Segment 7 Of 22 Previous Hearing Segment(6) Next Hearing Segment(8)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 454 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Then on the next page, EOP 4979, it indicates there is a photo in file. Do you know if that is a photo that you had in your file at that point or what you are referring to there?
Answer. It probably would reflect that there was photos in the photo office in their file.
Question. Okay. So I know we mentioned this a little earlier, but is it your recollection that you would have sent your assistant to get photos from the photo office about this?
Answer. Well, you can't get photos but you can actually look at the contact sheets or get a copy of the contact sheets. I probably would have asked my assistant to go up and look and tell me if there was a photo in the file or not.
Question. So this notation would mean that someone had seen a photo in the photo office but that you didn't actually have a physical copy of it?
Answer. Right, though I might have had a copy of the contact sheet.
Question. How would you go about getting a copy of the contact sheet?
Page 455 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. I have to confess to not knowing because I don't actually do it. I would ask my assistant to do it.
Mr. BALLEN. Just so the record is clear, you were not a participant in any of these meetings; were you?
The WITNESS. That's correct.
Mr. BALLEN. This was something you were finding out to respond to the various requests that came in?
The WITNESS. Yes. I was not a participant in the meetings.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I hope the record will reflect that. We are asking the witness about her notations about this and none of the meetings are with her.
The WITNESS. Correct.
Mr. BALLEN. Not based on her firsthand knowledge, just based on information she collected either from talking to people or looking at documents.
The WITNESS. Correct.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 456 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And again on page 4980, Melinda Yee is mentioned in meetings with Mr. Huang. Again, you don't recall talking to Melinda Yee about John Huang?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. Do you recall any general discussion about John Huang's relationship with the President or how long they had known each other? Do you recall getting an impression of what the relationship was?
Answer. I am sure that that is something I would have learned, and I know the President has spoken to that. I can't tell you in particular, in time frame, that I would have learned that, but I understood that Mr. Huang had spent some time in Arkansas.
Question. I am just trying to get a sense. I mean, when you go about—when you went about this exercise, were you attempting, you know, as a lawyer to find out, you know, the client, you know, what the involvement was here to find out as much as you could about Mr. Riady and Mr. Huang and what their interactions were at the White House?
Answer. I wasn't particularly interested in Riady and Huang as I was interested in what the nature and purpose of their visits were and what kinds of events they might have been attending and why they might have been attending them. I didn't have a particularized interest in John Huang per se or Riady per se. I had an interest in understanding what their contact had been with the White House.
Question. And do you know who Holt is who has a meeting? It is on page 4983, 6–24–93 meeting.
Page 457 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. I do not know who Holt is, though obviously I indicated he or she works in the visitors office.
Question. Do you recall having any discussions with Mr. Holt or Miss Holt or whoever that might be?
Answer. No. And that visit actually appears to reflect that the visit didn't actually transpire.
Question. That's because of the little stars there would mean there is not an arrival time?
Answer. Under the TOA, there is four stars which would indicate that at least the record would reflect that they did not arrive.
Question. Okay. Page 4985, where the visitee is the President but then you have next to it ''Meeting with California opinion leaders.''
Answer. Correct.
Question. Is that something you would have gathered from the Presidential records or something like that?
Answer. Yes.
Page 458 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. On page 4986, I think we have talked about Miss Dickey. You don't recall the conversations with Ms. Dickey about John Huang or James Riady?
Answer. I am sure I would have spoken to Ms. Dickey but I don't recall having a particular conversation, and I couldn't tell if it is Robin or Helen Dickey.
Question. Do you recall ever discussing with Mr. Quinn, who is listed as a visitee on 9–24–93, any discussions he had with John Huang or meetings?
Answer. No, but I am sure I would have called him.
Question. The stars again on the side——
Answer. Oh, you are right. I might not have.
Question. So I do want the record to reflect that. Do you recall having any discussions like, hey, Jack, did you set up a meeting with John Huang and what can you tell me about it?
Answer. I am sure I would have. I don't recall particularly, but I am sure I would have.
Question. All right. Do you recall what he said?
Page 459 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. No, I actually don't.
Question. You are laughing. I am not sure—can you——
Answer. I am just laughing because it is Jack Quinn so I would have, of course, wanted to call him but I don't recall in particular.
Question. But you have no recollection of what he said he was meeting with Mr. Huang about or might have been meeting—had—obviously this reflects there was a scheduled meeting or that there was at least an attempt for Mr. Huang to come in and Mr. Quinn was a visitee.
Answer. Correct. But since there was no time of arrival, obviously people I think tended to have a harder time figuring out what they might have been meeting with people about when actually didn't meet with the people as opposed to when they did. That was just generally kind of one of the things I noticed as I was going through here. I don't particularly recall any conversations with Mr. Quinn in which he was able to reconstruct what that might have been about.
Question. All right. Then there are a number of receptions and events. Again, you just had your assistant check about these events; is that how you learned of it?
Answer. Correct. Or you look at the schedule to see what events were going on at that time period.
Page 460 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Okay. Now, Ms. Matsui had some meetings with Mr. Huang; is that correct? And I am on page 4991. The Bates stamp number has fallen off the page there.
Do you recall any discussions you had with Ms. Matsui about her interaction with Mr. Huang?
Answer. I am sure I had discussions with Ms. Matsui about her interactions with John Huang primarily because I believe there was some plan that was put out by the Asian Pacific working group and I recall having discussions with her in that context. So I am confident I had conversations with Ms. Matsui.
Question. And what did she tell you?
Answer. I don't recall her telling me anything in particular about Mr. Huang other than him being a part of the same working group and being, I believe at that point, at Commerce initially and often being an advocate for the involvement of Asian Americans.
Question. Okay. And talking with any of these people about Mr. Huang, do you recall anyone ever raising any concerns about, gee, I thought it was funny that he brought this person or that person in, or as the stories came out of anybody ever saying to you that, gee, I had suspicions about this or that or anything of that nature?
Answer. No.
Page 461 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Okay. Are you aware of anybody at the—did anyone at the DNC ever say anything like that to you?
Answer. No.
Question. Have you ever heard that anyone told you about, gee, someone at the DNC told me they were wondering where he got that money from a certain event or anything of that nature?
Answer. No.
Question. Okay. Then I guess going through, as we did with the Riady ones, if you could look through any other John Huangs and see if there are any ones in particular that you might recall having discussions with the individuals?
Answer. None of these stick out in particular, but I am sure I had conversations with Ms. Matsui. I recall having had a conversation with Bob Kyle and that he indicated it was an Indonesian meeting, so I recall having spoken to him about that. Others don't really stick out into my mind as to what conversations might have happened or materials I might have been looking at to determine what they were.
Question. Do you recall any discussions with Harold Ickes about any meetings he had with Mr. Huang?
Page 462 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. I don't, but I am sure if he is on here I would have probably asked him about it.
Question. Or Maggie Williams?
Answer. I recall speaking to an assistant in her office. I don't recall who, regarding an Ambassador who came to visit, an Ambassador from—Ambassador March Fong Eu or someone by that name. I recall that.
Question. March Fong Eu, Ambassador to Micronesia?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And do you recall what she told you about that?
Answer. I just recall that one of her assistants had indicated that they had dropped by, I believe on one day and Ms. Williams wasn't there and they came by another time and introduced them to her. That's to the best of my recollection.
Question. Did they tell you why she was coming to visit Ms. Williams?
Answer. No. It was my impression they were just introducing the Ambassador to Ms. Williams.
Page 463 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Again, as with Mr. Riady, a number of the meetings were with people in the personnel office, somebody Huynh, H-U-Y-N-H; do you know who that individual was?
Answer. I believe his name was Fu Huyhn. I believe he was also involved in the Asian American appointees group that they had.
Question. Did you ever talk with anyone about John Huang was trying to get people placed or, you know, get jobs for anybody or making recommendations?
Answer. I don't particularly recall that, but I also recall that Mr. Huang, as an Asian American appointee of the President, was interested, as were Ms. Matsui and others, in seeing Asian Americans appointed to positions in the administration.
Question. All right. Can we just generally discuss in addition—we had discussed already a little bit about how you transitioned Ms. Popp into working on these matters. As other people came on board, could you describe that process and what you did to sort of transition out of working on this?
Answer. As other people came on board, I sat down, I particularly recall with Mr. Breuer and I guess Ms. Peterson might have been there as well, but others and just walked them through what had been done to that point, what materials there were, where materials tended to come from in terms of what offices would have what kinds of materials; where they could go about finding out information about schedules or events and things like that and kind of walk them through the ways in which they could go about discerning information that might be helpful or responsive or provide greater insight into different events or things that might have transpired that would be responsive to or elaborate on the requests that we were receiving from the various entities.
Page 464 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. All right. Did you tell them about the White House Communications Office?
Answer. No.
Question. All right. And did you tell them anything about audiotapes or videotape records or any type of records in that regard?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you recall——
Mr. EGGLESTON. Could I ask you a question: Have you had access to the Senate deposition?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Are we going into some areas there?
Mr. EGGLESTON. No, no. She has pretty much done this in the Senate.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Actually, I don't think we are going to go into that a lot because I understand the testimony and everything with Senate and everything, so I am trying to——
Page 465 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
The WITNESS. As you are probably aware, I didn't have a great familiarity with what they taped and what they didn't tape and so had not been a participant in productions with regard to tapes. So I was not familiar with what they might have and what they might not have. I obviously understood that everyone got the directive, but beyond that I didn't have any particular familiarity with what their practices were and what they taped.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. But in working on the memos that you had done with them, the memos did discuss that there was taping of Presidential events; is that correct?
Answer. Actually the memos referenced recordings and they do not discuss taping. As you are probably aware from my deposition, and from the depositions of the others as they testified to at least when they were at their hearings, we did not discuss videotaping.
Mr. BALLEN. For the record, do you have—this is an internal matter, but we have not received a copy of your deposition in the Senate, the Minority.
Do you have that, Ms. Comstock, from the Senate?
Ms. COMSTOCK. We can discuss internal matters elsewhere. I am trying to stay on——
Mr. BALLEN. I am going to object then entirely to any questions about any matter raised in the Senate. If you have access to the Senate deposition and the Minority does not, I don't think that's fair, and to question a witness about it, to repeat the questioning we have a long-standing objection to that without providing Minority a copy at least of the Senate deposition. So it is more than an internal matter if you plan to ask questions that this witness has already testified to.
Page 466 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. If you can indicate matters as they come up that you think—because I think we have been staying—you know, trying to discuss our subpoenas and our matters.
Mr. EGGLESTON. That's fine. I will tell you generally, the Senate was interested in the videotape issue as anybody who watches ABC News knows. Ms. Mills testified in a fairly lengthy Senate deposition and, frankly, I can't imagine there are any questions that you could ask her about the videotapes that weren't asked of her at the Senate. But, I mean, they were pretty exhaustive on this subject.
It was really almost exclusively the subject of a couple hour deposition. I don't know that I can remember every single question that she was asked, but they pretty much occupied the field on this issue. And since then, of course, the WHCA employees all testified they didn't talk about the videotapes with her so that it turns out she is not in the WHCA videotape story as the matter ended up.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. In the course of your gathering documents in the January time frame, were you aware of documents from Mr. Ickes' office being gathered in any manner?
Page 467 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. Yes. Mr. Ickes provided documents in response to the request.
Question. Okay. And were you aware of Harold Ickes taking documents with him?
Answer. I am aware of that now. I don't know if at that time that would have struck a bell, but I am certainly aware that there were materials that were campaign materials or other things like that that he departed with.
Question. And this committee received documents from Mr. Ickes in February of 1996. Were you aware of discussions about whether or not Mr. Ickes should turn over documents to this committee—in February of 1997, I am sorry. Were you aware of any discussions in the counsel's office about Mr. Ickes turning over documents?
Answer. I am certain we had discussions regarding whether or not any of these materials were materials over which there potentially would be privilege issues that needed to be addressed and we would have had those conversations in that context.
Question. Okay. Do you know if there were discussions with Mr. Bennett about that, Mr. Bennett being Mr. Ickes' attorney?
Answer. Right. I actually recall there probably being discussions with Ms. Amy Sabirn, who I believe also worked on this matter with Mr. Ickes.
Question. Do you recall—were you involved in those discussions?
Page 468 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. I am sure I would have been involved in those discussions with respect to Mr. Ickes' documents if they were done in the beginning of the—of February. I am sure that would have been a time period that I would have still been involved in those matters.
Question. Okay. Do you recall any particular issues regarding Mr. Ickes' documents and what he had taken with him?
Answer. I recall there being press attention to the fact that he had materials that were with him. I don't recall there being any particular issue, other than ensuring that to the extent there were any privileges that might properly be associated that we would have an opportunity to review and identify them. Other than that, no.
Question. Was there any discussion about Mr. Ickes had a number of documents that were his memos to the President and the President had written on them, things such as that?
Answer. I don't recall any particular issues about that, no.
Question. Okay. I wanted to ask you some questions about when you were working on matters in the fall of 1996. One of the matters you also worked on was the White House database; is that correct?
Answer. Correct.
Page 469 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And could you tell us how you came to be involved in gathering those documents?
Answer. It was just one of the issues that was assigned to me by Mr. Quinn.
Question. All right. And were you involved then in the process of turning over White House database documents?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Since we are going into a new area here, would it be okay to take a break for just a minute?
Answer. Sure.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Let's go off the record.
Mr. BALLEN. A 5-minute break?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes.
[Brief Recess.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 470 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. We were talking about the White House database and I am not sure where we were in terms of——
Mr. EGGLESTON. You had not asked a question yet.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you involved in discussions on actually turning over the records on the database to the committee?
Answer. I was handling the database matter until approximately November/December of 1996.
Question. Okay. At that time Sally Paxton began handling that issue; is that correct?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Are you aware of documents that were gathered during the summer/fall time period of 1996?
Answer. Fall, correct.
Page 471 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And let me show you an exhibit. Are you familiar with the letter that Mr. Ruff had sent last week to the committee?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And if you could just tell us, what is your understanding of these documents and where they have been?
Answer. When I stopped handling this matter, these—my files were transferred to Ms. Paxton and the documents were transferred to Ms. Paxton. In my working file was a file that had these materials in them that were transferred to Ms. Paxton at that time so that would have been probably the end of November or December sometime.
Question. Okay. And——
Answer. And remained in those files until they were provided to the committee.
Question. Okay. And at that time, they were not turned over to the committee?
Answer. They were not turned over initially to the committee with respect to their first request because they were not responsive.
Page 472 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Okay.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Again, we are talking about—there were a number of documents provided. You are talking about the documents that are attached to Mr. Ruff's October 28th, letter?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes, the October 28th, 1997, letter to Chairman McIntosh, who is chairman of the subcommittee of this committee and attached—it is a 2-page letter and attached to it are documents Bates stamp numbered M 33292 through 3302 from the Office of White House Counsel.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Is your testimony then that these documents were not turned over at that time because they were not responsive to the committee's request?
Answer. To the particular request, correct.
Question. And were there any privilege issues attached to any of these documents or just it was the sense that they were not responsive to the request in the fall of 1996?
Answer. August 1996, correct.
Question. And then you had transferred all of these files to Ms. Paxton?
Page 473 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. Correct.
Question. And then when initial requests came in this year, did you talk to anyone about your files or where anything was at?
Answer. Other than obviously Ms. Paxton had all of my files, and I already have indicated when I have gotten questions about the database that, you know, I have transferred all my materials to Ms. Paxton so they would have to look through the materials that were transferred to her.
Question. Have you had discussions about these documents that were attached to Mr. Ruff's letter recently?
Answer. Oh, sure, before they were provided, yes.
Question. How did they come about to be—Mr. Ruff had stated that they just were found recently when Ms. Paxton went back to review her files?
Answer. Correct. I believe Ms. Paxton was reviewing her files for another request that had come in from the Chairman and she went through all of her files and this file was one of the files that was in her files, yes.
Question. Okay. And did you have any discussions with her about why they hadn't been turned over earlier?
Page 474 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. Other than at the time that we reviewed them they were deemed not responsive, those were the discussions that we had had.
Question. To your knowledge, have all of the files that you turned over to Ms. Paxton now been reviewed and all the responsive documents turned over to date?
Answer. I believe so. Ms. Paxton obviously reviews all the files and materials in that regard, but I believe she has done that.
Ms. COMSTOCK. All right. I will make this Deposition Exhibit No. 12.
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–12 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. When the database information was first turned over to the subcommittee, was there any discussion about information about the coffee events being on the database internally at the White House?
Answer. I don't believe so. I am sitting here trying to think about that. I know that in the course of trying to determine the list of coffees that had occurred and the coffees that—and the attendees, obviously some of the attendees' lists were in the database but that was not discussed.
Page 475 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Was the White House database ever used as a source of information for tracking down documents or information as responsive to various document or subpoena requests?
Answer. I am certain if we get documents from the database that would indicate responsive materials might exist someplace else we would follow up to try and collect those materials.
Question. Like if—I know the committee has received things such as—there was—say, if we had asked for all documents related to John Huang, we would get a sheet from the database which is a readout of John Huang's attendance at various events. Was that something that you normally did in other productions where you would go to the database and say, print me out all of the events attended by whoever the subpoena was requesting information on?
Answer. Once the database came on-line that's one of the things we would try to do to ensure that we had materials that might be responsive. In other words, we would look at those—the database sometimes against the WAVES records so it would help sometimes identify what particular visits might have been about.
Question. And do you know if in the course of going through the Riady and Huang WAVES, did you use the White House database to check on those things?
Answer. I don't know. I am sure we would have. If it had information that would have been responsive, I am sure we would.
Page 476 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And do you recall any issues, when the database information was turned over, that some of the information in there was obviously private or not known to the public at that time and how that—you know, do you have any internal discussions about, these coffees were private events or anything like that and indicate that this information would now be known to Congress that there were these coffee events?
Answer. I don't recall discussions about coffee events, particularly because there are lots of coffees that are held. I know people are most familiar with political coffees, but there are coffees held, all kinds of different coffees. There are coffees with Members of Congress. There are coffees with the Childrens Defense Fund. I mean, it is just one of the types of events that we have at the White House.
Question. Was it your understanding that these political coffees were like those coffees?
Answer. I didn't have any understanding of the political coffees until sometime in January of 1997.
Question. How did you learn of that?
Answer. There were press inquiries with respect to how many coffees the President had had with different political supporters.
Question. All right. And at that time, did you utilize a database to find out that information?
Page 477 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. At that time we actually went and tried to go back through schedules, briefing books and other materials that might have guest lists.
Question. Okay. And in particular the coffee Wang Jun attended became public, and I think there were some news articles in December of 1996 around the time the story about Charlie Trie came out. Did you attempt in that December time frame of 1996 to find out about why Wang Jun was at a coffee?
Answer. I think whenever the coffee issue arose, we attempted to try and gather all the information that would give us a list of who had attended the coffees and the dates that the coffees had occurred. We didn't have any requests regarding coffees that I am familiar with, and so at that point what we were trying to do was gain an understanding of the different events that had been held in that regard, and I believe that was one of the coffees, but there were other coffees that people were also interested in as well.
Question. Okay. And you are familiar with Charlie Trie at this point; is that correct?
Answer. I have become familiar with—yes, that's correct.
Question. Okay.
Answer. By at this point, you are talking about December of 1996?
Page 478 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Correct. Right. I don't think we are going to go into all the Charlie Trie May events and the May 9th meeting and all of that. I think that's been covered in Mr. Cardozo's testimony, unless you have anything to add that it was contrary to Mr. Cardozo's public testimony or accounts of those meetings.
Answer. No, but I didn't see all of his testimony, but no.
Question. We had already discussed prior that we weren't going to be going into a lot in that area and were going to be staying more in the compliance area in general.
But in regard to Mr. Trie, do you recall ever discussing anything related to Wang Jun and Mr. Trie, Mr. Trie bringing in Wang Jun or learning about that at the time of the coffee?
Mr. BALLEN. Discussions with whom, with Wang Jun or Charlie Trie——
Ms. COMSTOCK. Discussions about——
Mr. BALLEN. My question was discussions with whom? Would they be discussions with Wang Jun? Would they be discussions with Charlie Trie.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I don't know if he speaks English.
Page 479 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
The WITNESS. If you are talking about the December '96 time period, or the January '97 time period with respect to coffees, I am sure we would have tried to ask whatever questions we could to try and determine the guest lists and other things like that. I don't particularly recall conversations about each particular guest, though I do believe he was somebody that people were interested in. So I would have had conversations to try and determine how he came to be there, but I don't really particularly recall him as disassociated from some of the other people that people might have been interested in.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you aware of any process at the White House whereby some of the people who went to coffees were checked or anybody at the NSC asked about them?
Answer. I have learned, during the course of handling this matter, that I guess it was people's expectation that the DNC was reviewing these guests. At least in the White House we did not have, I think, adequate procedures to review for the guests, and that's something that was subsequently implemented.
Question. What is that process now?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with it, but each particular contact person or assistant to the President who has responsibility for an event has the obligation for ensuring all the different guests are vetted for the various events that they might be coming in for.
Page 480 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Do you recall if anyone had ever asked you about Wang Jun or his attendance at a coffee?
Answer. I don't recall anyone asking me. I am familiar with an e-mail that I have. I don't recall the circumstances surrounding that e-mail. I became familiar with that during the course of our production.
Question. Okay. I believe this is an e-mail that we just received recently.
Answer. No, this would have been produced quite some time ago.
Mr. EGGLESTON. In any event, you have it now.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Yes. It is a February 5th, 1996, e-mail from Phil Caplan to you; is that correct?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And on the e-mail it says, ''As we discussed: Mr. Wang Jun.'' It says, ''Chairman, China International Trust and Investment Corp,'' and then ''Dr. Carlos Mersan'' and then it says, ''Let me know. Thanks.''
Page 481 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
You don't recall any conversation with Mr. Caplan?
Answer. No, and I have looked at this. I don't recall a conversation with him.
Question. Okay. Have you talked to Mr. Caplan about this?
Answer. I have not.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I will make that Deposition Exhibit No. 13.
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–13 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Would I be correct then this document was brought to your attention recently or sometime in the past few months, whenever it was produced——
Answer. Correct.
Question [continuing]. To the committee?
And at that time did you discuss with anybody, you know, whether you had done any general vetting of anybody or anything in relation to people such as Mr. Wang Jun or Carlos Mersan?
Page 482 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. That's a compound question.
Mr. BALLEN. Excuse me. I don't understand the question.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I was wondering—this was brought to your attention at some point, whenever it was produced to the committee; is that correct?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. You have no recollection, other than someone brought it to your attention?
Answer. Correct.
Question. So at the time of the February 6th coffee or sometime at or around the February 6th coffee, you have no recollection of anybody approaching you about Wang Jun?
Answer. Correct.
Question. You have no recollection of anybody approaching you about Carlos Mersan?
Page 483 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. Correct.
Question. In particular, you have no recollection about Phil Caplan, who is the author of this e-mail, contacting you about either?
Answer. Correct. Indeed, when I saw this e-mail I didn't recall it at all. It surprised me that I had this e-mail.
Question. Have you checked with anyone else in the counsel's office to find out if they had discussed Mr. Wang Jun or Mr. Mersan, Dr. Mersan, with Mr. Caplan?
Answer. No. But, you know, his e-mail is to me so I would be the person who would probably have a recollection, and I don't.
Question. Okay. Then I guess my question I was trying to get at is any type of vetting that was ever asked of you, did anyone ever come to you and say, can we have so and so come to an event or——
Answer. I am sure that has happened in the past, and typically I would try and be responsive to whatever requests I might have got. I don't have particular associations with anybody in particular, but I am sure that might have happened in the past. There was no systemized process or anything like that, if that's what your question is.
Question. Okay. Were there ever any issues where people who attended coffees had some type of criminal background or had hits on their—on, you know, when you come in with the Secret Service there are some hits on their name?
Page 484 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. If there were, I did not know.
Question. Did somebody ever raise that? Nobody would ever call you about that and say, DNC wants to let this person in and we have an issue with this; what should we do?
Answer. I am not aware of anybody raising with me that someone has had a hit or whatever you are identifying with respect to their WAVES record or—or their Secret Service check.
Question. Do you know anybody at the White House who was tasked with sort of monitoring these lists and who was on them?
Answer. It was my impression that that was actually the Secret Service's task. Obviously, through this process, we have discerned that they don't make judgments regarding propriety but only security, and so someone might have other issues that are associated with them that might be criminal but that they don't view to be actually a threat risk. That's something that we learned through this process. Prior to that, I think it was my impression that that was one of the functions that the Secret Service performed.
Question. You mean up until recently, that was your understanding of the Secret Service?
Answer. Up until all of this—until it all got raised, the fact that there were people who obviously had particular issues in their background who were visiting the complex, correct.
Page 485 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Okay. That wasn't brought to your attention, for example, last year with Mr. Livingstone and the FBI files or any of the things that came about?
Answer. No. I actually wasn't involved in those matters so it probably wouldn't have been something that would have perked my attention.
Question. So we are just blank on this e-mail?
Answer. Yeah.
Question. Okay.
Mr. BALLEN. Has that been entered as an exhibit?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes. That is Exhibit 13.
Mr. BALLEN. Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. There was no—on the Yogesh Ghandi matter that we just discussed briefly, and I really don't intend to go into that a lot except in the matter of this background thing, did anything you do in regards to Yogesh Ghandi have to do with dealing with his background and any concerns about his background?
Page 486 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. No.
Question. I have another e-mail from July 22nd, 1996, regarding Chong Lo. Actually it is regarding the Lotus fund gala. Do you recollect having any discussions with Karen Hancox or Daniel, is it Bernal, B-E-R-N-A-L, about the Lotus fund gala?
Answer. I do not, though obviously one of my responsibilities was to review different invitations and other things like that to ensure that they were consistent with the Hatch Act. I just don't know what this particular one was about, but that was one of the responsibilities I had.
Question. Okay. Now, are you aware of someone named Chong Lo who was connected with this Lotus fund gala?
Answer. I am now. I was not at that time.
Question. Do you know if—was this e-mail to you or this question to you about the Lotus fund, you don't have any—do you have any recollection of what it was about?
Answer. No.
Question. Were you aware of Chong Lo having some legal problems in July of 1996?
Page 487 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. No.
Question. All right.
Answer. I wasn't aware of Chong Lo in July of 1996.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I am sorry. I am probably the only one here who is dense. Chong Lo's name is not on this e-mail.
Ms. COMSTOCK. It is not. It says ''Lotus fund gala,'' and Chong Lo is an individual who is associated with the Lotus fund gala, which I believe was an event that may have been cancelled, although I don't want to represent that for the record.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I am not asking you to confirm that or anything. I am just asking you if anyone ever contacted you about Chong Lo and any fund-raising events she was connected with to ask you for guidance?
Answer. Not to my recollection.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay. I will make that Deposition Exhibit No. 14.
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–14 was marked for identification.]
Page 488 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you aware of Karen Hancox or Doug Sosnik ever doing any vetting of people? Is that something you had an understanding they were involved in?
Answer. It is my understanding now that one of the tasks that Karen might perform would be to check with the NSC from time to time. Apart from that, no.
Question. Check with the NSC?
Answer. Yes.
Question. On people's backgrounds?
Answer. On whether or not—I think whether or not there would be a foreign policy issue with regard to their attendance.
Question. Okay. And then did any of that ever get kicked back to the counsel's office, as far as you know?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. So would she go—it was your understanding she would go directly to the NSC to discuss these matters?
Page 489 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. It is my understanding that there is an exec secretary who is basically the point of intake for any information or questions, and that was who she might be discussing it with.
Question. Do you know of particular individuals she discussed with the NSC?
Answer. No. I am sure there are materials or documents that we might have produced that might address that, but I don't recall any as I am sitting here.
Question. Okay. And how did you learn of this?
Answer. During the course of producing materials.
Question. Okay. That's your only knowledge of that?
Answer. That's my only particular recollection of it, yes. I am not saying that Karen and I couldn't have had conversations. I had conversations with Ms. Hancox quite frequently obviously over the course of '95 and '96. It's quite plausible we might have had a conversation. I don't recall one.
Question. You had discussions about coffees with her in general; is that correct?
Page 490 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. No, that's not correct.
Question. Okay. You did not discuss with her where events could be held or anything like that?
Answer. I discussed—as one of the issues I always deal with is where different events could be held. That is something that I did discuss, but not necessarily in particular to particular types of events.
Question. Okay. Did you have any discussions with anybody about whether political coffees could be held in the White House or not?
Answer. I don't recall. I mean, one of the things that I typically do is give advice about events. It doesn't matter what the kind of event, whether it is a coffee, lunch, tea, breakfast or dinner. Typically the issue is the type of event. I don't recall any particular events about the coffees per se, but do recall that we obviously had discussions about political events and where they were held.
Question. Was it your advice that the political coffees would generally be held in a part of the White House that is considered a residence?
Answer. I specifically said I did not have conversations about political coffees. I was unaware of all the coffees that were transpiring until after the issue got raised in the press. I had discussions about events.
Page 491 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. All right. So when people would come to you, they wouldn't tell you necessarily what they were talking about? They would be asking, can we do this or that, and you wouldn't necessarily know?
Answer. Can we hold an event, a political event, in X place or Y place or Z place, correct.
Question. So you wouldn't know what the event is? They are just sort of asking you for, you know, if I do it here what can I do; if I do it there, what can I do?
Answer. Yes, though sometimes I might know what the event is. It just depends on the circumstances of what the person communicated to me.
Question. Was there any reason why they wouldn't tell you what the event is?
Answer. No, other than I think it is not relevant in determining where the thing occurs as to what the nature of it is.
Question. Did you get a sense sometimes people might not want to sort of ask you things because you might say no or they might sort of hide the ball from you in terms of what it was?
Answer. No. My experience is more particularly that they ask me for cover, so I have the opposite experience.
Page 492 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Mr. EGGLESTON. It just doesn't matter to what they are going to serve at the event, I take it?
The WITNESS. Right.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. When you say they are asking you for cover, would that be before or after the fact?
Answer. Before the event they would typically consult if there was a question that they had.
Question. Okay. But you have no recollection of them coming to you at all discussing these particular political coffees?
Answer. No. I mean, that's not to say that someone might not have asked me a question about an event or a coffee or something, but I don't recall having a discussion regarding the fact that there were going to be a series of coffees that were held over a period of time that subsequently were the materials that we ended up disclosing to the press in terms of the number of coffees and the guests associated with them.
Question. The political coffees, I mean, as you understand them now, were those supposed to be held in the Oval Office? Was that an appropriate place for them to be held?
Page 493 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. They can be held anywhere.
Question. And that was advice that you gave them at the time, that political events connected—whether they are connected with fund-raising or not could be held anywhere?
Answer. The Hatch Act actually provides that political events or political activity can be—can occur anywhere within the White House.
Question. This is a March 7th, 1996, e-mail regarding an April 30th coffee and it is to Karen Hancox and the creator is Margo Spiritus. And we will note either of these are to or from you. They just mention you in the body of the e-mail.
Are you familiar with these documents?
Mr. EGGLESTON. I am sorry. Are these different?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes. I think they follow upon one another so that's why I wanted to give you both of them.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Okay. The one you gave us second is the first one?
Ms. COMSTOCK. I think so.
Page 494 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Mr. EGGLESTON. They are Mills 15 and 16?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes.
I will make EOP 62689 Deposition Exhibit No. 15, and EOP 62693 Deposition Exhibit 16.
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–15 was marked for identification.]
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–16 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. I have not seen these before, that I recall.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay, so you haven't seen them in the course of document production either?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. Okay.
Answer. I might have but I don't recall.
Page 495 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. The initial one says ''SS suggested you ask Cheryl Mills if it would be ok if we do a coffee on the same date but in the west wing. What do you think? Is this doable?'' It begins, ''Well actually, SS suggested,'' and so forth. Do you know who ''SS'' is in this context?
Answer. Stephanie Streett.
Question. Okay. And do you recall talking to any of the people named here about this event?
Answer. No.
Question. And you don't recall any of these people asking you about the event and where it could be held?
Answer. Correct, but you have to recognize, I receive somewhere on the order of about 70 calls a day, so I talk to lots of people, and in that time frame I was receiving a fair number of calls.
Question. And I am not particularly referencing this particular coffee, but do you recall generally someone calling and saying ''Can we do this in the West Wing? Where should we do it?'' And a follow-up to this initial e-mail, Deposition Exhibit 15, says ''I guess the only place to do it would be Roosevelt or Cabinet Room but I don't think you can do political stuff in the Cabinet Room, that's why I wanted to run it by Cheryl Mills.''
Page 496 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. I don't recall that particular series of discussions, but people called me all the time asking where they could hold events.
Question. And was this the kind of advice you would have given them in terms of where events could be held?
Answer. I would answer whatever——
Question. That you can't do the political stuff in the Cabinet Room?
Answer. I would answer whatever particular question they might actually ask me.
Question. Do you recall telling people whether something could be done in the Cabinet Room or not?
Answer. No.
Question. Something to that effect?
Answer. No.
Question. And you don't recall particularly telling them whether or not any particular event could be held in the Oval Office, per se?
Page 497 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. The Hatch Act provides that events can be held in all these particular places.
Question. Then I am wondering, why were the people calling you? They were just calling you to find that out again?
Answer. I think it just arises from people's confusion with respect to the Hatch Act.
Question. I will make these Exhibits 15 and 16. Were you involved in the decision in January of '96 to make the information about the White House coffees public?
Answer. January of '97 I was.
Question. '97, I'm sorry.
Answer. Yes.
Question. And how did that decision come about?
Answer. I believe the President had been receiving that information for a period of time, and so we tried to go about collecting that information so we could give a complete and accurate picture.
Page 498 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And did you talk with Ms. Hancox and Doug Sosnik and others who were involved in the coffees to find out what was involved with the coffees?
Answer. I am sure I would have.
Question. And did you sit down to discuss with them sort of the body of potential records that may have been related to the coffees?
Answer. No, primarily because we didn't have a request regarding the coffees, but what we were seeking to do is satisfy particular press questions. In particular, the press wanted to know who had attended the coffees and how many there were.
Question. And so there was no effort on the part of the White House to find out other information at that time that you might know about the coffees?
Answer. No, I was trying to find out who attended and what dates the coffees were held on.
Question. And then in relation to the White House database having included the White House coffees, do you have any knowledge as to who was actually inputting the information about the coffees into the database?
Answer. No.
Page 499 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Do you have an understanding of who was inputting information in general into the coffees or where they were getting that information from?
Answer. It was my understanding the DNC would submit a list of guests for the coffees.
Question. And do you know who they submitted it to?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Did you ever have any concerns that were raised to you from any source in the White House that the White House database was being misused by Marsha Scott or others for political purposes?
Answer. No. I am aware, obviously, that that is one of the issues that the subcommittee has asked about, and I know that in reviewing that, I believe Ms. Paxton did a lot of that, but there has not been such information, and that is my best knowledge.
Question. I am asking in particular if anyone at the White House, the DNC or from an outside—you know, other than Congress, has approached you about ''I am concerned that this might have crossed the line here'' or how they are doing things or anything like that?
Answer. No, I don't recall anybody approaching me in that regard.
Page 500 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Okay. So prior to your transitioning out of the collection of documents in this area, you didn't get involved then in really going any further in terms of collecting documents pertaining to the coffees?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And then the first time you learned about the videotape to the coffees, then, was in October of this year?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Okay. And who told you about that initially?
Answer. On October 3rd, I believe in the morning, Mr. Ruff informed me Mr. Imbroscio had determined there were snippets of the coffees that had been videotaped.
Question. And that was the first you heard of it?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And I am really not going to go into this at length, but you were the individual who informed the President about the videotapes of the coffees and other events, is that correct?
Answer. Correct.
Page 501 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Could you just tell us what you said to the President?
Answer. I think I testified to that in my deposition with the Senate.
Question. But there has been—the President has said on one occasion he was very mad and I have read other accounts that said he wasn't mad. Can you shed any light on that?
Answer. I think, as I said in my Senate deposition, it was my impression he was concerned about the fact they had not been produced and insisted they be produced right away, and I think he has accurately addressed his emotions with respect to that.
Question. I am asking not for how he has expressed it but your impression at that time.
Answer. I don't have impressions that differ in any way from his.
Question. Is that a policy matter or is that your impression?
Answer. No, that is my polite way of saying I agree.
Question. Did he express anger that these hadn't been turned over earlier?
Page 502 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. I think it would be accurate to say he expressed considerable concern that they had not been turned over earlier.
Question. Was anybody else in the office when you told him about this?
Answer. No.
Question. And how did it come that you were the individual to discuss this with the President?
Answer. I don't recall. It was just after one of our discussions about this. We all took different responsibilities, and that is the one I took.
Question. I think earlier we discussed why documents hadn't been turned over to this committee that were obviously gathered in January.
Mr. EGGLESTON. You are going to have to do a better lead into this because I don't agree to that.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Well, I think you had testified, I believe, that documents were turned over, some documents were turned over to the Justice Department in January. The only documents that this committee received in January were documents relating to the coffees. I believe there had been a few WAVES——
Page 503 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. I believe you also got WAVES materials, and those were materials we provided to the department.
Question [continuing]. That were made public to the press at the same time we got information or sometime prior to that.
Answer. I want to be clear, I don't know what was the actual production date of the first set of materials to the Justice Department. You keep referencing that it would have been sometime in January. That is my best understanding, too.
Question. If you can give us an approximate date, at or around January, as opposed to May?
Answer. I know it is around January or February as opposed to May.
Question. That is all I am talking about and trying to represent——
Mr. EGGLESTON. Can I have a copy of this?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 504 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question [continuing]. That the committee received only documents that—documents of coffees in January, and I believe some of the documents pertaining to Tony Lake's confirmation in February.
Answer. You should have also received WAVES material.
Question. WAVES material in December, Kanchanalak, Charlie Trie?
Answer. You also received some in November with respect to John Huang.
Question. That is correct. Do you recall receiving this January 15 request from Chairman Burton?
Answer. I don't recall, but it mirrors in large part the request we had already circulated to the White House.
Question. Okay. And in fact, it was designed to reflect the directive that had gone around, knowing, in fact, that you all had been collecting documents pertaining to these particular topics, so do you recall discussing whether or not these documents would be provided or whatever documents had been gathered at that point would be provided to this committee?
Answer. I am actually sitting here recalling that we probably produced documents to the department at the end of January because it would have been after I returned from a vacation, which would have probably been around the 30th or sometime toward the end of January.
Page 505 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay, and I will go ahead and make that January 15, 1997 letter and request Deposition Exhibit No. 17, and then I will make this January 31 letter Deposition Exhibit No. 18.
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–17 was marked for identification.]
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–18 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. And there is a January 17 letter from Mr. Quinn that I do not have, but it is referenced here in the January 31st letter, which indicates he would not be able to provide the designated documents by the 30th. Do you know why there was a problem in physically producing any of the documents related by the 30th?
Answer. In producing, there are several problems but, yes, there is obviously the amount of production that has to be done, and probably as people are aware, at that point there were only three people doing what now there are approximately nine people doing, so our opportunity and ability to be able to satisfy different requests was considerably reduced from where it is now.
Question. And is it your understanding, then, that the documents are not able to be produced to this committee because of physical limitations of the Counsel's Office?
Page 506 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. A; and, B, we also have to go back through and Bates stamp them for the committee, so it creates a whole other process that has to be associated with the production.
It was also my impression, though I could be wrong, that there was discussion regarding what committees, what protocols and other things might be appropriate to deal with particular documents. It was my sense that those had not—or were just beginning as I was transitioning out of this matter.
Question. Were you involved in any of the discussions on the limited committee access type documents that were going to be withheld from committees and ask the committee if they actually would come down and physically look at documents, as opposed to producing them?
Answer. It was my impression that limited committee access were actually materials that were being produced but only certain people on committees who had a need to review them would be reviewing them, so it was my impression limited access documents were being produced to you all.
Question. Were there going to be other documents that had to be viewed at the White House?
Answer. I am sure that is probably something we did discuss with respect to matters that might be subject to privilege or something of that type.
Page 507 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. When Mr. Ruff came on board, did you have particular documents that you discussed with him at that point, documents that you had gathered up until that point, that you felt were executive privilege documents that had been sort of segregated? Do you have a way that you segregated them from other documents?
Answer. Typically if a document may have privileged issues, those are documents you put toward the end of the production so everybody can sit down and review them and make a judgment about whether they are or aren't and produce them. I am sure that is exactly what we would have done with Mr. Ruff because that is typically the way production is done. You review all of them in context and eliminate those that are not subject to privilege and produce those, and to the extent there are materials subject to privilege, figure out what the appropriate accommodations will be to address those documents.
Question. Okay. Now we had previously discussed Ms. Sherburne's memo of the 26th about the Riady meetings and the varying accounts of that, and that document is actually one of the documents that have been withheld from the committee until the committee was discussing contempt, and then the documents came forward in a production following cancellation of a contempt hearing. There was not privilege claimed over them but it was represented by Mr. Ruff it had been withheld up until that time because of privileged concerns.
Do you remember discussing those particular documents and any privilege concerns there might be?
Ms. COMSTOCK. I will note for the record, Uttam Dhillon, who is the majority counsel, is also here at this moment.
Page 508 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you recall any——
Answer. I am sure this is a document we would have discussed in that context because it is from the special counsel, so it is one of the documents that would have to be reviewed toward the end of production to be able to determine whether or not a privilege is going to be asserted with respect to it or at least identified as potentially associated with it, or whether or not it is a document we are going to produce.
Question. Given those were documents—I mean, we have not gone into detail on that today and I am not going to go into great detail on that, but that was the exchange sort of between Mr. Lindsey and Ms. Sherburne on the account of the Riady meetings, was something that you were involved in to some extent, the back and forth, after the fact?
Answer. I wasn't involved in the initial. I was only involved with respect to Ms. Sherburne was attempting to draft an editorial and had a conversation with me with respect to that because I at that point was handling the matter, and I ended up drafting a draft editorial with respect to that, as she was trying to draft one in that context. That was my involvement in the matter.
Question. And you were aware Mr. Lindsey disagreed with Ms. Sherburne's account of what he had said about the meetings?
Page 509 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. It is my impression the issue related to whether or not these meetings are appropriately described as primarily social or policy, and that was my understanding of the debate that was going on.
Question. You are familiar with the document where Mr. Lindsey has written on Ms. Sherburne's memo ''This is a bunch of crap.''
Mr. BALLEN. I don't know if that is exactly what he said.
The WITNESS. I think he said, ''This is mostly crap.''
Mr. EGGLESTON. I guess you are familiar with it.
The WITNESS. That would have been one of the documents produced.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you recall discussing that with Mr. Lindsey?
Answer. No.
Question. And do you recall discussing with Mr. Lindsey the producing of those documents to this committee or any other body?
Page 510 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. No. I am sure I might have but I don't recall any particular discussions about it.
Question. Okay. And you don't recall any discussions with anybody about discussing those memos?
Answer. I am quite confident those memos would have been in the materials we would have reviewed to determine privilege, so they would have been conversations we would have had with counsel and Chuck Ruff.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Since we have been discussing it—okay, it says, ''Jack, this is mostly crap. Bruce,'' on the November 26th memo, which we will make Deposition Exhibit No. 19.
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–19 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay. And I am just trying to understand. Given this was something you had been involved in, the back and forth between Ms. Sherburne and Mr. Lindsey on this, do you recall any discussions about holding up these documents or how these documents would be handled in particular?
Answer. Setting aside the way in which you characterized your question, I am confident that this would have been a document that we would have discussed in the context of whether or not privilege appropriately applies because it relates to Ms. Sherburne and materials she has written as special counsel. We would obviously—this would be an obvious candidate for a document that would have to be reviewed and determined whether or not there were any privileges associated with it. So I am quite confident those discussions happened and that I would have participated in them.
Page 511 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Were you aware that Mr. Ruff—or did Mr. Ruff ever discuss with you that the President had told him he did not intend to claim executive privilege over any documents related to these fund-raising matters?
Answer. It was my understanding that the President indicated he was not going to assert executive privilege over fund-raising matters.
Question. And what was your understanding of that?
Answer. That is my entire understanding of it.
Question. Well, he was not going to claim executive privilege. Why were you then withholding—why were documents then withheld to review privilege issues?
Answer. I think the question as to what is a fund-raising issue and what is not are two different things. There are different interpretations you might have as to whether or not this is a fund-raising matter.
This is not associated with his raising of monies, the DNC's raising of monies, or John Huang or any of the other individuals who were raising money, and there were questions about their contributions, and so I think this was actually a document that can be looked at any number of ways as to whether or not it is or is not a fund-raising matter. I think it is not.
Page 512 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. You were aware Mr. Riady was certainly a central focus of many people in the course of this fund-raising investigation?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And was it your understanding, when the President said he was not going to claim executive privilege over these matters, was it sort of that the document wasn't just necessarily related to but had to say fund-raising on the document? Was it that specific?
Answer. I don't know I had any particular association in that regard, but it was my understanding we were not going to assert privilege over fund-raising matters, at least in my—at that time all the questions were being raised with respect to contributions that were being returned.
Question. And are you aware that Mr. Riady had been a contributor in the past to the DNC, a fairly substantial contributor?
Answer. I am not aware that Mr. Mochtar Riady ever contributed, and James Riady may have contributed. I don't have a particular association with that right now, but I am sure if that is the case I would have known it at that time.
Question. And you are aware of it?
Answer. Though it is my impression he did not contribute in 1996.
Page 513 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. There are no checks, apparently, with his name on them in 1996?
Answer. That is how I know who contributes.
Question. Okay. I believe in '92 there were quite a few checks to the DNC?
Answer. I didn't understand you all were looking at '92.
Question. And obviously there was some interest in some of the people who were associated with Mr. Riady in terms of fund-raising issues. Do you have an understanding of that?
Mr. EGGLESTON. I am losing track of this. This relates to——
Ms. COMSTOCK. To Mr. Riady's meetings.
Mr. EGGLESTON. It actually relates to how the White House dealt with a press release, and press statements that took place. That is the substance of this.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I am trying to get a sense of what the understanding was that there would be no executive privilege claimed, if it was more general or if it was more specific.
Page 514 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
The WITNESS. I can only tell you my best understanding is not with respect to fund-raising matters.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay.
Mr. BALLEN. For the record, there may have been other privileges, such as attorney-client, that the White House may want to be sensitive to for other reasons.
The WITNESS. Correct.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay. When you say that the documents that are privileged are generally held to the end of the production, given——
Answer. I want to correct you right now. Documents that may have a privilege associated with them would get reviewed at one period of time to make a determination with respect to them. They are not withheld, because to withhold it would require you to have completed your production and identify them as materials you are not providing.
Question. Was there usually an attempt to sort of at least inform or identify that there would be privileged documents prior to, say, if a subpoena due date comes due? Is there usually an attempt to say, ''Well, we have not yet identified all documents, but we believe we may have some privileged documents,'' so there is at least an understanding there may be some documents that are not yet being produced because of privilege issues?
Page 515 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. No.
Question. Were there any policy matters on how you would, you know, inform somebody that, well, there may still be more documents that are privileged?
Answer. I think you don't know if there are going to be materials that are going to be privileged until you actually review them, so part of what we obviously do is inform people we have materials, we are producing them, once we get to the close of our production, we will identify any materials that are subject to a privilege.
Question. Okay. Did you ever see the Committee's March 4th subpoena that has the definitions of records——
Answer. I just saw it recently.
Question. So prior to that time you had not been asked any questions about it or asked any advice on how to respond to it?
Answer. I am sure if it is a substance issue I might have been asked. I don't typically get involved with the day-to-day correspondence and materials that come in. I typically end up seeing directives when they get circulated, and to the extent people have questions or issues, I try to be helpful regarding them. I am sure I would have circulated that but I don't recall it.
Page 516 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. We have not put it in the record, but during your time frame when there was another directive, a January 9 directive, that really was just a follow-up for the December 16 we have been previously discussing. Is that correct?
Answer. That is.
Ms. COMSTOCK. And I will just go ahead and make that an exhibit for the record. It is Deposition Exhibit No. 20.
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–20 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. And would it be correct this was just to follow up and make sure you had gotten all additional documents from the December 16th request?
Answer. Yes, and also to get any documents that were created between December 23 and January 9.
Question. Did that come pursuant to an additional request or how did that—is that something you all decided to follow up on?
Answer. It is my recollection that the department was particularly interested up until that date.
Page 517 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Okay. Were there any particular matters that were going on in late December or early January regarding any of these individuals?
Answer. Not that I know.
Question. That you have knowledge of, and I am not asking what you provided to the Justice Department, I am just asking your activities in that time frame.
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. Mr. Trie, who was on both of these, you know, December 16 and January 9 directives, I believe he had attended a Christmas party event in December of '96. Were you aware of that at the time?
Answer. I am sure somebody apprised me at the time he actually went to the event that he went.
Question. Now we haven't discussed at length Mr. Trie or, you know, the fund-raising problems that kind of came to light a little bit after that Christmas party in December 1996, but you had been apprised of problems of Mr. Trie's fund-raising for the Presidential Legal Defense Trust in May of '96. Is that correct?
Answer. I had been apprised in May of 1996 with respect to the contributions that had been provided by others, as opposed to him. He did not provide a contribution.
Page 518 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Okay. The contributions that he had collected and provided that were in sequential money orders, those are the contributions you are talking about?
Answer. Yes, as well as other contributions that were received that were not in sequential money orders, they were people's personal checks or other things.
Question. And you were aware that much of the money he had raised had been—quite a bit of it had been returned in the summer of 1996?
Answer. I was aware they were going to return it, that is correct.
Question. And so in the time frame of December of 1996 you were aware that money that had been collected by Charlie Trie had been returned?
Answer. Or was going to be returned, right.
Question. And when you took over these duties in October of 1996 on fund-raising, did you ever discuss with anybody at that time, Ms. Sherburne, Harold Ickes or anybody, Charlie Trie?
Answer. No, I don't recall Mr. Trie arising in the context of news reports until I believe—my best and earliest recollection is sometime in November of 1996.
Question. Okay. And you are aware now, I believe Mr. Ickes has said he told somebody at the DNC or mentioned something to the DNC or somebody asked him or something to that effect, in mid-October, about Mr. Trie?
Page 519 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. Correct.
Question. But at the time you were dealing with that in October, you had no knowledge of Mr. Ickes saying anything about Charlie Trie?
Answer. Correct, because I was dealing with it as of October 30 of 1996.
Question. Okay. And at that time, did you ever raise with anybody ''We should look at this'' or have an understanding Charlie Trie was doing DNC fund-raising?
Answer. It didn't come to my attention until sometime in November that Mr. Trie was a supporter of the DNC.
Question. In the May 9th meeting with Mr. Cardozo, no one raised that Mr. Trie was a fund-raiser for the DNC?
Answer. I don't recall anyone raising that. I understand Mr. Cardozo has testified, but I don't recall anyone raising that.
Question. And you are speaking of Mr. Cardozo's testimony that Bruce Lindsey mentioned Mr. Trie was a fund-raiser?
Answer. Well, I don't know if——
Page 520 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Or that is his recollection?
Answer. I don't know what he said with respect—I do recall him saying Mr. Trie was associated with the DNC. That is what I understand Mr. Cardozo to have said in his testimony. I did not hear such a comment.
Question. Have you discussed that with Mr. Lindsey, whether he had knowledge about Charlie Trie being a fund-raiser?
Answer. I am sure I would have asked him. I just don't recall, but I don't think he did.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Off the record for a minute.
[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. COMSTOCK. Back on the record.
We are going to make the March 4 subpoena Deposition Exhibit No. 21.
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. 21 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 521 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And it is your testimony that prior to these videotape issues becoming an issue, you had not seen this subpoena?
Answer. No, actually—I don't know that I actually have reviewed the subpoena. I don't typically review the correspondence coming in from the different committees.
Question. And when a subpoena is received at the White House, generally, and as you were responding to any number of bodies about this, would there ever be any meetings in the Counsel's Office about, ''Okay, where are all the possible places that there might be records?''
Answer. We obviously have meetings in the Counsel's Office to try and ensure that we are responding to the request. We don't have meetings about where would particular things be, at least I don't participate in them. Obviously Lanny Breuer meets with his team and they might have those kind of discussions. I don't participate in meetings where Mr. Breuer is meeting his team. To the extent I participate in any meetings, it tends to be the larger meetings we have.
Question. Given your historical knowledge of the office, do you ever attempt to provide any guidance on, you know, check a book room, check stacks, here is where you might find things, so you don't run into some of the problems that have occurred in the past?
Answer. I think as I testified to initially, when people came on board and to the extent people have ongoing or continuing questions, I try to do just that.
Page 522 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And given that some of these events were, you know, many of the events that were involved were political events, and many of them have been held at the White House, was there ever any discussion of the type of photograph—when we looked at the WAVES records, you had checked for photos on a lot of these people. At that time, did you ever check on any videotapes or any other type of photographic record that might be of individuals or people or events?
Answer. No.
Question. Was that not something you normally checked, in the way you did—I mean, you clearly were looking at the photos, so I am trying to get a sense of why you checked with the photos but not on videotape.
Mr. BALLEN. I object, because I think that the witness said she did not review the subpoena, so you are asking her how she would have checked on something she didn't review.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I am talking in relation to when we looked at the WAVES records and you were trying to determine when John Huang was at events or when James Riady was. One of the resources you went to, I believe prompted by a particular request, was to look for photos, is that correct?
Answer. Yes.
Page 523 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. Okay. At that time, no one had asked you particularly, Congress hadn't spelled out particularly, ''Give us all photos of John Huang,'' is that correct?
Answer. Yes.
Question. But you went or sent somebody to locate what photos are here, what is the universe of pictures or what type of things might assist us with knowing about what records are in the White House about Mr. Riady or Mr. Huang. Is that correct?
Answer. Yes. I was familiar with the photo office.
Question. And were you not familiar with the videotaping office, then?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Are you aware of remedial measures, or whatever measures have been taken since the videotapes have been found, to sort of regroup in the Counsel's Office and consider other records which might be responsive to various requests, in order to assist getting all the information to the Justice Department?
Answer. This request actually would have gotten to the right place and would have gotten the videotape, so I think actually this whole exercise exemplified the process we have been using would ordinarily have captured the materials, but for the fax issue that arose in WHCA's office.
Page 524 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Mr. BALLEN. Just so that is clear, you are referring to the fax issue. Why don't you state that for the record?
The WITNESS. As the WHCA individuals testified, the person who would have been the one to do the search for these materials indicated if he had gotten the request, it was sufficient to be able to identify that they needed to search for the videotapes. In addition, our request asked for all computerized records.
The way in which you search for the videotapes is not to actually look at videotape boxes but to search the computer database, so all of the information would have been captured if they had had a—if it got circulated to them by their chief of staff, the actual request that identified coffees as one of the issues that the committee was interested in.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Now there was a 10/31/96 request that we had looked at earlier today, which was the one that referenced documents that would go to Bill Leary, and Alan Kreczko and Kathy Wallman were also contact points on that. That request had actually attached the congressional request to it.
Answer. I think, as I told you, I am not familiar with the origin of those particular materials.
Question. Do you know of other instances where the actual request was attached to a directive?
Page 525 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. Typically, we write the language of the request as opposed to attaching particular requests.
Question. And are you aware of testimony from some of the WHCA people as to the subpoena itself actually would have assisted them also in finding these records?
Answer. No, I'm not familiar with it. I'm not disputing they might have said it but I am not familiar with it.
Question. The definition section in the subpoena, I guess directing your attention to page one, definitions and instructions are very specific in terms of all of the records, by going down item by item and describing them. Was there ever any discussion of putting a more detailed description of documents on directives, so that when a particular office would get it they would know it is not just paper files or computer files but any records, anything?
Answer. No, because our directives actually asked for all records, and typically we say in whatever form they exist.
Question. And was there an effort to go around to different offices, sort of ''What do you have?''
Answer. I can only speak obviously with respect to mine in particular, the requests I handled. We do try and get whatever materials we can get from people. We obviously have a certification process for people to identify whether or not they have searched for the records. The process is used to ensure people have produced whatever responsive materials they have.
Page 526 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And are those certifications that are signed by people in various offices and provided to the Counsel's Office?
Answer. Yes.
Question. You all keep a record of those for everybody who has certified they have produced documents?
Answer. I can certainly speak to mine, yes, but I don't know kind of what the process is since then, but I would assume it is the same.
Question. The practice, when you were collecting these documents, was that you went around to each office to collect the certifications?
Answer. We didn't go around to each office. We require each office to send us a certification.
Question. One of the things you wanted to get, if you sat down and you didn't have a certification by the due date or some reasonable time afterwards, you would say—either yourself or go to somebody and say, I need a certification from Political Affairs that they have given us all the documents?
Answer. Correct.
Page 527 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And in regard to another recent issue which has just come up in the past week or so regarding the dog track issue generically, can you tell us—we also have Jim Wilson and David Bossie also here from majority staff.
Could you tell us of your involvement on executive privileged documents related to the dog track issue?
Answer. I am sure if there are privileged materials about the dog track, which I believe there are, I would have participated in the process to ensure that if there were appropriate privileges, that they were identified.
Question. And do you know when that process occurred?
Answer. I don't know kind of what the time frame was for it, but it was only relatively recently we ended up producing the privilege log in connection with litigation that is going on, so it would have been close to that time period.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay. Actually, this is the August 4th directive, which on the second page includes a request for documents. It is request No. 8, ''All documents relating to the Department of Interior's decision to deny a petition for a casino in Hudson, Wisconsin.'' I will make that Deposition Exhibit No. 22.
And then in particular this committee, as well as, I believe the Senate has requested probably even earlier than we had, documents pertaining to the dog track issue. That will be Exhibit 23.
Page 528 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–22 was marked for identification.]
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–23 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. Number 8, is it you all's intention that all documents relating to the Department of Interior's decision to deny a petition that arose out of you all's request——
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. No, because our subpoena is actually after that date. I believe there are requests from the Senate at an earlier date.
Answer. Yours was on the 4th of September.
Question. Actually it was the 21st of August, due on the 4th of September. The directive is August 4, 1997. I assume the directive was pursuant to another request, other than ours, prior to August 4th?
Answer. Are these individuals that are listed on the attachment associated with the dog track matter?
Question. Yes, all records relating to St. Croix Meadows Greyhound Racing Park. That is the dog track.
Page 529 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. The dog track issue is the same as the St. Croix Meadows racing track, racing park?
Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, obviously you can say what you know.
The WITNESS. I don't believe that St. Croix is—it's Chippewa. That is why I am trying to understand how this captures the Chippewa. I am just trying to understand.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay. Can we just take a break here for a minute, then?
[Brief recess.]
Ms. COMSTOCK. Back on the record.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. The August 4th directive, were you aware of documents being collected regarding the Department of Interior's decision?
Answer. I am sure they would have been, and I am sure if I saw this request, I would know materials associated with that would have been collected, yes.
Page 530 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. The contact person on this is Michael Imbroscio?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. Did Mr. Imbroscio talk to you about this issue at any time?
Answer. No, not that I believe.
Question. Would your involvement in this only be regarding any executive privilege issues?
Answer. Typically, yes.
Question. So you weren't day-to-day involved in the substance of the issue; you would only be involved in the addressing of executive privilege issues regarding any documents?
Answer. Typically, that is right, and the day-to-day production I didn't do.
Ms. COMSTOCK. To shorten this up, we can skip to executive privilege issues, less than the substance of these. And have we marked these yet? We can just skip that and go to the documents, if that is easier, so we don't need that.
Page 531 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Mr. EGGLESTON. I had this marked Exhibit 22.
Ms. COMSTOCK. We can mark those 22 and 23. And this is the privilege log.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Maybe if you could just tell us generically your involvement in discussing these issues, and I am assuming it's fairly recent; is that correct?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Within the past month or so?
Answer. Correct.
Question. And did you discuss these matters with Mr. Lindsey, with his involvement in the dog track issue in general?
Answer. No, the issues that we had regarding privilege—and Mr. Lindsey was not a part of those discussions, it was discussions that were with Mr. Ruff, Mr. Breuer and Mr. Nionakis.
Question. In order to get an understanding of the issue in general, did you discuss with Mr. Lindsey the comments that have now been reported, that the President made a comment to him and then there were phone calls?
Page 532 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. I might have talked with him about it because there have been different news articles that have been written about it, but this is an issue that was reported on last year as well, so it is something that is kind of part of the public domain now.
Question. And we had discussed this a little earlier about the concept of the Justice Department working with the White House on executive privilege issues. Given that this matter is under investigation now by the Justice Department, were there any discussions with the Justice Department about how they would both simultaneously assist the White House with claiming privilege while they were investigating the preliminary matter regarding Secretary Babbitt?
Answer. I am not aware of any such discussions.
Question. You don't know of any having occurred at the White House?
Answer. Correct.
Question. Between or among people at the White House or the Justice Department?
Answer. Right. I mean, this is with respect to litigation that is actually ongoing, and so the Department represents us in that particular litigation. We are not actually the subject of the litigation, someone else is, and so I am not aware of discussions of the sort that you have indicated.
Page 533 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And do you know who the point person was at OLC who was working on this?
[Witness confers with counsel.]
Mr. EGGLESTON. If you don't know, tell her.
The WITNESS. No, I don't know for certain.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you know if Beth Nolan has been involved in working on these matters?
Answer. She has not.
Question. Has she recused herself from this because she was at the White House when some of the initial events occurred, do you know?
Answer. I don't know.
Question. Okay. Could you just tell us, then, what the discussions were in claiming privilege over some of these documents?
Page 534 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. I think the process typically is, we identify documents that may be subject to privilege, in this instance the Department reviews them and makes a determination with respect to the privileges, and then we place them on a privilege log and provide them.
Mr. BALLEN. When you say the Department——
The WITNESS. The Department of Justice in that instance, and then we provided them to the committee. The committee actually has these documents.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. The committee was provided these documents after a story in the press?
Answer. The story in the press, though, originated because we produced on the Friday the production of the privilege log in the litigation, which would have been on Monday you all got the materials. Because there are reporters who obviously are interested in this matter and report on it during the course of the weekend, that is the only reason it would have been produced afterwards, but it was produced in a timely fashion. Indeed, the privilege log was not even filed until late that day on Friday.
Question. Was there any discussion prior to filing this privilege log in the litigation that they might want to inform Congress that some of these documents, you know, had not been produced yet, so they weren't reading about them in the paper, you know, the documents being withheld?
Page 535 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Answer. The documents hadn't been withheld. The documents had been provided to you and were not going to be withheld. It is my understanding there is a non-waiver agreement, so these would be materials you all would receive once they had been determined with respect to what privileges might have been associated with them. The only withholding is with respect to private litigants in the litigation in Wisconsin, not with respect to the committee.
Question. The directive that we made, Exhibit No. 23 asked to have all these documents turned in by August 11. Do you know how long these documents had been gathered, why there was the delay in turning them over?
Answer. I don't know that there was delay in turning them over and I don't know when they were collected and gathered.
Question. Okay. And this is one of the documents that was——
Mr. EGGLESTON. Ms. Comstock, I have to tell you, I am not sure what we are doing here because it seems to me you are only doing this with regard to the private litigation. The committee has them. There has not been privilege claimed over them. I think they have never been withheld. You have a privilege log. They weren't late.
And it seems to me unless you are just acting on behalf of a private party, I don't understand what issue it is—I mean, there is litigation involving private parties, but I don't see what you think the White House has done that is inappropriate on this. And it seems to me, since I think the likelihood this deposition is going to be leaked is close to 100 percent, the notion you are going to question her about the process by which the executive branch asserted privilege over documents involved in private litigation, I don't see the slightest congressional interest in that.
Page 536 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. For the record, none of the depositions we have taken to date have been leaked, and I would disagree with that percentage as well as——
Mr. EGGLESTON. On that issue, let me say they are usually released at the time of public testimony, so certainly this is likely to be.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Actually, these documents were——
Mr. EGGLESTON. I don't see the interest the committee has in advancing private interests, and apart from that, I don't see what else the purpose of this is, because these have not been—they were provided to the committee, they weren't late, and I don't see what interest is being pursued here.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Actually they were gathered in August and not produced until October, after they were produced to private litigants. What we are trying to determine is the process going on here and why there was this delay in producing them.
The WITNESS. I don't know there is actually a delay. I think, as I probably indicated previously, that when documents—we put a date on there, and people obviously have to go through whatever materials they have and provide them. And they try and provide them as closely as they can, but there is a process of review that would take time, so I don't know if I would buy into the notion of there being a delay.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 537 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Question. And this is EOP 69070, which is an April 24, 1995 memo for Harold Ickes from Loretta Avent, and this is one of the documents which is executive privilege, subject to executive privilege. Is it correct that privilege has not actually been asserted, then, by the President?
Answer. Correct.
Mr. EGGLESTON. It also is correct you just handed them to us and they are in the possession of the committee, correct?
Ms. COMSTOCK. That is correct, and we are trying to determine the process by which this document was considered executive privilege.
Mr. EGGLESTON. I think she just said executive privilege has not been asserted, and in fact, they are in the hands—if you are asking why they put it on a private litigant privilege log, then I think——
Ms. COMSTOCK. We received a privilege log from this committee saying this is a document subject to executive privilege, and we are also looking at the Justice Department having reviewed this and agreed with this, and I think we have some issues of why there may or may not be some conflicts on this. And what we are trying to understand is the process by which, you know, going through and determining this document was subject to executive privilege, a memo for Harold Ickes, from Loretta Avent——
Page 538 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 7 Of 22
Mr. BALLEN. Subject to executive privilege in a private litigation. Has the privilege been asserted as regards this committee?
The WITNESS. No.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. We have a document here that says it is subject to executive privilege. What I am asking is why is it contended that this is a document subject to executive privilege. This is part of this non-waiver agreement thing that we have—the committee has not signed any non-waiver agreement, but there is an informal——
Answer. Does that mean the committee does not abide by the non-waiver agreements? You are saying it is informal. What does that mean?
Question. We have been asked to have an agreement that this is subject to executive privilege, and if these are some kind of special documents, what we are asking——
Answer. Is it the case the committee does not have an agreement, does not have a non-waiver agreement? Is that what you are saying?
Next Hearing Segment(8)