Segment 5 Of 22 Previous Hearing Segment(4) Next Hearing Segment(6)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. MICA. So don't be surprised.
Mr. BREUER. No, it is that we're willing to work with you and we want to know what you're interesting in.
Mr. MICA. At least though November of next year. Thank you.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
Let me say, there are a number of videotapes that we will be reviewing. We are going to be going down to WHCA and taking a look at those videotapes, and the ones that we think are relevant to the investigation, we will be asking for the original copies of that and bring them down for further review and analysis. So we are in the process of looking at a lot of those. We are looking at hundreds more.
I think, Mr. Fattah, we will come back to you in just a minute because we want to be fair. Is Mrs. Maloney back? Did you want to ask any questions at this time? Let me go to Mr. Shadegg then and then we will come back to you.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, can I renew my point that I believe it is the custom and precedent of the committee, and it is a committee I have served on for two Congresses in that it is supposed to be a balance between both sides in the use of time.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fattah, I will accede to your wishes. That is not the rule of the committee but we will accede to your wishes.
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. FATTAH. I will be glad to yield to Mr. Shadegg away the time, but just to act as if we don't have the right to have a fair amount of time is the wrong way for this committee to proceed. If the gentleman has to leave, he can have the time.
Mr. BURTON. I am not sure the rule wasn't created to make sure that Members attended. But if you want to yield to Mr. Shadegg, you may.
Mr. FATTAH. I yield our time and receive it back on the other end.
Mr. BURTON. You are a very nice fellow. Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me say to the panelist it has been a very, very long afternoon and I apologize it has taken so long. Unfortunately, that impinges also on my time because I was supposed to get 10 minutes to do what I now have to try to do in 5 minutes. So if I am a little short with you, please understand that I can't tolerate long answers.
Mr. Ruff, I would like you to start by looking at exhibit 168, which is on the screen. It is a part of this issue of documents produced or produced late and perhaps why they were produced late. It is identified as a memo from Marsha Scott to Harold Ickes and Bruce Lindsey and it reflects I believe a carbon copy to the First Lady. This is a document that Mr. Ruff, you produced to the committee in February; isn't that right?
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
[Exhibit 168 follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 97 TO 98 HERE
Mr. RUFF. I am trying to track down a copy of it, because the screen is not really legible.
Mr. SHADEGG. We don't give you a screen to look at it.
Mr. RUFF. You give me a screen, but not much that is legible on it, Mr. Congressman. Thank you. One of my colleagues has handed me the document. I'm sorry, go ahead, sir.
Mr. SHADEGG. That was a document that you produced to the subcommittee in February, correct?
Mr. RUFF. I believe that's correct.
Mr. SHADEGG. At the time you produced it, you had concluded that it was responsive to the subcommittee's August 1996 request, correct?
Mr. RUFF. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. SHADEGG. Your letter shows that. As a matter of fact, your February 26th letter to the subcommittee indicates that it was produced in response to that and expressly states that it was responsive, that those documents were responsive to that request, right?
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. RUFF. That's right.
Mr. SHADEGG. If we could look at the first sentence of the second paragraph, and it is highlighted on the screen which you can't read, it says: Currently in the White House we are preparing, as you know, to implement a new data base system starting August 1.
That sentence I believe, and the rest of the paragraph, which is about the WHo data base made it clear to you that the document was responsive to the August 2, 1996, request?
Mr. RUFF. I'm candidly reluctant to tell you which particular line it was, if any, that triggered this, but I have no doubt that that reference is among the things that we believed were relevant.
Mr. SHADEGG. Well, clearly the new data base that it referred to there in a memo from Marsha Scott who was responsible for creating the WHo data base is a reference to the WHo data base, right?
Mr. RUFF. I believe so but I'm not positive. My colleague here is who is more knowledgeable—I don't want to take up your brief time and I'm happy to turn the light off if I can do that from the witness stand.
Mr. SHADEGG. Actually, there is a letter in which you acknowledge that fact.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. RUFF. That it is relevant, yes.
Mr. SHADEGG. No, I think there is a letter in which you acknowledge that it was a reference to the WHo data base. Marsha Scott wrote it. I can't imagine what else it would be about.
Mr. RUFF. I am willing to accept the fact that the document is responsive and that that response may well be one of the triggering elements.
Mr. SHADEGG. OK. I posit that it is, and anybody who reads the whole memo can figure that out.
Ms. Mills, you found this document in September 1996, didn't you?
Ms. MILLS. I found a version of this document. It didn't have the First Lady's handwriting on it.
Mr. SHADEGG. OK. And you did not produce it at that time; is that right?
Ms. MILLS. That's correct.
Mr. SHADEGG. OK. As a matter of fact, like the handwritten notes of yesterday, you determined that it was not responsive and put it in that separate folder?
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. MILLS. That's correct, because I had a working knowledge then of the different data bases that had been addressed at that time. Ms. Scott was trying to address several different types, and this particular one, at the time I had knowledge of, was not related to WhoDB.
Subsequently, WhoDB, which is what your request was, came into being and the documents that were specifically related to WhoDB were provided.
Mr. SHADEGG. Well, you said subsequently. But you wrote—you had already written in January 1994 a memo to Marsha Scott about WhoDB and you knew that she was working on WhoDB.
Ms. MILLS. Actually, that's not correct. My memoranda in January is about a new correspondence data base, and as I think you probably are aware, in the end the data base that was implemented was not a correspondence data base, but WhoDB, which is the data base that is used throughout the White House.
Mr. SHADEGG. So your January 17th data base didn't have to do with WhoDB?
Ms. MILLS. That was my impression at the time, that's correct.
Mr. SHADEGG. The second paragraph does talk about the new data base and you now agree with me that that is the WhoDB. And you are saying that it wasn't the WhoDB at the time?
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. MILLS. It was my impression at the time, through conversations and other materials that we had with respect to this, that it was not with regard to the WhoDB. As you probably are aware, there were many different data bases in the White House and there were many different designs that were considered as to what would be the final data base that was going to ultimately be used.
At this time, we are talking about using a system modeled on PeopleBase. Ultimately, they ended up using WhoDB, which is not modeled on PeopleBase.
Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Let's talk about the first sentence of the third paragraph. Let me turn your attention to that.
That sentence says, ''My team and I are involved in conversations with the DNC about the new system they are proposing.''
Do you see that?
Ms. MILLS. Yes.
Mr. SHADEGG. Do you have any idea why someone in the White House, a White House official, working with a team, presumably a team of Government officials, would be working on a DNC, or discussing working with the DNC on a data base?
Ms. MILLS. As you probably are aware, White House officials and others are allowed to engage in political activity and they are allowed to use their time in that way when they volunteer to provide political activity, so to the extent that Ms. Scott wanted to provide or make herself available to engage in those activities, provided she did not use Government resources, that would be perfectly consistent with the Hatch Act.
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. SHADEGG. Government resources seems to be a good question. This is on stationery which says the White House, Washington. I presume that would be a Government resource, wouldn't it?
Ms. MILLS. Yes, it would.
Mr. SHADEGG. OK. And I suppose it is going to be difficult to figure out what computer she used. But the paper certainly suggests that it may have been a White House computer?
Ms. MILLS. Well, the paper—yes, I would certainly think that.
Mr. SHADEGG. OK. I guess I just have to—I find it curious that you don't produce this document, which I think clearly references the WhoDB, and I think any reasonable mind would conclude that, and it contains this information in it, which is rather embarrassing to the White House, and we are talking about responding to a request from our committee before the 1996 election, a document that gets set aside and not produced until months after the 1996 election.
And I just have to tell you that from my perspective, it is a little bit difficult to believe that it wasn't concern about those embarrassing comments in there, and I have only been able to go over one—there are several others in there, references to working with this data base and coordinating it with the DNC and trading information back and forth. I find it a little bit hard to believe that that didn't influence the decision not to produce it.
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
And I guess, since unfortunately my time has run out, I find it even more curious, when you go to the document you did refer to, which you said you did find in September, which shows—and now we will put that one up on the screen—which shows the First Lady's notation that says, ''This sounds promising; please advise,'' and has the First Lady's initials on it.
Ms. MILLS. Right. As I probably indicated to you, the one that we were reviewing did not have the First Lady's handwriting on it.
But one thing I would like to point out, we gave careful advice to the staff regarding what was and wasn't appropriate for them to do and they were very clear on the fact that they could not share data from the White House data base with other data bases unless there was some official purpose.
And in that regard, I think one of the things I would like to try and address in your statement is that people have to observe the rules, but when they observe the rules they properly can work with the DNC or other entities provided that they observe the appropriate rules, and it is my understanding that that is what they did.
Mr. SHADEGG. Well, except that the appropriate—if I could, Mr. Chairman, just two comments, briefly. The appropriate rules include not using White House resources, that's not one and, No. 2, this memo is clearly responsive, as Mr. Ruff has indicated, to our request whether it had the First Lady's initials on it or not.
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. MILLS. Right. At that time, I probably had a little bit greater familiarity because we were working through all of the different data bases. There were numerous data bases, as I think the correspondence back and forth with Mr. McIntosh indicated. He indicated an interest in the WhoDB data base.
Ultimately, the data base that was implemented was WhoDB, but there were numerous other models and prototypes that were considered prior to that time.
Mr. SHADEGG. Maybe we will have to ask Mrs. Scott whether or not this is, in fact, the WhoDB. I believe that's what she was working on. Thank you.
Ms. MILLS. OK. But that is not my impression at the time.
Mr. BURTON. The time of the gentleman has expired. But I would like just to add one additional question here because it is relevant and it is timely.
The next paragraph on the next page says, ''The time to act is now. Cloning or duplicating data base systems is not difficult if carefully planned by a good design team. We have proven that it can also be done relatively quickly and inexpensively. Therefore, I suggest that instead of continuing with an old outdated system, PeopleBase, that does not meet our current demands, let my team work with the DNC to help design a system that will meet our needs and technical specifications. We can show them what to do and then clone another system for our specific uses later on,'' which looks like, to a person just reading that paragraph, that they wanted a system that would work together with the other for political purposes.
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. MILLS. They were talking about their outside data bases and they did want those to be able to work together.
Mr. BURTON. Outside. What was the other outside data base if it wasn't the DNC?
Ms. MILLS. There is PeopleBase, the DNC and the campaign.
Mr. BURTON. But they were talking about a data base that was going to be consistent with the DNC one, one they could clone. What was that for, the other one?
Ms. MILLS. I believe at the time——
Mr. BURTON. There was the DNC. What is the other one for?
Ms. MILLS. Which one, the campaign?
Mr. BURTON. No. If you read what they say there, it says, ''let my team work with the DNC to help them design a system that will meet our needs and technical specifications.''
Ms. MILLS. That was with respect to information that they had from the campaign where they wanted to create a place where that information could ultimately end up residing, and they wanted that to be consistent and compatible with the DNC's.
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. BURTON. But they were talking about the DNC——
Mr. FATTAH. She is agreeing with you.
Mr. BURTON. And then in the next sentence it says, ''We can show them what to do and then clone another system for our specific uses later on.''
It sounded like they were talking about a DNC system and another system that would be the same. Explain to me what the other system was. Is that the White House?
Ms. MILLS. No. It was the campaign.
Mr. BURTON. The DNC and the Presidential campaign?
Ms. MILLS. They wanted the DNC's data base to be consistent with whatever data base they ultimately ended up creating for the campaign, so that they would be compatible.
Mr. BURTON. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to really apologize to the two witnesses who are being asked to duplicate their testimony today, and I really see no need for it.
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
I really feel like it is sort of a déjá vu all over again. I think that we are just reviewing what took place in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committees. And I think we ought to think about not only talking to the same witnesses, Mr. Chairman, we ought to talk about stealing their budget.
The Senate committee managed to hold 32 hearings. They called 81 witnesses. They spent $2.2 million. This committee has spent $3 million and this is only the third day of testimony.
So, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Breuer are 2 of 29 witnesses who have been doubly deposed, and I really feel it has been unfair to you and your time.
There has been a great deal of talk today about videos, but there is one video that wasn't shown, that I wish we had, and I was talking earlier about Triad and the resulting expenditure of $5 million in attack ads and asked the chairman when he would be subpoenaing witnesses in that respect, but according to the Washington Post they talk about a video where a Republican Senator, Don Nickels, appears and in the film he says, and I quote, ''I think Triad is a fantastic organization. This is a very effective organization that is going in and helping us in those races that are close, in those races that are targeted.''
According to the Washington Post and National Journal Report, this was filmed in part in his Senate office. And I would like to request from the chairman if he would likewise show this tape at these hearings.
But we do happen to have a tape, a tape that was filmed in 1987 in the East Room with our former President Ronald Reagan speaking, and I would like to ask if we could show that tape. I think we should be able to show some tapes on the Democratic side.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
And while they are preparing it, I would like to simply ask the chairman—well, he is in conversation.
Mr. BURTON. I beg your pardon.
Mrs. MALONEY. I am getting ready to show a tape and I wanted you to see this.
Mr. BURTON. OK. Thank you.
[Videotape shown.]
Mr. WAXMAN. I think those tapes were altered.
Mrs. MALONEY. There are a whole list of them here, 10. We won't have time to look at all of them. But, Mr. Chairman, I would really like to request that the tape of the Triad fund-raising appeal be played at this committee so that tapes that are current can be shown. This was in the past. But we have read—again, it hasn't been before any of the hearings, but we have read in the papers, the papers have covered how Triad used a shield of not-for-profit organizations, giving tax breaks to American citizens to donate for political campaigns and they would then target it into vulnerable campaigns to defeat Democrats.
And I think that this is a loophole that needs to be changed in our law. As I mentioned earlier, Congressman Horn and I have a bill in that would require all of these so-called not-for-profits, such as Triad's Citizens for Reform—it sounds very nonpartisan but, in fact, according to the documents in the press, it was very partisan and totally funded to defeat Democratic candidates. But not to get partisan, I just think that we should look at this loophole. We should close it.
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
And I, again, appeal to the chairman to have a hearing focusing on Citizens for Reform and some of these so-called independent groups that have, in some cases, spent twice as much as a candidate spends.
We had an example just a week ago in New York where in the last week of the campaign, they came in and spent $1 million of soft money. This type of thing is going on, and I think, at the very least, the American public should know who is trying to buy their vote or influence the election; and under the current laws, the soft money does not have to be disclosed.
I think it should be banned, but at the very least, we should disclose who is making these contributions.
And since the press has covered this in detail, I think that at least we should have one governmental hearing on this issue.
Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady's time has expired. Let me just say, as I said before with Lanny Davis before the media a while ago—I see his smiling face out there in the audience—that we are certainly going to look at Triad. We may very well subpoena records from them.
So we are going to be as fair as we possibly can in the investigation. If we find illegal campaign contributions, we are going to try to pursue that.
Let me just say—yes, ma'am?
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mrs. MALONEY. You mentioned you were going to be as fair as we possibly can.
Mr. BURTON. That's true.
Mrs. MALONEY. Very respectfully, why have you approved four consultants for your side of the aisle, yet the consultant that the ranking member tried to have hired for the Democrats was not approved?
If you talk about—you have got us outgunned four to zero, why not just be three to one?
Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady, if she was here—I think she was here when we had our discussion yesterday; and the vote on that, it was clear—at least I hope—from my remarks that if the contractual agreement with the Emerald Group that you were talking about was consistent with the one that we had for Mr. Bennett, we probably would have had no problem.
I also said in my remarks that I was more than willing to work with Mr. Waxman to try to work out our differences so that you could hire a consultant that you felt comfortable with.
Now, let me just end up by saying, we have two more people Mr. Barr has not had a second round, nor Mr. Snowbarger. Then what I would like to do is have Mr. Bennett conclude, because our witnesses have been here for a long time, and I know they are getting a little tired. They are getting saddle sores.
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thought we agreed that you were going to have two on your side and then we would have two on our side.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fattah, the Chair wants to be fair. Let me go to Mr. Snowbarger. Then we will come back to someone on your side and then we will go to Mr. Barr and then we will—if it is all right with you, we will go to Mr. Bennett and then wind up.
Mrs. MALONEY. Point of information.
Mr. BURTON. The gentlelady will state her point.
Mrs. MALONEY. I would just like to clarify for the record, in response to your statement, Mr. Waxman agreed—correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Waxman—that our consultant would apply and follow the same guidelines as Mr. Bennett.
Is that correct, Mr. Waxman?
Mr. WAXMAN. Yes.
Mrs. MALONEY. I thought that's what you said yesterday. So, in other words, we said we would—or rather Mr. Waxman said on behalf of the Democrats that we would abide—our consultant would abide by the exact same guidelines as your consultants. Yet you hired yours and not a Democratic one. And I think it is—you are in the majority; you can have three to one. But to have four to zero and to sit here and talk about fairness, it is a little unfair to try to act like you are fair when you are not being fair.
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. BURTON. Mrs. Maloney, I will talk with you about this later. I think we can work out our differences.
Let me go to Mr. Snowbarger.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to make these brief.
Ms. Mills, I am trying to understand exactly how documents were handled in the White House. When you sent out your requests for information, they—as I understand it, they came back into the Legal Office, and when they came into the Legal Office, you would put them in folders that would show the source, in other words, where they had come from.
Is that a fair description?
Ms. MILLS. That's a fair description with respect to the Quinn directive.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. OK. Just so I make sure, so if a document, say, came from Harold Ickes, it would be in a file either labeled with his office or his name.
If it came from the Social Office, there would be a file from the Social Office, that kind of thing?
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. MILLS. Correct.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. OK. And so with a system like that, you would at least be able to know where the document originated from?
Ms. MILLS. Typically, that's what we try to do when we have sufficient time to be able to do that, correct.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. OK.
Mr. Ruff, I think we were told yesterday that the handwritten document that we have talked about over the last couple of days, that was discovered in 1996 but not produced until, I guess it was last week sometime, that that was written by Brian Bailey.
Mr. RUFF. So I understand, yes.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. The production log that you gave us for that particular numbered document indicates that the source of that document was the Office of the White House Counsel.
Is Mr. Bailey in that office?
Mr. RUFF. No, he is not.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Has he ever been in that office?
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. RUFF. I don't believe so, at least——
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Then why would we be told that the source of that was the White House Counsel's Office?
Mr. RUFF. Well, perhaps I can have Ms. Mills respond, but I believe it reflects that, as has already been explained at some length, that document was found in a folder contained in files stored in the White House Counsel's Office; and that's fully explained in my letter to Mr. McIntosh.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. So you aggregated all these files from various sources that might have had labels at some point in time, telling us where they came from, but now everything comes from the White House Counsel's Office?
Mr. RUFF. No, sir. But you are candidly out of my depth, because I didn't actually find the document. So let me——
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Well, we can have Ms. Mills——
Mr. RUFF. But I would be happy to explain it to you at length if—either—if there is someone here who can do it, or I will get you the information.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Well, if Ms. Mills could respond to that. I am confused. We are trying to find out where documents like this come from.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. MILLS. Right.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. And obviously, if we are told that everything that we are getting now is coming from the White House Counsel's Office, we are not—we are not going to know much about the document.
Ms. MILLS. No. I can understand that.
With respect to the WhoDB document request, we actually collected documents, and on the day they were collected, they were asked to be produced. So we did not have the time that we would ordinarily have to go through those documents and provide them with respect to what files and offices they came from.
Indeed, we asked people just to send the records and we started Bates Stamping as soon as they came in and producing them so we could produce them in a timely fashion.
Those materials were reviewed and placed in a file because they were not produced at that time, so they remained in the Counsel's Office, and I believe that's the reason why it says the Counsel's Office.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. There was no attempt whatsoever in your files to make a notation where the document originated from?
Ms. MILLS. At that time we did not have sufficient time to be able to do that because we were asked to produce documents on the day that people turned them into our office.
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. SNOWBARGER. So what was the label of the file that you put this into?
Ms. MILLS. Nonresponsive.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Nonresponsive?
Ms. MILLS. Correct.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. OK. Understanding our concern about trying to be able to find sources—I mean, we don't want to have to go and depose everyone in the White House to find out whose handwriting this is.
Ms. MILLS. No. I understand that. I think if you have documents that you all have questions about, I think we have tried to be responsive in identifying where they came from.
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Well, if you could, we have a number of documents that are listed here as White House Counsel's Office, M 33292 through 33302; I would ask at a minimum that we get a log that shows us specifically where those documents came from. And, again, I think—I suspect we have other production logs like this that are very general in nature, and I think we need to have that more specific information.
Mr. RUFF. As I indicated to Congressman McIntosh when he raised this issue a little earlier today, we will be happy to work with his committee staff to identify the source of any documents we can that are of particular concern.
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would yield back.
Mr. BURTON. Are you finished, Mr. Snowbarger?
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Yes, I yield back.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman has completed.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In our search for the truth, I have some final questions I just want to walk through.
Ms. Mills, you have been at the White House since—for how many years?
Ms. MILLS. Since January 20, 1993.
Mr. FATTAH. And during this period of time, you have had a number of different supervisors?
Ms. MILLS. Yes, that's fair to say.
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. FATTAH. Or people that you report to?
Ms. MILLS. Yes.
Mr. FATTAH. Can you lay them out in chronological order for us?
Ms. MILLS. I reported to Bernard Nussbaum. I subsequently reported to Lloyd Cutler. I subsequently reported to Ab Mikva. And I subsequently reported to Jack Quinn; and then I subsequently report to Chuck Ruff.
Mr. FATTAH. In all of the times that these issues that the committee has asked you about, did you have someone you were directly reporting to?
Ms. MILLS. Yes, indeed, with respect to these materials, I reviewed them.
Mr. FATTAH. In response to this particular issue about the memo that was termed to be nonresponsive, was it not your testimony yesterday that that was a decision jointly arrived at between you and White House Counsel Quinn?
Ms. MILLS. Yes.
Mr. FATTAH. The two of you made this decision?
Ms. MILLS. Yes. I put——
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. FATTAH. Because in subsequent questions by members of the committee, they seemed to have missed this point; that this was not an individual decision that was made by you.
Ms. MILLS. That's correct.
Mr. FATTAH. OK. So I just wanted to clarify the record. You also indicated that the subcommittee's response vis-a-vis this data base was quite specific, seven enumerated questions, and that, under the decision of the person who was your immediate supervisor and was, in fact, the ultimate authority on what was going to be responsive, both of you agreed that this was not responsive at that time?
Ms. MILLS. That's correct.
Mr. FATTAH. Now, Counsel Ruff has indicated to the committee that he has a different view of responding to this committee's requests. He says, we are going to give them everything, even those things that maybe are not responsive, so that we don't get accused of being not responsive.
Ms. MILLS. That's correct. I think a——
Mr. FATTAH. That is a different policy in the office, right?
Ms. MILLS. That's correct.
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. FATTAH. So whereas before you were responding to the specific nature of the subpoenas, this is a broader interpretation of what should be delivered?
Ms. MILLS. Correct; and it was a request, that's correct.
Mr. FATTAH. So that as we—and the other thing that you said, I think, in your testimony yesterday, was that substantially the same information that's in this document, that people keep going around and around about was available in other information that was provided?
Ms. MILLS. That's correct.
Mr. FATTAH. So that in all of this smoke, there was nothing that was being hidden from anyone?
Ms. MILLS. That's correct.
Mr. FATTAH. And that finally, when the chairman was asking you whether or not, when they talk about having these—these data bases being able to be compatible, that it was fully the White House's viewpoint that legally they could develop a data base that would serve a public purpose, but that also had the ability to be coordinated with data bases that were built and financed through political dollars?
Ms. MILLS. That's correct.
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. FATTAH. And that this was advice that various legal authorities had given to those who were producing this or preparing this data base?
Ms. MILLS. Correct.
Mr. FATTAH. So that at all times when those who were involved in the effort to produce the data base, they thought that they were acting and still believed that they were acting well within the color of the law?
Ms. MILLS. Yes, that's my understanding.
Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank you for your testimony. I want to thank all of you, and I want to thank the chairman for allowing me an opportunity to clarify the record as we conclude this hearing.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON. Would you yield to Mr. Mica?
Mr. FATTAH. I would be glad to yield.
Let me ask one last thing, though. I do want to ask unanimous consent—I know you provided a general unanimous consent to all
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Members. There is an article in this magazine on Triad Management and its activities, and I know that we are going to be searching for the truth in that direction and I thought maybe the committee might find it useful.
Mr. BURTON. Without objection.
[The article follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 99 TO 100 HERE
Mr. MICA. Just to clarify the record, if I may—and I thank the gentleman for yielding—there were comments made, I think, by the gentlelady from New York, and I am sorry she is not here, but I did want to clarify the record that, in fact, this committee on which I have served since 1992 has been very fair, both in the distribution of staff—when I came on this committee, there were 5 minority—we were in the minority—investigative staff and 55 staff. The record is clear. It will show that.
Also, in fact, the cost of this investigation is less than the cost, if you go back and look at the responsibilities we now have, is less than the cost of the similar operations under the 103d Congress, including the cost of this investigation, which is an important responsibility in this Congress that we get the facts from the executive branches and other agencies we oversee, and have that important responsibility for oversight and audit investigations.
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Thank you.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, let me again thank the chairman for his patience.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fattah, your eloquence has only been exceeded by your kindness, and it is great being with you. I hope you have a nice vote.
Mr. Bennett.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Ruff, Ms. Mills, Mr. Breuer, Mr. Nionakis, I just have about 2 1/2 hours of questions that I would like to pursue. No, just to wind up, as the chief counsel for this committee, I want to definitely let those that arrived at the White House in February or March, in a transition period, understand that I have been on this job less than 2 months. So just as you take certain attacks in terms of your conduct in office, I take it pretty seriously when Members from the other side of the aisle question what we are doing. I am still trying to catch up and do the best we can do in the fairest way possible.
In that regard, Mr. Ruff, I want to say that you and I have had some very delightful conversations, and Mr. Breuer, you and I have, and I am looking forward to working with both of you. And I want to commend you for your professionalism here today. We disagree on a lot of points but I would be remiss if I didn't note that for the record before I wind up.
Mr. RUFF. I appreciate it, Mr. Bennett. It will always be the case that our differences can be resolved or at least addressed through professional dialog, and that's what we have always had.
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. Just for the record, you and I have dealt with each other before over our careers. I am sure that relationship will continue.
Ms. Mills, if I can, just to pick up on a few points, because quite frankly I think some of these things really aren't in dispute, and I am just trying to clarify it and I am not—I don't mean that in an attacking way. I am just trying to clarify some matters.
You indicated earlier this afternoon, talking about the data base, that you were—you talked about the correspondence data base and the data base of the Correspondence Office as opposed to the WhoDB data base.
Ms. MILLS. Actually, there were several data bases and models that were considered, so it wasn't just that one. Subsequently, there were lots of different models that were considered before they settled on WhoDB.
Mr. BENNETT. I understand. But, for example, Marsha Scott was the prime force overseeing the development of WhoDB, isn't that correct?
Ms. MILLS. That is correct. She——
Mr. BENNETT. I am sorry.
Ms. MILLS. She looked at a number of different models before settling on WhoDB. At least that was my impression at the time.
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. And in January 1994, Marsha Scott was working in the White House Correspondence Office at that time, wasn't she?
Ms. MILLS. Right, that is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. It is that reason that you referred to the data base as the correspondence data base, because ultimately the correspondence data base became WhoDB, didn't it?
Ms. MILLS. Actually, I referred to it as the correspondence data base because, as you imagine, when staff comes to you they have different ideas about what it is they were going to do. At that particular time her interest was in setting up a data base that was related to correspondence. Obviously, over time, it evolved.
Mr. BENNETT. And ultimately it became WhoDB?
Ms. MILLS. Ultimately the model that they settled on for doing a wide variety of things, and not just the things related to correspondence, became WhoDB.
Mr. BENNETT. And if I can just go back in terms of where we were yesterday afternoon and clarify, in January 1994—you are the only holdover from the first term of the Clinton administration in the White House Counsel's Office, correct, you and Mr. Lindsey?
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. MILLS. You mean January 1997?
Mr. BENNETT. No, I am going to get to January 1994. Basically, as we speak now today, it is essentially you and Mr. Lindsey are the only two holdovers from the first term in terms of the White House Counsel's Office, isn't that correct? There is an entirely new team of lawyers that have——
Ms. MILLS. No, there are other lawyers who were in the Counsel's Office in President Clinton's first term who are in the White House.
Mr. BENNETT. I am sorry. In terms of investigations, then. I must have misspoken. Mr. Breuer came in?
Ms. MILLS. Ms. Paxton was in the Counsel's Office in the first administration. She was on the investigative team.
Mr. BENNETT. All right. I apologize for my confusion, then.
Ms. MILLS. That's OK.
Mr. BENNETT. Directing your attention to January 17, 1994, in a document that we have had before, there you set forth very clearly the standard in that memorandum, accurately noting that with respect to the creation of a data base, that it becomes Government property and that data from that data base system may be provided to sources outside the Federal Government only for authorized purposes. Correct?
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. MILLS. I believe that's correct.
Mr. BENNETT. And essentially you clearly set forth the legal standard to be applied with respect to that—I can assure you, I don't intend to take 20 minutes, I promise you—that standard having been set. Correct me if I am wrong.
But then looking at the handwritten notes of Mr. Brian Bailey, I believe that's exhibit 147, clearly there is no dispute, is there, that with respect to that suggestion—and this is a document that was recently turned over, and I am not going to get into the matter of the timing right now, but clearly as to that document where it says, ''make sure WhoDB is integrated with the DNC data base so we can share,'' and the notes there, clearly those—those notes would reflect, in your opinion, an improper political use of the computer at the White House, would it not?
[Exhibit 147 follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 101 HERE
Ms. MILLS. It was actually my impression that what they were ultimately hoping to do was create a data base that would allow them to share with the White House, and I think Mr. Bailey has indicated, I guess through a statement he released yesterday, that that was also his intention.
Mr. BENNETT. I understand that. But my point is, is that ultimately there isn't any question that you testified today that clearly that is an improper—this document that is on the screen now clearly reflects an improper use of the data base, would it not?
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. MILLS. You and I have a different interpretation of this document. I understood this document to be referencing—because I was aware that Mr. Bailey was apprised of the rules with regard to sharing of information—that this was speaking of sharing information that could be included in the White House data base.
Mr. BENNETT. But my point to you is, clearly as you speak today, you would acknowledge that that document that's on the screen does not meet the standard that you set in January 1994?
Ms. MILLS. I think there was some debate earlier about what it means to be integrated but I think, at least as I understand this document, I understood it to be sharing of information with the White House; and Mr. Bailey has indicated that that is what his own notes meant.
Mr. BENNETT. I am just trying to understand what the position of the White House was in the Washington Post today. It is my understanding that clearly, if you did not state directly, perhaps Mr. Davis in the back of the hearing room or someone indicated that the White House now takes the position that this document should have been disclosed in response to the request by Congressman McIntosh's subcommittee in August. Is that correct?
Ms. MILLS. I think certainly to have eliminated any debate about its responsiveness, I would happily have provided this document because there is nothing in this document that concerns me with regard to the materials. But one of the things I obviously was trying to do at the time that we got the request was be particularly responsive to the materials—the request as it was laid out, and as we put this document against the request as it was laid out, we did not believe it was responsive. But I would have happily provided it to avoid any of the debate that we are having right now.
Page 320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. Hold on 1 second, please.
If I can on this screen, if we can have exhibit 155, and that is the request from Congressman McIntosh's committee. And as to paragraph 3 that is being highlighted there—again, I don't want to—it is late in the day and I don't want to belabor this point but I think that with all the discussions, some things are pretty clear here, it seems to me.
Clearly you set an appropriate standard, rightfully so, in January 1994. Clearly there is a document, which is my understanding there is not much dispute about now, doesn't meet that standard and implied improper uses. And I am not castings aspersions on you but clearly it was a suggestion that it would not meet your standard.
Looking at exhibit 155, paragraph 3, if you want to take a look on the screen, clearly the suggestion in terms of the political use and integration with the DNC would fall within that request, paragraph 3, wouldn't it?
[Exhibit 155 follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 102 TO 105 HERE
Ms. MILLS. I think that as we looked at this request, we noted that Mr. McIntosh had made distinctions between instances where he was seeking all documents and instances where he was seeking communications. I think if you look at 3, he indicates he is seeking communications. I think if you look at 4, 6, and 7, he had indicated documents.
Page 321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
So I think at that time, when we were setting this beside his request and trying to be uniquely responsive, that's how we interpreted it, and we interpreted Mr. Bailey's own notes as not being responsive.
I understand that there is a debate. I have no interest in a debate. I quite clearly find it something that we could provide. It was nothing I was concerned about and don't really believe it is worth debating, because you all have the document and there is nothing to hide or be concerned about.
Mr. BENNETT. Right. I want to get to that. I want to get to that. I understand now the position is it is not worth debating and that the White House has now essentially in the Washington Post today said you should have had the document; you didn't get it. So I don't think there is any real dispute about it being within the requirements of paragraph 3.
Ms. MILLS. I think probably Mr. Quinn's own statement is he probably would dispute that. I just don't—I don't know.
Mr. BENNETT. I don't know who made the statement. Is Mr. Quinn speaking for the White House? I am talking about what is quoted in the paper today.
Ms. MILLS. No. I think at that time we were reviewing the materials, and I think there are a number of things. And I just think that we tried to be uniquely responsive to the request as it was drafted. We assumed that Mr. McIntosh intended something in particular with respect to stating ''communications.''
Page 322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. BURTON. Let me just interrupt. The appearance is that you were splitting hairs in order not to comply with the intent of the memo.
Ms. MILLS. Actually, Mr.——
Mr. BURTON. You know——
Ms. MILLS. Mr. Burton, I can understand and appreciate that concern, and I think one of the things we tried to do was be very responsive to this request because we had such a short period of time to try and address it. And I can appreciate how that might appear, and it is certainly the reason why I think it is not worth any debate and would provide it, and if I sat here tomorrow and knew that you all would be seeking this document again, I would certainly provide it.
I think what we tried to do was be uniquely responsive to your requests. And I appreciate your concern.
Mr. BENNETT. Just to wind up, and I will come back in just 1 second, Ms. Mills; Mr. Ruff, in terms of this whole point in these documents, clearly this document that was turned over—and I know that you wrote a very professional letter to Congressman McIntosh's subcommittee on October 28th, extending apologies and turning the document over—clearly that document was within the requirement of paragraph 3 of Congressman McIntosh's request; wasn't it?
Page 323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. RUFF. Mr. Bennett, you will appreciate that it is very difficult for me to put myself back in the setting of last September because I had no involvement with this, no knowledge of the matter then or any discussions there were with Mr. McIntosh's committee and his staff.
My view of this is, and without using the—abusing the chairman's language, by the time we got around to dealing with Mr. McIntosh's committee, after I arrived, there had been a considerably heated exchange of documents. In an effort to sort of cool the temperatures, I simply said, look, if it is even within shouting distance of responsiveness, produce it. This document is clearly within shouting distance.
Whether I would have made the same call in September or not is something I simply can't put myself in the position to make.
Mr. BENNETT. And I understand your reluctance to second-guess Mr. Quinn. But, essentially, Mr. Ruff, there is no question, as you make that call today, that clearly that document was within the request, should have been turned over, and you have turned it over, correct?
Mr. RUFF. I have turned it over. As you quite properly said, I would never and don't intend to put myself in Mr. Quinn's shoes for this purpose.
Mr. BENNETT. And in light of the acknowledgment of the White House in today's Washington Post in terms of clearly it should have been turned over and it wasn't, just as—from the position of White House counsel, there is a concern about an overbreadth with respect to subpoenas and requests of documents, and something that I certainly will be sensitive to in acting in my role as chief counsel, the point of this exercise is to show that to the extent that there is this kind of fine hairsplitting, when clearly lawyers, regardless of their political persuasion, can clearly see that a document is required and then it is not turned over and then there is later acknowledgment by the White House spin office, well, yes, you are right, we should have turned it over, that causes the overbreadth of the request.
Page 324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
And I can assure you on our side we will seek, to you and Mr. Breuer and to others, not to have these requests be too cumbersome. And in response we would hope that we would not have this fine hairsplitting, because as I think we would agree in light of the tone of some of the questions today, it upsets members of this committee and raises suspicions, whether justifiable or not.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Mr. RUFF. I understand your concerns. I can guarantee you that my hairsplitting tools are nowhere to be found. We take a responsible, but I hope a broadly reasonable, approach to responding to this committee's requests.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Ruff, Mr. Breuer.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr has returned and I promised Mr. Barr before we adjourned I would give him one more brief round for questioning. He has not finished his second round, Mr. Fattah.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, the majority has just used up at least 13 minutes, and now you are suggesting that you be given another 5 without an opportunity for the minority to speak?
Page 325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fattah, under the agreement that was agreed to by both sides at the beginning, with each group of witnesses there was supposed to be 30 minutes for both majority and minority counsel.
Mr. FATTAH. If you think it is fair, Mr. Chairman, I will go along with you. Do you think that is fair?
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fattah, I always want to be fair. Would you like to question some more?
Mr. FATTAH. I just want to clarify for the record one more time, Ms. Mills, Jack Quinn was your supervisor?
Ms. MILLS. Yes.
Mr. FATTAH. And when you conferred with him about whether this was responsive, you jointly made the decision that it was not responsive?
Ms. MILLS. That is correct.
Mr. FATTAH. And then at a subsequent time, Mr. Ruff was your supervisor?
Ms. MILLS. That is correct.
Page 326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. FATTAH. The person you reported to?
Ms. MILLS. Yes.
Mr. FATTAH. You conferred with him?
Ms. MILLS. Yes.
Mr. FATTAH. You decided that it was responsive?
Ms. MILLS. And I concurred with producing the document.
Mr. FATTAH. And you provided the document?
Ms. MILLS. Correct.
Mr. FATTAH. Thank you.
Mr. BURTON. Before I yield for a final group of questions, and then we can all go have an egg salad sandwich, Mr. Ruff, the committee will submit questions to you for the record and would appreciate if you would make sure that they are answered in a timely fashion.
Mr. RUFF. I will do my very best, Mr. Chairman.
Page 327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr.
Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to just return briefly to two particular topics that we have touched on. One which has been touched on by a number of people, and I do this at the risk of having folks on the other side complain again about repeating ourselves, but I think it does bear repeating.
Mr. Ruff, both you and Ms. Mills have continually, and I can understand why, when we put up—if you would put up this document, refer to this document, you all keep using the word ''compatible'' or ''compatibility'' or whatnot. I can understand why you want to do that because using a word like ''compatible,'' which is a word used in one—in this other memo, may make the difference between something being legal and illegal.
If you have two data bases, one that belongs to the taxpayers of this country, that is used for the use of the President and his administration for official purposes, and if you have another one that is a political data base not paid for by the taxpayers of this country to be used for whatever political purposes, a political campaign or the DNC or the RNC wants to use it, then that is fine. And you can take steps, I believe, under the law to make those two systems compatible. I don't think that there is any inherent illegality or any inference of illegality if that is what we are talking about.
This document says something very different, and it puts us, I believe, squarely in the realm of an inference of and evidence of illegality. When you go from making two systems compatible to integrating systems, that is very different.
Page 328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
And I think also, if you look at the specific language on exhibit 162–2 in the first paragraph on page 2, I think you also very clearly go from the realm of something that is OK to do, and that is simply taking steps by the two entities, discretely, making sure that their data bases are compatible, you go from that into people at the White House putting together a data base directly for a political entity, the DNC or an outside campaign, and you discuss, as this document does, more than just making those two systems compatible, even though they are discrete, to exchanging data back and forth, taking data from one to the other, you go from the realm of something that has the presumption of something that is permissible and legal into the area, the arena, of something that is possibly illegal and for which there is an inference of illegality.
[Note.—Exhibit 162–2 can be found on p. 112.]
Mr. BARR. So I understand why you all are very hesitant to use the terminology that appears in this document and shy away from what is here.
My only point is, I think we are talking about something, quite aside from the obstruction, which I believe has been practiced in holding on to this document as being nonresponsive when clearly on its face it is clearly responsive, and this other document as well, for the time that it was withheld, I think that we are talking about something—and my only distress over this point, Mr. Ruff, is that you won't even admit that there is a possibility that maybe something had gone wrong here or there is at least some possible inference or possible illegality.
Page 329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. RUFF. May I——
Mr. BARR. I think clearly there is.
Mr. RUFF. May I respond briefly, Mr. Congressman?
Mr. BARR. Briefly, please.
Mr. RUFF. Yes. First of all, let's talk—the word ''integrated'' is, of course, neither your word nor mine. It is Mr. Bailey's word. I have no idea, I have not spoken to Mr. Bailey, about what he intended, although I understand he has made a public statement yesterday suggesting that he understood what the rules were and intended to abide by them.
But even beyond that, let's assume the very worst, that Mr. Bailey, when he wrote this memo, believed that it was all right or didn't believe that it was all right, to integrate the data bases. To my knowledge, there is not a single piece of evidence anywhere that, in fact, anything wrong was ever done with respect to the construction or use of WHoDB.
If there is evidence of impropriety, I am sure that the authorities will pursue it properly and deal appropriately with the people involved.
Mr. BARR. Well, I know that you taught, and very ably, contract law at Georgetown and not criminal law, but I must assume that you are familiar, for example.
Page 330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. RUFF. I also taught criminal law. Not to you, Congressman.
Mr. BARR. OK. Then I know that you would be familiar with, for example, the law of conspiracy, criminal conspiracy, that one can engage in and be convicted of engaging in a conspiracy even though one ultimately may extricate themselves from that conspiracy and that would shield them from liability after they withdraw if, in fact, they actually withdraw.
But the fact that ultimately the two data bases may not have been fully implemented and integrated does not mean that there were not steps taken in that direction which at least on the surface it appears to me that there were. And to simply say, well, just because eventually the ultimate or an ultimate crime was not consummated does not mean something wrong occurred leading up to the point where that decision may have been made.
Mr. RUFF. Both of us used to hold the same job, one in Atlanta and the other in the District of Columbia, in which we tested matters against available evidence to determine whether, in fact, there was any basis to believe that criminal activity had occurred.
In my judgment, Congressman, with all due respect, there is absolutely no evidence of any such activity in this case.
Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman's time has expired.
Page 331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
The gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Our side is entitled to half-hour questions. I can't imagine going through anything more. This has been redundant. It is now quarter after 5 in the afternoon. You have been here since 10 in the morning today, not that we have had all that time for questions and answers but almost all that time. We had breaks for votes on the floor.
You were here yesterday almost all day as well. I don't think after all of those hours we have learned anything that we didn't know already. I apologize to you on behalf of those of us who are offended by some of our colleagues who I think were bullying you, but there is nothing more—unless you have something more you want to say, there is nothing more I have to ask you.
Mr. RUFF. Well, I would like to stay and chat for another half-hour or so.
Mr. WAXMAN. Do you want to speak into the microphone?
Mr. RUFF. I would like to stay and chat for another half-hour or so but in deference to my colleagues, who aren't as filled with stamina as I am, I think I would be happy to go home.
Mr. WAXMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, on the assumption that you are not going to have more people ask questions, we will yield back our time.
Page 332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. WAXMAN. No, no, we yield back our time.
Mr. BURTON. The gentleman yields back the balance of the time.
Mr. Ruff, we would like to ask the Counsel's Office to review the depositions we discussed on Wednesday by early next week regarding executive privilege concerns so that we can make your deposition part of the public record.
Mr. RUFF. We will do that and get back to Mr. Bennett as quickly as possible, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BURTON. Once again, I want to thank you and Lanny Davis for being with us. Lanny, it is good seeing you.
We thank you for being with us today. We are sorry for the delays that were caused by the actions on the floor. But we appreciate your help and your patience. Thank you.
Mr. RUFF. Appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The depositions of Cheryl Mills, Michael Imbroscio, Dimitri Nionakis, Lanny Breuer, Jack Quinn, Steven Smith, Colonel Joseph Simmons, and Alan Sullivan follow:]
Page 333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Executive Session
| Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, |
| U.S. House of Representatives, |
| Washington, DC. |
DEPOSITION OF: CHERYL D. MILLS
The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 8:15 a.m.
Appearances:
Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Barbara Comstock, Chief Investigative Counsel; Uttam Dhillon, Senior Investigative Counsel; Kristi Remington, Investigative Counsel; Kenneth Ballen, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel; Christopher Lu, Minority Counsel; David Sadkin, Minority Counsel; and David Jones, Staff Assistant.
For MS. MILLS:
W. NEIL EGGLESTON, ESQ.
Page 334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Howrey & Simon
1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 200040–2402
Ms. COMSTOCK. Good morning. We are on the record this morning for the deposition of Cheryl Mills, Deputy Counsel at the White House. She is joined this morning by her counsel, Neil Eggleston. My name is Barbara Comstock. I am the designated Majority counsel this morning. I will be joined by David Jones and later Kristi Remington.
I will at this time ask Minority counsel to identify themselves.
Mr. BALLEN. Ken Ballen.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Ken, you will be designated counsel this morning?
Mr. BALLEN. Yes. Also present are David Sadkin and Chris Lu.
Ms. COMSTOCK. We are going to skip the preliminary statement this morning by agreement with counsel and the Minority, and also skip over Ms. Mills' background and get right into matters so as to expedite and shorten things up here.
Mr. EGGLESTON. That's fine.
Page 335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
THEREUPON, CHERYL D. MILLS, a witness, was called for examination by Counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Ms. Mills, your official title is Deputy Counsel to the President?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And Special Assistant?
Answer. Deputy Assistant.
Question. Deputy Assistant to the President?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Okay. And who do you report directly to?
Answer. Chuck Ruff.
Question. And do you have anybody else that you have any reporting capacity to?
Page 336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. We all report to the President of the United States.
Question. Okay. Is there anybody in the Deputy Chief of Staff's office to whom you report?
Answer. I report to Chuck Ruff.
Question. So there is nobody other than in the Chief of Staff's office or the Deputy Chief of Staff's office that you report to on a regular basis?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. You are familiar in the past that Jane Sherburne had a reporting relationship to Harold Ickes?
Answer. I am familiar with that description.
Question. And have you ever, in your capacity as the Deputy Counsel, had any type of reporting relationship like that to the Deputy Counsel—I mean Deputy Chief of Staff's office or Chief of Staff's office?
Answer. No.
Question. Who are the attorneys in the Counsel's Office who work under you, directly, on a day-to-day basis?
Page 337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. Well, as Deputy Counsel you just have general supervisory responsibilities and there is a list of people who work in our office who would fall under that.
Question. Okay. In that capacity, do you then have a role overseeing Mr. Breuer and his team of attorneys and paralegals that work on special investigations?
Answer. Well, Mr. Breuer reports to Chuck Ruff, and so I think we have more of a consultative relationship with the attorneys who work under them. Yes, I am still responsible for them if there are administrative issues, including Lanny's, like parking, office space and all the other attractive things that go with my position.
Question. On a day-to-day basis do attorneys from Mr. Breuer's office come to you for advice and information?
Answer. I try to be available for all attorneys so if they have questions or things they would like to talk to me about—I am always responsive to them like I am responsive to anybody else in the office.
Question. Are there other attorneys in the Counsel's Office—you began your work in the Counsel's Office on January 20th, 1993; is that correct?
Answer. Yes.
Page 338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. Are there other attorneys in the Counsel's Office who have as long a tenure as you do at this time?
Answer. Bruce Lindsey began on January 20th. He was not in the Counsel's Office at that time. He was Director of Presidential Personnel. But he has been in the White House since that time period. There are a couple of attorneys who are in the vetting shop who have been there probably from a very early point, but I can't identify what date it would be.
Question. Okay. Who is that?
Answer. Stacey Reynolds has been there for quite a period of time.
Question. Is there anybody else who has been there since '93 or so?
Answer. Not that I can recall them sitting here right now.
Question. Would it be fair to say that you have the most historical knowledge then of the Counsel's Office at this point of the people who are there at this time?
Answer. It is certainly fair to say I have been there the longest.
Question. Okay. Did there come a time where you became involved in handling matters related to fund-raising investigations?
Page 339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. Yes.
Question. And when was that?
Answer. October 30th, 1996.
Question. Could you tell us how that came about?
Answer. Ms. Sherburne, who had been handling the matters as they had begun to arise, indicated that she was going to be leaving the Counsel's Office and at that time those—that responsibility for the campaign finance issues was transitioned to me.
Question. Did Ms. Sherburne speak with you about this matter?
Answer. Sure, she did. She just went through the different files and materials that she had when she was transferring.
Question. All right. What files did she transfer to you?
Answer. She had created basically newspaper clipping files of different people based on the different articles and other things like that that had occurred, and so in those files she basically transferred all of those different materials to me.
Question. All right. Do you recall how many files there were?
Page 340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. I don't.
Question. Bigger than a bread box?
Answer. It was, I would say, two bread boxes, maybe.
Question. Did it deal with matters relating to John Huang?
Answer. It dealt with all the matters related to campaign finance, including John Huang. So if there were articles at that time, which I believe there were, about John Huang, there would have been materials related to that as well.
Question. Would it have included things such as a $250,000 contribution that—to Chong Yam (phonetic) at that time?
Answer. I don't recall if there were newspaper articles, or things like that, about that at that time; it would have likely included that. I can't really specifically recall all the different materials.
Question. Did anybody else in the Counsel's Office speak with you about taking over these duties?
Answer. Mr. Quinn.
Page 341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. All right. And what did he ask you to do?
Answer. He basically said it was a transitionary matter if I could handle this until we hired someone to take responsibility for doing the same position that Ms. Sherburne had done.
Question. All right. And prior to—this was October 30th when you started with these duties?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Had you been involved in any of these matters prior to October 30th?
Answer. Not really. I am sure if people had questions related to political activity or something like that or about the Hatch Act, they would have called and asked me a question, but I wasn't involved in the day-to-day handling of it.
Question. Okay. Now, prior to this, had you been involved in any advisory capacities about fund-raising or campaign matters?
Answer. I don't understand your question.
Question. You said you generally dealt with Hatch Act things, that was one of the things that you dealt with.
Page 342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. One of my issue areas of responsibility was the Hatch Act, yes.
Question. In that capacity, did you ever write any memos to White House employees on how to handle political activities at the White House?
Answer. Yes.
Question. All right. And could you describe what you did in that capacity?
Answer. As a general matter, we provide guidance to the staff, and I think you are probably familiar with it in the form of the Ab Mikva 1995 memoranda on political activity, but we provide that kind of advice and guidance to the staff regarding political activity.
Question. I am showing the memo the witness has mentioned, which is an April 27th, 1995 memo, to White House staff from Abner Mikva, Counsel to the President at that time, and Cheryl Mills, Associate Counsel to the President in 1995.
The topic of this memo is Presidential Campaign-Related Political Activity. We don't have a Bates stamp number on this document.
Could you describe the purpose of this memo?
Page 343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. EGGLESTON. Are you going to mark this as an exhibit?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes. I will make this Deposition Exhibit No. 1.
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–1 was marked for identification.]
[Note.—All exhibits referred to may be found at end of deposition on p. 323.]
The WITNESS. Could you repeat your question?
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Could you describe the purpose of this memo?
Answer. The purpose of the memo is to advise staff regarding rules with respect to the Hatch Act and other obligations that we have as Federal employees with respect to political activity.
Question. Directing your attention to page 3 of this memo, item No. 3, which actually is marked——
Ms. COMSTOCK. I will just note for the record the copy that we have has been marked. This is a copy that we had received informally. So these are not markings, I believe, from the White House and they aren't the witness' markings. They just are markings on this document.
Page 344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. BALLEN. I would note for the record the last page of the document is a fax apparently from C. Boyden Gray at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, dated March 4th, 1997.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Actually, I think that may go to another document, so why don't we take that off because I don't think that came with this. There are some other memos by Mr. Gray that that may have gone with. So thank you for identifying that.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Just so that I am clear on the record, the document that was labeled Mills 1 had attached to it a memorandum from Boyden Gray, who was Counsel to the President in a Republican administration. I take it you are not telling us you got this memorandum from Mr. Gray; he has transmitted other documents to you and that relates to that?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes. Actually, I am not sure—I am not sure—I know we have gotten this memo somehow informally. I think we may have actually gotten a copy ultimately from the White House also. I think this copy that is before us, which is marked has some other markings. I know we did get some other memos both from the White House and from other outside sources. So I am just not sure where this one came from.
So I just want to make clear for the record that the underlinings or anything like that are not from the White House, from the witness, and let's move forward in that way. Just so that we have a record on that.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I mean, Mr. Gray, of course, would not have been in the White House in April of 1995, so if he had it he did not receive it in a capacity as a White House employee?
Page 345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. Right. I believe this memo has been floating around out with the press and a lot of people since last spring or summer—I know long before we had it from the White House.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Directing your attention again to item No. 3, where it reads, that Federal employees, including White House employees, may not ever knowingly solicit, accept or receive a political contribution from any person, including a subordinate or other Federal employee, did you—you included that in this memo?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And could you tell us why that was included?
Answer. It is one of the restrictions in the Hatch Act for Federal employees.
Question. Okay. And besides sending out this memo, was there any effort to discuss this memo or advise people at the White House about this?
Answer. Well, with respect to this memo, separately, no, but we regularly have ethics training and also during the course of the time period when the President was a candidate we had different meetings with staff to advise them about the rules of political activity and particular questions that particular staff might have as relates to their duties.
Page 346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. Okay. And so when it says no one can ever knowingly solicit, accept or receive, I take it that means exactly what it says, you cannot accept checks at the White House?
Answer. No, actually the Hatch Act regs and also some of the opinions that interpret it define ''accept'' and ''receive'' probably differently than what they might ordinarily have as their kind of everyday usage, but other than that, yes.
Question. Okay. And does that mean, you know, if, for example, checks are mailed in there is a process by which they can be forwarded——
Answer. Yes.
Question [continuing]. To a campaign?
But as far as somebody accepting a check in the White House, someone coming in and handing a check to the White House, is this designed to prevent that type of thing?
Answer. If you are asking with respect to the Hatch Act, if someone hands you a check if you are not an authorized recipient, then that is not in violation of the act.
Question. Okay. Handing a check to somebody?
Answer. Correct.
Page 347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. And are you aware then of individuals at the White House accepting checks for political campaigns?
Answer. I am aware of the incident with respect to Ms. Williams. But other than that, I don't have any other knowledge.
Question. Okay. So at no time—actually, on Ms. Williams' situation, were you aware at the time of Ms. Williams' accepting that check in March of '95?
Answer. No.
Question. Did you know anything about Johnny Chung who was the individual who is alleged to have given the check to Ms. Williams?
Mr. EGGLESTON. Did she know in March of 1995?
Ms. COMSTOCK. In March of 1995.
The WITNESS. No.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. When did you first hear about that incident?
Page 348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. I don't recall. Around the time that I am sure it was publicized in the media would have been around the time that I learned.
Question. Did anybody call you for advice on that matter or about the particulars involved in that matter?
Answer. I don't recall. I mean, at that point obviously whenever there are issues or questions related to the Hatch Act, I talk to numerous people because obviously there are press inquiries and other things like that, so I am certain I would have had conversations, but I couldn't tell you particularly with whom.
Question. And other than the incident with Ms. Williams, were you aware—you were not aware then of any other incidents where checks were given to individuals at the White House?
Answer. I am not personally aware of any, no.
Question. Did you ever hear about any other instances from anybody at the White House?
Answer. No, because I think I would have been made personally aware or heard of something, but I have not heard of another situation in which someone was handed a check.
Question. You have not heard of another situation from any source?
Page 349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. That's correct.
Mr. BALLEN. And just so the record is clear, you are not making any legal judgment about the Maggie Williams' situation, are you?
The WITNESS. No, I am not, but I am obviously under the Hatch Act. Her situation is not inconsistent with the Hatch Act. It is consistent with the Hatch Act.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. So is it the position of the White House then that individuals can accept checks at the White House?
Answer. I don't know that the White House has a position one way or another. I think I was answering the question with respect to the Hatch Act.
Question. Okay. But on this memo, was the purpose of item number 3 here in this memo to instruct the employees at the White House not to accept checks from individuals?
Answer. What I was attempting to do was convey to them the requirements of the Hatch Act, and this is one of the particular—in fact, the language is actually specifically from the Hatch Act, and I was trying to convey that to them.
Page 350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. And are you familiar with the videotape of the coffee in which Don Fowler tells an individual not—that he can't give him a check in the White House?
Answer. I have not seen that videotape. I am familiar with it from descriptions of it in the press, but I have not seen the videotape.
Question. Okay. And do you know if Mr. Fowler was ever advised by anyone at the White House as to whether or not checks could be accepted in the White House?
Answer. I do not know if he was advised.
Question. Did you ever talk with anyone in the DNC about checks being transmitted or given to anybody during events at the White House?
Answer. I don't believe so.
Question. All right. Were you in regular touch with Joe Sandler?
Answer. Yes.
Question. During your—well, could you just tell us your relationship with Joe Sandler in terms of how often you are in touch?
Page 351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. Joe Sandler was and is the General Counsel for the DNC, so I would say certainly since he gained that position, and I don't recall when that is; he is a person with whom I have conversations to ensure that we are making sure both the DNC and the White House abided by the appropriate restrictions with regard to political activity.
Question. Okay. Did you have occasion to discuss at any time with Mr. Sandler whether or not checks to the DNC or any political campaign could be given to people at events at the White House?
Answer. I don't believe so. I believe my conversation with Mr. Sandler was with respect to the procedures for checks that were mailed into the White House being provided to the DNC.
Question. And what did you tell him about that?
Answer. I don't recall anything in particular, other than we had a process whereby there was a mail room where people had to send any checks that they might have received and also where checks might have been mailed into—their messenger had to come by and pick those up regularly.
Question. And whose office was that?
Answer. That would have been in Correspondence, Jim Dorskind's office.
Question. In fact, in this memo, the April 27th, 1995 memo, on page 4, the bottom of page 4, receipt of campaign contributions at the White House, Mr. Dorskind is identified there as the individual to whom checks are supposed to be forwarded if they are received at the White House?
Page 352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. Correct.
Question. Okay. In this paragraph it talks about occasionally contributions intended for a campaign committee may be addressed to the White House and delivered with other mail. Do you know how often that occurred?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Okay. Did individuals call you when that occurred or talk to you about it?
Answer. Typically not. I mean, I think the directions were probably clear enough that I didn't tend to get questions like that.
Question. Do you have any idea about the volume of mail that would have been directed to Mr. Dorskind?
Answer. I do not.
Question. At any time did Mr. Dorskind come to you to talk about how to handle these checks or what to do with them?
Answer. At the time we—that this was placed in the memo, I am sure I would have had conversations with him regarding ensuring that the messenger came and picked it up and designating a place where they would be picked up from.
Page 353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. Would a messenger from the DNC come over to pick them up or some other entity?
Answer. From the DNC.
Question. Okay. Were there also—was there occasion for contributions to be sent to the President's legal expense trust also that would be sent to the White House?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Okay. And would Mr. Dorskind also receive those from people at the White House if that occurred?
Answer. No.
Question. Okay. How were those transmitted?
Answer. Those typically would have been forwarded to my office and then a messenger from the Presidential Legal Expense Trust would have come and picked them up.
Question. Was there any direction provided to individuals at the White House about what to do with checks from the trust?
Page 354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. Yes.
Question. And were memos sent out about that also?
Answer. At the time when the trust was set up, we did send out a memo that directed people to recognize the distinction between the trust and the White House in terms of separate entities and that the contributions for the Legal Expense Trust should be sent to the Counsel's Office. They should not be answered.
Question. Okay. In this paragraph on the bottom of page 4, it appears that generally you envisioned the contributions that would be forwarded to Mr. Dorskind would be ones that would be mailed in; is that correct?
Answer. Yes.
Question. All right. And other than the incident with Ms. Williams, it is your testimony then that you do not know of any other checks that were given to individuals at the White House?
Answer. I am not familiar with any. That's not to say that people got checks that were given to them at the White House they wouldn't have forwarded them to Mr. Dorskind. I am just personally not familiar with it.
Question. Do you know of, in the case of Ms. Williams if she did, in fact, forward to Mr. Dorskind the check she received from Mr. Chung?
Page 355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. I believe she did.
Question. Do you recall how you learned that?
Answer. I believe during the time period that this was being reported in the media. One of the things that I think was reported was with respect to the fact that she had had the particular check forwarded, I believe, to that office, but I am only guessing. I really don't have a particularized knowledge of exactly where it was forwarded to.
Question. Okay. You have not talked to Mr. Dorskind then about that particular check?
Answer. No, I have not.
Question. Okay. Or have you talked to anybody, Ms. Williams or anyone in her office, about how that check was forwarded?
Answer. I am certain during that time period I would have spoken to Ms. Williams or any of her assistants to make sure that we were giving accurate information to the press, but I don't recall any particularized conversation which would track through where exactly the check went. It was my understanding that she had forwarded it.
Question. Okay. Can you recall with any more specificity how the check was handled?
Page 356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. No.
Question. All right. Okay. Again, if you turn to page 3 of this memo, footnote No. 5, it says the sole exception to this prohibition—and this is a footnote to the paragraph on Federal employees not being able to solicit, accept or receive political contributions from any person. It says, the sole exception to this prohibition is Federal labor or employee organizations, and then it indicates, please consult our office before undertaking any action implicating this exception.
Could you explain why that footnote was here?
Answer. The Hatch Act provides for people being able to solicit people who are members of Federal labor organizations, and we provided that exception in there to identify the fact that the act does provide for an exception but we wanted to ensure prior to anyone actually soliciting that they consult with our office.
Question. Did, in fact, people consult with your office about this exception?
Answer. I am not aware of anybody consulting with us regarding that exception, and I think I typically would be the person who would have been asked.
Question. Okay. Were there any other people in your office who worked on these matters with you?
Page 357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Answer. Towards the end of the campaign, we hired a woman named Dawn Chirwa who began working on these matters, but typically I ended up handling these matters and she shadowed me.
Question. Is Ms. Chirwa at the White House now?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What matters does she generally work on?
Answer. Ethics.
Question. In the course—before we return to your duties in fund-raising in general, do you also handle matters related to other Independent Counsels?
Answer. I don't have duties related to fund-raising. I actually have duties related to political activity where that was typically the area that I had responsibility with respect to.
Question. Okay. Then actually I was meaning your interim duties that you had in October when Ms. Sherburne left and before Lanny Breuer came on?
Answer. You mean campaign finance?
Page 358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. Yes.
Answer. When you said fund-raising, I think of fund-raising as fund-raising as opposed to the fund-raising matter.
Question. What I wanted to ask you was in terms of other duties that you have regarding other investigations?
Answer. Currently or previously?
Question. Both. Historically, what your involvement has been in handling matters related to other investigations?
Answer. With respect to the Independent Counsels, I have worked with respect to the Espy and Cisneros Independent Counsel matters.
Question. What have your duties with that involved?
Answer. Responding to requests that they provide to us asking for information that they requested.
Question. That includes responding to subpoenas?
Answer. Yes.
Page 359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. What was your standard way of obtaining information that was subpoenaed in those investigations?
Answer. Depending on what the nature of their subpoena was, we would send the particular request to the targeted audience through a directive that we drafted using the information provided in the subpoena; collect the particular information that was provided; review it for responsiveness and provide the responsive materials to the particular Independent Counsel office that was seeking it, and if there were privileged matters, address them as well.
Question. Okay. And did you have occasion also to work with various attorneys of the individuals involved in those investigations?
Answer. Typically not, primarily because at the stage at which the Independent Counsel was discussing matters with us we had the information they were seeking; it didn't require us to consult or seek other information. With respect to the Espy matter, prior to the Independent Counsel sending a request to us we obviously spoke to Mr. Weingarten. He was representing to Mr. Espy at that time and made several visits to the White House prior to Mr. Espy's decision to resign.
Question. Okay. And in the course of those meetings, were notes taken?
Mr. EGGLESTON. Ms. Comstock, I must say that Mr. Espy is under indictment, and I really am not sure why this is within the course of your investigation, which I wouldn't ordinarily object to, but there is a pending indictment of Mr. Espy.
Page 360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. Actually, I am really just trying to go at how you handle—really more historically how you handle investigative matters. So I appreciate your concerns. I really want to see how you handle, you know, subpoenas in general and to the extent that you can provide some guidance on, you know, discussing with attorneys, and we don't need to go into the particulars of what was discussed.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Thank you.
Ms. COMSTOCK. But your interaction with the attorneys, the kind of standard operating procedures that you have in responding to subpoenas and handling investigative matters.
The WITNESS. Typically when we get a request, we review the request. We draft a directive. We circulate the directive to the particular audience that has been requested.
When we receive the documents back, we go through them for responsiveness. To the extent we have questions or other things, we might talk directly to the individuals who were involved in preparing the materials. To the extent that those people might be represented by attorneys, we obviously would consult with them in that process. We would then go about providing or collecting the responsive material and providing it to the requesting entity.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. So is the purpose of those contacts in those types of situations to be able to effectively respond to the subpoenas?
Answer. Typically it is to be able to respond to subpoenas. Often they are the subject of press attention, so they might be to respond to press questions to ensure that we are giving out accurate information with respect to them. Most of the time, the goal of those conversations is to provide accurate information to whatever entity, and also the public to the extent that they also are inquiring with respect to the matter.
Question. Okay. Are you aware of any other individuals at the White House working on, for example, the Espy matter, or is that largely handled out of the Counsel's Office?
Answer. It is largely handled out of the Counsel's Office.
Question. You indicated that you also worked on the Cisneros matter?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you know if anyone at the White House was ever—in the Counsel's Office was ever tasked with handling matters related to the Ron Brown investigation?
Answer. Yes. During that time period initially Beth Nolan was tasked and it was transitioned to me.
Page 362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. Okay. And in the course of that, did you have occasion to deal with attorneys of various witnesses in that matter?
Answer. No, we did not because we didn't receive—we didn't have a lot of interaction with the Independent Counsel prior to the Independent Counsel's decision to terminate upon Ron Brown's death.
Question. Do you know if Mr. Podesta was involved in contacting any witnesses or potential witnesses in the Ron Brown matter?
Answer. I am not aware that he is.
Question. Okay. Do you know of any of his duties that would be involved in doing that?
Answer. No.
Question. Okay. Do you know if in that case, the Ron Brown investigation, if Reid Weingarten had been contacted in that matter?
Mr. BALLEN. I am going to object to this entire line of questioning. I think from the Minority's point of view, we have been lenient with the questions as a matter of background, but that Ms. Mills's involvement with the Ron Brown matter has any relationship at all to our investigation or subpoena compliance, I mean, you asked her the general question on background and we are getting far afield here, and I don't think it is appropriate.
Page 363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. Actually, the committee's investigation does include matters related to Ron Brown and a number of the witnesses involved in that. I don't think this is going to be a very long line of inquiry, but I just wanted to find out what information in that area the witness might have.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I actually did not understand that. Is it in the resolution?
Ms. COMSTOCK. I know we did not discuss this particularly, so I don't intend to go into detail, but if you could——
Mr. EGGLESTON. If you are asking her general questions about compliance and then you are going to get to, did you comply in the same fashion in the fund-raising investigation, I think that's a background if you want to cover it generally.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Also in response to our subpoena, we do have documents, actually subpoena requests for documents related to the Ron Brown investigation. So I did want to, you know, get a sense of what had been done in that area, if possible. I mean, I understand we did not specifically talk about it, so if the witness is not prepared in detail to talk about it, I understand; but if there is general information she might have, I think it would be helpful for the compliance process.
Mr. BALLEN. Is it in the resolution or the report, the Ron Brown?
Page 364 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Mr. EGGLESTON. Is this a two-page resolution?
Mr. BALLEN. No. It should be three pages.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Usually in resolutions it says what you are investigating, which I don't see here.
Mr. BALLEN. That's just the rules.
Mr. BALLEN. Just for the record, the resolution says, while Ms. Comstock is looking for that, this resolution shall apply to the investigation by the Committee on Government Reform of political fund-raising improprieties and possible violations of law. And the Minority's view of that is that is in the conjunctive.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, I understand. I would certainly dispute that they could pass a resolution saying just violations of law and depose anybody about any possible violations of law.
Mr. BALLEN. Although we have had that point of view articulated to us in several depositions that would involve any possible violations of law, the only fair reading of that is political fund-raising improprieties and possible violations of law. And, frankly, I fail to see how the Ron Brown matter relates to that in any way, the matter of investigation with an Independent Counsel.
Page 365 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. I am sorry. This is fairly lengthy and I have not marked this particular part. I think we can move on on this pretty quickly.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Okay. If you want to do it as background, that's fine, but you are going to have to show me if you are investigating Ron Brown, because I would say the resolution does not include Ron Brown issues, did not relate to campaign fund-raising in 1996, since he was long dead by then.
Ms. COMSTOCK. The committee is looking at a number of areas in the Commerce Department and activities related to that, but I think if we can just move through—you know, what the Counsel's Office may have been handling in that regard I think we can move through this.
The WITNESS. With respect to—like any other Independent Counsel matter, if they made a request to us we would have circulated it and sought whatever documents or materials. I truthfully don't recall there being a subpoena in the Ron Brown matter.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Then returning to when you first began working on matters related to John Huang and James Riady, which were the first issues that came up in October of 1996, can you tell us what you did after Ms. Sherburne provided you with the files and the information, what actions you then took?
Answer. With respect to requests that we had from Members of Congress or from the press, we would obviously try and go about collecting information and being responsive to that in connection with those requests.
Page 366 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 22
Question. Okay. Were there individuals that you reached out to at the White House to try and find out what Mr. Huang's activities had been at the White House?
Answer. Well, I am sure I did. I obviously went through and we had to collect his WAVE requests. I believe that was the requests we had from Chairman Clinger with respect to the WAVES of Mr. Huang; in the course of undertaking to provide that information, I am confident I had conversations with lots of people regarding his particular visits, so that we could give accurate information to the committee.
Next Hearing Segment(6)