[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]



            WHITE HOUSE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS

=======================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                           GOVERNMENT REFORM
                             AND OVERSIGHT
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         NOVEMBER 6 AND 7, 1997

                               __________

                           Serial No. 105-61

                               __________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight



45-405              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                            WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800  
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001


              COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

                     DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois          TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico            EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California          PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California             THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia                DC
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona             ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    Carolina                         JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire        THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
PETE SESSIONS, Texas                 HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey                       ------
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas             BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 
BOB BARR, Georgia                        (Independent)
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
                      Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                   Richard D. Bennett, Chief Counsel
         William Moschella, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
                       Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
                 Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on:
    November 6, 1997.............................................     1
    November 7, 1997.............................................   151
Statement of:
    Ruff, Charles F.C., Counsel to the President.................    44
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
    Apperson, Jay, special counsel, Subcommittee on National 
      Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs:
        Exhibits 155 and C-64....................................    99
        Exhibits C-65 and 147....................................   105
        Exhibits 166, 162, and C-66..............................   109
    Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Georgia:
        Exhibit 147..............................................   168
        Memorandum dated June 28, 1994...........................   171
    Bennett, Richard, chief counsel, Committee on Government 
      Reform and Oversight:
        Exhibits 135, 136, and 137...............................    52
        Exhibit 138..............................................    61
        Exhibit 139..............................................    67
        Exhibit 140..............................................    76
        Exhibit 141..............................................    81
        Exhibit 141-A............................................    85
        Exhibit 142..............................................    90
        Exhibit 146..............................................    94
        Exhibit 147..............................................   256
        Exhibit 155..............................................   259
    Breuer, Lanny:
        Deposition of............................................   633
        Exhibits to deposition...................................   701
    Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Indiana:
        Washington Post article, ``The Last Prosecutor'' dated 
          June 19, 1977,.........................................   210
        Minority consultant contract.............................     2
        Prepared statement of....................................    36
    Fattah, Hon. Chaka, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Pennsylvania:
        National Journal article ``Troubled Times for the Triad 
          Group''................................................   251
        News clippings relative to investigation.................    21
    Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California:
        Memoranda dated April 8, 1996, and August 23, 1996.......   190
        Letter dated November 26, 1996; letter dated January 15, 
          1997, reply dated January 15, 1997; reply letter dated 
          January 21, 1997, and letter dated February 25, 1997...   182
    Imbroscio, Michael:
        Deposition of............................................   454
        Exhibits to deposition...................................   509
    Lantos, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of California, Final Report of the Iran-Contra Committees..   123
    McIntosh, Hon. David M., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Indiana:
        Letter dated May 22, 1997................................   135
        Prepared statement of....................................   138
    Mills, Cheryl:
        Deposition of............................................   268
        Exhibits to deposition...................................   323
    Nionakis, Dimitri:
        Deposition of............................................   547
        Exhibits to deposition...................................   595
    Quinn, Jack:
        Deposition of............................................   767
        Exhibits to deposition...................................   805
    Ruff, Charles F.C., Counsel to the President:
        Letter dated August 19, 1997.............................   145
        Prepared statement of....................................    47
    Shadagg, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona, exhibit 168..............................   238
    Simmons, Colonel Joseph:
        Deposition of............................................   936
        Exhibits to deposition...................................   984
    Smith, Steven:
        Deposition of............................................   881
        Exhibits to deposition...................................   913
    Sullivan, Alan:
        Deposition of............................................  1005
        Exhibits to deposition...................................  1043
    Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California, letter dated September 23, 1997.......    18

 
            WHITE HOUSE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1997

                  House of Representatives,
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Burton, Morella, Shays, Cox, 
McHugh, Davis of Virginia, McIntosh, Souder, Sununu, Sessions, 
Pappas, Snowbarger, Barr, Waxman, Lantos, Owens, Kanjorski, 
Condit, Sanders, Barrett, Norton, Fattah, Cummings, Kucinich, 
Blagojevich, Davis of Illinois, Tierney, Allen, and Ford.
    Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Richard 
Bennett, chief counsel; Barbara Comstock, chief investigative 
counsel; Judith McCoy, chief clerk; Teresa Austin, assistant 
clerk/calendar clerk; William Moschella, deputy counsel and 
parliamentarian; Robin Butler, office manager; Dan Moll, deputy 
staff director; Will Dwyer, director of communications; Ashley 
Williams, deputy director of communications; Dave Bossie, 
oversight coordinator; Robert Rohrbaugh, James C. Wilson, Uttam 
Dhillon, and Tim Griffin, senior investigative counsels; Phil 
Larsen, investigative consultant; Kristi Remington and Bill 
Hanka, investigative counsels; Jason Foster, investigator; 
Carolyn Pritts, investigative staff; David Jones and John 
Mastranadi, investigative staff assistants; Jay Apperson, 
special counsel, and J. Keith Ausbrook, senior counsel, 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, 
and Regulatory Affairs; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; 
Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority 
chief investigative counsel; Agnieszka Fryszman, Elizabeth 
Mundinger, Kristin Amerling, Christopher Lu, Andrew McLaughlin, 
David Sadkin, and Michael Yang, minority counsels; Ellen 
Rayner, minority chief clerk; Becky Claster, minority staff 
assistant; and Sheridan Pauker, minority research assistant.
    Mr. Burton. The committee will come to order.
    The first order of business before we discuss business with 
our guests this morning will be the minority consultant 
contract. Without objection, the contract will be considered as 
read.
    [The contract referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.008
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.011
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.012
    
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman is 
recognized in support of this contract.
    Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minority is 
proposing that the committee approve a consultant to contract 
with the Emerald Group. The Emerald Group is an international 
security management firm that provides investigative services 
to corporations, institutions and individuals.
    The minority proposes the contract because the minority 
seeks the assistance of the Emerald Group in investigating 
possible conduit payments to the Republican National Committee 
and the Dole campaign.
    These conduit payments are the same activity that the 
committee is investigating, except the recipients are 
Republicans, not Democrats.
    Approval of this contract should be routine. In June, the 
majority and the minority discussed how consultants would be 
handled. We proposed that consultants hired by our committee be 
a joint resource, which means that both sides would be informed 
about the work of the consultants.
    Chairman Burton's staff rejected this idea. They insisted 
that they wanted complete control over the activities of the 
consultants hired by the majority. As a result, what we agreed 
to is they get 75 percent of the money that would be used for 
consultants, and we would get 25 percent of the money, to 
allocate as each of us sees fit and those consultants would 
work for each of us.
    Since June, the majority has hired four consultants. Three 
of these consultants--including a private investigator and a 
former CIA operations officer--were hired with our votes. We 
supported the idea of those consultants being hired because it 
was the choice of the minority.
    Today, we are making our first request for a consultant. We 
have expected this would be routinely approved just like the 
majority approved all of its requests for consultants. 
Unfortunately, it now appears that the majority will deny the 
minority any consultants. This is simply unfair. It seems that 
every chance the majority gets, the majority tries to tilt the 
deck in their favor by denying the rights of the minority.
    Now, the majority is opposing the Emerald Group contract 
because they say it does not prevent conflicts of interest. The 
fact of the matter is that the Emerald Group has agreed to 
follow exactly the same precautions and procedures that Mr. 
Bennett agreed to follow. As explained in a September 23 letter 
to myself, the Emerald Group has pledged to follow the House 
Code of Official Conduct, and the House gift ban, just as Mr. 
Bennett did.
    The Emerald Group has also agreed to conduct a careful 
review before accepting any assignments to assure that there is 
no conflict of interest, exactly the same procedure that Mr. 
Bennett is following.
    Specifically, the Emerald Group wrote, quote, for each 
specific assignment provided Emerald, Emerald will perform a 
thorough check using the firm's computer technology to ensure 
that there is no conflict of interest with respect to its 
existing client list, and if there is a conflict, Emerald will 
not accept the assignment, end quote.
    What we are seeing is a double standard being applied by 
the majority and it becomes especially apparent when you 
compare the Emerald Group contract with the first three major 
consultants. The majority approved these consultants without 
requiring any safeguards against conflicts of interest. These 
consultants are directly comparable to the Emerald Group. Like 
the Emerald Group, they are being used for discrete projects.
    The Republicans also argue that the consultant contract 
with the Emerald Group is flawed because it is an entire 
organization, not a single individual. According to them, it 
makes it harder to ensure there are no conflicts or other 
problems. I would submit that this argument is a straw man. 
There is no rule against hiring organizations as consultants. 
In fact, the use of organizations as consultants is expressly 
authorized by law. 2 U.S.C. Section 72(a) provides that ``Each 
standing committee of the House of Representatives is 
authorized to procure the temporary services of individual 
consultants or organizations thereof.''
    There is nothing unusual at all about having a consultant 
contract with a firm instead of a single individual. For 
example, this is exactly what the Republican majority on the 
House Oversight Committee has done in the Sanchez-Dornan 
investigation.
    On January 8 of this year, the majority entered into a 
contract for the services of the Baker Hostettler Law Firm. 
This contract did not limit the number of Baker and Hostettler 
attorneys working under the contract. In fact, it specifically 
provided that the rate of compensation could not exceed $300 
per day per attorney providing services.
    Well, there are a lot of precedents. For example, in the 
Gingrich investigation by the House Ethics Committee, the 
consultant contract was not with Jim Cole individually, but 
with the Bryan, Cave Law Firm.
    Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, we are making this request. 
We think it is a respectable request, given the rules that we 
have set out and the way we have operated. I expect that we are 
going to lose this. I expect that the Republicans are going to 
exercise their majority and vote it down. But if they do, it is 
another example of how the Republican majority of the committee 
is closing out the rights of the minority to do our 
investigation, to participate in the campaign financing 
investigation of the committee overall, and how this is an 
investigation run by the Republican majority to the exclusion 
of the Democratic minority for purposes that I believe are 
partisan because they are solely in the interest of the 
Republican majority rather than in the interest of this country 
for an honest campaign finance investigation. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. I must regretfully 
oppose the contract that Congressman Waxman has proposed today. 
I was hoping that we could reach an agreement on this matter. I 
have offered to work with him to restructure this contract in a 
form that would be acceptable to the entire committee. But, it 
is apparently not going to be possible.
    We reached an agreement earlier this year to give the 
minority 25 percent of the consultant budget, while the 
majority would control 75 percent of the budget. I served in 
the minority for 12 years, and this is a better deal than we 
were ever offered on any committee that I ever served on.
    After reaching this agreement earlier this year, I was very 
disappointed that the minority decided to vote in lock step 
against Dick Bennett's contract. Mr. Bennett's contract was 
identical to contracts used by the House Oversight Committee 
and the House Ethics Committee under both Democrats and 
Republicans to hire attorneys for sensitive investigations. It 
should have been routine. And yet they voted in lock step 
against him. Unfortunately, we were forced to approve it on a 
party line vote.
    Despite this, I am still willing to work with the gentleman 
from California to resolve some of the problems with this 
contract. I would like to suggest, once again, to the gentleman 
that he withdraw it and work with me to solve some of these 
problems. The problems are fairly basic.
    First, this committee has never before contracted with the 
firm of private investigators to work on an investigation such 
as this. All of the majority's consultants have been 
individuals, not entire companies or investigative agencies.
    The Emerald Group is an international firm. It has offices 
and major corporate clients all over the world. This is an 
investigation of influence buying by foreign companies, foreign 
individuals and possibly foreign governments. The prospects for 
serious conflicts of interest are too large when you deal with 
an entire firm like this.
    The Emerald Group's brochure states that it never reveals 
the identities of its clients and that is why it is far more 
appropriate to hire an individual to come in and work out of 
the committee offices alongside the regular committee staff 
like Mr. Bennett has. When Dick Bennett came to work as chief 
counsel, he set up a fire wall between his law firm and his 
work here on this committee. Nobody else from his firm works on 
this investigation. No resources of his law firm are utilized. 
This makes it very easy to isolate the potential for any 
conflicts.
    I have invited Mr. Waxman to structure this contract in the 
same way. I have urged him to put together a contract in the 
same manner that the majority contracts are structured. I think 
that this is a reasonable and fair proposal.
    Second, this contract offers not even a general description 
of the type of work to be done by this firm. Not only is the 
work to be done at an unknown corporate office, the type of 
work to be done is a closely guarded secret. Every contract 
proposed by the majority has contained a general description of 
the work to be done by the consultant and the general issue 
area. This is a standard practice.
    Today, Members are being asked to vote in the dark. As I 
said before, I think the offer we have made to our friends in 
the minority is more generous than we ever would have received 
during all of the years that we served in the minority. Despite 
the fact that not a single Democrat here today voted for Dick 
Bennett's contract, I am still willing to work with you, Mr. 
Waxman, to resolve some of these problems. I believe that we 
could reach an agreement on the contract that the entire 
committee could support. If that is not possible, then I must 
reluctantly oppose this contract.
    Do any further Members seek to be recognized on this issue?
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield to me?
    Mr. Burton. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
    Mr. Waxman. I want to point out that we have supported all 
the consultants requested by the majority. We have tried to 
structure the conflict of interest issue with the Emerald Group 
in the same way that you handled Mr. Bennett's agreement. We 
cannot agree to let the majority have such supervisory role as 
you would if they were individuals as opposed to an 
organization. We do not know what your consultants do. They 
operate for you and we agreed to let them do that. We want the 
ability for a very specific project of checking out Republican 
conduit payments to have this group that we think is quite 
qualified to handle it and we think offer the best services to 
accomplish this goal.
    We have a disagreement. It is not unusual on this committee 
that we have a disagreement. You are the chairman of the 
majority party, which means your party has the majority and has 
exercised that power every step of the way to succeed in 
accomplishing your goals and I expect you will do the same 
here.
    I know that there are Members who have other places they 
have to be, and rather than ask for a recorded vote, we will 
ask only for a voice vote on this matter. I do want to put in 
the record a letter from the Emerald Group to me that I 
referred to in my opening statement.
    Mr. Burton. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.013
    
    Mr. Burton. Let me just say that the majority is 
investigating both Democrat and Republican conduit payments, 
contrary to some of the media reports, and we will continue to 
do that wherever we find illegal activities or alleged illegal 
activities we are going to investigate.
    With that, is there further discussion on the issue? If 
not, the question occurs on the contract offered by Mr. Waxman.
    All those in favor of the contract signify by saying, aye.
    All those opposed will signify by saying, no. In the 
opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The noes have it, and 
the contract is not agreed to.
    We now have a vote on the floor.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, could I ask you one question?
    Mr. Burton. Yes.
    Mr. Waxman. You made a statement that you are investigating 
some Republican conduit payments. We have no knowledge of that. 
Can you tell us anything more about that?
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Bennett, do you want to respond to him 
briefly?
    Mr. Bennett. Congressman Waxman for the record, agents both 
of this committee, including the particular individual assigned 
to your staff, were in California last week and I won't say on 
the record what was done, but there were matters--the inquiry 
concerned contributions from a foreign source and the inquiry 
concerned a clear record of distribution of those contributions 
to a Republican candidate. And I would be glad to deal with 
that in some detail obviously in a better setting.
    Mr. Waxman. I appreciate that. If these are joint 
detailees, they are supposed to report----
    Mr. Bennett. No, these were not joint detailees. I believe 
it's Harry, and I have forgotten his last name.
    Mr. Waxman. Is there any other example, Mr. Bennett?
    Mr. Bennett. Mr. Waxman, I am glad to go into more detail, 
but clearly as of last week we were seeking to do that as well. 
So, it is not a correct statement.
    Mr. Burton. Nevertheless, some of these things we are 
looking at and are not ready to be made public.
    Mr. Waxman. We are not asking it to be made public. We are 
colleagues on the committee. If you are doing an investigation 
for the first time in our knowledge that involves Republicans, 
I think you ought to let us know about it.
    Mr. Burton. We certainly will, Mr. Waxman. I will be happy 
to consult with you and your counsel as soon as possible. We 
have a vote on the floor, and I know that we want to go through 
these hearings with as few interruptions as possible, so why 
don't we go ahead and vote and come back as quickly as possible 
and get into the meat of the hearing. We stand in recess until 
the fall of the gavel.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Burton. The committee will come to order.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seek unanimous 
consent to enter into the record a number of news clippings 
relative to our investigation. And the first one is from a 
Capitol Hill magazine, which suggests that senior aides in a 
Dole campaign were involved in, at least it alleges, were 
involved in a kickback scheme in the latter days of the 
campaign. And another is from the newspaper, the Wall Street 
Journal, references unfortunately a Pennsylvania family who 
gave close to $2 million to issue advocacy groups having to do 
with the Triad Management, and there are a number of other 
ones. And I mention these and I want to insert them in the 
record because of the chairman's statement earlier that we have 
crossed a major rubicon in that we now have an investigation in 
which we will look at Republican misdeeds. I want to thank the 
chairman for that and seek unanimous consent that these matters 
be entered into the record because they may help our 
investigators toward some of the misdeeds that may have been 
prevalent on the Republican side.
    Mr. Burton. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.014
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.015
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.017
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.018
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.019
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.020
    
    Mr. Burton. Before the distinguished ranking member and 
myself deliver our opening statements, the committee must first 
dispose of procedural issues, pursuant to an agreement reached 
last night with Mr. Ruff. I thank Mr. Ruff for coming up to our 
office on the Hill last night. I know it was a strain on you 
and your staff.
    Mr. Ruff. Not at all, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Members are advised that they may not release 
copies of documents listed on the White House privilege log 
dated October 21, 1997. These documents, which relate to the 
Hudson Dog Track issues, do not implicate core Presidential 
powers or responsibilities. They do not implicate national 
defense, national security, or foreign policy concerns. They do 
not implicate the appointment or removal power of the 
President. In fact, they don't even implicate a decision the 
President would ever be called to make.
    However, because these documents are still subject to 
Presidential claims of privilege, we have agreed to meet again 
in a collegial way to discuss the committee's future public use 
of these documents. Members may refer to the documents by 
noting the description on the privileged log and may discuss 
with the witnesses the documents generally. However, Members 
should not quote in large part from the documents or release 
them publicly at this time.
    Furthermore, consistent with the unanimous consent 
agreement I am about to offer, Members may quote from 
depositions pertinent to today's hearings. However, the 
committee will not make them public today. They will only be 
made public after Mr. Ruff has had an opportunity to review the 
depositions. He needs a couple of days to notify the committee 
about any deposition testimony which may be subject to 
privilege. Staff will redact any material subject to privilege, 
and then the redacted depositions will be made public.
    With that understanding, I ask unanimous consent that 
Members be able to use the depositions of Lanny Breuer, Michael 
Imbroscio, Cheryl Mills, Dimitri Nionakis, Jack Quinn, Steven 
Smith, Colonel Joseph Simmons and Alan Sullivan at today's 
hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that those depositions be made 
public after the Counsel to the President notifies the 
committee that the deposition material is not subject to 
privilege, or after the committee staff redacts material after 
Counsel to the President notifies the committee staff as to 
material subject to claims of privilege.
    Without objection.
    Mr. Waxman. Reserving the right to object.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman reserves the right to object. The 
gentleman will state his reservation.
    Mr. Waxman. You are asking unanimous consent that we make 
these depositions public after we have information from the 
White House as to what ought to be redacted because it is 
privileged. Is this decision up to the White House or is it up 
to our committee counsel to decide what will be withheld and 
redacted?
    Mr. Burton. I think last night we decided that there would 
be a conference between the White House and our committee 
staff, including the general counsel, Mr. Bennett, and that 
would be a decision that would be made jointly.
    Mr. Waxman. Well, if I might inquire, then, what you are 
asking us to agree to by unanimous consent is an agreement you 
have made with the White House on this information; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Burton. I think that is correct.
    Mr. Waxman. I withdraw my reservation.
    Mr. Souder. Reserving the right to object.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman will state his reservation.
    Mr. Souder. I am willing to trust the chairman and the 
ranking member and the White House counsel in working through 
this at this point, but I am very concerned that one of the 
processes here is that we make as much public as possible, 
because that is part of the education of the general public in 
understanding. Because this is an oversight committee that 
hopefully will lead potentially to changes in both how the 
Government behaves directly and what laws need to be changed 
and part of that is minimizing the information that is not 
available to the public.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's point is well taken. Let me 
just say that the committee reserves the right to release these 
documents. But we felt, after consultation with Mr. Ruff last 
night, that they deserved an adequate amount of time to make 
their case regarding privilege, and if they could not make 
their case, then of course we would go ahead and make the 
documents public.
    Mr. Waxman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Souder. Yes.
    Mr. Waxman. I appreciate your comment. I agree with it 
completely. That is why we sought to make all the depositions 
public that had been taken by this committee. And we were 
defeated on that on a party line vote. But I do think the 
public ought to get the depositions, be able to review them, 
because I don't think there is anything in all the 50 
depositions that this committee has taken and that is the 
reason I submit, that the Republicans defeated our attempt to 
make it public.
    But your statement was you think these depositions ought to 
be out, the public ought to be able to see them. I fully 
support that.
    Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that copies of the depositions 
listed in the Deputy Independent Counsel's November 5, 1997, 
letter, except the deposition of Gina Ratliff, be transmitted 
to the Office of Independent Counsel.
    Mr. Waxman. Reserving the right to object.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman will state it.
    Mr. Waxman. I have no objection to releasing these 
documents to Ken Starr. If they are relevant in any way to his 
investigation, he should have them. But I want to remake the 
point I just stated for the record. I believe we should also be 
releasing these depositions to the public.
    I would note for the record that the minority Members 
offered a motion to release these depositions at a recent 
committee meeting and we were voted down on a party line vote. 
The Republicans voted not to let the public have these 
depositions and to be able to review them and to see what was 
said in a secret, closed-door deposition of these witnesses.
    So, let's give them to Ken Starr. That is your unanimous 
consent request, and I will not object to it. But I want to use 
this opportunity to point out that he is not the only one who 
should get these depositions. The American people should see 
how this committee has spent its money in depositions and what 
we have to show for it. I withdraw my reservation.
    Mr. Burton. Does the gentleman, Mr. Souder, have further 
comments?
    Mr. Souder. No, I withdraw my objection.
    Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous 
consent that questioning in the matter under consideration 
proceed under 2(j)(2) of House Rule XI and Committee Rule 14 in 
which the chairman and ranking minority member allocate time to 
committee counsel as they deem appropriate for extended 
questioning, not to exceed 60 minutes equally divided between 
the majority and minority.
    Mr. Waxman. We have no objection.
    Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous 
consent that the witnesses and Members' statements appear in 
the record in their entirety. Without objection.
    I ask further unanimous consent that questioning in the 
matter under consideration proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of the 
House Rule XI and Committee Rule 14 in which the chairman and 
ranking minority member allocate time to members of the 
committee as they deem appropriate for extended questioning not 
to exceed 60 minutes equally divided. We have already covered 
that. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman? If we are making unanimous 
consent requests, let me suggest a way to expedite our hearing 
today. We have two panels and since they are all from the same 
area in the White House, I would suggest and make a unanimous 
consent request that we put them all together and then have 
questioning of all of them by the Members. And I have no 
problem if we go through several rounds so Members will have a 
full opportunity to ask all the questions they want to ask. But 
it seems to me pretty wasteful to have two separate panels and 
to go through the testimony in two separate groupings.
    Mr. Burton. The Chair would object to that because we have 
some reasons to have these two panels split. And so an 
objection is heard.
    Without objection, the previous question is ordered. We 
have a vote on the floor, I have been notified, and we have 
opening statements. So before we begin the opening statements, 
we will recess once again. There probably will be numerous 
recesses today. There are some dilatory tactics that are going 
to be employed on the floor. So I would urge Members to get 
back as quickly as possible so that there would be some 
continuity in the hearing. The Chair recesses the hearing to 
the fall of the gavel.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Burton. The committee will reconvene.
    Today, we are addressing how the White House has complied 
with subpoenas issued by this committee in the course of its 
investigation into fund-raising abuses and the funneling of 
foreign money into political campaigns. While the issue of the 
White House videotapes of fund-raising events being withheld 
for months brings us to this point today, it is part of a 
bigger picture of a consistent pattern of lack of cooperation 
by the Clinton White House in any and all investigations.
    This conduct by the White House is just one of the bricks 
in the stone wall put up to stop this and other investigations. 
Other bricks in the stone wall include the over 60 witnesses 
who have taken the fifth amendment or fled the country, 
including a number of close friends of the President such as 
Webb Hubbell, John Huang, Mark Middleton and Charlie Trie, and 
the remarkable lack of memory of so many of the key facts by 
those witnesses who are still available.
    This situation with the White House videotapes is hardly 
unique. It is part of a 5-year history of stonewalling of any 
investigative body, the House, the Senate, any number of 
Independent Counsels and even the President's own Justice 
Department. While we are addressing this matter publicly today, 
I would note that the Justice Department has already called 
before the grand jury various members of the White House 
Counsel's Office and other White House staffers regarding this 
very serious matter. Despite what many of us may feel is a weak 
investigation by the Attorney General, even General Reno did 
not feel she should have to tolerate such defiance among those 
subpoenas. It was only due to 2 months of pointed requests and 
questions from the Senate, that these long-subpoenaed items 
finally were turned over.
    Initially, the existence of videotapes of the White House 
coffees was denied by the White House after a month of alleged 
inquiry into the matter. It then took another month of pressing 
from the Senate to finally result in the White House's 
compliance with months-old subpoenas with which the White House 
Counsel had assured us the White House had complied.
    The Washington Post has written a series of editorials on 
how the White House responds to subpoenas and inquiries in 
``dribs and drabs'' and provides varying accounts of various 
events as new pieces of information are uncovered. The story is 
the same: Run the clock, attack those who attempt to 
investigate, change the subject, drag everything out long 
enough that most will lose interest or energy.
    Those at the White House charged with the task of producing 
relevant records perhaps may not want to find out how many 
other shoes are yet to drop or where these other shoes are 
located. As columnist Michael Kelly has observed, ``the White 
House is on a need-to-know basis about itself these days and 
what it does not need to know and does not want to hear about 
grows and grows.''
    Republicans in Congress are not the only ones who have been 
frustrated by the Clinton White House. As I already noted, the 
Attorney General has expressed her exasperation with White 
House's foot dragging on the videotapes.
    Last Congress, we heard from one of the city's most 
respected senior Justice Department officials, Michael Shaheen, 
who testified before this committee during the Travelgate 
investigation that, quote, the lack of cooperation and candor, 
end quote, that he received from the Clinton White House was 
unprecedented in his 20-year Justice Department career in the 
Office of Personal Responsibility.
    At issue in that case were withheld documents pertaining to 
the Travel Office inquiry. Mr. Shaheen stated that in 1995, 
quote, even a minimal level of cooperation by the White House, 
end quote, would have resulted in documents requested 2 years 
earlier being produced.
    In that same investigation, we heard from the head of 
public integrity, Lee Radek that he too was faced with an 
uncooperative White House. After a year of attempting to obtain 
documents about Harry Thomason in the Travel Office inquiry, 
Mr. Radek wrote to Acting Criminal Division Chief Jack Keeney 
in September 1994 stating quote, At this point we are not 
confident that the White House has produced to us all documents 
in its possession relating to the Thomason allegations. The 
White House's incomplete production greatly concerns us because 
the integrity of our review is completely dependent upon our 
obtaining all relevant documents, end quote.
    Even after the Justice Department issued a subpoena to the 
White House because of Mr. Radek's concerns, it was only after 
this committee subpoenaed documents from Harry Thomason that 
the White House and other documents which should have been 
produced years earlier finally came to light years after they 
were originally subpoenaed.
    Other instances of this investigative stonewalling by the 
Clinton White House include White House billing records showing 
up in the White House private residence book room almost 3 
years after they were first subpoenaed; Webb Hubbell, while he 
was essentially running the Justice Department, transferring 
Whitewater files to his basement at the same time the Justice 
Department was investigating this matter; a former bar bouncer 
at the White House, Craig Livingstone, inexplicably ending up 
with hundreds of FBI files on Reagan and Bush officials, and 
the White House calling it a bureaucratic snafu.
    The FBI Director called it an inexcusable invasion of 
privacy. The White House withholding subpoenaed records 
regarding the investigation of the Hudson Casino project from 
the House and Senate until the information made its way into 
the press; the White House delivering just a week ago documents 
on the White House data base requested over a year ago by 
Chairman McIntosh.
    If anyone wonders why we must continue this investigation, 
just consider the history of this White House. Would anyone be 
surprised, including our witnesses today, if documents central 
to our investigation are still somewhere in the book rooms at 
the White House or basement offices or misplaced files?
    No doubt we will hear much about how many documents have 
been produced, but compliance with subpoenas is not measured by 
the pound. Quantity does not mean compliance.
    It is not a mistake here or there that is troublesome. We 
all understand that mistakes will occur. It is the consistent 
patterns of behavior throughout five different White House 
Counsels that raise serious questions and concerns; questions 
and concerns which I earlier noted are shared by my colleagues 
in the Senate as well as the Attorney General, and rightfully 
so. The atmosphere that has been created at the White House is 
that compliance with congressional subpoenas is not treated 
seriously.
    Sadly, this year it took a threat of contempt of the White 
House to produce many responsive records, and then the 
President attempted to claim executive privilege in May, 
something which Mr. Ruff told me the President didn't intend to 
do when we first met on February 6, 1997. At that time, Mr. 
Ruff pledged the President's full cooperation.
    But this is a White House which has always had more staff 
operating on spin control than it has on document production. A 
White House which often hides the facts from its own people and 
its own lawyers. This is the White House which not only had a 
Johnny Chung giving $50,000 checks to the First Lady's Chief of 
Staff, but which saw Johnny Chung solicited by close friends of 
the First Lady to contribute $25,000 to the Back to Business 
Committee, a group set up by close friends of the President and 
First Lady to thwart any investigations and attack committee 
chairmen and Independent Counsels appointed by their own 
Justice Department.
    This is a White House which gathered documents back in 
October 1996, about John Huang and others and held on to those 
documents and held its collective breath until Election Day. 
Trying to find out about how the DNC vice chairman, John Huang, 
raised money was attacked as quote, ``partisan.'' Yet at least 
one candid White House staffer said a week before last year's 
Presidential election, quote, all they, [the DNC] are trying to 
do is push this back until after the election and then we'll 
watch it all blow up, end quote.
    Let's take for example the White House coffees. Initially, 
the President said they were an opportunity for outreach to 
stay in touch with people. The White House overnights, all 938 
of them were friends. ``I did not have any strangers here,'' 
said the President. While it is hard to imagine that all 938 
overnighters were friends or that the President really needed 
to reach out and touch a Chinese arms dealer or a Florida drug 
dealer, now that we have the videotapes we do, indeed, see that 
certain individual people central to this investigation who 
have now taken the fifth or fled the country were intimate 
friends of the President.
    A picture paints 1,000 words. On one video we see the Trie 
team, which included Charlie Trie and the infamous Mr. Wu, the 
Macau gambling honcho, who provided Trie with over $1 million 
in wire transfers from overseas. It sends a message, the 
President was told when he posed with Mr. Trie, Mr. Wu, and 
various of their business associates. It sends a message, 
indeed. What message is sent by a President who made time for 
these shady characters, but leaves human rights activists and 
friend of many of us, Harry Wu, like an unwanted orphan? It 
sends a message, indeed. Why is the President meeting with Mr. 
Wu, instead of the humanitarian Harry Wu?
    If anyone wants to know why we need to complete this 
investigation, they also should roll the videotapes of Jiang 
Zemin being feted at the White House just a few days ago. 
Representative Nancy Pelosi said last week, quote, ``As the 
Clinton administration gives a 21-gun salute to President Jiang 
Zemin today, which the Chinese Government insisted upon that 
President Clinton and all those assembled remember the shots 
fired in Tiananmen Square.'' The President's National Security 
Advisor, Sandy Berger, said last week that the Chinese 
Government has denied any plan to funnel money into our 
political system. Let's remember they also denied killing 
anyone at Tiananmen Square.
    Does anyone really believe that we learned all there is to 
learn in these matters? There is much work left to do. The 
stonewall erected by the White House and the President's 
operatives must be taken down brick by brick. ``James Riady 
sent me,'' whispered the Riady intermediary, Arief Wiriadinata, 
in a September coffee 1995. Mr. Wiriadinata provided $450,000 
to the DNC, the legality of which was questioned over a year 
ago.
    Consider if the James-Riady-sent-me tape was public in 
October 1996 instead of October 1997. Would we have accepted 
the DNC's assurances that there was nothing to an Indonesian 
gardener of moderate income contributing close to half a 
million dollars to the DNC? The James-Riady-sent-me greeting 
brought an approving nod from the President. Now we have 
learned that Mr. Wiriadinata's lawyers are telling him to stay 
out of the country along with over 60 others who have taken the 
fifth amendment or fled the country. Mr. Wiriadinata is just 
another brick in the White House stonewall.
    These videotapes are a treasure trove of information on the 
way this President worked for campaign cash. We now are able to 
see how those who have taken the fifth and fled the country in 
order to obstruct this investigation were intimately engaged 
with the President who knew them on a first name basis. A 
Presidential hug for Johnny Chung, a ``Hi Pauline'' for Pauline 
Kanchanalak, the woman who has fled the country and left a 
multitude of questions about her quarter-of-a-million-dollar 
DNC contributions. Questions, regrettably, which apparently 
create no curiosity on the part of the President, the White 
House, or many in Congress. Who are these people and what were 
they doing at the White House?
    I would like to add one other thing that just came to my 
mind. I sent two letters to the President of the United States 
regarding Charlie Trie, asking him to talk to the Chinese 
Government and in particular, the Chinese President about 
bringing Mr. Trie back before this committee so we could talk 
to him and ask him questions. To my knowledge, and to the 
media's knowledge, that question was never asked of the Chinese 
President. And I would like to know why the President didn't 
ask him that if he really wants to get to the bottom of this 
investigation. Could it be because Charlie Trie has answers we 
want and cannot get as long as he is in China? That is 
something I am very concerned about and I think other members 
of the committee are concerned about as well.
    These pictures clearly provide a clear picture of what we 
are investigating and the withholding of such information is 
inexcusable as the ranking member of this committee, Mr. 
Waxman, has acknowledged. They were clearly responsive to our 
subpoena of March 4, 1997. There is no contention about this. 
The President's counsel has admitted the videotapes should have 
been turned over.
    As we go forward in our investigation, the FBI assigns more 
agents every day and additional Cabinet members are under 
investigation by a slow-moving Justice Department. Some would 
suggest we should stop investigating, but the role of oversight 
is to inform the American public of important information which 
may affect American policy. There is much left here yet to 
uncover.
    The fact that an unprecedented number of witnesses have 
either pled the fifth amendment or fled the country cannot and 
will not deter us even if it will make our task more lengthy 
and difficult. The White House shouldn't be assisting in this 
stonewalling effort. Rather the President should demand that 
the public servants who serve him make every effort to get at 
the truth.
    With that I yield to my colleague Mr. Waxman for his 
opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.021
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.022
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.023
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.024
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.025
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.026
    
    Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since our committee 
last met, Senator Thompson announced that he was bringing his 
hearings to a close. He held 32 hearings this year, but 
concluded he wasn't going to hold more hearings just for the 
sake of holding hearings.
    I completely agree with Senator Thompson's assessment that 
his hearings showed the need for real campaign finance reform. 
Our system is broken and desperately needs fixing. In New 
York's special congressional election, for instance, just 2 
days ago, more than $1 million in soft money was pumped into a 
single congressional race. That was inconceivable just 8 years 
ago.
    This morning's Washington Post has an article, ``Fund-
Raising Flourishes in the House.'' In the first 6 months of 
1997, incumbent Members of the House of Representatives raised 
$52.9 million, up $7.4 million from the comparable period 2 
years ago, according to a new report by the Federal Elections 
Commission. And they pointed out Members who raised a lot of 
money recently and they pointed out a lot of Members who were 
holding on to war chests.
    In terms of people who raised a lot of money, they talked 
about Newt Gingrich as of June 30th raising a million eight, 
and Richard Gephardt, the Democratic leader, a million four; 
Joe Kennedy, $1 million, and others over hundreds of thousands 
of dollars.
    They pointed out that some of our colleagues have stored 
away money. David Dreier, $2.7--over $2.7 million he is holding 
on to. Joe Kennedy has a million eight. Dick Gephardt a million 
one. Our chairman, $995,000.
    We need to change this system. People are out grubbing for 
money and that is what we have seen in the Congress and that is 
what we have seen from the Presidential campaigns as well.
    That is only one of the reasons that nearly every Democrat 
on this committee and Representative Sanders has signed on to 
the discharge petition that would force a vote just simply a 
vote on the House floor on campaign finance legislation. And I 
also want to mention that one Member of the majority, 
Congressman Shays, has also signed that petition, and nearly 
every minority Member supports passing a bill that would ban 
soft money. The fact that we have soft money that can be thrown 
into these campaigns, Presidential and congressional, has meant 
that we have seen extraordinary, extraordinary lengths to which 
people have gone to raise more and more money.
    At the same time, many of us are wondering why we are 
having this hearing today since Senator Thompson covered the 
same ground with the same witnesses last week. It might be a 
better use of our time to focus on other issues like the Triad 
Management's role in the 1996 election. And I very much doubt 
when we hear that our majority is looking at Republican 
campaign finance abuses that they are looking into that. One 
should. Or the Empire Landfill's conduit contribution scheme. 
These were ignored by the Senate. They shouldn't be ignored by 
our committee.
    The continual duplication of the Senate's work suggests 
that the real objective may not be the truth, but to drive the 
Democratic party further into debt. There are two points I want 
to make about today's hearing. First, the White House has an 
absolute obligation to provide Congress with information 
pursuant to legitimate information requests. No one on this 
committee, Republican or Democrat, will tolerate frivolous 
privilege claims or any attempt to hide important information 
from Congress.
    Over the past year, there have been a series of editorials 
in the Washington Post titled ``Dribs and Drabs'' and I 
noticed, Mr. Chairman, you used the term, dribs and drabs. The 
point of the series, which I think many Members agree with, is 
that the White House has sometimes failed to provide needed or 
accurate information to the public. At some point, it matters 
less why that happens, than the fact that it undermines 
credibility.
    In many instances, it is a failure to provide information 
when first requested, and not even the substance of the 
information, that is damaging. For this reason, my personal 
view is that careless mistakes, not malicious intent, is the 
likely explanation. Based on the evidence I have seen, there is 
no indication that Charles Ruff or his staff have intentionally 
misled the Congress.
    It is also essential that we put the White House's action 
in context. The White House has received over 1,100 requests 
for information from the House and the Senate, the Independent 
Counsel and the Justice Department. They have spent millions of 
dollars complying with these requests and have worked with a 
small staff under tight deadlines. In a process like this, 
mistakes and omissions are possible.
    As important as it is for the White House to cooperate with 
us, we must be reasonable in our requests and careful in the 
accusations we make. In October, for instance, Mr. Chairman, 
you appeared on Face the Nation and leveled a serious charge at 
the Clinton administration. You said that, quote, ``We think 
that some of those tapes may have been cutoff intentionally. 
They have been altered in some way.''
    Now, this very serious accusation was the lead story on the 
evening news and was in the next day, and it was even sent out 
in a prominent Washington Post headline: ``Tapes May Have Been 
Altered, Representative Burton Says.''
    There is only one problem. It is apparently not true. I 
know of no evidence that substantiates your charge. In fact, 
several witnesses who testified in the Senate, including Chief 
Petty Officer Charles McGrath and Colonel Charles Campbell, 
swore under oath that the videos have not been altered.
    The depositions that we are releasing today, or at least we 
are going to release after some of the privileged information 
is redacted, will provide further evidence that there was no 
tampering. And I understand that Paul Ginsberg, a video expert 
hired by Senator Thompson has also concluded that there was no 
tampering.
    Mr. Chairman, if you have some evidence on this matter, I 
hope you will share it with the committee this morning. If not, 
I would ask that you correct the record so that reputations are 
not needlessly impugned.
    Furthermore, I found your opening statement really curious, 
because you attacked the President for entertaining some of 
these contributors at the White House. At the same time you 
attacked the President for receiving the President of China, as 
if there is some conspiracy that the President of China coming 
to the White House had something to do with these other 
characters.
    I just don't see it. And I have to say that you and I have 
not disagreed on policies that we voted on in the House when it 
has come to China because both of us voted against most favored 
nation status to China and strongly spoken out against human 
rights abuses in China. Speaker Gingrich received the President 
of China. Senator Lott received the President of China. The 
President of the United States received him as well.
    I think we have to be careful. I think the White House has 
to be careful to be sure to comply with the requests for 
information or they are going to lose their credibility. And 
that is something they should take seriously. But I think we as 
Members of Congress have to be careful when accusations are 
made if there is no substantiating evidence for it. Let us 
conduct an investigation to get the facts, to get to the truth, 
and not make statements for which there are no facts to 
substantiate them.
    I look forward to any new information that last week's 
hearing might have overlooked when these same witnesses 
appeared in the Senate. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. We would like to ask 
other Members to submit their statements for the record so we 
can get to our witnesses as quickly as possible.
    And with that, Mr. Ruff, Ms. Mills, would you raise your 
right hands, please?
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Mr. Burton. Thank you. Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. Bennett. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Ruff has an 
opening statement.
    Mr. Burton. Pardon me, I agree. Mr. Ruff, you are 
recognized for an opening statement. If you could keep it to 5 
minutes we would appreciate it.

    STATEMENT OF CHARLES F.C. RUFF, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to abide by that 
constraint. I submitted my opening statement 2 days ago. And I 
will read it into the record, but I want to begin with one very 
brief, very pointed response, Mr. Chairman, to your opening.
    There is not in my office, there never has been, and there 
never will be defiance, stonewalling, obstruction, or any other 
inappropriate conduct. My orders from the President of the 
United States are to cooperate with this committee's legitimate 
demands. We do so. And that is all we do.
    Now, my colleagues and I are here to respond to the 
committee's questions today concerning compliance with your 
document request and subpoenas. When we have answered those 
questions, I am confident that the committee will conclude that 
our efforts have been diligent and our compliance with the 
committee's demands exemplary.
    It is inevitable in any adversarial setting that there will 
be disagreements about process and substance. Mr. Chairman, you 
and I have disagreed on occasion. You have been candid in 
letting me know about your concerns, and I trust that you have 
found my responses equally candid.
    Our staffs, too, have had disagreements, most of which have 
been resolved just as they should be, by ongoing discussion. 
When we have found some requests to be overbroad, your staff 
has often been willing to narrow them. When demands have 
strained our resources, we have been able to prioritize your 
requests. When concerns over privilege have arisen, we have 
been able to establish a process that ensures committee access 
to all relevant documents.
    And I will pause here for a moment to reiterate what I said 
earlier, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your taking the time to 
meet with me last night to resolve what I think was really a 
procedural question about how these issues ought to be 
addressed. It was symptomatic, I think, of the relationship we 
have developed in which we are honest with each other about our 
concerns and we try to find solutions to them.
    When the committee has made special requests for expedited 
production we have done our best to respond. At every stage, we 
have worked to give the committee the information it needs.
    Where we have erred, we have been forthright in admitting 
it, and we have done our best to correct mistakes as quickly as 
possible. But I submit that, considering the extraordinary 
number and breadth of the demands placed on us by this 
committee and other investigative body, those mistakes have 
been few.
    On that point, let me address one of the principal issues 
that has brought us here today, the recent discovery and 
production of the videotapes. The charges of impropriety 
surrounding that discovery, although readily disposed of, are 
symptomatic of a tendency of some, I would submit, to reach 
hasty and ill-considered conclusions.
    We do not dispute that the videotapes were responsive to 
the committee's subpoenas and should have been found and 
produced some months ago. But the record developed over the 
past month makes it clear beyond any doubt, that the reason 
they were not found was simple and innocuous. One page of my 
directive, faxed from the White House Military Office to the 
White House Communications Agency was misplaced. WHCA personnel 
have testified that if they had received that page, they would 
have searched their computer looking for tapes of the coffees. 
There was no conspiracy. There was no effort to obstruct 
justice. There was no stonewalling. There was only a mistake of 
the most mechanical, routine and innocent variety.
    Thus, the suggestion that the videotapes were concealed or 
their production delayed for some ulterior purpose is 
absolutely baseless. Nor is there any basis whatsoever for the 
claim that the tapes were altered before they were produced. 
The WHCA professionals, career military personnel, have 
testified that they retrieved the original tapes from the 
archives and copied them. Nothing else.
    I began with the issue of the videotapes because, just as 
the charges that have been levied concerning their discovery 
are baseless, so is the more general allegation that the White 
House has been deliberately slow in responding to subpoenas or 
has somehow been concealing relevant documents. Those who make 
such accusations need to understand two things.
    First, to withhold, for tactical or political purposes, 
documents responsive to this committee's legitimate demands 
would be inconsistent with our professional responsibility, a 
responsibility that all the lawyers in my office take very 
seriously.
    Second, to search for documents in the White House is an 
enormous task. There are some 2,000 employees in some 40 
different units within the Executive Office of the President. 
No matter how focused a search request may be, and most are far 
from that, it may require us to contact every 1 of those 2,000 
people, examine every one of their files, search the central 
records storage system as well.
    Faced with deadlines from this committee and others that 
any dispassionate observer would find extraordinarily short, my 
lawyers have worked 100-hour weeks to meet the committee's 
demands in a manner that deserves, I submit, not criticism, but 
praise. When we receive a subpoena, a letter, or merely a phone 
call, we respond as rapidly as possible.
    When a subpoena is broad-ranging or numerous requests have 
been received from various investigative bodies, we issue a 
directive to all personnel of the Executive Office asking them 
to search their files. Lawyers in our office are available to 
answer questions or assist in the search. In addition, my 
lawyers visit the individual offices that are most likely to 
contain responsive files and work with the Office of Records 
Management to guide their search for archived documents.
    In response to more limited requests, we conduct targeted 
searches or send special directives to those persons who are 
most likely to have responsive millionaires and for WAVES 
records, phone logs and e-mails we search through mounds of 
paper ourselves, often in response to some emergency request.
    No process, however careful, can ensure error-free 
compliance, particularly given the demands and deadlines we 
have faced. Indeed, any lawyer who has been involved in large-
scale document production, even in routine civil litigation 
will understand that mistakes sometimes larger, sometimes 
smaller are inevitable.
    We can, however, take all reasonable steps to minimize the 
chances of error and to that end, we have continued to search 
to make sure that we have found every responsive document. When 
we find such a document, we produce it. That is the responsible 
and professional course that any lawyer would follow.
    It is a course, Mr. Chairman, that is consistent with my 
mandate from the President to respond forthrightly to this 
committee's legitimate demands. No one has ever so much as 
hinted that we do anything less, and neither the President nor 
I would accept anything less. With that, Mr. Chairman we are 
happy to respond to the committee's questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ruff follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.027
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.028
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.029
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.030
    
    Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Ruff.
    Ms. Mills, do you have an opening statement.
    Ms. Mills. I do not.
    Mr. Burton. Thank you.
    Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ruff, Ms. Mills. 
Good morning. Almost good afternoon. I thank you for your 
patience. Mr. Ruff, I, too, want to thank you for your visit up 
here last night. I enjoyed our meeting.
    Let me first, for the record, note Ms. Mills, you are 
accompanied here by your attorney, Mr. Neil Eggleston; is that 
correct?
    Ms. Mills. That is correct.
    Mr. Bennett. Mr. Eggleston, if you want to be seated next 
to your client at the table, you are welcomed to do so, sir. If 
at any time you want to stop my questions, please so advise.
    Mr. Ruff, you did not arrive as Chief Counsel to the 
President until late January or early February of this year; is 
that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. February 10th was my first day, Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. Bennett. Had you previously served in any capacity in 
the White House at previous administrations?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I had not.
    Mr. Bennett. What was the general status of varying 
investigative matters upon your arrival?
    Mr. Ruff. I think it's fair to say that they rested in 
various stages. Some matters were left over from the previous 
Congress and actions were being taken to respond to a variety 
of requests that had been lodged over the preceding months. 
Others were just gearing up.
    For example, we were aware that the Thompson committee was 
about to begin, but hadn't yet begun its work. Similarly, the 
work of this committee was just beginning, and, indeed, I think 
maybe even before I arrived in my office I had my first meeting 
with the chairman.
    Mr. Bennett. And that would have been, I believe, February 
6th of this year; is that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe that's correct.
    Mr. Bennett. So essentially there were matters having to do 
with the Senate, the House, the Department of Justice and 
Independent Counsel as you arrived on the scene; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Ruff. That is true.
    Mr. Bennett. You will note that there were in fact earlier 
directives from your predecessor, Mr. Jack Quinn, concerning 
information sought by these investigative bodies and I believe 
if we can put up on the screen certain directives which had 
been previously sent by Mr. Quinn. Exhibit 135, a directive, I 
believe, in October 1996; exhibit 136, a directive of December 
16, 1996; and exhibit 137, I believe it was a directive of 
January 9, 1997.
    Did you have occasion to review those directives from your 
predecessor when you arrived, Mr. Ruff?
    Mr. Ruff. In the days and weeks following my arrival, I 
reviewed these directives as part of my ongoing effort to try 
to catch up with the state of affairs and begin to address how 
we would go about making production.
    [Exhibits 135, 136, and 137 follow:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.031
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.032
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.033
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.034
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.035
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.036
    
    Mr. Bennett. I note with respect to the first directive, 
exhibit 135, looking at the second page, that that directive 
included the particular attached request for information or 
subpoena. I think it's on the television screen in front of 
you, sir, if you want to take a minute to look at it on the 
document.
    Mr. Ruff. Unhappily, sir, the screen is only modestly 
legible. Yes, I see it.
    Mr. Bennett. That directive, in fact, Mr. Quinn just also 
attached the particular request for information which had come 
from the investigative body; isn't that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. Yes, that appears to be the case.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills, you, in fact, worked with Mr. Quinn 
prior to working with Mr. Ruff; is that correct?
    Ms. Mills. That is correct.
    Mr. Bennett. And what is your present title?
    Ms. Mills. Deputy Counsel to the President.
    Mr. Bennett. You are essentially the No. 2 lawyer in the 
office; is that right?
    Ms. Mills. There are two deputy counsels; myself and Mr. 
Bruce Lindsey.
    Mr. Bennett. So essentially only Mr. Ruff outranks you in 
the Office of White House Counsel; is that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. I don't like to think of it that way, Mr. 
Bennett.
    Mr. Bennett. I won't ask you if you outrank Mr. Ruff. Let 
me rephrase my question.
    You had, in fact, been employed in the first term of the 
Clinton administration in the Office of White House Counsel?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Bennett. And you, in fact, assisted Mr. Quinn in the 
preparation of these directives that we just placed up on the 
screen; isn't that correct?
    Ms. Mills. No, it's not. I think, as you know from my 
deposition testimony, this first directive I was not involved 
in. The second directive I was.
    Mr. Bennett. I'm sorry, Ms. Mills, I did not take your 
deposition. I apologize for that error.
    Ms. Mills. I'm sorry; I thought you had my transcript.
    Mr. Bennett. I looked at part of it. Then you assisted in 
the second directive; is that correct?
    Ms. Mills. Right.
    Mr. Bennett. And how about the third directive? Did you 
assist in the preparation of that directive?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Bennett. So then I misstated as to the first of the 
three, but then directives two and three in December and 
January you prepared those?
    Ms. Mills. That's exactly correct.
    Mr. Bennett. And whose decision was it to attach copies of 
the actual request, whether it was a request for documents or a 
subpoena? Did you make a decision to attach the particular 
request with these directives from Mr. Quinn?
    Ms. Mills. I think you are speaking about the first 
directive, and I was not involved in the first directive. The 
second two directives actually were with respect to requests 
that we had received and we went about ensuring that we put all 
the information from the particular requests in there in a form 
that would be understandable to our staff.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills, was it Mr. Quinn's policy to 
generally seek to attach the particular document request or 
subpoena to a directive?
    Ms. Mills. No.
    Mr. Bennett. And directing your attention to the group of 
lawyers who arrived--in fact, you and Mr. Lindsey were the only 
two holdovers from the first term; isn't that correct?
    Ms. Mills. That's incorrect. In fact, at that time there 
were several other members of the Counsel's Office who were 
still there, but they have since departed.
    Mr. Bennett. Well, let me ask you this. Is it safe to say 
that by February or March of this year that essentially there 
had been a complete turnover with the exception of you and Mr. 
Lindsey?
    Ms. Mills. I think by June, that would be an accurate 
statement.
    Mr. Bennett. And by mid-January of this year, just prior to 
Mr. Ruff 's arrival, there were a considerable number of 
documents which had already been compiled; isn't that right?
    Ms. Mills. We were beginning the collection with respect to 
the December 16th and January 9th. At that point, we had 
compiled documents. We had not completed, obviously, compiling 
all of the materials nor had we began all the production 
related to those materials, as I think you might know.
    Mr. Bennett. In fact, in late January, early February, 
right around the time of Mr. Ruff 's arrival, a significant 
number of documents were turned over to the Department of 
Justice under your supervision; isn't that correct?
    Ms. Mills. I believe somewhere on the order of 3,000 pages 
had been turned over at that point.
    Mr. Bennett. And in terms of your efforts for document 
compliance in searching for information, you had actually gone 
through a number of documents yourself with respect to Mr. John 
Huang; isn't that correct?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Bennett. In fact, you sent an aide down to the photo 
office to see if you could find photographs of Mr. Huang or the 
Riadys at some point in time.
    Ms. Mills. With respect to the WAVES request, when we were 
getting press requests from a number of individuals, we made an 
attempt to go through and identify all the different WAVES 
records for Mr. Huang. I believe we had a request from the 
committee for that information as well. And so in the course of 
trying to establish which was the correct John Huang, which was 
an individual who was also named John Huang, but not the same 
John Huang, that is how we went about trying to discern the 
appropriate visitor and determining whether or not Mr. Huang 
was or was not the correct John Huang.
    Mr. Bennett. And during that process, did you, in fact, 
deal with the White House Communications Agency, better known 
as WHCA?
    Ms. Mills. I dealt with the photo office. I did not deal 
with the audio visual section of the WHCA, as I think you 
probably are aware. I was not familiar with their practices 
with regard to videotaping.
    Mr. Bennett. Directing your attention to January 15th of 
this year, prior to Mr. Ruff 's arrival, there was, in fact, a 
letter sent by Chairman Burton of this committee, I believe it 
is exhibit 138 that is on the screen now, with respect to the 
matter of compliance with document requests of this committee. 
Did you discuss this matter with Mr. Ruff when he arrived?
    [Exhibit 138 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.037
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.038
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.039
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.040
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.041
    
    Ms. Mills. When everyone arrived, there was, as you would 
say, there was a large number of individuals who arrived to do 
the investigative work, and I did sit down with the new staff 
who were going to be doing the investigative work to apprise 
them of what had taken place to that point and also what 
matters we had that had just come in that needed to be 
addressed.
    Mr. Bennett. In fact, your office is right next door to Mr. 
Ruff 's office in the White House; is that right?
    Ms. Mills. It is now. At the time you're speaking of now, 
it was in the Old Executive Office Building.
    Mr. Bennett. And when did your office move next door to Mr. 
Ruff 's?
    Ms. Mills. Early February.
    Mr. Bennett. Upon his arrival?
    Ms. Mills. I believe that is correct.
    Mr. Bennett. Incidentally, Ms. Mills, just to perhaps 
correct a misimpression by Congressman Waxman, you did not 
testify before the Senate; is that correct?
    Ms. Mills. No, I did not.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills, with respect to the time period of 
February 6th at the time that Mr. Ruff met with Chairman 
Burton, I assume that except for Bruce Lindsey, there were 
basically no other persons upon whom Mr. Ruff could rely for 
document production in that I think Mr. Breuer has testified 
that at least he thought by February or March, Mr. Breuer in an 
earlier deposition testimony, that by February or March the 
entire new team had arrived. So I gather that upon Mr. Ruff 's 
arrival and your taking the office next to Mr. Ruff, that Mr. 
Ruff was relying upon you to assist him in efforts of document 
production upon his arrival?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct. I was transitioning those 
matters. There was one member of the team who arrived in 
December 1996, but apart from that; that is correct.
    Mr. Bennett. Mr. Ruff, ultimately there was a subpoena that 
was served by the committee, the subject subpoena for your 
appearance today, and I believe that is exhibit 139. The March 
4th subpoena. Mr. Ruff, do you know who actually received the 
subpoena and receipted it?
    [Exhibit 139 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.042
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.043
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.044
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.045
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.046
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.047
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.048
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.049
    
    Mr. Ruff. I do not. That tends to vary depending on how it 
is delivered and what time of day and who happens to be 
present. But we view it as having been served on and received 
by the Office of White House Counsel.
    Mr. Bennett. Who made the initial determination as to who 
was going to ensure compliance with that subpoena and gather 
the requested material?
    Mr. Ruff. I think it is fair to say, Mr. Bennett, that we 
treated this subpoena as we would any other subpoena or request 
for documents. Principal responsibility for responding to these 
sorts of subpoenas is vested in what I'll refer to as the 
investigative side of my office, which is headed by Mr. Breuer 
as Special Counsel to the President.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills and Mr. Ruff, I'll note that 
paragraph 1 of page 1 of that subpoena, clearly calls for 
videotapes; isn't that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. It refers to video or audio recording, yes.
    Mr. Bennett. And I believe, and if I am incorrect, Mr. 
Ruff, correct me, and I note and have appreciated your great 
candor in our meetings in terms of the error in not turning the 
material over, but neither of you dispute the fact that the 
videotapes recently produced by the White House were clearly 
within the scope of this subpoena back in March of this year; 
is that correct?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Ruff. Yes, Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. Bennett. Now, Mr. Ruff there was a directive which you 
ultimately sent out on April 28, 1997, I believe noted as 
exhibit 140 and we will place it on the screen.
    [Exhibit 140 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.050
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.051
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.052
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.053
    
    Mr. Ruff. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bennett. Is there any reason why there was almost a 2-
month delay before forwarding this directive to members of your 
staff to seek compliance with this subpoena?
    Mr. Ruff. This directive to my best recollection, Mr. 
Bennett, was intended to encompass a variety of requests and 
subpoenas received not only from this committee, but from other 
investigative bodies as well.
    There had been, as you know, during the February, March, 
April period, ongoing efforts to collect documents and produce 
those that were responsive to the earlier Quinn directives as 
well as specific searches that were being conducted. This 
really was designed to wrap up a whole range of different 
requests that had come into the office.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills, you were, in fact, aware of the 
existence of the entity known as the White House Communications 
Agency as early as last year, 1996, weren't you?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Bennett. In fact, that is the entity that produces the 
videotapes that are subject to question here among the many 
questions we have?
    Ms. Mills. It is the entity that produces them among lots 
of other responsibilities that they have.
    Mr. Bennett. And if I can, showing you exhibit 141, which 
is the memorandum in April 1996 from Mr. Quinn, noting that 
that agency, WHCA, would be recording political events, you in 
fact assisted in authoring that memorandum in April 1996; is 
that correct?
    [Exhibit 141 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.054
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.055
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.056
    
    Ms. Mills. That's correct. It indicates that it would be 
recording Presidential remarks as opposed to political events.
    Mr. Bennett. But essentially you were aware of the efforts 
of WHCA in that regard?
    Ms. Mills. My interactions with WHCA at that time were not 
to walk through a memo. As you probably are aware, there was a 
precursor memo that WHCA sent to me outlining what their 
activities were. With respect to that memo, we were focused, in 
particular, on activities and support that they provided that 
were telecommunications-related.
    For example, when the President travels, every trip that he 
takes, there is always a staff room, and associated with it 
there are computers, faxes, phones and other equipment. WHCA 
wanted to ensure that they were appropriately following the 
guidelines that had been laid out in earlier memoranda that we 
had sent out regarding political activity, so our discussions 
related to those matters, as opposed to what other practices or 
activity they might actually engage in as an agency.
    Mr. Bennett. Showing you a memorandum 4 months later, once 
again involving you with WHCA--and correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. 
Mills, because I'm really not sure of this--but exhibit 141-A 
is a memorandum in August 1996, and I believe there is a note 
as to guidelines, as to the taping of political events by this 
agency; is that correct?
    [Exhibit 141-A follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.057
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.058
    
    Ms. Mills. If you're speaking about on the second page, 
where it speaks about reporting Presidential remarks, it is, 
and as you are probably aware, there is a precursor memo to 
this memo from WHCA that is identical almost to this memo. So 
what I was trying to do was ensure that I was providing advice 
to our staff regarding the activities that they indicated that 
they did or didn't do.
    Mr. Bennett. Just so you understand, there is a limited 
amount of time, so I can't necessarily produce each document to 
lead into the next document.
    Ms. Mills. No, I understand. But I noticed that that one 
was not here, so----
    Mr. Bennett. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, your 
personal notation is in your handwriting at the top of that 
page to the right; isn't it?
    Ms. Mills. Right.
    Mr. Bennett. Did you at that time--the notation there in 
terms of your handwriting on that memorandum, did you at that 
time have a general discussion with audiovisual officials with 
respect to the particular events that were going to be 
videotaped by WHCA over the course of the Presidential 
campaign?
    Ms. Mills. No. And as I think you are probably aware, the 
individuals with whom I met were not familiar with what WHCA's 
audiovisual practices were at that time. Indeed, Mr. Steve 
Smith was not yet assigned to the audiovisual unit, so he was 
unaware what practices they had with regard to what they taped 
and what they didn't tape; and the other individuals also, I 
think, as you probably are aware from testimony in the Senate, 
were unaware at that time. So we did not discuss that.
    Indeed, what we were trying to ensure was with respect to 
the President's political activity during a time period where 
there would be a considerable amount, we were making sure that 
WHCA's resources with respect to their phone, their faxes, 
their equipment, and their computers were being used 
appropriately; and that was particularly of interest because in 
this time period forward, the President's activity at that time 
was primarily campaign-related with respect to his traveling.
    Mr. Bennett. In fact, I can't report to you that I read all 
the Senate testimony, but Steven Smith, I believe, testified 
before the Senate within the last 2 weeks that you came to 
speak with him about the role of WHCA in filming events; is 
that correct?
    Ms. Mills. That is not correct.
    Mr. Bennett. His testimony would be incorrect in that 
regard?
    Ms. Mills. I'm not familiar that he has made testimony with 
respect to us having discussions regarding WHCA's filming.
    Mr. Bennett. But if that was the extent of his testimony, 
then you would disagree with that?
    Ms. Mills. I would disagree with that, though it is my 
understanding that Mr. Smith has indicated that we did not 
discuss WHCA's videotaping practices at that time. Indeed, he 
was not familiar with them at that time.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills, in fact, you are on one of the 
videotapes that was released within the last few weeks, I think 
the March 11, 1995, videotape, if I can have exhibit Roman 
Numeral 6 or VI. And if we can, just quickly that is, in fact--
--
    Mr. Barrett. Mr. Chairman? Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Ms. Mills. That's my lovely family.
    Mr. Bennett. That is you and your family there; is that 
correct?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Bennett. I will stop, Mr. Chairman, if there is a----
    Mr. Barrett. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry 
here.
    Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, when we are requesting 
information for someone to respond to testimony, we should 
provide the transcript of that testimony so the witness can 
familiarize herself with it.
    Mr. Burton. The point is well taken.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills in that regard----
    Mr. Barrett. Mr. Chairman, I have an inquiry, too.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
    Mr. Barrett. Do we have a copy of all the exhibits that are 
being shown here? I understand there may have been one copy 
given to the minority. It is difficult when we see a corner of 
a picture to know what the probative value of that is. I mean, 
it would be helpful for us, as we go through these, so when 
counsel is asking a question, we see more than just the part 
that is on the screen.
    Mr. Bennett. I will be glad to respond to that, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Please, Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. Bennett. The tape, Congressman, is quite lengthy. It 
wasn't my intent to play the entire tape.
    Mr. Barrett. No, not the tape. I'm referring more to the 
prior one that we saw. The prior exhibit that we saw on the 
screen here. What I would like to do is be able to look at the 
whole document as you are showing it on the screen, and to know 
what the document is.
    Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield to me?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes.
    Mr. Waxman. I was going to point out that the majority gave 
us these documents and we are now trying to duplicate them. 
They just gave it to us just now, so we are trying to make 
copies as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Burton. In the future, we will try to make sure that 
documents relevant to the hearings will be provided in advance.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, no attempt to be dilatory either, 
there have been a series of questions in which the witness has 
said, ``as you are aware,'' and I guess the concern would be--
that would arise out of that is, if the counsel has some 
information to the contrary or that would infer a different 
slant to things--I mean, there just seems to be something going 
on that I am not----
    Mr. Burton. Well, relevant documents, we will try to make 
sure are given to the minority so that they are aware.
    Mr. Bennett. Congressman Fattah, there is nothing going on 
between Ms. Mills and myself. I think we have met each other 
once before. Is that correct, Ms. Mills, in case my wife 
happens to watch?
    Ms. Mills. I'm not going to answer that question.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman will suspend.
    Yes, Mr. Kanjorski?
    Mr. Kanjorski. If I may followup on Mr. Fattah, I think the 
counsel examined and asked, as you are aware, Mr. Smith 
testified on such and such in the Senate. And then that was not 
her recollection, that she is aware that he so testified. It 
would be awfully helpful, if there is that type of testimony of 
which the counsel is aware, if the staff immediately provides 
us with it, and follows up and provides it to the witness.
    Mr. Burton. As I said, Mr. Kanjorski, we in the future will 
try to make sure that depositions or testimony given in the 
other body that's being referred to will be provided to all 
Members.
    Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills, I think just for the record, you 
and I, I think, have met once before on Friday morning, October 
10th, in Mr. Ruff 's office; is that correct?
    Ms. Mills. I believe that's correct.
    Mr. Bennett. And this is only the second time you and I 
have actually spoken; isn't that correct?
    Ms. Mills. I believe it is.
    Mr. Bennett. And to the extent that you indicate, as I may 
be aware--I don't presume that I am as aware of some of the 
facts as you are--I am trying to get to some facts. If to any 
extent I summarize something that you think is inaccurate, 
please correct me, if you will.
    Ms. Mills. I am assuming that you have my deposition 
transcript, because that is what I was informed at my 
deposition. So if I don't have that, I don't, so--OK, I have 
yours. Thanks.
    Mr. Bennett. Directing your attention to June of this year, 
Mr. Ruff, I'll show you your letter of June 27th, which is 
exhibit 142.
    [Exhibit 142 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.059
    
    Mr. Ruff. Yes, Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. Bennett. And essentially at that time you represented 
to Chairman Burton that, to your knowledge, your staff had 
complied with all requests contained in the subpoenas; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct. As you will note, my letter 
states, ``To the best of my knowledge, the White House has 
produced all documents responsive to the committee's subpoenas, 
with the exception of those documents that appear on the 
privilege logs,'' and then goes on in the next paragraph to 
note ``our continuing efforts to ensure that we have been fully 
productive of these documents and that our searches are 
continuing and we will produce documents that we find.''
    Mr. Bennett. Did you have any knowledge of the existence of 
videotapes at that time, Mr. Ruff?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I did not.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills--at any time, did Ms. Mills indicate 
to you, Mr. Ruff, that there were videotapes?
    Mr. Ruff. No, sir.
    Mr. Bennett. And did you ever inquire of Ms. Mills as to 
whether or not she knew of any videotapes?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I did not.
    Mr. Bennett. Were there any discussions with her?
    Mr. Ruff. Many discussions with her about the general 
duties of our office, including the discovery and production of 
documents, but nothing that was focused on the issue of 
videotapes.
    Mr. Bennett. According to--again just as a matter of public 
record and not trying to give any concerns to the minority, not 
trying to repeat the testimony of the Senate, but I think that 
everyone is aware of the testimony in the Senate, and if I 
summarize this incorrectly, please correct me, Mr. Ruff. But 
according to testimony presented in the Senate, there came a 
point in time where attorney Donald Bucklin of Senator 
Thompson's committee inquired of your office with respect to 
the existence of some taping; isn't that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe the sequence of events is essentially 
this, Mr. Bennett: That in a conversation with Michael 
Imbroscio of my office on August 7th, Mr. Bucklin raised with 
Mr. Imbroscio the question of whether there was some form of 
clandestine taping of conversations in the Oval Office, and 
asked him to inquire into that.
    Then, later in August--I believe the date was August 19th--
Mr. Bucklin sent a letter to Mr. Breuer asking more broadly 
about the activities of WHCA. The first time, I believe, which 
the issue of videotaping coffees was broached was at a meeting 
between Mr. Imbroscio and Mr. Bucklin on September 9th, in 
which Mr. Imbroscio described the preliminary results of his 
inquiry to Mr. Bucklin; told him there was no evidence of 
clandestine taping; that there was taping of DNC fund-raisers; 
that he didn't believe that the coffees had been videotaped, 
but that he would continue to search to be sure of the story on 
that subject.
    Mr. Bennett. Well, with respect to your interpretation of 
possible clandestine taping--and I believe those are your 
words, sir--did you discuss with Ms. Mills a question from 
counsel for the Senate which you interpreted to ask about 
clandestine taping at the White House? Did you inquire of Ms. 
Mills as to that?
    Mr. Ruff. You know, I don't remember Mr. Bennett. Mr. 
Imbroscio came to me shortly after his August 7th meeting with 
Mr. Bucklin--and by the way, I think the clandestine taping 
reference was Mr. Bucklin's. I expressed, given my historical 
experience, a mild degree of skepticism that any sort of 
clandestine taping in the Oval Office had gone on, but 
instructed Mr. Imbroscio to do whatever was necessary to find 
out. I do not remember whether I mentioned that subject to Ms. 
Mills or not, because I did discuss it with Mr. Breuer and Mr. 
Imbroscio.
    Mr. Bennett. You basically cannot say that you did or did 
not; you just don't recall?
    Mr. Ruff. I just don't have a recollection. Ms. Mills 
might.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills, do you recall whether Mr. Ruff 
broached the topic with you of counsel for Senator Thompson's 
committee, suggesting that there might be clandestine taping at 
the White House?
    Ms. Mills. I do not recall that.
    Mr. Bennett. When you say you do not recall, is it your 
testimony that it did not occur, or you cannot say one way or 
the other?
    Ms. Mills. I don't have a recollection of it occurring.
    Mr. Bennett. And with respect to the September 9th meeting, 
Mr. Ruff, when there was apparently a discussion with staff in 
the Senate as to taping of political events, but not 
specifically coffees, did you at any time have any member of 
your staff contact any representatives of this committee with 
respect to the fact of political taping of any type, which you 
learned about on September the 9th?
    Mr. Ruff. Let me be clear, Mr. Bennett, that my brief 
recitation of the chronology with respect to Mr. Imbroscio's 
meeting was largely a matter of having heard his testimony on 
the subject and discussing it with him. I was not aware of the 
September 9th meeting, indeed, I think, until October 1st when 
I first learned of the existence of the tapes themselves. So 
there was really no predicate, I think, for the question of 
whether or not I would instruct somebody to raise it with this 
committee.
    Mr. Bennett. And with respect to the importance of that 
kind of topic, there is no point in time that you didn't ask 
Mr. Lindsey or Ms. Mills, based on their history during the 
first term of the President's administration, as to this whole 
matter of taping, to your recollection?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I am certain I did not. And indeed I would 
only comment in that regard, Mr. Bennett, that although 
legitimately so, the issue of videotaping has taken on a sort 
of life of its own in the last month, the existence or 
nonexistence of videotaping really was not an issue that was, I 
think, high on anybody's screen here, other than as a general 
matter searching for all responsive documents, whatever form 
they took.
    Mr. Bennett. Mr. Ruff, let me ask you this. There was a 
meeting in your office on Friday morning, October 3, 1997, this 
year, when these videotapes had been discovered; isn't that 
correct?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Bennett. And who was in attendance at that meeting?
    Mr. Ruff. I don't remember who all were there, but it was 
basically the investigative team in my office, which would have 
been Mr. Breuer, Mr. Imbroscio, and a variety of other lawyers 
who work on the investigative side, the purpose being to 
discuss where we stood on various elements of document 
collection and production and, particularly, the issue of the 
recently discovered videotapes.
    Mr. Bennett. And Mr. Ruff, Ms. Mills was present at that 
meeting at well, wasn't she?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe so.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills, were you present?
    Ms. Mills. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Bennett. At that point in time, was there any 
discussion by anyone of the fact that they knew that there had 
been, in fact, videotapes of political events before?
    Mr. Ruff. Well, there was discussion of Mr. Imbroscio's 
having found the initial evidence of videotaping. I recall no 
other discussion of the subject.
    Mr. Bennett. Ms. Mills, did you at that point in time 
indicate to Mr. Ruff that if you had known they wanted 
videotapes, you certainly could have let people know that there 
were videotapes? Did you express any surprise at this request?
    Ms. Mills. I learned about this the morning of the 3rd, so, 
I think, as you might know from prior testimony of mine. So one 
of the things that I think was at issue at that time was that 
the taping was the coffees. I was quite surprised to learn that 
there were videotapes related to the coffees.
    Mr. Bennett. Did you--what steps did you take over the 
weekend with respect to this matter?
    Ms. Mills. I tried to work with the staff and assist in any 
way that I could with regard to ensuring that all the 
appropriate materials were produced.
    Mr. Bennett. Did you contact Mr. Steve Goodin?
    Ms. Mills. I'm sure I would have contacted Mr. Goodin prior 
to the time we would have produced them, because at that time 
we had understood that Mr. Goodin might have been one of the 
individuals who worked with WHCA to apprise them of what events 
should and shouldn't be taped.
    Mr. Bennett. Moving on to just the general topic, Mr. Ruff, 
of compliance--Mr. Chairman, I'll yield the balance of my time 
to another attorney on the staff of this committee and the 
subcommittee, Jay Apperson, and I ask that exhibit 146 be 
placed up on the screen.
    [Exhibit 146 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.060
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.061
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.062
    
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Apperson is recognized for the remainder of 
the time.
    Mr. Apperson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ruff, Ms. Mills, good afternoon. The subcommittee of 
this committee, chaired by Representative David McIntosh, has 
been tasked with conducting an investigation of the White House 
data base which was planned and developed inside the Clinton 
White House with the use of taxpayer funds to the tune of $1 
million-plus dollars. The investigation includes the possible 
misuse of that data base for partisan political purposes.
    The subject of our inquiry, from the subcommittee's 
standpoint today, stems from a remarkable incident just last 
week. After being repeatedly assured that the requests for 
documents by the chairman and by the subcommittee had been 
complied with, we were sent a letter, as you know, Mr. Ruff, on 
October 28th, conveying additional documents. And we learned 
for the first time that those documents contained some very 
important ones, ones that had, in fact, been discovered not in 
some dusty room in the basement of the White House, as you 
referenced in other instances in your opening statement, but 
had been discovered fully a year ago when they were first 
requested; and that someone in the White House had found those 
documents pursuant to the subcommittee's request and pursuant 
to the directive from the Counsel's Office to find it and to 
give it to the Counsel's Office. And the record reflects that 
whoever that was in the White House in fact delivered it to the 
Counsel's Office for production to the Congress.
    This is an instance in which that document was then 
deliberately determined not to be provided to the Congress 
pursuant to its request, not by some low-level staffer but by 
someone directly in the White House Counsel's Office. That 
person or other persons thereafter placed that responsive 
document in a file and there it remained.
    Now, Mr. Ruff, on August 2, 1996, after repeated attempts 
to obtain cooperation and relevant evidence from your 
predecessor, Jack Quinn, the subcommittee sent a letter 
directly to the President, signed by all majority members of 
the subcommittee, requesting all documents and materials 
related to the White House data base known as WHoDB. The 
subcommittee had been led to believe that, the relevant 
documents pursuant to that request had in fact been produced.
    Now, I have noted your letter of just last week conveying 
additional documents and that's what I want to talk about. 
Among these documents----
    Mr. Waxman. Point of inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman will state his point of inquiry.
    Mr. Waxman. Are we in the process of questions or are we 
now in a monologue? Are we getting to a question?
    Mr. Burton. The counsel has the time as requested and 
agreed to, and I'm sure it will result in questions. I think he 
is setting the stage for his questions.
    The gentleman will proceed.
    Mr. Apperson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the screen is the 
pertinent portion of the request from the subcommittee.
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Apperson, may I request what exhibit you are 
looking at? It's very difficult to read.
    Mr. Apperson. You have it right on the screen. It's in a 
separate notebook identified as White House data base 
information, and you will find that as exhibit No. 3, sir. The 
attachment to that request is very specific and sets forth: 
Requires response from the White House to furnish documents for 
all communications concerning the WHoDB, including and 
involving the White House, its employees, internal 
communications, notes, et cetera.
    Now, produced along with your letter was a handwritten 
notation, and I will ask that that be put up now as C-64.
    [Exhibits 155 and C-64 follow:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.063
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.064
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.065
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.066
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.067
    
    Mr. Barrett. Parliamentary inquiry?
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman will 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Barrett. Before we get to the next one, again, I am 
having difficulty, and it may be that we do have the documents. 
I have here exhibit C-65, which is the prior screen, and it has 
obviously this material that's been taken out and highlighted. 
Everything else on the page, I'm unable to read.
    Mr. Apperson. If I may, Mr. Chairman, it will be found in 
the Members' books as exhibit 147.
    [Exhibits C-65 and 147 follow:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.069
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.070
    
    Mr. Barrett. Could you refer to that when you have an 
exhibit up there?
    Mr. Apperson. I will attempt to do so.
    Mr. Barrett. Thank you.
    Mr. Fattah. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Is this 
line of questioning related to our investigation of Chinese 
influence in the 1996 elections?
    Mr. Burton. It's related to the investigation by this full 
committee and the subcommittee chaired by Mr. McIntosh.
    Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McIntosh. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman will state it.
    Mr. McIntosh. The counsel's time is not being docked for 
all of the inquiries, is it?
    Mr. Burton. It is not. We are giving him the full time. Add 
an additional minute and a half or 2 minutes to that. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Apperson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ruff, with respect to that document--and I know you are 
familiar with it because it was one of a very few documents 
which were sent accompanying your letter, is a handwritten 
note, a single page that references and provides evidence that 
Harold Ickes, who was then Deputy Chief of Staff to the 
President, and Deborah DeLee, Executive Director of the 
Democratic National Committee, wanted to assure that the WHoDB, 
the White House data base, is integrated with the DNC data base 
so that each can share the information.
    The handwritten notations further reflect that evidently 
POTUS, President of the United States, wants this done. It 
further talks about the desire on the part of Mr. Ickes for a 
meeting to take place to further this plan. And it talks 
further that Bobby Watson, Deborah DeLee's assistant at the 
DNC, is working on that very plan at their end, i.e., at the 
DNC. You can imagine that after a year, we were quite 
interested to receive this document.
    Now, in your letter of October 28th, conveying the 
document--well over a year--you stated, quote, ``certain of 
these documents,'' accompanying your letter, ``are arguably not 
responsive.''
    Mr. Ruff, I am going to ask you directly with respect to 
this document, these handwritten notations which set forth a 
plan by persons in the highest level of the White House and at 
the DNC to share prohibited data from the White House data 
base, do you consider that relevant to the request from this 
subcommittee in August 1996?
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Apperson, I don't want to be impolite, but I 
will avoid, I think, trying to parse, line by line, the 
introduction to that question; because I disagree with at least 
many of the implications that it contained.
    My view of this document is that it was clearly something 
that we should produce to the subcommittee as soon as we found 
it, which we did. We have taken the view in the months since 
Congressman McIntosh and I exchanged what seemed to be an 
endless number of letters--some before and some after I took 
office--and I told him that my view of this process was----
    Mr. Apperson. With all respect, Mr. Ruff, I appreciate your 
views of the process; my question is with respect to this 
document.
    Mr. Ruff. I am attempting to answer your question, Mr. 
Apperson.
    Mr. Apperson. My question is, is this document responsive 
to the August 2 letter?
    Mr. Ruff. If you will permit me, I will try to make my 
answer shorter than the introduction.
    Mr. Burton. Just wait a second. We all want to hear what 
you have to say, and when beepers go off----
    Mr. Ruff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I 
didn't know that beepers could be controlled, but I appreciate 
it.
    My view has been, since the early months of this year, and 
as reflected in my discussion, my correspondence with Chairman 
McIntosh, that we would break through the impasse that had 
developed previous to that. We have produced documents erring 
on the side of responsiveness without worrying, candidly, about 
fine questions about whether or not they fit exactly within a 
particular description. I will not, I think, venture to go back 
into even the modestly dim mists of history and make a judgment 
about where this document fit into the sequence of events.
    I made the decision on production on October 28th because 
there was no question in my mind that it was directly relevant 
to the chairman's concerns, the committee's investigation, the 
subcommittee's investigation, and there was clearly no 
reluctance on our part to produce it at that time.
    Mr. Apperson. Well, Mr. Ruff, a year before, well over a 
year before, there was more than a reluctance on the part of 
someone in your office to make that exact decision. And my 
question to you is, who in 1996 in the White House Counsel's 
Office made the decision to withhold that document?
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Apperson, obviously I was not there at the 
time so what I am about to tell you is a reconstruction of 
events that led up to my letter of October 28th to Chairman 
McIntosh.
    As I understand the situation last fall, there were a 
number of lawyers working to collect documents responsive to 
the WHoDB request. Ultimately, as I understand it, the 
decisions about responsiveness were made by my predecessor, Mr. 
Quinn, who, as is my practice, reviews these close questions 
whenever they arise and makes the ultimate judgment about them.
    [Exhibits 166, 162, and C-66 follow:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.071
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.072
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.073
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.074
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.075
    
    Mr. Apperson. Are you testifying that Mr. Quinn made the 
decision----
    Mr. Ruff. I cannot----
    Mr. Apperson. Excuse me--not to produce this document?
    Mr. Ruff. I obviously cannot tell you as to each document, 
who made which decision, because I was not there.
    Mr. Apperson. Have you asked the people in the White House 
Counsel's Office the question I am asking you now?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I have not. But may I suggest----
    Mr. Fattah. Could we allow the witness to answer the 
question?
    Mr. Ruff. May I suggest that my colleague's recollection, 
that since she was there at the time, she may be able to shed 
some light on that.
    Mr. Apperson. I appreciate it.
    Ms. Mills, do you know about this?
    Ms. Mills. Yes. At that time----
    Mr. Apperson. Let me ask the question of you.
    Who made the decision in the White House Counsel's Office 
in 1996 not to produce this document, which had been provided 
to you pursuant to the request of the committee for production? 
Who made the decision in 1996 not to give it to Congress?
    Ms. Mills. Well, setting aside your premise, because 
actually this was one of the materials that were found by the 
Counsel's Office in going through archived materials----
    Mr. Apperson. When?
    Ms. Mills. Back in September.
    Mr. Apperson. Of what year?
    Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, can we allow the witness to 
answer the question?
    Mr. Burton. Let her answer the question.
    Ms. Mills. Thank you.
    Mr. Apperson. What year?
    Ms. Mills. In 1996, as--I don't know if you were familiar 
with the data base production at that time, but Mr. McIntosh at 
that time was seeking seven itemized materials related to the 
data base; and in connection with that, we sent out a directive 
on September 12th.
    On September 18th, when documents were to be returned, Mr. 
McIntosh determined that he needed those documents that day. We 
began production at that time. We completed production within 4 
days of over 27,000 documents----
    Mr. McIntosh. Mr. Chairman, the witness is not answering 
the question as to who made the decision.
    Mr. Sanders. Mr. Chairman, let her answer the question, 
please.
    Mr. McIntosh. Could I ask unanimous consent for additional 
time if she is going to stonewall and not answer the question 
as to who made the decision?
    Mr. Waxman. I object. I object.
    Mr. Fattah. I have no objection that he has the time, but 
we should allow the witness to answer the question if we want 
to know the truth.
    Mr. McIntosh. And that's all I ask for is time.
    Mr. Barrett. I understand that Mr. McIntosh is upset that 
he can't control the witness's answer, but if she could be 
allowed to continue.
    Mr. Burton. That's enough. That's enough.
    The gentlelady will be allowed the time to answer the 
question, and we will allow the continuance to get to the 
conclusion of this. We have 10 minutes. Go ahead.
    Ms. Mills. We reviewed all the materials at that time and 
produced them to you. At that time, this is a part of the 
materials that I reviewed and then reviewed with Mr. Quinn, and 
made the determination that these materials were not responsive 
to the seven enumerated items that you all had listed in the 
August 2nd directive.
    Mr. Apperson. So your testimony is that you looked at this 
document, which reflected ``WHoDB'' in bold letters at the top 
line of that document, and reflects people at the highest 
levels of the White House and the DNC sharing data bases, and 
you determined it was not responsive to a request for WHoDB 
material?
    Ms. Mills. Actually, I think you probably are familiar with 
the directive that actually asked for seven enumerated things. 
It doesn't ask for all documents related to WHoDB.
    But setting that aside, I can't go back and re-create for 
you at this time what information I had that led us to conclude 
that this material was not responsive to any of the seven 
enumerated items. But at that time we sat down, we looked at 
these documents, I reviewed them with Mr. Quinn, and ultimately 
made the determination that those materials did not fall within 
the scope of the materials that were requested.
    As you likely--are probably aware, there were many 
documents of a similar type to this that we produced that are 
equally--provide the same information with respect to the 
desire by many of the staff members to ensure that there were 
supporters of the President included in the data base, so that 
they might have an opportunity to invite and include them in 
events. The President and First Lady also were obviously 
interested in ensuring that they could have a data base that 
would provide them with an opportunity to include supporters at 
events, and that is something that----
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair will stand in recess, and when we return, the 
minority will have their half-hour.
    Mr. Burton. The committee will reconvene. The gentleman 
from California is recognized for 30 minutes.
    Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my opening 
statement----
    Mr. Burton. Excuse me. I agreed that Mr. Ruff would have 1 
minute to respond to some comments that were made earlier so, 
Mr. Ruff, if you want to be recognized, we will go to Mr. 
Waxman.
    Mr. Ruff. Excuse me, Mr. Waxman, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. In your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, you raise 
the question about the importance of communications with the 
leaders of the People's Republic of China concerning 
cooperation with this committee's and other investigations I 
just wanted to inform the Chair that indeed this very issue of 
cooperation in the investigation, of course, had been raised 
previously by both the Vice President and the Secretary of 
State during their visits to Beijing, but more importantly for 
today's purposes, this was an issue that is the importance of 
cooperation with your investigation and others, that was raised 
directly by the President, with the President of the People's 
Republic during his recent visit. The administration intends to 
continue to press for further cooperation by the Chinese 
Government in these matters, and I wanted to put that on the 
record.
    Mr. Burton. Just for clarification, did the President 
specifically ask Charlie Trie be returned to the United States 
for questioning?
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the details 
of the conversation, but I am advised he did specifically raise 
and press for full cooperation in all aspects of your and other 
investigations.
    Mr. Burton. But you do not know about Charlie Trie.
    Mr. Ruff. I do not, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
    Mr. Waxman. In my opening statement, I noted that this 
hearing, like the first and only other campaign finance hearing 
we have held, duplicates hearings already held in the Senate, 
and if this committee is going to investigate campaign finance 
issues, they should look into matters not previously 
investigated by the Senate, such as the activities of nonprofit 
groups like Triad Management.
    I do not want my skepticism about this hearing to be 
construed as an endorsement of the White Houses actions. The 
Presidency is the highest office in our country. Those who 
serve in the White House should be held to high standards. It 
is reasonable to expect the White House to comply fully and 
promptly to all reasonable congressional requests for 
information, including requests for videotapes of political 
coffees.
    Mr. Ruff, you testified, and I want to quote, our efforts 
have been diligent and our compliance exemplary, end quote. I 
do not doubt that your efforts may have been diligent. You have 
a small staff of talented lawyers who have been working very 
hard, but I would not call the failure to discover the 
videotapes exemplary.
    In fact, I was extremely disappointed when I learned it had 
taken the White House so many months to produce the videotapes. 
In a word, I think it is inexcusable.
    In a sense, Mr. Madigan, the Senate counsel, captured some 
of my thoughts when he asked you about a series of questions 
about Starbucks. And if I may, I would like to replay a portion 
of that Senate hearing, and you can see it on the monitor in 
front of you.
    It would be helpful if we had sound.
    Mr. Burton. Run it back to the beginning, please. This will 
not be counted against the gentleman's time. The only thing 
worse than this is when the Super Bowl goes silent. We have an 
hour, I have been informed.
    Mr. Waxman. Thank God they don't have the Super Bowl 
repeated as we have the hearings repeated.
    Mr. Burton. While we are waiting for the sound, I would 
like to make one brief response to my colleague from 
California. It is my understanding Ms. Mills did not testify 
before the Senate, so that is some new information for our 
investigation.
    Mr. Waxman. A new witness. I don't know about new 
information.
    While we are waiting, just for the record, both Lanny 
Breuer and Mr. Ruff testified in the Senate and Ms. Mills gave 
them a deposition in the Senate, but did not testify.
    Mr. Burton. That is correct.
    Would it be possible, Mr. Waxman, for you to come back to 
this part of your testimony or your statement?
    Mr. Waxman. I can't understand why we can't master the 
technology to run a videotape. You turn it louder. You have got 
the video. It is running, so, therefore, the sound, audio, has 
to be turned up.
    Mr. Ruff. I may remember what I said.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, have you hired lip readers?
    Mr. Burton. Let me think about that.
    Mr. Waxman. Well, I would have liked everyone to have seen 
this videotape, because it encompassed some of the very same 
questions that have been asked already, and in that videotape, 
Mr. Ruff, it was the questioning of you.
    Mr. Ruff. Yes.
    Mr. Waxman. You were asked whether you would go to the 
President or the CEO of a company if you were trying to get 
information to comply with the request for information. And as 
I understand your answer, you said you would not.
    Mr. Ruff. I think the way it played out was this, 
Congressman Waxman. Mr. Madigan was pressing to learn how we go 
about checking to make sure we got everything that is 
responsive, and we, of course, had talked about sending the 
directive out to WHCA, and then he asked----
    Mr. Waxman. WHCA is the White House.
    Mr. Ruff. Communications Agency that did the taping and, of 
course, how we lost relevant pages, as we have often been told. 
He then asked, well, did you go to see the President, and I 
think my response was, something along the lines of, if you 
were conducting a document search in Starbucks, you wouldn't go 
talk to the CEO about where those documents were. I think that 
was the exchange to which you had reference.
    Mr. Waxman. And with that kind of an answer, I presume that 
when you start a document search, you don't go to the President 
of the United States because you would be taking up his time at 
every request for information.
    Mr. Ruff. I think that is a fair assessment, yes.
    Mr. Waxman. What I don't fully understand is why you or 
your staff didn't talk with enough people close to the 
President to know the coffees had been videotaped. Can you 
explain why you didn't learn about the videotapes earlier?
    Mr. Ruff. Well, I think it is difficult to look back over 
the last several months and respond to that question, simply 
because the videotapes have taken on such an enormous aspect in 
the last month or so, and, quite rightly, they have.
    When we send out a directive asking for information in all 
its forms, computerized and every other, and we get back a 
specific response from the agency involved, as we did in this 
case, as we do from all the people to whom we send this 
directive, and we get computerized information and photographs 
and e-mails, and everything else, we have no reason at that 
point to pick out the videotape process or the coffees as a 
special item for inquiry, and we didn't really have that until 
August when Mr. Imbroscio began his inquiry into the matter.
    Mr. Waxman. Did you send out a directive to the White House 
Communications Agency requesting information that would have 
included videotapes?
    Mr. Ruff. We sent the directive of April 28 to all the key 
agencies, including the White House Military Office, which is 
the parent agency of the White House Communications Agency, and 
as you know from testimony, Congressman Waxman, they in turn 
sent that directive to WHCA, and one page didn't make it off 
the fax machine.
    Mr. Waxman. Well, Mr. Ruff, I am going to tell you that I 
would have hoped you would have done more than this to find the 
tapes, and I wish that you had asked people who participated in 
the coffees what kind of information existed about those 
coffees, and perhaps if you had taken a more active approach, 
you would have learned about the videotapes earlier. This could 
have saved you, the President, and everybody, in general, a lot 
of embarrassment.
    Mr. Ruff. I will second your wish that I had done just 
that, if only to have avoided the last 5 weeks of turmoil.
    Mr. Waxman. Well, for the reasons I indicated to you, I 
wish you had done a better job of locating the videotapes, plus 
I am critical of your efforts.
    Mr. Ruff. I understand.
    Mr. Waxman. But there is a big difference between making a 
mistake and deliberately trying to obstruct a congressional 
investigation or deliberately tampering with the evidence. The 
chairman and other Republican members of the committee have 
gone much further in their criticism than I have. The chairman 
said on national television that he thought the tapes had been 
intentionally cutoff and altered.
    This would have been a deliberate obstruction of justice. 
Other Republican Members have also raised allegations of 
obstruction of justice. In fact, Mr. Barr, a member of this 
committee, sent a letter to me and other Members of the House 
this week that said articles of impeachment should be filed 
against the President.
    Now, these are very serious charges. If they are true, 
there should be serious consequences for the White House, but 
if they are false or unsubstantiated, they represent 
partisanship at its worst. Serious investigators don't throw 
around unsubstantiated charges, but those conducting a partisan 
witch hunt do.
    This issue of obstruction of justice was addressed in the 
Senate and we have another videotape and I want to see if the 
sound is working so we can show that videotape. That was an 
inquiry by Mr. Baron, the minority counsel, where I thought he 
cut right to the issue. Has anybody contacted Ms. Ros-Lehtinen 
to see if we can get the sound working, because she was very 
successful last week?
    Mr. Burton. We have a technician that is on his way to get 
to this. I apologize, once again, somebody must have kicked a 
wire loose or something.
    Mr. Waxman. Well, let me read from the testimony in the 
Senate.

    Mr. Baron. Mr. Imbroscio, have you ever been told or has it 
ever been suggested to you directly or indirectly or in some 
implicit way to conceal a document or any other material from 
being produced?
    Mr. Imbroscio. One-hundred percent, absolutely not.
    Mr. Baron. Are you aware of anybody else within the White 
House attempting to conceal or fail to produce a document that 
was responsive to requests?
    Mr. Imbroscio. Certainly not, and if I were, I would 
probably go immediately to Mr. Ruff.
    Mr. Baron. With regard to the videotapes, are you aware of 
anybody attempting to conceal, alter, or in any way hinder the 
production of the videotapes?
    Mr. Imbroscio. Certainly not.

    Those were the statements given, under oath, before the 
Senate Committee. Mr. Ruff, I would like to ask you the same 
questions Mr. Baron asked one of your lawyers.
    First, have you ever been told or has it ever been 
suggested to you directly or indirectly or in some implicit way 
to conceal a document or any other material from being 
produced?
    Mr. Ruff. I can't say it better than Mike Imbroscio did, 
100 percent, absolutely not.
    Mr. Waxman. Are you aware of anybody else in the White 
House attempting to conceal or fail to produce a document that 
was responsive to a request?
    Mr. Ruff. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Waxman. With regard to the videotapes, are you aware of 
anybody attempting to conceal, alter, or in any way hinder the 
production of the videotapes?
    Mr. Ruff. I am not.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Ruff, are you aware that this committee has 
taken the deposition of Colonel Joseph Simmons, the commander 
of the White House Communications Agency, Colonel Alan Simmons, 
who heads the White House Military Office, which oversees the 
White House Communications Agency and Steven Smith, Chief of 
Operations of the White House Communications Agency?
    Mr. Ruff. I am aware their depositions were taken, yes, 
sir.
    Mr. Waxman. Each of these witnesses are nonpartisan White 
House employees. They have distinguished military records. They 
are all in the chain of command responsible for those 
videotapes. Each of them was asked whether they were aware of 
any evidence of tampering or altering those tapes, and do you 
know what they told this committee?
    Mr. Ruff. I know only in summary that they absolutely deny 
any knowledge of such tampering.
    Mr. Waxman. They all testified under oath that there was no 
alteration of those videotapes. Mr. Chairman, I wrote to you a 
letter last week asking you to substantiate your accusations of 
tampering, and I said you should either come forward with 
evidence supporting these allegations or you should apologize 
to the President, Mr. Ruff, and to everyone else responsible 
for the tapes at the White House.
    Unfortunately, you didn't respond to that letter, but in 
light of the testimony in the Senate, given under oath by 
people who are not even partisans, who work at the White House, 
and the testimony received today, I would like to yield to you 
if you want to retract that accusation.
    Mr. Burton. If the gentleman would yield, the Justice 
Department, the Senate committee and our committee are going to 
be examining the tapes if it hasn't been done already by expert 
technicians to make sure that the tapes were intact and were 
not at all altered in any way. What I said on national 
television, I believe it was on Face the Nation, is I thought 
there was a real possibility that they may have been altered. I 
made no categorical statement they were altered.
    Mr. Waxman. On what basis did you think there was a real 
possibility?
    Mr. Burton. I will be glad to restate what I said on Face 
the Nation.
    Mr. Waxman. I heard what you said. In fact, we even have 
the videotape, but we wouldn't get the sound from that one 
either.
    Mr. Burton. I can get you sound.
    Mr. Waxman. You said there may be alteration of those 
tapes. You made the statement. Do you have any basis for it?
    Mr. Burton. The basis we have is there were interruptions, 
there were tapes that had no sound, there were tapes that were 
broken in the middle and have information that may have been 
relevant was left out and we are trying to find out if that was 
a deliberate attempt to keep information from the committee or 
if it wasn't. The fact of the matter is, we are investigating 
that right now, and if we find no attempt to alter the tapes, 
then we will so state.
    Mr. Waxman. The only thing I can say is Mr. Ginsberg also 
testified in the Senate who said there was no alteration of the 
tapes.
    Mr. Burton. If the gentleman will yield, I believe they 
said to the best of their knowledge.
    Mr. Waxman. I am reclaiming my time. To the best of your 
knowledge, Mr. Chairman, you had no evidence. You were making a 
guess, and when you make a guess, and you are the man leading 
the investigation, that is what ends up in the headline the 
next day, and often the truth never catches up with the 
accusation, and I think that that is not a responsible way for 
an investigative committee to be proceeding.
    Now, we have additional time and I want to yield to members 
of the committee, and I promised that I would yield to--well, 
Mr. Sanders, I know I promised, let me yield to him a minute or 
two and see if we have time for others.
    Mr. Sanders. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I will get into 
greater discussion later on. It seems to me one of the problems 
we have had in the whole hearing is that the focus of attention 
has only been on the White House.
    Now, I think we should probe as deeply as we can, all of 
the problems, and there are many associated with the 
President's fund-raising, no argument from me, but I think that 
the reason that these hearings have not captured the interest 
of the American people is there is nobody in America, maybe 
with the exception of a few people on that side of the aisle, 
who think campaign finance problems are limited to the White 
House.
    Let me quote, if I might, it doesn't have to go very far, 
today's newspaper. USA Today, quote, ``National Republican 
organizations sank $5 million into their sweep of Tuesday's 
elections in New York, New Jersey and Virginia, more than five 
times what Democrats invested.''
    Next article, today's paper, Wall Street Journal, quote, 
After months of intraparty second guessing, Tuesday's elections 
became a triumph to gladden Republican hearts and perhaps also 
to stiffen their spines against the prospect of sweeping 
campaign finance overall, end of quote. In other words, they 
raised five times more money, they won the elections and they 
are saying, hey, who needs campaign finance reform.
    Mr. Chairman, I would hope very much that we might hold 
some hearings on that issue. And the second point I would like 
to make with that regard is an article in Roll Call, October 
30, just last week. The thrust of the articles are Democrats 
are very upset, because corporate America, the largest 
corporations in this country, are contributing more money to 
the Republican party than they are to the Democratic party, it 
is a great concern to the Democrats. AT&T, American 
International Group, Anheuser-Busch, are putting millions of 
dollars in soft money, and the Democrats are upset the 
Republicans are getting more.
    I would hope very much that we can have a hearing which I 
think really would capture the attention of the American people 
if we brought corporate America in here and asked them why they 
are contributing millions of dollars to both political parties, 
and what they expect to get from that. It is no secret that the 
rich get richer, the middle class is shrinking, working people 
have seen a decline in their standard of living, and I think 
the American people understand that that is directly related to 
the role that corporate America and big money have on campaign 
finance.
    Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Sanders. I want to yield to some 
of the other Members. I thought you had some good points.
    Mr. Lantos, 2 minutes.
    Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first commend 
Mr. Ruff and Ms. Mills for an outstanding job conducted in a 
most professional manner. We don't know each other. This is the 
first in my life I have seen you, but on behalf of the 
committee, I want to express our apologies to you, because you 
have been harassed, incessantly, and in an utterly 
irresponsible fashion and there as one member of this 
committee, I want you to know how sorry I am and how fully you 
do not deserve this.
    Now, I want to bring a bit of reality check to this hearing 
because to call this trivial pursuit is an insult to other 
trivial pursuits. This is much worse than that. This is a 
reckless and irresponsible and hypocritical attempt to create 
an impression that highly professional and dedicated public 
servants, who have been doing their jobs, have somehow, 
illegally, attempted to confuse and cloud and obfuscate an 
issue.
    I would like to remind our Members that 10 years ago, this 
week, in November 1987, at the conclusion of the Iran-Contra 
hearings, some of the most respected Members of this body, some 
of them no longer alive, future Speaker of the House, Tom 
Foley; future Secretary of Defense at that time, Les Aspin; 
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the Iran-
Contra hearings, Peter Rodino, issued a report concerning the 
Reagan White House's noncompliance with requests.
    I want to read just one paragraph. Because of President 
Reagan's personal promise that the executive branch would fully 
cooperate with the committees in their investigation, the 
committees did not issue subpoenas to any person or agency of 
the executive branch. However, the White House and a number of 
executive agencies, either belatedly produced or withheld 
information requested by the committees. This delayed 
production, nonproduction, and noncompliance with committee 
requests, made witness interviews difficult, made it necessary 
that some witnesses be reinterviewed, and complicated the 
committee's preparation for public hearings.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this report be 
made a part of the record.
    Mr. Burton. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.076
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.077
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.078
    
    Mr. Lantos. Now, it is important for us, who are so self-
absorbed in our own importance in this particular trivial 
pursuit, to recognize that there is a whole world out there. 
Southeast-Asian economies are crumbling, Iraq is preparing 
weapons of mass destruction, there is a new palace revolution 
within the Kremlin, and as we speak, 6 million political 
prisoners in China are suffering fate that most people in this 
country cannot even comprehend.
    So I would like to call on you, Mr. Chairman, to follow the 
example of Senator Thompson, who recognized that there is 
nothing there, throw in the towel and call off the 
investigation. What we are witnessing is an irresponsible and 
reckless partisan political theater of the absurd, with self 
righteousness oozing, oozing from the pours of this committee, 
at a time when the country is, in fact, in need of dealing with 
serious domestic and international issues.
    Last night, as we were here until past 11 voting, some of 
us went into the Cloakroom and watched Ken Burns' Masterpiece, 
the Lewis and Clark expedition, and it sort of restored one's 
faith in both the past and future of this country. But, 
frankly, I couldn't care less whether these breathless movies 
showing Sweet 'N Low being put into a coffee at a White House 
gathering, whether it is released Tuesday or Wednesday or next 
Friday afternoon, and this pathetic attempt to make it appear 
that we are dealing with issues of major import, matters of 
deep concern for the United States, when military officers are 
testifying that nobody altered these films, that mistakes were 
made in releasing them late, never having made a mistake in my 
life, I really have no sympathy for people who make mistakes in 
the White House or elsewhere, but I just think it is important 
to wake up and realize that there are real issues to be dealt 
with, and this trivial pursuit needs to come to an end.
    Campaign fund-raising reform is long overdue, the 
Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats of historic mistakes 
and we better move on to some real issues. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. Kanjorski.
    Mr. Kanjorski. Thank you very much. Just as a point, I 
think we have all seen it in Pennsylvania. We call it Monday 
morning quarterbacking, and, of course, we can all outguess Joe 
Paterno, particularly if he loses. It seems to me we have had a 
perfect example here today where even the simplest of modern 
technology goofs up on three occasions.
    We are incapable of providing just the sound to evidential 
documents that we wanted to be presented to the witnesses and 
the committee. And I have not heard a cry for an investigation 
of miscarriage of justice or an attempt to avoid proper 
pursuits of the same. I think that Mr. Lantos has adequately 
summed up what we are all about, or should be about. But Mr. 
Ruff, I would like to follow through, particularly on this 
question of the tapes.
    As I understand it, and I want to make sure the American 
people that are watching this, the explanation is that there 
was not a protocol until April 10 of this year in which any 
documents were supplied by the White House to this committee; 
is that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. There were some documents supplied before that 
time, but not really in any flow until we had that arrangement 
with the committee; that is correct.
    Mr. Kanjorski. And the protocol we would be talking about 
for the average American out there is the system or process 
under which it would operate.
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct.
    Mr. Kanjorski. There was an understanding for protection 
and security, that those documents would not be misused, abused 
or inadvertently leaked or intentionally leaked; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Kanjorski. We are dealing with a period that moves from 
April, when the documents were begun to be released. As I 
understand it, the White House encompasses about 19 offices in 
the Executive Office of the White House; is that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. Actually, more offices than that, depending on 
how you count. In the neighborhood of 40.
    Mr. Kanjorski. What now is the breakdown? I think when I 
was Chair of the committee that had jurisdiction over the White 
House, we have about 22 or 23 offices now.
    Mr. Ruff. More than that, actually.
    Mr. Kanjorski. And as I understand it, there are more than 
2,500 employees in the White House engaged in various pursuits.
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct.
    Mr. Kanjorski. And as I understand it, and I am being 
facetious, you were given $6 million in the Counsel's Office to 
respond. We appropriated that money, did we not?
    Mr. Ruff. I have been searching for the $6 million. I am 
sure it is there somewhere.
    Mr. Kanjorski. In reality, you have in the President 
Counsel Office, yourself, a deputy and several assistants, four 
or five assistants?
    Mr. Ruff. We have a total of 17 lawyers, about half of whom 
work on noninvestigative matters, the real business of the 
office.
    Mr. Kanjorski. And the Congress has not seen fit to give 
you additional appropriations so you could increase that staff, 
even though you have three intensive examinations going on, one 
by the Senate, one by the House committee we are at now, and 
one by the Justice Department; is that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Kanjorski. And in the course of this period of time, is 
it correct that you have had over 300 subpoenas to which to 
respond?
    Mr. Ruff. We have had 300 requests or so from this 
committee alone, plus about the same from the Senate, and 
several hundred from other bodies.
    Mr. Kanjorski. OK. So we are talking about a receipt of 
maybe seven to eight subpoenas per working day, since April.
    Mr. Ruff. Well, I haven't tried the division, but certainly 
if you divide the 1,100 or so requests we have got into the 
intervening days, certainly on work days; that is correct.
    Mr. Kanjorski. I understand in this committee alone you 
provided us with more than 110,000 documents.
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct.
    Mr. Kanjorski. All of which had to be found, read, and 
determined whether or not they violated national security or 
were subject to executive privilege?
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct, Mr. Kanjorski.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Kanjorski, will you yield to me just to 
make one point?
    Mr. Kanjorski. Certainly, Mr. Waxman.
    Mr. Waxman. You have 17 people.
    Mr. Ruff. We have 17 lawyers total, Congressman Waxman. Ms. 
Mills, myself and Mr. Lindsey, are the three headquarters 
lawyers, and then we have about a--half our lawyers work on 
investigations, about seven, and another seven to work on 
noninvestigative matters.
    Mr. Waxman. In this committee alone, we have 60 people 
investigating you.
    Mr. Ruff. I would have guessed more, given their presence, 
but I will take your word for it.
    Mr. Waxman. Sometimes they ask the same questions over 
again. And I must say, 60 people working on the investigation 
in this committee, it hasn't been a model of efficiency.
    Mr. Kanjorski. Let us attack just that. This committee has 
already issued six subpoenas to misidentified Americans that 
had nothing to do or were not intended to be subpoenaed. We 
brought the bank records in of people, examined their bank 
records, when they had absolutely no relationship to it, so 
with our 60 employees and all our lawyers, and all the 
coordination between the House and the Senate side and whoever 
else, I think there are probably some nonprofit organizations 
out there that are even providing soft support, they have made 
significant errors, it could border, if you were not fair-
minded, to say men make mistakes and sometimes things don't 
pursue a degree of incompetence. As a matter of fact, as I 
recall, about 2 months ago, there was a chief counsel on the 
majority side, who resigned because of incompetence and 
political activity on the part of the majority.
    Have you had any of your attorneys at the White House 
resign because they felt you were politicizing the office or 
that the office was acting in an incompetent manner?
    Mr. Ruff. No, sir.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Kanjorski, I am going to yield some time to 
Mr. Fattah, who has been here as well, and we will have more 
time to go back and forth.
    Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. Fattah. Let me thank the ranking member.
    I guess I want to get at two issues as quickly as I can and 
as concisely as I can. The President is at, on one hand, the 
most successful politician of his generation, and the most 
successful Democrat, in at least two, maybe three decades, 
having won the White House twice. So on one hand we have a very 
successful politician, and on the other hand, as best as I can 
determine it, between Whitewater and Filegate and Travelgate 
and now the campaign finance investigation, he is also--
somewhere around 55 million or so being spent on investigating 
his activities, the most investigated person, ever in the 
history of this country.
    Would that be a correct statement, Mr. Ruff?
    Mr. Ruff. I am not sure that my history is good enough, but 
certainly there are more investigations than one would care to 
contemplate.
    Mr. Fattah. What I mean is by most investigated, I mean 
that no one has ever had that much resources spent analyzing, 
investigating his every activity, meetings, phone calls, his 
wife's activities, even down to Socks the cat, I think there 
have been allegations of some type of wrongdoing. And through 
it all, there has not been anything that has come of these 
investigations, and the Senate, after spending millions of 
dollars, has concluded its campaign finance investigation, and 
today we spent a long time talking about videotapes, the 
suggestion being there was an obstruction of justice and the 
reality is there is nothing on the videotapes that is 
incriminating in any way, shape or form, as best I have been 
able to determine.
    Do you have some contrary determination about that?
    Mr. Ruff. I think, quite so, Congressman Fattah, the 
videotapes of the coffees are entirely consistent with the 
descriptions previously given of those events and certainly 
reveal no improper activity.
    Mr. Fattah. So you have been brought over here with your 
deputy to be questioned about obstructing the delivery of 
incriminating evidence, supposedly, which is not incriminating 
at all.
    Mr. Ruff. I think that is fair.
    Mr. Fattah. Now there was an election that took place in 
1996 and one that took place in 1992, and I think that maybe 
the biggest offense of Bill Clinton is that he beat the 
Republicans, but there is another point I would like to make 
about those elections, is that there was some similarities 
between the two campaigns, the Republican party's campaign and 
Democratic party campaign. Both campaigns used soft money for 
issue advocacy and other purposes, and both campaigns received 
foreign contributions that they had to return in the millions 
of dollars, and there are some differences in the two 
campaigns. The Dole campaign is the only one of the two in 
which there have now been two successful criminal prosecutions, 
one of a campaign chair, who was fined some $6 or $8 million, I 
can't recall, and put under house arrest for laundering money 
through a Hong Kong bank, and we now have a Pennsylvania 
company that has pled guilty to a conduit of hundreds of 
thousands of dollars into the Republican campaign coffers.
    Have there been, to your knowledge, any successful 
prosecution of any official in the Clinton campaign having to 
do with conduit payments?
    Mr. Ruff. No, sir.
    Mr. Fattah. Have there been any charges made, specific 
criminal charges, to your knowledge, of the President or anyone 
else, being involved in criminal activity, conduit campaign 
contributions?
    Mr. Ruff. Not to my knowledge, Congressman.
    Mr. Fattah. So there is a distinction between the two 
campaigns, in that one has been burdened by successful 
prosecutions of illegalities, and the other, at best, what we 
have had is a Senate investigation, which has concluded with 
nothing but thin air. And I think that it is important, as we 
deal with this issue, that we try to put this in its own 
perspective because I assume your office has other 
responsibilities, as the counsel to the White House.
    Mr. Ruff. I would like to think so, Congressman, yes.
    Mr. Fattah. I have no idea, since I am not a lawyer and I 
never worked in the White House Counsel's Office, would you in 
a bullet form tell us about some of the other responsibilities 
that you have as counsel to the White House?
    Mr. Ruff. Well, my principal responsibility, of course, is 
to try to advise the President on a whole range of legal 
matters arising out of legislation, the work of this body, and 
others. We are responsible for advising the President 
concerning the selection of judges, certainly one of the most 
important functions the President has; we serve as ethics 
counsel to all White House employees.
    Mr. Fattah. I would assume there are some national security 
issues that you have to deal with?
    Mr. Ruff. We, together with the National Security Council 
legal advisors, work on a number of those matters.
    Mr. Fattah. Let me just conclude because I know the ranking 
member has a limited amount of time, but the real crime that 
may have been committed is that this White House, this 
administration, notwithstanding its political success, has been 
burdened, as you have already illustrated, by a whole range of 
investigations. My colleague, Mr. Kanjorski, said we have one 
investigation here in the House. There are other committees in 
the House that are issuing subpoenas and making requests around 
other matters, and I remember the Speaker saying that once the 
Republicans took over they were going to have every committee 
of the Congress be an investigatory committee and they will 
have subpoenas flying all over the place. I think that one 
possibility is that the biggest crime that has been committed 
here is that this administration is, even though it is elected 
by the people of the country twice now, is being impeded from 
carrying out its policy objectives by this continuing assault, 
within, after all of it, after tens of millions of dollars 
being spent, no one has even come close to being able to bring 
any type of a criminal activity or improper activity upon the 
President or saying that he had any knowledge thereof. So I 
want to thank you for your appearance here and I want to thank 
the ranking member for yielding to me.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired. I would like 
to just make a couple of clarifying comments before I yield to 
Mr. McIntosh for his 10 minutes.
    First of all, Senator Thompson wanted more time. In fact, I 
think he said when he concluded his hearings that, in effect, 
the White House had run out the clock and he thought setting 
time constraints on him was probably, in retrospect, the wrong 
thing to do because they had more they had to look into.
    Second, it was two and not six people to whom we sent 
erroneous subpoenas. Those records that we received were 
returned without us reviewing them. Obviously, when you send 
out 300 or 400 subpoenas, sometimes there is a mistake made, 
but we made sure they were not violated in any way because 
those records were returned without review.
    Finally, there are 62-plus people that we have been 
investigating and asking for information on the Democrat side 
who have taken the fifth amendment or fled the country, none on 
the Republican side. That is the reason why the preponderance 
of effort in the investigation has been on the Democrat side. 
That is not to say that we are not going to investigate 
Republican alleged illegal activity. We are. When you have 62 
people taking the fifth amendment or fleeing the country, you 
have to look into that.
    Finally, I want to ask Mr. Ruff one quick question. Has 
anybody on my staff, on the majority side, harassed you in any 
way?
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Chairman, we are engaged, I believe, in good, 
hard fought occasionally, professional dealings with you and 
your staff. As I indicated at the beginning of my comments 
today, I have always appreciated the candor with which you and 
I have dealt with each other, and I appreciate the candor with 
which Mr. Bennett and I deal with each other. We do not always 
agree, almost never agree, but I have always felt our 
relationships to be professional. I feel burdened because you 
have asked for a lot of stuff from us, but our relations, as I 
said, I viewed as professional, occasionally contentious but 
professional.
    Mr. Burton. But not harassed?
    Mr. Ruff. No, sir.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. McIntosh.
    Mr. McIntosh. Mr. Chairman, let me start with an inquiry. 
Do you want to stop for the vote, first?
    Mr. Burton. If you would like, Mr. McIntosh, we can break 
for the vote and come back and then you can start when we come 
back.
    Mr. McIntosh. We have 10 minutes. I am happy to do it.
    Mr. Burton. We have the time.
    Mr. McIntosh. Good afternoon, Mr. Ruff and Ms. Mills. Let 
me pick up where we left off on the WhoDB question. And, Ms. 
Mills, in addition to you and Mr. Quinn, were there any other 
individuals who were involved in the decision to withhold the 
handwritten notes and the other documents in the fall of 1996.
    Ms. Mills. In the fall of 1996, given the short timeframe 
in which we had to review the materials, we went about asking 
those members of our office who had time that weekend to come 
in to help go through all the different materials that had been 
collected. I couldn't tell you how many of those different 
people might have had occasion to review this document, but 
what we did try and do, once we got to this particular document 
and some others, is review them carefully and make a 
determination based on the criteria you outlined that you were 
looking for and make a determination regarding its 
responsiveness.
    Mr. McIntosh. OK. And do you recall which weekend that was?
    Ms. Mills. I believe, actually, we sent out our request on 
the 12th. I believe on the 18th is when we had our directive 
return date for the documents, so we had a very quick 
turnaround for the return date. I believe it was on the 18th or 
19th that you sought the materials from us and we started 
producing them around that time. That is my best recollection.
    Mr. McIntosh. Was that decision ever revisited?
    Ms. Mills. The decision to produce documents to you?
    Mr. McIntosh. The particular ones that we were talking 
about earlier, the handwritten memo and the other documents 
that Mr. Ruff said?
    Ms. Mills. They were placed in a file and at the time when 
I concluded handling this matter I transferred them to another 
attorney who was handling them. I don't believe she had 
occasion to re-review those materials until sometime recently 
in response to additional requests that you have been posing.
    Mr. McIntosh. You and Mr. Quinn didn't revisit that 
decision?
    Ms. Mills. At that time we didn't revisit because we didn't 
have any new requests from you; that is correct.
    Mr. McIntosh. Well, let me point out we had an outstanding 
request for all of the documents. Let me ask you about some 
individuals to see if you remember whether they were involved 
in that initial decision. There was Mr. Quinn. Were any of the 
individuals listed in the handwritten document, there is 
Erskine, which I presume is Erskine Bowles, was he consulted 
about the document?
    Ms. Mills. No, these are--these were internal notes of a 
particular staff member so he was not consulted with regard to 
this document, this was somebody's notes.
    Mr. McIntosh. Mr. Bowles was not consulted?
    Ms. Mills. Correct.
    Mr. McIntosh. Do you know whose notes these were?
    Ms. Mills. It is my understanding they are Brian Bailey's 
notes.
    Mr. McIntosh. Was Mr. Bailey consulted?
    Ms. Mills. I don't know if he was consulted at that time or 
not.
    Mr. McIntosh. OK. Do you know--Harold is listed. Was Harold 
Ickes consulted?
    Ms. Mills. I don't believe he would have been. These would 
have been Mr. Bailey's internal notes, so I don't believe we 
would have consulted him, but I am doing my best to recall from 
over a year ago.
    Mr. McIntosh. I understand. How about Deborah DeLee, would 
she have been consulted?
    Ms. Mills. No.
    Mr. McIntosh. Or Bobby Watson?
    Ms. Mills. No.
    Mr. McIntosh. OK. And then the other one, I have to ask, 
was the POTUS consulted?
    Ms. Mills. No.
    Mr. McIntosh. The President?
    Ms. Mills. No.
    Mr. McIntosh. Who is Brian Bailey again?
    Ms. Mills. Brian Bailey was at that time serving in, I 
believe, the Deputy Chief of Staff 's Office. He was an 
assistant in that office.
    Mr. McIntosh. So he was the deputy to which deputy?
    Ms. Mills. I don't know that he was a deputy to a deputy.
    Mr. McIntosh. OK.
    Ms. Mills. I actually don't know what his official title 
was. He was one of the staff members in the Deputy Chief of 
Staff 's Office.
    Mr. McIntosh. Forgive me if I forget the organizational 
chart. Was Mr. Ickes and Mr. Bowles, both of them were 
deputies? Did he work with one or the other?
    Ms. Mills. I believe both of them were deputies at the time 
Mr. Bailey was working in the White House, I believe that is 
correct. I believe at that time he was working with Mr. Bowles, 
but that is my best understanding.
    Mr. McIntosh. OK. Thank you. Let me ask you this. To get 
the sequence correct, on that weekend when the documents were 
reviewed, Mr. Ruff indicated in his letter they were then put 
in the folder. That was your job, to put them in the folder and 
then keep custody of the documents?
    Ms. Mills. Yes, at the end of what I was doing is I created 
a working file, a file of other materials that might need to be 
reviewed or issues that needed to be handled in that file. When 
I was transferring the matter, that file was transferred.
    Mr. McIntosh. OK. And who was the attorney to whom the 
documents were then transferred?
    Ms. Mills. Miss Sally Paxton.
    Mr. McIntosh. Miss Paxton. Did you review with her at that 
time the contents of the folder of documents that you had 
deemed were not relevant?
    Ms. Mills. I don't believe I reviewed the contents of the 
folder. I believe I might have reviewed my working file with 
her, in other words, the different files that were in my 
working file, but I don't believe or at least I don't recall as 
I sit here right now going through those documents with her.
    Mr. McIntosh. OK. Approximately when did you give Miss 
Paxton the files?
    Ms. Mills. I believe it would have been sometime in 
December.
    Mr. McIntosh. December.
    Ms. Mills. Of 1996.
    Mr. McIntosh. And, again, you gave them to her because you 
were being reassigned to different duties, or what was the 
reason you gave them.
    Ms. Mills. There were a lot of different matters I was also 
starting to handle, and so we were transitioning different 
matters to different people. This was one of the matters that 
Miss Paxton had the fortune to be transferred to her.
    Mr. McIntosh. We have enjoyed working with her, too, 
actually.
    We are talking about the WHoDB matter generally, or--just 
to be clear, the matter that was being transferred to her was 
the WHoDB investigation and the responses to our subcommittee?
    Ms. Mills. Correct.
    Mr. McIntosh. OK. Let me ask you, Mr. Ruff, could you tell 
me, and I want to point everybody's attention to a letter that 
you wrote to me on May 20, and it is tab 9 in the book of 
documents about the WHoDB investigation, and for my colleagues, 
it is in the green folder, the May 22 letter, from Mr. Ruff to 
me.
    You indicate there, and we disagreed at the time, but in 
fairness to you, you stated there was no evidence that in this 
memorandum or anywhere else that WHoDB was planned to be used 
for political purposes.
    Now we have new evidence that you tell me in your October 
28 letter was newly--you became newly aware of. It strikes me 
that this new evidence, whether or not it is dispositive, is 
evidence that a discussion of an illegal activity, using a 
Government data base to share information with a political 
campaign is now before us.
    Do you disagree with that, and I don't want to hold you to 
the May 22nd letter?
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.079
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.080
    
    Mr. Ruff. First of all, I disagree with your 
characterization. I would not now and hope never to hold myself 
out as an expert on the intricacies of WHoDB and all its many 
iterations, but as I understand the situation, there is a 
distinction, and I cannot tell what is reflected in this 
memorandum, because I have not discussed it with anybody, 
between making data bases compatible so that information can be 
used and making federally funded assets available for political 
purposes. Now we may disagree about where on that spectrum this 
note or any other piece of evidence falls, but I know of 
nothing to suggest a misuse of Government assets for political 
purposes.
    Mr. McIntosh. I must say, Mr. Ruff, when the notion of 
sharing data comes up, that that is a nongovernmental function 
of a Government asset and so a distinction that doesn't carry 
the difference.
    I am deeply concerned by this and will want to continue to 
ask all of you about questions on custody of this document, but 
for now let me yield back the balance of my time to the 
chairman.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time.
    The Chair will stand in recess. We have three votes on the 
floor, on H.R. 188. We will return just as quickly as possible.
    [The prepared statement of Hon. David M. McIntosh follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.082
    
    Mr. Burton. The committee will come to order.
    Mr. Waxman, your side is recognized for 10 minutes for 
whomever you designate.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Barrett.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Barrett is recognized for 10 minutes.
    Mr. Barrett. I don't really want to use a lot of time. I 
just have a couple of observations and then a couple of 
questions.
    One of the observations I had was, earlier the chairman--
you referred to the number of witnesses who had given testimony 
who have not come forth to testify and pointed out, quite 
correctly, that all those who have not testified are associated 
with the Democrats. You said that there was zero on the 
Republican side, which I assume is pretty accurate, given the 
fact that you haven't asked any Republicans to testify.
    Mr. Waxman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barrett. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Waxman. I can't quite hear you. I don't think the sound 
system is working.
    Mr. Barrett. I will try this. Is that a little better?
    Mr. Waxman. I can hear you because I can hear your voice, 
but it sounds like the sound system----
    Mr. Barrett. I will speak a little louder into the 
microphone, too.
    But I think it is accurate to say that if no subpoenas are 
given to the Republican side, you are not going to have any 
Republicans refuse to testify. You can turn that around and say 
that not a single Republican has agreed to come forth to 
testify, which would also be factually accurate. So I think we 
have to sort of keep a perspective of what we are doing here.
    Mr. Ruff, I have what has been labeled as exhibit 64. I 
don't know if you can grab that document, but it is the 
handwritten notes that we saw on the television screen here.
    Mr. Ruff. Is this what we were discussing with Congressman 
McIntosh?
    Mr. Barrett. No--I think Mr. McIntosh did have that on the 
screen, yes. I don't know whose notes they are, but they are 
handwritten notes.
    My question--and maybe you don't even have to look at it--
when you produced this document, is it accurate to say that the 
White House produced this document?
    Mr. Ruff. Yes. If we are discussing the notes relating to 
WhoDB, when we found the document--I guess it was last week; I 
have lost track of my weeks--I sent it along with some others 
to Chairman McIntosh, explaining the circumstances under which 
it had been discovered.
    Mr. Barrett. OK. So it was not something that was refused? 
It may have been late, it may not have come as quickly as they 
wanted, but this is something that was produced by the White 
House; is that right?
    Mr. Ruff. The subcommittee now has it, that's correct.
    Mr. Barrett. Again, this may be material that's already 
been gone over here, but it would be helpful for me. To date, 
roughly how many documents have been produced by the White 
House?
    Mr. Ruff. I am not sure I can break it into documents, but 
we are somewhere north of 110,000 pages of stuff.
    Mr. Barrett. 110,000 pages of stuff?
    Mr. Waxman. Would the gentleman yield for a second?
    This PA system doesn't seem to be working. Mine does. This 
one--not either.
    Mr. Ruff. Yours is breaking up, too.
    Mr. Waxman. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is your committee.
    Mr. Ruff. Can we call the White House staff?
    Mr. Waxman. Your television doesn't produce sound. Your 
sound system produces staccato. Is this a plot or what are we 
to make of it?
    Mr. Burton. I think the sound----
    Mr. Waxman. The Senate system worked.
    Mr. Burton. I think that we have got static here. We need 
to change that. Have we called anybody over here to take a look 
at this system?
    The VCR is now fixed. So now we can hear on the TV, but we 
can't hear each other.
    Mr. Kanjorski. The Otis elevator technician has been in.
    Mr. Burton. Call and get a technician over here as quickly 
as possible and find out what is wrong with the microphones.
    Mr. Barrett. Do you want me to proceed, Mr. Chairman, or 
shall we wait?
    Mr. Burton. I think that we can figure out what you are 
saying, and if you want to proceed, we can do that.
    Mr. Barrett. I would be more than happy to proceed.
    Mr. Burton. Thank you.
    Mr. Barrett. I don't have a lot.
    Again, 110,000 pages have been produced. Do you have a feel 
for exactly how many pages we are fighting over that have not 
been produced or that mistakes were made on out of those 
110,000?
    Mr. Ruff. I am not sure. I think it is fair to say, 
Congressman, that with very few and very minor remaining 
exceptions, all of which the committee staff is aware of, we 
are in essence in compliance with the outstanding subpoenas and 
requests.
    Mr. Barrett. Of the 110,000 pages, how many mistakes were 
made? What percentage would you attribute to mistakes?
    Mr. Ruff. Well, of course, there is no question that the 
videotape issue is--looms largest as our single biggest failure 
to find what we could have found. I think, other than that, 
what we have done is, by and large, to have found bits and 
pieces from time to time that should have been found earlier; 
but the vast bulk of what has been produced has been produced 
in a regular and, I believe, timely fashion.
    Mr. Barrett. From your perspective, has the videotape issue 
been pretty much resolved?
    Mr. Ruff. I certainly hope it has, Congressman. I think the 
record is so clear at this point about the circumstances under 
which it was first not found and then found, I hope there is 
very little dispute there. We are in the process even now of 
talking with the committee about any other tapes they may be 
interested in looking at, but I certainly hope the general 
issue is close to being put to rest.
    Mr. Barrett. OK. Thank you. The reason I raise the 110,000 
pages and the percentage of pages that were either erroneously 
or maliciously, if one wants to argue that, mistaken, is 
because of the issue that was raised a little earlier, that I 
think is important to raise again, and that is the woman who 
lives in Congressman Moran's district who received a subpoena 
for her bank records.
    This is the woman, as this committee knows, who was 
applying for American citizenship. Her sin apparently, 
according to this committee, is that she has an Asian American 
background, and for that reason her bank records were 
subpoenaed.
    That was a mistake. The Republican party recognizes it was 
a mistake. I think that they have apologized, rightly so. But I 
think, as a percentage--and again my understanding is the 
chairman mentioned that there were maybe 600 subpoenas issued 
and there were 2 subpoenas that were erroneously issued--6 
subpoenas that were erroneously issued. That's a 1 percent 
error rate.
    If we are talking about 110,000 pages of documents that are 
produced--that have been produced, if we are looking at a 1 
percent error rate, you have got about 1,100 pages you can 
screw up before I think we are on equal ground with the 
Republicans in this.
    And again, I look at what happened to that woman, a woman 
who is waiting for American citizenship and is served with a 
subpoena to look at her bank records, and what is her reaction? 
If it were me, my reaction would be to freak out, wondering 
what in God's name have I done wrong?
    As it turns out, she was not from a politically active 
family. In fact, her husband's last contribution was in 1986 
when he gave $50. I think he was a Republican at that time.
    But she is not from a politically active family. But she is 
a victim, she is a victim of this investigation for the simple 
reason that she has an Asian-American last name.
    And I think that if we are going to point fingers, I think 
that we should be pointing them equally. And I think that there 
was a mistake that was made, and I will grant the majority 
party that there are going to be mistakes made. But I think 
that there is a two-way street here, and it seems somewhat 
ironic to me that when the White House makes a mistake, and you 
have made a mistake--you should have produced those documents 
earlier.
    When there is a mistake made by the Democratic 
administration, what do we do? We have 2 days of hearings. When 
there is a mistake made by the Republican side, oops.
    No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
    Mr. Waxman. We have additional time. Do any other members 
on this side of the aisle wish to ask questions?
    Mr. Fattah. Yes.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
    One of the allegations that has been bandied about in terms 
of the President's efforts at fund-raising in the last election 
was that he hosted supporters of his in the White House, which 
is the subject of the discussion about the videotapes.
    Now, we know that he is not the only President that has 
done this. In fact, we have seen, at least on videotape, 
President Reagan hosting them. The videotapes that were 
supplied by the White House, there are other videotapes that 
the Senate Democrats wanted to receive from the Bush Library 
and from the Reagan Library, and neither wanted to comply.
    As White House counsel, could you tell me whether or not in 
the archives of the White House Communications Agency copies of 
those tapes would be available to this committee if we wanted 
to request them?
    Mr. Ruff. I don't believe so, but let me check with my--I 
believe that they are then transferred to the individual 
Presidential libraries. We do have, I understand, but I have 
not seen it--nor has anyone else, I believe, in my office--
logs, computer records of what used to be in the archives, but 
I believe everything has now gone to the individual 
Presidential library.
    Mr. Fattah. So the only way that this committee could get 
those is if we requested them from those Presidential 
libraries?
    Mr. Ruff. From the libraries, I believe that's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. Which are taxpayer-supported libraries?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. OK. Because it may be helpful to put this in 
some perspective, that President Clinton is among a number of 
Presidents who have, as part of their practice, hosted 
supporters of the White House in some form or fashion, 
financial supporters, and in some varying degrees thanked them, 
encouraged them in some way to be supportive of the political 
activity of the party. So the President doesn't do it alone in 
that respect.
    The other issue has been--the principal issue has been 
focused on foreign money, and both parties have received 
foreign money and returned it. And the chairman mentioned 
earlier, he was emphasizing that there were grand jury 
investigations of certain activities, but neglected to put on 
the record, and I want to put on the record, that it has also 
been reported that Chairman Haley Barbour has been called 
before what I assume should be a secret grand jury proceeding, 
but one in a similar manner. But he testified before the Senate 
that he went to a foreign land and requested and received over 
$2 million of foreign money, which eventually helped facilitate 
the election of the Republican Members of Congress.
    The circumstances surrounding that are very different from 
the circumstances surrounding the allegations of conduit 
payments in the Clinton campaign, and I want to see if I can 
draw that distinction for the record. One is that conduit 
payments are really kind of a fairly common violation of 
Federal election law.
    There have been hundreds of cases in which people who seek 
to make contributions in someone else's name--it happened in 
the congressional campaign and seemingly it may have happened 
in the Clinton campaign. In all of those cases, to the best of 
my recollection, with one exception having to do with a member 
of the Congress, it has been the position of the Justice 
Department that neither Bob Dole knew nor any of these other 
parties knew that these illegal contributions were being made 
to their campaign.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. Fattah. Yes.
    Mr. Burton. The lights aren't working. We have a technician 
there. He is going to be one of the most popular fellows in the 
place.
    But your time has expired. We will have to keep time with a 
watch for our next round of questioning.
    Mr. Cox.
    Mr. Cox. Thank you. We are sitting sufficiently close 
together that even if this doesn't work, I am sure we will be 
able to hear each other.
    Mr. Ruff. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cox. As you know from our earlier meetings, I used to 
work in the White House Counsel's Office. My job was, Ms. 
Mills, roughly equivalent to yours, and I empathize with what 
you are going through.
    I understand that you produced 110,000 pages worth of 
documents.
    Because one of my colleagues from California earlier raised 
the Iran-Contra example, I would point to it as an example of 
what Congress typically does in an investigation of this sort, 
and just read briefly from the Iran-Contra report. At that 
time, the Democrats controlled the Congress. The chairman of 
the Senate committee was Daniel Inouye; the vice chairman was 
Warren Rudman.

    We wish to recognize the cooperation that we received from 
the White House throughout this inquiry. Once our investigation 
commenced, the White House rose above partisan considerations 
in cooperating with our far-reaching requests and ensuring the 
cooperation of other agencies and departments of the executive 
branch. In compliance with our requests, over 250,000 documents 
were produced by the White House alone.

    I would point out that is more than twice the number of 
documents that we are talking about here in less than half the 
time.

    Additional large quantities of material were produced by 
other executive branch agencies and departments. Relevant 
personnel and officials, et cetera, were made available for 
interviews, depositions, discussions and assistance in 
facilitating our work. All of our requests to the White House 
and the executive branch were fulfilled. The White House 
pledged to cooperate with this investigation, and it did.

    That's not a report that this committee is likely to issue 
because we have been meeting with you about compliance with 
subpoenas that have been outstanding for months. And the one of 
them, we are talking about here today, one of several that we 
are talking about here today, was issued on March 4th.
    It is my understanding that the White House Counsel's 
Office did not even contact agencies within the White House to 
return information about the subpoena for some time after that. 
There was a March 24th return date on that subpoena, and a 
month after the return date on the subpoena had expired, on 
April 28th, there was a memorandum sent to the Executive Office 
of the President covering these videotapes that went to the 
Military Office and to WHCA.
    Is my date correct? Was it April 28th that you sent that 
memo?
    Mr. Ruff. That directive was sent out on April 28th. It was 
not, however, the only step that was taken with respect to the 
production of documents to this committee.
    Mr. Cox. Did you send a memo to WHCA prior to April 28, 
1997?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cox. Thank you.
    About 4 months later, 4 months after you sent that memo to 
WHCA, on August 19, 1997, the U.S. Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs asked the White House, did WHCA make any 
videotapes? It is a reasonably plain-English letter, and it 
says, ``please advise immediately whether any video or audio 
record exists and whether it will be produced pursuant to the 
outstanding subpoena.'' And the understanding expressed in the 
letter is that the videotapes were made by the White House 
Communications Agency, WHCA, and that that information would be 
responsive to the subpoena. The letter is only one page long.
    Did you send a copy of that letter to WHCA, ever?
    Mr. Ruff. No, but it wasn't necessary to do so, Congressman 
Cox, because Mr. Imbroscio was already fully engaged in the 
process of dealing with Mr. Bucklin's questions about WHCA.
    Mr. Cox. Now, if you didn't send a copy of the letter which 
asked for the videotapes, did you send your own memo to WHCA 
asking for videotapes?
    Mr. Ruff. First of all----
    Mr. Cox. In response to this letter of August 19, 1997?
    Mr. Ruff. First of all, Congressman, I don't have the 
August 19th letter with me, but my recollection of the first 
paragraph is not exactly as you have recited it.
    Second----
    Mr. Cox. I am sorry. In what respect does your recollection 
differ?
    Mr. Ruff. Can we be provided with a copy?
    Mr. Cox. I would be happy to have you read the first 
paragraph, whatever it says.
    Can we suspend the time while the witness is given a copy 
of this letter? It is very short. It is only three paragraphs.
    Mr. Ruff. Yes. I have it now.
    Mr. Cox. In what respect does your recollection of this 
letter differ from what we are discussing here?
    Mr. Ruff. It doesn't. I just wanted to be clear that what 
this paragraph says is--and it might be useful for me just to 
put it on the record, so that we all have----
    [The information referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.083
    
    Mr. Cox. Please don't read the letter. I have got a copy of 
it as well.
    Mr. Ruff. Well, I think it is important to understand what 
this letter is, because it frames what the question was.
    Mr. Cox. With all respect, I understand exactly what the 
letter is. It is a request for videotapes from WHCA, is what it 
says it is; and my understanding is that you did not send a 
copy of this letter to WHCA. Neither did you send your own memo 
in plain English, saying, we have been contacted by the U.S. 
Senate, and they have said that their outstanding subpoena 
expressly includes WHCA tapes, and we would like you to make 
those WHCA tapes available to us.
    No such memo went, my understanding is, from the White 
House Counsel's Office to WHCA at any date after August 19, 
1997. Tell me if I am wrong and there was such a memo or 
whether you sent a copy.
    Mr. Ruff. You are not wrong, but I believe your question 
and last statement is misleading, Congressman, because as the 
record very clearly reflects, Mr. Imbroscio within, I believe, 
10 days of this letter was personally speaking with WHCA about 
the very issues posed in the initial conversation with Mr. 
Bucklin, and--in this letter, as well as the broader request 
made in the April 28th directive.
    Mr. Cox. You are aware, I am sure, that WHCA's testimony is 
that they were not properly asked for this information. That's 
why I would expect a lawyer's office to ask for documents in 
response to subpoenas, which are much more serious than simply 
document requests in writing.
    When I worked in the White House Counsel's Office, that's 
the way it was done.
    Now, I want to ask some additional questions.
    Mr. Ruff. If I may, Congressman, because your question, I 
think, is once again not entirely an accurate reflection of the 
record, the WHCA personnel did not testify that they were not 
properly asked.
    The testimony was, I believe, quite clearly, that the 
directive of April 28th was sent from the White House Military 
Office to WHCA; that one page, the critical page referring to 
coffees, in some fashion didn't make it through the fax machine 
or from the fax machine to the relevant people. They testified 
that if they had received----
    Mr. Cox. I am sorry, Counsel, but I am going to have to 
interrupt you, because you are talking now about the original 
document request.
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Cox. That antedates by months the letter we got from 
the U.S. Senate to the White House.
    What I have been able to establish, in response to the 
questions I have just put to you, is that--I think I asked the 
question clearly, and you responded in a straightforward 
fashion that you neither sent a copy of the letter that the 
Senate sent to the White House, expressly asking for WHCA to 
turn over videotapes, nor did you restate that in your own 
language and send it WHCA.
    There was simply no correspondence, no writing on this 
document requesting documents from the White House to WHCA.
    Now I want to ask you a different question. Do you remember 
this headline from the New York Times, which reads ``Reno in 
Letter to Congress''--it was page 1--``Rejects Most Allegations 
That Clinton Violated Law''?
    Do you remember the date that happened? It was a Saturday 
morning.
    Mr. Ruff. I don't remember the particular document, but I 
take your word for the fact that it is in the New York Times.
    Mr. Cox. Do you remember that it was front page news in 
newspapers across America when Janet Reno issued her letter on 
Friday, October 3rd?
    Mr. Ruff. I surely do.
    Mr. Cox. Were you surprised that that was front page news 
in the newspapers across America?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I wasn't surprised.
    Mr. Cox. Why weren't you surprised?
    Mr. Ruff. Because I would think that any time the Attorney 
General speaks to issues, particularly in the form of a 
response to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, that 
bear on her assessment of violations of law by senior official, 
that that would be front page news.
    Mr. Cox. Would another reason that you were not surprised 
be that you knew in advance that October 3rd was the date that 
she was due to make that decision to respond to Henry Hyde's 
letter to us?
    Mr. Ruff. Indeed, I did.
    Mr. Cox. Or from us to you, I should say.
    Mr. Ruff. Indeed, I did.
    Mr. Cox. And that was a deadline that was pretty well known 
across the country; isn't that right?
    Mr. Ruff. Absolutely.
    Mr. Cox. All right. Because the question was, will there be 
an Independent Counsel investigation taken one step further 
with respect to the President and the Vice President? That's a 
pretty serious matter.
    Now, that was October 3rd. You met with the Attorney 
General the day before, didn't you?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Cox. You met with her about 3 in the afternoon?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Cox. Did you do something unusual that morning before 
you met with her?
    Mr. Ruff. Congressman, no, actually, I didn't. But if you 
are--if you are----
    Mr. Cox. Did you look at videotapes of the President at 
these White House coffees that morning?
    Mr. Ruff. If your question is, was I aware of the 
videotapes earlier that day, it was either late morning or 
early afternoon----
    Mr. Cox. That was not the question. The question is, did 
you look at those videotapes?
    Mr. Ruff. I did. I have so testified. I have so stated 
publicly.
    Mr. Cox. All right. Now, that's not unusual?
    Mr. Ruff. Of course it is unusual. But I am trying to be as 
responsive to your questions as I can.
    Mr. Cox. Yes. And that is why I asked you whether it was an 
unusual morning, because believe me, when I worked at the White 
House Counsel's Office, if we were in the middle of an 
investigation of this magnitude--and particularly you, knowing 
what meaning tapes have in an investigation like this because 
of the Watergate days, I am sure--we are sitting on a 
bombshell, you understood that, because that also made national 
news.
    You stated earlier in your testimony here today that this 
has taken on a life of its own and it has occupied the media's 
attention for a month. But you knew this, and the rest of the 
world didn't know it that morning. And in fact--how long did it 
take you to watch the videotapes that morning?
    Mr. Ruff. Perhaps 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cox. You watched them for 5 minutes. And what is the 
name of the member of the Counsel's Office that first informed 
you about it that morning?
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Imbroscio.
    Mr. Cox. And how long did you talk to Mr. Imbroscio about 
those tapes?
    Mr. Ruff. He came in, said that he had found evidence in 
the computer data base that these tapes existed, that he had--
--
    Mr. Cox. How long did it take him?
    Mr. Ruff. I am just trying to give you a sense of it. He 
showed me--told me that he had a sample of them; I believe 
there were three, perhaps four--showed them to me, and I told 
him to take whatever steps were necessary to find them.
    Mr. Cox. Did you talk to anybody about it on the phone that 
day before you met with the Attorney General?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Cox. Did you talk to the President about it that day?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Cox. Did you talk to the Chief of Staff of the White 
House about it that day?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Cox. Did you talk to Mike McCurry about it?
    Mr. Ruff. No.
    Mr. Cox. So you kind of kept it to yourself?
    Mr. Ruff. Other than my conversation with Mr. Imbroscio, 
that's correct.
    Mr. Cox. And then you met with the Attorney General later 
that day?
    Mr. Ruff. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Cox. And when you met with her, were you aware that the 
Justice Department had an outstanding request for those very 
documents?
    Mr. Ruff. I think it is fair to say I was aware. I so 
testified.
    Mr. Cox. And you were also aware that the next day was the 
day that she was going to make national news, one way or the 
other, you weren't sure which way, on the question of whether 
an Independent Counsel should look into these things?
    Mr. Ruff. Indeed. As I have stated publicly.
    Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, has my time expired?
    Mr. Burton. I think the gentleman has a few more seconds, 
but----
    Mr. Kanjorski. Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the 
responses of the witness are not getting on television at all. 
In all fairness, it seems to me we ought to make sure this high 
tech system of ours really works.
    Mr. Burton. If you like----
    Mr. Kanjorski. You have got the example of the White House.
    Mr. Burton. If you like, I hate to inconvenience the 
witnesses, but what we could do is recess until tomorrow 
morning at 10.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Burton. This is important for the American people as 
well, and the television stations that are here can't pick this 
up because of the annoying interference. So since we can't get 
this fixed, I don't think it would be of long duration 
tomorrow, but would it be possible for you to come back so we 
can conclude this in a short period of time tomorrow?
    Mr. Ruff. Of course we are at the committee's disposal, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. I think what we will do is just recess until 10 
a.m. I will make sure that this is fixed. Thank you.
    The committee stands in recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
    [Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, November 7, 1997.]


            WHITE HOUSE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS

                              ----------                              


                        FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1997

                  House of Representatives,
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Burton, Cox, Horn, Mica, McIntosh, 
Shadegg, Sununu, Sessions, Snowbarger, Barr, Portman, Waxman, 
Lantos, Kanjorski, Condit, Maloney, Fattah, Cummings, Kucinich, 
Blagojevich, Davis of Illinois, and Ford.
    Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Richard 
Bennett, chief counsel; Barbara Comstock, chief investigative 
counsel; Judith McCoy, chief clerk; Teresa Austin, assistant 
clerk/calendar clerk; William Moschella, deputy counsel and 
parliamentarian; Robin Butler, office manager; Dan Moll, deputy 
staff director; Will Dwyer, director of communications; Ashley 
Williams, deputy director of communications; Dave Bossie, 
oversight coordinator; Robert Rohrbaugh, James C. Wilson, Uttam 
Dhillon, and Tim Griffin, senior investigative counsels; Phil 
Larsen, investigative consultant; Kristi Remington and Bill 
Hanka, investigative counsels; Jason Foster, investigator; 
Carolyn Pritts, investigative staff; David Jones and John 
Mastranadi, investigative staff assistants; Jay Apperson, 
special counsel, and J. Keith Ausbrook, senior counsel, 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, 
and Regulatory Affairs; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; 
Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority 
chief investigative counsel; Agnieszka Fryszman, Elizabeth 
Mundinger, Kristin Amerling, Christopher Lu, Andrew McLaughlin, 
David Sadkin, and Michael Yang, minority counsels; Ellen 
Rayner, minority chief clerk; Becky Claster, minority staff 
assistant; and Sheridan Pauker, minority research assistant.
    Mr. Burton. The committee will reconvene.
    I want to thank our guests for coming back this morning. I 
hope you had a good night's sleep. You have heard of Murphy's 
law, Mr. Ruff and Ms. Mills. I went out to the parking lot, and 
I am not sure if you had anything to do with it or not, but I 
had a flat tire. And I didn't get home till 1 o'clock in the 
morning. And I really believe the White House had something to 
do with it. I am going to check this out.
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Chairman, you and I will have to talk about 
it a little bit later, but I think I can explain it to you.
    Mr. Burton. You are a very inventive fellow, Mr. Ruff.
    In any event, we have two more individuals that we need to 
have sworn in this morning. And we thought in accordance with 
your request, Mr. Ruff, we would have all four of you up there 
at the same time to try to complete this in an expeditious way.
    Mr. Ruff. I appreciate this, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Breuer and Mr. Nionakis, would you please 
stand up?
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Mr. Burton. Thank you.
    I want you to know how well the sound system is working 
today. It is kind of a miraculous thing. Because of the glitch 
in the sound system yesterday, what we have decided to do is to 
go back to where the system really got out of control, because 
I think the person that was doing the transcribing as well as 
people who were watching this hearing on television were having 
a difficult time of it. So we are going to go back and give the 
minority 10 minutes. Then we are going to come back to Mr. Cox 
and give him 10 minutes. Then we will have 10 and 10. And then 
we will get back to the regular order. So we will----
    Mr. Waxman. Let's see if we understand this right. You are 
going to give--we agreed we would have three segments of 10 
each side.
    Mr. Burton. That is correct.
    Mr. Waxman. We are on the second round of 10 minutes. Mr. 
Cox went yesterday for 10 minutes. He was the second questioner 
for 10 minutes. Now it is our turn. Will there be another round 
of 10 minutes on your side and another round here of 10 
minutes?
    Mr. Burton. That is correct. You will have the same number 
of 10 minute rounds as the majority.
    Mr. Waxman. We are fine on this.
    Mr. Burton. OK. So Mr. Waxman, to whomever you designate.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Kanjorski.
    Mr. Kanjorski. Thank you very much, Mr. Waxman.
    Mr. Ruff, when I ended up yesterday in some of my 
examination, we were moving through the process of how many 
people you had in the Counsel's Office and how many documents 
you have delivered. And, we were just about to get into the 
idea of the videotapes.
    Now, although the tapes are an old story in this town and 
has a story of itself, as you have pointed out in testimony, 
because we are talking of videotapes and because we are talking 
of the White House, and because we are talking of subpoenas, to 
the American people there still is that idea that there must be 
something sinister involved. Or, of course, why else would the 
black helicopters in the White House do what they are doing? So 
in order to try and extract that idea, maybe we could walk 
through your experience and my experience with videotaping in 
the White House.
    First and foremost, as I understand it, this White House 
Communications Agency is not a politically appointed office or 
even a civilian office in the White House. It is something 
long-standing. It is commanded by a major or a colonel who is a 
professional military officer of the U.S. Government. And that 
regardless who is President of the United States or what party 
wins the election, this office goes on in continuity with the 
same personnel serving either administration in a very 
professional capacity. Is that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. That's my understanding.
    Mr. Kanjorski. And that it is not something new, relatively 
new as black helicopters, it has actually been around the White 
House for more than a quarter of a century I am sure.
    Mr. Ruff. Yes.
    Mr. Kanjorski. And we are not even quite sure where these 
tapes are located, but unlike the famous Watergate tapes, there 
is not a little hole in the front of the desk and a wire and 
somebody in the basement sitting with a monitor, as we conjure 
up in our imagination. But there is something like a typical 
home-run operated camera that people walk around and take 
pictures.
    Mr. Ruff. I think we probably have some real live examples 
with us this morning.
    Mr. Kanjorski. So, if we asked every one of these fine 
television men to reverse that camera and turn it on 
themselves, what we see walking around here walks around the 
White House all the time.
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Kanjorski. As a matter of fact, I do not think any of 
us would want to put a number on how many events at the White 
House would be taped. But, again, the American people do not 
meet movie stars and Nobel prize winners, and Congressmen every 
day of the week as the President does. He has a strange 
function down there. He is doing, 10, 12, 15 meetings that are 
televised almost every day. Is that not correct?
    Mr. Ruff. I'm not sure of the number. But certainly a great 
many of the things that he does, particularly the ones that are 
ceremonial, but also occasionally ones that are official.
    Mr. Kanjorski. Right. Well, I was thinking in the back of 
my mind, the amount of time that I spent with the President or 
have seen him or been around him, and whether there were 
cameras there. And I had to conclude that probably half of the 
time that I have been with the President, there has been a 
camera there, but it is blended into the woodwork because we 
were not paying attention to it: it was just expected.
    And prior to events starting, whether it is a very serious 
meeting or whether it is just a ceremonial meeting, an entire 
crew comes in with cameras and snaps pictures. Then they clear 
them out, and then you start doing something serious. And, of 
course, the cameras are off at that time.
    So it is unlike what average, typical Americans experience 
with a camera, or the 25th anniversary party that gets taped, 
or anything else; this is such a regular occurrence at the 
White House that none of us would probably make any to-do about 
it. As a matter of fact, in that regard, I was thinking I hope 
that Mr. Burton never sends a subpoena to me and asks the same 
question to provide this committee with all the tapes, because 
I always forget to ask these guys, we have three, four, five, 
six, eight, I think a count of nine television cameras in this 
room right now, and I haven't the slightest idea who they are. 
It could be NBC, CBS, Japanese television. It could be--there 
is a new network, RNC. They are usually around and about. But 
all these people come in and constantly take our pictures and 
it blends into the woodwork. We do not know. But how in the 
world would I find out? Or if any staff and I received the 
subpoena and I said, answer this subpoena, I am not sure we 
could go back here and find out every occasion I have been in 
this room or other rooms and who these people are and where 
these tapes are. So inevitably, regardless of what material or 
documents I send, I would never comply 100 percent. Would that 
be reasonable to assume?
    Mr. Ruff. I think it probable, given the life you lead, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Kanjorski. I heard you say in reading a couple of their 
letters in response, ``Dear Mr. Chairman, we have to the best 
of my knowledge complied with your subpoena completely.'' And 
that word struck me, as a lawyer, that God only knows there is 
nothing in this world that is complete. And you are a lawyer 
and you agree with that, too. Invariably, whatever we do, 
somebody is going to go back to that White House and open up a 
file cabinet or talk to somebody somewhere, maybe the assistant 
stewardess on the President's helicopter, and find out that she 
had a taping machine one day and carried on a taping where 
somebody got on the helicopter with the President and he hadn't 
even thought about it. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. It's a frightening prospect, but it's distinctly 
possible.
    Mr. Kanjorski. All right. Now that we have an idea of the 
understanding. These are not hidden documents. These are things 
actually for historical record and future use of the archives 
of the library of this President as it has been for every 
President of modern times.
    Mr. Ruff. That's true, Congressman.
    Mr. Kanjorski. And all this shaking and everything, they 
didn't produce the tapes, there is nothing--you are testifying 
there is absolutely no intent on--that you found from anyone in 
the White House, in your office, or any other place in the 
White House that they intended to do this, because, in fact, 
they didn't even recall or remember that these were made. And 
the people that should have didn't receive that one document in 
the inquiry to assemble all the documents that were missed; is 
that correct, the famous missing tapes?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct. I think the record is absolutely 
clear on that. We are rightfully subject to criticism for 
failing to produce them because they were responsive. But there 
certainly is no basis for suggesting that it was anything other 
than the essentially mechanical problem that has been testified 
about on the public record.
    Mr. Kanjorski. And so the American people understand that 
there--that is the best answer, made a mistake, damnedest 
mistake.
    I agree with Mr. Waxman. We don't like to hear you do those 
things. But then we have had the occasion to see how many 
mistakes this committee has made in the short life of this 
committee, and we don't nearly have the full burden to carry on 
the operation of the Presidency. So we are all prone to 
mistakes, and those of us that want to pretend that we are 
absolutely accurate and correct all the time are disingenuous. 
Our life isn't like that. The average American knows that. We 
don't have to belabor that.
    Now that we know this process has had a fracture in it or 
failing and we didn't get those tapes on time, it strikes me, 
as an average person in there, well, what are we arguing about 
here? Are we arguing about process or are we arguing about 
substance? The process obviously didn't work. And the majority 
of the committee has raised holy hell about that process not 
working.
    But let us assume that the process had worked and all the 
tapes that have been found or delivered had been found or 
delivered 2 or 3 months before because that is all the 
difference was. What have we found in those tapes that 
indicates anything wrong happened at the White House?
    Mr. Ruff. I think the answer to that is quite easy, 
Congressman, which is zero.
    Mr. Kanjorski. Zero. No impropriety, no illegal activity, 
no conspiratorial activity. Actually, humorously, someone 
called my attention to it, they caught the President making a 
joke. After listening to the joke, he wished somebody had a 
tape of it; he would like to record that tape. Little did he 
know that joke is on tape, right?
    Mr. Ruff. That suggests the level to which cameras become 
part of the woodwork.
    Mr. Kanjorski. That is right. Now if that is the case, 
there is nothing substantive in these tapes indicating any 
wrongdoing. We are spending an awful lot of time on process. 
And unless the majority of this committee can indicate there 
was an intentional act to subvert justice, or obstruct justice 
here--purposely cabal, if you will, a conspiracy at the White 
House to avoid answering a subpoena--then we are really wasting 
an awful lot of time about process. Process that didn't work 
for about 2 months or so until actually it did occur; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct, Congressman.
    Mr. Kanjorski. It seems to me a lot to do about nothing. 
Not to say that when a committee of Congress asks the White 
House to do something isn't something, but what they asked them 
to do, if it had been done on time wouldn't have been worthy of 
one word in the newspaper, because there was no substance in 
the tapes. On the other hand, it shows us that the White House 
isn't any more perfect than this committee. It makes mistakes 
and sometimes doesn't find things or sometimes acts less than 
up to the standard we would like to see it act. But that wasn't 
done by political operatives in the White House or people of 
the President, that was done by military officers that are 
professional that had no reason to do that other than they 
either didn't get the material, the communication correctly, or 
they just didn't think about.
    Now, I think there is probably one other criticism of the 
White House. And I found that criticism myself in dealing with 
not only this White House, with this President, but past 
Presidents since I have been in office. I find it to be an area 
that is a little too focused and compartmentalized that one 
group doesn't talk to the next group. And as a result we don't 
get a synthesis of brain power working there but get very 
focused brain power.
    And sometimes, well, I guess the famous holes in the floor 
of the network and people starting to slip through where things 
are slipping through, and that is what is happening more often, 
as exemplified by the tapes, that, in fact, those 16 lawyers 
down there probably didn't go to enough parties at the White 
House to understand that they are taped. And maybe if we gave 
them a little more time and a little less subpoenas and 
requests for documents, they would be a little more socially 
minded. Maybe we should do that.
    Mr. Ruff. It sounds like a good idea.
    Mr. Kanjorski. If I may, in closing, I appreciate it, Mr. 
Chairman. Mr. Ruff, I just wanted to point out that there is 
nothing sinister here. There is no conspiracy here. As a matter 
of fact, this is procedure over substance. And even when you 
get to the procedure it is a 2-month delay. But, clearly, when 
you get to the substance there was nothing in these tapes, 
never has been anything in these tapes, never will be, and 
therefore we are chasing fanciful goblins, if you will.
    Mr. Ruff. I agree, Congressman.
    Mr. Kanjorski. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Burton. Before I yield to Mr. Cox, I am going to take 
just a little bit of his time and I will then yield to him. I 
want to make three points. First of all we will be liberal with 
the clock, Mr. Waxman.
    Mr. Waxman. I hope it will be liberal on both sides. Let's 
keep track of the time on both sides.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman, we will do that. I can assure you. 
I just gave Mr. Kanjorski a little extra time. We will try to 
be fair.
    The subpoena was sent regarding the tapes and all other 
materials 7 months before we received them. That is No. 1. No. 
2, Ms. Mills knew about the White House data base memo 13 
months before we received it. She knew about it. She knew it 
was in a file. Three, Ms. Mills and the President and most 
people close to the President knew there were tapes being made 
of the Presidential meetings for a long, long time.
    Now, you can say anything you want, Mr. Kanjorski, but 
these are the facts. Now, you say that there is nothing----
    Mr. Kanjorski. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. No.
    Mr. Kanjorski. If those are the facts--you mentioned my 
name in your remarks.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Kanjorski, those are the facts. You had 
your time. We will get back to your side.
    Mr. Kanjorski. I would only call the Chair's attention----
    Mr. Burton. We will get back to your side in a moment.
    Now I want to point out that there are some very 
interesting things on some of these tapes. I want to show you 
now a tape of December 7, 1995, during which the President 
openly discusses how to go around Federal election laws. Run 
that tape back and show it all. Wait until we shut off the 
machines because Mr. Waxman is leaving his on. Just 1 second. 
Wait till Mr. Waxman shuts off his machine. OK. Now you can 
show it. I want everybody to see this.
    [Video presentation was shown.]
    Mr. Burton. I think that is one picture that is worth 1,000 
words. The committee will stand in recess until after this 
vote.
    Mr. Kanjorski. Mr. Chairman, if I can just say I'm shocked 
at that. Can you imagine funds down here in Washington being 
raised for campaigns? I am really shocked.
    [Brief Recess.]
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Chairman, forgive me, I wonder if before we 
begin I might just take a moment to respond to your comments as 
you closed the meeting, if I might have that privilege?
    Mr. Burton. I am always anxious to hear your response, Mr. 
Ruff.
    Mr. Ruff. It will be brief, Mr. Chairman. I just want the 
record to be very clear, as I believe it has been on prior 
occasions when the segment of tape that you showed has been 
displayed elsewhere, that the President's comments about so-
called issue ads reflected an entirely legitimate program of 
advertising that was engaged in by both the Republican National 
Committee and the Democratic National Committee, fully analyzed 
and approved by counsel. And I didn't want the record to remain 
silent, at least at my end of the record, with respect to your 
suggestion that there was something inappropriate with respect 
to that tape.
    Mr. Burton. I think there is a divergence of opinion on 
that point. I think many people, some on both sides of the 
aisle, but certainly on the Republican side, believe that there 
was a definite, definite line that was crossed by the President 
when he was talking about using soft money for campaign ads 
that were going to benefit his re-election. And for that reason 
we think it was a very important piece to be shown to the 
audience.
    Ms. Mills. Mr. Chairman, I would also just like to address 
one of the statements that you made.
    Mr. Burton. Sure.
    Ms. Mills. In particular with regard to my knowledge of 
tapes, I just wanted to assure you that I was unaware that WHCA 
taped the coffees. That's something I had no knowledge of. I 
simply was not familiar with what WHCA's practices were, with 
respect to what they did and did not tape. And I think, as 
probably was evident from the Senate hearings, WHCA's own 
supervisors were unaware of what they taped and what they did 
not tape. So certainly someone such as myself who was not a 
part of their office would be less likely also to have 
knowledge of that. I think there are many events that they do 
tape, but I simply was unaware, one, that they taped the 
coffees and, two, as to what their practices were as to what 
they did and wasn't taped.
    Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Mills. But the relevant point is 
you were in one tape and you knew tapes existed and you were 
Associate Counsel to the President of the United States and you 
didn't even tell Mr. Ruff about them and we think that is very 
curious.
    Mr. Cox.
    Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I welcome the two witnesses that have joined us this 
morning that were not part of yesterday's proceedings so that 
we now have four members of the White House Counsel's Office 
before us. As you perhaps know, I served 10 years ago in the 
White House Counsel's Office in a position similar to yours. 
And I empathize with the demands that are placed upon you. I 
mentioned at the outset yesterday that in the Iran-Contra 
investigation, the White House produced some 250,000 pages of 
documents fully apart from and on top of all the documents 
produced by other parts of the executive branch of Government. 
And that is more than twice as many as have been produced in 
this manner. We did it in less than half the time. And I am 
well aware of the burden that it places on the office.
    In that investigation, and I read yesterday from the report 
of the Senate select committee, because the chairman and the 
vice chairman of that committee who were both, of course, 
Democrats and not of the same political party as the President 
of the United States, praise the White House and the White 
House Counsel's Office for its responsiveness in every respect 
to document requests.
    And I would hope that the integrity of the White House 
Counsel's Office, which has been high in administration after 
administration, would be something that you all would be 
interested in upholding. And I am concerned that mechanically, 
the procedures that are being followed are not designed to 
either evidence full cooperation or to result in it. Rather, we 
are here today because we have several examples such as the 
memorandum that says that the President of the United States 
wants us to integrate the White House data base with the DNC 
data base, a document that was uncovered by the White House 
Counsel's Office. That is what it says. It was not turned over 
in response to our request for information about the White 
House data base. Nothing could be more clearly a smoking memo 
than this. And to hang on to it for so long having looked at 
it, having intelligent lawyers involved in this evidences all 
the wrong things about the Counsel's Office.
    Mr. Ruff, I met with you earlier this year and explained 
how I thought it was beyond the pale that a subpoena could be 
issued in March of this year and that months after the return 
date on the subpoena, the subpoena being a lawful demand for 
the production of documents and a valid one, that we had not 
gotten the documents that we should have gotten in response to 
that subpoena. The subpoena was issued on March 4th. The return 
date was March 24th on the subpoena. Your office did not issue 
a directive to other parts of the White House, such as WHCA, 
the Military Office, and so on, until April 28th, long after 
the return date on the subpoena. So you didn't even start to 
look for the documents until after legally they were due.
    Now, we are here after you have provided the committee with 
a letter in June saying the White House has produced all 
documents responsive to the committee subpoenas with the 
exception of those documents that appear on the privilege logs 
that we have provided the committee, except of course for the 
videotapes.
    And the videotapes were asked for by the U.S. Senate in a 
letter in plain English that says, does WHCA have any 
videotapes? And yet, it wasn't until a long time afterward that 
these videotapes were produced.
    Now yesterday I asked you whether this New York Times 
headline, which is three columns across and three lines deep, 
that says ``Reno in Letter to Congress Rejects Most Allegations 
That Clinton Violated Law.'' This was on October 4th. You said 
that you were aware of that headline. And of course it ran in 
every newspaper in America. Because the day before, October 
3rd, was a very important day, the date on which everybody 
expected the Attorney General was going to decide whether to go 
forward with an Independent Counsel. And you met with the 
Attorney General of the United States the day before. You met 
with her at 3 p.m. And I asked you whether or not you had done 
anything unusual that morning. And you said no. But I asked 
further, then, whether or not you had watched videotapes of 
White House coffees that morning. And you said yes. And you 
acknowledge that actually was an unusual thing because you had 
just learned about those White House coffee tapes that morning. 
And I asked you whether or not you were aware at the time that 
you met with the Attorney General later that day, that the 
Justice Department had outstanding, a document request that 
covered those videotapes and you said yes.
    Now, you have already told us in your deposition that you 
didn't tell the Attorney General about the existence of those 
videotapes. And I asked you yesterday whether you told anyone 
else. I asked you whether you told the President. I asked you 
whether you told the Chief of Staff, whether you told Mike 
McCurry, or whether you called anybody outside the White House. 
And you said in response to all of those things, no, you did 
not.
    I would like to ask you now whether or not you told anyone 
else besides your own staff about the existence of these 
videotapes prior to your meeting at 3 p.m., on October 3rd with 
the--excuse me, on October 2nd with the Attorney General. That 
was a Thursday, the day before she made her decision on October 
3rd. Prior to your--pardon me, I want to make sure I have this 
chronology straight. You discovered the existence of the tapes 
on the very day you met with the Attorney General; is that 
right?
    Mr. Ruff. I was told about the tapes; that's correct.
    Mr. Cox. And watched them.
    Mr. Ruff. Watched three of them, I believe.
    Mr. Cox. And later that day you met with the Attorney 
General?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Cox. And did not tell her about the existence of those 
tapes that day?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Cox. And did you tell anybody else outside the White 
House Counsel's Office before your meeting with her at 3 
o'clock?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cox. The next day when the Attorney General, one of 
those headlines for absolving the President in saying we didn't 
need an Independent Counsel, did you tell anybody outside the 
White House Counsel's Office that day?
    Mr. Ruff. Let me, if I may, describe the sequence of events 
so that you have a full understanding of the persons outside 
the Counsel's Office who were aware of this and the time in 
which they became aware of it.
    Mr. Cox. If I may, I just want to know who you told.
    Mr. Ruff. That's what I'm about to explain to you. On 
Thursday afternoon, as has already been testified by Mr. 
Imbroscio, he informed counsel for the Senate about the 
existence of the tapes. I believe on Friday morning, I 
advised----
    Mr. Cox. I'm sorry, you told the Senate about this when?
    Mr. Ruff. One of my staff members told the Senate about 
this on Thursday afternoon.
    Mr. Cox. Before you told the Justice Department?
    Mr. Ruff. I don't know what the timing was.
    Mr. Cox. But the Justice Department knew before----
    Mr. Ruff. Yes. Before the Justice Department was aware of 
that.
    Mr. Cox. The Attorney General didn't find out until after 
the----
    Mr. Ruff. You're absolutely correct. You're absolutely 
correct. I'm walking through the sequence with you.
    So that the Senate counsel was aware of this on Thursday 
afternoon. On Friday morning, I advised Ms. Mills, as she's 
previously testified. I've also spoken with Deputy Chief of 
Staff Podesta and advised him of the existence of the tapes, 
the fact that we were searching for them. I don't think there 
was anybody else outside the Counsel's Office who I informed on 
that day.
    Mr. Cox. And at what point did you discuss this with the 
President for the first time?
    Mr. Ruff. I did not--I was not the first person who 
discussed this matter with the President as I think has also 
been a matter of public record. My only conversation with the 
President on this subject occurred after the press leakage over 
the weekend to advise him that the tapes would be released both 
to the Congress and to the press.
    Mr. Cox. I asked these questions about your involvement 
because I want to know who is in charge of this investigation. 
You represented to us that the White House has produced all 
documents responsive to the committee subpoenas, even though it 
was months after they were due, in June 1997. And even though 
it turned out that you had not produced all documents in 
response to these subpoenas, because they were discovered 
later. I want to know who is in charge. You qualified your 
representation to the committee by saying to the best of your 
knowledge. So it matters a great deal to us in understanding 
the value of your representation to us how much you know and 
how actively you are involved.
    As you know, a major part of the investigation is into 
illegal payments, both by Congress and by the Justice 
Department. Those investigations concerns alleged money 
laundering between the Teamsters and the DNC and the Teamsters 
and the Clinton/Gore campaign. Because you represented the 
Teamsters in 1994, I take it you have recused yourself of all 
matters having to do with this?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Cox. Has your recusal been in writing?
    Mr. Ruff. I don't believe it's been in writing. I advised 
my staff and I had nothing to do with that aspect of the 
investigation.
    Mr. Cox. And who in the White House is in charge of that 
part of the investigation?
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Breuer, as part of his supervision of the 
investigative side of the office, is responsible for producing 
all documents and responding to questions with respect to any 
aspect of campaign finance, including any inquiries that may 
come in about the Teamsters.
    Mr. Cox. Now, in your representations to the Congress about 
responses to subpoenas, do you have procedures that you follow 
to make sure that somebody else is making representations 
concerning the Teamsters?
    Mr. Ruff. The basis of any representation I make to the 
Congress is intended to reflect the collective wisdom and 
understanding and activity of my office. Obviously, I write on 
behalf of the office as well as signing the letter personally. 
And I rely, and I think rely well, on my staff to be sure that 
what representations I make on the office's behalf are accurate 
ones.
    Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, and the members on the minority 
side, if I might, yesterday I asked a question to Mr. Ruff, 
which he answered under oath. He has told me in a sidebar he 
would like to change his answer to that question. I would like 
to give him an opportunity to do that. May I have additional 
time for that purpose?
    Mr. Burton. Yes. We will give the Democrat side additional 
time as well. Go ahead.
    Mr. Cox. One of the matters that we discussed yesterday was 
your response to the Senate's letter asking whether there were 
videotapes by WHCA of these events, such as we have seen here, 
that would be responsive to their subpoena and indicating that 
they thought there were such documents and asking for a 
definitive reply. I asked whether or not you had written a memo 
in response to that inquiry from the Senate, which was made in 
August of this year. You replied that you had not sent your own 
memo asking for those documents. And I take it that is still 
your testimony today. But I also asked you whether a copy of 
that letter was provided to the Military Office. And you 
testified yesterday that the Counsel's Office did not provide a 
copy of it. And my understanding is that, in fact, another 
member of the Counsel's Office, not you, but another member did 
provide that letter; is that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct, Congressman. When I responded to 
your questions yesterday, I was unaware of the fact that Mr. 
Imbroscio of my staff had, in fact, when he met with Mr. Smith 
of WHCA, I believe on August 29th, turned over a copy to Mr. 
Smith of the August 19th letter. I advised you this morning 
before the session began of that fact and that I wanted to 
clarify the record. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity 
to do that.
    Mr. Cox. Mr. Ruff, the reason I remain concerned is that 
when we call you up here to testify under oath about an 
investigation over which you have control about a matter that 
we have discussed at some great length that has been the 
subject of national headlines, and when I ask you whether the 
letter asking for the tapes had gone from the White House 
Counsel's Office to WHCA, you didn't know the answer to that 
question yesterday. You only have discovered the answer between 
yesterday and today. That means that some underling was 
handling this and you were not handling it. And it again raises 
a question of whether somebody is really in charge of this 
investigation and whether it is being taken seriously inside 
the White House. Every indication that I have is that it is 
not.
    I thank you for the clarification.
    Mr. Ruff. Just a moment, Congressman, Mr. Chairman, my 
apologies. That simply cannot go unresponded to, Congressman 
Cox. I do my best when I appear before this committee or any 
committee or any other public forum to be aware of the relevant 
facts and to be prepared to respond. You are quite correct that 
I did not know yesterday that one of my staff members had given 
this letter. And I thought it would be helpful to this 
committee to understand what the true facts were, indeed, I 
would commend to the committee a full review of the relevant 
depositions so that those facts are fully set out on both the 
private and the public record. Beyond that, though, I think, 
Congressman Cox, you have to go back to my answer yesterday to 
your basic question suggesting that there was somehow a failing 
in the process once the August 19th letter had been received. 
And what I told you in response to that, and which I think is 
directly responsive to the underlying concern you have, is that 
at the moment that that letter was received and in the ensuing 
days and weeks, one of my staff members was directly involved 
in seeking to respond to the Senate's inquiry. And thus that, 
the issue of whether a new directive went out was, in my view, 
not an issue of note during that period.
    Mr. Cox. Mr. Ruff.
    Mr. Ruff. Just a moment, Congressman. I'm entitled, I 
believe, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cox. You have had more time than I have.
    Mr. Ruff. I don't think so, Mr. Congressman. I want to be, 
with all due respect, sure that the record is absolutely clear. 
If you have concerns about the extent to which I am responsible 
for or taking responsibility for the operations of this 
investigation, I'll be happy to address them. But I think when 
I come to you in a good faith effort to clarify the record, 
that does not justify a suggestion that somehow my failure to 
know that fact yesterday afternoon suggests anything other than 
full responsibility in every respect for the ongoing nature of 
the investigation.
    Mr. Cox. Counsel.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired. I would like 
to say to Mr. Cox that we will have another round. And I hope 
you will come back and address this.
    Mr. Cox. I shall, indeed.
    Mr. Burton. OK. Thank you. How much time, additional time 
was there on Mr. Cox's time? Four minutes. The minority will be 
given 14 minutes. Mr. Waxman.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, just to put this matter into 
context, I take this investigation very seriously. And I know 
Mr. Burton does as well. But there are things that go on that 
he and I both aren't fully apprised of. And I see this often, 
because in exchange of letters after I have talked to Mr. 
Burton, he hasn't been aware of all the things in these 
letters. I think the fact that you weren't aware of one issue 
should not lead people to the conclusion that Mr. Cox is 
reaching, because that is preposterous. You are saying that you 
weren't aware of one transmittal of a letter to another 
department; is that the issue, Mr. Ruff?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Waxman. And therefore, from that fact, which you 
voluntarily brought to our attention to make sure that the 
record was straight, he is trying to reach the conclusion that 
you are not serious about the investigation, you are not 
serious about your job, you are not following the ethical 
standards that would be required of you?
    Mr. Ruff. I, as my comments to Congressman Cox reflect, and 
I trust not in disrespectful tone, reject any such suggestion.
    Mr. Waxman. OK. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to associate myself with the ranking member's 
observations. I think it is outrageous, it is outrageous to 
imply that since Mr. Ruff does not know of every single 
communication of any--of all of the members of his staff, to 
all of the entities involved here, there is something 
inappropriate here. And I want to state for the record I have 
total confidence in your integrity and professionalism, Mr. 
Ruff.
    Mr. Ruff. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Lantos. I did not expect to be treated to XXX-Rated 
movies earlier today. But since the chairman chose to show the 
Clinton movie, which I thought I was too young really to see 
because it relates to his comment about how the funds raised by 
Democrats will be used for democratic campaign purposes, I 
would like to show and read several similar XXX-Rated 
observations of Presidential candidate Bob Dole and President 
Ronald Reagan. So if we can have the tape, if it is ready. If 
not, I will be happy to read it.
    [Video tape presentation shown.]
    Mr. Lantos. Well, this little XXX-Rated piece sort of 
equalizes the field, Mr. Chairman. Presidential candidate 
Clinton and Presidential candidate Dole tell their, I have 
people and the media that, through the use of soft money, they 
hope to advance their respective candidacies. I was shocked 
when I saw the Clinton tape, but now my mind is at peace again, 
because I see that the playing field is level and equalized.
    But I also would like to offer some historic views on this. 
And without any hint of criticism of President Reagan, I would 
like to read to you statements of former President Ronald 
Reagan concerning identical events.
    The Republican Eagles event held in the East Room on 9/30/
87, President Reagan: ``You started as just 85 contributors, 
but your support helped our party. . . . You played a vital 
role in our victory in 1980. Thanks to the Eagles, the 
Republican Party had the financial strength, not only to 
recapture the White House, but to recapture the Senate as well. 
. . . I know this is silly, but can I count on you to help out 
in 1988? . . . Besides keeping the White House the top of our 
list is getting back the Senate, and I know we have got a lot 
of people here today to help lead that charge.'' End President 
Reagan.
    Republican Eagles event, 9/12/85, East Room: ``You have 
made all the difference. The hard work and generosity of the 
Eagles has provided us with the means to send out those 
messages. . . . Please don't just keep up your tremendous work, 
redouble your efforts.'' End Senator--President Reagan.
    Dinner reception in the East Room, April 29, 1987: ``I want 
each of you to know how grateful we are for your generous 
support for our cause. . . . Your efforts have made the dinner 
tonight an unparalleled success. . . . I am expecting tonight 
that they will tell us that last year we set the record for a 
political fund-raising event. And tonight, we are going to 
break that all-time record. . . . I am told that this function 
has raised an enormous sum. It is tough enough raising 
political funds in an election year, but to do it in an off 
year, . . . thank you.''
    President's dinner reception, 5/11/88, the East Room: 
President Reagan: ``Nancy and I want to say a special word of 
thanks to those of you that made a special contribution toward 
this evening. . . . The proceeds from the splendid evening will 
go to a cause that can hardly be more important to the future 
of our Nation, giving George Bush a Congress he can work 
with.''
    Republican re-election committee, East Room, 8/29/84, 
President Reagan: ``You raised funds that we spent down at the 
grass-roots in all 50 States, and these funds went to aspects 
of the campaign that were important. The results speak for 
themselves.''
    President's dinner reception, East Room, May 10, 1984: ``I 
want to give my heartfelt thanks to all of you in this room. . 
. . We still have a lot to do and that is why your support 
during this campaign is vital.''
    President's trust donors meeting, East Room, April 2, 1985: 
``You raised almost $7 million to support the re-election 
effort.''
    Republican congressional leadership counsel reception, 
April 22, 1985, East Room, President Reagan: ``I appreciate all 
you have done for the Republican Party. . . . The Republican 
Congressional Leadership Council was able to funnel,'' and 
funnel is a very tricky word here, ``funnel $4 million into 
Republican congressional campaigns. . . . I know that many of 
you were instrumental in giving us the means to keep control of 
the Senate. I hope I can count on all of you next time 
around.''
    Now these quotes go on ad nauseam and ad infinitum.
    The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that when you 
showed a tiny clip of President Clinton making a statement, 
which is indistinguishable from the statements of former 
Senator Dole and President Reagan, you said a picture is worth 
1,000 words. Well, pictures occasionally are, but not these 
pictures.
    These pictures show fund-raising events. Some of us feel 
that fund-raising needs to be reformed. Some of you on the 
Republican side don't. But to make this a partisan issue reeks 
of hypocrisy. I want you to reread every one of President 
Reagan's statements. I want you to look at the Dole clip again, 
and then say, mia culpa, mia maxima culpa, I was guilty of one-
sided, blatant partisanship, and I will not engage in this any 
further.
    There is one more point I would like to make. Yesterday I 
suggested that we are engaged in a trivial pursuit and I 
apologize to the concept of trivial pursuit because what we are 
engaged in is much less than a trivial pursuit. It is a 
diversion. It is a diversion at a time the country has serious 
problems. But it is not just a diversion. This issue is not 
only a pointless exercise, but it is a harmful exercise.
    It is a harmful exercise, Mr. Chairman, in two ways. It is 
a harmful exercise internationally because the work of this 
committee is making a laughing stock of the Congress of the 
United States, across the globe, as Saddam Hussein is getting 
ready to build weapons of mass destruction; as global issues 
crowd in on us on all continents; and we are trying to find out 
whether it was Thursday or Friday that Mr. Ruff or somebody in 
his staff notified someone on the Senate committee or in the 
Attorney General's office as to the availability of these 
breathtaking tapes, these tapes which have shaped American 
history, which showed Clinton was raising money in the White 
House, as was Bush, as was Reagan, as were other Presidents. So 
it is harmful to us abroad, because instead of this legislative 
body being seen to be engaged in the serious work dealing with 
the problems of the United States of America, we are engaged in 
what I can most generously label only as a trivial pursuit.
    It is harmful to us domestically. There is already a great 
deal of lack of trust between the American people and their 
Government. And by attempting to undermine faith and trust in 
our governmental institutions, these hearings undermine 
confidence in our democratic system of government.
    So it is not only pointless, it is not only trivial, it is 
harmful, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, as I asked you yesterday, 
that you will follow the example of your distinguished fellow 
Republican, Senator Thompson, and recognize that this circus 
must come to an end. We have played it long enough, we have 
played it hard enough, we have come up with nothing, and the 
time has come to admit it and to say so. Thank you.
    Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. We have a couple minutes 
left on this round. Mr. Cummings is the next Member in order of 
seniority who has not asked questions yet. I want to ask if he 
wants to ask questions at this time or reserve his time for the 
next round.
    Mr. Cummings. I would prefer to reserve my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Kucinich, I will recognize you. You will 
have the balance of the time.
    Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
members of the committee.
    One of the things which has concerned me as a member of 
this committee, from the comments that I heard yesterday 
relative to news shows where certain suspicions were broadcast 
publicly, is that some Members are proceeding with offering 
what is an implied verdict, that wrongdoing was committed, that 
crimes were committed, and I would just like to say publicly 
that I think we do the House better credit if we proceed from 
first the facts, and then the verdicts, instead of an Alice in 
Wonderland scenario of first the verdict and then the facts.
    The Senate just spent $2.2 million to hold 32 hearings 
featuring 81 witnesses and allegations of campaign finance 
abuses, including 3 days of hearings on videotapes in the White 
House. These issues are also being investigated by the 
Department of Justice task force, Independent Counsel Kenneth 
Starr, and a number of other congressional committees. This 
committee has already spent at least $3 million on this 
investigation.
    I would like to ask, Mr. Ruff, is there anything you can 
tell us today or have told us today, other than the incident 
involving a lack of communication with one piece of paper, that 
you haven't already told the U.S. Senate?
    Mr. Ruff. I would like to think that the record is fairly 
clear on many fronts, both at the Senate and in the media on 
this subject, Congressman, and it may be that there is 
somewhere in the recesses of my brain a piece of information 
which is not on the record, but I can't think of what it is.
    Mr. Kucinich. Is it true that every person, relevant to 
this issue, from the White House counsel to the chief petty 
officer in charge of the audio visual unit, gave extensive 
testimony to the U.S. Senate?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe that is the case.
    Mr. Kucinich. Isn't it also true that most, if not all, of 
the major areas of questions which have been put to you in 
these hearings, were put to the White House personnel who 
testified before the Senate?
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct.
    Mr. Kucinich. Now there have been accusations of altering 
the videotapes. Isn't it true that in the Senate hearings, 
Chief Petty Officer McGrath, Mr. Imbroscio, Colonel Campbell, 
and Mr. Smith all categorically rejected Chairman Burton's 
allegation of tape alterations?
    Mr. Ruff. Very clearly.
    Mr. Kucinich. Some members of this committee have suggested 
that the Counsel's Office omitted videotapes from the 
definition of responsive documents in its directive to all 
White House personnel. Isn't it a fact that the Counsel's 
Office directive instructed White House officers to provide all 
records, that is whether in hard copy, computer or other form?
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct, Congressman.
    Mr. Kucinich. And isn't it also a fact that this issue was 
discussed at length in the Senate hearings, and in those 
hearings laid to rest?
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct.
    Mr. Kucinich. And you gave extensive testimony in the 
Senate that there was no effort whatsoever to exclude videos of 
political coffees from the White House document search?
    Mr. Ruff. I did.
    Mr. Kucinich. And the lawyers and career military people 
who testified in the Senate said that every effort was made to 
comply with the demands of this committee, the Senate 
committee, and the Department of Justice?
    Mr. Ruff. And we believe we have always engaged in a good 
faith effort to be responsive.
    Mr. Kucinich. Now, how much of the materials produced by 
the White House in response to the committee subpoenas 
duplicated what was provided to the Senate?
    Mr. Ruff. I think the vast bulk.
    Mr. Kucinich. OK.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Kucinich, one thing I would like to say, 
Mr. Kucinich, is you were gone some of yesterday and there are 
some other relevant documents we did not receive in a timely 
fashion which we would be happy to provide for you.
    Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Barr, you are recognized for 10 minutes.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ruff, if we could turn our attention back, please, to 
your discussion yesterday with Mr. McIntosh, and if we could 
have the document 147 up on the screen, please. Document 147, 
as I am sure you will recall, Mr. Ruff, is the one that says at 
the top of that page, Harold and Deborah DeLee want to make 
sure WHoDB is integrated with DNC data base so we can share, 
evidently POTUS wants this too, make sense, then it goes on 
from there.
    If I am not mistaken, in response to some questions from 
Mr. McIntosh, you used a word to describe the essence of this 
document that doesn't appear in it. I know you are a very 
learned man, and I know also you are a very, very careful 
attorney and you choose your words very, very carefully, as you 
should. And, therefore, when you used this certain word 
yesterday, I wondered why you were using it because it doesn't 
appear in the document and it has a meaning quite different 
from the plain meaning of the words in the documents. The word 
in the document that I believe Mr. McIntosh was talking about 
was the word ``integrated,'' and he was talking about that in 
the context of having two data bases, the White House data base 
and DNC, and integrating them together. And in response to his 
question, I think you very deliberately used a word, not 
``integrate'' but ``compatible,'' to make them compatible, and 
making two data bases compatible is something very, very 
different from integrating them, as I am sure you know.
    Compatible means, and I quote from the dictionary here, 
``capable of existing or operating together in harmony,'' the 
implication being you have two entities that are different and 
very distinct, but they work together, and I certainly agree 
with you, that it is not against the law to make two data bases 
compatible. That is very different from making those two data 
bases--to integrate those two data bases. To integrate means to 
form, to coordinate or blend into a functioning or unified 
whole.
    I was just wondering why you chose to use the term 
``compatible,'' which is not used in this document, as I 
suspect--and maybe this is your job as a lawyer, to, you know, 
shift the focus, change the meaning of something.
    Do you not see that this document is talking about 
integrating two data bases and would you not agree that that is 
different, substantially different, from simply taking steps to 
make two data bases compatible with each other?
    [Exhibit 147 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.084
    
    Mr. Ruff. First, I appreciate your suggestion that I am 
either learned or careful. I do try to be careful. I reject the 
notion, however, of being learned certainly when it comes to 
the White House data base. As I think I indicated in my 
response to Congressman McIntosh, I neither have nor aspire to 
a level of understanding of the intricacies of the White House 
data base. But that said, my effort to try to be responsive 
yesterday to his questions was to suggest that--and I have no 
idea, obviously, what the author of this memo may or may not 
have meant.
    Mr. Barr. Have you checked into it?
    Mr. Ruff. No, I certainly have not.
    Mr. Barr. Do you intend to?
    Mr. Ruff. Congressman Barr, I know you will appreciate 
fully the constraints that the White House Counsel's Office 
operates under. We tend not to conduct independent inquiries 
because those inquiries, in turn, tend to become the subject of 
further inquiries.
    Mr. Barr. Do you intend to forward this to the Attorney 
General, since on its face this would seem to indicate, very 
clearly, that two data bases, which by law cannot be merged or 
integrated, unified, that it is the intent of at least some 
people to do just that? Does that not concern you as an 
attorney?
    Mr. Ruff. These documents are, in fact, in the possession 
of the Justice Department for whatever action they deem 
appropriate. What I was trying to suggest in my response to 
Congressman McIntosh yesterday, albeit from less than a learned 
posture, was that it is fully appropriate to make incoming 
information available, that is, that two data bases could be 
compatible for purposes of sharing information from the DNC 
into the White House. If I did not make myself clear on that, I 
should have done a better job. But I do not purport either to 
understand exactly what Mr. Bailey meant when he took these 
notes, nor did I intend, certainly, to suggest that I was 
reaching any conclusion, either as to the meaning of 
``integration'' or to use ``compatible,'' other than in my 
understanding of the capacity to absorb information from the 
DNC. There is no suggestion on my part, and I believe there is 
none in this memorandum, of any impropriety or illegality.
    Mr. Barr. Well, OK, that really gets us back to some of the 
fundamental concerns here, and maybe our focus ought to be on 
the process. I know we heard from folks on the other side 
earlier, they don't think that the process is important, they 
make light of it. I would hope that you won't, and don't.
    Process goes to the heart of whether or not our system of 
laws in this country and our system of government operates 
properly. Process is at the heart of our Federal statutes on 
obstruction. Folks on the other side, you were very ready to 
agree with them that this is all about process in response to 
their questions that that is not important. I beg to differ. I 
think process is very important, and time and time again, we 
see people look at documents, look at tapes, even when they are 
in them and say, oh, that is not important, we don't know what 
that means, that, no, that raises no questions.
    One can look at the tapes that have just been played and 
reach a certain conclusion about those tapes, whether they are 
tapes from 10 years ago or from a year ago, but to simply and 
constantly turn a blind eye to say, oh, a document that talks 
about integrating two data bases that by law cannot and should 
not be integrated, and saying, oh, we are too busy to do 
anything about that, and I don't see anything wrong with that 
anyway, yet it is very easy for you to say, oh, it looks as if 
they are just talking about something being compatible, raises 
very serious questions in our mind.
    Another thing that raises very serious questions in our 
mind is you all's use of executive privilege, and I would like 
now to turn to that, although perhaps it might be better, Mr. 
Chairman, after the next vote, in the context of another very 
disturbing incident.
    Mr. Burton. Does the gentleman wish to suspend at this 
point and come back?
    Mr. Barr. The gentleman does.
    Mr. Burton. The Chair will stand in recess. He will 
conclude his interrogation when we come back.
    [Brief Recess.]
    Mr. Burton. The committee will reconvene.
    When we recessed, Mr. Barr of Georgia was in the middle of 
his questioning. I think he has some time remaining, so don't 
start the clock just yet; wait until Mr. Barr is ready.
    I might inform anybody who is interested, the next time we 
have a series of votes, because it is lunch time, or past lunch 
time, and Mr. Ruff said he cannot stand not having a sandwich, 
especially if it is egg salad--that is a personal joke. What we 
will do is, we will break for at least 30 minutes so everybody 
can get a sandwich or something to eat. Are you ready, Mr. 
Barr?
    Mr. Barr. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Before going into one other 
area, I would like to have document 162 put up. Mr. Ruff, this 
document also concerns the White House data base, and----
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.085
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.086
    
    Mr. Ruff. Excuse me, Mr. Barr, can I try to find it in my 
book here. I see it. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Barr. This document, similar to the one we were 
discussing earlier, although typed instead of handwritten, also 
relates to the White House data base. This document was 
provided to the committee or subcommittee, I believe in 
February 1997.
    For those of us, I guess you and I both fall into this 
category, that we don't know an awful lot about data bases, but 
at least I understand the difference between integrating and 
making data bases compatible, and I thought we both agreed that 
it would be illegal for campaign data bases to be integrated 
with the official data base of the White House. I am not sure 
we even agree on that. But if you look, Mr. Ruff, at this 
document, particularly the last paragraph on the first page, 
which goes into, in some length, about proposing a new system, 
and, well, I see they use your word ``compatible'' there. In 
the second paragraph, however, on the first paragraph on the 
second page, they go into great length about a system, they 
talk about PeopleBase, which is a campaign data base, a 
political data base, and then go on to talk about the DNC 
designing a system that will meet needs and specifications to 
clone another system for specific uses later on, that the 
information stored with PeopleBase could then be dumped into 
the new system, presumably the White House data base, and made 
available when deemed necessary to the DNC.
    I don't know a lot about computers either, Mr. Ruff, but I 
do note, when I see somebody discussing taking information from 
one data base into another, making these two data bases work 
together, and explicitly talking about taking information, 
store it in a political campaign data base, putting it into the 
new White House system, making it available to the DNC, is 
against the law. And we have the First Lady saying, this sounds 
promising, please advise.
    Now I am not sure we know what the advice to her was, but 
as with the first document that we looked at earlier, on its 
face, there seems to be at least a colorable issue raised of 
illegality. I happen to think it is more than a colorable 
inference of illegality, but I think at a minimum is that.
    This document was provided to us earlier this year. The one 
we talked about previously was not. We did not get this one 
until last week, even though, as with this document, they both 
talk very clearly about the data bases. I think it is 
obstruction not to have provided this. I think there is no 
reasonable explanation that has been put forward, and I guess, 
again, I would like to ask you why is it that when you looked 
at these documents, and I understand that you all have a lot to 
do, but when you look at these documents on their face, they 
don't raise in your mind any inference whatsoever, possibility 
that there was illegal action occurring here, merging these two 
data bases in some way?
    Mr. Ruff. Congressman Barr, I will give you the one-line 
answer and then if I can impose on the committee, I will ask my 
colleague, Ms. Mills, who knows a lot more about the issue of 
the data bases than I do, to respond to the specific questions 
you have.
    The basic answer is no, we do not believe that anything 
that either was contemplated or that happened with respect to 
WhoDB involved any impropriety, much less any violation of law, 
and if I can, I will let Ms. Mills try to address the 
particular language of this memorandum as it bears on the 
relationship between the data bases.
    Ms. Mills. Mr. Barr, I think the paragraphs you are 
referencing are all referencing outside data bases and the 
sharing of information with respect to those outside data 
bases.
    The last paragraph which you reference indicates my 
conversations with the DNC about the new system they are 
proposing. ``We have asked that their system be modeled after 
whatever system we decide to use outside the White House.'' 
That is with respect to whatever other data bases are going to 
be used to deal with the campaign or the DNC's data base, 
outside the White House. PeopleBase, which you referred to as a 
political data base is not; it is actually the Legacy data base 
of President Clinton from his time as Governor in Arkansas.
    Mr. Barr. That wasn't the Clinton/Gore data base?
    Ms. Mills. No, it was not. PeopleBase is the Governor's 
data base of contacts with people and correspondence that he 
had as Governor.
    Mr. Barr. It was used for political purposes?
    Ms. Mills. Actually, the PeopleBase was used as a means of 
maintaining his contacts with individuals that he met and dealt 
with as Governor of Arkansas.
    Mr. Barr. But it was used for political purposes.
    Ms. Mills. I am not aware it was used for political 
purposes.
    Mr. Barr. I am not asking if you were--I mean, what you 
have just described is----
    Ms. Mills. Well, you are asserting that it is.
    Mr. Barr [continuing]. A political process.
    Ms. Mills. I guess if you can believe serving as Governor 
of Arkansas, that is a political process, then, yes, I agree 
with you.
    Mr. Barr. We are making progress.
    Ms. Mills. OK. I am happy to say that all politicians are 
obviously involved in politics, and to the extent they have 
data bases that are associated with the work that they perform 
in their duties, then to the extent that that is perceived as 
political, they are obviously politicians, that is political, 
but it relates to what they do when they are elected to do 
those jobs.
    Mr. Barr. And how do you, then, explain away the top 
paragraph on page 2?
    Ms. Mills. Well, I won't attempt to explain it away, but I 
will attempt to tell you what my understanding of the truth is 
with respect to this document as I understand it.
    With respect to the second part, it is talking about 
cloning or duplicating different data bases can be done 
relatively easy, they have been able to establish it can be 
done on the outside, therefore, their suggestion they take the 
old outdated PeopleBase that doesn't meet their needs and let 
their team work with the DNC to design a system that meets 
their needs, that is with respect to the DNC's data base, an 
outside data base. In other words, we are not going to use the 
format that was used in PeopleBase for the DNC's data base; we 
are going to use a new format that is more user friendly, also 
outside of the White House.
    Mr. Barr. Does it disturb you, or perhaps Mr. Ruff, that 
White House people are doing this? I mean, clearly, there are 
at least two, maybe there are three, but at least two different 
data bases here, a political data base and the development of a 
White House data base. And then you also have the DNC ones.
    You are talking about people at the White House, paid by 
the taxpayers of this country, to perform official duties, 
engaging in setting up data base or data bases, and then 
working with the DNC dumping information back and forth, again, 
that doesn't raise any red lights or you think this is 
perfectly hunky-dory and ethical and legal, obviously.
    Ms. Mills. I think I am on the record as to what is ethical 
and appropriate with respect to the data base. We are allowed 
to take information in with respect to the data base. I think 
the other thing that is important to remember is that the Hatch 
Act clearly intends and expects that there will be people who 
engage in political activity and they draw careful lines----
    Mr. Barr. The Hatch Act is not a defense to what we are 
talking about.
    Ms. Mills. The Hatch Act clearly anticipates and has for 
many years understood that people will engage in political 
activity----
    Mr. Barr. The Hatch Act----
    Ms. Mills. What it does do is try and draw----
    Mr. Barr. If you don't see that, you don't see anything.
    Ms. Mills. Well, I would like to respond. I don't know how 
you can know what I see if I haven't at least tried to give you 
an opportunity to understand.
    Mr. Burton. Ms. Mills, I think the point has been made. The 
gentleman's time has expired. We will have another round, Mr. 
Barr, and we will give you an opportunity to revisit this 
issue.
    Mr. Waxman is not back but we will yield 10 or 12 minutes 
to Mr. Fattah and whomever else he designates, as the senior 
member here on the Democrat side.
    Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me try to 
cover a few important points here. One is that I have had the 
responsibility to serve on this committee in two successive 
Congresses, so I am somewhat aware of this data base issue 
because it was one of the various investigations we as a 
committee conducted in regard to the White House in the last 
session. It is not, however, part of the investigation of 
foreign influences and illegalities connected to the 1996 
election, so some people who may be spectators here might be 
somewhat confused because the committee has spent at least half 
of its time focusing in on a subject unrelated to the subject 
matter of the committee's new charge, but the data base may be 
a priority of the committee. But I want to put on the record 
that if it is, the committee has held not one--the subcommittee 
has held not one hearing this year and only held one hearing in 
all of last year, so this interesting focus on the data base 
itself is a new found interest at best. It is intruding upon 
what was at least allegedly going to be this massive 
investigation of foreign influences and illegal contributions 
in the 1996 campaign, but I want to try to clear a few things 
up.
    Let me ask Mr. Ruff, a data base, just so that those of us 
who are following this can understand it, is a list of names 
and addresses and contacts, information?
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct.
    Mr. Fattah. Phone numbers.
    Mr. Ruff. Stored in a computer, as I understand it.
    Mr. Fattah. Would there be a legal distinction between 
whether or not you kept those on a three by five card or 
whether you kept them in a computer?
    Mr. Ruff. Not that I can think of.
    Mr. Fattah. A data base is a Rolodex; it is an address 
book?
    Mr. Ruff. That is in essence correct.
    Mr. Fattah. So if a Member of Congress or the Vice 
President or the President of the United States or anyone in 
conduct with their professional duties might have a phone log 
or a Rolodex these are the essential ingredients; the only 
difference here is that they were put into a computer?
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct.
    Mr. Fattah. Now the committee's interest in this data base 
precedes you becoming White House Counsel?
    Mr. Ruff. It does, yes.
    Mr. Fattah. So the memos you were being questioned about, 
you were not around in 1994 when this was written, right?
    Mr. Ruff. That is true.
    Mr. Fattah. But there wouldn't be--I mean, if by chance any 
of us had on our Rolodexes back in our office a list of 
politically important people in our districts, or people who 
supported us, there wouldn't be any difference between that 
Rolodex, from a legal distinction, and a computer data base, 
right?
    Mr. Ruff. That is true.
    Mr. Fattah. Even some of the Members of Congress, who are 
computer literate, they have these hand-held systems where they 
can call people on and so on. So the interest here about 
whether or not the President had enough common sense to want to 
stay in touch with his supporters is not a big distinction 
between those of us who do that here?
    Mr. Ruff. I trust everybody who runs for office probably 
wants to do the same thing.
    Mr. Fattah. Well, I think that the other issue I want to 
cover has to do more with the 1996 investigation. There has 
been some discussion about a check that was delivered to the 
White House and it was then sent over to the DNC, and in the 
Congress, we have a set of rules, that if we inadvertently 
receive a contribution, we have I think up to 7 days to get it 
from our office to our political campaigns. The White House, as 
I understand it, has a policy that says, basically, immediately 
or as soon as possible, if inadvertently a check were to come 
it should be sent away?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. Do you see any distinction between those two 
policies?
    Mr. Ruff. No, obviously the Congress is free to make its 
own rules in this area, and the White House policy is designed 
to ensure that these issues are resolved as rapidly as possible 
in a way that does not implicate any potential violation of 
law.
    Mr. Fattah. Let me yield to the gentleman for a second.
    Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Congressman Fattah.
    Again, to Mr. Ruff or Ms. Mills, whichever, the Bailey 
document which we are talking about seems to indicate that the 
President was interested in integrating the White House data 
base with the DNC data base.
    Do you have any reason to believe that integration ever 
happened?
    Mr. Ruff. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Fattah. Reclaiming my time, it is interesting because a 
number of my colleagues who have spoken have spoken out in the 
past on issues in relationship to some of the allegations that 
are basically being inferred here, that is to say that the 
Speaker of the House had a circumstance in which there was an 
inquiry, an investigation into some of his activities, and he 
misled the Ethics Committee, but he made a distinction, and 
many of my colleagues here spoke out publicly on the record 
that it was a very important distinction in that he did not 
intend to mislead the Ethics Committee and that was the reason 
why, in the final hours of that issue, the Speaker was 
reprimanded and had to pay a $300,000 fine, but people, 
especially those in his party, stood up and said he didn't 
intend to mislead the committee and, therefore we should kind 
of go on.
    There have been circumstances in which, whether it was the 
videotapes or other circumstances, in which things did not 
happen perfectly in terms of communications between the White 
House and this committee.
    Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Fattah. Yes.
    Mr. Waxman. I think you are making an excellent point and I 
think we all have to keep things in perspective. If the 
gentleman will permit, I wanted to yield to Mr. Condit some of 
the time. He hasn't had a chance to ask any of his questions 
yet in the last 2 days.
    Mr. Condit. Thank you, Mr. Waxman, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I will be brief, but I feel somewhat compelled to 
make an observation, and I do have some questions that I will 
ask when we begin to ask questions, but, Mr. Chairman, in front 
of us today are witnesses from the White House Counsel's Office 
who in some cases have appeared before three or four different 
investigative bodies. Charles Ruff, deposed by the Senate, 
testified before the Senate. Lanny Breuer, deposed by the 
Senate, testified before the Senate, testified before the grand 
jury. And Cheryl Mills, deposed by the Senate.
    I have just a couple questions and they can be rhetorical 
questions or you can respond to them if you would like, and, 
basically, we need to figure out how much is enough? How many 
times are we going to haul the same people in here so they can 
repeat what they have already told the other investigative 
bodies? How much money are we going to spend and waste to do 
that, and what will we discover that we haven't already 
discovered in the documents that we have available to us?
    We did this exact thing a month ago with Manlin Foung and 
Joseph Landon, the very same thing. We hauled them in here. We 
brow beat them for several hours and we did not learn anything 
new. Nothing significant came up that would help this 
investigation, and, Mr. Chairman, if we were serious about 
doing something constructive and in a bipartisan manner, there 
is a discharge petition at the well of the House, it has 187 
Members who have signed the discharge petition to bring to the 
floor immediately campaign finance reform. You know and I know 
it takes 218 signatures to bring it to the floor. I would 
respectfully call on my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and on this committee to sign the discharge petition and 
we could have a solution to the problem that we have been 
discussing.
    Matter of fact, we have been duplicating our discussions, 
multiple times, but we can really solve this problem if we 
could force ourselves to deal with campaign finance reform, and 
one of the ways we can do that is to put our money where our 
mouth is and sign the discharge petition and bring about 
campaign finance reform.
    I felt compelled, Mr. Chairman, to make this point. I have 
made the same point over and over again. I guess some might say 
I am being duplicative, but I think someone needs to make the 
point that these folks have been through this several times, 
and I think it is just unreasonable for us to continue this and 
keep them in here asking the same questions over and over 
again.
    I will yield back to Mr. Waxman.
    Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Burton. I won't take any of your time. We will add to 
your time. I just want to say I will not answer right now. I 
will at the conclusion of your time, but I appreciate your 
remarks, Mr. Condit.
    Mr. Waxman. We still have time, Mr. Chairman, and we are 
not yielding back the balance of it because we have other 
Members who wish to speak. I want to point out the only reason 
we have to get a discharge petition is because the Republican 
leadership in the House will not schedule a vote, so the rules 
of the House allow us, if we get 218, a majority, to sign this 
discharge petition, we could force it to the floor, but we 
shouldn't have to do that.
    Mr. Kucinich, you were interrupted in your questions. I 
want to yield to you.
    Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Condit. Mr. Chairman, may I have a point of order here? 
There is a little confusion on my part, too, Mr. Waxman about 
is this the appropriate time to ask questions.
    Mr. Waxman. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Condit. I understand that and----
    Mr. Waxman. If Mr. Kucinich will allow, I----
    Mr. Condit. I will let him continue and then if you have 
time, come back to me. I do have a couple questions to ask.
    Mr. Waxman. I yield to Mr. Kucinich.
    Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to go back to a point I was asking about 
before about the handwritten page. I want to ask Mr. Ruff, if 
that handwritten page presents new evidence that had never 
before been produced to the subcommittee?
    Mr. Ruff. Congressman Kucinich, I have to say that I am 
really not probably in a position to make an expert assessment 
of that. In my view, it does not add to the core information 
that had been made available to the committee, that is with 
respect to the nature of the White House data base. I have to 
leave it, I guess, to those who are on the receiving end to 
decide whether they find anything in there that is 
substantively advancing the cause of this investigation.
    Mr. Kucinich. Well, Mr. Cox yesterday asked whether the 
White House Communication's Agency had been given a copy of the 
letter from Senate investigators and you answered that, and to 
the best of your knowledge, the letter was not given to the 
Communication's Agency. Now today you corrected the record.
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Kucinich. And you told us that you learned yesterday 
after the hearing, one of your staff attorneys, Michael 
Imbroscio did, in fact, give a copy of the letter to Steven 
Smith, Chief of Operations, Communications Agency.
    Now I know that some members of this committee may not have 
read the depositions taken by this committee, but the record 
should be clear that Steven Smith, in his deposition to this 
committee a few weeks ago, clearly stated that he had received 
a copy of the Senate letter from Mr. Imbroscio, so even if Mr. 
Cox didn't know that, it seems to me the staff could have told 
him, and so my question is, do you know every single action 
that every single one of your staff members has taken in the 
last 2 years in connection with the subpoena compliance?
    Mr. Ruff. I would never venture to make such a statement, 
Congressman. I appreciate your making the record clear with 
respect to the deposition testimony on this.
    Mr. Kucinich. Do you feel Mr. Imbroscio was doing his job 
by passing that letter along to the Communications Agency?
    Mr. Ruff. Absolutely.
    Mr. Kucinich. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Well, while we are at it, I would like to take the 
opportunity to ask one other question about the cost of the 
White House data base investigation, because I am very 
concerned that this might be costly to the taxpayers, and, 
actually, costing too much money.
    Can you estimate how many hours the White House has spent 
answering questions about this data base inquiry?
    Mr. Ruff. Perhaps I will consult with my colleague who has 
been actually through this.
    Mr. Kucinich. And just one followup question, how much does 
this cost the taxpayers?
    Ms. Mills. Well, in one 3-month period that we were 
auditing the time and costs associated with it, it was more 
than $155,000, and that was in a 3-month period. Obviously, we 
have been working with this matter for over a year.
    Mr. Kucinich. I might add in conclusion, this doesn't even 
include the hundreds of thousands that have been spent by the 
committee on this issue. Thanks.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Waxman. We have spent over $3 million in this 
committee. We yield back the balance of our time.
    Mr. Burton. I would like to respond briefly before I yield 
to Mr. Horn.
    First of all, two of these witness have not appeared before 
the Senate, and there have been some depositions taken but they 
have not appeared before the Senate. And what we are looking at 
is activities where current law has been broken, and that is 
the reason why we are not talking about new campaign laws, 
which is under the purview of the House Oversight Committee, 
and with that I will be happy to yield.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, will you yield? You say current 
laws have been broken. Can you site for us any law that has 
been broken? There are allegations, but nobody has proved any 
law has been broken by anyone, as best as I can tell.
    Mr. Burton. Well, first of all, the Democratic National 
Committee has returned questionable contributions amounting to 
several million dollars.
    Mr. Waxman. As has the Republican National Committee.
    Mr. Burton. No. 2, 62 people at least have either taken the 
fifth amendment or fled the country. Many of these people are 
very close to the President. If there is no concern about laws 
being broken, I would welcome them before the committee. So it 
is my opinion that laws have been broken. You may differ.
    Mr. Horn.
    Mr. Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ruff, I am going to ask a series of questions that are 
related to a request for information by the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology, which I 
Chair. We have had a long-term operation of looking at travel 
by senior executive branch officials that happened to include 
the costs of the trip the President took to the Asian Pacific 
Economic Cooperation meeting in Asia in November 1996. We first 
requested information on the actual cost of the trip, almost a 
year ago, November 26, 1996. The reply, which came from the 
director of administration, came only after repeated staff 
calls, and the second letter was sent on January 15, and we 
never got any specific information on the actual cost of the 
trip, and we are talking about a trip that ran somewhere 
between $4.7 million and maybe $5\1/2\ million. I did send a 
letter to you and I realize you weren't there in the initial 
stages, but I did send a letter to you, as I did to Mr. Quinn 
and others, on February 25, 1997, asking for compliance with 
this simple information request. Over 6 months and almost 
weekly phone calls from our subcommittee staff and its 
director, Russell George, I have received no reply to this 
letter.
    Is there a reason why the White House Counsel's Office has 
decided not to reply? I might add a footnote that one reply 
said, well, we will give it to the subcommittee when we give it 
to the full committee. What you have given the full committee 
stops, essentially, at October 1996, and, thus, we don't have 
the data, and what you gave the full committee only reached 
them because you had a press inquiry.
    Now it sounds to me like press inquiries get first dibbs at 
the White House, let's give them the information, then when 
they go to the full committee or one of its subcommittees, they 
can say this is old news, don't bother me about it. Now I am 
just curious, how seriously do we take congressional inquiries?
    Mr. Ruff. I can tell you as a basic proposition that we 
take congressional inquiries very seriously, and we do try to 
be as responsive as we can be. I also have to confess, however, 
that I am not familiar with the specifics of your request. I 
will commit to you that I will make myself familiar with them 
and I will respond personally to you on this point as soon as I 
have had an opportunity to learn the background and the 
circumstances of your request.
    Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this point simply 
to put in the record the letter I sent to Franklin S. Reeder, 
Director of Office of Administration, November 26, 1996, letter 
to White House Counsel to the President, Jack Quinn, January 
15, 1997, and his reply and another reply from Mr. Reeder, 
which has the estimates but not the actual costs in the letter 
of February 25, 1997, to the Counsel of the President, Mr. 
Ruff. I would like it at this point in the record.
    Mr. Burton. Without objection, all exhibits, documents, 
articles and other material referred to by Members today shall 
be included in the record.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.087
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.088
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.089
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.090
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.091
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.092
    
    Mr. Horn. I have one more question. This is simply to 
clarify, and it might have been answered when I was out of the 
room, to Ms. Mills, one of the senior counsels, deputy counsel 
in the office.
    I gather there is a confusion about when you learned about 
the White House Communications Agency, and as I understand the 
record we have in front of us, I am looking at a document of 
April 8, 1996, from Jack Quinn, Counsel to the President, 
memorandum for White House staff; I am looking at another one, 
August 23, 1996, from Jack Quinn, Counsel to the President, 
memorandum for White House office staff; and the hitch of both 
of these, which I believe was prepared by you, and your name is 
in the last sentence on one of them, exclusively, and shared 
with another member, I assume, of the counsel's staff, Don 
Sherwa, if I am pronouncing it correctly, and I assume you 
wrote these memoranda, which would mean you knew quite a bit 
about the White House Communications Agency, as of April 8, 
1996 and of August 23, 1996, and as I understand it your family 
and you were actually videotaped by them in a tour of the White 
House on March 11, 1995.
    The query obviously is, is why was the ball dropped on 
videotapes? You were the most knowledgeable person on the 
staff. I realize there was a transition, but as I understand it 
through depositions and everything else a lot of members of the 
White House Counsel's Office went to you just to ask how things 
are done because you are the longest serving member, I believe, 
of the Office of White House Counsel.
    Now you came in on January 20, 1993; is that not correct?
    Ms. Mills. I arrived on January 20, 1993. I guess there are 
several things I would like to try and address to be helpful. 
First, with respect to the videotape on which I appeared, it 
was not a tour of the White House, it was a radio address. 
Second----
    Mr. Horn. I believe you toured with your family, though; 
did you not?
    Ms. Mills. No.
    Mr. Horn. Weren't you taking them through the White House?
    Ms. Mills. No.
    Mr. Horn. OK. Your family wasn't with you?
    Ms. Mills. My family was with me at a radio address.
    Mr. Horn. OK.
    Ms. Mills. OK.
    Mr. Horn. But you were taking them, wouldn't you say radio 
address is partly touring the White House?
    Ms. Mills. My family, because they didn't go to a radio 
address until 1995, and I don't want to quibble with you about 
this, had had many tours of the White House by that point.
    But with respect to my knowledge of WHCA, as you may know 
from some of the testimony that has been received over the past 
several months, WHCA has approximately 900 employees. In 
dealing with WHCA, their primary function is with respect to 
telecommunications support of the President. Only seven of the 
employees deal with the audio visual aspects of WHCA.
    In my dealings with WHCA, we were dealing with issues 
relating the President's travel, in particular the resources 
related to that that they provide on the road. On the road they 
provide staff support in terms of pagers, phones, computers, 
faxes, beepers, and lots of other materials that the staff use, 
obviously, to conduct their business. I wanted to ensure that 
the staff used those resources in a way that was consistent 
with the Hatch Act, in other words, that they didn't use it for 
political activity. That was the substance of our discussions 
and that is what we were talking about with the WHCA personnel.
    WHCA had provided me with their own memorandum they drafted 
regarding their activities. We didn't discuss the substance of 
the memoranda. What we discussed was the substance of what 
activities they performed for the staff with respect to the 
resources they provided, so I wasn't in a position to know what 
their practices were with regard to what they videotaped and 
what they didn't videotape; I simply didn't know. And I think, 
as I indicated earlier, WHCA's own supervisors did not know 
what their practices were with respect to what they videotaped 
and what they did not, so to the extent they responded to a 
document request and indicated at that time they did not have 
any responsive material, I would not have been in a better 
position to know whether or not they had or had not taped the 
coffees. I hope that is helpful.
    Mr. Horn. Well, that helps, but isn't it true, then, you 
knew the videotape operation did exist and when we asked in the 
subpoena for videotapes, wouldn't that be the first place you 
would go to ask if they have the relevant material?
    Ms. Mills. That is what we did, we sent a directive to 
WHCA.
    Mr. Horn. You did or who did?
    Ms. Mills. No, I do not--contrary to what might be popular 
opinion, I am not a part of the investigative team so my day-
to-day duties actually involve the other parts of the office. I 
try to work with the investigative team to try to be as 
supportive and helpful as I can, but my daily duties are not 
with respect to the investigative team. Mr. Breuer, who is the 
special counsel, handles the matters.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Horn. I would like these letters put in the record, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.093
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.094
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.095
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.096
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.097
    
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, now that we are under the 5-
minute rule, I wish to be recognized for 5 minutes and then I 
will yield.
    How many times have you been asked that question?
    Ms. Mills. I've been asked that question at least more than 
35 times.
    Mr. Waxman. A good use of all of our time and taxpayers' 
money.
    Mr. Condit.
    Mr. Condit. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. Mr. Waxman has actually 
kicked off my theme here. I would like, if I may, to go to Mr. 
Breuer. I want to ask you a series of questions, Mr. Breuer, 
and you feel comfortable to take whatever time you need to 
answer. I am going to ask most everyone there similar 
questions.
    Have you been asked for information by any other 
investigative body or have you testified before any other body?
    Mr. Breuer. I have, Congressman. I have testified before 
this body, as I am doing now. I have obviously been deposed by 
this body. I also was deposed by the Senate. I testified 
publicly in front of the Senate. I testified before the grand 
jury. I have also publicly spoken about these issues, so I have 
done it quite a few times just in the last few weeks.
    Mr. Condit. So you have appeared four or five times before 
the investigative committees or bodies?
    Mr. Breuer. That is correct, Congressman.
    Mr. Condit. Have the other requests for information 
overlapped with the request of this committee?
    Mr. Breuer. They have, in many respects. We probably, in 
the short time I have been at the White House, since February, 
we have received approximately 1,100 different types of 
requests or approximately that. We probably received 
approximately 300 requests from this committee, many of which 
do overlap.
    In addition, we are responsible for and try to do whatever 
we can, Congressman, to make White House employees available 
for interviews and depositions. Many of the White House 
employees have been interviewed and deposed more than on one 
occasion by the Senate and in addition have been deposed or 
interviewed by this committee, in addition to other 
investigatory bodies and subcommittees as well.
    Mr. Condit. Do you have a count on how many White House 
employees have been deposed or interviewed by this committee?
    Mr. Breuer. My rough count is--unfortunately, this 
committee, unlike some other investigatory bodies, has chosen 
not to go directly through the Counsel's Office, and so the 
dilemma that I have found that we have is that I don't find out 
directly when White House people are contacted by the 
committee. Indeed, the only time I usually find out about it is 
when there is a problem, and as an attempt at accommodation, we 
are asked to intercede and help make the process work, 
something that is very important to Mr. Ruff, and to the 
President as well. In saying that, probably approximately 50 
people have been made available just to this full committee for 
depositions and for interviews. That is not including the 
subcommittee by Congressman McIntosh or some of the other 
subcommittees. It doesn't include any of the depositions or 
interviews in the Senate.
    Mr. Condit. Has anyone from the White House refused to 
cooperate or to give information to this committee or any other 
investigative body?
    Mr. Breuer. Absolutely not. Indeed everyone has agreed to 
come forward voluntarily. Indeed, I think it is the experience 
on the Senate side, where the Counsel's Office is present, 
something that I was hopeful could be done in this committee, 
something Mr. Ruff as well wanted, whenever there were dilemmas 
at all or any attempt to ask a question that perhaps might 
implicate certain privileged or other issues, we found a way of 
accommodating the need of the Senate committee to get the 
information it needed, while also preserving the very important 
institutional rights of the White House. So I would like to 
take pride in thinking that we accommodated the needs 
throughout the depositions and interviews, and as far as I 
know, every single White House person agreed to come 
voluntarily.
    Mr. Condit. Can you estimate for me how much time you have 
spent responding to this committee's request for information?
    Mr. Breuer. It is hard, Congressman, just specifically to 
divide up the amount of time we have spent on this committee's 
request as opposed to all the committees' requests because we 
indeed received so many and we received so many on a daily and 
weekly basis. But the 6 lawyers I have had the privilege of 
working with indeed, more often than not, work 7 days a week 
and, more often than not, work between 12 and 16 hours. Quite a 
bit of that time, Congressman, has been in responding to the 
requests of this committee.
    Mr. Condit. Would you say it would be true that most of the 
topics before us today, you have already addressed most of them 
with some other body?
    Mr. Breuer. I think that is fair, that most of the topics 
addressed today have, indeed, been addressed previously.
    Mr. Condit. I would like to go to Mr. Ruff, if I may. I 
appreciate you being here, Mr. Ruff. Have you been asked for 
information by any other investigative body or have you 
testified before any other body?
    Mr. Ruff. Congressman Condit, I have been deposed by the 
Senate leading up to my testimony of last week, before the 
Senate, and this is only the second formal open session that I 
have had the pleasure of attending.
    Mr. Condit. Have the requests for information by those 
committees or bodies overlapped with the request of this 
committee?
    Mr. Ruff. Substantially so.
    Mr. Condit. Could you explain that a little bit for me?
    Mr. Ruff. Well, as is true on the--obviously on the public 
record, the substantial portion of my testimony before the 
Senate had to do with the videotapes, which have certainly been 
a subject of some discussion yesterday and today, as well as 
more broadly the processes we used for finding documents and 
other materials in response to committee requests. So those two 
areas, I think, have been explored in some depth.
    Mr. Condit. Can you give me an estimate of how much time 
you spent responding to this committee's request for 
information?
    Mr. Ruff. Well, I would venture to guess that in any given 
work day, probably close to a half of my waking hours tend to 
be immersed in document or similar requests or dealing with 
various other issues relating to this and similar committees. 
Relying largely on my colleagues to deal with this issue, I 
nonetheless find myself caught up in it inevitably because I am 
ultimately responsible for what the office does.
    Mr. Condit. Thank you, Mr. Ruff. I see my time has expired. 
I apologize to Ms. Mills. I know she has similar answers. We 
documented that. If we have another round, I might get back to 
her.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you put the response to 
those questions in the record, Ms. Mills?
    Ms. Mills. I will.
    Mr. Condit. Thank you.
    Mr. Burton. Ms. Mills, have you appeared before any----
    Ms. Mills. I apologize.
    Mr. Burton. Have you appeared before any congressional 
committee before today?
    Ms. Mills. Yes, I appeared before the Senate, a deposition.
    Mr. Burton. Did you appear for testimony before any 
committee before today?
    Ms. Mills. No. I was deposed in the Senate twice and 
deposed here.
    Mr. Burton. I know, but you did not appear in open 
testimony before today?
    Ms. Mills. That is correct.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Nionakis, have you appeared before any 
congressional committee before today?
    Mr. Nionakis. No, Mr. Chairman, I have not.
    Mr. Burton. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Shadegg.
    Mr. Shadegg. I don't believe I have any questions. I 
appreciate the 5 minutes. I simply want to clarify something. 
The subject of this hearing today has to do with the 
responsiveness of the White House in terms of producing 
documents, that is correct; isn't it, Mr. Chairman?
    I guess my comment is that I am somewhat mystified by some 
of the dialog that is going on here. I have heard a discussion 
all morning about this duplicates the Thompson hearings, 
witnesses have already appeared before, this is a complete 
waste of time, and that seems to be a consistent theme we hear 
on the other side and yet I just heard some comments by a 
Member on the other side, which said, my goodness, what are we 
doing going into the White House data base, that isn't the 
subject of this hearing, the White House data base isn't 
appropriate, this is all new.
    It seems to me that the White House data base and 
withholding documents pertaining to the White House data base 
investigation is very appropriate to our inquiry today. The 
Senate did not look at the White House data base issue. The 
White House data base issue is clearly related to the 1996 
election and to the overall subject matter of the jurisdiction 
of this hearing and the hearings we are conducting.
    I am a little mystified. We are criticized for not doing 
anything that the Senate committee hasn't already done, and 
then when we do something the Senate committee hasn't already 
done, we are criticized for not doing something--for doing 
something the Senate committee hasn't already done, and I just 
find it mystifying, and it seems to me the White House data 
base is a very pertinent topic here and we have already brought 
out very significant evidence about the withholding of 
information that related to the investigation of the White 
House data base. It is new material and I think it is very 
newsworthy and important.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Does the gentleman yield back the balance of 
his time or does he yield to someone else?
    Mr. Shadegg. I would be happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. 
Cox.
    Mr. Cox. I thank my colleague from Arizona. I would just 
briefly pick up where I left off with Mr. Ruff on an earlier 
matter because the time did not permit me to respond to what he 
said.
    And I want to be straight with you, so that you understand 
my concern as a former member of the Counsel's Office.
    Mr. Ruff. I appreciate that, Congressman.
    Mr. Cox. About the way these things are handled, we were 
talking about the efforts that the Counsel's Office made and 
did not make, respectively, to get the videotapes in response 
to a subpoena.
    And to recap, the subpoena was issued in early March, March 
4th, the return date on the subpoena was March 24th, and it was 
more than a month after that when the first request to offices 
around the White House went out in writing to return 
information in response to that subpoena. Is that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. That is true that the first directive went out at 
the end of April. As you undoubtedly know, Congressman, there 
were two things at work during that period of time: First, the 
collection and production and preparing for production of 
documents collected under the Quinn directives, which had gone 
out earlier and which covered much of the same territory; and 
considerable discussion between the staffs, White House staff 
and the committee staff, about working out procedures and scope 
of that March 4th subpoena.
    Mr. Cox. My concern is that there was not an internal 
investigation going on in the White House. It is a lawyer's 
point, and lawyers argue about these things, whether or not you 
can stave off compliance with a subpoena. But to not 
investigate internally, to not undertake that investigation 
yourself is what concerns me. And that investigation wasn't 
even commenced internally with respect to any of the things 
covered by our subpoena, including the White House 
communications office, until over a month after the return date 
on the subpoena.
    Mr. Ruff. I don't believe that's accurate. I'm sorry, go 
ahead I didn't mean to interrupt.
    Mr. Cox. It is accurate, is it not, that the first 
directive went out on April 28th?
    Mr. Ruff. Yes, but you made a broader statement that there 
was no internal investigation or inquiry or gathering of 
documents. That is not accurate.
    Mr. Cox. Did you, Mr. Ruff, make any written request of the 
Military Office for White House videotapes prior to April 28, 
1997?
    Mr. Ruff. No, but I was trying to respond to your broader 
comment, Congressman.
    Mr. Cox. Well, I'm trying to get us on a specific point 
which you left hanging before, which is the White House 
videotapes.
    Mr. Ruff. Happy to do that. Happy to do that.
    Mr. Cox. When I asked you yesterday whether or not the 
White House, in response to the Senate's written request, 
homing in on videotapes in August, saying we have a subpoena 
outstanding, we understand there are videotapes, we understand 
WHCA makes them, we would like to get an answer from you on 
this, I asked whether or not you sent anything in writing to 
the Military Office.
    Yesterday you said you did not. Today you said that you did 
not, but that a copy of that letter itself was physically 
carried by an associate member of the Counsel's Office.
    And my concern with your not knowing yesterday and only 
discovering this today is that it makes it clear that you 
didn't do any of those things yourself; that you weren't aware 
of them, as you were, for example, and as routinely the Counsel 
to the President is aware with any other document request, 
whether this is a memorandum for the Executive Office of the 
President's staff from Chuck Ruff, Counsel to the President, 
re: document request. Initialed by you, it went out because you 
received a subpoena from the Office of the Independent Counsel.
    But no such writing of any kind at any time went from your 
office in response to the request from the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee, and that is what concerns me. I want to ask 
you about your change in testimony between yesterday and today; 
whether when your staff told you that a staff member had made a 
copy of the Senate's letter available, whether that triggered a 
recollection that you had actually known he had done that, or 
whether you didn't know at any time before that he had done 
that and that is the first you had learned of it?
    Mr. Ruff. That is the first I have learned of it, 
Congressman. And let me just say that, although I appreciate 
your concern, I'm trying to be responsive to it.
    Let me make two points. The fact is I did not indeed 
personally talk to WHCA about this, nor did I personally 
deliver that letter, nor did I personally deliver the 
directives. I do try to become involved to the point where I 
have an understanding and an appreciation of the things my 
office is doing. I delegate a fair amount of responsibility.
    But let me, with respect to this issue of the transmittal 
of the August 19th letter, make a point. I fear that you were 
not here earlier when Congressman Kucinich noted that Mr. Smith 
had specifically testified in his deposition some weeks ago 
that he had received that letter. So it was a matter of record 
at least for the committee.
    It was, I regret to tell you, not something I knew 
yesterday nor did it trigger any recollection on my part once 
Mr. Imbroscio had advised me of it.
    Mr. Cox. That's fair enough.
    Mr. Chairman, I think we have had enough on the point. I 
simply want to focus on the degree to which the Counsel to the 
President is in charge of this investigation, the extent to 
which the White House itself is making efforts to uncover this 
information, and I think the counsel's testimony that he didn't 
even know about this until today or yesterday speaks for 
itself.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ruff, we just mentioned the April 28th directive. Is it 
true that this directive calls for all White House employees to 
conduct a thorough and complete search of all your records, 
whether they were in hard copy, computer or any other form?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct, Congressman.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Would you agree or would you assert 
that the language in that directive is clear?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe it clear and all encompassing, and I 
think the message it conveyed to the people who received it was 
exactly what was intended, which is all--capital-letters--``in 
any form,'' and that is what the people understood who received 
it.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Do you recall if there were any 
limitations of any kind in that memorandum?
    Mr. Ruff. To the contrary. I believe it was emphasized that 
there were no limitations on the form or nature of the 
documents to be retrieved.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. And so it would be very difficult 
for one to suggest in reality that there was any confusion in 
relationship to what the directive actually meant?
    Mr. Ruff. I think it was clear. I doubt that there was any 
confusion. To the extent that anyone had any questions, our 
lawyers were ready to respond and did respond to any questions.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. And so even if some confusion would 
arise, although it was unlikely, there were individuals listed 
that one could call and inquire or ask or clear up any 
questions that they may have?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct. And, in addition, my lawyers 
actually visited individuals and offices to make sure whether 
they needed assistance in pursuing their searches.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Let me also ask, did you ask the 
heads of the different offices to certify in writing that both 
they and their employees had done a complete search in response 
to the April 28th directive?
    Mr. Ruff. Yes, we did.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. And did they, in fact, comply?
    Mr. Ruff. Routinely so, yes.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Then you would find it difficult, as 
I do, to rationalize how anyone could suggest that there was 
any lack of clarity or lack of understanding relative to the 
effort put forth to comply in the generation of all documents 
and information that was available?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe and hope that we were clear and that is 
my understanding.
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much. I have no 
further questions, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ford. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Davis of Illinois. I will yield to Representative Ford.
    Mr. Ford. Thank you. I really just have one question. I 
thank the panelists for coming and I appreciate your patience. 
Your patience is being tested, as ours are on this panel, on 
this committee.
    But just to be clear, Ms. Mills, the 11 documents that we 
have, those on this committee and others in this Congress have 
expressed some disappointment in receiving late, do those 
documents show that there was any integration of them? My dear 
colleague from Ohio has mentioned this, but I want the record 
to reflect clearly.
    Does it show that there was any integration between White 
House data bases and DNC data bases?
    Ms. Mills. It does not, and it is also duplicative of other 
information we provided to the subcommittee some time ago.
    Mr. Ford. Does it show, do any of those documents 
demonstrate that any of these data bases were used for campaign 
purposes?
    Ms. Mills. No.
    Mr. Ford. Does it show that anything--do any of these 
documents suggest there was anything illegal done by anyone in 
your office or anyone in the White House with regard to the 
1996 campaign?
    Ms. Mills. No.
    Mr. Ford. I have no further questions. Thank you, Ms. 
Mills.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time.
    Mr. Mica.
    Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ruff and Ms. Mills, 
to your knowledge, did anyone in your office discuss with 
others at the White House potentially responsive records 
pertaining to the White House coffees? Mr. Ruff.
    Mr. Ruff. I am not sure I fully understand the question, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Mica. Did anyone discuss or did you discuss or anyone 
in the office, to your knowledge, discuss with others at the 
White House potentially responsive, being responsive to the 
request you had made regarding the coffees? Any type of 
discussions taking place?
    Mr. Ruff. My colleague, Mr. Breuer, is probably best able 
to respond, but I think it's fair to say the answer is, yes, in 
the sense that when we search for documents we frequently end 
up talking to people who have those documents or have questions 
about whether they have responsive documents.
    Mr. Mica. Well, was the discussion limited to the 
individuals that are at the table or beyond that?
    Mr. Ruff. Perhaps, if I can, I will allow Mr. Breuer to 
respond.
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman, in attempting to respond to the 
many requests of this committee, we endeavor to search through 
a variety of different ways. One way that we did that has been 
discussed: through the directive. But the other way that we did 
it, frankly, was through targeted searches. And in doing that 
we did speak to people at the White House, and we attempted, 
Congressman----
    Mr. Mica. My question is, we have counsels here that 
primarily were involved with dealing with questions and 
discussions about the coffees and the tapes; right?
    Mr. Breuer. Well, Congressman, in all due respect, I am 
trying to--I will try to answer that. It is not, in retrospect, 
a reality to say that there were discussions just about 
videotapes.
    Mr. Mica. What I am trying to do is trace when the 
subpoenas came in, and the subpoena came in and you knew some 
time ago that, and I guess it is January; is that the first 
time folks knew about the existence of videotapes?
    Mr. Ruff. No.
    Mr. Breuer. No.
    Mr. Mica. Were you made aware of it in January?
    Mr. Breuer. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you 
are talking about January, Congressman. Are you talking about 
when we first received a request for videotapes? Or are you 
saying when did we first learn there were videotapes of the 
coffees?
    Mr. Mica. When did you first learn there were videotapes, 
Ms. Mills?
    Ms. Mills. I learned of the videotapes of the coffees on 
October 3rd.
    Mr. Mica. Of this year?
    Ms. Mills. Correct.
    Mr. Mica. But you were not aware that these things were 
being done before?
    Ms. Mills. Correct.
    Mr. Mica. OK. And, again, the discussion took place among 
you from October 3rd forward?
    Mr. Breuer. Well, Congressman----
    Mr. Mica. Did you discuss it--you were involved in trying 
to get information on the early subpoena, which was the 
beginning of the year?
    Mr. Breuer. Well, we received a subpoena from this 
committee in March, Congressman.
    Mr. Mica. Right. Was there any discussion before that, 
among any of the folks who were involved in dealing with the 
systems that were issued by this committee?
    Mr. Breuer. And now are you asking, Congressman, if there 
were discussions specifically about videotaping of coffees or 
simply about discussions in general?
    Mr. Mica. Existence of videotapes; about----
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman----
    Mr. Mica. Anything that pertained to potentially responsive 
records relating to what was requested by this committee or the 
Senate committee.
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman, as I'm sure you are aware, this 
committee has generated approximately 300 requests. When I 
first came about, in the middle of February--Congressman, I 
have to be----
    Mr. Mica. You are not answering my question, though. My 
question is did you all know of the existence of these tapes 
prior to that point, or was there any discussion among any of 
the folks who were involved about the existence of those tapes?
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman, I have testified before the House, 
before the Senate, and in other forums that I, in fact, did not 
know about the existence of videotapes of coffees, and had I 
known about it, of course, we would have produced them to you 
promptly.
    Mr. Mica. You are not answering my question.
    Mr. Breuer. I think I am trying to.
    Mr. Mica. Were there any discussions prior to that date 
about the existence of the videotapes or a request from this 
committee or the Senate committee for that? Were there 
discussions----
    Mr. Breuer. I was not involved----
    Mr. Mica. If I----
    Mr. Breuer. I was not involved in any conversations with 
respect specifically to the videotaping of coffees in March of 
this year, Congressman.
    Mr. Mica. You keep changing my question. Prior to March, or 
prior to March and in response to our requests, are you aware 
of any discussions that you had or others had relating to the 
existence of these tapes?
    Mr. Breuer. I joined the White House Counsel's Office 
approximately February 18th. Between February 18th and March 
5th, or, in fact, until much after that, Congressman, I am 
aware of absolutely no conversations dealing with videotapes 
and coffees.
    Mr. Mica. OK. Mr. Ruff, did you have any knowledge of the 
existence of the tapes?
    Mr. Ruff. Certainly did not, Congressman, until October 
2nd, nor am I aware of any discussions focusing on the 
existence or nonexistence of videotapes before that time.
    Mr. Mica. But our request came some time ago.
    Mr. Ruff. Yes.
    Mr. Mica. And you are saying you were never aware and you 
never discussed with anyone the question of are there 
videotapes?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct, not until I was alerted to their 
existence on October 2nd.
    Mr. Mica. Who did you talk with, then, about the existence 
of videotapes?
    Mr. Breuer. Well, Congressman, as we have stated before, 
that when the request came in from the Senate, it was a much 
more general request. At the time that the request came in to 
one of the associate counsels on approximately August 7th, Mr. 
Imbroscio began the inquiry to determine whether or not there 
were videotapes from WHCA. At some point, he did learn about 
those and we pursued that matter.
    He found out about that, Congressman, and continued to 
endeavor to find out, and on September 9th notified the Senate 
of the existence of videotapes for fund-raising events, but at 
that time was under the understanding that he did not and there 
were not videotapes of coffees.
    He confirmed the fact that there were videotapes of 
coffees, I believe, either late in the evening of October 1 or 
sometime on October 2. The Senate was notified, as you know, 
Congressman, on October 2. And that is the chronology of the 
discovery of the videotapes.
    Mr. Mica. That is the famous Saturday?
    Mr. Breuer. I think Saturday was the 3rd--the 4th, I'm 
sorry. Saturday was the 4th. October 4th. I was referring to 
Friday, October 3rd.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mrs. Maloney.
    Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I truly believe that 
any hearing that focuses on campaigns and how campaigns are run 
and the vast amount of money involved is critically important. 
Because I really believe that our democracy is at stake, given 
the way that our campaign laws, that are weak to begin with, 
are being manipulated, coordinated, sidetracked and abused.
    I would like to focus on a group called Triad, which, 
according to reports in the press, not in any hearings before 
Congress, but in the press, that Triad Management ran $5 
million in attack ads and coordinated PACs in the closing days 
of the 1996 elections.
    I have one question, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know 
when you are going to issue subpoenas to the groups and 
individuals involved in the Triad Management scheme to violate 
or evade the campaign finance laws?
    This has been reported in the press over and over again. 
Now, if we are going to look at how campaigns are being run, we 
are going to look at money. This is a group that needs to be 
looked at. And I would like to know what is it going to take? 
You have issued a lot of subpoenas. What is it going to take to 
subpoena the Triad Management group?
    Mr. Burton. Is that a question you would like to pose to me 
this morning?
    Mrs. Maloney. Yes.
    Mr. Burton. Let me just say we don't disclose potential 
subpoenas before we issue them. We will be issuing additional 
subpoenas, some to Republican targets as well as Democrat 
targets. I will not tell you that we are going to issue them to 
the Triad group, but I will tell you that we are going to look 
at it. We are looking at it. And we very well may do that.
    Mrs. Maloney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There have been many reports that these hearings have been 
very partisan, but I am hopeful that you will be bipartisan and 
look at both parties, because I believe there are skeletons in 
both parties.
    Mr. Burton. I can assure you wherever we find illegal or 
potentially illegal activities in the area of fund-raising, we 
will look at it, regardless of where the chips may fall.
    Mrs. Maloney. Well, I would like to challenge the ranking 
Democratic member, Mr. Waxman, who is incredibly busy curbing 
the money of tobacco interests in our country and working on 
trying to improve public health, but I would like to challenge 
you, since I don't believe we're going to have hearings that 
are going to focus on Triad and the abuses that took place.
    I would like to read into the record what has been 
reported, not before congressional committees, not in hearings, 
but reported by Time Magazine, the New York Times, the L.A. 
Times, the Washington Post, but not before congressional 
hearings, and they show ways that they are getting around 
campaign finance laws.
    I feel even if you don't have the officials, the documents 
that we can bring together, this has to be brought up to the 
public, and I would hope that the ranking member would pay 
attention to this. And if you have to go down the hall or into 
some other office building to have it, the Vice President's 
office or the President's office to have a room to have a 
hearing, they have offices on the Capitol if we can't get one 
from the Republicans, as happened in the past. I would like to 
challenge you to have hearings on Triad Management.
    Mr. Waxman. Would you yield to me?
    Mrs. Maloney. I certainly will.
    Mr. Waxman. Our committee has already sent out document 
requests or subpoenas, over 600, to Democratic targets and only 
10 to Republican targets.
    The chairman answered your question as if you were a member 
of the press. You said are you going to pursue the Triad issue 
because it's been so prominently mentioned in the press as a 
clear issue similar to the ones we have been investigating. His 
answer was he wouldn't tell you specifically because he's not 
going to talk about specific subpoenas. Well, you are a member 
of the committee.
    Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman----
    Mr. Waxman. I'm the ranking Democrat on the committee. He 
hasn't mentioned that he is going to pursue that issue at all.
    Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Waxman. I will in a minute, or she will, I would 
encourage her to in a minute. It is her time.
    But if I can just complete my statement. We see no evidence 
that this committee is going to pursue anything that has to do 
with Republican targets. We have heard this rhetoric from the 
chairman over and over again. We are going to pursue these 
things wherever they may be, but we have seen no action to back 
up that rhetoric.
    We have seen a clear record of going after Democrats, and, 
of course, we're reminded again what the former chief counsel 
of this committee said when he quit. He said, they're only 
interested in ``sliming'' Democrats.
    Mrs. Maloney. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Burton. Would the gentlelady yield for a response?
    Mrs. Maloney. Reclaiming my time, I will certainly yield on 
your time. But on my time I have a point that I would like to 
make, and this is that in the final days of the 1996 election, 
tax exempt organizations, tax exempt organizations spent more 
than $5 million on attack ads benefiting Republicans in 34 key 
congressional races. Among the groups that paid for this, for 
this media blitz, were the Coalition for our Children's Future, 
Citizens for Reform, and Citizens for the Republic Education 
Fund.
    All of these groups did not have to disclose to the Federal 
Election Commission how they spent their money or where their 
money came from. The Citizens for Reform and the Citizens for 
the Republic Education Fund were directly run by the Triad, 
according to the Washington Post and the New York Times.
    Again, there have been no hearings on this. We are relying 
on the press. But the point is here, they have been credited by 
the press for turning and winning elections at the last minute, 
yet they don't have to disclose where their money comes from. 
It is a way to get around the existing laws, and this loophole 
should be changed.
    I have a bill in, by the way----
    Mr. Burton. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mrs. Maloney [continuing]. With Mr. Horn that would close 
this loophole, and I hope that is one measure this Congress can 
pass.
    I look forward to your response now, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. The gentlelady's time has expired. And I will 
just say that I will be happy to talk with any member of the 
committee privately about the potential targets for subpoenas. 
We have done that in the past.
    We have sent subpoenas out to the Young Brothers, which was 
a company out of Hong Kong that had a shell corporation that 
sent money to the RNC. We are looking at that as well. So we 
will look at these things, and I will discuss them with you.
    I do not believe that potential subpoenas or targets should 
be discussed in an open forum. So when Mr. Waxman says that 
we're trying to keep it from members of this committee, he is 
in error.
    Now, let me just say I want to take my 5 minutes now, so 
please start the clock.
    I would like to put up Exhibit No.s 141 and 141-A, please.
    [Note.--Exhibit 141 can be found on p. 81, and exhibit 141-
A can be found on p. 85.]
    Mr. Burton. Now, Ms. Mills, you have danced around this 
issue quite a bit by saying that you were not aware of 
videotapes of coffees. Now, if you look at these two documents, 
I believe they were your documents. It is very clear you knew 
there were videotapes being made in the White House, correct?
    Ms. Mills. I was aware that WHCA videotaped events of the 
President. I was not aware as to which events WHCA videotaped.
    Mr. Burton. But you were aware that videotapes were being 
made?
    Ms. Mills. I certainly was aware that the President's 
remarks at events were videotaped. I was not aware as to which 
events were videotaped.
    Mr. Burton. But it was in the White House?
    Ms. Mills. He travels as well.
    Mr. Burton. In the White House?
    Ms. Mills. I have been to events in the White House where 
the press are present and WHCA is present as well, yes.
    Mr. Burton. In the White House.
    Ms. Mills. I just said, I will say again, I have been to 
events in the White House in which WHCA is present and 
videotaping, along with other cameras as well.
    Mr. Burton. Now, in the subpoena that was sent to Mr. Ruff, 
does it say videotapes of the coffees?
    Ms. Mills. I'm sure it does.
    Mr. Burton. To your knowledge.
    Ms. Mills. I did not review the subpoena. I have seen the 
directives. As you probably are aware, Mr. Breuer is the 
Special Counsel who ends up handling these types of matters.
    Mr. Burton. Were you in any meetings with Mr. Ruff when you 
discussed the subpoena we sent to you?
    Ms. Mills. I do not recall an occasion where I have been in 
a meeting with Mr. Ruff or Mr. Breuer where we talked about 
videotapes.
    Mr. Burton. No.
    Ms. Mills. I have been in many meetings--Mr. Chairman, I 
really will try to be responsive to your question, if you let 
me. I have been in many meetings when we have discussed 
different requests that are--to the White House, but I could 
not tell you whether those requests are from this committee, 
the Senate or others.
    Mr. Burton. Were you in any meetings--and Mr. Ruff, I will 
ask you if she was in any meetings; or Mr. Breuer, was she in 
any meetings when you discussed or had any discussion 
whatsoever about the subpoena that I sent to you back in March?
    Ms. Mills. I will answer that one more time and then I will 
let both of them answer it.
    I am quite confident that I have been in meetings where 
issues that were covered by your subpoenas were discussed. I 
don't know if they were discussed as your subpoena, but I'm 
quite confident that I have been in meetings where issues that 
you all, this committee and other committees are interested in, 
have been discussed.
    Mr. Burton. Thank you. Now, let me just followup on that. 
In the subpoena that I sent to Mr. Ruff, it very clearly asks 
for video and audiotapes, and it does not specify whether or 
not they were coffees or Presidential addresses or anything 
else. Is that correct, Mr. Ruff?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe that in the definition of documents 
audio and visual taping is included as a definition and, thus, 
we treat that as encompassing any relevant matter that is 
listed in the subpoena as something the committee is looking 
for.
    Mr. Burton. So those tapes, even though they may not have 
been coffee tapes, would have been included under our subpoena, 
correct?
    Mr. Ruff. If there was a request concerning an individual 
or an event and we knew about a video or an audiotape that 
encompassed that individual or event, yes, it would be 
responsive.
    Mr. Burton. So, to me, it stretches credulity to think that 
from March, until late June when you sent me that letter, that 
somebody would not have said, hey, there were videotapes made, 
shouldn't we check into this? And yet that wasn't done until 
October.
    Can you explain to me why? I mean, how many--all videotapes 
were encompassed in my subpoena. Now, why is it, Ms. Mills, and 
the others who were very well aware--if you look at the 
documents that are on the screen, why is it that nobody even 
said, hey, there were some videotapes taken; shouldn't we take 
a look at this, especially in view of the fact that everybody 
knows what happened in Watergate when we found out about the 
audiotapes?
    You would think somebody would have thought of that. And 
for a group of people as intelligent as you--and you are very 
intelligent, we all know that--to not even discuss the contents 
of my subpoena, which was all-inclusive about videotapes, just 
stretches somebody's imagination beyond credulity, as I said.
    Mr. Ruff. I won't comment on what is or is not within the 
bounds of imagination. I will simply repeat what I have said 
before.
    It is absolutely true that there was never in any 
conversation I have been a part of or, I'm sure, any member of 
my staff has been a part of, any discussion of the existence of 
videotapes that would be relevant to this committee's response 
until I first learned of it on October 2nd.
    Mr. Burton. I'd like to point out that my letter of January 
15th, before you became Counsel, noted videotapes even before 
you came on board.
    So we asked for videotapes in a letter; we asked for video 
or audiotapes in a subpoena. You sent me a letter in June 
saying that to the best of your knowledge everything I asked 
for in my subpoena had been complied with. Since that time, 
we've had 12 boxes of documents; and now, in October, we find 
out there were videotapes.
    There's an appearance here that you were trying to stop us 
from getting information that was relevant to our 
investigation. Now, I know you're going to say that that 
appearance is erroneous.
    Mr. Ruff. Indeed, that is in fact my testimony.
    Mr. Burton. But anybody in the public who sees this, they 
would have to say, my gosh, 12 boxes of documents after you 
said we had everything; videotapes which were asked for not 
once, but twice, as well as audiotapes, we don't find out about 
until October, when the young lady who sits right next to you, 
who is Associate Counsel to the President of the United States, 
who was in one videotape, had letters containing two 
videotapes, it just doesn't make any sense.
    So I think that it's something that the American people, if 
they are paying attention to this, would question, even though 
we have high regard for you and your ability.
    And I would like to just say for the record--and I will 
bring this up in just a few moments, my time has run out; I 
want to bring up a statement you made back at the end of the 
Watergate hearings, which I talked to you about yesterday, 
where I think you indicated that it's convenient for you not to 
know certain things, because if you didn't know those things, 
you couldn't be held accountable. And we will put that in the 
record before too long.
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Chairman, since you have raised that issue 
with me, after you raised it with me the other night, since I 
didn't ever remember saying that, I went back and put my own 
name in Lexis-Nexis, and went back to my--I won't say youth, 
because I was not youthful at the time, in 1977, when the 
Watergate office closed. In an interview with Bob Woodward I 
was quoted as saying, I think--and I am trying to put myself 
back in my mood on that day, which was, as expressed in that 
article, one of relief and an overwhelming desire to close the 
doors of the office and move on to other things. I think I said 
something along the lines of, the one lesson I have learned, 
and one can go back and look at the teachers during that period 
of time, was that if called on to recite the events of 
Watergate, that one escape from that question was a failure of 
recollection.
    It had nothing to do with--first of all, it was facetious, 
Mr. Chairman; and second, it had nothing to do with what is 
another line from Watergate, which is ``plausible 
deniability.'' I don't have any of that. I take responsibility 
for everything my office does.
    Mr. Burton. Let me just read to you exactly what Mr. 
Woodward said that you said. He said, ``If called to testify 
someday at such an inquiry, Ruff said he knows just what to do, 
just what to do, quote, `I'd say, gee, I just don't remember 
what happened back then, and they won't be able to indict me 
for perjury,' and that `maybe that's the principal thing that 
I've learned in 4 years. I just intend to rely on that failure 
of memory.' ''
    And I want you to know that maybe you didn't mean that, Mr. 
Ruff, but when you look at all the things we're talking about 
here today, it certainly sounds like you took that to heart.
    And with that, I would be happy to yield----
    [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.098
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.099
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.100
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.101
    
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Chairman, I think we probably all--those in 
this room and elsewhere--have made comments to the press that 
were perhaps facetious when made and came back to haunt one.
    But I will tell you this: Whatever I said in that moment to 
Bob Woodward--and I said it on the record, knowing that he was 
going to print it, it has nothing to do, nothing to do with my 
role as Counsel to the President of the United States.
    I have told you what we've done. We did it in good faith. 
My testimony here is accurate. My testimony here is as 
responsive as I can make it to this committee's questions and 
nothing else.
    Mr. Burton. Who do you have at this time?
    Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Fattah, would you yield to me?
    Mr. Fattah. Let me yield to the ranking member.
    Mr. Waxman. I just want to say a couple of things for the 
record. One, I want to quote from the Washington Times, July 
3rd. ``Committee aide said, Mr. Rowley, who was the chief 
counsel of this committee, had tried to fire Mr. Bossie, but 
was overruled by Mr. Burton. They said Mr. Rowley complained 
that Mr. Bossie was trying to use the probe to `slime' the 
Democrats, while Mr. Rowley wanted to `follow where the 
evidence leads us.' ''
    Second, I want to point out that on May 8, 1997, the 
Democrats asked Mr. Burton to issue subpoenas to investigate 
congressional fund-raising on Federal properties; for example, 
the 1995 Republican House-Senate dinner invitations put a price 
tag on Federal property, and he refused to issue the subpoenas 
or investigate.
    Second, we also asked that events held by GOPAC, which is 
Speaker Gingrich's political action committee, on Federal 
property, be examined; and Mr. Burton refused to investigate.
    I want those things on the record, when we hear how this 
investigation is going to pursue wrongdoing wherever it may 
lead. You can't pursue wrongdoing that you refuse to know 
anything about.
    I thank you for yielding.
    Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me try to delve back into this. Again, we're talking 
about the same videotapes that everyone's seen that show that 
the President didn't do anything improper or wrong or different 
than Bob Dole in his campaign? Are those the videotapes we're 
talking about?
    Mr. Ruff. Those are, I presume, the videotapes we are 
talking about.
    Mr. Fattah. So the inference and the accusation, after 
trying to, I think four or five times, state that it was a tour 
with your family in the White House, when you were telling us 
under oath that it wasn't a tour--the allegation is that 
basically you somehow knew something about the fact that these 
coffees were videotaped and that by your absence of letting 
someone know, you were purposely trying to obstruct this 
committee from ever seeing these videotapes that exonerate the 
President?
    Ms. Mills. That would appear to be the line of questioning.
    Mr. Fattah. Now, the people who have questioned you about 
this, they don't want to bring the people from the White House 
Communications Agency in, the supervisors, the people who 
control the activities of this office, who themselves did not 
know that these were the types of events that were being 
videotaped, right?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct. They indicated that they did not 
know. Indeed, Mr. Smith, when I met with him at the time, when 
we were drafting this particular memo, was not over the 
audiovisual and did not know at that time what they taped and 
what they did not tape, so he could not have communicated that 
information because he himself was not aware of it.
    Mr. Fattah. Now, you are an attorney, right?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Fattah. And you don't do any videotaping yourself, do 
you? Have you videotaped any of these coffees?
    Ms. Mills. I have not.
    Mr. Fattah. That is not part of your responsibility at the 
White House?
    Ms. Mills. It is not.
    Mr. Fattah. And the people who were videotaping in the 
White House, they didn't come knock on your door--videotaping 
the coffees, they didn't come knock on your door and say we 
videotaped those coffees that everybody is talking about and 
here they are.
    Ms. Mills. That's correct. I was unaware that any of the 
coffees had been videotaped.
    Mr. Fattah. In fact, even these military officials, when 
they testified before the Senate, said they didn't know 
anything about this confusion. They are like the majority of 
the American public; they are not paying attention to this. 
They are dealing with more pressing issues of the day.
    Ms. Mills. That is my understanding of what they said.
    Mr. Fattah. So just so the record can be clear, this 
accusation is baseless, and it really stretches the credibility 
of our committee to continue this kind of assault 
unnecessarily. I think maybe we can move on to some other 
issues.
    We have covered--I was intrigued by Congressman Horn's 
questions about the transportation budget of the President on 
one of his international visits, and the allegation that 
somehow you were being unresponsive in letting us know about 
what the travel costs for that visit were.
    I just think that what it appears to me to be is that the 
committee and the Congress have made so many requests, issued 
so many subpoenas, that they really have created a situation 
where there is always going to be something that is a little 
bit late or hard to get your hands on, because it is a 
purposeful overload of a very small office in the White House, 
making, would you say, over 300 requests from this committee?
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct.
    Mr. Fattah. 1,100 or so in total. And you have six lawyers 
responding to them.
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. Now, this committee has a staff of, I guess 
there are 60 people we heard yesterday. So if we cannot keep 
track of who we are subpoenaing, and we have had our own 
problems that have been illustrated in the press, and keep 
track of what we are doing, it is possible the White House 
could be having some difficulty.
    But I want to be as clear as I can. Mr. Ruff, the questions 
of Mr. Horn about the President's trip to Southeast Asia, he 
said he had sent you a letter about that. He actually sent that 
letter to Jack Quinn.
    Mr. Ruff. I believe he said he'd sent a letter to Mr. Quinn 
and then one later to me. But I must say it is not one I'm 
aware of, and I told him I'd look into it.
    Mr. Fattah. This has to do with his concern about how much 
it costs for the President to travel?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe that's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. And this is what Jay Letterman, the guy who's 
got the show at night. He was talking about the fact of why 
people don't walk across the street from the White House and 
use the phone booth. Because it costs a lot of money to move 
the President around, right?
    Mr. Ruff. Yes.
    Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
    Jay Leno was his name. Thank you.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. McIntosh will be recognized for 5 minutes. 
Then we will go vote and break and we will allow our guests to 
get some lunch, as well as members of the committee, and we 
will reconvene about 10 minutes after 2 or 15 minutes after 2. 
That will give us 5 minutes for Mr. McIntosh and then 30 
minutes for lunch.
    Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing on with 
some of the questions that we had yesterday on the WhoDB 
documents, Ms. Mills, you testified yesterday that on the 
weekend of September 18th, when you were going through the 
documents to respond to one of our early requests, that there 
were some additional lawyers who helped you review those 
documents. Were those lawyers also all members of the White 
House Counsel's Office staff, or were there lawyers outside of 
that office or outside of the White House staff?
    Ms. Mills. There were a number of people who helped and who 
volunteered to try to be of assistance. I recall speaking to 
people in the Counsel's Office at a staff meeting, asking if 
there was any way they could be helpful, I would appreciate it.
    Mr. McIntosh. Could you help me by trying to recall who 
some or all of those lawyers are?
    Ms. Mills. I'm probably not going to do a good job, so I 
don't want to try to misrepresent the record.
    Mr. McIntosh. Let me ask two things. Let me ask unanimous 
consent that we keep the record open for 5 days so that you can 
get a chance to look and talk to your colleagues and find that 
out.
    Ms. Mills. OK.
    Mr. McIntosh. Are there any that you know of today who 
helped with this?
    Ms. Mills. As I sit here, the best of my recollection--I 
have a recollection, I believe, of Wendy White having 
volunteered some of her time. Potentially, Dawn Chirwa. I just 
can't--but those are two of the people who come to my mind as I 
sit here right now.
    Mr. McIntosh. If I could ask, Mr. Chairman, for unanimous 
consent to allow the record to be open so Ms. Mills could go 
back and consult with her colleagues and try to find her best 
knowledge possible who was involved in that.
    Mr. Burton. Without objection.
    [Note.--The information referred to was requested but never 
received.]
    Mr. McIntosh. Thank you.
    Mr. Ruff, obviously I'm interested not only in the 
documents that were sent to us in your recent letter and 
which--I appreciated your candor in sending that. But all of 
the documents that were apparently set aside in a folder or 
another box as being determined to be nonresponsive, but having 
been sent to the White House Counsel's Office.
    Have we received all of the documents that were in that 
folder as having been at one point determined to be 
nonresponsive?
    Mr. Ruff. No, you haven't. Mr. Chairman, I reviewed that 
folder and determined, I believe, three--I believe three, but I 
will clarify it further once I go back and look again. One 
comes to mind, for example; it was simply a memo from a person 
asking for a pay raise. The other had to do with, I think, the 
archived records of President Clinton when he was Governor. I 
forget what the third one was.
    But there was no reference, direct or indirect, to WhoDB in 
any of those three documents. We turned over everything else, 
as I think I indicated in my letter to you, erring on the side 
of over-inclusiveness, because we surely did not want to 
suggest that there was any fine lines being drawn, given the 
concerns I expressed in my letter, that I wanted to be fully 
open and candid with you on this matter.
    Mr. McIntosh. So we have all but those three?
    Mr. Ruff. Of those folders; that's correct.
    Mr. McIntosh. Of those folders. Were any of the documents 
that were at one point sent to the White House Counsel's Office 
sent back during the last year?
    Mr. Ruff. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. McIntosh. Ms. Mills, to your knowledge, is that true?
    Ms. Mills. These were in a file that I transferred in 
December to another attorney who is handling the matter. It is 
my understanding that they remained in that file with that 
attorney during that entire time.
    Mr. McIntosh. During the time you had responsibility for 
the investigation, none of the documents sent to your office, 
pursuant to your request within the White House, were sent 
back? They were all kept and either determined to be 
nonresponsive or sent to the committee?
    Ms. Mills. Right. That's the best of my understanding.
    Mr. McIntosh. OK. And currently all the documents are in 
custody of the White House Counsel's Office; is that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. McIntosh. Mr. Ruff, let me, I guess, say we will 
probably want to work with you--I know we will want to work 
with you as a procedure to also look at the remaining 
documents, because I think it's important that we satisfy 
ourselves, given what we've seen so far.
    Mr. Ruff. I understand that concern, and we will be glad to 
work with your staff.
    Mr. McIntosh. The other question that I want to ask at this 
point is, have you satisfied yourself that there are no 
documents in the White House about--that your process has been 
thorough enough that you have received all the documents that 
may be responsive to our requests?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe that's the case, Mr. McIntosh.
    Let me do this, which I will commit to do at your staff's 
convenience: I will need to talk through with Ms. Paxton 
whether there are any remaining issues, because she is in the 
process of trying to respond to one of your earlier letters, 
and I will be able to make that representation to you once I 
have had that further detailed conversation.
    Mr. McIntosh. The other thing that would be helpful is, for 
a while there was no document log kept; and I think you have 
changed the procedure on that, to do it. We will need to have 
that, to the best of the ability of those involved, go back and 
try to recreate some of that.
    And I understand that's a resource question. Given the 
difficulty we're having, I think that would be important.
    Mr. Ruff. It is, I'm afraid, not just a resource question; 
it is a question of people, just because most of it was done in 
1996 and before, who are no longer around and it may be very 
difficult.
    We will do our best to try to respond. Particularly if you 
have a particular document or set of documents that you have a 
question about, we will do our best to try to reconstruct it. 
But I am told that it's a very difficult process just because 
the people are not there anymore.
    Mr. McIntosh. And the final----
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. McIntosh. I ask unanimous consent for 10 more seconds.
    Mr. Burton. All right.
    Mr. McIntosh. The White House data base, I understand, is 
continuing to be used and has a legitimate function, but the 
audit trail has never been engaged, and we need you to engage 
that audit trail. And that's a computer function that needs to 
be switched on. It was built into it, but never turned on.
    Mr. Ruff. You have now gone well past my understanding of 
what's in the computer, but we will be happy to talk to staff 
about what's possible and be as responsive as we can.
    Mr. McIntosh. Thank you.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired. The committee 
will stand in recess until 2:20.
    Mr. Burton. The committee will come to order. What we have 
decided to do to help expedite things is, Mr. Bennett will go 
ahead and start his last round of questioning and then when 
Members come back, we may interrupt him so that they can have 
their questioning. That way, we will not have to impose on your 
time any more than is absolutely necessary.
    Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Breuer, Mr. Nionakis, I compliment you on your 
patience. You were both here all day yesterday. And, Mr. 
Nionakis, you must be exhausted after all your testimony thus 
far. For the record, I believe you are represented by Mr. Neil 
Eggleston of the law firm of Howrey & Simon, Mr. Eggleston?
    Mr. Nionakis. That is correct.
    Mr. Bennett. And Mr. Breuer, you're represented by Mr. Mark 
Lynch of the firm of Covington & Burling; is that correct?
    Mr. Breuer. That's correct, Mr. Bennett.
    As you know, I had been hopeful that the White House 
Counsel would be able to represent the various people in the 
office, as has been in other fora. This committee chose not to 
permit that to take place, and so we have endeavored to get 
representation for the various lawyers, given that they are 
going to have to be deposed and appear in various hearings.
    Mr. Bennett. Certainly. Mr. Lynch and Mr. Eggleston, 
welcome. Nice to see you here. We will move along, and to the 
extent any Members want to come in, I will stop and interrupt 
my questioning.
    Mr. Breuer, you, in fact began your employment in the White 
House Counsel's Office in February of this year; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Breuer. That's correct, Mr. Bennett, I did.
    Mr. Bennett. And, Mr. Nionakis, you began your employment 
in March of this year?
    Mr. Burton. Would you pull the mic a little bit closer so 
we can pick you up?
    Mr. Bennett. Mr. Nionakis, you began your employment when, 
sir?
    Mr. Nionakis. In the beginning of March 1997.
    Mr. Bennett. And Mr. Breuer, you had extensive experience 
with respect to the area of law known as white collar criminal 
defense practice; isn't that correct?
    Mr. Breuer. Fairly extensive, that's correct, yes.
    Mr. Bennett. I think you need to pull the microphone a 
little closer to you again.
    Mr. Breuer. I keep changing it because every time I move 
it, the camera people ask me to move it back. But I will move 
it toward me.
    Mr. Bennett. Certainly defer to the camera people over me, 
sir.
    And in terms of your private practice background, you have 
had considerable experience with respect to compliance with 
grand jury subpoenas for individual clients and corporations; 
is that correct?
    Mr. Breuer. I did have a fair degree, yes.
    Mr. Bennett. And what percentage of your practice would 
have been based in that area of the law, sir?
    Mr. Breuer. As you know, Mr. Bennett, I said in my 
deposition it is somewhat difficult to give you a percentage of 
the different types. During my 7\1/2\ years at Covington & 
Burling, more or less of my time would be spent on criminal 
work, but a significant amount. I don't think I can do better 
than that.
    Mr. Bennett. Mr. Nionakis, have you had any experience with 
respect to white collar criminal practice and/or grand jury 
subpoena compliance?
    Mr. Nionakis. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Bennett. And what was the nature of your experience in 
private practice?
    Mr. Nionakis. As an associate in a downtown law firm here 
in DC, I--a portion of my practice was working on white collar 
matters.
    Mr. Bennett. And I gather with respect with your precise 
role, Mr. Breuer, I think you've indicated that you were in 
fact--or I think Mr. Ruff has indicated you were in fact hired 
specifically to handle the various investigations currently 
being handled by the White House Counsel's Office; isn't that 
correct?
    Mr. Breuer. That's correct, under Mr. Ruff.
    Mr. Bennett. And that is your primary task, to handle all 
those matters?
    Mr. Breuer. It is to the handle a good number of the 
investigatory matters that face the White House. That is 
correct.
    Mr. Bennett. And that would include the Senate, the House, 
as well as the Department of Justice or any Independent Counsel 
who have been appointed?
    Mr. Breuer. That is correct for the most part, yes.
    Mr. Bennett. Mr. Nionakis, what would have been the extent 
of your particular assignments since March?
    Mr. Nionakis. Excuse me, with respect to?
    Mr. Bennett. In terms of, are you assigned on the side of 
the office Mr. Ruff addressed that deals with judicial 
appointments, are you assigned to the side of the office 
dealing with investigations?
    Mr. Nionakis. I do mostly investigations.
    Mr. Bennett. And what percentage of your time is spent on 
the investigations?
    Mr. Nionakis. Since I have begun at the White House, 
virtually all of my time.
    Mr. Bennett. And Mr. Breuer, essentially--correct me if I 
am wrong--I believe I asked Ms. Mills yesterday, as of February 
or March of this year, essentially an entirely new team of 
lawyers came on board with the exception of Ms. Mills and Mr. 
Bruce Lindsey. Is that basically correct?
    Mr. Breuer. That's essentially correct. That's right. There 
are some lawyers, who still have stayed on, that had various 
responsibilities, but for the most part there was a new team.
    Mr. Bennett. And Ms. Mills, I think you have previously 
indicated, particularly played a key role in orienting the new 
team with respect to document compliance, is that correct, Mr. 
Breuer?
    Mr. Breuer. I'm sorry; I thought that was directed to Ms. 
Mills.
    Ms. Mills has been very willing and extremely helpful in 
providing information to the team. That is correct.
    Mr. Bennett. Mr. Nionakis, were Ms. Mills and Mr. Lindsey 
both helpful to you also with respect to your initial work 
assignments?
    Mr. Nionakis. I would say that is true with respect to Ms. 
Mills, yes.
    Mr. Bennett. In fact, one of the first assignments both of 
you worked on upon coming to the White House Counsel's Office 
was with respect to the compliance with this committee's 
subpoena of March 4, 1997; isn't that correct?
    Mr. Breuer. That's correct. This committee's subpoena of 
March 4, among others, was of central importance and something 
we did in fact work on soon after I joined the White House.
    Mr. Bennett. And I gather, with respect to document 
production, that Ms. Mills has continued to play some role and 
assist you and the members of your team in compliance with 
document production, is that correct, Mr. Breuer?
    Mr. Breuer. She has certainly played--as the Deputy White 
House Counsel, she has definitely played a role; that's 
correct.
    Mr. Bennett. Now, you have both patiently sat through a 
great deal of testimony, and I'm not going to go through the 
matter of the March 4, 1977, subpoena--1997 subpoena or Mr. 
Ruff's directive of April 28th of this year.
    And I think that Mr. Breuer, with respect to--your 
testimony with respect to the videotapes is a matter of public 
record, so I will again try not to have you repeat that for 
purposes of time.
    But, Mr. Nionakis, you did not testify before the Senate, 
did you, sir?
    Mr. Nionakis. I did not. That's correct.
    Mr. Bennett. And exactly when did you become aware of the 
fact that there was an inquiry with respect to videotaping at 
the White House?
    Mr. Nionakis. It would have been sometime prior to October 
2nd, but sometime after the Senate committee staff member had 
made the inquiry to Mr. Imbroscio in the Counsel's Office.
    Mr. Bennett. And what was the nature of the inquiry from 
the committee staff member from the Senate?
    Mr. Nionakis. Well, the way it was conveyed to me was that 
the subcommittee staff member had inquired about the possible 
existence of clandestine audiotapings in the Oval Office.
    Mr. Bennett. Did that seem somewhat bizarre to you?
    Mr. Nionakis. ``Bizarre'' probably isn't the word I'd use; 
but ``odd,'' I would say.
    Mr. Bennett. And given what you determined would be an odd 
inquiry, exactly with whom did you speak about possible 
clandestine taping at the White House?
    Mr. Nionakis. I only had one conversation and that was with 
Mr. Imbroscio when he conveyed the substance of that 
conversation that he had had with a Senate subcommittee staff 
member.
    Mr. Bennett. You did speak with Mr. Imbroscio about this?
    Mr. Nionakis. He conveyed to me the conversation that he 
had had with the person on the Senate committee.
    Mr. Bennett. Yes, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Cox has another appointment, and I promised 
him when he came back that we would give him 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bennett. Absolutely, sir.
    Mr. Burton. So could you suspend?
    Mr. Bennett. Absolutely, sir.
    Mr. Burton. Keep track of the time down there, will you 
please?
    Mr. Cox.
    Mr. Cox. You've very kind, and I thank you for yielding, 
and I thank the chairman.
    If I might, Mr. Breuer, ask you, in the Counsel's Office, 
whom do you report to?
    Mr. Breuer. I report to Mr. Ruff, Congressman.
    Mr. Cox. And on Teamsters matters, whom do you report to?
    Mr. Breuer. On Teamsters matters, I inform Ms. Mills about 
the matters. I'm not sure to what degree, if any, Mr. Ruff 
follows it, but there have been----
    Mr. Cox. Would it be fair then to say that you report to 
Ms. Mills on Teamsters matters?
    Mr. Breuer. No, I don't think it would be fair to say that 
I report to her.
    Mr. Cox. You report to somebody else?
    Mr. Breuer. I don't think with respect to the particular 
matter of the Teamsters that I really think in terms of 
reporting to someone.
    Mr. Cox. Are you sort of--you are as far as it goes in the 
White House?
    Mr. Breuer. No, I don't think I'm as far as it goes. I 
think on a general matter, various people in the White House 
Counsel's Office are aware of what we're doing. I think Ms. 
Mills may be aware. Frankly, I'm not positive.
    Mr. Cox. Now, the Counsel to the President in other matters 
reports to the President, of course. He is an Assistant to the 
President. Since he has got to recuse himself because he has 
represented the Teamsters, in Teamsters matters do you report 
to the President?
    Mr. Breuer. Well, Congressman, I----
    Mr. Cox. Have you ever reported to the President on the 
Teamsters matters?
    Mr. Breuer. Without really going into the substance of what 
requests have been made, there have been a limited number of 
requests that have, in fact, been made by various committees 
and others about Teamsters matters. And with respect to those, 
they have been document requests and we have simply fulfilled 
those requests by identifying the relevant documents and 
producing them.
    Mr. Cox. So it's safe to say there is not an independent 
White House investigation of any of this?
    Mr. Breuer. None that I'm aware of, that's correct, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Cox. Mr. Ruff, you recused yourself on what date?
    Mr. Ruff. I don't recall. I think the first occasion on 
which--whenever it was, on which allegations began to surface 
about possible links between the fund-raising inquiry and the 
Carey re-election, I indicated to my staff that I really didn't 
want to participate in those matters because I had represented 
the union, not in connection with anything that was involved in 
these matters, but in 1994. I just thought it better that I not 
have any substantive role in the process.
    Mr. Cox. Now, you told me that you didn't write any kind of 
recusal letter.
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Cox. Is there anything memorializing your recusal, even 
a memo to the file?
    Mr. Ruff. No, there is not. This is not a matter in which 
there was any conflict of interest, Congressman. I simply 
thought it better, given my former representation, that the 
rest of my staff deal with any document requests that arose in 
this connection.
    Mr. Cox. Why is there not a conflict of interest?
    Mr. Ruff. Because I didn't represent the Teamsters Union in 
any matters that to my knowledge are at issue in the ongoing 
inquiries.
    Mr. Cox. There is litigation right now, is there not, by 
union members against the Teamsters to determine what the 
$152,000 that you spent to hire Jack Palladino----
    Mr. Ruff. There was litigation on that subject but that is 
not the subject, to my knowledge, of any inquiries that have 
been made of the White House. In any event, that was not the 
triggering event. I simply believed that in light of my 
representation of the union, it would not be appropriate----
    Mr. Cox. It seems to me that the Counsel's Office is 
supposed to be concerned about making sure the President avoids 
even the appearance of impropriety. And for to you say there is 
no conflict, when you were representing Teamsters management in 
1994, when there is litigation pending about that right now, 
you were representing Teamsters management precisely because 
there were allegations about Mafia ties and so on, and your job 
was to make sure that all those allegations were dispersed, I 
think that is a serious conflict.
    Right now allegations are that there was money laundering 
between the Teamsters and the campaign, the Clinton/Gore 
campaign, and the DNC. I think it is quite proper for to you 
recuse yourself.
    Mr. Ruff. Congressman, as I've said, I did. We might 
disagree on whether there was a conflict within the meaning of 
the rules of professional conduct, but the fact is that I have 
not played any role in responding to Teamsters-related 
inquiries.
    Mr. Cox. Now, when you were representing the Teamsters, 
were you a partner at Covington & Burling? In fact, the 
Teamsters hired the firm, right?
    Mr. Ruff. That is correct.
    Mr. Cox. Now, you have turned over the Teamsters matters to 
Mr. Breuer. Was Mr. Breuer a partner at Covington & Burling 
also?
    Mr. Ruff. No, he wasn't. Not during the time involved.
    Mr. Cox. But was he a partner at Covington & Burling?
    Mr. Ruff. Just in the year or so before he came to the work 
in the White House.
    Mr. Cox. And before that he was an associate at Covington & 
Burling?
    Mr. Ruff. That's correct.
    Mr. Cox. Mr. Breuer, how long did you work at Covington & 
Burling?
    Mr. Breuer. Since 1989. I'd like to make a point if I----
    Mr. Cox. Why is it that you were picked to be the guy to 
resolve the conflict that Mr. Ruff had because he worked at 
Covington & Burling? If you are trying to avoid the appearance 
of impropriety, wouldn't almost anybody else be a better 
choice?
    Mr. Breuer. Well, I don't think I ought to be the person to 
discuss why certain decisions that I don't make are made. But I 
want to----
    Mr. Cox. Well, you accepted the position to be in charge of 
the Teamsters----
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman, I just want to answer your 
question about one point that I think is important. When we 
talk about Teamsters inquiries you have to understand, as we 
get from this committee and others, we simply get requests and 
it is not always obvious to know why we get requests.
    For instance, the kind of request we may get is for WAVES 
records, the amount of time that someone actually comes to the 
White House, a certain individual. That individual may or may 
not be involved in, as you described it, Congressman, a 
Teamster inquiry. But all that we are doing in that function is 
literally getting the documentation to establish how often a 
particular individual came to the White House, and that may be 
related to Teamsters or it may not. We are not always clear to 
know if it's Teamsters related or not.
    Mr. Cox. Innocuous requests, of course, pose no problem. 
But it seems to me that, first of all, if there is no written 
recusal there is probably no notice to anybody else in the 
White House that it would be improper for them to contact you, 
Mr. Ruff, about Teamsters matters. How are they to know that 
they're not supposed to contact you?
    Mr. Ruff. No one has ever contacted me. If anyone began to 
have such a conversation with me, I would refer them to Mr. 
Breuer or Ms. Mills.
    Mr. Cox. Don't you think it would be more advisable for to 
you do a written recusal?
    Mr. Ruff. A written recusal is perfectly appropriate under 
the circumstances. I don't believe it's necessary. And I 
believe that there has been no hint or suggestion of any sort 
that I've played any role in connection with Teamsters matters 
while I have been at the White House, despite occasional press 
speculation on the contrary.
    Mr. Cox. My concern--and I don't wish in any way to 
question your scruples on this. I think it is quite appropriate 
that you have recused yourself. My concern is that there is not 
anybody in charge of these investigations in the White House in 
any way that--I mean, Mr. Breuer is not reporting to anyone 
except occasionally Ms. Mills, but not really, he said. You're 
the last person in charge of this.
    I just compare it to the Iran-Contra matter where the 
President issued an Executive order, brought in the Tower 
Commission, did all of the document discovery because the White 
House wanted to get to the bottom of this before Congress 
forced them to. And that is how 250,000 documents were sent up 
here, and why at end of the investigation the Democratic 
chairman and various chairmen said, ``Congratulations on 
producing all of these things that we asked for.''
    Here, we are not uncovering the documents that we should be 
uncovering. I see that my time has expired and I apologize for 
running over. But I think as an oversight committee our concern 
is that----
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, he has run over, and it seems to 
be only fair to give us a chance over here on this side.
    Mr. Burton. I most certainly will. The Chair wants to be 
fair.
    Mr. Cox. I yield back.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Cox, if you choose we can have another 
round and you can get back to this.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I'm seeking recognition.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
    Mr. Waxman. First of all, Mr. Ruff let me tell you I have 
to apologize to you, to have you come here and have to be 
abused in the rudest possible way. Now, the idea that you don't 
have a recusal in writing is nonsense, because if you claim you 
are recusing yourself, you are recusing yourself. There is no 
requirement that it be in writing.
    No one asked Senator Lott, when he recused himself in the 
tobacco issue because his brother-in-law is a lawyer 
representing some of the parties in that negotiation, whether 
he had it in writing. We trust his judgment, if he says he is 
recusing himself, to recuse himself.
    I just think that Mr. Cox has been quite out of line in the 
questions that he has asked and I want to state that publicly. 
And I just think that at some point--it's like we're not going 
to leave a stone unturned; we're going to turn it over and 
we're going to turn it over and we're going to turn it over and 
we're going to turn it over again.
    You have all answered the questions that have been asked by 
members continuously. I hope C-SPAN, if C-SPAN is covering 
this, would just pan how many Members are sitting here. Members 
are not sitting here, they leave, they are doing other things, 
and then they walk in and ask you the exact same questions that 
the other Members asked.
    So you have answered the same questions over and over 
again, and that has been just today. And then you did it 
yesterday, and then you did it in the Senate, and then you all 
did it in depositions. And we are all paying your salary 
because we're all taxpayers. Now it seems to me is that at some 
point this gets to be a little ridiculous.
    What is happening, of course, is that you're being asked 
these questions and being attacked so that the press will write 
it in the newspapers. Now they don't make a judgment as to what 
is accurate or not. They say things like ``GOP accuses White 
House of stonewalling,'' ``Republicans accuse White House 
counsel of not turning over documents,'' or whatever. And they 
don't even have to have evidence sometimes for these kinds of 
accusation that are made--when they are made.
    As I said when we started this hearing, our chairman said 
that the tapes were altered and he's yet to explain to us any 
evidence that would lead him to that conclusion. But it's like 
Members of Congress don't need any evidence to make an 
accusation, and we're never subject to any lawsuits because the 
Constitution gives us immunity from any defamation, unlike 
other Americans who have to watch what they say for fear that 
they may be sued.
    Now, are we under the 5-minute rule?
    Let me--some in this committee have raised questions about 
the Hudson casino document. Mr. Ruff, can you explain that 
issue to me and what the disagreement is all about?
    Mr. Ruff. I will try to do it in something approaching 
shorthand, Congressman Waxman.
    There has been for some time now litigation against the 
United States in Wisconsin dealing with the question of 
approval by the Interior Department, or the disapproval, of a 
casino on Indian reservation land. As part of the discovery 
process in that litigation, documents were sought from the 
White House.
    At the same time as we were searching for those documents, 
represented in that process by the Department of Justice--since 
we were not parties to the litigation, they were representing 
the United States, and they were representing our interest as 
the subject of discovery in the search for those documents--we 
produced some 300-plus documents which were turned over to this 
committee in mid-September. Some 9 documents, I believe, were 
listed on a privilege log prepared with the advice and guidance 
of the Department of Justice and filed with the court in 
Wisconsin in response to the document request. Also, a copy of 
that log was provided to the committee.
    The privilege assertions on that log, reflected as well in 
the privilege claims raised but never formally asserted before 
this committee, were essentially claims having to do with the 
protection of the confidentiality of White House 
communications.
    This committee has had since mid-September, as I said, the 
330 or so documents produced to the plaintiffs. In addition, 
since October 21st the committee has had all of the documents 
as to which we have stated that there are issues of privilege.
    Mr. Waxman. So we have these documents?
    Mr. Ruff. You do have them, and they----
    Mr. Waxman. They were not withheld from this committee. No 
privilege was asserted over these documents, not executive 
privilege, not attorney-client privilege, not deliberative 
process privilege?
    Mr. Ruff. No. Pursuant to the understanding we have with 
the committee which has worked well over the last several 
months, where we have privilege issues which we believe are 
raised by some of the documents, we turn them over to the 
committee for the committee's use, and that's what's happened 
here. There was an exchange of correspondence between me and 
the chairman back in June.
    Mr. Waxman. So that correspondence we have?
    Mr. Ruff. Yes.
    Mr. Waxman. I see my yellow light and my time is going to 
be up and I don't want to abuse the time as some Members do on 
this committee. I just want to say this: You recused yourself 
on some issue where you have a conflict of interest. Tomorrow's 
headline could say, ``Ruff Claims Conflict of Interest,'' and 
they will never quite explain what is going on. Just like we 
will never see a headline explaining, ``Tapes Were Never 
Altered,'' when we finally get everybody to admit that, 
although not everybody will admit that either.
    And I must say I am sorry Mr. Cox was not here. He was in 
your position at the White House. I don't know if it was the 
Reagan White House or the Bush White House. I don't know if he 
was there when Reagan was making fund-raising appeals or 
meeting with contributors or if he had any role in that, and I 
don't know if he was there when Bush was trying to cover up 
Iran-Contra. But for somebody who had that position to come and 
throw these grenades at you, I'm just outraged. I think it is 
completely out of line to take the scantiest information and 
try to blow it up into something when there is nothing there. 
My red light is on, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Burton. Before I yield to Mr. Barr, yesterday, we 
dedicated with a great deal of fanfare the President Bush 
Library, and President Clinton even attended and I don't 
believe anybody, to my knowledge, has ever accused President 
Bush of any kind of a cover-up or wrongdoing of that type, and 
I am disappointed that my colleague did.
    I also want to say briefly that we sent a subpoena in March 
to Mr. Ruff. In June, after the subpoena had expired, he sent a 
letter saying that we had received everything to the best of 
his knowledge that we requested. We have since then received 12 
boxes of additional documents. They said they didn't know 
anything about the videotapes until October. Ms. Mills was in 
videotapes. She had memos about videotapes. She had a memo 
about a document pertaining to the WHoDB system in a file that 
she kept for 13 months.
    I mean for my colleagues on the other side to try to infer 
that this exercise is just duplication and waste just goes 
beyond reason. And I just want my colleague to know that we're 
not trying to get headlines. We're not trying to get anything 
except at the truth.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Breuer. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to your comment?
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Barr is recognized.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your lack of 
courtesy.
    Mr. Barr. We hear that the ranking minority member is 
outraged that a Member on this side asked a question about 
recusal. Well, let me explain to the outraged Member that here, 
again, process does matter. The folks on the other side don't 
seem to feel that process matters at all.
    Those of us who believe in some semblance of the rule of 
law believe that it does. When I served as U.S. Attorney 
recusal did matter. You want to avoid even the appearance of 
any impropriety. And if matters came before my office in which 
I might have, because of prior association, had even a passing 
interest, knowledge, or familiarity with those things, then I 
felt duty bound do recuse myself. Not because of the substance, 
but because of the process and because it was important in the 
Reagan and Bush Departments of Justice to avoid the appearance 
of any impropriety.
    So the fact that process does matter, that there are such 
things as formal recusals that are required in certain 
administrations to avoid that appearance may outrage the 
ranking member. So what. Process does matter to the many of us 
on this side of the aisle, and I suspect that deep down, it 
does matter to Mr. Ruff, whom I've known for many, many, many 
years.
    Let me turn to process again. With regard to the Hudson Dog 
Track Indian gambling matter that we have begun to touch on 
here, Mr. Breuer, are you familiar with the various subpoenas 
that have been served on the White House regarding production 
of documents for this committee?
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman Barr, in general, I am aware of the 
various subpoenas that we have received.
    Mr. Barr. OK. Are you aware of any of those subpoenas, 
including but not limited to those that relate to the Hudson 
Indian gambling matter, that have either a footnote or contain 
a limitation in the body of those subpoenas that say: This 
subpoena does not extend to documents that may be of a kind 
that are not different from those that we have already gotten?
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman, I'm not----
    Mr. Barr. Are you familiar with any language to that effect 
in any of the subpoenas that have been served on the White 
House by either the Senate or House committees? Yes or no?
    Mr. Breuer. I'll have to check. I'm not--the language that 
you're saying----
    Mr. Barr. That's very disingenuous. You know as well as I 
do that no such language is ever contained in a subpoena from 
the Congress.
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman, I'd like to say first----
    Mr. Barr. And the reason that I ask you that question----
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman, if I may. You've just called me 
disingenuous.
    Mr. Barr. No, you may not. Let me finish.
    Mr. Fattah. Could the chairman allow the witness to answer 
the question?
    Mr. Barr. I'm controlling the time, not the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. The reason I ask you that question Mr. Breuer, is 
very simple----
    Mr. Fattah. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. What's your parliamentary inquiry?
    Mr. Barr. In your deposition, Mr. Breuer----
    Mr. Burton. Just 1 second.
    Mr. Fattah. Is it the practice of the committee that we 
allow witnesses to answer a question that has been asked to 
them?
    Mr. Burton. It is the practice of the committee, and Mr. 
Barr is trying, I think, to get to the end of the question and 
we will allow the witness to answer the question.
    Mr. Barr. The reason that I ask you this question, Mr. 
Breuer, is because in your deposition, in response to questions 
about why additional documents on this matter had not been 
provided, you said as a reason for further delays and not 
providing the information that, quote, It is not at all clear 
to me that the documents in front of me here represent 
information of a kind so different than the 330, the 340 pages 
of materials that you previously received on this issue, closed 
quote.
    And my point is that that is not the basis, and never has 
been the basis for not supplying information pursuant to a 
lawful subpoena from this Congress. You know that as well as I 
do that language does not appear on any subpoena.
    So that's my point. And you know that that language does 
not appear on any subpoenas. That is not an excuse for not 
providing information, is it?
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman, may I respond? First, I would like 
to take exception. The chief counsel of the majority has gone 
out of his way to say, in the very deposition you are quoting, 
that he believed I have been nothing but forthright and 
complete in all of my questions.
    Mr. Barr. I haven't presumed otherwise.
    Mr. Breuer. Indeed, the chairman of the committee has said 
much of the same. So on a personal note, Congressman, we don't 
know one another, but I assure you I am not being disingenuous. 
As a second point, Congressman, I----
    Mr. Barr. No, I think you are because you know as well as I 
do----
    Mr. Breuer. And as you are doing now, Congressman, I was 
unable to complete my answer----
    Mr. Barr. That--Mr. Breuer, I am finished on that 
particular point. I am not interested in pursuing that further.
    Mr. Breuer. Obviously.
    Mr. Barr. I think it is a very disingenuous response.
    Mr. Breuer. I was not able to finish my answer, and indeed, 
Congressman, I don't believe you are fairly characterizing my 
deposition testimony as well.
    Mr. Barr. Life is tough, Mr. Breuer. Life is tough.
    Mr. Breuer. I am sure that my deposition testimony will be 
taken as a whole in the record.
    Mr. Barr. Oh, I'm sure.
    If I could, turning now back to this Indian matter, we have 
touched on it briefly. What is the basis, Mr. Ruff, a number of 
documents, including one EOP 069092, which you discussed with 
the chairman Wednesday night, which is a notation, a 
handwritten notation from the President to Mr. Panetta 
inquiring about the Indian tribal deal. He asked what the 
status of that is. That is one document for which you have 
asserted some form of privilege so that it is not made 
available to us in a way that can be made public so the 
American people can see it.
    There have been several other documents, as you are well 
aware of, that fit into the category in the subpoenas that have 
been served with regard to the Indian gambling matter, the 
Hudson Dog Track matter. What is the basis for asserting 
executive privilege, particularly in light of the fact that we 
have very recent case law, and I cite you to the case of In re 
Sealed Case, 121 F 3rd 729, decided by the DC Circuit just a 
few months ago in June, that I think makes very clear that 
there continue to be limitations on the assertion of executive 
privilege. That particularly where there is evidence to believe 
that misconduct may have occurred in this case, very clear 
evidence that a decision by the BIA and the Department of the 
Interior stemming from a meeting at which President Clinton was 
present, may have been influenced by moneys. What is the basis 
for the assertion of executive privilege with regard to these 
types of documents?
    Mr. Ruff. Congressman Barr, I think probably of all the 
members of in committee you may be in the best place to 
appreciate the circumstances surrounding the production of 
these documents.
    As you know, these documents were initially the subject of 
discovery requests from a private plaintiff. And the assertions 
of privilege here were initially contained in privilege claims 
asserted vis-a-vis those private plaintiffs. The goal, as you 
will fully appreciate, is to make available to the plaintiffs 
as much as possible those documents which are relevant to their 
lawsuit, but to protect the confidentiality interests of the 
Executive Office of the President.
    That's what was done in this case with the full cooperation 
and advice of the Department of Justice, who is representing 
through the U.S. Attorneys Office in Madison, the interests of 
the White House in this matter.
    So that what has occurred here is that six or seven 
documents were treated as privileged vis-a-vis those private 
plaintiffs who are seeking them in this discovery. They were 
all turned over to this committee, as you know. And so the 
question you raise is in essence should this committee be able 
to make public documents which are the subject of private 
litigation and in which the private plaintiffs do not have a 
right of access unless they can convince a judge or convince us 
as a matter of discretion that they ought to be released?
    So this is not a setting in which this committee has been 
deprived in any way of the opportunity to study these 
documents. They have been fully available to you now for some 2 
weeks and they will continue to be available to you hereafter.
    With respect to the specific document you question, I would 
note only this: First of all, the mere allegation of 
impropriety cannot be taken to wipe out the legitimate 
confidentiality concerns of the White House, particularly with 
respect to this document. As you're fully aware, it was 
prepared some year or more after the decision in the Hudson 
Casino matter had been made, and is simply a retrospective 
discussion of the circumstances surrounding the litigation.
    When communications are made to the President of the United 
States, or he asks questions about a particular matter, that 
goes, obviously, presumptively to the very heart of the 
Presidential communications which are the subject of In re 
Sealed Case. Far from that opinion being a voice for 
restricting the extent to which privileges can be claimed, that 
opinion is a ringing endorsement of the breadth, albeit 
exercised with discretion, of the Presidential communications 
privilege.
    And I suggest to you that we have accommodated this 
committee pursuant to my understanding and agreement with the 
chairman, to the maximum extent that could ever be contemplated 
in a setting in which the confidentiality interests of the 
President of the United States are implicated because you have 
the documents, as does every member of this committee, and may 
use them for every purpose in taking depositions, in analyzing 
the particular substance of the matter at issue. All we ask is 
because they are not being made public in connection with the 
litigation, that they not be made public here.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired. Let me just 
say we did have a meeting last Wednesday with the President's 
counsel, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Breuer. The question was at that 
time--and my legal counsel concurred--the question was that 
they didn't have enough time to review and make the case that 
executive privilege was necessary. And because of the 
sensitivity of the documents, we decided to give them a little 
bit more time to make their case.
    That's not to say that at some point, if we don't feel the 
case is made, that we won't release the documents. And so, Mr. 
Ruff, and I and Mr. Bennett and Mr. Breuer and others will be 
discussing this and debating it and at some point they may very 
well be made public.
    Mr. Ruff. Your description of our understanding is exactly 
correct, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to further discussions 
on this subject.
    Mr. Burton. I think both Mr. Fattah has had two rounds of 
questioning and so has Mr. Waxman. Did Mr. Shadegg want a 
second round of questioning? Mr. Mica you want to go first?
    Mr. Fattah. Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman, excuse me. 
Parliamentary inquiry. Isn't it the rule of the committee that 
it is 5 minutes on that side and 5 minutes on our side?
    Mr. Burton. It is as long as we have Members on both sides 
that--but we've had two rounds. We are going by rounds.
    Mr. Waxman. I don't think Mr. Fattah has had two.
    Mr. Fattah. I would insist that there be a ruling by the 
Parliamentarian on this matter. We are entitled to equal time.
    Mr. Burton. We will check. Just 1 second. I stand 
corrected. You have had but one round. You're next. Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. Fattah. Let me pursue my parliamentary inquiry first. 
Is it not true, even if I had had a second round, that we are 
entitled to 5 minutes for every 5 minutes that the majority 
has?
    Mr. Burton. The Parliamentarian informs me that you have to 
extinguish the round for all Members before you go back, even 
if there is fewer minority or majority Members in attendance. 
So if we had two majority Members and you had six minority 
Members here, we would go ahead and proceed after a round until 
that round was completed.
    Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This issue of ethics in Government is one that has got a 
lot of attention, especially here on the Hill, because we have 
had our own share of problems. We had a member of the 
Republican leadership, at least as reported in the press that, 
had a logbook of contributions by various lobbyists and would 
direct them when they came into the office to, you know, look 
at where they stood in relative conformity to Republican 
giving.
    And we had, as I was mentioning earlier, the Speaker of the 
House, who was defended enthusiastically by Members on this 
committee, even though he had misled the Ethics Committee, 
because it was stated that he had no intent to. And we have 
seen the selective investigative techniques of our committee.
    I mean, we have had plenty of examples of foreign money in 
the 1996 elections that we have neglected to look at. We had a 
foreign arms dealer who donated thousands of dollars to the 
Speaker's campaign. We had a circumstance in Florida where the 
Florida Republican party was sanctioned by the court in a fine 
of significant dollars because of a gentleman of--a foreigner 
who had contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars. And we 
have had, as I was interested in discussing earlier, the Haley 
Barbour trip in which he went over--first of all, created 
something called the National Policy Forum. In the documents 
that established the framework for creating this entity, it was 
said to be established so that they could attract foreign 
money. He then went in, asked for, and received some $2 
million. And as the chairman mentioned earlier, the Young 
brothers' front corporation was the vehicle under which this 
money eventually made its way back and was focused in on the 
election of Republicans to the Congress.
    And just a few days ago we had the circumstance in New York 
in which there was a contested election, and it was widely 
publicized that the Home Builders PAC and the Realtors PAC were 
both informed by the Republican leadership that if they had 
contributed to the Democratic candidate as their local 
membership wanted them to contribute, they would be effectively 
left out of the debate here on matters that might have been of 
importance to them.
    So the reason why I assume the Congress is so interested in 
ethics is that we have our own burdens to bear. I was reading 
this new book that was written on the subject, a book entitled 
``The Appearance of Impropriety'' by Morgan and Reynolds and it 
goes to great length to make a very important point, and that 
is that the appearance of something being amiss does not mean 
necessarily that something is amiss. And the appearance that 
everything is fine does not mean that everything is fine.
    It starts out with the whole discussion of how con men 
operate, that the whole notion of their framework. And I am 
reminded that when we had the S&L scandal we had people who 
seemingly were conducting appropriate business but doing 
something else.
    This committee is focusing in on the appearance of what may 
be some delay in receiving some information, but we have not 
focused in on the substance of what that information is, and we 
had the gentleman from Georgia who was talking about, Mr. Ruff, 
you not recusing yourself.
    Now, one could draw a number of inferences on this matter, 
or one might recuse themselves of something they might already 
have had some involvement in. But we have members of this 
committee who have already said that the President of the 
United States should be impeached. They have already come to 
the conclusion that there are impeachable offenses that have 
been acted upon by the President. And one might draw a notion 
that they might not be objective, fair investigators of the 
facts because they have already come to that conclusion.
    But one could always know that it is not the appearance of 
these issues. I am sure the gentleman from Georgia and others 
can, in fact, be fair, and that they are going to search and 
work hard at it as we go forward, because we are supposedly 
operating not as just mere partisans but we are supposed to be 
representatives of the American people. And it does a great 
disservice to this committee, to this House, for us to be in a 
situation in which we, first of all, question but not even give 
room for one to answer.
    And I want to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Breuer 
to have an opportunity to further expound on responses to 
inquiries that were made to him, but he was not able to answer.
    Mr. Breuer. Congressman, the one point that I would like to 
make is that there's been a reference that since the time of 
the certification that was made by Mr. Ruff that some 12 boxes 
of documents came to this committee. Well, in fact, as those 
most familiar with this process are aware, we alerted the 
committee that we would give a certification, if indeed 
required, that there were certain types of materials that were 
physically not possible to produce by the time of the 
certification. Those included the e-mail system, Congressman, 
that, in fact, for the most part was inherited by prior 
administrations for which it is extraordinarily costly and 
time-consuming to produce and reconstruct e-mails so that we 
can actually generate them, go through them, find the 
responsive materials and produce them to you. Much of the boxes 
that occurred after the certification were, in fact, those e-
mails.
    Second, as we informed the staff of this committee, there 
were phone logs. There are many phone logs, as you can imagine, 
at the White House that are in storage. Literally--paralegals 
have to go page by page through every single phone log to try 
to determine which of those are responsive. We alerted the 
committee that this was a remarkably time-consuming task and 
that, too, could not be done until after the certification.
    And last, because of the instructions by Mr. Ruff and the 
fact we should remain as thorough and complete as possible, we 
sent lawyers and paralegals back to review briefing papers and 
schedules to determine that, in fact, if there were other 
responsive materials that could not be gleaned, either from 
computer searches or because of subsequent information we had 
learned, that we went over and again tried to find those, and 
indeed we did that. And we did that so that we could be as 
thorough as possible.
    If we simply wanted to have an appearance, as you have 
described Congressman--and I agree, appearance and content are 
not always the same--we would have simply closed up and said: 
we're all done and let the appearance be that, because Mr. Ruff 
had written a certification, that it was all over. But we 
didn't do that. We went back and we looked further.
    That is why there have been 12 additional boxes, but that's 
not really a surprise to the staff of this committee. We have 
apprised this committee that we would continue to look and, 
indeed, we will continue to look. And the best we can do in a 
place as large and complex as the White House with as many 
employees as the White House has, some 2,000 not even including 
the military people when are nearly another thousand, is that 
as we learn more we will endeavor to search more and find more, 
and regardless of the political repercussions, we will produce 
those materials to you as quickly as we can. I think we did 
that here.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Let me just make one brief observation before I yield to 
Mr. Shadegg, and that is that Senator Thompson and I have been 
of the same opinion that there has been a very, very, very slow 
production of a lot of documents. Mr. Thompson, I think, said 
at the conclusion of his set of hearings, that he was 
frustrated because he was upset with the--I think he used the 
term ``stonewalling,'' I am not sure, by the White House. And 
so I want you to know that while I respect all of you folks a 
great deal, I think the appearance to both of the chairmen of 
the committees in the Congress that have been investigating 
this, that there has been either incompetence or a deliberate 
attempt to keep information from getting to us in a timely 
fashion, and that is something that really concerns us.
    Mr. Mica. Excuse me.
    Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just go back to 
sequencing your involvement in the production of documents.
    Now, Ms. Mills, you are the long-term, I guess, individual 
involved in this. When did you start looking for various 
documents that were requested?
    Ms. Mills. I took over responsibility in an interim basis 
on October 30th of 1996 for requests that were coming in 
related to different matters. And transitioned that matter in 
the beginning of February.
    Mr. Mica. So you were basically in charge of getting the 
information requested. Mr. Quinn, would he direct you at that 
time?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Mica. And these gentlemen came on, when did you come 
on? March?
    Mr. Breuer. I came in the middle of February, Congressman.
    Mr. Nionakis. I came on in the beginning of March.
    Mr. Mica. And you came in February?
    Mr. Ruff. February 10th.
    Mr. Mica. Well, we have documents here, the very beginning 
exhibits, I have 135 requesting information and you were 
involved, I guess, in trying to help Mr. Quinn get some of this 
information together, documents and backgrounds.
    Ms. Mills. I think as I testified yesterday I wasn't 
involved with this particular request, but I was involved with 
the subsequent one on December 16th.
    Mr. Mica. December 16th. These are some that I am referring 
to.
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Mica. Then we have the January 15th memo from our 
chairman, and it was addressed because--I guess you were coming 
in; is that correct?
    Mr. Ruff. My appointment had been announced on January 6th, 
I believe, Congressman, but I didn't arrive for another month.
    Mr. Mica. Or our request, January 15th, was directed to 
both you and Mr. Quinn as White House counsel. Now, this is 
back in January. Did you see this January 15th memo that was 
directed to you?
    Mr. Ruff. I saw it, I believe, after I had arrived at the 
White House. I'm not positive, though.
    Mr. Mica. Did you ask that there be any followup to comply 
with that request since you had taken over those 
responsibilities?
    Mr. Ruff. When I arrived, there was an ongoing process of 
trying to collect documents pursuant to the Quinn directives.
    Mr. Mica. But did you read the 15th memo?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe I reviewed all of the outstanding 
document requests that had been collected in those early days 
of my tenure.
    Mr. Mica. So you did review the 15th memo----
    Mr. Ruff. I believe I did, yes.
    Mr. Mica [continuing]. From the committee. And in that 15th 
memo--now, you had already been assigned to work on the request 
of December 16th, and you were starting on the work on the 
15th? Did Mr. Quinn give you--did he give you any requests from 
the 15th to comply with our requests?
    Ms. Mills. I'm sure that I would have seen this, though at 
that time Mr. Quinn indicated to the committee that we were 
transitioning that and the committee indicated that they 
understood and would be working with the new Members.
    Mr. Mica. So Mr. Quinn, not Mr. Ruff, showed you the memo 
of the 15th?
    Ms. Mills. I believe that would have been correct.
    Mr. Mica. I mean, the memo of the 15th says to prevent any 
conflicts or appearance of conflicts, it is essential that none 
of the individuals involved in dealing with Mr. Huang, Mr. Trie 
or any of the DC fund-raising matters be involved in the 
collection of documents or response to congressional requests.
    In this regard, it has been confirmed by the White House 
that deputy counsels Bruce Lindsey and Cheryl Mills attended a 
May 9, 1996, meeting regarding questionable funds raised by Mr. 
Trie for the Presidential Legal Expense Trust fund.
    So Mr. Quinn gave you this that said you shouldn't be 
involved in putting together any information for response to 
this committee?
    Ms. Mills. As you likely are aware, Congressman, Mr. Quinn 
wrote back and indicated that there was not indeed a conflict. 
And indeed, if on every occasion that that was alleged, we 
would never be in a position to be able to assist this 
committee because there would be no one in our office left to 
be able to assist. So one of the things we try and do is review 
all of the materials and requests that you all have and come to 
a reasonable way to try and address them.
    Mr. Mica. But you did read this and you weren't concerned 
that already that your involvement was called into question 
January 15, 1997, by this committee that expressed concern so 
you just went on with your regular----
    Ms. Mills. You all had requests; I thought it was my job to 
try and address them. That's what I try and do. The particular 
matter that you all indicated that I should recuse myself or 
not be involved was that I was at a meeting in which the legal 
expense trust was discussed with regard to contributions that 
had been received. I was in that position in my role as 
Associate Counsel in the Counsel's Office, and that is 
something that I had an obligation and a responsibility to do.
    Mr. Mica. Were you in charge of this inquiry at that point 
or had anyone else come in?
    Ms. Mills. At that point--in October is when I took 
responsibility for dealing with these matters.
    Mr. Mica. Right. And we are now up to January. He has come 
in. He has looked at this memo.
    Ms. Mills. Actually, Mr. Ruff came in in February, as he 
just indicated, and we had also indicated to this committee 
that we anticipated new arrivals and that they would be 
addressing this matter with respect to your requests.
    Mr. Mica. From December on through this time----
    Ms. Mills. Yes, that was me.
    Mr. Mica. And you were totally in charge?
    Ms. Mills. I wasn't totally in charge. As you might be 
aware, during that time period I was associate counsel. There 
were two deputy counsels and also a counsel.
    Mr. Mica. But you were given this responsibility?
    Ms. Mills. I had the responsibility for trying to respond 
to different requests, including this committee's requests.
    Mr. Mica. What concerns me is that I am also hearing that 
we may be getting more. There may be more tapes, there may be 
requests for information or the material that we have requested 
coming in dribbles and drabs. It sounded like you were talking 
about that we should expect this and shouldn't be shocked by 
it.
    Mr. Breuer. Well, don't think that's fair, Congressman. 
What I do think is the fact is that we have produced to you, as 
best as we can, completely. Now, this committee has reviewed--
it should be no secret, that since the beginning of the 
Presidency, the President has had videotapes. We have now 
provided to you far in excess of any request you have ever made 
the videotape data bases of every single event where the 
President of the United States has either been videotaped or 
audiotaped. This subcommittee has at least indicated, at least 
initially, an interest in videotapes or audiotapes that at 
first blush, Congressman, appear to have no relationship 
whatsoever to your inquiry. But we have said because Mr. Ruff 
has instructed us to----
    Mr. Mica. They just happened to feature all of the 
principals in that----
    Mr. Breuer. Well, no, Congressman. Some of them happen to 
feature nothing more than private personal events.
    Mr. Mica. I have seen them.
    Mr. Breuer. We're talking about the ones you don't have.
    Mr. Mica. Oh, I am sorry.
    Mr. Breuer. Because you have now expressed interest--
because videotapes since the first day, Congressman, of this 
administration, as there have been in all administrations. I am 
simply telling you----
    Mr. Mica. So don't be surprised.
    Mr. Breuer. No, it is that we're willing to work with you 
and we want to know what you're interesting in.
    Mr. Mica. At least though November of next year. Thank you.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Let me say, there are a number of videotapes that we will 
be reviewing. We are going to be going down to WHCA and taking 
a look at those videotapes, and the ones that we think are 
relevant to the investigation, we will be asking for the 
original copies of that and bring them down for further review 
and analysis. So we are in the process of looking at a lot of 
those. We are looking at hundreds more.
    I think, Mr. Fattah, we will come back to you in just a 
minute because we want to be fair. Is Mrs. Maloney back? Did 
you want to ask any questions at this time? Let me go to Mr. 
Shadegg then and then we will come back to you.
    Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, can I renew my point that I 
believe it is the custom and precedent of the committee, and it 
is a committee I have served on for two Congresses in that it 
is supposed to be a balance between both sides in the use of 
time.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Fattah, I will accede to your wishes. That 
is not the rule of the committee but we will accede to your 
wishes.
    Mr. Fattah. I will be glad to yield to Mr. Shadegg away the 
time, but just to act as if we don't have the right to have a 
fair amount of time is the wrong way for this committee to 
proceed. If the gentleman has to leave, he can have the time.
    Mr. Burton. I am not sure the rule wasn't created to make 
sure that Members attended. But if you want to yield to Mr. 
Shadegg, you may.
    Mr. Fattah. I yield our time and receive it back on the 
other end.
    Mr. Burton. You are a very nice fellow. Mr. Shadegg.
    Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, let me say to the panelist it has been a 
very, very long afternoon and I apologize it has taken so long. 
Unfortunately, that impinges also on my time because I was 
supposed to get 10 minutes to do what I now have to try to do 
in 5 minutes. So if I am a little short with you, please 
understand that I can't tolerate long answers.
    Mr. Ruff, I would like you to start by looking at exhibit 
168, which is on the screen. It is a part of this issue of 
documents produced or produced late and perhaps why they were 
produced late. It is identified as a memo from Marsha Scott to 
Harold Ickes and Bruce Lindsey and it reflects I believe a 
carbon copy to the First Lady. This is a document that Mr. 
Ruff, you produced to the committee in February; isn't that 
right?
    [Exhibit 168 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.102
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.103
    
    Mr. Ruff. I am trying to track down a copy of it, because 
the screen is not really legible.
    Mr. Shadegg. We don't give you a screen to look at it.
    Mr. Ruff. You give me a screen, but not much that is 
legible on it, Mr. Congressman. Thank you. One of my colleagues 
has handed me the document. I'm sorry, go ahead, sir.
    Mr. Shadegg. That was a document that you produced to the 
subcommittee in February, correct?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe that's correct.
    Mr. Shadegg. At the time you produced it, you had concluded 
that it was responsive to the subcommittee's August 1996 
request, correct?
    Mr. Ruff. Yes, that's correct.
    Mr. Shadegg. Your letter shows that. As a matter of fact, 
your February 26th letter to the subcommittee indicates that it 
was produced in response to that and expressly states that it 
was responsive, that those documents were responsive to that 
request, right?
    Mr. Ruff. That's right.
    Mr. Shadegg. If we could look at the first sentence of the 
second paragraph, and it is highlighted on the screen which you 
can't read, it says: Currently in the White House we are 
preparing, as you know, to implement a new data base system 
starting August 1.
    That sentence I believe, and the rest of the paragraph, 
which is about the WHo data base made it clear to you that the 
document was responsive to the August 2, 1996, request?
    Mr. Ruff. I'm candidly reluctant to tell you which 
particular line it was, if any, that triggered this, but I have 
no doubt that that reference is among the things that we 
believed were relevant.
    Mr. Shadegg. Well, clearly the new data base that it 
referred to there in a memo from Marsha Scott who was 
responsible for creating the WHo data base is a reference to 
the WHo data base, right?
    Mr. Ruff. I believe so but I'm not positive. My colleague 
here is who is more knowledgeable--I don't want to take up your 
brief time and I'm happy to turn the light off if I can do that 
from the witness stand.
    Mr. Shadegg. Actually, there is a letter in which you 
acknowledge that fact.
    Mr. Ruff. That it is relevant, yes.
    Mr. Shadegg. No, I think there is a letter in which you 
acknowledge that it was a reference to the WHo data base. 
Marsha Scott wrote it. I can't imagine what else it would be 
about.
    Mr. Ruff. I am willing to accept the fact that the document 
is responsive and that that response may well be one of the 
triggering elements.
    Mr. Shadegg. OK. I posit that it is, and anybody who reads 
the whole memo can figure that out.
    Ms. Mills, you found this document in September 1996, 
didn't you?
    Ms. Mills. I found a version of this document. It didn't 
have the First Lady's handwriting on it.
    Mr. Shadegg. OK. And you did not produce it at that time; 
is that right?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Shadegg. OK. As a matter of fact, like the handwritten 
notes of yesterday, you determined that it was not responsive 
and put it in that separate folder?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct, because I had a working 
knowledge then of the different data bases that had been 
addressed at that time. Ms. Scott was trying to address several 
different types, and this particular one, at the time I had 
knowledge of, was not related to WhoDB.
    Subsequently, WhoDB, which is what your request was, came 
into being and the documents that were specifically related to 
WhoDB were provided.
    Mr. Shadegg. Well, you said subsequently. But you wrote--
you had already written in January 1994 a memo to Marsha Scott 
about WhoDB and you knew that she was working on WhoDB.
    Ms. Mills. Actually, that's not correct. My memoranda in 
January is about a new correspondence data base, and as I think 
you probably are aware, in the end the data base that was 
implemented was not a correspondence data base, but WhoDB, 
which is the data base that is used throughout the White House.
    Mr. Shadegg. So your January 17th data base didn't have to 
do with WhoDB?
    Ms. Mills. That was my impression at the time, that's 
correct.
    Mr. Shadegg. The second paragraph does talk about the new 
data base and you now agree with me that that is the WhoDB. And 
you are saying that it wasn't the WhoDB at the time?
    Ms. Mills. It was my impression at the time, through 
conversations and other materials that we had with respect to 
this, that it was not with regard to the WhoDB. As you probably 
are aware, there were many different data bases in the White 
House and there were many different designs that were 
considered as to what would be the final data base that was 
going to ultimately be used.
    At this time, we are talking about using a system modeled 
on PeopleBase. Ultimately, they ended up using WhoDB, which is 
not modeled on PeopleBase.
    Mr. Shadegg. OK. Let's talk about the first sentence of the 
third paragraph. Let me turn your attention to that.
    That sentence says, ``My team and I are involved in 
conversations with the DNC about the new system they are 
proposing.''
    Do you see that?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Shadegg. Do you have any idea why someone in the White 
House, a White House official, working with a team, presumably 
a team of Government officials, would be working on a DNC, or 
discussing working with the DNC on a data base?
    Ms. Mills. As you probably are aware, White House officials 
and others are allowed to engage in political activity and they 
are allowed to use their time in that way when they volunteer 
to provide political activity, so to the extent that Ms. Scott 
wanted to provide or make herself available to engage in those 
activities, provided she did not use Government resources, that 
would be perfectly consistent with the Hatch Act.
    Mr. Shadegg. Government resources seems to be a good 
question. This is on stationery which says the White House, 
Washington. I presume that would be a Government resource, 
wouldn't it?
    Ms. Mills. Yes, it would.
    Mr. Shadegg. OK. And I suppose it is going to be difficult 
to figure out what computer she used. But the paper certainly 
suggests that it may have been a White House computer?
    Ms. Mills. Well, the paper--yes, I would certainly think 
that.
    Mr. Shadegg. OK. I guess I just have to--I find it curious 
that you don't produce this document, which I think clearly 
references the WhoDB, and I think any reasonable mind would 
conclude that, and it contains this information in it, which is 
rather embarrassing to the White House, and we are talking 
about responding to a request from our committee before the 
1996 election, a document that gets set aside and not produced 
until months after the 1996 election.
    And I just have to tell you that from my perspective, it is 
a little bit difficult to believe that it wasn't concern about 
those embarrassing comments in there, and I have only been able 
to go over one--there are several others in there, references 
to working with this data base and coordinating it with the DNC 
and trading information back and forth. I find it a little bit 
hard to believe that that didn't influence the decision not to 
produce it.
    And I guess, since unfortunately my time has run out, I 
find it even more curious, when you go to the document you did 
refer to, which you said you did find in September, which 
shows--and now we will put that one up on the screen--which 
shows the First Lady's notation that says, ``This sounds 
promising; please advise,'' and has the First Lady's initials 
on it.
    Ms. Mills. Right. As I probably indicated to you, the one 
that we were reviewing did not have the First Lady's 
handwriting on it.
    But one thing I would like to point out, we gave careful 
advice to the staff regarding what was and wasn't appropriate 
for them to do and they were very clear on the fact that they 
could not share data from the White House data base with other 
data bases unless there was some official purpose.
    And in that regard, I think one of the things I would like 
to try and address in your statement is that people have to 
observe the rules, but when they observe the rules they 
properly can work with the DNC or other entities provided that 
they observe the appropriate rules, and it is my understanding 
that that is what they did.
    Mr. Shadegg. Well, except that the appropriate--if I could, 
Mr. Chairman, just two comments, briefly. The appropriate rules 
include not using White House resources, that's not one and, 
No. 2, this memo is clearly responsive, as Mr. Ruff has 
indicated, to our request whether it had the First Lady's 
initials on it or not.
    Ms. Mills. Right. At that time, I probably had a little bit 
greater familiarity because we were working through all of the 
different data bases. There were numerous data bases, as I 
think the correspondence back and forth with Mr. McIntosh 
indicated. He indicated an interest in the WhoDB data base.
    Ultimately, the data base that was implemented was WhoDB, 
but there were numerous other models and prototypes that were 
considered prior to that time.
    Mr. Shadegg. Maybe we will have to ask Mrs. Scott whether 
or not this is, in fact, the WhoDB. I believe that's what she 
was working on. Thank you.
    Ms. Mills. OK. But that is not my impression at the time.
    Mr. Burton. The time of the gentleman has expired. But I 
would like just to add one additional question here because it 
is relevant and it is timely.
    The next paragraph on the next page says, ``The time to act 
is now. Cloning or duplicating data base systems is not 
difficult if carefully planned by a good design team. We have 
proven that it can also be done relatively quickly and 
inexpensively. Therefore, I suggest that instead of continuing 
with an old outdated system, PeopleBase, that does not meet our 
current demands, let my team work with the DNC to help design a 
system that will meet our needs and technical specifications. 
We can show them what to do and then clone another system for 
our specific uses later on,'' which looks like, to a person 
just reading that paragraph, that they wanted a system that 
would work together with the other for political purposes.
    Ms. Mills. They were talking about their outside data bases 
and they did want those to be able to work together.
    Mr. Burton. Outside. What was the other outside data base 
if it wasn't the DNC?
    Ms. Mills. There is PeopleBase, the DNC and the campaign.
    Mr. Burton. But they were talking about a data base that 
was going to be consistent with the DNC one, one they could 
clone. What was that for, the other one?
    Ms. Mills. I believe at the time----
    Mr. Burton. There was the DNC. What is the other one for?
    Ms. Mills. Which one, the campaign?
    Mr. Burton. No. If you read what they say there, it says, 
``let my team work with the DNC to help them design a system 
that will meet our needs and technical specifications.''
    Ms. Mills. That was with respect to information that they 
had from the campaign where they wanted to create a place where 
that information could ultimately end up residing, and they 
wanted that to be consistent and compatible with the DNC's.
    Mr. Burton. But they were talking about the DNC----
    Mr. Fattah. She is agreeing with you.
    Mr. Burton. And then in the next sentence it says, ``We can 
show them what to do and then clone another system for our 
specific uses later on.''
    It sounded like they were talking about a DNC system and 
another system that would be the same. Explain to me what the 
other system was. Is that the White House?
    Ms. Mills. No. It was the campaign.
    Mr. Burton. The DNC and the Presidential campaign?
    Ms. Mills. They wanted the DNC's data base to be consistent 
with whatever data base they ultimately ended up creating for 
the campaign, so that they would be compatible.
    Mr. Burton. Mrs. Maloney.
    Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I would like to really apologize to the two 
witnesses who are being asked to duplicate their testimony 
today, and I really see no need for it.
    I really feel like it is sort of a deja vu all over again. 
I think that we are just reviewing what took place in the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committees. And I think we ought to 
think about not only talking to the same witnesses, Mr. 
Chairman, we ought to talk about stealing their budget.
    The Senate committee managed to hold 32 hearings. They 
called 81 witnesses. They spent $2.2 million. This committee 
has spent $3 million and this is only the third day of 
testimony.
    So, Mr. Ruff and Mr. Breuer are 2 of 29 witnesses who have 
been doubly deposed, and I really feel it has been unfair to 
you and your time.
    There has been a great deal of talk today about videos, but 
there is one video that wasn't shown, that I wish we had, and I 
was talking earlier about Triad and the resulting expenditure 
of $5 million in attack ads and asked the chairman when he 
would be subpoenaing witnesses in that respect, but according 
to the Washington Post they talk about a video where a 
Republican Senator, Don Nickels, appears and in the film he 
says, and I quote, ``I think Triad is a fantastic organization. 
This is a very effective organization that is going in and 
helping us in those races that are close, in those races that 
are targeted.''
    According to the Washington Post and National Journal 
Report, this was filmed in part in his Senate office. And I 
would like to request from the chairman if he would likewise 
show this tape at these hearings.
    But we do happen to have a tape, a tape that was filmed in 
1987 in the East Room with our former President Ronald Reagan 
speaking, and I would like to ask if we could show that tape. I 
think we should be able to show some tapes on the Democratic 
side.
    And while they are preparing it, I would like to simply ask 
the chairman--well, he is in conversation.
    Mr. Burton. I beg your pardon.
    Mrs. Maloney. I am getting ready to show a tape and I 
wanted you to see this.
    Mr. Burton. OK. Thank you.
    [Videotape shown.]
    Mr. Waxman. I think those tapes were altered.
    Mrs. Maloney. There are a whole list of them here, 10. We 
won't have time to look at all of them. But, Mr. Chairman, I 
would really like to request that the tape of the Triad fund-
raising appeal be played at this committee so that tapes that 
are current can be shown. This was in the past. But we have 
read--again, it hasn't been before any of the hearings, but we 
have read in the papers, the papers have covered how Triad used 
a shield of not-for-profit organizations, giving tax breaks to 
American citizens to donate for political campaigns and they 
would then target it into vulnerable campaigns to defeat 
Democrats.
    And I think that this is a loophole that needs to be 
changed in our law. As I mentioned earlier, Congressman Horn 
and I have a bill in that would require all of these so-called 
not-for-profits, such as Triad's Citizens for Reform--it sounds 
very nonpartisan but, in fact, according to the documents in 
the press, it was very partisan and totally funded to defeat 
Democratic candidates. But not to get partisan, I just think 
that we should look at this loophole. We should close it.
    And I, again, appeal to the chairman to have a hearing 
focusing on Citizens for Reform and some of these so-called 
independent groups that have, in some cases, spent twice as 
much as a candidate spends.
    We had an example just a week ago in New York where in the 
last week of the campaign, they came in and spent $1 million of 
soft money. This type of thing is going on, and I think, at the 
very least, the American public should know who is trying to 
buy their vote or influence the election; and under the current 
laws, the soft money does not have to be disclosed.
    I think it should be banned, but at the very least, we 
should disclose who is making these contributions.
    And since the press has covered this in detail, I think 
that at least we should have one governmental hearing on this 
issue.
    Mr. Burton. The gentlelady's time has expired. Let me just 
say, as I said before with Lanny Davis before the media a while 
ago--I see his smiling face out there in the audience--that we 
are certainly going to look at Triad. We may very well subpoena 
records from them.
    So we are going to be as fair as we possibly can in the 
investigation. If we find illegal campaign contributions, we 
are going to try to pursue that.
    Let me just say--yes, ma'am?
    Mrs. Maloney. You mentioned you were going to be as fair as 
we possibly can.
    Mr. Burton. That's true.
    Mrs. Maloney. Very respectfully, why have you approved four 
consultants for your side of the aisle, yet the consultant that 
the ranking member tried to have hired for the Democrats was 
not approved?
    If you talk about--you have got us outgunned four to zero, 
why not just be three to one?
    Mr. Burton. The gentlelady, if she was here--I think she 
was here when we had our discussion yesterday; and the vote on 
that, it was clear--at least I hope--from my remarks that if 
the contractual agreement with the Emerald Group that you were 
talking about was consistent with the one that we had for Mr. 
Bennett, we probably would have had no problem.
    I also said in my remarks that I was more than willing to 
work with Mr. Waxman to try to work out our differences so that 
you could hire a consultant that you felt comfortable with.
    Now, let me just end up by saying, we have two more people 
Mr. Barr has not had a second round, nor Mr. Snowbarger. Then 
what I would like to do is have Mr. Bennett conclude, because 
our witnesses have been here for a long time, and I know they 
are getting a little tired. They are getting saddle sores.
    Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, I thought we agreed that you were 
going to have two on your side and then we would have two on 
our side.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Fattah, the Chair wants to be fair. Let me 
go to Mr. Snowbarger. Then we will come back to someone on your 
side and then we will go to Mr. Barr and then we will--if it is 
all right with you, we will go to Mr. Bennett and then wind up.
    Mrs. Maloney. Point of information.
    Mr. Burton. The gentlelady will state her point.
    Mrs. Maloney. I would just like to clarify for the record, 
in response to your statement, Mr. Waxman agreed--correct me if 
I am wrong, Mr. Waxman--that our consultant would apply and 
follow the same guidelines as Mr. Bennett.
    Is that correct, Mr. Waxman?
    Mr. Waxman. Yes.
    Mrs. Maloney. I thought that's what you said yesterday. So, 
in other words, we said we would--or rather Mr. Waxman said on 
behalf of the Democrats that we would abide--our consultant 
would abide by the exact same guidelines as your consultants. 
Yet you hired yours and not a Democratic one. And I think it 
is--you are in the majority; you can have three to one. But to 
have four to zero and to sit here and talk about fairness, it 
is a little unfair to try to act like you are fair when you are 
not being fair.
    Mr. Burton. Mrs. Maloney, I will talk with you about this 
later. I think we can work out our differences.
    Let me go to Mr. Snowbarger.
    Mr. Snowbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to make 
these brief.
    Ms. Mills, I am trying to understand exactly how documents 
were handled in the White House. When you sent out your 
requests for information, they--as I understand it, they came 
back into the Legal Office, and when they came into the Legal 
Office, you would put them in folders that would show the 
source, in other words, where they had come from.
    Is that a fair description?
    Ms. Mills. That's a fair description with respect to the 
Quinn directive.
    Mr. Snowbarger. OK. Just so I make sure, so if a document, 
say, came from Harold Ickes, it would be in a file either 
labeled with his office or his name.
    If it came from the Social Office, there would be a file 
from the Social Office, that kind of thing?
    Ms. Mills. Correct.
    Mr. Snowbarger. OK. And so with a system like that, you 
would at least be able to know where the document originated 
from?
    Ms. Mills. Typically, that's what we try to do when we have 
sufficient time to be able to do that, correct.
    Mr. Snowbarger. OK.
    Mr. Ruff, I think we were told yesterday that the 
handwritten document that we have talked about over the last 
couple of days, that was discovered in 1996 but not produced 
until, I guess it was last week sometime, that that was written 
by Brian Bailey.
    Mr. Ruff. So I understand, yes.
    Mr. Snowbarger. The production log that you gave us for 
that particular numbered document indicates that the source of 
that document was the Office of the White House Counsel.
    Is Mr. Bailey in that office?
    Mr. Ruff. No, he is not.
    Mr. Snowbarger. Has he ever been in that office?
    Mr. Ruff. I don't believe so, at least----
    Mr. Snowbarger. Then why would we be told that the source 
of that was the White House Counsel's Office?
    Mr. Ruff. Well, perhaps I can have Ms. Mills respond, but I 
believe it reflects that, as has already been explained at some 
length, that document was found in a folder contained in files 
stored in the White House Counsel's Office; and that's fully 
explained in my letter to Mr. McIntosh.
    Mr. Snowbarger. So you aggregated all these files from 
various sources that might have had labels at some point in 
time, telling us where they came from, but now everything comes 
from the White House Counsel's Office?
    Mr. Ruff. No, sir. But you are candidly out of my depth, 
because I didn't actually find the document. So let me----
    Mr. Snowbarger. Well, we can have Ms. Mills----
    Mr. Ruff. But I would be happy to explain it to you at 
length if--either--if there is someone here who can do it, or I 
will get you the information.
    Mr. Snowbarger. Well, if Ms. Mills could respond to that. I 
am confused. We are trying to find out where documents like 
this come from.
    Ms. Mills. Right.
    Mr. Snowbarger. And obviously, if we are told that 
everything that we are getting now is coming from the White 
House Counsel's Office, we are not--we are not going to know 
much about the document.
    Ms. Mills. No. I can understand that.
    With respect to the WhoDB document request, we actually 
collected documents, and on the day they were collected, they 
were asked to be produced. So we did not have the time that we 
would ordinarily have to go through those documents and provide 
them with respect to what files and offices they came from.
    Indeed, we asked people just to send the records and we 
started Bates Stamping as soon as they came in and producing 
them so we could produce them in a timely fashion.
    Those materials were reviewed and placed in a file because 
they were not produced at that time, so they remained in the 
Counsel's Office, and I believe that's the reason why it says 
the Counsel's Office.
    Mr. Snowbarger. There was no attempt whatsoever in your 
files to make a notation where the document originated from?
    Ms. Mills. At that time we did not have sufficient time to 
be able to do that because we were asked to produce documents 
on the day that people turned them into our office.
    Mr. Snowbarger. So what was the label of the file that you 
put this into?
    Ms. Mills. Nonresponsive.
    Mr. Snowbarger. Nonresponsive?
    Ms. Mills. Correct.
    Mr. Snowbarger. OK. Understanding our concern about trying 
to be able to find sources--I mean, we don't want to have to go 
and depose everyone in the White House to find out whose 
handwriting this is.
    Ms. Mills. No. I understand that. I think if you have 
documents that you all have questions about, I think we have 
tried to be responsive in identifying where they came from.
    Mr. Snowbarger. Well, if you could, we have a number of 
documents that are listed here as White House Counsel's Office, 
M 33292 through 33302; I would ask at a minimum that we get a 
log that shows us specifically where those documents came from. 
And, again, I think--I suspect we have other production logs 
like this that are very general in nature, and I think we need 
to have that more specific information.
    Mr. Ruff. As I indicated to Congressman McIntosh when he 
raised this issue a little earlier today, we will be happy to 
work with his committee staff to identify the source of any 
documents we can that are of particular concern.
    Mr. Snowbarger. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would yield 
back.
    Mr. Burton. Are you finished, Mr. Snowbarger?
    Mr. Snowbarger. Yes, I yield back.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman has completed.
    Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In our search for the truth, I have some final questions I 
just want to walk through.
    Ms. Mills, you have been at the White House since--for how 
many years?
    Ms. Mills. Since January 20, 1993.
    Mr. Fattah. And during this period of time, you have had a 
number of different supervisors?
    Ms. Mills. Yes, that's fair to say.
    Mr. Fattah. Or people that you report to?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Fattah. Can you lay them out in chronological order for 
us?
    Ms. Mills. I reported to Bernard Nussbaum. I subsequently 
reported to Lloyd Cutler. I subsequently reported to Ab Mikva. 
And I subsequently reported to Jack Quinn; and then I 
subsequently report to Chuck Ruff.
    Mr. Fattah. In all of the times that these issues that the 
committee has asked you about, did you have someone you were 
directly reporting to?
    Ms. Mills. Yes, indeed, with respect to these materials, I 
reviewed them.
    Mr. Fattah. In response to this particular issue about the 
memo that was termed to be nonresponsive, was it not your 
testimony yesterday that that was a decision jointly arrived at 
between you and White House Counsel Quinn?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Fattah. The two of you made this decision?
    Ms. Mills. Yes. I put----
    Mr. Fattah. Because in subsequent questions by members of 
the committee, they seemed to have missed this point; that this 
was not an individual decision that was made by you.
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. OK. So I just wanted to clarify the record. You 
also indicated that the subcommittee's response vis-a-vis this 
data base was quite specific, seven enumerated questions, and 
that, under the decision of the person who was your immediate 
supervisor and was, in fact, the ultimate authority on what was 
going to be responsive, both of you agreed that this was not 
responsive at that time?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. Now, Counsel Ruff has indicated to the 
committee that he has a different view of responding to this 
committee's requests. He says, we are going to give them 
everything, even those things that maybe are not responsive, so 
that we don't get accused of being not responsive.
    Ms. Mills. That's correct. I think a----
    Mr. Fattah. That is a different policy in the office, 
right?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. So whereas before you were responding to the 
specific nature of the subpoenas, this is a broader 
interpretation of what should be delivered?
    Ms. Mills. Correct; and it was a request, that's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. So that as we--and the other thing that you 
said, I think, in your testimony yesterday, was that 
substantially the same information that's in this document, 
that people keep going around and around about was available in 
other information that was provided?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. So that in all of this smoke, there was nothing 
that was being hidden from anyone?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. And that finally, when the chairman was asking 
you whether or not, when they talk about having these--these 
data bases being able to be compatible, that it was fully the 
White House's viewpoint that legally they could develop a data 
base that would serve a public purpose, but that also had the 
ability to be coordinated with data bases that were built and 
financed through political dollars?
    Ms. Mills. That's correct.
    Mr. Fattah. And that this was advice that various legal 
authorities had given to those who were producing this or 
preparing this data base?
    Ms. Mills. Correct.
    Mr. Fattah. So that at all times when those who were 
involved in the effort to produce the data base, they thought 
that they were acting and still believed that they were acting 
well within the color of the law?
    Ms. Mills. Yes, that's my understanding.
    Mr. Fattah. I want to thank you for your testimony. I want 
to thank all of you, and I want to thank the chairman for 
allowing me an opportunity to clarify the record as we conclude 
this hearing.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Burton. Would you yield to Mr. Mica?
    Mr. Fattah. I would be glad to yield.
    Let me ask one last thing, though. I do want to ask 
unanimous consent--I know you provided a general unanimous 
consent to all
Members. There is an article in this magazine on Triad 
Management and its activities, and I know that we are going to 
be searching for the truth in that direction and I thought 
maybe the committee might find it useful.
    Mr. Burton. Without objection.
    [The article follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.104
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.105
    
    Mr. Mica. Just to clarify the record, if I may--and I thank 
the gentleman for yielding--there were comments made, I think, 
by the gentlelady from New York, and I am sorry she is not 
here, but I did want to clarify the record that, in fact, this 
committee on which I have served since 1992 has been very fair, 
both in the distribution of staff--when I came on this 
committee, there were 5 minority--we were in the minority--
investigative staff and 55 staff. The record is clear. It will 
show that.
    Also, in fact, the cost of this investigation is less than 
the cost, if you go back and look at the responsibilities we 
now have, is less than the cost of the similar operations under 
the 103d Congress, including the cost of this investigation, 
which is an important responsibility in this Congress that we 
get the facts from the executive branches and other agencies we 
oversee, and have that important responsibility for oversight 
and audit investigations.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Fattah. Reclaiming my time, let me again thank the 
chairman for his patience.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Fattah, your eloquence has only been 
exceeded by your kindness, and it is great being with you. I 
hope you have a nice vote.
    Mr. Bennett.
    Mr. Bennett. Mr. Ruff, Ms. Mills, Mr. Breuer, Mr. Nionakis, 
I just have about 2\1/2\ hours of questions that I would like 
to pursue. No, just to wind up, as the chief counsel for this 
committee, I want to definitely let those that arrived at the 
White House in February or March, in a transition period, 
understand that I have been on this job less than 2 months. So 
just as you take certain attacks in terms of your conduct in 
office, I take it pretty seriously when Members from the other 
side of the aisle question what we are doing. I am still trying 
to catch up and do the best we can do in the fairest way 
possible.
    In that regard, Mr. Ruff, I want to say that you and I have 
had some very delightful conversations, and Mr. Breuer, you and 
I have, and I am looking forward to working with both of you. 
And I want to commend you for your professionalism here today. 
We disagree on a lot of points but I would be remiss if I 
didn't note that for the record before I wind up.
    Mr. Ruff. I appreciate it, Mr. Bennett. It will always be 
the case that our differences can be resolved or at least 
addressed through professional dialog, and that's what we have 
always had.
    Mr. Bennett. Just for the record, you and I have dealt with 
each other before over our careers. I am sure that relationship 
will continue.
    Ms. Mills, if I can, just to pick up on a few points, 
because quite frankly I think some of these things really 
aren't in dispute, and I am just trying to clarify it and I am 
not--I don't mean that in an attacking way. I am just trying to 
clarify some matters.
    You indicated earlier this afternoon, talking about the 
data base, that you were--you talked about the correspondence 
data base and the data base of the Correspondence Office as 
opposed to the WhoDB data base.
    Ms. Mills. Actually, there were several data bases and 
models that were considered, so it wasn't just that one. 
Subsequently, there were lots of different models that were 
considered before they settled on WhoDB.
    Mr. Bennett. I understand. But, for example, Marsha Scott 
was the prime force overseeing the development of WhoDB, isn't 
that correct?
    Ms. Mills. That is correct. She----
    Mr. Bennett. I am sorry.
    Ms. Mills. She looked at a number of different models 
before settling on WhoDB. At least that was my impression at 
the time.
    Mr. Bennett. And in January 1994, Marsha Scott was working 
in the White House Correspondence Office at that time, wasn't 
she?
    Ms. Mills. Right, that is correct.
    Mr. Bennett. It is that reason that you referred to the 
data base as the correspondence data base, because ultimately 
the correspondence data base became WhoDB, didn't it?
    Ms. Mills. Actually, I referred to it as the correspondence 
data base because, as you imagine, when staff comes to you they 
have different ideas about what it is they were going to do. At 
that particular time her interest was in setting up a data base 
that was related to correspondence. Obviously, over time, it 
evolved.
    Mr. Bennett. And ultimately it became WhoDB?
    Ms. Mills. Ultimately the model that they settled on for 
doing a wide variety of things, and not just the things related 
to correspondence, became WhoDB.
    Mr. Bennett. And if I can just go back in terms of where we 
were yesterday afternoon and clarify, in January 1994--you are 
the only holdover from the first term of the Clinton 
administration in the White House Counsel's Office, correct, 
you and Mr. Lindsey?
    Ms. Mills. You mean January 1997?
    Mr. Bennett. No, I am going to get to January 1994. 
Basically, as we speak now today, it is essentially you and Mr. 
Lindsey are the only two holdovers from the first term in terms 
of the White House Counsel's Office, isn't that correct? There 
is an entirely new team of lawyers that have----
    Ms. Mills. No, there are other lawyers who were in the 
Counsel's Office in President Clinton's first term who are in 
the White House.
    Mr. Bennett. I am sorry. In terms of investigations, then. 
I must have misspoken. Mr. Breuer came in?
    Ms. Mills. Ms. Paxton was in the Counsel's Office in the 
first administration. She was on the investigative team.
    Mr. Bennett. All right. I apologize for my confusion, then.
    Ms. Mills. That's OK.
    Mr. Bennett. Directing your attention to January 17, 1994, 
in a document that we have had before, there you set forth very 
clearly the standard in that memorandum, accurately noting that 
with respect to the creation of a data base, that it becomes 
Government property and that data from that data base system 
may be provided to sources outside the Federal Government only 
for authorized purposes. Correct?
    Ms. Mills. I believe that's correct.
    Mr. Bennett. And essentially you clearly set forth the 
legal standard to be applied with respect to that--I can assure 
you, I don't intend to take 20 minutes, I promise you--that 
standard having been set. Correct me if I am wrong.
    But then looking at the handwritten notes of Mr. Brian 
Bailey, I believe that's exhibit 147, clearly there is no 
dispute, is there, that with respect to that suggestion--and 
this is a document that was recently turned over, and I am not 
going to get into the matter of the timing right now, but 
clearly as to that document where it says, ``make sure WhoDB is 
integrated with the DNC data base so we can share,'' and the 
notes there, clearly those--those notes would reflect, in your 
opinion, an improper political use of the computer at the White 
House, would it not?
    [Exhibit 147 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.106
    
    Ms. Mills. It was actually my impression that what they 
were ultimately hoping to do was create a data base that would 
allow them to share with the White House, and I think Mr. 
Bailey has indicated, I guess through a statement he released 
yesterday, that that was also his intention.
    Mr. Bennett. I understand that. But my point is, is that 
ultimately there isn't any question that you testified today 
that clearly that is an improper--this document that is on the 
screen now clearly reflects an improper use of the data base, 
would it not?
    Ms. Mills. You and I have a different interpretation of 
this document. I understood this document to be referencing--
because I was aware that Mr. Bailey was apprised of the rules 
with regard to sharing of information--that this was speaking 
of sharing information that could be included in the White 
House data base.
    Mr. Bennett. But my point to you is, clearly as you speak 
today, you would acknowledge that that document that's on the 
screen does not meet the standard that you set in January 1994?
    Ms. Mills. I think there was some debate earlier about what 
it means to be integrated but I think, at least as I understand 
this document, I understood it to be sharing of information 
with the White House; and Mr. Bailey has indicated that that is 
what his own notes meant.
    Mr. Bennett. I am just trying to understand what the 
position of the White House was in the Washington Post today. 
It is my understanding that clearly, if you did not state 
directly, perhaps Mr. Davis in the back of the hearing room or 
someone indicated that the White House now takes the position 
that this document should have been disclosed in response to 
the request by Congressman McIntosh's subcommittee in August. 
Is that correct?
    Ms. Mills. I think certainly to have eliminated any debate 
about its responsiveness, I would happily have provided this 
document because there is nothing in this document that 
concerns me with regard to the materials. But one of the things 
I obviously was trying to do at the time that we got the 
request was be particularly responsive to the materials--the 
request as it was laid out, and as we put this document against 
the request as it was laid out, we did not believe it was 
responsive. But I would have happily provided it to avoid any 
of the debate that we are having right now.
    Mr. Bennett. Hold on 1 second, please.
    If I can on this screen, if we can have exhibit 155, and 
that is the request from Congressman McIntosh's committee. And 
as to paragraph 3 that is being highlighted there--again, I 
don't want to--it is late in the day and I don't want to 
belabor this point but I think that with all the discussions, 
some things are pretty clear here, it seems to me.
    Clearly you set an appropriate standard, rightfully so, in 
January 1994. Clearly there is a document, which is my 
understanding there is not much dispute about now, doesn't meet 
that standard and implied improper uses. And I am not castings 
aspersions on you but clearly it was a suggestion that it would 
not meet your standard.
    Looking at exhibit 155, paragraph 3, if you want to take a 
look on the screen, clearly the suggestion in terms of the 
political use and integration with the DNC would fall within 
that request, paragraph 3, wouldn't it?
    [Exhibit 155 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.107
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.108
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.109
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.110
    
    Ms. Mills. I think that as we looked at this request, we 
noted that Mr. McIntosh had made distinctions between instances 
where he was seeking all documents and instances where he was 
seeking communications. I think if you look at 3, he indicates 
he is seeking communications. I think if you look at 4, 6, and 
7, he had indicated documents.
    So I think at that time, when we were setting this beside 
his request and trying to be uniquely responsive, that's how we 
interpreted it, and we interpreted Mr. Bailey's own notes as 
not being responsive.
    I understand that there is a debate. I have no interest in 
a debate. I quite clearly find it something that we could 
provide. It was nothing I was concerned about and don't really 
believe it is worth debating, because you all have the document 
and there is nothing to hide or be concerned about.
    Mr. Bennett. Right. I want to get to that. I want to get to 
that. I understand now the position is it is not worth debating 
and that the White House has now essentially in the Washington 
Post today said you should have had the document; you didn't 
get it. So I don't think there is any real dispute about it 
being within the requirements of paragraph 3.
    Ms. Mills. I think probably Mr. Quinn's own statement is he 
probably would dispute that. I just don't--I don't know.
    Mr. Bennett. I don't know who made the statement. Is Mr. 
Quinn speaking for the White House? I am talking about what is 
quoted in the paper today.
    Ms. Mills. No. I think at that time we were reviewing the 
materials, and I think there are a number of things. And I just 
think that we tried to be uniquely responsive to the request as 
it was drafted. We assumed that Mr. McIntosh intended something 
in particular with respect to stating ``communications.''
    Mr. Burton. Let me just interrupt. The appearance is that 
you were splitting hairs in order not to comply with the intent 
of the memo.
    Ms. Mills. Actually, Mr.----
    Mr. Burton. You know----
    Ms. Mills. Mr. Burton, I can understand and appreciate that 
concern, and I think one of the things we tried to do was be 
very responsive to this request because we had such a short 
period of time to try and address it. And I can appreciate how 
that might appear, and it is certainly the reason why I think 
it is not worth any debate and would provide it, and if I sat 
here tomorrow and knew that you all would be seeking this 
document again, I would certainly provide it.
    I think what we tried to do was be uniquely responsive to 
your requests. And I appreciate your concern.
    Mr. Bennett. Just to wind up, and I will come back in just 
1 second, Ms. Mills; Mr. Ruff, in terms of this whole point in 
these documents, clearly this document that was turned over--
and I know that you wrote a very professional letter to 
Congressman McIntosh's subcommittee on October 28th, extending 
apologies and turning the document over--clearly that document 
was within the requirement of paragraph 3 of Congressman 
McIntosh's request; wasn't it?
    Mr. Ruff. Mr. Bennett, you will appreciate that it is very 
difficult for me to put myself back in the setting of last 
September because I had no involvement with this, no knowledge 
of the matter then or any discussions there were with Mr. 
McIntosh's committee and his staff.
    My view of this is, and without using the--abusing the 
chairman's language, by the time we got around to dealing with 
Mr. McIntosh's committee, after I arrived, there had been a 
considerably heated exchange of documents. In an effort to sort 
of cool the temperatures, I simply said, look, if it is even 
within shouting distance of responsiveness, produce it. This 
document is clearly within shouting distance.
    Whether I would have made the same call in September or not 
is something I simply can't put myself in the position to make.
    Mr. Bennett. And I understand your reluctance to second-
guess Mr. Quinn. But, essentially, Mr. Ruff, there is no 
question, as you make that call today, that clearly that 
document was within the request, should have been turned over, 
and you have turned it over, correct?
    Mr. Ruff. I have turned it over. As you quite properly 
said, I would never and don't intend to put myself in Mr. 
Quinn's shoes for this purpose.
    Mr. Bennett. And in light of the acknowledgment of the 
White House in today's Washington Post in terms of clearly it 
should have been turned over and it wasn't, just as--from the 
position of White House counsel, there is a concern about an 
overbreadth with respect to subpoenas and requests of 
documents, and something that I certainly will be sensitive to 
in acting in my role as chief counsel, the point of this 
exercise is to show that to the extent that there is this kind 
of fine hairsplitting, when clearly lawyers, regardless of 
their political persuasion, can clearly see that a document is 
required and then it is not turned over and then there is later 
acknowledgment by the White House spin office, well, yes, you 
are right, we should have turned it over, that causes the 
overbreadth of the request.
    And I can assure you on our side we will seek, to you and 
Mr. Breuer and to others, not to have these requests be too 
cumbersome. And in response we would hope that we would not 
have this fine hairsplitting, because as I think we would agree 
in light of the tone of some of the questions today, it upsets 
members of this committee and raises suspicions, whether 
justifiable or not.
    Do you understand what I am saying?
    Mr. Ruff. I understand your concerns. I can guarantee you 
that my hairsplitting tools are nowhere to be found. We take a 
responsible, but I hope a broadly reasonable, approach to 
responding to this committee's requests.
    Mr. Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Ruff, Mr. Breuer.
    I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Barr has returned and I promised Mr. Barr 
before we adjourned I would give him one more brief round for 
questioning. He has not finished his second round, Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, the majority has just used up at 
least 13 minutes, and now you are suggesting that you be given 
another 5 without an opportunity for the minority to speak?
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Fattah, under the agreement that was agreed 
to by both sides at the beginning, with each group of witnesses 
there was supposed to be 30 minutes for both majority and 
minority counsel.
    Mr. Fattah. If you think it is fair, Mr. Chairman, I will 
go along with you. Do you think that is fair?
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Fattah, I always want to be fair. Would you 
like to question some more?
    Mr. Fattah. I just want to clarify for the record one more 
time, Ms. Mills, Jack Quinn was your supervisor?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Fattah. And when you conferred with him about whether 
this was responsive, you jointly made the decision that it was 
not responsive?
    Ms. Mills. That is correct.
    Mr. Fattah. And then at a subsequent time, Mr. Ruff was 
your supervisor?
    Ms. Mills. That is correct.
    Mr. Fattah. The person you reported to?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Fattah. You conferred with him?
    Ms. Mills. Yes.
    Mr. Fattah. You decided that it was responsive?
    Ms. Mills. And I concurred with producing the document.
    Mr. Fattah. And you provided the document?
    Ms. Mills. Correct.
    Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
    Mr. Burton. Before I yield for a final group of questions, 
and then we can all go have an egg salad sandwich, Mr. Ruff, 
the committee will submit questions to you for the record and 
would appreciate if you would make sure that they are answered 
in a timely fashion.
    Mr. Ruff. I will do my very best, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to just return briefly to two particular 
topics that we have touched on. One which has been touched on 
by a number of people, and I do this at the risk of having 
folks on the other side complain again about repeating 
ourselves, but I think it does bear repeating.
    Mr. Ruff, both you and Ms. Mills have continually, and I 
can understand why, when we put up--if you would put up this 
document, refer to this document, you all keep using the word 
``compatible'' or ``compatibility'' or whatnot. I can 
understand why you want to do that because using a word like 
``compatible,'' which is a word used in one--in this other 
memo, may make the difference between something being legal and 
illegal.
    If you have two data bases, one that belongs to the 
taxpayers of this country, that is used for the use of the 
President and his administration for official purposes, and if 
you have another one that is a political data base not paid for 
by the taxpayers of this country to be used for whatever 
political purposes, a political campaign or the DNC or the RNC 
wants to use it, then that is fine. And you can take steps, I 
believe, under the law to make those two systems compatible. I 
don't think that there is any inherent illegality or any 
inference of illegality if that is what we are talking about.
    This document says something very different, and it puts 
us, I believe, squarely in the realm of an inference of and 
evidence of illegality. When you go from making two systems 
compatible to integrating systems, that is very different.
    And I think also, if you look at the specific language on 
exhibit 162-2 in the first paragraph on page 2, I think you 
also very clearly go from the realm of something that is OK to 
do, and that is simply taking steps by the two entities, 
discretely, making sure that their data bases are compatible, 
you go from that into people at the White House putting 
together a data base directly for a political entity, the DNC 
or an outside campaign, and you discuss, as this document does, 
more than just making those two systems compatible, even though 
they are discrete, to exchanging data back and forth, taking 
data from one to the other, you go from the realm of something 
that has the presumption of something that is permissible and 
legal into the area, the arena, of something that is possibly 
illegal and for which there is an inference of illegality.
    [Note.--Exhibit 162-2 can be found on p. 112.]
    Mr. Barr. So I understand why you all are very hesitant to 
use the terminology that appears in this document and shy away 
from what is here.
    My only point is, I think we are talking about something, 
quite aside from the obstruction, which I believe has been 
practiced in holding on to this document as being nonresponsive 
when clearly on its face it is clearly responsive, and this 
other document as well, for the time that it was withheld, I 
think that we are talking about something--and my only distress 
over this point, Mr. Ruff, is that you won't even admit that 
there is a possibility that maybe something had gone wrong here 
or there is at least some possible inference or possible 
illegality.
    Mr. Ruff. May I----
    Mr. Barr. I think clearly there is.
    Mr. Ruff. May I respond briefly, Mr. Congressman?
    Mr. Barr. Briefly, please.
    Mr. Ruff. Yes. First of all, let's talk--the word 
``integrated'' is, of course, neither your word nor mine. It is 
Mr. Bailey's word. I have no idea, I have not spoken to Mr. 
Bailey, about what he intended, although I understand he has 
made a public statement yesterday suggesting that he understood 
what the rules were and intended to abide by them.
    But even beyond that, let's assume the very worst, that Mr. 
Bailey, when he wrote this memo, believed that it was all right 
or didn't believe that it was all right, to integrate the data 
bases. To my knowledge, there is not a single piece of evidence 
anywhere that, in fact, anything wrong was ever done with 
respect to the construction or use of WHoDB.
    If there is evidence of impropriety, I am sure that the 
authorities will pursue it properly and deal appropriately with 
the people involved.
    Mr. Barr. Well, I know that you taught, and very ably, 
contract law at Georgetown and not criminal law, but I must 
assume that you are familiar, for example.
    Mr. Ruff. I also taught criminal law. Not to you, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Barr. OK. Then I know that you would be familiar with, 
for example, the law of conspiracy, criminal conspiracy, that 
one can engage in and be convicted of engaging in a conspiracy 
even though one ultimately may extricate themselves from that 
conspiracy and that would shield them from liability after they 
withdraw if, in fact, they actually withdraw.
    But the fact that ultimately the two data bases may not 
have been fully implemented and integrated does not mean that 
there were not steps taken in that direction which at least on 
the surface it appears to me that there were. And to simply 
say, well, just because eventually the ultimate or an ultimate 
crime was not consummated does not mean something wrong 
occurred leading up to the point where that decision may have 
been made.
    Mr. Ruff. Both of us used to hold the same job, one in 
Atlanta and the other in the District of Columbia, in which we 
tested matters against available evidence to determine whether, 
in fact, there was any basis to believe that criminal activity 
had occurred.
    In my judgment, Congressman, with all due respect, there is 
absolutely no evidence of any such activity in this case.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Waxman. Our side is entitled to half-hour questions. I 
can't imagine going through anything more. This has been 
redundant. It is now quarter after 5 in the afternoon. You have 
been here since 10 in the morning today, not that we have had 
all that time for questions and answers but almost all that 
time. We had breaks for votes on the floor.
    You were here yesterday almost all day as well. I don't 
think after all of those hours we have learned anything that we 
didn't know already. I apologize to you on behalf of those of 
us who are offended by some of our colleagues who I think were 
bullying you, but there is nothing more--unless you have 
something more you want to say, there is nothing more I have to 
ask you.
    Mr. Ruff. Well, I would like to stay and chat for another 
half-hour or so.
    Mr. Waxman. Do you want to speak into the microphone?
    Mr. Ruff. I would like to stay and chat for another half-
hour or so but in deference to my colleagues, who aren't as 
filled with stamina as I am, I think I would be happy to go 
home.
    Mr. Waxman. Well, Mr. Chairman, on the assumption that you 
are not going to have more people ask questions, we will yield 
back our time.
    Mr. Burton. Mr. Fattah.
    Mr. Waxman. No, no, we yield back our time.
    Mr. Burton. The gentleman yields back the balance of the 
time.
    Mr. Ruff, we would like to ask the Counsel's Office to 
review the depositions we discussed on Wednesday by early next 
week regarding executive privilege concerns so that we can make 
your deposition part of the public record.
    Mr. Ruff. We will do that and get back to Mr. Bennett as 
quickly as possible, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Burton. Once again, I want to thank you and Lanny Davis 
for being with us. Lanny, it is good seeing you.
    We thank you for being with us today. We are sorry for the 
delays that were caused by the actions on the floor. But we 
appreciate your help and your patience. Thank you.
    Mr. Ruff. Appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you.
    [Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
    [The depositions of Cheryl Mills, Michael Imbroscio, 
Dimitri Nionakis, Lanny Breuer, Jack Quinn, Steven Smith, 
Colonel Joseph Simmons, and Alan Sullivan follow:]

                           Executive Session

      Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
                             U.S. House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
                     DEPOSITION OF: CHERYL D. MILLS
                                   Monday, November 3, 1997

    The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2247, Rayburn 
House Office Building, commencing at 8:15 a.m.
Appearances:
    Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: 
Barbara Comstock, Chief Investigative Counsel; Uttam Dhillon, Senior 
Investigative Counsel; Kristi Remington, Investigative Counsel; Kenneth 
Ballen, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel; Christopher Lu, Minority 
Counsel; David Sadkin, Minority Counsel; and David Jones, Staff 
Assistant.
For MS. MILLS:
    W. NEIL EGGLESTON, ESQ.
    Howrey & Simon
    1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 200040-2402

    Ms. Comstock. Good morning. We are on the record this morning for 
the deposition of Cheryl Mills, Deputy Counsel at the White House. She 
is joined this morning by her counsel, Neil Eggleston. My name is 
Barbara Comstock. I am the designated Majority counsel this morning. I 
will be joined by David Jones and later Kristi Remington.
    I will at this time ask Minority counsel to identify themselves.
    Mr. Ballen. Ken Ballen.
    Ms. Comstock. Ken, you will be designated counsel this morning?
    Mr. Ballen. Yes. Also present are David Sadkin and Chris Lu.
    Ms. Comstock. We are going to skip the preliminary statement this 
morning by agreement with counsel and the Minority, and also skip over 
Ms. Mills' background and get right into matters so as to expedite and 
shorten things up here.
    Mr. Eggleston. That's fine.

 THEREUPON, CHERYL D. MILLS, a witness, was called for examination by 
   Counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and 
                         testified as follows:

                      examination by ms. comstock:
    Question. Ms. Mills, your official title is Deputy Counsel to the 
President?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And Special Assistant?
    Answer. Deputy Assistant.
    Question. Deputy Assistant to the President?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Okay. And who do you report directly to?
    Answer. Chuck Ruff.
    Question. And do you have anybody else that you have any reporting 
capacity to?
    Answer. We all report to the President of the United States.
    Question. Okay. Is there anybody in the Deputy Chief of Staff's 
office to whom you report?
    Answer. I report to Chuck Ruff.
    Question. So there is nobody other than in the Chief of Staff's 
office or the Deputy Chief of Staff's office that you report to on a 
regular basis?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. You are familiar in the past that Jane Sherburne had a 
reporting relationship to Harold Ickes?
    Answer. I am familiar with that description.
    Question. And have you ever, in your capacity as the Deputy 
Counsel, had any type of reporting relationship like that to the Deputy 
Counsel--I mean Deputy Chief of Staff's office or Chief of Staff's 
office?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Who are the attorneys in the Counsel's Office who work 
under you, directly, on a day-to-day basis?
    Answer. Well, as Deputy Counsel you just have general supervisory 
responsibilities and there is a list of people who work in our office 
who would fall under that.
    Question. Okay. In that capacity, do you then have a role 
overseeing Mr. Breuer and his team of attorneys and paralegals that 
work on special investigations?
    Answer. Well, Mr. Breuer reports to Chuck Ruff, and so I think we 
have more of a consultative relationship with the attorneys who work 
under them. Yes, I am still responsible for them if there are 
administrative issues, including Lanny's, like parking, office space 
and all the other attractive things that go with my position.
    Question. On a day-to-day basis do attorneys from Mr. Breuer's 
office come to you for advice and information?
    Answer. I try to be available for all attorneys so if they have 
questions or things they would like to talk to me about--I am always 
responsive to them like I am responsive to anybody else in the office.
    Question. Are there other attorneys in the Counsel's Office--you 
began your work in the Counsel's Office on January 20th, 1993; is that 
correct?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Are there other attorneys in the Counsel's Office who 
have as long a tenure as you do at this time?
    Answer. Bruce Lindsey began on January 20th. He was not in the 
Counsel's Office at that time. He was Director of Presidential 
Personnel. But he has been in the White House since that time period. 
There are a couple of attorneys who are in the vetting shop who have 
been there probably from a very early point, but I can't identify what 
date it would be.
    Question. Okay. Who is that?
    Answer. Stacey Reynolds has been there for quite a period of time.
    Question. Is there anybody else who has been there since '93 or so?
    Answer. Not that I can recall them sitting here right now.
    Question. Would it be fair to say that you have the most historical 
knowledge then of the Counsel's Office at this point of the people who 
are there at this time?
    Answer. It is certainly fair to say I have been there the longest.
    Question. Okay. Did there come a time where you became involved in 
handling matters related to fund-raising investigations?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And when was that?
    Answer. October 30th, 1996.
    Question. Could you tell us how that came about?
    Answer. Ms. Sherburne, who had been handling the matters as they 
had begun to arise, indicated that she was going to be leaving the 
Counsel's Office and at that time those--that responsibility for the 
campaign finance issues was transitioned to me.
    Question. Did Ms. Sherburne speak with you about this matter?
    Answer. Sure, she did. She just went through the different files 
and materials that she had when she was transferring.
    Question. All right. What files did she transfer to you?
    Answer. She had created basically newspaper clipping files of 
different people based on the different articles and other things like 
that that had occurred, and so in those files she basically transferred 
all of those different materials to me.
    Question. All right. Do you recall how many files there were?
    Answer. I don't.
    Question. Bigger than a bread box?
    Answer. It was, I would say, two bread boxes, maybe.
    Question. Did it deal with matters relating to John Huang?
    Answer. It dealt with all the matters related to campaign finance, 
including John Huang. So if there were articles at that time, which I 
believe there were, about John Huang, there would have been materials 
related to that as well.
    Question. Would it have included things such as a $250,000 
contribution that--to Chong Yam (phonetic) at that time?
    Answer. I don't recall if there were newspaper articles, or things 
like that, about that at that time; it would have likely included that. 
I can't really specifically recall all the different materials.
    Question. Did anybody else in the Counsel's Office speak with you 
about taking over these duties?
    Answer. Mr. Quinn.
    Question. All right. And what did he ask you to do?
    Answer. He basically said it was a transitionary matter if I could 
handle this until we hired someone to take responsibility for doing the 
same position that Ms. Sherburne had done.
    Question. All right. And prior to--this was October 30th when you 
started with these duties?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Had you been involved in any of these matters prior to 
October 30th?
    Answer. Not really. I am sure if people had questions related to 
political activity or something like that or about the Hatch Act, they 
would have called and asked me a question, but I wasn't involved in the 
day-to-day handling of it.
    Question. Okay. Now, prior to this, had you been involved in any 
advisory capacities about fund-raising or campaign matters?
    Answer. I don't understand your question.
    Question. You said you generally dealt with Hatch Act things, that 
was one of the things that you dealt with.
    Answer. One of my issue areas of responsibility was the Hatch Act, 
yes.
    Question. In that capacity, did you ever write any memos to White 
House employees on how to handle political activities at the White 
House?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. All right. And could you describe what you did in that 
capacity?
    Answer. As a general matter, we provide guidance to the staff, and 
I think you are probably familiar with it in the form of the Ab Mikva 
1995 memoranda on political activity, but we provide that kind of 
advice and guidance to the staff regarding political activity.
    Question. I am showing the memo the witness has mentioned, which is 
an April 27th, 1995 memo, to White House staff from Abner Mikva, 
Counsel to the President at that time, and Cheryl Mills, Associate 
Counsel to the President in 1995.
    The topic of this memo is Presidential Campaign-Related Political 
Activity. We don't have a Bates stamp number on this document.
    Could you describe the purpose of this memo?
    Mr. Eggleston. Are you going to mark this as an exhibit?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes. I will make this Deposition Exhibit No. 1.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-1 was marked for identification.]

    [Note.--All exhibits referred to may be found at end of 
deposition on p. 323.]

    The Witness. Could you repeat your question?

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Could you describe the purpose of this memo?
    Answer. The purpose of the memo is to advise staff regarding rules 
with respect to the Hatch Act and other obligations that we have as 
Federal employees with respect to political activity.
    Question. Directing your attention to page 3 of this memo, item No. 
3, which actually is marked----
    Ms. Comstock. I will just note for the record the copy that we have 
has been marked. This is a copy that we had received informally. So 
these are not markings, I believe, from the White House and they aren't 
the witness' markings. They just are markings on this document.
    Mr. Ballen. I would note for the record the last page of the 
document is a fax apparently from C. Boyden Gray at Wilmer, Cutler & 
Pickering, dated March 4th, 1997.
    Ms. Comstock. Actually, I think that may go to another document, so 
why don't we take that off because I don't think that came with this. 
There are some other memos by Mr. Gray that that may have gone with. So 
thank you for identifying that.
    Mr. Eggleston. Just so that I am clear on the record, the document 
that was labeled Mills 1 had attached to it a memorandum from Boyden 
Gray, who was Counsel to the President in a Republican administration. 
I take it you are not telling us you got this memorandum from Mr. Gray; 
he has transmitted other documents to you and that relates to that?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes. Actually, I am not sure--I am not sure--I know 
we have gotten this memo somehow informally. I think we may have 
actually gotten a copy ultimately from the White House also. I think 
this copy that is before us, which is marked has some other markings. I 
know we did get some other memos both from the White House and from 
other outside sources. So I am just not sure where this one came from.
    So I just want to make clear for the record that the underlinings 
or anything like that are not from the White House, from the witness, 
and let's move forward in that way. Just so that we have a record on 
that.
    Mr. Eggleston. I mean, Mr. Gray, of course, would not have been in 
the White House in April of 1995, so if he had it he did not receive it 
in a capacity as a White House employee?
    Ms. Comstock. Right. I believe this memo has been floating around 
out with the press and a lot of people since last spring or summer--I 
know long before we had it from the White House.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Directing your attention again to item No. 3, where it 
reads, that Federal employees, including White House employees, may not 
ever knowingly solicit, accept or receive a political contribution from 
any person, including a subordinate or other Federal employee, did 
you--you included that in this memo?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And could you tell us why that was included?
    Answer. It is one of the restrictions in the Hatch Act for Federal 
employees.
    Question. Okay. And besides sending out this memo, was there any 
effort to discuss this memo or advise people at the White House about 
this?
    Answer. Well, with respect to this memo, separately, no, but we 
regularly have ethics training and also during the course of the time 
period when the President was a candidate we had different meetings 
with staff to advise them about the rules of political activity and 
particular questions that particular staff might have as relates to 
their duties.
    Question. Okay. And so when it says no one can ever knowingly 
solicit, accept or receive, I take it that means exactly what it says, 
you cannot accept checks at the White House?
    Answer. No, actually the Hatch Act regs and also some of the 
opinions that interpret it define ``accept'' and ``receive'' probably 
differently than what they might ordinarily have as their kind of 
everyday usage, but other than that, yes.
    Question. Okay. And does that mean, you know, if, for example, 
checks are mailed in there is a process by which they can be 
forwarded----
    Answer. Yes.
    Question [continuing]. To a campaign?
    But as far as somebody accepting a check in the White House, 
someone coming in and handing a check to the White House, is this 
designed to prevent that type of thing?
    Answer. If you are asking with respect to the Hatch Act, if someone 
hands you a check if you are not an authorized recipient, then that is 
not in violation of the act.
    Question. Okay. Handing a check to somebody?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And are you aware then of individuals at the White House 
accepting checks for political campaigns?
    Answer. I am aware of the incident with respect to Ms. Williams. 
But other than that, I don't have any other knowledge.
    Question. Okay. So at no time--actually, on Ms. Williams' 
situation, were you aware at the time of Ms. Williams' accepting that 
check in March of '95?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Did you know anything about Johnny Chung who was the 
individual who is alleged to have given the check to Ms. Williams?
    Mr. Eggleston. Did she know in March of 1995?
    Ms. Comstock. In March of 1995.
    The Witness. No.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. When did you first hear about that incident?
    Answer. I don't recall. Around the time that I am sure it was 
publicized in the media would have been around the time that I learned.
    Question. Did anybody call you for advice on that matter or about 
the particulars involved in that matter?
    Answer. I don't recall. I mean, at that point obviously whenever 
there are issues or questions related to the Hatch Act, I talk to 
numerous people because obviously there are press inquiries and other 
things like that, so I am certain I would have had conversations, but I 
couldn't tell you particularly with whom.
    Question. And other than the incident with Ms. Williams, were you 
aware--you were not aware then of any other incidents where checks were 
given to individuals at the White House?
    Answer. I am not personally aware of any, no.
    Question. Did you ever hear about any other instances from anybody 
at the White House?
    Answer. No, because I think I would have been made personally aware 
or heard of something, but I have not heard of another situation in 
which someone was handed a check.
    Question. You have not heard of another situation from any source?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Mr. Ballen. And just so the record is clear, you are not making any 
legal judgment about the Maggie Williams' situation, are you?
    The Witness. No, I am not, but I am obviously under the Hatch Act. 
Her situation is not inconsistent with the Hatch Act. It is consistent 
with the Hatch Act.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. So is it the position of the White House then that 
individuals can accept checks at the White House?
    Answer. I don't know that the White House has a position one way or 
another. I think I was answering the question with respect to the Hatch 
Act.
    Question. Okay. But on this memo, was the purpose of item number 3 
here in this memo to instruct the employees at the White House not to 
accept checks from individuals?
    Answer. What I was attempting to do was convey to them the 
requirements of the Hatch Act, and this is one of the particular--in 
fact, the language is actually specifically from the Hatch Act, and I 
was trying to convey that to them.
    Question. And are you familiar with the videotape of the coffee in 
which Don Fowler tells an individual not--that he can't give him a 
check in the White House?
    Answer. I have not seen that videotape. I am familiar with it from 
descriptions of it in the press, but I have not seen the videotape.
    Question. Okay. And do you know if Mr. Fowler was ever advised by 
anyone at the White House as to whether or not checks could be accepted 
in the White House?
    Answer. I do not know if he was advised.
    Question. Did you ever talk with anyone in the DNC about checks 
being transmitted or given to anybody during events at the White House?
    Answer. I don't believe so.
    Question. All right. Were you in regular touch with Joe Sandler?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. During your--well, could you just tell us your 
relationship with Joe Sandler in terms of how often you are in touch?
    Answer. Joe Sandler was and is the General Counsel for the DNC, so 
I would say certainly since he gained that position, and I don't recall 
when that is; he is a person with whom I have conversations to ensure 
that we are making sure both the DNC and the White House abided by the 
appropriate restrictions with regard to political activity.
    Question. Okay. Did you have occasion to discuss at any time with 
Mr. Sandler whether or not checks to the DNC or any political campaign 
could be given to people at events at the White House?
    Answer. I don't believe so. I believe my conversation with Mr. 
Sandler was with respect to the procedures for checks that were mailed 
into the White House being provided to the DNC.
    Question. And what did you tell him about that?
    Answer. I don't recall anything in particular, other than we had a 
process whereby there was a mail room where people had to send any 
checks that they might have received and also where checks might have 
been mailed into--their messenger had to come by and pick those up 
regularly.
    Question. And whose office was that?
    Answer. That would have been in Correspondence, Jim Dorskind's 
office.
    Question. In fact, in this memo, the April 27th, 1995 memo, on page 
4, the bottom of page 4, receipt of campaign contributions at the White 
House, Mr. Dorskind is identified there as the individual to whom 
checks are supposed to be forwarded if they are received at the White 
House?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Okay. In this paragraph it talks about occasionally 
contributions intended for a campaign committee may be addressed to the 
White House and delivered with other mail. Do you know how often that 
occurred?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. Okay. Did individuals call you when that occurred or talk 
to you about it?
    Answer. Typically not. I mean, I think the directions were probably 
clear enough that I didn't tend to get questions like that.
    Question. Do you have any idea about the volume of mail that would 
have been directed to Mr. Dorskind?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. At any time did Mr. Dorskind come to you to talk about 
how to handle these checks or what to do with them?
    Answer. At the time we--that this was placed in the memo, I am sure 
I would have had conversations with him regarding ensuring that the 
messenger came and picked it up and designating a place where they 
would be picked up from.
    Question. Would a messenger from the DNC come over to pick them up 
or some other entity?
    Answer. From the DNC.
    Question. Okay. Were there also--was there occasion for 
contributions to be sent to the President's legal expense trust also 
that would be sent to the White House?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Okay. And would Mr. Dorskind also receive those from 
people at the White House if that occurred?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Okay. How were those transmitted?
    Answer. Those typically would have been forwarded to my office and 
then a messenger from the Presidential Legal Expense Trust would have 
come and picked them up.
    Question. Was there any direction provided to individuals at the 
White House about what to do with checks from the trust?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And were memos sent out about that also?
    Answer. At the time when the trust was set up, we did send out a 
memo that directed people to recognize the distinction between the 
trust and the White House in terms of separate entities and that the 
contributions for the Legal Expense Trust should be sent to the 
Counsel's Office. They should not be answered.
    Question. Okay. In this paragraph on the bottom of page 4, it 
appears that generally you envisioned the contributions that would be 
forwarded to Mr. Dorskind would be ones that would be mailed in; is 
that correct?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. All right. And other than the incident with Ms. Williams, 
it is your testimony then that you do not know of any other checks that 
were given to individuals at the White House?
    Answer. I am not familiar with any. That's not to say that people 
got checks that were given to them at the White House they wouldn't 
have forwarded them to Mr. Dorskind. I am just personally not familiar 
with it.
    Question. Do you know of, in the case of Ms. Williams if she did, 
in fact, forward to Mr. Dorskind the check she received from Mr. Chung?
    Answer. I believe she did.
    Question. Do you recall how you learned that?
    Answer. I believe during the time period that this was being 
reported in the media. One of the things that I think was reported was 
with respect to the fact that she had had the particular check 
forwarded, I believe, to that office, but I am only guessing. I really 
don't have a particularized knowledge of exactly where it was forwarded 
to.
    Question. Okay. You have not talked to Mr. Dorskind then about that 
particular check?
    Answer. No, I have not.
    Question. Okay. Or have you talked to anybody, Ms. Williams or 
anyone in her office, about how that check was forwarded?
    Answer. I am certain during that time period I would have spoken to 
Ms. Williams or any of her assistants to make sure that we were giving 
accurate information to the press, but I don't recall any 
particularized conversation which would track through where exactly the 
check went. It was my understanding that she had forwarded it.
    Question. Okay. Can you recall with any more specificity how the 
check was handled?
    Answer. No.
    Question. All right. Okay. Again, if you turn to page 3 of this 
memo, footnote No. 5, it says the sole exception to this prohibition--
and this is a footnote to the paragraph on Federal employees not being 
able to solicit, accept or receive political contributions from any 
person. It says, the sole exception to this prohibition is Federal 
labor or employee organizations, and then it indicates, please consult 
our office before undertaking any action implicating this exception.
    Could you explain why that footnote was here?
    Answer. The Hatch Act provides for people being able to solicit 
people who are members of Federal labor organizations, and we provided 
that exception in there to identify the fact that the act does provide 
for an exception but we wanted to ensure prior to anyone actually 
soliciting that they consult with our office.
    Question. Did, in fact, people consult with your office about this 
exception?
    Answer. I am not aware of anybody consulting with us regarding that 
exception, and I think I typically would be the person who would have 
been asked.
    Question. Okay. Were there any other people in your office who 
worked on these matters with you?
    Answer. Towards the end of the campaign, we hired a woman named 
Dawn Chirwa who began working on these matters, but typically I ended 
up handling these matters and she shadowed me.
    Question. Is Ms. Chirwa at the White House now?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. What matters does she generally work on?
    Answer. Ethics.
    Question. In the course--before we return to your duties in fund-
raising in general, do you also handle matters related to other 
Independent Counsels?
    Answer. I don't have duties related to fund-raising. I actually 
have duties related to political activity where that was typically the 
area that I had responsibility with respect to.
    Question. Okay. Then actually I was meaning your interim duties 
that you had in October when Ms. Sherburne left and before Lanny Breuer 
came on?
    Answer. You mean campaign finance?
    Question. Yes.
    Answer. When you said fund-raising, I think of fund-raising as 
fund-raising as opposed to the fund-raising matter.
    Question. What I wanted to ask you was in terms of other duties 
that you have regarding other investigations?
    Answer. Currently or previously?
    Question. Both. Historically, what your involvement has been in 
handling matters related to other investigations?
    Answer. With respect to the Independent Counsels, I have worked 
with respect to the Espy and Cisneros Independent Counsel matters.
    Question. What have your duties with that involved?
    Answer. Responding to requests that they provide to us asking for 
information that they requested.
    Question. That includes responding to subpoenas?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. What was your standard way of obtaining information that 
was subpoenaed in those investigations?
    Answer. Depending on what the nature of their subpoena was, we 
would send the particular request to the targeted audience through a 
directive that we drafted using the information provided in the 
subpoena; collect the particular information that was provided; review 
it for responsiveness and provide the responsive materials to the 
particular Independent Counsel office that was seeking it, and if there 
were privileged matters, address them as well.
    Question. Okay. And did you have occasion also to work with various 
attorneys of the individuals involved in those investigations?
    Answer. Typically not, primarily because at the stage at which the 
Independent Counsel was discussing matters with us we had the 
information they were seeking; it didn't require us to consult or seek 
other information. With respect to the Espy matter, prior to the 
Independent Counsel sending a request to us we obviously spoke to Mr. 
Weingarten. He was representing to Mr. Espy at that time and made 
several visits to the White House prior to Mr. Espy's decision to 
resign.
    Question. Okay. And in the course of those meetings, were notes 
taken?
    Mr. Eggleston. Ms. Comstock, I must say that Mr. Espy is under 
indictment, and I really am not sure why this is within the course of 
your investigation, which I wouldn't ordinarily object to, but there is 
a pending indictment of Mr. Espy.
    Ms. Comstock. Actually, I am really just trying to go at how you 
handle--really more historically how you handle investigative matters. 
So I appreciate your concerns. I really want to see how you handle, you 
know, subpoenas in general and to the extent that you can provide some 
guidance on, you know, discussing with attorneys, and we don't need to 
go into the particulars of what was discussed.
    Mr. Eggleston. Thank you.
    Ms. Comstock. But your interaction with the attorneys, the kind of 
standard operating procedures that you have in responding to subpoenas 
and handling investigative matters.
    The Witness. Typically when we get a request, we review the 
request. We draft a directive. We circulate the directive to the 
particular audience that has been requested.
    When we receive the documents back, we go through them for 
responsiveness. To the extent we have questions or other things, we 
might talk directly to the individuals who were involved in preparing 
the materials. To the extent that those people might be represented by 
attorneys, we obviously would consult with them in that process. We 
would then go about providing or collecting the responsive material and 
providing it to the requesting entity.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. So is the purpose of those contacts in those types of 
situations to be able to effectively respond to the subpoenas?
    Answer. Typically it is to be able to respond to subpoenas. Often 
they are the subject of press attention, so they might be to respond to 
press questions to ensure that we are giving out accurate information 
with respect to them. Most of the time, the goal of those conversations 
is to provide accurate information to whatever entity, and also the 
public to the extent that they also are inquiring with respect to the 
matter.
    Question. Okay. Are you aware of any other individuals at the White 
House working on, for example, the Espy matter, or is that largely 
handled out of the Counsel's Office?
    Answer. It is largely handled out of the Counsel's Office.
    Question. You indicated that you also worked on the Cisneros 
matter?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you know if anyone at the White House was ever--in the 
Counsel's Office was ever tasked with handling matters related to the 
Ron Brown investigation?
    Answer. Yes. During that time period initially Beth Nolan was 
tasked and it was transitioned to me.
    Question. Okay. And in the course of that, did you have occasion to 
deal with attorneys of various witnesses in that matter?
    Answer. No, we did not because we didn't receive--we didn't have a 
lot of interaction with the Independent Counsel prior to the 
Independent Counsel's decision to terminate upon Ron Brown's death.
    Question. Do you know if Mr. Podesta was involved in contacting any 
witnesses or potential witnesses in the Ron Brown matter?
    Answer. I am not aware that he is.
    Question. Okay. Do you know of any of his duties that would be 
involved in doing that?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Okay. Do you know if in that case, the Ron Brown 
investigation, if Reid Weingarten had been contacted in that matter?
    Mr. Ballen. I am going to object to this entire line of 
questioning. I think from the Minority's point of view, we have been 
lenient with the questions as a matter of background, but that Ms. 
Mills's involvement with the Ron Brown matter has any relationship at 
all to our investigation or subpoena compliance, I mean, you asked her 
the general question on background and we are getting far afield here, 
and I don't think it is appropriate.
    Ms. Comstock. Actually, the committee's investigation does include 
matters related to Ron Brown and a number of the witnesses involved in 
that. I don't think this is going to be a very long line of inquiry, 
but I just wanted to find out what information in that area the witness 
might have.
    Mr. Eggleston. I actually did not understand that. Is it in the 
resolution?
    Ms. Comstock. I know we did not discuss this particularly, so I 
don't intend to go into detail, but if you could----
    Mr. Eggleston. If you are asking her general questions about 
compliance and then you are going to get to, did you comply in the same 
fashion in the fund-raising investigation, I think that's a background 
if you want to cover it generally.
    Ms. Comstock. Also in response to our subpoena, we do have 
documents, actually subpoena requests for documents related to the Ron 
Brown investigation. So I did want to, you know, get a sense of what 
had been done in that area, if possible. I mean, I understand we did 
not specifically talk about it, so if the witness is not prepared in 
detail to talk about it, I understand; but if there is general 
information she might have, I think it would be helpful for the 
compliance process.
    Mr. Ballen. Is it in the resolution or the report, the Ron Brown?
    Mr. Eggleston. Is this a two-page resolution?
    Mr. Ballen. No. It should be three pages.
    Mr. Eggleston. Usually in resolutions it says what you are 
investigating, which I don't see here.
    Mr. Ballen. That's just the rules.
    Mr. Ballen. Just for the record, the resolution says, while Ms. 
Comstock is looking for that, this resolution shall apply to the 
investigation by the Committee on Government Reform of political fund-
raising improprieties and possible violations of law. And the 
Minority's view of that is that is in the conjunctive.
    Mr. Eggleston. Yes, I understand. I would certainly dispute that 
they could pass a resolution saying just violations of law and depose 
anybody about any possible violations of law.
    Mr. Ballen. Although we have had that point of view articulated to 
us in several depositions that would involve any possible violations of 
law, the only fair reading of that is political fund-raising 
improprieties and possible violations of law. And, frankly, I fail to 
see how the Ron Brown matter relates to that in any way, the matter of 
investigation with an Independent Counsel.
    Ms. Comstock. I am sorry. This is fairly lengthy and I have not 
marked this particular part. I think we can move on on this pretty 
quickly.
    Mr. Eggleston. Okay. If you want to do it as background, that's 
fine, but you are going to have to show me if you are investigating Ron 
Brown, because I would say the resolution does not include Ron Brown 
issues, did not relate to campaign fund-raising in 1996, since he was 
long dead by then.
    Ms. Comstock. The committee is looking at a number of areas in the 
Commerce Department and activities related to that, but I think if we 
can just move through--you know, what the Counsel's Office may have 
been handling in that regard I think we can move through this.
    The Witness. With respect to--like any other Independent Counsel 
matter, if they made a request to us we would have circulated it and 
sought whatever documents or materials. I truthfully don't recall there 
being a subpoena in the Ron Brown matter.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Then returning to when you first began working on matters 
related to John Huang and James Riady, which were the first issues that 
came up in October of 1996, can you tell us what you did after Ms. 
Sherburne provided you with the files and the information, what actions 
you then took?
    Answer. With respect to requests that we had from Members of 
Congress or from the press, we would obviously try and go about 
collecting information and being responsive to that in connection with 
those requests.
    Question. Okay. Were there individuals that you reached out to at 
the White House to try and find out what Mr. Huang's activities had 
been at the White House?
    Answer. Well, I am sure I did. I obviously went through and we had 
to collect his WAVE requests. I believe that was the requests we had 
from Chairman Clinger with respect to the WAVES of Mr. Huang; in the 
course of undertaking to provide that information, I am confident I had 
conversations with lots of people regarding his particular visits, so 
that we could give accurate information to the committee.
    Ms. Comstock. I am showing the witness an October 18th, 1996, 
letter to the President that was signed by Henry Hyde, Chairman Hyde, 
Chairman Clinger, at the time the Chairman of this committee, and 
Chairman Thomas of the Committee on House Oversight. I will make this 
Deposition Exhibit 2. Again, it is an October 18th, 1996 letter.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-2 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Do you recall receiving this letter or discussing this 
letter with anybody at the White House?
    Answer. I don't recall receiving this letter. I am sure I would 
have ultimately seen it, but I don't recall receiving this letter or 
having discussions regarding it.
    Question. Okay. Then directing your attention to the second page, 
where it discusses Mr. Huang's unavailability at the time in October 
for various parties to ask him questions about his activities, do you 
know if anybody at the White House was in touch with Mr. Huang in 
October of 1996?
    Answer. I do not know.
    Question. All right. So you were not in touch with Mr. Huang or his 
attorneys at that time?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And you have no knowledge of any other White House 
attorneys being in touch with him?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Do you have any knowledge of DNC attorneys, Mr. Sandler 
or others, being in touch with Mr. Huang or his attorneys in October of 
1996?
    Answer. It was my understanding that Mr. Sandler was dealing with 
his attorneys and that Mr. Sandler had indicated that that is why they 
weren't able to talk with Mr. Huang directly. That's my only 
understanding.
    Question. Okay. Were you aware of discussions at the White House 
between and among Harold Ickes and Bruce Lindsey and Joe Sandler about 
matters related to Mr. Huang?
    Answer. I am sure if they had questions regarding the Hatch Act or 
his duties, and I recall one of the issues related to his move to the 
DNC and also Commerce, I would have had conversations regarding that, 
but I don't recall anything more particular than that.
    Question. Okay. Did you learn of any potential Hatch Act violations 
that Mr. Huang had been involved in?
    Answer. The only issue that I recall being raised was with respect 
to, I guess, his leaving of the Commerce Department and his starting at 
the DNC and that there may have been some overlapping period with 
respect to that because of government shutdown and Commerce not taking 
him off their payroll, something to that effect. That's my best 
recollection.
    Question. Do you recall how you learned that?
    Answer. I don't recall how I learned that. It might have been in 
conversations with Mr. Sandler. I just don't recall.
    Question. Okay. And that was when Mr. Huang initially had asked to 
go to the DNC at September 13th, 1995 meeting with the President and 
Mr. Giroir and Mr. Lindsey?
    Answer. I wasn't present at that meeting. I am confident you 
probably know that.
    Question. Yes.
    Answer. Okay.
    Question. So you are speaking, though, about that time when Mr. 
Huang requested to go to the DNC and then he left his Commerce 
Department job sometime in December?
    Answer. I am speaking about having learned in 1996 with respect to 
one of the questions being the time period in which he may have been on 
both the DNC and Commerce Department payroll because the Commerce 
Department had not transitioned him off their payroll. I am speaking 
about that.
    Question. Okay. And did you have occasion to talk to anybody at the 
Commerce Department about that?
    Answer. I just don't recall. I am sure if there were questions I 
would have tried to address them but I don't recall.
    Question. Okay. Do you recall if Mr. Quinn asked you to look into 
that?
    Answer. He did not.
    Question. Okay. Do you recall if Ms. Sherburne had already looked 
into that matter at the time when you assumed these duties on October 
30th?
    Answer. She may have.
    Question. All right. Do you know if she provided you with any files 
or notes on that?
    Answer. She may have.
    Question. All right. And to your knowledge, were all of the notes 
and files that Ms. Sherburne provided to you preserved--you know, 
whatever materials she had gathered at that time, she had passed on to 
you?
    Answer. Right. But the majority of her materials were clips and 
materials like that and other things that were in her files that had 
already been produced.
    Question. All right. You mean they have been produced to this 
committee?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Okay. Another one of the issues that came up in October 
of 1996 were payments to Webster Hubbell from the Lippo Group. Do you 
recall dealing with that matter at all in October of 1996?
    Answer. No.
    Question. All right. Do you recall at any time, while you were 
handling these matters during the transition time between Ms. Sherburne 
leaving and Mr. Breuer coming aboard in February of 1997 handling any 
matters related to Mr. Hubbell and the Lippo Group, or Mr. Hubbell in 
general?
    Answer. I recall the issues regarding Mr. Hubbell arising in 1997 
as opposed to in 1996. That's my best recollection.
    Question. Now, there were editorials and stories that appeared 
about the Lippo Group in early October 1996.
    Answer. Okay. I am not familiar with those.
    Question. If that refreshes your recollection?
    Answer. It doesn't.
    Question. Okay. And earlier in 1996, in February of 1996, in fact, 
Mr. Hubbell had testified before the Whitewater committee and was asked 
questions about Lippo. Did you have occasion to be involved in any 
discussions related to that?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Okay. That would have been Ms. Sherburne's responsibility 
at that time; is that correct?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Okay. And so nobody at any time in February 1996 came to 
you to ask you about any of those matters related to Mr. Hubbell?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Okay. Did you ever have occasion to discuss with Mr. 
Lindsey any matters related to Mr. Hubbell and the Lippo Group?
    Answer. I am confident when this issue arose in the press sometime 
in early 1997 I would have had conversations with him. I don't recall 
having conversations with him prior to that time.
    Question. Okay. And we haven't gone through a lot of the 
preliminaries today, but just for the record, Mr. Lindsey is also 
Deputy Counsel at the White House?
    Answer. Yes, but he is an Assistant to the President.
    Question. Okay. And do you have any kind of reporting relationship 
to Mr. Lindsey on any regular basis regarding any of these matters?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. Okay. But on a regular colleague basis, do you discuss 
these matters with Mr. Lindsey, or are your duties fairly separate so 
that you aren't discussing these matters?
    Answer. Our duties tend to be fairly separate. He tends to deal 
with more substantive issues like securities, litigation, products, 
tobacco. Those are typically not issues on which we overlap.
    Question. Okay. Do you know when you first came to take over these 
duties on October 30th, 1996, did Mr. Quinn give you any type of 
deadlines or how quickly information should be provided?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Okay. Do you know when you first came on board to take 
over these duties, did you have Mr. Huang's WAVES records at that time? 
Were they in the materials that Ms. Sherburne provided you with?
    Answer. Some of them were. The problem is that Ms. Sherburne had 
not identified that there were two John Huangs. So the process was 
going through and identifying the wrong John Huang, so that we gave the 
committee the right John Huang's WAVES.
    Question. How did you learn that there were two John Huangs?
    Answer. In the process of going through and talking with people 
about potential meetings that might have happened, people would 
indicate that they had never met with the John Huang that was appearing 
on the TV, and which ultimately led us to determine that there had been 
a John Huang who was an IRS employee who had been working on the 
National Performance Review; and then it was easier to tell by the 
pattern of meetings which John Huang was the right John Huang and which 
John Huang was the wrong John Huang.
    Question. Our tongue twister for the day.
    I am showing the witness an e-mail that is marked EOP 068461, which 
was--October 31st, 1996, is the date. It is to Jane Sherburne. Maybe 
you can tell us a little bit about the creation date and that type of 
thing, how the e-mails read just so we have a clear record of that?
    Answer. Well, this would have been an e-mail that was to Mary Ellen 
Glynn from Jane Sherburne, and Jane would have been communicating that 
I had informed her that there were two different John Huangs. That's 
what it appears to be.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. This is an e-mail record so the e-mail record that comes 
back is a confirmation. That's why the ``to'' is to Jane Sherburne. She 
gets an e-mail record of the transmission of her page.
    Question. Okay. And do you recall transmitting this information to 
Ms. Sherburne about the two John Huangs?
    Answer. I don't actually have a particular recollection of 
discussing that with her, but I am sure I would have.
    Question. Okay. At that time, was Ms. Sherburne then still involved 
to some degree in handling any of the matters related to Mr. Huang?
    Answer. Well, this was the day after she had given me the files, so 
I don't know how you would describe that, but I am sure that if she had 
asked, or if we had had a conversation, I would have informed her of 
that.
    Question. Okay. Were any contacts made with the other John Huang to 
find out when he had been at the White House?
    Answer. I actually did not make any contacts with the other John 
Huang. Basically, we tried by talking to the different staff members to 
walk through there, and so it was a process that took a little while.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay. This is Deposition Exhibit No. 3.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. I am handing you two letters of October 31, 1996, one to 
Terry Good, head of Office of Records Management, and the other to the 
President.
    Mr. Eggleston. You didn't give me the first one, I don't think.
    Ms. Comstock. We will make the Terry Good letter Deposition Exhibit 
No. 4 and the October 31st letter to the President Deposition Exhibit 
No. 5.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit Nos. CM-4 and CM-5 were marked for 
identification.]
    Mr. Eggleston. Is that another court reporter coming in?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes. Just so you know, the only people that are 
permitted in the room are court reporters and Majority and Minority 
staff. We will attempt to identify them as they come in.
    Mr. Eggleston. Since she had that pull cart, I thought she was a 
court reporter, but I thought she might also be Kristi whoever.
    The Witness. Remington.
    Mr. Eggleston. That's what I wasn't sure about.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Have you seen either of these letters before?
    Answer. I believe I have seen this letter. I don't recall seeing 
this letter, but I likely would have.
    Mr. Eggleston. The first letter she was referring to was Mills 4 
and the second letter she referred to was Mills 5.
                      examination by ms. comstock:
    Question. Okay. Do you recall how you learned about the letter to 
Terry Good?
    Answer. I don't recall how I learned about it. I am sure I would 
have probably gotten a copy of it.
    Question. Okay. Do you know if Ms. Sherburne had talked to Mr. Good 
about obtaining WAVES records?
    Answer. I do not know if she had.
    Question. Okay. Who has WAVES records at the White House? When you 
need to find the WAVES records and look at them, where do you go?
    Answer. We would go to Records Management, which would have the 
hard copies of the WAVES records, and review the hard copies to try and 
determine people's visits. It typically is a pretty long process 
because there are boxes and boxes of WAVES for all the different years.
    Question. And when--do you know generally when Mr. Good was 
requested or somebody in the records office was requested to get Mr. 
Huang's WAVES records?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. Okay. Do you know at all how quickly he was able to 
provide them or when he provided them?
    Answer. It is a process. He can't do it himself. Actually, on a lot 
of occasions we have to provide people to actually go through it. It is 
literally boxes and boxes and boxes of material, which is--it is pretty 
substantial so if one person were undertaking that task it would take 
them days.
    Question. Okay. Now, on October 31st, this committee had sent a 
letter to Mr. Good regarding obtaining the WAVES records. He had 
informed the committee that Mr. Good had the--you know, he could 
provide these dates--these records within a day or so. Did you have 
occasion sometimes for Mr. Good in the records office to provide you 
WAVES records in a day or two?
    Answer. I have never had occasion where they have been able to 
provide them in a day or two.
    Mr. Eggleston. Nor does Ms. Mills have any knowledge about the 
representation that you just made about Mr. Good.
    Ms. Comstock. No, I understand. I am making that representation.
    Mr. Eggleston. I want to make clear she didn't buy into that, 
because I don't believe she has any knowledge of that.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Do you recall any discussions you had with Mr. Good about 
the WAVES records pertaining to Mr. Huang?
    Answer. No, I don't believe so. I believe that--I believe that 
those materials might have been in the materials Ms. Sherburne provided 
to me, because I don't recall having a particular discussion with Mr. 
Good. But I am only guessing.
    Question. Do you recall then when you first took over these duties 
and if Mr. Quinn asked you to gather all the information that you could 
about Mr. Huang and his visits to the White House?
    Answer. I recall when I took this over that there were questions 
regarding Mr. Huang's visits, so I don't know that anybody specifically 
had to direct me in that regard. I recall knowing that one of the 
issues of interest was Mr. Huang's WAVES.
    Question. Okay. I will provide you with a copy--actually, this is 
EOP 4969 through 5018. And it is a fax cover sheet from the Counsel's 
Office dated November 2nd, 1996 to Bruce Lindsey from C.D. Mills, which 
would be you; is that correct?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And can you just tell us about this fax and these WAVES 
records attached to it?
    Answer. We were trying to attempt to go through and identify and 
eliminate the wrong John Huang from the WAVES records, and this was, as 
of the 2nd, what we had been able to eliminate as the wrong John Huang. 
Subsequently, we identified more, but at this point, this is where I 
was in my ability to be able to do that.
    Question. Okay. And so is it your testimony then that these WAVES 
records that are attached to this fax, that you had this information, 
the WAVES records, when Ms. Sherburne gave you the files on October 
30th?
    Answer. I think it is quite possible that that was the case. That's 
my best guess, because I don't recall speaking to Mr. Good regarding 
the WAVES records for Mr. Huang.
    Question. So between October 30th, when you took over these duties, 
and November 2nd, the date of this fax, which has the WAVES attached to 
it, you do not recall going to Mr. Good and asking him to produce these 
records?
    Answer. That's correct. I do not.
    Question. You don't have any idea how long prior to this date he 
had been asked to provide the records?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Do you know if Mr. Good's office keeps track of requests 
or there is any dating on this document, which indicates when it was 
requested?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Could you just describe the process, then, by which you 
went through these WAVES records?
    Answer. I typically tried to speak to the different people, if the 
person might have been waved in, to try to determine if it was the 
right John Huang or the wrong John Huang.
    Question. And this fax had been sent to Mr. Lindsey?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Why was it sent to Mr. Lindsey?
    Answer. At this point they were receiving questions on the road 
regarding Mr. Huang's visits to the White House, and I know that one of 
the issues was whether or not we were able or in a point to accurately 
identify Mr. Huang's visits.
    Question. When the fax number here says ``Road Runner,'' is that to 
send the fax to Air Force One or where is it sent to?
    Answer. Road Runner travels wherever the President is, so if he is 
down in a hotel room, then Road Runner is in the hotel, if he is 
traveling, it is on the plane, if he is golfing, it's at the golf 
course. Road Runner is the particular fax machine that travels 
wherever.
    Question. So the fax even goes to the golf course?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Why don't we then go through these, then, starting on 
page EOP 4971. These WAVES include both Riady WAVES and then I believe 
they pick up John Huang WAVES; is that correct?
    Answer. 4978 is where the Huang WAVES start. Prior to that are 
Riady WAVES.
    Question. Just so that the record is clear, do you recall that the 
Riady WAVES were also in the group of documents that Ms. Sherburne 
transferred over to you?
    Answer. I would guess that they were because I don't recall having 
a conversation with Terry Good about the Riady WAVES.
    Question. Okay. And do you know why the Riady WAVES were collected 
at this time?
    Answer. I do not, other than he obviously had an association with 
Mr. Huang.
    Question. Then if you could just, you know, as we start, then, 
going through these, this is your handwriting on this document?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Okay. And on some of these, for example, on the first 
one, it says James Riady. Next to it it says, meeting, then it says, 
Neel, N-E-E-L, and then it says, Huang, Grobmyer, drop by. Would that 
be, then, information that you learned when you talked to Mr. Neel?
    Answer. Well, just to be clear, meeting is ``MTG,'' so it is 
referring to meeting but it says ``MTG.''
    Secondly, I don't recall actually having a conversation with Mr. 
Neel but it would have been through either Mr. Neel or other 
information that we were able to discern that this was a meeting or our 
best information was that it was a meeting.
    Question. And what was the body of information that you used to 
check to determine some of these things?
    Answer. I would ask people for any schedules, what their 
recollection might be, any of the President's schedules, any kind of 
materials that might suggest if there were newspaper articles written 
about that, about particular things at the time period, I might look at 
that. I would look at anything that would seem to provide information 
or shed light about the different visits.
    Question. At this time did you have anybody working with you on 
this?
    Answer. At this time I had only my assistant, Melissa Murray.
    Question. Okay. And is she still in the office with you?
    Answer. She actually left to go work at Arnold and Porter.
    Question. Is she an attorney?
    Answer. No.
    Question. She is a paralegal?
    Answer. Of a sort. She is better than a paralegal.
    Question. Sort of a super staff assistant?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. I'm sorry, her name again?
    Answer. Melissa Murray.
    Question. What was Ms. Murray doing to assist you with this 
project?
    Answer. She is my assistant so she actually answers my phones, she 
collects materials if somebody is supposed to be sending them to me. 
She literally is my assistant.
    Question. Do you sit down and sort of figure out what would be the 
places to go to find out about these meetings and the sources of 
information to be able to determine, you know, what these visits to the 
White House were about?
    Answer. I don't recall really sitting down very often because it 
was very--there were a lot of requests that were coming in at that 
point toward these particular materials, but I would obviously sit and 
try and think through as I went through each one of these who I might 
need to talk to to try and figure out what the particular visit might 
be about or what information I might be able to look at to figure that 
out, so I might ask her to go to the scheduling office and pick up the 
President's schedule for a particular day and she would go and fetch it 
for me. I mean, that is what she would do.
    Question. And who would she go to to get that, the President's 
schedule?
    Answer. We have a scheduling in advance office.
    Question. And she could go there, pick a date, and get the 
scheduling information fairly instantaneously?
    Answer. She could get it. Fairly instantaneously might be a little 
bit of an overstatement, but, yes, she could go to the office and get 
it.
    Question. She would get it that day?
    Answer. Yes, usually, typically, unless it was late and there was 
no one there.
    Question. Is this the President's computerized schedule that is 
kept track of or how is the information scheduled?
    Answer. The President has a schedule every day, which are also 
published, as you know, in the Presidential documents, they keep a copy 
of them.
    Question. Are there any other schedules that you had her check?
    Answer. I am sure if there were other schedules, I would have had 
her check them as well. I had her check whatever materials or 
information I needed to try and address a particular request.
    Question. Did she check with Ms. Hernreich or with the diarist or 
any of those sources?
    Answer. I am sure if there was information that would have been 
helpful in either of those places, we would have gone there. I don't 
particularly recall that, but if there would have been information, we 
would have tried to collect it.
    Ms. Comstock. And why don't I go ahead and--we will go ahead and 
make this Deposition Exhibit No. 6, which we are going to have to use 
your copy when we get done here.
    The Witness. Could you start again, I'm sorry.
    Ms. Comstock. We are going to make these WAVES records Deposition 
Exhibit 6.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-6 was marked for identification.]
    Ms. Comstock. But I also wanted, while we are going through this, 
to show you what would be Deposition Exhibit 7, which is EOP 4499 
through 4501, which is a ``Summary of Records of Riady Meetings.''
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-7 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. And just so we can clarify for the record, is that your 
handwriting on this document?
    Answer. It is not.
    Question. Do you know whose handwriting that is?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. Have you seen this document before?
    Answer. I have.
    Question. Okay. Do you know who is working on ``Summary of Records 
of Riady Meetings''?
    Answer. I believe Ms. Sherburne.
    Question. And do you recall, then, if she transmitted this to you 
in the materials she gave you?
    Answer. I believe this would have been something that would have 
been in the materials. I don't have a particular memory, but this would 
strike me as something that would have been in the materials.
    Question. Do you know if you did any additional work on this or 
taught somebody to work on a ``Summary of Records of Riady Meetings''?
    Answer. Other than the WAVES records we provided and to the extent 
there are charts that list out each particular visitor and visitee, no, 
I did not.
    Question. Okay. Do you know if Ms. Sherburne provided you with 
``Summary of Records of Huang's Meetings'' at this point?
    Answer. I don't recall. I recall this particular document, but I 
don't recall whether or not she had done a similar document for Mr. 
Huang. Mr. Huang's visits were substantially more in number, so I just 
don't recall actually seeing the Huang chronology. That is just my best 
memory now.
    Question. Okay. And so would it be a fair guess that the documents 
that Ms. Sherburne lists in the ``Summary of Records of Riady 
Meetings'' were included in these records she gave you at that time?
    Answer. They may be, but not all of them would have been. I mean, 
some of these are just information she might have had through 
conversations or other things like that.
    Question. Like the first item, it says an April 11, 1993, memo from 
Hernreich to the President, it says that, quote, Joe Girorir called on 
behalf of his client, Riady, who is in D.C., and would like to meet 
with you about Suharta, I think it is Suharta, but would that have been 
in a document that was in the records?
    Answer. It might have been, though I don't recall that document, 
quite candidly.
    Question. Do you recall discussing with Ms. Sherburne, you know, if 
she had gone out and gathered records from people such as Ms. Hernreich 
or others about Riady or Huang?
    Answer. I don't recall having that discussion. I recall when she 
transferred the materials that she indicated that she was transferring 
what she had done to that point. I don't recall having conversations 
about how she had gone about doing that.
    Question. Do you need to take a break?
    Answer. No.
    Mr. Eggleston. Not right now.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Okay. And then, also, in this first paragraph it says, 
``Betty has in BC memos a letter from Mark Grobmyer on this same 
topic.''
    Do you know if that is Betty Currie, who works in the President's 
office?
    Answer. That is what I would have guessed.
    Question. And do you know what BC memos refers to?
    Answer. Ms. Currie has a practice of when a correspondence comes 
in, writing a memo saying this is what the correspondence particularly 
says, and I think you probably have copies of some of those because we 
provided them in connection.
    Question. So Ms. Currie, as a practice, keeps all of the letters 
and correspondence that goes directly to the President?
    Answer. No, I didn't say that. She has a practice of summarizing 
correspondence that she reviews. I don't know what her system is and 
whether or not she sees all the correspondence or anything with respect 
to that.
    Question. But any correspondence that she does see, she has a 
practice?
    Answer. I don't know what her decision-making is to decide what she 
actually puts in the memo, so I don't know if she sees correspondence 
that she doesn't put in or if she puts all of it in. I don't know what 
her practice is in that regard.
    Question. Have you had occasion to gather documents from Ms. Currie 
in the past?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Okay. And do you just have a general familiarity with the 
BC memos file?
    Answer. Correct. It is not, to my knowledge, a file, actually. My 
only experience with it has been with respect to copies of it that have 
printed from her computer.
    Question. So this is a computerized record that she keeps?
    Answer. It is a memo. I don't know if you all have seen the 
documents, but we provided to you in your documents a memo where she 
writes a memo to the President, correspondence and then she writes a 
summary of each one of them, and I am confident that is in the 
materials we provided. That is what I am familiar with.
    Question. Okay. So it is your recollection, then, that this 
``Summary of the Records of Riady Meetings'' you had at the time when 
you started going through to assess what some of these meetings were 
about?
    Answer. It is my best guess that I would have had it. I don't have 
a specific recollection of having had it, but I recall seeing this 
document.
    Question. Okay. And, again, could we then just return and maybe go 
through some of these meetings that Mr. Riady had, and if you can look 
at the actual record to refresh your recollection of who you talked to 
and tell us about the people you talked to and what they told you about 
the meetings?
    Mr. Eggleston. Actually, I could use a 5-minute break.
    Ms. Comstock. We will go off the record for a few minutes.
    [Brief Recess.]
    Ms. Comstock. Back on the record.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. I think we were talking about if you could explain the 
process whereby you went through and talked to various people in 
various offices.
    Answer. Generally, what I tried to do is look at the WAVES records 
and then figure out what information might be helpful in determining 
what the visit was about and talk to people or look at whatever 
schedules or other things I could to determine what a particular visit 
might have been about.
    Question. Do you know if you reviewed any pictures or checked with 
the photo office about any events?
    Answer. I don't recall. I am sure I might have, but I just don't 
recall.
    Question. You said the first James Riady visit, which the visitee 
is identified as Neel, would that be Roy Neel?
    Answer. That is my best information, yes.
    Question. And do you recall talking to Mr. Neel about this visit?
    Answer. I don't.
    Question. Okay. So is it your guess that you learned from other 
records who else was at this meeting or do you recall? If you have any 
recollection.
    Answer. Right, I don't have any recollection so I couldn't guess. I 
mean, this was for me a while ago so I am not in a position to recall 
who I spoke to and who I didn't and what materials I might have looked 
at.
    Question. And then the second person is listed as a visitee for 
April 13, 1993, visit, is Dickey. Do you recall talking with, was it 
Robin or Helen, whichever Dickey this is?
    Answer. Right, I don't know which Dickey this is and I don't recall 
whether or not I spoke to them. I am sure I might have but I just don't 
recall.
    Question. And then there is another entry on April 13 for Yee. Do 
you know if that would be Melinda Yee, who worked in the personnel 
office at that time?
    Answer. That is my best information.
    Question. Do you recall if you talked to Melinda Yee at any time 
about John Huang or James Riady?
    Answer. I don't believe I did because I don't believe she was in 
the White House at this point, so I don't believe I did.
    Question. Do you know if you reached out to anybody outside the 
White House sort of in going through these?
    Answer. I am sure I might have but I just don't recall with respect 
to Ms. Yee having had a conversation with her.
    Question. Do you know Melinda Yee?
    Answer. I do know her.
    Question. And have you had occasion to speak with her at all about 
any of her dealings with John Huang?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Or with James Riady?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Or with matters related to fund-raising, any of the 
matters under investigation?
    Answer. No.
    Question. And, again, there is another entry on April 16 for the 
visitee being Dickey. You don't recall having any conversations?
    Answer. I don't recall what I would have done to determine what 
that particular visit would have been about.
    Question. And then the 4/19/93 entry is for Rubin, and then it says 
in POTUS photo, with all three men, Riady, Huang, Grobmyer.
    Do you recall discussing that visit with anybody?
    Answer. I don't recall having discussions regarding that other than 
trying to figure out whether or not they had actually gone and seen the 
President on that occasion. I believe, actually, Ms. Sherburne had 
information about that but I don't recall any particular discussions.
    Question. Okay. Do you recall anything about what that meeting was 
about or how you learned that there was a photo?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. The next page of these documents, EOP 4972, it continues 
with Mr. Riady's visits, and the next two entries are for Aileen and 
James Riady on June 21, 1993, and the visitee is Middleton. Is that 
Mark Middleton?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you recall if you spoke with Mr. Middleton about any 
of his visits with Mr. Riady?
    Answer. I might have. I don't recall having done so, but I might 
have.
    Question. You don't have any recollection of talking to Mr. 
Middleton about these visits?
    Answer. I actually do not.
    Question. Okay. When you say you might have----
    Answer. I just say I might have because he is a person who is still 
in town, but I don't recall having conversations with him regarding 
this.
    Question. Do you recall any discussions with his attorney?
    Answer. I am sure I probably would have.
    Question. Can you tell us what you discussed with his attorney 
about any meetings?
    Answer. I don't recall having any particular discussions in that 
regard, other than probably to indicate his name was on these and we 
were going to be sending out the WAVES records. I think the only other 
thing, actually now that I think about it, is that his attorney, who is 
Bob Luskin, I believe, would have indicated, I think, that he would 
answer questions about this. I am only guessing that because there is 
nothing next to these so I probably would have referred any questions 
that came directly to him. I only say that because there is nothing 
next to these that is written.
    Question. So it is your recollection that Mr. Luskin told you that 
any inquiries could be directly sent to him?
    Answer. That is my best guess.
    Question. Instead of giving you the information?
    Answer. That is my guess by looking at the records. I don't have a 
particular recollection.
    Question. And I have asked you about whether you talked to him 
about Mr. Middleton's visits with Riady. Do you recall if you ever 
talked to him, Mr. Luskin or Mr. Middleton about his visits with John 
Huang?
    Answer. I am sure as we have gone through these records I would 
have had conversations with Mr. Luskin regarding Mr. Middleton or any 
questions or information that we needed with respect to that to be 
giving accurate information. I don't recall any particular discussions.
    Question. Okay. When you spoke with Mr. Middleton's attorney, did 
he express any reluctance to discuss why he was meeting with Mr. Riady 
or Mr. Huang?
    Answer. I don't recall that, but I also don't recall what the 
substance of all of our conversations were, but I don't recall him ever 
expressing reluctance or anything like that.
    Question. And the time frame of October of 1996, there had been a 
story about Mr. Middleton allegedly soliciting or being offered $15 
million from somebody in Taiwan for the DNC. Do you recall ever having 
any discussions with his attorney about that matter?
    Answer. I do not recall that matter.
    Question. Do you know Mark Middleton personally?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Have you ever had any discussions with him on any of the 
matters under investigation?
    Answer. Not that I recall.
    Question. Do you have any knowledge as to why he is taking the 
fifth on these investigations?
    Mr. Ballen. I am going to object to that question.
    Mr. Eggleston. Because he is exercising constitutional right.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Do you have any personal knowledge about Mr. Middleton's 
meetings with John Huang or James Riady?
    Answer. No.
    Question. This is your handwriting. It says the entry that is fifth 
down, Johnson, visitee, James Riady, on June 28, 1993, and it says that 
he worked for Middleton. Do you know who that is?
    Answer. I don't know who it is. I think I was able to discern--I 
believe it might be that the person was Mr. Middleton's assistant. I 
don't know how I was able to determine that.
    Question. You don't recall learning that from Mr. Middleton or his 
lawyer?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Let's go on to the next page, EOP 4973. Now, on this 
page, there is a second entry, James Riady, visitee is Middleton, and 
it also lists Huang.
    Do you know if you learned that from Mr. Middleton or his attorney 
or if that was in reviewing other WAVES records or how you learned it?
    Answer. Probably that I would have learned by looking at Mr. 
Huang's WAVES but that is just my best guess.
    Question. And this visit in June of 1994 was in the time frame when 
Mr. Hubbell received his payments from the LIPPO Group. Do you recall 
ever having any discussions with Mr. Middleton or his attorney about 
Mr. Hubbell?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. And the third entry on this page for June 23, 1994, is 
for I guess another member of the Riady family, where it says, Nancy. 
Is that another--it's an Indonesian name. It's spelled T-J-A-H-A-J-A, 
and then to the left of it it says, Nancy.
    Answer. I don't know why it says Nancy.
    Question. Okay. And then the visitee is Herman. Would that be 
Alexis Herman?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And do you recall having any discussions with Ms. Herman 
about Mr. Riady?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. Okay. Now there is a star on Ms. Herman's name where it 
says Herman not present, briefing to CEOs, and reps of corps. That is 
your handwriting. Why don't I have you read it instead, if you can, if 
it is your handwriting.
    Answer. It is my handwriting but the copy is not clear, though my 
understanding is, it says, Herman not present, briefing to CEOs and 
reps of corporations, or C-O-R-P, semicolon, Doris welcome slash 
Emerson Gatt, slash, Rubin economy in Roosevelt room.
    Question. Okay. And do you recall how you learned of that meeting 
and that description?
    Answer. I don't recall, actually. It might have been a briefing 
paper. It might have been anything. I just don't recall.
    Question. Okay. And Emerson, is that John Emerson?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And Rubin, is that Robert Rubin?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And then you have no other recollection of what you 
learned about this meeting?
    Answer. No. This was actually quite a while ago and a relatively 
detailed process and I just don't recall, actually, with respect to 
these particular entries, other than I obviously tried to talk to 
people and look at whatever schedules or other information there might 
be to try and discern any particularized conversations or other things 
like that with regard to those records.
    Question. Did you keep contemporaneous notes of these conversations 
you were having with people at that time or was this the only document 
you put information on?
    Answer. This is the document I put information on.
    Question. Did you have other notes you kept as you were going 
along, or that you took but you did not keep?
    Answer. I don't believe so.
    Question. So were you sitting down as you called people and just 
noting things on each of these meetings?
    Answer. Or I would recall, based on conversations I had with them, 
or having looked at something, I would either do it while I was having 
conversations or I would recall conversations that I had.
    Question. Okay. Do you recall how long of a process this was, going 
through these WAVES records?
    Answer. I actually don't. But this was the process that helped be 
able to learn that there were two John Huangs because I placed I think 
a random call to one person that just looked different than other 
people, and that is how I started this process, and that is why we 
started going through the entire process.
    Ms. Comstock. For the record, Kristi Remington is also joining us 
this morning.
                      examination by ms. comstock:
    Question. Okay. And the next entry here is Middleton, again, it 
is----
    Mr. Eggleston. Ms. Comstock, I am not going to stop you from doing 
this, but I am fairly confident you are going to get the same answer. 
You can go through every one of these, and, again, I haven't reviewed 
these with her, and it's possible I am wrong, but I am willing to bet 
that every time you ask her she is going to say I generally remember 
doing this, I can't tell you where I got the information. Again, it is 
your deposition, I can't stop you, but I am fairly confident she is 
going to give you the same answer.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Well, maybe if you can review them, and in reviewing the 
documents if there is anything that you can tell us about, for example, 
Mr. Middleton and any conversations you had with him, some of these 
indicate whether this was lunch or that it was lunch, you know, how you 
learned about that, who were the sources of information that you would 
go to to find out if an event was a lunch or how you would determine 
information like that?
    Answer. Typically, with respect to time frames, if it was around 
noon or 1:15, our best estimate would be those would be lunches, 
because those are the sittings for the Mess.
    Question. Okay. And do you recall if you had conversations with Mr. 
Middleton's attorney about did Mark meet with these guys for lunch or 
have them over or know generally that he had done so?
    Answer. I am sure I would have asked whether or not it would have 
been likely he would have been having lunch, but I just don't recall 
particularly.
    Question. Okay. And this Weaver is identified here also as one of 
the visitees. Do you know Vanessa Weaver?
    Answer. Yes, she works in the White House currently.
    Question. And do you recall any conversations you had with Ms. 
Weaver about the Riadys?
    Answer. I am sure I would have spoken with Ms. Weaver or seen 
materials or information that led to it. I don't recall particularly, 
but I am sure I would have.
    Question. Do you have any understanding of what Ms. Weaver's 
contacts with the Riadys were about?
    Answer. I do not, other than the information reflected on here.
    Question. Do you recall trying to discuss with her why she was 
meeting with them or why they were there?
    Answer. I am sure I probably would have but I don't recall 
particularly having those conversations, but I am sure that is 
something I would have tried to do to try and give accurate 
information.
    Question. Okay. Was there anybody that the Riadys met with that you 
have any recollection of talking about what their meetings were about?
    Answer. I am looking because I recall an occasion where I had a 
conversation with someone regarding Mrs. Riady. This conversation I 
recall with respect to Mrs. Mochtar Riady also being present because 
people remembered her jewelry. I just recall that standing out in my 
head.
    Question. Is that on page----
    Answer. That is EOP 4976.
    Question. That reflects a record of Mochtar Riady visit, and Weaver 
is the visitee and it says lunch, Peg Clark, Paul Miller, John Huang, 
Mrs. Riady, question mark?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And do you recall who you talked with about that?
    Answer. It would have been either Vanessa Weaver or Peg Clark.
    Question. And who is Peg Clark?
    Answer. She also works in Presidential Personnel or did work in 
Presidential Personnel.
    Question. Who is Paul Miller?
    Answer. He used to work in Presidential Personnel.
    Question. And do you know why all these people in Presidential 
Personnel were meeting with the Riadys on June 27, 1996?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. Okay. A number of these meetings were with people in the 
personnel office--well, I guess with Ms. Weaver, largely, and then, 
initially, the meetings with Melinda Yee were at a time when she was in 
the personnel office.
    Do you recall generally learning of the Riadys talking to people in 
the personnel office?
    Answer. No, actually, I don't. I don't recall learning that.
    Question. Do you have any knowledge as to why they were meeting 
with people in the personnel office?
    Answer. No. It is my sense that they were actually meeting with 
people, as opposed to meeting with the personnel office.
    Question. Were you aware of the Riadys trying to recommend people 
for positions?
    Answer. That is how I interpreted your first question, and no I was 
not.
    Question. Did you attempt to learn anything about their attempts to 
assist people with getting jobs?
    Answer. I was unaware that they made attempts to assist people in 
getting jobs.
    Question. Do you recall reviewing any correspondence or seeing any 
records where they were promoting any individuals for positions?
    Answer. I recall that Mr. Huang was interested in a position, and I 
believe Mr. Huang might have indicated Mr. De Queljoe, I recall seeing 
correspondence like that that I know were produced to you.
    Question. And did you talk with Ms. Weaver or anybody else at the 
personnel office about Mr. De Queljoe?
    Answer. I don't believe so. I am sure I might have spoken with 
someone about Mr. De Queljoe when there were inquiries regarding him 
and we were looking for materials related to him, but apart from that, 
I don't.
    Question. So other than this meeting where people recalled Mrs. 
Riady's jewelry, is there anything else that you recall about the 
Riadys, hair styles or anything?
    Answer. That is the one that sticks out in my mind.
    Question. Were you attempting at this time to find out what they 
were doing there, why they were there?
    Answer. I was attempting to determine what the purposes of their 
meetings were, particularly as we wanted to ensure that we were 
obviously providing accurate information.
    Question. And do you have a general impression of what you learned 
in that process, of what they were doing there?
    Answer. I don't, actually, other than it just appeared to me they 
were actually visiting people as opposed to having any particular 
agenda.
    Question. And was it your understanding these were people they knew 
prior to these individuals joining the administration?
    Answer. I don't know the answer to that question. I don't believe I 
had that impression one way or another.
    Question. Well, did you inquire as to how they came to meet with 
these particular people, why were they meeting with Mark Middleton, why 
didn't he become somebody who was a point of contact for both Mr. Riady 
and Mr. Huang? Do you recall having any discussions about that?
    Answer. Setting aside the premise of your question, I don't recall 
any particular sense of why they were seeing the particular people they 
were, other than the things I ended up reflecting on this particular 
document.
    Question. And the premise of my question was that a number of the 
meetings with both Mr. Riady and Mr. Huang, quite a few of the Mr. 
Huang ones, and actually, although we don't have them here, Mr. Trie 
also met with Mr. Middleton quite a bit.
    Answer. Just to be clear, I am only looking at the Riady records 
right now so I don't have a perfect memory of that.
    Question. And that is why I am saying the entire document here does 
have--as we move on later, Mr. Middleton also had occasion to meet with 
Mr. Huang, so I was wondering if that stands out in your mind, having 
learned about Mr. Middleton being a point of contact for some of these 
people, Mr. Riady, Mr. Huang, Mr. Trie, others?
    Answer. No, it does not. I don't recall him being a point of 
contact for them. That is not something that stood out in my mind.
    Question. Now on page EOP 4974, it has an asterisks for Aileen 
Riady, also present in picture. Again, I know I asked you before about 
pictures, but do you recall if there were pictures in the file that Ms. 
Sherburne turned over to you?
    Answer. I do not recall there being pictures in the files. There 
may have been; I just don't recall that.
    Question. Do you recall if you asked your assistant to check with 
the photo office or look into that?
    Answer. Asking my assistant, you said? I thought you said her 
assistant. I am sure I would have asked if it would have been likely if 
there was a picture to ask her to go look and see if there was one. I 
just don't recall that in particular.
    Question. And on page EOP 4975, they have visitee, and on the top 
entry on September 13, 1995, it says Nancy Hernreich, and that was a 
meeting with the President and Mr. Lindsey, Joe Girorir, and then John 
Huang, and I believe Mr. Riady.
    Do you recall having a discussion with anybody about that meeting?
    Answer. I recall there being lots of discussions about this meeting 
in the press and other places. At the time that I was doing this, I 
don't recall, other than obviously going through and identifying the 
participants for that particular meeting. I believe there came a point 
there was lots of discussion regarding that meeting.
    Question. Okay. And I will go into that a little later but I was 
wondering, at the time did Mr. Lindsey tell you about this meeting or 
did you discuss it with him?
    Answer. I just don't recall because I recall this meeting becoming 
the topic of conversation at some point when there were news articles 
related to it, and I can't associate in time to tell you when those 
would have been in relationship to this. I think they may have been 
subsequent to this.
    Question. Generally, can you tell us what Mr. Lindsey told you 
about this meeting? At any time can you recall what his recounting of 
this meeting was to you?
    Answer. I recall that there were discussions related to Arkansas 
family and friends. I recall that Mr. Huang had indicated at some point 
that he was interested in going to the DNC, and I recall that--I think 
that is my best recollection right now with respect to that. There was 
a subsequent meeting I guess with Mr. Riady too, and sometimes in my 
brain I collapse the two because both of those were topics of interest 
from the press.
    Question. And would that be this October of '96 meeting?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Where Mr. Middleton was at that meeting with Mr. Lindsey?
    Answer. Right.
    Question. And Mr. Riady?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And do you recall what you talked about at that meeting?
    Answer. I recall learning that that also was an occasion where Mr. 
Riady and the President talked about Arkansas and family and friends.
    Question. Did you learn how that meeting came about?
    Answer. Not that I recall.
    Question. Were you told anything about Mr. Middleton setting up 
that meeting?
    Answer. That would make sense, but I don't recall actually being 
told it was Mr. Middleton. I am sure at the time period when this was 
going on, I probably knew, but I don't recall right now.
    Question. Do you have any knowledge, now or then, tell us when you 
had it, about Mr. Middleton doing any work for Mr. Riady or with the 
LIPPO Group?
    Answer. No.
    Question. When you say it would make sense he would set it up, why 
would it make sense Mr. Middleton would set up the meeting with the 
President for Mr. Riady?
    Answer. Because he was present, so I am just guessing based upon 
his presence he might have called and said he was going to be in town.
    Question. And do you know why Mr. Middleton would be the person 
setting up the meeting for Mr. Riady?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. Did you attempt to find out anything about what Mr. 
Middleton was doing with Mr. Riady?
    Answer. I am sure at that time I probably did, but I don't have any 
particular recollection that stands out in my mind about that.
    Question. You have no recollection of what Mr. Middleton was doing 
in connection with the Riadys?
    Answer. I do not, but I am sure there are materials or other 
documents we probably produced to you that might shed light on that 
that I would have obviously been familiar with at that time, but I 
don't have a particular recollection of it right now.
    Question. And sitting here today, you didn't get an impression or 
an understanding of what he was doing?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Were you seeking to find that out or were you just trying 
to get the basics?
    Answer. At this point I probably was trying to get the basics, 
primarily, because obviously we were trying to make sure we had 
accurate information and there were lots of requests for the materials. 
I am sure at the time when there were all the different press inquiries 
and interests with respect to Mr. Riady's meetings with the President I 
would have learned more. I just don't recall in particular any 
association with why Mr. Middleton was present at the meeting and why 
he might have set it up.
    Question. Again, do you recall having any discussions with Mr. 
Middleton or his attorney about, in particular, him setting up that 
September '96 meeting or being involved in it?
    Answer. I am sure I would have talked to his attorney. I don't have 
a particular recollection of what might have been communicated in that 
conversation, but I am quite confident I would have attempted to speak 
to his attorney about it.
    Question. When you speak with people's attorneys, do you take notes 
of those conversations?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. And is that a practice that you had stopped then at some 
point at the White House?
    Answer. It is a practice I do not engage in.
    Question. Okay. Again, EOP 4977 is the September 9, 1996, meeting, 
which I think we were referring to with Mr. Middleton, Bruce Lindsey 
and the President, and is that another name for James Riady then? Is 
that your understanding?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And I will try to pronounce that. I don't know if you are 
able to.
    Answer. No.
    Question. It's spelled T-J-A-H-A-J-A. I know it is not very good 
handwriting--your handwriting is very good, but the copy isn't very 
good here, but can you tell us what, to the extent possible, what your 
notes say on the bottom of that page?
    Answer. Respect to foreign policy, supportive of our trade, I can't 
read those two, and hope for continuing better relations. There is a 
part in the middle I cannot read.
    Question. Where there is a slash there, is that something China?
    Answer. It could be. I just can't read it very clearly.
    Question. Do you recall if that referred to Mr. Riady having a 
general discussion with the President about China policy?
    Answer. I don't recall him having a general discussion. I actually 
recall it as Mr. Riady, upon his departure, indicating he was glad the 
President had addressed China and encouraged that we continue engaging 
China. That is my best recollection and that is based on all the 
different attention that ultimately ended up being paid to that meeting 
and the previous one.
    Question. Can you tell us the time frame of when you were making 
these notes or doing this?
    Answer. This would have been--I mean, the best guess I would have 
would be sometime in November I would have been doing these.
    Question. Now this copy was actually sent to Mr. Lindsey on 
November 2nd?
    Answer. That is not----
    Question. That is not the case?
    Answer. That is not accurate. The copy that was sent to Mr. Lindsey 
did not have handwriting on it, so it would have been exactly this 
without handwriting.
    Question. So initially what you sent to Mr. Lindsey on November 2nd 
was a copy of this document without any handwriting at all?
    Answer. I don't know if it was exactly this document, yes, it would 
not have had handwriting on it, or that is my best guess.
    Question. And why do you say that?
    Answer. Because at that point we were still trying to determine 
what were the actual correct WAVES for John Huang, and so subsequent to 
the faxes that I sent at that point, we discovered there were more John 
Huangs that were the wrong John Huang.
    Question. All right. And on the front cover, it says, on the fax 
sheet, the November 2nd one says, new version, eliminate several 
instances where it was a different John Huang, otherwise say an exact, 
is that cleanup?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Date of birth in 1996?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Could you tell us what that means?
    Answer. That was just trying to eliminate the different John 
Huangs.
    Question. And how did you do that?
    Answer. By talking to different people and also by, in certain 
instances in '96, the date of birth is actually indicated, so we could 
eliminate based on the date of birth.
    Question. So the date of birth is actually in the database or the 
WAVES database----
    Answer. In '96 it was. In previous years it wasn't. That is why it 
requires conversations with people.
    Question. And then on the next fax page of November 3rd, 1996, can 
you explain your comments there that you made on that fax transmittal 
sheet?
    Answer. Additional Huang, checked ones are new; total: 11 WAVES; 6 
actuals; new total, 140 WAVES; 95 actual WAVES.
    Question. Okay. Could you explain that?
    Answer. It is still part of the process of trying to get rid of the 
wrong John Huangs and make sure we had the right ones.
    Question. At this time it says you only faxed 6 pages in the second 
time, 6 pages that were part of this 41 that we--or however many?
    Answer. That is probably right, part of the overall WAVES.
    Question. Now this is a November 1st, 1996, letter from Chairman 
Clinger of this committee. At this time when you were working with 
this, were you aware that Chairman Clinger had requested these records?
    Answer. I don't have a particular association. There were lots of 
people requesting them so I don't know I would have had a particular 
association with him versus all the other Members seeking copies of 
John Huang's WAVE, but I was cognizant of the fact that Members of 
Congress were receiving the WAVES and were trying to go about 
determining what records would be responsive to do that.
    Question. And was Kathleen Wallman involved in this process at that 
time?
    Answer. She was the deputy at that time.
    Question. And were you working with her on these matters at all?
    Answer. Not particularly.
    Question. Now this letter reflects conversations made at the time, 
and I understand--do you have any knowledge of those conversations Ms. 
Wallman had with this committee?
    Answer. No.
    Question. And the letter here refers to a discussion with Ms. 
Wallman, where she claimed that Mr. Quinn was too busy to get to these 
records and that they weren't going to be getting to them.
    Do you recall anyone telling you that they weren't going to get to 
these records or not to do them?
    Answer. No.
    Mr. Eggleston. Nor does she know in fact whether that was said by 
Ms. Wallman.
    Ms. Comstock. I understand. I am just asking about your knowledge 
of anybody communicating with you that they are trying to get the 
records to anybody at a certain time.
    The Witness. It was my impression that these records were being 
requested and that we were going about trying to address that request, 
and that is with respect to what I was doing.
    Ms. Comstock. What document number are we up to?
    Mr. Eggleston. I thought this was 8.
    Ms. Comstock. This is 6.
    I will make the November 1st, 1996, letter to Mr. Quinn from 
Chairman Clinger Deposition Exhibit No. 8.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-8 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Here is an October 31, 1996, memo for all staff of the 
White House from Jack Quinn regarding documents of the LIPPO Group, 
Indonesia and other matters. Do you recall seeing this document?
    Answer. I am sure I did see this document, though I was not 
involved in this particular request.
    Question. Do you know if this is a request that Ms. Sherburne or 
Ms. Wallman or somebody else had put together?
    Answer. I do not recall who was tasked with this particular 
request.
    Question. Now this request attaches a request to it. Do you know 
where the attachment came from?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. And the contact person on this request--actually, why 
don't I--for the record, this is I guess what will be called a 
directive to all staff to turn over documents?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Regarding certain topics; would that be correct?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And it indicates the White House has received a 
congressional request for production of documents relating to the LIPPO 
Group, Indonesia and other matters, and it says, ``The precise document 
requested is attached.''
    Is it your understanding the precise request that came from 
Congress was attached to this directive?
    Answer. I can only do the same thing you are doing and that is read 
this particular document. I don't recall being involved with this 
particular request.
    Question. Okay. And the contact person here was Kathy Wallman or 
Alan Kreczko. Alan Kreczko is at NSC?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Do you know why they were the contact people on this?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. Do you recall having conversations with Ms. Wallman about 
LIPPO documents that were gathered?
    Answer. I am sure there would have been an occasion where we would 
have had a conversation. I don't recall in particular conversations 
regarding it, but I am sure we would have discussed it.
    Question. Did Ms. Wallman, in fact, give you documents that had 
been gathered about the LIPPO Group, Indonesia and the matters we 
related in the attached two pages?
    Answer. I recall that production being a separate production but I 
could be wrong and just not having an accurate memory in that regard.
    Question. How do you mean that it was separate production?
    Answer. I don't recall it being part of the request that I ended 
up--a document I ended up addressing which was we got a request in 
December from the Justice Department where we circulated a directive, 
that is, the documents that I recall addressing with respect to 
collecting materials.
    Question. Okay. At any time did Ms. Wallman give you the documents 
that she had gathered?
    Answer. If she had already produced them, she probably wouldn't 
have. I just don't recall.
    Question. Okay. Because this request, which is about the LIPPO 
Group and Indonesia, I imagine, overlap some, the request that came 
from the Justice Department in December?
    Answer. I am certain it would.
    Question. Why don't I just get that for you so you have it in front 
of you. This is the December 16, 1996, directive to Executive Office of 
the President staff from Jack Quinn, regarding a document request, and 
it indicates, we received document requests from certain congressional 
committees and the Department of Justice, and then asks for a search of 
records relating to a number of individuals. And then on the second 
page is a number of entities.
    Question. Do you recall in preparing this directive going back to 
Ms. Wallman about what she had collected at that point?
    Answer. I don't recall that, but I am certain that if there were 
materials that had not been produced, those materials would have been 
captured in this.
    Question. And this October 31, 1996, directive----
    Answer. Let me just address, as it says on the second page, we 
recognize that this request, in some respects, is duplicative of a 
prior document request. To ensure complete response, however, please 
provide all responsive documents, even those you may have previously 
provided.
    Question. Was it your understanding, then, that whatever documents 
had been given to Ms. Wallman or Mr. Kreczko would again come back to 
you?
    Answer. I don't know that I had an impression, with regard to them 
transferring materials, every staff member would have to go back 
through all their materials to make production that was responsive to 
this request.
    Question. And on that second page of the December 16, 1996, 
directive, which we will go ahead and make Deposition Exhibit No. 9, 
you are the contact person on these documents along with Wendy White; 
is that correct?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And what was Ms. White then working on at this time?
    Mr. Eggleston. I don't mean to be a housekeeper, but if you didn't 
make this an exhibit, it maybe should be.
    Ms. Comstock. I'm sorry. We will make October 31, 1996, Deposition 
Exhibit 9, and December 16, 1996, Deposition Exhibit 10, and I always 
appreciate housekeepers.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-9 was marked for identification.]
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-10 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. And I just wanted you to be able to have both of them in 
front of you so we all aren't referring to documents that you don't 
have a chance to refer to, in fairness to you.
    But why don't we return to the October 31, 1996, memo. It does ask 
the documents be turned over to William Leary in the NSC. Do you know 
who that is?
    Answer. Bill Leary is their, for lack of a better word, documents 
person. He is like Terry Good is for records management. He also 
manages their records for the NSC.
    Question. And it asks that the documents be turned over by November 
12, 1996. Do you know if that generally occurred, if documents were 
produced by that date?
    Answer. I do not know. I was not involved in this request.
    Question. Okay. Generally, when you have a directive and have a 
date on it, do you generally get most of the documents by that date, 
some, all?
    Answer. I would say we get most of them, but we always get 
documents after that date. If staff have been traveling where they 
weren't in the office on a day the record went out, and as they come 
out, they obviously provide their records as quickly as they can.
    Question. Historically has there been particular offices that you 
have learned, you know, you have to go and kind of bother them or 
remind them or tell them that it doesn't appear they have looked 
through the documents?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Is it your experience, then, that people have responded 
in a timely fashion then to your directives?
    Answer. Usually people try and respond in a timely fashion. 
Obviously there are things that people schedule, travel and things like 
that, but people try and respond in a timely fashion.
    Question. So would it be fair to say by November 12, 1996, a body 
of documents regarding the LIPPO Group and the matters identified on 
the attached sheets would have been collected within the White House?
    Answer. I don't----
    Mr. Ballen. I object. The witness testified she wasn't involved in 
the directive and you are asking basically speculative questions at 
this point.
    The Witness. I don't know, which I already started to say, I don't 
know kind of what the production was like on this particular request.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Okay. Well, then, referring to the December 16 directive, 
as you noted earlier on the second page, you had said we recognize this 
request is somewhat duplicative of a prior document request. Do you 
know if you were referring to any other request, aside from the October 
31, 1996, request?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. I just knew there had been lots of requests for information 
regarding all of these matters, and so to ensure we got all of the 
records, we required people to do another production.
    Question. And at or around the time of this December 16, 1996, 
directive, do you recall that you already had gathered a fair amount of 
documents pertaining to these matters?
    Answer. No, this was the first request I sent out.
    Question. So the documents that had come in to Bill Leary, you had 
not seen then, prior to doing the December 16 directive?
    Answer. I don't recall if I had gone through these materials or 
not. I don't recall.
    Question. Now, generally, Mr. Leary wouldn't be sending out 
documents in response to a congressional request; is that correct?
    Answer. No, Mr. Leary actually deals with--as you probably can 
imagine, in the NSC there are lots of materials that are classified, so 
I am sure part of the rationale for the production, for Mr. Leary, was 
with respect to ensuring they would be able to be maintained in a 
fashion consistent with their classification.
    Question. Mr. Leary wouldn't be the person who would bundle them up 
and send them up to the Hill or to HPSCI?
    Answer. No, I imagine Kathy Wallman and Alan Kreczko would have 
been playing that role.
    Question. And would they have gone through you at this time, before 
anything was transferred?
    Answer. I don't know that they would have gone through me, 
primarily, just because of their seniority at that time, but I am sure 
we would have tried to ensure that we had all the appropriate documents 
and to the extent that this request was sent out, one of the ways we 
tried to ensure that was to ask for all records to be reproduced.
    Question. And the deadline on this directive of December 16, 1996, 
Deposition Exhibit 10, was December 23, 1996, and do you recall if you 
did get a lot of those documents by that date?
    Answer. We got a fair number but because it was the holiday season 
there were a number of people out so we continued to receive documents 
throughout the end of the month.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. Into the beginning of the next year, too.
    Question. So by early to mid January, had you received a lot of the 
documents, then, pertaining to, for example, John Huang, Mr. Riady?
    Answer. I think we would have received a fair amount of the 
documents by that point, yes.
    Question. And do you recall any discussions you had about 
transmitting them to the congressional committees and the Department of 
Justice?
    Answer. I recall that obviously we needed to go through, Bate stamp 
them, review them for responsiveness, and we needed to provide them as 
we were able to do so.
    Question. Do you recall when you provided the documents to the 
Justice Department?
    Answer. I believe sometime in January.
    Question. All right. And do you know why the documents at that time 
were not provided to congressional committees?
    Answer. It is my impression that the documents ultimately were 
being reviewed to be provided and I just don't recall what the 
different issues were with committees. If I recall correctly, most of 
the committees were at that point setting up what were going to be 
their processes, and there was some discussion regarding whether or not 
this matter was going to be handled by Mr. Gilman, is it Representative 
Gilman, is that correct, or this committee.
    Similarly, on the Senate side, I recall there being lots of 
discussions in that regard, and then I subsequently transitioned out so 
I didn't participate in the follow-up discussions to determine how you 
all ultimately ended up resolving that, though obviously the committee 
ended up with jurisdiction here and on the Senate side they ended up as 
they did.
    Question. When you gathered these documents pertaining to John 
Huang or James Riady, and Ms. Kanchanalak is listed on here, Charlie 
Trie, Johnny Chung, others, do you recall if you had gathered the memos 
which I think we sort of obliquely referred to earlier, regarding James 
Riady's visits to the White House, the Sherburne memos, that discussed 
I guess her disagreements with Mr. Lindsey about various accounts of 
the Riady meetings?
    Answer. I don't know what date Ms. Sherburne created her document, 
but we would have gathered them in the process of all the other 
requests that we would have been dealing with.
    Ms. Comstock. I will make this Deposition Exhibit No. 11. This was 
a November 26, 1996, memo to Leon Panetta and Erskine Bowles and Jane 
Sherburne regarding White House statements regarding the Riady 
meetings.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-11 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. This is an exhibit from a different deposition and I just 
marked it correctly. So then since this memo was on November 26th, 
1996, is it your understanding that it would have been collected 
pursuant to the December 16th directive?
    Answer. Yes, it should have been collected at that time period, 
right.
    Question. Do you know if it was provided to the Justice Department 
in January?
    Answer. I do not know. I don't know that all of our production was 
complete to the Department of Justice in January. If my memory serves 
correctly, towards the end of January, we made our initial production 
but we had subsequent productions that continued throughout March. 
That's my best recollection.
    Question. Do you know any reason why this particular document would 
have been withheld and not provided in January? I am not saying it is. 
I am just saying, if you know.
    Answer. I don't know that it wasn't. I don't know when it was 
provided, actually.
    Question. Do you recall any discussions about--there are a number 
of other documents that are related to this or other copies of this 
memo, but I will just refer to this one for now somewhat generically if 
we can on the topic.
    Do you recall any discussions about withholding these--this memo or 
others related to it for executive privilege purposes?
    Answer. I am sure that because this is a memo from Jane Sherburne 
we would have had to review this in the context of other documents that 
might be subject to privilege. So I am sure this one would have had to 
have been reviewed in that context. I don't recall particularly this 
particular document but I am sure we would have reviewed it in that 
context.
    Question. Okay. Did you have any conversations within the counsel's 
office about claiming executive privilege vis-a-vis Justice Department 
requests?
    Answer. I am sure we would have gone through, as we do for any 
document production, to review documents and determined whether or not 
there is privileges associated with them and then how to address those 
particular privileges that might be associated with the documents.
    Question. But in a situation where the Justice Department was 
asking the White House for documents, or the particular issues that 
were raised about how to go about claiming executive privilege when the 
Justice Department is asking you for?
    Answer. I don't know that--since the Justice Department is another 
branch of the government, I don't know that you have that same issue as 
opposed to when you are dealing with Congress, quite candidly.
    Question. That's what I am trying to get at. Usually, the counsel's 
office would go to OLC for advice and counseling on claiming executive 
privilege. Isn't that correct?
    Answer. It depends. There have been numerous investigations that 
have been ongoing that we have not been able to engage in that process 
either because of their particular investigation that they were doing 
or other reasons, and particularly, for example, in the Whitewater case 
there were some instances where--in the Whitewater matter there were 
some instances where we did not consult because of ongoing matters that 
they might have had.
    Question. Because of potential conflict?
    Answer. I don't know if it is always potential conflict, quite 
candidly.
    Question. Okay. Were you aware of--did you ever have any 
discussions with Mr. Ruff about Ms. Reno recusing herself from 
executive privilege issues as far as the fund-raising investigation is 
concerned?
    Answer. I am sure we would have had conversations to conclude that 
since the Department was going to be reviewing these matters that we 
would not review with OLC materials that would be going to them. I am 
sure we would have probably had those kinds of discussions.
    Question. Okay. Do you recall in particular conversations you had?
    Answer. I mean, I just recall that issue coming up. I don't recall 
particular conversations, but I recall that issue coming up and 
addressing that issue. Otherwise, as a matter of practice we probably 
would always be addressing these with OLC so I am sure we did have 
discussions in that regard.
    Mr. Ballen. Does that mean that you made a categorical decision not 
to address it with OLC as to all documents or just you had some 
discussions about appropriateness?
    The Witness. We had discussions regarding what would be 
appropriate, I am sure, documents for them, given their particular, I 
guess, investigation.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Was there ever any decision made that the White House 
would not claim executive privilege over documents--I mean, that the 
Justice Department requested?
    Answer. I don't know that the executive privilege issue arises in 
that context because it is an executive branch agency. So I don't know 
that we have the same issue in that context. So I think discussions 
would have been in that vein as opposed to asserting executive 
privilege with respect to the Department. They are an executive branch 
agency.
    Question. Are you aware of instances previously where the White 
House did withhold documents from the Justice Department based on 
attorney/client or executive privilege issues?
    Answer. I am not.
    Question. This is a matter Mr. Eggleston and I have discussed 
previously in another life.
    But did you then not work on any issues related to Whitewater and 
the withholding of documents in that case on executive privilege--on 
attorney/client privilege or anything like that?
    Answer. That's correct, I did not work on the Whitewater matter. 
Otherwise I think we would have worked together.
    Question. As far as--I didn't work on that one.
    Answer. Okay.
    Question. You aren't familiar then generally with the White House 
having then withheld documents from the Justice Department in the past, 
pursuant to any type of privilege?
    Answer. They may have. You may be able to walk me through a 
scenario where it would refresh my recollection, but I don't 
particularly have a recollection as I am sitting here, and I did not 
work on the Whitewater-related matters to the extent it arose in that 
context.
    Question. In the whole fund-raising case, you do not recall any 
particular documents where the issue came up and you had any 
discussions about withholding particular documents and how that might 
be done?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. All right. So is it your--and I am gathering from your 
response that usually it would be unusual for the White House to claim 
executive privilege over another executive branch. Since you are within 
the executive branch claiming executive privilege, it is not something 
that normally one does?
    Answer. I don't know if it would be unusual. In this matter, I 
recall that they--we are an executive branch agency so to the extent 
that the context of our discussions arose, or our discussions arose in 
that context, I don't know what might be the context in which it would 
arise in other investigations.
    Question. In the December--I am sorry. Why don't we keep the 
December 16th directive out and then I think we may still need the 
WAVES records, too.
    When you compiled this list on December 16th, what was the source 
of the various names and requests? I mean, it says that there is 
congressional committees and Department of Justice had requested these 
things. Were there names on here, some of which you all didn't know who 
they were or what they were about?
    Answer. My best recollection is that the Department of Justice had 
been fairly specific in their interest and they were the first ones who 
were as specific about all the different entities they were interested 
in, so that's my best recollection of where we would have drawn most of 
the information from.
    Question. Do you know if there was any effort to find out--for 
example, the last name on the list Yue F. Chu; did you all look at that 
and say who is that?
    Answer. I still don't know who Yue F. Chu is.
    Question. Or Keshi Zahn?
    Answer. Right. I mean, all of these were individuals or entities 
that had been, at least to that point, identified as of interest to, I 
know, certainly the Department of Justice and many of them overlapped 
with other requests that we had. And so we attempted to try and do a 
comprehensive document search at that point.
    Question. Okay. Was there any attempt to find out internally who 
these people were? Or was the directive just sent out?
    Answer. We sent the directive out and to the extent that we learned 
who people were if it was helpful in trying to help people we would, 
but we basically sent the directive out.
    Question. Okay. I guess we said earlier Wendy White assisted you 
then with this.
    Answer. Yes, I believe that would be correct.
    Question. And what were Wendy White's duties in this regard?
    Answer. I think Wendy was at that time also assisting with the 
collection of the materials, and reviewing of the materials.
    Question. And did you task her or anybody else with finding out who 
any of these people were?
    Answer. I am sure we tried to find out who these people were but I 
don't recall in particular tasking anybody to try and address them. I 
think often as documents came in it became clear who the different 
people were.
    Question. Okay. For example, were you familiar with Yogesh Ghandi?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Okay. Now you had in fact worked on some matters related 
to Mr. Ghandi?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. All right. And did you then gather up the files that you 
had or material that you had on Mr. Ghandi?
    Answer. The material I would have had on Mr. Ghandi would have been 
a memo that Cathy Whalen had so that would have been something I would 
have sent back just because at that point I wasn't handling that 
matter; Ms. Whalen was handling it.
    Question. With respect to what?
    Answer. With respect to the Yogesh Ghandi award, Ms. Whalen was 
handling that matter.
    Question. In collecting these documents, did you put the Ghandi 
documents into the pile that was being collected pursuant to the 
December 16th directive?
    Answer. Yes, to the extent that I had Ghandi documents.
    Question. Okay. So it is your recollection that you had sent them 
off to--sent a lot of the documents to Ms. Whalen?
    Answer. I don't recall actually being consulted other than one 
question that was raised with me with regard to Mr. Ghandi, and that 
was basically someone forwarding me a request to look at the issue. 
Since Cathy was already working on it, I just sent it down to her.
    Question. Do you recall in January, when documents were turned over 
to the Justice Department, if the Ghandi documents were included in 
that?
    Answer. I just don't recall.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. I should be clear that we did not complete production to 
the Justice Department in January. We basically began production in 
January, towards the end, I believe. So this would have been a process 
of going through all the materials and it would have taken a couple of 
months probably before we completed production.
    Question. Okay. And who worked on that, that initial--that January 
production with you?
    Answer. Karen Popp in our office and then it was transitioned 
obviously to well, Mr. Breuer's staff and team when they came on board.
    Question. And when did Ms. Popp come on board?
    Answer. December 23rd, I believe, or the 24th; some awful time 
right before Christmas.
    Question. And she worked with you exclusively?
    Answer. At that point, she did.
    Question. Okay. Can you tell us when she came on board, what you 
did to sort of get her up to speed on these matters?
    Answer. I believe at that point we already sent out the directive 
when she came on board and so I basically asked her to look through the 
materials. I tried to explain to her where the different places were 
where we looked for materials, how we gather materials, basically all 
the things you would need to know to be able to hopefully be helpful 
and effective in a process like this.
    Question. Okay. Did you indicate to her what offices would be most 
likely to have documents regarding any of these people?
    Answer. To the extent that there was follow-up required, but I 
believe that the document requests had already gone out by the time 
that she came on board so we would have already been receiving in the 
materials.
    To the extent that we were trying to follow up on materials or 
follow up on information, I would obviously describe to her where we 
might need to follow up based on materials or other information that we 
had.
    Question. Okay. And can you describe anything else you did to sort 
of acclimate her to this process and how she would go about gathering 
the documents and making sure that she would obtain all responsive 
documents within the White House?
    Answer. Well, these were already coming in so she didn't have an 
obligation to make sure they were coming in; they were already coming 
in. We had already sent out the directive. But typically, what I tried 
to do with her and with others, to the extent that I have information 
that might be helpful, is to walk them through what I have already 
learned; walk them through whatever information we already know; walk 
them through the different places where there might be information 
coming from based on what we know and also try and introduce them to 
different people as they are working through the process so that they 
know who the different people are in the different offices so they can 
always have a point of contact that they can talk to to ask questions 
about materials and other things.
    Question. Okay. And who were those key type people?
    Answer. They would be whoever the particular assistants were for 
the office or other people who might be their assistants. Those would 
be people who might likely see a lot of the paper or information that 
goes through the office.
    Question. Can you tell me some of those office, like the staff 
secretary's office would have a lot of the people?
    Answer. Staff secretary's office probably I would indicate Terry 
Good because that comes under there, and Terry Good would be a person--
he has another person on his staff who also is particularly responsive 
in trying to ensure that we go through materials, and so--Tom Taggert, 
I would indicate he is another person in Records Management to talk to. 
We would go through the different offices and identify people who were 
in those offices and likely to be able to provide help or guidance with 
respect to materials that come from their office.
    Question. Do you know the volume of documents that have been 
gathered by January that you had collected, you know, boxes or folders?
    Answer. I do not know the volume but it was certainly boxes.
    Question. All right. Do you know where it was being stored or kept?
    Answer. We have a room where we just stored materials, and that's 
where they were being stored.
    Question. Can you just describe the process, how they came in and 
what you did when records would come in responsive to a directive such 
as the December 16th?
    Answer. Typically when records came in we would try and place them 
in a file folder or something that would help identify the source of 
those particular records, and then we would just place it in a box and 
keep collecting the records until the time period when we perceived 
that we had most of the documents that were out there, which was 
usually somewhere shortly thereafter the date of production that we had 
given out our memos.
    Question. Would you identify the offices from which the documents 
came as they came in?
    Answer. The name of the person or the office if there was no name 
associated with it.
    Question. Okay. So as the documents came in to--what was the room 
number that this came in?
    Answer. They came into my office and then we would put them 
basically into a box to try and go about identifying them as they came 
in to ensure that we had all the records identified when they came in.
    Question. If Mr. McLarty sent documents from his office, they would 
come in from his office and they would be identified Mr. McLarty's 
documents?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Is that correct? And if Terry Good sent over documents 
from Records Management would he usually--would he know whose offices 
they had come from?
    Answer. They would be identified in ours as from Records 
Management.
    Question. Okay. But would Mr. Good in his records have a record of 
whose records those are?
    Answer. I am sure he probably does.
    Question. Okay. But so would he then be able to inform you whose 
records they are when he sent them over?
    Answer. I am sure he could, though typically when they came in they 
came in as Records Management documents. In other words, they came in 
as archives documents rather than archive documents of X person.
    Question. If you were to go back to Mr. Good and say, Gee, I have 
this document, I don't know what it is, can you tell me whose file it 
came from, does Mr. Good have a process by which any documents he gives 
to you he can then trace in his tracking system to tell you where he 
got it initially?
    Answer. I don't know, but I am sure he does.
    Question. Isn't that part of what Records Management is, to know 
where the records came from that he is managing and filing?
    Answer. It is partially that. It is also just to ensure that we 
have a complete record so that sometimes there obviously will be 
occasions where they don't know particularly whose file a record might 
have come out of but they try and make sure they have all the records.
    Question. Generally, he tries to identify--I mean, if somebody 
comes and drops a box on his doorstep and doesn't tell him where it is 
from, obviously he wouldn't know. But if he was given information when 
he was given the documents, doesn't the office then go ahead and 
identify the documents?
    Answer. That's my understanding of their practice.
    Question. Well, in gathering documents in your office, do you then 
go back and find out the source of those original documents aside from 
Records Management?
    Answer. Not beyond Records Management.
    Question. All right. When you provided documents to the Justice 
Department, did you recall if you did a production log to the Justice 
Department?
    Answer. I don't recall if we did a production log, but if we did we 
still would have identified it as Records Management unless we had more 
information.
    Question. Okay. Do you recall--you don't recall if you did a 
production log for the Justice Department?
    Answer. That's correct. I am sure there was one that was done but 
it would have been done after the time period that I was handling this 
matter.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. Production logs typically are done at the end of 
productions. This production was not completed by the time I 
transitioned out of the matter.
    Question. Okay. How much was completed in terms of the Justice 
Department production while you were still working on these matters?
    Answer. I believe we had only done our first production to them, 
and I believe there were several subsequent productions.
    Question. Okay. Do you have any general recollection of how much of 
a volume of documents you turned over at that time?
    Answer. I don't. I really don't.
    Question. Do you know who would know?
    Answer. No. I mean, I think that's a piece of information we could 
try and find out for you but I don't have a particular recollection.
    Question. Well, I am just trying to get a sense of by the time you 
left how much was gathered and together on these various topics.
    Answer. I don't know that I can give you a good answer on that 
because I wasn't involved in the subsequent aspects of the production 
and what review went into those in terms of trying to ensure complete 
production in that sense. That was something that was handled by 
somebody else. So I can't give you a sense of whether or not we 
produced 3 boxes to Justice and there ultimately were 12 boxes 
produced. I just don't ultimately have a sense of that.
    Question. Okay. I think in looking at the WAVES records--I did not 
want to return to the WAVES records, but we have probably gone through 
pretty much all you recall on any of the Riady meetings; is that 
correct?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Okay. And I just wanted to now refer to Mr. Huang's 
visits at the White House and to the extent you have any knowledge of 
those events and who he was meeting with.
    Answer. I don't have any particularized knowledge beyond what I 
ultimately ended up reflecting on these documents.
    Question. Okay. And the bottom of page 4978, that is your 
handwriting on the February 11th, 1993, notation?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Can you make that out?
    Answer. POTUS economic briefing in East Room. I can't make out the 
next section. Open press. The next line I cannot make out.
    Mr. Ballen. Cannot make out because the Xerox copy is poor.
    Ms. Comstock. I understand. Ms. Mills has some of the best 
handwriting that we have seen on documents so that has nothing to do 
with her handwriting. It is a poor copy.
    The Witness. The last paren says ``photo, too,'' T-O-O.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Then on the next page, EOP 4979, it indicates there is a 
photo in file. Do you know if that is a photo that you had in your file 
at that point or what you are referring to there?
    Answer. It probably would reflect that there was photos in the 
photo office in their file.
    Question. Okay. So I know we mentioned this a little earlier, but 
is it your recollection that you would have sent your assistant to get 
photos from the photo office about this?
    Answer. Well, you can't get photos but you can actually look at the 
contact sheets or get a copy of the contact sheets. I probably would 
have asked my assistant to go up and look and tell me if there was a 
photo in the file or not.
    Question. So this notation would mean that someone had seen a photo 
in the photo office but that you didn't actually have a physical copy 
of it?
    Answer. Right, though I might have had a copy of the contact sheet.
    Question. How would you go about getting a copy of the contact 
sheet?
    Answer. I have to confess to not knowing because I don't actually 
do it. I would ask my assistant to do it.
    Mr. Ballen. Just so the record is clear, you were not a participant 
in any of these meetings; were you?
    The Witness. That's correct.
    Mr. Ballen. This was something you were finding out to respond to 
the various requests that came in?
    The Witness. Yes. I was not a participant in the meetings.
    Ms. Comstock. I hope the record will reflect that. We are asking 
the witness about her notations about this and none of the meetings are 
with her.
    The Witness. Correct.
    Mr. Ballen. Not based on her firsthand knowledge, just based on 
information she collected either from talking to people or looking at 
documents.
    The Witness. Correct.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. And again on page 4980, Melinda Yee is mentioned in 
meetings with Mr. Huang. Again, you don't recall talking to Melinda Yee 
about John Huang?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Do you recall any general discussion about John Huang's 
relationship with the President or how long they had known each other? 
Do you recall getting an impression of what the relationship was?
    Answer. I am sure that that is something I would have learned, and 
I know the President has spoken to that. I can't tell you in 
particular, in time frame, that I would have learned that, but I 
understood that Mr. Huang had spent some time in Arkansas.
    Question. I am just trying to get a sense. I mean, when you go 
about--when you went about this exercise, were you attempting, you 
know, as a lawyer to find out, you know, the client, you know, what the 
involvement was here to find out as much as you could about Mr. Riady 
and Mr. Huang and what their interactions were at the White House?
    Answer. I wasn't particularly interested in Riady and Huang as I 
was interested in what the nature and purpose of their visits were and 
what kinds of events they might have been attending and why they might 
have been attending them. I didn't have a particularized interest in 
John Huang per se or Riady per se. I had an interest in understanding 
what their contact had been with the White House.
    Question. And do you know who Holt is who has a meeting? It is on 
page 4983, 6-24-93 meeting.
    Answer. I do not know who Holt is, though obviously I indicated he 
or she works in the visitors office.
    Question. Do you recall having any discussions with Mr. Holt or 
Miss Holt or whoever that might be?
    Answer. No. And that visit actually appears to reflect that the 
visit didn't actually transpire.
    Question. That's because of the little stars there would mean there 
is not an arrival time?
    Answer. Under the TOA, there is four stars which would indicate 
that at least the record would reflect that they did not arrive.
    Question. Okay. Page 4985, where the visitee is the President but 
then you have next to it ``Meeting with California opinion leaders.''
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Is that something you would have gathered from the 
Presidential records or something like that?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. On page 4986, I think we have talked about Miss Dickey. 
You don't recall the conversations with Ms. Dickey about John Huang or 
James Riady?
    Answer. I am sure I would have spoken to Ms. Dickey but I don't 
recall having a particular conversation, and I couldn't tell if it is 
Robin or Helen Dickey.
    Question. Do you recall ever discussing with Mr. Quinn, who is 
listed as a visitee on 9-24-93, any discussions he had with John Huang 
or meetings?
    Answer. No, but I am sure I would have called him.
    Question. The stars again on the side----
    Answer. Oh, you are right. I might not have.
    Question. So I do want the record to reflect that. Do you recall 
having any discussions like, hey, Jack, did you set up a meeting with 
John Huang and what can you tell me about it?
    Answer. I am sure I would have. I don't recall particularly, but I 
am sure I would have.
    Question. All right. Do you recall what he said?
    Answer. No, I actually don't.
    Question. You are laughing. I am not sure--can you----
    Answer. I am just laughing because it is Jack Quinn so I would 
have, of course, wanted to call him but I don't recall in particular.
    Question. But you have no recollection of what he said he was 
meeting with Mr. Huang about or might have been meeting--had--obviously 
this reflects there was a scheduled meeting or that there was at least 
an attempt for Mr. Huang to come in and Mr. Quinn was a visitee.
    Answer. Correct. But since there was no time of arrival, obviously 
people I think tended to have a harder time figuring out what they 
might have been meeting with people about when actually didn't meet 
with the people as opposed to when they did. That was just generally 
kind of one of the things I noticed as I was going through here. I 
don't particularly recall any conversations with Mr. Quinn in which he 
was able to reconstruct what that might have been about.
    Question. All right. Then there are a number of receptions and 
events. Again, you just had your assistant check about these events; is 
that how you learned of it?
    Answer. Correct. Or you look at the schedule to see what events 
were going on at that time period.
    Question. Okay. Now, Ms. Matsui had some meetings with Mr. Huang; 
is that correct? And I am on page 4991. The Bates stamp number has 
fallen off the page there.
    Do you recall any discussions you had with Ms. Matsui about her 
interaction with Mr. Huang?
    Answer. I am sure I had discussions with Ms. Matsui about her 
interactions with John Huang primarily because I believe there was some 
plan that was put out by the Asian Pacific working group and I recall 
having discussions with her in that context. So I am confident I had 
conversations with Ms. Matsui.
    Question. And what did she tell you?
    Answer. I don't recall her telling me anything in particular about 
Mr. Huang other than him being a part of the same working group and 
being, I believe at that point, at Commerce initially and often being 
an advocate for the involvement of Asian Americans.
    Question. Okay. And talking with any of these people about Mr. 
Huang, do you recall anyone ever raising any concerns about, gee, I 
thought it was funny that he brought this person or that person in, or 
as the stories came out of anybody ever saying to you that, gee, I had 
suspicions about this or that or anything of that nature?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Okay. Are you aware of anybody at the--did anyone at the 
DNC ever say anything like that to you?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Have you ever heard that anyone told you about, gee, 
someone at the DNC told me they were wondering where he got that money 
from a certain event or anything of that nature?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Okay. Then I guess going through, as we did with the 
Riady ones, if you could look through any other John Huangs and see if 
there are any ones in particular that you might recall having 
discussions with the individuals?
    Answer. None of these stick out in particular, but I am sure I had 
conversations with Ms. Matsui. I recall having had a conversation with 
Bob Kyle and that he indicated it was an Indonesian meeting, so I 
recall having spoken to him about that. Others don't really stick out 
into my mind as to what conversations might have happened or materials 
I might have been looking at to determine what they were.
    Question. Do you recall any discussions with Harold Ickes about any 
meetings he had with Mr. Huang?
    Answer. I don't, but I am sure if he is on here I would have 
probably asked him about it.
    Question. Or Maggie Williams?
    Answer. I recall speaking to an assistant in her office. I don't 
recall who, regarding an Ambassador who came to visit, an Ambassador 
from--Ambassador March Fong Eu or someone by that name. I recall that.
    Question. March Fong Eu, Ambassador to Micronesia?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And do you recall what she told you about that?
    Answer. I just recall that one of her assistants had indicated that 
they had dropped by, I believe on one day and Ms. Williams wasn't there 
and they came by another time and introduced them to her. That's to the 
best of my recollection.
    Question. Did they tell you why she was coming to visit Ms. 
Williams?
    Answer. No. It was my impression they were just introducing the 
Ambassador to Ms. Williams.
    Question. Again, as with Mr. Riady, a number of the meetings were 
with people in the personnel office, somebody Huynh, H-U-Y-N-H; do you 
know who that individual was?
    Answer. I believe his name was Fu Huyhn. I believe he was also 
involved in the Asian American appointees group that they had.
    Question. Did you ever talk with anyone about John Huang was trying 
to get people placed or, you know, get jobs for anybody or making 
recommendations?
    Answer. I don't particularly recall that, but I also recall that 
Mr. Huang, as an Asian American appointee of the President, was 
interested, as were Ms. Matsui and others, in seeing Asian Americans 
appointed to positions in the administration.
    Question. All right. Can we just generally discuss in addition--we 
had discussed already a little bit about how you transitioned Ms. Popp 
into working on these matters. As other people came on board, could you 
describe that process and what you did to sort of transition out of 
working on this?
    Answer. As other people came on board, I sat down, I particularly 
recall with Mr. Breuer and I guess Ms. Peterson might have been there 
as well, but others and just walked them through what had been done to 
that point, what materials there were, where materials tended to come 
from in terms of what offices would have what kinds of materials; where 
they could go about finding out information about schedules or events 
and things like that and kind of walk them through the ways in which 
they could go about discerning information that might be helpful or 
responsive or provide greater insight into different events or things 
that might have transpired that would be responsive to or elaborate on 
the requests that we were receiving from the various entities.
    Question. All right. Did you tell them about the White House 
Communications Office?
    Answer. No.
    Question. All right. And did you tell them anything about 
audiotapes or videotape records or any type of records in that regard?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Do you recall----
    Mr. Eggleston. Could I ask you a question: Have you had access to 
the Senate deposition?
    Ms. Comstock. Are we going into some areas there?
    Mr. Eggleston. No, no. She has pretty much done this in the Senate.
    Ms. Comstock. Actually, I don't think we are going to go into that 
a lot because I understand the testimony and everything with Senate and 
everything, so I am trying to----
    The Witness. As you are probably aware, I didn't have a great 
familiarity with what they taped and what they didn't tape and so had 
not been a participant in productions with regard to tapes. So I was 
not familiar with what they might have and what they might not have. I 
obviously understood that everyone got the directive, but beyond that I 
didn't have any particular familiarity with what their practices were 
and what they taped.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. But in working on the memos that you had done with them, 
the memos did discuss that there was taping of Presidential events; is 
that correct?
    Answer. Actually the memos referenced recordings and they do not 
discuss taping. As you are probably aware from my deposition, and from 
the depositions of the others as they testified to at least when they 
were at their hearings, we did not discuss videotaping.
    Mr. Ballen. For the record, do you have--this is an internal 
matter, but we have not received a copy of your deposition in the 
Senate, the Minority.
    Do you have that, Ms. Comstock, from the Senate?
    Ms. Comstock. We can discuss internal matters elsewhere. I am 
trying to stay on----
    Mr. Ballen. I am going to object then entirely to any questions 
about any matter raised in the Senate. If you have access to the Senate 
deposition and the Minority does not, I don't think that's fair, and to 
question a witness about it, to repeat the questioning we have a long-
standing objection to that without providing Minority a copy at least 
of the Senate deposition. So it is more than an internal matter if you 
plan to ask questions that this witness has already testified to.
    Ms. Comstock. If you can indicate matters as they come up that you 
think--because I think we have been staying--you know, trying to 
discuss our subpoenas and our matters.
    Mr. Eggleston. That's fine. I will tell you generally, the Senate 
was interested in the videotape issue as anybody who watches ABC News 
knows. Ms. Mills testified in a fairly lengthy Senate deposition and, 
frankly, I can't imagine there are any questions that you could ask her 
about the videotapes that weren't asked of her at the Senate. But, I 
mean, they were pretty exhaustive on this subject.
    It was really almost exclusively the subject of a couple hour 
deposition. I don't know that I can remember every single question that 
she was asked, but they pretty much occupied the field on this issue. 
And since then, of course, the WHCA employees all testified they didn't 
talk about the videotapes with her so that it turns out she is not in 
the WHCA videotape story as the matter ended up.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. In the course of your gathering documents in the January 
time frame, were you aware of documents from Mr. Ickes' office being 
gathered in any manner?
    Answer. Yes. Mr. Ickes provided documents in response to the 
request.
    Question. Okay. And were you aware of Harold Ickes taking documents 
with him?
    Answer. I am aware of that now. I don't know if at that time that 
would have struck a bell, but I am certainly aware that there were 
materials that were campaign materials or other things like that that 
he departed with.
    Question. And this committee received documents from Mr. Ickes in 
February of 1996. Were you aware of discussions about whether or not 
Mr. Ickes should turn over documents to this committee--in February of 
1997, I am sorry. Were you aware of any discussions in the counsel's 
office about Mr. Ickes turning over documents?
    Answer. I am certain we had discussions regarding whether or not 
any of these materials were materials over which there potentially 
would be privilege issues that needed to be addressed and we would have 
had those conversations in that context.
    Question. Okay. Do you know if there were discussions with Mr. 
Bennett about that, Mr. Bennett being Mr. Ickes' attorney?
    Answer. Right. I actually recall there probably being discussions 
with Ms. Amy Sabirn, who I believe also worked on this matter with Mr. 
Ickes.
    Question. Do you recall--were you involved in those discussions?
    Answer. I am sure I would have been involved in those discussions 
with respect to Mr. Ickes' documents if they were done in the beginning 
of the--of February. I am sure that would have been a time period that 
I would have still been involved in those matters.
    Question. Okay. Do you recall any particular issues regarding Mr. 
Ickes' documents and what he had taken with him?
    Answer. I recall there being press attention to the fact that he 
had materials that were with him. I don't recall there being any 
particular issue, other than ensuring that to the extent there were any 
privileges that might properly be associated that we would have an 
opportunity to review and identify them. Other than that, no.
    Question. Was there any discussion about Mr. Ickes had a number of 
documents that were his memos to the President and the President had 
written on them, things such as that?
    Answer. I don't recall any particular issues about that, no.
    Question. Okay. I wanted to ask you some questions about when you 
were working on matters in the fall of 1996. One of the matters you 
also worked on was the White House database; is that correct?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And could you tell us how you came to be involved in 
gathering those documents?
    Answer. It was just one of the issues that was assigned to me by 
Mr. Quinn.
    Question. All right. And were you involved then in the process of 
turning over White House database documents?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Since we are going into a new area here, would it be okay 
to take a break for just a minute?
    Answer. Sure.
    Ms. Comstock. Let's go off the record.
    Mr. Ballen. A 5-minute break?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes.
    [Brief Recess.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. We were talking about the White House database and I am 
not sure where we were in terms of----
    Mr. Eggleston. You had not asked a question yet.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Were you involved in discussions on actually turning over 
the records on the database to the committee?
    Answer. I was handling the database matter until approximately 
November/December of 1996.
    Question. Okay. At that time Sally Paxton began handling that 
issue; is that correct?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Are you aware of documents that were gathered during the 
summer/fall time period of 1996?
    Answer. Fall, correct.
    Question. And let me show you an exhibit. Are you familiar with the 
letter that Mr. Ruff had sent last week to the committee?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And if you could just tell us, what is your understanding 
of these documents and where they have been?
    Answer. When I stopped handling this matter, these--my files were 
transferred to Ms. Paxton and the documents were transferred to Ms. 
Paxton. In my working file was a file that had these materials in them 
that were transferred to Ms. Paxton at that time so that would have 
been probably the end of November or December sometime.
    Question. Okay. And----
    Answer. And remained in those files until they were provided to the 
committee.
    Question. Okay. And at that time, they were not turned over to the 
committee?
    Answer. They were not turned over initially to the committee with 
respect to their first request because they were not responsive.
    Question. Okay.
    Mr. Eggleston. Again, we are talking about--there were a number of 
documents provided. You are talking about the documents that are 
attached to Mr. Ruff's October 28th, letter?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes, the October 28th, 1997, letter to Chairman 
McIntosh, who is chairman of the subcommittee of this committee and 
attached--it is a 2-page letter and attached to it are documents Bates 
stamp numbered M 33292 through 3302 from the Office of White House 
Counsel.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Is your testimony then that these documents were not 
turned over at that time because they were not responsive to the 
committee's request?
    Answer. To the particular request, correct.
    Question. And were there any privilege issues attached to any of 
these documents or just it was the sense that they were not responsive 
to the request in the fall of 1996?
    Answer. August 1996, correct.
    Question. And then you had transferred all of these files to Ms. 
Paxton?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And then when initial requests came in this year, did you 
talk to anyone about your files or where anything was at?
    Answer. Other than obviously Ms. Paxton had all of my files, and I 
already have indicated when I have gotten questions about the database 
that, you know, I have transferred all my materials to Ms. Paxton so 
they would have to look through the materials that were transferred to 
her.
    Question. Have you had discussions about these documents that were 
attached to Mr. Ruff's letter recently?
    Answer. Oh, sure, before they were provided, yes.
    Question. How did they come about to be--Mr. Ruff had stated that 
they just were found recently when Ms. Paxton went back to review her 
files?
    Answer. Correct. I believe Ms. Paxton was reviewing her files for 
another request that had come in from the Chairman and she went through 
all of her files and this file was one of the files that was in her 
files, yes.
    Question. Okay. And did you have any discussions with her about why 
they hadn't been turned over earlier?
    Answer. Other than at the time that we reviewed them they were 
deemed not responsive, those were the discussions that we had had.
    Question. To your knowledge, have all of the files that you turned 
over to Ms. Paxton now been reviewed and all the responsive documents 
turned over to date?
    Answer. I believe so. Ms. Paxton obviously reviews all the files 
and materials in that regard, but I believe she has done that.
    Ms. Comstock. All right. I will make this Deposition Exhibit No. 
12.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-12 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. When the database information was first turned over to 
the subcommittee, was there any discussion about information about the 
coffee events being on the database internally at the White House?
    Answer. I don't believe so. I am sitting here trying to think about 
that. I know that in the course of trying to determine the list of 
coffees that had occurred and the coffees that--and the attendees, 
obviously some of the attendees' lists were in the database but that 
was not discussed.
    Question. Was the White House database ever used as a source of 
information for tracking down documents or information as responsive to 
various document or subpoena requests?
    Answer. I am certain if we get documents from the database that 
would indicate responsive materials might exist someplace else we would 
follow up to try and collect those materials.
    Question. Like if--I know the committee has received things such 
as--there was--say, if we had asked for all documents related to John 
Huang, we would get a sheet from the database which is a readout of 
John Huang's attendance at various events. Was that something that you 
normally did in other productions where you would go to the database 
and say, print me out all of the events attended by whoever the 
subpoena was requesting information on?
    Answer. Once the database came on-line that's one of the things we 
would try to do to ensure that we had materials that might be 
responsive. In other words, we would look at those--the database 
sometimes against the WAVES records so it would help sometimes identify 
what particular visits might have been about.
    Question. And do you know if in the course of going through the 
Riady and Huang WAVES, did you use the White House database to check on 
those things?
    Answer. I don't know. I am sure we would have. If it had 
information that would have been responsive, I am sure we would.
    Question. And do you recall any issues, when the database 
information was turned over, that some of the information in there was 
obviously private or not known to the public at that time and how 
that--you know, do you have any internal discussions about, these 
coffees were private events or anything like that and indicate that 
this information would now be known to Congress that there were these 
coffee events?
    Answer. I don't recall discussions about coffee events, 
particularly because there are lots of coffees that are held. I know 
people are most familiar with political coffees, but there are coffees 
held, all kinds of different coffees. There are coffees with Members of 
Congress. There are coffees with the Childrens Defense Fund. I mean, it 
is just one of the types of events that we have at the White House.
    Question. Was it your understanding that these political coffees 
were like those coffees?
    Answer. I didn't have any understanding of the political coffees 
until sometime in January of 1997.
    Question. How did you learn of that?
    Answer. There were press inquiries with respect to how many coffees 
the President had had with different political supporters.
    Question. All right. And at that time, did you utilize a database 
to find out that information?
    Answer. At that time we actually went and tried to go back through 
schedules, briefing books and other materials that might have guest 
lists.
    Question. Okay. And in particular the coffee Wang Jun attended 
became public, and I think there were some news articles in December of 
1996 around the time the story about Charlie Trie came out. Did you 
attempt in that December time frame of 1996 to find out about why Wang 
Jun was at a coffee?
    Answer. I think whenever the coffee issue arose, we attempted to 
try and gather all the information that would give us a list of who had 
attended the coffees and the dates that the coffees had occurred. We 
didn't have any requests regarding coffees that I am familiar with, and 
so at that point what we were trying to do was gain an understanding of 
the different events that had been held in that regard, and I believe 
that was one of the coffees, but there were other coffees that people 
were also interested in as well.
    Question. Okay. And you are familiar with Charlie Trie at this 
point; is that correct?
    Answer. I have become familiar with--yes, that's correct.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. By at this point, you are talking about December of 1996?
    Question. Correct. Right. I don't think we are going to go into all 
the Charlie Trie May events and the May 9th meeting and all of that. I 
think that's been covered in Mr. Cardozo's testimony, unless you have 
anything to add that it was contrary to Mr. Cardozo's public testimony 
or accounts of those meetings.
    Answer. No, but I didn't see all of his testimony, but no.
    Question. We had already discussed prior that we weren't going to 
be going into a lot in that area and were going to be staying more in 
the compliance area in general.
    But in regard to Mr. Trie, do you recall ever discussing anything 
related to Wang Jun and Mr. Trie, Mr. Trie bringing in Wang Jun or 
learning about that at the time of the coffee?
    Mr. Ballen. Discussions with whom, with Wang Jun or Charlie Trie--
--
    Ms. Comstock. Discussions about----
    Mr. Ballen. My question was discussions with whom? Would they be 
discussions with Wang Jun? Would they be discussions with Charlie Trie.
    Ms. Comstock. I don't know if he speaks English.
    The Witness. If you are talking about the December '96 time period, 
or the January '97 time period with respect to coffees, I am sure we 
would have tried to ask whatever questions we could to try and 
determine the guest lists and other things like that. I don't 
particularly recall conversations about each particular guest, though I 
do believe he was somebody that people were interested in. So I would 
have had conversations to try and determine how he came to be there, 
but I don't really particularly recall him as disassociated from some 
of the other people that people might have been interested in.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Were you aware of any process at the White House whereby 
some of the people who went to coffees were checked or anybody at the 
NSC asked about them?
    Answer. I have learned, during the course of handling this matter, 
that I guess it was people's expectation that the DNC was reviewing 
these guests. At least in the White House we did not have, I think, 
adequate procedures to review for the guests, and that's something that 
was subsequently implemented.
    Question. What is that process now?
    Answer. I am not familiar enough with it, but each particular 
contact person or assistant to the President who has responsibility for 
an event has the obligation for ensuring all the different guests are 
vetted for the various events that they might be coming in for.
    Question. Do you recall if anyone had ever asked you about Wang Jun 
or his attendance at a coffee?
    Answer. I don't recall anyone asking me. I am familiar with an e-
mail that I have. I don't recall the circumstances surrounding that e-
mail. I became familiar with that during the course of our production.
    Question. Okay. I believe this is an e-mail that we just received 
recently.
    Answer. No, this would have been produced quite some time ago.
    Mr. Eggleston. In any event, you have it now.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Yes. It is a February 5th, 1996, e-mail from Phil Caplan 
to you; is that correct?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And on the e-mail it says, ``As we discussed: Mr. Wang 
Jun.'' It says, ``Chairman, China International Trust and Investment 
Corp,'' and then ``Dr. Carlos Mersan'' and then it says, ``Let me know. 
Thanks.''
    You don't recall any conversation with Mr. Caplan?
    Answer. No, and I have looked at this. I don't recall a 
conversation with him.
    Question. Okay. Have you talked to Mr. Caplan about this?
    Answer. I have not.
    Ms. Comstock. I will make that Deposition Exhibit No. 13.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-13 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Would I be correct then this document was brought to your 
attention recently or sometime in the past few months, whenever it was 
produced----
    Answer. Correct.
    Question [continuing]. To the committee?
    And at that time did you discuss with anybody, you know, whether 
you had done any general vetting of anybody or anything in relation to 
people such as Mr. Wang Jun or Carlos Mersan?
    Answer. That's a compound question.
    Mr. Ballen. Excuse me. I don't understand the question.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. I was wondering--this was brought to your attention at 
some point, whenever it was produced to the committee; is that correct?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. You have no recollection, other than someone brought it 
to your attention?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. So at the time of the February 6th coffee or sometime at 
or around the February 6th coffee, you have no recollection of anybody 
approaching you about Wang Jun?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. You have no recollection of anybody approaching you about 
Carlos Mersan?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. In particular, you have no recollection about Phil 
Caplan, who is the author of this e-mail, contacting you about either?
    Answer. Correct. Indeed, when I saw this e-mail I didn't recall it 
at all. It surprised me that I had this e-mail.
    Question. Have you checked with anyone else in the counsel's office 
to find out if they had discussed Mr. Wang Jun or Mr. Mersan, Dr. 
Mersan, with Mr. Caplan?
    Answer. No. But, you know, his e-mail is to me so I would be the 
person who would probably have a recollection, and I don't.
    Question. Okay. Then I guess my question I was trying to get at is 
any type of vetting that was ever asked of you, did anyone ever come to 
you and say, can we have so and so come to an event or----
    Answer. I am sure that has happened in the past, and typically I 
would try and be responsive to whatever requests I might have got. I 
don't have particular associations with anybody in particular, but I am 
sure that might have happened in the past. There was no systemized 
process or anything like that, if that's what your question is.
    Question. Okay. Were there ever any issues where people who 
attended coffees had some type of criminal background or had hits on 
their--on, you know, when you come in with the Secret Service there are 
some hits on their name?
    Answer. If there were, I did not know.
    Question. Did somebody ever raise that? Nobody would ever call you 
about that and say, DNC wants to let this person in and we have an 
issue with this; what should we do?
    Answer. I am not aware of anybody raising with me that someone has 
had a hit or whatever you are identifying with respect to their WAVES 
record or--or their Secret Service check.
    Question. Do you know anybody at the White House who was tasked 
with sort of monitoring these lists and who was on them?
    Answer. It was my impression that that was actually the Secret 
Service's task. Obviously, through this process, we have discerned that 
they don't make judgments regarding propriety but only security, and so 
someone might have other issues that are associated with them that 
might be criminal but that they don't view to be actually a threat 
risk. That's something that we learned through this process. Prior to 
that, I think it was my impression that that was one of the functions 
that the Secret Service performed.
    Question. You mean up until recently, that was your understanding 
of the Secret Service?
    Answer. Up until all of this--until it all got raised, the fact 
that there were people who obviously had particular issues in their 
background who were visiting the complex, correct.
    Question. Okay. That wasn't brought to your attention, for example, 
last year with Mr. Livingstone and the FBI files or any of the things 
that came about?
    Answer. No. I actually wasn't involved in those matters so it 
probably wouldn't have been something that would have perked my 
attention.
    Question. So we are just blank on this e-mail?
    Answer. Yeah.
    Question. Okay.
    Mr. Ballen. Has that been entered as an exhibit?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes. That is Exhibit 13.
    Mr. Ballen. Thank you.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. There was no--on the Yogesh Ghandi matter that we just 
discussed briefly, and I really don't intend to go into that a lot 
except in the matter of this background thing, did anything you do in 
regards to Yogesh Ghandi have to do with dealing with his background 
and any concerns about his background?
    Answer. No.
    Question. I have another e-mail from July 22nd, 1996, regarding 
Chong Lo. Actually it is regarding the Lotus fund gala. Do you 
recollect having any discussions with Karen Hancox or Daniel, is it 
Bernal, B-E-R-N-A-L, about the Lotus fund gala?
    Answer. I do not, though obviously one of my responsibilities was 
to review different invitations and other things like that to ensure 
that they were consistent with the Hatch Act. I just don't know what 
this particular one was about, but that was one of the responsibilities 
I had.
    Question. Okay. Now, are you aware of someone named Chong Lo who 
was connected with this Lotus fund gala?
    Answer. I am now. I was not at that time.
    Question. Do you know if--was this e-mail to you or this question 
to you about the Lotus fund, you don't have any--do you have any 
recollection of what it was about?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Were you aware of Chong Lo having some legal problems in 
July of 1996?
    Answer. No.
    Question. All right.
    Answer. I wasn't aware of Chong Lo in July of 1996.
    Mr. Eggleston. I am sorry. I am probably the only one here who is 
dense. Chong Lo's name is not on this e-mail.
    Ms. Comstock. It is not. It says ``Lotus fund gala,'' and Chong Lo 
is an individual who is associated with the Lotus fund gala, which I 
believe was an event that may have been cancelled, although I don't 
want to represent that for the record.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. I am not asking you to confirm that or anything. I am 
just asking you if anyone ever contacted you about Chong Lo and any 
fund-raising events she was connected with to ask you for guidance?
    Answer. Not to my recollection.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay. I will make that Deposition Exhibit No. 14.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-14 was marked for identification.]
                      examination by ms. comstock:
    Question. Were you aware of Karen Hancox or Doug Sosnik ever doing 
any vetting of people? Is that something you had an understanding they 
were involved in?
    Answer. It is my understanding now that one of the tasks that Karen 
might perform would be to check with the NSC from time to time. Apart 
from that, no.
    Question. Check with the NSC?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. On people's backgrounds?
    Answer. On whether or not--I think whether or not there would be a 
foreign policy issue with regard to their attendance.
    Question. Okay. And then did any of that ever get kicked back to 
the counsel's office, as far as you know?
    Answer. Not that I recall.
    Question. So would she go--it was your understanding she would go 
directly to the NSC to discuss these matters?
    Answer. It is my understanding that there is an exec secretary who 
is basically the point of intake for any information or questions, and 
that was who she might be discussing it with.
    Question. Do you know of particular individuals she discussed with 
the NSC?
    Answer. No. I am sure there are materials or documents that we 
might have produced that might address that, but I don't recall any as 
I am sitting here.
    Question. Okay. And how did you learn of this?
    Answer. During the course of producing materials.
    Question. Okay. That's your only knowledge of that?
    Answer. That's my only particular recollection of it, yes. I am not 
saying that Karen and I couldn't have had conversations. I had 
conversations with Ms. Hancox quite frequently obviously over the 
course of '95 and '96. It's quite plausible we might have had a 
conversation. I don't recall one.
    Question. You had discussions about coffees with her in general; is 
that correct?
    Answer. No, that's not correct.
    Question. Okay. You did not discuss with her where events could be 
held or anything like that?
    Answer. I discussed--as one of the issues I always deal with is 
where different events could be held. That is something that I did 
discuss, but not necessarily in particular to particular types of 
events.
    Question. Okay. Did you have any discussions with anybody about 
whether political coffees could be held in the White House or not?
    Answer. I don't recall. I mean, one of the things that I typically 
do is give advice about events. It doesn't matter what the kind of 
event, whether it is a coffee, lunch, tea, breakfast or dinner. 
Typically the issue is the type of event. I don't recall any particular 
events about the coffees per se, but do recall that we obviously had 
discussions about political events and where they were held.
    Question. Was it your advice that the political coffees would 
generally be held in a part of the White House that is considered a 
residence?
    Answer. I specifically said I did not have conversations about 
political coffees. I was unaware of all the coffees that were 
transpiring until after the issue got raised in the press. I had 
discussions about events.
    Question. All right. So when people would come to you, they 
wouldn't tell you necessarily what they were talking about? They would 
be asking, can we do this or that, and you wouldn't necessarily know?
    Answer. Can we hold an event, a political event, in X place or Y 
place or Z place, correct.
    Question. So you wouldn't know what the event is? They are just 
sort of asking you for, you know, if I do it here what can I do; if I 
do it there, what can I do?
    Answer. Yes, though sometimes I might know what the event is. It 
just depends on the circumstances of what the person communicated to 
me.
    Question. Was there any reason why they wouldn't tell you what the 
event is?
    Answer. No, other than I think it is not relevant in determining 
where the thing occurs as to what the nature of it is.
    Question. Did you get a sense sometimes people might not want to 
sort of ask you things because you might say no or they might sort of 
hide the ball from you in terms of what it was?
    Answer. No. My experience is more particularly that they ask me for 
cover, so I have the opposite experience.
    Mr. Eggleston. It just doesn't matter to what they are going to 
serve at the event, I take it?
    The Witness. Right.
                      examination by ms. comstock:
    Question. When you say they are asking you for cover, would that be 
before or after the fact?
    Answer. Before the event they would typically consult if there was 
a question that they had.
    Question. Okay. But you have no recollection of them coming to you 
at all discussing these particular political coffees?
    Answer. No. I mean, that's not to say that someone might not have 
asked me a question about an event or a coffee or something, but I 
don't recall having a discussion regarding the fact that there were 
going to be a series of coffees that were held over a period of time 
that subsequently were the materials that we ended up disclosing to the 
press in terms of the number of coffees and the guests associated with 
them.
    Question. The political coffees, I mean, as you understand them 
now, were those supposed to be held in the Oval Office? Was that an 
appropriate place for them to be held?
    Answer. They can be held anywhere.
    Question. And that was advice that you gave them at the time, that 
political events connected--whether they are connected with fund-
raising or not could be held anywhere?
    Answer. The Hatch Act actually provides that political events or 
political activity can be--can occur anywhere within the White House.
    Question. This is a March 7th, 1996, e-mail regarding an April 30th 
coffee and it is to Karen Hancox and the creator is Margo Spiritus. And 
we will note either of these are to or from you. They just mention you 
in the body of the e-mail.
    Are you familiar with these documents?
    Mr. Eggleston. I am sorry. Are these different?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes. I think they follow upon one another so that's 
why I wanted to give you both of them.
    Mr. Eggleston. Okay. The one you gave us second is the first one?
    Ms. Comstock. I think so.
    Mr. Eggleston. They are Mills 15 and 16?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes.
    I will make EOP 62689 Deposition Exhibit No. 15, and EOP 62693 
Deposition Exhibit 16.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-15 was marked for identification.]
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-16 was marked for identification.]
    The Witness. I have not seen these before, that I recall.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Okay, so you haven't seen them in the course of document 
production either?
    Answer. Not that I recall.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. I might have but I don't recall.
    Question. The initial one says ``SS suggested you ask Cheryl Mills 
if it would be ok if we do a coffee on the same date but in the west 
wing. What do you think? Is this doable?'' It begins, ``Well actually, 
SS suggested,'' and so forth. Do you know who ``SS'' is in this 
context?
    Answer. Stephanie Streett.
    Question. Okay. And do you recall talking to any of the people 
named here about this event?
    Answer. No.
    Question. And you don't recall any of these people asking you about 
the event and where it could be held?
    Answer. Correct, but you have to recognize, I receive somewhere on 
the order of about 70 calls a day, so I talk to lots of people, and in 
that time frame I was receiving a fair number of calls.
    Question. And I am not particularly referencing this particular 
coffee, but do you recall generally someone calling and saying ``Can we 
do this in the West Wing? Where should we do it?'' And a follow-up to 
this initial e-mail, Deposition Exhibit 15, says ``I guess the only 
place to do it would be Roosevelt or Cabinet Room but I don't think you 
can do political stuff in the Cabinet Room, that's why I wanted to run 
it by Cheryl Mills.''
    Answer. I don't recall that particular series of discussions, but 
people called me all the time asking where they could hold events.
    Question. And was this the kind of advice you would have given them 
in terms of where events could be held?
    Answer. I would answer whatever----
    Question. That you can't do the political stuff in the Cabinet 
Room?
    Answer. I would answer whatever particular question they might 
actually ask me.
    Question. Do you recall telling people whether something could be 
done in the Cabinet Room or not?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Something to that effect?
    Answer. No.
    Question. And you don't recall particularly telling them whether or 
not any particular event could be held in the Oval Office, per se?
    Answer. The Hatch Act provides that events can be held in all these 
particular places.
    Question. Then I am wondering, why were the people calling you? 
They were just calling you to find that out again?
    Answer. I think it just arises from people's confusion with respect 
to the Hatch Act.
    Question. I will make these Exhibits 15 and 16. Were you involved 
in the decision in January of '96 to make the information about the 
White House coffees public?
    Answer. January of '97 I was.
    Question. '97, I'm sorry.
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And how did that decision come about?
    Answer. I believe the President had been receiving that information 
for a period of time, and so we tried to go about collecting that 
information so we could give a complete and accurate picture.
    Question. And did you talk with Ms. Hancox and Doug Sosnik and 
others who were involved in the coffees to find out what was involved 
with the coffees?
    Answer. I am sure I would have.
    Question. And did you sit down to discuss with them sort of the 
body of potential records that may have been related to the coffees?
    Answer. No, primarily because we didn't have a request regarding 
the coffees, but what we were seeking to do is satisfy particular press 
questions. In particular, the press wanted to know who had attended the 
coffees and how many there were.
    Question. And so there was no effort on the part of the White House 
to find out other information at that time that you might know about 
the coffees?
    Answer. No, I was trying to find out who attended and what dates 
the coffees were held on.
    Question. And then in relation to the White House database having 
included the White House coffees, do you have any knowledge as to who 
was actually inputting the information about the coffees into the 
database?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Do you have an understanding of who was inputting 
information in general into the coffees or where they were getting that 
information from?
    Answer. It was my understanding the DNC would submit a list of 
guests for the coffees.
    Question. And do you know who they submitted it to?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. Did you ever have any concerns that were raised to you 
from any source in the White House that the White House database was 
being misused by Marsha Scott or others for political purposes?
    Answer. No. I am aware, obviously, that that is one of the issues 
that the subcommittee has asked about, and I know that in reviewing 
that, I believe Ms. Paxton did a lot of that, but there has not been 
such information, and that is my best knowledge.
    Question. I am asking in particular if anyone at the White House, 
the DNC or from an outside--you know, other than Congress, has 
approached you about ``I am concerned that this might have crossed the 
line here'' or how they are doing things or anything like that?
    Answer. No, I don't recall anybody approaching me in that regard.
    Question. Okay. So prior to your transitioning out of the 
collection of documents in this area, you didn't get involved then in 
really going any further in terms of collecting documents pertaining to 
the coffees?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And then the first time you learned about the videotape 
to the coffees, then, was in October of this year?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Okay. And who told you about that initially?
    Answer. On October 3rd, I believe in the morning, Mr. Ruff informed 
me Mr. Imbroscio had determined there were snippets of the coffees that 
had been videotaped.
    Question. And that was the first you heard of it?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And I am really not going to go into this at length, but 
you were the individual who informed the President about the videotapes 
of the coffees and other events, is that correct?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Could you just tell us what you said to the President?
    Answer. I think I testified to that in my deposition with the 
Senate.
    Question. But there has been--the President has said on one 
occasion he was very mad and I have read other accounts that said he 
wasn't mad. Can you shed any light on that?
    Answer. I think, as I said in my Senate deposition, it was my 
impression he was concerned about the fact they had not been produced 
and insisted they be produced right away, and I think he has accurately 
addressed his emotions with respect to that.
    Question. I am asking not for how he has expressed it but your 
impression at that time.
    Answer. I don't have impressions that differ in any way from his.
    Question. Is that a policy matter or is that your impression?
    Answer. No, that is my polite way of saying I agree.
    Question. Did he express anger that these hadn't been turned over 
earlier?
    Answer. I think it would be accurate to say he expressed 
considerable concern that they had not been turned over earlier.
    Question. Was anybody else in the office when you told him about 
this?
    Answer. No.
    Question. And how did it come that you were the individual to 
discuss this with the President?
    Answer. I don't recall. It was just after one of our discussions 
about this. We all took different responsibilities, and that is the one 
I took.
    Question. I think earlier we discussed why documents hadn't been 
turned over to this committee that were obviously gathered in January.
    Mr. Eggleston. You are going to have to do a better lead into this 
because I don't agree to that.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Well, I think you had testified, I believe, that 
documents were turned over, some documents were turned over to the 
Justice Department in January. The only documents that this committee 
received in January were documents relating to the coffees. I believe 
there had been a few WAVES----
    Answer. I believe you also got WAVES materials, and those were 
materials we provided to the department.
    Question [continuing]. That were made public to the press at the 
same time we got information or sometime prior to that.
    Answer. I want to be clear, I don't know what was the actual 
production date of the first set of materials to the Justice 
Department. You keep referencing that it would have been sometime in 
January. That is my best understanding, too.
    Question. If you can give us an approximate date, at or around 
January, as opposed to May?
    Answer. I know it is around January or February as opposed to May.
    Question. That is all I am talking about and trying to represent--
--
    Mr. Eggleston. Can I have a copy of this?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question [continuing]. That the committee received only documents 
that--documents of coffees in January, and I believe some of the 
documents pertaining to Tony Lake's confirmation in February.
    Answer. You should have also received WAVES material.
    Question. WAVES material in December, Kanchanalak, Charlie Trie?
    Answer. You also received some in November with respect to John 
Huang.
    Question. That is correct. Do you recall receiving this January 15 
request from Chairman Burton?
    Answer. I don't recall, but it mirrors in large part the request we 
had already circulated to the White House.
    Question. Okay. And in fact, it was designed to reflect the 
directive that had gone around, knowing, in fact, that you all had been 
collecting documents pertaining to these particular topics, so do you 
recall discussing whether or not these documents would be provided or 
whatever documents had been gathered at that point would be provided to 
this committee?
    Answer. I am actually sitting here recalling that we probably 
produced documents to the department at the end of January because it 
would have been after I returned from a vacation, which would have 
probably been around the 30th or sometime toward the end of January.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay, and I will go ahead and make that January 15, 
1997 letter and request Deposition Exhibit No. 17, and then I will make 
this January 31 letter Deposition Exhibit No. 18.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-17 was marked for identification.]
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-18 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. And there is a January 17 letter from Mr. Quinn that I do 
not have, but it is referenced here in the January 31st letter, which 
indicates he would not be able to provide the designated documents by 
the 30th. Do you know why there was a problem in physically producing 
any of the documents related by the 30th?
    Answer. In producing, there are several problems but, yes, there is 
obviously the amount of production that has to be done, and probably as 
people are aware, at that point there were only three people doing what 
now there are approximately nine people doing, so our opportunity and 
ability to be able to satisfy different requests was considerably 
reduced from where it is now.
    Question. And is it your understanding, then, that the documents 
are not able to be produced to this committee because of physical 
limitations of the Counsel's Office?
    Answer. A; and, B, we also have to go back through and Bates stamp 
them for the committee, so it creates a whole other process that has to 
be associated with the production.
    It was also my impression, though I could be wrong, that there was 
discussion regarding what committees, what protocols and other things 
might be appropriate to deal with particular documents. It was my sense 
that those had not--or were just beginning as I was transitioning out 
of this matter.
    Question. Were you involved in any of the discussions on the 
limited committee access type documents that were going to be withheld 
from committees and ask the committee if they actually would come down 
and physically look at documents, as opposed to producing them?
    Answer. It was my impression that limited committee access were 
actually materials that were being produced but only certain people on 
committees who had a need to review them would be reviewing them, so it 
was my impression limited access documents were being produced to you 
all.
    Question. Were there going to be other documents that had to be 
viewed at the White House?
    Answer. I am sure that is probably something we did discuss with 
respect to matters that might be subject to privilege or something of 
that type.
    Question. When Mr. Ruff came on board, did you have particular 
documents that you discussed with him at that point, documents that you 
had gathered up until that point, that you felt were executive 
privilege documents that had been sort of segregated? Do you have a way 
that you segregated them from other documents?
    Answer. Typically if a document may have privileged issues, those 
are documents you put toward the end of the production so everybody can 
sit down and review them and make a judgment about whether they are or 
aren't and produce them. I am sure that is exactly what we would have 
done with Mr. Ruff because that is typically the way production is 
done. You review all of them in context and eliminate those that are 
not subject to privilege and produce those, and to the extent there are 
materials subject to privilege, figure out what the appropriate 
accommodations will be to address those documents.
    Question. Okay. Now we had previously discussed Ms. Sherburne's 
memo of the 26th about the Riady meetings and the varying accounts of 
that, and that document is actually one of the documents that have been 
withheld from the committee until the committee was discussing 
contempt, and then the documents came forward in a production following 
cancellation of a contempt hearing. There was not privilege claimed 
over them but it was represented by Mr. Ruff it had been withheld up 
until that time because of privileged concerns.
    Do you remember discussing those particular documents and any 
privilege concerns there might be?
    Ms. Comstock. I will note for the record, Uttam Dhillon, who is the 
majority counsel, is also here at this moment.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Do you recall any----
    Answer. I am sure this is a document we would have discussed in 
that context because it is from the special counsel, so it is one of 
the documents that would have to be reviewed toward the end of 
production to be able to determine whether or not a privilege is going 
to be asserted with respect to it or at least identified as potentially 
associated with it, or whether or not it is a document we are going to 
produce.
    Question. Given those were documents--I mean, we have not gone into 
detail on that today and I am not going to go into great detail on 
that, but that was the exchange sort of between Mr. Lindsey and Ms. 
Sherburne on the account of the Riady meetings, was something that you 
were involved in to some extent, the back and forth, after the fact?
    Answer. I wasn't involved in the initial. I was only involved with 
respect to Ms. Sherburne was attempting to draft an editorial and had a 
conversation with me with respect to that because I at that point was 
handling the matter, and I ended up drafting a draft editorial with 
respect to that, as she was trying to draft one in that context. That 
was my involvement in the matter.
    Question. And you were aware Mr. Lindsey disagreed with Ms. 
Sherburne's account of what he had said about the meetings?
    Answer. It is my impression the issue related to whether or not 
these meetings are appropriately described as primarily social or 
policy, and that was my understanding of the debate that was going on.
    Question. You are familiar with the document where Mr. Lindsey has 
written on Ms. Sherburne's memo ``This is a bunch of crap.''
    Mr. Ballen. I don't know if that is exactly what he said.
    The Witness. I think he said, ``This is mostly crap.''
    Mr. Eggleston. I guess you are familiar with it.
    The Witness. That would have been one of the documents produced.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Do you recall discussing that with Mr. Lindsey?
    Answer. No.
    Question. And do you recall discussing with Mr. Lindsey the 
producing of those documents to this committee or any other body?
    Answer. No. I am sure I might have but I don't recall any 
particular discussions about it.
    Question. Okay. And you don't recall any discussions with anybody 
about discussing those memos?
    Answer. I am quite confident those memos would have been in the 
materials we would have reviewed to determine privilege, so they would 
have been conversations we would have had with counsel and Chuck Ruff.
    Ms. Comstock. Since we have been discussing it--okay, it says, 
``Jack, this is mostly crap. Bruce,'' on the November 26th memo, which 
we will make Deposition Exhibit No. 19.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-19 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Okay. And I am just trying to understand. Given this was 
something you had been involved in, the back and forth between Ms. 
Sherburne and Mr. Lindsey on this, do you recall any discussions about 
holding up these documents or how these documents would be handled in 
particular?
    Answer. Setting aside the way in which you characterized your 
question, I am confident that this would have been a document that we 
would have discussed in the context of whether or not privilege 
appropriately applies because it relates to Ms. Sherburne and materials 
she has written as special counsel. We would obviously--this would be 
an obvious candidate for a document that would have to be reviewed and 
determined whether or not there were any privileges associated with it. 
So I am quite confident those discussions happened and that I would 
have participated in them.
    Question. Were you aware that Mr. Ruff--or did Mr. Ruff ever 
discuss with you that the President had told him he did not intend to 
claim executive privilege over any documents related to these fund-
raising matters?
    Answer. It was my understanding that the President indicated he was 
not going to assert executive privilege over fund-raising matters.
    Question. And what was your understanding of that?
    Answer. That is my entire understanding of it.
    Question. Well, he was not going to claim executive privilege. Why 
were you then withholding--why were documents then withheld to review 
privilege issues?
    Answer. I think the question as to what is a fund-raising issue and 
what is not are two different things. There are different 
interpretations you might have as to whether or not this is a fund-
raising matter.
    This is not associated with his raising of monies, the DNC's 
raising of monies, or John Huang or any of the other individuals who 
were raising money, and there were questions about their contributions, 
and so I think this was actually a document that can be looked at any 
number of ways as to whether or not it is or is not a fund-raising 
matter. I think it is not.
    Question. You were aware Mr. Riady was certainly a central focus of 
many people in the course of this fund-raising investigation?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And was it your understanding, when the President said he 
was not going to claim executive privilege over these matters, was it 
sort of that the document wasn't just necessarily related to but had to 
say fund-raising on the document? Was it that specific?
    Answer. I don't know I had any particular association in that 
regard, but it was my understanding we were not going to assert 
privilege over fund-raising matters, at least in my--at that time all 
the questions were being raised with respect to contributions that were 
being returned.
    Question. And are you aware that Mr. Riady had been a contributor 
in the past to the DNC, a fairly substantial contributor?
    Answer. I am not aware that Mr. Mochtar Riady ever contributed, and 
James Riady may have contributed. I don't have a particular association 
with that right now, but I am sure if that is the case I would have 
known it at that time.
    Question. And you are aware of it?
    Answer. Though it is my impression he did not contribute in 1996.
    Question. There are no checks, apparently, with his name on them in 
1996?
    Answer. That is how I know who contributes.
    Question. Okay. I believe in '92 there were quite a few checks to 
the DNC?
    Answer. I didn't understand you all were looking at '92.
    Question. And obviously there was some interest in some of the 
people who were associated with Mr. Riady in terms of fund-raising 
issues. Do you have an understanding of that?
    Mr. Eggleston. I am losing track of this. This relates to----
    Ms. Comstock. To Mr. Riady's meetings.
    Mr. Eggleston. It actually relates to how the White House dealt 
with a press release, and press statements that took place. That is the 
substance of this.
    Ms. Comstock. I am trying to get a sense of what the understanding 
was that there would be no executive privilege claimed, if it was more 
general or if it was more specific.
    The Witness. I can only tell you my best understanding is not with 
respect to fund-raising matters.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay.
    Mr. Ballen. For the record, there may have been other privileges, 
such as attorney-client, that the White House may want to be sensitive 
to for other reasons.
    The Witness. Correct.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Okay. When you say that the documents that are privileged 
are generally held to the end of the production, given----
    Answer. I want to correct you right now. Documents that may have a 
privilege associated with them would get reviewed at one period of time 
to make a determination with respect to them. They are not withheld, 
because to withhold it would require you to have completed your 
production and identify them as materials you are not providing.
    Question. Was there usually an attempt to sort of at least inform 
or identify that there would be privileged documents prior to, say, if 
a subpoena due date comes due? Is there usually an attempt to say, 
``Well, we have not yet identified all documents, but we believe we may 
have some privileged documents,'' so there is at least an understanding 
there may be some documents that are not yet being produced because of 
privilege issues?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Were there any policy matters on how you would, you know, 
inform somebody that, well, there may still be more documents that are 
privileged?
    Answer. I think you don't know if there are going to be materials 
that are going to be privileged until you actually review them, so part 
of what we obviously do is inform people we have materials, we are 
producing them, once we get to the close of our production, we will 
identify any materials that are subject to a privilege.
    Question. Okay. Did you ever see the Committee's March 4th subpoena 
that has the definitions of records----
    Answer. I just saw it recently.
    Question. So prior to that time you had not been asked any 
questions about it or asked any advice on how to respond to it?
    Answer. I am sure if it is a substance issue I might have been 
asked. I don't typically get involved with the day-to-day 
correspondence and materials that come in. I typically end up seeing 
directives when they get circulated, and to the extent people have 
questions or issues, I try to be helpful regarding them. I am sure I 
would have circulated that but I don't recall it.
    Question. We have not put it in the record, but during your time 
frame when there was another directive, a January 9 directive, that 
really was just a follow-up for the December 16 we have been previously 
discussing. Is that correct?
    Answer. That is.
    Ms. Comstock. And I will just go ahead and make that an exhibit for 
the record. It is Deposition Exhibit No. 20.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-20 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. And would it be correct this was just to follow up and 
make sure you had gotten all additional documents from the December 
16th request?
    Answer. Yes, and also to get any documents that were created 
between December 23 and January 9.
    Question. Did that come pursuant to an additional request or how 
did that--is that something you all decided to follow up on?
    Answer. It is my recollection that the department was particularly 
interested up until that date.
    Question. Okay. Were there any particular matters that were going 
on in late December or early January regarding any of these 
individuals?
    Answer. Not that I know.
    Question. That you have knowledge of, and I am not asking what you 
provided to the Justice Department, I am just asking your activities in 
that time frame.
    Answer. Not that I am aware of.
    Question. Mr. Trie, who was on both of these, you know, December 16 
and January 9 directives, I believe he had attended a Christmas party 
event in December of '96. Were you aware of that at the time?
    Answer. I am sure somebody apprised me at the time he actually went 
to the event that he went.
    Question. Now we haven't discussed at length Mr. Trie or, you know, 
the fund-raising problems that kind of came to light a little bit after 
that Christmas party in December 1996, but you had been apprised of 
problems of Mr. Trie's fund-raising for the Presidential Legal Defense 
Trust in May of '96. Is that correct?
    Answer. I had been apprised in May of 1996 with respect to the 
contributions that had been provided by others, as opposed to him. He 
did not provide a contribution.
    Question. Okay. The contributions that he had collected and 
provided that were in sequential money orders, those are the 
contributions you are talking about?
    Answer. Yes, as well as other contributions that were received that 
were not in sequential money orders, they were people's personal checks 
or other things.
    Question. And you were aware that much of the money he had raised 
had been--quite a bit of it had been returned in the summer of 1996?
    Answer. I was aware they were going to return it, that is correct.
    Question. And so in the time frame of December of 1996 you were 
aware that money that had been collected by Charlie Trie had been 
returned?
    Answer. Or was going to be returned, right.
    Question. And when you took over these duties in October of 1996 on 
fund-raising, did you ever discuss with anybody at that time, Ms. 
Sherburne, Harold Ickes or anybody, Charlie Trie?
    Answer. No, I don't recall Mr. Trie arising in the context of news 
reports until I believe--my best and earliest recollection is sometime 
in November of 1996.
    Question. Okay. And you are aware now, I believe Mr. Ickes has said 
he told somebody at the DNC or mentioned something to the DNC or 
somebody asked him or something to that effect, in mid-October, about 
Mr. Trie?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. But at the time you were dealing with that in October, 
you had no knowledge of Mr. Ickes saying anything about Charlie Trie?
    Answer. Correct, because I was dealing with it as of October 30 of 
1996.
    Question. Okay. And at that time, did you ever raise with anybody 
``We should look at this'' or have an understanding Charlie Trie was 
doing DNC fund-raising?
    Answer. It didn't come to my attention until sometime in November 
that Mr. Trie was a supporter of the DNC.
    Question. In the May 9th meeting with Mr. Cardozo, no one raised 
that Mr. Trie was a fund-raiser for the DNC?
    Answer. I don't recall anyone raising that. I understand Mr. 
Cardozo has testified, but I don't recall anyone raising that.
    Question. And you are speaking of Mr. Cardozo's testimony that 
Bruce Lindsey mentioned Mr. Trie was a fund-raiser?
    Answer. Well, I don't know if----
    Question. Or that is his recollection?
    Answer. I don't know what he said with respect--I do recall him 
saying Mr. Trie was associated with the DNC. That is what I understand 
Mr. Cardozo to have said in his testimony. I did not hear such a 
comment.
    Question. Have you discussed that with Mr. Lindsey, whether he had 
knowledge about Charlie Trie being a fund-raiser?
    Answer. I am sure I would have asked him. I just don't recall, but 
I don't think he did.
    Ms. Comstock. Off the record for a minute.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Ms. Comstock. Back on the record.
    We are going to make the March 4 subpoena Deposition Exhibit No. 
21.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. 21 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. And it is your testimony that prior to these videotape 
issues becoming an issue, you had not seen this subpoena?
    Answer. No, actually--I don't know that I actually have reviewed 
the subpoena. I don't typically review the correspondence coming in 
from the different committees.
    Question. And when a subpoena is received at the White House, 
generally, and as you were responding to any number of bodies about 
this, would there ever be any meetings in the Counsel's Office about, 
``Okay, where are all the possible places that there might be records?"
    Answer. We obviously have meetings in the Counsel's Office to try 
and ensure that we are responding to the request. We don't have 
meetings about where would particular things be, at least I don't 
participate in them. Obviously Lanny Breuer meets with his team and 
they might have those kind of discussions. I don't participate in 
meetings where Mr. Breuer is meeting his team. To the extent I 
participate in any meetings, it tends to be the larger meetings we 
have.
    Question. Given your historical knowledge of the office, do you 
ever attempt to provide any guidance on, you know, check a book room, 
check stacks, here is where you might find things, so you don't run 
into some of the problems that have occurred in the past?
    Answer. I think as I testified to initially, when people came on 
board and to the extent people have ongoing or continuing questions, I 
try to do just that.
    Question. And given that some of these events were, you know, many 
of the events that were involved were political events, and many of 
them have been held at the White House, was there ever any discussion 
of the type of photograph--when we looked at the WAVES records, you had 
checked for photos on a lot of these people. At that time, did you ever 
check on any videotapes or any other type of photographic record that 
might be of individuals or people or events?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Was that not something you normally checked, in the way 
you did--I mean, you clearly were looking at the photos, so I am trying 
to get a sense of why you checked with the photos but not on videotape.
    Mr. Ballen. I object, because I think that the witness said she did 
not review the subpoena, so you are asking her how she would have 
checked on something she didn't review.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. I am talking in relation to when we looked at the WAVES 
records and you were trying to determine when John Huang was at events 
or when James Riady was. One of the resources you went to, I believe 
prompted by a particular request, was to look for photos, is that 
correct?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Okay. At that time, no one had asked you particularly, 
Congress hadn't spelled out particularly, ``Give us all photos of John 
Huang,'' is that correct?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. But you went or sent somebody to locate what photos are 
here, what is the universe of pictures or what type of things might 
assist us with knowing about what records are in the White House about 
Mr. Riady or Mr. Huang. Is that correct?
    Answer. Yes. I was familiar with the photo office.
    Question. And were you not familiar with the videotaping office, 
then?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Are you aware of remedial measures, or whatever measures 
have been taken since the videotapes have been found, to sort of 
regroup in the Counsel's Office and consider other records which might 
be responsive to various requests, in order to assist getting all the 
information to the Justice Department?
    Answer. This request actually would have gotten to the right place 
and would have gotten the videotape, so I think actually this whole 
exercise exemplified the process we have been using would ordinarily 
have captured the materials, but for the fax issue that arose in WHCA's 
office.
    Mr. Ballen. Just so that is clear, you are referring to the fax 
issue. Why don't you state that for the record?
    The Witness. As the WHCA individuals testified, the person who 
would have been the one to do the search for these materials indicated 
if he had gotten the request, it was sufficient to be able to identify 
that they needed to search for the videotapes. In addition, our request 
asked for all computerized records.
    The way in which you search for the videotapes is not to actually 
look at videotape boxes but to search the computer database, so all of 
the information would have been captured if they had had a--if it got 
circulated to them by their chief of staff, the actual request that 
identified coffees as one of the issues that the committee was 
interested in.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Now there was a 10/31/96 request that we had looked at 
earlier today, which was the one that referenced documents that would 
go to Bill Leary, and Alan Kreczko and Kathy Wallman were also contact 
points on that. That request had actually attached the congressional 
request to it.
    Answer. I think, as I told you, I am not familiar with the origin 
of those particular materials.
    Question. Do you know of other instances where the actual request 
was attached to a directive?
    Answer. Typically, we write the language of the request as opposed 
to attaching particular requests.
    Question. And are you aware of testimony from some of the WHCA 
people as to the subpoena itself actually would have assisted them also 
in finding these records?
    Answer. No, I'm not familiar with it. I'm not disputing they might 
have said it but I am not familiar with it.
    Question. The definition section in the subpoena, I guess directing 
your attention to page one, definitions and instructions are very 
specific in terms of all of the records, by going down item by item and 
describing them. Was there ever any discussion of putting a more 
detailed description of documents on directives, so that when a 
particular office would get it they would know it is not just paper 
files or computer files but any records, anything?
    Answer. No, because our directives actually asked for all records, 
and typically we say in whatever form they exist.
    Question. And was there an effort to go around to different 
offices, sort of ``What do you have?"
    Answer. I can only speak obviously with respect to mine in 
particular, the requests I handled. We do try and get whatever 
materials we can get from people. We obviously have a certification 
process for people to identify whether or not they have searched for 
the records. The process is used to ensure people have produced 
whatever responsive materials they have.
    Question. And are those certifications that are signed by people in 
various offices and provided to the Counsel's Office?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. You all keep a record of those for everybody who has 
certified they have produced documents?
    Answer. I can certainly speak to mine, yes, but I don't know kind 
of what the process is since then, but I would assume it is the same.
    Question. The practice, when you were collecting these documents, 
was that you went around to each office to collect the certifications?
    Answer. We didn't go around to each office. We require each office 
to send us a certification.
    Question. One of the things you wanted to get, if you sat down and 
you didn't have a certification by the due date or some reasonable time 
afterwards, you would say--either yourself or go to somebody and say, I 
need a certification from Political Affairs that they have given us all 
the documents?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And in regard to another recent issue which has just come 
up in the past week or so regarding the dog track issue generically, 
can you tell us--we also have Jim Wilson and David Bossie also here 
from majority staff.
    Could you tell us of your involvement on executive privileged 
documents related to the dog track issue?
    Answer. I am sure if there are privileged materials about the dog 
track, which I believe there are, I would have participated in the 
process to ensure that if there were appropriate privileges, that they 
were identified.
    Question. And do you know when that process occurred?
    Answer. I don't know kind of what the time frame was for it, but it 
was only relatively recently we ended up producing the privilege log in 
connection with litigation that is going on, so it would have been 
close to that time period.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay. Actually, this is the August 4th directive, 
which on the second page includes a request for documents. It is 
request No. 8, ``All documents relating to the Department of Interior's 
decision to deny a petition for a casino in Hudson, Wisconsin.'' I will 
make that Deposition Exhibit No. 22.
    And then in particular this committee, as well as, I believe the 
Senate has requested probably even earlier than we had, documents 
pertaining to the dog track issue. That will be Exhibit 23.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-22 was marked for identification.]
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-23 was marked for identification.]
    The Witness. Number 8, is it you all's intention that all documents 
relating to the Department of Interior's decision to deny a petition 
that arose out of you all's request----

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. No, because our subpoena is actually after that date. I 
believe there are requests from the Senate at an earlier date.
    Answer. Yours was on the 4th of September.
    Question. Actually it was the 21st of August, due on the 4th of 
September. The directive is August 4, 1997. I assume the directive was 
pursuant to another request, other than ours, prior to August 4th?
    Answer. Are these individuals that are listed on the attachment 
associated with the dog track matter?
    Question. Yes, all records relating to St. Croix Meadows Greyhound 
Racing Park. That is the dog track.
    Answer. The dog track issue is the same as the St. Croix Meadows 
racing track, racing park?
    Mr. Eggleston. Well, obviously you can say what you know.
    The Witness. I don't believe that St. Croix is--it's Chippewa. That 
is why I am trying to understand how this captures the Chippewa. I am 
just trying to understand.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay. Can we just take a break here for a minute, 
then?
    [Brief recess.]
    Ms. Comstock. Back on the record.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. The August 4th directive, were you aware of documents 
being collected regarding the Department of Interior's decision?
    Answer. I am sure they would have been, and I am sure if I saw this 
request, I would know materials associated with that would have been 
collected, yes.
    Question. The contact person on this is Michael Imbroscio?
    Answer. That is correct.
    Question. Did Mr. Imbroscio talk to you about this issue at any 
time?
    Answer. No, not that I believe.
    Question. Would your involvement in this only be regarding any 
executive privilege issues?
    Answer. Typically, yes.
    Question. So you weren't day-to-day involved in the substance of 
the issue; you would only be involved in the addressing of executive 
privilege issues regarding any documents?
    Answer. Typically, that is right, and the day-to-day production I 
didn't do.
    Ms. Comstock. To shorten this up, we can skip to executive 
privilege issues, less than the substance of these. And have we marked 
these yet? We can just skip that and go to the documents, if that is 
easier, so we don't need that.
    Mr. Eggleston. I had this marked Exhibit 22.
    Ms. Comstock. We can mark those 22 and 23. And this is the 
privilege log.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Maybe if you could just tell us generically your 
involvement in discussing these issues, and I am assuming it's fairly 
recent; is that correct?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Within the past month or so?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. And did you discuss these matters with Mr. Lindsey, with 
his involvement in the dog track issue in general?
    Answer. No, the issues that we had regarding privilege--and Mr. 
Lindsey was not a part of those discussions, it was discussions that 
were with Mr. Ruff, Mr. Breuer and Mr. Nionakis.
    Question. In order to get an understanding of the issue in general, 
did you discuss with Mr. Lindsey the comments that have now been 
reported, that the President made a comment to him and then there were 
phone calls?
    Answer. I might have talked with him about it because there have 
been different news articles that have been written about it, but this 
is an issue that was reported on last year as well, so it is something 
that is kind of part of the public domain now.
    Question. And we had discussed this a little earlier about the 
concept of the Justice Department working with the White House on 
executive privilege issues. Given that this matter is under 
investigation now by the Justice Department, were there any discussions 
with the Justice Department about how they would both simultaneously 
assist the White House with claiming privilege while they were 
investigating the preliminary matter regarding Secretary Babbitt?
    Answer. I am not aware of any such discussions.
    Question. You don't know of any having occurred at the White House?
    Answer. Correct.
    Question. Between or among people at the White House or the Justice 
Department?
    Answer. Right. I mean, this is with respect to litigation that is 
actually ongoing, and so the Department represents us in that 
particular litigation. We are not actually the subject of the 
litigation, someone else is, and so I am not aware of discussions of 
the sort that you have indicated.
    Question. And do you know who the point person was at OLC who was 
working on this?
    [Witness confers with counsel.]
    Mr. Eggleston. If you don't know, tell her.
    The Witness. No, I don't know for certain.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Do you know if Beth Nolan has been involved in working on 
these matters?
    Answer. She has not.
    Question. Has she recused herself from this because she was at the 
White House when some of the initial events occurred, do you know?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Okay. Could you just tell us, then, what the discussions 
were in claiming privilege over some of these documents?
    Answer. I think the process typically is, we identify documents 
that may be subject to privilege, in this instance the Department 
reviews them and makes a determination with respect to the privileges, 
and then we place them on a privilege log and provide them.
    Mr. Ballen. When you say the Department----
    The Witness. The Department of Justice in that instance, and then 
we provided them to the committee. The committee actually has these 
documents.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. The committee was provided these documents after a story 
in the press?
    Answer. The story in the press, though, originated because we 
produced on the Friday the production of the privilege log in the 
litigation, which would have been on Monday you all got the materials. 
Because there are reporters who obviously are interested in this matter 
and report on it during the course of the weekend, that is the only 
reason it would have been produced afterwards, but it was produced in a 
timely fashion. Indeed, the privilege log was not even filed until late 
that day on Friday.
    Question. Was there any discussion prior to filing this privilege 
log in the litigation that they might want to inform Congress that some 
of these documents, you know, had not been produced yet, so they 
weren't reading about them in the paper, you know, the documents being 
withheld?
    Answer. The documents hadn't been withheld. The documents had been 
provided to you and were not going to be withheld. It is my 
understanding there is a non-waiver agreement, so these would be 
materials you all would receive once they had been determined with 
respect to what privileges might have been associated with them. The 
only withholding is with respect to private litigants in the litigation 
in Wisconsin, not with respect to the committee.
    Question. The directive that we made, Exhibit No. 23 asked to have 
all these documents turned in by August 11. Do you know how long these 
documents had been gathered, why there was the delay in turning them 
over?
    Answer. I don't know that there was delay in turning them over and 
I don't know when they were collected and gathered.
    Question. Okay. And this is one of the documents that was----
    Mr. Eggleston. Ms. Comstock, I have to tell you, I am not sure what 
we are doing here because it seems to me you are only doing this with 
regard to the private litigation. The committee has them. There has not 
been privilege claimed over them. I think they have never been 
withheld. You have a privilege log. They weren't late.
    And it seems to me unless you are just acting on behalf of a 
private party, I don't understand what issue it is--I mean, there is 
litigation involving private parties, but I don't see what you think 
the White House has done that is inappropriate on this. And it seems to 
me, since I think the likelihood this deposition is going to be leaked 
is close to 100 percent, the notion you are going to question her about 
the process by which the executive branch asserted privilege over 
documents involved in private litigation, I don't see the slightest 
congressional interest in that.
    Ms. Comstock. For the record, none of the depositions we have taken 
to date have been leaked, and I would disagree with that percentage as 
well as----
    Mr. Eggleston. On that issue, let me say they are usually released 
at the time of public testimony, so certainly this is likely to be.
    Ms. Comstock. Actually, these documents were----
    Mr. Eggleston. I don't see the interest the committee has in 
advancing private interests, and apart from that, I don't see what else 
the purpose of this is, because these have not been--they were provided 
to the committee, they weren't late, and I don't see what interest is 
being pursued here.
    Ms. Comstock. Actually they were gathered in August and not 
produced until October, after they were produced to private litigants. 
What we are trying to determine is the process going on here and why 
there was this delay in producing them.
    The Witness. I don't know there is actually a delay. I think, as I 
probably indicated previously, that when documents--we put a date on 
there, and people obviously have to go through whatever materials they 
have and provide them. And they try and provide them as closely as they 
can, but there is a process of review that would take time, so I don't 
know if I would buy into the notion of there being a delay.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. And this is EOP 69070, which is an April 24, 1995 memo 
for Harold Ickes from Loretta Avent, and this is one of the documents 
which is executive privilege, subject to executive privilege. Is it 
correct that privilege has not actually been asserted, then, by the 
President?
    Answer. Correct.
    Mr. Eggleston. It also is correct you just handed them to us and 
they are in the possession of the committee, correct?
    Ms. Comstock. That is correct, and we are trying to determine the 
process by which this document was considered executive privilege.
    Mr. Eggleston. I think she just said executive privilege has not 
been asserted, and in fact, they are in the hands--if you are asking 
why they put it on a private litigant privilege log, then I think----
    Ms. Comstock. We received a privilege log from this committee 
saying this is a document subject to executive privilege, and we are 
also looking at the Justice Department having reviewed this and agreed 
with this, and I think we have some issues of why there may or may not 
be some conflicts on this. And what we are trying to understand is the 
process by which, you know, going through and determining this document 
was subject to executive privilege, a memo for Harold Ickes, from 
Loretta Avent----
    Mr. Ballen. Subject to executive privilege in a private litigation. 
Has the privilege been asserted as regards this committee?
    The Witness. No.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. We have a document here that says it is subject to 
executive privilege. What I am asking is why is it contended that this 
is a document subject to executive privilege. This is part of this non-
waiver agreement thing that we have--the committee has not signed any 
non-waiver agreement, but there is an informal----
    Answer. Does that mean the committee does not abide by the non-
waiver agreements? You are saying it is informal. What does that mean?
    Question. We have been asked to have an agreement that this is 
subject to executive privilege, and if these are some kind of special 
documents, what we are asking----
    Answer. Is it the case the committee does not have an agreement, 
does not have a non-waiver agreement? Is that what you are saying?
    Question. We have a letter agreement.

    Answer. Does the letter agreement encompass a non-waiver agreement?

    Question. Well, I don't have the letter in front of me here, but 
the point is I am trying to ask why is this subject to--why are we 
being asked to put that in the category of documents that are subject 
to or in this waiver agreement--non-waiver agreement? What is the 
purpose of that?

    Answer. Well, if documents are subject to executive privilege, then 
they would fall in the category of the non-waiver agreement.

    Question. Why is this document, the April 24, 1995 document for 
Harold Ickes, subject to executive privilege?

    Answer. I can't go about re-creating whatever people's judgments 
and decision-making processes with respect to particular documents, but 
in general the way we determine privilege is to review the principles 
that are outlined in a case that recently came down called the In Re: 
Seal case and look at it, also another memorandum that addresses 
executive privilege, and review the document in that context.
    Question. You review these matters with the assistance of OLC; is 
that correct?
    Answer. It is my understanding in this instance OLC was consulted 
with regards to these materials because it is involved in ongoing 
litigation of private parties.
    Question. Do you know who in the Counsel's Office was talking to 
OLC about this?
    Answer. It would be my impression Dimitri Nionakis would be.
    Mr. Ballen. I want to note it is 12:30, for the record, and 
although we agreed I believe to finish up now, and the Minority does 
have some questions, I want to get the witness out on time.
    Ms. Comstock. I think we are going to be able to meet that time 
frame.
    We are going ahead and make the privilege log deposition Exhibit 24 
and memo deposition Exhibit No. 25.
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-24 was marked for identification.]
    [Mills Deposition Exhibit No. CM-25 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. To your knowledge, are there any documents which are 
currently being reviewed for privilege issues that have not been 
produced to the committee, that are sort of the subject of ongoing 
privilege evaluations?
    Answer. No.
    Ms. Comstock. I believe that is all I have at this time.
    Mr. Eggleston. Can we just take a 2-minute break?
    Mr. Ballen. Yes.
    [Brief recess.]
    Mr. Ballen. I just want to make one comment for the record because 
we didn't resolve this earlier. If you have in your possession her 
deposition before the Senate or any other depositions, we request they 
be turned over to us.
    Ms. Comstock. And we can talk about that.
    Mr. Ballen. Particularly since we have hearings later this week.
    Ms. Comstock. Yes. I know on Friday Mr. McLaughlin had mentioned 
that he had other depositions, and I think there may have been a 
misunderstanding, but we can resolve all that, and I think that is what 
we have tried to do. I talked to Mr. Eggleston about areas that had 
been covered and we talked early last week about all of that, so we 
tried to focus on some areas in October of last year and in particular 
in our subpoenas, with a lot of the information already actually being 
made public. I appreciate Mr. Eggleston's assistance in that, and thank 
you.
    Mr. Ballen. Okay. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]

    [The deposition exhibits referred to follow:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.111
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.112
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.113
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.114
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.115
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.116
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.117
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.118
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.119
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.120
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.121
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.122
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.123
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.124
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.125
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.126
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.127
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.128
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.129
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.130
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.131
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.132
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.133
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.134
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.135
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.136
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.137
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.138
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.139
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.140
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.141
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.142
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.143
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.144
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.145
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.146
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.147
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.148
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.149
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.150
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.151
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.152
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.153
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.155
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.156
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.157
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.158
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.159
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.160
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.161
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.162
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.163
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.164
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.165
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.166
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.167
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.168
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.169
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.170
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.171
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.172
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.173
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.174
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.175
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.176
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.177
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.178
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.179
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.180
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.181
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.182
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.183
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.184
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.185
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.186
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.187
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.188
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.189
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.190
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.191
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.192
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.193
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.194
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.195
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.196
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.197
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.198
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.199
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.200
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.201
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.202
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.203
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.204
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.205
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.206
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.207
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.208
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.209
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.210
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.211
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.212
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.213
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.214
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.215
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.216
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.217
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.218
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.219
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.220
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.221
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.222
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.223
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.224
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.225
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.226
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.227
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.228
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.229
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.230
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.231
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.232
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.233
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.234
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.235
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.236
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.237
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.238
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.239
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.240
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.241
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.242
    
    [The deposition of Michael Imbroscio follows:]

                           Executive Session

      Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
                             U.S. House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
                  DEPOSITION OF: MICHAEL X. IMBROSCIO
                                 Thursday, October 16, 1997

    The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2157, Rayburn 
House Office Building, commencing at 10:10 a.m.
Appearances:
    Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: 
Barbara Comstock, Chief Investigative Counsel; Kristi Remington, 
Investigative Counsel; David Bossie, Richard Bennett, Chief Counsel; 
James C. Wilson, Senior Investigative Counsel; Oversight Coordinator; 
Kenneth Ballen, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel; Andrew J. 
McLaughlin, Minority Counsel.
For MR. IMBROSCIO:
    MARK H. LYNCH, ESQ.
    Covington & Burling
    2301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    P.O. Box 7566
    Washington, D.C. 23044

    Ms. Comstock. Good morning. On behalf of the Members of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I thank you for appearing 
here today. This proceeding is known as a deposition. The person 
transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and a notary public. I 
will now request Robin Butler of the Committee staff to place you under 
oath.

THEREUPON, MICHAEL X. IMBROSCIO, a witness, was called for examination 
and, after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
                                follows:

    Ms. Comstock. I would like to note for the record those who are 
present at the beginning of this deposition.
    My name is Barbara Comstock, chief investigative counsel for the 
Committee; I am accompanied today by Kristi Remington, associate 
counsel, who is with the Majority staff; Ken Ballen, designated 
Minority counsel for the Committee this morning, and he is accompanied 
by Andrew McLaughlin. The deponent is represented by Mr. Mark Lynch, 
and the deponent is Mr. Michael Imbroscio.
    Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal 
atmosphere, because you have been placed under oath, your testimony has 
the same force and effect as if you were testifying before a Committee 
or in a courtroom. If I ask you about conversations you have had in the 
past and you are unable to recall the exact words used in that 
conversation, I would ask that you state you are unable to recall the 
exact words but give the gist or substance of any such conversation to 
the best of your recollection. If you recall only part of a 
conversation or only part of an event, please give me the best 
recollection of those events or parts of conversations that you do 
recall.
    If I ask you whether you have any information about a particular 
subject and you have overheard other persons conversing with each other 
regarding that subject or have seen correspondence or documentation 
about that subject, I would ask that you provide such information and 
indicate the source from which you have derived such knowledge.
    Before we begin the questioning, I would like to give you some 
background about the investigation and your appearance here. Pursuant 
to its authority under House Rules X and XI of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee is engaged in a wide-ranging review of 
possible political fund raising improprieties and possible violations 
of law. Pages 2 through 4 of House Report 105-139 summarizes the 
investigation as of June 19, 1997, and describes new matters which I 
will raise in the course of the investigation. Also, pages 4 through 11 
of the report explain the background of the investigation.
    All questions related either directly or indirectly to these 
issues, or questions which have the tendency to make the existence of 
any pertinent fact more or less probable than it would have been 
without the evidence, are proper.
    The Committee has been granted specific authorization to conduct 
this deposition pursuant to House Resolution 167, which passed the full 
House on June 20th, 1997. Committee Rule 20 outlines the ground rules 
for the deposition. Majority and Minority Committee counsel will ask 
you questions regarding the subject matter of this deposition. Minority 
counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel is finished. After 
the Minority counsel has completed questioning you, a new round of 
questioning may begin. Members of Congress who wish to ask questions 
will be afforded an immediate opportunity ask their questions at any 
time when they may be present. When they are finished, Committee 
counsel will resume questioning.
    Pursuant to the Committee's rules, you are allowed to have an 
attorney present to advise you of your rights. Any objection raised 
during the course of the deposition needs to be stated for the record. 
If the witness is instructed not to answer a question or otherwise 
refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer 
to determine whether the objection is proper. If Majority and Minority 
counsel agree that a question is proper, the witness will be asked to 
answer the question. If an objection is not withdrawn, the Chairman or 
a Member designated by the Chairman may decide whether the objection is 
proper.
    This deposition is considered taken in Executive Session of the 
Committee, which means that it may not be made public without the 
consent of the Committee, pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule XI. 
We ask that you abide by the rules of the House and not discuss with 
anyone other than your attorney this deposition and the issues and 
questions raised during this proceeding.
    Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed 
and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may 
submit suggested changes to the Chairman.
    That 5-day rule, with agreement of Minority, has been routinely 
waived in order for people to be able to work with their counsel in a 
timely manner.
    A transcript may be available for you for review at the Committee 
office or we can, if you can sign a form that you are not copying it or 
sharing it with anyone, we can make it available to you to review 
outside the Committee offices with your client.
    Mr. Lynch. Appreciate that.
    Ms. Comstock. Committee staff may make any typographic or technical 
changes requested by you. Substantive changes, modifications, 
clarifications or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by 
you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a 
statement of your reasons for each proposed change. A letter requesting 
substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments must 
be signed by you. Any substantive changes, modifications, 
clarifications or amendments shall be included as an appendix to the 
transcript conditioned upon your signing of the transcript.
    Do you understand everything we have gone over so far?
    The Witness. Yes.
    Ms. Comstock. Do you have any questions about anything?
    The Witness. No.
    Ms. Comstock. I just want to go through a few ground rules.
    The reporter will be taking down everything we say to make a 
written record. You need to give verbal, audible answers. We don't want 
to talk over each other. Wait until we are finished asking the 
questions, then I will also wait until you have finished your answer.
    Are you here voluntarily today or as a result of a subpoena?
    The Witness. Voluntarily, I believe.
    Mr. Lynch. Yes, Mr. Imbroscio is here voluntarily.
    May I say something at this point?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes.
    Mr. Lynch. I had a conversation with Mr. Bennett yesterday in which 
I explained to him that I have only been very recently retained by Mr. 
Imbroscio.
    As you know, the Committee has taken the position that attorneys in 
the Office of the Counsel to the President may not be represented by 
other attorneys in that office, so it was necessary for them to seek 
private counsel. And as I said, I have just been retained a very few 
days ago. We have thoroughly reviewed the subject matter of the 
discovery of the audio tapes and are fully ready to discuss that as 
long as and as completely as you want to do today.
    To the extent that you are interested in the broader question of 
compliance with subpoenas and other requests for documents, there may 
well be areas that I simply have not had a chance yet to discuss with 
Mr. Imbroscio, and we certainly would anticipate coming back at a later 
time after we have had a chance to go over all that material, but we 
simply have not been able to cover that material.
    I explained all this to Mr. Bennett yesterday. We are certainly not 
suggesting that you're not entitled to go into everything, but we are 
asking if today we could focus on the discovery of the videotapes, 
because that is really all I have been able to get my arms around at 
this point.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay. Mr. Bennett had shared your conversation with 
him with me also, and I do understand that you expressed those concerns 
to him.
    To the extent that the videotapes do and the discovery springs from 
certain requests and things like that, I think it will be necessary to 
go into the general areas. I think what we can do is, if we start 
general and then you can indicate areas where you have not had that 
opportunity yet to work with your client, then we can just skip over 
those areas as we go through. But maybe it will be easier if we can get 
through what you are comfortable going through, and then if there are 
areas that you just have not had a chance to discuss yet, then we will 
put those off for another day.
    Mr. Lynch. Sure. We appreciate that.
    Ms. Comstock. But it may be that in working on the videotapes and 
in general work on those matters, that some of the other more general 
questions will be able to be answered. But why don't we just see as we 
go how far we can get.
    Mr. Lynch. Sure. And we will certainly take this on a question-by-
question basis.
    Ms. Comstock. We would certainly prefer to make any revisit shorter 
rather than longer.
    Mr. Lynch. Sure.
    Ms. Comstock. Or unnecessary, if possible.
    Mr. Ballen. And, whenever appropriate, I have a statement before we 
begin.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay.
    Mr. Ballen. I will do it now.
    First of all, on this issue of scope, what we understand the scope 
to be in the Minority is to be on the compliance with the subpoenas and 
nothing beyond that. And Mr. Lynch has indicated today a question of 
preparation on the videotapes versus nonvideotape issues, but what we 
understand the scope of these depositions to be is related to 
compliance with subpoenas and not anything else.
    To the extent, and let me make it very clear on behalf of the 
Members in the Minority, to the extent there is any questioning beyond 
the issue of compliance with the subpoenas that were issued by this 
Committee and by the Senate and by others, we will object most 
strenuously to that, and we will seek, because we believe it is beyond 
the proper scope of this Committee, we will seek a Committee vote on 
any such questions. And so I want that to be clear at the outset, our 
view on the scope of these depositions.
    Having stated that, what I need to also state is several other 
views of the Minority. First, we object to these depositions. we object 
to these depositions being taken at all, but I will get to that at the 
last. As a procedural matter, we object. Mr. Condit wrote a letter on 
behalf of the Minority Members to the Chairman and----
    Ms. Comstock. Is that a letter we have received, to your knowledge?
    Mr. Ballen. It went out yesterday. I certainly hope----
    Ms. Comstock. We have not received that letter. I read about it in 
the paper this morning, but we have not received it.
    Mr. Ballen. Well, Mr. Condit sent it out yesterday and I will enter 
it. I know Mr. Condit sent it to the Chairman.
    In fact, let me enter it into the record at this point. It is a 
public letter sent out by Mr. Condit yesterday. I know Mr. Condit is 
very good about making sure letters are delivered, so I am sure he--we 
can mark it as Minority Exhibit Number 1.
    [Minority Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.]

    [Note.--All exhibits referred to may be found at end of 
deposition on p. 509.]

    First off, as Mr. Condit states quite eloquently in his letter, we 
object to these depositions being taken without either conducting them 
jointly with the Senate, deferring the House until the Senate has 
conducted them, or the Senate deferring until the House has conducted 
them. These are depositions with the exact same witnesses, exact same 
issues, same questions, same documents, and if there ever were a case 
for coordinating between the House and the Senate, our view is the 
entire investigation should be coordinated, but at least this one 
discrete aspect should be coordinated. So we object to that.
    Our Members, including Mr. Waxman, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Kanjorski and 
Mr. Condit, specifically object to these depositions occurring now. We 
believe that the Members should have a right to attend these 
depositions; that if they are important enough to do, Members of 
Congress, who are now on recess and are not available, should be 
afforded the opportunity to attend, and our Members very strongly 
wanted that opportunity. And, again, these have been scheduled over our 
objection to taking them, which is set forth in Mr. Condit's letter as 
well.
    Let me read verbatim a statement Mr. Condit would like read in the 
record. ``I object to these depositions taking place at this particular 
time.'' This is Mr. Condit's statement. ``Given the short notice of the 
depositions, scheduled after Members left for the current recess, and 
given scheduling problems associated with the recess, it is impossible 
for Members who may choose to be present for the depositions to be 
here. Additionally, I have written to Chairman Burton spelling out this 
objection and, as yet, have not received a reply. I would, therefore, 
object and urge postponement of these depositions until such time as 
Members have returned from their respective districts.''
    And that is a statement of Mr. Condit and is a statement that is 
echoed by all Minority Members of this Committee, and we fail to see 
the urgency in proceeding in this fashion.
    Lastly, I want to note something for the record, which is the 
extreme dismay that I have that we are going through this process at 
all. I have been up on the Hill on and off for 10 years now and was 
intimately involved in the Iran-contra investigation. And I must say we 
had problems with the White House during Iran-contra in terms of 
documents being submitted, other documents being withheld, documents 
being discovered late, and outright refusal to turn over some of the 
information subpoenaed, period, without assertion of any privilege or 
any other reason.
    This White House has been cooperative and, from my point of view, 
as far as we know, acted in good faith. To put people whose job it was, 
who are in the counsel's office, through this kind of a process, under 
oath, without giving them the benefit of trying to explain themselves 
first, strikes me as an unfortunate exercise of the Majority's power. 
These depositions were done without consult with the Minority 
whatsoever and, frankly, without really giving the White House an 
opportunity in good faith to reply to what had happened.
    I have to note, too, that if this were an issue where documents 
that were incriminating in any effect were not turned over, maybe this 
entire process could be justified, but we're talking about, the best we 
can determine at this point in time, exculpatory information. Why 
anyone would submit themselves to this kind of proceeding for failure 
to turn over information that would have helped them had it been turned 
over earlier boggles the mind.
    So with those objections noted for the record, we should proceed.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay. I would like to note that the letter that Mr. 
Ballen entered into the record apparently was faxed to Mr. Waxman's 
office last night at 6:12 p.m. We were not in receipt of that letter at 
any time before the deposition this morning.
    We did read about the letter in Roll Call this morning, so 
apparently it was made, at least the sense of it was made available to 
Roll Call at some point before deadline last evening, but we were not 
aware of any of these objections.
    We did have a meeting last Friday with Mr. Ballen and with the 
White House Counsel, Chuck Ruff, and with Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills 
and Special Counsel Lanny Breuer. At that time Mr. Ballen did not voice 
any of these concerns, and actually the White House Counsel, Mr. Ruff, 
had no objection to us going forward. And during a very candid and 
frank discussion, Mr. Ruff understood exactly why the Committee was 
going forward with these depositions.
    He did not raise the issue of joint depositions or anything like 
that because, in fact, this investigation, the House investigation and 
the Senate, has a number of different issues. We have different scopes. 
And certainly, as the witness will probably be able to tell us today, 
our subpoenas have been different, our requests have been different. 
While there obviously is some overlap in these matters, how and when 
our subpoenas were responded to as opposed to Senate subpoenas or 
others are different issues, and for that reason we are going to 
continue to proceed this morning.
    And like Mr. Ballen, I too have been involved in a number of 
investigations up here on the Hill over the years and, unfortunately, 
the patterns that we have seen with this one have been all too common. 
We have had records turn up years after they were sought, and this has 
been a concern that this chairman and many Members of this Committee, 
who not only have served during this Congress on this investigation but 
served on the Committee with previous investigations and were familiar 
with the lack of response that has resulted often from our subpoenas. 
And, in fact, we have had to move in the past on contempt as we did 
this year with the White House.
    So with all those things in mind, the Committee Members and on the 
Majority side felt very strongly it was important to establish not only 
the issue of the videotapes and how they were discovered but general 
compliance with the Committee's subpoenas.
    Now, as we have discussed with counsel already, we understand that 
the witness may not be ready this morning for the entire area of 
compliance issues, but we are going to cover those that we are able to 
deal with this morning.
    Mr. Ballen. Let me just note for the record, I don't want to engage 
in a long debate with counsel for the Majority, but to point out 
several facts.
    One is that our objections to these, I talked to Mr. Bennett about 
it and this was faxed from Congressman--my understanding is Mr. Condit 
delivered this letter to Mr. Burton yesterday. That is my 
understanding. That is what I was told by Mr. Condit's office: The 
letter was delivered here yesterday. Why you have not received it, I do 
not know.
    It was faxed from Mr. Waxman's office to me. And if you look at the 
bottom of the thing, it says 5:18 p.m. That is when I received it. I 
don't know what that 6:12 is on the top, because I received it from our 
main office, which is the faxes, earlier in the day. I don't know what 
that is at the top because I know when I received it. It was refaxed, 
apparently.
    But in any event, it was delivered to you yesterday. And if you 
want to beg to differ with Mr. Condit on that, his office assured me 
that it was delivered to you yesterday afternoon. And my objections 
were made to Mr. Bennett earlier, in any event.
    Ms. Comstock. I would note for the record, counsel apparently had 
this by 5:18 or 6:12 and did not bring this to our attention last 
evening.
    Mr. Ballen. Which counsel?
    Ms. Comstock. Minority counsel.
    Mr. Ballen. Why should I, if it was delivered to you by Mr. Condit. 
And that office delivered it to you. If I am told a letter is delivered 
to you, I assume it was delivered. That is what I was told. I didn't 
see any reason to bring it to your attention since you received an 
original of it in the afternoon.
    Mr. Lynch. One minor housekeeping item. I think when you identified 
the people present you did not identify Mr. Bossie.
    Ms. Comstock. I think we had forgot. Mr. Bossie was down here on 
the list already.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Okay, if we could begin. Could you please provide your 
employment history from college forward?
    Answer. Let me take a step back. I was born in Ohio in 1968, I 
attended Ohio State University, graduating summa cum laude in 1990. 
Thereafter attended Harvard Law School, graduated in 1993 magna cum 
laude. I clerked for one year for Judge John M. Walker, Jr., on the 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Judge Walker is, as you 
probably are aware, President Bush's first cousin. After clerking for 
Judge Walker, I entered employment with Covington & Burling, where I 
worked over the summer a few years earlier, and worked at Covington & 
Burling for approximately two-and-a-half years until March of this 
year.
    Question. Then at that time were you hired at the White House?
    Answer. My first day at the White House was March 3, 1997.
    Question. And who hired you?
    Answer. While at Covington & Burling I worked closely with Mr. 
Lanny Breuer, and he, as well as Mr. Ruff, hired me to come work at the 
White House.
    Question. And what are your duties at the White House?
    Answer. I work on Mr. Breuer's team of lawyers doing our best to 
comply with the numerous requests for documents and other materials 
from the various investigative committees and other investigative 
bodies.
    Question. Is Mr. Breuer your supervisor?
    Answer. He is.
    Question. And how many of you work on these matters?
    Answer. We have a small staff of about five or six lawyers who work 
on these matters.
    Question. And could you identify those people, please?
    Answer. I may leave out one or two, but our team is comprised of 
myself, I am the most junior lawyer on the team; Michelle Peterson, 
Demetri Nionakis, Karl Racine, Karen Popp, and Mr. Breuer.
    Question. And is Lanny Davis also part of that team?
    Answer. Lanny Davis' responsibilities are to deal with the various 
press inquiries that our office receives. He is in no way a part of the 
document compliance team.
    Question. And do you also have paralegals and support staff who 
work with you?
    Answer. We do have a few parallels and support staff.
    Question. Who are those individuals?
    Answer. We have three paralegals and Mr. Breuer has an assistant.
    Question. And who are the paralegals?
    Answer. Their names are Debra, Dimi and Erin.
    Question. Could you give me their full names?
    Answer. I have a hard time spelling a few of them. Debra Falk, F-A-
L-K; Erin Green, G-R-E-E-N; and Dimi Dooufekias, spelling of which I 
will not attempt.
    Question. And so Mr. Breuer has an assistant also?
    Answer. Mr. Breuer does have an assistant.
    Question. And who is that?
    Answer. His name, as you might be aware, is Brian Smith.
    Question. And are there any other individuals who work on Mr. 
Breuer's team?
    Answer. Throughout the summer and currently we occasionally have 
various volunteers and interns that are assigned to our office in the 
White House.
    Question. And does Cheryl Mills also work on any of these 
production matters?
    Answer. She does not. Cheryl is the deputy counsel to the 
President. I don't know what the whole host of her duties entail, but 
she is not a member of the day-to-day compliance team.
    Question. In a letter of people who had been involved in production 
matters, in these videotapes in particular, Mr. Ruff provided Ms. 
Mills' name. Do you know what her role is on this?
    Answer. I believe Mr. Ruff also provided his own name, and 
certainly Mr. Ruff is not involved in the day-to-day production issues 
of our team. But certainly Mr. Ruff, Ms. Mills and the rest of us on 
the team are certainly lawyers in the office who work on these matters.
    Question. Do you know who Ms. Mills reports to in that structure of 
the counsel's office?
    Answer. My understanding of it is that she reports to Mr. Ruff.
    Question. And do you know if Mr. Lindsey has had any involvement in 
any of the production issues or production?
    Answer. During my 7 months at the White House Mr. Lindsey has had 
absolutely no involvement in production issues. I believe I spoke with 
Mr. Lindsey less than three times.
    Question. Why don't you describe to us what you do in terms of 
gathering documents.
    Mr. Ballen. Gathering documents when? In response to the subpoena?

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. In response to letter requests or subpoenas.
    Mr. Ballen. From who? It is a rather broad question. He might have 
different procedures with regard to different types of issues.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. This team of people you identified, do you respond to the 
House letter requests and subpoenas in the course of this 
investigation?
    Answer. Yes, we do.
    Question. Do you also respond to the Senate requests or subpoenas 
for information?
    Answer. As I testified earlier, this is the team that responds to 
all requests from various committee and other investigative bodies.
    Question. Okay. And so that would include the Justice Department 
also?
    Answer. It would.
    Question. And that would be any independent counsel or the Justice 
Department task force? This would be the same group of people that 
would respond to those matters?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Now, are any particular people assigned to the White 
House or the Senate or Justice Department subpoenas?
    Answer. Not in any formal sense, no.
    Question. So there's not somebody who is the House guy, and then 
the Senate guy, and the Justice Department guy who sort of is in charge 
of compliance and making sure that particular subpoenas are complied 
with at the end of the day?
    Answer. Again, not in any formal sense. We all have various roles 
depending on various requests. We obviously get numerous requests from 
many bodies, and if it happens to be a request that relates to an 
earlier request that somebody had responsibility for, they would then 
take responsibility for that request. But, again, there's no designated 
individual to handle requests from a particular body.
    Question. And is Mr. Breuer, then, in charge of all of these areas 
then in terms of final compliance? Is that where the buck stops, 
generally?
    Answer. That is part of his role as Special Counsel to the 
President, yes.
    Question. Is he working on other matters besides responding to 
these investigations?
    Answer. I stumble on the word ``responding.'' If you define 
responding very broadly, yes, that is his responsibility. Responding 
not only to documents but responding more generally.
    Question. He is not working on appointment of judges or things that 
other counsel people might work on?
    Answer. That's accurate.
    Question. How many attorneys are in the counsel's office?
    Answer. I'm not sure, but I think somewhere between 14 and 18 at 
any given time.
    Question. And do you know the total number of people who are in the 
counsel's office?
    Answer. I thought I just answered that question.
    Question. With support staff and paralegals.
    Answer. Several of the lawyers who are not on our team who do 
various other tasks of the counsel's office, like judges and 
appointments, as you just mentioned, they often share an assistant. I 
believe there are a few assistants throughout the office that support 
the other attorneys.
    Question. Any other attorneys detailed, to your knowledge, to the 
counsel's office?
    Answer. My understanding is that there are such attorneys and that 
they do primarily vetting. But in all honesty, I have not met any of 
these such attorneys. I am told they exist but cannot confirm it under 
oath.
    Question. To your knowledge, are any of the individuals you named 
who are on the team, were they detailed from other agencies or from 
U.S. Attorneys' offices?
    Answer. No, they are not.
    Question. Now, you said you are the low man on the totem pole in 
terms of this team; is that correct?
    Answer. I believe I said I was the most junior attorney on the 
team, yes. I'm 29 years old, for the record.
    Question. And why don't you tell us how you go about then 
responding, if there is a difference--is there a difference in how you 
respond to the House or Senate or Justice Department subpoenas or 
requests?
    Answer. We do not distinguish between requests from one entity 
versus the other.
    Question. Why don't you tell us how you generally respond to 
requests; how they are handled in your office.
    Answer. Okay, I can speak generally at this point. Generally, when 
we receive a request, and we receive many of them, we evaluate the 
nature of the request; ask ourselves does the request require an entire 
White House-wide search or something more limited.
    For instance, if it is a WAVE search, that would not require an 
entire White House-wide search. If it does require a White House-wide 
search, we undertake the steps to conduct a targeted search to the 
areas or offices of the White House that would be likely to have 
responsive documents.
    If it does require a White House-wide search, the practice that is 
in place, and as I understand has been in place well before, well 
before I came into this office, is that the Counsel to the President, 
and there have been several, currently Mr. Ruff, will send out a 
memorandum to the entire Executive Office of the President, sometimes 
shortened to EOP, detailing what those requests are and asking 
attorneys to search--asking employees of the EOP to search all of their 
records for materials and provide to the counsel's office any 
responsive materials.
    Question. Maybe if we could get a little, sort of some of the 
technical aspects of when a letter request comes into your office, who 
is the person who receives it, to your knowledge?
    Answer. Typically, the person who receives it is the person to whom 
it is sent. Sometimes they are sent to the President of the United 
States, sometimes they are sent to Mr. Ruff, sometimes they are sent to 
Mr. Breuer, and sometimes, particularly ones where there is a working 
relationship between our staff and staffs of other committees, the 
letter will come in directed to one of the staff attorneys.
    Question. And is there a process whereby a letter is logged in in 
the counsel's office?
    Answer. There very well might be, but I am not aware of such a 
process.
    Question. Is there a process by which a subpoena is logged in?
    Answer. Same answer.
    Question. Do you know if there's any type of database or accounting 
of various requests?
    Answer. No, not to my knowledge.
    Question. I'm just wondering, last night on the news I think Mr. 
Lanny Davis was saying how many requests had been made from different 
agencies, and I was wondering who is in charge of counting those or 
where is that body of information that would count that?
    Answer. Well, I believe we have a collection of correspondence, 
subpoenas and other requests that are probably put together in various 
binders. I am sure there is a binder for the House of Representatives 
as there are for the other investigative bodies, and I suspect the 
counting took--it meant someone going through and counting the various 
requests for the various bodies.
    Question. Do you know who did that in this case?
    Answer. I have no idea.
    Question. But there's not any type of, you are not in charge of 
that recordkeeping or accounting of requests?
    Answer. I am not.
    Question. Do you know who is?
    Answer. I do not know if anyone is in charge at all and if there is 
someone in charge who that person would be.
    Question. Do you know how, once the request is received by Mr. 
Breuer, by whoever it was addressed to, how is it handled from that 
point?
    Answer. At that point it is usually discussed at a gathering of 
lawyers on the team and the task of, the discussion of what it takes to 
respond is discussed, as I testified earlier that that process occurs, 
and the request may be assigned to a particular person, if it is a 
rather discrete request, or it will be, a strategy for responding to a 
particularly larger request would be discussed.
    Question. And then are particular people put in charge of different 
areas of a subpoena or is one person put in charge of each request?
    Answer. Again, there's no set answer. It really is case specific. 
It depends on the breadth of the subpoena, if it is a subpoena; depends 
on the nature of the requests, whether they require a White House-wide 
search or whether they require more targeted searches.
    Mr. Lynch. I think the record should reflect that Mr. Imbroscio 
explained, when we first came in, that he has aggravated an old knee 
injury within the last day or two, and he is in some obvious discomfort 
I think everyone here at the table will recognize. And among other 
things he has to get up and walk around once in a while to relieve the 
pain in his knee.
    Ms. Comstock. And if at any time you need a break, just let us 
know. Feel free to--we are in a pretty small area, so if it helps to 
walk around, that will be fine.
    The Witness. I appreciate that.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. I want to maybe distinguish between letter requests and 
subpoenas. Are those treated differently, to your knowledge, and how 
you respond to them?
    Answer. Well, we respond to all requests fully and completely. So 
in the sense of whether one gets second class status, absolutely not.
    Question. And when you said that memos are often put out, office 
wide memos are put out, who generally writes up those memos?
    Answer. We sometimes call them directives because they direct the 
White House staff to search their files. Such directives are sent out 
under the name of the Counsel to the President, and particular members 
of the staff will work with the Counsel to the President in drafting 
and formalizing and finalizing such a memo.
    Question. But usually Mr. Ruff himself is not sitting at the 
computer drafting the memo?
    Answer. As you might suspect, he is not usually the original 
drafter, but certainly he does have a part in the editing of the 
document.
    Question. You had said you started at the White House on March 3 of 
this year; is that correct?
    Answer. That was a Monday, that is correct.
    Question. And where is your office located?
    Answer. My office has moved once since I have been here, but if we 
can get away with this, in the Old Executive Office Building.
    Question. And is that where you started?
    Answer. That is where I started.
    Question. And do you have an office mate, someone that is in your 
office with you?
    Answer. I do not.
    Question. Is there a suite of offices where this team works?
    Answer. The Old Executive Office Building was built in, I believe 
beginning in 1871. Its design and construction does not involve various 
suites of offices. My office is on the fourth floor, which is a hallway 
that several of the attorneys on my team also have offices.
    Question. Generally, you are in an area together? You are not 
spread out across the complex? That is what I am trying to understand.
    Answer. That is generally correct, yes.
    Question. So who else is in that group of offices?
    Answer. Mr. Racine, Mr. Nionakis, Miss Peterson and Ms. Popp have 
offices generally in the same corridor.
    Question. And is there also a Michael Waitzkin who is on your team?
    Answer. Yes. His name is Michael ``Buzz'' Waitzkin. Buzz was a 
partner at a law firm in town and joined the counsel's office some 
months after I joined. He is a person that I probably have left off the 
original list.
    As you can gather from his previous status, he's a more senior 
lawyer and while he does have involvement generally in responding to 
requests, he is not one of the line attorneys as the other ones I 
described in responding to requests.
    Question. And where is Mr. Breuer's office?
    Answer. Mr. Breuer's office is in a different part of the Old 
Executive Office Building. We are on the fourth floor. When I say we, I 
mean the individuals I just testified about a few minutes ago. Mr. 
Breuer's office is on the first floor of the Old Executive Office 
Building.
    Question. And are there other people from the team and all who are 
with Mr. Breuer?
    Answer. Not on our team. Mr. Davis has an office in proximity to 
Mr. Breuer, but not any one of the ones on our team.
    Question. And then Brian Smith is in Mr. Breuer's office?
    Answer. He sits outside of Mr. Breuer's office, yes. And just to be 
clear, Mr. Waitzkin also has an office on the first floor in the same 
general vicinity as Mr. Breuer but not in terribly close proximity.
    Question. So Mr. Breuer, Mr. Waitzkin and Lanny Davis have offices 
in close proximity on the first floor?
    Answer. I would say they have offices on the first floor. Mr. 
Breuer and Mr. Davis' office are in closer proximity than Mr. Waitzkin 
office.
    Question. And Mr. Ruff's office is in the West Wing; is that 
correct?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. And where is Ms. Mills' office?
    Answer. Ms. Mills, as Deputy Counsel to the President, has an 
office in the office typically held by the Deputy Counsel to the 
President, which is adjacent to Mr. Ruff's office.
    Question. And Mr. Lindsey's office is also in the West Wing?
    Answer. That's my understanding, yes. I have never been to Mr. 
Lindsey's office.
    Question. How is communication between the offices handled? Do you 
have daily meetings in order for Mr. Breuer to give you assignments?
    Mr. Ballen. Is this in relation to compliance with subpoenas or?

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Yes, and I am limiting that to subpoenas and document 
response.
    Answer. As you might suspect, we meet quite frequently on a whole 
host of topics. Many times a particular meeting will cover several 
topics, one of which might be document compliance. There is no set 
pattern for document compliance meetings nor is there a set frequency.
    Question. Okay. Where are the documents that you all have now put 
things? Where are they physically located?
    Answer. They are physically located in the offices of people who 
send them to us.
    Question. But where, when they send them to counsel's office, where 
are they kept in the counsel's office?
    Answer. The copies of the documents are generally kept in a large 
workroom that is close in proximity to the offices on the fourth floor. 
I will stop with that.
    Question. So when these memos are sent out asking for documents 
they would be returned, then, to the fourth floor offices, to your 
attention or Mr. Nionakis or somebody up there?
    Answer. Yeah, it depends on--typically, there is a contact person 
on each of the directives. That contact person would handle particular 
requests, or generally, or a request for follow-up guidance on what a 
particular term in the directive means. That same person would usually 
be the recipient of the documents and they would be the ones to receive 
them, process them, at least initially, before storing them more 
generally in the large workroom.
    Question. And, generally, do people sign, employees at the White 
House, sign forms attesting to searches for files in their office?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the heads of the various 
offices would sign such a form attesting to the fact that all of the 
employees under their direction have made full and complete searches of 
their files and provided all responsive records to the best of their 
ability.
    Question. Now, when you get a request, do you send out the actual 
request with whatever memo you send out to the various offices?
    Answer. We typically do not. We have a White House full of 
nonlawyers and oftentimes the requests that come in are many, many, 
many, many pages long. I believe the subpoena the Committee issued is 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 pages long. We do our best to 
summarize the requests, making sure to encompass every single request 
in the directive, but try to put it in a language that nonlawyers can 
understand and will, in fact, maximize the chances that they actually 
read the document and provide us with responsive documents.
    Question. When you joined the White House in March of this year, 
how were you brought up to speed as to requests that had already been 
made?
    Answer. I believe--I came to the office, as I say on March 3rd. I 
believe we received your subpoena, which was dated March 3rd, a few 
days later. That was, for all intents and purposes, the first huge 
request that we had received that related to this investigation. There 
were several earlier requests, but my understanding is your subpoena, 
which as I am sure you probably drafted it, was quite comprehensive and 
in many ways became the guiding document for the nature of requests.
    Question. When you came on board were you aware of previous letter 
requests that this Committee had made?
    Answer. Not specifically. Not specifically, no. I assumed there 
was--I understand there had been some requests, but I have no specific 
knowledge or recollection of what those requests might have been.
    Question. When you came on board did someone sort of direct you to 
files, like here are the outstanding requests and here is--did anyone 
fill you in on what they were doing in terms of document response at 
that time?
    Answer. With respect to document response, I was informed that our 
obligation and directive from Mr. Ruff was to respond to all requests 
as fully and as completely as possible. No one sat me down and walked 
me through the list of requests that had previously been made.
    Question. And the other individuals who are there, could you just 
maybe tell us when each person came on board, to the extent that you 
know?
    Answer. To the extent that I know, I believe it would be as 
follows: Mr. Ruff was probably a matter of public record when he became 
counsel to the President. I do not know the exact date. Ms. Mills has 
been in the counsel's office for some time. Mr. Breuer started, I 
believe, a week or two prior to the time when I started. Miss Popp 
started sometime before I started. I don't know the exact time. Miss 
Peterson came with Mr. Ruff from the corporation counsel's office, so I 
assume her employment coincided to some degree with Mr. Ruff's entry 
into the counsel's office. Mr. Nionakis started approximately the same 
time I did. And Mr. Racine started some months, or a month or two after 
I started. Mr. Waitzkin started about the same time as Mr. Racine, as 
best I can recall.
    Question. And then Lanny Davis started sometime earlier, late last 
year?
    Answer. I assume you guys would have a better understanding of that 
one. I simply don't know. He was there when I got here.
    Question. And your understanding of the paralegals, were they 
people who had been at the White House or were they new also. All three 
of the paralegals started after I started. They are all new paralegals.
    Question. So to your knowledge, is there anyone on this team, then, 
who has worked on any of these matters before at the White House?
    Answer. Can you please define these matters?
    Question. Responding to investigations, responding to subpoenas.
    Answer. Apart from Ms. Mills, who I assume, I don't know 
specifically, but I assume she had some responsibilities before I 
started, we generally had a brand new team of lawyers on this team.
    There is one lawyer who has only tangential responsibility, she 
deals primarily with an investigation of one of your subcommittees, who 
had been around prior to the time when we all came on in essentially 
calendar year 1997.
    Question. Do you know if someone named Ches Johnson was still 
working on these matters for you all?
    Answer. Ches had been around for, I understand, a previous time 
period. Ches has no day-to-day involvement in document compliance 
issues. My understanding of Ches Johnson's role at this point is as an 
assistant to Mr. Davis.
    Question. I'm sorry, did you say that somebody in the counsel's 
office had worked on a subcommittee matter with this Committee that you 
are familiar with?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And who was that?
    Answer. Her name is Sally Paxton. I believe she was a partner in 
the law firm of Jenner & Block. Came to the White House, as best I 
know, sometime in calendar year 1996, and deals primarily with issues 
relating to Congressman McIntosh's subcommittee, which is 
investigating, as I understand it, the WHODB, W-H-O-D-B, White House 
database.
    Question. When you came on board, did you have any knowledge of 
what Jack Quinn had done in terms of responding to requests prior to 
the date of your coming on board, or Mr. Ruff coming on board? I guess 
Mr. Ruff came on board in February of '97?
    Answer. I have no specific knowledge. I assume Mr. Quinn responded 
to requests during the time when he was Counsel to the President. I 
don't know what Mr. Quinn did.
    Question. Did you ever see any memos that Mr. Quinn had put out to 
the White House to gather various documents for this investigation?
    And I guess we can just say the investigation I am referring to is 
the investigation that this Committee is conducting that you are 
familiar with, and this Committee and the Senate is basically what you 
have been working on; is that correct?
    Answer. That is generally accurate.
    Question. So we can generically refer to it, and if I am talking 
about some other investigation I will distinguish it in more particular 
terms?
    Answer. Okay.
    Question. Were you aware of Mr. Quinn responding to matters on this 
investigation?
    Answer. I assume that he did respond to such matters, if that is 
the question, yes.
    Question. Did you see any memos he had put out to the White House?
    Answer. I have seen, I think, two memos that Mr. Quinn circulated, 
two directives, I should use the word, that he circulated sometime in 
December and January of this year.
    Question. I'm showing the witness a January 9th, 1997, memo for the 
Executive Office of the President staff from Jack Quinn, Counsel to the 
President, as follow-up to a December 16th, 1996 document request.
    Have you seen this document before?
    Mr. Lynch. Let me interpose here. We are starting to get into areas 
now that I'm uncomfortable with because I haven't had a chance to 
review with Mr. Imbroscio.
    We have gone on generally about how the office is set up and who 
does what, and that's fine and I have no problem. But I do have a 
problem asking him specific questions about documents that we haven't 
had a chance to review together, and, obviously, memos from Mr. Quinn 
are matters that I haven't gotten into yet because, as I have mentioned 
earlier, I have stuck to the tapes matter.
    Ms. Comstock. So would you prefer to wait on those questions?
    Mr. Lynch. Yes. Maybe this is getting into a level of detail I'm 
uncomfortable with.
    Ms. Comstock. Sure. We will pick that up at another time.
    Mr. Ballen. I am not entitled to keep a Committee record?
    Ms. Comstock. It is not a subpoenaed document.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Why don't we turn, then, to the March 4th subpoena. Do 
you all have a copy of that?
    Mr. Ballen. You said it was not a subpoenaed document? This? May I 
ask, how did you receive it if it is not subpoenaed?
    Ms. Comstock. Can we go off the record for a minute?
    [Discussion off the record.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. I'm showing the witness the March 4th subpoena that this 
Committee issued. You're familiar with this subpoena?
    Mr. Lynch. Excuse me, are we going to mark this for identifying in 
any way?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes, I will make this Exhibit 1. We might as well go 
ahead and mark that.
    Mr. Lynch. It might be easier to keep track of them if we mark them 
before we start talking about them.
    [Imbroscio Exhibit No. MI-1 was marked for identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. You are familiar with this subpoena?
    Answer. Generally, yes.
    Question. And can you just tell us generally what work you did on 
this subpoena? Just walk us through anything you did in regards to the 
subpoena.
    Answer. Well, again, I would like to keep it as general as 
possible. I have not discussed this with my attorney.
    Generally, we received the subpoena. I believe, although I was not 
part of such discussions--there was a long, long series of discussions 
and conversations between lawyers from my office and lawyers from the 
Committee staff, I believe primarily yourself and Mr. Rowley, who no 
longer works for the Committee, to try to work with the staff to focus 
the request. I think that that was culminated in a letter sometime the 
following month and we then set about the search for those records.
    Question. So is it your testimony that there was no search done of 
the records until after--I guess the letter you are referring to is our 
April 18 letter?
    Answer. I don't have the date in front of me. And the answer to 
your question is no, that is not what I said.
    We searched for records and I think, I believe that the record will 
establish we began providing records well before the April time period, 
but we did not purport to commence a White House-wide search through 
the directive process until we had a firm focus and understanding of 
what documents the Committee was seeking.
    Question. Okay. And the subpoena that we've marked as Exhibit 1, 
had a due date of March 24th; is that correct?
    Answer. The date March 24th, appears on the subpoena, yes.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Were you aware of any memos or directives to gather 
documents responsive to this March 4 subpoena that were done prior to 
March 24?
    Answer. Can you ask your question again?
    Question. Were you aware of any directives that were done prior to 
March 24 that were sent out to collect documents responsive to this 
March 4 subpoena?
    Mr. Lynch. Again, we are getting into a level of detail on matters 
other than the videotapes or the coffees that makes me uncomfortable. 
We would be very happy to go into this at another time after we've had 
more opportunity to go over all the material.
    Mr. Ballen. Just so I note for the record, you've had a limited 
time and been brought into this thing on a very expedited schedule, 
Counsel, so I think that your request is quite reasonable.
    The Witness. I'm happy to talk with you about this at some point in 
the future.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Maybe if we can direct it to the coffees, do you know if 
there was any attempt to gather information regarding the White House 
coffees prior to March 24?
    Mr. Lynch. Which is referred to in paragraph 16 of the subpoena?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes.
    The Witness. Again, I think my answer would be on the general 
level. We had started almost from the outset to try to evaluate this 
request and develop a strategy that would maximize the chances of 
finding all responsive documents on a request that, as initially 
written, had 45 numbered requests.
    We began, I think, searches in targeted areas sometime in the 
months of March and April. Specifically, I don't recall the exact 
times. But with respect to coffees, I am not aware of anything 
particularly we did for that request versus other requests for this 
subpoena.
    Question. Were you aware of any representations that had been made 
by the White House that, generally, documents pertaining to the coffees 
had already been provided?
    Answer. I guess I don't understand your question. Can you repeat 
it?
    Question. Was it your understanding that documents pertaining--and 
this was prior to when you came to the White House, there were 
documents provided to the public and to the press, actually they were 
provided on January 24 to the press, they were provided to this 
committee on January 29, 5 days after they were provided to the press, 
but there were documents pertaining to the White House coffees that 
were provided back in January. And if this helps refresh your 
recollection, do you have any understanding as to whether there were 
outstanding documents related to the White House coffees?
    Mr. Ballen. I'm going to have to interrupt. Between the phone call 
and everything, I missed part of that question.
    The Witness. I kind of had a hard time following it as well. I 
think I know the answer, but if you could ask it again.
    Mr. Ballen. I just want to note for the record, Mr. Bossie received 
a cell phone call in the middle of the question, so I didn't hear it 
all.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Again, I'm not going to go into particulars on this, but 
as we just discussed, this is the January 24 letter we received, 
actually it was cc'd to us, it was sent to Chairman Gilman and cc'd to 
Chairman Solomon and Chairman Burton. Guest lists for coffees held at 
the White House were provided to the media on this date, January 24. We 
did not in the committee receive these documents until January 29, so 
at that time we had, in January we had received documents pertaining to 
the coffees. I will go ahead and make that Exhibit 2.
    But I just wanted to put this in context and get that on the record 
that we had received documents pertaining to the coffees.
    [Imbroscio Deposition Exhibit No. MI-2 was marked for 
identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Were you aware in this March-April time frame of any 
discussions--did you have any discussions about seeking other documents 
pertaining to the White House coffees?
    Answer. Let me answer, I think, the question you had asked 
previously and go into that question. I was aware generally that the 
White House had disclosed a list of attendees that attended the various 
coffees. I read about it in the Washington Post sometime in January, I 
believe, before I had any inkling that I would ever be working at the 
White House. I don't know the specifics on when the committee actually 
received these documents. I will take you at your word that you 
received them some days after the date of the letter.
    With respect to discussions held in March and April related to 
coffee documents, again I cannot answer specifically whether the topic 
of coffees versus any of the other 45 topics in the subpoena was 
discussed, but certainly by the time I came into the White House 
counsel's office or shortly thereafter, I did have an understanding 
that a list of attendees had been provided both to the committees and 
to the media.
    Question. Did you have any understanding of other documents 
pertaining to White House coffees that existed?
    Answer. I certainly probably understood that such documents did 
exist, yes.
    Question. Did you have any understanding of the universe of what 
those documents might be?
    Answer. No, at that point I did not have an understanding.
    Question. Did you have any discussions with anyone in the counsel's 
office about what other types of documents pertaining to the coffees 
might exist in the White House?
    Answer. No.
    Question. At any time?
    Answer. No. Well, at any time, that's a tough question. Certainly 
we had discussions about responsive documents, responsive documents 
including documents relating to the White House political coffees as we 
entered and worked through this monumental task of responding to this 
request.
    So when you say did I have a discussion at any time about documents 
related to the White House coffees, I'd have to say, yes, I'm sure I 
did. I don't recall anything specifically, as you might expect.
    Question. I was just seeing if you could generally recall 
discussions that you had about the types of documents pertaining to the 
coffees that you might need to go about gathering in responding to this 
March 4 request.
    Answer. Again, not focused on the coffees, I had an understanding 
that documents were being gathered from the Office of Records 
Management, which houses the papers of the President, including the 
briefing papers which it is my understanding is the primary repository 
for documents relating to the coffees was in the briefing memos that we 
have provided to you all dealing with the attendees; and there is 
usually a short description of who the attendee is. Certainly I had an 
understanding that those documents were being gathered.
    Question. And do you know who is gathering those?
    Answer. The office generally was supervising the career 
professionals in the Office of Records Management, trying to gather all 
those documents.
    Question. So that would be Mr. Good's office?
    Answer. Exactly. Mr. Good, as a career employee, I think has been 
around since the Watergate time period.
    Question. And Mr. Good was going through his records at the Office 
of Records Management to find any documents about White House political 
coffees?
    Answer. I don't know if it was Mr. Good himself or one of his 
subordinates.
    Question. Somebody in his office?
    Answer. But it's my understanding that Records Management made a 
Herculean effort to go through all the briefing memos and tried to 
identify every single document relating to coffees.
    Question. Did you understand, do they have some kind of database or 
search base in the Office of Records Management for records?
    Answer. It is my understanding that they have such a system. I can 
certainly testify I know absolutely nothing about it.
    Question. Do you know if Mr. Good was ever provided with any types 
of records that he was supposed to look for, the definitions of what 
records would include?
    Answer. I suspect most certainly he received a copy of the 
directive of April 28, I believe the date of it is, that asked for all 
records in any form whatsoever. I am unaware if he had any more focused 
or specific request to search for any other types of documents.
    Question. We are going to get to the April 28 directive in a little 
while here, but aside from that directive, are you familiar with any 
other directive that asked for documents pertaining to the White House 
political coffees? Anyone prior to April 28?
    Answer. Any other directive? No, I'm not aware of any other White 
House-wide directive that would ask for documents relating to White 
House coffees. Again, I can't speak to what went on prior to March 3, 
1997, the date I started. There might have been. I am not aware of any.
    Question. But it is not something you have come across or were 
asked, here is the February directive, could you follow up on it? You 
were never given anything like that on the coffees?
    Answer. That's right.
    Question. So between the time you came on on March 3 and the April 
28 directive, you were not aware of any other directive about the 
coffees to White House-wide staff?
    Answer. I believe that's what I testified to, yes.
    Question. Directing your attention to the second page of the 
subpoena that you have, which is schedule A, the first page, where it 
says ``definitions and instructions,'' did you ever have any 
discussions with your working group, the people you have identified 
here, about the definitions section of the subpoena?
    Answer. No.
    Question. When you were gathering documents and records, did you 
have an understanding of what the universe of the types of records was 
that you were looking for?
    Answer. My understanding was we were searching for all records.
    Question. Does that understanding mean that you had an 
understanding that you were searching for all documents that had been 
filmed or were video- or audiotaped as the definition here on page 1 
includes?
    Answer. Let me answer it in this way.
    I had been in private practice for approximately 3 years, as I 
said, and did a lot of work responding to such, not so much subpoenas 
but other document requests. This was a list of definitions and 
instructions that were, in my mind, somewhat boilerplate, and 
oftentimes, as lawyers, we would read it but not focus on as much as 
when we get to the requested items portion of the subpoena.
    So to answer your question, I certainly read it initially, but did 
not focus on the 40 to 60 types of definitions of records that are 
listed in the subpoena, including punch cards and some of the other 
items.
    But, in fairness, I should say that I certainly knew that any and 
all records would be responsive to the subpoena.
    Question. And you had said, in private practice you did work on 
document production and response to subpoenas; is that correct?
    Answer. I'll answer that yes if you promise not to ask any more 
questions about what I did in private practice. I don't want to betray 
any prior confidences.
    Question. No, I'm not asking you about any of your clients; I'm 
asking more with your familiarity with searching for records and 
complying with subpoenas in general.
    You had done work in complying with subpoenas?
    Answer. I had.
    Question. You understood the legal obligations to respond with 
thorough searches?
    Answer. Absolutely.
    Mr. Lynch. I'm sorry, you just said subpoenas, and earlier Mike had 
said not so much subpoenas as document requests, and I think there's a 
little ambiguity there.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Are you using them interchangeably?
    Answer. I am. I'm using them generically. Certainly I was involved 
in responding to both, document requests typically in the civil 
context, as well as subpoenas including grand jury subpoenas.
    Question. When you were responding to grand jury subpoenas, would 
there often be definitions and instructions on the type of records they 
were seeking?
    Answer. I have not seen a document request or subpoena that did not 
include a paragraph similar to the one appearing in your subpoena.
    Question. So you are familiar with that type of definitions and 
instructions section in the subpoena?
    Answer. That type of boilerplate definitions and instructions 
section, yes.
    Question. Did you ever have any discussions in the counsel's office 
about the types of records generally that you would need to search out 
in the White House, the type of records that would be responsive?
    Answer. Not so much the types of records, but discussions as to 
where such--the location of such records, in other words, what offices 
would likely have responsive records.
    Question. And do you recall what offices those were that you came 
up with that would have responsive records?
    Answer. Well, it would depend on the particular request. For 
instance, a request related to John Huang, you might very likely find 
records in the Office of Public Liaison because of John Huang's 
connection when he was at the Department of Commerce with the working 
group and with various parts of the Office of Public Liaison.
    Records Management is always a good place to look for records 
because they are somewhat the central repository of all records. But, 
again, it was along the nature of evaluating particular requests and 
doing our darnedest best to find out and figure out where such records 
would likely be held.
    Question. And in regards to the coffees, it's your testimony you 
don't recall any particular conversations about trying to figure out, 
other than you have mentioned the Office of Records Management, in 
order to find the President's records and schedules and briefing memos 
on that? Were there other offices that you sought out in particular 
relation to the coffees?
    Answer. I don't think I said that that was the only place we 
looked. That was one place that sprang to mind. I don't have a specific 
recollection of discussing any other particular offices where coffee 
records would have been kept.
    I certainly assumed that such discussions were had, where there 
would be other places. For instance, the Office of Political Affairs, 
sitting here today, is one place I would also want to look for such 
records; and while I have no specific recollection of having a 
discussion along those lines, I can imagine that such a discussion 
could occur.
    Question. That's Mr. Sosnik's office?
    Answer. It had been Mr. Sosnik's office. I don't think he is now.
    Question. At the time of the coffees, that was Mr. Sosnik's office?
    Answer. Again, that's my understanding.
    Mr. Ballen. Can I ask a follow-up question, please?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes.
    Mr. Ballen. Were you the sole person responsible for complying with 
the subpoena?
    The Witness. No, not at all. Our entire team of 5 or 6 lawyers, as 
I testified earlier, were charged with responding to this request as 
well as to numerous other requests.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Do you recall generally any discussions with any 
attendees of the coffees about where records might be?
    Answer. You mean the White House staff members who attended?
    Question. Yes, the White House staff.
    Answer. No, I have not had any such discussions.
    Question. You were aware that White House staff had attended the 
coffees?
    Answer. I suppose I was aware, seeing Doug Sosnik's name appearing 
on many of the briefing papers as did Craig Smith's name appear on many 
of the outreach coffees of political supporters around the country.
    Question. Were you aware of Marsha Scott attending a number of the 
coffees?
    Answer. I suppose I became aware of that at some point later, but 
not at the time period which I believe we're discussing, which was 
sometime in the March-April time period. It became known to me sometime 
in the months thereafter that Marsha Scott did attend a number of the 
coffees.
    Question. And how did you learn of that?
    Answer. I believe I probably learned about it from reviewing 
documents and seeing her name on a lot of the coffees, and also from 
press reports.
    Question. And did you go to Ms. Scott at any time to ask her for 
any responsive records she might have about the White House coffees?
    Answer. I have never met Ms. Scott other than a brief hello, across 
the street at the Senate offices during a deposition where I was 
attending--not her deposition.
    Question. Were you aware of anyone in the counsel's office 
discussing the coffees with her at any time?
    Answer. I am not aware of any such discussion.
    Question. Were you aware of anybody from the counsel's office 
talking to her--when you say you have only met her, does that mean you 
haven't talked to her, either, about anything?
    Answer. I know what she looks like and I've seen her in the halls, 
but I've never had a substantive conversation with her other than a 
brief hello at the Senate during a deposition.
    Question. So that would include any phone calls, when you say you 
haven't met her, you're not meaning that you maybe only talked to her 
on the phone?
    Answer. No. To my knowledge I don't have any recollection of 
talking with her, ever. I'm not saying that I haven't talked to her, 
because we do get phone calls asking for, sometimes, guidance on 
document requests. I don't believe I've ever spoken to her.
    Question. Were you aware of requests in particular for notes that 
Ms. Scott may have taken at White House coffees?
    Answer. I am not aware of any specific request for notes of Ms. 
Scott. I now know that Ms. Scott did take some notes that I have seen 
as we have produced them to you. But if the question is dealing with a 
request for such notes, I have no knowledge of that.
    Question. Were you aware of anyone going to Ms. Scott from the 
counsel's office in particular to ask her about any other records she 
might have regarding the White House political coffees?
    Answer. I am not aware of that. I presume, based on our 
conversation here, that someone probably did, but I was not aware of 
that nor was I the person to do it.
    Question. And I'm just asking if you have any knowledge or have 
ever heard about anybody in the counsel's office going to Ms. Scott 
saying, what can you tell me about responsive documents on the coffees?
    Mr. Ballen. That is in addition to any directives that were sent 
out?
    Ms. Comstock. Right.
    The Witness. I believe I answered the question previously and I 
think I'll stick with that.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Now, were you aware of anyone going to Mr. Sosnik from 
the counsel's office to talk with him about any knowledge he might have 
about any potentially responsive documents about White House political 
coffees?
    Answer. I believe I would say the same answer. I personally did not 
speak with Mr. Sosnik about this topic nor am I aware specifically of 
anyone going to talk with him about this topic, but I certainly cannot 
say whether or not anyone actually did.
    Question. Do you have any general knowledge of somebody in the 
counsel's office or somebody on your team being tasked as sort of to go 
to this group of people who attended coffees to ask them, please make 
sure you've given us all the documents that may have existed?
    Answer. If your question is, did I generally have an understanding 
that this was being done, I suppose the answer is yes. I have no other 
specifics to offer other than my, again, general understanding that it 
was being done.
    Question. Do you have any general understanding of who was doing 
it?
    Answer. It would have been one of the lawyers on our team. Again, I 
don't know who it would have been. It could have been one of--really, 
almost any of those folks. I don't have--I don't want to say--I don't 
want to offer a name when, in fact, it's not that person.
    Question. I understand. It's just your general understanding that 
in order to comply with the subpoena, somebody was going to these 
people who attended coffees to make sure that--have you guys given us 
everything that we need to have on the coffees?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And then directing your attention on the subpoena to item 
16, which reads, ``all records relating to the White House political 
coffees"; and then it goes on, ``and including but not limited to,'' 
and mentions a number of things and information about the coffees.
    This is the April 18, 1997, letter that, as you recounted, your 
office and our office, with the Minority, had discussed at length some 
of the areas that we wanted to have the White House focus its search, 
because at that time the White House had indicated that you wanted to 
have some kind of idea of the priorities, your office did.
    Directing your attention to item 16 in this letter, it is 
identified--I believe, in the beginning of the letter, it says that the 
items that were in bold on this letter were to be considered priority 
items.
    Mr. Lynch. Are we going to mark this letter?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes, this will be Deposition Exhibit No. 3.
    [Imbroscio Deposition Exhibit No. MI-3 was marked for 
identification.]
    Mr. Lynch. I just get worried sometimes if we don't mark them right 
away that we forget to mark them and chaos ensues.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. I think the witness is aware of this, but this is a 
letter that was intended to assist the White House in focusing its 
search on a number of matters that the committee identified as 
priority--not in any way limiting, but just to focus it at this time or 
not to vitiate the subpoena at any time, and we had ongoing discussions 
about those.
    Answer. I would just say, without challenging your characterization 
of what this letter was, that I was not involved in the drafting of it 
or any negotiations. So I cannot affirm what you just said. By my 
silence, I should not----
    Question. And I am just giving you a little background for an 
understanding here, and I understand that you were not involved in 
that, that is correct, and I am not going to ask you questions about 
that negotiation, unless you have any understanding on some of the 
particular topics that we are discussing about whatever your 
understanding was on your end about those negotiations.
    Answer. Thank you.
    Mr. Ballen. For the record, excuse me, Counsel, I must disagree 
with your characterization of the letter, because I believe it does 
limit things on the term. So I have a different understanding, but that 
is not what this witness is here to answer today.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. On page 2 of the letter, right before it goes into 
listing the items, it reads, ``You have committed to provide requests 
numbered 1 through 8 by Monday, April 21, and we request all other 
priority items as indicated in boldface by Monday, April 28, 1997.'' At 
that time we were also requesting completion date for production which 
we did not have.
    But then I want to direct your attention to page 3 where request 
16, which pertained to the coffees, was in boldface as one of these 
items that was a priority item and that was going to be complied with--
was requested to be complied with by April 28.
    With that background, did you have an understanding of the coffee 
items as being a priority item to track down those documents?
    Answer. I suppose generally I did have an understanding that 
documents relating to the coffees were a priority both for this 
committee as well as other investigative bodies, and in fact, I believe 
we did our level best to get those documents to the committee as 
quickly as humanly possible. I believe we delivered a large batch of 
documents relating to the coffees sometime in the middle of May.
    Question. Could you just then go through from--we made this Exhibit 
3--leading up to the directive of April 28, any knowledge you have 
about how that was produced and what led up to that directive.
    Mr. Lynch. The April 28 directive?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes.
    We will make that Exhibit 4.
    [Imbroscio Deposition Exhibit No. MI-4 was marked for 
identification.]
    The Witness. We are taking off the cover sheet as part of the 
record?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Could you walk us through whatever knowledge you have of 
trying to get the coffee documents and leading up to the directive?
    Answer. Could you rephrase the question?
    Question. Maybe what we should do is clarify.
    Did you see this April 18, 1997, letter which prioritized some of 
the subpoenaed items from the March 4, 1997 subpoena?
    Answer. I most certainly did see it.
    Question. What did you do? What were you asked to do in dealing 
with this letter?
    Answer. I think how I should answer is as follows:
    There was a very dynamic process both in negotiations with your 
committee as well as receiving our first request from the Senate 
committee in the month of April as well as receiving requests from 
other investigative bodies during this time period. And I believe the 
April 28 directive really was the culmination of our efforts to 
condense and provide a single document that would be designed to ask 
for all documents responsive to both this committee's request as well 
as other requests we had received.
    The reason really is quite simple. The risk of not receiving all 
responsive documents greatly increases the greater number of these 
documents you send out because we have a very hard-working White House 
staff that does a lot of other things besides respond to document 
requests; and the risk of it not being read and complied with greatly 
increases if you send one of these out every other day.
    So this was really our effort to put in one document all the 
requests that required a White House-wide search into one document.
    Question. Do you know who wrote this memo, the April 28 directive?
    Answer. I think it was a collaboration. I certainly had some 
involvement in it, but it was a culmination of many people's efforts, 
including myself.
    Question. This directive was--do you know who else was involved in 
working on this?
    Answer. I think probably most everyone on our team was involved. It 
required really to examine quite closely the state of the requests, as 
we had received them, which included the April 18 letter from this 
committee and the other requests, which I won't go into, from other 
investigative bodies.
    Many of the requests were greatly overlapping, as I'm sure you can 
guess, and this was really an effort to put in one document, as I said, 
and summarize all of the requests we had received that required a White 
House-wide search.
    As you're aware, it contains five sort of textual requests with 
many other subparts, as well as a list of names on attachment A, of 
individuals and entities somewhere in the neighborhood of over a 
hundred of such names and entities.
    Question. Was this directive then in response--in part, then, to 
the April 18 letter that you received from this committee?
    Answer. In part from the request from this committee, as well as 
requests from the Senate and other investigative bodies, yes.
    Question. And when had the Senate request been received?
    Answer. I can't give you an exact date. Sometime contemporaneous--
sometime in the middle of April, I believe. I don't know the exact 
date. I'm sure it's a matter of record.
    Question. Then you were also receiving Justice Department requests; 
is that correct?
    Answer. Yes, if you don't ask me any more questions. Yes.
    Question. I'm trying to understand. This directive then is 
combining a number of requests from all three areas to collect 
documents from people; was that the purpose of it?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And so our March 4 subpoena, as prioritized in the April 
18 letter, there was an attempt to include our request in this April 28 
letter?
    Answer. That's correct. A request for documents--a request that 
would require a White House-wide search; that's right.
    Question. I'm using the word ``request.'' It was--our March 4 
subpoena was a subpoena; the April 18 letter was prioritizing that 
subpoena. The Senate at that time was only sending you letter requests; 
isn't that correct?
    Answer. Yes, that is correct.
    Question. And the Senate did not send subpoenas until sometime in 
the summer, in July or so; isn't that correct?
    Answer. I believe they have issued one subpoena that was dated on 
July 31 that was received on August 1 by the White House.
    Question. I won't go into the content of the Justice requests, but 
were those by subpoena or request, if you can just answer that?
    Mr. Lynch. I think that gets into a very sticky area, because of, 
as you well know, the secrecy surrounding the Justice Department's 
investigative processes. I think we better not go into that at all.
    Question. Let's resolve that elsewhere. I think obviously at this 
point we did have a subpoena outstanding. The Senate requests were not 
by subpoena. That's correct, right? We have established that?
    Answer. That is correct. But as I said, whether it be by subpoena 
or letter request, no request received from any investigative body ever 
had second class status.
    Question. This was a letter to this committee on--I'll skip that.
    Answer. Are we at a good breaking point?
    Ms. Comstock. Yes. Why don't we take a break.
    [Recess.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Let me go back on the record. I think we were discussing 
the April 28, 1997, directive from Chuck Ruff to Executive Office of 
the President, and the subject was document request.
    On the bottom of this directive, it says that all documents must be 
provided by noon on Wednesday, May 7, to yourself, Michael Imbroscio or 
Dimitri Nionakis, OEOB room 125?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Is that where the documents were actually kept, or is 
that Mr. Breuer's office?
    Answer. Let me not answer that question but hopefully get to the 
information you want. 125 is Mr. Breuer's office. There are several 
offices right together. You go in the same door. At that point Mr. 
Nionakis had an office there as well, and that's where Mr. Smith sat.
    The reason that we had--I was across the hall at this time period. 
This was before I moved upstairs.
    The reason we had 125 is because Mr. Smith was typically at his 
desk while Mr. Nionakis and I were often not at our desks, and they 
were designed that he would be the person to--who would be there most 
likely to receive the documents.
    So the answer of where they were kept, they were kept there, I 
think, initially as almost a way station, but our production typically 
had been run out of the workroom on the fourth floor.
    Question. How did the documents come into room 125?
    Answer. In a variety of ways. Sometimes people would walk copies of 
the documents over. Sometimes they would be sent by messenger.
    Question. Would they be identified with sort of a transmittal memo?
    Answer. Unfortunately, not often. Usually they would come in an 
envelope sometimes with a Post-it note saying who they were from or 
where they were from.
    Question. Did they come in brown paper bags with no identification, 
or did people come in and say, these are Mack McLarty's documents and 
I'm responding for Mr. McLarty and all the various people in his 
office?
    Answer. Again, there was no set pattern. It would depend on the 
particular person, the particular responder. Most typically, we would 
receive not so much a brown paper bag but a brown envelope that would 
contain the documents as well as either a note on the envelope or--
informing the person receiving the documents where they were from.
    Question. So generally it would include where the documents were 
from?
    Answer. Generally, there would be some communication to the 
recipient, in this case it was many times Brian, of the source of the 
documents, yes. At least generally the office whereby the documents 
came from. Usually, we would get documents from a particular office as 
opposed to Joe or Sally or Mary.
    Question. Was there a process whereby they were checked in by Mr. 
Smith?
    Answer. I don't think they were formally checked in. They were 
placed into, as I recall a box, receiving box that would periodically 
be taken upstairs as they came in.
    Question. And who would take them upstairs?
    Answer. No one in particular. Perhaps Dimitri, perhaps myself, 
perhaps another lawyer working on the team.
    Question. And when you would get, say, documents that had been--if 
they were in the box and these are documents from John's office or 
Sally's office, would you then keep those documents together, how they 
had been received?
    Answer. Yes, typically.
    Question. Did you have a process--what is the process whereby you 
reviewed them?
    Answer. Well, typically we would receive a document from a 
particular entity or office in the White House. The lawyers would 
review them. Oftentimes people would send--would be overly inclusive in 
the documents they sent and would send us documents that were, in fact, 
not responsive. Lawyers would make a first cut for responsiveness, and 
then they would go into the production cycle.
    Question. And could you describe that cycle?
    Answer. Typically the way it happens is that the documents will be 
stickered or stamped, numbered, and then they will be copied, the 
requisite number of copies. If documents contain dates of birth, Social 
Security numbers, we try not to provide those. We haven't been perfect, 
but out of interest to people's privacy, we have tried to keep those 
out.
    And so that step, the redaction step of the birth dates, Social 
Security numbers, and sometimes other occasional private information, 
that would be done, and then the copies would be made, and they would 
be put together and produced.
    Question. You said sometimes people would provide things that were 
overly responsive?
    Answer. I wouldn't say overly responsive, I would say not 
responsive.
    Question. Would it be a case where, sort of in the abundance of 
caution, someone gave you a document and then you would determine 
whether or not they needed to turn it over?
    Answer. That happened occasionally, yes.
    Question. Would the first attorney who looked through them, would 
they be the sole person who would sort of weed out nonresponsive 
documents?
    Answer. I suppose on the ones that were very clear-cut, the 
attorney would have responsibility to do that weed-out. I suppose on 
close calls, sometimes there was a collaboration among lawyers: ``Do 
you think this document is responsive?'' It was a very dynamic process 
as you might suspect.
    Question. Other than yourself going through documents, who else 
looked through these documents and made this cut through what was 
responsive?
    Answer. I think it's safe to say that all the lawyers at various 
points would assume that role. Because of the vast number of documents 
that our office was charged with gathering, reviewing, and producing, 
it could not be one single person who did that.
    Question. Did it ever break down into particular areas where 
somebody would be doing documents: I'll look through all the documents 
pertaining to X subject and--because you had more familiarity with 
that, whereas somebody else might say the NSC documents and what was 
responsive on NSC documents? Would somebody within your office be the 
person who would usually look through NSC documents?
    Answer. I think the question you asked initially was different from 
the question you asked me at the end. Did a particular person review 
documents from a particular source? Yes. Typically that is the way it 
would work. Documents from that source may be responsive to six or 
seven different topics.
    But your question whether anyone reviewed all the coffee documents 
or all the John Huang documents or all the Joe and Sally Smith 
documents, that typically was not done, because it was not feasible to 
do it that way. When a particular office provides documents, it usually 
includes documents pertaining to a number of different topics.
    Question. So it was more broken down into offices that were 
responding?
    Answer. It would be broken down into offices, groups of documents, 
exactly.
    Question. Did there come a time, then, that you became tasked with 
dealing with the White House Communications Office, dealing with that 
office in particular?
    Answer. No, there was never a time where I became tasked for 
searching for documents, for searching for materials, in the White 
House Communications Office. I can get into the story as to how all 
that unfolded, but it was not in the normal course of receiving 
materials from the office that had been responsive to the directives.
    Question. Was there someone in your office that was one of the 
offices that was to keep track of making sure they got all their 
documents in?
    Answer. There was no one particularly responsible. We received 
documents from the White House Military Office, which is the body 
overseeing WHCA as well as, I believe, a number of other units. Those 
documents came in, they were reviewed, and responsive documents were 
provided.
    Question. What offices, if any, were you responsible for?
    Answer. Again, there was no set pattern or no set plan at the 
outset that I would be--if any document came in from a particular 
office, I would be the person responsible. It typically was a function 
of what documents had come in during a given time period and what 
lawyer was ready to start reviewing more documents.
    Question. Maybe if we could continue going through the process, you 
described where you made the cut through the documents and then you 
mark them and stamp them and all. Was there then--did it go up through 
your superiors as to what documents were going to be turned over?
    Answer. Typically, because we were dealing in such large volumes, 
we would get together a set, sometimes referred to affectionately as 
the working set. That would be the set of documents that would be 
produced in the next day or so. That set would be reviewed by other 
lawyers in the office as well as--other lawyers in the office who might 
not have had a particularly key role in putting those documents 
together.
    Question. Could you describe that process of looking through the 
working set?
    Answer. It was sort of generally available. And if people wanted to 
come look through it, they could.
    Question. Who would be able to look through it?
    Answer. Anyone in our office could look through it. Attorneys 
typically looked through it, because apart from responding to requests 
which, again, is my primary job, we also had an obligation to try to 
learn the records as best as possible, which I'm sure you can imagine, 
so it was not uncommon for the lawyers in the office to review 
documents that were going out.
    Question. And would Mr. Breuer be the person who did the final 
review of the documents?
    Answer. There really was no final review of the documents in the 
sense I think you're getting at. The documents as they were stamped to 
be produced, that's a manner they were produced. Certainly Lanny, Mr. 
Breuer, did want to have an understanding of what documents were being 
produced, and in fact we would try to bring to his attention documents 
he might be particularly interested in seeing.
    Question. And how did you do that?
    Answer. No set way. Either perhaps show him copies of some 
documents in his office or sometimes he would come, I believe, to room 
400 and sort of get a feel for which documents were going out and page 
through them.
    Question. Were these documents that might get particular attention 
that you were bringing to his attention?
    Answer. Generally, yes. I mean, the documents that would most 
likely be leaked to the press in short order after they were produced, 
so that he would be prepared, and I use the word ``leak,'' I don't mean 
to be pejorative, that would soon become the focus of public scrutiny, 
and so he would be prepared to handle that aspect of responding to 
press inquiries.
    Question. And was Mr. Lanny Davis also included in these--in 
informing him of these documents?
    Answer. Mr. Davis really had little, if any, role in reviewing 
documents before they went out.
    Certainly it was part of our job to let Lanny know what the 
particularly sensitive documents might be so that he would be in a 
position, once he started to get press inquiries, he would at least 
have some familiarity with it. But, again, that was very much after the 
fact, and he had--I think I can say safely, he had no role in the 
gathering, reviewing, or producing of documents.
    Question. But these documents, these particular documents you 
brought to the attention of Mr. Breuer, to your knowledge, were they 
also brought to the attention of Mr. Davis?
    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.
    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:

    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''?
    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?"
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    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.
    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.
    [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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    [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.
    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.

                      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 10,230 pages of documents, including over 5,230 
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----
    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.
    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----
    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?
    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?
    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.
    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?
    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?
    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.
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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----
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    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?
    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?
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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----
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Question. Now, you didn't go back in the database at all during 
this time?
    Answer. Not at that time, no.
    Question. Did you ever consider talking to somebody else in the 
office to come and assist you; you were doing this all alone at this 
time?
    Answer. Yes. At this point people had generally left, the holiday 
had started on, so Mr. Breuer was gone, and I spent approximately 2 
hours or so down reviewing the tapes that they had pulled back.
    Question. There was nobody else in the counsel's office after 5:30?
    Answer. Well, Mr. Breuer was gone. He had been the principal person 
that I had been working with and that I had informed already. I don't 
recall checking whether Mr. Ruff was still in the office that evening 
or not. He might have been. He might not have been. But I did not check 
to see if he was there at that time. What I did is I took the tape and 
I left. When I had gotten back to my desk, I believe Mr. Bucklin had 
left a phone mail message raising several topics, one of which was 
following up on his message earlier, what the status was of finding the 
logs. I returned his call Wednesday sometime between 7:30 and 8, I 
would imagine. Did not reach him but left him a message that we needed 
to talk and that I wanted to give him a status report of what I had 
found so far. I had intended to let Mr. Bucklin know essentially what I 
had let Mr. Breuer know, which was that contrary to what I had 
understood before, there were at least two coffees that they had at 
least snippet videotape of. By this point I had seen the coffees and 
that they were, as you at this point realize, they were opening 
snippets. I did not reach Mr. Bucklin but left him a message that where 
he needed to talk and that I wanted to give him a status report. The 
next morning, I proceeded back down to the video unit of the White 
House Communications Agency.
    Question. On Wednesday afternoon, no one aside from yourself and 
Mr. Breuer were aware of the tapes?
    Answer. Certainly Mr. Breuer was the only one that I informed about 
the existence of these tapes. I don't know--I don't recall if there was 
anyone else in his office when I went in. There might have been, but I 
simply don't recall.
    Question. Including Captain McGrath in that?
    Answer. Certainly Chief McGrath.
    Question. I'm talking about in your office. That is our 
understanding.
    Answer. Fair enough. That is precisely accurate.
    The next morning I returned to the WHCA video unit and set out to 
carry out Mr. Breuer's instructions, which was to find out what 
additional coffees and other events that the WHCA database held. I sat 
down with Chief McGrath and I recall one of the technicians, whose name 
I don't know, and sat down in the database and began asking questions 
apart from the date, what other ways can we search the database. I 
thereafter, after some discussions, tried to search for the word 
``coffee'' in what is the, I believe the event field or the description 
field of the database and after searching that got a hit for, I got 49 
hits. Paged through the hits on the database, discovered that a good 
deal were actually not the coffees as you and I speak. One or two, 
maybe more were coffees with President Bush and some foreign leader. 
There was a tea and coffee with someone, but that there were 
approximately somewhere, from my rough estimate, somewhere between 30 
and 40 of the political coffees that occurred in 1995 and 1996 in the 
Map Room. I had at that point endeavored to print out the screens of 
those hits that contained the coffees, and either while the screens 
were printing out or immediately afterwards, set about to search for 
some other terms as well. I believe I searched for the word ``DNC.'' I 
believe I searched for the word ``Democratic National,'' and finally I 
believe I searched the word ``fund-raiser.'' Each of those searches 
came up with multiple hits. I don't recall the precise numbers of hits 
that each one of those responded to, but certainly there would be some 
overlap because an event that was a DNC fund-raiser would have been a 
hit for both DNC and for fund-raiser.
    At this point I took the tape that I had made the night before as 
well as the coffee hits and proceeded for Mr. Ruff's office. This was 
some time, as I best recall, after lunch, probably between 1 and 3 p.m. 
I don't recall the exact time but that's a ballpark figure, and let Mr. 
Ruff know, and this was the first conversation I've had with Mr. Ruff 
on this, that contrary to what I had understood before, at least 
apparently the snippets of the opening moments of somewhere between 30 
and 40 of the coffees were on videotape, and proceeded to show Mr. Ruff 
some of the excerpts of the tape that I had made, that the WHCA 
professionals had made for me the night before, which included the 
opening snippets of, I believe, 4 coffees. Because on the tape that 
contained the April 1 coffee and the tape that contained the June 18 
coffee, each contained an additional coffee of that week. And because 
these are week of tapes, they would end up getting 4 coffees on video. 
Mr. Ruff was concerned and instructed me to----
    Question. What did he say?
    Answer. I don't recall any specific words that Mr. Ruff used. 
Clearly----
    Question. You went up to his office and he was there?
    Answer. He was there.
    Question. And you asked to see him?
    Answer. Yes, that's right.
    Question. You just sort of have walk-in rights at the office or 
sort of check with his secretary, knock and see if he's available?
    Answer. It depends. Chuck prides himself on having an open door 
policy. Oftentimes he is in meetings and one cannot barge in when he is 
in a meeting. My recollection is he was not in a meeting and that I was 
able to go in either immediately or after a few moments into his office 
and let him know.
    Question. And he was alone in his office?
    Answer. He was. It was just the two of us.
    Question. So when you told him, it was just the two of you?
    Answer. That's precisely right. He was concerned and instructed 
me----
    Question. Do you have any general recollection of what he said to 
you about it?
    Answer. Mr. Ruff is a man of few words, and I believe he expressed 
his concern to me about this issue without using too many words.
    Question. Was he upset?
    Answer. I think concerned is really the emotion that I perceived. 
He instructed me to do everything I could to find out how many of these 
coffees were there, to get them duplicated, copied and produced as 
quickly as possible. I also informed him that I had a pending message 
from Mr. Bucklin in response to the message I left him the night 
before, you recall I said, saying that we needed to talk and that I 
wanted to give him a status report, and Mr. Ruff instructed me to 
call--to let Mr. Bucklin know what I had found at that point.
    Question. To tell him that you had found these videotapes?
    Answer. That at this point I wasn't sure what we had, but I had 
found at least 30 to 40 coffees apparently there's some videotape of, 
the opening snippets of. That's exactly right. So I left Mr. Ruff's 
office, proceeded to do several things, the exact order of which I'm 
not clear. But what I did is draw up--I went through the printout 
screens more carefully that they had printed out for me as I had gone 
through the database to develop a comprehensive list of what the 
political coffees were. I believe I used as a crosscheck the listing 
that we have produced to you, which was the listing that went to the 
press, the 3-page listing in chart form of the various coffees. And I 
had provided that list to Mr. McGrath and let him know certainly what 
needed to happen. And what needed to happen was he needed to get these 
tapes pulled back and we needed to set up a procedure whereby they 
could be reviewed, copied and made numerous copies of to produce.
    Question. And who set up that procedure?
    Answer. Mr. McGrath did. I gave him the list of tapes to be brought 
back. He arranged to have them brought back the next morning.
    Question. So at your direction, Mr. McGrath ordered particular 
tapes from the national archives? When you say pulled back from the 
archives, you mean he's to go and request from the archives that they 
deliver particular tapes to his office?
    Answer. That's more articulate but the same essence of what I have 
said.
    Question. So then he could spend--was he to review them, Mr. 
McGrath?
    Answer. No, I instructed him to pull them back so I could review 
them and identify the responsive items from those tapes and have them 
copied and produced as quickly as possible.
    Question. And who determined that you were going to be the person 
to review them?
    Answer. I don't know if there was an overt decision instructing--I 
mean that I was going to be the one. I was clearly the one involved in 
this from the beginning and Mr. Ruff instructed me to do everything 
within my power to have these reviewed, copied and produced as quickly 
as possible.
    Question. Did he suggest that you have anybody join you in working 
on this from the counsel's office?
    Answer. Yes. And I'll get into that in one second, just because 
that was the next morning. Apart from letting Mr. McGrath know that the 
list of tapes that we needed to be brought back, we also had--I also 
returned Mr. Bucklin's call sometime around 4:30 or so, let him know 
that contrary to what I had understood before and explained to him, 
there were at least snippets of somewhere between 30 and 40 coffees on 
video and that we were going to get them pulled back, reviewed and 
produced as quickly as possible. Mr. Bucklin explained to me that his 
committee's desire is to have copies of all of them, and I said that 
that's understandable and that I would be discussing it tomorrow with 
Mr. Breuer, who was not in the office at the time, that we would do 
everything we could to get them produced as quickly as possible.
    Question. So you spoke with Mr. Bucklin on Thursday afternoon, 
then?
    Answer. I did, yes. Sometime I think approximately 4:30 or so.
    Question. After that discussion you had with Mr. Ruff, you said it 
was after lunch, were you aware of him going over to the Attorney 
General's office and meeting with the Attorney General that day?
    Answer. I was not aware of it at the time. I have become aware of 
it now because of press reports, but I had no idea Mr. Ruff had a 
prescheduled meeting with the Attorney General at that time.
    Question. Did you have any discussion with him about these tapes or 
records being responsive to any Justice Department subpoenas or 
requests?
    Answer. Not in so many words. We certainly knew they were 
responsive to all the investigative bodies, including this committee, 
the Senate and the Justice Department, and Mr. Ruff's instruction to me 
was get them copied and produced to all 3 of the bodies.
    Question. So when you had that discussion on Thursday, his response 
was to get them to all--get them to the Justice Department, the House 
and the Senate?
    Answer. He did not delineate the 3 investigative bodies. He 
instructed me to get them produced as quickly as possible. I guess you 
could say it was understood that by getting them produced, it was 
getting them produced to all 3 investigative bodies.
    Question. Did he instruct you to call anybody at the Justice 
Department to inform them?
    Answer. He did not. He instructed me to undertake the process of 
searching, identifying and copying and producing the documents, or the 
videos. And he instructed me to, after I told him about Mr. Bucklin's 
pending call, of course to return his call and to give him a status 
report.
    Question. So on Thursday----
    Answer. Thursday, now we're sort of in the early evening on 
Thursday. At some point----
    Question. This is Thursday, October 2?
    Answer. That's precisely correct. Sometime after I spoke to Mr. 
Bucklin, I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Breuer. Mr. Breuer was 
in his car returning from religious services, I believe in Baltimore. I 
did not call him. I suspect he was calling in to the office to check 
the status of various things and had been patched into me. I don't 
recall if I told his assistant Mr. Smith that it was imperative that I 
spoke to Mr. Breuer. I believe that I did. And thus Lanny was patched 
in to me for that reason.
    Question. So he was returning a message you had left?
    Answer. That's my best recollection, yes. I then went about to 
explain to Lanny what I had already explained to Mr. Ruff and to Mr. 
Bucklin, which was contrary to what we had previously understood, there 
were videos of at least between 30 and 40 coffees, and that I was 
going--was in the process of trying to identify the universe of 
coffees, get them returned from the archives, reviewed, copied and 
produced.
    Question. And what did he say?
    Answer. He said similar much to what Mr. Ruff said, which was do 
everything I could to make it happen as quickly as possible.
    Question. And what did you do?
    Answer. Then I went back and I think it was at this point that I 
gave Mr. McGrath the list that I had checked and double checked 
carefully to make sure that I had all the events crosschecked against 
the master list and given him the list of coffees. I recall that it was 
after the 5 o'clock archive deadline, because I recall that they did 
not--they did not get pulled back until the next morning. I believe the 
rest of the evening I was working on a document production that we made 
on October 3, which I believe included a bunch of E-mails.
    Question. The October 3 production to this committee?
    Answer. Yes. As well as to--there was a mirror production to other 
committees.
    Question. And in producing that, was there ever any discussion 
about informing--this is October 3, a letter from you to myself 
delivering documents. Was there ever any discussion of informing the 
committee of these points since you were summing up this letter, about 
these events?
    Answer. Again, there was no specific discussion of informing the 
committee via letter, in this production letter. This is a fairly 
routine letter that sometimes gets drafted in conjunction with the 
document production and thus this letter might have been drafted prior 
to the documents--the advent of the video issue. But to answer your 
question, no, there was no specific--there was no specific discussion 
of informing this committee via letter during the document production.
                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:
    Question. Now, you had informed Mr. Bucklin on Thursday. Was there 
any discussion throughout the rest of Thursday and Friday of discussing 
this with the Justice Department or this committee; just informing them 
that documents that were long past due and responsive to our subpoenas 
had been located?
    Answer. I will get into this in more detail. My role on Friday was 
a technical one, which was trying to identify the universe of videos, 
getting them produced and copied. I spent literally the entire day on 
Friday doing that task.
    I was not involved in any discussions as to the notification and 
timing of such notification to this committee, the Senate and the 
Justice Department.
    Question. Now, Thursday, you said--I guess these offices all sort 
of shut up at 5:00. The archives close down at 5:00, and the WHCA 
office you had kept there until 7:30 or 8:00, so they--on Thursday, how 
late did you stay working with them on Thursday?
    Answer. I had kept them late on Wednesday, which was the night that 
I had reviewed the videos. On Thursday, I recall, did not spend much of 
the evening down there because I had given them the list of videos that 
needed to be retrieved from the archives, and they had agreed to set in 
motion a procedure whereby I could review the tapes the next morning 
and have them systematically copied onto a tape to be produced to the 
various investigative bodies.
    And I believe I spent most of Thursday evening, as I think I 
testified, finalizing the document production that went out on October 
3rd.
    Ms. Comstock. This is the October 3rd letter, and we will make that 
Deposition Exhibit Number 7.
    [Imbroscio Deposition Exhibit No. MI-7 was marked for 
identification.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Friday morning, then, is when the rest of these tapes 
were gotten from the archives?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. As you just described, and they are copying them?
    Answer. If I can, I will give you the full story. Sure. Friday 
morning I got a message from, I believe, Chief McGrath confirming that, 
as he had promised at 0900 or 0800, or some military time, tapes had 
been brought back and were ready for me to go through the process of 
reviewing and having them copied.
    Friday morning we had a staff meeting with Mr. Ruff in which I 
briefed the rest of the Counsel's Office as to my findings over the 
previous 2 days.
    Question. And who was at that meeting?
    Answer. It was a meeting of all of the folks on the investigative 
team, so that would be Mr. Ruff, Mr. Breuer, Mr. Nionakis, I believe 
was there. Essentially, it was all--I don't know. I don't want my 
testimony today to establish the fact that some people were there. I 
recall Ms. Mills being there. It could have been that one or two of the 
attorneys from my office was not there, but it was generally a meeting 
of the attorneys in my office.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. At that meeting I had informed them of the nature of my 
discovery.
    Question. And what was their response, the folks that were there?
    Answer. There was a response of concern and of wanting to do 
everything we could to identify the universe and get them produced as 
quickly as possible. So at the conclusion of that meeting, I was tasked 
to go and start the reviewing and copying process at WHCA.
    Question. Were any of the videotapes reviewed in that meeting?
    Answer. I had at the meeting a sample tape I had shown Mr. Ruff 
earlier that we had made Wednesday night, October 1st, and I recall 
playing some, but perhaps not all, of that sample videotape.
    Question. With the staff there?
    Answer. With the staff present, yes.
    Question. And were there any comments about the tapes?
    Answer. I don't recall any specific words uttered, but there was a 
discussion as to the significance of this discovery.
    Question. Being what?
    Answer. Well, that this was, in fact, a significant discovery and a 
fact we were not previously aware of, and that we had to do everything 
we could to get these--to identify the universe, make sure we had the 
entire universe, get them copied and produced as quickly as possible.
    Question. Did anyone discuss about informing the President about 
the tapes?
    Answer. No, not that I can recall at that meeting.
    Question. Are you aware of anybody informing the President about 
the tapes?
    Answer. The President--I had no firsthand knowledge of that. I have 
read press accounts of when the President said he was notified, but 
that exhausts my knowledge as to the notification issue to the 
President.
    Question. Were you aware of Ms. Mills being tasked to discuss this 
with the President?
    Answer. It's my understanding, from the press, that she was the one 
who spoke with the President. I have no firsthand knowledge if that 
was, in fact, the case.
    Question. So other than----
    Answer. Even to this day.
    Question. So other than press accounts, you have not discussed that 
with anybody, or you did not hear that from anybody in your office?
    Answer. That's correct. And again, just so it is clear, the first 
time that I communicated this to lawyers besides Mr. Breuer and Mr. 
Ruff was at that Friday meeting.
    Question. Did people ask you about what was on the other tapes?
    Answer. No, at this point I had not seen any of the tapes that was 
not on the sample tape. I let them know we were in the process of 
pulling back what we believed to be the universe of coffees and that we 
would get them copied and produced as quickly as possible.
    Question. Did they ask you about the types of events that were 
videotaped?
    Answer. I don't recall any discussion of any events other than the 
coffees. Certainly on the tape there were noncoffee--there was at least 
one or two noncoffee events, but again, that was not all that 
surprising.
    We sort of had a general understanding that the President's remarks 
at such events were on tape, and that had been communicated to the 
Senate on September 9th. So coffees--to answer your question, coffees 
was the essential focus because that was really the new fact we had not 
known prior to that time.
    Question. Did anybody say anything about or ask how these had been 
found or why they had not been found before?
    Answer. I don't recall there being a detailed question and answer 
as to the procedure by which I discovered these, as I just explained to 
you. I believe it was simply related to them that I had just discovered 
these had existed, without a detailed description as to the precise 
nature of that discovery.
    Question. Was this a surprise to everybody, then, that these had 
been obtained? Was that your impression?
    Answer. It was a surprise to everyone in the room, yes.
    Question. As a result of learning about these various coffee tapes, 
was there any attempt to go to some of the people that had actually 
attended them to ask them about any other records that they knew about 
with regard to the coffees?
    Answer. Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge. Again, during 
this time period, my primary role was, technically, to review the tapes 
and get them copied and produced.
    Question. I understand you were tied up with that. Did anyone 
raise, well, maybe somebody else should go return back and find out do 
we have everything on these or other events, and either should go back 
and revisit some of the people who may know more about these events?
    Answer. I understand your question, and not that I'm aware of.
    Question. So there was no discussion in that meeting?
    Answer. No, not that I can recall.
    Question. And you're not aware of any efforts in the Counsel's 
Office to revisit with any of the people who attended these events any 
other records they may have?
    Answer. I am not aware.
    Question. Why don't you continue with the Friday.
    Answer. So after that meeting on Friday morning, it probably broke 
up sometime between 9:45 and 10:00, I proceeded up to the fifth floor 
master control room, WHCA master control room, which was the location 
whereby Mr. McGrath had arranged for me to review and have the tapes 
copied. They had the tapes there, and I set about to review them and 
identifying for the professional staff there what portions of the tapes 
needed to be duplicated.
    Again, as I testified earlier, these tapes contained numerous 
snippets on any given tape of events like the President goes to church, 
the President lands, the President takes off. And my role was to review 
the tapes, identify what, if any, responsive coffee portions existed, 
and to have those entire portions copied onto a single tape.
    Question. So you were the sole person that was in charge of editing 
how the tapes would be edited for production to Congress?
    Answer. I think that asks two questions. The first question, was I 
the sole person involved, the answer is no.
    Question. Subjectively. Like, I understand there might be technical 
people who are going to tape. But were you the person making the 
judgment call on what should be taped and edited?
    Answer. I was there, along with another lawyer in my office, Karl 
Racine, and the two of us together reviewed the coffees, reviewed the 
tapes, and identified the responsive portions of those tapes.
    Again, these were not particularly close calls. They were tapes of 
events that appear on a master list that we released to the press and 
to the committee, and, thus, it became quite easy for us to identify 
what, in fact, were the responsive portions of the tapes.
    And there was no--just so we are clear and so the record is clear, 
the tape that you received contained every portion of the coffees as 
they had been recorded. There is no portion of any particular coffee 
that you did not receive because of any editorial decision or decision 
not to provide that. If I am clear.
    Question. So that would have been, whatever we have, say, on the 
February 6 coffee is everything that was taped that morning; that when 
it cuts off, that is when the camera crew was cut off?
    Answer. That is precisely right.
    Question. And when it begins is when the camera crew begins?
    Answer. That's precisely right. Just so it is clear. There is 
nothing on those tapes that you did not get. You have everything that 
was on the original tapes.
    Question. And is that true also for not just the coffee tapes, but 
then the other fund-raising events and items that we received this 
week?
    Answer. I am not in a position to answer that. I would presume that 
to be the case, but I have not been directly involved in this ongoing 
process. But certainly that would be the instructions given to the WHCA 
professionals.
    Question. So you were only involved in reviewing the coffee tapes, 
then?
    Answer. That's right. I have described my role in this.
    Question. And why don't I get this clear for the record. In this 
meeting that you had Friday morning, was Mr. Racine then tasked to 
assist you in reviewing the tapes?
    Answer. That's right, yes.
    Question. And who asked him to do that?
    Answer. I actually don't know because I had left the meeting 
momentarily, for what reason I don't recall, but I recall when the 
meeting broke up, I was informed that--I think Karl told me he had been 
asked to help me out on this project. So I don't know who tasked him to 
do it.
    Question. And then the two of you went back down there and started 
going through the tapes, then?
    Answer. We actually went back up there, because at this point we 
had been told to go up to the fifth floor, and we set about to review 
the tapes in chronological order and have them copied and put onto a 
master tape that could thereafter be dubbed and copied.
    That process took some time. I recall approximately 1:15 or so we 
were not done, we were still sometime in the month of April, we broke 
for lunch and I took care of a few matters, including finalizing this 
document production, and returned sometime in the neighborhood of 2:30, 
and we wrapped up the reviewing process sometime around 4:00.
    There was a natural time lag in getting the tapes that we had 
reviewed copied onto a master tape. And as I understand the process, 
and my understanding is not strong, that once they had this master 
tape, they would then--they were in a position to record VHS copies of 
the tapes that were thereafter produced.
    The first tapes were not available until early Friday evening, as I 
understand it.
    Question. And how many tapes were then produced at that time? At 
that point there was just one tape? However many coffees there were 
were on one tape at that point?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And you say that was completed at that time?
    Answer. That's correct. I'm on somewhat weak ground because I don't 
know the technicalities of it; left that to the WHCA professionals. All 
that I'm aware of is that we had finished our reviewing process 
sometime in the neighborhood of 4 o'clock and that the first tapes 
weren't available for review until sometime in the early evening. I 
don't recall the exact time.
    Question. And did someone give them to you early Friday evening?
    Answer. Yes. I mean, I recall receiving the tapes from the 
technical staff; receiving the first tapes from the technical staff on 
the fifth floor at WHCA.
    Question. How many had you asked them to make?
    Answer. I don't recall giving them a precise number; how many to 
make. I believe they have the ability to make several at one time, four 
at a time, once they have the master completed. And I asked them to 
basically produce, to start making copies of it.
    The problem is there is a real-time problem in that they cannot 
make them any faster than it takes to play through it all. So you 
cannot do any high-speed dubbing.
    Question. And do you recall how many copies you got that Friday 
evening?
    Answer. No, I don't recall how many I got. It would have been--I 
don't recall. We had multiple copies, but I don't recall how many.
    Question. And who delivered to it you, somebody from the office, 
WHCA office?
    Answer. I don't recall whether they were delivered to me or whether 
I went back up to that room and picked them up. But I recall having 
them in my possession sometime during the early evening of Friday.
    Question. And what did you do with them?
    Answer. I believe--I don't recall. At this point there were several 
discussions about what was on the tapes, and I probably provided a--I 
don't recall. I don't recall what I did with them.
    [Witness confers with counsel.]
    The Witness. I just don't recall.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Did anybody else look at them, or were they just sitting 
in your office?
    Answer. No. Certainly I provided a copy--I recall providing a copy 
to Mr. Breuer. I don't know if he looked at it at that time or not.
    Question. So Mr. Breuer was back to work, then, Friday?
    Answer. Yes, that's exactly right. The holiday, as I understand it, 
ran from sundown on Wednesday to sundown on Thursday.
    Question. Did you inform Mr. Breuer that documents were to be 
delivered to this committee on Friday evening?
    Answer. I'm sure he was aware that documents were being delivered, 
but there was never a discussion drawing a nexus between the document 
production, which had been in the works for some time, and handling of 
the videotape issue.
    Question. And so you gave a copy to Mr. Breuer? You're sure you 
gave a copy to Mr. Breuer?
    Answer. No, frankly, I'm not sure. This was a point when there was 
a lot going on, and I want to be careful because I don't have a firm 
recollection of the precise timing of what went on that night and the 
next day.
    Question. How late did you stay that evening?
    Answer. I recall staying till approximately 8:30 or 9 o'clock. I 
left work for an engagement, prescheduled engagement, with my wife at a 
function of her office, and I believe I arrived sometime around 9 
o'clock.
    Question. And were you asked to come back in on Saturday to deal 
with any of these issues?
    Answer. I don't recall specifically being asked to come back in. We 
typically work 7 days a week in our office. In fact, the few days I 
took off that I discussed earlier were probably 4 or 5 of the 10 to 15 
days I took off since I started in March. So I was never asked to come 
in on a Saturday. I came in on Saturday because that was my normal 
course.
    Question. And do you know what happened--can you just tell us the 
rest of your knowledge of what happened with those tapes that you had 
copied?
    Answer. Yeah. My understanding is that Mr. Breuer had a meeting on 
Friday with the Senate staff. I was not at that meeting. Again, I was 
handling the technical aspects of it; and that we provided a copy of 
the video to the Senate and to the Justice Department sometime Saturday 
afternoon; and that we provided a copy to this committee, I believe, 
Sunday morning.
    Question. Sunday afternoon.
    Answer. Again, I don't know the technical details of it.
    Question. The copies that you got, do you know where they were kept 
on Friday night, what you did with them?
    Answer. I believe I had them in my office safe.
    Question. In your safe?
    Answer. Yes, I have a safe in my office to handle national security 
documents, and I believe I put them in my safe. I recall putting them 
in my safe.
    Question. Did somebody ask you to do that?
    Answer. No, I did that on my own accord.
    Question. Do you know why those tapes weren't turned over on Friday 
to any of the investigative bodies involved?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Did anybody review them Friday night or Saturday, to your 
knowledge?
    Answer. Again, I don't have a clear recollection of the order of 
events really starting Friday after my reviewing process. Certainly 
people in my office began to look at the tapes in anticipation of 
getting them produced over the next day or so.
    Question. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
    Answer. Let me restate it. As I said, I don't have a clear 
recollection of who reviewed the tape and who watched it at what point, 
but over this period people were reviewing the tape in anticipation of 
having it produced over the next day or so.
    Question. So most of the people in your office were looking at 
copies of the tapes so that they knew what was going to be----
    Mr. Ballen. I think he said he doesn't have a clear recollection. 
He's said it three times now.
    The Witness. As I said, I don't know who reviewed it and who didn't 
review it.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. So did you take your copies out of the safe, then, to 
share with people; or were there other copies that started to be 
produced and sent around to offices?
    Answer. I certainly retrieved the copies from my safe on Saturday.
    Question. Do you know who you gave them to?
    Answer. I do not--I do not recall who I gave them to, whether I 
kept them in my own possession or whether I turned them over to anyone. 
But certainly we had those copies that were made the night before, and 
at some point on Saturday afternoon I think we received an additional 
set of copies.
    If I said Sunday, I mean Saturday afternoon.
    Question. Did there come a time, sometime Saturday afternoon or 
Saturday evening, when you learned that Time magazine was doing a story 
on these tapes?
    Answer. I did not become aware that Time magazine was doing a story 
on this tape until I was awakened by a phone call on Sunday morning.
    Question. And who called you?
    Answer. I recall it was Lanny Breuer who called me.
    Question. And what did Mr. Breuer say?
    Answer. Mr. Breuer said they had begun to get press inquiries 
relating to the videotapes and that--asked if I could come to the 
office as quickly as possible.
    Question. Do you recall what time that was?
    Answer. It was 8:30 a.m. And I should just note that I was unable 
to attend the Pittsburgh Steelers-Baltimore Ravens game that day 
because of this event, and I'm a huge Pittsburgh Steelers fan.
    Question. Do you know any reason why on Sunday, when obviously you 
started getting press inquiries, if there was any reluctance to deliver 
this videotape to this committee for any reason?
    Answer. No, I'm unaware of any such reluctance.
    Question. When we inquired, when we called in Saturday and we 
called in Sunday, we were told we couldn't get it until Monday. Are you 
aware of any shortage of tapes on Sunday that we wouldn't be able to 
have a copy until Monday?
    Answer. I'm aware of no such shortage, and I have no knowledge of 
the conversation which you describe. I would presume that in the normal 
course of events, typically we make productions on Monday. But, again, 
I know nothing about the conversation you just described. It was not 
with me, the record should be clear.
    Question. What time did you go into the office, then, on Sunday?
    Answer. Without unduly getting into my personal habits, I suspect--
--
    Question. Just asking the time.
    Answer. I suspect I arrived in the office sometime between 9:15 and 
9:45 a.m.
    Question. And who else was there when you arrived?
    Answer. I don't have a specific recollection of the entire roll 
call of lawyers who were there at that time. I recall Mr. Breuer was 
there.
    Question. And did you have a meeting with Mr. Breuer at that time?
    Answer. Let me just think about that for a second.
    [Witness confers with counsel.]
    The Witness. I should just be clear. I am actually not sure that 
Mr. Breuer was there when I got in that morning. He might have very 
well called me from home, I just don't recall. But certainly at some 
point that day, on Saturday, he was in the office.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. On Sunday, you mean?
    Answer. Yes, on Sunday.
    Question. You said he called you at 8:30 Sunday morning?
    Answer. I'm not sure if he was there when I arrived or got there 
sometime later.
    Question. I understand. So at some point by Sunday morning you are 
in the office, and Mr. Breuer's there also?
    Answer. Yes, without pinning a time on when Mr. Breuer arrived, 
that's correct.
    Question. Can you just describe what you did on Sunday in regards 
to the tapes?
    Answer. I recall very little, technically. I recall one of the 
things that I was asked to help out with was handling the various press 
inquiries that the office was getting, because I was the one who, as we 
have discussed here today, was the one who was sort of the principal 
person who discovered the tapes and was trying to answer press 
inquiries as best we could.
    Question. At this point, when Mr. Breuer has called you at 8:30 in 
the morning and is asking you to handle the press inquiries, was there 
ever a discussion that maybe you ought to turn it over to a committee 
that has already subpoenaed it who doesn't have it yet?
    Answer. I was not involved in any discussions on that front, 
basically.
    Question. You didn't suggest to Mr. Breuer, wait, we haven't given 
it to everybody who has subpoenaed it yet?
    Answer. There was a general understanding from the moment that I 
met with Mr. Ruff that this tape would be timely produced to all the 
investigative bodies that requested it, including this committee. I had 
no further discussions as to the particular timing of that production.
    Question. But when Mr. Breuer called you on Sunday morning, did he 
mention anything about making sure a copy of this got up to this 
committee?
    Answer. I don't recall that he did.
    Question. So he was talking to you about press inquiries and 
responding to the press inquiries on Sunday morning; is that a fair 
characterization of why he wanted you to come into the office?
    Answer. No, not quite; close, but not quite. I think he had asked 
me to come into the office because they were getting press inquiries, 
not so I could come in and answer the press inquiries. He asked me to 
come into the office because I was the person who knew the most about 
the discovery of the videotapes.
    It turned out that I spent a lot of my time that day dealing with 
press inquiries, but I was not tasked to come into the office to handle 
those press inquiries. It is an important distinction.
    Question. Was Lanny Davis at the White House that morning also?
    Answer. Again, he was certainly around that day. I don't know the 
precise timing of when he came in.
    Question. Do you recall anyone else who was there on Sunday?
    Answer. I recall that most people were there. If you were to tell 
me that you had evidence that someone wasn't there, I probably couldn't 
refute that. But generally people were there.
    I don't recall specifically who was or who wasn't, but as best I 
can recall, people were there. And, actually, I actually do not think 
that Ms. Peterson was there that day, just to spare her. I don't think 
she was there.
    Question. In the course of finding out about these videotapes, was 
there ever any attempt to go back and find out what other types of 
audio or video recordings may have occurred in any other events which 
may be responsive?
    Answer. Clearly there was, in the days that followed, a decision to 
undergo the Herculean task of trying to identify what the universe of 
potentially responsive items might be. That was a process that I 
actually had little involvement in, but I did have a general 
understanding that process was ongoing. And I believe you received the 
fruits of that process sometime over the past day or so and will have a 
chance to see the log in a few minutes.
    Question. Now, were you not involved, then, with that second group 
of the hundred or so, 230, however many events it was, were you not 
involved in going through those records?
    Answer. I had a very tangential involvement. Every lawyer in the 
office was working on it. There are a limited number of TVs in the 
control room that could be used to review it. There was never a point 
when there was a vacant TV. But because other lawyers had filled up the 
slate, so to speak, I did not have an active involvement.
    I have reviewed a few of them, when there were down times and 
people needed someone to help review, but I was not an integral part of 
that reviewing process.
    Question. So generally all the attorneys in your sort of 
investigative unit were involved in reviewing them?
    Answer. It's safe to say at various times all of the line 
attorneys, and by that I mean Mr. Racine, Mr. Nionakis, Ms. Peterson, 
Ms. Popp, and to some degree Mr. Waitzkin had involvement in reviewing 
and identifying for responsiveness those various tapes.
    Question. Now, Mr. Ruff had indicated to us that the Justice 
Department had also subpoenaed these records, so I would like to just 
ask any knowledge you have about whether there was any discussion about 
turning over the originals to the Justice Department; in lieu of you 
all reviewing them, turning them all over to the Justice Department 
instead?
    And maybe if you can divorce--if there is a general discussion. I 
am not going to ask you particularly the response to the subpoena, but 
if you just know of any discussion about turning these documents over 
to the Justice Department.
    Answer. I am unaware of any----
    Question. I'm sorry, records. The tapes. The videotapes.
    Answer. I'm unaware of any new subpoena we have received from the 
Justice Department in the aftermath of this incident. I do know that 
there was at least a request, and the request might very well have been 
a subpoena, I simply don't know.
    Question. And, I'm sorry, Mr. Ruff indicated they were due by 
Tuesday, so maybe it was an old subpoena or request.
    Answer. I simply don't know. What I do know is that there was a 
request for certain of the original tapes by the Justice Department 
relating to coffees.
    Question. And were they asked for by a date certain, to your 
knowledge?
    Answer. I do not know the specifics of the request.
    Question. Do you know if there was any discussion--I think what I 
want to get at more was the discussion in the office on how the 
handling of the tapes should be done in light of this being evidence.
    Answer. I was not privy to any such discussions.
    Question. So you were just directed to go review them and decide; 
of the ones you reviewed you decided what portions were responsive, and 
other attorneys would do the same?
    Answer. I lost that one along the way. I apologize.
    Question. I want to figure out how--I understand these are big 
reels of tapes--or not reels--or however they are produced to you, and 
you have to go through and figure out which sections are responsive; is 
that correct?
    Answer. Yes and no. With respect to tapes emanating from the photo-
op database, the photo-op tapes, you would have a series of snippets of 
unrelated events on any one given tape. With respect to tapes from the 
regular event database, you would have a tape that, for the most part, 
is unique to one event or more than one tape unique to that same event. 
So for those tapes there would be no ``this is in'' and ``this is 
out.'' The entire tape, if responsive, or tapes, would be in.
    With respect to the coffee, the photo-op tapes on which the coffees 
existed, there were certainly portions that were not responsive. For 
instance, the President goes to church, the President arrives from 
Andrews Air Force Base.
    Question. So would that be sort of, if it is morning, it started he 
went to church, then he's walking down the hall saying hi to people, 
then he's going to a coffee. Even though that's all on one tape, it 
would be cut sort of as he is going into the coffee, and that portion 
of the coffee to whenever the coffee tape cut off, that would be the 
portion of that tape that would be produced?
    Answer. Again, these tapes covered not just a day, but usually a 
week, and sometimes one event a day sometimes two events a day. But, 
yes, the portions of the tapes that were produced were the portions, 
the entire portions, that related to the White House coffee.
    And it is not--this is not a snippet, where it's one continuous 
shot that leads into the coffees. In between each snippet there is a 
break in the tape, whereby they put up the color bars to signify that 
it's a break and it is a new event. It's that portion that relates to 
the coffees on the photo-op tapes that were provided to this committee.
    Question. Did you then narrow your search to these particular 
events? Not narrow it, but you said you went through all these coffee 
events and then different DNC fund-raisers. Was the search primarily 
oriented towards those events, or was there, as you reviewed these, 
sort of if John Huang is going to church with the President, for 
example, or something like that, would that be produced? Just to try to 
figure out how you would go through this.
    Answer. I understand your question, and I think I need to divorce 
what I did with what was done in the days and weeks that followed for 
which you received the output.
    What I had done is gone through the tapes that I had pulled back 
from the archives that had apparently had coffees on them. I would 
review those tapes, particularly the portions of the coffees, and 
provide those entire portions onto what I think ended up on a single 
videotape.
    Question. So the tapes you looked at, though, you didn't look at 
them for other things that may have been responsive, like if there was 
a Webb Hubbell going-away party, and say, gee, that may be responsive? 
Would that be included, or was that not the universe of things you were 
looking for?
    Answer. If it were included, it would have been by happenstance 
because it so happened to be on that same tape. I have a recollection 
of only one event that was on one of the photo-op tapes that I reviewed 
for the coffees. That was an event of a political luncheon in the White 
House for which there was, I think, 2 or 3 minutes filmed that, just by 
pure coincidence, happened to be on one of the tapes of the coffees 
that was pulled back. As I understand it, and I'm actually quite 
certain, that event didn't make it onto the coffee compilation but made 
it onto the compilation of 66 tapes you received this week.
    But to answer your question, yes, there was an effort made to go 
through everything, and that's the effort that I assume you will learn 
more about in the next hour or so. But, again, I was not directly 
involved in that, so I can't speak to it too knowledgeably.
    Question. Are you aware of any taping that the President does 
himself of events or things that he does that has been discussed in the 
Counsel's Office?
    Answer. I'm not aware of any such statements.
    Question. Are you aware or did anyone bring to your attention 
former Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers talking about the President 
dictating or taping into a tape recorder of events and things as he 
went through day to day?
    Answer. That's the first I have heard of it.
    Question. Do you know if anybody in the Counsel's Office has sought 
such records or made a request from the President or the President's 
Office that would sort of alert them to turn over any such type 
records?
    Answer. Not to my knowledge.
    Ms. Comstock. Let's go off the record for a minute.
    [Discussion off the record.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. One of the things that I wanted to see if you know 
anything about is this is a Washington Post, October 6, article. 
Directing your attention to the third column on the bottom. It's 
highlighted on the copy you have.
    Answer. Okay.
    Question. Says, ``Within a week''--this is after the August 7th 
meeting with the Senate. It says, ``Within a week, according to a 
Senate staff member, White House lawyer Michael Imbroscio reported that 
the events videotaped were all public events, unless at the specific 
request of one of the principals, the President or the Vice President, 
they were asked to record a closed event.''
    Is that your understanding of how the events actually are to be 
taped is that the President or the Vice President would make the 
request?
    Answer. Again, I have no recollection of either learning that fact 
or reporting that fact to Mr. Bucklin.
    Question. So this account in the Post on October 6 is not your 
recollection?
    Answer. No, I believe----
    Question. It does say a Senate staff member says this.
    Answer. It probably goes to Mr. Bucklin, and it doesn't comport 
with my understanding.
    Question. Do you have an understanding of how those people show up, 
the camera people? Somebody obviously tells them to show up?
    Answer. Yeah. I don't have a firm understanding and can't speak as 
to what their procedures are.
    Question. Do you know Steve Goodin, who works with the President?
    Answer. I know of Mr. Goodin. I believe he is the President's aide, 
I believe is his title.
    Question. Do you know if Mr. Goodin has anything to do with 
requesting that people come to events to videotape, the audiovisual 
crew?
    Answer. It's my understanding that that is correct, that Steve 
Goodin has involvement in deciding which events are videotaped.
    Question. And does he do this by making a formal request or a paper 
request?
    Answer. Again, that's beyond my level of knowledge. I just don't 
know.
    Question. So have you told us then your entire knowledge of what 
Steve Goodin's role is in getting the audiovisual crews to tape the 
President?
    Answer. Yes, my general knowledge being that I understand he has 
some involvement. I don't know the precise nature of his involvement.
    Question. And when did you learn of Mr. Goodin's role?
    Answer. I think I learned of Mr. Goodin's role over a period of 
days that probably started with one of my initial discussions with Mr. 
McGrath, Chief McGrath, and my discussions in trying to figure out what 
they did and why they did it. I recall him using either Steve Goodin's 
name, or someone in Steve Goodin's position would have some say in what 
they did on a daily basis.
    Question. And are you aware of anyone in the Counsel's Office 
talking to Mr. Goodin about this?
    Answer. I don't have a specific recollection. I believe probably at 
some point, particularly when we were endeavoring to answer press 
inquiries, that someone from the Counsel's Office spoke with Mr. 
Goodin. But I did not speak with Mr. Goodin. I don't think I have ever 
spoke with Mr. Goodin, apart from one occasion when I said hi to him 
some months ago.
    Question. But you don't know who in the Counsel's Office spoke with 
Mr. Goodin?
    Answer. No, I don't have a recollection of who it would have been.
    Question. And does Mr. Goodin decide this on his own, or does he 
consult with the President, to your knowledge, about this?
    Answer. Again, that's way beyond what I know.
    Ms. Comstock. I guess we are running up against the clock here. So 
we do still have some additional inquiries, but we are just going to 
pick them up when we pick up the other general production matters that 
we wanted to revisit.
    Mr. Lynch. Okay.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. And I guess we can take this up over at the Counsel's 
Office also, but are you aware of ongoing efforts to locate any 
additional audio or videotape recording?
    Answer. I'm aware there was a comprehensive effort over the past 
week or so to systematically identify, review and produce events that 
could potentially be responsive.
    Question. To your knowledge, is the President aware of that effort 
also?
    Answer. I have no personal knowledge of what the President is or is 
not aware of. I presume, since it has been reported widely in the press 
that this process is ongoing, that he has some understanding of it.
    Ms. Comstock. Do you all want to ask any questions at this time?
    Mr. Ballen. Yes, thank you.
    I don't know what questions I had, but I wanted to put two things 
on the record.
    First of all, just so it is clear, I talked to Mr. Bennett for 
about 15 minutes during the deposition this afternoon, and I think I 
can fairly state for the record, just so there is no misunderstanding, 
he and I have an honest and good faith difference of opinion over the 
conversation we had this past Tuesday, and we will leave it at that. I 
don't question his good faith, and I assume he does not question mine 
as to what the contents of our conversation was.
    The second thing I want stated on the record is to express our 
appreciation to Mr. Imbroscio for coming in here today and answering 
the questions fully and completely that have been posed to you. We can 
certainly take notice of the fact that you left a lucrative law 
practice at the early stage of your career to devote yourself to 
government service, and I think your integrity and competence are not, 
and character, are not what is at issue here in any fair reading of 
what has occurred.
    So I just wanted to note that for the record and hope that in any 
respect that your desire to go into public service and make that kind 
of sacrifice is not impugned here today.
    Nothing further.
    Ms. Comstock. I just have one additional inquiry.

                      EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

    Question. Do you know if any memos have been sent around regarding 
or instructing staff not to delete or eliminate any potential records 
that they may have that would be responsive to subpoenas?
    Answer. You mean generally?
    Question. Generally.
    Answer. Generally employees have an obligation under the 
Presidential Records Act to maintain the originals of any records that 
would potentially be defined as Presidential records. I believe the 
April 28th directive as well as other directives make that clear.
    I am not aware of any memos sent around along the lines of what you 
just asked.
    Ms. Comstock. Okay. You know, I think we will go ahead, since we 
did refer to this news article of October 6, and the witness did have a 
difference in the report, I think in fairness it would be helpful to 
put this into the record since this was not your recollection.
    It is an October 6, 1997 Washington Post article entitled White 
House Video Crew Taped Coffees. And we will make that Deposition 
Exhibit Number 8, and that was one we just referred to a little while 
back which quoted a Senate staff member.
    [Imbroscio Deposition Exhibit No. MI-8 was marked for 
identification.].
    Ms. Comstock. And we will end with that for today and have to meet 
again another time to finish up.
    [Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]

    [The deposition exhibits referred to follow:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.243
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.244
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.245
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.246
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.247
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.248
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.249
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.250
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.251
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.252
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.253
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.254
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.255
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.256
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.257
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.258
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.259
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.260
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.261
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.262
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.263
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.264
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.265
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.266
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.267
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.268
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.269
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.270
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.271
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.272
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.273
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.274
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.275
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.276
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.277
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.278
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.279
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.280
    
    [The deposition of Dimitri Nionakis follows:]

                           Executive Session

      Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
                             U.S. House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
                   DEPOSITION OF: DIMITRI J. NIONAKIS
                                   Monday, November 3, 1997

    The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2303, Rayburn 
House Office Building, commencing at 1:15 p.m.
Appearances:
    Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: 
Uttam Dhillon, Senior Investigative Counsel; James C. Wilson, Senior 
Investigative Counsel; Robert Dold, Counsel; Michael Yang, Minority 
Counsel; Andrew J. McLaughlin, Minority Counsel; and David Sadkin, 
Minority Counsel.
For MR. NIONAKIS:
    W. NEIL EGGLESTON, ESQ.
    Howrey & Simon
    1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 22304-2702

    Mr. Dhillon. Good afternoon, I'd like to begin by thanking you on 
behalf of the Members of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight for appearing here today. I would like to note for the record 
those who are present at the beginning of the deposition.
    I am Uttam Dhillon, the designated Majority counsel for the 
committee. I'm accompanied today by Robert Dold, who is with the 
Majority staff. Andrew McLaughlin as the designated Minority counsel 
for the committee. And he's accompanied by David Sadkin, who was is 
also with the Minority staff. The deponent is represented by Mr. Neil 
Eggleston.
    Mr. Nionakis, because you are an attorney, we're going to skip the 
usual preamble and ground rules and go straight into questioning, if 
that's all right with you.
    The Witness. That's fine.
    Mr. Dhillon. The only thing I would ask, if there are any questions 
you don't understand, would you please tell me you don't understand, 
and I'll rephrase the question.
    The Witness. Okay.
    Mr. Dhillon. And, Mr. McLaughlin, do you have something to state?
    Mr. McLaughlin. In honor of your skipping the preamble, I will skip 
my comment on the rules, too.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Mr. Nionakis, can you give us a brief rundown of your 
employment history from college forward?
    Answer. I began working at a law firm downtown in the fall of 1991, 
a law firm. Would you like the name of the law firm?
    Question. Yes, sir.
    Answer. Howrey & Simon. And worked there from September '91 until 
about the end of February, 1997. At the beginning of March of 1997, I 
began at the White House as Associate Counsel to the President.
    Question. Who hired you? At the White House?
    Answer. Charles Ruff, Counsel to the President.
    Question. And who is your supervisor at the White House?
    Answer. My direct supervisor is Lanny Breuer: Charles Ruff is the 
highest supervisor in that office.
    Question. And where is your office physically located?
    Answer. My office is in the OEOB.
    Question. And is that the office?
    Answer. The Old Executive Office Building.
    Question. And are there any other members on the Counsel's Office 
at the same floor or near you at the OEOB?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And let me ask you first, what floor are you on?
    Answer. I'm on the fourth floor.
    Question. And who is--who from the Counsel's Office is also on the 
fourth floor near your office in the same vicinity as your office?
    Answer. The lawyers in the Counsel's Office on that floor, Karl 
Racine, Karen Popp, Michelle Peterson, Michael Imbroscio.
    Question. And where is Mr.----
    Answer. I think that's it.
    Question. Where is Mr. Breuer's office located?
    Answer. He is located on the first floor.
    Question. Of the Old Executive Office Building?
    Answer. Of the Old Executive Office Building.
    Question. And Mr. Ruff's office?
    Answer. He is in the west wing of the White House.
    Question. Now, what are your duties at the White House?
    Answer. I primarily work on investigative matters for the White 
House.
    Question. Have your duties been the same since the time you began 
in March of 1997?
    Answer. I think that's correct, yes. I think that's accurate.
    Question. When you say investigative matters, what exactly are you 
talking about? Well, let me rephrase the question. What exactly do you 
do with respect to investigative matters?
    Answer. I handle responding to inquiries from a variety of 
investigative bodies.
    Question. What investigative bodies have you responded to since you 
began working in March of 1997?
    Answer. This committee, the Senate committee, and the Department of 
Justice. So basically the Hill and the Department of Justice.
    Question. Well, are you also responsible for responding to any 
civil requests, involving civil litigation?
    Answer. Yes. They have come through the Department of Justice.
    Question. So there are no civil requests that come directly to the 
White House. They all come through the Department of Justice.
    Mr. Eggleston. I think you--of the ones--you're asking of the ones 
he was working on?
    The Witness. Right.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Let me rephrase the question. Of the ones you're working 
on, you're aware of civil requests, but the request came through the 
Department of Justice?
    Answer. The one that I'm working on, the request came through the 
Department of Justice.
    Question. With respect to the requests through the Department of 
Justice, are there multiple kinds of requests that have come in from 
them that you've worked on?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And what are those kinds of requests?
    Answer. Let me take one step back. Could you clarify what you mean 
by multiple requests?
    Question. Are there requests from different entities at the 
Department of Justice that the Department of Justice is funneling 
through itself and, if I can ask you sort of a compound question, are 
there criminal and civil mixed in in those requests?
    Mr. McLaughlin. I'm a little bit confused here.
    Mr. Dhillon. Let me back up.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. With respect to the Department of Justice, have you 
responded to requests that are both criminal in nature and civil in 
nature?
    Mr. Eggleston. Well, he--now I'm confused, too, because he told you 
he responded to the Hill in connection with investigations that are 
going forward. And he's also told you that he's responded to request 
for documents from the Department of Justice that are civil in nature. 
He's already answered it.
    Mr. Dhillon. That's only--that's not----
    Mr. Eggleston. If you're asking a new one, then I don't understand 
what you're trying----
    Mr. Dhillon. No, I'm not. I am trying to establish that that's the 
only route that those come through. Let me just ask the question this 
way.
    Do you respond to requests for civil actions that come from the 
Department of Justice?
    Mr. McLaughlin. Is it do you or have you?
    Mr. Dhillon. Have you.
    The Witness. I have worked on a matter that is a piece of civil 
litigation. The plaintiffs in that matter have made requests of the 
White House. Those requests have come through the Department of 
Justice.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Is that the only civil matter you've worked on?
    Answer. To the best of my recollection, that is correct.
    Question. Are there other requests that come from the Department of 
Justice, excluding that matter?
    Answer. I'm not aware of any.
    Question. Are there any----
    Answer. There may be. I don't know.
    Question [continuing]. An investigation by the Department of 
Justice into various activities that are similar to the--this 
committee's investigation?
    Answer. Yes. There are.
    Question. Okay. So that's another line of requests from the 
Department of Justice that you've responded to?
    Answer. That is a different request from a different part of the 
Department of Justice.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Now, we've identified two--you've identified two for us, 
that line of request and then that civil litigation. Are there any 
others--any other requests you responded to from the Department of 
Justice?
    Mr. McLaughlin. I'm sorry. Can we just be clear. There is one line 
of request from the Campaign Task Force from the Department of Justice.
    Mr. Dhillon. Why don't you ask him that question?
    Mr. McLaughlin. Yes. Let's pin down his visions.
    Mr. Dhillon. Mr. McLaughlin's question, could you answer that?
    The Witness. Yes. The task force that is investigating the campaign 
financing issue has made requests.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. All right.
    Answer. Separate from the requests that have come through another 
branch of the Department of Justice with respect to that civil 
litigation.
    Question. All right. Other than those two, is there anything else 
from the Department of Justice that you've responded to, any other 
requests?
    Answer. To the best of my knowledge, no.
    Question. Okay. Now, how is communication between the various 
offices--between the Counsel's Office handled? Between members of the 
Counsel's Office handled?
    Answer. I'm not sure I understand the question.
    Question. Do you have regular meetings?
    Answer. We have meetings, yes.
    Question. How frequently do you have those meetings?
    Answer. We have at least one meeting a week.
    Question. Who attends?
    Answer. There are staff meetings of the entire Counsel's Office in 
which all lawyers in the Counsel's Office attend. And there are smaller 
meetings where people who work on investigative matters may attend 
those?
    Question. Okay. Let's go to the big picture. How many attorneys are 
in the counsel's office?
    Answer. Approximately 12 to 14.
    Question. Are there any paralegals?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. How many?
    Answer. The paralegals, I'm familiar with the paralegals who work 
in the investigative matters, and there are 3.
    Question. Three.
    Answer. Three.
    Question. Any interens?
    Answer. Yes. We have interns who come through our intern program, 
who spend some time working on investigative matters, but also work on 
other matters in the counsel's office.
    Question. Okay. You hit on this a little bit before. I would like 
to now ask you what the structure of the Counsel's Office is in terms 
of top to bottom and where do you fit in on that. So let's start with 
the first question. Let's start with the structure of the Counsel's 
Office.
    Answer. As a nonexpert on the structure, I'll tell you to the best 
of my knowledge. Charles Ruff is Counsel to the President. There are 
two Deputy Counsels, Cheryl Mills and Brucy Lindsey. Lanny Breuer is 
the Special Counsel. I believe there's another special counsel. And I 
may not be exact on that title. And there are several associate 
counsels. I'm one of the associate counsels. I should say the bulk, in 
those titles, the bulk of people are associate counsels, hold that 
title.
    Question. Now, you spoke of meetings with the entire Counsel's 
Office and then separate group meeting. Are you in a separate group?
    Answer. I wouldn't necessarily call it a separate group, but 
because I work on investigative matters, those people who work on 
investigative matters often have meetings.
    Question. How many people are in that group? Is calling it a group 
okay or would you prefer--what would you call it? Task force?
    Answer. No. I'm fine with group.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. I'd say approximately six.
    Question. And who are they?
    Answer. Lanny Breuer, myself, Michelle Peterson, Michael Imbroscio, 
Karen Popp, Karl Racine. I think that's it.
    Question. And what's the objective of this group? What are they 
tasked with doing?
    Answer. Pretty much what I described earlier is what my role is.
    Question. In terms of the investigative, responding to 
investigative inquiries?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Now, who's in charge of that particular group or team?
    Answer. Lanny Breuer.
    Question. Now, is Cheryl Mills involved in any aspect of the review 
or production of documents in response to requests or subpoenas from 
investigative bodies?
    Answer. No. I would say, no. Not on a direct day-to-day basis, no.
    Question. Who does Ms.--do you know who Ms. Mills reports to in the 
Counsel's Office?
    Answer. I don't know. I've never asked her.
    Question. What's your understanding of what her duties are and 
responsibilities are?
    Answer. I know--my understanding is that she has a broad range of 
responsibilities and duties. I have not sat down and asked her exactly 
what those are.
    Question. Is Mr. Brucy Lindsey involved in any aspect of the review 
or production of documents or things in response to request or 
subpoenas from investigative bodies?
    Answer. To the best of my recollection, I don't believe he is.
    Question. What's your understanding of what Mr. Lindsey's duties 
and responsibilities are?
    Answer. My best description of his duties would be as a senior 
advisor to the President.
    Question. Do you have any interaction with Mr. Lindsey?
    Answer. I do not have any regular interaction with Brucy Lindsey, 
no.
    Question. When you do have interactions with Brucy Lindsey, what 
are they regarding generally? Is there a specific area or topic that 
you have interactions with him on?
    Answer. No. It's typically, hi, Bruce, how are you.
    Question. What process does the Counsel's Office follow when 
responding to a subpoena or other requests from this committee from 
beginning to end?
    Answer. The entire process of responding to a subpoena?
    Question. I can break it down if you would like. I would prefer if 
you can give me a synopsis, and then we can sort of go over it, the 
parts that----
    Answer. Generally, we receive a request. We review the request. To 
the extent that we believe it's overbroad or unmanageable or unduly 
burdensome, we try and work with the investigative body to modify it, 
if possible. After that, we sit down and determine where responsive 
documents may be located. We set out to gather those documents. We 
receive them or we gather them. We review them. We produce them.
    Question. From the beginning, at the beginning of the process, who 
in the Counsel's Office accepts a subpoena or document request?
    Answer. I don't believe there's any particular individual who 
accepts a subpoena or document request. They simply come in.
    Question. Are the subpoenas or document requests logged into a 
database or computer of any kind?
    Answer. To my knowledge, no.
    Question. Is there any written logging in of a subpoena or document 
request?
    Answer. I don't believe so.
    Question. Who decides who will respond to a subpoena or a document 
request?
    Answer. I would say Lanny Breuer typically determines how he will 
allocate the resources, given the demands on the office.
    Question. Are there--you said typically. Are there times when Mr. 
Breuer doesn't do that and it's done in another manner?
    Answer. In the--when we get a very specific, narrow request, for 
instance, could you please provide the WAVES records for a particular 
individual, that is something that, when it comes in, I and the other 
associate counsels can simply just do it. It's not something that Lanny 
Breuer needs to necessarily think about and allocate.
    Question. So there are some subpoenas that are sufficiently narrow 
that you or another associate counsel would know how to obtain the 
responsive information without going through your supervisor.
    Mr. McLaughlin. Just for----
    The Witness. Actually----
    Mr. McLaughlin [continuing]. Just for clarification, I think he 
also mentions subpoenas with regard to WAVES records.
    The Witness. That's absolutely correct.
    Mr. McLaughlin. Do you mean to encompass subpoenas, document 
requests, and formal letter requests together; or do you want to 
separate those out one by one? I'm not sure where you're going on this.
    Mr. Dhillon. My questions have been both subpoenas and document 
requests or subpoenas and other requests.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. I'll ask this question. Do you treat a subpoena, a 
document request, or an informal type of request any differently in 
terms of how you respond to it?
    Answer. With respect to subpoenas, Lanny Breuer will definitely 
have some weighing in as to who will respond to it. The example I gave 
you was a subpoena, narrow, informal request for the WAVES records of a 
particular individual. And that example covers that exact type of 
request.
    Question. What do you mean when you talk about an informal request?
    Answer. Barbara Comstock might call me up and say may I have the 
WAVES records for a particular individual.
    Question. And your response would be to personally or have 
somebody, one of your fellow associates obtain those and produce them 
to the committee without going through a formal assignment process?
    Answer. Generally speaking, that's right.
    Question. And since we're on the subject, do you treat a written 
document request in, say, the form of a letter differently from a 
subpoena? Are those handled differently by your office?
    Mr. McLaughlin. I just want to--one more thing for clarification. 
As I understand it, there are subpoenas, there are document requests in 
the nature of a subpoena, in other words, with lengthy definitions and 
instructions and so forth, and then a series of items. There are also 
just simply letters that request information. You.
    Know, in my own mind, there's a distinction between those last two 
things. I think of the last category as being somewhat more informal. I 
want to be clear because, in other depositions, we've been trying to 
draw distinctions between those three kinds of requests.
    Mr. Dhillon. Then I'll ask that question.
    The Witness. I think it's more of the breadth and the scope of the 
request that determines whether or not it is something that needs to be 
allocated among several individuals or something that is so narrow and 
targeted that can be done fairly quickly and by one person. It's not 
really by the nature of, you know, whether it's a subpoena. We can get 
document requests that are much broader than subpoena requests.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. So the form of the request is less critical than the 
breadth or the size of the request?
    Answer. I don't know if that's the case either. I don't--I don't 
know if that's really the case.
    Mr. Eggleston. Mr. Dhillon, another individual has just entered the 
room. Could you identify him?
    Mr. McLaughlin. I will. He's on my staff. His name is Michael Yang. 
He's also counsel on minority staff.
    Mr. Eggleston. Thank you. I have no objection, I just want to know 
who people are as they come.
    Mr. McLaughlin. It's good practice.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Is it safe to say that requests are handled on a request-
by-request basis, and there are different ways of handling them just 
depending on all the circumstances surrounding the request?
    Answer. That's very fair. Yes.
    Question. Now, what do you do--what's the next step after you've 
obtained, let's say, for example, a subpoena from this committee? 
What's the next thing that the Counsel's Office would do?
    Answer. We sit down and review it.
    Question. And then what?
    Answer. Determine whether we should try to or need to modify some 
of the requests to make them even more manageable. Sometimes they're 
overbroad. Sometimes they're a little bit unclear. All document 
requests tend to be that way sometimes.
    Question. And how do you do that?
    Answer. We consult with the committee, the investigative body.
    Question. And once you've reached an agreement--I take it in the 
past you've reached agreements about the language or the scope of 
subpoenas.
    Answer. We've made every attempt to do so, yes.
    Question. Once you've gotten to that point, what's the next step?
    Answer. We try to determine where responsive documents may be 
found.
    Question. Okay. How do you do that?
    Answer. By looking at the nature of the request, by looking at the 
various offices within the executive office of the President, trying to 
match the two up.
    Question. And what do you do once you've determined which offices 
are the offices you believe are likely to contain responsive documents?
    Answer. If it--if our conclusion is that it is probably many 
offices that may contain responsive documents, excuse me, then we will 
send out a directive that is EOP-wide. If it is one that we think is 
targeted--that is targeted, we will do a targeted search.
    Question. Now, do the people who receive this, let me back up. 
What's a directive?
    Answer. A directive is, in essence, a document that notifies the 
recipient that there has been a request for information and documents, 
and that they are asked to search their files and--for certain 
documents. And the documents are described. And to send them to the 
Counsel's Office.
    Question. Do the people who receive these directives ever sign any 
forms or in some way attest that they've done a search and they could 
or they did or did not find files--or I'm sorry, find responsive 
documents?
    Answer. In some instances, they do do that.
    Question. Is there a requirement or a form that the Counsel's 
Office has to make that--and that's made available to the individuals 
who receive the directive?
    Answer. In some instances, yes.
    Question. When is it--when is such a form given to the people who 
receive the directive?
    Answer. When we send out a very large EOP-wide directive, that is 
one--that I believe, to the best of my knowledge, is when we've done 
it.
    Question. And when did you not do it?
    Answer. If it's a targeted search where we will go to maybe one or 
two offices and we pretty much deal directly with those individuals and 
is more of a go over, get the documents, or have them provide the 
documents and make sure that the search has been completed.
    Question. Who would sign such a document?
    Mr. Eggleston. Are you talking about the certification?
    Mr. Dhillon. The certification, yes.
    The Witness. I believe the person in charge of a particular office 
will sign the certification.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Now, how--when you do a large request, and you--that 
justifies a directive, how do you ensure that all of the offices have 
complied?
    Answer. Well, one way is usually the certification process that I 
just described.
    Question. What--does the certification process or--is there a form 
that you prepare, or is the form prepared by the office responding?
    Answer. The form is prepared by the Counsel's Office.
    Question. And does that form allow----
    Answer. Generally the form is prepared by the Counsel's Office, 
yeah.
    Question. And do you receive that form from every office, in the 
case of a directive, from every office the directive was sent to?
    Answer. To the best of my knowledge, I believe that we do do that.
    Question. So just so I'm clear, you ensure that--my question to you 
is how is compliance assured. And is the answer that you ensure that 
you received a form from every office that the directive was sent to?
    Answer. I personally, no. The Counsel's Office receives the 
certifications from the various offices after the certifications have 
gone out.
    Question. Who verifies that those certifications have been received 
from every office in the case of response to a request from the 
Counsel's Office, to a directive from the Counsel's Office?
    Answer. One of the--one of the Counsel's Office members.
    Question. An associate counsel?
    Answer. I don't know if it's particularly an associate counsel, but 
one of the Counsel Office's members.
    Question. Have you personally ever done that?
    Answer. I have not.
    Question. Do you know of anyone in the Counsel's Office who has?
    Answer. I believe Karen Popp did.
    Question. And in what circumstance or in response to which 
directive did she do that?
    Answer. I believe she did it in response to the April 28 directive.
    Question. And that was a directive sent out by Mr. Ruff?
    Answer. I believe his name is on it, yeah.
    Question. How are the documents--let's talk in the case of a 
directive--let's not. Let's talk in the case of a targeted request, and 
you used WAVES records as an example. Do you----
    [Pager interruption.]
    Answer. Sorry. I'm fine.
    Question. With respect to a targeted request----
    Answer. Uh-huh.
    Question [continuing]. You indicated that, if the request is, for 
example, WAVES records, you or one of your fellow counsels may go and 
simply obtain the records; is that accurate?
    Answer. In some instances, yes.
    Question. So there are times when you actually go digging through 
and--or go into the office and requesting--and actually physically 
requesting the records yourself?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. With respect to a directive, do you typically work in 
that manner, also?
    Answer. Typically not, because if the directive goes out, usually 
the person receiving the directive will send us the documents. There 
are instances where we will review documents in a person's office at 
their request.
    Question. Are the documents sent through interoffice mail or 
through couriers or interns? How do the documents physically get from 
one office to the Counsel's Office in response to a directive?
    Answer. Typically, they are hand-delivered.
    Question. Now, what happens when documents that are responsive to a 
directive are received? Where are they received, and where--where are 
they received? Where are they sent to?
    Answer. Generally, they are sent to one of the associate Counsel's 
Offices.
    Question. Where do they go from there?
    Answer. They are either reviewed by that associate counselor, they 
are placed in a workroom where somebody--one associate counsel will 
review them.
    Question. Is there a specific workroom that you have for reviewing 
the responses to directives and other document requests?
    Answer. We have a workroom that we use.
    Question. Do you use that for storing the documents, also?
    Answer. Storing, viewing, preparing.
    Question. Now, have you personally ever received documents 
responsive to a directive?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And what process did you follow with those documents?
    Answer. Either I would review them, or they would go to the 
document room where I or somebody else reviewed them.
    Question. And what would happen after the review process?
    Answer. Responsive documents are flagged for production.
    Question. When are they given their EOP number?
    Answer. When? Some--I don't mean to be flip, sometime before 
they're produced.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. And prior to the copying obviously.
    Question. When the final decision has been made on production?
    Answer. Once they're deemed responsive.
    Question. Okay. You said that you review the documents, and you 
flag the ones you think are responsive. What's the next step after that 
with respect to your production?
    Answer. Generally speaking, they are Bates stamped and, at some 
point, they go out.
    Question. Are you, for example, in--for documents you've received 
in response to a directive, are you the final person to review those 
documents before they're produced to this committee?
    Answer. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
    Question. Under what circumstances are you the last person to 
review them?
    Answer. It's not really a formal process. It would just be that I 
was the last person to look at them.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. Versus another associate counsel.
    Question. Do you have Mr. Breuer look at documents before they're 
produced?
    Mr. Eggleston. Would----
    Mr. Dhillon. I'm sorry. Jim Wilson of the Majority staff just 
entered the room.
    Mr. Eggleston. Thank you.
    The Witness. Sometimes he does, yes.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. And under what circumstances does he look at documents 
before they're produced, Mr. Breuer, that is?
    Answer. An example would be if a particular--if a production is 
going out, he may want to just get a sense as to what kind of documents 
are going out.
    Question. Okay. Was there ever a time when you specifically flagged 
a document for Mr. Breuer to review before sending it out?
    Answer. I need to confer for a second.
    [Witness confers with counsel].
    The Witness. Don't believe I've done that, no.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Was there ever a time when Mr. Breuer came through and 
asked you just generally to review documents before they went out?
    Mr. Eggleston. I'm sorry. Those are documents he's not collected 
and someone else has collected?
    Mr. Dhillon. Yes. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Eggleston. Because otherwise----
    Mr. Dhillon. Yes. Documents you've collected that he asked you to 
review them before they went out.
    Mr. McLaughlin. Review a second time. I'm sorry, I'm confused. 
Documents he's already reviewed?

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. I'll rephrase the question. Was there ever a time that 
Mr. Breuer asked you to provide to him documents for his review after 
you had reviewed them.
    Answer. I can't recall a time where he would do--where he has done 
that.
    Question. When has Mr. Breuer reviewed documents after you've 
reviewed them before they were sent to this committee?
    Mr. McLaughlin. You want dates? Do you want kinds of documents? I'm 
not sure what you mean by when.
    Mr. Dhillon. When means when.
    Mr. McLaughlin. Meaning what date and what month?
    Mr. Dhillon. When.
    The Witness. I actually don't recall.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. All right. Do you recall that event ever occurring?
    Answer. I don't.
    Question. So is it your recollection, then, that Mr. Breuer never 
has reviewed documents after you've reviewed them?
    Mr. McLaughlin. I don't think that was his testimony earlier.
    The Witness. I'm sorry. Was that the question?
    Mr. Dhillon. Yes.
    The Witness. Mr. Breuer has reviewed documents--has looked at 
documents after I have reviewed them.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Under what circumstances did that occur?
    Answer. It would be under the circumstances where I would say, 
Lanny--as I said before, I think it would just be a circumstance where 
he would like to get a sense of what kinds of documents were going--
have been produced.
    Question. So that the request to review those documents that you 
reviewed come from Mr. Breuer?
    Answer. Are you saying--are you asking me if Mr. Breuer is the one 
who asked me?
    Question. Yes.
    Answer. I believe so, yeah.
    Question. And how often has that occurred?
    Answer. Not often. And I believe after documents have been 
produced.
    Question. Has Mr. Breuer ever asked you to review documents--has 
Mr. Breuer ever requested documents from you that you have reviewed 
prior to production to this committee or another investigative body?
    Answer. I don't recall his ever doing that.
    Question. When memos or directives are sent out by the Counsel's 
Office, who typically writes them?
    Answer. I think typically one of the associate counsels draft them.
    Question. Have you ever done that?
    Answer. I assisted in drafting. I've reviewed drafts of directives, 
yes.
    Question. Now, with respect to responding to specific document 
requests or subpoenas, does your team or group have regular meetings 
or--to discuss the response?
    Answer. If you're asking if our team meets regularly when we're 
responding to subpoenas or document requests, the answer is, yes.
    Question. What do you talk about at those meetings?
    Answer. The status of production.
    Question. Do you ever talk about specific documents and whether 
they should or should not be produced?
    Answer. I don't believe so, no.
    Question. Has the frequency of meetings remained relatively the 
same and stable since you arrived at the White House Counsel's Office?
    Mr. Eggleston. These are investigative team meetings?
    Mr. Dhillon. Yeah. That's correct.
    The Witness. I think so, yes.
    Mr. Eggleston. They meet a lot over there.
    Mr. McLaughlin. We do over here, too.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Now, when you receive a subpoena or a document request or 
a letter request, do you send out the actual request to the various 
offices or units or groups?
    Answer. Could you repeat that question.
    Question. When the White House Counsel's Office receives a subpoena 
or document request or letter request, is that--is an actual copy of 
that sent to the various offices or units or entities within the White 
House?
    Answer. I don't believe so.
    Question. How do you advise the various entities within the White 
House of the subpoena, document request, or letter request?
    Answer. Generally, it's using the directive.
    Question. Which is a document created by the Counsel's Office?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Do interns review any documents that are responsive or 
potentially responsive to committee subpoenas?
    Answer. At times, they will do an initial overbroad first cut.
    Question. And when you say ``first cut'', what does that mean?
    Answer. They will take a very large universe of documents, and 
using an overbroad scope, review those documents.
    Question. And using the scope, the overbroad scope, will they 
eliminate some documents from that universe of documents?
    Answer. I don't know. They might. I don't know.
    Question. Have you ever given interns instructions on how to review 
documents and what they were looking for, how they should----
    Answer. I have not.
    Question. Have you ever been present when anyone in the Counsel's 
Office gave an intern such an instruction or instructions?
    Answer. I have not.
    Question. How do you know that interns review documents?
    Answer. I have walked into the workroom and seen interns reviewing 
documents.
    Question. Are these interns that are working with the investigative 
group?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. And do you know what their names are?
    Answer. Actually, I don't know their full names.
    Question. Do you know who--how about first names. You know first 
names?
    Answer. Yes. I know one first name.
    Question. And that is?
    Answer. Erica.
    Question. Is Erica still employed as an intern at the White House 
Counsel's Office?
    Answer. I believe that she is.
    Question. Do you know who assigned the interns to review these 
documents?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Have you ever assigned interns to do a first cut on 
documents responsive to this committee's subpoena or subpoenas?
    Answer. I don't recall ever doing that.
    Question. Now, what was the status--let me back up. When you 
arrived in March of 1997, was Mr. Quinn still there?
    Answer. No, he was not.
    Question. And what was the status of document gathering at the time 
you arrived?
    Answer. We were anticipating receiving a subpoena from this 
committee.
    Question. Did Mr. Quinn leave any memos or explanations of what he 
had done at that point?
    Answer. I don't know if he did.
    Question. Did you ever see any such memos?
    Answer. I did not.
    Question. Do you know who was in charge of responding to subpoenas 
or other requests under Mr. Quinn?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Does the President see subpoenas from this committee?
    Answer. I don't know.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Eggleston. He said he didn't know.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Do you know if the President is on the list to--I'll back 
up for a second.
    What about directives? Is the President provided with directives 
from your office?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Now who----
    Answer. Now----
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. I'm sorry?
    Answer. I want to clarify one response, and that was to your 
question as to whether Lanny Breuer has ever asked to review documents 
after I reviewed them before they have gone out. I just want to make it 
clear that I don't recall his ever doing that. He may have, I just 
don't recall, okay?
    Mr. Dhillon. Okay.
    Mr. Eggleston. I just couldn't remember whether that's--he gave an 
answer close to that before, but I didn't remember. But I didn't take 
him----

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Okay. Who would provide the President with a copy of a 
subpoena or a directive?
    Answer. I really don't know who would. I assume one of his 
advisors.
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]
    The Witness. And, also, your question kind of presumed that he is 
provided with one. And as I said earlier, I don't know that he's 
provided with one.
    Mr. Eggleston. With one.
    The Witness. With a subpoena.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. I was asking about a couple of things.
    Answer. With a directive.
    Question. Subpoena or directives.
    Answer. Okay.
    Question. Who do you represent in your capacity as Associate 
Counsel to the President?
    Answer. I represent the President and the White House and the 
Executive Office of the President.
    Question. All three?
    Answer. Well, they are all part of the administration.
    Question. You do that as one entity or multiple entities?
    Answer. In the broad sense, yes.
    Question. Now, have all the responsive documents in the President--
of the President's been turned over to this committee?
    Answer. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
    Question. Who certifies from the President's Office the documents 
that have been turned over?
    Mr. McLaughlin. I'm sorry, in the President's possession, do you 
mean in his personal capacity or Oval Office operations or Executive 
Office of the President or immediate Office of the President? I'm not 
sure what you mean by that.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Let's start off with personal capacity. I'll reask the 
question. Thank you. Have all responsive documents in the President's 
personal possession been turned over to the committee?
    Answer. I don't know if the President has documents in his personal 
possession. I'm not sure if I can answer that question.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. So it's possible, then, that the President does have 
documents in his personal possession that would be responsive to this 
committee?
    Answer. Either you misunderstood my answer or I misunderstood your 
first question. How about asking the first question again. You said--
why don't you ask it to me. You said something about the documents to 
the President?
    Question. I asked a question and I received a satisfactory answer, 
so I'm going to go on to the next question, which is: Is it possible 
that the President has documents in his personal possession that have 
not been produced to this committee?
    [Witness conferred with counsel.]
    The Witness. To my knowledge, no.
    Mr. McLaughlin. I'm sorry; were you given a chance to explain your 
answer? I think there was a disconnect.
    The Witness. There was a disconnect. But----
    Mr. McLaughlin. I'd like you to say whatever you think is important 
to say on the record.
    Mr. Eggleston. That's all.
    Mr. McLaughlin. Okay. As long as it's clear.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Who certifies for the President personally that documents 
in his possession have been turned over, or that he has no such 
responsive documents?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Have you ever seen such a certification from the 
President personally, or from someone acting on his behalf, that he has 
or does not have any documents responsive to a request of this 
committee?
    Answer. I don't recall ever seeing that.
    Question. Has the President personally ever provided the Counsel's 
Office with any documents responsive to this committee's subpoena or 
subpoenas?
    Answer. Could you explain what you mean by ``the President 
personally''?
    Question. Documents coming from the President himself.
    Answer. We have received documents from Oval Office Operations. I 
don't recall the President himself personally sending over responsive 
documents. But Oval Office Operations covers the area that the--of the 
Oval Office, which is where the President's office is.
    Question. Who in the Oval Office Operations procedure certifies 
that documents have been produced or could not be found or do not 
exist?
    Answer. I don't know. I don't recall. I should say as I sit here, I 
don't recall.
    Question. Is the First Lady's office provided with subpoenas, 
directives, letter requests, or----
    Answer. I believe so. Yes. Yes, they are.
    Question. Has the First Lady herself ever provided Counsel's Office 
with any documents responsive to subpoenas or directives or letter 
requests?
    Answer. We have received documents from the First Lady's office.
    Question. And who certified that the document--or that the search 
was complete?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Are you aware of the President taking any notes at 
coffees?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Are you aware of any attendees who said that the 
President took any notes at coffees?
    Answer. I am not.
    Question. Has anyone asked the President for notes that he may have 
taken at coffees?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. We are placing for, and you asked to be marked as Exhibit 
1, the March 4, 1997, subpoena issued by this committee, and I'd ask 
that you review it.
    [Nionakis Deposition Exhibit DN-1 was marked for identification.]

    [Note.--All exhibits referred to may be found at end of 
deposition on p. 595.]

    [Witness complies.]
    The Witness. I've flipped through it.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Do you recognize Exhibit 1?
    Answer. It looks like the March 4th subpoena that we received.
    Question. When was the first time you saw Exhibit 1?
    Answer. I believe March 5th.
    Question. I'm sorry, what day did you begin working at the White 
House Counsel's Office?
    Answer. Either the 1st or 2nd of March. It may have been the last 
day of February; I'm not sure exactly.
    Question. Okay. So you were already employed at the White House 
Counsel's Office at least for a few days when this arrived, when 
Exhibit 1 arrived?
    Answer. Yes, that's right.
    Question. As part of your responsibilities in the White House 
Counsel's Office, have you ever dealt with Exhibit 1 in any way?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. How?
    Answer. I responded to it.
    Question. Were you given the responsibility of responding to 
Exhibit 1 or to any part of Exhibit 1?
    Answer. Several of us worked on responding to Exhibit 1.
    Question. And who--would you please identify those people?
    Answer. Mike Imbroscio, Karen Popp, Michelle Peterson. I think 
that's--among the associate counsels, I think that's it, yeah.
    Question. Who assigned you to respond to Exhibit 1?
    Answer. Lanny Breuer.
    Question. And when did that occur?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Did the Counsel's Office issue any memos or directives 
regarding Exhibit 1?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And approximately when was--well, what was issued?
    Answer. I believe it's the April 28th directive.
    Question. Were there any other directives issued by the Counsel's 
Office regarding Exhibit 1?
    Answer. There may have been; I'm not sure.
    Question. Was anyone assigned to locate and produce documents 
related specifically to coffees?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Did anyone take it upon themselves, during the course of 
producing or responding to Exhibit 1, to respond to or to look for 
coffee-related documents?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Mr. Dhillon. Exhibit 2, now. We place before you what I will ask to 
be marked as Exhibit 2. On April 18, 1997, a letter from John Rowley, 
former chief counsel, to Lanny Breuer, Special Counsel to the 
President. Could you please review Exhibit 2.
    [Nionakis Deposition Exhibit DN-2 was marked for identification.]
    [Witness complies.]
    Mr. McLaughlin. When we reach a logical breaking point, could we 
take a bathroom break in the next 5 or 10 minutes?
    Mr. Dhillon. That's fine with me. How about a five-minute break 
now? It's a fairly long document and he's reviewing it. Why don't we 
take a bathroom break now. Off the record for five.
    [Recess taken from 2:20 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Do you recognize--have you had a chance to review Exhibit 
2?
    Answer. I briefly reviewed it, yes, sir.
    Question. Do you recognize Exhibit 2?
    Answer. I recognize it as a document--yes, I do.
    Question. What is it?
    Answer. It's a document sent by John Rowley to Lanny Breuer dated 
April 18, 1997.
    Question. Were you involved in any discussions with this committee 
that led to the preparation of Exhibit 2?
    Answer. I believe so, yes.
    Question. Besides yourself, who else in the Counsel's Office were 
involved in such discussions?
    Answer. I believe Lanny Breuer and Karen Popp. That's all I can 
recall right now.
    Question. Who did you have your discussions with in this--in the 
committee's office regarding this matter?
    Answer. Barbara Comstock, John Rowley, I believe Andrew McLaughlin 
was at some of the meetings. I believe Ken Ballen was, Phil Barnett, 
and David Bossie. And there may have been others.
    Question. When was the first time you saw Exhibit 2?
    Answer. On or soon after it was sent to us. I really don't recall 
exactly when.
    Question. Were any other members of the Counsel's Office provided 
with a copy of Exhibit 2?
    Answer. I believe so, yes.
    Question. What is your understanding of why certain items are in 
bold face on Exhibit 2?
    Answer. I have no idea.
    Mr. McLaughlin. Do you want him to read the instruction on the 
letter?

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Would reading that help refresh your recollection?
    Mr. Eggleston. Why don't you just direct him?
    The Witness. Can you direct me? If there is a particular----
    Mr. McLaughlin. How about the first full paragraph on page 2? Is 
your question whether Mr. Nionakis can read the instructions and report 
back to you----

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. No my question is do you know why it is in bold face?
    Mr. Eggleston. You guys put it in bold face. Unless it is written 
here, it is fully in your control. Why are you making him guess?
    Mr. Dhillon. I am not asking him to guess. When he was part of 
this----
    Mr. McLaughlin. I think he testified that----
    Mr. Dhillon [continuing]. I am asking--if you would let me ask the 
question, I think we will get----
    Mr. McLaughlin. Let me make my statement. We are making a record 
here.
    Mr. Dhillon. You can make your statement when it is time to ask 
your questions.
    Mr. McLaughlin. I am making a statement----
    Mr. Dhillon. I withdrew the question. You have no statement to 
make.
    Mr. McLaughlin [continuing]. To make sure there is a clear record.
    Mr. Dhillon. I withdraw the question.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. I would ask you to review page 2.
    Mr. McLaughlin. I just to make clear that your prior question, now 
withdrawn, mischaracterizes Mr. Nionakis's testimony.
    Mr. Dhillon. If you want to make statements about questions that 
are not pending, that is your business.
    The Witness. Okay. Your question is?

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. To your knowledge, what was your understanding of why 
certain items are boldfaced in Exhibit 2?
    Answer. I have no independent understanding as to why documents 
were--why certain things were boldfaced in this document.
    Question. After reviewing it, do you have a understanding of why 
they were boldfaced?
    Answer. I can only--I don't have an understanding. I only read Mr. 
Rowley's words that say: ``We request all other priority items (as 
indicated in boldface) by Monday, April 28, 1997.''
    Question. Did you use this document in any way in responding to the 
committee's subpoena which is marked Exhibit 1?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Did you understand when responding when using this 
document that the items in boldface were considered a priority by the 
committee in terms of production from the White House?
    The Witness. Could you read that question back?
    [Reporter read the record as requested.]
    The Witness. I don't recall.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. How did you use Exhibit 2 to respond to the committee's 
subpoena which is marked at Exhibit 1?
    Answer. As I had mentioned earlier, some of the--several if not 
many of the requests were either overbroad or unduly burdensome, and 
that we tried to modify them and limit them, and this document was the 
result of that attempt to limit the scope of various requests.
    Question. Did you treat the categories or subgroups of requests 
differently based upon the priority this committee assigned to them as 
demonstrated in Exhibit 2?
    Answer. I recall there were certain categories of documents that we 
made a very, very valiant attempt to produce as soon as possible.
    Question. Was that based on the fact that they were prioritized in 
Exhibit 2?
    Answer. I don't think so. I think it was based on the discussions 
that we had with the committee members--with the committee staff. I 
just don't recall specifically whether it was off of this document or 
after our discussions.
    Question. Did the White House Counsel's Office use Exhibit 2 in any 
way to prioritize the documents it would search for in responding to 
the subpoena which is marked as Exhibit 1?
    Answer. We may have. I don't recall, because we had many, many 
discussions as well.
    Question. Was it your understanding that information about the 
coffees were considered a priority item by the committee?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Exhibit 3. I'm asking that Exhibit 3 be placed before you 
and that it be marked as Exhibit 3. It is an April 28th, 1997, 
memorandum from Charles F.C. Ruff and I would ask that you please 
review it.
    [Nionakis Deposition Exhibit DN-3 was marked for identification.].
    [Witness complies.]
    The Witness. Okay.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Do you recognize Exhibit 3?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. What is it?
    Answer. It is the April 28th, 1997 directive.
    Question. Who wrote Exhibit 3?
    Answer. It was I believe initially drafted by Michael Imbroscio. I 
reviewed the draft as well. And I think others may have looked at it; I 
just don't recall.
    Question. Did Mr. Ruff ultimately review Exhibit 3, if you know?
    Mr. Eggleston. He signed it.
    The Witness. I only know that he signed it.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Did you----
    Answer. Hold on.
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]
    The Witness. I'm fine.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Did you make any changes to the draft you received from 
Mr. Imbroscio?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. In preparing Exhibit 3, did you use any other documents 
to help you--I'm sorry. Strike that.
    Did you use any documents to help you prepare Exhibit 3?
    Mr. McLaughlin. In reviewing Exhibit 3?
    Mr. Eggleston. He testified he did not prepare Exhibit 3.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. To review Exhibit 3?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. What did you do or what was done with Exhibit 3 after it 
was finalized?
    Answer. I understand that it was sent to--sent throughout the EOP 
using our mail room process.
    Question. How many different offices or groups or units would it 
have been--was it sent to?
    Answer. I only know that it would have been many.
    Question. Do you have--I take it you received responses to it, 
which is how you know that it was sent out?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Did anyone tell you it had been sent out?
    Answer. I know that it had been sent out because people called in 
and had questions about it. So.
    Question. You said it was distributed through--I'm sorry, the mail 
room, did you say?
    Answer. I think like any large structure, there's an inner office 
mail system. It was distributed using that system.
    Question. It wasn't faxed; it was mailed out?
    Answer. I don't know if it was faxed to certain places. I don't 
know how that inner office process works. I just know that that is the 
mechanism that was used to distribute this. If that is sometimes by 
hand and sometimes by fax, I'm not sure. But that's the system that was 
used.
    Question. Were Exhibits--and they're still before you, so you refer 
can to them if you need to--were Exhibits 1 and 2 distributed in a 
similar fashion?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Did you receive any responses to Exhibit 3?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And who did you receive responses from?
    Answer. Various offices within the EOP.
    Question. You have already previously described the process you 
used when we were talking generally about responses to directives.
    Answer. Uh-huh.
    Question. Was that process in any way different with respect to 
this directive?
    Answer. To the best of my recollection, no.
    Question. With respect to this directive, were people assigned to 
any particular areas or individuals that they were to obtain documents 
from or about?
    Answer. I don't believe so, no.
    Question. Was anyone----
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Was anyone assigned to or did anyone take it upon 
themselves to focus on the coffees?
    Answer. I think you asked me that before. I didn't recall then and 
I don't recall.
    Question. Just so we are clear, now I'm asking and I'm going to 
skip through a lot of this. I asked you that question. Now I am asking 
specifically about this directive.
    Answer. Same answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Was the procedure for reviewing the documents the same as 
already described with respect to this directive?
    Answer. Basically it's the same process, yes.
    Question. You said ``basically.'' Were there any differences with 
respect to this directive than what you just described?
    Answer. I don't recall any differences, no.
    Question. With respect to responding to this directive, did you 
ever bring any documents to anyone's attention to assist them in 
preparing for press inquiries?
    Answer. I don't recall doing that, no.
    Question. Did you ever bring any documents to anyone's attention 
for any other reasons?
    Answer. I don't recall doing that, no.
    Question. Did Mr. Davis have any role in gathering, reviewing, or 
producing the documents that were responsive to----
    Answer. No.
    Question [continuing]. Exhibit 3?
    Answer. I'm sorry.
    The Witness. Why don't you read that back.
    [Reporter read the record as requested.]
    The Witness. Other than his own documents that he provided to us in 
response to the directive, no, he did not.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Did anyone from any of these offices or groups or units 
ever ask--that the directive had been sent to, ever ask you any 
questions about the kind of records being requested by Exhibit 3?
    Answer. Could you clarify that question?
    Question. Did you ever receive a phone call from somebody who 
received Exhibit 3 asking ``what do you want?"
    Answer. No.
    Question. Did you ever receive any other inquiries of any personal 
or by internal memo or by letter asking questions regarding what was 
being requested by the directive?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. What sort of--what kind of inquiry did you receive? I'll 
do general and then we will break it down into individuals.
    Answer. I can only recall generally, and it was generally is this 
kind of--I've got this kind of stuff, is this kind of stuff responsive? 
Is this the kind of stuff that you think would be responsive? Is this 
the kind of stuff that I should send to you? More guidance-type 
questions.
    Question. How often did that occur, approximately?
    Answer. I can't recall exactly.
    Mr. Eggleston. And you're talking about in response to this 
directive?
    Mr. Dhillon. Yeah. Let's back up.
    The Witness. I'm only speaking about this directive.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. That's right, yes.
    Answer. I know it happened several times. I can't guess as to how 
many times it happened.
    Question. Do you recall any of the offices or agencies or entities 
that called you with such a question?
    Answer. No, I don't.
    Question. Did the military office ever call?
    Answer. No, not to my recollection.
    Question. Did WHCA ever call?
    Mr. McLaughlin. By WHCA, you mean the White House Communications 
Agency?

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Yes, that's what I mean. I'll refer to it as WHCA from 
now on.
    Mr. McLaughlin. And it's abbreviated W-H-C-A.
    The Witness. I don't recall WHCA ever calling me with any questions 
about the April 28th directive.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Do you recall WHCA ever calling you with any questions 
about anything?
    Answer. With respect to responding to this directive, no.
    Question. How about with respect to anything else?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And what did they call you about?
    Mr. Eggleston. Well, I mean, as you guys probably know, as I'm sure 
Ms. Comstock does know, he becomes involved after October 2nd or 3rd, 
if you want him to get into that line of questions. But if the question 
is prior to October 2 or 3, which may be a better question to ask----
    Mr. Dhillon. I assume that, and I'd like his response to that, and 
then I will break it down.
    The Witness. Sometime after October 3rd, I was working with WHCA to 
produce responsive videotaped events.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Prior to October 3rd, did WHCA ever contact you?
    Answer. To the best of my knowledge, no.
    Question. Prior to----
    Answer. Recollection, no.
    Question. Prior to October 3rd, did you ever contact WHCA?
    Answer. I don't recall ever contacting WHCA.
    Question. Now, prior to distributing Exhibit 3, was anyone in the 
White House searching for documents responsive to the committee's 
subpoena which is marked as Exhibit 1?
    Answer. I recall that some of the requests on the March 4 subpoena 
from this committee had been already requested or had been already been 
part of a previous directive.
    Question. And which directive was that?
    Answer. I believe a directive went out in December of '96, I think 
a follow-up went out in January of '97.
    Question. Have you seen--did you ever see those directives?
    Answer. I recall seeing them at some point.
    Question. Did you ever respond to them? I'm sorry, let me back up. 
Let me ask another question. Were you ever in the process of collecting 
documents in response to the directives?
    Answer. Those directives went out prior to my tenure at the White 
House. I don't recall ever working to gather documents to respond to 
those directives or the requests encompassed by those directives.
    Question. When was--what were those directives in response to?
    Answer. I really don't know.
    Question. Were documents being produced pursuant to those 
directives at the time you arrived at the White House?
    Answer. I don't recall that they were.
    Question. So from the time--so from the time Exhibit 1 was provided 
to the White House, which is the subpoena, to the time Exhibit 3 was 
distributed to the White House----
    Answer. Uh-huh.
    Question [continuing]. Was anyone in the White House searching for 
or producing documents responsive to the committee's subpoena?
    Mr. McLaughlin. Other than the ones that had been encompassed in 
prior directives?
    Mr. Dhillon. No, that's not my question.
    The Witness. Could you read his question back?
    [Reporter read the record as requested.]
    The Witness. I recall that we were.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Now, how did that process occur?
    Answer. I'm sorry, which process?
    Question. Well, as I understand it, Exhibits 1 and 2 were never 
sent out to anybody in the White House. Only Exhibit 3 was. How was it 
that responsive offices, units, groups or agencies could respond to the 
committee's subpoena prior to April 28th, 1997, the date of Exhibit 3?
    Answer. Let me give you an example. There were documents, I 
believe--the March 4--this is an example. The March 4th subpoena 
requested documents relating to John Huang. The December directive, my 
recollection is that the December directive also asked people to 
provide all documents that relate to John Huang.
    We were in the process of trying to gather any documents that had 
been collected in response to that directive, get them ready and 
prepare them for production to this committee, given that this subpoena 
asked for John Huang-related materials. There were other requests that 
were similar to that one.
    Question. Okay. So in other words, tell me if I'm correct, the 
White House had already collected documents responsive to the two 
directives, and you were sorting through those after you received this 
committee's subpoena to determine what in those documents was 
responsive to the committee's subpoena marked as Exhibit 1?
    Answer. Yes, that was one of the things we were doing, yes.
    Question. Now, the directives--but--I'm not sure of this so I'm 
going to ask you again. Do you recall why the directives or what the 
directives were responsive to? Were they requests from a committee or 
from the Department of Justice or what?
    Mr. Eggleston. The December '96, January '97 directives?
    Mr. Dhillon. Yes.
    Mr. Eggleston. Because there are a lot of directives in this 
matter. More than two.
    Mr. Dhillon. The two that you mentioned.
    The Witness. I don't recall.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Other than the material that had been gathered pursuant 
to the directives, were any other areas of the White House being 
searched between the time the subpoena, which is marked Exhibit 1, was 
provided to the White House, and the time Exhibit 3 was sent out to all 
the various offices and agencies of the White House?
    Answer. I don't recall specifically, but generally, I recall that 
we were trying to at least locate areas where responsive materials may 
be and anticipate searching those areas for documents, if we hadn't 
already started searching those areas.
    Question. That was in addition to culling out the documents that 
were responsive to the directives--January and December directives?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Were you doing anything else during that period of time? 
I mean by ``you,'' you or the White House Counsel's Office doing 
anything else to respond to the committee's subpoena?
    Answer. We may have been. I don't recall specifically.
    Question. The two directives, the December '96 and the January '97 
directive, did not cover all of the same material as the directive 
marked Exhibit 3; is that correct?
    Answer. I don't recall. I don't know.
    Mr. Dhillon. Let's go to Exhibit 4. I'm having placed before you, 
and I will ask to be marked Exhibit 4, a June 27, 1997, letter from Mr. 
Charles F.C. Ruff.
    [Nionakis Deposition Exhibit DN-4 was marked for identification.]
    The Witness. Okay.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Do you recognize Exhibit 4?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. What is it?
    Answer. It is a letter from Charles Ruff to Chairman Burton dated 
June 27, 1997.
    Question. Did you assist in the preparation of Exhibit 4?
    Answer. I believe I did.
    Question. What did you do?
    Answer. I believe I assisted in drafting this letter.
    Question. At the time Exhibit 4 was--you were preparing Exhibit 4, 
were you aware of any documents or things that were not being produced 
to this committee?
    Answer. I was not aware.
    Question. Have there been document productions following the 
presentation of Exhibit 4 to the Chairman? Let me ask the question 
better----
    [Pager interruption.]
    Mr. Dhillon. Who is beeping?
    [Discussion off the record.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. After providing the Chairman with this letter, were there 
additional document productions from the White House Counsel's Office?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. How many productions have there been since the June 27th 
letter which is marked as Exhibit 4?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. How did those come about?
    Answer. I can't recall specifically how they came about.
    Question. Or where did the additional documents come from?
    Answer. I know that some were e-mails. They came from our archived 
e-mails.
    Question. Were you aware at the time you prepared this letter from 
Mr. Ruff that--well, let me back up. was somebody searching for the e-
mails in the White House Counsel's Office?
    Answer. At some point, someone was searching for them, yes.
    Question. When did that search begin?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Who was searching for the e-mails?
    Answer. I don't know specifically who was searching for them.
    Question. Were e-mails responsive to the committee's subpoena, 
which is marked as Exhibit 1?
    Answer. I believe we produced e-mails to this committee and, 
therefore, I believe that they were probably responsive to the 
committee's subpoena.
    Question. Do you know what offices the additional productions came 
from? And by that I'm referring to productions that followed the June 
27th, 1997, letter marked as Exhibit 4.
    Answer. I don't recall the offices.
    Question. Were you involved in the production of any documents 
after June 27th, 1997, to this committee?
    Answer. With respect to this March 4 subpoena?
    Question. Yes.
    Answer. I may have been. I don't recall specifically.
    Question. Since June 27th, 1997, to today, what have you been doing 
with respect to--what have you been doing at the White House Counsel's 
Office?
    Answer. I continue to work on investigative matters.
    Question. Do you continue to search for documents responsive to the 
committee's subpoena which is marked Exhibit 1?
    Answer. I don't believe I do. I don't believe I continue to do 
that, no.
    Question. When did you cease searching for documents responsive to 
the committee's subpoena?
    Answer. I don't recall, but the one clarification I want to make is 
that if in the process of searching for documents responsive to another 
request, and if documents responsive to this March 4 subpoena arise or 
surface, we will produce them to this committee. And that is precisely 
what I believe is one point Mr. Ruff makes in Exhibit 4, and that is if 
we locate them, regardless of when we do, and how we do, we will 
promptly produce them to this committee.
    Question. Have you personally been involved in when that has 
occurred?
    Answer. Yes, I have been.
    Question. Under what circumstances--strike that. When?
    Answer. One example--one example I recall is some documents 
relating to either Trie or John Huang--and Barbara can remember because 
I had a long conversation with her.
    Mr. Eggleston. Ms. Comstock.
    The Witness. Ms. Comstock, excuse me. But documents relating to 
Charlie Trie--I believe it was Charlie Trie; if it wasn't Charlie Trie, 
it was John Huang--surfaced and I called up Ms. Comstock and told her 
that we had found these documents and we arranged for their production.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. How did the documents surface?
    Answer. I don't recall specifically, but I'm sure I explained it to 
Ms. Comstock. I just don't recall.
    Question. And approximately when did this occur?
    Answer. I believe it was late summer. I believe it was August, 
maybe.
    Question. Any other similar type events occur that you were 
personally involved in?
    Answer. I don't recall any.
    Question. Is there anyone in the White House Counsel's Office who 
is personally looking for documents responsive to the committee's 
subpoena marked as Exhibit 1?
    Answer. To the best of my knowledge, no.
    Question. And when did the Counsel's Office cease searching for 
documents responsive to the committee's subpoena?
    Answer. I don't know that there was a specific date when we sat 
around a table and decided that we were completely finished searching 
for documents.
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]
    The Witness. And I just want to add what I said before, and that is 
that if we find responsive stuff, regardless of how we find it or when 
we find it, if it is responsive to the March 4th subpoena, we will 
arrange to promptly produce them to this committee.
    And by the same token, if the committee believes that there is 
outstanding material and the committee comes forward and makes a 
request, we will do our best to make sure that we gather all the 
responsive documents.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. At the time you began your employment in the White House 
Counsel's Office, did you have any knowledge about videotaping or 
audiotaping conducted at the White House?
    Answer. None whatsoever.
    Question. When did you first learn about the existence of WHCA?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. You are aware of what WHCA is?
    Answer. I am now, yes.
    Question. Do you recall when you became----
    Mr. Eggleston. As does the whole country.
    The Witness. As well as the entire country.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. You'd cut out a lot of questions if you said you didn't 
have the foggiest notion what I was talking about.
    Under what circumstances did you learn about WHCA?
    Answer. As I previously stated, I don't recall when I learned about 
WHCA. And I also don't recall specifically what the circumstances were 
that I learned about WHCA. At some point I learned about WHCA. How and 
when it happened, I just don't recall.
    Question. There have been a lot of events occurring that related to 
WHCA in the last 30 days.
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Did you--to the best of your knowledge, did you know that 
WHCA existed prior to these events occurring?
    Answer. I may have, which is why I keep saying I don't recall. I 
may have known about WHCA prior to these events occurring, I just--I'm 
not sure if I did. And if so, I don't recall when.
    Question. Have you personally ever received any responsive 
documents to either the committee's subpoena or to any request from 
WHCA?
    Answer. Again, as my counsel stated earlier, prior to these events 
occurring, no.
    Question. And let's be clear when we talk about prior to these 
events occurring, you had attached a date to that, October 2nd or 3rd, 
I believe?
    Answer. October 2nd.
    Question. Have you ever attended an event where the President was 
present and the event was being videotaped or audio taped?
    Mr. McLaughlin. By anybody?
    Mr. Eggleston. I was about to say.
    Mr. Dhillon. By anybody.
    Mr. McLaughlin. By TV cameras, personal tape recorders----
    Mr. Eggleston. That's enough.
    Mr. Dhillon. The answer is yes.
    The Witness. At the time I was at the event, I did not know it was 
being videotaped. As I sit here today, it probably was videotaped.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. What event was that?
    Answer. I attended a radio address with my parents.
    Question. When was that?
    Answer. That would have been in August of this year.
    Question. Besides your parents, yourself and the President, who 
else was present?
    Answer. A lot of other people.
    Question. From a specific group or do you recall?
    Answer. I know--there were a couple of other White House staff 
people whom I just know by face, and the other people, I just don't 
recall who they were.
    Question. Now, you said that at the time you didn't know it was 
videotaped but now you think it was. Could you clarify what you mean by 
that?
    Answer. My understanding is that WHCA----
    Mr. Eggleston. Your understanding today?
    The Witness. My understanding today is that WHCA typically or 
generally videotapes the President's radio address. So knowing what I 
know now, I think it is quite probable that that radio address was 
videotaped.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. And that was August of this year?
    Answer. Yeah.
    Question. Do you recall seeing a camera at the event?
    Answer. I recall seeing a photographic camera, because ultimately I 
was photographed.
    Question. Do you recall seeing a video camera?
    Answer. I don't really recall seeing a video camera, no.
    Question. Where was the radio address?
    Answer. The radio address I attended was in the Oval Office.
    Question. And how many people were present?
    Answer. Maybe 80.
    Question. Have you attended any other events where the President 
was present and the event was being videotaped or audiotaped?
    Answer. To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe I have.
    Question. Do you meet with the President on a regular basis?
    Answer. No, I don't. Even you had to laugh when you asked that 
question.
    Question. How many times you have personally met with the 
President, excluding the radio address?
    Answer. I wouldn't really call that encounter a personal meeting 
with the President. I have----
    Mr. Eggleston. You and 80 other people.
    The Witness. That's correct. I have been in the presence and 
greeted and exchanged greetings with the President on several 
occasions. I don't--I can't really count exactly how many.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Were video cameras present at those times?
    Answer. I only recall photographic cameras.
    Question. Still cameras? Still photos?
    Answer. Still photos, photographic cameras, right.
    Question. No movie cameras?
    Answer. I don't remember movie cameras, camcorders, video cameras.
    Question. Now, prior to October 2nd, 1997----
    Answer. Uh-huh.
    Question [continuing]. Did you ever attend any meetings with anyone 
or anyone mention that there may exist audiotapes or videotapes 
responsive to any subpoena or document request?
    The Witness. Could you read that back?
    [Reporter read the record as requested.]
    The Witness. I had a brief conversation with Michael Imbroscio when 
he recounted his conversation with somebody from the Senate committee 
where that staff person inquired about clandestine audio recordings in 
the Oval Office. The possible existence of such recordings.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Besides that, any other meetings where that came up?
    Answer. Prior to October 2nd, 3rd, no.
    Question. At any meeting--at any of your team or group meetings did 
anyone ever mention WHCA prior to October 2nd, 1997?
    Answer. They may have; I don't recall.
    Question. When was that meeting or discussion with Mr. Imbroscio?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. What did he say?
    Answer. He said that a Senate committee staff member had made this 
inquiry.
    Question. And what was your response?
    Answer. I found it an incredible inquiry.
    Question. Did anyone ever ask the President whether such a system 
existed? Let me rephrase that so I'm clear on the ``system.'' Your 
conversation with Mr. Imbroscio focused on a clandestine recording 
system in the Oval Office; is that correct?
    Answer. That's not necessarily accurate.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. He recounted a conversation that he had had with a person 
on the Senate committee. In that conversation with that person, that 
person inquired about the possible existence of clandestine audio 
recordings in the Oval Office.
    Question. Did anyone ever ask the President if such a system or 
such recordings were made or existed?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Were you involved in any way in ascertaining whether such 
taping, clandestine taping occurred in the Oval Office?
    Answer. I was not involved.
    Question. Let's--prior--did anyone ask at one of these meetings or 
any other time, anyone else in the Counsel's Office about this sort of 
clandestine taping?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Did anyone ask anyone in the President's office about 
clandestine taping?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. Prior to October 2nd, 1997, what did you do to locate 
audio or videotapes responsive to any document request or subpoena?
    Answer. I was not involved in doing any of that.
    Question. Were you notified about the existence of certain 
videotapes that relate to coffees on or about October 2nd, 1997?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Who told you about those?
    Answer. Can we go off the record for a second?
    Mr. Dhillon. Sure.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Witness. In the evening of October 2nd, I had a brief 
discussion with Michael Imbroscio in which he informed me that certain 
responsive videotapes had been located. I had bumped into him in our 
document room. I was in the process of doing something and so it was a 
very quick exchange. That was when I first learned about responsive 
videotapes. I did not know at that time that they related to coffees.
    Mr. McLaughlin. By October 2nd, you mean the Thursday?
    The Witness. Yes, the Thursday, that Thursday evening.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. What was the next--let's go through the sequence of 
events that occurred with respect to the tapes and your involvement. 
What was the next thing that occurred?
    Answer. With respect to the videotapes?
    Question. Yes, we are talking just about the videotapes. And you 
have spoken to Mr. Imbroscio on the second Thursday. What happened 
next?
    Answer. October 2nd.
    Question. October 2nd, yes.
    Answer. The next day, Friday morning, we had a meeting and that is 
when I became aware that the videotapes related to coffees.
    Question. You say ``we.'' Who are we talking about?
    Answer. People in the Counsel's Office.
    Question. Who was present?
    Answer. I recall Chuck Ruff, Lanny Breuer, Cheryl Mills, Michael 
Imbroscio, and there were probably other people there, I just don't 
recall who.
    Question. What was discussed?
    Answer. Among other things, that these videotapes had been located 
and that we would be producing them.
    Question. What was your--what was the next step? Was anyone 
assigned a task with respect to the videotapes at that meeting?
    Answer. I'll refer to Michael Imbroscio's testimony, but I 
believe----
    Mr. Eggleston. His public testimony.
    The Witness. His public testimony. I believe he handled the copying 
or overseeing the copying and the production of those tapes.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Were you involved in that process at all?
    Answer. No, I was not.
    Question. Did you ever review the videotapes before they were 
produced to any entity?
    Answer. No, I did not.
    Question. Have you reviewed the videotapes since?
    Answer. No, I haven't. I will qualify. I will say I've seen the 
snippets of them, but I've not reviewed the videotapes of the coffees.
    Question. Were you involved, except for that meeting and the 
conversation you had with Mr. Imbroscio on October 2nd, were you 
involved in any way in the preparation or production of videotapes to 
any investigative group or agency?
    Answer. I had one conversation with Barbara Comstock on--Ms. 
Comstock on Sunday, and told her that she would be receiving copies of 
the tapes that afternoon.
    Question. Okay. And what prompted that call to Ms. Comstock?
    Answer. I had received a message from her asking her to call--to 
call her.
    Question. How did you obtain the information that you passed on to 
her?
    Answer. I believe I spoke to either Chuck Ruff or Lanny Breuer.
    Question. Except for that, were you involved in any way with 
respect to the review, location, and production of the videotapes?
    Answer. Relating to the coffees?
    Question. Yes.
    Answer. No.
    Question. What about relating to fund-raisers, were you involved in 
that process?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Okay. When did that process begin?
    Answer. I believe it began sometime during the week of the 6th of 
October.
    Question. And what was your responsibility with respect to 
noncoffee videotapes? Let me ask you this, how best do you characterize 
the videotapes that you were involved in? Were they fund-raising 
videotapes?
    Answer. They were videotapes relating to DNC events.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. Those were fund-raising and nonfund-raising.
    Question. What was your involvement with respect to those 
videotapes?
    Answer. I oversaw the review of those tapes, and worked with WHCA 
to copy those tapes, the ones that needed to be copied. And they 
ultimately were the production of those tapes to the various 
investigative bodies.
    Question. Were you involved in the identification of responsive 
tapes?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. And how did--describe how that process worked.
    Answer. We had--we, the Counsel's Office, obtained logs of the 
videotapes from WHCA. We then reviewed those logs, reviewed them 
against the President's schedule to locate potential responsive events. 
We then sat down and reviewed the tapes of those events.
    Question. And when you say ``we,'' who are you referring to besides 
yourself?
    Answer. Other people in the Counsel's Office.
    Question. Who were?
    Answer. Karl Racine--I believe he and I did most of the reviewing.
    Question. Where did you review the videotapes?
    Answer. In WHCA.
    Question. Did you review the originals?
    Answer. Yes. We reviewed the originals.
    Question. Did somebody retrieve those and put those in the machine 
for you, or were you doing that yourself?
    Answer. They were retrieved from the archives by WHCA. Steps were 
taken to ensure that there was no possibility of any accidental 
recording.
    Question. Recording over?
    Answer. Recording over of the original. And then we sat in WHCA and 
reviewed them in the presence of other--in the presence of WHCA staff.
    Question. What steps were taken, very briefly, to ensure that the 
tapes were not recorded over?
    Answer. Like a cassette, the--these are Beta cassettes, but like an 
audio cassette, there is a tab that could be removed that prevents any 
recording. Those tabs--I was told that those tabs were removed. Also, 
on the actual video machine, there's a button that you can press that 
says--it says something like ``antirecord'' or--it prevents any--even 
if I hit the record button, I was told that it would not engage, and 
there would be no recording.
    Question. What did you do after you reviewed the tapes?
    Answer. Handed them to the WHCA staff and asked them to be copied 
onto video--onto VHS.
    Question. Were there any tapes you reviewed that you did not 
produce to this committee?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Okay. And what were those? What were on those tapes--back 
up. Did you you conclude that those tapes were not responsive to the 
subpoena?
    Answer. To the best of our knowledge, in looking at those tapes, 
yes.
    Question. Approximately how many tapes fell into that category?
    Answer. I don't know. I can't recall.
    Question. More than five? Less than five?
    Answer. It would have been more than five.
    Question. More than 10?
    Answer. Possibly more than 10.
    Question. More than 15?
    Answer. Possibly. I just don't know.
    Question. What criteria did you use to determine if the tapes were 
relevant or responsive to the subpoena?
    Answer. We tried to locate those events that were sponsored in part 
or in whole by the DNC, whether they were fund-raising or nonfund-
raising events.
    Question. So as an--could you give me--can you give me an example 
of a tape you reviewed that wasn't responsive to the subpoena, that you 
determined wasn't responsive to the subpoena.
    Answer. A state party fund-raiser that was in no way sponsored by, 
in part or in whole by the DNC.
    Question. You have a specific one in mind?
    Answer. No, just one.
    Question. You recall----
    Answer. Generally, there was some state party fund-raisers that 
were not sponsored in part or in whole by the DNC.
    Question. And the President was obviously present at these fund-
raisers?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Any other categories or kinds of tapes that you reviewed 
that you concluded were not responsive to the subpoena, to the 
committee's subpoena?
    Answer. I don't recall, no.
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. After you reviewed the--let's see. After you reviewed the 
Beta tapes, you asked WHCA to prepare the VHS tapes.
    Answer. To record the--these events onto VHS tapes.
    Question. And then what did you do with those?
    Answer. Well, they did all the copying. And they created several 
copies. And they provided us with the copies. We had to sign for them. 
And then we produced them.
    Mr. Dhillon. Is this a good time for a break?
    Mr. McLaughlin. Sure.
    Mr. Dhillon. I would like to take an opportunity to look at my 
notes. Can we go off the record?
    [Recess taken.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Was the April 28th directive, which is marked as Exhibit 
3 that is before you, intended to include this committee's subpoena, 
which is marked as Exhibit 1?
    Answer. To the best of my recollection, it was intended to include 
many of the requests on the March 4 subpoena.
    Question. Okay. You've qualified that by saying ``many.'' Was there 
a point where certain requests were eliminated?
    Answer. Certain requests weren't eliminated. But certain requests 
may have been encompassed by another directive or were so narrow that 
we could go directly to that office and get the materials, rather than 
include it on the directive and either confuse or potentially 
overburden many other people who we know would not have such documents.
    Question. Except for the categories you've just named, was the 
document, which is Exhibit 3, intended to cover all the other areas 
that were covered by the subpoena, which is Exhibit 1?
    Answer. With--with the prior qualifications and one more, which is 
that certain requests were held in abeyance and certain requests were 
modified, in other words narrowed, this directive was used to respond 
to that subpoena and other requests from other investigative bodies.
    Question. Very briefly, how were requests either modified or held 
in abeyance?
    Answer. On the Exhibit 2, John Rowley's letter to Lanny Breuer, 
certain requests were held in abeyance by this committee. Certain 
requests were also narrowed after our discussions with the committee. 
And that was an agreement that we had reached. And it was like and--and 
later on verbal requests may have been narrowed. I just don't recall.
    Question. I would like to refer to page 2 of Exhibit 3.
    Answer. Page 2.
    Question. Item B.
    Answer. Excuse me, is that item 1-B?
    Question. Yes. I believe so. It's the coffees part.
    Answer. Uh-huh.
    Question. Now, did you receive--do you see that? It relates to 
coffees?
    Answer. Right. Excuse me one second.
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. We're on page 2 of Exhibit 3----
    Answer. Uh-huh.
    Question [continuing]. The section item B relating to coffees.
    Answer. Right.
    Question. Did you receive any documents or material in response to 
this item?
    Answer. I may have. I don't recall.
    Question. Do you recall what you received, if anything?
    Answer. Well, I--I don't--I may have received materials. I don't 
recall whether I did.
    Question. Okay. Do you--so you don't recall if you--if you did 
receive materials, you don't recall who you received them from?
    Mr. McLaughlin. Are we talking just about item 1-B now?
    Mr. Dhillon. Yes. Yes. Just coffees.
    The Witness. If I did receive materials, which I don't recall, I 
wouldn't recall who they were from either.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Do you have any specific recollection about receiving any 
materials related to coffees in response to the subpoena or--which is 
Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 3?
    Answer. I personally don't recall receiving any materials relating 
to coffees.
    Question. Do you recall----
    Answer. I want to say that I know for a fact that we have received 
materials relating to 1-B, i.e., the coffees.
    Question. Do you recall any conversations you had with anybody in 
the White House, either responding to Exhibit 3 or asking questions 
about Exhibit 3 that relate to coffees?
    Answer. I don't recall, no.
    Question. And that includes receiving any notes written by the 
President which related to coffees?
    Answer. That's correct. I don't recall receiving any such notes.
    Question. Did you make any efforts to determine if the President 
had made any notes relating to coffees?
    Answer. I personally do not recall doing that.
    Question. Did you have any discussions with anyone regarding the 
protection of documents or things related to coffees?
    Answer. Would you read that back again?
    Question. Did you have any discussions with anyone regarding the 
production of documents related to coffees?
    Answer. Other than a general discussion that, on a particular day, 
we were going to do a document production or perhaps my asking what 
kinds of stuff we were producing and somebody saying, among other 
things, you know, X, Y, Z, and some documents relating to coffees. 
That's the kind of stuff I recall.
    Question. Do you have any specific recollection of such 
conversations?
    Answer. No.
    Question. To your knowledge, has this committee received all 
documents, items, or things in the possession of the White House which 
relate to the political coffees?
    Answer. To the best of my knowledge, we have produced all documents 
relating to coffees that we have gathered and that we're aware of. I 
will also say, though, that I believe that there is one document on the 
last privilege log that you received that is related to a coffee. So 
you're aware of the existence of that document.
    Question. And you've had discussions with other members of the 
majority counsel regarding the production of that document?
    Answer. They have--they have the log. And I don't believe that they 
have asked any questions about it. But, as always, we are more than 
happy to engage in that process.
    Question. All right. Is the White House Counsel's Office actively 
looking for documents or records relating to coffees as we speak?
    Answer. I don't believe so.
    Question. We talked about documents. Did you also mean, when you 
say documents, videos, audio tapes? Did you encompass that in your----
    Answer. Yes. Documents in any form.
    Question. Okay. Are you aware of any tapes being given out to any 
of the attendees of coffees?
    Mr. McLaughlin. Tapes of what?
    Mr. Dhillon. I'm sorry. Thank you.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Are you aware of any videotapes of the coffees themselves 
being given to any of the people who attended the coffees?
    Answer. I'm not aware of that happening.
    Question. Did you ever go to any office or subdivision or unit or--
excuse me. Off the record, please.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Dhillon. Back on the record, please.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Did you ever follow up on any subpoena or other requests, 
including Exhibit 3, by talking to a responsive department or group or 
division or subdivision within the White House to determine if there 
had been compliance with the committee's subpoena or Exhibit 3?
    Answer. I don't recall doing that.
    Question. Did you ever attempt to ascertain where responsive 
documents, documents responsive to the committee's subpoena or to any 
request would be located within the structure of the White House?
    Answer. I believe I've done that.
    Question. And under what circumstances did you do that?
    Answer. I recall with respect to the Trie documents that I 
mentioned earlier, the--this committee had made a request for documents 
related to the security clearance of Charlie Trie. I went to the 
offices that I thought might have such responsive documents and talked 
about that with those people. And that's how we yielded these 
documents.
    Question. Now, how did you figure out which offices might be 
responsible for that request?
    Answer. I determined which offices might be involved with clearance 
issues and spoke to those people in those offices.
    Question. Are you familiar with all of the departments and groups 
and offices and divisions that comprise the office, executive office of 
the department?
    Answer. Not all of them. I have general knowledge of what some of 
them do.
    Question. Okay. Is there anyone in the Counsel's Office that is 
familiar with all of them and what they do?
    Answer. I'm not familiar with anyone in the Counsel's Office who is 
familiar with every one of them.
    Question. Do you know how many such offices, groups, or units or 
divisions there are?
    Answer. No. I refer to a--an address book to determine--I don't 
know. I don't know off the top of my head.
    Question. Is there anybody in the Counsel's Office that is familiar 
with the responsibilities of each of those offices, groups, or 
subdivisions, or units?
    Answer. I don't know if anyone in the Counsel's Office has that 
familiarity with the EOP.
    Question. Did you ever receive response to a request or a directive 
that seemed, after review, inadequate?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Did you ever follow up on any subpoena, document request, 
or directive by talking to anyone in the military office?
    Answer. I don't recall ever doing that.
    Question. Did you ever follow up on any subpoena, document request, 
or directive by talking to anyone in WHCA?
    Answer. Prior?
    Question. Before October 22nd, 1997.
    Answer. I don't recall ever doing that, no.
    Question. Who in the White House has been involved with production 
of documents regarding the Hudson Dog Track?
    Answer. I have.
    Mr. Dhillon. Off the record for a minute.
    [Discussion off the record.]

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Who was involved in the production of Hudson Dog Track 
documents which were produced to this committee on October 22nd, 1997?
    Answer. Well, there was a production of Hudson Dog Track documents, 
I believe, to this committee on or about September 13th. We produced 
some 360 pages of documents relating to the Hudson Casino matter.
    Question. Were there any documents produced to this committee on 
October 22nd, 1997?
    Answer. There may have been. I don't know if there were exactly. I 
don't know.
    Question. Were you----
    Answer. There may have been on or about October 22nd.
    Question. Were you involved in that production?
    Answer. I was involved in a production in October of the Hudson 
Casino documents, yes.
    Question. Does October 22nd sound about right?
    Answer. It was about that time.
    Question. Was anyone else in the Counsel's Office involved in that 
production?
    Answer. The actual physical production, no. I don't believe so.
    Question. Now, with respect to the Hudson Dog Track documents, who 
in the White House took part in the decision to assert privilege over 
those documents?
    Answer. As a preliminary matter, privilege was not asserted over 
any of those documents. Those documents were placed on a log, as other 
documents in the past have been placed on a log, and designated as 
being subject to privilege.
    Question. Who in the White House took part in the decision to make 
them subject to privilege, the--let me rephrase the question so we're 
clear.
    With respect to the Hudson Dog Track documents, who in the White 
House took part in the decision to make them subject to privilege?
    Answer. I can speak generally about the process that we go through 
with respect to privileged documents.
    Question. Okay.
    Answer. When we find documents that we believe are potentially 
subject to privilege, they are gathered. And at some point, they are 
reviewed. And a final decision is made as to whether or not they are 
subject to privilege.
    With respect to those that we determine are subject to privilege, 
we place those--we describe them on a log, and we produce them to this 
committee. The added component, then, in this process with respect to 
the Hudson Casino documents is that, because they were at issue, and 
subpoenaed in a private litigation, the Justice Department, after our 
review, reviewed the documents in consultation with the office of legal 
counsel and determined that they were subject to privilege, put them on 
a log and filed that log in a private litigation.
    Question. That was the civil litigation you had talked about 
earlier in the deposition?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. Now, with respect to these dog track documents, I want to 
take you to a point where, before you've sent them over to the 
Department of Justice, who in the White House made the decision to make 
a claim that they were subject to privilege?
    Answer. I recall a meeting that Chuck Ruff, Lanny Breuer, Cheryl 
Mills and I participated in, in which we--during which we reviewed 
these documents.
    Question. And at that meeting, was that when the decision was made 
to make these documents subject to privilege?
    Answer. Not--not really, because, as I said, there was the added 
step. And so the conclusion at the end of this meeting was we 
believed--we believed that these documents were subject to privilege. 
But they had to be sent to the Department of Justice for their review 
and final determination prior to our putting them on any kind of a log.
    Question. When did that meeting occur?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. How long did it take the Department of Justice to make 
its decision?
    Answer. I only know that it took them a while. I don't recall 
exactly how long.
    Question. More than a month?
    Answer. I know this, I know that they finalized their review to the 
Thursday before they were produced to this committee and filed the 
actual log in the civil litigation the Friday before these documents 
were produced to this committee.
    Question. So at the meeting with you and Mr. Breuer and Mr. Ruff, 
you concluded, the three of you concluded that these documents were 
subject to privilege subject to review of the Department of Justice--
I'm sorry, and Ms. Mills was also at that meeting?
    Answer. Yes. That was what I would consider to be our initial 
determination. But we knew that the next step was that they had to go 
to Justice.
    Question. Did the White House make any other determinations after 
that determination?
    Answer. No.
    Question. So you----
    Answer. I don't recall us making any other determinations after 
that one.
    Question. So it was--you said it was your initial determination. 
Was it fair to say it was the only determination the White House made 
with respect to whether those documents were subject to privilege?
    Answer. Prior to--yes. Yes, I believe that's accurate. I say 
``initial,'' because that was not the final step in this process is why 
I say that, because they have to go to Justice.
    Question. It was the final step for the White House Counsel's 
Office, though; is that correct?
    Answer. With respect to reviewing them to determine whether they 
may be subject to privilege, yes.
    Question. Now, when--now I'm only talking about the documents 
produced on or about October 22nd. When were these documents first 
discovered?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Who discovered them?
    Answer. They were provided to Counsel's Office, I believe, by the 
Office of Records Management.
    Question. Were those documents provided in response to the civil 
subpoena that had come through the Department of Justice?
    Answer. I don't recall specifically.
    Question. Do you recall when the request came through for those 
documents?
    Answer. By the civil?
    Question. By anyone.
    Answer. I don't recall specifically, no.
    Question. Do you recall by the civil----
    Answer. No, I don't.
    Question. Does the White House always send documents to the 
Department of Justice for privilege determination?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Was this the first time that that had occurred since you 
had been there?
    Answer. To my knowledge, yes.
    Question. And why were these documents sent to the Justice 
Department for privilege determination?
    Answer. They are representing us in that litigation. We are not a 
party, but they are representing us.
    Question. And you say ``us''?
    Answer. Excuse me, the White House.
    Question. And how was it that they came to--did they tell you that 
they were--strike that.
    Did the Department of Justice advise you that they wanted to review 
all documents that you believed were subject to privilege before they 
could be produced?
    Mr. Eggelston. Are you talking about in the civil----
    Mr. Dhillon. Right. In the civil.
    Mr. McLaughlin. You mean, as lawyers, did they need to fulfill 
their obligations as lawyers to review documents to be produced in the 
litigation?
    Mr. Dhillon. Let me rephrase the question.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. How did DOJ--with respect to the----
    Mr. Eggelston. I really need to break.
    Mr. Dhillon. Do you want to break now?
    Mr. Eggelston. Is that okay?
    Mr. Dhillon. Yeah. It's fine.
    [Recess taken.]
                      
EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. I would like to go back to the meeting that you were 
talking about before the break where the discussion of privilege about 
these documents occurred.
    Mr. Ruff was present, Mr. Breuer, Mr. Mills?
    Answer. Ms. Mills.
    Question. I'm sorry. Ms. Mills and you?
    Answer. That's correct.
    Question. And did that meeting occur prior to the production of the 
documents that you previously referred to, the September production?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. With respect to the October production of documents, when 
were those documents first reviewed by anyone?
    Answer. I don't recall that either.
    Question. You talked about a September production. Were the 
documents that were produced--and you said there were how many hundreds 
of pages?
    Answer. I think around 380 pages.
    Question. Were the documents that were produced in October part of 
the set of documents that were produced in September and taken out?
    Answer. I don't recall that either.
    Question. Oh, I know what we were talking about, the review of 
documents by the Department of Justice.
    Answer. Uh-huh.
    Question. Why did the Department of Justice review the documents in 
this case?
    Answer. They are the ones representing us in this matter. They are 
the ones who have produced any documents--any White House documents in 
this private litigation. I don't, and the White House doesn't, directly 
produce documents to the private plaintiffs. We give our documents, the 
responsive documents to the Department of Justice. They then turn them 
over to the private plaintiffs.
    Question. Why did you wait for the Department of Justice to rule on 
whether the documents were subject to privilege before producing the 
documents to this committee?
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]
    The Witness. We wanted to resolve the issues with respect to the 
private litigation prior to doing anything with these documents with 
respect to the--this committee.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. When you say ``we,'' who are you referring to?
    Answer. The Counsel's Office.
    Question. Who in the Counsel's Office?
    Answer. As a collective entity, the Counsel's Office.
    Question. Did Mr. Ruff make that decision?
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]
    The Witness. He did, yes.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. And just so I'm clear, Mr. Ruff decided that no documents 
that were subject to privilege--are those the only ones that we're 
talking about here in terms of documents not produced in the September 
production that relate to the racetrack?
    Answer. Could you repeat that?
    Question. All I want to talk about--ask you about are documents 
that are subject to privilege. Actually, let me step back from that. 
All I want to talk to you about are the racetrack documents that were 
not produced in September, but were produced in October. Okay?
    Answer. Okay.
    Question. Was Mr. Ruff's decision--did Mr. Ruff decide not to 
produce documents subject to privilege to this committee until after 
the Department of Justice had also reviewed those documents?
    Answer. His decision was to wait until this issue was resolved with 
respect to the private litigation.
    Question. Did the--did Mr. Ruff or anyone in the White House 
Counsel's Office advise this committee that such documents existed and 
that there was an additional review being conducted by the Department 
of Justice?
    Answer. I don't know.
    Question. How did the Justice Department insert itself into the 
loop of review?
    Mr. Eggleston. I think he's really answered that. They produce the 
documents in the private litigation. I mean----
    Mr. Dhillon. Let me ask another question.
    Mr. Eggleston. I mean the words ``insert in the loop"; they're in 
the loop.
    The Witness. They're in the loop.
    Mr. McLaughlin. They're your questions.
    The Witness. Yes, that's correct; as I said, they're representing 
us.
    Mr. Eggleston. I just want to raise another issue, which is that 
you're also--I don't want to stop you from asking any questions, but 
there is currently private litigation involving the Department of 
Justice acting as attorney to the White House in connection with that 
litigation. And it's ongoing pending litigation.
    And so he's just going to have to be careful about answering some 
of these questions, because it relates to ongoing pending litigation, 
and the Department of Justice, as it always does, represents the White 
House in these matters. It is not unusual to have the Department of 
Justice represent the White House if they have responsive materials in 
connection with private litigation. That is the way the system is 
designed.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Are the documents that were produced to the committee in 
October responsive to any committee subpoena?
    Answer. They may be.
    Question. Why were they produced to the committee?
    Answer. Because they--they may be responsive to one of the 
committee's requests.
    Question. So is it fair to say that these documents were--there was 
a dual nature to these documents? They were responsive not only to the 
civil litigation but also to this committee's request or subpoenas?
    Mr. Eggleston. I think he said ``may be.''
    The Witness. May be, yes.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. That there were a dual nature then to these documents?
    Answer. Maybe, yes. Yes, maybe.
    Question. The White House Counsel produced these documents?
    Answer. You have these documents.
    Question. You concede that in October the White House produced 
documents to this committee that we are talking about?
    Mr. Eggleston. This whole discussion has been about documents that 
are in your possession. If that's the question, the answer to that 
question is yes.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. And the White House produced those documents because they 
were responsive to a request from this committee; is that right?
    Mr. McLaughlin. That is the third time you have asked that 
question. Do you want to answer?
    Mr. Eggleston. He's going to say ``may be.''
    The Witness. They may be responsive to a request by this committee.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. The documents that may be responsive to requests or 
subpoenas by this committee up until that point had never gone through 
the Department of Justice for review, had they?
    Mr. Eggleston. I'm sorry? Did you understand that? These documents 
or other documents?

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Other documents except for these documents, the October 
documents that relate to the racetrack----
    Answer. All right.
    Question [continuing]. No other documents that were or may have 
been responsive to this committee's request or subpoena has gone to the 
Department of Justice for review; is that correct?
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]
    The Witness. To my knowledge, no, because to my knowledge, no other 
documents that have been requested by this committee were also at issue 
in a private litigation in which the Department of Justice was 
representing us.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. So this category of documents, the documents produced in 
October, were treated differently by the White House Counsel's Office 
by virtue of the fact that the Department of Justice was involved in 
civil litigation relating to the documents; is that correct?
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]
    The Witness. Different because they were subject to a subpoena in a 
private litigation in which the Department of Justice was representing 
us, the White House.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. And you had a--there was a meeting where this issue was 
discussed; is that correct?
    Mr. McLaughlin. Asked and answered.
    The Witness. What issue?

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Was there a meeting where it was discussed that these 
documents would be treated differently because they were under the 
subpoena through the civil action?
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]
    The Witness. We did not discuss treating these differently. We 
reviewed these documents and the next step, because they were 
subpoenaed in connection with a private litigation, was the Department 
of Justice was representing us, they had to go to the Department of 
Justice next. There was no discussion as to whether or not we were 
going to treat these documents any differently.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Now, when did the dog track documents go to the 
Department of Justice?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Were there any communications to the Department of 
Justice about Congress, this committee, or the Senate, wanting those 
documents?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Was the Department of Justice told anything about the 
Congress's requests or needs with respect to those documents?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. At the time--you were the person who produced the 
documents in September?
    Answer. The White House did. The Counsel's Office did. I'm not 
sure--I believe I was the person who shepherded them out the door.
    Question. At the time those documents were shepherded out the door, 
were you aware of the existence of the documents that were eventually 
produced to this committee in October of 1997?
    Answer. I don't recall.
    Question. Who at the Department of Justice reviewed the documents? 
And when I talk about ``the documents,'' from this point on it will be 
the October 22nd documents.
    Answer. The AUSA representing us, representing the White House, his 
name is David Jones.
    Question. Was he the person who did the Department of Justice 
review?
    Answer. He's the person I communicated with. I'm not sure if he was 
the person who did the review.
    Question. Who communicated back to you that the Department of 
Justice review was complete and what the results were?
    Answer. David Jones.
    Question. Did you meet with the Department of Justice at any time 
regarding the decision as to what documents to assert a privilege over?
    Answer. I had conversations with DOJ.
    Question. And who would that have been with? David Jones?
    Answer. David Jones, I believe I spoke to David Jones about this.
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]
    The Witness. I don't recall speaking to David Jones specifically 
about the documents and his review or if he reviewed them--the review 
of the documents. I recall speaking to someone at OLC, Office of Legal 
Counsel, about this.

                      EXAMINATION BY MR. DHILLON:

    Question. Do you recall who you spoke to?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Who?
    Answer. Paul Colborn.
    Question. What did you tell Mr. Colborn?
    Mr. Eggleston. Now, hold it. Let me raise two objections. First, 
you are inquiring into communications between attorney and client in 
connection with ongoing private litigation. And I must say it is 
ongoing, and given the fact that you have these documents, it seems to 
me that you are doing little here other than trying to advance a 
private interest in private litigation. There is litigation going on, 
and maybe litigation that will arise as a result of the assertion of 
privilege by the White House.
    The Witness. If there is an assertion.
    Mr. Eggleston. If there is an assertion in connection with that. 
And your asking directly for communications between the Department of 
Justice and the White House in this matter I think is absolutely 
inappropriate, and I can't help but concluding that you are attempting 
to influence private interests. Because otherwise I don't see what this 
inquiry is about, because you have the documents. The documents have 
not been withheld from either the Senate or the House; and indeed, I 
think a few of these documents were actually used by the Senate in 
connection with its hearings.
    [Witness conferring with counsel.]
    Mr. Eggleston. And I really--finally, let me say I've let this go 
on quite some distance. But I talked to Ms. Comstock last week and told 
her that Mr. Nionakis would not be answering questions about this, and 
she said she would raise it with Mr. Ruff and Mr. Ruff would provide 
someone else to respond to questions. And since you talked to Mr. 
Breuer, I assume he has answered the questions.
    But I am really not in a position to let them respond to questions 
about communications between the Department of Justice acting as the 
lawyer, particularly in a circumstance where it seems to me you already 
have the documents. And I can't imagine what your interest in this 
could be, other than advancing private interest in private litigation.
    Mr. Dhillo