[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 141 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12293-S12294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ON THE POLITICIZATION OF THE FBI BY FBI GENERAL COUNSEL HOWARD SHAPIRO

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on September 25, the Judiciary Committee 
held a hearing about the White House and FBI files matter. I attended 
that hearing for the testimony of Mr. Craig Livingstone. However, I was 
necessarily absent for the testimony of FBI General Counsel Howard 
Shapiro.
  I was unable to make my comments a part of that record. However, I am 
compelled to make them a part of the Record of this body. This is an 
extremely important issue, in my view. And it begs the attention of all 
of my colleagues.
  Allegations have been made against Mr. Shapiro that he has been too 
cozy with the Clinton White House. I'd like to remind my colleagues 
that when law enforcement plays footsie with the White House, law 
enforcement decisions become political. And that can lead to a gross 
abuse of the powers of law enforcement. Civil liberties can be trampled 
on, and the pursuit of justice can be frustrated.
  After the White House travel office firings, the FBI was accused of 
allowing itself to be politicized. Bureau Director Louis Freeh said he 
would put an end to even the appearance of a cozy relationship. He 
said, ``I told the President that the FBI must maintain its 
independence and have no role in politics.'' Mr. Freeh understands the 
necessity of keeping a wall between politics and law enforcement.
  But, Mr. President, many of us in the Congress are not convinced that 
Mr. Freeh has reconstructed that wall. Questions arise because of 
specific actions taken in the Filegate matter by his general counsel. 
Mr. Shapiro is Director Freeh's hand-picked counsel. In the wake of the 
allegations, Mr. Freeh has expressed confidence in Mr. Shapiro, much as 
he did with agent Larry Potts. Mr. Potts was involved in the disaster 
at Ruby Ridge.
  The sum of Mr. Shapiro's actions greatly benefited the subjects of 
congressional and independent counsel investigations; that is, present 
and former White House employees. At the same time, Mr. Shapiro's 
actions may have done much harm to the investigations.
  Four specific actions suggest that Mr. Shapiro played ball with the 
White House:
  Issue 1. On July 16, Shapiro gave a heads-up to the White House about 
what was found in Craig Livingstone's FBI background file by the staff 
of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. The chairman 
had been invited to review the Livingstone file by Director Freeh. But 
before the chairman arrived, Mr. Shapiro notified the White House of a 
politically explosive item contained in the file.
  In the file, it was discovered that an FBI agent had interviewed 
former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum. The agent's notes say that 
Nussbaum reported the First Lady was instrumental in hiring Mr. 
Livingstone.
  Mr. Livingstone is one of two central players in the Filegate affair. 
One of the important, unanswered questions is, who hired him and why. 
Clearly, the information had relevance to the investigation.
  But the effect of Mr. Shapiro's heads-up was to alert the White House 
damage control operation. That way, everyone could get their stories 
straight before being interviewed. Sixteen people under investigation, 
and/or their attorneys, and/or members of the damage control team knew 
about the item before the Chairman of the Committee could read the 
file. This includes a witness about to go before a federal grand jury.
  Mr. Shapiro claims his purpose for the heads-up was to make sure both 
sides were equally apprised. It was his effort to appear neutral. 
However, Mr. Shapiro managed to achieve the opposite of his stated 
intention. He gave everyone being investigated a heads-up. That's a 
fact. The investigators were the last to know. That's also a fact. If 
Mr. Shapiro were really being neutral, he would have refrained from 
doing anything. Instead, he gratuitously appointed himself referee and 
inserted himself in the middle of three investigations. Now, as a 
result, his actions and judgment must be called into question.
  Just one month prior to this--on June 14--this very same Howard 
Shapiro personally authored the FBI's own review of the files matter. 
That review vowed that the FBI never would be ``victimized'' again by 
the White House. In my judgment, that hollow promise was broken barely 
a month later.
  Issue 2. Mr. Shapiro also gave the White House an advance copy of the 
Gary Aldrich book. That's the controversial and revealing book written 
by the FBI agent who formerly investigated the backgrounds of White 
House employees. Mr. Shapiro gave the advance copy to the White House 
damage control outfit. That way, the White House could prepare ahead of 
time its vitriolic attack-responses against Mr. Aldrich once the book 
was published.
  Mr. Shapiro's stated reason for this heads-up was he was concerned 
the

[[Page S12294]]

book might reveal sensitive White House security information. Yet, in a 
letter dated September 18 from White House counsel Jack Quinn to 
Chairman William Clinger regarding the matter, Mr. Quinn mentions no 
such issue. Rather, Quinn says the issue was ``the integrity of the 
Bureau's background investigation process.'' It wasn't sensitive White 
House security matters at all.

  In addition, when asked for the first time about giving the Aldrich 
book to the White House, Shapiro described the exchange as a much more 
casual event. On July 30, he was deposed by the House committee. On 
page 82 of his deposition, Shapiro says, ``Well, I called and advised 
Jack Quinn that there was a book in draft that had been given to us to 
review that * * * based on our prior experience we could not ensure 
would not be published before we completed our review of it. And I 
believe, if my recollection is correct, that I asked him if he wanted 
to have a copy of it.'' Mr. Shapiro goes on to say he didn't discuss 
the contents of the book with Mr. Quinn.
  This is how I see it, Mr. President. First, Mr. Shapiro provided the 
book to the White House as a courtesy. Then he discovered his action 
came under scrutiny. It was highly controversial. Once again, he was 
accused of playing footsie with his contracts at the White House. So he 
rationalized what he had done by inventing the story of sensitive White 
House security information being at the heart of his concern.
  Frankly, I don't buy it. It isn't backed up by Mr. Quinn, and it 
isn't backed up by Mr. Shapiro's own testimony when he was first asked 
about it. Furthermore, isn't it fair to assume that, if Mr. Shapiro is 
sincere about his motives, he would have sent a copy of the Aldrich 
book to the Secret Service since it is responsible for sensitive White 
House security matters?
  Issue 3. On July 16, Mr. Shapiro authorized two FBI agents to pay a 
visit to Agent Dennis Sculimbrene upon Shapiro's discovery of the 
controversial information found in Mr. Livingstone's FBI background 
file. Mr. Sculimbrene was the agent who had prepared the Livingstone 
file. White House officials were questioning the accuracy of the file. 
As a consequence, Mr. Shapiro took it upon himself to once again 
referee the situation. He sent the two agents to Sculimbrene to clarify 
the discrepancies. Later that day, Sculimbrene's work station was also 
searched by FBI agents.
  The problem with this action by Shapiro is that it could be seen as 
intimidation of an agent at the behest of White House officials. 
Moreover, in the process of sending these agents, Shapiro created at 
least the appearance of a conflict of interest for himself. As General 
Counsel, he inserted himself into an operational matter. On that part 
of the operation, he could no longer be an independent, impartial legal 
advisor to the Director. Instead of defending the FBI, he has to defend 
his own actions. This conflict now allows the public to question his 
motives and the plausibility of his explanations.
  Finally, Mr. Shapiro took this action without consulting the 
independent counsel, and despite the Attorney General's June 20 
announcement that continued involvement in this matter by the FBI would 
constitute a conflict of interest.
  Issue 4. A July 25 letter from Mr. Quinn to the FBI Director was 
first read to Mr. Shapiro over the phone to get his opinion as to the 
tone and some editorial content of the letter. That letter was highly 
political, attacking the credibility of some FBI agents, and also 
attacking the chairman of a standing committee of the U.S. House of 
Representatives in the performance of his oversight responsibilities. 
That hardly shows an arm's-length relationship between the White House 
and the FBI in the midst of this political confrontation.
  Mr. Shapiro has responded to each of these issues. It's on the 
record, for everyone to see.
  I have reviewed that record. In my view, Mr. Shapiro's explanations 
ring empty. The inescapable conclusion is, he's been playing footsie 
with the White House. At the very least, there's a clear-cut appearance 
problem. Neither is good for the FBI's image or for the public's 
confidence in the Bureau.
  I look at the results, not the explanations. The results are, what he 
did helped those being investigated. What he did interferred with the 
investigations. That's my interpretation. And that's a fair 
interpretation because he inserted himself into these matters. He 
appointed himself a referee in the arena of politics. And frankly, that 
gives the FBI a black eye, and it further erodes the confidence the 
public has in the Bureau.
  As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, and chairman of its 
oversight subcommittee, this Senator can no longer have confidence in 
Mr. Shapiro's impartiality. I do not have confidence that he will 
discontinue this cozy relationship with the White House.
  I note the many credible voices in both bodies of Congress calling 
for Mr. Shapiro's resignation. This Senator has reserved judgment on 
that question. It is my intention to thoroughly review the complete 
hearing record, together with Mr. Shapiro's responses to my and others' 
follow-up questions. Upon completion of that review, I will come to my 
own conclusion as to whether or not Mr. Shapiro can continue to fulfill 
his responsibilities in a credible and impartial manner.

                          ____________________