COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : In the matter of: : : WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL : DEPOSITION OF : BRUCE R. LINDSEY : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Friday, June 14, 1996 Washington, D.C. The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 9:35 a.m. Appearances: Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Barbara Olson, Chief Counsel; Barbara Comstock, Investigative Counsel; Kristi Remington, Investigator; Ronald Stroman, Deputy Staff Director; Donald Goldberg, Assistant to the Counsel; Daniel Hernandez, Professional Staff Member. Ms. Comstock. On the record. Good morning. We are on the record this morning for the deposition of Bruce Lindsey, which will be administered under oath. I will identify the people that are going to be with us this morning. My name is Barbara Comstock. I am Majority Investigative Counsel; Kristi Remington, Assistant Counsel on the Committee; Don Goldberg, Dan Hernandez, and Ron Stroman from the Minority staff. Before you are sworn in, I would like to provide you with some background information concerning this investigation and your appearance here. Mr. Lindsey. Excuse me, I am going to tape-record this, if that is okay. Ms. Comstock. We haven't been doing that, because the court reporter does have a tape, and they are doing the report, and these are under House rules, and we have not -- Mr. Lindsey. I have read House rule 19, and I didn't see anything that said I wasn't entitled to record this. Ms. Comstock. Well, we have not allowed it. We have discussed this with other attorneys, and witnesses, and we are not tape-recording depositions. Mr. Lindsey. So you are telling me that I don't have the right to tape-record it? Ms. Comstock. Well, that is not the procedure that we have been operating under. Mr. Lindsey. Well, I understand. But it would seem to me that unless there is some rule that provides that I can't tape-record it, that I would have that right. Again, I read rule 19, and I saw nothing in there that suggested I couldn't tape-record the deposition. Ms. Comstock. Well, these are confidential depositions under House rules, and we are not having outside tape-recording of them because of that. Mr. Lindsey. Excuse me, I am sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Ms. Comstock. Are we taping now? Mr. Lindsey. No, we are not. As I understand the rule, if it is transcribed, I am entitled to a copy of the transcription. Ms. Comstock. Yes, that will be available, probably by tomorrow, and you will be able to make any changes that you need to, and, if you need extra time, more than 5 days, we can arrange that. Mr. Lindsey. Right. But what I don't understand -- Ms. Comstock. And we will have the tape recordings available for you to listen to if you need to listen to them from the court reporter, but we do not want any independent tape recordings of them because of the House rule and the confidentiality. Mr. Lindsey. You keep referring to the House rule. Are we talking about something other than rule 19? Ms. Comstock. We are talking about confidentiality. Mr. Lindsey. Well, obviously, if I have a copy of the transcript -- Ms. Comstock. You are not going to have a copy of the transcript; you are going to have an opportunity to review a copy of the transcript. The transcripts will not be made public until such time as we have a hearing where they are made public. Mr. Lindsey. Are you saying when you give me my transcript to review, I am not entitled to a keep a copy? Ms. Comstock. No, we are not keeping copies of them. There will be, if you are going to be a witness in the hearing, a copy of the deposition will be provided before the hearing. Mr. Hernandez. Do you have the exact citation of the rule for the record? Ms. Comstock. We can get a ruling from the Chairman if this is a problem, because we have gone through this with Mr. Tiefer. And we are not tape-recording. These are the procedures we are operating on. We are not going to tape-record the depositions. Mr. Lindsey. Let me just understand, as you know, Ms. Comstock, I indicated to you on several occasions that I thought because everything I did was in my official capacity, that I was entitled to be represented by a member of the White House counsel's staff. You indicated to me that I would not be allowed to be represented by a member of the White House counsel's staff. I then asked if I could be represented by a member of the Department of Justice staff. This committee told me that I could not be represented by a member of the Department of Justice staff. You then indicated that -- which left me the option of going out and hiring a private attorney. Again, I did not believe, as I indicated to you, that I should be obligated to go to the trouble and expense of hiring a private attorney to represent me on a matter in which everything I did was in my official capacity. I made a decision -- I saw a private attorney, but most of them had conflicts, since the number of people you are all deposing is fairly extensive, and most lawyers I spoke to had some client or former client being deposed or had been deposed by this committee. I then read your rules and made a judgment that as opposed to having an attorney here, I would simply bring a tape recorder and transcribe by tape the deposition. Again, I saw nothing in the rule that suggested that wasn't permitted. And now you are indicating to me that I don't have that right either; is that correct? Ms. Comstock. Yes. We are not operating under a tape recording of the depositions. That is not our procedure. These are confidential proceedings until such time as they are released at the hearing. A tape recording of it, he can take it out and give it to anybody. We are not proceeding under that type of -- Mr. Lindsey. If I indicated to you that I have no intention of taking it out and making it available to anybody. I understand the nonpublic nature of the deposition. Ms. Comstock. You are going to have a paper copy of this as of tomorrow, which is going to allow you to do the same thing as if you have a tape recording of it, to review the transcript and to correct it for any discrepancies or any problems that you want to correct with it. And if there is any question as to what is on the paper, the court reporters also have a tape recording that you can then additionally verify the transcript with. I am sorry you didn't raise this issue beforehand. This was not an issue that had been raised with counsel prior to today, and when it has been raised by others, it has been discussed and said that we would not proceed under that. As you know, we have been informed that some people, that their legal fees are being paid for by the Justice Department. Some White House people have told us that. I don't know if that was just career people, or if they had not shared that with you. But that situation, whether or not White House counsel will be present here, obviously since the White House counsel was involved in many of these proceedings, there was an inherent conflict in having White House counsel present. Mr. Lindsey. Well, I argue with you whether or not there is a conflict having career Department of Justice people. Ms. Comstock. Well, the White House was handling that. We were not handling that. Mr. Lindsey. Well, no, you indicated that -- I understood it, that your position was the Department of Justice people could not represent White House people before the committee. Ms. Comstock. No, I think there was something being sought in terms of paying an outside attorney. Mr. Lindsey. That is right. And I indicated to you, I was trying to work that out. I was then informed if I did not agree to a deposition at this time I would be subpoenaed, and because of the nature of this city and the nature of that, I agreed to the deposition at this time, before I had been able to resolve the issues, because of the indication that I either had to agree or suffer the consequences of being subpoenaed by the committee. Mr. Stroman. Can you just state for the record the basis for your assertion that he could not be represented by a member of the White House Counsel's Office or by the Justice Department? Ms. Comstock. Because we are examining both the role of the Justice Department and the White House in dealing with these various investigations and there would be conflicts there. I don't know if there is another issue as to whether the Justice Department could pay for outside counsel. That has been resolved months ago. Mr. Stroman. Resolved by who? It hasn't been resolved with us. And I think the issue of whether or not a witness which is asked to come before -- come here and take a deposition, has a right to decide for himself that he wants to have as his representative a member of the White House Counsel's Office or Justice Department or whoever. To say that has been resolved, certainly I have never heard any resolution of it, nor have I heard you say any rule or requirement of either the committee or the House which would prohibit him from having whoever he wanted to represent him. Ms. Comstock. As we began these proceedings, there was a decision made by the Chairman we would not have White House counsel -- Mr. Stroman. Do you have a copy of the decision? Can we see it? Ms. Comstock. We discussed this with the White House extensively. This is the only case it has come up. Mr. Stroman. I understand. I am asking as a counsel for the Minority, can we see the decision by the Chairman? Ms. Comstock. Why don't we break here. We will write you one up, if you want, okay? The decision has been made. [Recess was taken from 10:45 a.m. to 10:47 a.m.] Ms. Comstock. The depositions and how they are provided to outside sources has been decided upon early on in our proceedings, which I believe you do have a letter on that, that we would allow the Minority to have one copy and we have one copy, and they are not being disseminated to the witnesses at all, until such time as they are provided in a committee proceeding. Now, I think there had been some discussion with Minority counsel that if a witness was to testify, that we would provide the deposition to them beforehand, but there is no -- Mr. Lindsey. Well, the rule provides if it is transcribed, I am entitled to review it. Ms. Comstock. Review it here, and we have it available here to review. Mr. Lindsey. And it is your position that attorneys and people who have been deposed have not been allowed to keep a copy of their transcript? Ms. Comstock. Yes, that has been the position of the committee. Mr. Lindsey. And that is what you inform them when they review it? Ms. Comstock. Yes, and that is what everyone has proceeded with over 2 months now. Mr. Lindsey. The other alternative is, if I had an attorney here, he would be taking extensive notes. We are simply going to slow this process down as I have to sit there and write every question down so that I can have a record, which I think I am entitled to, to the same extent I would be entitled to have a note-taker, an attorney here. So if the ruling is that I can neither make a recording, keep the court reporter's recording, then I think the only other option is that I will have to simply take extensive notes throughout this hearing, which will greatly lengthen the hearing. Ms. Comstock. If you would like to break or reschedule in order to have an attorney here, that certainly is your right. Mr. Lindsey. Well, I asked for that right, and was told if I didn't agree to this deposition at this time, that I would be subpoenaed. Ms. Comstock. Mr. Lindsey, you had not told us you were proceeding without an attorney. We had waited for over 2 months because you said you were seeking an attorney to try to work out this problem. Mr. Lindsey. That is correct. Ms. Comstock. And we were trying to accommodated you in every way. We are coming up against a deposition deadline that we have to have them done, and you have not resolved this. Mr. Lindsey. Is that July 8th? Ms. Comstock. Yes. Mr. Lindsey. Almost a month away, correct? Ms. Comstock. Yes. If you would like -- well, it is less than a month. Mr. Lindsey. Well, it is a month as of when you informed me or indicated that if I did not agree to a deposition in short order, that I would be subpoenaed, despite the fact that I had written you a letter indicating I was in the process of seeking an attorney and did not have an attorney at that time. Ms. Comstock. You wrote us a letter, I believe it was on May 15th, saying you were seeking an attorney, and we had not heard back from you. Now, if you want to take time to do that, I believe the Minority has agreed to additional time, have we not, on depositions? Mr. Goldberg. That has not been resolved. Ms. Comstock. That has not been resolved. Mr. Lindsey. I have already rescheduled. By the way, I also understood, at least there was a misunderstanding, that you had depositions this afternoon, and was asked to come earlier because of that conflict. I thought we discussed between 8:30 and 9:00. I agreed to 9:00. When I got here I was informed you all would not be prepared until 9:30. I have already rescheduled matters in order to be here this morning. So, you know, again, my schedule, you may have been reading, there is a trial about to start in Arkansas in the next, I believe it begins next Monday, in which it is possible I will be a witness, and, therefore, again, I think if we are here, we shall proceed under whatever rules you establish. I am here at the direction of the committee. I have read the rules. By the way, I do not believe, and I have tried to reach my attorney on another matter who you sent a document to, that what he sent me did not have a copy of the resolution. I also read in your rules that I am entitled to a copy of the resolution before my deposition is taken. Ms. Comstock. I am sorry,. If you hadn't gotten something, I am sorry, you should have contacted the committee. Mr. Lindsey. I received a letter, but the letter had a copy of rule 19, but not a copy of the resolution. I would like to note for the record I do not have a copy and have not had a copy of the resolution. Ms. Comstock. All right. If you want to have another day to do this -- Mr. Lindsey. Again, I indicated to you, as I said, that, you know, beginning next week there is a trial beginning. Ms. Comstock. Mr. Lindsey, you have come in here this morning not having discussed with us the fact that you weren't going to have an attorney and that you wanted a tape recording and other matters that obviously might raise issues to postpone the deposition. If there is some problem here that you want to resolve, I am sorry that you didn't call us beforehand and get this resolved and worked out, or if you hadn't received copies of whatever you felt you were entitled to, that you didn't notify us. There was a mix-up initially that we did contact the person who has been your attorney in other matters, and it was not for a while before he told us that he was not representing you in this matter. And, as previously stated, we have been trying to work this out with you since the middle of March, because we do understand you have a very busy schedule and that you travel often with the President and you have other duties. And we have been working for several months to allow you to get an attorney and to deal with your travels. And if you need additional time to do that, we could reschedule for the first week in July, if you would like to do that. Mr. Lindsey. There is a good chance the first week in July I will be in Arkansas testifying in a trial in Arkansas. There is a good chance that the last week in June I will be in Arkansas. I have no control over the trial and when my deposition or my testimony might or might not be sought. I am here this morning. I am here this morning, frankly, only because the committee threatened me with a subpoena if I didn't agree to this morning. And my point is, you know, you are sorry these matters weren't resolved; I am too. But when I am faced with a call, which in effect says, you know, either agree to a date or be subpoenaed, it doesn't sound like there is much room for discussion at that point. Ms. Comstock. Well, as you know, that had followed extensive phone calls and letters trying to just get a date and to find out how we could proceed with your deposition. Mr. Lindsey. I am here this morning. I don't believe that I would be able to tell this committee that I would be available for another deposition between now and the first week of July, because of the President's travel schedule, my travel schedule, and the case that is going forward in Arkansas. Ms. Comstock. Okay. Do you want to go off the record for a minute? [Recess was taken from 9:55 a.m. to 9:56 a.m.] Mr. Lindsey. Let me just say one thing. You keep saying I have the opportunity to get an attorney. I don't know if you know, and I don't know whether the issue of outside representation has been resolved, but, as you may know, I believe that those rules have a limitation on the amount of attorney fees that can be paid, and I also believe that that amount is probably less than most, if not all, attorneys in this city charge. Again, I believe it is inherently unfair that I would either have to pay additional fees to my attorney, or ask an attorney in this town to take representation at less than his normal hourly rate, because I believe that because everything I did was in my official capacity, that I have the right to be represented, either by the counsel's office at the White House or by the Department of Justice. Now, again, I have a fax that says only rule 19 was faxed to Bill. No House resolution. As I said, I indicated that I asked when I saw the rule that says that both a copy of the resolution and the rules would be faxed, would be sent to me, to check with the attorney to see if he had made a mistake with what he forwarded to me. But apparently all that was sent to him was rule 19. Ms. Comstock. Well, it has been 2 months. Obviously, you could have called us at any time to say something hadn't been mailed to you. I am sorry. Mr. Lindsey. Again, Ms. Comstock, it is not my obligation to comply with the rules of this committee. It is my obligation to show up here when you instruct me to show up here. I was instructed to show up here today under threat of subpoena. I am here today. I do not believe that I can be rescheduled between now and the first week of July. Therefore, again, I have indicated that I have read the rules, I couldn't find a rule that said I couldn't tape-record this. I therefore believed I was entitled to do anything that is not not allowed under the rules. It is difficult for me to understand, if I am entitled to have a note-taker, who can take verbatim notes, depending on how good they are, and walk out of here with those notes, how your nonpublic rule would keep me from having that same testimony tape-recorded and taken out of here. So I don't believe, at least it doesn't logically follow, that the right to have a note-taker or an attorney here, who I assume could be -- I could bring a stenographer who could bring a machine or take notes in shorthand and walk out of here with basically a verbatim transcript. So, again, since I didn't see anything in the rules that prohibited it, I brought a tape recorder and intended to tape-record this session. Again, I am not sure whether the Chairman said I couldn't do that would be a ruling of the committee, because, again, as I read the rules, most of those rulings require some sort of consultation with the Minority. I see no useful purpose, other than to extend this way beyond my schedule and yours, I understand, for us not to go forward, but I am doing it under some form of protest. Mr. Stroman. If I could just ask for the record for you to state the basis for which you made the determination that he could not be represented by an attorney in the White House Counsel's Office or the Justice Department, and the basis for your assertion that he could not tape-record this session? Ms. Comstock. I can go get the -- we can go off the record. I will go get the discussions we have had on this. Do you want to break again at this point? Mr. Stroman. Well, can you get somebody else to do it, because I think you want to proceed with the deposition. Ms. Comstock. I cannot state for the record, I am not sure if we have had discussions or letters. I believe there have been some discussions, I know there have been discussions, lengthy discussions with counsel, from the start last summer, White House counsel, that we would not have White House counsel present. We have had no other witnesses in which this problem has arisen. Mr. Lindsey. If I may say, "discussions with the White House," I am not sure is an accurate description. My understanding is you told the White House that they could not represent members of the White House staff for these hearings, not that that was some sort of a compromise, a negotiated deal. At least my understanding is that was a determination that the Majority staff or the Majority of this committee made, and so informed the White House. Mr. Stroman. There are two parts to the question. One involves the White House and one involves the Justice Department. So I think we want to see the basis -- Ms. Comstock. I am not sure, the White House was doing something about trying to get Justice Department attorneys. I am not aware of what discussions went on about that. Mr. Lindsey. So it is your position that you have no objection to Justice Department attorneys representing White House employees? Ms. Comstock. No, my understanding was they were trying to get some kind of payment, as you were discussing, but apparently -- Mr. Lindsey. That is the third step. There is actually a statute, that is the third step. The statute says, White House and other government employees who are called before investigative bodies are entitled to be represented by Justice Department staff. The rule goes on to say if for some reason the Justice Department is not able to represent them, that there is a representational fund that a person can seek reimbursement for private attorneys. Again, there is a limit on the amount of the reimbursement. But the only time you get to the third -- the second step of the statute, which is reimbursement, is when there is a determination that the Department of Justice is unable to represent White House employees or other government employees. My understanding was that this committee, or at least a majority of this committee, made a ruling that no Justice Department employee-attorney could represent White House people, and therefore, you know, the only other step that any of us has would be to seek reimbursement. But again, my question is, are you saying that you all did not make a determination that Justice Department employees could not represent White House staff? DCMN PARKER Ms. Comstock. No, my understanding is that due to the investigation also being ongoing into the activities of the Justice Department, that Justice Department attorneys were also not going to be involved. Mr. Lindsey. I believe Mr. Stroman's question is, he would like to know the basis for those rulings. Ms. Comstock. I believe it is due to the discussions we have had, that the Justice Department is involved in this investigation, we did not feel it would be appropriate. Mr. Stroman. Again, can you cite some legal basis for that assertion? Is it a rule? Ms. Comstock. No, it is because of the conflicts involved. Mr. Stroman. But, Barbara, you just can't say, well, because you have decided that there is conflicts, therefore we have decided the Justice Department cannot represent the witness. You have got to have some legal or statutory basis -- Ms. Comstock. If the witness would like to -- Mr. Stroman. Let me finish. Can I finish my question before you respond? You have got to have some legal or statutory basis to make your determination, for the Chair to make -- Ms. Comstock. No, these determinations -- Mr. Stroman. Can I finish? Can I finish, please? To make a determination that a witness cannot be represented by attorneys of his or her choice. And I have yet to hear any basis for making that determination. I have heard you say, well, there is a conflict because we are conducting an investigation; therefore, he cannot be represented. But I have seen no legal, I have seen no rules of the House, you have cited no resolution. You cite nothing which would prohibit this witness or any other witness from deciding that they wanted to have a representative of the Department of Justice represent them. Mr. Lindsey. If I may add, before you respond, also my understanding was that while certain conduct of the FBI was implicated in this, that the discussion was that other lawyers in other divisions, i.e., the Civil Division or others, or some other division, who had no direct involvement and no conflict, but that the ruling of the Majority was that no Department of Justice employee, no matter from the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Mexico, or Arizona, or wherever, was in a position to represent a White House employee. Ms. Comstock. All right. I believe in May when we discussed this, you had informed the committee that you were seeking outside counsel. Now, you had not indicated that you still wanted to pursue that route, the Justice Department, and we were not so informed. Again, if you would like to hold this in abeyance while you continue to seek that route and resolve that issue, you are welcome to. But we were informed in May that you were seeking outside counsel, and we were informed of that by you. Mr. Lindsey. That is right. You were also informed in June that I did not have counsel yet, and yet you threatened me with a subpoena if I did not agree to a date for this deposition. I am therefore here under that threat. Again, I am not sure, I believe Mr. Stroman, and I would like to join in his request, he is entitled to that. I am not sure, since as I understand you, there is not something that you can provide to us right here and now that would answer that, it seems to me like we ought to hold the record open and that should be provided for the record, and that we can go forward. Ms. Comstock. Okay. For the record, this is Barbara Olson, who is Chief Investigative Counsel here. We have been discussing the issue of Mr. Lindsey being represented by Justice Department counsel or White House counsel. Mr. Lindsey has informed us in May that he was seeking outside counsel, but apparently he is not, and we have had an ongoing discussion here this morning. Ms. Olson. Good morning, Mr. Lindsey. Mr. Lindsey. Good morning. Just for the record to be clear, I informed you in May that I believed I was entitled to be represented by White House counsel; that I then believed I was entitled to be represented by Justice Department counsel, and only because this committee found that I was entitled to neither of those, was I seeking outside counsel. I then indicated to you that I do not believe that I should either be responsible for paying the difference, even if some portion of an attorney's fees were covered by the representational fund, the difference between their normal hourly rate and the representational fund amount, or that I should have to ask an attorney to represent me at less than his normal hourly rate, since I believe that I am entitled to be represented by a government employee, since everything I did was within my official capacity. Nevertheless, this committee indicated that unless I agreed to a deposition, I would be subpoenaed. I therefore agreed to this deposition. I read the rules. I brought a tape recorder, believing that I saw nothing in the rules that said to the same extent that I could have a note-taker transcribe this, that I was not entitled to have it transcribed by a tape recording. I have been instructed this morning that I am not entitled to that as well, which brings us to this point. Good morning. Ms. Olson. Good morning. I am walking in in the middle of obviously a conversation. This may have already been explained to you. One of the agreements that we made, as well as one of the items that is in the rule, is that this deposition is treated as if it is in executive session, which has a confidentiality requirement. Actually, if you had a lawyer, they wouldn't be able to do a transcript. They could obviously take notes. But if they were doing a transcript, we would do the same thing, if a lawyer were doing a verbatim transcript. These depositions are being kept confidential. If information were to go out from these depositions, the staff members who are here would be held personally responsible and could easily come up on ethics charges. That is one of the purposes for having an executive session. It protects the information as well as the investigation. Obviously with the tape recorder, we might as well have had White House counsel coming in. There is an issue involving White House counsel. We can't be sure of the security. First of all, I believe, and I don't know if you object to that view, is under our rules of executive session, a tape recorder walking outside of this meeting would violate that very confidentiality aspect of executive session. Can I just have Minority give their views just on that? Mr. Stroman. We have given our views on that. Ms. Olson. You already have? You don't believe it does? You have a problem with Mr. Lindsey walking out of the deposition with a tape recording of the deposition? Mr. Goldberg. I would like to at -- Ms. Olson. Because I would like that on the record. If that is the Minority's position, I would like that on the record. Mr. Goldberg. Let me state on the record on this particular point that in the discussions before the committee rule and the resolution were adopted with Majority and Minority staff and the Parliamentarians, it was the position of everybody, I don't believe you guys were there, it was the position of everyone that executive session applies to the conduct of Members and staff of the legislative branch, but it does not apply to the conduct of people outside the legislative branch. So the executive session rules, at least it is my opinion, based on the discussions with the Parliamentarian, would not govern a witness who is not part of the legislative branch. Ms. Olson. And you believe it would not be governed by a witness who would be making a tape recording of an entire deposition that is being taken? Mr. Goldberg. I don't know the answer to that, and I offered to have a conversation with the Parliamentarian to get a ruling on that. Ms. Comstock. The court reporter has informed us that he can save the tape for Mr. Lindsey so Mr. Lindsey can review the tape with his deposition. Ms. Olson. It is just to keep confidentiality, so it doesn't go home with Mr. Lindsey, it doesn't go to other individuals. Obviously, we all have a confidentiality requirement. Mr. Lindsey is a witness and does not, nor could he. Therefore, I am not comfortable with a tape recording, because I am not sure it wouldn't go back to the White House. We know there would be White House counsel people coming in for depositions. And it is just something I think for their own protection, it is probably better if it is not floating around. Are you comfortable if the tape is kept by the court reporter, so when you review the deposition, you can listen to the tape at that time? The Witness. No, ma'am, I am not comfortable with any rule of this committee that says I am not entitled to take verbatim notes. Are you suggesting to me that if I sit here and after every question I write down the question, that is improper? Ms. Olson. That would be a transcript of this deposition that you would be taking outside. Now, if you wrote down your notes and gave them to the court reporter and they became an exhibit of the deposition, and you reviewed them, I would not have a problem with that, Mr. Lindsey. Mr. Lindsey. Do you know that grand jury proceedings, which I believe are maybe more confidential than House committee depositions, that I could do exactly that? I could bring a computer in, I could bridge in anything in, and as the questions were asked and answers given, I could be taking notes? And as a citizen, I have the right to walk outside and then tell whoever I want whatever my notes or I had. That I understand confidentiality goes to the committee, and I would not suggest that if this gets out, which I don't believe it will -- Ms. Olson. I don't believe you would be allowed to take notes. Mr. Lindsey. That any of these people should be brought up on charges, because I certainly won't make any accusations. Ms. Olson. I don't ever want to liken these depositions to grand jury proceedings. Mr. Lindsey. No, what I am is suggesting is you are making them more confidential than grand juries, which in my judgment, are supposed to be the most confidential proceedings in America. Ms. Olson. We can't go forward with this deposition if you refuse without a tape recording. We will allow the tape recording to accommodate you, to keep it as a part of the deposition as an exhibit. We will allow you to review it as an exhibit. We will try to accommodate your concerns. But it seems there would be no other purpose for removing a tape recording of this deposition than what we have already offered to you, to review the tape recording, so that you can make sure of the transcription. I am not comfortable and I don't think this deposition should go forward, if you don't. So I think you need to probably get counsel in that case. Mr. Lindsey. Again, I -- Mr. Stroman. You are coming in, we have already crossed that bridge. Mr. Lindsey can certainly speak for himself. What I think he has agreed to is to go forward at this point. What I have asked for for the record, and I think Mr. Lindsey has concurred in that request, is some basis, for you to provide for the record some basis for your determination that he is not entitled to tape-record the proceedings, A, and, B, that he is not entitled to have a representative from either the Justice Department, anywhere in the Justice Department, or in the White House Counsel's Office -- Ms. Olson. Let me address those individually. Mr. Goldberg. Why don't you wait, for the record. Mr. Stroman. What we agreed on was that you would provide for the record whatever your basis was for that. Ms. Olson. Let me address them separately. The first is the tape recording. My understanding of the purpose of the tape recording would be for accuracy and to make sure what was heard is accurate. If it is to take outside of this deposition and beyond the transcript, then I believe all of the rules that we hold for keeping a transcript confidential become superfluous. If we allow tape recordings to go out, we might as well not have confidential transcripts, because in effect what we have got is a transcript that is going outside. We haven't allowed that. I think it comes within the whole rule that requires the transcripts to stay confidential. I know the witness doesn't have that confidentiality. And if you want to stop and have the Parliamentarian doing a ruling, we will shut down this deposition and we will bring Mr. Lindsey back at Minority request, and we will have a Parliamentarian. Because I think Mr. Lindsey has an absolute right for a ruling if he doesn't want to proceed. I don't think that is a decision I want to make for Mr. Lindsey. But I believe it falls within our ruling of the confidentiality of the executive session. Now, if the Parliamentarian -- Mr. Lindsey. If I may, can I just -- Ms. Olson. No, Mr. Lindsey, I am sorry. If the Parliamentarian makes a ruling that that does not breach, then we will go to the Chairman for a ruling about these depositions under the rules and we will shut this down. Because I certainly do not want to violate his rights or try to proceed with the deposition that he doesn't feel comfortable with and that you would like us to go to the Parliamentarian for a ruling and ultimately the Chairman. So that said, that is the ruling. Otherwise, that is my objection, and if Mr. Lindsey goes forward, he has to go forward with that understanding. The other thing that you said is about White House counsel or Department of Justice. In our meetings with the White House counsel, Jack Quinn as well as Jane Sherburne, they have agreed not to try to sit in on these depositions and on our interviews. That is by agreement with them. That is because the Chairman did voice his concerns about having information going back and forth, verbatim information and notes going back and forth. We felt a witness in his confidentiality with his lawyer and the attorney-client privilege, would protect that information from being broadly disseminated to possible witnesses that come before this deposition group. That also applies to the Department of Justice lawyers. Because of that, Mr. Quinn has agreed, and most of the other people have brought in lawyers. That said, once again, if Mr. Lindsey doesn't feel comfortable with that, we could stop this deposition, because we do not want to go forward if Mr. Lindsey feels as though his rights are being violated or that he does not want to go forward under those circumstances. The only option we have is to stop the deposition, go to the Parliamentarian, get a ruling of the Chairman, and then to relay that to Mr. Lindsey and let him make a decision if he wants to come back with an attorney or without an attorney or what. But we cannot go forward on this basis. Mr. Lindsey. If I might, one, it is my understanding your ruling is not only that I couldn't make a tape, but that if I had a note-taker here, that you would determine how extensive that note-taker's notes -- Ms. Olson. That is not true. Mr. Lindsey. Most certainly. You said if he took a verbatim transcript, that you would instruct him on how to do so. Ms. Olson. If he had a court reporter here. If he had a verbatim transcript in shorthand and was taking down every word, I would consider that the same kind of violation that would be considered if a court reporter were brought in or a tape recorder. Mr. Lindsey. So if I had a lawyer here who was very good at taking notes, you are telling me you would monitor -- Ms. Olson. Never. Mr. Lindsey. You just said that. Ms. Olson. Mr. Lindsey, you have proffered the fact that you could have someone take a verbatim transcript. That is very different from a lawyer taking notes, and you know that. I am not going to put on the record I would look at your lawyer's notes because that would be a violation of your representation. So let's stop that. Mr. Lindsey. So if my lawyer is able to write in shorthand, you would have no objection to that lawyer writing whatever he wanted? Ms. Olson. I would ask your lawyer if he was taking a verbatim transcript of this deposition, and I would rely on his response to me. If he said, no, there would be nothing else. If he said, "I am taking a verbatim transcript," I would say that violates what I believe to be the restrictions on this executive session requirement for our depositions. Mr. Lindsey. And if he was writing down simply the questions but not the responses, you would take that same position? Ms. Olson. Mr. Lindsey, why are we going through this? Mr. Lindsey. Because you also told me that if I sat down here and wrote down each and every question, that you would not allow that to happen. Ms. Olson. If you took a verbatim transcript, Mr. Lindsey -- Mr. Lindsey. Of the questions. Not the answers. Of the questions. Ms. Olson. No, I did not. I said a verbatim transcript. Mr. Lindsey. So your position is I can sit here and write every question as those questions are asked. Ms. Olson. Is that what you intend to do? I don't think I need to answer hypotheticals. If you intend to do that, then that is before us. If you don't intend to do that, I don't feel like answering a question that is not before us in this deposition. Mr. Lindsey. I am entitled to know what options I have. I don't have to tell you what options I am going to exercise. I believe I am entitled to know what options I have, what the rules of this committee are. The rules don't apply. Sort of as we go through it, we sort of ad hoc decide, you know, whether, you know, I took too much, too many notes, or too little notes. My question is, how extensive notes can I take? Can I write down the questions? Can I write down, you know, my answers? Ms. Olson. Mr. Lindsey, you are asking questions. I think we need to stop this deposition and go to the Chairman, and I will pose all of those questions for you, if you request. Mr. Lindsey. Let me finish asking my questions. My next question is that will this committee, since you keep telling me that I should go out and hire an attorney, be willing to pay the difference between what I may or may not get from the representational fund and what my attorney's hourly rate is? Ms. Olson. Mr. Lindsey, I am not saying you need to hire an attorney. I am saying if you believe you need an attorney, we will accommodate. It is certainly up to you. We do not require you to have an attorney, and I will not advise you as to whether or not you should have an attorney. That would be wrong for me to make that advice. That is your decision, and we will accommodate that decision. Mr. Lindsey. I believe you said that if I believe I am entitled to a tape recorder or take notes, that we ought to recess these hearings and I should go get an attorney. Ms. Olson. I think you should consult, if you feel you need to. And if you need to consult an attorney about taking notes or tape recorder, I think you need to do that, and we will stop this deposition and resume it on a date that is reasonable, when you have had time to make such a decision. Ms. Combest. The witness has also indicated that because we had been working with him for two months when he said he was getting an attorney, or trying to resolve these other issues, we were not informed at any time prior to today that he was coming here under duress, which he is only here because of a threat of subpoena -- Ms. Olson. Which there is not. Ms. Combest. -- which we did discuss we would have to have a subpoena if he would not come forward. Ms. Olson. I am prepared to go to the Chairman and request a subpoena, if in fact we need to do that for any witness. That is the purpose for us passing the resolution. If that becomes our last resort, we will. Mr. Stroman. He is here testifying. Mr. Lindsey. I am here. Ms. Olson. No, we are playing games, and everybody knows the game we are playing. Mr. Stroman. We are not playing games. Ms. Olson. This is silly. Mr. Stroman. We are trying to find out -- he is trying to find out what the rules are under which we can testify. Ms. Olson. Mr. Stroman, do you want hypotheticals? Mr. Stroman. No. He is not represented by counsel. You told him he can't have a representative from the Department of Justice. You told him he can't have a representative from the White House counsel. The implication is he has got to come out of his own pocket for actions which were taken in the course of his official duties. You have provided -- Ms. Olson. We did not know all these actions were in the course of his official duties. Ms. Combest. I think we have a major disagreement here also. Ms. Olson. I disagree these were actions of his official duties. Mr. Lindsey. If they are, if we determine that they are, would you be willing to have this committee reimburse me for the cost of an attorney? Ms. Olson. This committee does not reimburse for lawyers at this point. The Chairman has not made a ruling. If you wish a ruling on that, I will ask the Chairman to make a ruling on that. Mr. Lindsey. Second of all, I was obviously not in conversations you had with Mr. Quinn. My understanding from Mr. Quinn and others is that this committee told them that White House employees, White House counsel, could not represent people before this committee, and told them no Department of Justice people. To say that that is an agreement, the fact is, you know, that they -- Ms. Olson. Mr. Lindsey, at this point it is not relevant whether it is an agreement. We are under a House resolution authorizing staff depositions, authorizing subpoenas, and we are under a committee rule allowing these depositions. That is not relevant. What I am saying is Mr. Quinn recognized he has no longer tried to have White House lawyers or Justice Department lawyers sit in. You are the first person to bring up this problem. We spent months waiting for you to get an attorney, and the idea that you come in today, when we have gone to the expense of assembling staff and a court reporter with a recording, and act like you had no idea what this was about, I find hard to believe, after two months of discussions with this committee staff. Mr. Lindsey. Again, I had no idea that I wasn't entitled to record this by tape recording. I would like to see in the rules where it says I am not entitled to. You may have to stay here too, because I am going to start taking some notes, and when I do, I need you to tell me when I have taken too many notes and that I should quit. Ms. Olson. Mr. Lindsey, I will not ever tell you when you have taken too many notes. I know you are trying to create a record that you can use, and I think this is not very fruitful. Obviously, I am not going to tell you you have taken too many notes. I have only talked about a verbatim transcript. You are going to play your games, and I am not going to allow a record to be made that I am going to sit here and stop a witness from taking notes. I find that offensive. I think we should stop the deposition, and let's go to the Chairman for a ruling. Let's ask him for a subpoena, so we can have this above board and on the record, because this is not fruitful. This is absolutely ridiculous. Mr. Lindsey. There is no purpose in a subpoena. I am here. Ms. Olson. I do not want you here under duress. I do not want you answering questions under duress. I do not want you to believe that we are going to stop you from taking notes or that we are going to prevent you from having appropriate counsel. Mr. Lindsey. I have been asking those questions, what is appropriate notes? You have indicated that a verbatim transcript are not appropriate. You have not indicated -- at one time I thought you indicated that writing down the questions was not appropriate, but I don't want to waste the court reporter's time to go back and find where you said that on the record. But I understand your position. I am here. I don't believe my schedule permits me to be here between now and the time that this committee's jurisdiction expires or this resolution expires. I am prepared to go forward. Mr. Stroman. And let me make it clear that the witness had indicated he was prepared to go forward. We were about to go forward when Ms. Olson came into the room. Mr. Lindsey. Again, my only other question is though, I do not want for this record -- I would like this record to remain open and for the questions that Mr. Stroman and I asked to be answered, that is, what is the basis for a ruling that I am not entitled to have a tape recording, what is the basis for a ruling that I am not entitled to be represented by White House counsel, what is the basis for a ruling that I am not entitled to be represented by any counsel from anywhere in the Department of Justice? Ms. Olson. We will make a letter. You will receive it at the White House from the Chairman as soon as he has made a ruling. This deposition is closed. [Whereupon, at 10:27 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]
