Segment 17 Of 22 Previous Hearing Segment(16) Next Hearing Segment(18)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. I think we probably would have run through the status of the requests and identified for him the various requests coming in on this, and probably at that time point, you know, said our work is ongoing, we are still gathering the documents.
Question. And the team that was going to be responding to this was both going to respond to the Justice Department investigation as well as the congressional investigation; is that correct?
Answer. Actually now, as we are talking about this, I am recollecting. I mentioned to you earlier in the deposition that I had promised Cheryl I would be bringing in new people. When I made the decision to leave, it occurred to me that Chuck should be involved in the selection of those new people; that I shouldn't, in other words, hire a team of people to handle these matters and then turn around and say to Chuck, you know, ''I have hired six people and,'' you know, ''you don't have any say in it.'' So at the same time he was coming in, we were in the process of interviewing people and hiring people for those new positions, people like Lanny Breuer and so on.
Question. And did you interview Mr. Breuer?
Answer. I did.
Question. Okay. And did you have any briefings with Mr. Breuer or did you provide him with any briefings?
Answer. Well, he actually came on after Chuck got there, okay, so we were kind of like passing on the way through the door.
Page 1294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. So other than a meeting with him and interviewing him, did you have other meetings with him?
Answer. I don't think he showed up for work until I was gone.
Question. Okay. Do you know who was sort of physically showing people where, here are the files, here is what we have gathered?
Answer. No. That happened a level or two down.
Question. And who would have been doing that, to your knowledge?
Answer. Karen Popp, Cheryl Mills, others who were doing the detail work.
Question. And after you left, did Mr. Ruff or others at the Counsel's Office call you about where to find things or where documents might be or any potentially responsive documents?
Answer. No, because I didn't have any documents—well, I mean, that is an overstatement, as you can no doubt imagine, but I didn't have other people's documents. I didn't collect things and store them in my office or outside my office or anything like that, so I wouldn't be the person they would call looking for documents. And I left my stuff there, so they had my stuff, they didn't need to call me for my stuff, and documents belonging to others were in the possession of others.
Page 1295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. And I am not specifically asking about did they call you to say, you know, give us something, did they call you to ask, you know, can you give us some ideas on, you know, where certain things were.
Answer. No, because, again—I have said this a couple times but let me try again—I wasn't the person who was the interface with the other offices. That happened a level or two down in my office, and there were other lawyers like Karen Popp who would know far better than I, you know, whether a particular office had responsive documents, the history of having been through the office, having talked to people, having gotten questions. Those would have gone to more junior lawyers in the office.
Question. Was the practice of those lawyers to, after they sent out the directives, then they would try and ensure that documents were coming in in a timely fashion, would they get certifications from various offices that documents had been produced? Would that be something that was done?
Ms. BEHAN. To the extent you know.
The WITNESS. I don't think there was a uniform practice, but I think that that happened on some occasions. I just can't tell you which ones.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you know if sometimes they would go to particular offices to say, you know, do you have any other——
Page 1296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. I don't have any firsthand knowledge.
Question. If you know, if one stands out, that we would go to the Political Affairs Office or we would go to Mr. Ickes office to find that?
Answer. I don't have firsthand knowledge. Others could answer that question better. I certainly believe there would have been a communication with the likely places where responsive documents would be.
Question. Okay. While you were still there, since the issue of the coffees did come up in January and documents regarding the coffees were turned over to the press, do you recall at that time if anyone in the Counsel's Office went to Mr. Sosnik, who had been involved in that, to discuss with him any potentially responsive documents on the coffees?
Answer. I don't know the answer to that.
Question. And again, it is your testimony, then, you weren't involved at all in collecting documents or have any knowledge of the universe of documents about White House coffees?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. So no one ever mentioned to you anything about the videotaping or anything like that of the coffees?
Page 1297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Ms. BEHAN. Asked and answered.
The WITNESS. I heard about the videotapes recently.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay. And since this has all come out, has anyone said to you something like, ''Boy, so-and-so knew that was there, they did, why didn't they say it,'' anything like that?
Answer. No.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay. If we can take a brief break, the only questions I have remaining are a number of questions about Mr. Hubbell that I mentioned, and then I think we will be done shortly.
[Brief recess.]
Ms. COMSTOCK. Back on the record.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Just on the question of tapes, I just wanted to finish up just a couple of other questions, just to make clear for the record.
Page 1298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
You have no knowledge of any other type of taping that the President does of any events or anything independently of anything WHCA does?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. All right. And regarding pictures, you had mentioned Johnny Chung running around with pictures, but also you said there are regular photographers that are often taking pictures?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you know, in the course of doing document production, if going down to look at the pictures was something that your staff normally did in order to be responsive to subpoenas?
Answer. I am sure the people in the Photographers' Office would have been recipients of our requests, but, again, I wouldn't have been the person dealing with those offices.
Question. So you have no knowledge of how they are listed or anything like that at the photo office?
Answer. I do not, no.
Page 1299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Okay. I wanted to turn to Mr. Hubbell and matters related to him. When did you first meet Webster Hubbell?
Answer. Sometime during the transition, that is to say, after the election in 1992 and before the inauguration in 1993.
Question. Were you at all involved in his confirmation process?
Answer. No, I wasn't.
Question. And did there come a time when you learned of legal problems that Mr. Hubbell had with his law firm?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And when did you first learn of that?
Answer. I think it would have been when they became public.
Ms. BEHAN. I just want to for the record object on scope. Unless you tie it in, I don't see how this has to do with political fund-raising improprieties.
Mr. TIERNEY. When you object, are you instructing the witness not to testify or not?
Page 1300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Ms. BEHAN. I do believe I am trying to limit the scope of this to proper matters, because I don't believe Mr. Hubbell's personal problems are something that relates to fund-raising. So I am permitting the witness to answer, but with that objection.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. And the report that the committee has in terms of the depositions did include matters relating to Mr. Hubbell and the Lippo Group and his consultant contracts, which is largely what we are going to be focusing on, is any knowledge you have about work he had after leaving.
Answer. Okay.
Question. And this is to establish a foundation for that and to go into that.
Ms. BEHAN. Just as a technical matter, I don't think the report determines the scope of the deposition, but in any case I am permitting the witness to answer.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Similarly, I think it would be quite remarkable if one committee of Congress could bind the others by a report to its resolution. I am not sure the Rules Committee report, which is in fact a description of what the investigation might be about, is in no way dispositive of the question of what this committee's proper jurisdiction is pursuant to the resolution passed by the full house.
Page 1301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. Do you recall the question now?
The WITNESS. No.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you recall, other than learning about it in press accounts, do you recall knowing about Mr. Hubbell's legal problems prior to the press accounts?
Answer. I do not.
Question. And do you recall discussing that with anybody at the White House, what his legal situation was?
Answer. You know, I am confident that I would have had conversations, I mean, you know, water cooler conversations with people. It was a fairly high profile matter. But I don't recall anything beyond that.
Question. Okay. Did you ever talk to Mr. Hubbell about his legal situation?
Answer. Not in any—I never discussed with him the factual allegations. I don't recall ever having had any such conversation with him.
Question. Okay. And after he announced his resignation, at or around, I believe it was March 14th, and then he resigned in early April from the Justice Department, after he had announced his resignation, you kept in touch with him; is that correct?
Page 1302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. I don't think that is correct.
Question. Did you have occasion to meet with him socially?
Answer. I went to a good-bye party that employees of the Department of Justice had for him after he left. I have had lunch with Web Hubbell probably twice in my life.
Question. Okay.
Answer. I don't know exactly when. Whether one of those occasions was after he resigned or not, I can't be sure.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay. Well, this is a calendar of Mr. Hubbell's. This was a March 16, 1994 calendar entry. We will make that Deposition Exhibit No. 12.
[Quinn Deposition Exhibit No. 12 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. And it indicates a lunch on March 16, 1994.
Answer. Can I ask a question?
Question. Sure. We may have your calendar too. This is Mr. Hubbell's, and I am not asking you to—you know, obviously this is his calendar.
Page 1303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. I don't know if this lunch actually happened. I believe it indicates on my calendar that I had lunch with Senator Mikulski this day.
Question. Okay.
Answer. But I am not sure. I know it wasn't the three of us, but I just can't be sure. I don't know if this happened.
Question. Okay. And do you recall generally, then, after Mr. Hubbell left, if you discussed with him what he was going to be doing in terms of employment?
Answer. I don't think I ever discussed with Mr. Hubbell what he was going to be doing.
Question. Did you have any understanding of what he was doing at that time?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Did he ever discuss with you if you could help him with any assistance in getting a job at a law firm in town?
Answer. He never asked for my help.
Page 1304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Not in any way, whether at a firm or consultancy or anything like that?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Hubbell doing any work for the Lippo Group?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. Or for James Riady?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. Did you have any knowledge of any of the other employers that Mr. Hubbell did consultant work for?
Answer. I don't believe so.
Question. Okay. Did you have any knowledge about Mr. Hubbell obtaining a contract with the City of Los Angeles?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Did you learn about that at any time while you were in the Counsel's Office?
Page 1305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. When it became public knowledge is, I believe, when I learned about it.
Question. Were you involved in addressing any of the legal issues regarding that, or inquiries?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. All right. Would that have largely been in Ms. Sherburne's bailiwick?
Answer. It might have been. I just don't recall the context.
Question. Okay. Were you aware of any meetings at the White House, prior to Mr. Hubbell's resignation, aware of ever any meetings that any attorneys had at the White House to discuss his resignation?
Answer. No. I wasn't counsel then.
Question. I understand. You were still with the Vice President at that time, correct?
Answer. Right, yes, so I wasn't privy to any of those conversations.
Page 1306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Were you aware of Mr. Hubbell staying in touch with people at the White House, generally?
Answer. I don't think I have any or had any particular knowledge of his doing so. I don't think I had any particular knowledge of that.
Question. Do you recall seeing him around the White House during the months after he left, at the Mess or visiting people or anything like that?
Answer. I can't rule it out. It would not have been a common occurrence. I can't rule out that I might not have seen him on the premises on an occasion, but I don't have any specific memory of seeing him around.
Question. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you aware of Mr. Hubbell utilizing office space with Michael Cardozo?
Answer. No, I don't remember that.
Question. Were you aware of any efforts to raise any money for Mr. Hubbell's legal defense fund?
Page 1307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. No.
Question. No one ever contacted you with regard to any matters related to that defense fund as opposed to the President's?
Answer. No; nor asked for a donation.
Question. How did you first learn about Mr. Hubbell—that Mr. Hubbell was going to plead guilty to some of the charges? And that was in December of 1994, I believe, that he plead guilty.
Answer. I don't recall when I learned that, and I don't think I had any particular advance knowledge of it.
Question. Is your first recollection, then, press accounts?
Answer. Probably. Again, I can't rule out that someone might have told me that it was going to happen but I am sure I didn't know of it long before it happened.
Question. Okay. Other than the—you said you maybe had two lunches with Mr. Hubbell. Did you have any other contact with him? And I understand they may be not after he left but I guess one of the other ones, maybe before or after.
Answer. Oh, yes, I had contact with him.
Page 1308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. What was that contact?
Answer. He was the Associate Attorney General.
Question. I am saying after he left the Justice Department. I am saying you had said you had two lunches, and I just wanted to clarify for the record. I am not representing, and I don't think you have testified, that both of those lunches were after he left; you just had said in your life. So I just wanted to clarify my question.
Answer. I had contact with him while he was in the Department of Justice on a number of matters. After he left the Department of Justice, I recall seeing him at the going away party I mentioned, which was not long after his departure. You know, I well might have seen him on one or two occasions between then and now, but I don't think on more than one or two occasions.
Question. And do you know Mark Middleton?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Okay. And did you have—did you work with him while he was at the White House on any matters?
Answer. Not really. I mean, we might have had dealings on an issue in which he was acting on behalf of Mack McLarty but I didn't have sort of regular ongoing dealings with him.
Page 1309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Okay. Did you ever have any knowledge of meetings that he was having with the Riadys or John Huang?
Answer. No, I didn't.
Question. Or Charlie Trie?
Answer. No.
Question. Or Mr. Wu or Ng Lap Seng?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you ever have occasion to meet Mr. Wu at the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. Or Antonio Pan?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you know who these individuals are?
Page 1310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. No.
Question. Other than seeing them in the press in the past weeks?
Answer. No, I don't.
Question. Or the past months.
Answer. These names don't ring any bells.
Question. Okay. After Mr. Middleton left the White House, which was sometime in February of 1995, were you aware of what he was doing after he left the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. Okay. Did you have any knowledge of him working on any matters with the Riadys?
Answer. No.
Question. Or the Lippo Group?
Answer. No.
Page 1311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Were you aware of him being in contact with Mr. Hubbell about any of these matters?
Answer. No.
Question. Or do you have any knowledge of him bringing donors or fund-raisers to the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. Okay. Did you ever have occasion, when you were in the Counsel's Office, to address any issues as to, you know, how people could use the White House—people such as Mr. Middleton coming back and bringing in donors or bringing business associates into the White House Mess or any issues like that?
Answer. Well, I can't recall when the Middleton story broke. I remember——
Question. By that do you mean the story about the alleged $15 million contribution?
Answer. No, no, no.
Question. The phone——
Page 1312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. The story about Mark's phone rolling over or having a recording on one of McLarty's lines or something to that effect.
Question. That was the end of October.
Answer. Of?
Question. 1996, if that helps.
Answer. And his use of the Mess and people coming in. I recall being very unhappy about that.
Question. Did you take any action with regard to that?
Answer. Yeah. I think we did take action to make sure that, first of all, that his phone situation was changed. I think we looked into whether there were any other phone lines that—of departed employees that were being similarly misused, and just made sure that this sort of thing wasn't widespread.
Question. Okay. And did you discuss with Mr. Middleton's attorney any matters related to this?
Answer. Who is his attorney?
Page 1313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Bob Luskin.
Answer. I don't believe so.
Question. Or Mr. Middleton himself?
Answer. No, I did not.
Question. Are you aware of anyone in the Counsel's Office talking with Mr. Middleton or his attorney?
Answer. I can't speak to that. I just don't know. I am not sure. You would have to ask others.
Question. And did you have anyone, at that time in October 1996, check into any matters related to Mr. Middleton, or have anyone inform you about any fund-raising activities of Mr. Middleton?
Answer. I don't think—again, when—I don't know that I knew about Mr. Middleton's fund-raising activities. What first came to my attention were the stories about Middleton having a phone number—you know, his old phone number, still having a voice message from him or directing people to where he was working; his being able to use the White House Mess and having other people get him into the Mess and put meals on their accounts and so on, so that he could entertain people there. I was very unhappy about that.
Page 1314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Who did you learn about that from?
Answer. I don't recall, but we were—I was very unhappy, and I instructed people to take steps to make sure that that didn't happen, either in Mark's case or others.
Question. Were you able to obtain records to find out when and how he had done that?
Answer. I am not clear on the details of how much we knew, but I know we took action.
Question. Okay. And just one final area. You mentioned the database a few times today, the White House database, which the subcommittee, this committee, has been looking at. Are you aware of—do you recall documents being gathered last fall about the database?
Answer. The fall of '96?
Question. Yes.
Answer. Was it last fall? I guess that's right. Yeah.
Question. Okay. And do you recall any documents being withheld or not turned over to the committee for any particular reason?
Page 1315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. I know that there were documents—yes, indeed. I know that there were documents related to the database that were deemed to be nonresponsive.
Question. Okay. And you recall——
Answer. They were not called for, I should say.
Question. Do you recall reviewing those particular documents?
Answer. I don't recall reviewing particular documents. I do recall being briefed on a group of documents which had been deemed to be not called for. But as I look at particular documents, I can't tell you that I have seen them, and I know that in some cases I don't feel like I did see the particular documents.
Question. And do you recall who briefed you on that?
Answer. Probably Cheryl Mills.
Question. Okay. And was it Ms. Mills then who made the determination that she presented to you as to what was responsive or not?
Answer. Not necessarily.
Ms. BEHAN. I would object. Okay.
Page 1316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
The WITNESS. Not necessarily. They were more junior people, I think, who made the first cuts, the first determination. That was my impression.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. But is it your recollection you signed off on particular documents not being responsive and produced?
Answer. What I am saying——
Question. And therefore not produced?
Answer. No, I am saying something different; that—if you want to talk about a particular document, I am happy to, and I can answer your question about any particular document.
Question. I don't mean to get into this at all in any length, but I just want to know if you discussed this.
Answer. I recall being briefed about a group of documents, some of which I am sure I saw, all of which I am prepared to have others say I saw, but there are some documents which when I look at them now, I do not recognize them and I do not believe I have seen them previously.
Page 1317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Ms. BEHAN. Did you want to state an objection for the record?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. If you don't intend to go into it in any great length, why are we wasting everyone's time here by going into it in a cursory and rather confused fashion?
Ms. COMSTOCK. In order to find the witness' knowledge about this.
The WITNESS. Are there——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Either do it properly or don't do it at all, is what I am saying.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I believe that is all I have for today.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Okay. I have just a few questions, but I will defer to the Members if they want to ask anything.
Mr. TIERNEY. I just want to extract the promise from you that it is just a few of them.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, just a few.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Go ahead.
Page 1318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MR. MCLAUGHLIN:
Question. I just have two questions. To the best of your knowledge, did you or anyone at the White House knowingly withhold responsive, nonprivileged documents from this committee during your tenure at the White House?
Answer. Absolutely not.
Question. Did you consistently utilize your best good faith efforts to respond to this committee's request for documents and information at every step of the process?
Answer. Yes, we did. We did what I think was a thoroughly professional job to respond completely and in a timely fashion, subject to the appropriate protocols for the protection of documents, the recognition and privileges, ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive materials; and we did this, again, despite what I knew to be, particularly in the fall of 1996, an overtly partisan and politically motivated effort to harass us.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I have nothing further. Thank you.
The WITNESS. Thank you.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Thank you. We are off the record.
Page 1319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]
[The deposition exhibits referred to follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 382 TO 457 HERE
[The deposition of Steven Smith follows:]
Executive Session
| Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, |
| U.S. House of Representatives, |
| Washington, DC. |
DEPOSITION OF: STEVEN SMITH
| Saturday, October 18, 1997 |
The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 4:00 p.m.
Appearances:
Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Barbara Comstock, Chief Investigative Counsel; Kristi Remington, Investigative Counsel; Andrew J. McLaughlin, Minority Counsel; Christopher Lu, Minority Counsel.
Page 1320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
For STEVEN SMITH:
LIEUTENANT COLONEL JOHN SPARKS, ESQ.
National Security Council
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay, we can get on the record here. I am going to read through this preamble that we have.
Good afternoon. On behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I would like to thank you for appearing here today.
This proceeding is known as a deposition. The person transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and notary public, and I will now request that the reporter place you under oath.
THEREUPON, STEVEN SMITH, a witness, was called for examination by counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Ms. COMSTOCK. I would like to note for the record those who are going to be here at the deposition today. My name is Barbara Comstock, I'm the chief Majority investigative counsel and the designated counsel for the committee in this deposition. I'm accompanied today by Kristi Remington, who is also with the Majority staff; and Minority counsel who will be here today is Andrew McLaughlin.
Page 1321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Is it Colonel Smith?
The WITNESS. No, I'm a civilian. Steven Smith.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Mr. Steven Smith is here represented by Colonel John Sparks this afternoon.
Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you have been placed under oath, your testimony here today has the same force and effect as if you were testifying before the committee or in a courtroom.
If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words used in that conversation, you may state that you are unable to recall those exact words and then you may give me the gist or substance of any such conversations to the best of your recollection. If you recall only part of a conversation or only part of an event, I would ask you to give me your best recollection of those events or parts of conversations that you do recall.
If I ask you whether you have any information about a particular subject and you have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding that subject or have seen correspondence or documentation or any records or, obviously in this case videotapes regarding that subject, please tell me what you do have such information about and indicate the source from which you derived such knowledge.
Page 1322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Before we begin the questioning, I would like to give you some background about the investigation and your appearance here today. Pursuant to its authority under House Rules X and XI of the House of Representatives, the committee is engaged in a wide-ranging review of possible political fund-raising improprieties and possible violations of law on related matters within the committee's jurisdiction.
Pages 2 through 4 of House Report 105–139 summarizes the investigation as of June 19, 1997, and describes any new matters which arise directly or indirectly in the course of investigation. Also, pages 4 through 11 of the report explain the background of the investigation. All questions relating either directly or indirectly to these issues, or questions which have a tendency to make the existence of any pertinent fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, are proper.
I would note at this point that your appearance here today is largely in regard to the videotapes and other records in WHCA, and so many of the general matters that the committee is investigating would not obviously be applicable in your case, but I want to just give you an understanding of the scope. But we have discussed with Colonel Sparks the areas that we are going to be addressing, and I think he is familiar from the other depositions what we will be going over.
Lieutenant Colonel SPARKS. Yes.
Ms. COMSTOCK. The committee has been granted specific authorization to conduct this deposition pursuant to House Resolution 167, passed by the full House on June 20, 1997. Committee Rule 20 outlines the ground rules for the deposition.
Page 1323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Majority and Minority committee counsels will ask you questions regarding the subject matter of the investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel is finished. Members of Congress who wish to ask questions will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask their questions at any time when they may be present. We have had no indication today that there will be any Members attending. If they were here, when they were finished, committee counsel would resume questioning.
Pursuant to the committee's rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights. Mr. Sparks is here representing you in that capacity today, although I would like to note for the record that Colonel Sparks is counsel at the NSC and not personal counsel for Mr. Smith.
Any objection raised during the course of the deposition shall be stated for the record. If the witness is instructed by his counsel, Colonel Sparks, not to answer a question or otherwise refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine whether the objection is proper. If Majority and Minority counsel agree that a question is proper, the witness will be asked to answer the question. If an objection by your counsel is not withdrawn, the Chairman or a Member designated by the Chairman may decide if the objection is proper.
This deposition is considered as taken in executive session of the committee, which means it will not be made public without the consent of the committee pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule XI. You are asked to abide by the rules of the House and not discuss with anyone, other than your attorney, this deposition and the issues and questions raised during this proceeding.
Page 1324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the Chairman. I would note we have also been waiving that with the consent of the Minority. We can also send that down to you so that you can review that instead of coming up here to review it. Any changes we would just ask be accompanied by your signature and a letter requesting those changes and that they be put in writing and that you sign that.
Do you understand everything we have gone over so far?
The WITNESS. I do.
Ms. COMSTOCK. If you have any questions as we go along, please stop and ask me. If a question is unclear, let me know, or Colonel Sparks can also let me know at any time as we are proceeding.
We have a court reporter here today. As we proceed through the deposition, if you can wait until I finish the question, and then I will also, in turn, wait until you finish the answer so that we don't speak over each other, they can get a clear record.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Let me make my two quick points before you gone on.
The first is that objections are the province of the full committee and not the Chairman alone under House Rule XI(2)(k).
Page 1325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
The second comment I want to note again for the record is the Minority's ongoing objections to the scheduling of these depositions at such times as our Members are unable to attend.
Mr. Condit has indicated the sense of the Minority Members and has made that request and that request has not been honored, so here we are at 4:05 on a Saturday taking this deposition. Thank you.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I believe the Chairman has written a letter to Mr. Condit in that regard and we can make that part of the record.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Can you just give us your full name and your employment history from college forward?
Answer. My name is Steven Smith. I'm the Chief of Operations at the White House Communications Agency. I'm a DOD civilian. I have been a part of the Department of Defense for 23 years. For 20 years and 8 months, I was an active duty member in the United States Army. I retired in June of '95 as Chief Warrant Officer.
After a short break, I came back to the Department of Defense as a civilian with employment at the White House Communications Agency, and that was in July of '95, and I have been there ever since, totaling a 23 year period.
Page 1326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. And who hired you for this job at the White House?
Answer. Actually, I was previously associated with the White House Communications Agency when I was on active duty. I spent 6 1/2 years out of my 20 years and 8 months on active duty with the White House Communications Agency.
After I retired, or during that period when I had retired, they had put out an announcement for a DOD civilian billet within the White House Communications Agency and I competed for that and I was selected in July of '95 and came back. And that selection process was through the Defense Information Systems Agency, which is within the administrative chain of command for the White House Communications Agency, a part of the Department of Defense.
Question. Do you recall who interviewed you for that position?
Answer. They actually interviewed records. I think I was told that there was 60-some records that they went through. Who actually did that, I don't know. I just got a phone call saying, you were selected.
Question. And who is your direct supervisor?
Answer. My direct supervisor is Colonel Joseph J. Simmons, IV, who is the commander of the White House Communications Agency.
Question. Can you generally describe your duties in your position as chief of operations?
Page 1327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. My current duties are to provide oversight and management of both fixed and travel missions. And basically what that means is, fixed means within the Washington, D.C., area. There is a very large robust infrastructure that the White House Communications Agency has in place to support the President, the National Security Council, the Secret Service, and to aid them in doing their duties here in Washington.
And the travel portion of my duties, as far as oversight, is when the President travels away from the White House complex, we also send teams comprised of White House Communications Agency personnel to provide telecommunications and other related support to the President and his staff as directed by the White House Military Office.
Ms. COMSTOCK. We can go off the record for a minute.
[Discussion off the record.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Where is your office physically located?
Answer. I have a primary office that is physically located on the fifth floor of the Old Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C. I have a small satellite office located at the Anacostia Naval Air Station in Washington, D.C., in Building 399.
Question. And who else is in that fifth floor OEOB office that you have, or in that general vicinity, what other WHCA people are in that?
Page 1328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. There is administrative staff, a noncommissioned officer in charge of our customer support directorate, and the officer in charge of that directorate also is in the same vicinity of my office that I have on the fifth floor.
Question. And who is that?
Answer. Tom Carr is the officer in charge of the customer support directorate and Frank Barthol is the noncommissioned officer in charge of that directorate, also.
Question. Could you spell those so we can get them accurately for the record, if you know?
Answer. Tom Carr, last name is C-A-R-R; Master Sergeant Barthol's spelling is B-A-R-T-H-O-L. I believe that is the correct spelling.
Question. Could you generally describe the chain of command in your office with what you do and how you report?
Answer. The chain of command in my office is—obviously I am the—well, let me, if I can back up for just a second. Recently the organization went into a redesign and I have moved from the operations division chief to the headquarters element.
Prior to July 17th, the chain of command was from the division to the headquarters element. Now I'm part of the headquarters staff, which is a recent change. So my current chain of command is from myself upward to Colonel Simmons. Colonel Simmons then operationally reports to the directorate of the White House Military Office and administratively he reports to the commander of the Defense Information Systems Agency, who is General Kelley. So we have a parallel chain of command going upward.
Page 1329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Then downward, there are several operational directorates that are directly under my control, and that is the travel support directorates, the customer support directorate, and the Washington area support directorate. Each one of the directorates have divisions and branches and so on and so forth.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I just wanted to enter for the record, and we will make this Deposition Exhibit Number 1, the White House Communications Agency structure of the office.
[Smith Deposition Exhibit No. SS–1 was marked for identification.]
[Note.—All exhibits referred to may be found at end of deposition on p. 913.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Could you just generally tell us the various directorates, what they include?
Answer. Going from left to right in this exhibit, on the left side we have input directorates. There's a personnel and security directorate, and in that directorate what they do is personnel management and security. They process security clearances and so on and so forth, working in concert with other DOD entities.
Page 1330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Then there's a resource management directorate, which is our financial management and acquisition directorate.
Then there's a systems and services directorate, and they do configuration management, logistics-type support.
Then there's a program management directorate, which does just that, program management for radio systems, information systems and network type infrastructure.
Then there's a mission support directorate, which takes care of training and qualifications of our personnel. And they report directly to the chief of staff, who is a Colonel Ken Campbell.
Moving to the right, next is chief of operations, which is myself. And then we have the output directorates, which fall directly under my span of control, and Washington area support directorate which is our voice operations division, networks division, audiovisual division and Camp David detachment.
Then there's a travel support directorate, and they handle all the deployments away from the White House complex both for the President and the Vice President's travel.
Then there's a customer support directorate, and they do the requirements and operations and customer services type stuff.
Page 1331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Could you tell us who is in charge of each of these areas?
Answer. I can do that, I think.
Question. And if you don't recall someone in particular, we could get that for the record, too. I don't want to unnecessarily——
Answer. The personnel and security directorate, Lieutenant Colonel Fountain is in charge of that directorate. A Ms. Carla Hawkins is in charge of the resource management directorate. A Lieutenant Colonel Neal Riddle is in charge of the systems and services directorate. A Mr. Alan Hynes is in charge of the program management directorate. Lieutenant Colonel Warren Snow is in charge of the mission support directorate. Lieutenant Colonel Marty McLain is in charge of the Washington area support directorate. Lieutenant Colonel Nathaniel Smith is in charge of the travel support directorate. And, again, Lieutenant Colonel Tom Carr is in charge of the customer support directorate.
Ms. COMSTOCK. We will make that copy, your copy, Exhibit Number 1, and maybe we can use it as a reference point as we go through on various matters.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I would like to maybe move right into the major areas, because I know you have testified about this before and I'm not sure if you may be also testifying before the Senate shortly, so I will try to make this as brief as we can.
Page 1332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Could you just walk through your beginning to be part of the process of responding to any subpoenas or document requests or directives that came from the counsel's office?
Answer. The first time that I became involved in a document request, that I recall, was around 29th of April. We received an electronic mail from Colonel Campbell, who is currently the chief of staff, who at that time was the deputy of the agency under our whole organizational structure.
Part of that e-mail there was attached a WordPerfect file. The attachment had a lot of names and entities identified on it and we were directed to check our files for any documents or materials that may be associated with those individuals identified. And we had a suspense on there that was the 5th of May.
And that was sent out to all the operation and maintenance unit representatives, the senior individuals of those elements and all staff divisions, and to the best of my recollection everyone responded back. I believe there were a couple of documents that were identified; I believe that came out of our record communications or cable systems. And there was a formal response that went back from the White House Communications Agency to the White House Military Office. And that is where that tasking came from.
My understanding of that process for that request was from the White House Counsel's Office to the White House Military Office to the White House Communications Agency, and we did an internal distribution. What was actually received at the White House Communications Agency, I really don't know. I can only speak of certainty of what I received, and that was the e-mail with the attached file that just had the names and entities.
Page 1333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Recently, I was made aware that there were two other pages to that document that we, internal to the agency, did not receive. I did speak to Colonel Campbell, who was the one that interfaced directly with the White House Military Office, and he informed me that he was uncertain if he had received the entire document, but stated if he had, he must have mishandled it. He just doesn't really recall. And that's pretty much my initial contact.
Then again——
Question. I want to just for the record, because when you said the suspense was May 5th, you mean the date it was due; that's the term?
Answer. For the e-mail, yes. I'm sorry.
Question. I wanted it more for the record, for that to be clear.
So when you got this e-mail, you had an understanding that you had a turnaround time of approximately?
Answer. Six days or whatever.
Question. Six or 7 days, okay. And the e-mail came from Colonel Campbell?
Page 1334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. That is correct.
Question. Do you still have a copy of that e-mail?
Answer. I did up till yesterday. I gave it to the grand jury. They took it when I was there.
Question. I apologize because we don't have a copy of it yet, and maybe we can get it; we had requested from the White House to get the various documents and we have gotten some of them, so I don't want to sort of have you be in the dark or be describing things we don't necessarily have.
Answer. Sure.
Question. But I will go ahead and at least give you the April 28th directive which we have received from the White House.
And was the attachment you referred to, that you got the e-mail, is that the attachment that is Attachment A on this April 28th, 1997, directive?
Answer. Yes, it is.
Ms. COMSTOCK. And we will make this Deposition Exhibit Number 2.
Page 1335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. My preference is that we be marking the copy that is actually shown the witness for inclusion in the record, for purposes of clarity.
[Smith Deposition Exhibit No. SS–2 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Did the e-mail that Colonel Campbell sent, did it have some information within the e-mail that he sent out to you?
Answer. To the best I can recall, the e-mail directed us to take a look at all our internal documents and materials regardless of media in reference to the attachment, which to us, that was our search criteria that was identified to us, the agency.
I know internal to my division, because at that time I was in the operations division, not in the headquarters element, and basically what that meant was to check my file cabinets to see if I had anything in there. And we directed our administrative staff to do that, they did, and we did not find anything within my division.
Since that time frame, just in the recent time frame, rather, I went to the audiovisual unit or branch to see what they did when they got this request, and they brought to my attention that they did go through the audio and video archives that we have, using that as a search criteria, and they didn't find anything.
I just recently found that out, after all the articles in the newspaper, I was just trying to find out what really happened and what has been going on.
Page 1336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. And who brought that to your attention in the audiovisual unit?
Answer. It was Chief Fischer, who is one of the individuals employed in our—actually the event productions, I think is their new name.
Question. So do you generally recall the e-mail that you got, how long the message was from Colonel Campbell, a paragraph or two?
Answer. A paragraph.
Question. And then attached to that was the Attachment A that is on Deposition Exhibit Number 2?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. And it has only been subsequently, in the past several weeks, or since these matters have all come publicly to light about the videotapes, that you learned that, in fact, the audiovisual unit had searched for all the individuals and companies named in Attachment A?
Answer. That is correct. They actually told me they did that the week of the 29th of April, but I recently found that out.
Page 1337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. I will be showing the witness another copy, actually it is a group of memos together, that I will make Deposition Exhibit Number 3. They did not necessarily all come together; they were just provided to us together from the White House.
[Smith Deposition Exhibit No. SS–3 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Have you seen these documents before?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Do you know if your office had provided any similar type memos, sort of certifying that searches had been done?
Answer. I know each one of the staff elements and O&M units, operation and maintenance units, within our agency sent a response to our headquarters, and our headquarters sent a response to the White House Military Office stating that, or what they found. Because there were a couple of documents that were generated in that search, and I believe that was indicated in that response.
I don't recall the exact language that was used, but I know there was one. And how I know that is just in the recent weeks I went through a file that we had at our headquarters and there was a copy of a draft memo that was prepared, I believe by either Colonel Campbell or his administrative assistant, to go to the White House Military Office in regards to this 28th April inquiry.
Page 1338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. And have you provided those documents to the White House Counsel's Office?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Or to another body?
Answer. The e-mail that he sent I gave to the grand jury yesterday. I believe when I was deposed by the Senate I gave the attachment. And the draft memo from the White House Military Office I have not given that to anyone.
Question. And in the past few weeks, nobody from the counsel's office has asked your office for any of the responsive documents that may have been generated in response to the e-mails?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of. And if I may add one caveat. I would think if the White House Military Office, excuse me, White House Counsel's Office wanted a document of that type, they would go through the White House Military Office, because that is pretty much how that's structured. And I'm not aware of them going through them to the White House Military Office, either.
Question. Nobody in the White House Military Office has come to you to ask you for additional documents relating to the production that you all undertook as a result of the directive?
Page 1339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. Not that I'm aware of.
Question. Directing your attention to the last page of this group of documents in Deposition Exhibit Number 3, it is a May 6th, 1997, memo for Charles Ruff, Counsel to the President, from Alan Sullivan.
Now, you said you have not seen these documents before; is that correct?
Answer. I may have seen this one before, because when I went over to the White House Military Office just in the last week or so I was talking to their admin folks, one of the individuals, more senior individuals in their office. I just asked, trying to do a postmortem of what happened, and I do believe that they have had a file copy of this document. That's the first time I saw it. But prior to that I had not.
Question. And is it your understanding in the normal course of business that this is the type of memo that they would produce as a result of having received things from your office and other offices under their control?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. Just for your understanding, if Mr. Sullivan had written this memo, it would have been after receiving some type of response from your office?
Answer. That is correct. That's the normal practice.
Page 1340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Now, you had said that at the time you conducted the search you saw the e-mail with the attachment to it; is that correct?
Answer. That is——
Question. That was the only document you saw at the time?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. Just for the record, I don't think you have seen this, this is this committee's March 4th, 1997, subpoena to the White House. Have you ever seen this document before?
Answer. No, I have not.
Question. Would it be correct, then, that this subpoena was not included in any type of memo or anything that was forwarded to your office to assist you in searching for records?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. And I would just note for the record this is the committee's March 4th, 1997, subpoena which includes as item number 16 all records relating to White House political coffees, and then it also has a definitions and instructions paragraph which includes, among numerous records, videotapes and audiotapes and video and audio recording.
Page 1341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
But you never did receive anything like this at any time?
Answer. No.
Question. From the White House Military Office?
Answer. No, I don't recall seeing this document before.
Ms. COMSTOCK. And we will make that Deposition Exhibit Number 4.
[Smith Deposition Exhibit No. SS–4 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Now, had you previously responded to other document requests that came down through the military office?
Answer. There have been other requests. I don't really recall what they were about. I know one of them had to do with Kennedy assassination documents, if we had anything on file, because our agency was obviously supporting them at the time that that tragedy happened. That's the only one I can really recall.
But there have been inquiries over a period of time that we've done. How many, I don't know, and just what they were. I wasn't directly involved with them at the time. I was in a slightly different position.
Page 1342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. And how long have you been in your current position?
Answer. Current position since July of '97.
Question. And prior to that your position was?
Answer. Prior to that was in the operations division. First, I was in there as the deputy, from June of '95 to about June of '96. And it is very likely if something like that came in, that my predecessor may have handled it. But I would have thought I would have heard about it if it had.
I just don't really recall anything of this type of nature. I do recall the Kennedy one, but that is about it.
Question. And who was your predecessor?
Answer. Lieutenant Colonel Mitch Ross.
Question. And you said you were in that position until June of '96. Did you have another position between June'96 and '97?
Answer. The agency restructured and they did away with the staff elements of the operations division and moved the operations function into the headquarters.
Page 1343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. That was what we had previously discussed, the change?
Answer. Right. Exactly.
Question. Are you aware, from any previous document productions or searches that you did, of ever providing any videotapes or audiotapes to the—I guess you generally provide them to the military office and they forward them to the counsel's office; is that correct?
Answer. The only time we have ever done that has just been in this last 2 weeks or 10 days. We have been working very closely directly with the White House Counsel's Office, but it has been under the direction of the White House Military Office. They have directed us to work with them.
And we have—they have actually came into our facilities to review tapes. We have given them printouts of our audio and video database, and they have identified various tapes that they wanted to review and we've went to the National Archives to retrieve those. So there has been a closer working relationship with that office in the past 2 weeks.
But prior to that, I have no recollection of ever doing, giving tapes or providing tapes as part of an inquiry from the White House Counsel's Office.
Question. Why don't we move into the videotape issue directly. Can you just tell us when this first came to light to you?
Page 1344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. Just to kind of give a chronology of my involvement, the very first time I ever got involved in a conversation about tapes was on the 29th of August when a Mr. Mike Imbroscio out of the White House Counsel's Office met me in my office. He said he was responding to an inquiry from, I believe he said Senator Thompson's office, and he wanted to discuss some issues with me.
I invited him right up. He came up. When he came up we talked—the first thing he asked me is, is the White House Communications Office involved in doing clandestine kind of recordings. I started off by saying he had the wrong agency, because we are not a covert agency; that he needed to check with the CIA. He said something about he didn't care much for my sense of humor. He didn't quite say it that way. But I said that I have no knowledge about the CIA doing that, but our agency definitely doesn't.
Then it was obvious to me he really didn't know or understand what our agency does, the types of services we provide.
Question. He was asking about clandestine taping, something that was sort of secret and unknown to the parties involved?
Answer. Right. And how he phrased it, if the President was in a meeting in the Oval Office would your agency be doing recordings that, like behind the walls or the people in the meeting wouldn't know that things were taking place; recordings were taking place that they weren't aware of. That's kind of the context of that conversation.
Page 1345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
And I went right into giving him a spiel on what we do for about the next 10 minutes or so. And we talked about audio and video services that we provide. We talked about the different types of events, closed, closed to the press or open to the press. We talked about political and official, which that really applies more on the road. We don't really make that distinction in the White House complex.
I remember him asking if he could listen to one of our audio recordings because he had a question. He was wondering if the President was doing a radio address would our microphones be on prior to his radio address and pick up some of his conversations prior to doing that. I told him no, not to my knowledge.
While he was there I called out, matter of fact, to Master Sergeant Barthol, who I referred to earlier, and asked for him to arrange for an audio cassette of the most recent radio address, and have it sent to my office. He immediately brought that up. He listened to the audio tape and we talked a little about video type stuff and recordings.
Question. Now, is that while you were in this meeting on the 29th that you called and had somebody send over an audio tape of the most recent radio address?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. And then you and Mr. Imbroscio listened to it?
Answer. That is correct.
Page 1346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. All right. And it was Mr. Barthol that you called who brought that?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. So within, what?
Answer. Ten minutes, tops. I mean they're right in the same building, lower floor, and they just made a copy. They already had a copy of it. It was just the 23rd, I believe was a Saturday, and the 29th was, I believe, a Friday. So they had it right handy. It only took them a couple minutes to bring it up to me.
Question. And the tape that you listened to just was the tape of the radio address itself? It didn't have anything before or after?
Answer. That is correct. And he thanked me. We talked a little. He asked me a little more about other type of recordings. I don't remember the exact conversation.
He was concerned about the type of video recordings we do and what type of environments. We talked about the archival and retrieval process, how you could get stuff from our database. I remember offering him a tour of our facility, because I could see he was kind of glazed over and there was a lot of information discussed in a very short period, and I just thought maybe walking through it would really help him in his efforts. He declined at that time and said he may take me up at a later date.
Page 1347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
That pretty much just—prior to his departure I remember asking him if there was any correspondence that went out in response to this inquiry, did I get a chance to review it for technical comment. He told me he was working a little more informal with somebody in Senator Thompson's office and he didn't think there would be any correspondence going out, but agreed that if it did, he would let me know. And the rest is pretty much history.
Question. Did he tell you that he had received a letter from Senator Thompson's committee?
Answer. He mentioned he was responding to, I believe he used the words, ''inquiry from Senator Thompson's office.'' But he did have a letter in his hands, and I have a copy of that here today. Because as he was leaving I remember asking him just quickly if I had a copy of it.
And, really, what I wanted it for was to get an idea of just who he was talking to, where this information was, so I could brief my boss. Because immediately after that I went and picked him up at the airport and I wanted to make sure I could speak to him on that.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Why don't we go ahead then and make that part of the record. If we can take a break here to get a copy of them, also.
[Smith Deposition Exhibit No. SS–5 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 1348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. So you indicated that at your meeting with Mr. Imbroscio he did end up giving you this letter that we have marked Deposition Exhibit Number 5 to Lanny Breuer, Special Counsel to the President, from Donald Bucklin, who is with the Senate Government Affairs Committee?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. In this discussion with Mr. Imbroscio, did he explain what his understanding was of what he thought that the Senate was looking for?
Answer. He really just got right into the questions about what we did. He did give me, at the top of our meeting, about 10 seconds to glance at this. I didn't really read it. I looked it over and gave it right back to him.
But during our conversations it looked like he was referring to the document as he would ask different questions, so that is pretty much how he articulated what to me they were looking for. And I kind of tried to extrapolate from those questions what they were really trying to find. But I must admit, after I read this a little later, I just figured to myself, and this was days later, I said, well, I was just certain he would come back.
And eventually he did come back with more questions and there were certain other conversations that we have had. But I knew he'd be back sooner or later.
Question. And you mentioned he talked about this clandestine taping and behind the walls or things like that that he was asking you about?
Page 1349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. That's correct.
Question. And do you know where he got that idea from, clandestine type taping?
Answer. I have no idea where that came from.
Question. Why don't you continue then with your next encounter with Mr. Imbroscio, or actually why don't I back up a little. What did you do after this meeting, if anything, before your next encounter with Mr. Imbroscio?
Answer. The only thing I did relative to this was I briefed my boss, Colonel Simmons, on my discussion I had with him later that day, and that was pretty much it.
The next contact I had, or conversation on this topic was on the 25th of September when I received a call from——
Question. Was that September?
Answer. September, 25th of September, and he wanted—he had asked me if I could provide him the exact format for the information for our audio and video archival system to do retrieval. We discussed it in our conversation on the 29th, but on the 25th he wanted me to actually provide him with that. I told him I would arrange to get that information to him, and that's pretty much the end of our conversation for the 25th.
Page 1350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
On the 26th I called him back. By that time I had an individual in our agency provide me an e-mail with that information on it, and I told him I had it. He said, okay, thanks. He sent an intern up to my office to pick it up that same day, and the intern picked it up. I have a copy of it here with me today.
Then the next time we had a conversation was on the 30th——
Question. Why don't we go ahead and mark that. Do you have a copy of that?
Answer. I do. It has some of my personal notes on it, and that's fine, if it is okay with you. Just a chronology of the conversations and dates and times that I have had with Michael Imbroscio was also on there, but that is not what was on the original document. It was just this information here.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Well, we can make that clear for the record, if that's okay with you.
Lieutenant Colonel SPARKS. Sure.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Let's go off the record for a minute.
[Smith Deposition Exhibit No. SS–6 was marked for identification.]
Page 1351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. As we were discussing, this document that we have made Deposition Exhibit Number 6, which has in its typed portion the, I guess material that you provided to Mr. Imbroscio on the 26th; would that be correct?
Answer. I provided to an intern that he sent up to my office; that is correct.
Question. And then the handwritten notations on here are notations that you had made subsequently which identify the contacts you have had with Mr. Imbroscio?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. We will continue with that, then. So Mr. Imbroscio sent an intern to pick up this listing that you had done for him?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. And do you know what happened to that list? Did Mr. Imbroscio call you and let you know he had gotten it?
Answer. He did not. The next time that I heard anything from him was on the 30th of September, and he had called and wanted to meet with me again.
Page 1352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
He immediately came up to my office and at this time he had a list of dates and events, which was the proper search criteria for our database, and the assumption I made is that he got that, you know, he was using the outline that I gave him, the intern, on the 26th, and also we had discussed that on our initial meeting on the 29th.
What he wanted to do was to see if, in fact, we had tapes for those specific events that he had on his little, on his pad that he had with him, and I think he had six or seven events and dates. He at that time had asked me if I had thought that we would have tapes, videotapes or audiotapes, for these events. And to the best of my recollection I told him all we really know is to check the system, and so he said he would like to do that.
So I called down to our event productions branch, and I believe I spoke to Chief McGrath at the time and set up a meeting for them to meet the following day, which was the 1st of October, to take him through our system, give him an orientation and let him actually go through the database for tapes. And they did meet the following day. I believe they met around 10 o'clock or so.
I was not present at that meeting, and from that time on the White House Counsel's Office has been working extensively with our members of the White House Communications Agency in this event productions area and master control facility to identify various tapes and retrieve them.
Question. Now, when he met with you on September 30th, and you put him in touch with the AV unit, did you hear back from him the following day when he went over to the AV unit?
Page 1353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. I did not hear correctly back from him. I did get bits and pieces from our WHCA members, the agency members.
Question. And who did you hear from?
Answer. I believe it was Chief McGrath. I'm not sure. There has been so many conversations in the last 2 weeks, I don't remember who called me first. It was either he or Chief Fischer. I believe it was Chief McGrath.
He told me they were finding some of the information they wanted. They had identified some tapes they would like to have us pull back from the National Archives and that they wanted to review and they were working with them.
That's pretty much all I remember. This has been a constant request and updates. Actually, there have been hundreds of tapes that have been pulled back from the archives in the last 2 weeks.
Question. Did Mr. Imbroscio ever come back to you to ask you anything more about the tapes or the systems or anything like that?
Answer. He has not.
Question. And when you had met with him on the 29th, did he ask you in particular whether the White House coffees had been taped?
Page 1354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. I don't ever remember in that conversation the word ''coffee'' being used. The first time I heard the word ''coffee'' was he had, on the 30th of September, on that list of six or seven events, one or two of them were coffees. I don't really remember if there was one or two, but I know at that time that's the first time I recall hearing that word ''coffee.''
Question. And do you recall if in the August 29th meeting, had you told him that you had a database that you could search for events?
Answer. Absolutely.
Question. And so at that time you had explained to him if he needs to find out something how he would search for it, what your office was capable of doing?
Answer. That is correct. Because he had asked me if you had a name of an individual would you be able to search that way? I told him no, the way we do our archiving is by dates, the name or the title of event. And the title that's normally used is the same as on the President's schedule, or given to us from whatever office notifies us about a particular event.
We don't even know who the attendees are, so that really means nothing at all to us.
Question. And did he indicate to you that he was going to come back and give you any dates at that time on the 29th?
Page 1355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. Not at that time he didn't. What he did indicate that he was going to go back—well, he more implied that he had some—if he needed to come back, he would. He didn't say what he was going to come back with or when he was going to come back. He just said if I need any more information I will get ahold of you and kind of went away for the next few weeks.
Question. Now, you indicated that when you first met on the 29th and he had given you the August 19th letter, that you had asked him that if he did respond or whatever that you would like to be able to see the correspondence, I guess, or some type of technical advice or anything like that.
Did he ever come back to you with any letters that he was going to send back to Senator Thompson to ask for your input on any such letters or representations?
Answer. No, he has not.
Question. To this date he has never done that?
Answer. That's right, he has not.
Question. Were you aware of them informing the Senate of any information about anything that you had represented?
Answer. I had picked up bits and pieces from various conversations. Not from Mike Imbroscio. My commander, he had some conversations with Cheryl Mills. I was in a phone conference after the information had already been given out.
Page 1356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. So these are conversations in the past few weeks?
Answer. Yes, but not at that time it all happened, I was not aware of it.
Question. So throughout September you had no knowledge of any representations being made to the Thompson committee about what type of taping or audios you had in your office?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. And Mr. Imbroscio never came back to ask you for any clarifications or anything from the August 29th meeting?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. And the next time you hear from him is on this 25th date in September?
Answer. In reference to the tapes, yes.
Question. Why don't you tell me about the conversations that you indicated that you had with Cheryl Mills and your supervisor?
Answer. She had just called. After I read a newspaper article, I was just kind of upset about it.
Page 1357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. And was that when the story first became public?
Answer. Yes.
Question. I believe it was October 5th, was a Sunday morning, when the existence of the videotapes became public in the newspapers. Actually, it was a Time magazine report that came out. Was that the report that you are referring to?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did somebody call you about that?
Answer. I believe it was Colonel Simmons that called me first to tell me, you know, look at the newspaper. And I felt it was either slander or just miscommunications that had happened between, you know, Mike Imbroscio or I.
I was a little, at first, a little emotional about it and upset, but after I got the emotion out of it, I just pretty much felt it must have been just miscommunications or journalism, but definitely it wasn't what transpired in our meeting. So I just couldn't understand how something like that could happen but it happened.
And later on that week, I believe there was a conversation, I don't remember the exact day or night, Colonel Simmons was talking to Cheryl Mills and they were just being understanding about what happened, and just we didn't put that out there kind of thing. And there weren't any specific things that were said, it was just more of, hey, don't be upset, we didn't put that out there. And that was pretty much about it. There have been numerous conversations ever since.
Page 1358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. This is a Washington Post article of October 6th. I think that was the first news. Your public knowledge of it was on October 5th from Time magazine. I don't think there were anything in the newspapers until on the 6th, but then this story was in the Post on the 6th, as well as a number of other accounts. There was the L.A. Times, the one Washington Times.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Are you going to make that part of the record?
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I wanted to ask, did you read the newspaper in the morning? When you got up in the morning, was that when you saw the news account?
Answer. It probably was. I don't remember exactly when it was; what time of day it was. But it seems like the same information, if not the same article.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay. And specifically when you said you were upset, were you upset about the account that had been given of your office's role in these tapes not being turned over earlier?
Answer. I think actually what I was upset about is there was a comment, or a statement in the article, or a phrase rather, that implied that I said that we don't have tapes, and I know that never happened in our conversation on the 29th, and they were referring to videotapes. And as I recall in that conversation of the 29th, when we were talking about different types of events, the only time I ever remember even using those words was when regarding audio, I said we often do not do closed type of events, but video is really driven by the staff, and we could be videoing any type of event, because the real charter of that camera crew is to capture the presidency, and so it very well may be that we have something like that. The only thing I thought is that maybe he had taken the conversation, you know, that we had about audio tapes and applied it to the video, you know, just miscommunications or just too much information, and he wasn't able to assimilate it at all, or it was just slander, I don't know, I don't know what it was. But it wasn't what I said, and, you know, you can't help but to be a little frustrated by those kinds of things, but he seems like a good guy so I don't think it was deliberate.
Page 1359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. And this may not be the story you are referring to, but there was a story later in the week where they did quote Mr. Imbroscio as well as Lanny Breuer so maybe when we take a break I can find the precise stories. This may not be the precise story and maybe you don't recall which story it was.
Answer. I thought it was out of the Post, I thought it was Monday, but I am not sure. I know I have a copy of it. Somebody sent it to me trying to be humorous.
Question. Well, we will go ahead and make this Deposition Exhibit No. 7, understanding, you know, whether or not this was the one.
[Smith Deposition Exhibit No. SS–7 was marked for identification.]
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Do you have a copy of that for me?
Lieutenant Colonel SPARKS. Can we go off the record for just a minute?
[Recess.]
Ms. COMSTOCK. Back on the record.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 1360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. On October 1st, when Mr. Imbroscio went over to the AV unit, did you hear about it from—you said you thought it was Mr. McGrath or Mr. Fischer, about the accounts. Did you talk to them further about what Mr. Imbroscio was looking for?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Further on that day?
The WITNESS. On the first?
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes.
The WITNESS. Actually, I am not even certain if I talked to them on the first. It may have been a day or 2 later. But by that time, several of us, myself, Colonel Simmons, were working very close with members of the White House Counsel the following week, so during that, you know, period while we were helping retrieve some information from the archives, delivering stuff to the White House Counsel's Office, there were numerous conversations that I had with individuals. I don't remember just when I was getting bits and pieces of what transpired with Mike Imbroscio and our folks. They did explain to me that he sat down at the database, he immediately realized there was probably a lot of stuff that had not surfaced previously. They told me he left and said he was going to come back and then give them some more dates, and, literally, they have been working with those folks, the White House Counsel's Office constantly, from the first on to, I believe it was probably as late as probably the 16th or so this week. I believe up until Wednesday or Thursday of this week.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 1361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Did they say what Mr. Imbroscio said when he started entering things and he found some of these events, what his response was?
Answer. They just said he was thankful, he was calm and grateful for their assistance.
Question. And could you describe your understanding of the process by which they—tapes were pulled back from the archives and how you went forward in preparing the tapes to make copies of them and get all the events together—and why don't I back up a little? We initially, if this helps, I will separate out 2 events. We initially got copies of the White House coffee tapes, it was 44 or so coffees, they were all snippets printed onto one videotape and then there was a second round where we got the following week of—actually, it was this week we got, the initial 44 tapes we got on Sunday, October 5th. I think the Senate and Justice Department got them on Saturday, October 4th. We then, this week, the week of October 13th, I believe it was on the 14th and 15th, we actually received a second round of tapes which was all a number of fund-raising events. So I am going to try and separate the 2 different productions if we can and start with the initial production of the coffee tapes and how that process ensued.
Answer. The process is the same for all of it, so that may help some. My understanding is the way it happened, and also my firsthand knowledge of it is we provided printouts of our entire database—not the entire data base, I think it was '93 to '96, both video and audio, to members of the White House Counsel.
Question. Do you know when you did that?
Page 1362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. I believe it was Monday the 6th is when they got the detailed list. Prior to that, he, ''he'' meaning Mike Imbroscio, was working with our folks, he was getting dates and providing it to our audiovisual folks and as they would identify—confirm it was in the database and go to the National Archives and work with an individual at the National Archives to send the tapes over to the White House Communications Agency, and I know there was a very quick turnaround on the tapes, probably the following day, I am not certain of that. Then what they were doing was, the original tapes are in Betamax format and they would take the Betamax tapes and put them into a computer system that we have and upload it to the computer, and then download it to a VHS tape. This computer would allow them to take a variety of Betamax tapes and put them onto one VHS tape. Just what day they were turned over, you probably have better knowledge of that than I do.
Question. From the time when Mr. Imbroscio learned—started putting in the dates on October 1st, were you aware of anyone else in the Counsel's Office learning about this or contacting anyone in your office?
Answer. No one contacted anyone in our office, and I wouldn't know about if anybody in the White House Counsel's Office was getting that information. I can only assume, if they did, that Mike Imbroscio would be talking to someone, but I have no knowledge of that.
Question. Is the first time that—the conversation you described with Cheryl Mills in response to the news articles, was that the first time that you have been in touch with the Counsel's Office after these events came out in public or, actually, after the tapes were known about, which I guess being October 1st?
Page 1363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. I was working with them on a separate issue that had nothing to do with the tapes, but relative to this, that is correct.
Question. Okay. Were you working with them on other matters about responsive documents?
Answer. I was working with them on—they were responding to something that had to do with Vice Presidential calls or something, was providing information on our billing and logs that WHCA maintains.
Question. Okay. That is how you maintained the phone logs at the White House?
Answer. That is right, phone logs that we the White House Communications Agency had and phone bills that we get from the commercial vendors.
Question. And were you working with Cheryl Mills on that?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. And did you in fact provide any documents or information to Ms. Mills in response to that request?
Answer. Actually, I ended up providing it to—she had actually introduced me to a Lisa Brown, who I believe is out of the VP's legal Counsel's Office, I think that is the side of the house she works on, and that is who I really worked more with and our final reply to those questions we routed through the White House Military Office and gave her an official response, but I had been working with her just so I could understand what she actually wanted.
Page 1364 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. And do you recall what that response was?
Answer. You know, we let her know there was a Presidential log, calls that have operator intervention and they are kept up to 60 days and she wanted to know who else had those logs and I let her know we forward them to the Presidential front office, Nancy Hernreich, and I also let her know there is a log that we have, it has other governmental calls, VP type calls and that is kept up to 60 days, both hard copy and data file copy. Then we also talked about phone bills. She wanted to know what type of information, so she could put that in her memo coming back, who else she was going to respond to. I don't really remember who it was and I provided that information to her also, you know, detailed type information on the various types of bills we had, like an FTS—Federal Telephone Service—that is leased through AT&T, and I explained to her the type of information on that bill. Then I also let her know we have Bell Atlantic as a local provider, and we just went through the various vendors and bills.
Question. Do you then have records of long distance phone calls from the White House that are identifiable?
Answer. Well, actually, we wouldn't have—if it goes through our network, you would not have the originator, you would only have the distant end, and the originator would show like Trump Group, so you wouldn't have from originator to the individual you talked to, if it went through our network. We have a few lines that—you know, AT&T is our long distance provider, but those are really more for WHCA internal use or fax machines, to secure voice type terminals we have, but not for your common use type telephone calls you use in your office.
Page 1365 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. So would that mean the phone call—I mean, the basic White House number, 456–1414, would it—the originating number would be the same for all the calls, it wouldn't show what particular phone in somebody's office made the call but it would show they called Joe Smith in California?
Answer. Conceptually, yes. But that 456, that is a different switchboard, that is not the White House Communications Agency. We are on a 757 exchange, they are on—456 I believe is the White House, but that is a separate phone system. We have a phone system that is primarily used for the President for——
Question. For traveling?
Answer. When he is traveling, it is more inbound calls from the trip site in through our network. Seldom does he use our regular commercial nonsecure network for routine type calls. He does use our network for secure calls, head of state type calls, those types of things, but just routine type calls he seldom uses our signal switchboard, is what we call it, for those calls. You know, recurring or routine calls, he would go through most likely the administrative board or dial direct. I believe he has that capability in his office.
Question. And that is totally separate from your—your office doesn't have anything to do then with the regular 456 numbers?
Answer. That is correct.
Page 1366 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. So all the phone calls that go out of the White House offices, the 456 numbers, are just on AT&T type billing?
Answer. There is another organization within the White House that provides that type of service, they have their own operators, their own switchboards, very similar infrastructure to the one we have but they are independent of us.
Question. Do you know what office is in charge of that?
Answer. I believe it is the Office of Administration. I believe, I am not certain.
Question. And do you know, similarly, with them, the long distance calls, are they just identifiable by the one number, but then you can identify who the call is made to?
Answer. I don't know if their system is the same or not, quite honestly. I can really only speak to the way ours is, and our system, if you dial through our network you would not be able to tell what desk or what user made that call.
Question. And, again, just so I can be clear, you did not then provide any documents to Ms. Mills or to the Vice President's office in response to those inquiries about phone calls?
Answer. We just provided an explanation of how our system works and the types of bills that we have. They wanted to know who our bills are routed through and that kind of information, where they were paid. They obviously originate with the vendor. Our Federal Telephone Service we have leased through AT&T is through a General Service Administration, GSA, contract. They also get that information, and then it goes to an organization called DITCO, which is subordinate to the Defense Information Systems Agency, which actually does the payment, but we get a summary report, I believe it is called, I don't know if that is the technical term, that let's us know what calls were made and the amount of—the volume of traffic, that kind of information, but it is not detailed enough to where you could tell who originated a call.
Page 1367 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. You said you only keep the records for 60 days?
Answer. Well, it depends on—well, for, I believe it is 60 days for the FTS bills, it was either—I am pretty sure it was 60, it might have been 90, I'm not certain. For the Bell Atlantic type bills, we do have a small number of commercial lines that don't go through our network, and those bills are only maintained in the agency if they are in dispute, but other than that, they are paid immediately and they are destroyed. We don't archive our bills, keep those around.
Question. So they are just thrown out?
Answer. Well, we have a——
Question. I understand in the routine course of business kind of things, they are discarded after they are paid?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. And you said something was sent to Nancy Hernreich's office. What are those?
Answer. It is called a Presidential call log. Any call that the President makes, that has a White House Communications Agency operator intervention to process the call, they will put the time of the call and, you know, the number and who he called, I think who he called, I'm not certain, quite honestly. We use that as a management tool, in the event there is a pending call or he wanted to talk to someone, you know, there was a call request for the President, he wanted to talk to someone, he may try to get ahold of that individual, they were not available so they know to keep trying to get the call processed or check his aide or try and the individual is not available and that is pretty much what we use it for. There is internal distribution within the agency for the log, it goes to the commander, he gets it daily, destroys it immediately, he doesn't keep it, and there is a copy that goes to Nancy Hernreich and I believe she also gets one from this OA board, this other signal board, and consolidates that information. And I believe it is for historical purposes, quite honestly. I am not certain of that, but it has been going on for the 8 1/2 years or so I have been affiliated with the White House Communications Agency.
Page 1368 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. It is your understanding those logs are kept once they are given to Ms. Hernreich?
Answer. I believe they are, I am not sure of that.
Question. Do you know who prepares the logs on a daily basis?
Answer. The signal supervisor within the White House Communications Agency, the individual in charge of that particular shift, he will prepare that and process it through.
Question. And who is the supervisor of that office?
Answer. There is a variety of individuals. I don't know their names quite honestly. It is a pretty large organization.
Question. Do you know if there is a similar log for the Vice President's phone calls?
Answer. There isn't a dedicated log, you know, like that for the Vice President that we maintain, there is the other log, the signal artiva report and in that they would put the Vice Presidential calls that are processed, would also be in there, but that doesn't go, you know, like to his front office for historical purposes, and there are other calls that would be, you know, in there for key staff members, cabinet members, that may have called in, would also be indicated on that document, and the handling of that is the same. I mean, we keep it for roughly 60 days and it is destroyed.
Page 1369 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. Were you aware of who in the Counsel's Office was involved in reviewing the videotapes, once they were found?
Answer. Not all the individuals. I know one gentleman's name was Dimitri Nionakis. I know he was involved in it, the other named Karl, I don't remember his last name.
Question. Racine?
Answer. That is his last name, I do remember now that you say that. And there was another individual, I think he was more focused on audio tapes than videotapes, his name was Buzz.
Question. Waitzkin?
Answer. That is the last name. And those are the only ones I really recall. There were other individuals, but those are the ones I remember.
Question. And could you just generally describe the process that your office has gone through since October 1st, when Mr. Imbroscio discovered that there were these videotapes that were responsive to the subpoenas?
Answer. My understanding in that process is the White House Counsel's Office has identified specific tapes, both audio and video, that they wanted us to retrieve from the archives. We did the retrieval for the video, we put them into our computer system, we downloaded them to VHF tapes and they have been reviewing various tapes in our facility, it is called the master control facility, up on the fifth floor of the Old Executive Office Building.
Page 1370 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Question. The various counsel have been reviewing the tapes?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. When they were reviewing the tapes, were your staff present or other?
Answer. Yes, the facility that they are using to view the tapes, is a White House Communications Agency facility, and it is called the master control facility and there are individuals that are manned up there around the clock working with them.
Question. So your people would actually be loading the tape in and playing it for them to review?
Answer. Actually, they took the original Betamax tape, put it onto the computer, gave them the VHF tapes and stuck the VHF tapes in the various monitors to let them view it, identifying which ones they wanted more copies of. I believe six was the number they have been doing multiple copies of certain tapes. There were I believe 39 original Betamax tapes they requested, and I know we turned over to the White House Counsel's Office, Colonel Simmons and I did that directly, I don't really recall what night that was, I believe they were going to turn them over to—.
Question. The Justice Department?
Page 1371 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
Answer. The Justice Department, that is correct.
Question. Was it your understanding those were tapes of the coffees, the original tapes?
Answer. I don't know which ones were identified but my understanding is that is what they were, the coffees, but I am not certain of that, I didn't view them, I didn't read over the lists. We did do an inventory but the inventory only had numbers so we could do chain of custody, we filled out forms and turned them over to the White House Counsel's Office. It didn't really have a descriptive title of what was on the tapes. That was my assumption.
Question. This chain of custody you did, those documents, the chain of custody documents have all been turned over to the Counsel's Office also?
Answer. They have a copy and we have a copy.
Question. So you have been maintaining the original in your offices?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. I know we maybe addressed this a little indirectly previously, but if we can get copies of all of the chain of custody documents I think that would be of some assistance also.
Page 1372 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 17 Of 22
When the counsels were viewing the tapes, were they making the decision, they were—was the process initially they would look through this database you provided them and find out which tapes they wanted to pull back from the archives, and then once they got those, they would view those to see if they were going to be responsive, is that your understanding?
Answer. That is my understanding but I don't know what they were really looking for or what determined something that was going to be responsive and what wasn't.
Question. But your staff and your people are just basically loading the tapes in there for them to watch and they would make the decision on what was responsive?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. You weren't involved, your staff or you yourself weren't involved in any type of editing or decision making process, in terms of what tapes were responsive or not responsive?
Next Hearing Segment(18)