry, excuse me.
Answer. No.
Question. Are you finished?
Answer. That was a long answer.
Page 1120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. That's all right.
When the tapes were given to the Justice Department and the Senate on October the 4th, was there any particular reason why the tapes weren't turned over to this committee?
Answer. There is no particularly good reason, no. I think that people—I mean, I—I think that people were moving as quickly as they could. We were doing a lot of—I mean, you weren't a big focus, and I don't mean that disrespectfully.
During the time, early on, when we were working on some of the issues that were of greatest interest that we seemingly test to the House of Representatives, there were times I think the Senate felt that we weren't spending enough time concerning their issues.
Question. You're aware, are you not, that members of the Majority staff called after press reports in terms of the existence of the tapes, that they actually learned about it from the newspapers or press reports?
Answer. I'm not. The only thing that I'm aware of, and I have only secondhand knowledge of this conversation, is that Mr. Nionakis informed Ms. Comstock of the existence of the videotapes, and that Ms. Comstock expressed some concern about it. But what Mr. Nionakis said, as I recall, something to—unique. And immediately—he can—I'm sure, will discuss it in greater detail. But she was less concerned about exactly when she was going to get it.
Page 1121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
That's a very rough, very thirdhand, I want to be clear, but that's the only recollection I have of the conversation between the committee.
No one on the committee actually spoke—called me about it. I think that's the only conversation I am aware of.
Question. Did anyone, to your knowledge, you directly or anyone on your staff in the White House Counsel's Office, notify Minority counsel for this committee before Sunday——
Answer. No.
Question. October the 5th?
Answer. Not to my knowledge, no.
Question. Now——
Answer. Indeed, I should say, ironically, you received the videotapes—the Majority received the videotapes far earlier than the Minority, because it was such a duplicating problem, that I couldn't send duplicate tapes, or we—when I say ''I,'' the White House. So indeed the Minority got the tapes far later than the Majority on the House side.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That was a matter of considerable annoyance to the Minority, I should note for the record.
Page 1122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
The WITNESS. I know. I should say for the record, at that time, I thought I could take the annoyance of the Minority a little bit better than the annoyance of the Majority. I don't mean that in a flip manner. Sometimes, sadly, those are the kinds of decisions that I have to make. And that was a very real decision that we made at that time.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Were you involved with respect to any discussions or aware of any discussions as to exactly who was going to contact the President concerning the existence of these videotapes?
Answer. I was—well, I don't believe I was. It was clear I was not. That is typically not something that I do. I believe that Mr.—and I don't know more than this, Mr. Ruff was either out of town or away. Mr. Ruff and Ms. Mills had—may well have had a conversation on that topic, but I was not a part of it.
Question. Do you know what the mechanism was or the reason for Cheryl Mills being the one to notify the President?
Answer. I think Mr. Ruff was not—was not at the White House. And in that circumstance, she, more likely than I, would be the person.
Question. If he was at the White House and she still notified the President, do you know why she and not Mr. Ruff would be notifying the President? Would there be any reason?
Page 1123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. There would be a reason, and I don't know what the reason is. And I had nothing to do with any of those discussions.
Question. With respect to the matter of the failure to notify Attorney General Reno of the existence of these tapes prior to her letter to Chairman Hyde of the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, October the 3rd, the Attorney General has indicated, as we're all well aware, that she was ''mad'' when, I believe you've heard her say, that she heard it; have you not?
Answer. I think we're all aware of it.
Question. And with respect to your appearance on national television Face The Nation, I believe—and correct me if I'm wrong—my review of the transcript of that indicates that you yourself used the word ''incompetence'' with respect to the performance, or your ''embarrassment.''
Do you recall—and I'm not going to hold you to the words if you can't recall what it was—exactly what word would you put on this fiasco, I guess is what I'm saying?
Answer. I don't know what I said on Face The Nation. It was my first time on national TV, and I think it is as big a mea culpa as anyone should ever have to do. So I think I tried to step up to the plate.
Page 1124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Having said that, I haven't reviewed the transcript. So all I can do is not tell you what I said, but I can tell you how I feel.
I truly believe that there was no legal import whatsoever to notifying the Attorney General on Thursday, which I couldn't have on Thursday, I wasn't there, on Friday or Saturday. I clearly regret it because of the fire storm that has occurred.
I wasn't thinking of the Hyde letter. I hadn't read the Hyde letter. Indeed, I hadn't read the Hyde letter response. I didn't read the Attorney General's letter to Chairman Hyde until sometime over the weekend, after the connection to the Hyde letter, I think came about. That wasn't the focus.
There were many other focuses, the 30-day review of the Vice President, whether or not the preliminary investigation was going to be expanded on the phone call issue. The beginning of the review of the President. There were many other issues we were dealing with.
And I do apologize, because I don't want to put anyone in an embarrassing situation. So I feel badly about that. But frankly, Mr. Bennett, given the number of issues that we deal with, the number of issues I deal with it, I think it's only with 20/20 hindsight that the Attorney General's response to the Hyde letter would be connected to the videotape and someone would say I should get it out.
And as the Attorney General stated, if you had asked me before, it doesn't have any import. She's going to continue her investigation. And it would never have occurred to me that she would not.
Page 1125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Now, with respect to whether you used the word ''incompetence''——
Answer. I think I did. I think what I said there is there is no defense of incompetence.
Hello, David.
Question. And in terms of no defense of incompetence, did you feel that, in fact, there had been some incompetence with respect to compliance with the subpoena? Is that what you meant by that comment?
Answer. No, I think we said—I think what I said, but the only time I remember using the word ''incompetence''—and I may be wrong, I haven't read the transcript—the only time I personally remember using the word ''incompetence'' in the Face the Nation interview is when I said to Mr. Sheaf, in response to a question he had, is that the White House says we don't give a defense of incompetence; then I tried to explain in my own words what I feel.
I don't think we acted incompetently. And I do—I'm very, very proud, I am proud of, given the complex nature of the White House, the degree to which the lawyers working with me have attempted to honor subpoena requests. I think we've done a good job.
Everything is relative, and I think, in hindsight—I would like to be perfect, but I think we've done a good job. But I clearly regret that we hadn't found the videotapes earlier.
Page 1126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Question. Let me, if I can, go over the matter. And I don't intend to summarize or highlight your Senate testimony, but I just want to make sure I'm clear in terms of——
Answer. And I haven't reviewed a transcript of my Senate——
Question. I understand.
Answer. Nor have I watched myself.
Question. And just in terms of, as I understand the various areas that arose, I think, to reflect that, apart from the problems we've had with compliance, there are a series of issues with the Senate, were there not, in terms of compliance?
For example, there's a dispute over July 31st information with respect to Ng Lap Seng, better known as Mr. Wu?
Answer. Right. And I think there——
Question. I'm not asking you to repeat all your explanations, but I'm just trying to go through the litany of the areas of concern or dispute, however you want to define them.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Page 1127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. I do. I feel obligated to say, with respect to Ng Lap Seng, when I had the opportunity in that August 7th meeting actually to explain to Mr. Bucklin the Ng Lap Seng issue, to tell him that such things could occur again, when I explained to him how that occurred, he said something to the effect—and I can't tell you exactly—that if I had had the opportunity to explain that to him earlier, he would have hoped that there wouldn't have been a public uproar.
But clearly the Chairman referenced Ng Lap Seng; I don't think it's a fair example, but he did reference it.
Question. And another area of dispute with the Senate, and if I'm wrong—again, I'm not trying to go into all the details of the facts or the facts concern Warren Medoff and a facsimile sent to Mr. Medoff from Harold Ickes to Mr. Medoff. It's another topic of dispute, correct?
Answer. I don't think it's a fair one. And I'm not the one to debate point by point, but I think with Medoff, we produced everything we had. And, indeed, as I said to the Senate, the Senate itself misspelled Medoff's name. If we had wanted to be cute, we would have used the misspelling. Indeed, when we identified, without the Senate, that they had misspelled the name, and a lot of searches were computer generated, we did a subsequent search on our own with the correct spelling. I think, frankly, that the Chairman backed off on those.
Question. Chairman Thompson?
Page 1128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 14 Of 22
Answer. I think he did. I think those are—I think that they came up. I think that they're unfair. Those are two very unfair examples. And I may even have addressed this directly.
Next Hearing Segment(15)