Segment 9 Of 22 Previous Hearing Segment(8) Next Hearing Segment(10)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 618 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. Perhaps a subset of them were. Oftentimes what would happen is that Mr. Davis would be fielding press inquiries relating to documents that had been produced, and he in many cases would not have ever seen the document before, and oftentimes he would get the document because a reporter faxed him a document that we had produced to the various investigative bodies. It's at that point when we worked with Lanny to try to figure out the facts behind that particular document.
Question. Now, when you had this working set of documents, did you also have some kind of log of what was in this set of documents?
Answer. We had a very general, I don't know if ''log'' is the right word, but a general source identity of which offices various documents came from, and I believe we typically provide that to you.
Question. At all times before you sent documents out, you knew what offices they came from?
Answer. Well, not in the beginning. As you can understand, we inherited a system—we inherited a lot of documents that had already been gathered, and our role was to get them produced to you as quickly as possible.
Because of the turnover, we did not—the turnover in our office combined with the need to provide documents as quickly as possible to you all, we did not have, at least at our hands at that time, a firm or in-hand source of all those documents. We, rather, did our best to get the documents produced to you.
Page 619 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
I think we subsequently have provided a log of where all those documents came from. That took, I think, a lot of time from paralegals to go through and source them all.
Question. So it is your testimony that when you initially turned over documents, y'all didn't know where they had come from?
Answer. No, I didn't say that. I believe what I'm saying is, our focus was to turn over documents as quickly as possible, and I believe we did our best to do that.
The source for these logs, there was not a readily obtainable document, at least that we knew of, that identified the sources. We had various file folders where documents had come from, and it took—it was a project later on of the paralegal to go through quite meticulously and try to identify the office sources of those documents, and I believe we've given you that source log.
Question. But initially when documents were turned over, what I'm trying to determine, were documents sent out here that you all did not know whose documents they were?
Mr. BALLEN. Objection. He's asked and answered this question three times now. I might note for the record, we still have not gotten into the issue of the videotapes and we're almost 2 hours into the deposition minus the break.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Page 620 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. I just wanted to direct an answer on, if there were documents sent out, that it's your testimony that you didn't know whose they were. was there ever a time when documents were sent up here when you didn't know where these documents came from?
Answer. I don't think I said that. I think I said that the sources were not readily at hand. But certainly we could—we did figure it out. In fact, we did figure it out. It was a meticulous process.
Question. I wonder if Mr. Breuer knew? Was Mr. Breuer sending up documents up here saying, well, we don't know where these came from, but send them on up?
Answer. No, I don't think that's what I've said at all.
We had a general understanding that these documents had been gathered previously to the time when we were in this office. We knew that they could be sourced and identified by that process which was a laborious process, had not been undertaken at that point. We put the emphasis on providing you documents rather than waiting 3 weeks or 2 and a half weeks to figure out and identify the sources of each of those documents.
Question. Was there ever an occasion when Mr. Breuer, Mr. Ruff, or somebody in the counsel's office, before a document got sent up, before you send that up, ''Can you tell me where it came from and whose document it is? I'd like you to find that out before it goes up there''?
Page 621 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. Can you give me a time? I don't know if I understand your question. Can you repeat it?
Question. I'm just saying, at any time from when you first started producing documents, were there situations where anyone in the counsel's office may have asked you, ''Find out whose document this is before I'm going to send it up there'' because someone sitting there looking at a working set of documents may not know whose documents they are.
Did the people approving this document production have an interest in knowing whose documents they were?
Mr. BALLEN. That's a different question than the previous question. Did they have an interest in it, or was there ever a——
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Did they ask you?
Answer. I can recall specifically not being asked in any particular case as you had asked what is the source of this document. I think generally the sources of such documents sometimes speak for themselves. If it's a memo to someone or a memo from someone, you can assume generally that the document came either from the person who received it or the person who sent it.
Question. Did you ever have a situation where there were handwritten notes that somebody said, ''Gee, whose notes are these?''
Page 622 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. No, not that I can recall.
Question. Then returning to the April 28 directive, you said this had been a collaborative effort within the counsel's office?
Answer. Yes, that's accurate to say.
Question. That you worked on?
Answer. I did certainly work on it, yes.
Question. And, to your knowledge, did Mr. Breuer sign off on this also?
Answer. Mr. Ruff signed off on it, which I think presupposes that Mr. Breuer signed off on it as well.
Question. Turning to the second—why don't we stay on the first page where it reads, ''We ask''—in the first paragraph it says, ''We ask that you conduct a thorough and complete search of all your records, whether in hard copy, computer, or other form.'' was there any other supplemental assistance in terms of providing them an idea of what type of records you were looking for?
Answer. I mean, I think the directive speaks as broadly as possible. It says all, capital A capital L capital L, of your records, whether in hard copy, computer, or other form.
Page 623 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
As you noticed on the final paragraph on this particular directive, Dimitri Nionakis and my name appears at the bottom. It would not be uncommon to field questions related to the particular requests, and we would have also been open to requests related to what types of records. We would have responded to any such requests, any type of record.
Question. And did you have any inquiries about what types of records you asked for?
Answer. I don't recall, no.
Question. There is no indication in this memo that you had requested any videotapes or audiotapes or any type of tape recordings; is that correct?
Answer. I would say that is actually not accurate. I would assume that by the words capital A capital L capital L, all of your records whether in hard copy, computer, or other form would subsume the 50 or 60 types of records that are listed in both your subpoena as well as other document requests.
Question. Could you tell us what your knowledge was maybe before the Senate approached you on the videotaping issue, what your knowledge was on what type of videotaping and audiotaping was done at the White House?
Answer. I really had no knowledge, no specific knowledge. I guess somewhere in the back of my mind would assume that things the President does are videotaped. But the word ''video'' or the concept of videotaping was not in my mind.
Page 624 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Was there any discussion in the counsel's office about finding that type of record?
Answer. There was none that I'm aware of.
Question. So in any of these discussions that you had about sort of the universe of documents, videotapes or audiotapes never came up?
Answer. That's right. And, again, in the universe of documents were almost always discussions of locations of documents as opposed to forms of records.
Question. Then in the third paragraph, it discusses the heads of agencies being responsible during this. Were those people identified, or by this memo, did those people know who they were?
Answer. I don't have a knowledge of how that process works. It was a process that proceeded that was in place before I came.
There are lists of agency heads that attempt to be subsumed by this paragraph which I think was a boilerplate taken from perhaps Mr. Quinn's directive of January 9, which I don't know if you want to compare the language; it may very well be the same.
But my understanding of the process is, the memo gets sent out to the various agency heads a short time after this directive gets sent out, notifies them of the fact that the directive had been sent out and that they should, when the search is complete, provide written certification that, in fact, the searches have been complete and that all records have been provided.
Page 625 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. So there is a separate memo to them explaining their duties and responsibilities in that regard?
Answer. That's my understanding, yes. Again, I was not personally involved in that process.
Question. You had previously testified that this April 28 directive was intended to include this committee's request; is that correct?
Answer. That's correct, yes.
Question. Actually, our subpoena request.
Answer. Those requests that required a White House-wide search.
Question. Why wasn't the committee's definition of ''records'' included in the memo?
Answer. I suppose it circles back to what I had testified a few minutes earlier about, we were trying to put together a document that, A, people will read, and, B, people will understand and provide the responsive records.
We already had an entire page of instructions which, as you might understand, was quite lengthy. If we were to include an entire other page of definitions of types of records, that increases the risk that people will not read the document and people won't respond.
Page 626 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
I believe we chose those words which are quite broad, ''all of your records, whether in hard copy, computer, or other form,'' purposefully to include any types of records that might exist.
Question. Was there any discussion of including the committee's actual subpoena with the memo?
Answer. Not that I'm aware of, no.
Question. Or was there any discussion of including the April 18 letter with the memo?
Answer. Again, not that I'm aware of. Each additional document that we would attach would be additional pages of requested materials that a nonlawyer might have trouble reading, certainly understanding, and the chances of them actually reading the document diminish with each additional page that's added to the memo sent around to the White House.
Question. Why didn't you attach it, though, in terms of—if yours was going to be on top, why wouldn't you attach the subpoena or a letter which would provide additional information to them?
Answer. I think the answer I just gave is the same, which is it would be attaching not just this committee's request but the requests of numerous other investigative bodies, and we would have a document that would very quickly become as thick as the binder sitting ahead of you. In front of you.
Page 627 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Again, the memo is our good faith effort to provide in simple, nonlawyer, plain language, the hard-working staff of the White House, whose job certainly is not centrally focused on responding to and replying to document requests, to have them focus on the document, read it and provide all of the responsive efforts that they have.
Question. Was there discussion in the counsel's office about whether or not to attach the subpoena or a letter request to these memos?
Answer. I'm unaware of any such discussion.
Question. Do you know of any subpoenas or document requests that have been sent, you know, attached to directives to collect documents?
Answer. I am unaware that that ever occurred.
Question. So this would be the case of the House subpoenas or letter requests, as well as the Senate, as well as the Justice Department? You do not send around the request or subpoena itself, you send around some type of directive which is represented as encompassing the things requested?
Answer. That's accurate, to my knowledge. Again, I started on March 3rd, '97.
Question. Then directing your attention to the second page now of the directive, which begins, ''Please search your files and records for the following materials.'' Could you describe the process by which you came up with this list?
Page 628 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. I think I talked about it earlier as a dynamic process, trying to sit down with the numerous document requests and subpoenaed information that we had before us at this time period from this committee, from the Senate, from other investigative bodies, and try to synthesize those requests into a comprehensive but readable and understanding listing for those items which required a White House-wide search.
Question. And do you recall particular items that didn't require a White House-wide search? You mentioned WAVES earlier?
Answer. WAVES would be a very good example. Nothing springs to mind. But, for instance, if there were requests for all documents of a certain person related to a particular topic, it would be common to search that particular person's files as opposed to searching some completely unrelated person's files for the likelihood that they would have a document that would be responsive.
Question. But for somebody like, say John Huang, all documents relating to John Huang, you included that on the attachment. John Huang is included on attachment A as individuals.
Why would you include a name like that on here? So you could get any records pertaining to John Huang from anybody in the White House?
Answer. That's correct.
Page 629 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Do you recall any discussions you had about this sort of cataloguing of items that you were asking people to search for?
Answer. I guess I don't understand the question. I apologize.
Question. Can you tell us anything else you recall about coming up with this directive?
The first page, where it says, ''Please search your files and records for the following materials,'' and then the attachments to it, could you just walk us through the entire process of how you came up with requesting Executive Office of the President, White House-wide, for these particular records?
Answer. Again, this is a process that took place some time ago. I don't know if I have a recollection of really any of the specifics other than what I testified, which is, we did our best to sit down with the various document requests in front of us and synthesize them and condense them into one document.
I don't know what else you're looking for.
Question. Can you tell me who was involved in that process?
Answer. As I think I said, I was involved, as well as I think probably pretty much every lawyer on our team in the office at that time, which was certainly before Mr. Racine came to the office.
Page 630 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. So was this listing then circulated among the attorneys for revisions or additions, that type of thing?
Answer. I recall that it was, yes. Certainly the lawyers who were meeting with you and Mr. Rowley. I'm not even sure who those people were. You probably know better than I do. But certainly they would have been involved in the process.
Question. If I say it was Karen Popp and Dimitri, do you recall working with them?
Answer. I don't recall specifically, but I'm sure they were part of the team.
Question. Did you have any separate discussions with minority staff of this committee about these document requests in counsel's office?
Answer. No. Not that I recall, no. At this time period. The formation of this April 28th directive is what you're talking about?
Question. Well, and generally in responding to these subpoenas, this time frame.
Answer. That's right.
Page 631 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. The spring of '97?
Answer. That's right. Other than—I don't know if the minority was involved in your discussion, so I don't want to speak for the office when Karen Popp and Dimitri, as you say.
Question. We did have some joint phone discussions on these matters.
Answer. So I'm not aware of any. I did not personally.
Question. I want to direct your attention back to the April 18th letter and request 29, which is on page 5, pertaining to records relating to Webb Hubbell.
Answer. Uh-huh.
Question. Do you recall any discussion about gathering documents related to Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. LYNCH. That gets way beyond what we're prepared to talk about. I haven't had any opportunity to go over with Mr. Imbroscio things other than the White House videotapes, and certainly generically we've been going on at great length about the way they put this memo together and the way they operated generically, but to ask questions about specific kinds of documents that we really haven't had a chance to discuss is one of the things I would like to defer.
Page 632 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
The WITNESS. I would feel more comfortable, too.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Well, in gathering and putting this directive together, were there any items that you made any decisions about not putting on the directive?
The WITNESS. Let me just ask.
[Witness confers with counsel.]
The WITNESS. Just that, obviously, you pointed to a request that I can read from across the table that had Webb Hubbell's name on it. It is not surprising Webb Hubbell's name does not appear on this, because I believe in connection with the search of documents from another investigative body there have been contemporaneous requests for documents related to Webb Hubbell.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Do you recall seeing requests for Webb Hubbell?
Answer. I recall that there was such a request, and that—I recall that there was such a White House-wide request.
Page 633 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. And you recall seeing a document to that effect?
Answer. I do recall that such a document existed. I don't have a present recollection of what that document looked like, but I do have an understanding that the request of documents related to Webb Hubbell.
Question. Then on the second page of this directive it says any documents or materials, and then item (b) is referring or relating to White House political coffees.
Answer. Sure.
Question. Could you describe what materials you got as a result of this directive?
Answer. Well, we received——
Question. Regarding 1(b).
Answer. Sure. We received a whole bunch of stuff: briefing memos, attendees lists, Marsha Scott's notes, and other documents relating to the coffees.
Question. Do you recall getting any of the President's notes from coffees?
Page 634 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. I don't know if there were such notes from coffees. I do not recall receiving any such notes.
Question. Were you aware of individuals saying that the President had taken notes at these coffees?
Answer. No, that's the first I have heard of it.
Question. Were you aware of any efforts to check with the President to see if he had any notes from these coffees?
Answer. I was certainly not involved in such an effort and was not aware of any such effort.
Question. Do you recall any discussions that you had with people about any particular documents relating to coffees, any particular issues that come to mind about whether or not certain documents should be turned over that were related to coffees?
Answer. Specifically, I have no recollection. Let me answer generally to maybe move things along. Generally, if it related to coffees, we provided it. We turned it over.
Question. Are you aware of any documents or records, and I guess when I say records, if you would like to look at our March 4th subpoena again, when I say records I would include all those.
Page 635 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Are you aware of any records that your office has received regarding White House political coffees, that this committee has not received?
Answer. Sitting here today, I am not aware of such records that the committee has not received or been made aware of. I guess you have received now all of the video—the videos of the coffees, which I guess we will get into in a second.
Question. So to your knowledge, as of this date, we have all records pertaining to the White House political coffees?
Answer. That's my understanding, yes. I'm aware of no documents or records relating to White House coffees that you have not been provided or made aware of.
Question. These are documents the White House provided to us yesterday, sent over, which apparently were some records they had made available to the press and others regarding the response to this April 28th directive.
Answer. Sure.
Question. They aren't Bates stamped at this time.
Answer. Are you going to mark them?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Why don't we put the whole group of them together as Deposition Exhibit 5.
Page 636 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
[Imbroscio Deposition Exhibit No. MI–5 was marked for identification.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Have you seen these documents?
Answer. I have.
Question. And could you just describe or tell us, to your knowledge, what these documents are?
Answer. I believe these documents are, at least the top document of Exhibit 5, that has the date bearing April 29th, 1997, would be the kind of document I described to you a few minutes ago; would be a document sent out from our office to the various office heads, asking the office heads to ensure that their staff had thoroughly searched their files, and attesting that all such responsive records had been provided.
Question. And this top memo is from Jodie Torkelson?
Answer. Yes, that's correct. I would just note at the outset, which might avoid some confusion, the memo is dated April 29th, 1997. I suspect that is not the date which Jodie Torkelson returned it, but was probably the date it was sent out by our office.
Page 637 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
We basically had, as you can figure, this was a memo that was sent out to various heads of offices, and it was probably sent out on April 29th. Probably should have been April blank, 1997.
Question. So this document was a form document that you sent out from the counsel's office, someone from the counsel's office sent out, asking them to sign and attest that they had searched the files in response to a directive that people in your office had sent?
Answer. Exactly, sent out to the various office heads to ensure that they were aware of the directive being sent out; that they had instructed their staff to thoroughly search their records and files and to forward to the counsel's office copies of anything responsive.
Question. So Ms. Torkelson didn't send this memo on April 29th, is your understanding of it?
Answer. That's quite correct, yes.
Question. And then the second page is a May 7, 1997 memo for Jodie Torkelson from Ashley Raines, Chief of Staff, Management and Administration, and the subject is ''Independent Counsel Request For Documents.'' Can you tell us about that?
Answer. I can shed some light on that, as well. I suspect that the top document, signed by Jodie Torkelson, probably was contemporaneous or right after the May 7th document, which appears second in the grouping, because I assume that she received this document from her chief of staff before signing the earlier document, which would place the date of the first document sometime around May 7th or May 8th.
Page 638 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
As for Ms. Torkelson's chief of staff's subject line, ''independent counsel request,'' that would be a misnomer. I suspect that, because certainly before I came to this office there had been several requests over the past years for documents related to the independent counsel, she mistakenly assumed this was also a request related to the independent counsel. That's just not accurate. So just to avoid any confusion.
Question. And, actually, the April 28th directive, it was your testimony it was sort of a compilation of a number of requests from a number of different bodies?
Answer. Related to campaign financing, yes.
Question. Can you just tell us what you know about the individuals on this May 7th memo, to your knowledge? Whatever you know about them.
Answer. I know nothing about the individuals on this memo. I assume they are people who work for Jodie Torkelson. Jodie created or Jodie's office created this second document to distinguish it from the first document, which counsel's office created as a way for her to track and demand extra accountability from people on her staff that they had in fact searched their records.
Question. And who does she oversee?
Answer. Individuals, I simply do not know. She oversaw the Office of Management and Administration, which sort of, in layman's terms, is the office that keeps the White House trains running.
Page 639 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Does the Military Office also report to her?
Answer. I just—I don't know. It's my understanding, based on events in the past week or so now, that there is some reporting relationship between the Office of Management and Administration and the Military Office.
I believe it has to do with complicated issues related to the budget and funding, which frankly I know nothing about. But there was some relationship between Jodie Torkelson's shop and the Military Office, but I'm not the person who can give you definitive answers on what that relationship is.
Question. And the May 6, 1997 memo for Jodie Torkelson from Michael Malone, can you tell us about whatever knowledge you have about that memo?
Answer. My answer for this memo would be identical to the answer on the memo we just discussed and which was dated May 7, which again I think is an example of Jodie demanding extra accountability from people on her staff in responding to the April 28th directive. Again, that is not a document that was created in the counsel's office.
Question. And then the last document on here is May 6, 1997, memo for Charles Ruff from Alan Sullivan.
Answer. Uh-huh.
Page 640 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Could you tell us about that document?
Answer. This was a document that counsel's office received directly from Mr. Sullivan, who is the head of the White House Military Office, forwarding the documents that he had gathered in response to the directive.
Question. Now, are these documents that were attached to this classified, to your knowledge?
Answer. I think there was a classified document attached. And if you read, it says, ''Unclassified upon removal of Attachment 5,'' which means probably the 5th out of the 6 documents was classified; that's correct.
Question. We may have them separately in a production, but we don't have them here with what the White House gave us, so I don't know what was attached to this. So to the extent that you have knowledge about the unclassified documents that were attached to this, do you know what those documents were?
Answer. I do not. I assume they are documents that, if they were responsive, have been provided to you. I would more than assume that. I can assert if they were responsive to the committee's request or requests, they would have been duly provided.
Question. And is it your understanding that these documents from Mr. Sullivan encompass documents from the White House Communications Agency?
Page 641 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. I don't have—I don't know where the documents came from, from within the Military Office.
Question. Are you aware of any memos from the White House Communications Agency saying that they had searched their files?
Answer. I am aware of no such memos.
Question. So this memo is only from the Military Office and you have no knowledge of anything—this memo doesn't mention anything about the Communications Agency. I was wondering if you know anything about this being connected to anything related to the Communications Agency.
Answer. All I can say is this. It is my understanding now that the White House Military Office has oversight over a number of units within the White House, one of which is the White House Communications Agency.
Question. That's Deposition Exhibit 5.
Okay, why don't we move along, then, to the videotapes.
Answer. I'd be happy to do so.
Question. Did there come a time where you were asked about any videotaping or audio taping that was done at the White House that would be responsive—did there come a time when you were asked about any responsive video or audiotapes, that would be responsive to our subpoenas or Senate subpoenas?
Page 642 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. Let me answer the question in this manner, which basically would take us to the beginning incident where the story starts.
On August 7th, 1997, I attended a meeting with Lanny Breuer, Don Bucklin—Don Bucklin is the senior counsel to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs—and with Jeff Robbins, who is, I believe, the deputy minority counsel of that same committee. The meeting was to discuss a number of topics, including ongoing document compliance issues. The meeting occurred in Mr. Breuer's office the afternoon of August 7th, 1997.
Question. And can you tell us what occurred at that meeting?
Answer. Sure. As I said, the meeting—at the meeting, numerous items were discussed, from broad document compliance, difficulties in issues, to specific requests. At this point we had just received a subpoena from the Senate. There was some discussion as to some of their requests, trying to get a handle on what their requests were.
The meeting lasted approximately, at this point, best estimate would be about 45 minutes. At the close of that meeting, after Mr. Breuer and Mr. Robbins left to attend another meeting with Senate majority-minority staff on another topic, also in the Old Executive Office Building, I had a brief discussion with Don Bucklin, as the two of us remained in Lanny Breuer's office.
During that discussion, Don Bucklin asked me or indicated to me he had one additional item that he wanted to discuss. At this time it is just Mr. Bucklin and myself in Mr. Breuer's office. From what I can recall, and these may not be precise words, Mr. Bucklin said to me that he had a source, the reliability of which he would not attest, who told him that everything in the Oval Office was recorded, video and audio recorded.
Page 643 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
I looked at him, he looked at me a little funny, because it was a somewhat unusual request, but I agreed with Mr. Bucklin I would try to find out whether in fact such clandestine video and audio taping of meetings in the Oval Office existed. He then left.
Either later that day or perhaps the next day, which I think would have been a Friday, I let Mr. Breuer know that Mr. Bucklin had made this somewhat unusual request, and it was agreed that I would try to identify the person who would know the answer to that somewhat unusual question.
Sometime the following week, in a meeting between—a meeting involving Mr. Breuer, Mr. Ruff and myself, I believe on another topic, I communicated to Mr. Ruff the nature of Mr. Bucklin's request as to whether there was clandestine video and audio taping in the Oval Office.
Question. Whose word was ''clandestine''?
Answer. ''Clandestine'' is my word. I don't have a recollection that Don Bucklin used that word. I don't know if he used the word ''secret'' or ''hidden,'' but clearly when I left that conversation I had the distinct understanding that he was speaking of clandestine taping in the Oval Office.
That was what I communicated to Mr. Breuer, perhaps that day or the next, and what I communicated to Mr. Ruff along with Mr. Breuer sometime during the middle of the next week.
Page 644 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
It was agreed at that meeting that I would try to identify the appropriate official who would have the answer to such a sensitive question.
Question. What did Mr. Ruff say to you?
Answer. He said to me that I should try to find out from the appropriate official whether such recording did exist. He was skeptical as to the existence of such recordings, but agreed that I would have to try to find the appropriate individual to answer the question accurately.
Question. What did Mr. Breuer say to you when you told him back on August 7th, later that day?
Answer. And it might have been the next day, I'm just not sure. I think he had a similar reaction as the reaction Mr. Ruff had, which is a reaction of some skepticism that such taping actually existed, given recent history, but that we would endeavor to find out what the answer to the question was.
Question. And did they, either of them, suggest who you should talk to about it?
Answer. No, I—at some point the name WHCA was brought to my attention, or the entity WHCA. Mr. Bucklin, in our initial August 7th meeting, I don't think used the term WHCA, White House Communications. I do have a recollection he said it's some unit of the Department of Defense, but I don't think he used the word WHCA at that time period.
Page 645 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
But at some point in the week or 10 days that followed, the name WHCA was brought to my attention, and it was agreed that I would try to find the appropriate individual at WHCA who could answer that question.
Question. And that was an agreement you had with Mr. Ruff and Mr. Breuer, then, that you would try to seek out who that person was at WHCA?
Answer. Wasn't so much an agreement, it was an instruction to me that I would try to do that, yes.
Question. Did they give you a deadline or a time frame within which you should do this?
Answer. No explicit deadline, other than handle it in the course of things as I was handling, as we were working on ongoing document productions.
Question. And then what did you do next?
Answer. All during this month, as I know you are aware, because you received documents, we were producing documents, including e-mails. So that was really the primary focus of what I was doing, as well as handling multiple, multiple informal requests from the Senate as they were gearing up during the recess for their fall hearings.
So as part of handling their various informal requests and in responding to their subpoena, I was—also on my list was to figure out the answer to this question.
Page 646 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Sometime—well, not sometime—on Tuesday of the following week, and by this point I had not reached out to anyone at WHCA to try to find out who the person would be, we got a letter from Mr. Bucklin. The letter was dated Tuesday, August 19th, I believe. It was a Tuesday, whether it was the 19th or 18th, I don't have a sense of it in front of me.
Can we take one break?
Ms. COMSTOCK. Sure.
The WITNESS. I have a calendar in front of me of dates which will help me. I think it will help this process go more quickly. It is simply a calendar listing the days of the year of 1997.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Maybe what we should do is make copy of that for the record so that we can have in the record what you are referring to.
The WITNESS. We can make a copy of 1997.
Ms. COMSTOCK. Do you want to take a break and do that so the minority has one too?
The WITNESS. I think that would be the best, thank you very much.
Page 647 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
[Brief recess.]
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Okay, returning to the record, we were discussing events in August of this year.
Answer. I believe I was about to discuss a letter that we had received on Tuesday, August 19th, and I have a calendar in front of me, the record should reflect.
Ms. COMSTOCK. And we will go ahead and make that Deposition Exhibit Number 6.
[Imbroscio Deposition Exhibit No. MI–6 was marked for identification.]
The WITNESS. Okay. And just to be clear, it is a calendar of simply days and months.
Ms. COMSTOCK. In 1997.
The WITNESS. Yes.
Sometime on August 19th, 1997, our office, Mr. Breuer particularly, received a letter from Mr. Bucklin that raised several topics, one of which was a follow-up of our August 7th discussion at the close of the meeting.
Page 648 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Mr. Bucklin had asked, he had mentioned he had spoken to me on August 7th and asked in his letter a quite different question, or a broader question than he had asked of me at the August 7th meeting. This request was now not simply whether they were taping in the Oval Office, tapings in the Oval Office, but more generally what was it that WHCA does and what do they have that could potentially be responsive to their subpoenas.
We received that letter on the 19th. I don't recall when I first had notice of it. Probably not that day, probably the next day, simply because sometimes it takes a day for the letters to get circulated in our office, particularly if it came late in the day, which I simply do not know.
After getting that letter, I believe I had a discussion with Mr. Breuer where it was basically indicated, the existence of this request, and that I would continue to follow up on it as I had set out to do with respect to their secret Oval Office tapings request of August 7th.
So it was either later that week, which according to the calendar would have been sometime the 21st, 22nd, or perhaps early the next week, which would be Monday the 25th, I set about to try to find the official at WHCA who could answer my question.
As an aside, WHCA is somewhat of a unique agency in the White House. They do not—the members of WHCA do not appear in our phone book. There is no listing for WHCA nor is there a listing of any of the officials of WHCA. The one WHCA number that does appear in our phone book is a WHCA customer service number. That is the number we are asked to call if we would have any trouble with our pagers. WHCA is also the entity that provides us with our pagers.
Page 649 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. So prior to this August 19th letter, when you said you—after that August 7th meeting, which was a Thursday, you said sometime in the next week you had talked with Mr. Ruff and Mr. Breuer and they had told you to find the person who could answer any questions——
Answer. A specific question related to oval office tapings.
Question. And prior to August 19th, you had found out nothing?
Answer. Yes. I had many other items on my plate, including responding to the new round of requests that came in from the Senate, and frankly this was not at the top of my priority list at that point.
Question. Why is that?
Answer. I suspect the reason is, quite understandable, that we were in the middle of what was a pretty massive document production, producing I think over 10,000 pages of documents, including over 5,000 pages of e-mails over this period, and that was my primary obligation, to respond to the written requests, and at this point it had become a Senate subpoena.
For that reason it was not at the top of my ''to do'' list. After the August 19th meeting, I tried to, as I was about to testify——
Page 650 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. You mean the letter?
Answer. I'm sorry, yes, thank you very much. After receiving the letter and notification of the letter, sometime over the next couple of days I tried to find the official, an official at WHCA who would be sufficiently senior enough to answer what was a particularly sensitive question relating to secret Oval Office recordings.
Question. To your knowledge, had Mr. Ruff talked to anybody about this prior to this time?
Answer. To my knowledge, absolutely not.
Question. Or Mr. Breuer?
Answer. Not that I recollect.
Question. Was there anybody else in the counsel's office you told about it in the time frame between August 7th and August 19th, when the letter came in?
Answer. No one else.
Question. You never told Mr. Nionakis about this request?
Answer. No, I don't believe that I did. You know, we all had a full plate of items to handle. This was on my plate, and I don't recall discussing it with any of the other lawyers in the office. I'm not saying that this might have come up in a discussion, sort of what are you working on, what am I working on, but I have no specific recollection of discussing this particular request with any of the other lawyers apart from Mr. Breuer and Mr. Ruff.
Page 651 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. And do you have daily meetings with this group that include Mr. Breuer, or how are your meetings that you have?
Answer. As I think I said earlier, there is no set pattern. It depends very much on the nature of what is going on around us. If we're in the middle of hearings, we tend to meet more often than if we're not in the middle of hearings. Obviously, August was a month that, as you are aware, that the Congress and Senate were on recess and you all got to take vacations, I hope. No?
Question. Let the record reflect not too many people took much of a vacation in August.
Answer. Fair enough. But people were in the office less regularly during this period and, thus, there was not a series of regular—certainly no series of regular meetings during this time period.
After trying to get back to it, after receiving the letter, as I said, WHCA appears nowhere in the phone book. It is sort of a unique agency. I called up the number that appeared in the phone book, which was the customer service number of WHCA, and asked them where they were physically.
I then went to that area, which was the area where I had picked up my pager, I think on my first day of employment on March 3rd, and asked a few of the career military people there who would be the head of the agency that I could talk to. I think the name they gave me was Mr. Steven Smith. I then set about to have a meeting——
Page 652 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Do you know who you asked when you called? You just got somebody on the phone?
Answer. No. Well, I talked to somebody on the phone, asked them where they were, and actually physically went there to that office.
Question. And where was that?
Answer. It's also on the fourth floor, in the opposite corner of where my office is located.
Question. And how much of an office do they have there?
Answer. They have a room with some desks and cubicles, which is their customer service center, as I understand it.
Question. So you went to that room to find out who to talk to?
Answer. I went to that room. I wanted to find out where they were, and that is what I did in my phone call. Then I walked down, either after the phone call or maybe a short while later, I don't recall specifically, to talk to a human being in that room to try to identify an appropriate person.
Question. Prior to that time you were not aware that that office was on the fourth floor?
Page 653 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. I suppose I was aware of it, because that was the office, when I walked in I realized was the office I picked up my pager on my first day, but I had long since forgotten that is where that office was or that was in fact the office that I was calling when I called the number.
So I walked in the office and asked a couple of people there who had uniforms on, I don't recall what branch of service they were even in, and the name they gave me was Mr. Steven Smith.
After obtaining Mr. Smith's name, I set about to schedule a meeting with him, and we ended up meeting sometime the latter part of the last week in August, which could have been anywhere between the 27th, 28th and 29th. I don't have a firm recollection of when the date was.
Question. So you went down to the office sometime a day or two after this August 19th letter, then you set up a meeting for the following week?
Answer. That's right. I don't have a firm recollection what day I actually went to their customer service center to get his name. I believe it was the latter part of that week. It might well have been the first part, Monday, or Tuesday of the following week, but sometime in the aftermath of receiving the August 19th letter I did that.
Question. And where is Mr. Smith's office?
Page 654 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. Mr. Smith's office, I learned, was on the fifth floor of the Old Executive Office Building.
Question. And was this appointment—was Mr. Smith not available that day to talk with?
Answer. I don't recall the specifics of setting up an appointment, whether we had missed each other on phone calls. Mr. Smith, I understand, has an office on the fifth floor but also has duties outside of the complex, as well, and so is not there on a 9 to 5 basis, as many of the other career people are. There might have been some difficulty in setting up a meeting immediately, but what I do recall is we did meet the latter part of August 1997.
Question. And did you have any discussions with anybody prior to that meeting, just about ''I found who I am supposed to talk to,'' or report back in any way?
Answer. Not that I recall. Not that I recall, no.
Question. And you had told Mr. Breuer and Mr. Ruff sometime following the August 7th meeting about the request of the Oval Office tapings, and then the letter came, and you don't recall any other discussions with Mr. Breuer or Mr. Ruff about this prior to your meeting with Mr. Smith?
Answer. I certainly recall not discussing it with Mr. Ruff. I had only the single discussion I had mentioned. I very well might have had a discussion with Lanny to give him a status report that either I had found the person or I had scheduled a meeting with the person. I have no specific recollection of such a conversation, however.
Page 655 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Going back to that meeting after the August 7th when the request was made of you, that meeting was only with you, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Breuer; is that correct?
Answer. That's correct. It was in Mr. Ruff's office.
Question. And how did that meeting come about?
Answer. I don't have a specific recollection. My sense is we were meeting for another reason.
Question. Do you recall what that was for?
Answer. No, I don't. But the reason I think that is because it was at the tail end of that meeting that I recall raising this issue. I don't know why we were meeting at that point.
Question. Do you meet with Mr. Ruff often?
Answer. Mr. Ruff prides himself on having an open door policy, and I meet both informally and formally with Mr. Ruff on numerous occasions.
Question. How often, since March, if you recall?
Page 656 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. Well, if you mean formal meetings, Mr. Ruff has a weekly, sometimes twice a week staff meeting with all the lawyers in the counsel's office, not just our team handling this matter, this investigation, to use your term. So there are certainly those meetings.
We also occasionally have more focused meetings with just the investigative team and Mr. Ruff. There are also numerous informal times when I walk into Mr. Ruff's office if I have a specific question or want his advice on a particular topic.
Question. Would that be on some documents you were reviewing that you would have discussed with him?
Answer. Perhaps, but that would be unlikely. It would be just more general advice or guidance.
Question. Can you generally recall what some of those occasions were?
Answer. No, I mean I really can't. You know, Mr. Ruff is my ultimate boss and I have the sort of communications and interactions with him as you might expect with any—as you do, I am sure, with the chairman or with people, with Mr. Bennett. We talk about office-related matters, sometimes we talk about personal and private matters as well; who is going to win the World Series.
Question. You don't recall the other topic of this meeting?
Page 657 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. No, I'm sorry. I have given it some thought and I just can't recall what it was.
Question. And did you sort of spontaneously bring this topic up in the meeting with Mr. Ruff, or had you told Mr. Breuer that you wanted to raise this with Mr. Ruff?
Answer. I don't recall whether I brought it up spontaneously. I somewhat doubt I would have done it that way. I probably—I don't want to speculate, and this is pure speculation.
Mr. LYNCH. Well, don't do it.
Mr. BALLEN. Don't do it; right.
Mr. LYNCH. Don't do it if it is pure speculation.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. I am trying to get a sense, if you brought this up in a meeting with Mr. Ruff, did Mr. Ruff appear to know about it; that Mr. Breuer had told him?
Answer. Absolutely not. It was clear this was the first time that Mr. Ruff had been made aware of Mr. Bucklin's request on August 7th.
Page 658 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Because you had told Lanny Breuer sort of sometime either the day you learned or the next day?
Answer. That is correct. That was my testimony.
Question. And then this meeting with Mr. Ruff is the next week or so, so some days after you had told Lanny Breuer. And you have no knowledge of anybody else that Mr. Breuer told about this request?
Answer. I have no knowledge.
Question. And Mr. Ruff, it is your testimony, was sort of skeptical about whether any type of taping system existed?
Mr. LYNCH. Taping existed?
Ms. COMSTOCK. In the Oval Office.
Mr. BALLEN. Clandestine taping.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. ''Clandestine'' was your word, you have told me. Mr. Bucklin's request wasn't asking you, he didn't use the word ''clandestine.'' Isn't that correct?
Page 659 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. As I testified, I don't recall him using the word ''clandestine.'' I don't know whether he used another word, like ''secret'' or ''hidden'' camera, but what I do recall coming out of that meeting is the very clear impression that he was asking me whether there was secret or clandestine taping in the Oval Office. It is fair to say that Mr. Ruff's reaction was skepticism.
Question. Did Mr. Ruff ever indicate if he was going to talk with the President about it or ask him anything about it?
Answer. He never gave me any such indication, no.
Question. Did he indicate whether he was going to talk to Mr. Lindsey about it?
Answer. Again, no. It was resolved at the end of that meeting, as I said, that I would set about to try to find the appropriate WHCA individual. And, again, I don't know if WHCA, at that point I knew the name WHCA or not, but I would try to find the appropriate individual that could answer that question.
Question. I think the record already reflects it, but I will make it clear: The conversations that you have recounted with Mr. Breuer and Mr. Ruff are the only conversations you had about this up until the time you met with Mr. Smith?
Answer. Yes, that's my recollection.
Page 660 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. And why don't we go into that meeting.
Answer. Sure. The meeting took place in Mr. Smith's office on the fifth floor of the Old Executive Office Building. Mr. Smith, as I understand it, is the operations director of WHCA. The meeting lasted probably around 45 minutes, approximately.
The meeting began with me introducing myself, explaining to Mr. Smith that I was a member of the counsel's office and part of the team handling the various investigations ongoing, and let him know that we had received a request from Senator Thompson's staff related to two topics.
The first topic we discussed was the tie to the first question Mr. Bucklin had asked me on August 7th, which was whether, in fact, there was any sort of secret or clandestine taping system of meetings and conversations in the Oval Office. And after some discussion, Mr. Smith reported to me that no such taping existed.
Question. Can you describe the discussion?
Answer. I believe the discussion was mainly on my part. This was a rather extraordinary request. My effort was to communicate the seriousness of the request and the essential need to get the correct answer, and to try to probe his complete state of knowledge. I was trying to identify if in fact he would be the man who would know or the individual who would know whether in fact it existed.
Page 661 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. And what did you ask him?
Answer. I don't recall specifically. I recall asking him generally what his role was and what he—what generally his position was.
I recall asking him questions about what sort of recordings, if any, took place in the Oval Office. And at the end of that discussion I was informed that no such secret or clandestine meetings in the Oval Office were recorded.
Mr. LYNCH. Can you read that back, because I think you may want to, the way it came out, you may want to rephrase it.
[The reporter read back as requested.]
The WITNESS. I think it is probably more accurate to say were made. No such secret or clandestine recordings were made.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Because you were asking generally about what type of recordings were made in the Oval Office?
Answer. I was asking him specifically whether there was any sort of secret or clandestine video or audio taping system for meetings in the Oval Office.
Page 662 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Did you ask him if there were any recordings of meetings in the Oval Office?
Answer. I will turn to that, but at this point in the conversation, no, it was not at that level. It was generality. It was trying to ascertain whether there were any clandestine recordings in the Oval Office.
Question. So is this discussion sort of like, ''Are there any secret switches? Is there something like Nixon had?'' Is that the kind of discussion you are having? ''Is there something we don't know about, that is not known publicly?'' Is that what you are asking him about?
Answer. That is accurate, to characterize it that way, and the answer was no, there is no such system or secret switches, as you put it.
I next went into the more general topic, which really traced the request made in Mr. Bucklin's August 19th letter, which was my effort to ascertain what precisely WHCA did and what kind of video or audio records they would have and potentially what responses they might have.
Mr. Smith then explained to me for some time the general mission and purpose of what WHCA does. He explained to me that WHCA, for the most part, is simply another camera crew along with the press, recording and documenting for archival purposes the presidency.
He explained——
Page 663 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Mr. BALLEN. I'm sorry, the President's what?
The WITNESS. The presidency, period.
He explained that oftentimes they are simply another camera crew along with CBS, NBC, ABC and the others, recording the President's public and open appearances. And when I say public or open, I mean open to the press, not necessarily open to the general public.
He explained to me that they typically did not—he also—put that aside for a minute. He also told me that at small events when there is only one pool camera—apparently, the way it works is if it is a small, closed—a small event with limited space, there would only be one network camera that would rotate to cover the event, but they are always an additional camera along with the pool.
I asked him whether they would record fund-raisers, and he told me that typically they would record the President's remarks at such fund-raisers, the President's speech, and occasionally his entrance into the room. I believe he also told me that sometimes usually the press are at some of these events as well, so again they are at the same event as the press is.
I then, trying to understand precisely what they did, went through a litany of items to try to find out whether, in fact, they recorded certain types of items. On my list, I don't recall everything on the list, but certainly I recall a few of the things. One of the items was fund-raisers, and he gave me the response I just gave to you.
Page 664 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
I asked him whether meetings, small private meetings in the Oval Office, would be videotaped. I had in my mind in asking that question, for instance, whether the September 13th, 1995 meeting with Mr. Huang, Mr. Riady and Mr. Giroir would have been something that would have been videotaped, and he replied that that—Mr. Smith replied that that would not be something they would videotape, it being a small, private, closed meeting.
I then went through a few other items. I believe I asked him about political dinners, and I have a recollection he gave me the same answer, which is that he would record the President's speech at such events and perhaps an entrance into the room.
I recall asking him whether coffees would have been recorded, and gave him a description of what these coffees were: These were closed, private meetings, small group meetings that occurred typically in the Map Room. And I recall him telling me those would not be the types of events typically that would be recorded.
Question. Did you ask him those types or——
Answer. I recall mentioning the word ''coffee.'' Certainly they are not figured prominently in my litany of items. And I recall describing what these events were.
Question. You were referring to the White House coffees that had been in the press?
Answer. In my mind, that is what I had in my mind, because I was going through an event of what happens—going through a list of what perhaps could be responsive events; described them as they are, which were the small private gatherings typically held in the Map Room. And I recall he responded to me those would not be the types of events that they would typically record.
Page 665 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
I recall asking him about a few other items, one of which, I believe, was radio addresses, and I recall he told me that they typically would record the President's remarks at the radio address.
By the time we got to this litany, we were probably quite near the end of the meeting, perhaps the last 5 minutes of the meeting, and I thanked him and I left the meeting.
Question. How were things left at the end of that meeting?
Answer. It was left as follows: I had asked him if he could try to ascertain for me what types of records or files or file cabinets or indexes they might have of events that were recorded, because I personally wanted to thumb through them so I would have a better understanding of what, in fact, they did record.
Question. So you asked him for a complete index?
Answer. I asked him—I didn't say give me a complete index. I asked him generally, ''What kinds of files or records do you maintain?'' Because I had in my mind the desire to want to go through such a file cabinet or such a binder of events to ascertain whether, in fact, there is anything that would be responsive to the request.
Question. And did you in fact learn of such a record or index?
Answer. Much later into the story. It will probably fit in quite naturally as I move forward, if you don't mind.
Page 666 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Sure.
Mr. LYNCH. Are we going to break for lunch at all?
Ms. COMSTOCK. I know we sort of have a four o'clock deadline. We can go off the record for a minute.
[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the deposition was recessed, to reconvene at 2:00 p.m. the same day.]
Mr. BENNETT. For the record, I'm Richard Bennett, chief counsel to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. It has been brought to my attention that there was a contention made earlier today that Minority counsel had previously indicated opposition to this deposition. Mr. Ballen can respond in a minute. I want to say that until that was brought to my attention this morning, that I have not received any correspondence from Minority counsel or any Minority member of the committee with respect to opposing the depositions, that to my knowledge there was certainly, at least as to this matter and the matter of compliance with the subpoenas issued by this committee, a bipartisan consensus that there must be compliance with our subpoenas.
We attended last Friday at the White House, Barbara Comstock and I, accompanied by Dudley Butch Hodgson, an agent assigned to the Majority, as well as Mr. Kenneth Ballen, the chief Minority counsel, attended a meeting at the White House counsel's office last Friday October 10, 1997 at which Mr. Ruff was in attendance, Ms. Cheryl Mills and Mr. Lanny Breuer.
Page 667 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
For the record, Mr. Ruff indicated his willingness to have us conduct any interviews of White House counsel personnel, and I indicated my insistence that I felt that White House personnel in the counsel's office needed to be placed under oath and be deposed. It was my recollection that there was no opposition voiced by Mr. Ballen at that time, that there has as we speak, until this very moment, never been any opposition, and indeed I recall Congressman Waxman at a hearing at some point a week and a half ago or a week ago finding that he felt it, I believe he used the word ''inexcusable.''
So I think it's important to put this on the record. There has not been any contention about this and to the extent that there is a representation on the record that someone has told me that there is opposition to it, I have not heard one word of opposition until I was advised by Ms. Comstock here, who is conducting the deposition this morning, that there had been placed on the record a contention that previous opposition had been indicated. So I think it's important to put that on the record.
Mr. Ballen, if my recollection is not correct, you need to put that on the record.
Ms. COMSTOCK. That was my recollection also, which I have reflected this morning on the record.
Mr. BALLEN. I agree with Mr. Bennett's representation at the meeting with Mr. Ruff. That is an accurate reflection. I don't dispute anything you said other than that. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Page 668 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. Because the representations this morning were that——
Mr. BALLEN. Could I finish, please?
Ms. COMSTOCK. I would like for the record to reflect that there were independent——
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Could you just let him finish his comment before you start blabbing on the record?
Ms. COMSTOCK [continuing]. That there was a representation by Mr. Ballen that he had had an independent conversation with Mr. Bennett that I was not aware of and I think that is what was directed this morning on the record.
Mr. BENNETT. Go ahead, Ken.
Mr. BALLEN. Thank you. No, I don't dispute Mr. Bennett's recollection and I don't want to engage in a debate over that. I stated mine to the best of my recollection, but I don't dispute his recollection whatsoever. There was—because I won't do that. There was a letter sent from Mr. Condit's office representing the views of the Minority Members of this committee. My understanding is that letter was sent out yesterday, early afternoon to the Chairman. I don't know why you did not receive that. I don't understand why you didn't receive it. It was told, represented, to me that the letter was sent and delivered to this office that we are in now, the chairman's office, yesterday. More than that, I can't add to that, and that does represent the views of not only Mr. Condit but the Minority Members of the committee.
Page 669 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Mr. BENNETT. We are here to depose a witness. I don't want to get into that. But just so the record is clear, one, in terms of my understanding of the depositions and at some point in time we can go into the matter in opposition to this, but just so the record is clear in terms of my view as chief counsel, it is hard for me to imagine any meaningful effort at determining facts if there isn't some consensus that subpoenas need to be complied with, and that is our thrust. Our thrust is not to cast aspersions on anybody in terms of the matter of subpoena compliance, but it is hard for me to imagine that anybody on the committee, be they Majority or Minority, which I believe was the tone of the expression of Congressman Waxman a week ago was that we need that compliance with our subpoenas. That is why I would at least hope on this matter there can be some agreement. We can discuss this at a later point in time, but I just wanted to clarify the record on that and I thank you for allowing me to do.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. When we broke for lunch, we were discussing the meeting at the end of August that you had with Steven Smith. I believe you had finished all your recounting of that meeting, is that correct?
Answer. That's my recollection, yes.
Question. In the course of that meeting, I just have a few follow-up questions, did he discuss with you at all any paperwork or anything that was sent to his office in order to make requests that events be taped?
Page 670 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. Not that I can recall.
Question. Did he discuss the process by which his office made decisions about taping events?
Answer. I don't recall a specific discussion as to the process. Certainly in the context of our larger discussion of what they did and what they did not do, I suppose implicit in that discussion is some understanding of their process. But I don't recall a specific discussion or question and answer colloquy along the lines of, ''What is your process? My process is X.''
Question. And following that conversation that you had with Mr. Smith, what was the next action that you took regarding the videotapes and audio tapes?
Answer. As I testified, that meeting occurred somewhere the latter part of the last week of August, 27, 28th or 29th. I simply don't recall. Sometime during the next week, I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Bucklin. It was not uncommon for Mr. Bucklin and I to speak on a wide variety of topics. In that conversation I recall indicating to him that I could—I had met initially with a representative of WHCA and I could report back to Mr. Bucklin and Minority staff the results of my preliminary inquiry. That meeting ultimately took place on September 9, the meeting occurred in Mr. Bucklin's office in the Senate committee. Present at that meeting was Mr. Bucklin, Mr. Robbins, who I believe is deputy Minority counsel for the Senate staff, and Ms. Maggie Hickey, H-i-c-k-e-y, who is on Mr. Bucklin's staff.
Question. Did you tell us what occurred at that meeting?
Page 671 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. Certainly.
Mr. LYNCH. Do you have a date for this?
The WITNESS. Yes, that meeting took place on, I think I September 9, 1997.
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. Was there a letter either prior to that or on that date?
Answer. I am aware—relating to this topic?
Question. Yes.
Answer. I am aware of no letter on or about that date. At that meeting I set about to try to communicate to Mr. Bucklin, Mr. Robbins and Ms. Hickey what I had learned in my meeting a short time earlier with Mr. Smith. I recall initially discussing or revealing the fact——
Question. Was this just you, as the only person from the White House counsel's office?
Page 672 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. Yes, that's my recollection.
Question. Had you informed anyone in your office that you were going to be meeting with them?
Answer. I believe I did. I believe I spoke with Mr. Breuer and he was aware that I was meeting with Mr. Bucklin.
Question. Prior to the meeting and from the time you talked to Mr. Smith, did you talk to Mr. Breuer after that and tell him you were talking to Mr. Smith?
Answer. I don't have a specific recollection of having such a conversation with Mr. Breuer. All I recall is I informed him of my intention to meet with Mr. Bucklin and others on the Senate staff to inform them of what I had learned from Mr. Smith of WHCA.
Question. What did you tell Lanny Breuer you were going to be telling Mr. Bucklin and the Senate staff?
Answer. Frankly, I have no recollection of what, if anything, I said to Mr. Breuer in that conversation. I don't know if I went through point by point everything I just told you or if I just provided to him more generally that I was going to make a status report. I simply don't recall.
Question. So you can't recall if you even mentioned to Lanny Breuer that I'm going to tell them what I talked to WHCA about?
Page 673 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. As I think I said, I have a vague recollection of informing Mr. Breuer that I was going to be making a status report to Mr. Bucklin and others on the staff. What I can't recall is whether I gave Mr. Breuer a synopsis of what that status report would be.
Question. This being the status report on subpoena response generally or in response to the August 7 and August 19 requests?
Answer. The latter.
Question. You can continue with the meeting.
Answer. And so at that meeting, which occurred in Mr. Bucklin's office on September 9, I set about to try to relay the information that I had learned a short while earlier from Mr. Smith. I relayed first, and not surprisingly, that there is no clandestine, secret Oval Office recordings, and second, I described more generally what it was I learned and what I understood at the time to be WHCA's role and what they in fact filmed. I let Mr. Bucklin and the others in the room know that it was my understanding that WHCA generally filmed open press events and that they are another camera, as with the networks and other cameras, involved in documenting the President. I recall specifically informing them that the President—that fund-raisers were recorded more specifically, that the President's remarks at fund-raisers are recorded and that occasionally a few minutes, or a few seconds of him entering the room to the fanfare.
I recall in response to a question whether coffees were also filmed, and I don't recall who asked the question. Someone in the room. I have no firm recollection who it was. I said it was my understanding that these were not the types of events that were filmed, but indicated that I would inquire further.
Page 674 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. At that time you didn't have understanding either way whether those events had been taped or not?
Answer. No, I think what I just said is that I communicated what I had learned from Mr. Smith sometime earlier, which is it was my understanding that those were not the types of events that would have been filmed. But I agreed to check further in response to that specific question. And just so we're clear, that was the first time in my communications with Mr. Bucklin and others that the word ''coffee'' had ever surfaced with respect to videotapes. That was on September 9.
Question. When you had met with Mr. Smith back at the end of August, did you ask him were White House coffees taped?
Answer. I think I testified about that earlier. What I did is I went through a litany of events, one of which I'm quite certain was coffees, and I recall describing what these coffees were, which were small private meetings that typically occurred in the Map Room. But again just so we're clear, that was a list of my own creation and not in response to any specific request at that time from the Senate committee.
Question. Was this discussed further in that September 9 meeting with Mr. Bucklin?
Answer. No. How the meeting ended was after the specific request for me to follow up on coffees, which I agreed to do, I said that I was in the process of trying to ascertain what, if any, kinds of records that WHCA maintained of these events so that I could be more comfortable in searching them and responding precisely, in getting precise answers to their questions.
Page 675 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. So between the end of August, whenever you had this meeting, and September 9, you had not sought out those records at all?
Answer. As I testified, where we left it—where I left it with Mr. Smith was he was going to get back with me to let me know what, if any, kinds of records they would have that could be manually looked at by me.
Question. And he never got back to you?
Answer. He did not get back to me on that point for some time, which I'll go into in a few minutes.
So after that meeting, which again was September 9, I was also—by this point the Senate hearings had recommenced, as well as we were producing documents, so I was—my primary focus during this period was to produce documents as quickly as possible, particularly the E-mails which we had been getting back since the end of August and which we have produced to this committee as well as to the Senate since that time period, as well as the Senate hearings were ongoing.
The next week the Senate hearing topic was, as you probably recall, Roger Tamraz and matters relating to Mr. Tamraz. That was one of the matters for which I was an attorney involved and thus spent a good deal of the next week in preparation for and working on those days of testimony.
Page 676 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Were you the lead attorney who worked on Roger Tamraz matters?
Answer. Lanny Breuer is the lead attorney on all of our matters. Because there are a wide variety of topics that this investigation and other investigations are looking into, it tends to work out that particular attorneys develop certain expertise in particular areas. It just so happened that one of the areas in which I had developed some limited expertise was our friend Roger Tamraz.
Question. Aside from your friend Roger Tamraz?
Answer. I say that with a grin, and the record should reflect we are both grinning.
Question. Aside from everybody's friend Roger Tamraz, what other areas of expertise did you work on or did you develop?
Answer. That was primarily my——
Ms. COMSTOCK. If the record could reflect that Mr. McLaughlin, if you could restrain yourself from gestures and things during the deposition, I think that would be productive here.
Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I consider myself free to communicate with Mr. Ballen by whatever means I choose and deem necessary.
Page 677 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Ms. COMSTOCK. Let the record reflect that Mr. McLaughlin chooses to make ridiculous hand gestures throughout the deposition.
The WITNESS. Let me give my best answer to your question, and I would like to get back to the story, which I think is important. Apart from Roger Tamraz, there really is no other particular area that I developed expertise. He was by and far the person that I was involved with. That largely stems from the fact that I was one of the first people on the staff to get security clearance and because, as you are certainly aware, several of the documents that went to Roger Tamraz require security clearance. It was by happenstance that I became the person on that matter.
But getting back——
EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
Question. So other than the Tamraz matter, you normally would not be pulled off of document production for handling matters like that?
Answer. And frankly I was not pulled off of document production. I think all during that week, we had made document production. I think. I don't have the exact letters in front of me, but we certainly produced documents to this committee as well as to the Senate throughout this time period, including I believe productions in the middle weeks of September. So the document production train never stops, which I think is important to note.
Page 678 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
In any event, Thursday of that week, which was the 18th of September, I had a preexisting obligation to be out of town to visit my family and was out of town the week—the days of the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st, returning back into the office on Monday, the 22nd. It was sometime during that week that I had a conversation with Mr. Bucklin in which we discussed several topics, one of which was he inquired as to the status of following up on the WHCA issue, which was, he had inquired where things stood with respect to getting my hands on what, if any, records they would have so I could answer his questions more fully.
After that conversation which, and again I cannot put on it a particular date, but certainly the early part of the week I returned from out of town from visiting my family, I had a conversation with Mr. Smith, which was a telephone conversation, I'm quite certain, in which he indicated to me for the first time that there in fact was no hard copy logs or indexes or binders or any other types of hard copy material in existence, at least in one centralized location, that could be searched, but rather explained to me that there was a database which could be queried, was his word, essentially could be searched.
Question. So between the end of August and this conversation with Mr. Smith sometime after you returned on the 20th, you had had no communication with Mr. Smith?
Answer. No, I didn't say that. I believe that I had communications with Mr. Smith sometime the first week in September, before my meeting with Mr. Bucklin, and sometime the week after—or in the days after my meeting with Mr. Bucklin on September 9. I recall meeting with Mr. Smith in his office two, maybe three times. Certainly the first time will be the one I've testified already, the end of August. The second time, and the second time I'm sure of was on October 1, which I will get to momentarily. I might have had one additional meeting with him, I can't recall, in his office. But in any event, I spoke to him on the phone——
Page 679 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Do you keep a calendar or anything like that?
Answer. No. And I also spoke with him on the phone on several occasions. As I testified earlier, Mr. Smith, as I understand it, has responsibilities offsite as well and thus my understanding is there are some days when he is not onsite, and when I say onsite, I mean within the 18-acre complex of the EOB and White House. So after talking with Mr. Bucklin in the early part of the week, I had a conversation with Mr. Smith. I believe the conversation was probably on Wednesday, the 24th, as best as I can recollect. During that conversation, as I just testified, he explained to me for the first time that there in fact was no hard copy, extant log, index or file cabinet which would include everything they have, but rather there was a database. He explained to me that he had a subordinate draw up an outline of what the various fields in the database were.
Question. Did he say who that was?
Answer. No, he did not. And he agreed to get that document to me. On Friday, September 26, sometime shortly before noon, either Mr. Smith or someone who worked with him left that document on my chair in my office. I was not in my office at the time. I returned to my office that day, Friday, September 26, shortly after noon, and received that document at that point. I left work around 12:20 that day to leave town with my wife to visit my in-laws in North Carolina. When I returned on Monday, now that I had this document in hand, I called Mr. Smith back to set about situating myself in front of whatever computer terminal they had to start to figure out what the heck they had.
Page 680 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. When you got the document on Friday, did you take it with you over the weekend and review it?
Answer. No, I did not. It was a one-page document which simply described what the various fields are in the database. And by field, I mean database components. In other words, some of the fields were date, place, event, film type, other various fields that the WHCA staff maintained. But I did not take it with me.
Question. Did you tell anybody else about it on that Friday?
Answer. I did not, no. I got back to my office, it was there, and I left the office.
Question. And during this entire time when you were dealing with Mr. Bucklin, there was nobody else in the counsel's office who is working with you on this?
Answer. That is accurate. Other than Mr. Breuer having a general awareness that I was following up on this issue at the request of Mr. Bucklin, there was no one else involved.
Question. Was there anybody else in the office who had general knowledge that you were working on these matters?
Answer. No, not that I'm aware of. Mr. Breuer would be the one. Mr. Breuer is my direct supervisor.
Page 681 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. None of your other colleagues that you were working with, this didn't come up at any meetings or discussions about document production or anything like that?
Answer. No, not that I can recall. This was a rather discrete issue. And I don't recall it ever coming up at any larger meeting.
Question. You never went to one of your colleagues and said, hey, do you know anything about this that you might be able to help me, do you know where I should look? Maybe check with any other colleagues to see if they might have some knowledge of any of this throughout this August-September time period?
Answer. Other than Mr. Breuer, no. Other than the communications I've already testified about with Mr. Breuer, no.
So I returned from North Carolina late on Sunday, September 28. I recall I did not get home until after 10. There was a bad wreck which had occurred at the 495 and 95 interchange that we got caught in the traffic of. I returned home late in the evening, returned back to work on Monday, the 29th. This was certainly at the top of my to do list at this point.
I placed a call to Mr. Smith, did not reach him. We exchanged several phone messages between, on Monday and Tuesday, and I finally reached him shortly after noon on Wednesday, October 1. I recall the time because it was getting near the lunch hour, and I requested if we could meet immediately.
Page 682 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. So you started calling him on the 29th, Monday?
Answer. Yes. I placed a call to him on Monday, and we had exchanged a few messages on Monday and Tuesday. I recall Mr. Smith telling me that he was not in the complex during this whole period. There was a period when he was not in the complex, and I recall that because in our discussion when we finally hooked up, there was some initial small talk saying that ''Sorry we haven't hooked up, it's been hectic.''
I went back to Mr. Smith's office after speaking with him on the phone, I asked whether we could meet immediately; he said yes. I went to his office with the document that he had given me. In anticipation of that meeting, I don't know whether I did it on September 29 or September 30, I had prepared a list of a few items that I wanted to check whether they were in the database or not. These were items that are events of interest that I wanted to check and find out what, if anything, they had.
Question. Do you still have that document?
Answer. I think I do have that list. What was on it, I put a couple of fund-raisers on it, a couple of political dinners, the September 13 meeting, and a couple of the coffees, one of the coffees for sure was the April 1 Roger Tamraz coffee. Again it flows back to my limited expertise in Mr. Tamraz. I went to Mr. Smith's office that afternoon with my list in hand, and I suggested to him that I would like to search the database. He at that point made a phone call to I believe what turned out to be the video unit, which was on the ground floor of the Old Executive Office Building. Again to remind you, Mr. Smith's office was on the fifth floor. And he arranged a meeting with me after lunch at approximately 2 o'clock and it was resolved that I would go down to meet with the video folks after lunch. In fact, I did do that. Sometime shortly after 2 o'clock, I recall, it was probably a little bit late, I went to the video unit, which was on the ground floor of the Old Executive Office Building. The exact room number, I don't have in my mind. I spoke there with a gentleman by the name of Charles McGrath, Chuck McGrath who is sometimes referred to as Chief McGrath. I'm not sure if the chief refers to some military designation or chief of the unit and thus that's what he's referred to as.
Page 683 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
I sat down with Mr. McGrath, in the company of a few of his subordinates, I don't recall specifically who was there apart from Mr. McGrath, and began to ask him some of the same general questions that I had asked Mr. Smith in our first meeting, which were questions along the lines of what do you do generally, what is the nature of your mission, what do you typically film. After some time of initial discussion, perhaps 15 minutes to 20 minutes, I indicated to him that I would like to maybe query the database. I had some sample dates, and I would like to query the database for those dates to find out what if any events were in there. I don't recall what order I searched for the items, but I will give you the general results.
One thing that I had learned even before I sat down at the database was that the database was sort of composed of two separate components. And, Ms. Comstock, you will probably learn this sometime in the next hour and a half as well, there is what is called a regular event database as well as a photo op database. The regular event database is sort of a compilation of one tape per event or more than one tape per event. The photo op database is a database of essentially tapes of the week that would document various snippets of the President's schedule during any given week. For instance, one photo op tape might have the President arrives from Andrews, the President goes to church, the President meets with the ambassador every some country. These were all typically snippets, one to five minutes on average, of what can generically be called photo ops.
So when I sat down to search the database, there were two components of the database that required to be searched. I don't recall the order in which I searched that was on my list, but what I do recall is searching for a couple of fund-raisers on my list and I recall, not surprisingly, and consistent with what Mr. Smith had told me when I reported back to Mr. Bucklin and others, was that there were—that the fund-raisers that I had on my list were in fact, there were copies of tapes. That was not surprising. I presumed they were the President's remarks. I also checked at least one political dinner, I don't know if there was another, but the political dinner I recall checking was March 27, 1996, one of the attendees of whom was Roger Tamraz. I also recall checking, I believe, 3 coffees. The April 1 coffee with Roger Tamraz, the June 18 coffee with John Huang, and the February 6 coffee with Wang Jun.
Page 684 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. Wang Jun.
Answer. Thank you very much.
Question. And Charlie Trie.
Answer. The searching for the coffees was a little bit different because I had a date—for instance, April 1 was not a date you could necessarily enter into the computer, but the photo op database is organized along the lines of week of. So we had to search the week of, whatever that week was, Sunday to Saturday, I believe. But I did—I do recall finding a hit for the April 1 coffee and for the June 18 coffee, but not for the February 6 coffee.
And to skip ahead a bit, it's sort of a function of, I think the searching the week of issue, that was a problem because I've since learned that there is a tape of the February 6 coffee, which I think you have. But at that point, the computer had come back with a no hit. Once I realized—it was the discovery of the coffees in the database that first raised concern in my mind because this was the one thing that was inconsistent with what had been reported to me earlier and what I had reported to Mr. Bucklin on September 9. In short order, I went to Mr. Breuer's office. By this point, sometime approximately 4:30 p.m., Mr. Breuer was on his way out of the office. That was to start Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year.
Question. We're now on Wednesday, October 1?
Page 685 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. Yes, all this is occurring on Wednesday, October 1, as I think I made clear earlier.
Question. Did you say anything—were there any discussions while you were in the office with Mr. McGrath, or Chief McGrath or others there, did you have any discussions with him about various events as you were going through them?
Answer. At some point, and I'm not sure whether it was the late afternoon, early evening of October 1 or the morning of October 2, I did have a brief discussion with Mr. McGrath, questioning him whether in fact he had received the document request we had sent out and whether he had searched the database for coffees.
Question. What did he say?
Answer. I recall him telling me that he did receive the document request and that he did duly search the database for the names and entities on the list. I did not go into an accusatory mode at all. Mr. McGrath, or Chief McGrath and people who work for him, as you are aware, are career military people doing, you know, the best they can, and typically when this does happen, we don't—we try not to get into an accusatory mode but we rather try to rectify and remedy the situation as quickly as possible. So that was a brief conversation.
Question. Did you speak with anyone else besides Mr. McGrath at that time?
Answer. No, I did not.
Page 686 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. So when you got a hit on some of these things you were looking at, was he sitting there with you?
Answer. He was, yes.
Question. And did you turn to him at some point and say, hey, what about this?
Answer. I think that's what I just testified that I did. I don't have a precise recollection whether it was on the evening of the 1st or the next day, when I go back down there, which I'll talk about in a few seconds. But it was a brief exchange. It was a question by me of whether they had searched the database and an answer by him that yes, they had. But again it was not accusatory at all.
Question. Had in fact he produced any videotapes to anybody in the counsel's office?
Answer. No, he did not. And I had known that in fact. I had known that none of the tapes had been produced to us.
Question. Because at that point there were no videotapes produced by anybody from anywhere?
Answer. That's not quite accurate. There was a special request from Mr. Bucklin in anticipation of Mr. Berger's testimony, as you can recall, which occurred sometime in September, for a copy of the video that the White House's security professionals prepared to show at orientation for new employees. It's somewhat outdated. It was made during the Bush administration, I think about 8 years ago or 9 years ago, which simply lays out the various internal White House security procedures and the WAVE process.
Page 687 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. This is the video that staff are shown for security?
Answer. Precisely, yes.
Question. Matters that Mr. Bucklin had asked you previously for, whatever video it is that you sit down and run the staff through about security matters?
Answer. Yes. Essentially that encapsulates the ongoing discussions. I worked to get a copy of that tape and provided it to him under the conditions that were acceptable to the career security professionals at the White House. They had some concern about public dissemination of that tape, as you might imagine, but we were able to work out an arrangement whereby we provided a copy to Mr. Bucklin for Mr. Robbins' review as well to take a look at.
Question. Are you aware of any other requests from anybody to the video office for any particular events, videos of events?
Answer. I am not aware of any particular requests, no.
Question. To this day?
Answer. To this day.
Question. Other than these requests that we are going to go into and discuss. But you aren't aware of cross calls or anything like that asking for video?
Page 688 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Answer. No, that's exactly right.
But I should be clear, in my discussions with Mr. McGrath, at some point, he informed me that they would get requests from Mr. McCurry's office to get copies of various President's speeches and things of that sort that they wanted to use. That's the only request that I'm aware of at this point.
Question. Did he ever say if Mr. McCurry's office ever requested any videos for private events or anything like that?
Answer. No, I did not get into that level of detail. So I think where I left off, it was approximately 4:30 p.m., I went into Mr. Breuer's office and explained to him that we might have a problem, that I had done a search of the computer database and found at least two coffees that appear in the database which was inconsistent with what I had known prior to that time. Mr. Breuer instructed me to essentially, I don't know his exact words, but to find out everything I could about it and to get on top of it.
Question. Did you tell anybody else?
Answer. I'm sorry?
Question. Did you tell anybody else besides Mr. Breuer?
Answer. I did not.
Page 689 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. And so how long was this conversation—you went to Mr. Breuer's office?
Answer. Yes. It was quite short. He was quite literally packing up and getting ready to walk out the door. I think he was running up against the sundown deadline. I explained to him very briefly that I had found at least two coffees and that he instructed me to find out everything I could. I then returned down to the video unit and instructed Mr. McGrath to pull back the tapes that we had gotten hits for from my sample list. And I remember this, it was close to 5 o'clock, because we were running up against the 5 o'clock deadline for when the archives closes. They're career folks there as well, and my understanding is that they leave work pretty firmly 9 to 5. I instructed him I wanted him to pull those tapes back because I wanted to review them. He agreed to endeavor to do so. I then returned to my office——
Question. So the tapes of the two coffees you hit, you asked Mr. McGrath to call the archives and get those tapes immediately?
Answer. That's exactly right.
Question. That's where you learned that that's where the tapes were?
Answer. I don't recall precisely. Probably in asking Mr. McGrath how do I go about getting these tapes, he probably informed me that they're offsite at the archives.
Page 690 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Question. So after talking to Mr. Breuer, you returned to Mr. McGrath and asked him to get those two?
Answer. It was not just those two coffee tapes, but it was the other tapes that I had gotten hits on, a couple of fund-raisers and the one political dinner. He agreed to do so. I returned to my office and handled a few other matters. I believe we had produced documents later that week and I probably did some matters related to that. I think I might have called my wife to see what the dinner plans were as well. I returned back about 5:30—I returned back to Mr. McGrath's office about 5:30 or so after receiving a telephone call from him that he was able to successfully retrieve from the archives those tapes before the archives closed. I then sat down at one of the TV screens and video units and undertook to review the tapes that they had brought back for me.
Question. How were they—were they on a cassette or how did they come to you?
Answer. As I understand it, the archives, or the WHCA people use beta tapes, which I was informed when I asked the very same question I think you are yet going to ask, why beta, that is apparently the industry standard. So I had in front of me a series of beta tapes which are the small Sony betas. I then set about to review what was on those tapes. And after reviewing them or in the process of reviewing them had asked one of the technicians who was present in the room to make for me a dub of these portions of these tapes onto a VHS tape so that I could inform people in my office and explain to them what at least I had found initially. By this point after having reviewed the various tapes that had been pulled back, it was somewhere in the area of 7, 7:30, maybe as late as 8 o'clock, and I was clearly—let me restate that. The folks who worked in that office were getting ready to go. They were around because I was there. So I took my tape that they had made for me and left.
Page 691 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 9 Of 22
Next Hearing Segment(10)