Segment 15 Of 22 Previous Hearing Segment(14) Next Hearing Segment(16)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. You mean unfair on the part of the Senate, not unfair in my asking the question?
Answer. Absolutely. I think there are many legitimate issues of concern. I just say, if we're going to talk about those, I think dispassionate viewers would say that, on those two, there is not—that the White House acted well.
Question. Another area of dispute with the Senate, totally apart from the problems we've had, for example, would be—I think that's actually in terms of the compliance with our subpoena, the matter of call sheets, telephone calls from the President. That was another area that came up, has it not, with the Senate in terms of a dispute over that?
Answer. I think that when——
Question. I mean, there has been a dispute, correct?
Answer. Well——
Question. You can explain if you want, but I'm just trying topic the area. Has there been a dispute on that?
Answer. I don't want to speak for how the Senators view it. I will say the following: Until the Chairman or Mr. Madigan in the hearing raised that issue with me, it had not, to the best of my recollection, it had not been raised.
Page 1130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
At some point, if you can say——
Mr. BENNETT. I'll identify counsel here. Anyone present is counsel for our office or the court reporter who has arrived. There's no press.
Mr. LYNCH. I noticed Mr. David Bossie. I don't know who this gentleman is.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Uttam Dhillon.
The WITNESS. So, in fact, I don't think—I think that that came in the context of Mr. Madigan alluding—I may be wrong, and I don't mean to make this a debating exercise about something with respect to call sheets. I think what I told him is, to the best my knowledge—and I think I was right, I think I am right—we gave him things that were responsive. So he began to talk about the call sheets, but indeed, I don't know of an existing dispute.
Question. I guess my point is, I'm not trying to debate all those points with you. Again, I'm just trying to note for, in terms or for purposes of our concerns with compliance with the House subpoena, that there clearly had been areas of dispute with the Senate on these matters?
Answer. Yeah, but I think that it's hard to say. I think that, again, in the political world we live in, when we're asked for very many, many different requests, we become criticized, sometimes fairly, but in fact, sometimes unfairly. And I don't think these have been all areas of dispute. Indeed, during at least the Senate hearings, you know, there were references that we hadn't produced documents that the Senate would like that had never been called for, that doesn't exist in any request at all.
Page 1131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
So I think those were not necessarily fair. I'm not going to say that in the natural tensions that exist, that that's not going to happen. I don't think that those examples are particularly fair ones, I guess is my point.
Question. I think that, in terms of the October—strike that—the August 19th letter from Mr. Bucklin in the matter of the White House Communications Agency—correct me if I'm wrong—I believe you testified in front of the Senate 2 days ago that you yourself have only met Steve Goodin on one occasion?
Answer. I don't think I said that.
Question. How often have you met him?
Answer. Well, I—I don't know how often. Presumably I've only met him the first time I met him. I have seen him——
Question. Who was Mr. Goodin?
Answer. Mr. Goodin is the President's aide, who is with the President often and who typically is outside the Oval Office. I've seen Mr. Goodin on a number of occasions, sometimes simply passing him in the halls of the West Wing, other times waiting before I go inside the Oval Office to brief the President on an issue. You know, I've seen him in the hallway of the Old Executive Office Building.
Page 1132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Mr. Goodin is, in fact, the individual who is that person who can determine whether or not videotape is to be turned on or off; isn't that correct? He tells the WHCA crew whether to film or not to film; isn't that correct?
Question. That is correct, is it not, he is the one who says whether they are going to film or not film?
Answer. I am really going to try to answer that. I think you have a better understanding of what Mr. Goodin does than I do because you had an opportunity to depose him and I haven't.
Question. We have not deposed him yet.
Answer. Oh, okay. I am sure you will. He has been deposed I guess on the Senate side. I apologize.
It is my understanding he does deal with the WHCA people. I don't have any firsthand knowledge of that. As I understand it, having briefly spoken with him about it, when this issue occurred, he does meet with them in the mornings, and I am not sure if he makes the ultimate decision or it is more a collaborative effort. That is where, frankly, I am not positive of exactly how it goes.
Question. When is the first time you would have spoken with Steven Goodin concerning the matter of videotapes?
Page 1133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I think when the Senate notified us that they wanted to speak to Mr. Goodin, and that the reason they wanted to speak to Mr. Goodin is because they thought he had the responsibility that you have just described.
Question. And when would that have been?
Answer. It would have been within—I don't know exactly. It would have been probably within the last—between a week ago and 3 weeks ago.
Question. In the month of October?
Answer. It would have been in the month of October, sometime probably between the second and third weeks. More likely than not, he and I would have had a brief conversation about it.
Question. Did you ever talk to Nancy Hernreich, if I am pronouncing her name correctly, with respect to production of documents?
Answer. I have spoken to Nancy Hernreich about production of documents.
Question. And, in fact, Stephen Goodin reports to Nancy Hernreich, does he not? She is the secretary to the President?
Answer. She is not the secretary to the President. She has a title. I am not sure of the name. She is sort of in charge of Oval Office operations. She is not really the secretary. And I think you are correct, that in that capacity, Steve Goodin, I believe, reports to her.
Page 1134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. And did you ever talk with Nancy Hernreich, if I am pronouncing her name correctly, with respect to any discussions she had with Cheryl Mills with respect to these videotapes?
Answer. Never, and I am not aware of any.
Question. As we said at our meeting Friday, October the 10th, 3 weeks ago, Mr. Breuer, the staff on this committee is concerned about efforts toward subpoena compliance, not in terms of these past problems, but in terms of trying to proceed in the future in terms of assuring that measures are taken.
What additional measures have been taken by the White House Counsel's Office to ensure that this kind of situation we find ourselves in with respect to the White House videotapes doesn't occur again?
Answer. Well, it is a dynamic process, and I guess the answer is that I can never give you a full assurance. What I have done, and what I continue to try to do, knowing full well that even after certifications, we may produce documents, is I try to have lawyers go back to different areas and to re-review. So, for instance, without going through everything I do, I am right now in the process of trying to figure out, and will try to do that over the next couple of days, what are other likely offices that perhaps may have responsive materials, or offices that we have gone to once or twice, and to see if maybe we need to do another search.
Question. It is my——
Page 1135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. But I want to be clear here. I don't, and I am very open about it, I don't have any magic solutions or any magic books. I think that people know pretty well that Mr. Ruff and I and others are very committed to finding materials that are responsive; I think we look for them. I think when they are identified, we try to get them, but I don't have any magic solutions.
Question. My question to you specifically is to what extent have you undertaken any measures to tighten up the process?
Answer. Well, again, I don't know what——
Question. I don't mean to go into the long decision about talking to the staff, have there been any measures? Perhaps there haven't been.
Answer. Mr. Bennett, I just want to say something. You know, I handled, and I am as fallible as the next person, but I think I had a pretty good record, both as a prosecutor and in private practice, when you represent a corporation and private practice in an enormous case, you walk around, you learn about the offices, maybe you talk to the in-house lawyers, but at the end of the day you send memoranda, directives, to people within the organization, making it clear they have to provide materials to you, and you go about that, and as you learn about—just as a prosecutor will call up and say I got this but I didn't get this and I don't know why I didn't get this, you try to find out, but in the large corporation, that is what you do.
Page 1136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
The White House, in some ways, is like that, without even the benefit, frankly, of having a custodian of records. You have people who work very, very hard. And so except for the political discourse that comes up with people on both sides and all sides, it is not only one side, making assertions that I think are somewhat hallow, the actual exercise of finding materials is not an easy one. What you do is you send out directives. You try to focus. I think, in fairness, the directive we sent, despite what Mr. Madigan and others said, was the right kind of directive.
Question. Directive meaning was the Exhibit 8, this deposition, Chuck Ruff?
Answer. That would be the kind.
Question. April the 28th?
Answer. I believe that is the appropriate way and, indeed, I think it is the most likely way of getting materials.
I think with respect to that you continue to have lawyers visit offices. I think the level of the number of lawyers who work with me or visited offices has been high and we continue to do it, but I don't feel comfortable talking about tightening procedures or processes, it is easy to say it, it is a quick fix, I don't know what that means. What I can tell you is we go back and identify materials and we try to provide them, and the more I learn about the White House, the more other lawyers learn about the White House——
Page 1137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. I guess the question is, I gather that there aren't any changes in procedure, then?
Answer. Well, I don't know about changes in procedures. I mean, we haven't received another directive, or we haven't received another subpoena, but that is not a fair statement. I don't want to—I mean, it is easy for me. If I say no, then it becomes a political exercise. You didn't do well and you haven't changed anything. I mean, we are attempting to identify places where there may be responsive materials. We are trying to figure out if we have everything. Indeed, no one congratulated us when, during the summer, or whenever, without a request from this committee, without a request from the Senate, on our own at a time when we weren't besieged with requests, I sent out a couple lawyers to go out and continue the process of looking and we found more. We didn't just sit there; we did find more and we produced it.
Question. I think you indicated in your response a few minutes ago that you visited certain offices and talked to other lawyers. What other offices have you visited and which other lawyers have you spoken with?
Answer. I meant the lawyers within my team, like, for instance, I had a lawyer go and review manually the briefing papers. We at the Vice President's office went back and manually reviewed the briefing papers, exercises that, frankly, I am not sure other administrations have done. I am not going to speak for them, but I think those are remarkably labor-intensive exercises. Those are the kinds of things.
I mean, I think given the resources we have, we do a pretty great job, and I think with respect to the videotape issue, frankly, it was the most routine and pedestrian of mistakes. And I understand your frustration, I truly do, but I don't think it's fair, if you were sitting where I am, to suggest that lawyers, at least who are working with me, are doing a slipshod job in caring. They care a lot, and as far as I know are working very, very hard.
Page 1138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. This morning we discussed the matter of the Ruff directive reflected by Exhibit 8 in the deposition transcript and the fact that our subpoena, the House subpoena, Exhibit 4, the subpoena dated March 4, 1997, was not attached to the directive. Do you recall that?
Answer. I do remember that.
Question. Is there any effort now to attach a subpoena to directives so that in addition to the summary of the contents made by a lawyer that the actual subpoena is attached, because I believe there are people from WHCA who indicated they thought that would have been helpful. Is there any effort in that regard?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Do you mean the subpoena as limited by the April 18 letter? Are you asking about whether they should attach the subpoena along with the limiting language?
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. My question is generic in terms of is there an effort to attach a subpoena to a directive now so that the particular agency actually sees the subpoena itself?
Answer. Let me first just address one of the—one of the representations in your question, which is, as I recall, and I watched a fair bit of the Senate hearings, the two WHCA people who were the closest to the production of the videotapes, Colonel Campbell, and Chief Petty Officer McGrath, CPO McGrath, both said that had they received the directive, page 2, they would have found the videotapes. They would have found it because they would have remembered it, and they also would have found it because they would have looked through a computer database and we asked for it.
Page 1139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
I want to be clear that the two people who would have been tasked with the findings of these stated, I believe, under oath, pretty clearly had they received the directive, they would have found it. So I don't believe there was anything defective about the process, and, indeed, it was the most routine and pedestrian of mistakes that occur, and Colonel Campbell was describing everything within WHCA, and I think that is unavoidable. Having said that, I am more than happy to consider it. We don't have a directive right now, we haven't done it, and I am not saying we will do it, but I hear your suggestion.
Question. Actually, it wasn't a suggestion; I meant to ask a question. Have you done it, and I gather your response is, no, you haven't.
Answer. Well, there is nothing to have done in the last 3 weeks. I mean, I am not sure what the question is. In the last 3 weeks, we have not had the opportunity to do it, and indeed, I suggest to you that if we were to send around subpoenas—first of all, I have a real problem sending around grand jury subpoenas at the White House, and I think I alluded to that this morning, and I am not going to speak for the Department of Justice, but I suspect others would have serious concerns about that, being our practice.
Question. Do you have any reluctance in sending around congressional subpoenas?
Answer. Well, I do, but I am willing to consider it; I am willing to talk to Mr. Ruff about it. I don't think it is a better practice. I don't particularly believe that it is going to get more—you are going to get more responsive documents. Sadly, in the exercise, I mean, so much of it is political and so much is—you know, so much of our criteria have to be what will be said in hearings and the press and it's something that I am at least willing to consider.
Page 1140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. I just want to go into one example of trying to assure compliance, and we will wind up, it shouldn't take that long, but let me ask you this: As we sit here today, do you have a level of comfort that there has been complete compliance with the subpoenas issued by this committee?
Answer. I will never have a sufficient level of comfort that there has been complete compliance. I think there has been substantial compliance. I think there was substantial compliance even with respect to videotapes. That is not to say, Mr. Bennett, we won't find other materials. We have produced well over 100,000 pages. Our requests are very broad, they are continuous, but I can't—you know, I don't know, Mr. Bennett, there are over 2,000 people at the Executive Office of the President. They work, I think, in some five different buildings. There is no humanly possible way that any one person or a group of six lawyers can figure out what is in everybody's file cabinet or what people have put in one place or another. That is just the nature of the beast, and it is frankly the nature of the beast in private practice as well.
Question. Mr. Breuer, why don't I give you a series of exhibits, to give an example of how we hope we can resolve some of these problems. I will give you Exhibits 13 through 20. Take a look at those, please, and I will pass these down.
[Breuer Deposition Exhibit Nos. 13 thru 20 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. Sure. I am going to want to take a 30-second break sometime here. Maybe this is a good time.
Page 1141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. That is fine.
[Brief Recess.]
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Just one thing. Chairman Burton sent me a note to make sure——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Are we back on the record?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes, we are. Excuse me. I apologize.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Mr. Breuer, you and I discussed this morning the matter of daily taping by the President, in terms of I think we were talking about the diarist before the President. I think I discussed this just generally with you this morning; is that correct?
Answer. Yes, we talked briefly about that.
Question. To make sure you understand the nature of my inquiry, do you have any knowledge with respect to the Dictaphone of the President himself, in terms of dictating his personal notes to himself?
Page 1142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I actually don't think the President has a Dictaphone.
Question. If he does, you have no knowledge of it yourself?
Answer. I have no knowledge of the President having a Dictaphone. In fact, I am under the strong impression he does not have a Dictaphone.
Question. And it was my understanding what you said this morning, but I want to make sure we are clear on this, is you don't have any knowledge of daily memoranda or musings of the President, as it were, with respect to summaries of daily activities that he does himself on the tape recorder?
Answer. That is exactly correct, I have no knowledge of that whatsoever.
Question. Now I promised Mr. McLaughlin we will make sure we are finished by 5 o'clock, and this may not even take that long, but I have placed before you, and Mr. McLaughlin, you have before you Exhibits 13 through 20, and this is just an example of what we perceive to be the continued compliance problem, Mr. Breuer, and that is what I am going to ask you about.
We have inquired with respect to a subpoena, I believe the subpoena was dated August 21, 1997, with respect to the decision by the Department of the Interior that rejected an application by a Wisconsin Indian tribe to establish a casino at an existing Greyhound track. It is the topic about which Secretary Babbitt testified yesterday. Are you familiar with the general topic area?
Page 1143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I am. Let me just be clear. You are referencing an October 21 subpoena from this committee?
Question. No, we are representing a August 21, 1997, subpoena. We actually received the documents on October 22, but the subpoena was August 21.
Answer. From this committee?
Question. That is correct.
Answer. I don't have it in front of me. I am sure I will align your representation of the date.
Question. Let me, if I can, for example, if you look at Exhibit 19, with respect to the document request, the document request of Mr. Ruff, with respect to this dog track, if you want to take a second to look at that exhibit.
Answer. Okay.
Question. You see that?
Answer. I do.
Question. Item 8 clearly lists the matter of documents relating to the Department of the Interior's decision to deny a petition for a casino in Hudson, Wisconsin.
Page 1144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. Right.
Question. We received a number of documents in the White House on October 22, the middle of the last week, pertaining to that decision, and I need to just ask you, if you can, who in the White House has been involved with the production of documents about the Hudson dog track?
Answer. Well, involved, I will tell you the people who are involved.
Question. Just to make sure you understand, and then I want you to answer that, so you understand the predicate for the question. We view it here as a similar pattern to the White House videotapes.
There is an initial request from Congress, there is then the document request by Mr. Ruff, then there is ultimately a subpoena, and then for we think a fairly extended time thereafter we wait and suddenly we get documents and we can't understand what the delay is and that is why I am asking the question.
Answer. I would also like to address the substance of the premise of your question, but I will try to address both.
Question. That is fine.
Answer. As to who is involved, the lawyer probably most involved in this would have been Dimitri Nionakis. Cheryl Mills would have been involved. And Mr. Ruff and I, I am sure, were involved at different points.
Page 1145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Is there any reason why it is those four lawyers?
Answer. The reason in this case is because, as I said, I typically am not always involved in the way Mr. Imbroscio is dealing with the videotape issue. More often than not, on a discrete issue, I might ask one lawyer to sort of take charge of something.
Question. If Miss Mills is not really your subordinate, why would she be involved in this?
Answer. Because I was not involved at all in the—well, I may be wrong. You asked me who was involved.
Question. Yes.
Answer. And she is not my subordinate but I think she had an involvement. I think I recall being in a meeting where she was present, and so, again, I don't know the degree of involvement, but those are all the people to one degree or another that I remember.
Question. And if you will look at Exhibit——
Answer. May I finish?
Question. Sure.
Page 1146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I just want to explain something. When you talk about the Hudson dog track, in fairness, I don't know exactly, but I think you have probably received, for some time, Mr. Bennett, probably about 330 or 340 pages of documents on this issue. It is not at all clear to me, but I don't purport to know every document, that the documents in front of me here represent information of a kind so different than the 330 or 340 pages of materials that you previously received on this issue. But, again, because you don't have them right away, and, again, this has nothing to do with you personally, because you didn't receive these right away, they will have a level of undue importance. But there also is a litigation going on in Wisconsin where the Department of Justice is representing the interests of the United States. And there the Department of Justice, as the lawyers, made a determination in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel, the civil litigation, that there were certain documents that were subject to privilege, or potentially subject to privilege.
Question. When were these documents requested pursuant to the civil litigation; do you know?
Answer. I don't know.
Question. And when were the determinations made as to privilege?
Answer. I know that you received—we produced these materials immediately upon the time that the Department of Justice made those assertions to the court. I think you received it, literally, I believe, I could be wrong, it is tough, within the next working day or soon thereafter. So that was pretty expeditious.
Page 1147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Well——
Answer. Well, let me finish.
Question. I am trying to make sure we shorten this because I want to finish by 5:00.
Answer. But I want you to understand my point. Because we want to show you that we are not hiding the ball, because we want to give you the materials, we arranged, and I think it was prior to your time when it was Mr. Bossie and Ms. Comstock and Mr. Rowley and I and some lawyers, we worked out a way of executing a nonwaiver agreement with you so that we could give you the substance of every single document so you could see them, but yet we would not have to make a formal assertion or waive a privilege with respect to private litigants, because in the same way you have an important constitutional responsibility, we at the White House have an important Constitution responsibility to protect certain kinds of deliberations.
You have all the materials. You have them well before any of the hearings in your case, and I don't accept the premise that this is some late production. I think, frankly, another administration might have decided just not to produce them at all, but we figured a way, we executed a way so you could see every single document, but yet we could protect our rights, the rights of the United States, and the principles and deliberative process and other comparable principles with respect to private litigants, and that is what these documents represent.
Question. We received these documents subject to those claims of privilege and you have the privilege log there reflected by Exhibit 13 in front of you. Do you see that?
Page 1148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I see this privilege log, I do.
Question. And who in the White House took part in the decision to assert privilege?
Answer. Well, the Justice Department made the determination of what documents were responsive.
Question. Who at the Justice Department then?
Answer. I don't actually know. I wasn't dealing with them directly. I don't know the names of the lawyers, but it was clearly lawyers at OLC, and it was also trial lawyers in the Justice Department.
Question. With respect to interaction of the Justice Department, when were the documents transmitted to the Department of Justice?
Answer. I don't know the answer to that.
Question. Were there——
Answer. I suspect Mr. Nionakis would know.
Question. Were there meetings?
Page 1149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I am sure there were conversations. I don't know if they were formal meetings.
Question. When did you get the documents back from the Department of Justice?
Answer. I don't know what ''back'' means.
Question. When were they returned?
Answer. I am not sure—I mean, I don't know if we retained a copy or not. I don't want to give the misimpression we ship them over and don't retain a copy. What I can tell you, what I do know is from the time of the filing of the privilege log with the Department, that the Department of Justice did in the Wisconsin litigation, we provided these materials. By the way, this is part of an ongoing process. It is probably the only way you can carry forth this kind of a process and still protect your rights with private litigants.
Question. Was the President actually consulted with respect to the assertion of any executive privilege?
Answer. No, there has been—well, I shouldn't be so quick to say no. I am unaware of such contact. There has been no formal assertion and that is the entire point, Mr. Bennett, of the nonwaiver agreement. The nonwaiver agreement is——
Page 1150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. I understand. You don't need to go into that.
Answer. But there has been no assertion so there would be no reason.
Question. Who in the U.S. Attorneys' Office in Wisconsin would have taken part in any assertion of a privilege?
Answer. I don't know who is handling it. Mr. Nionakis can tell you the name of the players.
Question. So I have a feel for this, who at the White House makes the final determination about whether or not such a privilege is going to be asserted, executive privilege?
Answer. Again, no assertion——
Question. If there is to be an assertion.
Answer. If there were a formal assertion of privilege, I believe it is the President who makes that final determination. He would do that after getting advice and consulting with Mr. Ruff.
Question. The concern that this committee has is that, according to our records, these documents were shown to members of this committee staff on Sunday, October the 19th, and this came after, I note after, press reports about the Wisconsin Indian matter?
Page 1151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. Well, that is a little unfair.
Question. I am just telling you what the chronology was.
Answer. But there is a reason for that. We couldn't have done it quicker. The press reports came because of the formal filing of the privilege log. We couldn't show them or produce them before the filing of the log. The filing of the log occurs, the press reports occur, and we do it. I mean, obviously one of the—we are not a party to this litigation but one of the parties to the litigation knew there was no secret that the log was coming. In the same way there were TV cameras waiting for me in front of this deposition, there were TV cameras and there was a press report waiting for the log. So it is a little of a chicken and an egg; I don't know how we could have avoided that.
Question. Let me show you the concern and the pattern as perceived here, and we won't belabor this point much longer.
Answer. I want you to at least get my perspective on it.
Question. And I am trying to give you our perspective. Let's look at Exhibit 14. Exhibit 14 is a memo from Loretta Avent, who I believe was in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs at the White House; is that correct?
Answer. I don't know her.
Page 1152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Do you know Miss Avent at all?
Answer. I have never met her. I don't know her at all.
Question. But you see it is a memo dated April 24, 1995, to Mr. Ickes?
Answer. That is correct, I do see that.
Question. It discusses a call from—it says, ''I just got a call from Bruce.'' Information we have at our committee is that it appears to clearly be Bruce Lindsey. And then looking at the privilege log, there is an executive privilege asserted, if you look at Exhibit 13, number two.
Answer. I only have 2 pages.
Question. The first page of Exhibit 13, the second entry, when I say entry two.
Answer. Oh, I misunderstood.
Question. Entry two, there is an assertion of a privilege, memorandum from special assistant to the President for intergovernmental affairs to deputy chief of staff, containing legal advice and discussion re American Indian gaming policy matters.
Page 1153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
And looking at that document, to which there is—E/P means executive privilege, correct, in your privilege log?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And A/C means attorney/client privilege?
Answer. That is correct, Mr. Bennett.
Question. And I note in that document, which, again, we got after press reports, it says, the second paragraph, it is in our best interest to keep it totally away from the White House in general, this is such a hot potato, too hot to touch. And then it goes over to the second page, the paragraph on the second—paragraph of the second page, press is just waiting for this kind of story, we don't need to give it to them. There are copies to Maggie Williams.
Now is Ms. Williams an attorney?
Answer. I don't think she is an attorney.
Question. She was the personal secretary to Mrs. Clinton?
Answer. Mr. Bossie is telling me no, so I don't think so. She is the chief of staff, I think—I think she was—I am quite confident she was the chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton.
Page 1154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. No longer employed at the White House?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. At that time she was chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton?
Answer. I think you are right. I wasn't there then. I think that is correct.
Question. And with respect to the assertion of privilege, as to that document, who was involved in asserting the privileges as to that document?
Answer. Well, I described the process. I don't particularly recall. I think there probably was a meeting, although I don't have a very good memory of it. I think it probably—I think I attended one meeting where these issues occurred. There may have been others. There would have been at least one meeting where Mr. Ruff and I, and Ms. Mills, and Mr. Nionakis were there, and, frankly, I didn't spend a lot of time on this issue. OLC and the Department of Justice had made a determination as to what documents were appropriate for privilege. This would be one, but I don't quite understand the issue because, Mr. Bennett, you have the document.
Question. I am going to get into that.
Answer. You have everything.
Page 1155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Clearly, the meeting must have been pretty recent, given the production. It would have been this month in October; wouldn't it?
Answer. I don't think that is necessarily true. I don't know that to be the case. I don't think that actually is the case. I think probably at some point we reviewed the materials.
Question. What element of this memo suggests—looking at Exhibit 14, what element of this memo suggests executive privilege?
Answer. I am actually not going to—I mean, I would want to spend a fair amount of time looking at the document and then start looking into it. If you want, I will take the time and read the document.
Question. Well, you don't have to stop now but in preparation for testimony before the committee, if you would be able to take time to look at that to determine what element of the memo suggests executive privilege and in that regard what element of the memo suggests attorney/client privilege.
Answer. I guess what I would do, and I don't mean this in a coy manner at all, but the people at the Office of Legal Counsel are really expert in this. They are probably the country's leading experts on executive privilege. We would never, in private litigation, we would not be able to assert or make documents subject to such privilege unless OLC determined that it was appropriate.
Page 1156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Who at OLC would have made that determination in this case?
Answer. I don't know.
Question. I gather you will be able to find out?
Answer. And it may well be Mr. Nionakis or others already know that, but what I can assure you of, if indeed what the hearing is about is to figure out the principles of attorney/client or executive privilege, I would suggest you speak to the people at the Department of Justice who are far more expert in this than I.
Question. But you are saying that was based on a representation of the Department of Justice; there was executive privilege or attorney/client privilege to this document?
Answer. I am saying to you, as far as I know, unless I am mistaken, that every document on this log is a document that the Department of Justice reviewed and made a determination was appropriate as a document subject to, in that particular case, executive privilege and attorney/client, that is my understanding. I would be surprised to find out that that is incorrect.
Question. Do you have any knowledge of disputes——
Page 1157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. But I don't have any great familiarity with this document.
Question. You don't have any knowledge of any discussions between the attorney general and Mr. Ruff with respect to any disputes on the assertion of executive privilege?
Answer. None whatsoever. I think that is quite unlikely. None that I know of.
Question. Do you know when this document, for example, was found? I will go on to the next exhibit in a minute, but as to this document, do you have any knowledge as to when this was found?
Answer. I think there was a request for, you said in August, am I correct, so it would be sometime subsequent to the request.
Question. Let's look at Exhibit 15, and this is a memorandum from the Chairman to Miss Avent. This is not on the privilege log?
Answer. I just want to be clear here, Mr. Bennett, as we sit here now. I may at one point have seen this document. I have no memory of it, and if you want me to talk about it, I am going to have to read it.
Question. Go right ahead. I understand. The predicate of this question, and we are winding up here, is this document is not on the privilege log?
Page 1158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. Right.
Question. And I just don't understand, as these documents came in last week, I don't understand what the delay was in turning the document over.
Answer. I will tell you what it may have been, as best I can do, I will tell you what it may have been. It may have been, I am not saying it is, it may have been this is one of the documents the Department of Justice and Office of Legal Counsel determined should not be withheld subject to the privilege. That may be the explanation. I am not telling you it is the explanation.
But, again, I understand your frustration, but if you can understand mine for just 30 seconds, we have produced to you pretty quickly about 335 pages. They talk about this issue, and once again the focus is always in what we don't give you as opposed to the fact we produced a lot of documents on this topic. I don't know the exact number, but I think that is probably a fairly accurate representation, and I am not trying to be coy, I am just saying——
Question. And I am not trying to be coy with you.
Answer. I know.
Question. I think you would agree, and we are about to wind up today, you and I have had a fairly courteous exchange——
Page 1159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. On both sides.
Question. And my point is, from our perspective, there seems to be a pattern that these documents arrive almost contemporaneous with the press reporting them, and I started reading about the Hudson dog track and these matters in the press last week and suddenly these documents arrive. Do you understand my frustration?
Answer. Well, I hear your frustration and I do understand it, but I just need to respond——
Question. Certainly.
Answer. You received 330 or 340, whatever the number of pages of documents on Hudson casino before it was ever in the newspapers, it had nothing to do with it. Indeed, I don't think it should be a surprise we should submit the document subject to privilege to you, give you all of them, after the log has been filed. It was because—I want to make sure you are hearing this.
Question. I am listening.
Answer. It was only because the log was filed. It was the act of filing the log that triggered the press reporting. So the fact is that the culminating event was the filing of the log. You were going to get these documents at the same time the press reported because it became public, but I don't think it's fair, at least at the time it was related to that, and, again, the lion's share of all the responsive materials you had well before this was in the press.
Page 1160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Looking at Exhibit 16, again, this is not included in the privilege log and this is marked memorandum from Miss Avent marked ''Urgent, Urgent, Urgent, Urgent,'' and this was not included in the privilege the log. Do you know when this document was found?
Answer. I don't. I suspect, again, sometime subsequent to the search of your—subsequent to the subpoena, and I suspect, but I could be wrong, that it may well have been a document that was being withheld and that the Department of Justice or OLC determined that it was not. I don't have the most direct knowledge on this issue but that could well be it.
Question. Looking at Exhibit 17.
Answer. And you have them all.
Question. If you would look at Exhibit 17.
Answer. Is this on the log?
Question. Yes, Exhibit 17. This is on the log, in terms of assertion of privilege, and executive privilege and attorney/client privilege is asserted and this is, in fact, a memorandum to Cheryl Mills regarding a call from a lobbyist. Do you see that?
Answer. All I see, and I am not very familiar with this document, is that it is a letter—it is a memo to Cheryl Mills from Michael T. Schmidt.
Page 1161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Well, if you want to look——
Answer. The subject is ''Call from Lobbyist Pat O'Connor,'' that is the subject of the memo, but the memo is from Schmidt. It appears here he is from the Domestic Policy Council, to Mills.
Question. The point is, the very first sentence says, this e-mail is to fill you in in more detail about a call Loretta and I were on with lobbyist/fund-raiser Pat O'Connor. Do you see that?
Answer. I do see that.
Question. Who is the attorney in this situation, and for whom is there an attorney? I am grappling with where there is an attorney/client privilege on the document?
Answer. And I guess what I feel is given my familiarity with the document, that I am not familiar with it, or not very familiar with it. I could study it, but, A, I think it would be best for you to talk to those who are most familiar with it, both at the White House and perhaps at OLC and the Department of Justice.
Question. You yourself cannot, looking at it, you probably can have time, in fact just the second page of this Exhibit 17, the one to which there is an assertion to privilege, if I can finish my question.
Page 1162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Exhibit 17 has the quote, it has now been picked up by the press and we just got the document after the press, I guess, but it says, ''it would be political poison for the President or his staff to be anywhere near this issue.'' Do you see that down about the fourth paragraph down?
Answer. Yes. I want to say a couple of things.
Question. Well, my question is where is there a privilege in this document that you can see?
Answer. Well, I want to be clear. I don't want this record at some point to be misrepresented, and it would never be by you, I know, but I don't want this to sound like, a special counsel to the President was given an opportunity to review documents and wasn't asserting privilege or explaining it. I stated clearly I am not the most familiar with these documents. If we really want to spend the next few hours, I am willing to, once again, go through the exercise of reviewing it and making the determination, but I take assertions of executive privilege and attorney/client privilege seriously, as I am sure you do. I don't have a real familiarity with the document. There are people at the Department of Justice who do and I suspect people at the White House do. I think that exercise is better, in all candor, done with them to the degree you are curious. I just don't think this is the kind of topic we should be talking about in such a quick manner. If you want, I am happy to engage in the exercise. I don't want the record to suggest, given the opportunity, he couldn't do it; I am willing to try to do it. I just don't think you are well-served by that exercise, nor am I, given there are plenty of folks out there who can discuss this in greater substance than I.
Page 1163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Let me ask you, if you will look at Exhibit 18. For example, Exhibit 18 is a handwritten note, is it not? Exhibit 18 is right in front of you as well, it should be.
Answer. It should be and I am sure it is.
Mr. LYNCH. Just so I am clear about this, these assertions——
Mr. BENNETT. I think you may have it underneath there. Here is Exhibit 18.
Mr. LYNCH. The assertions of privilege reflected in the privilege log of Exhibit 13 were prepared by the Department of Justice in connection with the litigation in Wisconsin.
The WITNESS. Which we are not a part of.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. Who turned over this privilege log, Exhibit 13, Mr. Breuer?
Answer. Well, it is not Bate stamped. Actually, Mr. Lynch brings up a good point, there is no EOP Bate stamp number on this.
Page 1164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Have you seen this privilege log before?
Answer. I may have. I may have. I may have. We are not asserting a privilege of course as to you; you have all of the documents, so, again, I don't understand.
Question. Again, I am trying to direct the matter of the validity of the assertion.
Mr. LYNCH. I am just trying to figure out who made the assertions.
The WITNESS. First of all, nothing has been asserted.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. These came with the documents, this privilege log came with the documents.
Answer. But no privilege has been asserted. Documents in private litigation, to which the White House is not a party, had been withheld subject to a privilege. There is a judge who can—as is appropriate, a judge can make whatever determinations he wants. Indeed, I believe, the matter is being resolved between the Department of Justice in this matter and the private litigants in Wisconsin.
Page 1165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
You have every single document. It was important to us that you get every document. So I don't understand why, not that it is for me to know here, since it is your deposition, but I don't understand what the exercise we are going through is. It would be one thing if we were saying you can't have these documents. You have them, we have given them to you, and that is what I don't understand.
To the degree you are really concerned about it, I truly believe that speaking to the Department of Justice and the Office of Legal Counsel, which is representing the interests of the United States, in the private litigation, that that is the appropriate parties to address this matter with.
Mr. LYNCH. Let me say something at this point, Mr. Bennett. I guess I have been a little slow on the uptake here. But it now appears to me that privilege has been asserted by the Department of Justice with respect to these documents, and this log may reflect the assertions made by the Department of Justice.
Mr. BENNETT. Or they may reflect assertions made by the White House.
Mr. LYNCH. That has not been established.
Mr. BENNETT. And if the witness can't establish it, I understand that. I am asking if he can.
Mr. LYNCH. Well, it is not fair to quiz Mr. Breuer on assertions of privilege made by the Department of Justice.
Page 1166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. Well, I am not trying to, is the point. And to the extent he has knowledge, I am asking him if he has knowledge, and I am not holding him to the fact that he is stating that; I am just asking if he has knowledge of that. And maybe to move on to show you my concern, so we can get back focused on the matter of compliance and the example, Exhibit 18 is a copy, this is what has been turned over to us, a copy of a handwritten note. It appears to be a handwritten note from the President to Leon Panetta, with ''BC.'' Is that how the President signs his notations, ''BC''?
Answer. Clearly, this substitution is the President.
Question. Okay.
Answer. But I identify that because it says ''substitution.''
Question. I am just showing you the document we have received. I am trying to understand the document. And there is an assertion of a privilege on this and we are trying to clarify from your record, Mr. Lynch, who actually asserted the privilege.
But let me finish the question. The handwritten note says ''Leon, what's the deal on the Wisconsin tribe Indian dispute?'' And then it is typed. First of all, what is Mr. Leon Panetta's position at the White House, or what was it?
Answer. He was the chief of staff.
Page 1167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. And he was not an attorney, correct?
Answer. Mr. Panetta is an attorney.
Question. But do you know with respect to the President to his chief of staff, I am trying to determine if you have any knowledge as to who would have made a determination to list that on a privilege log with respect to asserting executive privilege on that?
Answer. Executive privilege has absolutely nothing to do with being an attorney.
Question. I agree.
Answer. And I think that probably, given the fact that no attorney/client privilege was—no document was withheld in private litigation on the basis of attorney/client suggests that Mr. Panetta wasn't working as an attorney.
Mr. LYNCH. I want to clarify. The document, your Exhibit 18, which is EOP 069092, to the extent that appears on this privilege log, the providence of which we haven't established, it is executive privilege only.
Answer. Right, that is what I said.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Can I make a note. Also—whenever you are ready, Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett, I also want to note that the log refers to documents EOP 069092 to 069097, which means that there are an additional 4 pages to this document.
Page 1168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. We will cut right to the core of this. It is getting late. It is very simple.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BENNETT:
Question. To your knowledge, did Mr. Nionakis bring these documents over? If it is Mr. Nionakis, not you, I won't waste your time.
Answer. Let me tell you what I understand, and I want to be clear, and it is getting late, but I think it has been very cordial throughout. Nothing has been withheld from you. We haven't asserted privilege with respect to you. We have given you everything. In private litigation, no document was withheld from private litigation without the concurrence and advice of the Department of Justice and the Office of Legal Counsel.
Question. And who were the persons at the Department of Justice?
Answer. And I told you, I don't know the names of the persons, but we can find out. But that is the appropriate way of dealing with this. You have everything. You have everything.
Question. I guess my question to you is, on this note from the President, when is the first time you ever saw this note?
Page 1169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I suspect, and I am not sure, at that meeting that I had that I described to you before, that I have this vague recollection of the four of us meeting.
Question. And so you yourself don't have any involvement in the assertion of any executive privilege with respect to this document?
Answer. I suspect to a degree we had a discussion in that room about documents that might be appropriate for—again, no assertion, whether we had a discussion about documents that might be appropriate, subject to the consent and review of the Department of Justice, that would be the subtotal of my involvement. You can determine that level of involvement. I was involved to the degree of being in one such meeting so I would have had that level of involvement. But, again, you have it all. You have always had it all. That is the purpose.
Question. We have had it since October 22.
Answer. Right.
Question. We have always had it for 9 days.
Answer. You have always had it for 9 days because probably 10, 11 or 12 days ago the privilege log in the private litigation was put in. That is the process. We have had an ongoing process and nonwaiver agreement. The Chairman of this committee signed it, I think the Ranking Member.
Page 1170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. I am not disputing that. I am not getting into that. My point is the timing with press announcements, is my concern.
Answer. But I explained the press announcements.
Question. Why don't we move on.
Answer. I want to say one other thing about the press getting something before you. I, too, I will ask this as a rhetorical question, am keenly interested in knowing how the press did get the documents, very keenly interested, and I am not suggesting anything untoward here, but let me suggest that often documents are provided to the press. We take documents that are being withheld for privilege in private litigation very seriously. I think those around me knew I was quite shocked to find out that these materials were—or some of them were provided to the press.
Question. Let me end with this, then, in terms of trying to stay on the question of subpoena compliance and we have three minutes before 5:00 and we promised we would wind up at 5 o'clock.
Looking at Exhibit 20, a letter from Robert Bennett, no relation to me, to Chairman Burton, on behalf of his client, Harold Ickes. Do you see his—I don't presuppose you have seen this before, so I will give you an opportunity to look at it.
You see the second paragraph there says there is some assertion of attorney-client privilege, and the privilege is being asserted at the direction of counsel for either the White House, Clinton/Gore or the Democratic National Committee. Do you see that?
Page 1171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I do see that paragraph. I do see it.
Question. Now with respect to that, do you have any personal recollection of assertion of privilege as to this attached document?
Answer. Assertion of privilege?
Question. It's attached to the letter as part of the Exhibit 20, is an index of documents withheld as privileged from production?
Answer. And, I'm sorry, just repeat your question.
Question. My point is, do you recall any discussion of those items indexed as privileged, in connection with Mr. Bennett's production for Mr. Ickes?
Answer. I don't remember speaking to Mr. Bennett. He may well have spoken to Chuck Ruff directly, I don't know. Mr. Bennett represents here that he is withholding documents. I think his language is we are one of the entities, he describes the White House, that he would have had a discussion with perhaps Mr. Ruff or another, you know, someone else in the counsel department.
Question. If you look, to wind up here on this, then, to show you the frustration we have with production and compliance, look at the last page of the exhibit, and it is page 2 of the index with Mr. Bennett's letter.
Page 1172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. Okay.
Question. And items 10 and 11, it refers to a 6/28/95 memorandum from Jane Sherburne, Special Counsel to the President, regarding summary of Hubbell's sentencing, 3 pages, then item 11 is a 02/06/95, February 6, '95, memorandum from Judge Mikva, counsel to the President to Mr. Panetta, chief of staff, regarding legal advice concerning continued employment of Suzanna Hubbell.
Answer. Okay.
Question. At the Department of the Interior. They are items having to do with Mr. Hubbell. We haven't seen these on a privilege log. We haven't seen them anywhere. Do you have any knowledge of those documents?
Answer. I don't remember them. If they are not on a privilege log—first of all, let me begin by saying any inquiries you have that you want me to get back to you on, I am more than happy to. I want to be very open about that. I don't remember—I suspect if they are not on a privilege log it is because, you know, we have not found them. Or, frankly, I would suspect that is the case. But I am more than happy to look into them. Sitting here right now, neither of these memos is ringing a bell to me.
Question. So clearly there has been, according to the information provided to the committee, there has been an assertion of a privilege. This would have to be an assertion of a privilege by the White House, correct?
Page 1173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. It wouldn't be an assertion of a privilege necessarily.
Question. Well, we will follow up, then. I am not trying to put you on the spot with this.
Answer. I appreciate that.
Question. The bottom line is with respect to the privilege issues and production of documents after press reports, it seems to be a continued pattern of late compliance.
Answer. Well, I don't agree with that last assertion. Look, it is very complicated producing as many materials as we do in so many areas, but a lot of political hate can be made on both sides. I think we do a pretty good job.
Question. Let me wind up with this.
Answer. Well, let me finish.
Question. Go right ahead.
Answer. I want to be clear here. I don't know if we have the documents in our possession. I don't know if Mr. Ickes is the only one. I know Mr. Ickes took a number of documents with him. I simply can't provide a heck of a lot more information about it right now.
Page 1174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. We will perhaps follow up with that.
Answer. I assume you will let me know.
Question. And consistent with my promise to Mr. McLaughlin, it is now 3 minutes after 5:00.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I am going to take just 2 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. BENNETT. Go right ahead. I am finish with my questions and Minority counsel will ask you a few.
EXAMINATION BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
Question. I have two questions, Mr. Breuer, and a brief apology. I will preface my questions this way: Mr. Lantos has been asking the question as to whether this investigation is more like theatre of the absurd or more like Alice in Wonderland, and I think that believing this recent line of questioning about these privileged matters would provide important new evidence to the case would tip the scale. My two questions are as follows: Have you or anyone on your staff knowingly withheld any responsive nonprivileged documents from this committee?
Answer. Not to my knowledge, absolutely not.
Page 1175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Have you attempted to engage in the best good faith efforts to secure compliance for this committee's subpoenas at every step of the process?
Answer. I have.
Question. Let me end with just a brief apology on behalf of the Minority members of this committee. I apologize that the word ''incompetence'' was thrown in front of you in this deposition. It is a matter of singular irony that this committee would choose to use the word ''incompetence,'' and I would note no one at the White House has resigned as counsel to the President on behalf of the unprofessionalism of the staff at the White House.
The word ''noncompliance'' was also thrown out. It is also singularly ironic for that to be mentioned in the light of the pattern of staff bungling we have seen on the part of this committee.
Minority experience has been one demonstrating consistent good faith efforts on the part of the White House to meet our requests for information and the request of the Majority staff for information.
With that, I thank you for your public service and for your appearance today.
Mr. BENNETT. Why don't I follow up.
Page 1176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Given that I am not one to make speeches, my practice of law has been a deposition is a place for questions and answers, Mr. Breuer, not political statements, but with respect to an inquiry I made today, the last 45 minutes, I believe, maybe 45 minutes with respect to the Hudson dog track issue, generally, I think you would agree, we have had a productive dialogue today. Would you agree with that.
The WITNESS. I think we both entered these discussions with cordiality and mutual respect.
Mr. BENNETT. And have I in any way been disrespectful to you in any way?
The WITNESS. No, and I hope you don't feel I have been either.
Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely not. And I hope you don't believe that I have. Do you believe that I have?
The WITNESS. No, I do not.
Mr. BENNETT. And do you believe that my conduct in conducting this deposition has at all times been professional with respect to my treatment of you?
The WITNESS. I do. And do you think my answers have been such?
Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely, I think you have been very professional in your response. And perhaps you and I can try to raise this conversation above the level recently exhibited in the last minute or two.
Page 1177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Thank you very much, Mr. Breuer. It was nice to see you and good luck to you.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]
[The deposition exhibits referred to follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 316 TO 381 HERE
[The deposition of Jack Quinn follows:]
Executive Session
| Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, |
| U.S. House of Representatives, |
| Washington, DC. |
DEPOSITION OF: JACK QUINN
| Tuesday, November 4, 1997 |
The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 9:37 a.m.
Appearances:
Page 1178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Barbara Comstock, Chief Investigative Counsel; Elliot Berke, Investigative Attorney; and Andrew J. McLaughlin, Minority Counsel.
Also present: Representative Tierney and Representative Kanjorski.
For MR. QUINN:
KATHLEEN A. BEHAN, ESQ.
Arnold & Porter
555 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004–1206
Ms. COMSTOCK. Good morning. We are on the record this morning for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Thank you for appearing here today, Mr. Quinn. Mr. Quinn is accompanied here this morning by Kitty Behan, his attorney.
I would like to note for the record those present at the beginning of the deposition. My name is Barbara Comstock. I am the designated majority counsel for the committee, and I am accompanied today by Elliot Berke, who is also with majority staff. The designated counsel for the minority this morning is going to be Ken Ballen, who will be joining us shortly.
Page 1179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Actually, it is Andrew McLaughlin at this point.
Ms. COMSTOCK. But I think Ken indicated he wanted to be the designated counsel.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I am designated minority counsel. I am sitting here to take the deposition.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay. That is going to then be for the whole deposition?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. We will see when Ken's appointment lets up. I mean, Ken wanted me to thank you on the record, Barbara, for accommodating his request for the appointment this morning, but seeing as how he is not out of there right now, we have to proceed.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Mr. Ballen asked us to move the deposition back to 9:30 this morning so he could join us as designated counsel.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. He thanks you for graciously accommodating his request. Nevertheless, he is not here and I am.
Ms. COMSTOCK. That's right, and no good deed goes unpunished. Okay. We will get started here. We are going to dispense with some of the preliminaries, as Mr. Quinn is familiar with those.
Page 1180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
We are joined also this morning by Congressman Tierney from Massachusetts. And at this time, Congressman, if you have any questions, I will defer to you.
Mr. TIERNEY. I appreciate that. Thank you. I am just going to observe, but if I have questions on the minority side, I will pipe in.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay, thank you.
Ms. BEHAN. If I could just state for the record, I understand the scope of the deposition will not repeat questions or lines of inquiry that were already fully pursued in the Senate deposition, though you may have some follow-up issues you want to pursue.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Right. As we discussed last night, I was able to review the Senate deposition, as was the minority, and so we agreed on a number of areas to pretty much entirely not go into them at all. There might be a few follow-up areas and some issues that veer off and a few of those things, but I think largely, if not entirely, we won't repeat any of that.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Mr. Quinn, just for the record, could you just tell us your time period when you served at the White House and the various positions you had?
Answer. I began my service at the White House on Inauguration Day 1993, at which point I was the Counsel and Deputy Chief of Staff to Vice President Gore, a position I held until sometime later in the spring, roughly April or May, when I became Acting Chief of Staff to the Vice President. I became Chief of Staff to the Vice President at the end of June or early July of 1993, and I served in that position until October or November, 1995, at which point I became Counsel to the President.
Page 1181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
COURT REPORTER. Ms. Comstock, would you like him sworn in?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Oh, yes, I'm sorry.
THEREUPON, JACK QUINN, a witness, was called for examination by Counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
The WITNESS. Including with respect to everything I just said.
Ms. COMSTOCK. We will trust you on that.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. And you served as Counsel until when?
Answer. I served as Counsel until about the 14th or 15th of February, 1997.
Question. Okay. And when you served as Counsel, who was your deputy or were your deputies?
Answer. Kathleen Wallman, W-A-L-L-M-A-N, and Bruce Lindsey, L-I-N-D-S-E-Y, were my two deputies.
Page 1182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Okay. And Jane Sherburne, who served as Special Counsel, did she also report to you?
Answer. That is not as simple a question as you might think. She did for a time. There came a time when she believed she didn't, and when she reported instead to Mr. Ickes.
Question. Okay. Can you describe generally when that time frame was?
Answer. Sometime during 1996. She had always had a, I suppose a split reporting relationship, by which I mean she reported to both me and Mr. Ickes, and during the course of the year that evolved on her side as a reporting relationship solely to Mr. Ickes.
Question. Okay. And was that something you were aware of at the time?
Answer. Well, I was aware that—yes, I was aware of that.
Question. And so can you be more specific in terms of the time frame when Ms. Sherburne stopped reporting to you and began reporting to Mr. Ickes?
Answer. It wasn't something that happened by agreement. It happened over the course of a period of months, and I would say, oh, by the end of the summer of 1996 she was reporting only to Mr. Ickes.
Page 1183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Okay. And was that on the investigative matters that she worked on, she was only reporting to Mr. Ickes?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Okay. And those were largely pretty much 100 percent her duties at that time?
Answer. Well, by ''the investigative matters'' you mean Whitewater and what else?
Question. The other investigative matters that she handled. I mean, she was brought into the counsel's office to handle various investigations, Independent Counsels and that type of thing?
Answer. She was brought in to handle certain matters, right.
Question. And on those matters, by the end of sometime in the summer, she reported exclusively to Mr. Ickes?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. Okay.
Answer. As a practical matter.
Page 1184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Okay.
Answer. And so we are clear on this, that was not an arrangement to which I assented.
Question. Okay. So in the course of that time frame when she transitioned into only reporting to Mr. Ickes, were you then not as involved in getting information on investigative matters then, or did you have another source?
Answer. It was never easy to get information.
Question. And why is that?
Answer. Well, I don't think the reporting relationship was as smooth and comfortable as it might have been and as one would hope it would have been, at any point.
Question. Okay. But was there somebody else, then, in the office, that then reported to you so you were kept apprised of these various matters as Counsel to the President?
Answer. There were a number of people in the office who worked on those matters, and I don't mean to suggest Jane would not be responsive when I sought out information. When I sought it out, she would be responsive, and there were others in the office who were involved in those matters. Jane attended our regular Counsel's Office staff meetings and from time to time reported information.
Page 1185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. All right. Could you tell us the process that you followed in terms of document production and subpoena response while you were counsel in the office?
Answer. Well, to generalize, the process we followed was to receive a request for information, be it in the form of a letter request or a subpoena, analyze it, study it, do our best to interpret it fairly, cover it with an explanatory note and a strong admonition to the White House staff to promptly search for any responsive materials, get them back to a person in the Counsel's Office who might be handling that particular matter, gather the information, find out what we had and, you know, respond. I don't think I can generalize more than that.
Question. When requests came in, or subpoenas, did they go directly to you initially and then you assigned them out to somebody?
Answer. I can't say they all went directly to me. I think that there were occasions on the Hill when people, including yourself, dealt with others on the staff, for example, Jane, and transmitted requests directly to her. There well may have been others who received requests directly. I would be informed of those, in the ordinary course, so I believe I was aware—I don't believe there was any request of which I was unaware, and typically, though not in every instance, the directive to the staff would come from me.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Can I ask a relevance question, Barbara? Are we looking into subpoena compliance prior to this investigation? Are you looking at subpoena compliance with respect to other investigations? Are you looking at whether or not Counsel's Office complied with old subpoenas from the last Congress?
Page 1186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. No. Mr. Quinn was there during the transition time and that is what we are going to focus on, but I am getting some background going into that time frame.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. When you said that you would review the subpoenas and examine what type of information was requested, was one of the things you did to sit down with a group of people and try to figure out the body or universe of responsive documents and how one would go about searching for it?
Ms. BEHAN. That he might have done?
The WITNESS. Let me just try to provide some context, and this does predate the investigation that is the subject of your inquiry, obviously. In the time I was counsel we had an enormous number of requests. We had relatively few resources with which to deal with those requests.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay. When you were counsel, how many people did you have working on these investigative matters, sort of Jane's team of people?
Answer. Oh, somewhere between 4 and 6, I would say. But there were other matters, as you know, that were the subject of document requests. Indeed, a directive went out to the committees from the leadership to investigate, seek documents, you are aware of that, and we were subject to—I don't know the number, but an enormous number of requests for information, and I can't easily generalize the process across all of those different requests.
Page 1187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
We had lawyers who worked for the National Security Counsel handling a number of inquiries. We had lawyers who were trying to handle a particularly urgent set of requests from one of the subcommittees here. We had requests from the Independent Counsel, we had requests from the Senate, we had requests from your committee, and we had relatively few resources with which to deal with them. People were greatly burdened, but I think we did a terrific job of responding to these requests.
Question. Okay. When you would send out directives for requests, would you often attach the actual request that had come from a congressional committee?
Answer. I believe almost always.
Question. Okay. And so that was generally your practice when you were at the White House?
Answer. Yes, I think so. I think we would either attach it or literally parrot it. I don't think we would summarize it or condense it; I think it was typically the case. Again, there were so many of these requests, I don't want to be heard to be saying that there might not have been exceptions to this, but I think typically we would do so.
Question. Okay. And actually, we will look at some of the ones you did, and that was in fact my impression of it. And why did you do it that way, to sort of parrot what was requested?
Page 1188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. So that we would be true to the request, so that we would not get caught in a situation in which one might argue that we were asking for less than had been requested of us.
Question. And when requests were sent around, now, when we are dealing with most of these investigative matters, that was largely the responsibility of Ms. Sherburne at the time you were counsel. Would that be correct?
Ms. BEHAN. I am confused here, because we talked about a lot of different document requests coming in, and I want to make sure the record is clear when you talk about ''Jane's team'' and the like that we are clear on what Jane's duties were.
The WITNESS. With respect to the subject matter this committee is now investigating, Jane did not have much of a responsibility.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. No, I understand that, and we will get to that. I am more or less trying to get a sense of what your knowledge may have been at the time of the practices, and I understand that the dynamics there were somewhat strange.
Answer. She was responsible for some of the investigative matters, but not all.
Question. Did there come a time when you were counsel where Ms. Sherburne stopped handling these matters?
Page 1189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Ms. BEHAN. Which matters?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Which matters?
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. The investigative matters.
Answer. There came a time she transitioned out of the White House and left.
Question. At or around October of 1996, did you task—some fund-raising, campaign fund-raising issues arose—did you task somebody else to respond to those issues?
Ms. BEHAN. Again, ''those issues,'' you mean the issues relating to this committee?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes.
The WITNESS. I would answer you this way. Jane never had an assignment from me in this area. She undertook her own set of activities, either on her own initiative or at the request of Mr. Ickes, I don't know which, but I assigned Cheryl Mills to handle these matters on a transitional basis. I assured her that we would be getting the resources to hire additional people, to staff up, because I was trying very hard to get those resources.
Page 1190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
I wanted those matters handled in the meantime by somebody I could trust to do a thorough and complete and highly competent job. That was she, and in the meanwhile I undertook to get the authorization to hire people to respond—to deal with the matters that we knew would be coming up.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. So in the October of '96 time frame—and I believe the first stories about campaign finance problems relating to the DNC arose sometime in sort of late September, early October, you know, throughout the month of October—is it your testimony then that Ms. Sherburne was handling those in her—and at that point in her capacity reporting to Mr. Ickes, and that you were not aware of what she was doing?
Answer. That is right. Whatever she was doing in that time period on the issues, she was doing with Mr. Ickes, not me.
Question. Did you come to learn at some point what, exactly what she was doing during that time frame?
Answer. No.
Question. And when did you learn that she had been doing something on those matters, if you did?
Page 1191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Ms. BEHAN. Objection, I don't think he knows.
The WITNESS. Yes, I don't know, and it wasn't terribly important to me then. I assigned Cheryl to handle these matters until we could get permanent people on board to handle them.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. And do you recall when you assigned Ms. Mills to that task?
Answer. No. You know, there was a flurry of activity, as you say, in September and October, and we were trying to keep a lot of balls in the air, moving, trying to respond to these requests as best we could in that time period, and that included requests involving matters related to this fund-raising stuff, and I believe Cheryl was working on that at that time.
Question. Okay. Now at that time, in October of '96, had Jane already decided she was going to be leaving? Is that why you tasked Cheryl Mills?
Answer. Yes, it was my clear understanding she would be leaving.
Question. And at that point, had you already planned on leaving at that point also, in October of '96?
Page 1192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I was pretty much sure I would be leaving. I didn't know exactly when.
Question. So I am just trying to get a sense of when you selected Ms. Mills to do that, was that because you thought both Ms. Sherburne wouldn't be there and you wouldn't be there, so you are selecting someone with historical or kind of long-term knowledge on these matters?
Answer. There are a couple reasons. Number one, most importantly, she is a person of enormous ability and high integrity. Number two, she is somebody who did most of the counseling of people in the White House on matters involving the line between official and political activities. She was most familiar with the law in this area, so she was clearly the person best suited to handle these matters. I really had to persuade her to do this, and I had to assure her that this was only a temporary assignment, that we would be getting someone else to come in and take it on an ongoing basis.
Question. Okay. And what did you ask Ms. Mills to do?
Ms. BEHAN. With regard to what?
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. With regard to when she took on these duties.
Answer. Basically to oversee these matters.
Page 1193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. When did you first learn about any campaign fund-raising problems related to John Huang?
Ms. BEHAN. I object to the form of the question because I don't know he knows of any campaign fund-raising problems related to him.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. When did you learn of issues related to the campaign fund-raising of John Huang?
Answer. Honestly, I can't pinpoint the date for you.
Question. Was it spring '96, or summer or fall? Can you split it down?
Answer. Whenever it became a matter of public knowledge in the press.
Question. So prior to the public stories, nobody from the DNC, or some outside person hadn't called you up to say keep a look at this guy?
Answer. I do not believe so. I don't believe I had any advance knowledge there was an emerging problem in this area.
Page 1194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. All right. Do you recall if anybody from the DNC ever talked to you about John Huang prior to the news stories about issues related to his fund-raising?
Answer. I certainly don't recall any such conversation.
Question. When did you first meet John Huang?
Answer. I don't know exactly when. It would have been during the time I was Counsel to the President, and he certainly—I was acquainted with him. I know I had seen him at DNC-related events, and I was reminded recently, or I am reminded that he apparently came by to visit me on at least one occasion, I saw him at a subsequent meeting in Los Angeles. You know, I have seen him on a number of occasions. When all of these matters did become public and I saw his picture in the newspaper, I recognized him as, ''Yes, I have seen that guy around. I know that guy.''
Question. Did you do any work or campaign fund-raising in the '92 campaign?
Answer. Any work? I did not do fund-raising in the 1992 campaign or the 1996 campaign. I did help the Vice President after then Governor Clinton asked him to be on the ticket. I helped then Senator Gore out during the course of the campaign, in particular by assisting him in preparing for his debate.
Mr. TIERNEY. Can I ask a clarification? Are we limited to matters pertaining to more recent periods, or are we going back to '92?
Page 1195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. We have been covering '92 as well as '96. With this witness I do not intend to go back into much of '92.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. One of the things I wanted to ask is, because Mr. Huang was involved in fund-raising in '92, to see if you knew him then.
Answer. I don't believe I did.
Ms. BEHAN. I want to clarify for the record, you said you first met John Huang when you were Counsel to the President.
The WITNESS. No, it would have been when I was in the Vice President's office.
Ms. BEHAN. You said you recently learned that, you know, there was this letter from John Huang when he made a stop by, and that was in the Vice President's office.
The WITNESS. I think I first met him while I was in the Gore office.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 1196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Okay. And I think the letter you refer to, why don't we just take a look at it. This is a letter from Mr. Huang, and I will make this Deposition Exhibit No. 1.
[Quinn Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.]
[Note.—All exhibits referred to may be found at end of deposition on p. 805.]
The WITNESS. Right.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay. Is this the letter you are referring to that helped you recall, or actually did you recall that you had met with him prior to?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Okay.
Answer. Let me be clear. He refers in this letter to seeing me—to stopping by the office, and he refers to a meeting on Monday, September 27, in Los Angeles. I have a very clear memory of the September 27 meeting in Los Angeles. I don't recall his stopping by and visiting, though it certainly appears that he did so.
Page 1197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Barbara, just for process, can you show the witness the one that is going to go in the record?
Ms. COMSTOCK. And it is an October 7, 1993 letter from Mr. Quinn to John Huang, EOP 49490.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Could you tell us what you recall about the September 27 event, or if you have already told us everything you recall.
Answer. One reason I remember it is because it was in a conference room in these law offices, it was standing room only, it felt like it was about 105 degrees, and I remember getting up, and I remember sitting by the door and like leaving on about three occasions because it was, you know, close and warm and uncomfortable in the room. It was pretty crowded.
Question. Was that a fund-raising event?
Answer. It was not. It was, as I recall it, it was with 30 or 40 Asian American individuals, and it was sort of outreach to the Asian American population in California, leaders of that community in California.
Question. And the Vice President was making remarks at that event?
Page 1198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. Yes, it was sort of—yes. It was sort of a, you know, he came in, he sat down, he sort of talked about what was going on in Washington, what the administration was doing, what it was pursuing, and then kind of took questions, went around the room and answered people's questions.
Question. Do you recall if he made any remarks about Mr. Huang or his friendship with Mr. Huang or anything like that at that event?
Answer. I do not, and that is not the sort of thing that would—you know, that I would try to remember.
Question. Do you recall if anyone in the office had prepared remarks for the Vice President that were geared toward Mr. Huang in particular?
Answer. I don't know the answer to that. You know, he would typically have in his briefing book a memo on the event which would identify the individuals in attendance. He has always been rather fastidious about being sure that he thanked all of the people who should be thanked, and is usually very unhappy if there is somebody he should thank and that individual is not identified by the staff. If anything, he over thanks. And so, you know, he might or might not have thanked Huang or any other individual.
Question. To your knowledge, did the Vice President know Mr. Huang before this time period, September of '93, or thereabouts?
Page 1199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I have the impression he did, but I don't have firsthand knowledge of that.
Question. Do you recall ever talking to the Vice President about Mr. Huang?
Answer. I do not.
Question. At any time?
Answer. At any time.
Question. So we have discussed—is all you recall in the September 27 meeting or whatever, assuming this date is correct, an event in Los Angeles at or around that time in 1993, but you do not recall the September 24th meeting in your office?
Answer. I do not, and I don't believe that this was on my schedule, this meeting. And I want to emphasize here, I am reconstructing, and surmising and speculating.
Question. Have you had an opportunity to review your schedules, in light of this issue becoming public, I guess it was this summer at some point?
Answer. When I first heard about this, I looked back at my schedule, and I think my schedules are in the White House, and I asked somebody to look and see if I had a meeting with these people on this day and I apparently did not.
Page 1200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Okay.
Answer. In reconstructing, my surmise or speculation is that they dropped by. You know, I would imagine that this was a brief drop by, and it well may have been because we were going to Los Angeles to meet with this group of Asian Americans, and it may be that somebody on the staff brought them by. But better than that, I can't do for you.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Can I pitch in for a second? The letter says, ''Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to receive myself at your office.'' That is a little different from meeting; is that right? It says thank you for receiving us. You just greeted them in your office?
The WITNESS. I believe that is probably what happened, but——
Ms. BEHAN. But he doesn't want to speculate.
The WITNESS. That is in the nature of speculation.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I just don't want the record to reflect that somehow a substantive meeting took place. The letter suggests to the contrary.
Ms. COMSTOCK. And the letter will be an exhibit.
Page 1201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you recall, I guess this Chairman Shen Jueren, do you have any recollection of him?
Answer. No, and I don't believe——
Question. I may be butchering this pronunciation.
Answer. And I have no idea how to pronounce this gentleman's name. I don't recall having met with him on this occasion, and to the best of my knowledge, I never had anything to do with the guy after this.
Question. Okay. And the assistant that is named here, Ms. Liang of China Resources Group, any recollection of her?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know if you ever met with—I assume you do not recall meeting with this gentleman at any other time, Shen Jueren?
Answer. I certainly do not.
Question. Do you recall receiving this letter?
Page 1202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. No, I do not.
Question. And the handwriting on the bottom of it, which I believe is John Huang's handwriting, just from a lot of the other documents we have gotten, and certainly in the context of the letter it appears to be his handwriting, can you make that out from anything?
Answer. It appears to say, ''Let me know if you decide to go to Asia next.'' Again in the nature of speculation, I think that is probably a reference to a Vice Presidential trip, and it well may be that there was contemplation among the National Security people or others on our staff that one of the trips in the next year might be to Asia. I have a high degree of certainty he wasn't talking about my going to Asia, since in the whole time I was in the White House, I didn't go anywhere that one of the principals didn't go.
Question. And were you aware of any trips that the Vice President had taken with John Huang to Asia, or have any knowledge of that prior to this time, prior to 1993?
Answer. Was I aware of trips he had taken? I don't believe I was.
Question. When issues relating to John Huang came up, you had to move back to 1996, about his fund-raising, at that time you said you saw his picture and, you know, recognized that you had seen him. Were you aware he was involved in fund-raising for the DNC?
Page 1203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. I think I was. You know, one of the difficulties is that so much has come out, I am trying my best to remember what I knew at the time, because we all learned a lot subsequently. It is my impression, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that when this became the subject of news stories he was working at the DNC as a fund-raiser.
Question. Yes?
Answer. So that that would have been apparent, at least at that time. So is your question did I know then or did I know prior to that?
Question. Did you know at that time, or did somebody come and tell you and say, ''That is John Huang, our vice chairman of fund-raising,'' or that is the person that asked the President if he could go over to the DNC?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Do you mean other than from news accounts, did he have an independent source of knowledge prior?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Why don't I let the witness answer.
The WITNESS. I am not exactly sure what you want me to answer.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. At the time, as the news stories came out, what was the discussion sort of among staff, and in trying to find out what he was doing, you know, any conversations that you recall with staff at that time?
Page 1204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. Honestly, I can't recall staff conversations at the time. I mean, I would have to go back and look at these press accounts and try to reconstruct it. I don't even remember what the initial press stories were precisely about.
Question. Okay. Well, they assist you in some way, the initial stories about a contribution of a quarter of $1 million that was returned that had been raised by Mr. Huang?
Answer. Okay.
Question. Do you recall anyone ever coming to the White House—or anyone discussing that issue with you?
Answer. No. I do not.
Question. Okay. And then subsequently there were the Wiriadinatas?
Answer. Right.
Question. The gardener or landscape architect, whatever your preference is, where he had contributed $450,000 under Mr. Huang, who was the solicitor?
Answer. I learned about that from press accounts. Let me see if this helps you. No one, either inside the White House or at the DNC, came to me, I don't believe, in advance of these stories and said there are questionable contributions that have been raised, or there are problem contributions or contributions that have to be returned.
Page 1205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
I don't believe the Counsel's Office was involved in any of the legal issues around those contributions when these stories broke or before these stories broke. I believe I am correct. I am correct at least insofar as my own involvement is concerned. I am not aware—I can't say that no one in the office was put on notice that there were contribution issues at the DNC, but I am sure not aware of our office having been put on notice about that.
Question. Okay. Now you have been put on notice about Charlie Trie and the contributions he raised for the President's Legal Expense Trust, correct?
Answer. Correct.
Question. I know you have testified to that in Senate depositions, so I do not want to belabor that or go into that too extensively, but in the context of this sort of October time frame and sort of potentially problematic fund-raising, did Charlie Trie's name ever come up again, knowing what you knew about him in relation to the trust?
Ms. BEHAN. I'm sorry, outside of what did Charlie Trie's name come to his attention?
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Why don't we briefly get on the record, you were aware that Mr. Trie in the spring of 1996, March of 1996, had brought a large number of donations, individually, $1,000, sequential checks, and a number of other donations to the Legal Expense Trust?
Page 1206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Answer. Right.
Question. And that had been brought to your attention, apparently, on May 9, 1996 by Mr. Cardozo?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Prior to that time you did not know anything about Mr. Trie?
Answer. I don't believe I had ever seen the name.
Question. And you had not met him prior to that?
Answer. I don't believe so, and——
Question. And I understand he may have shown up at an event, and you are at a lot of events, and I am not holding you to that.
Answer. I don't believe I have met him, and by contrast, when I saw his picture, I didn't think I recognized him. I became aware of him, as you indicate, when Michael Cardozo came to our offices and reported about this effort on Mr. Trie's part to make this large number of donations to the Legal Expense Trust, and that was the first, I believe, I had heard of them.
Page 1207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
Question. Were you aware he was a presidential appointee at that time?
Answer. I did not know that at that time.
Question. Did you tell the president anything about what Mr. Cardozo told you about Mr. Trie?
Answer. I don't believe so. And I do not want to get into conversations I may have had with the President, but I am on the record already, so I don't believe I did.
Question. Okay. And when you received that information about Mr. Trie, what was your understanding of the purpose of your being informed of that information?
Ms. BEHAN. Are you talking about from Mr. Cardozo?
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I mean, Mr. Cardozo was executive director for the trust, so why did he go to you rather than the President and the First Lady and tell them, ''We have these donations we think we are going to have to investigate and possibly return.''
Ms. BEHAN. I don't think there is any foundation for that at all. I don't think Jack has put in any testimony about where Mr. Cardozo went to.
Page 1208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 15 Of 22
And I also, Jack, suggest you not speculate about what other people's purpose was in coming to you. And I also want to reiterate, there is a privilege here to be protected, and I assume you are not trying to get into any scope of the privilege of his conversations.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I think it is public record that the President was well aware of Mr. Trie's fund-raising.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I don't think that is public record, Barbara.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I think it very well is, and after seeing all the videotapes we know——
Mr. TIERNEY. I don't think it makes a lot of sense for counsel to be putting their observations or conclusions on the record. You might want to ask the question. I don't mean to be critical, but I can see this going back and forth and having a lot of testimony from lawyers, and I am not sure that moves us along here.
Next Hearing Segment(16)