[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HAS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GIVEN PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO THE
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 20, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-256
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 20, 2000.................................... 1
Statement of:
Robinson, James K., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Justice............................ 27
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Georgia, transcript of testimony of Al Gore, Jr......... 83
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana, prepared statement of.......................... 6
Chenoweth-Hage, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho, prepared statement of.................. 331
Robinson, James K., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Justice, prepared statement of..... 32
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut:
Exhibits used in hearing................................. 69
Letter from Janet Reno................................... 304
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Letter from Charles Ruff................................. 18
Letter from Craig Gillen................................. 14
Letter from James Cole................................... 16
Letter from James McKay.................................. 12
Letter from Michael Zeldin............................... 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
HAS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GIVEN PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO THE
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT?
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:10 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Waxman, Maloney, Cummings,
Kucinich, Norton, Barr, Shays, Souder, Horn, Ose, Chenoweth-
Hage, Morella, and LaTourette.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Daniel R.
Moll, deputy staff director; James Wilson, chief counsel; David
A. Kass, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; M. Scott
Billingsley and James J. Schumann, counsels; Robert A. Briggs,
clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; Michael Canty, legislative
assistant; Leneal Scott, computer systems manager; John Sare,
staff assistant; Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator;
Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority
chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative
counsel; Kristin Amerling, minority deputy chief counsel; Paul
Weinberger, minority counsel; Michael Yeager, minority senior
oversight counsel; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Jean
Gosa and Earley Green, minority assistant clerks; and Chris
Traci, minority staff assistant.
Mr. Burton. Good afternoon.
A quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform
will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses'
opening statements be included in the record. Without
objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits and
extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the FBI interview summary of
Donald Fowler dated August 6, 1997 be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that questioning in this matter
proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House rule 11 and committee
rule 14 which the chairman and ranking minority member allocate
time to the members of the committee as they deem appropriate
for extended questioning, not to exceed 60 minutes equally
divided between majority and minority. Without objection, so
ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that questioning in the matter
under consideration proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House rule
11 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. Without
objection, so ordered.
Today, we are holding another in our series of hearings
into the Justice Department's handling of the campaign
fundraising investigation. We have a number of senior Justice
Department officials here. We have Assistant Attorney General
James Robinson, the head of the Criminal Division; we have his
Deputy, Alan Gershel; we have the head of the Campaign
Financing Task Force, Robert Conrad; and we have the Assistant
Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, Robert Raben.
We have a lot of questions about what has been happening in
this investigation. Before we get into that, I want to restate
why we are concerned about this.
When the Attorney General decided she wasn't going to
appoint an independent counsel, she testified before our
committee. She promised that the Justice Department would leave
no stone unturned. This is what she said, ``In this particular
campaign finance investigation, as in all others entrusted to
the Justice Department, we are going to follow every lead
wherever it goes.'' That is the standard I hold her to. So let
us review what we have learned about this investigation.
In December 1996, at the very outset, Lee Radek, the head
of the Public Integrity Section, had a meeting with two senior
FBI officials. They testified that Mr. Radek said he was under
a lot of pressure and the Attorney General's job might hang in
the balance. Director Freeh was so concerned that he went to
the Attorney General to talk about it. She apparently doesn't
remember that meeting.
In the summer of 1997, the FBI learned that documents were
being destroyed at Charlie Trie's house in Arkansas. Three FBI
agents got on a plane to Little Rock to get a search warrant
and seize the documents. They were called back by senior
Justice Department officials. The search warrant didn't get
served for another 3 months. When it finally was served, they
found out that Charlie Trie's staff has been hiding and
destroying documents during that period.
The President was interviewed twice by the task force in
1997 and 1998. He was never asked a single question, not one,
about James Riady, John Huang, Johnny Chung, or any aspect of
the foreign money scandal.
The Vice President was interviewed four times in 1997 and
1998. He was never asked a single question about the Hsi Lai
Temple fundraiser. We found out about that because we
subpoenaed the interview summaries. It wasn't until we made it
public that the Justice Department got embarrassed and decided
to go back and reinterview these people.
No fewer than seven senior Justice Department and FBI
officials have asked the Attorney General to appoint an
independent counsel or special counsel. She was told that she
needed to do it under the mandatory section of the law by the
Director of the FBI and the head of the task force, Mr. La
Bella. She refused every time.
In his memo, Mr. La Bella said that the Department was
going through contortions to avoid investigating senior White
House officials. He said there was gamesmanship going on. He
said they were starting with predetermined conclusions and
reasoning backward to avoid appointing an independent counsel.
A year and a half ago, they reached a plea agreement with
John Huang. They interviewed him for several days. He testified
that James Riady organized an extensive scheme to funnel
$700,000 or $800,000 in foreign money into Democratic campaigns
in 1992. At least that is how much we know of. Yet James Riady
has not yet been indicted.
What are we supposed to think about that kind of
investigation? I know that Janet Reno likes to point to the
fact that they have gotten a number of convictions. The vast
majority have been low level conduits. I think the record
clearly shows that this Justice Department has bent over
backward to avoid investigating the President, the Vice
President and other senior White House officials. Why else
would they wait more than 3\1/2\ years to ask the Vice
President one single question about the Hsi Lai Temple? That is
why we needed an independent counsel in the first place.
So who is to blame for all this? The FBI? The Director of
the FBI pushed harder than anybody to get an independent
counsel. The FBI wanted to serve the search warrant on Charlie
Trie's house and they got overruled. It was the FBI that did
the right thing when they were told that Lee Radek said the
Attorney General's job might hang in the balance. The
prosecutors on the task force, Charles La Bella, pushed hard
for an independent counsel. He lost a job as a U.S. attorney
because of it. Robert Conrad, who is here with us today, has
pushed for a special counsel to investigate the Vice President.
I have met a few of the prosecutors from the task force. I
think they are hardworking professionals who want to do the
right thing. I think the blame rests squarely in the Attorney
General's office because that is where the big decisions are
made.
All of these things we talked about before. There are a
number of new issues we are going to talk about today with our
witnesses. I want to mention just a couple of them and then we
will go into more detail during the questioning.
First, what happened with the transcript of the Vice
President's interview bothers me a great deal. As I said, the
Department was embarrassed because we revealed that the Vice
President hadn't been asked any questions about the Hsi Lai
Temple or foreign money.
The Justice Department went back and reinterviewed him in
April. I issued a subpoena for the summary of the interview. I
was told by the Attorney General that turning over that
interview to us would jeopardize the investigation. It would
show potential targets of ongoing investigations, what
direction prosecutors were headed. Here is what she said: ``The
investigations would be seriously prejudiced by the revelation
of the direction of the investigations or information about the
evidence that the prosecutors have obtained.''
We did not contest that and we didn't get a copy. Little
did I know that the Vice President already had a transcript or
did get a transcript of the entire interview. When news reports
came out that Mr. Conrad had asked for a special counsel, the
Vice President decided to release it to the press.
There is a double standard here. The Justice Department
tells us we can't have it, yet they give it to the Vice
President. He is the target of the investigation. Why is it not
OK for this committee to have it but it is OK for the Vice
President who is under investigation? Did the Vice President's
actions jeopardize the investigation? If the Vice President put
his own political damage control ahead of the Justice
Department's investigation, that is a pretty serious problem.
I also issued a subpoena for the Justice Department's
summary of their April interview with the President. Again, I
was told giving it to us would jeopardize their investigation.
Does the President have a transcript of his interview like the
Vice President? Is he going to release it at some time when it
serves his purposes?
Second, we reviewed the document subpoenas that the Justice
Department issued to the White House. There are some very
important areas in which they didn't even bother to ask for
documents and that is troublesome.
Third is the issue of the tape of the December 15, 1995
White House coffee. The President and the Vice President were
in attendance. This was the coffee that Mr. Wiriadinata
attended. He was the Indonesian gardener. He and his wife gave
$455,000 to the DNC. During the coffee, he told the President
that James Riady sent me. It is what happens next that is very
interesting.
Mr. Wiriadinata moves away from the camera and you hear a
voice in the background. It sounds very much like the Vice
President. It sounds like he is saying, ``We oughta, we oughta,
we oughta show Mr. Riady the tapes, some of the ad tapes.''
That is very troublesome.
If it is the Vice President, why does he want Mr. Riady to
see the issue ads? Mr. Riady lives in Indonesia. He was the
person who was the originator of a lot of these illegal foreign
contributions, the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Why does the Vice President want him to see these ads?
What is more troublesome is that I don't think the Justice
Department has even looked into this. In five interviews with
the Vice President, they didn't ask him a single question about
it. I don't think they have even asked to see the original
tape.
People might listen to the tape and disagree about what
exactly he says. It is pretty clear to me but that is something
the Justice Department needs to determine. That is something
the Justice Department needs to ask the Vice President about.
There is one final thing that came up recently that
provides a perfect example of what is wrong with the Justice
Department's investigation. Mr. Conrad is the supervisor of the
task force. He reports to Mr. Gershel. Mr. Gershel is
responsible for overseeing all of their work, and that is a big
job.
We have been told that this is the largest investigation
the Justice Department has ever mounted. You can imagine my
surprise when I read that Mr. Gershel was trying the James
Bakaly case. He spent an entire week at that trial. I don't
take any particular position on the Bakaly case but there are
thousands of lawyers at the Justice Department. Why Mr.
Gershel? Is he giving his full attention to the fundrasing
investigation?
James Riady hasn't been indicated and it has been a year
and a half. He funneled $700,000 or $800,000 in illegal
contributions that we know about into the country. I don't
think anyone has really analyzed those videotapes. The Vice
President certainly hasn't been questioned about them. Whole
categories of documents were never subpoenaed from the White
House. The man who is supervising this massive undertaking is
now out prosecuting Ken Starr's spokesman. Who is setting the
priorities over at the Justice Department?
We have a lot of questions to ask and our witnesses are
here and we appreciate that. We thank you for being here. I
note that Mr. Robinson recently had some health problems and I
am glad to see he is doing better and glad that you are here
with us today.
Mr. Robinson. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. I would be happy to yield to Mr. Waxman now for
his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.004
Mr. Waxman. Thank you.
This hearing makes me think the Attorney General should
revive an old Johnny Carson routine. She should take the letter
Mr. Burton sent her this week about the campaign finance
investigation, make a copy of it and file it away in a
hermetically sealed jar. That way, she will always have it as
an irreplaceable and pristine memento of political absurdity.
There is something exquisite in Mr. Burton lecturing the
Attorney General on how to run a competent investigation. Three
years ago, the chief counsel of this committee quit and told
Mr. Burton that he had ``been unable to implement the standards
of professional conduct I have been accustomed to at the U.S.
Attorney's Office.''
Two years ago when the chairman released the doctored Webb
Hubbell transcripts, one Republican investigator was quoted as
saying, ``I am ashamed to be a part of something that is so
unprofessional.'' In the days after the Hubbell transcript
debacle, Newt Gingrich, no shrinking violet when it came to
investigations into Democrats, insisted that Mr. Burton's chief
investigator be fired and told Mr. Burton he should be
embarrassed.
In 4 years, the chairman has run through four chief
counsels by my count, we have had at least three different
chief investigators, at least three of his press secretaries
have come and gone, and altogether nearly 70 people have left
the committee staff. That is a remarkable record. It explains
why the congressional expert Norman Ornstein said, ``The Burton
investigation is going to be remembered as a case study in how
not to do a congressional investigation and as a prime example
of investigation as farce.''
Moreover, the Attorney General should be especially
attentive to any letter from the chairman that purports to
interpret words from tapes, as his most recent letter does.
Mr. Burton is convinced that Vice President Gore is saying
on the tape, ``We ought to, we ought to, we ought to show Mr.
Riady the tapes, some of the ad tapes.'' Maybe it does, maybe
it doesn't. Maybe the reference is to ``Dottie'' or ``Lottie''
or even ``John Gotti.'' Who is to know?
This episode has made me think back to October 1997 when
the White House released videos of the infamous coffees. Mr.
Burton was sure that the videotapes had been altered to conceal
incriminating information. In fact, he was so sure that they
were altered that he told the country on Face the Nation that
he was hiring lipreaders to get to the bottom of things. He did
investigate this, as did others, but no one was able to find
any incriminating statements.
Then in April 1998, Mr. Burton released the doctored Web
Hubbell transcripts. Some reporters initially accepted his
interpretations as fact but they weren't. The chairman or his
staff had systematically changed words and left out passages to
make the transcript seem incriminating. In one excerpt, for
example, the chairman had Mr. Hubbell saying, ``The Riady is
just not easy to do business with me while I am here.'' In
fact, Mr. Hubbell never mentioned Mr. Riady at all. He simply
said, ``The reality is that it is just not easy to do business
with me while I am here.'' But if you are dead set on wanting
to hear Riady at every possible opportunity, it is easy to
mistake Riady for reality. This and other unfortunate
distortions in the doctored transcript brought mounds of
ridicule to this committee.
In one memorable Time Magazine piece, which I will make a
part of the record, Calvin Trillin tried to capture how absurd
this committee's allegations can be.
All of this would be comical if it did no harm to people's
reputations but real harm is often done when the chairman
wildly attacks the integrity of others, particularly the Vice
President and the Attorney General. These groundless and
offensive attacks don't reflect just excessive partisanship,
they have moved far beyond that. They are reckless expressions
of zealotry that take no account of the personal responsibility
that each of us has to be accurate or factual in our comments.
In the Attorney General's case, Mr. Burton is increasingly
shrill despite the fact that FBI Director Freeh and former
Campaign Task Force Director Chuck La Bella have told him he is
factually wrong in questioning the Attorney General's
integrity.
The videotape the chairman has analyzed is a good example
of misguided efforts. How did Mr. Burton and his staff find
this? They must be spending thousands of hours and countless
taxpayer dollars combing every videotape and every document
this committee has ever received to find anything possible to
embarrass the Vice President.
Now the chairman is upset that the Vice President received
so-called special treatment by the task force and he points to
the fact that the Vice President received a transcript of his
deposition. That is one of the main reasons we are having this
hearing.
I have tried to find out whether this is true. As usual in
this committee, it turned out it is not true at all. The fact
is that many other high-ranking officials, including several
Republican officials, have been treated in the exact same
manner. When Edwin Meese, the former Republican Attorney
General was investigated by the independent counsel, he was
given a transcript of his deposition. I have a letter from
former Independent Counsel James McKay attesting to this and I
want to include that in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.005
Mr. Waxman. When George Schultz, the former Republican
Secretary of State, was interviewed by the Iran Contra
independent counsel, he was given a copy of a taped record of
his session. I have a letter from former Deputy Independent
Counsel Craig Gillen attesting to this and I am going to
include that in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.006
Mr. Waxman. When the House Ethics Committee interviewed
former Speaker Newt Gingrich as part of its investigation into
his ethical lapses, the committee provided him access to the
transcripts. I have a letter from James Cole, Special Counsel
to the Ethics Committee investigation, attesting to this and I
want to include that in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.007
Mr. Waxman. Even this committee has followed the very
procedures that Chairman Burton is complaining about. When this
committee interviewed Charles Ruff, the former White House
counsel earlier this year, Chairman Burton gave him a
transcript of his interview. I have a letter from Mr. Ruff
attesting to this and I want to include it in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.008
Mr. Waxman. I have more examples but I think my point is
clear. Vice President Gore didn't receive special treatment at
all.
I think what really upsets some people is that the Vice
President released his transcript publicly. By putting out the
facts, he made it impossible for his attackers to try him by
innuendo. Attacks through innuendo have been the standard
practice in this and too many other investigations.
The obvious plan, and I say obvious only in retrospect, was
to have the news media in a frenzy for weeks speculating about
what new incriminating evidence could be behind Mr. Conrad's
recommendation, but the Vice President frustrated that plan the
moment he released his transcript. That has made some of his
political opponents very angry and resulted in the ludicrous
hearing we are having today.
I ask consent that the documents referred to be part of my
record if that hasn't already been covered by the unanimous
consent of the chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.015
Mr. Burton. I appreciate the gentleman from California once
again refreshing our memories about everything that has
happened in the last 3\1/2\ years, although we don't quite
agree with everything that was said.
Are there other Members who would like to make an opening
statement?
[No response.]
Mr. Burton. If not, would the gentlemen please rise so you
can be sworn?
Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God.
[Witnesses affirm.]
Mr. Burton. Do any of you have opening statements you would
like to make?
Mr. Robinson. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Robinson.
STATEMENT OF JAMES K. ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Robinson. Mr. Chairman, ranking minority member and
members of the committee, since neither I nor my Deputy, Mr.
Gershel, nor Mr. Conrad, have previously appeared before this
committee, although Mr. Raben has, I would like to take a
moment to just tell you a bit about who we are and where we
come from.
I have been the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
Division since June 1998. I have been a lawyer for 32 years.
Before my current position from 1993 to 1998, I was the dean
and a professor of law at Wayne State University Law School in
Detroit, MI. My principal area of academic interest in teaching
and in writing is in the law of evidence. I continue to be a
tenured professor at the law school on leave during my
appointment to this position.
Prior to my appointment as Dean, I was a partner in the
Detroit law firm of Honigan, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn where I
chaired the litigation department and engaged in major complex
litigation including white collar criminal defense work.
From 1990 to 1991, I was the president of the State Bar of
Michigan and from 1977 through 1980, I was the U.S. attorney
for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit.
Alan Gershel is a career Federal prosecutor. He has been a
Deputy Assistant Attorney General since December 1999. In that
capacity he has the responsibility within the Criminal Division
for supervising the Campaign Financing Task Force, the Fraud
Section and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.
Before his current position, Mr. Gershel served since 1980
as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of
Michigan. Before coming to the Criminal Division at my request,
he was the first assistant and the Chief of the Criminal
Division in that office. For 20 years he has been a Federal
prosecutor. He has supervised or personally prosecuted hundreds
of Federal criminal cases including public corruption and white
collar matters, as well as a wide range of other Federal
criminal offenses.
He has a well-deserved reputation as an outstanding career
Federal prosecutor. He is smart, aggressive, ethical and fair-
minded.
Bob Conrad, the current chief of the Campaign Financing
Task Force, like Mr. Gershel, is a career Federal prosecutor.
Before being selected with my participation in December 1999 to
head the Campaign Financing Task Force, Bob served for 8 years
as the Criminal Chief in the U.S. Attorneys Office for the
Western District of North Carolina where, like Mr. Gershel, he
was responsible for supervising hundreds of prosecutions
involving white collar crime, public corruption, narcotics
trafficking, firearm violations and a wide variety of other
Federal crimes. He has personally tried numerous cases ranging
from bank robberies to capital litigation.
He has over 11 years of experience as a Federal prosecutor,
he has proven himself to be a highly talented, tenacious person
with tremendous personal and professional integrity.
Mr. Gershel and Mr. Conrad are both on detail to the
Criminal Division from their respective U.S. Attorneys Offices.
They and their families have made substantial personal
sacrifices in order for them to come to Washington and assume
their important responsibilities. I am personally grateful to
them and I believe the American people should be as well for
undertaking this valuable service to the country.
Mr. Chairman, in the letter you wrote to me requesting my
appearance, you stated the purpose of today's hearing would be
to answer the question of whether the President and the Vice
President received special treatment from the Campaign
Financing Task Force, from the Criminal Division, or from the
Justice Department.
I have great respect for Congress' oversight
responsibilities and welcome a healthy exchange of ideas with
this committee about the Department's policies and priorities
and accept any criticisms that might be made about our
activities and take that into consideration.
However, it would be inconsistent with my ethical and
professional responsibilities to comment publicly about
specific aspects of any criminal investigation. As you know,
the interviews of the President and the Vice President pertain
to matters currently pending before the Department. Indeed, as
a result of information improperly leaked, it has been widely
reported in the press that the Attorney General is presently
considering a recommendation that a Special Counsel be
appointed to handle certain aspects of the Vice President's
interview.
As is well known I am sure to members of this committee,
the McDade Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 530(b) makes Federal
prosecutors subject to State ethics rules governing the conduct
of attorneys. I am bound by the requirements of the rules of
professional conduct in Michigan and in the District of
Columbia where I am admitted to practice law. These rules
prevent me from discussing matters relating to pending criminal
investigations.
I am also bound by similar provisions of the U.S. Attorneys
Manual which provides, among other things, ``Personnel of the
Department of Justice shall not respond to questions about the
existence of an ongoing investigation or comment on its nature
or progress.'' These are legitimate constraints on Federal
prosecutors for good and sufficient reasons and I would be in
support of them even if they weren't required but they are.
As the Attorney General emphasized in declining to answer
questions about this same matter during her testimony before
the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, it is essential to
the fairness and integrity of our criminal justice system that
criminal investigations and prosecutions be handled in an
appropriate way. It is my firm belief that prosecutors should
be doing their talking about pending criminal cases only in
court and only if charges are actually brought.
It would not be appropriate for me or my colleagues to make
public statements that could potentially compromise or
improperly influence the due administration of justice or
unfairly prejudice the rights of individuals who may be
witnesses, subjects or targets of our work.
If the Department were to provide congressional committees
confidential information or engage in a dialog about active
criminal investigations, it would place Congress in a position
of appearing to exert pressure or attempting to influence the
prosecution or declination of criminal cases. It could appear
that Congress was seeking to direct particular tactical and
strategic decisions such as the timing and sequence of witness
interviews or the scope and nature of our questioning or
generally attempting to influence the conduct and outcome of
criminal investigations.
Such a practice would not only be inconsistent with the
constitutionally based principle of separation of powers, it
would also significantly damage law enforcement efforts and
shape public confidence and judicial confidence in the fairness
of the criminal justice system by creating a perception that
investigative and prosecutorial decisions were being improperly
influenced by political considerations rather than the merits
of the case.
This is not to suggest that prosecutors should be immune
from congressional oversight or not be accountable to the
American people or not be subject to legitimate criticism by
anyone who would see fit to make such criticism. However, I
think there is a legitimate and major difference between
appropriate congressional oversight and the disclosure by
prosecutors bound by ethical rules of confidentiality with
respect to confidential law enforcement information concerning
pending matters.
The danger of congressional intrusion into pending matters
is not just a theoretical problem, indeed we are facing an
issue at the very moment created in connection with the Maria
Hsia case as a result of the hearing that was held last month
in connection with the Hsi Lai Temple matter. When Mr. Conrad
was summoned to testify last month before Senator Specter's
subcommittee, he was asked questions about pending matters and
appropriately indicated it was inappropriate for him to make
comments.
Notwithstanding the very limited nature of Mr. Conrad's
testimony, Ms. Hsia's criminal defense lawyer not only attended
a hearing, secured a transcript but has now filed a motion to
dismiss the indictment in that case or alternatively to
disqualify the Department of Justice because of congressional
attempts to influence the Department's handling of the Hsia
case.
Although we will not be able to discuss the specifics of
pending matters, I am prepared, as are Mr. Gershel and Mr.
Conrad. to discuss in general terms the tactical, ethical and
legal considerations that may influence prosecutorial decisions
about the investigative phase of a criminal matter generally. I
will try to provide the committee a brief overview of some of
the investigative practices and issues that may help put the
committee's concerns in context in connection with what I
understand to be the chairman's interest and concerns.
Federal prosecutors have a wide variety of methods
available for gathering relevant facts from witnesses during a
criminal investigation. Most witnesses in a Federal criminal
investigation are initially interviewed by FBI agents or by
agents from another Federal law enforcement agency. These
interviews are voluntary when they occur. No witness can be
compelled to give an interview and of course, may refuse to do
so relying on their constitutional rights to refuse to provide
information that may tend to incriminate them.
Sometimes prosecutors will participate in investigative
interviews, sometimes not. Where a witness is represented by
counsel, the prosecutor typically will be involved. There are
often privilege issues that may limit the areas of questioning
or may result in an agreement between the prosecutor and the
witness that certain statements of the witness will not be used
against him. These are issues that the prosecutor and the
witness' attorney typically seek to resolve through
negotiation.
As I explained earlier in my statement, a prosector is
prohibited not only by grand jury secrecy rules where they
apply, but also by ethical and professional obligations from
disclosing information about pending criminal investigations.
Witnesses and their lawyers, however, are not bound by these
rules of confidentiality. Indeed, witnesses subpoenaed even to
testify before a Federal grand jury are free under rule 6(e) of
the Rules of Federal Criminal Procedure if they choose to do
so, to come right outside the grand jury room to the steps of
the courthouse and hold a press conference to disclose every
question asked and every answer given during their grand jury
testimony.
Similarly, witnesses are free to tell the world they were
interviewed by investigative agencies or by prosecutors, what
they were asked and what they told. They also can pick up the
phone and talk to other people about the substance of these
interviews.
Although a prosecutor may prefer that a witness not
disclose information about a pending case, the Government does
not have any right to dictate who a witness can or cannot talk
to. Witnesses do not belong to either side of a matter. As a
matter of due process and prosecutorial ethics, the Government
cannot threaten or intimidate a witness for the purpose of
preventing a witness from talking to a subject or target of
investigation or from exercising their first amendment rights.
This does not mean that target subjects of an investigation may
corruptly interfere with the Government's investigation.
With that in context and in light of the public disclosures
that have already been made, I can say, without getting into
the specific details of the discussions between counsel, the
Vice President's interview on April 18 was a voluntary
interview. The arrangements for that interview were worked out
between counsel. Mr. Conrad, in consultation with Mr. Gershel,
handled the negotiations on behalf of the Department.
The negotiated agreement met fully the needs of the
prosecutors in the case. I am sure it also helped encourage the
continuing cooperation of this witness. We agreed to proceed
deposition-style and our treatment of the transcript was
consistent with standard deposition practice with regard to
both parties getting copies of the transcript.
As for the Vice President's decision to release the
transcript, that was his choice and not ours. We would not have
chosen to release it and we have not released the transcript.
We had no legitimate basis for objecting to his decision to do
so. The Justice Department has no authority to prevent a
witness from making a public disclosure about his or her
interview or even his or her grand jury testimony, nor would it
be appropriate for us to criticize a witness for exercising the
right to do so.
We cannot, as I said, even prevent a witness from
disclosing what was asked and what was said to him or her in
front of a Federal grand jury. For us to instruct a witness to
remain silent would raise serious constitutional and ethical
issues.
Within the constraints under which I operate with respect
to the discussion of pending criminal matters, we would be
happy to make every effort to answer the questions you have for
us that we can appropriately answer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.020
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
Do any other members of the panel want to make an opening
statement?
[No response.]
Mr. Burton. If not, we will now start the questioning and
under the rules, there is 30 minutes allocated for each side. I
will allocate the first 15 minutes of our side to Mr. Barr of
Georgia. Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Mr. Robinson, you say in the first paragraph on
page 3 with regard to intrusion into pending matters, ``might
shape public and judicial confidence in the fairness of the
criminal justice system by creating a perception that
investigative and prosecutorial decisions were being improperly
influenced by political considerations rather than the merits
of the case.'' I don't think any of us could better express our
concern. That is precisely our concern, that steps that
normally should be taken and that prosecutors know ought to be
taken and usually are taken, are not taken. For about 4 years
now, we have been going around and around and around the same
issue.
Initially with regard to the refusal of the Attorney
General to seek the appointment of an independent counsel when
the law, we believe and others in the Department of Justice and
the FBI believe, that the law was pretty clear that the
Attorney General was required to seek the appointment of an
independent counsel.
When the law is very clear and yet the Department of
Justice at the highest levels fails to take those steps that is
even a reasonable non-lawyer reading of the statute seems to
require that does shake public confidence that law enforcement
is being applied fairly. That is precisely the problem.
In this case, the Department, as the chairman has
indicated, has refused to turn over material to us and then the
Vice President, and yes, you are technically correct, the
Government cannot, under most circumstances, control what a
witness who appears either before a grand jury or an
investigative interview setting, does with that information,
much as the Government might like to be able to control that.
I think some of the other members will go into this but it
seems rather odd to us that the Department maintains, releasing
the same transcript to the Congress that already has been
released to the witness, for whatever reason, and that the
witness has thereafter used it for political purposes, as I
suppose is the prerogative of the Vice President to use a
transcript for political purposes, by claiming to Congress to
release this transcript to you, even though the witness already
has it and is making it publicly available for political
purposes, would somehow impede an investigation raises a
question in our minds and in the minds of many members of the
public. That is precisely the point that brings us today.
A number of us do not feel that these cases are being
pursued and we have some questions about that. They are just
questions about some of the evidence that we have reviewed that
I believe is relevant here today.
The first and most troubling matter was the subject of the
chairman's letter to the Attorney General dated July 18, 2000.
As you know, the committee has obtained the original tape of
the December 15, 1995 White House coffee. That coffee was
attended by Mr. Arief Wiriadinata, the Indonesian son-in-law of
a co-founder of the Lippo group who worked in the United States
as a gardener. Mr. Wiriadinata and his wife illegally gave
$450,000 to the DNC, all of that money coming from his father-
in-law.
Up until now that coffee is most famous for Mr.
Wiriadinata's statement to President Clinton as the President
was going around the room at this coffee being introduced to
people that ``James Riady sent me.'' That is not open to
dispute. That is what he said to the President when he was
introduced to the President, ``James Riady sent me.''
We spent a lot of time listening to this tape and I have
listened to the tape a number of times. The Vice President
attended that coffee. He is seen on the tape as he enters. As
is the norm for these sorts of political gatherings, the
President will come in, followed by perhaps some of his aides
and scribes, and the Vice President happened to be there also.
They will both make their way around the room introducing
themselves and engaging in small talk with the people at the
coffee or whatever event it is. That is standard operating
procedure.
The Vice President attends the coffee. He comes in a bit
behind the President and he can be seen coming into the room.
It is on the Government's tape. He can also be heard on the
audio portion of the tape. After the President is introduced to
Mr. Wiriadinata, the relative of Mr. Riady by marriage and who
tells the President, ``James Riady sent me,'' very audibly,
then the President proceeds on down and Mr. Wiriadinata is sort
of standing there, very much out of place--and indeed, he is
out of place. This was not a meeting of the Gardener's
Association, this was a meeting of major donors to the
President's and Vice President's campaign.
Mr. Wiriadinata was not a prominent business person as
these others, or at least a major donor, and he doesn't appear
to know anybody at this coffee, so he is sort of just standing
there. You see him just standing there as the President moves
on behind him and introduces himself and engages in small talk
with other people.
About the time that it would be reasonable for the Vice
President to come up to Mr. Wiriadinata--he is following the
President--you see Mr. Wiriadinata turn and then talk with
somebody. Granted that conversation takes place off-screen. We
are not trying to manufacture evidence here, but it is very
clear to those of us who have listened to the original of the
tape, which I think you all have not, even though you have
commented on it, it is very clear that what appears to be the
voice of the Vice President of the United States saying to Mr.
Wiriadinata, ``We oughta, we oughta, we oughta show Mr. Riady
the tapes, some of the ad tapes.''
The concern that we have, and I will play this in a second,
is that this evidence is not being followed up and that is the
question we have. Let us roll the tape, please and we also have
on the screen the specific language as you see Mr. Wiriadinata
pulled off-screen and the conversation takes place.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Barr. Would you replay that, please, and I will stop it
at a couple of key points.
The President and Vice President are both clearly in the
room. Does there seem to be any dispute about that? I am asking
the witnesses, does there seem to be any dispute the President
and the Vice President are both in the room? Does that appear
to be the case?
Mr. Robinson. I would say, Congressman Barr, this is what
it is. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to make
comments on anything that might be evidence but we are here and
we are watching.
Mr. Barr. Is this evidence in the case or is the universe
about which you are not commenting anything that might be
evidence in the case?
Mr. Robinson. I assume that as a former U.S. attorney and a
Federal prosecutor, you would agree with me that it would be
inappropriate for a Federal prosecutor to be commenting on
matters that under 3.6 or otherwise, might be the subject of
our investigation. I certainly don't think it is appropriate.
Mr. Barr. Is this coffee the subject of your investigation?
Mr. Robinson. The Campaign Financing Task Force has a broad
subject of its review. As you know, we have had a number of
prosecutions including many prosecutions of individuals who
have been donors to the campaign and it would be inappropriate
for us to make comments, and particularly to comment on
evidence.
Obviously we are happy to see what this is and receive
anything we get from the committee and to evaluate it.
Mr. Barr. Is this the first time you have seen this tape?
Mr. Robinson. I think it would be inappropriate for me to
comment as to what we have been looking at and I might also
say, earlier you made the point that we all have commented on
this tape and that is simply not the case. It wouldn't be
appropriate for us to comment on the case. I think it would
violate my ethical responsibilities as a prosecutor to do it. I
think it would be inappropriate. We are happy to view this.
Mr. Barr. We are glad to perform the public service of
showing you all evidence. Let us proceed then.
[Playing of tape.]
Mr. Barr. This is the Vice President of the United States,
Mr. Al Gore. Proceed.
[Playing of tape.]
Mr. Barr. This is Mr. Arief Wiriadinata shaking hands with
the President of the United States. Proceed.
[Playing of tape.]
Mr. Barr. Stop the tape. This is Mr. Wiriadinata telling
the President, ``Mr. James Riady sent me.'' Proceed.
[Playing of tape.]
Mr. Barr. Stop the tape. This is Mr. James Wiriadinata at
the lefthand side of the tape. Proceed.
[Playing of tape.]
Mr. Barr. Stop the tape. This is Mr. Wiriadinata being
drawn off the visual screen here, being spoken to by somebody
who has pulled him aside. Proceed.
[Playing of tape.]
Mr. Barr. Stop the tape. With the interruptions, we missed
the part. Go back to the part where the statement is, ``we
oughta, we oughta, we oughta show Mr. Riady the tapes, some of
the ad tapes,'' please.
[Playing of tape.]
Mr. Barr. Stop the tape. What we have here, we have gone
through this a couple of times. It seems reasonable to deduce,
even if one does not want to, that the President and the Vice
President came into a room, Mr. Wiriadinata was there, he tells
the President, Mr. James Riady sent me, he didn't whisper, he
says it, it is audibly clear to ourselves and others that were
in the room.
Very shortly behind the President comes the Vice President.
I can't tell you for a certainty that it is the Vice President
or one of his people that pulls Mr. Wiriadinata off screen. It
seems reasonable that is what happens because the voice that we
then hear talking to Mr. Wiriadinata saying, I think very
clearly, ``We oughta, we oughta, we oughta show Mr. Riady the
tapes, some of the ad tapes,'' and then somebody else says
something else regarding that, we can set it up or something.
It seems to me at an absolute minimum, if the Department of
Justice is interested in pursuing a full, fair, comprehensive
and complete investigation of these matters, this tape ought to
be analyzed and the Vice President ought to be questioned about
it.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has elapsed, the 15
minutes, and we are going to go to Mr. Shays next.
Go ahead and continue.
Mr. Barr. The concern I have about the Department
commenting on this tape arose in a CNN piece just yesterday
entitled, ``Justice Says White House Coffee Tape Unclear.
Hearing scheduled Tuesday.'' I presume they meant Thursday. In
that piece, a Justice Department source is quoted as saying
that the tape, this tape is unclear because of poor audio. That
is what I am talking about. The Department of Justice, if you
believe CNN and I guess we are all free to believe or
disbelieve them, is commenting on this tape.
Mr. Robinson. Can I say unequivocally, I haven't commented
on this, I wouldn't comment on it. It would be inappropriate
for anyone from the Justice Department to make a comment on
this. I am quite confident that Mr. Gershel and Mr. Conrad
haven't made any public comments or other comments about it. I
don't think we ought to be making comments about it. It would
be inappropriate.
Mr. Barr. I have absolutely no reason to believe that any
of you all have, but it appears that somebody at the Department
of Justice has.
Our concern here is, there seems to be a piece of evidence
that very clearly raises substantial questions regarding what
we have been led to believe is an investigation that we are
told is being conducted very aggressively and comprehensively
by the Department of Justice concerning the very issues raised
in this tape and in the audio portion of the tape. That is that
the Vice President's involvement in these issue ads, the
problem with having foreign money, including from Mr. Riady,
come in, and you have three key players right here in the same
room, the President, Mr. Wiriadinata and the Vice President,
engaging in conversations that by every appearance relate
directly to these matters.
Yet, as far as we can tell, they have not been looked into.
This is the original of the tape provided to us. It is a copy
of the original. One presumes that no matter how good a quality
a copy is, the original is always at least marginally better.
We think this ought to be looked into.
I ask again, is this tape, is this coffee, are these
individuals, is this language, of interest to the Department of
Justice?
Mr. Robinson. I cannot comment on the investigative matter
but obviously we are here, we have heard it and we receive lots
of information from Congress and other sources. Whenever we get
information, we look at it carefully as a general proposition,
but I can't comment on the specifics of our investigations. It
would be inappropriate.
Mr. Barr. Will you commit to look at this as more than just
a general proposition?
Mr. Robinson. I think it would be inappropriate for me to
make a statement about how we are going to conduct an
investigation but I think we are all here and we have seen this
information. We take information that we get from Members of
Congress seriously, obviously, and others as well. It wouldn't
be appropriate, I think, for us to make any comments about how
we are going to handle particular items of evidence.
Mr. Barr. We would urge you to. It seems to me this tape
being not new, it has been around for a while, should have been
looked at by now, and we would hope at this late stage, because
apparently these investigations are continuing, that it be
looked at and looked at very carefully in the full context of
the allegations. We would appreciate that very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Unfortunately, gentlemen, we have a vote on the
floor. I think we have two votes. Before we yield to Mr. Shays,
we will come back as soon as we vote and we will stand in
recess until the call of the gavel.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burton. The committee will come to order.
I will now recognize for the remainder of my time, the
gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Robinson, Mr. Raben, Mr. Conrad and Mr. Gershel, good
afternoon.
I have strong feelings like the ranking member of this
committee but I come to a different conclusion. I think our
committee work would have been done a long time ago if we had
had the cooperation of the administration. I have a hard time
with 120 witnesses not cooperating with House and Senate
committees, with 79 taking their fifth amendment rights, 18
percent leaving the country, 23 foreign witnesses simply
refusing to cooperate. I think we would have been done a long,
long time ago and frankly I think probably the Justice
Department might have had more success as well if they had had
cooperation of witnesses.
I am interested in trying to learn more about two things,
why it took almost 4 years to ask the Vice President about the
Hsi Lai Temple fundraiser and why the Vice President was able
to release his last interview transcript to the media, which I
know you talked about a bit.
By now, it is well documented that the Hsi Lai Temple event
was a fundraiser. Charlie Trie testified in March before this
committee. I asked the following. ``The idea of this event was
as a campaign fundraising event and you helped initiate it with
the DNC. Isn't that correct?'' Charlie Trie answered ``Yes.''
When John Huang testified before this committee in December
1999, I asked him, ``Is it true that some people came to the
event expecting they should make a contribution?'' Mr. Huang
answered, ``Yes, yes.'' Then I said, ``But in fact, it was a
fundraising event, is that correct?'' Mr. Huang answered,
``There was money whether before or after being raised, yes.''
We have a memo from John Huang to Kim Tilley, who was Vice
President Gore's director of scheduling. The subject is
``Fundraising lunch for Vice President Gore.'' The proposed
location is the Hsi Lai Temple, Hacienda Heights, CA. The
Secret Service knew it was a fundraiser and described the event
as a fundraising luncheon.
The National Security Council expert 2 weeks before the
event noted in e-mail that the head of the Hsi Lai Temple
``would host a fundraising lunch for about 150 people in the
VP's honor.''
Then we also have money being returned by the Democratic
National Committee and they list reasons for returning money--
``unable to substantiate sources of funds.'' They returned one
$5,000 on November 16 and this is the reason they returned it,
``It was a Temple, you idiot.'' That is what they said. It
makes you wonder how we would describe the Vice President.
The bottom line, Don Fowler, former chairman of the DNC,
attended the event at the Hsi Lai Temple. Didn't he attend that
event?
Mr. Conrad. Congressman Shays, I feel like I am in the same
awkward position of not wanting to comment on pending matters.
Mr. Shays. I am not talking about pending matters. I am
just asking if he attended an event. Do you know if he did or
not?
Mr. Conrad. I think you are asking me to comment on things
that have come before the task force.
Mr. Shays. I would like to read something from the task
force interview of former DNC Chairman Fowler. ``Fowler stated
that he never discussed the temple event with Huang before it
started. Fowler recalled that David Devkin, who was from East
India, drove him to the Temple. Fowler and Devkin were
discussing the fact that the fundraiser was at a temple. Devkin
was telling Fowler that in the Buddhist religion, many things
happen at a temple besides worship. Devkin said he did not
think it was unusual they would be having a fundraiser at the
temple.''
Right after that, it says, ``Fowler stated that he did not
now that Maria Hsia, although he believes that she had visited
his office on at least one occasion.'' Isn't it true that Maria
Hsia was found guilty of illegal campaign contributions?
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Conrad, the chairman of the DNC says that he
did not talk to Huang and he did not know Maria Hsia but he
knew beforehand that the temple event was a fundraiser. Do you
know how Don Fowler knew the temple event was a fundraiser?
Mr. Conrad. I don't think I would want to comment on that.
Mr. Shays. Based on this admission, did Chairman Fowler
knowingly allow the DNC to hold a fundraiser at the temple?
Mr. Conrad. Same thing. I don't feel I am in a position
where I could comment on that.
Mr. Shays. Is there any evidence the DNC withheld any
information about the temple event from the Vice President's
office?
Mr. Conrad. My answer would be the same, sir.
Mr. Shays. The evidence goes on and on about the Buddhist
temple event being a fundraiser, so I guess one of the things I
really want the Justice Department to tell me is, why did it
take nearly 4 years to ask the Vice President a single question
about the Hsi Lai Temple? Mr. Conrad, do you know why it took 4
years?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Gershel, do you know why it took nearly 4
years?
Mr. Gershel. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Robinson, do you know why it took nearly 4
years?
Mr. Robinson. No.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Conrad, when John Huang testified before
this committee, he was asked about the following statement made
by Vice President Gore, ``I did not know that the money was
being contributed at the time. The people with me did not know.
Obviously someone did not handle it right.''
Huang said that the Vice President's statement was ``not
true.'' Huang said, ``I believe that Fowler knows about that
and also Mr. Strauss,'' and I think he is referring to David
Strauss, ``probably knew about that as well.''
Has the contradiction between Mr. Huang and the Vice
President served as the basis for your recommendation that a
special counsel should be appointed to investigate the Vice
President?
Mr. Conrad. I don't think I can comment on that at this
time.
Mr. Shays. Can you comment on whether you have recommended
that a special counsel be appointed to investigate the Vice
President?
Mr. Conrad. I think the Attorney General has indicated that
there is a recommendation on her desk from me and beyond that,
I don't think I could comment.
Mr. Shays. Let us turn to a related matter, the subject of
why Congress couldn't get copies of the President and Vice
President's April 2000 interview transcripts while the Vice
President could provide his transcript to the media.
Mr. Conrad, early this year in April, you interviewed the
Vice President, correct?
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. Was the information in the Vice President's
interview only related to your investigation of the Vice
President's conduct?
Mr. Conrad. I couldn't comment on pending matters, sir.
Mr. Shays. Are there questions that relate to your
investigation of other individuals?
Mr. Conrad. I think to comment on what particular
questions----
Mr. Shays. Prior to this interview, the Vice President was
interviewed four times. A transcript of these interviews was
not prepared, correct?
Mr. Conrad. My participation was in the interviews in April
and transcripts were prepared of those interviews.
Mr. Shays. Do you know if transcripts were prepared for the
President in any of the other interviews?
Mr. Conrad. I don't believe there were.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Robinson, do you know if any were in any of
the first four interviews?
Mr. Robinson. I think Mr. Conrad is right, most of those
occurred before I arrived, but I think Mr. Conrad is correct.
Mr. Shays. Why was a transcript prepared for the fifth
interview, the one taken in April of this year, and not for the
first four?
Mr. Conrad. I can't speak for the first four but I know
with respect to the interviews in April, they were a product of
negotiations between myself and counsel for the two witnesses.
As a result of those negotiations, voluntary sworn testimony
was taken under oath and transcribed.
Mr. Shays. So you had the ability to negotiate with the
President about his fifth interview and you set certain
criteria for that interview or he made certain requests, there
was an agreement?
Mr. Conrad. Counsel for the President, the Vice President
and myself, yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. So you worked out an agreement where you would
tape it and you would give him the interview. Why would you
have given it to the Vice President?
Mr. Conrad. The voluntary interviews of the Vice President
and the President were taken deposition-style and as a result
of the negotiations between counsel and myself, it was agreed
that a transcript would be provided to myself and the counsel
for the witnesses.
Mr. Shays. Did you agree the transcripts would be provided
to anyone else?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. What conditions did you set regarding the Vice
President's possession of the transcript? For example, did you
allow him to keep a copy of the transcript as long as he
promised not to release the transcript to anyone else or to
discuss the transcript with any others than his attorneys?
Mr. Conrad. There were no conditions like that.
Mr. Shays. Did it ever occur to you that the release of the
Vice President's transcripts might harm the Justice
Department's investigation of campaign financing legalities?
Mr. Conrad. Throughout the course of setting up the
interviews and conducting the interviews and since then, I took
steps I thought were in the best interest of the Campaign
Financing Task Force investigation. The way the interviews were
set up, I thought then and think now, they were in the best
interest of the investigation.
Mr. Shays. Did you make it clear to the Vice President if
he released these documents, it would be harmful to the
investigation?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. Did anyone at the Justice Department speak to
the Vice President or his lawyers before he released the
transcript of his April interview to the media?
Mr. Conrad. That I would feel uncomfortable talking about.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. I think it wouldn't be appropriate to talk
about the details except to suggest that there was a discussion
of notifying us of the intention to release this transcript and
there was no basis, as I indicated in my submitted testimony,
for the Department to object to that.
Mr. Shays. That is interesting. You would certainly object
if we released it and you sent a letter--excuse me, the
Attorney General sent a letter and on page 2, she says, ``The
disclosure of the records of such recent interviews is of
particular concern because revealing information, especially
the questions posed in the interviews, could disclose
significant aspects of our ongoing campaign finance
investigation which includes multiple matters. No prosecutor
would want other witnesses to have the benefit of these witness
interviews. The investigations would be seriously prejudiced by
the revelation of the direction of the investigations or
information about the evidence that the prosecutors have
obtained.''
Mr Robinson. We would not have released it, we didn't
release it and if we had been asked by anybody, including the
Vice President's counsel that the Department release it, we
would not have done so.
Mr. Shays. But you wanted us to know it would be harmful
and we couldn't have it but you didn't seem to want the Vice
President to know if he released it, it would be harmful and I
find that typical.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays, your time has expired.
Mr. Waxman, you are recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. At the outset, let me indicate that I think Mr.
Shays' characterization of the testimony by John Huang
regarding the Hsi Lai Temple is different from the one I heard
and I want to insert in the record the precise language from
that hearing so it will be very evident to people as they look
at the record of this hearing.
On to the questions before us today and the issue before us
is whether the Attorney General, as the chairman has charged--
and these are serious allegations which attack her integrity--
whether she or others in the Department of Justice tried to
block this investigation of the President and the Vice
President.
Unlike the chairman, you have had an opportunity to observe
the Attorney General firsthand. You have not always agreed with
her decisions but you have been able to assess her integrity so
what I want to do is ask you about the chairman's allegation.
Chairman Burton has recently asserted that ``Janet Reno has
been blatantly protecting the President, the Vice President and
their Party from the outset of this scandal.'' He has also
stated that, ``Janet Reno has been running interference for the
President.''
FBI Director Freeh, however, has repeatedly testified
before this committee that the Department's campaign
investigation has been aggressive and thorough. On December 9,
1997, Mr. Freeh testified, ``I can assure you, Mr. Chairman,
that the FBI is not being impeded in any way in conducting our
investigation. The task force was formed last December. Their
marching orders are to go wherever the evidence leads them.''
That is from Director Freeh.
In testimony before this committee on August 4, 1998,
Director Freeh and former campaign task force head Charles La
Bella provided additional testimony on this issue. I asked
whether either had been asked to pull a punch because of
politics. Both answered no.
In that same hearing, I asked Director Freeh about the
chairman's allegations. Our discussion went as follows:
Mr. Waxman. I want to ask one question. The chairman has
made the statement that he thinks the Attorney General is
covering up for the White House and the Democrats and that is
why she is not cooperating. Do any of you believe that?
Mr. Freeh. No, I do not believe that at all.
That is from the transcript. Mr. Conrad, do you agree with
Director Freeh's statement that the FBI and the Department of
Justice have conducted a thorough investigation of the
allegations of campaign finance violations?
Mr. Conrad. Speaking for myself, I feel very comfortable
saying that I have pursued the task force since January of this
year in as aggressive a way as possible.
Mr. Waxman. That what?
Mr. Conrad. That I have pursued the investigation in as
aggressive a way as possible.
Mr. Waxman. What about you, Mr. Robinson or Mr. Gershel, do
you agree that the Justice Department has conducted a thorough
investigation of the allegations of campaign finance?
Mr. Robinson. I believe so. One of the reasons we picked
Bob Conrad as a career prosector, one of the reasons I brought
Alan Gershel, a 20-year prosecutor who I hired in 1980 when I
was U.S. attorney down here, was to have aggressive prosecutors
who would work with competent FBI agents in conducting these
investigations and doing it thoroughly. That is our intention
and continues to be our intention.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Gershel.
Mr. Gershel. I would agree with that.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Conrad, do you agree with the chairman's
assertion that the Attorney General has been ``blatantly
protecting the President and the Vice President?''
Mr. Conrad. Just speaking from personal experience, my
experience has been that I have had a fair hearing from her on
issues that I have brought before her and my expectation would
be that I would have a fair hearing on any recommendations in
the future.
Mr. Waxman. You have had a fair hearing from her?
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. You expected to have a fair hearing from her?
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Therefore, that would be inconsistent with the
idea that she is trying to have you conduct an unfair hearing
in order to protect the President and the Vice President?
Mr. Conrad. I am telling you what my experience has been
and what I expect it to be, yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. So as far as your experience is concerned, you
have not seen any conduct on her part that would support the
idea that she is trying to blatantly protect the President and
Vice President?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Robinson, is your view the same?
Mr. Robinson. It has been the same since I joined the
Department in June 1998. I have been involved in this process
since that time. Among the first things that hit my desk when I
took this job were these matters, particularly in the
independent counsel area. I have found the Attorney General to
be thoroughly interested in airing all of the ideas of those
who advise her in making sure that all of the legal and factual
issues are fully explored and ultimately under the Independent
Counsel Act and now it is her responsibility. That is what she
is charged with doing. I found her to be fair and open. At
times she listens even more than I think most would to
everybody's view. I see no indication whatsoever that she is
trying to protect anyone other than to reach, as she sees it,
the correct decision in the application of the facts to the law
as she sees it.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Gershel, what are you views on that?
Mr. Gershel. I have been here about 6 months now, the same
time that Mr. Conrad got here, and I have had the experience on
a fairly regular basis to meet with her, along with Mr. Conrad
and Mr. Robinson and others where we discuss campaign finance
investigations, the status of those investigations. My own
experience is that she is interested, participates, at times
will offer suggestions and generally wants us to do the right
thing. I have never felt that we have been inhibited in our
investigative efforts.
Mr. Waxman. One of the questions the majority is raising at
this hearing is whether the arrangements concerning an
interview Mr. Conrad conducted with the Vice President of the
United States on April 18, 2000 demonstrate ``preferential
treatment'' of the Vice President. As you know, this interview
was transcribed, the Vice President had access to a copy of the
transcript and the Vice President released the transcript
publicly.
The chairman recently suggested wrongdoing on the part of
the Department of Justice concerning this arrangement. Mr.
Conrad, I would like to ask you a few questions about the
transcribed interview of the Vice President that you conducted
on April 18, 2000.
The chairman says giving the Vice President a transcript
was special treatment but my understanding is that when former
Independent Counsel James McKay took a deposition of former
Attorney General Ed Meese, he gave him a copy of the
transcript. Mr. Conrad, do you know whether that is correct?
Mr. Conrad. I heard you mention that in your opening
statement. I had knowledge of that beforehand.
Mr. Waxman. My understanding is as part of the Iran Contra
independent counsel investigation, the independent counsel
conducted a taperecorded interview of former Secretary of
State, George Schultz, and gave him a copy of the tape. Do you
know whether that is true?
Mr. Conrad. My answer to all the examples that you pointed
out in your opening statement would be the same. I don't have
any prior knowledge.
Mr. Waxman. Just to mention the others so we can point them
out--the independent counsel investigations on alleged
mishandling of passport information, there it was the general
practice to take the depositions of senior administration
officials and provide them with full access to deposition
transcripts.
Then I have a letter from former Independent Counsel
Michael Zeldin, where he says he used this procedure to take
depositions of two former Secretaries of State, James Baker and
Lawrence Eagleburger, former National Security Advisor, Brent
Scrowcroft, and former CIA Director Gates. I would like to have
those entered into the record.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.021
Mr. Waxman. These are just a few examples, Mr. Conrad. It
appears you were not the first to use this procedure or to
provide a transcript to a witness after an interview. Is that
your understanding?
Mr. Conrad. It appears to be that way, yes.
Mr. Waxman. You didn't know about the other examples. Did
you feel you were doing something unprecedented?
Mr. Conrad. I thought at the time and I still think today,
that both as to the manner of the interviews and the form of
the interviews, they were taken in the best interest of the
investigation.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Gershel, I understand you have experience
in conducting criminal investigations prior to the campaign
finance investigation. I would like to know whether you think
you have used a procedure like the arrangement with the Vice
President in past criminal investigations?
Mr. Gershel. On occasion, Congressman, I have done that.
The circumstances of each case are different and sometimes it
lends itself to that kind of format. I should also indicate
that Mr. Conrad and I discussed, while this process was
ongoing, the sort of ground rules for the interview and I fully
agreed and supported Mr. Conrad's decision in that.
Mr. Waxman. So Mr. Conrad, you made a decision that you
would interview the Vice President in a deposition format and
provide him with a transcript? That was your understanding with
the Vice President and his counsel and that is what you did?
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. It sounds like there were sound prosecutorial
reasons behind the type of arrangements you made with the Vice
President regarding the April 18, 2000 interview and the
arrangements do not reflect an effort to provide the Vice
President with special treatment. Is that correct, Mr. Conrad?
Mr. Conrad. From my perspective, that is absolutely
correct.
Mr. Waxman. Janet Reno gets blamed for a lot of things. Did
she have any personal involvement with that decision of yours
on how to conduct the interview?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. I would like to turn to another allegation the
majority is focusing on in this hearing. This week, the
chairman wrote Attorney General Reno regarding a videotape of a
coffee Vice President Gore attended on December 15, 1995. The
Chairman believes this videotape contains ``deeply troubling
and significant information'' and we had an opportunity to
witness the videotape.
According to the chairman, on the videotape the Vice
President says to Arief Wiriadinata, ``We oughta, we oughta, we
oughta show Mr. Riady the tapes, some of the ad tapes.'' The
chairman is concerned that the Department of Justice was aware
of this videotape, yet did not ask the Vice President about
this alleged comment during the April interview with the Vice
President.
In his letter, the chairman alleges that the Attorney
General has ``chosen to ignore this evidence'' and states the
Department's conduct regarding this evidence raises concern
that your department has been sitting on important information
in order to benefit the President and the Vice President.'' He
further alleges that the Attorney General gave the Vice
President ``preferential treatment by failing to ask necessary
questions.''
Mr. Conrad, you conducted the April 18, 2000 interview with
the Vice President. Were you restrained by the Attorney General
from pursuing the questions that you, in your best judgment,
believed should have been asked at this interview?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Did anyone at the Department of Justice
restrain you from asking the questions that you, in your best
judgment, believe should have been asked at this interview?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. As I said earlier today, the minority has
watched the December 15, 1995 videotape and we listened to the
enhanced audio tape and we listened to it today as well. I
can't tell what the tape says. It doesn't sound to me like he
is saying Riady but it is not clear what the Vice President
says or whether he said Mr. Riady or John Gotti or whatever.
Mr. Conrad, why didn't you ask the Vice President about
this videotape?
Mr. Conrad. Congressman, I think it would be very
inappropriate of me to talk about strategic decisions I made
during the course of an ongoing investigation. I wouldn't be in
a position to answer that question.
Mr. Waxman. I accept that.
Let me ask you this, if it is not inappropriate. Were you
trying to give the Vice President preferential treatment?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Beyond his specific allegations regarding the
Department of Justice's investigation of the December 1995
videotape, the chairman has broadly stated that the Department
campaign finance investigation has intentionally avoided asking
the Vice President and the President important questions. In
his July 18 letter to the Attorney General, Mr. Burton said,
``There is no excuse for your waiting nearly 4 years to ask the
President about foreign money or ask the Vice President about
the Hsi Lai Temple.''
I would like to ask this question of all the members of
this panel. Do you have any reason to believe that the Attorney
General tried to prevent the task force attorneys and FBI
agents that conducted the interviews with the Vice President
and the President from asking the questions which they believed
in their best judgment should have been asked?
Mr. Robinson. I can say unequivocally that the Attorney
General made no such effort to control the strategic judgment
calls of prosecutors and investigators in connection with this
matter at all.
Mr. Conrad. I can only speak to my involvement in the April
interviews and I was not impeded in any way from asking
whatever questions I thought were relevant by the Attorney
General.
Mr. Gershel. Congressman, I see no evidence of that
whatsoever.
Mr. Waxman. Do you believe that in the interviews with the
President and Vice President the Department of Justice
prosecutors were free to ask the questions which in their best
judgment they believed should have been asked?
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Do you agree with the chairman that the
Department of Justice's interviews of the Vice President and
President demonstrate there has been no thorough investigation
of the President and Vice President?
Mr. Conrad. I wouldn't want to agree or disagree. I know
that my approach was to do the best job I could do under the
circumstances I was in and for good or for ill, that is what I
attempted to do.
Mr. Waxman. You have the reputation of being a thorough
prosecutor, very professional. Do you feel that you have been
doing a thorough job?
Mr. Conrad. I believe I have done the best that I could,
yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. We have had a dispute as to whether there ought
to have been an independent or special counsel. It is clear
from documents provided to the committee there were vigorous
arguments within the Department of Justice regarding whether to
appoint an independent counsel. Mr. Freeh and Mr. Radek have
testified that these arguments reflected good faith
disagreement regarding the relevant legal standards.
Do you gentlemen agree that there is a dispute regarding
the relevant legal standards?
Mr. Robinson. I think on this panel, I am probably the only
one that can at least answer this question since June 1998
since the others came here after the Independent Counsel Act
had expired.
Since I was involved at least since June 1998, and although
I can tell you that I wasn't particularly happy with the notion
that all these deliberative documents were released, I can tell
you I think it wasn't helpful but nevertheless, I think the
release of those documents make them fully available to anyone
who wants to read them, to explore the depth of the kind of
analysis that occurred, honest good faith differences of
opinion between prosecutors and investigators who are not shy
about expressing their views.
I think anybody who looks at the material there will see
that a lot of thought went into the recommendations that were
made by the FBI and by prosecutors on the task force, by people
in the Justice Department, and there were disagreements and the
Attorney General had to listen to this and look at it carefully
and ultimately, under the statute that Congress passed, it gave
her the responsibility of making these judgments. I think the
record demonstrates that she worked very hard to come up with
what she thought would be the best decision under the
circumstances.
All the experience I have had since June 1998, convinces me
that she was working strenuously to come up with what she
thought was the appropriate application of that standard to the
facts.
People can disagree but I don't think they should after
looking at this material about her good faith effort to reach
absolutely the correct view from her vantage point as the
decisionmaker under the Independent Counsel Act. The Congress
gave her that responsibility and I think she did it correctly.
Mr. Waxman. I appreciate that, Mr. Robinson. So your view
is that it was a dispute, that it was a good faith disagreement
regarding relevant legal standards and that went back and forth
and she had to make the decision.
Mr. Robinson. As the record demonstrates, I had disputes
myself between various people at various times, which are
exhibited in memos that I wrote personally and memos that I
approved personally. And I think that there was a lot of
meetings, a lot of debate, a lot of discussion between all the
parties involved. And just as the Supreme Court often reaches
decisions on a five to four basis, ultimately the Attorney
General has to make the call.
She couldn't make everybody happy, because there was
disagreement and there were very interesting and difficult
legal issues involved in each of these decisions.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Gershel, I don't know how much you were
around in those disputes. But from your knowledge and
experience with this whole Campaign Finance Task Force, is this
an area where there was a good faith disagreement regarding
legal standards and the dispute on the question of independent
counsel or special counsel was presented to the Attorney
General on that basis?
Mr. Gershel. Congressman, as Mr. Robinson indicated, I was
not here at that time. But in a broader sense, in my
experience, it's certainly very common for prosecutors to
engage in good faith discussions, disagreements, debates on the
application of the law, the application of the facts, the
appropriate way to charge or not charge a case. So it does not
strike me as unusual at all.
Mr. Waxman. And Mr. Conrad, you're also relatively new to
the Campaign Finance Task Force. But what's your view? Were the
disagreements the result of good faith disagreements about the
legal standard, as Mr. Radek and Mr. Freeh have testified?
Mr. Conrad. I really am not in a position to comment at all
on the independent counsel decisions. I wasn't part of them in
any way and don't feel like I can comment on them.
Mr. Waxman. In the case of the Vice President, it appears
that there was widespread agreement that no case should be
brought against him. The dispute wasn't primarily about the
facts, it was more of an academic dispute about who should be
the decisionmaker. For example, Charles La Bella, in a November
1997 memo to Mark Richard wrote, ``Ten out of ten prosecutors
would decide that no further investigation would be
warranted.'' That's what he said.
In another memo to Mark Richard on November 30, 1997, Mr.
La Bella wrote that, ``On the whole, I find the Vice President
to be credible and forthcoming.'' Similarly, Mr. Litt, another
experienced prosecutor at the Justice Department, wrote to the
Attorney General on November 22, 1998, ``As a prosecutor, I
would not bring this case.''
Given these and other statements made by investigators
about the Vice President's case, it seems to me that we're not
talking about a disagreement regarding the facts. Rather, this
was a dispute among lawyers and people of good faith as to
whether the final decision not to bring a case should be made
by the Attorney General or an independent counsel. Would you
agree with that, Mr. Robinson?
Mr. Robinson. I agree, and I think one thing you have here
that you don't ordinarily have on decisions by prosecutors is
that under the Independent Counsel Act, in each instance, there
is a notification filed with the court that described in detail
the reasoning process. And in addition to that now, we have all
the underlying memos out there for anybody to examine. I'm sure
there will be disagreements between people who examine them.
But I believe people of good faith who understand how this
works will look at this and say they were honest disagreements
between people trying to reach the correct decision. That
certainly was my position when I tried to give my advice to the
Attorney General and evaluate the kind of information that was
coming to me to review carefully. I think it's the kind of
process that Congress had in mind when it created the statute.
And so I think the record is there that we need not
speculate about it, it's there for anyone to read. And those
who haven't, I commend it to them, since it's out there.
Although I do think it isn't helpful to the deliberative
process to have these kinds of internal memos. I worry about,
frankly, whether we're going to get the kind of candid memos
that we'd like to have in decisionmaking.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Conrad, earlier on the other side, you were asked, or
they made the charge that they thought it was improper for the
Vice President to release the transcript of his interview. And
I just wanted to ask you some questions about whether the leak
was improper. Your memo about the need for a special counsel
was leaked to Senator Specter.
And I want to ask you about this. Were you concerned about
that leak? After all, when you have leaks there are innuendo
that's often attached to those who want to give a spin the way
they may want to. Were you concerned about the leak about your
memo about the need for a special counsel?
Mr. Conrad. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. And are you investigating the leak?
Mr. Conrad. I couldn't comment on that one way or another.
Mr. Waxman. Do you know how the leak occurred?
Mr. Conrad. No.
Mr. Waxman. Do you know how many individuals had access to
your memo?
Mr. Conrad. Again, you're asking me questions about the
internal deliberative process of the----
Mr. Shays. Could the gentleman get closer to the
microphone, Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I
just couldn't hear you.
Mr. Conrad. You're asking me questions about the internal
deliberative processes of the Department of Justice on pending
matters, and I think it would be inappropriate to comment on
those.
Mr. Waxman. I don't want to violate your professional views
on this. But the fact of the matter was that Vice President
Gore was hurt by the leak of your memo. It was used in a way to
damage him politically. And that's why I'm asking these
questions.
Have you had discussions within the Department of Justice,
and I won't ask you what they are, but have you had discussions
to prevent future leaks?
Mr. Conrad. I think those questions are better,
respectfully, they're probably better referred to Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Waxman. OK, Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. I have always been concerned about leaks. And
those of us who come down to Washington from the provinces, as
the three of us have, have been surprised by the amount of
leaking that happens. When I was U.S. attorney, I didn't talk
about pending matters. In this job, I don't talk about pending
matters to the press. I think it's inappropriate. I think it
violates prosecutors' professional responsibility.
I think when people who attempt to influence decisionmaking
by prosecutors decide that they're going to leak information as
a general proposition, it hurts law enforcement. It interferes
with our investigative activities. It causes harm to people who
may never be charged with a crime.
So it's a matter of great concern to me. And I think it's
entirely inappropriate to have this occur. It should not
happen. I make a point of not doing it. And if I find somebody
who does it, I think it would be dealt with appropriately. I'm
sure that that would be true of leaks by members of your staffs
or by your committees.
It's not appropriate, it doesn't help the process. It gets
in the way of your investigative activities, and it can harm
people improperly and inappropriately. That's why I think we,
the lawyers have these rules that say they're not supposed to
talk about pending matters. I take it seriously and always have
and continue to do it while I have this job.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Conrad, my guess is you probably would
rather not be here today.
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. And you'd rather be doing your job of heading
up this Campaign Finance Task Force, pursuing your case.
Political charges have been made, they haven't been made about
you, but they have been made about the Attorney General. And
you're in charge of the task force. If there are problems in
the task force doing its job, then they're your problems. And I
guess the question I really want to have clear is whether you
are in any way feeling impeded to pursue the most thorough,
professional and aggressive investigation?
Mr. Conrad. That was my expectation coming here, that I
would do a thorough and aggressive investigation. And I'm
pretty proud of the efforts of the line prosecutors that work
with me and the agents who have worked on various matters. And
I, just in June, for example, we obtained plea agreements from
five different Campaign Finance Task Force defendants, and the
agreement to cooperate from all five individuals. And that
cooperation is being pursued. And that's indicative, I think,
of the active nature of the task force.
Mr. Robinson. Mr. Waxman, can I say, you made a point that
no, Mr. Conrad hadn't been accused of anything. And let me just
say that there have been a few comments. And I want to make it
quite clear that I think Bob Conrad is doing a fine job and it
would be inappropriate to impugn his integrity or his
intentions and any recommendations he's made. I've seen no
indication that Bob Conrad is doing anything other than a first
rate job at the task force.
Mr. Waxman. My question, Mr. Conrad, didn't go to his
reputation. I accept the fact that he's got a very high
reputation. My question goes to the question of this task force
investigation and whether it's being conducted in a thorough,
professional, aggressive manner, whether by Mr. Conrad or those
working for him. Mr. Conrad, do you feel that you're doing that
kind of job or the people working for you are doing that kind
of job?
Mr. Conrad. I personally feel that way, yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. And do you feel the Attorney General in any way
is trying to stop you from doing your job?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. You know, I just want to say from my point of
view, I want you to do that kind of job. I want you to do a
fair job, an aggressive job, a thorough job. Follow the
evidence wherever it may lead. What I don't want is this whole
thing politicized, and it's inevitable, I suppose, in this
election year that will continue to be the case. And certainly
this hearing is a hearing I must tell you I would rather not be
attending, either. Because I've never been through a more
ludicrous hearing than this one where these charges are made
about a tape. I could barely hear the witnesses, let alone
what's being said on the tape.
And I don't know what difference it would make whatever
that was said on the tape. If you're doing the job of looking
at all the evidence and going after anybody who committed
crimes, that's what we need from law enforcement, not innuendo
from the people on this committee who have their own political
agenda. I thought it was interesting----
Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Waxman. Well, if I can just--I'll abide by the time.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.
Let me start off by saying that I'm glad that we have
civility conferences that you attend, because I hate to think
of how these meetings would be if you didn't go to those
civility conferences.
Let me start off by saying, we had, and I don't want to
impugn any of your integrity. I think you're all competent and
honorable men. We had Mr. La Bella and Mr. Freeh and Mr.
DeSarno before the committee, and they all said that Ms. Reno
was doing a good job and wasn't partisan and didn't cause any
problems. And then after 2\1/2\ to 3 years, I received the La
Bella and Freeh memos. And I'd like to read to you just a
little bit about what they said in private correspondence with
the Attorney General.
Mr. La Bella, you cannot investigate in order to determine
if there is information concerning a covered person. Rather, it
seems that this information must just appear, out of the blue,
I guess. La Bella memo, if these allegations involved anyone
other than the President, the Vice President, senior White
House or DNC and Clinton-Gore 1996 officials, an appropriate
investigation would have commenced months ago without
hesitation.
A La Bella memo, the debates appear to have been result
oriented from the outset. In each case, the desired result was
to keep the matter out of the reach of the Independent Counsel
Act. A La Bella memo, the contortions that the Department has
gone through to avoid investigating these allegations are
apparent. The La Bella memo, one could argue that the
Department's treatment of the common cause allegations has been
marked by gamesmanship rather than an even-handed analysis of
the issues.
The La Bella memo, in Loral, avoidance of an Independent
Counsel Act was accomplished by constructing an investigation
which ignored the President of the United States, the only real
target of these allegations. A La Bella memo, it is time to
approach these issues head on, rather than beginning with a
desired result and then reasoning backward.
Steve Clark's memo, never did I dream that the task force
efforts to air the issue would be met with so much behind the
scenes maneuvering, personal animosity, distortions of fact and
contortions of law.
This isn't me talking. I hope everybody in America will not
listen to what I'm saying and read the La Bella and Freeh
memos. Because evidently, what was said directly to the
Attorney General through these memos was a little bit different
than the appearance of comity that we saw before this
committee.
Now, I'm not faulting Mr. La Bella or Mr. Freeh. I
understand the position they were in. But when you read their
memos, they're very clear that they were not happy. Mr. Freeh,
from the Freeh memo, I have to get my glasses here, because
this print's a little small, the DOJ attorneys have been
extremely reluctant to venture into areas that might implicate
covered persons. This reluctance has led to a flawed
investigation in several ways. That's the head of the FBI.
Freeh memo, the chief campaign investigator, Director
Freeh, has concluded that the investigation presents the
Department with a political conflict of interest. Political
conflict of interest.
Now, if you read the memos, which we could not get, we had
to force it, after 2\1/2\ years, it's very clear that Mr. La
Bella and Mr. Freeh felt this went way beyond just a difference
of opinion.
Mr. Robinson. Would you like me to comment?
Mr. Burton. You can comment in a minute.
Mr. Robinson. Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Burton. In addition to that, Louis Freeh, Larry
Parkinson, James DeSarno, Robert Litt, Charles La Bella, Robert
Conrad and Judy Fagan said there should either be an
independent counsel or a special prosecutor. It wasn't just me.
It was seven or eight different people at the Justice
Department.
Now, I understand the final decision rests with the
Attorney General. But our argument has been, with all of these
people making these recommendations, coupled with the Freeh and
La Bella memos and the reasoning behind them, why in the world
would she not appoint an independent counsel to investigate
these things, rather than she and her department investigate
her boss, the man who appointed her? That's the concern that
we've had.
Now, Mr. Robinson, do you have a comment?
Mr. Robinson. Yes. I would only say this, Mr. Chairman,
that I think that while, as I indicated, I have some concerns
about the release of deliberative materials, I think the fact
that it's all out there and being an old evidence teacher, I
would refer you to the completeness doctrine. I think it is
well for people to look at the Freeh and La Bella memos. But
that isn't what they, they ought to not to stop looking at
those memos. They ought to look at the entirety of what's out
there, including the memos, including ones that I wrote and
others wrote on this very issue, as well as the final decisions
in each of these instances that were filed.
Mr. Burton. I have no problem with that. But the problem is
Justice, even though we sent subpoenas to them, fought us for
2\1/2\ to 3 years. And only when we finally forced the issue,
really forced it, did we get them. And they didn't want the
public to know what was in those memos, because it gave a black
eye to the Attorney General.
Now, you may disagree with that. That's why I ask the
American people and anybody interested to read them themselves
and make a decision.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have more questions, but I'll yield my 5 minutes to Mr.
Horn so he can ask questions.
Mr. Horn. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from
Connecticut.
I'm a historian by background. And let me start on this
Independent Counsel Act.
Once it expired, Justice issued regulations allowing the
Attorney General to appoint a special counsel in cases where
criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted, or
to investigate or prosecute would present a conflict of
interest for the Department or ``other extraordinary
circumstances.'' Justice Public Integrity section handled those
matters. And they relate to the appointment of special
counsels.
Yet when he testified before the committee on June 6, 2000,
Chief of Public Integrity Section Lee Radek stated that there
was no pending decisions on appointing special counsels in any
campaign finance matter. However, by June 22, 2000, a number of
newspapers reported that the head of the Campaign Financing
Task Force, Mr. Conrad, had recommended that the Attorney
General appoint a special counsel to investigate Vice President
Gore.
Now, the committee also recommended that the Attorney
General appoint a special counsel to investigate the White
House e-mail matter. Again, the Attorney General declined.
So Mr. Robinson, I'm going to ask you this. Would you
briefly the process for making a determination of whether the
Attorney General should appoint a special counsel for a matter?
What's that process?
Mr. Robinson. The regulations, as you've indicated, are
new. And the process I think will evolve from the regulations,
which are in the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards are
set out there. We'll have the opportunity to address those
standards. We're going to make it up the first time we're
addressing this issue, and we're in the process of evaluating a
variety of matters that I can't discuss in detail that will
obviously do that.
Mr. Horn. Well, what's the role of the Public Integrity
Section in that process?
Mr. Robinson. As a general proposition, the people in the
Public Integrity Section, outstanding career prosecutors that
have a lot of experience under the Independent Counsel Act over
many, many years through Republican and Democratic
administrations, have had a role with regard to the Independent
Counsel Act, and obviously will have an advisory role, it seems
to me appropriately, in connection with the regulations. The
regulations were in large part drafted with the assistance of
the Public Integrity Section, with people who are used to this
process and have applied it, I think, very carefully and even-
handedly.
The way it would ordinarily work, and we're going to have
to evolve the process, obviously, in connection with the new
regulations, but I would think Public Integrity would have a
role. But others in the, anybody within the Department----
Mr. Horn. How about the people at this table? Would all of
you have a role in this?
Mr. Robinson. I would suspect that if it fell within the
jurisdiction of the Criminal Division, particularly, that would
be the case. As you know, there are other divisions of the
Department that arguably have some criminal jurisdiction that
could be implicated. I mean, if this were a criminal, if there
were a criminal anti-trust or a criminal environmental matter
or another matter, you would expect that components, the Tax
Division, others might be involved.
I would think that the role of Public Integrity would be
there as an advisor. But in each of these instances, and I
think if you can look at the material that you have, other
sections besides the Public Integrity Section have been
consulted.
Mr. Horn. Well, I understand that, it's relevant to the
type of jurisdiction. But Mr. Radek testified that there were
no pending decisions on whether to appoint a special counsel
for any matter related to campaign finance investigations.
Would you agree with that statement or disagree with it?
Mr. Robinson. As of when he made it, I'm sure that it was
correct, according to his likes.
Mr. Horn. That's June 6th. So nothing's doing, is what it
sounds like.
Mr. Robinson. What it sounds to me like is that when Lee
Radek testified, at that particular juncture, he answered
correctly.
Mr. Horn. In other words, that there were no pending
decisions? Are there any decisions since then or in process?
Mr. Robinson. There has been public information, leaked
information, inappropriately leaked information, I think, with
regard to a recommendation. And I think it would be
inappropriate for any of us involved in that process to comment
on that pending matter.
Mr. Horn. Well, let's go back to the White House e-mail
matter, which we've all sat here for hours listening to that
one. The committee had recommended, as we understand it, that a
special counsel be appointed for the White House e-mail matter
as early as March 2000. Did anyone at Justice take that request
seriously?
Mr. Robinson. I think we always take requests like this
from Congress seriously. And the answer would be yes. I would
also say that whether, I think Mr. Radek, somebody indicated
Mr. Radek's comment, I'm sure may or may not have, was his best
recollection, whether it was literally true or not at that
time.
Mr. Burton. Excuse me, Mr. Horn. Mr. Shays' time has
expired, and now you have your time.
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Reno has not announced whether she intends
to appoint a special counsel for the White House e-mail matter.
And were any of you involved in the decisionmaking process for
the e-mail, for special counsel?
Mr. Robinson. It would be inappropriate to comment, except
I would say this. We would be involved in any such
recommendations.
Mr. Horn. You certainly would, as Assistant Attorney
General.
Mr. Robinson. I certainly would be involved in that. The
Public Integrity Section reports to me in the Criminal
Division, as do about 15 other sections.
Mr. Horn. Has the decision yet been made to appoint that
special counsel for e-mail? I realize the Attorney General is
in and out of town. That's what Cabinet officers do. But what
can you tell us? Is that underway?
Mr. Robinson. I think that any statement about that would
have to be made by the Attorney General. Because she'd be the
one to make the decision.
Mr. Horn. Did any of you see a conflict in Justice
defending the White House in a lawsuit regarding e-mails while
at the same time investigating the e-mail matter? And wouldn't
that be like a law firm representing both the plaintiff and the
defendant?
Mr. Robinson. I think it would be, I think it wouldn't be
appropriate for me to comment. It is the case that the Civil
Division is involved in litigation. And the Criminal Division
is involved in other matters. And that happens with some
frequency in the Government when the Justice Department has the
responsibility in two separate areas. They report to two
different Assistant Attorneys General.
Mr. Horn. Well, let me move to Mr. Conrad, since time is
running here. During a July 13th press conference, Attorney
General Reno stated she received a recommendation to name a
special counsel to investigate Vice President Gore regarding
the truthfulness of the statements he made about his 1996
fundraising activities. Mr. Conrad, did you make such a
recommendation?
Mr. Conrad. I think the Attorney General's public comments
would be as far as anybody at this table could go with respect
to discussing pending matters. And so I would agree with her
public comment, yes, sir.
Mr. Horn. To whom, when you make that recommendation, to
whom do you submit your recommendation for a special counsel?
Does it go to the Deputy Attorney General or directly to the
Attorney General, or through Assistant Attorney General
Robinson? How does the system work?
Mr. Conrad. I can tell you my chain of command is up
through Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alan Gershel,
Assistant Attorney General Jim Robinson and then to the Deputy
and the Attorney General.
Mr. Horn. Is that always the process, or is it just on the
political problems here, on the conflicts of interest?
Mr. Conrad. On the significant matters that I've been
involved with and where significant decisions need to be made,
that is the process.
Mr. Horn. And I take it your recommendation was in writing?
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Horn. It's easier to leak those, I believe. And to whom
was that recommendation distributed? As we've learned in
earlier cases, that all sorts of people that were political
appointees, not necessarily you as the Assistant Attorney
General, but special assistants and this and that were sort of,
some of us felt, putting pressure on the Attorney General. So
who all else is in that room?
Mr. Conrad. I can tell you that any recommendation on a
significant matter that I would have for the Attorney General
would go up through Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Horn. So you haven't been in the office yet where
they've got special assistants that might well have strictly a
political, not a legal or Justice matter?
Mr. Conrad. I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
Mr. Horn. Well, it's a question of, you've written the
recommendation. It's gone up through the Assistant Attorney
General. It's gone to the Deputy Attorney General. And it could
be sitting there. Is it in the Attorney General's office? And
in some cases it's been shown that she brings in the person
that writes the memo. And in others, we've learned that you
have a whole bunch of people that aren't really in the
hierarchy of the Department of Justice. They're special
assistants, they're not people in line authority.
So I just wondered what your kind of treatment is getting,
is that from the assistants or from the people in line
authority?
Mr. Conrad. I meet with the Attorney General personally on
a weekly basis.
Mr. Horn. I see. So if she had any questions, you'd know
all about it. Now, has that happened on recent recommendations
by you?
Mr. Conrad. With respect to any pending recommendations, I
would feel uncomfortable, I would believe it to be
inappropriate to discuss.
Mr. Horn. Well, I can understand that.
Mr. Robinson, have you acted on Mr. Conrad's
recommendations that a special counsel be appointed? Is there a
memo covering his memo, at a glance on her desk?
Mr. Robinson. I think it would be inappropriate, this is
really a pending matter, and discussing where that is would not
be appropriate, Mr. Horn.
Mr. Horn. Well, I can understand that, too. But it just
seems to me, I would think the hierarchy usually, having been a
captain assistant years ago, it goes up and people initial,
etc.
Mr. Robinson. I will be in the process.
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Mr. Robinson. In any such process, I would be involved, and
I would be making recommendations. But I wouldn't think it
appropriate for me to comment on what those recommendations
were or their form. Ultimately, this will be a decision by the
Attorney General.
Mr. Horn. But we do know that she has the memo, and not the
Deputy Attorney General, sitting on the Deputy Attorney
General's desk.
Mr. Robinson. I don't know that you know that from us.
Mr. Horn. No.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. Thank you. I thank the gentleman,
his time has expired. And we'll go with Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage,
you have the floor for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conrad, you stated that you thought it was not
unprecedented to transcribe meetings, such as the meeting you
had with the Vice President, Al Gore. Do you feel that any of
the information contained in those transcripts could have or
did undermine your investigation?
Mr. Conrad. I think my testimony was that I heard Mr.
Waxman talk about other precedents that I had previously been
unaware of. So I don't know whether I--I didn't intend to
testify that there was precedent for the actions I took.
What I did testify to and what I believe today is that the
way in which the Vice President's examination was set up, and
the form that it occurred, was in the best interest of our task
force investigation. And--I think I lost the train of your
question in the midst of my answer. If you could ask me again.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Let me ask you another way. As a
matter of policy there at the Department, is it usual to
transcribe these kinds of interviews?
Mr. Conrad. I think it's one of the investigative tools
that you have at your disposal, and was chosen by me in this
circumstance because I believed it to be the best thing.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. I see. But can you say it doesn't
happen in every case?
Mr. Conrad. Oh, yes. Oftentimes witnesses are interviewed
either in the grand jury, where grand jury rules apply, or
interviewed by FBI agents, in which there is a summary of
interview prepared. But there are myriad ways in which we go
about gathering information, the sworn transcript form being
one of those ways.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Could you explain to me why General
Reno might assert that there was information in that particular
interview, the third one, I believe, that could undermine your
investigation and yet the transcript was released to the press?
Just to remind you, Mr. Conrad, she made that assertion in a
letter to Chairman Burton on May 3rd, and I think you have a
copy of it.
Mr. Conrad. I don't, I don't wish to engage in semantics
with you. But the fact is, we never released anything. The
deposition was done, the transcripts were prepared. We got one,
the witness got one. That is what happens in a deposition
context, and that's basically what was going on with the
examination of the Vice President.
What the Vice President did with that transcript is his
business, his decision, and we had no part in releasing
anything that led to that situation.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Well, let me ask you this, do you feel
that any of the information contained in those transcripts
could have undermined your investigation?
Mr. Conrad. I would think it would be inappropriate for me
sitting here today with pending investigations ongoing to
comment on the impact on those investigations. I think it would
be entirely outside the scope of my ethical responsibilities.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Well, let me ask you on another
subject. If the Vice President was called to the grand jury,
then would there have been a transcript at that time, for the
Vice President?
Mr. Conrad. If any grand jury witness, the process would be
that the witness appears before a grand jury, a transcript is
most often prepared. But grand jury rules would apply to that
transcript.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. And is it usual, then, in every case,
that the witness would have gotten a copy of the transcript?
Mr. Conrad. No. If it were a grand jury witness, then grand
jury rules would apply, and the witness might or might not get
a copy of the transcript, depending on the stage of the
judicial proceeding, orders of the court or other examples of
getting a transcript. A witness could get a transcript, but
they wouldn't normally do that until a certain stage in a
judicial proceeding.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. I just have one final question. Why
didn't you call the Vice President in front of the grand jury
then?
Mr. Conrad. I think that question would call for a
strategic response from me, and I think it's outside the
purview of what I can talk about publicly in terms of ongoing
pending matters.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Thank you, Mr. Conrad.
Mr. Shays. The gentlelady's time has expired, and Mr.
Waxman, you have, for your second round, you have time.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Before today's hearing, Chairman Burton has often used the
Freeh and La Bella memos to try to illustrate his point, which
I think is a political point. And that is that the
investigation is not on the level. It's not a fair
investigation.
Which means to me that, even though they said under oath
that they were conducting their investigation without any
interference and honestly, fairly, and freely, that they, you'd
have to interpret what the chairman has said as that, even
though they testified to that under oath, that wasn't really
reflective of their real views. And I guess I, because of that,
have to try to clearly get on the record a statement, your
testimony. You've all answered this. You've all given answers
to my questions about it.
So let me ask, so far as your personal knowledge, each of
the three of you, the question of whether appointing an
independent counsel is one that should be interpreted as a
legal dispute between people with different points of view, or
whether we should look at it as one of the Attorney General
trying to protect the President or the Vice President? Mr.
Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. Well, I can say that when I took this
position, Chuck La Bella was still head of the task force, Jim
DeSarno was still there. I worked with them. I think Chuck is
an able, tough prosecutor. I think the agents that were
assigned to the task force were good agents. I think they're
still good agents, good prosecutors. I think they were working
hard to investigate these cases thoroughly and appropriately.
The disagreement was over the Independent Counsel Act. And
there were disagreements and they're all out there for anyone
to read. And I think they're reasonable, good faith, hard
fought disagreements. There are some adjectives in some of the
memos that I'm sure might not have been said if they thought it
was going to be published on the front page of the New York
Times, some tough language. But lawyers get tough with each
other.
We had spirited discussions, good faith discussions.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Gershel.
Mr. Gershel. Mr. Waxman, I got here after the statute
expired, and also, I have no prior experience with the
independent counsel statute.
But as I indicated earlier, these kinds of exchanges are
quite normal. What did surprise me was that in fact so much was
written about this, so many memos, so many people were able to
express their opinions and discuss the issue. And that was more
than I had seen in my experience.
Mr. Waxman. And Mr. Conrad, let me ask you the same
question, but let me ask it also in a different way. Because I
want you to pursue an honest, thorough, aggressive
investigation. I think that's what the American people want you
to do. That's your job.
And I want to know whether you feel that the Attorney
General, as she listens to the legal dispute over the
independent counsel, whether one should or shouldn't be
appointed, and regarding your contacts with her, do you in any
way feel you're being interfered with or being kept from doing
a professional, competent investigation?
Mr. Conrad. It's a frustrating situation being here. You
have a disagreement with Chairman Burton, and I don't have a
bone to pick with you, nor do I have a bone to pick with----
Mr. Waxman. Nor do I have with you.
Mr. Conrad [continuing]. Chairman Burton. But you're asking
me to agree or disagree with the chairman's view of things or
you, your view of things.
Mr. Waxman. No, no. I'm asking you, from your personal
knowledge and experience, as the head of this task force, if
this is not an honest, on-the-level task force, doing an
aggressive, thorough job, that means you're not doing that job,
or you're being kept from doing that job. Are you doing that
kind of job? Or are you being kept from doing that kind of job?
Mr. Conrad. I think the matters that have come within my
purview in the 7-months that I've been on the task force, that
I have looked at things aggressively with other line assistants
and other agents and I've pursued those things. And I don't
feel that I've been impeded in any way.
Mr. Waxman. Now, you've said that under oath. Would you say
something privately than what you've said here in your
testimony here today? Is this your view? Privately and publicly
and under oath, under penalty of perjury?
Mr. Conrad. That is my view.
Mr. Waxman. I don't have much time left. I was going to ask
if there's anything else you wanted to add. Anything else, Mr.
Conrad, you want to say about all this.
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. I wish you can get back to work as fast as
possible. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. This time, Mr. LaTourette, you have the floor
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Part of the discussion on the independent counsel, it's not
only what Mr. Waxman was talking about, and that is, is the
Attorney General interfering, but what we were always told on
the committee is that in some instances, we don't need an
independent counsel because the task force can take care of it
in-house.
And I want to ask a series of questions about some people
that have come before the committee, and like Mr. Barr, I
served as a State prosecutor before this service. And some of
the things that we've received back from the White House have
caused me to have some questions that I'd like to ask you.
A few weeks ago, we sent a subpoena down to the White
House, and asked them for all the subpoenas and documents,
document requests that they had received from the Justice
Department relative to the task force's work. The subpoenas
that we received back, at least what we've reviewed so far,
indicate that Maria Hsia, who was involved with the Hsi Lai
Temple, was never the subject of a subpoena request of the
White House. And I guess in turn, I'd ask you, Mr. Robinson,
you, Mr. Conrad, and you, Mr. Gershel, are you aware of a
subpoena to the White House for documents in their possession
relating to Maria Hsia that we haven't received?
Mr. Robinson. Well, I would say two things. No. 1, I'm not
sure what you would or would not have received. I'm sure that
you're also aware that it wouldn't be appropriate for us to
comment on any grand jury subpoenas one way or the other. I
think 6(e) is pretty clear, and I certainly wouldn't venture
into violating that rule or commenting on a pending matter. It
wouldn't be appropriate.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, let me ask you this. Is there any
subpoena that you're aware of that the task force has sent to
the White House relative to Maria Hsia that you could talk
about?
Mr. Robinson. No. I'm not, I think it wouldn't be
appropriate for us to comment on subpoenas to anyone. And I
think the rules would be violated if we were to do that.
Mr. LaTourette. Maria Hsia has been prosecuted by the
Justice Department, though, hasn't she?
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely. And convicted. And is awaiting
sentencing at the moment. And as I indicated in my statement,
as a result of Mr. Conrad's testimony about a month ago, we
have a motion to dismiss the indictment, based upon things that
were said, even though I think Mr. Conrad was quite right in
not answering questions about the details of the investigation.
Mr. LaTourette. Let me ask you this. Based upon your
experience, and Mr. Conrad and Mr. Gershel, you jump in, too,
do you think that it is plausible that you could have conducted
a prosecution of Maria Hsia without knowing or subpoenaing
documents from the White House relative to what contact they
had had with her?
Mr. Robinson. Well, I wouldn't comment on the subpoenas,
except to say that we obviously conducted a successful
prosecution, since we obtained a conviction.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, here's what troubles me. And if we
could put on the screen exhibits 2 and 3. These are documents
that you used, or the Department used, during the prosecution
of Maria Hsia. As I look at the stamps, it doesn't show that
you got those documents from the White House, even though they
appear to be memos written to people within, in one instance,
the Office of the Vice President. Matter of fact, they both
appear to be.
But you got those from the Senate committee, Senator
Thompson's committee. And I'm just wondering why it is that,
why it is that you used documents that you received from a
Senate committee and not documents that were received from the
White House? And I continue to be troubled as to how you could
conduct a prosecution, I understand you did and I understand
you got a conviction. But in the realm of, is this an effective
investigation in terms of following down all leads, I guess I'm
at a loss as to why you used Senate documents and not documents
that you used from the White House, unless you never sent the
White House a subpoena.
Mr. Robinson. I think I've already indicated it wouldn't be
appropriate for us to comment on grand jury subpoenas, and we
just couldn't do it. I accept your statement, but I'm not at
liberty to respond. I'd leave it to whether Bob or Alan want to
jump in.
Mr. LaTourette. All right, well, let me move on to a couple
of other people then. Again, in documents that we received from
the White House in response to a subpoena, we also have asked
about fellows named Ernie Green and Mark Middleton. And at
least I can tell you that this committee subpoenaed the White
House for documents relative to Ernie Green in 1997, over 3
years ago. And if I remember right, in March 1999, the
committee made a referral to the Department of Justice on Ernie
Green on a purported charge of perjury.
Now, the records that we got from the White House do show
that the Justice Department issued a subpoena to the White
House for Mr. Green in March 2000, a year after the referral
was made. Is it an appropriate question to ask you why the task
force waited for a full year before acting on information that
was sort of gift wrapped and handed over from the committee?
Mr. Robinson. It might be appropriate for you to ask the
question, but it would be inappropriate for me to answer it.
Mr. LaTourette. I see my time's expired, and I'll come back
to this another time.
Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Barr, you are finishing this last round. You have 5
minutes.
Mr. Barr. Thank you.
Mr. Conrad, I know you're familiar with the transcript that
we've all been talking about here today, of your April 18, 2000
interview with the Vice President. That's certainly an accurate
statement, isn't it, that you're familiar with it?
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barr. I and a number of others have gone through it
also, and while there is discussion of White House coffees,
it's really not pursued in any length. There's just some
passing reference to it, a discussion of how many Mr. Gore may
or may not have gone to. But there was no discussion at all of
the particular coffee in December 1995, the December 15, 1995,
the tape of which we saw earlier.
That is correct, isn't it? I'm not asking you to comment on
any pending investigation. I'm just saying, in this document,
which is already public, there's no discussion of that
particular coffee, is there?
Mr. Conrad. Congressman Barr, you are asking me questions,
you are asking me questions about a pending matter. And that
document does speak for itself. The questions are either in
there or not in there.
Mr. Barr. Let me be more specific. Is there a discussion in
this document of how many coffees Albert Gore attended? The
answer is yes to that. I mean, is that correct? You conducted
the interview?
Mr. Conrad. I did. And that is correct, yes.
Mr. Barr. OK. Is there any discussion in here of a
particular coffee on December 15, 1995? And I'm just talking
about this document, which is already public.
Mr. Conrad. Right. I think that document speaks for itself.
And I'm not trying to engage in verbal games in any way with
you. But you are, you're asking me----
Mr. Barr. I think that you all are. I really do.
Mr. Conrad. You're asking me about a pending matter.
Mr. Barr. All I'm trying to--what we're left with here, and
this is why it makes it so difficult and so easy for Mr. Waxman
to claim that we're badgering witnesses, because you won't
answer questions. That's why. I'm not asking you to analyze
something that may be evidence in the case. I'm not asking you
to comment on other evidence. I'm asking you about a public
document.
The fact of the matter is, since you won't answer any
questions about it, and I think you are hiding behind a
technicality, I think you all are using it as a shield to avoid
having it made apparent that you all haven't gone into
something that on its face is, very clear evidence that the
Vice President, in December 1995, just a few days after showing
these ad tapes, paid for by heavy hitters, contributors, goes
to a White House coffee, sees that Mr. Wiriadinata is there,
who identifies himself to the President, who is just a few
paces ahead of the Vice President, as somebody who James Riady
sent, and then we hear the Vice President's voice say to that
person, we ought to have Mr. Riady see some of those ad tapes.
Now, you all can sit there like see no evil, hear no evil,
speak no evil, with your hands over your ears and your hands
over your eyes, and your mouths glued shut. But the fact of the
matter is, that is evidence. That is evidence that the Vice
President knew that those ads were being paid for by foreign
money. That is evidence that the President knew there was a
connection between those ads and Mr. Riady.
And yet to get you all to admit that might be relevant, you
won't even admit that. I mean, this is what we don't
understand.
Mr. Conrad. I'm sorry you feel like I'm hiding behind a
technicality. But from my perspective, sitting here, that
technicality is my bar license. And I think there are ethical
responsibilities, as a prosector, that I know you are aware of
and abided by when you were a prosecutor. And I honestly
believe that those restrictions prevent me from answering your
question.
Mr. Barr. Well, and then, but it just goes on and on. And I
asked earlier about this CNN story, that had a Justice
Department source quoting, saying the tape is unclear. Well,
what tape was this Justice Department source listening to? Now
we go back to the tape here, and I asked Mr. Robinson if he
understood what was on the tape. Gee, I don't know, I can't
say.
You are hiding behind it. I mean, to sit here, it just
stretches credibility to say, you're sitting here and we play a
tape, and you won't even tell us whether you hear what's on the
tape because it might be evidence. Yes, it might be evidence.
We want it to be evidence in this case. It isn't so far because
you all haven't done anything with it.
You had a perfect opportunity, interviewing the Vice
President, to ask him about a piece of very relevant evidence,
and you all chose not to. We'd like to know why, but you all
won't tell us. That's why it's very frustrating. We cannot
properly conduct the oversight responsibility that you all pay
lip service to, because we can't even find out answers to basic
common sense questions about whether or not you hear what's on
a tape.
Mr. Conrad. I know it's frustrating for you. It's
frustrating for me as well. Because when you ask me to comment,
you're asking for my mental processes, my analysis of things
that involve ongoing, pending matters. And you're asking me to
comment in a way that I think is outside----
Mr. Barr. But you won't even acknowledge whether something
is on the record or off the record, when the document is right
here and it's clear that it's not. I just think that you're
taking it to extremes that rule was unintended to be taken to.
Mr. Shays. The gentleman's time has expired.
This is now my time. But before we start the clock, I'd ask
unanimous consent that a set of exhibits to be used in today's
hearings be included in the record. And without objection, so
ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.034
Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to
include the transcript to which we've been referring, that is,
the testimony of Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., Tuesday,
April 18, 2000, conducted by Mr. Conrad and others, be included
in the record?
Mr. Shays. If it's not included, it should be. And without
objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.254
Mr. Shays. If it's not included, also without objection,
the letter to Mr. Burton from Attorney General of May 3rd,
denying us that transcript. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.258
Mr. Shays. I now have my 5 minutes. I'd like to ask you,
Mr. Raben, if the Vice President was given a copy of his
transcript and all the exhibits to the interview, and he was
allowed to provide that interview in evidence to the media, why
did the Justice Department fail to provide Congress with the
same information when we subpoenaed it?
Mr. Raben. I think you've reversed the sequence, the denial
to Congress preceded the Vice President's counsel releasing the
transcript.
Mr. Shays. Have we received any transcript from you?
Mr. Raben. No, you haven't received it from us, since----
Mr. Shays. So you all basically still have not provided us
the transcript? Is that not correct?
Mr. Raben. Right. The one you've just now entered in the
record.
Mr. Shays. Seems like the Justice Department has two
different standards. You can't give the interview to Congress,
because that would harm your investigation. However, you cut a
deal with the Vice President that allowed him not only to give
the media his transcript, but also the exhibits that you showed
the Vice President.
Mr. Raben, why did the Justice Department fail to take
steps to prevent the Vice President from distributing his
transcript, particularly when it was so sensitive that you
couldn't comply with a congressional subpoena?
Mr. Raben. You have so many premises in that question I'm
not exactly sure where to begin. But I'll try to remember
everything you've said.
You called it a double standard, I believe. It's not a
double standard, it's two different requestors and two
different sets of legal obligations. The witness, once provided
a transcript as part of a voluntary interview, as I've been
taught about by the Criminal Division, is free to do what he or
she wants with his or her own words. And we apparently do not
have a legal ability to object to the release, whether or not
we personally object.
With respect to Congress and it seeking information from
us, I think the policy, as I manifest it in this job is to
resist as much as possible the ability of Congress to have
access to open file material. We do everything that we can to
try to accommodate what you and we consider to be legitimate
oversight needs without providing open access material, open
file material.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Gershel, in the letter that we received from
the Attorney General, she said, disclosure of the records of
such recent interviews is a particular concern, because
revealing information, especially the questions posed in the
interviews, could disclose significant aspects of our ongoing
campaign finance investigation, which include multiple matters.
No prosecutor would want other witnesses to have the benefit of
these witness interviews.
The investigation would be seriously prejudiced by the
revelation of the direction of the investigations or
information about the evidence that the prosecutors have
obtained. She goes on to say, as discussed above, significant
harm to ongoing investigations would result from the disclosure
of the records of the recent interviews. She then says,
moreover, disclosure at this juncture of the aspects of the
open investigation that is revealed by an investigator's
question at these interviews would unquestionably risk
compromise to the pending investigations and possible future
prosecutions.
So I'd like to ask you, is the Attorney General speaking
the truth? Is that true?
Mr. Gershel. Certainly she's speaking the truth. But as Mr.
Raben indicated, the circumstances that occurred here are
different. We could not have prevented the Vice President from
releasing that transcript. We could not have prevented it by
law, by rules of ethics, by our duties as a prosecutor, by the
first amendment. He was free to walk out of that room after
that interview, sir, and tell the whole world what he had said.
Mr. Shays. You have told us what you felt would happen by
the release of that document. Did you share that information
with the Vice President, that he would compromise the
investigation? All those things that the Attorney General said,
did you share that with the Vice President?
Mr. Gershel. Mr. Shays, it would be inappropriate for me to
comment on any discussions I might have had with the Vice
President.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Conrad, did you share with the Vice
President that any disclosure of this information would harm
this investigation?
Mr. Conrad. I would be in the same situation as Mr.
Gershel.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. I didn't speak to the Vice President about
this matter or Mr. Neal or anyone else. I think when Mr. Conrad
made these arrangements, he was new enough to Washington he
didn't expect leaks. But that's unfortunately what happened.
Mr. Shays. See, this is where I begin to feel that this,
that your responses border on absurdity. It's one thing to say
you can't talk about an investigation. It's another thing to
say that you can't disclose to us whether or not you asked the
Vice President not to disclose this information.
And for the life of me, I can't understand how you can
equate that, not disclosing what you said to the Vice President
about disclosing sensitive information that would harm
investigation. And I just want to be certain that all of you
are still contending that would be inappropriate for you to
disclose to the committee.
The question is very simple. Did you make it clear to the
President that disclosure of these tapes would harm the
investigation, the Vice President? Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. I didn't have any discussions.
Mr. Shays. You had no discussions with the Vice President
about this?
Mr. Robinson. No, I did not.
Mr. Shays. OK. Mr. Raben.
Mr. Raben. I didn't have any conversations, either. I would
not accept the label absurd to say that it's inappropriate, or
if they say it's inappropriate to talk about their
conversations with somebody, I wouldn't accept the label
absurd.
Mr. Shays. Well, I think it was when it's just about
whether or not we wanted to protect an investigation. It's one
thing when you're talking about the investigation. It's another
thing about wanting to protect it.
Mr. Raben. Yes, you know, I'd like to say, I'm not a
prosecutor. I come, I sat where Mr. Wilson and Mr. Schiliro are
for 7 years, and I've been at the Department for a year. And
it's amazing to me what these career prosecutors do, the amount
of time they work, the dedication they bring to their job and
the kind of criticism they take. It's very, very impressive.
Mr. Shays. It is impressive, but it doesn't answer the
question. We take criticism, too. But it's totally irrelevant
what you said.
Mr. Raben. I don't think it's totally irrelevant.
Mr. Shays. The issue----
Mr. Raben. I don't think it's absurd when they explain----
Mr. Shays. The issue is the following. How is it
inappropriate for you to tell us whether or not you were
protecting an investigation by telling the individual, in this
case the Vice President, that he had sensitive information that
he should not disclose? I'm just reading what the Attorney
General told us. She told us it would be inappropriate for this
information to be shared. And I want to know if you made it
clear to the Attorney General, because he happened to disclose
it.
And Mr. Conrad, I'm asking the question. Are you still
going to make the claim that answering that question is
inappropriate?
Mr. Conrad. Mr. Shays, I think if--you probably conclude
that I made a mistake in setting up the interview the way I
did, and that is deposition style, where I get a copy of the
transcript and the Vice President gets a copy of the
transcript.
Mr. Shays. No, I don't make that assumption yet. What I do
make an assumption is that I have a right as a Member of
Congress to know whether you tried to protect sensitive
information that you told us shouldn't be made public.
Mr. Conrad. I think once I made that decision to do it that
way, I did not have a legal objection to assert----
Mr. Shays. But what about a moral, moral responsibility to
protect your investigation? So are you saying that the
President didn't know he would harm the investigation by
disclosing it?
Mr. Conrad. I don't know what he'd do. I'm saying to you
that I think at the point in time that he does release it,
that's his decision, not mine.
Mr. Shays. OK, I think in a sense, you did answer it, and
maybe you could tell me, you basically did not tell him that if
he disclosed this information it would be harmful?
Mr. Conrad. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. Mr. Gershel.
Mr. Gershel. No, sir, I had no conversations with him.
Mr. Shays. OK, thank you.
Mr. Horn, you have the time.
Mr. Horn. Would you like 2 or 3 minutes to finish up?
Mr. Shays. Yes, please.
I would now like to ask you, each of you gentlemen, Mr.
Robinson, did the disclosure of the tapes, of the transcript by
the Vice President harm the investigation?
Mr. Robinson. I can't comment on whether it did or didn't.
We always prefer that information that we have not be
disclosed. But as I said, we can't prohibit that and couldn't
in this instance and didn't.
Mr. Shays. As discussed above, significant harm to ongoing
investigations would result from the disclosure of the records
of the recent interviews. That's what the Attorney General
said. Was she telling us the truth?
Mr. Robinson. That's generally true of all such matters.
Mr. Shays. So this was a boiler plate? This was not, so we
shouldn't really believe it?
Mr. Robinson. No, I think it's true.
Mr. Shays. OK, that's all I wanted to know.
Mr. Raben, did the Attorney General speak truthfully, that
the disclosure of this information harms the information?
Mr. Raben. Yes, Raben, yes.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Conrad.
Mr. Conrad. There's two parts to that question. One is a
policy where if witnesses thought we were releasing their
statements after they gave us statements, there would be a
chilling effect in ongoing investigations. So any time there's
that perception that we're releasing statements of witnesses,
it has an adverse effect, or the potential for that in
investigations.
Mr. Shays. The Attorney General left no ambiguity about the
release of this document. She was very clear, I read it to you.
Mr. Gershel, is the Attorney General correct, and was the
investigation harmed by releasing these transcripts?
Mr. Gershel. I can't comment if the investigation was
harmed. But her comments are correct.
Mr. Horn. Let me just finish up on the hierarchy over
there. As I read the regulations and all, the Public Integrity
Section has the responsibility for reviewing special counsel
matters. Now, Mr. Conrad, did your particular recommendation go
through the Public Integrity Section? Seems to be that's the
hierarchy.
Mr. Conrad. Any recommendation of the nature you're
suggesting would go from me to the Attorney General through Mr.
Robinson.
Mr. Horn. I see. And would not go through Mr. Radek as
Chief of the Public Integrity Section?
Mr. Conrad. That's right.
Mr. Horn. OK. So let me just note that the Attorney
General, on July 13th, said she was still reviewing the
recommendation, presumably yours, but that she would like to
resolve the issue, ``as soon as possible.'' Now, do any of you
know where that recommendation stands today? How soon is as
soon as possible? Mr. Conrad.
Mr. Conrad. I'd like to defer to Mr. Robinson on that.
Mr. Robinson. I think as soon as possible is her words. I
think that's what she'd like to do. But I can't give you an
estimate of when that would occur.
Mr. Horn. Well, when this all came out with her comments
there, numerous press reports indicated that Justice officials
were ``shocked'' or ``surprised'' by Mr. Conrad's
recommendation that a special counsel be appointed. One
anonymous Justice Department official went so far as to predict
that the Attorney General would decline to appoint a special
counsel.
Are any of you concerned that statements like that and
leaks of information are precisely why a special counsel is
needed? What do you think of that?
Mr. Robinson. I'm concerned whenever there are leaks of
confidential, internal, deliberative information. I continue to
be upset by it, surprised by it. But less surprised with every
day I've spent here in Washington.
Mr. Horn. Well, I don't blame you. I'm a country boy, too.
But the fact is that the games played here with leaks, and
usually by the administration, are, oh, that's old news, what
are you talking about? We've got three members of the press
here, maybe four. But that's old news, you know, why don't they
just blithely go on doing what they're doing, which is
sometimes corruption. And the question we're asking starts back
to George Washington and the St. Clair expedition, Congress has
the right to the paper and the files when there's a big mess
going on.
George Washington set that precedent. Nobody has objected
to that except this administration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You can have the remaining couple
of minutes.
Mr. Shays. Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage, you have the floor.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday our staff here on the committee had the chance to
review declination memos at the Justice Department. Now, these
memos, as you know, are explanations of why the Justice
Department has refused to pursue prosecutions in certain
aspects of the campaign finance investigations.
Mr. Raben. May I interrupt you for 1 second? I'm sorry, I
know that's unusual, but it is directly responsive to Mr.
Horn's point that we don't provide information. I think we've
provided an enormous amount----
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. I'm sorry, Mr. Raben, but you had a
chance to answer Mr. Horn, and this is my time now.
Mr. Raben. I apologize for interrupting.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. One of the declination memos concerned
White House coffees. Now, I want to read you a section of that
memo. That memo says, ``It was determined that while the White
House coffees were used as donor servicing events, there was no
evidence to support that the individual coffees had been given
a specific price tag. It is therefore recommended this portion
of the investigation be closed.''
Now, I don't know what evidence the Justice Department
considered. But these documents and testimony received by the
committee indicate that there was indeed a price tag on
attendance at the coffees. Charlie Trie testified before that,
``I checked with my contact at the DNC and find out about the
Presidential coffee. I'm not sure whom I spoke with, but I
think it was probably either David Mercer or Richard Sullivan.
I find out that for a $50,000 contribution to the DNC, it were
possible to attend a coffee meeting with the White House,
meeting in the White House with President Clinton.''
Now, in fact, Mr. Trie purposely did not attend the coffee
in June 1995, precisely because he didn't want to pay the
$50,000 to attend. Now, one attendee at the coffee, a man by
the name of Carl Jackson, stated that John Huang solicited
coffee attendees for political contributions. Now, the DNC
accounting documents for fundraisers lists target fundraising
amounts for coffees, and whether the coffees actually met these
goals. And that you will find in your exhibits, exhibit No. 4.
Also in his book, To Tell The Truth, former White House
lawyer Lanny Davis stated, ``It would have been better to have
described these events from the start as fund raisers and not
to have attempted to deny the obvious.'' Now, Mr. Robinson,
since you're heading up this team, I'm going to direct this
question to you.
The examples I just cited are just a few of many examples
that we've received here in the committee. In light of these
examples, how could the Justice Department conclude that there
was no evidence that the coffees had price tags?
Mr. Robinson. Well, you're asking me to comment on
something that happened before I arrived at the Justice
Department. I wasn't involved in the preparation of that or the
decisionmaking with regard to that. And so I don't, off the top
of my head, have an answer to your question. I mean, I would
think that I would want to read the document carefully and look
at the other materials. But you're talking about a decision on
an independent counsel matter that occurred before June 1998
when I was teaching evidence and being a law school dean.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Well, Mr. Robinson, it would appear
that the information I've given you would be somewhat
compelling. I would think it would be very compelling to
Justice. And in light of a mistake like this, is the Justice
Department going to reopen the investigation of the White House
coffees?
Mr. Robinson. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to
answer that question. I would be commenting on whether or not
we're going to be investigating something which the code of
professional responsibility tells prosecutors they're not
supposed to do. And Congress has told me I'm not supposed to it
under the McDade Act as well.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Mr. Robinson, what I'm going to do is
I'm going to submit this question to you in writing that I just
proposed. And we will submit the evidence to you, all the
exhibits and everything.
Mr. Robinson. Be happy to receive it.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. And I believe that it's very
compelling and I would like your response in writing.
Mr. Robinson. Be happy to receive the information.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. I have another question. After Johnny
Chung began cooperating with Department of Justice and this
committee, he said that he had been paying an official at the
U.S. Embassy in Beijing, Charles Parish, to help get visas for
Chinese to visit the United States. Chung also stated that he
had given Parish a number of gratuities as part of his efforts
to get visas for individuals who otherwise would not have been
able to get them.
Now, Mr. Chung's allegations began an investigation of Mr.
Parish, who had been forced out of his job in Beijing after
similar accusations were made against him by his subordinates.
Now, the Justice Department declined to prosecute Mr. Parish,
despite the testimony of a number of individuals that Parish
had broken the law. Now, in its declination memo, that's
available to you----
Mr. Shays. Would the gentlelady suspend? Her time is up,
but Mr. LaTourette is next, and may be he could just yield to
you. We can go one quick round before we give the counsel the
opportunity.
Mr. LaTourette. I'd be happy to yield to you.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. I thank the gentleman.
Now, in its declination memo, which is available in your
department, as it was to us, finally, the Department stated
that there was no specific or corroborative evidence developed
to support the allegation that Parish was illegally selling
visas. Now, this committee asked Mr. Parish to testify and he
took the fifth amendment.
So did Mr. Chung's testimony not constitute specific
evidence against Mr. Parish? Chung testified that he saw Parish
sell the visas. Isn't that pretty compelling, Mr. Robinson?
Mr. Robinson. I couldn't comment on that. I'd be happy to
receive the information.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. We will provide that to you, with, and
again, this question in writing with all the evidence.
Mr. Robinson. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Did the Department interview Jay Ding
before it closed the Parish investigation?
Mr. Robinson. I don't know the answer to that question one
way or the other at this point. If you want to submit that,
we'll take a look at it.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Mr. Raben, do you know?
Mr. Raben. No, ma'am, I don't.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. Mr. Conrad, do you know?
Mr. Conrad. That was way before my time. I don't know.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage. I don't want to take up all the
gentleman's time, so I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you very much.
Mr. Conrad, I was talking to Mr. Robinson before about
Ernie Green and others. Actually, I was talking and he was
telling me he couldn't tell me anything. But maybe I'll have
better luck with you.
Do you know why it took the Justice Department 3 years to
request documents from the White House relative to Ernie Green,
and a full year after there was a referral made by this
committee relative to charges of perjury against Mr. Green?
Mr. Conrad. I don't know, and if I did----
Mr. LaTourette. You wouldn't tell me. It would be one of
those, you could tell me, but then you'd have to kill me.
Let me talk about Mark Middleton for just a second. Mark
Middleton served in the White House chief of staff's office. He
has taken the Fifth and refused to cooperate with the
committee. The Justice Department, it's my understanding,
requested his calendars in August 1998, which was 2 years after
the investigation started, just requested additional,
subpoenaed his calendars and telephone messages in March 2000.
In the hearings that this committee has conducted, Mark
Middleton was clearly the key contact person at the White House
for both Mr. Huang and also Charlie Trie. Mr. Conrad, do you
know why it took 2 years to get around to asking the White
House for Mark Middleton's records?
Mr. Conrad. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on
that as well.
Mr. LaTourette. Let me ask you this, and I think I already
know the answer, but you know what? I'm going to ask it anyway.
Are Mark Middleton and Ernie Green under active investigation
by the Department of Justice?
Mr. Conrad. I couldn't comment on that.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, the reason I ask you that question,
we were specifically asked by the Department of Justice to
avoid talking about Ernie Green during the Charlie Trie
hearing, if I remember correctly. Because we were advised that
there was an ongoing criminal investigation that the Justice
Department was very excited about.
But I have to tell you that the level of excitement is
puzzling to me, and I assume to my colleagues, when we find out
that what you're so excited about you're not even requesting
records about from the White House. And again, I don't like
this backseat driving business. It makes me very uncomfortable,
because I'm sure as career prosecutors, you all do an excellent
job.
But I hope you take a look at it from our side of the
fence. We're being told two things. We're being told we don't
need an independent counsel, everything's under control. We can
take care of it. But then when we get records from the White
House as to how it's being taken care of, we find out on a
direct referral by the committee, where we believe that perjury
was committed by a fellow named Ernie Green, we find out from
records that we get from the White House that you all haven't
even contacted the White House for a year and a half for those
records.
And so it leaves the impression in our minds, and I
understand we've got partisan folks on both sides here, but it
leaves the impression in our minds that you're not quite as
excited about it as we're being told. Mr. Robinson, do you want
to say something?
Mr. Robinson. I would like to make one comment that I hope
will continue to be the case in our interaction on parallel
matters with the Congress. To the extent that we have
conversations with counsel for committees about the appropriate
scope of inquiry into witnesses, we don't make those, we don't
have those conversations with the expectation that they will be
publicly disseminated. And the code of professional
responsibility prohibits us from doing that.
And so I would assume the Justice Department ought to be
able to talk to Congress about the scope of parallel matters
without our operating on the assumption that everything we tell
in all of our discussions are going to be published to the
world. Because if that were the case, we would be inhibited in
what we could confer with Congress on. And I'm sure that's not
the intention.
Mr. LaTourette. Yes, and I appreciate that chastisement,
but I will tell you that the committee also has an oversight
responsibility. And what you're asking us to do is say, trust
us. But then when we get documents from the White House, we
find out that stuff we gave you a year and a half ago, you
haven't acted on, regardless. We don't have to talk about
specific people.
But how can we conduct our oversight responsibility, other
than just to say, you can come down to Capitol Hill any time
you want, say, we're working on it, and you bet we're working
on it. But then when we get the records from the White House,
we find out that subpoenas for documents that we think need to
be looked at in order to conduct an effective investigation
haven't gone out for 3 years?
Mr. Shays. It's my time and I'm happy to yield on my time,
so he has 5 minutes. What we're going to do, just so you
gentlemen can anticipate, because it's been a long afternoon,
well, you know what, we could break for 5 minutes. Usually we
have a vote and we give people opportunities here. Here's what
I think we'll do. We'll just go through, Congressmen, we're
just going to go one more quick round and then we're going to
have counsel. Maybe before the counsels begin, we can give you
a little break. Is that OK?
Mr. Robinson. That would be great, thank you.
Mr. Shays. OK. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Shays, and I'll just take a
couple minutes of your time, if I can.
Since I already know the answer to my next series of
questions is going to be that you can't tell me, I just want to
tell you one other thing that's bothering me is, as someone
that's charged with having some oversight with all of my
colleagues on this committee, and that is again, in the records
that we received back from the White House, we discovered that
the only mention of people who are well known to the members of
this committee, Kent La, Ted Sioeng, Mr. Glicken and Wong Jun,
who's an arms dealer who attended a White House coffee, in all
of the subpoenas and document requests that we got back from
the White House, the only mention that the Justice Department
was asking the White House what they knew about these folks at
all, what records they had and what can you tell us about it
was one subpoena sent to Ann Lewis. And did you know who Ann
Lewis was or is, if she still is, or what she used to do?
Mr. Robinson. I know she was at the White House, that's
about all I know.
Mr. LaTourette. She's the communications director at the
White House, and I believe was the spokesperson for the
Presidential campaign. So the only request that has been made
by the Justice Department to the White House for information
about Wong Jun, who is an arms dealer who attended the White
House coffee. Howard Glicken, you know who Mr. Glicken is, he
has two cars, license plates, Gore1 and Gore2, convicted of
campaign violations, I believe, by the Justice Department. Ted
Sioeng has been identified in testimony before this committee
as an agent of the Communist Chinese Government, and Kent La is
an associate of his.
The only request that anybody at the Justice Department
made, according to documents held by the Clinton White House,
was one request to Ann Lewis, the flak, the person in charge of
spinning the White House's story, press person. And that's the
only one we could find.
Now, again, I understand that what you just said, and I
take it seriously, and I certainly didn't mean to overstep. But
if you're us, don't you think that that's strange? If that's
true, don't you think that that's weird?
Mr. Robinson. I--I leave it to your characterization. I
wouldn't characterize it, and it wouldn't be appropriate for me
to comment on grand jury subpoenas, that's for sure. And it's
not the only way we can get information generally. But I think
we can't go further than that.
And hopefully maybe the dialog can be better between our
staffs on parallel matters. I think that's appropriate.
Mr. LaTourette. OK, well, thank you. And thank you for
giving me some added time, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Is the gentleman concluded?
Mr. LaTourette. I am, thank you.
Mr. Shays. I'll use the remaining 2 minutes very quickly,
and then the chairman will gain the floor here.
Mr. Gershel, I just want to quickly talk about priority and
why you, the Attorney General, then the Criminal Justice
Division, Mr. Robinson, your deputy, Mr. Gershel and Mr.
Conrad, you're in charge of the Campaign Financing Task Force.
Mr. Gershel, evidently you decided to undertake the case
against Mr. Bakaly, who evidently was the former independent
counsel spokesperson.
And I'm just curious why you decided to prosecute this
case. Why did you want to participate in this case? You've been
an active participant in this case.
Mr. Gershel. Congressman, that matter is certainly a
pending matter. I'm not going to comment as to why the case was
brought.
Mr. Shays. I didn't ask that. I asked why you. Why are you
involved in that case?
Mr. Robinson. I can answer that question perhaps even
better than Mr. Gershel. But I don't want to----
Mr. Shays. Well, let's give him a try.
Mr. Gershel. With all due respect, I think Mr. Robinson can
give a better answer.
Mr. Shays. I'll take a less better answer, and then I'll
ask him.
Mr. Gershel. I was requested to participate in the case.
Mr. Shays. OK. Why did you request him, Mr. Robinson?
Mr. Robinson. This matter was being handled by Mr.
Gershel's predecessor, who became my chief of staff. And so
that was, when Mr. Gershel took----
Mr. Shays. Let me ask you, why would you ask your deputy to
take a case about a spokesman for the independent counsel on
whether or not he told the truth on a statement? Why did you
feel it was so important that it be such a high ranking
official?
Mr. Robinson. It was a matter that was handled by Mr.
Gershel's predecessor, appropriately so. And----
Mr. Shays. Appropriately so. Is it the Deputy Criminal
Division head that needs to handle this case?
Mr. Robinson. He was certainly more than qualified, as was
his predecessor, to try the case.
Mr. Shays. I'm not saying he's more than qualified. Is he
the only person qualified to handle this case?
Mr. Robinson. No, he's not the only person qualified. But
he certainly was qualified, and----
Mr. Shays. Doesn't it send a very keen message about
priority and appearance? I mean, he's in charge of
investigating the President and the Vice President, but he's
going after the independent counsel. Isn't there a real clear
message in your priorities when you do that?
Mr. Robinson. Well, I--Mr. Gershel's responsible for
supervising a wide array of things. I happened to decide----
Mr. Shays. So he's a very busy guy?
Mr. Robinson. Very busy. I'm busy, too.
Mr. Shays. But you decided that he needed to be the one to
handle this case. I just find it curious.
Mr. Robinson. I decided to argue a case before the Supreme
Court as well, and I'm a busy guy. But I think it's
appropriate.
Mr. Shays. It just so happens, though, it's kind of like a
law firm, if a law firm was handling it, it's interesting the
different priorities they set, and whether it's connected with
the same kind of case. It's really related.
Mr. Burton [presiding]. Would the gentleman yield real
briefly?
Mr. Shays. Happy to yield.
Mr. Burton. I'm just curious about that, too. Because as I
understand it, the campaign finance investigation is supposed
to be the largest investigation that you've ever undertaken.
And if that's the case, why would the fellow who's pretty much
in charge of it be assigned a case of that significance when
you have a huge undertaking with the campaign finance
investigation? Seems to me that there would have been a lot of
other people you could have picked. So why would you pick him?
Mr. Robinson. Mr. Conrad's in charge of the campaign
finance investigation. And Mr. Gershel's responsibility is
supervisory over lots of things, and isn't day to day handling
the campaign finance investigation.
Mr. Burton. So he's a supervisor of a lot of things?
Mr. Robinson. Fraud section, child----
Mr. Burton. But you said supervisory.
Mr. Robinson. Yes.
Mr. Burton. And yet you picked him to go ahead and
prosecute this one particular case?
Mr. Robinson. He took this matter over from his
predecessor. All of us who are trial lawyers try cases.
Mr. Burton. Why would his predecessor be doing that?
Mr. Robinson. Pardon?
Mr. Burton. Why was his predecessor assigned to that job?
Mr. Robinson. Because it was considered to be an
appropriate thing under the circumstances. When this matter
arose, and as I said, the details of the matter, I think, which
is still under consideration by the court, we shouldn't be
discussing. I'm happy to discuss generally, these are qualified
people to try cases, argue appeals. This wasn't a long matter,
a little longer than people thought perhaps.
Mr. Burton. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. My understanding is that we're pretty
much set. Mr. Horn, do you have anything left, or Mr.
LaTourette?
Then, Mr. Chairman, what we agreed, they've been on the
table for a while, and we thought we'd have a 5-minute recess
and then we would allow counsel to ask their questions. Is that
OK with you?
Mr. Burton. It would be fine with me.
Mr. Shays. OK, so we'll just have a 5-minute recess, and
thank you for your patience, gentlemen.
[Recess.]
Mr. Wilson. Good afternoon. If all goes well, we will not
take the 30 minutes and we will all get out of here as quickly
as possible.
Mr. Conrad, I wanted to ask you just a threshold question
that goes to our concerns. In your opinion, has the task force
process, since the time that you have been in Washington,
worked in the best interests of justice?
Mr. Conrad. I have enjoyed my time in Washington. I have
worked with very conscientious, hard-working people pursing
what I think are very serious matters and pursing them in a way
that I do think works.
Mr. Wilson. We are not focused so much on whether you
enjoyed your time, but we are really interested in whether in
your perception you believe that the American people and folks
who are following the campaign finance investigation will
emerge with a sense of confidence that questions have been
asked in a timely fashion. And I just want to set the stage. We
have asked a lot of questions of the panel about why it took
nearly 4 years for the Vice President to be asked about the Hsi
Lai Temple, and we have asked questions about why it took
nearly 4 years for the President to be asked any questions
about foreign money or James Riady. And so I would like you to
step away from the specifics of the case, and I know you are
not going to answer that question if I ask it again, but one of
the principal concerns here, do you think this process, as you
have seen it, has worked in the best interest of justice?
Mr. Conrad. My own personal opinion is that a task force
concept like this is a good one and it is set up to work, and I
think it----
Mr. Wilson. Well, again, I do not want to talk about the
concept so much, because we all understand the concept, it is a
very good concept and it is applied in many places around the
country and in many different instances, and each type of
investigation is, in many respects, governed by the facts of
that type of investigation. But in this investigation, which
goes to investigation of the President, the Vice President, a
political party, by the same political party that happens to
control the Justice Department with all that entails, is it in
your opinion, and I just want this for the record so you can
look at it years from now and we can look at it years from now
and you will be able to see what you said, we just want to know
whether in your opinion this process has worked to promote
people's confidence in the justice system.
Mr. Conrad. I think in the 7-months that I have been there
that it has worked well, yes.
Mr. Wilson. Fair enough.
I will truncate this as much as possible, but to
recapitulate about the December 15, 1995, White House coffee
tape that has been shown. We have played it, the purported
words have been put on a poster. One of the areas of principal
concern, it was discussed earlier, was yesterday's CNN news
article, and it was read earlier but it is worth reading again,
from CNN, under the heading of Justice Says White House Coffee
Tape Unclear, ``But a Justice Department source said it was
unclear what was on the tape because of poor audio.''
Now I wanted to just take a moment and read Mr. Robinson's
opening statement, which you very thoughtfully provided to us a
few minutes before this hearing. On the second page, ``I am
also bound by the similar provisions of the United States
Attorney's Manual which provides, among other things, that
`personnel of the Department of Justice shall not respond to
questions about the existence of an ongoing investigation or
comment on its nature or progress.' '' Now this is a
characterization admittedly, but that appears to be precisely
what happened yesterday when somebody spoke to the media and
characterized the tape as being unclear because of poor audio.
Now, we have a CNN news report, that does not mean it
happened, but if that happened, would that promote the Campaign
Financing Task Force's investigation, Mr. Robinson?
Mr. Robinson. No.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Conrad, would that promote your
investigation if somebody said that?
Mr. Conrad. No. I think that would be inappropriate.
Mr. Wilson. You believe it would be inappropriate?
Mr. Conrad. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Now why would that be inappropriate?
Mr. Conrad. It is a comment on pending matters. The same
reason why we are not saying as much as you would like us to
say today.
Mr. Wilson. OK. And that we respect and we understand it.
We have worked with the Department of Justice for the last
couple of years and generally kept issues off the table when
you have asked us to.
Mr. Gershel, I will ask you the same question. Would it
have been, in your opinion, appropriate for somebody at the
Department of Justice to make the statement that is put in the
CNN news report?
Mr. Gershel. No.
Mr. Wilson. Is that a problem from all of your perspective
about this particular investigation? Is this particular comment
something that--first of all, let's ask whether you know
whether the Department of Justice is trying to followup on this
particular matter, this particular characterization.
Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. I think we violate the language you are
quoting to be talking about an ongoing or whether there is an
investigation or not. But I can say generally, and I have been
troubled about this since I was a U.S. attorney in Detroit,
leaks are not new to Government and people leak for a lot of
different reasons, sometimes to influence decisionmakers,
sometimes to hurt people. I have always been of the firm belief
that this interferes with us getting our job done. I am sure
Congress finds the same thing when leaks happen that interfere
with your work.
And so I think it is inappropriate, I think it hurts our
investigations, it hurts our credibility, and it often harms
people who do not deserve to be harmed by having their
reputations tarred and they never get an opportunity to
rehabilitate themselves because they never get charged with
anything. So I am a firm believer in these rules and I
rigorously follow them. And if we were to determine that people
were not following them, there would be consequences. It would
depend on what it is, but----
Mr. Wilson. No, and I appreciate that. Well, just because
we are working with a record here and want a record and
juxtapose what did happen with what people are testifying here,
let me ask you, Mr. Gershel, were you the source for this
comment?
Mr. Gershel. I was not.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Conrad, were you the source for this
comment?
Mr. Conrad. No.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Raben, were you the source for this
comment?
Mr. Raben. No.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Robinson, were you the source for this
comment?
Mr. Robinson. Absolutely not. If there was a comment made,
I made no comment.
Mr. Wilson. Has there been any speculation, and I know it
is only something that happened yesterday, but has there been
any speculation as to who the source of the comment was?
Mr. Robinson. If there was, it would not be appropriate to
comment on the speculation.
Mr. Wilson. Well, is there an ongoing investigation?
Mr. Robinson. I could not answer that question.
Mr. Wilson. Because you do not know, or because you cannot
answer because there is an ongoing investigation?
Mr. Robinson. I think it would not be appropriate to answer
that question.
Mr. Wilson. Let me just ask you whether you understand,
from the perspective of this committee, that there is the
perception of a real problem when there is a piece of possible
evidence out there that is being characterized by somebody in
the Department of Justice in a way that is, frankly, very
political. One can see that through this comment very easily.
Is that a source of concern in terms of the public's confidence
in the investigation? Can you see that concern?
Mr. Robinson. Any leaks are a source of concern. I was
troubled about the leaks that occurred with regard to whether
Mr. Conrad made any recommendations. That should not happen
either. We should be able to do our deliberative processes
without having this information be leaked. I think as a general
proposition that is not the way to proceed. But it does happen,
seems to happen here more than I was used to back in Michigan.
But, you know.
Mr. Wilson. But this, as you are well aware, this is not
the first time there has been a leak that has been beneficial
to a suspect or a target of the campaign financing
investigation. A couple of years ago there was a very
beneficial leak from the Department of Justice in the John
Huang case that was beneficial to John Huang. A question that
was asked of Mr. Radek in a hearing not so long ago was is that
something he factored in when he was considering whether
somebody independent, somebody from outside, somebody from
outside the political chain of command should handle this case.
And Mr. Radek told us that no, he had not considered that.
And I guess I would like to ask that question now, given
that some of the people here are involved in the decisionmaking
process, if there is a recommendation on the table for the
appointment of a special counsel to investigate either all of
or matters in the campaign financing investigation, Mr.
Robinson, would you take into account the fact that there
appears to be somebody here, at a bare minimum, who is
characterizing information in a rather adverse way to the
interests of justice?
Mr. Robinson. I think leaks are a problem no matter where
they come from, from an independent counsel's office, from a
Government, either the executive or the legislative branch. I
think it is a problem and I think there needs to be rigorous
efforts to avoid these things. And that is why we have
regulations----
Mr. Wilson. But what I was asking was a very specific
question about this process. Obviously, given the number of
hearings and the interest of Members of Congress, there is a
very clear concern that there is a possible conflict of
interest that may not advance the cause of justice in the
campaign financing investigation. And if there are leaks coming
out of the Department of Justice in this specific
investigation, what I am asking you is the same thing I asked
Mr. Radek, is that a consideration in whether you think that
somebody independent should----
Mr. Robinson. You would have to assume where the leaks were
coming from. For example, if there were an independent counsel,
ordinarily they are staffed by Justice Department people as
well. Ordinarily, investigative agencies support independent
counsels. We detail people from the Justice Department to
independent counsels' offices. Basically, the investigators
traditionally within the Justice Department include the
investigative agencies. The FBI is part of the Justice
Department and there are other agencies within the Justice
Department and other law enforcement agencies in Treasury and
other places. So it is an issue, but I would not suggest that
the situation can be localized in a way that gives you much
help, it seems to me, on what I take it to be the premise of
your question, which is that it is happening at a particular
place in a major bureaucracy.
Mr. Wilson. Well, my question begins with the premise that
every case is different, admittedly, and no two cases can be
treated in precisely the same way. Consequently, a task force
model might be good in one case, a special counsel model might
be good in another case, handling the case in the U.S.
Attorney's Office might be good in another case. But what we
are looking at here is a very specific set of, a large universe
of facts, but it is an investigation that is being supervised
by the Attorney General, you are the second person in the chain
of command, Mr. Gershel is the third person in the chain of
command, Mr. Conrad----
Mr. Robinson. Do not leave out the Deputy. I am actually
the third person in the chain of command.
Mr. Wilson. Well, just working from recent studies that
have been provided on that. But you are all in this direct
chain of command and there are other ways of handling the case,
and I asked you the question. And it sounds like, to me, it is
fair to characterize that leaks in this particular case are not
a particular concern of yours beyond the normal concern that
you would feel about any case. Is that a fair characterization?
Mr. Robinson. I am concerned generally about leaks, and I
see it not just in this area but in other areas that trouble me
whenever I walk to my front door of my apartment to pick up my
papers in the morning.
Mr. Wilson. You see, from our perspective, here we have a
Department of Justice that is putting out a public face on a
piece of evidence that is almost a self-fulfilling type of
prophecy that we have got here. We have got somebody, not one
of you, according to your testimony, but somebody putting out
an adverse reaction to something that they probably have never
seen. We have asked the question, and I do not think you are
going to answer, but I will ask it again. Has the Department of
Justice seen the original Beta tape of the December 15, 1995,
coffee event?
Mr. Robinson. It would not be appropriate I think for us to
answer. I would only say that----
Mr. Wilson. We can find this out, obviously. We can check
and we can develop the answer.
Mr. Robinson. Sure.
Mr. Wilson. So is it not possible for you to tell us
whether you have seen the original tape?
Mr. Robinson. I think it would not be appropriate for us to
comment. We would be commenting on a pending matter and
commenting about evidence in a pending matter. We have seen it
here, I can tell you that.
Mr. Wilson. Well that is not the original tape. So that is
a rather flip answer, but that is not the original tape, it is
a copy. One would think if you are doing an investigation and
you want to see or understand or hear what is going on, you
would want the original. I can ask the question, is there any
interest in having the original tape?
Mr. Robinson. I think it would not be appropriate for us to
comment. We listen to what you have to say and we take what we
hear from you seriously. I think that is about as much as we
can say. You have told us your view of this and we----
Mr. Wilson. I understand that. But if it is not appropriate
to comment, how are you ever going to request the original tape
to do the job that you need to do? Are you telling us now you
are not interested in it?
Mr. Robinson. What I am telling you is I am not going to
make a statement for public dissemination here at this hearing
about a pending matter. We are happy to have other discussions,
as we do all the time. I made the point earlier that I think we
are all in the same Government here and we ought to cooperate
on something----
Mr. Wilson. And we have done that and it has been a good
relationship thus far. When we interviewed Johnny Chung certain
issues were taken off the table, you asked us not to divulge a
certain matter about various investigations. But unless you set
up a different type of arrangement with us than you did with
the Vice President, unless you set up some type of non-
disclosure agreement, if you come to us and say we will ask for
the tape but you cannot tell anybody that we asked for the
tape, then it is just a matter of sort of use of common sense
that if you come and you ask for the original evidence that it
will necessarily follow that people will know whether you asked
for the original evidence or not.
Mr. Robinson. Right. I think it does make a difference the
extent to which we have an understanding about whether we can
have a conversation with the committee here that we have to
worry about McDade over because we have got this rule that says
you cannot make statements knowing that it is going to be
publicly disseminated. Now we can receive anything, and we are
happy to receive anything that the committee or others think
appropriate for the Department to receive and consider.
Mr. Wilson. But thus far, the only public iteration of
interest that we can use in any cognitive way is a pejorative
representation from the Department of Justice. It is like we do
not care, it is a poor quality tape. And of course that begs
the question, if it is a poor quality tape, maybe that is
because it is not the original. So I think we understand your
position there and perhaps that is something for a dialog at a
later time.
Mr. Robinson. Fine. Happy to do that.
Mr. Wilson. We obviously welcome that and look forward to
that.
Let me just turn to another issue that has not really been
addressed. In March of this year, nearly 4 months ago, the
committee asked the Attorney General to appoint a special
counsel to look into allegations that the White House had
obstructed justice in terms of not turning over e-mail
information and also a possible intimidation of witness issue.
I know there has been some discussion, unfortunately, I had to
leave the room briefly for that. I think the question was asked
has there been a conclusion. Have you come to a conclusion as
to whether a special counsel will be appointed to investigate
the e-mail matter?
Mr. Robinson. Earlier, there was an indication that the
Attorney General has made no such announcement at this point.
And I think that if there were to be such a statement, it would
be made by the Attorney General. And so we are not quite in a
position to answer for her on that topic.
Mr. Wilson. We have come to a point now where it has been
nearly a third of a year. It might be helpful to come to some
closure on that issue.
Mr. Robinson. We will take that back.
Mr. Wilson. But it is a matter of some concern to us
because one of the things we have learned as we have conducted
our investigation of the e-mail matter is that there is a large
universe of individuals who have not been spoken to by the
Department of Justice. And as we pointed out in the March
letter, there was some concern that the Department of Justice
is on both sides of the same case. Even today, apparently, the
Department of Justice is representing the White House in the e-
mail matter and at the same time the Campaign Financing Task
Force is theoretically conducting an investigation of possible
issues of impropriety in the e-mail matter. And we sent a
letter a few weeks ago indicating that the Department of
Justice had not talked to a number of significant witnesses.
And I will not go through the list today, but even yesterday I
called counsel for three people who have pieces of information
that are very important to the puzzle of understanding what is
going on and the Department of Justice has not contacted them
even to set up an interview.
So, Mr. Conrad, this is a characterization, it may be
unfair, but it is beginning to look like your e-mail
investigation is a bit like the campaign financing
investigation. A long period of time is going by without some
basic fact-finding occurring. Like the near 4 year delay asking
the Vice President about the Hsi Lai Temple, we have gone
nearly a half a year on some e-mail matters.
Let me ask you one question that I think you can answer.
Mr. Conrad, how are you kept up to date on the e-mail
reconstruction project? Who talks to you?
Mr. Conrad. I do not want to get into the deliberative
process within the task force investigation.
Mr. Wilson. No, no. I do not mean to even ask you to go
there, and please do not think that I am. What I am asking you
is not what is going on inside the task force, it is just as
theoretically the White House should be keeping us up to date
on what is going on with the reconstruction project. We learned
in court just in the last week that the White House apparently
has just started copying tapes and will not be finished copying
tapes until next year.
So what I am not asking you for is deliberative process,
what I am asking you for is who keeps you up to speed with what
is going on in the reconstruction process at the White House.
Mr. Conrad. In the ordinary course of supervising a myriad
of task force investigations, I make it a point as a supervisor
to meet with prosecutors and agents assigned to different
responsibilities. And White House e-mail would be no different
than any other case.
Mr. Wilson. Again, I guess I am not making my question
clear. Is it the White House that keeps you up to date with
what is going on, or is it the White House's lawyers, other
Department of Justice lawyers, who tell you what is going on,
if anybody. Maybe nobody does.
Mr. Conrad. I have under my supervision criminal
prosecutors and agents that are conducting the criminal
investigation and I supervise them. That is who would keep me
up to date with any developments in any of the cases.
Mr. Wilson. But the people you supervise are not the people
who have any idea what is going on in the reconstruction
process unless they are told. What I am asking you for is who
does the telling. Does the White House--first of all, to
characterize, the White House has not kept us informed, but
does the White House keep your subordinates informed, or do
they have direct contacts with other Department of Justice
attorneys who happen to be representing the White House in this
matter?
Mr. Conrad. I really would not be in a position to talk
about how I conduct a criminal investigation. That is a pending
matter under my supervision and it is being supervised in a way
I think is appropriate. But how we do that, what decisions we
make, who informs who is something that is part of the
deliberative process which I am not in a position to talk
about.
Mr. Wilson. So you are not able to discuss at all what is
going on outside of the task force in terms of advising you of
any of the reconstruction issues?
Mr. Conrad. That is correct.
Mr. Wilson. Just a few more things. I want to just for the
record clarify a couple of matters. One, I understand the
answer to the question that was posed earlier about why it took
nearly 4 years to ask the Vice President about the Hsi Lai
Temple matter, but I will ask this question from a different
angle. Mr. Robinson, have you ever made any inquiries as to why
it took nearly 4 years to ask the Vice President about the Hsi
Lai Temple matter?
Mr. Robinson. I guess not directly that way, except that I
expect the people who are in charge of these task forces,
including some very fine prosecutors, Chuck La Bella included,
Dave Vicinonzo, Bob Conrad, that they are going to do their job
in a deliberate, careful way and that they are going to proceed
appropriately. And I think I have empowered them to do that and
not interfered with it and I expect that they are doing it.
These things move along. Obviously, we had a trial that
took a fair amount of time, we have had a number of pleas, we
have debriefed witnesses. This is a process that those of us
who are involved in major investigations appreciate that
sometimes things take longer than one would like and that there
are a variety of ways to proceed. I have no reason to believe
that these prosecutors and the people running the task forces
are not proceeding in what they view to be the best interest of
the investigation, which I think is the case.
Mr. Wilson. We understand that and we appreciate that there
was a trial involved. But there appears to be somewhat of a
novel representation here that one needs to wait until after,
if you are referring to the Hsia trial, wait until after the
Hsia trial to ask a witness about information that might be
pertinent to the trial itself.
Mr. Robinson. I think it is legitimate for you all to make
comments about that. But it would not be appropriate for us to
comment about the investigation, the strategy that relates to
it. But sessions like this are helpful for us to understand how
other people feel about it and for us to take that into
consideration. I think that is appropriate.
Mr. Wilson. Let me perhaps turn to Mr. Conrad and ask the
same question. Admittedly, much of this happened long before
you came here. But in terms of your supervisory role, have you
made any effort to reconstruct whether there was a legitimate--
I guess what I am asking is was there a legitimate
prosecutorial or strategy rationale for waiting nearly 4 years
to ask the Vice President about the Hsi Lai Temple matter?
Mr. Conrad. The only thing I can say is my own personal
experience. I have not reconstructed other people's
investigative strategies. I came on in January, I interviewed
the Vice President in April. To me, that was working pretty
expeditiously. That is the universe of my knowledge.
Mr. Wilson. Right. We understand that. But was it a matter
of any concern to you personally that the Vice President was
not asked the very questions you asked him prior to the Hsia
trial? Were you curious about that matter?
Mr. Conrad. My focus was on setting up an interview and
asking the questions that needed to be asked, and that is what
I did.
Mr. Wilson. I understand if you cannot answer my question,
you can say that. But I asked if you were curious as to why it
took that amount of time, and I will ask whether you are
curious that the questions were asked after the Hsia trial and
not before the Hsia trial. We have read the transcript and you
did a fine job of asking questions. But the perspective we have
is why were those questions asked after the trial as opposed to
before the trial. And I am asking whether you were curious
about that.
Mr. Conrad. I think the appropriate people to ask those
questions, if you have specific people in mind who you think
should have asked the questions, they would be the people to
ask why they did not. My focus was on the needs of the
investigation at the time I took over and that is where my
energies went, that is where my thought processes went.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Robinson, I just wanted to tidy up one
matter relating to the Charles Parish issue. I think it was Mr.
LaTourette spoke extensively about some representations that
were made about Mr. Parish's conduct and your response was we
would have to receive that evidence. Is that a correct
representation of your words?
Mr. Robinson. No. I think I said we would be happy to
receive anything that exists and to look at the matter. Off the
top of my head, I was not in a position, and I would be glad to
evaluate whether we can make any kind of a response. I did not
review that matter. I did not understand that was going to be a
subject of our discussion. But if somebody wants to direct
something for us to take a look at and see what, if anything,
we can appropriately say about it, we would be glad to
undertake to do that.
Mr. Wilson. I think the response took some people by
surprise because the evidence was all put before the public at
a public hearing and it seemed that you were indicating that
you would have to receive that into evidence to take it into
account. It is something that has been received and it was read
sort of in juxtaposition to a declination memo indicating that
there was in evidence. So the declination memo----
Mr. Robinson. I was suggesting I would have to look at it.
Off the top of my head, I was not able to answer. I can say as
a general proposition that a working arrangement has been that
on all declinations with the task force there has been the
joint concurrence of the Attorney General of the United States
and the Director of the FBI, as a general proposition. On the
details of this particular matter, I would have to look at the
matter, and I did not before I came here. I do have 800 people
and a $100 million budget to operate and there are lots of
cases. So that particular matter--I would be glad to try to
look at it and anything we can say appropriately without
violating these rules, we would be happy to try to do it.
Mr. Wilson. And we understand that, obviously, it is an
extraordinary responsibility and it is one that people owe you
a great debt of gratitude for undertaking. But it is
interesting, you talk about the breadth of your job, and I was
actually going to ask Mr. Gershel a question that goes to the
breadth of his job. These are complicated, difficult, time
consuming, and sometimes burdensome jobs, and when you take on
new responsibilities that (a) is evidence of your priorities,
and (b) it takes away from your ability to take on other tasks.
And I was going to ask Mr. Gershel how many trials he has been
involved in as a participating trial member since he became a
Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. Gershel. That was my first.
Mr. Wilson. The Bakaly trial was your first trial since----
Mr. Gershel. In the last 6 months since I have been here.
Mr. Wilson. Right, since becoming a Deputy Assistant
Attorney General.
Mr. Gershel. I should indicate, though, that even as the
criminal chief and first assistant, where I also had broad
management responsibilities, it was always important for me to
stay in the courtroom and try cases. I felt it made me more
valuable as a manager and more helpful to the people that I
supervise.
Mr. Wilson. Do you have any other cases that you will be
handling in the immediate future?
Mr. Gershel. I am not going to comment on that.
Mr. Robinson. I would like to say some of us who are trial
lawyers--I sought out an opportunity to argue a case in the
Supreme Court, and maybe somebody would criticize me for doing
that but it was the highlight of my professional career. I
worked hard nights and weekends to do it. I would do it again,
although we are working pretty hard at it. But those of us who
are trial lawyers and get into supervisory positions, the
opportunity I think, as Alan said, to stay in the courtroom and
to completely appreciate this it helps give a credibility. I
taught as a dean, so, you know----
Mr. Wilson. Gentlemen, thank you----
Mr. Conrad. Mr. Wilson, can I go back to one of your
questions because I want to complete an answer.
Mr. Wilson. Absolutely.
Mr. Conrad. I want to make sure I am right on it. You asked
me about whether I was curious about the Vice President not
being interviewed. I came on in January. The Maria Hsia case
was set for trial in January. I had to come up to speed on a
whole host of pending investigations. And I sort of came on
with the notion that that trial had no input from me and was
going to trial the same month I was starting up. So as I
started to look at different cases, my curiosity with respect
to the Vice President and the Hsi Lai Temple was what he would
have to say about it, and that was structured into the
examination.
Mr. Wilson. I did not mean to characterize that you were
amiss in any way for not following up. I just wanted to know
whether you had thought about why that event had not taken
place.
Mr. Conrad. And I wanted to put it in context what I
thought and why I thought that.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Conrad, the record will be clear that you
began work this year in this position as head of the task
force. Correct?
Mr. Conrad. January 2000, yes, sir. Well, the day after
Christmas, the first full week.
Mr. Shays. Fair enough.
I thank the gentleman for his questions, his 30 minutes.
We now turn to the minority for their 30 minutes.
Mr. Schiliro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in fairness to
the witnesses and the late hour and also to Chairman Shays, I
think I will only use 2 of my 30 minutes. I was not going to
use any of it, but when counsel was asking you questions about
the leak that was reported in CNN yesterday, you all said that
you were bothered by the leak and you wished there were no
leaks. I think that is the view of everybody on the panel, that
in a perfect world there would be no leaks. But leaks sometimes
have different magnitudes. And I thought Mr. Robinson pointed
out that the leak of Mr. Conrad's recommendation by any measure
was a more significant leak than probably the one yesterday in
CNN. Mr. Conrad's leak I think on a Richter scale would
probably be a nine. Yesterday, I do not know how to evaluate
it, but it would be somewhat less than that.
And if you were going to put that leak in context, it may
be that the Justice Department was getting asked questions
about it because this committee asserted we knew what was on
that tape and said it as a matter of fact, when in fact there
may not be any agreement on what is on the tape. The hearing
reporter we have here today is probably the most equipped
person in the room to figure out what people say because that
is what his job is, he has to transcribe it. And the other
night on Fox TV there was a show called Hannity and Colmes and
the chairman was on the show. I have a transcript of it and
they have caught in this transcript every possible word that
anybody said, with one exception. When the tape was played that
we played here before, the reporter wrote down ``Albert Gore,
Vice President of the United States, `We ought to, we ought to
show that to [unintelligible] here, let [unintelligible] tapes,
some of the ad tapes [unintelligible].' '' So the person whose
job it is to figure out what is on the tape--who is not a
Republican, who is not a Democrat, who does not have a bias, he
is not related to the administration--that person, whoever it
is, had a very difficult time trying to figure out exactly what
was on the tape.
So it may well be, and I am not making excuses for the
Department, but when they were asked the question, it is not
secret information they were giving out, but it is information
that other people, including the professionals who have to
interpret these things, have already reached on their own.
Mr. Robinson. I would only suggest, though, that
prosecutors and investigators ought not to be commenting on
matters that might involve pending matters. I do not do it. I
do not think it is right. I think the code of professional
responsibility does not allow for that. People are entitled to
their opinion, but this one, unlike many situations, at least
there is something everybody can take a look at I guess and try
to figure it out as best they can.
Mr. Schiliro. What is on it, what is actually being said on
the tape.
Mr. Robinson. What is being said.
Mr. Schiliro. But when we are in the realm of leaks, all
this started because the initial leak about Mr. Conrad's
recommendation.
Mr. Robinson. I do not think it would be appropriate for me
to comment about why other people leaked other people's stuff.
But it hurts us. It gets in the way of our deliberative process
and it can hurt people who might or might not get charged.
Prosecutors, investigators, those in law enforcement, we are
supposed to be enforcing the law and enforcing the rules and we
ought not to be breaking them. That is my philosophy and that
is one that I try to live by.
Mr. Schiliro. I have used a minute and a half more than my
2 minutes. So I thank the chairman for his courtesy. I have no
more questions.
Mr. Shays. I appreciate you gentlemen being here and I
appreciate your patience for allowing us to question you from 1
to 5:15. And I appreciate the cooperation of both the majority
and minority and their counsels as well.
We will call this hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth-Hage
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4429.259