Segment 8 Of 22 Previous Hearing Segment(7) Next Hearing Segment(9)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 539 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. We have a letter agreement.
Answer. Does the letter agreement encompass a non-waiver agreement?
Question. Well, I don't have the letter in front of me here, but the point is I am trying to ask why is this subject to—why are we being asked to put that in the category of documents that are subject to or in this waiver agreement—non-waiver agreement? What is the purpose of that?
Answer. Well, if documents are subject to executive privilege, then they would fall in the category of the non-waiver agreement.
Question. Why is this document, the April 24, 1995 document for Harold Ickes, subject to executive privilege?
Answer. I can't go about re-creating whatever people's judgments and decision-making processes with respect to particular documents, but in general the way we determine privilege is to review the principles that are outlined in a case that recently came down called the In Re: Seal case and look at it, also another memorandum that addresses executive privilege, and review the document in that context.
Question. You review these matters with the assistance of OLC; is that correct?
Answer. It is my understanding in this instance OLC was consulted with regards to these materials because it is involved in ongoing litigation of private parties.
Page 540 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. Do you know who in the Counsel's Office was talking to OLC about this?
Answer. It would be my impression Dimitri Nionakis would be.
Mr. BALLEN. I want to note it is 12:30, for the record, and although we agreed I believe to finish up now, and the Minority does have some questions, I want to get the witness out on time.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I think we are going to be able to meet that time frame.
We are going ahead and make the privilege log deposition Exhibit 24 and memo deposition Exhibit No. 25.
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–24 was marked for identification.]
[Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM–25 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. To your knowledge, are there any documents which are currently being reviewed for privilege issues that have not been produced to the committee, that are sort of the subject of ongoing privilege evaluations?
Page 541 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. No.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I believe that is all I have at this time.
Mr. EGGLESTON. Can we just take a 2-minute break?
Mr. BALLEN. Yes.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. BALLEN. I just want to make one comment for the record because we didn't resolve this earlier. If you have in your possession her deposition before the Senate or any other depositions, we request they be turned over to us.
Ms. COMSTOCK. And we can talk about that.
Mr. BALLEN. Particularly since we have hearings later this week.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes. I know on Friday Mr. McLaughlin had mentioned that he had other depositions, and I think there may have been a misunderstanding, but we can resolve all that, and I think that is what we have tried to do. I talked to Mr. Eggleston about areas that had been covered and we talked early last week about all of that, so we tried to focus on some areas in October of last year and in particular in our subpoenas, with a lot of the information already actually being made public. I appreciate Mr. Eggleston's assistance in that, and thank you.
Page 542 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Mr. BALLEN. Okay. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]
[The deposition exhibits referred to follow:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 109 TO 239 HERE
[The deposition of Michael Imbroscio follows:]
Executive Session
| Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, |
| U.S. House of Representatives, |
| Washington, DC. |
DEPOSITION OF: MICHAEL X. IMBROSCIO
| Thursday, October 16, 1997 |
The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2157, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10:10 a.m.
Appearances:
Page 543 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Barbara Comstock, Chief Investigative Counsel; Kristi Remington, Investigative Counsel; David Bossie, Richard Bennett, Chief Counsel; James C. Wilson, Senior Investigative Counsel; Oversight Coordinator; Kenneth Ballen, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel; Andrew J. McLaughlin, Minority Counsel.
For MR. IMBROSCIO:
MARK H. LYNCH, ESQ.
Covington & Burling
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
P.O. Box 7566
Washington, D.C. 20044
Ms. COMSTOCK. Good morning. On behalf of the Members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I thank you for appearing here today. This proceeding is known as a deposition. The person transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and a notary public. I will now request Robin Butler of the Committee staff to place you under oath.
THEREUPON, MICHAEL X. IMBROSCIO, a witness, was called for examination and, after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Page 544 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. I would like to note for the record those who are present at the beginning of this deposition.
My name is Barbara Comstock, chief investigative counsel for the Committee; I am accompanied today by Kristi Remington, associate counsel, who is with the Majority staff; Ken Ballen, designated Minority counsel for the Committee this morning, and he is accompanied by Andrew McLaughlin. The deponent is represented by Mr. Mark Lynch, and the deponent is Mr. Michael Imbroscio.
Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you have been placed under oath, your testimony has the same force and effect as if you were testifying before a Committee or in a courtroom. If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words used in that conversation, I would ask that you state you are unable to recall the exact words but give the gist or substance of any such conversation to the best of your recollection. If you recall only part of a conversation or only part of an event, please give me the best recollection of those events or parts of conversations that you do recall.
If I ask you whether you have any information about a particular subject and you have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding that subject or have seen correspondence or documentation about that subject, I would ask that you provide such information and indicate the source from which you have derived such knowledge.
Before we begin the questioning, I would like to give you some background about the investigation and your appearance here. Pursuant to its authority under House Rules X and XI of the House of Representatives, the Committee is engaged in a wide-ranging review of possible political fund raising improprieties and possible violations of law. Pages 2 through 4 of House Report 105–139 summarizes the investigation as of June 19, 1997, and describes new matters which I will raise in the course of the investigation. Also, pages 4 through 11 of the report explain the background of the investigation.
Page 545 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
All questions related either directly or indirectly to these issues, or questions which have the tendency to make the existence of any pertinent fact more or less probable than it would have been without the evidence, are proper.
The Committee has been granted specific authorization to conduct this deposition pursuant to House Resolution 167, which passed the full House on June 20th, 1997. Committee Rule 20 outlines the ground rules for the deposition. Majority and Minority Committee counsel will ask you questions regarding the subject matter of this deposition. Minority counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel is finished. After the Minority counsel has completed questioning you, a new round of questioning may begin. Members of Congress who wish to ask questions will be afforded an immediate opportunity ask their questions at any time when they may be present. When they are finished, Committee counsel will resume questioning.
Pursuant to the Committee's rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights. Any objection raised during the course of the deposition needs to be stated for the record. If the witness is instructed not to answer a question or otherwise refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine whether the objection is proper. If Majority and Minority counsel agree that a question is proper, the witness will be asked to answer the question. If an objection is not withdrawn, the Chairman or a Member designated by the Chairman may decide whether the objection is proper.
This deposition is considered taken in Executive Session of the Committee, which means that it may not be made public without the consent of the Committee, pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule XI. We ask that you abide by the rules of the House and not discuss with anyone other than your attorney this deposition and the issues and questions raised during this proceeding.
Page 546 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the Chairman.
That 5-day rule, with agreement of Minority, has been routinely waived in order for people to be able to work with their counsel in a timely manner.
A transcript may be available for you for review at the Committee office or we can, if you can sign a form that you are not copying it or sharing it with anyone, we can make it available to you to review outside the Committee offices with your client.
Mr. LYNCH. Appreciate that.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Committee staff may make any typographic or technical changes requested by you. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a statement of your reasons for each proposed change. A letter requesting substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments must be signed by you. Any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments shall be included as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon your signing of the transcript.
Do you understand everything we have gone over so far?
The WITNESS. Yes.
Page 547 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. Do you have any questions about anything?
The WITNESS. No.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I just want to go through a few ground rules.
The reporter will be taking down everything we say to make a written record. You need to give verbal, audible answers. We don't want to talk over each other. Wait until we are finished asking the questions, then I will also wait until you have finished your answer.
Are you here voluntarily today or as a result of a subpoena?
The WITNESS. Voluntarily, I believe.
Mr. LYNCH. Yes, Mr. Imbroscio is here voluntarily.
May I say something at this point?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes.
Mr. LYNCH. I had a conversation with Mr. Bennett yesterday in which I explained to him that I have only been very recently retained by Mr. Imbroscio.
Page 548 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
As you know, the Committee has taken the position that attorneys in the Office of the Counsel to the President may not be represented by other attorneys in that office, so it was necessary for them to seek private counsel. And as I said, I have just been retained a very few days ago. We have thoroughly reviewed the subject matter of the discovery of the audio tapes and are fully ready to discuss that as long as and as completely as you want to do today.
To the extent that you are interested in the broader question of compliance with subpoenas and other requests for documents, there may well be areas that I simply have not had a chance yet to discuss with Mr. Imbroscio, and we certainly would anticipate coming back at a later time after we have had a chance to go over all that material, but we simply have not been able to cover that material.
I explained all this to Mr. Bennett yesterday. We are certainly not suggesting that you're not entitled to go into everything, but we are asking if today we could focus on the discovery of the videotapes, because that is really all I have been able to get my arms around at this point.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay. Mr. Bennett had shared your conversation with him with me also, and I do understand that you expressed those concerns to him.
To the extent that the videotapes do and the discovery springs from certain requests and things like that, I think it will be necessary to go into the general areas. I think what we can do is, if we start general and then you can indicate areas where you have not had that opportunity yet to work with your client, then we can just skip over those areas as we go through. But maybe it will be easier if we can get through what you are comfortable going through, and then if there are areas that you just have not had a chance to discuss yet, then we will put those off for another day.
Page 549 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Mr. LYNCH. Sure. We appreciate that.
Ms. COMSTOCK. But it may be that in working on the videotapes and in general work on those matters, that some of the other more general questions will be able to be answered. But why don't we just see as we go how far we can get.
Mr. LYNCH. Sure. And we will certainly take this on a question-by-question basis.
Ms. COMSTOCK. We would certainly prefer to make any revisit shorter rather than longer.
Mr. LYNCH. Sure.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Or unnecessary, if possible.
Mr. BALLEN. And, whenever appropriate, I have a statement before we begin.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay.
Mr. BALLEN. I will do it now.
First of all, on this issue of scope, what we understand the scope to be in the Minority is to be on the compliance with the subpoenas and nothing beyond that. And Mr. Lynch has indicated today a question of preparation on the videotapes versus nonvideotape issues, but what we understand the scope of these depositions to be is related to compliance with subpoenas and not anything else.
Page 550 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
To the extent, and let me make it very clear on behalf of the Members in the Minority, to the extent there is any questioning beyond the issue of compliance with the subpoenas that were issued by this Committee and by the Senate and by others, we will object most strenuously to that, and we will seek, because we believe it is beyond the proper scope of this Committee, we will seek a Committee vote on any such questions. And so I want that to be clear at the outset, our view on the scope of these depositions.
Having stated that, what I need to also state is several other views of the Minority. First, we object to these depositions. we object to these depositions being taken at all, but I will get to that at the last. As a procedural matter, we object. Mr. Condit wrote a letter on behalf of the Minority Members to the Chairman and——
Ms. COMSTOCK. Is that a letter we have received, to your knowledge?
Mr. BALLEN. It went out yesterday. I certainly hope——
Ms. COMSTOCK. We have not received that letter. I read about it in the paper this morning, but we have not received it.
Mr. BALLEN. Well, Mr. Condit sent it out yesterday and I will enter it. I know Mr. Condit sent it to the Chairman.
In fact, let me enter it into the record at this point. It is a public letter sent out by Mr. Condit yesterday. I know Mr. Condit is very good about making sure letters are delivered, so I am sure he—we can mark it as Minority Exhibit Number 1.
Page 551 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
[Minority Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.]
[Note.—All exhibits referred to may be found at end of deposition on p. 509.]
First off, as Mr. Condit states quite eloquently in his letter, we object to these depositions being taken without either conducting them jointly with the Senate, deferring the House until the Senate has conducted them, or the Senate deferring until the House has conducted them. These are depositions with the exact same witnesses, exact same issues, same questions, same documents, and if there ever were a case for coordinating between the House and the Senate, our view is the entire investigation should be coordinated, but at least this one discrete aspect should be coordinated. So we object to that.
Our Members, including Mr. Waxman, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Kanjorski and Mr. Condit, specifically object to these depositions occurring now. We believe that the Members should have a right to attend these depositions; that if they are important enough to do, Members of Congress, who are now on recess and are not available, should be afforded the opportunity to attend, and our Members very strongly wanted that opportunity. And, again, these have been scheduled over our objection to taking them, which is set forth in Mr. Condit's letter as well.
Let me read verbatim a statement Mr. Condit would like read in the record. ''I object to these depositions taking place at this particular time.'' This is Mr. Condit's statement. ''Given the short notice of the depositions, scheduled after Members left for the current recess, and given scheduling problems associated with the recess, it is impossible for Members who may choose to be present for the depositions to be here. Additionally, I have written to Chairman Burton spelling out this objection and, as yet, have not received a reply. I would, therefore, object and urge postponement of these depositions until such time as Members have returned from their respective districts.''
Page 552 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
And that is a statement of Mr. Condit and is a statement that is echoed by all Minority Members of this Committee, and we fail to see the urgency in proceeding in this fashion.
Lastly, I want to note something for the record, which is the extreme dismay that I have that we are going through this process at all. I have been up on the Hill on and off for 10 years now and was intimately involved in the Iran-contra investigation. And I must say we had problems with the White House during Iran-contra in terms of documents being submitted, other documents being withheld, documents being discovered late, and outright refusal to turn over some of the information subpoenaed, period, without assertion of any privilege or any other reason.
This White House has been cooperative and, from my point of view, as far as we know, acted in good faith. To put people whose job it was, who are in the counsel's office, through this kind of a process, under oath, without giving them the benefit of trying to explain themselves first, strikes me as an unfortunate exercise of the Majority's power. These depositions were done without consult with the Minority whatsoever and, frankly, without really giving the White House an opportunity in good faith to reply to what had happened.
I have to note, too, that if this were an issue where documents that were incriminating in any effect were not turned over, maybe this entire process could be justified, but we're talking about, the best we can determine at this point in time, exculpatory information. Why anyone would submit themselves to this kind of proceeding for failure to turn over information that would have helped them had it been turned over earlier boggles the mind.
Page 553 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
So with those objections noted for the record, we should proceed.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Okay. I would like to note that the letter that Mr. Ballen entered into the record apparently was faxed to Mr. Waxman's office last night at 6:12 p.m. We were not in receipt of that letter at any time before the deposition this morning.
We did read about the letter in Roll Call this morning, so apparently it was made, at least the sense of it was made available to Roll Call at some point before deadline last evening, but we were not aware of any of these objections.
We did have a meeting last Friday with Mr. Ballen and with the White House Counsel, Chuck Ruff, and with Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills and Special Counsel Lanny Breuer. At that time Mr. Ballen did not voice any of these concerns, and actually the White House Counsel, Mr. Ruff, had no objection to us going forward. And during a very candid and frank discussion, Mr. Ruff understood exactly why the Committee was going forward with these depositions.
He did not raise the issue of joint depositions or anything like that because, in fact, this investigation, the House investigation and the Senate, has a number of different issues. We have different scopes. And certainly, as the witness will probably be able to tell us today, our subpoenas have been different, our requests have been different. While there obviously is some overlap in these matters, how and when our subpoenas were responded to as opposed to Senate subpoenas or others are different issues, and for that reason we are going to continue to proceed this morning.
Page 554 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
And like Mr. Ballen, I too have been involved in a number of investigations up here on the Hill over the years and, unfortunately, the patterns that we have seen with this one have been all too common. We have had records turn up years after they were sought, and this has been a concern that this chairman and many Members of this Committee, who not only have served during this Congress on this investigation but served on the Committee with previous investigations and were familiar with the lack of response that has resulted often from our subpoenas. And, in fact, we have had to move in the past on contempt as we did this year with the White House.
So with all those things in mind, the Committee Members and on the Majority side felt very strongly it was important to establish not only the issue of the videotapes and how they were discovered but general compliance with the Committee's subpoenas.
Now, as we have discussed with counsel already, we understand that the witness may not be ready this morning for the entire area of compliance issues, but we are going to cover those that we are able to deal with this morning.
Mr. BALLEN. Let me just note for the record, I don't want to engage in a long debate with counsel for the Majority, but to point out several facts.
One is that our objections to these, I talked to Mr. Bennett about it and this was faxed from Congressman—my understanding is Mr. Condit delivered this letter to Mr. Burton yesterday. That is my understanding. That is what I was told by Mr. Condit's office: The letter was delivered here yesterday. Why you have not received it, I do not know.
Page 555 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
It was faxed from Mr. Waxman's office to me. And if you look at the bottom of the thing, it says 5:18 p.m. That is when I received it. I don't know what that 6:12 is on the top, because I received it from our main office, which is the faxes, earlier in the day. I don't know what that is at the top because I know when I received it. It was refaxed, apparently.
But in any event, it was delivered to you yesterday. And if you want to beg to differ with Mr. Condit on that, his office assured me that it was delivered to you yesterday afternoon. And my objections were made to Mr. Bennett earlier, in any event.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I would note for the record, counsel apparently had this by 5:18 or 6:12 and did not bring this to our attention last evening.
Mr. BALLEN. Which counsel?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Minority counsel.
Mr. BALLEN. Why should I, if it was delivered to you by Mr. Condit. And that office delivered it to you. If I am told a letter is delivered to you, I assume it was delivered. That is what I was told. I didn't see any reason to bring it to your attention since you received an original of it in the afternoon.
Mr. LYNCH. One minor housekeeping item. I think when you identified the people present you did not identify Mr. Bossie.
Ms. COMSTOCK. I think we had forgot. Mr. Bossie was down here on the list already.
Page 556 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay, if we could begin. Could you please provide your employment history from college forward?
Answer. Let me take a step back. I was born in Ohio in 1968, I attended Ohio State University, graduating summa cum laude in 1990. Thereafter attended Harvard Law School, graduated in 1993 magna cum laude. I clerked for one year for Judge John M. Walker, Jr., on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Judge Walker is, as you probably are aware, President Bush's first cousin. After clerking for Judge Walker, I entered employment with Covington & Burling, where I worked over the summer a few years earlier, and worked at Covington & Burling for approximately two-and-a-half years until March of this year.
Question. Then at that time were you hired at the White House?
Answer. My first day at the White House was March 3, 1997.
Question. And who hired you?
Answer. While at Covington & Burling I worked closely with Mr. Lanny Breuer, and he, as well as Mr. Ruff, hired me to come work at the White House.
Question. And what are your duties at the White House?
Page 557 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. I work on Mr. Breuer's team of lawyers doing our best to comply with the numerous requests for documents and other materials from the various investigative committees and other investigative bodies.
Question. Is Mr. Breuer your supervisor?
Answer. He is.
Question. And how many of you work on these matters?
Answer. We have a small staff of about five or six lawyers who work on these matters.
Question. And could you identify those people, please?
Answer. I may leave out one or two, but our team is comprised of myself, I am the most junior lawyer on the team; Michelle Peterson, Demetri Nionakis, Karl Racine, Karen Popp, and Mr. Breuer.
Question. And is Lanny Davis also part of that team?
Answer. Lanny Davis' responsibilities are to deal with the various press inquiries that our office receives. He is in no way a part of the document compliance team.
Question. And do you also have paralegals and support staff who work with you?
Page 558 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. We do have a few parallels and support staff.
Question. Who are those individuals?
Answer. We have three paralegals and Mr. Breuer has an assistant.
Question. And who are the paralegals?
Answer. Their names are Debra, Dimi and Erin.
Question. Could you give me their full names?
Answer. I have a hard time spelling a few of them. Debra Falk, F-A-L-K; Erin Green, G-R-E-E-N; and Dimi Dooufekias, spelling of which I will not attempt.
Question. And so Mr. Breuer has an assistant also?
Answer. Mr. Breuer does have an assistant.
Question. And who is that?
Answer. His name, as you might be aware, is Brian Smith.
Question. And are there any other individuals who work on Mr. Breuer's team?
Page 559 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. Throughout the summer and currently we occasionally have various volunteers and interns that are assigned to our office in the White House.
Question. And does Cheryl Mills also work on any of these production matters?
Answer. She does not. Cheryl is the deputy counsel to the President. I don't know what the whole host of her duties entail, but she is not a member of the day-to-day compliance team.
Question. In a letter of people who had been involved in production matters, in these videotapes in particular, Mr. Ruff provided Ms. Mills' name. Do you know what her role is on this?
Answer. I believe Mr. Ruff also provided his own name, and certainly Mr. Ruff is not involved in the day-to-day production issues of our team. But certainly Mr. Ruff, Ms. Mills and the rest of us on the team are certainly lawyers in the office who work on these matters.
Question. Do you know who Ms. Mills reports to in that structure of the counsel's office?
Answer. My understanding of it is that she reports to Mr. Ruff.
Page 560 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. And do you know if Mr. Lindsey has had any involvement in any of the production issues or production?
Answer. During my 7 months at the White House Mr. Lindsey has had absolutely no involvement in production issues. I believe I spoke with Mr. Lindsey less than three times.
Question. Why don't you describe to us what you do in terms of gathering documents.
Mr. BALLEN. Gathering documents when? In response to the subpoena?
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. In response to letter requests or subpoenas.
Mr. BALLEN. From who? It is a rather broad question. He might have different procedures with regard to different types of issues.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. This team of people you identified, do you respond to the House letter requests and subpoenas in the course of this investigation?
Page 561 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. Yes, we do.
Question. Do you also respond to the Senate requests or subpoenas for information?
Answer. As I testified earlier, this is the team that responds to all requests from various committee and other investigative bodies.
Question. Okay. And so that would include the Justice Department also?
Answer. It would.
Question. And that would be any independent counsel or the Justice Department task force? This would be the same group of people that would respond to those matters?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. Now, are any particular people assigned to the White House or the Senate or Justice Department subpoenas?
Answer. Not in any formal sense, no.
Question. So there's not somebody who is the House guy, and then the Senate guy, and the Justice Department guy who sort of is in charge of compliance and making sure that particular subpoenas are complied with at the end of the day?
Page 562 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. Again, not in any formal sense. We all have various roles depending on various requests. We obviously get numerous requests from many bodies, and if it happens to be a request that relates to an earlier request that somebody had responsibility for, they would then take responsibility for that request. But, again, there's no designated individual to handle requests from a particular body.
Question. And is Mr. Breuer, then, in charge of all of these areas then in terms of final compliance? Is that where the buck stops, generally?
Answer. That is part of his role as Special Counsel to the President, yes.
Question. Is he working on other matters besides responding to these investigations?
Answer. I stumble on the word ''responding.'' If you define responding very broadly, yes, that is his responsibility. Responding not only to documents but responding more generally.
Question. He is not working on appointment of judges or things that other counsel people might work on?
Answer. That's accurate.
Question. How many attorneys are in the counsel's office?
Page 563 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. I'm not sure, but I think somewhere between 14 and 18 at any given time.
Question. And do you know the total number of people who are in the counsel's office?
Answer. I thought I just answered that question.
Question. With support staff and paralegals.
Answer. Several of the lawyers who are not on our team who do various other tasks of the counsel's office, like judges and appointments, as you just mentioned, they often share an assistant. I believe there are a few assistants throughout the office that support the other attorneys.
Question. Any other attorneys detailed, to your knowledge, to the counsel's office?
Answer. My understanding is that there are such attorneys and that they do primarily vetting. But in all honesty, I have not met any of these such attorneys. I am told they exist but cannot confirm it under oath.
Question. To your knowledge, are any of the individuals you named who are on the team, were they detailed from other agencies or from U.S. Attorneys' offices?
Page 564 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. No, they are not.
Question. Now, you said you are the low man on the totem pole in terms of this team; is that correct?
Answer. I believe I said I was the most junior attorney on the team, yes. I'm 29 years old, for the record.
Question. And why don't you tell us how you go about then responding, if there is a difference—is there a difference in how you respond to the House or Senate or Justice Department subpoenas or requests?
Answer. We do not distinguish between requests from one entity versus the other.
Question. Why don't you tell us how you generally respond to requests; how they are handled in your office.
Answer. Okay, I can speak generally at this point. Generally, when we receive a request, and we receive many of them, we evaluate the nature of the request; ask ourselves does the request require an entire White House-wide search or something more limited.
For instance, if it is a WAVE search, that would not require an entire White House-wide search. If it does require a White House-wide search, we undertake the steps to conduct a targeted search to the areas or offices of the White House that would be likely to have responsive documents.
Page 565 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
If it does require a White House-wide search, the practice that is in place, and as I understand has been in place well before, well before I came into this office, is that the Counsel to the President, and there have been several, currently Mr. Ruff, will send out a memorandum to the entire Executive Office of the President, sometimes shortened to EOP, detailing what those requests are and asking attorneys to search—asking employees of the EOP to search all of their records for materials and provide to the counsel's office any responsive materials.
Question. Maybe if we could get a little, sort of some of the technical aspects of when a letter request comes into your office, who is the person who receives it, to your knowledge?
Answer. Typically, the person who receives it is the person to whom it is sent. Sometimes they are sent to the President of the United States, sometimes they are sent to Mr. Ruff, sometimes they are sent to Mr. Breuer, and sometimes, particularly ones where there is a working relationship between our staff and staffs of other committees, the letter will come in directed to one of the staff attorneys.
Question. And is there a process whereby a letter is logged in in the counsel's office?
Answer. There very well might be, but I am not aware of such a process.
Question. Is there a process by which a subpoena is logged in?
Page 566 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. Same answer.
Question. Do you know if there's any type of database or accounting of various requests?
Answer. No, not to my knowledge.
Question. I'm just wondering, last night on the news I think Mr. Lanny Davis was saying how many requests had been made from different agencies, and I was wondering who is in charge of counting those or where is that body of information that would count that?
Answer. Well, I believe we have a collection of correspondence, subpoenas and other requests that are probably put together in various binders. I am sure there is a binder for the House of Representatives as there are for the other investigative bodies, and I suspect the counting took—it meant someone going through and counting the various requests for the various bodies.
Question. Do you know who did that in this case?
Answer. I have no idea.
Question. But there's not any type of, you are not in charge of that recordkeeping or accounting of requests?
Page 567 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. I am not.
Question. Do you know who is?
Answer. I do not know if anyone is in charge at all and if there is someone in charge who that person would be.
Question. Do you know how, once the request is received by Mr. Breuer, by whoever it was addressed to, how is it handled from that point?
Answer. At that point it is usually discussed at a gathering of lawyers on the team and the task of, the discussion of what it takes to respond is discussed, as I testified earlier that that process occurs, and the request may be assigned to a particular person, if it is a rather discrete request, or it will be, a strategy for responding to a particularly larger request would be discussed.
Question. And then are particular people put in charge of different areas of a subpoena or is one person put in charge of each request?
Answer. Again, there's no set answer. It really is case specific. It depends on the breadth of the subpoena, if it is a subpoena; depends on the nature of the requests, whether they require a White House-wide search or whether they require more targeted searches.
Page 568 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Mr. LYNCH. I think the record should reflect that Mr. Imbroscio explained, when we first came in, that he has aggravated an old knee injury within the last day or two, and he is in some obvious discomfort I think everyone here at the table will recognize. And among other things he has to get up and walk around once in a while to relieve the pain in his knee.
Ms. COMSTOCK. And if at any time you need a break, just let us know. Feel free to—we are in a pretty small area, so if it helps to walk around, that will be fine.
The WITNESS. I appreciate that.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I want to maybe distinguish between letter requests and subpoenas. Are those treated differently, to your knowledge, and how you respond to them?
Answer. Well, we respond to all requests fully and completely. So in the sense of whether one gets second class status, absolutely not.
Question. And when you said that memos are often put out, office wide memos are put out, who generally writes up those memos?
Answer. We sometimes call them directives because they direct the White House staff to search their files. Such directives are sent out under the name of the Counsel to the President, and particular members of the staff will work with the Counsel to the President in drafting and formalizing and finalizing such a memo.
Page 569 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. But usually Mr. Ruff himself is not sitting at the computer drafting the memo?
Answer. As you might suspect, he is not usually the original drafter, but certainly he does have a part in the editing of the document.
Question. You had said you started at the White House on March 3 of this year; is that correct?
Answer. That was a Monday, that is correct.
Question. And where is your office located?
Answer. My office has moved once since I have been here, but if we can get away with this, in the Old Executive Office Building.
Question. And is that where you started?
Answer. That is where I started.
Question. And do you have an office mate, someone that is in your office with you?
Answer. I do not.
Page 570 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. Is there a suite of offices where this team works?
Answer. The Old Executive Office Building was built in, I believe beginning in 1871. Its design and construction does not involve various suites of offices. My office is on the fourth floor, which is a hallway that several of the attorneys on my team also have offices.
Question. Generally, you are in an area together? You are not spread out across the complex? That is what I am trying to understand.
Answer. That is generally correct, yes.
Question. So who else is in that group of offices?
Answer. Mr. Racine, Mr. Nionakis, Miss Peterson and Ms. Popp have offices generally in the same corridor.
Question. And is there also a Michael Waitzkin who is on your team?
Answer. Yes. His name is Michael ''Buzz'' Waitzkin. Buzz was a partner at a law firm in town and joined the counsel's office some months after I joined. He is a person that I probably have left off the original list.
Page 571 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
As you can gather from his previous status, he's a more senior lawyer and while he does have involvement generally in responding to requests, he is not one of the line attorneys as the other ones I described in responding to requests.
Question. And where is Mr. Breuer's office?
Answer. Mr. Breuer's office is in a different part of the Old Executive Office Building. We are on the fourth floor. When I say we, I mean the individuals I just testified about a few minutes ago. Mr. Breuer's office is on the first floor of the Old Executive Office Building.
Question. And are there other people from the team and all who are with Mr. Breuer?
Answer. Not on our team. Mr. Davis has an office in proximity to Mr. Breuer, but not any one of the ones on our team.
Question. And then Brian Smith is in Mr. Breuer's office?
Answer. He sits outside of Mr. Breuer's office, yes. And just to be clear, Mr. Waitzkin also has an office on the first floor in the same general vicinity as Mr. Breuer but not in terribly close proximity.
Question. So Mr. Breuer, Mr. Waitzkin and Lanny Davis have offices in close proximity on the first floor?
Page 572 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. I would say they have offices on the first floor. Mr. Breuer and Mr. Davis' office are in closer proximity than Mr. Waitzkin office.
Question. And Mr. Ruff's office is in the West Wing; is that correct?
Answer. That's correct.
Question. And where is Ms. Mills' office?
Answer. Ms. Mills, as Deputy Counsel to the President, has an office in the office typically held by the Deputy Counsel to the President, which is adjacent to Mr. Ruff's office.
Question. And Mr. Lindsey's office is also in the West Wing?
Answer. That's my understanding, yes. I have never been to Mr. Lindsey's office.
Question. How is communication between the offices handled? Do you have daily meetings in order for Mr. Breuer to give you assignments?
Mr. BALLEN. Is this in relation to compliance with subpoenas or?
Page 573 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Yes, and I am limiting that to subpoenas and document response.
Answer. As you might suspect, we meet quite frequently on a whole host of topics. Many times a particular meeting will cover several topics, one of which might be document compliance. There is no set pattern for document compliance meetings nor is there a set frequency.
Question. Okay. Where are the documents that you all have now put things? Where are they physically located?
Answer. They are physically located in the offices of people who send them to us.
Question. But where, when they send them to counsel's office, where are they kept in the counsel's office?
Answer. The copies of the documents are generally kept in a large workroom that is close in proximity to the offices on the fourth floor. I will stop with that.
Question. So when these memos are sent out asking for documents they would be returned, then, to the fourth floor offices, to your attention or Mr. Nionakis or somebody up there?
Page 574 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. Yeah, it depends on—typically, there is a contact person on each of the directives. That contact person would handle particular requests, or generally, or a request for follow-up guidance on what a particular term in the directive means. That same person would usually be the recipient of the documents and they would be the ones to receive them, process them, at least initially, before storing them more generally in the large workroom.
Question. And, generally, do people sign, employees at the White House, sign forms attesting to searches for files in their office?
Answer. It is my understanding that the heads of the various offices would sign such a form attesting to the fact that all of the employees under their direction have made full and complete searches of their files and provided all responsive records to the best of their ability.
Question. Now, when you get a request, do you send out the actual request with whatever memo you send out to the various offices?
Answer. We typically do not. We have a White House full of nonlawyers and oftentimes the requests that come in are many, many, many, many pages long. I believe the subpoena the Committee issued is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 pages long. We do our best to summarize the requests, making sure to encompass every single request in the directive, but try to put it in a language that nonlawyers can understand and will, in fact, maximize the chances that they actually read the document and provide us with responsive documents.
Page 575 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. When you joined the White House in March of this year, how were you brought up to speed as to requests that had already been made?
Answer. I believe—I came to the office, as I say on March 3rd. I believe we received your subpoena, which was dated March 3rd, a few days later. That was, for all intents and purposes, the first huge request that we had received that related to this investigation. There were several earlier requests, but my understanding is your subpoena, which as I am sure you probably drafted it, was quite comprehensive and in many ways became the guiding document for the nature of requests.
Question. When you came on board were you aware of previous letter requests that this Committee had made?
Answer. Not specifically. Not specifically, no. I assumed there was—I understand there had been some requests, but I have no specific knowledge or recollection of what those requests might have been.
Question. When you came on board did someone sort of direct you to files, like here are the outstanding requests and here is—did anyone fill you in on what they were doing in terms of document response at that time?
Answer. With respect to document response, I was informed that our obligation and directive from Mr. Ruff was to respond to all requests as fully and as completely as possible. No one sat me down and walked me through the list of requests that had previously been made.
Page 576 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. And the other individuals who are there, could you just maybe tell us when each person came on board, to the extent that you know?
Answer. To the extent that I know, I believe it would be as follows: Mr. Ruff was probably a matter of public record when he became counsel to the President. I do not know the exact date. Ms. Mills has been in the counsel's office for some time. Mr. Breuer started, I believe, a week or two prior to the time when I started. Miss Popp started sometime before I started. I don't know the exact time. Miss Peterson came with Mr. Ruff from the corporation counsel's office, so I assume her employment coincided to some degree with Mr. Ruff's entry into the counsel's office. Mr. Nionakis started approximately the same time I did. And Mr. Racine started some months, or a month or two after I started. Mr. Waitzkin started about the same time as Mr. Racine, as best I can recall.
Question. And then Lanny Davis started sometime earlier, late last year?
Answer. I assume you guys would have a better understanding of that one. I simply don't know. He was there when I got here.
Question. And your understanding of the paralegals, were they people who had been at the White House or were they new also. All three of the paralegals started after I started. They are all new paralegals.
Question. So to your knowledge, is there anyone on this team, then, who has worked on any of these matters before at the White House?
Page 577 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. Can you please define these matters?
Question. Responding to investigations, responding to subpoenas.
Answer. Apart from Ms. Mills, who I assume, I don't know specifically, but I assume she had some responsibilities before I started, we generally had a brand new team of lawyers on this team.
There is one lawyer who has only tangential responsibility, she deals primarily with an investigation of one of your subcommittees, who had been around prior to the time when we all came on in essentially calendar year 1997.
Question. Do you know if someone named Ches Johnson was still working on these matters for you all?
Answer. Ches had been around for, I understand, a previous time period. Ches has no day-to-day involvement in document compliance issues. My understanding of Ches Johnson's role at this point is as an assistant to Mr. Davis.
Question. I'm sorry, did you say that somebody in the counsel's office had worked on a subcommittee matter with this Committee that you are familiar with?
Answer. Yes.
Page 578 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. And who was that?
Answer. Her name is Sally Paxton. I believe she was a partner in the law firm of Jenner & Block. Came to the White House, as best I know, sometime in calendar year 1996, and deals primarily with issues relating to Congressman McIntosh's subcommittee, which is investigating, as I understand it, the WHODB, W-H-O-D-B, White House database.
Question. When you came on board, did you have any knowledge of what Jack Quinn had done in terms of responding to requests prior to the date of your coming on board, or Mr. Ruff coming on board? I guess Mr. Ruff came on board in February of '97?
Answer. I have no specific knowledge. I assume Mr. Quinn responded to requests during the time when he was Counsel to the President. I don't know what Mr. Quinn did.
Question. Did you ever see any memos that Mr. Quinn had put out to the White House to gather various documents for this investigation?
And I guess we can just say the investigation I am referring to is the investigation that this Committee is conducting that you are familiar with, and this Committee and the Senate is basically what you have been working on; is that correct?
Answer. That is generally accurate.
Question. So we can generically refer to it, and if I am talking about some other investigation I will distinguish it in more particular terms?
Page 579 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. Okay.
Question. Were you aware of Mr. Quinn responding to matters on this investigation?
Answer. I assume that he did respond to such matters, if that is the question, yes.
Question. Did you see any memos he had put out to the White House?
Answer. I have seen, I think, two memos that Mr. Quinn circulated, two directives, I should use the word, that he circulated sometime in December and January of this year.
Question. I'm showing the witness a January 9th, 1997, memo for the Executive Office of the President staff from Jack Quinn, Counsel to the President, as follow-up to a December 16th, 1996 document request.
Have you seen this document before?
Mr. LYNCH. Let me interpose here. We are starting to get into areas now that I'm uncomfortable with because I haven't had a chance to review with Mr. Imbroscio.
Page 580 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
We have gone on generally about how the office is set up and who does what, and that's fine and I have no problem. But I do have a problem asking him specific questions about documents that we haven't had a chance to review together, and, obviously, memos from Mr. Quinn are matters that I haven't gotten into yet because, as I have mentioned earlier, I have stuck to the tapes matter.
Ms. COMSTOCK. So would you prefer to wait on those questions?
Mr. LYNCH. Yes. Maybe this is getting into a level of detail I'm uncomfortable with.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Sure. We will pick that up at another time.
Mr. BALLEN. I am not entitled to keep a Committee record?
Ms. COMSTOCK. It is not a subpoenaed document.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Why don't we turn, then, to the March 4th subpoena. Do you all have a copy of that?
Mr. BALLEN. You said it was not a subpoenaed document? This? May I ask, how did you receive it if it is not subpoenaed?
Page 581 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. Can we go off the record for a minute?
[Discussion off the record.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I'm showing the witness the March 4th subpoena that this Committee issued. You're familiar with this subpoena?
Mr. LYNCH. Excuse me, are we going to mark this for identifying in any way?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes, I will make this Exhibit 1. We might as well go ahead and mark that.
Mr. LYNCH. It might be easier to keep track of them if we mark them before we start talking about them.
[Imbroscio Exhibit No. MI–1 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. You are familiar with this subpoena?
Answer. Generally, yes.
Page 582 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. And can you just tell us generally what work you did on this subpoena? Just walk us through anything you did in regards to the subpoena.
Answer. Well, again, I would like to keep it as general as possible. I have not discussed this with my attorney.
Generally, we received the subpoena. I believe, although I was not part of such discussions—there was a long, long series of discussions and conversations between lawyers from my office and lawyers from the Committee staff, I believe primarily yourself and Mr. Rowley, who no longer works for the Committee, to try to work with the staff to focus the request. I think that that was culminated in a letter sometime the following month and we then set about the search for those records.
Question. So is it your testimony that there was no search done of the records until after—I guess the letter you are referring to is our April 18 letter?
Answer. I don't have the date in front of me. And the answer to your question is no, that is not what I said.
We searched for records and I think, I believe that the record will establish we began providing records well before the April time period, but we did not purport to commence a White House-wide search through the directive process until we had a firm focus and understanding of what documents the Committee was seeking.
Page 583 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. Okay. And the subpoena that we've marked as Exhibit 1, had a due date of March 24th; is that correct?
Answer. The date March 24th, appears on the subpoena, yes.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you aware of any memos or directives to gather documents responsive to this March 4 subpoena that were done prior to March 24?
Answer. Can you ask your question again?
Question. Were you aware of any directives that were done prior to March 24 that were sent out to collect documents responsive to this March 4 subpoena?
Mr. LYNCH. Again, we are getting into a level of detail on matters other than the videotapes or the coffees that makes me uncomfortable. We would be very happy to go into this at another time after we've had more opportunity to go over all the material.
Mr. BALLEN. Just so I note for the record, you've had a limited time and been brought into this thing on a very expedited schedule, Counsel, so I think that your request is quite reasonable.
The WITNESS. I'm happy to talk with you about this at some point in the future.
Page 584 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Maybe if we can direct it to the coffees, do you know if there was any attempt to gather information regarding the White House coffees prior to March 24?
Mr. LYNCH. Which is referred to in paragraph 16 of the subpoena?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes.
The WITNESS. Again, I think my answer would be on the general level. We had started almost from the outset to try to evaluate this request and develop a strategy that would maximize the chances of finding all responsive documents on a request that, as initially written, had 45 numbered requests.
We began, I think, searches in targeted areas sometime in the months of March and April. Specifically, I don't recall the exact times. But with respect to coffees, I am not aware of anything particularly we did for that request versus other requests for this subpoena.
Question. Were you aware of any representations that had been made by the White House that, generally, documents pertaining to the coffees had already been provided?
Page 585 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. I guess I don't understand your question. Can you repeat it?
Question. Was it your understanding that documents pertaining—and this was prior to when you came to the White House, there were documents provided to the public and to the press, actually they were provided on January 24 to the press, they were provided to this committee on January 29, 5 days after they were provided to the press, but there were documents pertaining to the White House coffees that were provided back in January. And if this helps refresh your recollection, do you have any understanding as to whether there were outstanding documents related to the White House coffees?
Mr. BALLEN. I'm going to have to interrupt. Between the phone call and everything, I missed part of that question.
The WITNESS. I kind of had a hard time following it as well. I think I know the answer, but if you could ask it again.
Mr. BALLEN. I just want to note for the record, Mr. Bossie received a cell phone call in the middle of the question, so I didn't hear it all.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Again, I'm not going to go into particulars on this, but as we just discussed, this is the January 24 letter we received, actually it was cc'd to us, it was sent to Chairman Gilman and cc'd to Chairman Solomon and Chairman Burton. Guest lists for coffees held at the White House were provided to the media on this date, January 24. We did not in the committee receive these documents until January 29, so at that time we had, in January we had received documents pertaining to the coffees. I will go ahead and make that Exhibit 2.
Page 586 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
But I just wanted to put this in context and get that on the record that we had received documents pertaining to the coffees.
[Imbroscio Deposition Exhibit No. MI–2 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Were you aware in this March-April time frame of any discussions—did you have any discussions about seeking other documents pertaining to the White House coffees?
Answer. Let me answer, I think, the question you had asked previously and go into that question. I was aware generally that the White House had disclosed a list of attendees that attended the various coffees. I read about it in the Washington Post sometime in January, I believe, before I had any inkling that I would ever be working at the White House. I don't know the specifics on when the committee actually received these documents. I will take you at your word that you received them some days after the date of the letter.
With respect to discussions held in March and April related to coffee documents, again I cannot answer specifically whether the topic of coffees versus any of the other 45 topics in the subpoena was discussed, but certainly by the time I came into the White House counsel's office or shortly thereafter, I did have an understanding that a list of attendees had been provided both to the committees and to the media.
Page 587 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. Did you have any understanding of other documents pertaining to White House coffees that existed?
Answer. I certainly probably understood that such documents did exist, yes.
Question. Did you have any understanding of the universe of what those documents might be?
Answer. No, at that point I did not have an understanding.
Question. Did you have any discussions with anyone in the counsel's office about what other types of documents pertaining to the coffees might exist in the White House?
Answer. No.
Question. At any time?
Answer. No. Well, at any time, that's a tough question. Certainly we had discussions about responsive documents, responsive documents including documents relating to the White House political coffees as we entered and worked through this monumental task of responding to this request.
Page 588 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
So when you say did I have a discussion at any time about documents related to the White House coffees, I'd have to say, yes, I'm sure I did. I don't recall anything specifically, as you might expect.
Question. I was just seeing if you could generally recall discussions that you had about the types of documents pertaining to the coffees that you might need to go about gathering in responding to this March 4 request.
Answer. Again, not focused on the coffees, I had an understanding that documents were being gathered from the Office of Records Management, which houses the papers of the President, including the briefing papers which it is my understanding is the primary repository for documents relating to the coffees was in the briefing memos that we have provided to you all dealing with the attendees; and there is usually a short description of who the attendee is. Certainly I had an understanding that those documents were being gathered.
Question. And do you know who is gathering those?
Answer. The office generally was supervising the career professionals in the Office of Records Management, trying to gather all those documents.
Question. So that would be Mr. Good's office?
Answer. Exactly. Mr. Good, as a career employee, I think has been around since the Watergate time period.
Page 589 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. And Mr. Good was going through his records at the Office of Records Management to find any documents about White House political coffees?
Answer. I don't know if it was Mr. Good himself or one of his subordinates.
Question. Somebody in his office?
Answer. But it's my understanding that Records Management made a Herculean effort to go through all the briefing memos and tried to identify every single document relating to coffees.
Question. Did you understand, do they have some kind of database or search base in the Office of Records Management for records?
Answer. It is my understanding that they have such a system. I can certainly testify I know absolutely nothing about it.
Question. Do you know if Mr. Good was ever provided with any types of records that he was supposed to look for, the definitions of what records would include?
Answer. I suspect most certainly he received a copy of the directive of April 28, I believe the date of it is, that asked for all records in any form whatsoever. I am unaware if he had any more focused or specific request to search for any other types of documents.
Page 590 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. We are going to get to the April 28 directive in a little while here, but aside from that directive, are you familiar with any other directive that asked for documents pertaining to the White House political coffees? Anyone prior to April 28?
Answer. Any other directive? No, I'm not aware of any other White House-wide directive that would ask for documents relating to White House coffees. Again, I can't speak to what went on prior to March 3, 1997, the date I started. There might have been. I am not aware of any.
Question. But it is not something you have come across or were asked, here is the February directive, could you follow up on it? You were never given anything like that on the coffees?
Answer. That's right.
Question. So between the time you came on on March 3 and the April 28 directive, you were not aware of any other directive about the coffees to White House-wide staff?
Answer. I believe that's what I testified to, yes.
Question. Directing your attention to the second page of the subpoena that you have, which is schedule A, the first page, where it says ''definitions and instructions,'' did you ever have any discussions with your working group, the people you have identified here, about the definitions section of the subpoena?
Page 591 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. No.
Question. When you were gathering documents and records, did you have an understanding of what the universe of the types of records was that you were looking for?
Answer. My understanding was we were searching for all records.
Question. Does that understanding mean that you had an understanding that you were searching for all documents that had been filmed or were video- or audiotaped as the definition here on page 1 includes?
Answer. Let me answer it in this way.
I had been in private practice for approximately 3 years, as I said, and did a lot of work responding to such, not so much subpoenas but other document requests. This was a list of definitions and instructions that were, in my mind, somewhat boilerplate, and oftentimes, as lawyers, we would read it but not focus on as much as when we get to the requested items portion of the subpoena.
So to answer your question, I certainly read it initially, but did not focus on the 40 to 60 types of definitions of records that are listed in the subpoena, including punch cards and some of the other items.
Page 592 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
But, in fairness, I should say that I certainly knew that any and all records would be responsive to the subpoena.
Question. And you had said, in private practice you did work on document production and response to subpoenas; is that correct?
Answer. I'll answer that yes if you promise not to ask any more questions about what I did in private practice. I don't want to betray any prior confidences.
Question. No, I'm not asking you about any of your clients; I'm asking more with your familiarity with searching for records and complying with subpoenas in general.
You had done work in complying with subpoenas?
Answer. I had.
Question. You understood the legal obligations to respond with thorough searches?
Answer. Absolutely.
Mr. LYNCH. I'm sorry, you just said subpoenas, and earlier Mike had said not so much subpoenas as document requests, and I think there's a little ambiguity there.
Page 593 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Are you using them interchangeably?
Answer. I am. I'm using them generically. Certainly I was involved in responding to both, document requests typically in the civil context, as well as subpoenas including grand jury subpoenas.
Question. When you were responding to grand jury subpoenas, would there often be definitions and instructions on the type of records they were seeking?
Answer. I have not seen a document request or subpoena that did not include a paragraph similar to the one appearing in your subpoena.
Question. So you are familiar with that type of definitions and instructions section in the subpoena?
Answer. That type of boilerplate definitions and instructions section, yes.
Question. Did you ever have any discussions in the counsel's office about the types of records generally that you would need to search out in the White House, the type of records that would be responsive?
Answer. Not so much the types of records, but discussions as to where such—the location of such records, in other words, what offices would likely have responsive records.
Page 594 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. And do you recall what offices those were that you came up with that would have responsive records?
Answer. Well, it would depend on the particular request. For instance, a request related to John Huang, you might very likely find records in the Office of Public Liaison because of John Huang's connection when he was at the Department of Commerce with the working group and with various parts of the Office of Public Liaison.
Records Management is always a good place to look for records because they are somewhat the central repository of all records. But, again, it was along the nature of evaluating particular requests and doing our darnedest best to find out and figure out where such records would likely be held.
Question. And in regards to the coffees, it's your testimony you don't recall any particular conversations about trying to figure out, other than you have mentioned the Office of Records Management, in order to find the President's records and schedules and briefing memos on that? Were there other offices that you sought out in particular relation to the coffees?
Answer. I don't think I said that that was the only place we looked. That was one place that sprang to mind. I don't have a specific recollection of discussing any other particular offices where coffee records would have been kept.
I certainly assumed that such discussions were had, where there would be other places. For instance, the Office of Political Affairs, sitting here today, is one place I would also want to look for such records; and while I have no specific recollection of having a discussion along those lines, I can imagine that such a discussion could occur.
Page 595 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. That's Mr. Sosnik's office?
Answer. It had been Mr. Sosnik's office. I don't think he is now.
Question. At the time of the coffees, that was Mr. Sosnik's office?
Answer. Again, that's my understanding.
Mr. BALLEN. Can I ask a follow-up question, please?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes.
Mr. BALLEN. Were you the sole person responsible for complying with the subpoena?
The WITNESS. No, not at all. Our entire team of 5 or 6 lawyers, as I testified earlier, were charged with responding to this request as well as to numerous other requests.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you recall generally any discussions with any attendees of the coffees about where records might be?
Page 596 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. You mean the White House staff members who attended?
Question. Yes, the White House staff.
Answer. No, I have not had any such discussions.
Question. You were aware that White House staff had attended the coffees?
Answer. I suppose I was aware, seeing Doug Sosnik's name appearing on many of the briefing papers as did Craig Smith's name appear on many of the outreach coffees of political supporters around the country.
Question. Were you aware of Marsha Scott attending a number of the coffees?
Answer. I suppose I became aware of that at some point later, but not at the time period which I believe we're discussing, which was sometime in the March-April time period. It became known to me sometime in the months thereafter that Marsha Scott did attend a number of the coffees.
Question. And how did you learn of that?
Answer. I believe I probably learned about it from reviewing documents and seeing her name on a lot of the coffees, and also from press reports.
Page 597 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. And did you go to Ms. Scott at any time to ask her for any responsive records she might have about the White House coffees?
Answer. I have never met Ms. Scott other than a brief hello, across the street at the Senate offices during a deposition where I was attending—not her deposition.
Question. Were you aware of anyone in the counsel's office discussing the coffees with her at any time?
Answer. I am not aware of any such discussion.
Question. Were you aware of anybody from the counsel's office talking to her—when you say you have only met her, does that mean you haven't talked to her, either, about anything?
Answer. I know what she looks like and I've seen her in the halls, but I've never had a substantive conversation with her other than a brief hello at the Senate during a deposition.
Question. So that would include any phone calls, when you say you haven't met her, you're not meaning that you maybe only talked to her on the phone?
Answer. No. To my knowledge I don't have any recollection of talking with her, ever. I'm not saying that I haven't talked to her, because we do get phone calls asking for, sometimes, guidance on document requests. I don't believe I've ever spoken to her.
Page 598 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. Were you aware of requests in particular for notes that Ms. Scott may have taken at White House coffees?
Answer. I am not aware of any specific request for notes of Ms. Scott. I now know that Ms. Scott did take some notes that I have seen as we have produced them to you. But if the question is dealing with a request for such notes, I have no knowledge of that.
Question. Were you aware of anyone going to Ms. Scott from the counsel's office in particular to ask her about any other records she might have regarding the White House political coffees?
Answer. I am not aware of that. I presume, based on our conversation here, that someone probably did, but I was not aware of that nor was I the person to do it.
Question. And I'm just asking if you have any knowledge or have ever heard about anybody in the counsel's office going to Ms. Scott saying, what can you tell me about responsive documents on the coffees?
Mr. BALLEN. That is in addition to any directives that were sent out?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Right.
The WITNESS. I believe I answered the question previously and I think I'll stick with that.
Page 599 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Now, were you aware of anyone going to Mr. Sosnik from the counsel's office to talk with him about any knowledge he might have about any potentially responsive documents about White House political coffees?
Answer. I believe I would say the same answer. I personally did not speak with Mr. Sosnik about this topic nor am I aware specifically of anyone going to talk with him about this topic, but I certainly cannot say whether or not anyone actually did.
Question. Do you have any general knowledge of somebody in the counsel's office or somebody on your team being tasked as sort of to go to this group of people who attended coffees to ask them, please make sure you've given us all the documents that may have existed?
Answer. If your question is, did I generally have an understanding that this was being done, I suppose the answer is yes. I have no other specifics to offer other than my, again, general understanding that it was being done.
Question. Do you have any general understanding of who was doing it?
Answer. It would have been one of the lawyers on our team. Again, I don't know who it would have been. It could have been one of—really, almost any of those folks. I don't have—I don't want to say—I don't want to offer a name when, in fact, it's not that person.
Page 600 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. I understand. It's just your general understanding that in order to comply with the subpoena, somebody was going to these people who attended coffees to make sure that—have you guys given us everything that we need to have on the coffees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And then directing your attention on the subpoena to item 16, which reads, ''all records relating to the White House political coffees''; and then it goes on, ''and including but not limited to,'' and mentions a number of things and information about the coffees.
This is the April 18, 1997, letter that, as you recounted, your office and our office, with the Minority, had discussed at length some of the areas that we wanted to have the White House focus its search, because at that time the White House had indicated that you wanted to have some kind of idea of the priorities, your office did.
Directing your attention to item 16 in this letter, it is identified—I believe, in the beginning of the letter, it says that the items that were in bold on this letter were to be considered priority items.
Mr. LYNCH. Are we going to mark this letter?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes, this will be Deposition Exhibit No. 3.
Page 601 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
[Imbroscio Deposition Exhibit No. MI–3 was marked for identification.]
Mr. LYNCH. I just get worried sometimes if we don't mark them right away that we forget to mark them and chaos ensues.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I think the witness is aware of this, but this is a letter that was intended to assist the White House in focusing its search on a number of matters that the committee identified as priority—not in any way limiting, but just to focus it at this time or not to vitiate the subpoena at any time, and we had ongoing discussions about those.
Answer. I would just say, without challenging your characterization of what this letter was, that I was not involved in the drafting of it or any negotiations. So I cannot affirm what you just said. By my silence, I should not——
Question. And I am just giving you a little background for an understanding here, and I understand that you were not involved in that, that is correct, and I am not going to ask you questions about that negotiation, unless you have any understanding on some of the particular topics that we are discussing about whatever your understanding was on your end about those negotiations.
Answer. Thank you.
Page 602 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Mr. BALLEN. For the record, excuse me, Counsel, I must disagree with your characterization of the letter, because I believe it does limit things on the term. So I have a different understanding, but that is not what this witness is here to answer today.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. On page 2 of the letter, right before it goes into listing the items, it reads, ''You have committed to provide requests numbered 1 through 8 by Monday, April 21, and we request all other priority items as indicated in boldface by Monday, April 28, 1997.'' At that time we were also requesting completion date for production which we did not have.
But then I want to direct your attention to page 3 where request 16, which pertained to the coffees, was in boldface as one of these items that was a priority item and that was going to be complied with—was requested to be complied with by April 28.
With that background, did you have an understanding of the coffee items as being a priority item to track down those documents?
Answer. I suppose generally I did have an understanding that documents relating to the coffees were a priority both for this committee as well as other investigative bodies, and in fact, I believe we did our level best to get those documents to the committee as quickly as humanly possible. I believe we delivered a large batch of documents relating to the coffees sometime in the middle of May.
Page 603 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. Could you just then go through from—we made this Exhibit 3—leading up to the directive of April 28, any knowledge you have about how that was produced and what led up to that directive.
Mr. LYNCH. The April 28 directive?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes.
We will make that Exhibit 4.
[Imbroscio Deposition Exhibit No. MI–4 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. We are taking off the cover sheet as part of the record?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Could you walk us through whatever knowledge you have of trying to get the coffee documents and leading up to the directive?
Answer. Could you rephrase the question?
Page 604 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. Maybe what we should do is clarify.
Did you see this April 18, 1997, letter which prioritized some of the subpoenaed items from the March 4, 1997 subpoena?
Answer. I most certainly did see it.
Question. What did you do? What were you asked to do in dealing with this letter?
Answer. I think how I should answer is as follows:
There was a very dynamic process both in negotiations with your committee as well as receiving our first request from the Senate committee in the month of April as well as receiving requests from other investigative bodies during this time period. And I believe the April 28 directive really was the culmination of our efforts to condense and provide a single document that would be designed to ask for all documents responsive to both this committee's request as well as other requests we had received.
The reason really is quite simple. The risk of not receiving all responsive documents greatly increases the greater number of these documents you send out because we have a very hard-working White House staff that does a lot of other things besides respond to document requests; and the risk of it not being read and complied with greatly increases if you send one of these out every other day.
Page 605 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
So this was really our effort to put in one document all the requests that required a White House-wide search into one document.
Question. Do you know who wrote this memo, the April 28 directive?
Answer. I think it was a collaboration. I certainly had some involvement in it, but it was a culmination of many people's efforts, including myself.
Question. This directive was—do you know who else was involved in working on this?
Answer. I think probably most everyone on our team was involved. It required really to examine quite closely the state of the requests, as we had received them, which included the April 18 letter from this committee and the other requests, which I won't go into, from other investigative bodies.
Many of the requests were greatly overlapping, as I'm sure you can guess, and this was really an effort to put in one document, as I said, and summarize all of the requests we had received that required a White House-wide search.
As you're aware, it contains five sort of textual requests with many other subparts, as well as a list of names on attachment A, of individuals and entities somewhere in the neighborhood of over a hundred of such names and entities.
Page 606 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. Was this directive then in response—in part, then, to the April 18 letter that you received from this committee?
Answer. In part from the request from this committee, as well as requests from the Senate and other investigative bodies, yes.
Question. And when had the Senate request been received?
Answer. I can't give you an exact date. Sometime contemporaneous—sometime in the middle of April, I believe. I don't know the exact date. I'm sure it's a matter of record.
Question. Then you were also receiving Justice Department requests; is that correct?
Answer. Yes, if you don't ask me any more questions. Yes.
Question. I'm trying to understand. This directive then is combining a number of requests from all three areas to collect documents from people; was that the purpose of it?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And so our March 4 subpoena, as prioritized in the April 18 letter, there was an attempt to include our request in this April 28 letter?
Page 607 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. That's correct. A request for documents—a request that would require a White House-wide search; that's right.
Question. I'm using the word ''request.'' It was—our March 4 subpoena was a subpoena; the April 18 letter was prioritizing that subpoena. The Senate at that time was only sending you letter requests; isn't that correct?
Answer. Yes, that is correct.
Question. And the Senate did not send subpoenas until sometime in the summer, in July or so; isn't that correct?
Answer. I believe they have issued one subpoena that was dated on July 31 that was received on August 1 by the White House.
Question. I won't go into the content of the Justice requests, but were those by subpoena or request, if you can just answer that?
Mr. LYNCH. I think that gets into a very sticky area, because of, as you well know, the secrecy surrounding the Justice Department's investigative processes. I think we better not go into that at all.
Question. Let's resolve that elsewhere. I think obviously at this point we did have a subpoena outstanding. The Senate requests were not by subpoena. That's correct, right? We have established that?
Page 608 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. That is correct. But as I said, whether it be by subpoena or letter request, no request received from any investigative body ever had second class status.
Question. This was a letter to this committee on—I'll skip that.
Answer. Are we at a good breaking point?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Yes. Why don't we take a break.
[Recess.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Let me go back on the record. I think we were discussing the April 28, 1997, directive from Chuck Ruff to Executive Office of the President, and the subject was document request.
On the bottom of this directive, it says that all documents must be provided by noon on Wednesday, May 7, to yourself, Michael Imbroscio or Dimitri Nionakis, OEOB room 125?
Answer. Yes.
Page 609 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. Is that where the documents were actually kept, or is that Mr. Breuer's office?
Answer. Let me not answer that question but hopefully get to the information you want. 125 is Mr. Breuer's office. There are several offices right together. You go in the same door. At that point Mr. Nionakis had an office there as well, and that's where Mr. Smith sat.
The reason that we had—I was across the hall at this time period. This was before I moved upstairs.
The reason we had 125 is because Mr. Smith was typically at his desk while Mr. Nionakis and I were often not at our desks, and they were designed that he would be the person to—who would be there most likely to receive the documents.
So the answer of where they were kept, they were kept there, I think, initially as almost a way station, but our production typically had been run out of the workroom on the fourth floor.
Question. How did the documents come into room 125?
Answer. In a variety of ways. Sometimes people would walk copies of the documents over. Sometimes they would be sent by messenger.
Question. Would they be identified with sort of a transmittal memo?
Page 610 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. Unfortunately, not often. Usually they would come in an envelope sometimes with a Post-it note saying who they were from or where they were from.
Question. Did they come in brown paper bags with no identification, or did people come in and say, these are Mack McLarty's documents and I'm responding for Mr. McLarty and all the various people in his office?
Answer. Again, there was no set pattern. It would depend on the particular person, the particular responder. Most typically, we would receive not so much a brown paper bag but a brown envelope that would contain the documents as well as either a note on the envelope or—informing the person receiving the documents where they were from.
Question. So generally it would include where the documents were from?
Answer. Generally, there would be some communication to the recipient, in this case it was many times Brian, of the source of the documents, yes. At least generally the office whereby the documents came from. Usually, we would get documents from a particular office as opposed to Joe or Sally or Mary.
Question. Was there a process whereby they were checked in by Mr. Smith?
Answer. I don't think they were formally checked in. They were placed into, as I recall a box, receiving box that would periodically be taken upstairs as they came in.
Page 611 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. And who would take them upstairs?
Answer. No one in particular. Perhaps Dimitri, perhaps myself, perhaps another lawyer working on the team.
Question. And when you would get, say, documents that had been—if they were in the box and these are documents from John's office or Sally's office, would you then keep those documents together, how they had been received?
Answer. Yes, typically.
Question. Did you have a process—what is the process whereby you reviewed them?
Answer. Well, typically we would receive a document from a particular entity or office in the White House. The lawyers would review them. Oftentimes people would send—would be overly inclusive in the documents they sent and would send us documents that were, in fact, not responsive. Lawyers would make a first cut for responsiveness, and then they would go into the production cycle.
Question. And could you describe that cycle?
Answer. Typically the way it happens is that the documents will be stickered or stamped, numbered, and then they will be copied, the requisite number of copies. If documents contain dates of birth, Social Security numbers, we try not to provide those. We haven't been perfect, but out of interest to people's privacy, we have tried to keep those out.
Page 612 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
And so that step, the redaction step of the birth dates, Social Security numbers, and sometimes other occasional private information, that would be done, and then the copies would be made, and they would be put together and produced.
Question. You said sometimes people would provide things that were overly responsive?
Answer. I wouldn't say overly responsive, I would say not responsive.
Question. Would it be a case where, sort of in the abundance of caution, someone gave you a document and then you would determine whether or not they needed to turn it over?
Answer. That happened occasionally, yes.
Question. Would the first attorney who looked through them, would they be the sole person who would sort of weed out nonresponsive documents?
Answer. I suppose on the ones that were very clear-cut, the attorney would have responsibility to do that weed-out. I suppose on close calls, sometimes there was a collaboration among lawyers: ''Do you think this document is responsive?'' It was a very dynamic process as you might suspect.
Question. Other than yourself going through documents, who else looked through these documents and made this cut through what was responsive?
Page 613 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. I think it's safe to say that all the lawyers at various points would assume that role. Because of the vast number of documents that our office was charged with gathering, reviewing, and producing, it could not be one single person who did that.
Question. Did it ever break down into particular areas where somebody would be doing documents: I'll look through all the documents pertaining to X subject and—because you had more familiarity with that, whereas somebody else might say the NSC documents and what was responsive on NSC documents? Would somebody within your office be the person who would usually look through NSC documents?
Answer. I think the question you asked initially was different from the question you asked me at the end. Did a particular person review documents from a particular source? Yes. Typically that is the way it would work. Documents from that source may be responsive to six or seven different topics.
But your question whether anyone reviewed all the coffee documents or all the John Huang documents or all the Joe and Sally Smith documents, that typically was not done, because it was not feasible to do it that way. When a particular office provides documents, it usually includes documents pertaining to a number of different topics.
Question. So it was more broken down into offices that were responding?
Answer. It would be broken down into offices, groups of documents, exactly.
Page 614 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. Did there come a time, then, that you became tasked with dealing with the White House Communications Office, dealing with that office in particular?
Answer. No, there was never a time where I became tasked for searching for documents, for searching for materials, in the White House Communications Office. I can get into the story as to how all that unfolded, but it was not in the normal course of receiving materials from the office that had been responsive to the directives.
Question. Was there someone in your office that was one of the offices that was to keep track of making sure they got all their documents in?
Answer. There was no one particularly responsible. We received documents from the White House Military Office, which is the body overseeing WHCA as well as, I believe, a number of other units. Those documents came in, they were reviewed, and responsive documents were provided.
Question. What offices, if any, were you responsible for?
Answer. Again, there was no set pattern or no set plan at the outset that I would be—if any document came in from a particular office, I would be the person responsible. It typically was a function of what documents had come in during a given time period and what lawyer was ready to start reviewing more documents.
Question. Maybe if we could continue going through the process, you described where you made the cut through the documents and then you mark them and stamp them and all. Was there then—did it go up through your superiors as to what documents were going to be turned over?
Page 615 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Answer. Typically, because we were dealing in such large volumes, we would get together a set, sometimes referred to affectionately as the working set. That would be the set of documents that would be produced in the next day or so. That set would be reviewed by other lawyers in the office as well as—other lawyers in the office who might not have had a particularly key role in putting those documents together.
Question. Could you describe that process of looking through the working set?
Answer. It was sort of generally available. And if people wanted to come look through it, they could.
Question. Who would be able to look through it?
Answer. Anyone in our office could look through it. Attorneys typically looked through it, because apart from responding to requests which, again, is my primary job, we also had an obligation to try to learn the records as best as possible, which I'm sure you can imagine, so it was not uncommon for the lawyers in the office to review documents that were going out.
Question. And would Mr. Breuer be the person who did the final review of the documents?
Answer. There really was no final review of the documents in the sense I think you're getting at. The documents as they were stamped to be produced, that's a manner they were produced. Certainly Lanny, Mr. Breuer, did want to have an understanding of what documents were being produced, and in fact we would try to bring to his attention documents he might be particularly interested in seeing.
Page 616 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. And how did you do that?
Answer. No set way. Either perhaps show him copies of some documents in his office or sometimes he would come, I believe, to room 400 and sort of get a feel for which documents were going out and page through them.
Question. Were these documents that might get particular attention that you were bringing to his attention?
Answer. Generally, yes. I mean, the documents that would most likely be leaked to the press in short order after they were produced, so that he would be prepared, and I use the word ''leak,'' I don't mean to be pejorative, that would soon become the focus of public scrutiny, and so he would be prepared to handle that aspect of responding to press inquiries.
Question. And was Mr. Lanny Davis also included in these—in informing him of these documents?
Answer. Mr. Davis really had little, if any, role in reviewing documents before they went out.
Certainly it was part of our job to let Lanny know what the particularly sensitive documents might be so that he would be in a position, once he started to get press inquiries, he would at least have some familiarity with it. But, again, that was very much after the fact, and he had—I think I can say safely, he had no role in the gathering, reviewing, or producing of documents.
Page 617 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 8 Of 22
Question. But these documents, these particular documents you brought to the attention of Mr. Breuer, to your knowledge, were they also brought to the attention of Mr. Davis?
Next Hearing Segment(9)