COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : In the matter of: : : WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL : DEPOSITION OF : CRAIG LIVINGSTONE : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Monday, June 17, 1996 Washington, D.C. The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 8:25 p.m. Appearances: Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Barbara Comstock, Investigative Counsel; Barbara Olson, Chief Counsel; Kristi Remington, Investigator; Donald Goldberg, Minority, Assistant to Counsel. For CRAIG LIVINGSTONE: DAVID S. COHEN, ESQ. RANDALL J. TURK, ESQ. MILLER, CASSIDY, LARROCA & LEWIN, L.L.P. 2555 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., 20037-1302 Ms. Comstock. This is a continuation of a deposition of Craig Livingstone being taken under oath. It was begun last Friday evening and is continuing. Mr. Turk. I would just like to note for the record that Mr. Livingstone has been testifying for this committee now for between 9-1/2 and 10 hours and we have come back here because the committee was unable to conclude its deposition in almost 3 hours the other night about this FBI files matter that has come up, but I would like to note, as I did on the record last time, that Mr. Livingstone has diabetes, is not well, is going to be going to his doctor tomorrow, and I will zealously object to repetition in questioning, so I ask that you please conclude the deposition as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Ms. Comstock. I will check the record for how many hours we have been in, but Mr. Livingstone obviously is a central character in this latest matter with the FBI files and we do want to get through this and we will complete it as soon as we can. Mr. Turk. I do not believe the record will reflect that Mr. Livingstone is either a character or central to this inquiry but you may proceed. EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q I am showing the witness some letters that have been provided from the White House CGE 43823, an April 5th letter, 1995, to the Honorable Les Aspin, Secretary of Defense, from William H. Kennedy, III. It is a request for Detailee Special Agent Anthony Marceca continued through these documents. This is a continuation. Do you want me to wait while counsel is reviewing the documents? Mr. Turk. Please. Are you directing Mr. Livingstone's attention just to the first letter or to the entire packet? Ms. Comstock. Well, I am starting with the first letter. Mr. Turk. You are directing his attention to the first letter. Ms. Comstock. I believe we will be proceeding to a number of these letters, if you want to allow him to review the entire packet or go item by item. Mr. Turk. You don't have a preference? I would have you just then look through the entire packet. [Discussion held off the record.] Ms. Comstock. We have stipulated that the deposition, prior to the beginning, that the deposition this evening is a continuation of a prior deposition and it is under oath; is that correct, Mr. Turk? Mr. Turk. That is correct. Ms. Comstock. Thank you. Mr. Turk. Do you have an extra copy of this exhibit for counsel or just one for the witness and one for you? Ms. Comstock. I only have one for me and one for the witness. Are you ready to proceed? The Witness. Yes. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you recall this April 5th, 1993, letter requesting Mr. Marceca to be the detailee? Mr. Turk. Can you clarify the question you are asking -- Ms. Comstock. CGE 4383 through 824. Mr. Turk. Are you asking him if he has ever seen it before now? BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Have you seen this document before? A I have seen this document before April 5th, 1993. Q And do you recall how this document came about? A No, I don't have the specific recollection of it, how it came about. Can I ask you to clarify the question, came about in terms of what? Q Did you draft this letter? A No. Q Do you know who did? Mr. Turk. Do you know who did? The Witness. I don't have a specific recollection of the letter being typed or drafted. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Had you requested Mr. Marceca be detailed, had you made that request of Mr. Kennedy? A Yes, I did. Q Had you requested he write a letter to Secretary Aspin? A I don't recall that I asked him to write the Secretary. Q Do you have any knowledge as to how Mr. Kennedy came about to write Secretary Aspin about getting Mr. Marceca detailed to the White House? A I don't recall the events. Q Do you recall gathering any information for Mr. Kennedy to find out about how Mr. Marceca could be detailed to the White House? A I recall having conversations with Mr. Kennedy about Mr. Marceca's detail and how he might be detailed. Q And could you describe those conversations? A Only in the generalist of terms. I don't recall the specifics but I do recall asking Mr. Kennedy to consider Mr. Marceca for detail and that he asked for, as I recall, for information on Mr. Marceca. Q And do you recall what you provided to Mr. Kennedy? A I can't recall specifically, however, the one thing I can recall is that we set up an interview for him. Q Would this be prior to April 5th? A I can't recall. Q Was it sometime in the spring of 1993? A The only thing I can recall, ma'am, that it was prior to his detail. Q And Mr. Marceca then met with Mr. Kennedy? A Mr. Marceca met with Mr. Kennedy prior to his detail to discuss his being detailed. Q Do you know if you provided Mr. Kennedy with any resumes or any information about Mr. Marceca? A I don't have a specific recollection of doing that. Q Other than Mr. Marceca coming over and having a meeting with Mr. Kennedy, do you know if Mr. Kennedy had any other information about Mr. Marceca? A I believe that Mr. Kennedy talked to his supervisor about being -- his supervisor being Mr. Marceca's supervisor. Q Do you know who that is? A Mr. Allen. Mr. Turk. If you have a document that might help refresh his recollection of other articles that were provided to Mr. Kennedy, might I suggest that you just show it to him, or perhaps you don't. Ms. Comstock. I am working off of this April 5th letter for now. I am trying to find out how this came about. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Directing your attention to the second paragraph of this letter, in the middle, it says, I have learned of Agent Marceca's unique investigative abilities and background and would greatly appreciate his full-time assistance here. Do you know how Mr. Kennedy learned of Agent Marceca's unique investigative ability and background? A You'd be asking me to guess. I don't -- I can restate for you that he did interview him before he was detailed. Q Do you know of any other people at the White House who have provided him information about Mr. Marceca besides yourself? A I have no knowledge of that. Q And directing your attention to what is in the back of the same packet here. It is CGE 43821. It is an April 6th, 1993, letter to Mr. William Kennedy to David C. Allen, who is Director, I believe, of the United States Army, Criminal Investigation Command, at the Department of the Army. Is that who you identified as Mr. Marceca's supervisor, Mr. David Allen? A Yeah, I believe that is who that is. Q Directing your attention to the first paragraph, Mr. Allen writes to Mr. Kennedy during a recent phone conversation, I was pleased to hear that you were considering detailing Mr. Anthony Marceca to a position on the staff of the White House. Do you recall there being a phone call between Mr. Allen and Mr. Kennedy in this time frame? A I have no recollection of that. Q The second paragraph, Mr. Allen writes: Mr. Marceca is a sound and logical thinker, capable of handling any number of critical and sensitive missions on time. He is equally comfortable in directing CID agents, conducting a major investigation, or briefing senior leaders. Mr. Marceca is always the master of every situation. His professional competence, candid attitude, and attention to detail have contributed to the smooth functioning and efficiency of the Major Procurement Fraud Unit, U.S. Army, CID command. Did you have any knowledge of that background of Mr. Marceca at this time that Mr. Allen speaks of? A Did I have any knowledge about what is in this paragraph? No. Mr. Turk. Do you want to take it and break it down piece by piece? Ms. Comstock. No, just general. If he doesn't have any knowledge -- Mr. Turk. Did you know if he was a sound and logical thinker, or any of those things? The Witness. I apologize if I understood the question incorrectly. As I understood it, I thought you were asking me in reference to his being a -- Ms. Comstock. No, I am asking about your knowledge about anything in the second paragraph. The Witness. In general, I am sorry I didn't understand that, I believe Mr. Marceca to be a sound and logical thinker. I believe that -- I don't find any fault with any of the statements. I guess that is the best thing I can say. I don't have anything to dispute the statement. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you know what Mr. Marceca's grade level was at the time he was being detailed? A I don't recall. Q Do you have any general idea of what in the pay scale range? A I thought he was mid level. Q GS -- A To me, mid level would be 11 to 13, somewhere in there, but again that is a guess. Q Do you know -- Mr. Turk. Ms. Comstock doesn't want you to guess. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you know why Mr. Marceca was not -- do you have any knowledge of why he was not detailed at that time in April of 1993? A No. Q Directing your attention to CGE 43819, which is a June 22nd, 1993, letter to Colonel Michael Sherfield, the Executive Secretary for the Secretary of Defense, and it is a request for Detailee Special Agent Anthony Marceca. Would you like to take a look at that letter, and if you recall, a letter from Mr. Kennedy again, I was wondering if you recall anything related to how this letter came about? A No, I don't have a recollection. Q Directing your attention to the second paragraph on that letter, Mr. Kennedy writes, based on his record, Agent Marceca has a broad and in-depth understanding of the administrative, logistical, and investigative procedures of the DOD and the Criminal Investigator Division Command, together with a strong background in law enforcement. Did you know that to be the case? Mr. Turk. You are asking if Mr. Livingstone in June of 1993 shared the view that Mr. Kennedy is expressing in the second paragraph of that letter? BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Or do you have any knowledge of how Mr. Kennedy came to that information or if you provided that information to Mr. Kennedy? A I don't recall specifically anything in relation to this letter. Q CGE 43816, I got a little out of order here, that is an April 13th, 1993, letter, again to the Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, from Bill Kennedy, again asking that Mr. Marceca be detailed to the White House. Mr. Turk. So we are jumping back in time. Ms. Comstock. Into April, which I believe -- Mr. Turk. You skipped ahead to June. Now we are going back to April. Ms. Comstock. Yes, I am sorry. I skipped April 13th, that additional letter. But in the spring/summer time frame, do you have any recollection as to what was going on in terms of Mr. Marceca being detailed to the White House? Mr. Turk. More than what he has already testified to, that is, there was an interview between Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Marceca? The Witness. Other than recalling that it did take some time to get him detailed, I don't understand or recall the specific circumstances on why that is. It is refreshing my memory to recently see this information to that effect, but beyond the fact that it took several efforts to have him detailed I don't really have a specific recollection as to why. Mr. Turk. I don't believe she asked that question. The Witness. Well, as I understood the question I was trying to answer it. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you know whether -- The Witness. Perhaps I didn't understand the question. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Well, I am asking do you have any knowledge as to why there was delay in the detail process? A No, ma'am, that is what I just stated. Q Do you know whether Mr. Marceca had interviewed with anyone else at the White House besides Mr. Kennedy? A I have no knowledge of that. Mr. Turk. Was there delay? Your question assumes that there was delay. I don't know if there was or not. Ms. Comstock. The request was initially made on April 5th, 1993, and I believe Mr. Marceca did not come to the White House until August 18th, 1993. Now if there is -- if you have any knowledge as to why there was a gap like that, if you could explain that gap. Mr. Turk. I only ask that question because in my experience frequently things in the government take extraordinarily longer than you would otherwise expect. Ms. Comstock. If you, witness, could testify to that. The Witness. I am sorry, I thought I answered that question, ma'am. I don't recall why it took so long to have Mr. Marceca detailed. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Previously you mentioned that when it came time to -- when Mr. Marceca's 6-month detail was up he was not retained because of some unresolved issues in his background; is that correct? A I believe what I said was that his detail was not renewed and that there were some issues and update on his background. Q And do you know what those problems were? A I don't recall specifically. Mr. Turk. I would like to point out, Ms. Comstock, that you are now going back and recovering material that you covered in our last session. I would like to urge you to move forward on new material. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you know if when Mr. Marceca was first being detailed to the White House, if there was any problem with any of these unresolved issues that later caused him not to be retained as a detailee in February of 1994? A As I recall it, I don't believe there was any concern about bringing Mr. Marceca on as a detailee based on the fact that he was an employee of the Army, CID division, who held an active top secret clearance there. These unresolved issues that became a problem became a problem at the end of the 6-month detailee. They were not a problem known -- or a problem at the beginning. Mr. Turk. I don't believe that is what he testified to. Ms. Comstock. I am just trying to get a sense of when these became a problem. Mr. Turk. I think you already got a sense of it. I think what you are doing now is recharacterizing the witness' testimony. You asked him if it was of concern when Mr. Marceca was first detailed and he said no. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Is that your testimony? You had no knowledge of those issues in the beginning? A I had no knowledge of any derogatory information. I would like to make it clear, as I stated earlier, that based on his being a current employee in the Army and holding an active clearance we assumed that he was good going to be detailed to the White House. Q When these -- when Mr. Dale's files and then subsequently the 300 or 400 files came to light, did you contact Mr. Marceca to talk to him about this matter recently? A I have spoken to Mr. Marceca recently. Q And could you describe those conversations? A In general terms, I talked with Mr. Marceca about -- don't know that I recall talking specifically with Mr. Marceca about Mr. Dale's file. I think what initiated the conversation, ma'am, was when we learned that we had additional files, but I can't -- I don't have a specific recollection of exactly what we talked about, but it was in general terms, did he recall what list he worked off of, that type of thing. Because I thought there must be a readily explainable answer as to how this apparent mistake had happened. Q And this is the conversation you have had in the past several weeks with Mr. Marceca? A Yes. Q And can you recall any more specifically what you asked him about or what he said about -- I am sorry. You said you asked him about the list. Do you recall what he said about the list? A I thought it important to be -- to just ask him the general question. Then I had asked him at some point, I thought it would be better to talk to my attorney rather than talk directly to me, so there isn't an appearance of impropriety, because I was concerned, truly concerned that this had become apparent to me, and I had no direct knowledge of it until that point that we had apparently ordered files for people that were no longer with the administration. And it was essential to me, important to me to find out if there was, in fact, the answer, if Mr. Marceca could say, oh, yeah, I worked off this list and it is in bin three or something like that. DCMN KRISTOFFERSEN Q Do you recall anything he told you about the list? A Just that he took directions from Mrs. Gemmell and Ms. Anderson and that he worked off of a list of people that he thought were, in fact, people that were either required access -- continued access to the White House or were, in fact, current employees. Q What level were Ms. Gemmell and Ms. Anderson? A Ms. Gemmell was the number 2 person in the previous administration's office, and for me she was an advisor. I kept her on because I thought it important that she share the breadth of her experience and knowledge as to procedures so that we might correctly follow them. I implored her to make sure that, you know, that we knew everything that we needed to know so that when she was gone we didn't make a misstep. Ms. Anderson was my assistant throughout her tenure in my office. Q Do you recall approximately how much Ms. Anderson was paid? A I think Ms. Anderson started off -- well, I believe she left at 30,000. Ms. Comstock. Continuing my previous deposition, I am going to make this Deposition Exhibit 4, these letters that were previously referring to Les Aspin dealing with Mr. Marceca's detailee status. [Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.] Ms. Comstock. Then this a June 10th -- Mr. Turk. Ask you to hold one second? This document that you have marked as Exhibit 4 contains considerably more material than the letters that have just been discussed in the testimony here. The first document is a document -- April 5, 1993, letter from William Kennedy to Les Aspin document Bates stamped CGE 043823 through 3824. The next document is a White House Office of Personnel from other agencies form dated 2/28/94 and signed by William Kennedy, CGE 043810. The next document is an unclassified Office of the Chief of Staff, Army Management Support Team, fax header sheet, CGE 043811, which appears to be the faxed cover sheet for an August 5th, 1993, document from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, a memorandum for Associate Counsel to the President, the White House; subject, request for the detailee special agent Anthony Marceca from Robert M. Allen, lieutenant general of the United States Air Force. Attached to that is a Department of the Army document dated August 12, 1993, from Charles E. Dominy, lieutenant general director of the Army staff, to -- I guess it is a memorandum from Major General Peter T. Berry, commanding general, U.S. Criminal Investigation Command, concerning White House detail. The next document was one that was referenced in the testimony that is a June 22nd, '93, letter from William Kennedy to Colonel Sherfield, executive secretary of the -- sorry -- executive secretary to the Secretary of Defense. And the next document also was referenced. That is the April 13, 1993, letter from William Kennedy to Les Aspin that is Bates stamped 043816. The Witness. I might have missed the Bates stamp on the last one which was 043814 through 15. And the Bates stamp for the Alexander memorandum is 04312, and for the Charles Dominy memorandum it is 043813. The next document, a facsimile transmittal header sheet from the personnel director at the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, to the Washington fraud team; attention, Tony Marceca. This is document CGE 043817, attached to which is a -- some type of a form, not labeled. It concerns the detail of Mr. Marceca. It is CGE 04381, next to which is a June 22nd letter from Mr. Kennedy to Mr. Sherfield, CGE 043819 through 20. And finally -- oh, next is the April 6th, 1993, letter from David Allen to Mr. Kennedy that was referenced in the testimony, CGE 043821, followed by a memorandum from Robert M. Alexander, lieutenant general of the United States Air Force, a memorandum for associate counsel to the President of the White House, which appears to be the same document in many respects. Ms. Comstock. If that is the way we got it from the White House for the record. Mr. Turk. It was CGE -- I wasn't trying to suggest it had been doctored. I was just trying make sure it was the same document. It has additional date stamps on it but is the same document as CGE 043812, although it bears additional date stamps on it. The document number is CGE 043822. And that is the entirety of Exhibit 4. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q I believe we just discussed you had talked with Mr. Marceca. And did you ask him to speak with your attorney? Mr. Turk. Asked and answered. I believe he already testified to that. The Reporter. What did you say? BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you have any knowledge about a statement that Mr. Marceca prepared by your attorney? A I read it in the paper, and I seemed to have heard about it on TV and -- Q And have you seen this document, declaration of Anthony Marceca, which is 4 pages long and signed by Mr. Marceca at the end? A To the best of my recollection, this is the first time I have seen this document. As it is prepared, I don't think I have seen it in its entirety. Q At the time when Ms. Wetzl, I believe, testified Mr. Marceca had ordered too many files, do you recall if you ever called Mr. Marceca to ask him about that at any time prior to these recent phone calls that you had with him? A No, and I am glad you asked that question, because in my previous deposition I don't recall the exact question but I know that I was tired. I don't know I made it clear enough to you or direct enough that when I heard that question, specifically, that I believe that meant that we had files on people that had come and gone from the White House while we were there. I want to make that clear, because I don't know that I did that before. Mr. Turk. What question? The Witness. As I recall, she asked me a question about, what did I say or do I recall about Ms. Wetzl saying that Tony had ordered too many files, and my direct recollection of what I remember thinking at the time was, that meant that people who had been in our administration and had already left, and Tony had ordered files -- or we were just getting files at the time from people that had departed, because that was going on every day at the White House. Very often I would call someone up to see when someone was working, and I would call up and they'd say, oh, that was so-and-so; he was in the garden shop, and he has left last month; or something like that. So I believe that -- Mr. Turk. Maybe you could just answer the questions that are asked. I don't think there is a question pending right now. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Directing your attention to page 2 of this statement at the top of the page, Mr. Marceca says the employee who was retiring showed me the various lists of names to which personnel security files needed to be recreated. Do you have any knowledge to this date of what these various lists were that Mr. Marceca was working from? A I don't have any direct knowledge of it. Q Now when you -- your office was one large office at the time, that you worked in -- A Yes ma'am. Q -- the vault. Did you see Mr. Marceca work on these files during the 6 months he was at the White House? A I don't have a direct recollection of him working on that, on this project specifically, no. Q During those 6 months, can you give us an idea of what he was doing during the day while he was there, to your knowledge? A I believe that he was working on this project. From time to time he would, at the beginning of his detail -- he was very helpful in instructing me and educating me on how to review a standard form 86 for complete list completeness and making sure people filled it out, and helped me get people -- get a hold of people to come back in and refill things out or add additional information if it was requested by the FBI. Mr. Turk. I just want to object to a question that basically says, what did this guy do for 6 months. We already covered that, I believe, the last time around. If you want to focus this question a little bit more, that might help us get through this a little more quickly. Ms. Comstock. I am trying to get a sense of what he was -- Mr. Turk. You asked if he had a recollection of seeing Mr. Marceca work on the update project, and he said no. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q What do you recall Mr. Marceca doing while he was at the White House during the 6 months? Do you have a recollection of say in the first -- Mr. Turk. I am going to object to that question. I mean -- he has already answered that question. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Were you working in the office on a day-to-day basis at this time? Would you physically be located in that office? A I was in the office, yes. Q Do you see him daily? A I would say -- I would imagine I would see him every day I was there, yes. Q Would he talk to you about what he was working on that day on a day-to-day basis? A I think on a weekly basis or a bimonthly basis; he would talk to me from time to time. Q Did he ever write you any memos or updates on what he was working on at the time? A From time to time he would tell me to check other things he was working on. I couldn't remember if it was written format or oral, but I do remember talking to him specifically about, so-and-so had to add additional information to the forms, or he was having difficulty in getting a hold of someone, would I please call them and tell them to come down to fill out their paperwork. Q So were you a supervisor? Mr. Turk. Asked and answered. Objection. You have already asked him that the last time. Am I right? Ms. Comstock. I think we have had a number -- he has worked on a number of different projects. He is working on a number of different projects, and I am trying to get -- Mr. Turk. I disagree. Move on. You asked him if he was his supervisor before. He testified he was not. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Could you explain in what manner it was then that he reported -- he was reporting to you on these matters? A As I stated, from time to time he would need assistance. Generally, Tony had what I would consider very basic projects to do, and important projects, but very basic projects as far as things that I think Mari, Lisa. And I had confidence in him doing, and when he had difficulty, in particular, getting a hold of people or having a question answered, something like that, I would intervene if Mari or Lisa couldn't help him. Q Did you ever intervene for him in dealing with the FBI at any time? A I am not sure I understand the question. Q Did he ever have an occasion to ask you to assist him in talking to the FBI about any matter. Mr. Turk. That is a pretty broad question. Do you have something a little bit more focused? This man dealt with the FBI on a daily basis. Ms. Comstock. I am asking about Mr. Marceca, if he recalls Mr. Marceca talking about any issues that arise with the FBI. Mr. Turk. I understood the question. I just thought maybe if you had something specific, that might help. This was 3 years ago. They dealt with the FBI on a daily basis. The Witness. I am pausing because I am trying to think of a specific instance, ma'am, where I can remember, as you described it, involving myself with the FBI on his behalf, and at this moment in time I can't really think of specific -- BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did you have daily office meetings with his staff in the office? A No, ma'am. Q Did you have weekly meetings? A We did not have an occasion to have office meetings unless there was a new policy to discuss. Q In Mr. Marceca's statement, he talks about various lists. Did you ever discuss with him at any time how to obtain any lists in the White House of any kind, personnel -- that had "personnel" on them? Mr. Turk. Objection. That is an incomprehensible question. Could you please restate it. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did Mr. Marceca ever ask for your assistance in obtaining any Secret Service lists or personnel lists? Mr. Turk. Or personnel lists? Ms. Comstock. Why don't we start with Secret Service lists. Mr. Turk. That is a good idea. We could just ask the question that way. The Witness. I don't recall a specific instance where Tony had to ask me for any assistance, as I understood. And as I understand the procedure in my office, Mari or Lisa could ask the Secret Service, the people which they worked with many times throughout the day, for that list. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Was Lisa at this time an intern in the summer -- I am sorry -- in the summer of 1993, was Lisa an intern? A I don't recall her exact start date, but -- I don't recall her exact start date. Q Directing your attention to page 3 of Mr. Marceca's statement, it discusses -- Mr. Turk. Which paragraph? BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q At the top of the page, it says, "I also typed in the form the reason for the request to FBI; e.g., access (s)." Do you recall seeing Mr. Marceca type up forms on a computer or typewriter? A I recall seeing Tony sit at a typewriter while he was a detailee. Q Do you know what the "access (s)" stands for? A No. Q Did you know what any of the access codes were that were typed on to these personnel forms? A Yes. Q Why don't I, for reference, refer to previously identified as Deposition Exhibit 3, which is Mr. Billy Ray Dale's request to the FBI for his FBI background previous report, and on this it says the report is up for access, and it has S in parentheses. Do you know what some of the other codes were that you used? Mr. Turk. Can you wait until we finish reviewing the exhibit? Okay. Would you read back the question? [The reporter read back as requested.] Mr. Turk. I would like to object to that question. I don't believe there is any testimony that Mr. Livingstone used the codes. I believe the testimony, including your question before this, was that these are forms filled out by Mr. Marceca; is that correct? Ms. Comstock. Yes. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Are you aware of the codes that were used on these forms -- forms such as that identified in Deposition Exhibit 3? A Yes, ma'am. Q And could you describe some of the codes that you may have knowledge of? A Some of the codes would be access C, which is what we would use, sea as in otter. Q Sea as in otter? A The letter C -- I was just making sure that she knew. We had codes for -- Q I am sorry; what did C stand for? A C is for volunteers and our comments line people, people that would be on the access list. As I understand it, early on we would use the access code and since have changed that because we now have a lot of hard passes for interns and volunteers. So we write in "intern" or "volunteer" now, which is just slightly modified from the beginning. I don't recall what "access S" means. Q Continuing on top of page 3, Mr. Marceca writes, "When the previous report came into the office, I pulled the file I created for the individual and reviewed the report, determined the date for the individual's next periodic investigation." Could you explain how the reinvestigation process worked on these previous -- when these previous reports were obtained? Mr. Turk. Could you read back that question, skipping all the reading. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Why don't I just ask, do you have any knowledge as to how the reinvestigation update of background was done? A Are you asking me specifically -- Mr. Turk. She is just asking you generally if you have any knowledge. Maybe you should just read back the question. Ms. Comstock. I think I am just asking him generally. The Witness. As I understand it, you are asking me how to determine the people to periodically investigate; is that correct? Ms. Comstock. Yes. The Witness. Well, the way we do it now -- Ms. Comstock. I don't need to know how you do it now. I need to know how you do it in 1993 or 1994. The Witness. You would be -- in 1993, I think you would be asking me to guess, and I don't care to guess. In 1994, Ms. Wetzl took over this project for reinvestigation specifically, as I recall it, and I directed Ms. Wetzl to make sure that, for every person that was in the employ at the White House, that we knew their background investigation date, and that meant she had to call each office to get a list of each employee and then to cross reference that with a list that we have from the FBI. We have this master list from the FBI that has all the investigations conducted and their BI dates then to do that, because I was concerned that at that point in time we had started issuing permit passes to our own news staff, that we needed to make sure that if people need their 5-year updates, we were doing them, because we were 1 year into the administration. Mr. Turk. Why don't you let her ask another question now. RPTS STEIN DCMN PARKER [9:15 p.m.] BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you have any knowledge of any problems with -- moving away from this document for now, do you have any knowledge of any problems the First Family had with the residence staff? A Do I have any knowledge of the First Family having -- Q Having any problems with White House staff on the White House residence. Mr. Turk. You mean getting clean towels and things like that. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did anyone ever bring to your attention problems with White House staff personnel in '93 and early '94? A I can't be specific on the times, but I remember some instances, an instance specifically where there was a problem with one of the executive chefs at the residence which was investigated by the Secret Service and I think the Secret Service should be contacted about that. I don't know that I am able to divulge that because there was an investigation. Q That was in the newspapers at the time. I think I know what you are referring to. Mr. Turk. Was there a problem with his cooking? The Witness. There was an investigation conducted from the criminal side of the Secret Service and I don't know that I should discuss it. Mr. Turk. You shouldn't. I have had food like that myself. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did you ever have occasion to reinvestigate any residence staff outside of the 5-year reinvestigation time frame when they would normally be reinvestigated? A I am not sure that I-- Q Did you ever have occasion to ask for an updated investigation on a residence staff employee prior to when their 5-year update would have been due in early 1993 or 1994? A I can answer that question. I don't have a specific recollection. I think that we asked as a matter of course, as a matter of action that we asked for all the investigations prior to their 5-year -- I think that is general procedure. We know that the 5 years is coming up, it takes some time to get people to fill out the paperwork, and I think as a matter of course we try to do all the people prior to 5 years. Q If you are doing them prior to 5 years, would you do them 4 years ahead of time or 3 years ahead of time or how far ahead of time? A Personally, I would not think that would be necessary. Q In 1993 in doing this update project you didn't have the prior files yet of people such as the residence staff; is that correct? A I don't know. Mr. Turk. I think your question makes it sound as if you think Mr. Livingstone was doing the update project. I think the testimony is -- Ms. Comstock. The record is that because of requirements of the law, records of prior staff were not present in your vaults where all these background files were maintained. Mr. Turk. You mean the previous administration took them with them when they left. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Because by law they are required to take these files; is that correct? A I believe that is correct. I would like to state something for the record if I could interrupt you and apologize. Is that all right? Q Are you responding to the question? A It is with regard to your question about the files. I want to make it clear. I came into the office in February which is several weeks after the administration started. To be sure there were files in the safe so I can't say specifically what was there and what wasn't there. I have heard you allude to the fact that there wasn't anything in the vault. I don't know that there was ever anything in the vault. When I came into the office there were in fact some files. Q Do you know what files were in the vault when they came in? A No. I am sorry for interrupting. Q Thank you for clarifying that. With regard to the residence staff do you have any knowledge of instances where, say, you asked for a full investigation, an updated investigation, say a year or two after they had had a prior investigation rather than 5 years after they had an investigation? A I have no recollection of that. Mr. Turk. Can we take a break? We have been here for an hour and 10 minutes. Ms. Comstock. Okay. [Recess.] Ms. Comstock. We are back on the record after a 20-minute press break. Mr. Turk. Fifteen minutes, press, cigarette. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q We have been checking the record from Friday and we have not been able to exactly locate who Mr. Marceca's supervisor was, so if you could just clarify that for the record, who Mr. Marceca's supervisor was. Mr. Turk. I believe he testified that it was a different person over a period of time. I believe that he testified that it was Mari Anderson at one point and it was Lisa Wetzl at another point. Do you have the transcript from Friday? Do you want us to look for this. Ms. Comstock. That was on the project, the update project, is that correct, that those three individuals were his supervisor? Mr. Turk. Let's go back and look at it. Ms. Comstock. I want to clarify that. Mr. Turk. Is there any assignment that Mr. Marceca had that is relevant to your inquiry, Ms. Comstock, other than this update project, which is what we are doing here at quarter of 10:00 at night?. Ms. Comstock. I want to know are there any other projects that Mr. Marceca reported directly to Mr. Livingstone on. Mr. Turk. That is a different question. You want to know are there any projects that Mr. Marceca undertook during that 6-month period with respect to which he reported directly to Mr. Livingstone? Ms. Comstock. Yes. The Witness. I don't believe that there was anything specific that Tony would have been required to talk to me specifically about. Certainly not in the form of any projects. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q And would Ms. Anderson and Ms. Wetzl and then Mr. Hughes report to you; when Mr. Marceca reported to them, would they in turn report to you what Mr. Marceca was doing? Mr. Turk. Objection. Asked and answered. Ms. Comstock. Why don't we identify that then in the record? Mr. Turk. I think, let's see, I think at page 11 it says, and you -- Mari Anderson, Lisa Wetzl and now Ed Hughes all reported to you? Yes. So you were -- the interns were under your supervision as well as Mari Anderson and Lisa Wetzl and Ed Hughes; is that correct? Mr. Turk: I am going to have to object. It sounds to me like you may be trying to argue with the witness. You asked Mr. Livingstone if he supervised interns. I think he said, no, that Mari Anderson, Lisa Wetzl and Ed Hughes supervised them. Ms. Comstock. I think you are reading from the intern supervision here. I am asking about Mr. Marceca. Mr. Turk. No. I think the pending question was the question that I am getting to, which is did Mari Anderson, Lisa Wetzl, and Ed Hughes report to Mr. Livingstone. And the answer to that at line 17 on page 11 is, yes. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did they report to you about Mr. Marceca as well as about interns and other matters in your office? Mr. Turk. Do you want to break that down into separate components of it? I think it is compound. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did Lisa and Mari and Ed report to you about the activities of Mr. Marceca? Mr. Turk. It is still compound. Ms. Comstock. Do you want me to go through the three individually then? Mr. Turk. It is your deposition. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you recall Lisa Wetzl reporting to you about the activities of Mr. Marceca? A I don't have any specific recollection of ongoing reporting on Mr. Marceca by Lisa Wetzl. Q Do you have any recollection of Miss Anderson reporting to you about the activities of Mr. Marceca? A I don't have any recollection of Miss Anderson reporting to me on Mr. Marceca. Q Or Mr. Hughes? A I don't have any recollection of Mr. Hughes reporting to me on Mr. Marceca. Ms. Comstock. I am making the declaration of Anthony Marceca Deposition Exhibit 5. [Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.] BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q In the past several weeks since Mr. Dale's file, which we previously identified as Deposition Exhibit Number 3 -- these are the request forms for his file, not his actual file. Since this request came to light, have you had any discussions with anyone in the White House about how this document was originally found in the White House this year, who located this document this year? Mr. Turk. Answer that question to the extent you can without divulging any communications between you and your counsel. The Witness. Would that include White House counsel? BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q No. Mr. Turk. Would you read back the question? [The reporter read back as requested.] Mr. Turk. And then I instructed the witness not to, or to answer it to the extent that he could without divulging communications with counsel. He asked does that include White House counsel. My only concern is that if there is a privilege there, I do not believe that my client is in a position to waive that privilege, so I guess for now, I would ask that you exclude those communications if there were any, and answer the question to the extent that there are any other communications. Ms. Comstock. Are you asking to claim executive privilege? Mr. Turk. No. I am in no position to assert a privilege like that. Mr. Goldberg. Can I make a suggestion, per a more recent agreement between the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member that you proffer that question in writing with an acknowledgment to get it back as soon as possible. Ms. Comstock. I think that is if there is a claim of executive privilege. Mr. Turk. I just don't want to be in a position of waiving something -- Ms. Comstock. Have you been instructed to claim a privilege? Mr. Turk. Absolutely not, and I am not asserting a privilege. I just don't want my client to be in a position of waiving a privilege if one exists if he has no authority to waive. Ms. Comstock. Have you had any conversations with the counsel about not allowing these conversations to be discussed in depositions, Mr. Turk? Mr. Turk. Absolutely not. Ms. Comstock. Do you want to contact the White House at this time to resolve this? Mr. Turk. What is it; quarter of 10:00? I am not real confident of being able to reach anybody. Ms. Comstock. We can stop. Off the record. [Discussion off the record.] Ms. Comstock. Back on the record. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you know who found this document and provided it to the counsel's office? Mr. Turk. Answer that question -- Ms. Comstock. Deposition Exhibit 3? Mr. Turk. Answer that question if you can without divulging information you may have learned from communications with counsel. Ms. Comstock. He could answer yes or no, and if it is from another person we could at least get a yes or no. Mr. Turk. If I were confident that he would have said just yes or no. The Witness. Ask the question one more time. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you know who provided this document to the counsel's office? A I believe that I was requested to produce it for counsel's office. Q We had previously discussed -- I am looking at the chart in Deposition Exhibit 1. You had pulled this file on June 6, 1996 -- Mr. Turk. No, no. I must correct your characterization of the record, Ms. Comstock. That was not -- Ms. Comstock. He was asked by counsel's office to get it and I think he testified that he had someone else go over and get it. Mr. Turk. This is why I think repeating testimony -- Ms. Comstock. Splitting it up over days causes problems, too. Mr. Cohen. Providing us with a copy of a deposition would alleviate some of these problems, too. Mr. Turk. Also conducting an hour-and-a-half deposition in less than 6 hours would be a better way to do it as well. I think I could probably find it. What is the pending question? BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q His knowledge of who produced this document to the counsel's office. Mr. Turk. He answered that question. There was another one after that, which is started with you talking about him having taken the file out on June 6th. Ms. Comstock. He was requested by counsel's office to -- Mr. Turk. I believe his testimony was -- I know that the only time I have requested Mr. Dale's file or this other file was in response to counsel's request. I had no personal need to have his file. He testified -- you tried to get him to say why he had the file out on the sixth, and he never indicated that he did have the file out on the sixth. There was a colloquy back and forth about whose handwriting this was. Do you recall that? Ms. Comstock. What we are trying to find out is we obtained this file on May 30th from the counsel's office and if you could enlighten us as to any knowledge you have of who produced that document to the counsel's office prior to May 30th? Mr. Turk. Which document; this one? BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Deposition Exhibit 3. A It would just be a guess and I prefer not to guess. Q So you have no knowledge of how the counsel's office came into possession of this prior to May 30, 1996? A I don't have any recollection, a specific recollection of being asked for it. Q This is a statement that was made by Jane Sherburne, Special Counsel to the President on June 5, 1996, which discusses Mr. Dale's, the request for Mr. Dale's files, which request form is Deposition Exhibit 3. Did you ever talk with Ms. Sherburne about preparing this statement of June 5, 1996? A About preparing this statement, no. Q Did Ms. Sherburne ask you for any information to determine how Mr. Dale's file came to be obtained in December of 1993? Mr. Turk. Could you read that back? [The reporter read back as requested.] Ms. Comstock. To put it in time frame, I will add to that at or about early June 1996? Mr. Turk. That seems to me to raise the same problem that we had a couple of minutes ago, which was concern that, about having Mr. Livingstone be placed in the position where he might be waiving a privilege that he is not in a position to waive. You are asking him a direct question about communications between him and the White House Counsel's Office. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did you provide information to anybody at the White House about how Mr. Dale's file came to be obtained in December of '93? Mr. Turk. I want you to answer that question to the extent that you can without divulging any communications with counsel. Ms. Comstock. Personal counsel or White House counsel or both? Mr. Turk. I think both would be the easiest way. Why don't you just ask him what he knows about that? Wouldn't that be the easier way to get to it? Ms. Comstock. I would like to find out the information that the witness provided to the White House in these past few weeks. The Witness. To the best of my recollection they asked to review a book that we have when files are checked out from our office, and they asked to review our archive files. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q When did they ask to do that? A In the last few weeks. I can't be specific. Q Could you describe what those books are that they asked you to look at? A As I say, we have a book that has files that are checked out from the office and we check out files that go outside the office to counsel's office upstairs. Then we have several archive lists that we prepare when we archive documents for storage in the White House. Q And the book for when files go out of the office, that is maintained in your office? A Yes. Q That is when they physically leave both the vault and your office that they are identified in that book? A No. To be specific, when they leave the office, when files leave my office for another office. Q You don't sign it out when you take it out of the vault? Mr. Turk. Asked and answered. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q The White House reviewed this book as well as your archive list? A If you are speaking to the book in which we record files that are checked out, yes, ma'am. Q Did that provide any of the information to your knowledge that was used in this statement? A I wouldn't know. Mr. Turk. You didn't help prepare this statement did you? The Witness. No. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you have any knowledge of whether Mr. Dale's file was obtained as part of the routine practice of maintaining background files? A I have no knowledge as to why Mr. Dale's file was -- can you repeat the question? Mr. Turk. You are talking about when the file was created at the White House or are you talking about when -- just ask the question again. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Why don't I ask it differently. As of June 5, 1996, to your knowledge, had Mr. Dale's file been obtained as part of a routine request for FBI files? Mr. Turk. I am going to still have to ask for some clarification on the question. Obtained when? Ms. Comstock. As of June 5th, to his knowledge, had this file been routinely obtained or at that time did he know it had been obtained from some other -- Mr. Turk. It is the obtained part. Ms. Comstock. Obtained from the FBI. Mr. Turk. So you are not talking about the file. What you are talking about is something that may be in the file that would have been obtained from the FBI report? Ms. Comstock. The whole thing was obtained from the FBI. Mr. Turk. When? In '96? Ms. Comstock. I am saying as of June 5, 1996, to his knowledge, was this file of Mr. Billy Dale obtained as part of a routine effort to get updated files? Mr. Turk. Well, wouldn't it be easier, Ms. Comstock, if you referred to Deposition Exhibit 3? Ms. Comstock. I am referring to that. Mr. Turk. Which talks about a request for a copy of a previous report. Maybe if you phrase the question that way it would eliminate some of the confusion. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q As of June 5th, did you think that this was part of a routine request for Mr. Dale's previous report? Mr. Turk. This request? Ms. Comstock. Yes. The Witness. As I understand the question, I have already answered that question. But maybe I don't understand the question properly. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q I am trying to understand if you had a developing knowledge in late May or early June, June 5th when the White House put out this statement what was the extent of your knowledge about how the files of Mr. Dale had been obtained? A I think I understand your question now. Mr. Turk. You were asking questions earlier about this file being obtained for purposes of having it delivered to your offices the end of May. I am trying to figure out if you are talking about, when you are referring to obtaining this file, are you talking about obtaining it from the archives? You were also making reference to this list that has Mr. Livingstone's name on it on June 6th. Are you talking about when the file was obtained at that point in time, or when the previous report was obtained from the FBI back in '93 or early '94, whenever that was? Ms. Comstock. I am asking what his knowledge was as of June 5th. Mr. Turk. About what? Ms. Comstock. About how this file was obtained. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Had anyone told you anything as of June 5th that gave you an understanding of how this file had been obtained? Mr. Turk. Obtained when; in 1993? Ms. Comstock. Yes. In December of 1993. Mr. Turk. Because this request form doesn't ask for the FBI to send over a file. It asks for a previous report. Ms. Comstock. It was put in a file that was in Mr. Livingstone's office. Mr. Turk. That may be, put in a file, so the file was not obtained from the FBI. Ms. Comstock. The file folder was not obtained. The previous reports that were obtained from the FBI. Mr. Turk. It is a distinction worth making since the file was obtained in 1996 in response to your committee's request, but the file was not obtained from the FBI in '93, although something in the file may have been. So which of the two would you like the witness to focus on? BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q What was your knowledge as of June 5, 1996, of how the previous reports of Mr. Dale had been obtained from the FBI? A I don't have a specific recollection of June 5th or 6th or whatever you just asked me, the date. Q Do you know if Terry Good brought this file to the attention of anybody at the White House? Mr. Turk. When? Ms. Comstock. In the last month or so. The Witness. I have no recollection of Terry Good bringing the file to my attention. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you know if Chuck Easley knew about this file prior to press accounts of this file coming to light? A I don't recall any discussions with Chuck Easley about the file. Q Earlier this year when we sent a subpoena to the White House they sent out -- did you ever produce this document and what would have been attached as files to anyone in the counsel's office in response to any subpoenas this year? Mr. Turk. Could you read that back? [The reporter read back as requested.] BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q The previous FBI background summary reports that were attached to this, did you ever produce that to anyone in the counsel's office this year in response to any subpoenas or document requests? Mr. Turk. Do you understand the question? The Witness. I do. As I recall it, I produced the document with the previous report some time in the last month in response to your committee's subpoena request to counsel's office at the White House. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Directing your attention to Ms. Sherburne's statement on the second page, it says according to the preliminary information now available to us, Mr. Dale's records remained in the archives until May 21, 1996, when they were retrieved for the purpose of responding to Representative Clinger's committee. Do you have any knowledge as to whether you were involved in that retrieval on May 21, 1996? A Excuse me. [Discussion with counsel.] Mr. Turk. Maybe we can cut through this a little bit. If what you are trying to do is ascertain what Mr. Livingstone knows, if anything, about this file between May 21, 1996, and June 6, 1996, why don't you just ask him that? Ms. Comstock. I need to know before May 21st because apparently by May 21 the counsel's office had it. Since the witness doesn't remember a few weeks ago -- Mr. Turk. I don't think it is as difficult as it is seeming to be. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Okay. Why don't we go with that, what knowledge you have of it from some time in May forward. Mr. Turk. On or about May 21, 1996, to June 6, 1996. The Witness. I don't recall any specific dates in relation to Mr. Dale's records. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Do you recall generally in the past several months learning about this file being turned over to the counsel's office? Mr. Turk. Asked and answered. But you may answer again. The Witness. I believe I testified that I was asked by counsel to produce the file in response to your committee's request. That is I believe what I said. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q And you cannot place it in a time frame at all within the past month? Mr. Turk. Ms. Comstock, he testified that it was some time within the last month, and he said he couldn't give you a specific date. This is today, June 19, so some time within the last month. Ms. Comstock. We have had a subpoena outstanding since January that was due in early February. If he is saying he responded to it in response to our committee I want to find out if it was in January or February or if it was within the last month. Mr. Turk. He testified, I believe, that it was within the last month. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Is that correct? A I believe I said previously, when you asked me what I knew about Mr. Dale's records is that within the last month I was asked specifically by counsel's office to produce Mr. Dale's file in response to your subpoena request. Q Okay. Did you contact any of the people in archives about trying to ascertain anything having to do with these 400 or so files and how they had been archived? Mr. Turk. When? BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q In 1994. Did you contact them recently about anything having to do with the archives? A I don't think I have ever talked to the Archive Department. Q Have you talked with Terry Good about anything having to do with Mr. Dale's records or with any of these 400 files, 400 FBI background reports? A I think that I had conversations with, a brief conversation with Mr. Good. Q Do you know when that was? A Recently. Q Could you describe that conversation? A I think that I was talking in general terms of recordkeeping. As I recall it, I recounted that all I was ever instructed about recordkeeping at the White House in terms of safeguarding FBI reports and similar investigative reports is that we were to treat them as Presidential records and that they were to be stored within records management and then forwarded to archives and then possibly if the President had a library. I think that we both thought that it was important not to have too specific conversations about particular files, but in general terms I seem to remember that is the kind of thing we talked about. Q Do you recall anything that Mr. Good said to you about these documents? A He believed that in fact previous administrations had sent off background investigations, but wasn't sure, to the Presidential library, and not back to the FBI as it was reported. Mr. Turk. Are we getting close here? Ms. Comstock. Yes. The Witness. Thank you. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did you have any knowledge of Mr. Marceca's files in the vault being separate and apart from other files that you had in the vault? A Did I have any knowledge when? Q Why don't we start with when Mr. Marceca was working at the White House during those 6 months. A I don't recall knowing where Mr. Marceca, if Mr. Marceca kept files. Q Have you since learned of Mr. Marceca keeping his files separate, in a separate place in the vault? Mr. Turk. Answer that if you can without divulging any communications with counsel. The Witness. I believe that in discussions with my staff about Mr. Marceca's files, ma'am, that I learned that he kept them separate. But I don't know for a fact that he did that. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did you -- what did they tell you about how he kept them separately? A I don't recall specifically, but I will give you the best of the conversation, as I recall it; that when Tony departed that his files were in a couple of bins in the vault. Q Have you ever made any reference to anybody at the White House about your knowledge of their background investigations, made any comments to any individuals about your knowing what is in their background files? A I am not sure if I understand what you are asking me. Q Have you ever made any comments to any of your colleagues at the White House about your knowledge of what is in their FBI background files, what sensitive information? A That would be part of my job to discuss with people about their background files. Q Have you ever made any comments to them outside an interview process, made comments to them about their background, information that you have learned from having access to and knowledge of the information in their background files? A I don't know. I mean, as I understand your question, I am not -- do you have a specific question? Q This is a Time Magazine article from today. Directing your attention to the second page, the first column -- Mr. Turk. Why don't we take a minute. This is a two-page article from what, today's Time Magazine by Eric Cooley. Mr. Turk. This is a pretty offensive line of inquiry, but -- Okay. Could you reread the last question? [The reporter read back as requested.] BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q In the first column the paragraph beginning, "Once inside the White House, the second sentence says,"Most disturbing, three former Clinton staff members told Time of Livingstone's habit of insinuating that he had read their security files. The message they contend was that Livingstone knew all about their peccadillos, but their secrets were safe with him." Mr. Turk. I would like to read the entire paragraph because I think -- actually you almost need to read the entire article to get a sense of gist, what a hatchet job it is and how incredibly reliable this reporter and the quality of his information is. The paragraph reads as follows: "Once inside the White House, Livingstone continued to play the big shot. Most disturbing of his grandiose tendencies," which you left out when you read it, "three former Clinton staff members told Time was Livingstone's habit of insinuating that he had read their security files. The message, they contend, was that Livingstone knew all about their peccadillos, but their secrets were safe with him." Your question? BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did you ever make any comments about information that you had read in people's security files to those individuals? Mr. Turk. Objection. Asked and answered. But if this refreshes your recollection, Mr. Livingstone, you may answer. I would like to note for the record this is an incredibly cheap shot line of inquiry. Unnamed sources. The Witness. I don't think that -- would you ask the question one more time? Ms. Comstock. Would you read back the question? RPTS COLCHICO DCMN GALLACHER The Witness. I don't think that -- would you ask me the question one more time? Ms. Comstock. Will you read back the question? [The reporter read back as requested.] The Witness. I remember having conversations with not any specific individual but with individuals at different times about their background investigations, with many individuals about their background investigations. Mr. Turk. As part of your official duty? The Witness. As I said earlier, as pursuant to my official duties. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Outside an interview process or your official duties, did you make such comments to individuals about their secrets or confidential information that was in there that individuals may not want to be known publicly? Mr. Turk. Can I suggest, why don't you just ask him the question outright? This article seems to suggest that Mr. Livingstone is pouring through people's background reports and then walking around and lewdly and lasciviously winking at people about information he has read on their background to kind of -- Ms. Comstock. I don't think it has to be that direct at all. Mr. Turk. I think that's exactly what this article is suggesting. Why don't you just ask him if that's true? Ms. Comstock. I have asked him if he has ever -- Mr. Turk. If you are going to be -- Ms. Comstock. -- used information that -- Mr. Turk. If you are going to ask an insulting question, ask it. Don't hint around about it. That is what the article is saying. Have you done that, Mr. Livingstone? The Witness. As I stated before, all I have ever -- you know, as I recall, I have talked to individuals about their backgrounds. I recall instances where people -- when I would be sitting at the mess at lunch in the White House and people would ask me how the process of their investigation is going. I remember, to answer your question specifically, many occasions in the hall, outside of my office, at lunch and other places, where people would ask me how the process of their investigation was going. Ms. Comstock. I am not talking about the process. Mr. Cohen. Let him finish his answer. The Witness. I am trying to answer your question. Mr. Turk. Let him finish the answer. The Witness. And specifically to specific instances of issues and their background, that they asked me about. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q That they asked you about, specific -- A Or I would approach them and tell them the progress about specific issues in their background that we were working on, and they knew we were working on. Q But in the context of -- what this article is saying, that their secrets were safe with you, did you ever make any comments to the extent that you knew about personal private things in their background that might be problems but that this information was safe with you? Mr. Turk. I am just going to object to this line of inquiry. Can we just wrap this up? Ms. Comstock. Can we just get a yes or no? Mr. Turk. You have asked the question. He has answered it. Aren't you done? I mean, this is not a House fact investigation type question and I think -- Ms. Comstock. I would just like a yes or no answer. Mr. Turk. And I think you know. I believe the question has been asked and answered several times now. BY MS. COMSTOCK: Q Did you ever refer to any confidential information from FBI files in any unauthorized manner? Can you answer that yes or no? A I don't believe so. Ms. Comstock. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Livingstone. [Whereupon, at 10:33 p.m., the deposition was concluded.] CONTENTS EXHIBIT: PAGE Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.............................. 19 Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.............................. 40
