Travelgate Depositions

FIRST BERNARD NUSSBAUM DEPOSITION


   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
   
   U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
   
   WASHINGTON, D.C.
   
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
   
   :
   
   In the matter of: :
   
   :
   
   WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL : DEPOSITION OF
   
   : BERNARD W. NUSSBAUM
   
   :
   
   :
   
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
   
   Wednesday, June 12, 1996
   
   Washington, D.C.
   
   The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2154, Rayburn
   House Office Building, commencing at 10:05 a.m.
   
   Appearances:
   
   Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee:
   Barbara Olson, Majority counsel; Barbara Comstock, Majority Counsel;
   Laurie Taylor, Majority counsel; and Don Goldberg, Minority counsel.
   
   For MR. NUSSBAUM:
   
   JAMES F. FITZPATRICK, ESQ.
   
   Arnold & Porter
   
   555 12th Street, N.W.
   
   Washington, D.C. 20004-1202
   
   LAWRENCE B. PEDOWITZ, ESQ.
   
   YOCHEVED COHEN, ESQ.
   
   ROBERT B. MAZUR, ESQ.
   
   Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
   
   51 West 52nd Street
   
   New York, New York 10019-6618
   
   YOCHEVED COHEN, ESQ.
   
   Ms. Olson. Good morning. We are on the record this morning for the
   deposition of Bernard Nussbaum, which will be administered under oath.
   And I would like to identify some of the people who are present in
   this room. Mr. Nussbaum is present with his attorneys, James
   Fitzpatrick of Arnold and Porter, and attorneys from his law firm. Don
   Goldberg is here, Minority counsel. And Barbara Olson, Barbara
   Comstock and Laurie Taylor are here, Majority counsel for the
   Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
   
   Before you are sworn in, Mr. Nussbaum, I would like to provide you
   with some background information which concerns this investigation and
   your appearance here.
   
   As you know, pursuant to its authority under Rules 10 and 11 of the
   House of Representatives, the Government Reform and Oversight
   Committee is investigating the White House Travel Office matter.
   
   The matter has been defined by the Rules Committee report when House
   Resolution 369 was passed as referring to all events leading up to the
   May 19th, 1993, firings of the White House Travel Office employees and
   includes all information which was provided about the White House
   Travel Office and any employees of the White House Travel Office at
   any time from January 1, 1993, until the present.
   
   Our investigation also encompasses the activities of Harry Thomason,
   Darnell Martens, and Penny Sample in the White House, as well as all
   allegations of wrongdoing which concern the Travel Office employees.
   
   The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight investigation is
   reviewing all actions taken by the FBI and the Department of Justice,
   both prior to and after the firings. This includes the actions by any
   field office personnel in the FBI or DOJ, as well as any White House
   involvement in coordination or in attendance of interviews.
   
   The investigation does include but isn't limited to the investigation
   and subsequent prosecution in the United States v. Billy Ray Dale case
   and all investigations and subsequent reviews of the Travel Office
   firings -- I have another copy of our opening which I will give to
   counsel so that they can also review as I finish up this -- by any
   agency, including but not limited to the White House Management
   Review, the FBI Weldon Kennedy/I.C. Smith review, the OPR review, the
   IRS internal review, the Treasury IG report, the GAO review, as well
   as the proposed United States House of Representatives Resolution of
   Inquiry which was considered and voted on in the House Judiciary
   Committee in July of 1993.
   
   We are looking at all actions that relate to or describe the criminal
   investigations into the White House Travel Office matter which include
   any subsequent actions or activities of any kind as a result of the
   above-mentioned events by the White House, the Treasury Department,
   the IRS, the GSA, the GAO, the FBI, both Independent Counsels Mr.
   Fiske and Mr. Starr, and the Department of Justice up to the date of
   this request, unless otherwise limited.
   
   Do you understand that your answers should include all information
   which you presently have which would involve any of these subjects
   when you respond to questions that are posed?
   
   Mr. Nussbaum. My understanding is that I will respond to questions
   that are posed and answer those questions.
   
   Ms. Olson. Okay. One of the purposes for outlining our scope is in
   case a question is posed that you believe the answer would be
   nonresponsive, if it included any other investigation, or that there
   is a cutoff date, we wanted to make clear that the cutoff date is up
   to the present. And that is the purpose, just to clarify what we
   believe the scope of this investigation to be.
   
   As I stated before, the committee has been granted specific
   authorization to conduct this deposition pursuant to House Resolution
   369, which was passed by the House of Representatives on March 7,
   1996.
   
   Pursuant to our committee rule 19, which was provided to your counsel
   earlier, both Majority counsel and Minority counsel will be given an
   equal opportunity to give questions to the witness. Committee counsels
   will proceed with equal rounds of questioning, each lasting up to 1
   hour, until both counsel have completed their questioning.
   
   The only exception to this will be if a member of this committee is
   present and wishes to pose questions. If that occurs, the member will
   be afforded an immediate opportunity to pose their questions, and the
   committee counsel will then resume questioning after the members have
   completed all of their questions.
   
   You are here today voluntarily and not by subpoena; is that correct?
   
   Mr. Nussbaum. That's correct.
   
   Ms. Olson. And you understand this deposition is under oath. You will
   be allowed to confer with your attorney. If you do not understand a
   question, please tell me. I will try to rephrase the question or to
   clarify.
   
   I ask that all objections which are raised by your attorney be stated
   for the record, with the reason for the objection clearly stated. At
   that point, if there is an objection, committee Majority counsel will
   make a determination whether they believe that the objection is a
   proper objection for this deposition. If committee Majority counsel
   does not believe it's a proper objection, then we will confer with
   Minority counsel. Ultimately, if at the end of conferring, committee
   Majority counsel still believes that the objection is not proper, it
   will be presented to the chairman for a final determination. By
   agreement, the chairman has agreed that he will confer with the
   committee minority Ranking Member before making any final resolution.
   
   You will be given a 5-day time frame in which you and your attorneys
   may review this deposition once it has been transcribed to correct any
   technical problems that you perceive occurred in the transcription, as
   well as to clarify any matters that you believe need to be clarified.
   Do you understand that?
   
   Mr. Nussbaum. Yes.
   
   Ms. Olson. You are accompanied by your counsel this morning, and I ask
   at this time that you be sworn in by the court reporter.
   
   THEREUPON,
   
   BERNARD W. NUSSBAUM,
   
   a witness, was called for examination by counsel, and after having
   been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
   
   EXAMINATION BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q If you could just state your full name.
   
   Mr. Goldberg. Just if I could state something for the record. Thank
   you. The Minority does not necessarily concur in the description and
   scope as outlined by the Majority.
   
   Thank you.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q If you could just state your full name and where you are currently
   employed at this time.
   
   A My name is Bernard W. Nussbaum, N-U-S-S-B-A-U-M. I am a partner at
   the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, which is a law firm in
   New York.
   
   Q Can you please tell us a brief review of your Washington or New York
   legal history?
   
   A I graduated law school in 1961. I had a fellowship from Harvard
   University, after law school, to travel around the world, called the
   Sheldon Traveling Fellowship, from 1961 to 1962.
   
   From 1962 to 1966, I was an assistant United States attorney in the
   Southern District of New York under the leadership of Robert
   Morganthau. I spent 3 years investigating and prosecuting criminal
   cases. During that time, I was also in the United States Army from 19
   -- December '62 to May of 1963, and then served thereafter in the U.S.
   Army Reserves.
   
   In 1966, I went to what was then a new firm called Wachtell, Lipton,
   Rosen & Katz, and I have now been at that firm since 1966, other than
   certain leaves; actually, I resigned on both occasions and then
   returned for Government service.
   
   In 1974, I was senior associate special counsel to the House Judiciary
   Committee, which conducted the Nixon impeachment inquiry. I spent 9
   months doing that. I worked then with John Doar and Peter Rodino, who
   was then chairman of the Judiciary Committee. After I finished that, I
   returned to my firm, and in January of 1993, on January 20th, 1993, I
   became counsel to the President.
   
   I resigned as counsel to the President on March 5th, 1994, to take
   effect on April 5th, 1996, and I worked until about a week or so
   before April 5th, 1994, when I left the White House as counsel to the
   President and I returned to Wachtell, Lipton. My practice at Wachtell,
   Lipton has been mainly civil and criminal litigation on behalf of
   individuals, professionals, corporate entities.
   
   Q Mr. Nussbaum, during the Clinton-Gore campaign, did you at any time
   take a leave from the law firm to work on the campaign?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Okay. Prior to starting work at the White House, can you just
   describe how you obtained your position as counsel to the President?
   
   A I was acquainted and somewhat friendly with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
   She was a colleague of mine on the impeachment inquiry in 1974, which
   I mentioned. She was a junior lawyer on the staff, I was a senior
   lawyer on the staff, and we worked together, and we got to know each
   other, and we stayed in touch professionally over the years.
   
   And during the campaign, while I didn't take a leave, as I indicated
   before, I didn't spend any extensive time, I was called upon from time
   to time by people in the campaign to give advice with respect to
   certain matters that arose during the campaign, and I did.
   
   I also assisted in New York when the President, then Governor Clinton,
   came to New York. I assisted in the New York primary, in the campaign
   in New York at that time. I was trying to round up people to support
   the President and trying to round up people to contribute to the
   President. So I was to that extent involved in the campaign, although
   I was still working full-time with the firm.
   
   So I got to know people in the campaign, and of course I knew Mrs.
   Clinton. I had met Governor Clinton many years ago when -- I think
   even before she and the President were married, but I didn't really
   know him very well. And at the conclusion of the campaign, after he
   won the election, I was asked to head the Justice Department
   transition team along with Peter Edelman. We co-headed that transition
   team.
   
   A number of transition teams were set up for the various departments,
   and Pete Edelman and I headed up the Justice Department transition
   team. We had 125 lawyers, I guess, just working for us, analyzing
   various parts of the Justice Department and other related agencies,
   prepared a report, an extensive report with documentary material, so
   the new Attorney General, whoever he or she might be, would have
   material to look at to assist her in running the Department.
   
   I did that for a month or so, from early December 1992 until early
   January 1993, and then I was asked -- I received a call and was asked
   to come down to meet with the President-elect, and I did, and he asked
   me to be counsel to the President, and I accepted.
   
   Q And besides President Clinton, was there anyone else that you
   reported to in your capacity as counsel to the President?
   
   A I reported to -- I always considered myself reporting both to the
   President and to the chief of staff, Mack McLarty.
   
   Q Okay. Had you met Mack McLarty before starting at the White House?
   
   A I met Mack McLarty when I was down in Arkansas discussing possibly
   becoming counsel to the President with the President-elect at the
   time. I met Mack McLarty then.
   
   Q And prior to that period during the transition, did you have any
   relationship or friendship with Mack McLarty of any substance?
   
   A Can you repeat the question?
   
   Q I can repeat it. Prior to the transition period, where you said you
   met Mr. McLarty down in Little Rock, did you have any other previous
   relationship with Mack McLarty?
   
   A No.
   
   Q You said you were doing the DOJ transition. Did you know Web Hubbell
   before that period of the transition?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did you meet Mr. Hubbell during the transition period when you were
   helping with the DOJ activities?
   
   A I believe so. I don't quite remember when I met Mr. Hubbell.
   
   I should say, Mr. Hubbell was a partner in the Rose law firm in Little
   Rock, and he was a civil litigator, and I believe -- I had heard from
   some of my partners -- that they had met and known, not well, Mr.
   Hubbell. They had been in matters with him in the eighties.
   
   But I never ran across Mr. Hubbell during that period of time. So
   while he was acquainted to people in my firm, he wasn't really
   acquainted to me. I met him, I believe, sometime during the
   transition.
   
   Q Okay. Was he at the Department of Justice, working on any of the
   Department of Justice transition at that time, to the best of your
   knowledge?
   
   A He was not. He was not working on the Department of Justice
   transition at that time. I can't -- I don't recall him doing so. He
   was not part of our transition team. He didn't work for Edelman and I
   when we had the -- when we headed the Department of Justice
   transition.
   
   Ultimately, after the Attorney General -- ultimately, after the
   President-elect became the President, he went over to the Department
   of Justice as a special assistant for a while, and then he became
   associate attorney general. But he was not functioning on the Justice
   Department transition team.
   
   Q Okay. Was Mike Berman functioning on the Department of Justice
   transition team?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did you know Mike Berman prior to coming to this administration?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Okay. I'm going to cover an area concerning the FBI background
   files. At the beginning of the administration, can you just explain to
   us generally what actions you took concerning personnel files of
   individuals in the Clinton administration that were holdovers from
   previous administrations? And by actions you took, that you took or
   directed others to take.
   
   A I don't recall any discussions with respect to personnel files of
   holdovers from prior administrations. We put into motion in the White
   House Counsel's Office and in the White House generally a procedure
   for obtaining -- for vetting potential employees and for requesting
   FBI reports, background reports, on such potential appointees of the
   President. That was a very important function.
   
   And what I did, together with my deputy counsel, Vincent Foster at the
   time, was to see to it that we would try -- to see that we would hire
   or we would have come to the White House a person that we both had a
   great deal of confidence in to run that process. And that person was a
   former partner of Mr. Foster's and Mrs. Clinton's, William Kennedy.
   And William Kennedy was asked to come to the White House to be in
   charge of the security clearance process, the background check
   process, to run that important area.
   
   We had great confidence in Mr. Kennedy's abilities and his character
   and his intelligence and confidence, which exists to this day, and so
   what I tried to do was to make sure that I had somebody in charge of
   that process who I, you know, thought highly of. And I, you know --
   and that's why we brought Mr. Kennedy to the White House.
   
   You know, I also was aware that on the lower levels there were career
   people in the White House Security Office, Personnel Security Office,
   as well as in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret
   Service, all of whom -- some of whom, you know, would be retained, and
   they would function in accordance with procedures which historically
   existed, in accordance with procedures that were followed in prior
   administrations, in the Bush administration, the Reagan administration
   and prior administrations. And, you know, I had great trust and faith
   in the career employees, you know, to do their job in a fair manner.
   
   But I did appoint Mr. Kennedy, who in return reported to Mr. Foster,
   who in return reported to me, to be in overall charge of that process.
   
   Q Okay. You said there were certain guidelines that were established,
   and I wanted to ask you if these were guidelines -- and I am going to
   limit this to what you discussed about the new appointees. Were these
   guidelines, guidelines that had been passed on to you from previous
   White House counsel, or were these guidelines that you or you directed
   others under you to devise?
   
   A I understood that we were going to follow the procedures that
   previous White Houses followed -- White Houses followed, that we were
   doing -- following basically the same procedures that they did in both
   requesting background reports on potential appointees -- I was more
   focused on potential appointees than people who had, quote, access to
   the White House.
   
   I understood, of course, that people who had access to the White House
   would be checked out before they could come to the White House. But I
   was -- myself, I was focused more on appointees, but I believe in both
   cases, with respect to access to the White House and with respect to
   the appointment process, we were following basically the same
   procedures that prior administrations had followed.
   
   Q And one of the documents that was produced to us from the files of
   your office -- the White House Counsel's Office, was a memo from
   Boyden Gray, who had been the previous White House counsel, that
   discusses the Presidential Records Act, and one of the things that an
   administration -- this is a preview to a question that I am going to
   ask. One of the things an administration does is box up all their
   files and send it to records management at the end of the
   administration.
   
   When you came in, did anyone report to you or discuss the need for
   establishing new files on the people who were still in the White House
   from the previous administration?
   
   Mr. Mazur. Before he answers that question, could we see a copy of
   that memorandum?
   
   Ms. Olson. This is a memorandum. I will go ahead and mark it as
   Deposition Exhibit 1. It does not have a Bates stamp number. It's a
   November 5th, 1992, White House memorandum which is from Mr. C. Boyden
   Gray that's to his White House staff.
   
   [Nussbaum Deposition Exhibit No. 1
   
   was marked for identification.]
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Have you ever seen that document?
   
   Mr. Mazur. This is 1992?
   
   Mr. Goldberg. Is this from the White House, or how did we obtain this?
   
   Ms. Olson. I will look that up for you.
   
   [Pause.]
   
   The Witness. I don't recall seeing this. This was obviously before my
   time, and I don't recall seeing it. It's possible somebody showed it
   to me, but I don't recall seeing this.
   
   This is the day after the election, obviously, and it's a memorandum
   to the staff of the Executive Office of the President involving the
   disposition of presidential records, and I don't remember seeing that.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q At the beginning of the new administration, after you came in, did
   you have any discussions with Mr. Foster or others about the
   Presidential Records Act and the caretaking of the files that --
   personnel files that were being created of the new appointees?
   
   A We had a general discussion about the Presidential Records Act, Mr.
   Foster and I and one of our associate counsel, Stephen Neuwirth, who
   was sort of assigned to become familiar with the Presidential Records
   Act. That's what I recall with respect to that.
   
   Q Do you know if he created any new memorandum or memoranda for any of
   the individuals coming on board in the administration concerning the
   Presidential Records Act?
   
   A My best memory is, there may have well been such memoranda, yes.
   
   Q As you sit here today, do you recall specifically asking --
   
   A No.
   
   Q -- to create any such memoranda?
   
   A No, I don't specifically recall, but I have this vague recollection
   that there was such memoranda created.
   
   Q Okay. When you came in, did anyone come to you and discuss the fact
   that there were -- were or were not personnel files for the people
   from the previous administration?
   
   A I remember no such discussion.
   
   Q Okay. You had said that you hired Mr. Foster to -- besides other
   responsibilities, obviously to be in charge of Mr. Kennedy, and was it
   Mr. Kennedy --
   
   A I didn't say Mr. Foster. I didn't hire him to be in charge of Mr.
   Kennedy. I said we hired Mr. -- Mr. Foster and I hired Mr. Kennedy to
   be in charge of the appointments process, the appointments vetting
   process and the general security functions in the White House.
   
   Q Would Mr. Kennedy's duties also include personnel files and/or
   appointments or access for the individuals still in the White House
   from previous administrations?
   
   Mr. Mazur. Do you want to break that down into pieces?
   
   The Witness. No; I -- let me -- that is a good suggestion. You have
   run a couple of things together.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q You have just said that Mr. Kennedy's job was to determine access
   for the new appointees and the vetting of the new appointees.
   
   A That's correct.
   
   Q Did Mr. Kennedy's duties include the individuals from previous
   administrations that were remaining at the White House?
   
   A Mr. Livingstone was the head of the White House Security Personnel
   Office. Mr. Livingstone reported to Mr. Kennedy.
   
   I don't think that office technically, the White House Security
   Personnel Office, was technically part of the White House Counsel's
   Office. I think it was on a different budget, in fact.
   
   But it was clear that Mr. Livingstone, the head of that office,
   reported to Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Livingstone was responsible for White
   House security, and that includes making -- you know -- and then
   reported to Mr. Kennedy.
   
   White House security is making sure that people are not walking around
   the White House who don't have access to the White House, who would
   present a security risk to the President or the people at the White
   House. You don't want felons and drug addicts and alcoholics running
   around the White House, and so every White House has had that security
   function. Mr. Livingstone, the head of the White House Security
   Office, was in charge of that. He then reported to Mr. Kennedy.
   
   Q Who established his reporting to Mr. Kennedy, if you know?
   
   A I believe -- it is my understanding that that was -- we adopted that
   from prior administrations, that in prior administrations, the head of
   the White House Security Office, Personnel Security Office, reported
   to the Counsel's Office, in effect. And so what we were doing is, as
   we were doing in all of these situations, is really not trying to
   reinvent the wheel ourselves and not setting into motion new
   procedures but basically following the procedures that we understood
   were followed in prior administrations.
   
   Q When you came into the White House as counsel to the President, did
   you have the benefit of the advice of any prior counsels to review
   those kinds of procedures?
   
   A I met with all the prior counsels to the President -- not all. I met
   with Mr. Gray. I met with Mr. Fielding. I met with Mr. Cutler. But we
   had no specific discussion -- no discussion with respect to these
   specific procedures. We talked about more general matters.
   
   Q And that was obviously my follow-up question. Do you ever recall
   discussing personnel files and obtaining those kinds of files or --
   FBI background files procedures?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did they ever give you any documents, that you are aware of,
   concerning those topics for your use?
   
   A No.
   
   Q You mentioned Craig Livingstone. Did you hire him?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Do you know who hired Mr. Livingstone?
   
   A I presume he was hired by the Chief of Staff's Office, which was
   staffing the White House.
   
   Q Did you know him prior to him starting at the White House?
   
   A No, I did not.
   
   Q Okay. Do you know if he had any relationship with Bill Kennedy prior
   to starting at the White House?
   
   A I believe he did not. He was -- he was in place, if I recall
   correctly, prior to -- Kennedy didn't come on day one, which is
   January 20th, 1993. Kennedy came 3 weeks later, about 3 weeks later,
   if I recall correctly, because I remember Foster and I having
   discussions about how important it was getting somebody in that
   position as soon as we could, but we didn't have somebody on day one.
   So he came 3 weeks later.
   
   It's my recollection that Livingstone was already head of the White
   House Personnel Security Office. Remember, that office itself is not
   part of the White House Counsel's Office, so I didn't have any
   responsibility for staffing that office. I had responsibility for
   staffing my office.
   
   When Kennedy came, he then met Mr. Livingstone. That's my
   understanding.
   
   Q Okay. Did you have any discussions with Mr. McLarty or anyone else
   during that period concerning Mr. Craig Livingstone's background?
   
   A I recall no such discussions, no.
   
   Q Were any problems concerning his security clearance ever brought to
   your attention?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Are you aware of any criminal record or background pertaining to Mr.
   Craig Livingstone?
   
   A No.
   
   Q I have a document. I will go ahead and mark this as Deposition
   Exhibit No. 2. It is a May 12th, 1993, form that's a memorandum to the
   FBI liaison from Bernard Nussbaum. It is CGE 18298. This particular
   document is the Darnell Martens request for a name check by the FBI. I
   would just ask if you have seen this document or similar documents?
   
   [Nussbaum Deposition Exhibit No. 2
   
   was marked for identification.]
   
   Mr. Mazur. I am not sure what you mean by "similar documents."
   
   Ms. Olson. It is a form.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q And I would ask him first, have you ever seen that particular
   document?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Okay. Generally, let's look at this document without specifically
   that it's Darnell Martens' FBI investigation. Have you ever seen
   documents that would have to the FBI liaison from Bernard W. Nussbaum,
   subject FBI investigations, and then list individuals asking for
   either previous reports or name checks?
   
   A I understood that requests for background information or
   investigation -- or personnel reports -- not so much personnel
   reports. What I am talking about is FBI background checks.
   
   Q Yes, sir.
   
   A Full field investigations or even less -- or even investigations of
   a lesser scope, I always understood -- I understood at the time that
   those requests were being made in the -- under the aegis of the White
   House Counsel's Office. But I never saw the form. I never -- I never
   saw the particular form that was being used. To me, that was just a
   detail.
   
   So the answer is -- did I ever see this form before?
   
   Q With anyone's name on it?
   
   A With anyone's name on it. The answer is no, obviously, until recent
   events when the Billy Dale form became public at that time. But I
   don't ever recall seeing this form before.
   
   But I did have an understanding that when we made requests to the FBI
   for an investigation of a potential appointee, for example, which is
   what I focused on mostly, that that request was coming from the White
   House Counsel's Office.
   
   In other words, what I understood is that the White House Personnel
   Office would say -- would send a memo or other communication to the
   White House Counsel's Office, to Bill Kennedy's office and say, we are
   thinking of appointing X to a position in the Department of Commerce;
   and they will say, will you please vet him and do the appropriate
   background checks; and then Kennedy, on behalf of the White House
   Counsel's Office, through some procedure, would contact the
   appropriate agency, the FBI normally, to do the background check, and
   that was being done in the name of the White House Counsel's Office.
   
   Q Were you ever informed specifically that it was a memo with your
   name on it -- each one of these requests were being sent over from
   you?
   
   A No, I was never informed specifically there was a memo with my name
   on it, but I knew it was a memo from the White House Counsel's Office.
   
   Q Okay. On --
   
   A I understand -- I always understood that when we were following, as
   I said earlier, the traditional procedures, that what we were doing,
   in using this memo, is using a memo which was used in prior
   administrations.
   
   Q Where did you obtain that understanding?
   
   A Or we were using a similar form to that.
   
   I don't know -- by discussions with Mr. Kennedy that we were following
   the procedures followed in previous administrations.
   
   Q Okay. At any time, did Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Foster have any
   discussions with you about their limited updates of individuals who
   were still at the White House from previous administrations?
   
   A No.
   
   Q There is a section on this memorandum which says, "We request," and
   then it lists several different things that one can request from the
   FBI, and one is a full field investigation --
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q -- which you had mentioned. And the other is a limited update.
   
   What is your understanding of the difference between those two, based
   upon the information?
   
   A Well, limited update --
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Why don't you let her finish her question before you
   answer.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Based on the information you received.
   
   A "Limited update" means, to me, that there has been some sort of
   investigation in the past, that some sort of record has been created
   with respect to an individual and we wanted to update it. That's what
   it means.
   
   Q Did you have any understanding whether this would be used to update
   files for individuals from previous administrations who were remaining
   at the White House under the new Clinton administration?
   
   A I recall no discussion with anyone about updating files of people
   from previous administrations who would remain in the White House. But
   that's not -- I recall no such discussion. It doesn't surprise me that
   if we had people being held over from a prior administration, that we
   would want, with respect to those people, as well as new people coming
   into the White House, updated personnel and security files.
   
   Q Were you involved on either a day-to-day or weekly basis in any
   discussions with problems Mr. Kennedy was having concerning receiving
   the FBI clearances for the new appointees to the Clinton
   administration during the early part of 1993?
   
   A Yes, I was involved in many discussions with Mr. Kennedy. Most of my
   discussions with Mr. Kennedy were -- involved that subject matter.
   There was a 25 percent staff cut which the White House underwent after
   the Clinton White House came into being.
   
   There was a shortage of personnel in the White House to conduct a
   vetting process and to engage generally in the clearing process, and
   Mr. Kennedy was, you know, disturbed about that, and we made great
   efforts to try to get more people to be hired, to participate in this
   vetting, appointment, clearance, security process, whatever you want
   to call it, with some success.
   
   But also one of the ways it was done was, detailees were used as well,
   which we understood other administrations had also used. In other
   words, people would detail from other government agencies on a limited
   basis to come over to the White House, help the White House out with
   this process, and then go back to their agencies.
   
   Q I want to do a little follow-up on the detailees. Is it your
   understanding that these people were requested by name, the detailees
   that were coming to the White House, to help with this process?
   
   A No, that was not my understanding.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. I am not sure. Do you understand that question?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q By specific name, rather than asking for individuals to help out,
   would you call up and say, "I would like Barbara Olson to come over
   from" --
   
   A No, I don't believe so. I believe people would say can you send
   somebody over who is good, who can help out at this time. That was my
   understanding.
   
   Q Did you make any request for detailees by name, that you recall,
   during this period of the vetting?
   
   A I recall making no such request for detailees by name.
   
   Q Okay. The second page to Deposition Exhibit No. 2 was attached to
   this document when we received it, and it is CGE 18296, and it is
   called a White House Office Supplemental Information Sheet for
   Personnel Action. And it says, "To be attached to Form WHP-1." Had you
   seen those forms during the initial period where the vetting was going
   on?
   
   Mr. Mazur. I am sure somebody else would have noted this, but the
   production numbers don't run consecutively. In fact, the second page
   is two numbers before the first.
   
   Ms. Olson. That's why I gave the Bates stamp number. It was attached,
   however, when we received it. I was just making that point. It may or
   may not have originally been attached.
   
   Mr. Mazur. Right.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Do you have any knowledge about these kinds of documents?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did you ever see them attached? If not, since you had never seen the
   document that's page 1 of Deposition Exhibit No. 2, did you ever see
   this type of form ever attached to any other type of document?
   
   A No.
   
   Ms. Olson. I am going to mark this next document as Deposition Exhibit
   No. 3.
   
   [Nussbaum Deposition Exhibit No. 3
   
   was marked for identification.]
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q I would just ask you to look at that document. This document is a
   memorandum, same kind of which we have been discussing in Deposition
   Exhibit No. 2. It's to FBI liaison from Bernard W. Nussbaum, but the
   subject's name on this document, Deposition Exhibit No. 3, is Billy
   Ray Dale. It says that the White House is requesting a copy of a
   previous report, and then it is X'd and typed in that the above-named
   person is being considered for access.
   
   Have you ever seen that document before?
   
   A No, other than recently, you know, prior to these hearings --
   shortly prior -- after this incident arose, or this issue arose. But I
   didn't see it.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Why don't we make that precisely clear as to what you
   are talking about in terms of time frame. You mean within the last
   week?
   
   The Witness. Yes. I have seen this document within the last week but
   not prior to that.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Okay. The next document I am going to mark is Deposition Exhibit No.
   4, which is Bates stamped CGE 43642. It is basically the same
   document. However, it has some additional time stamp on it. It says --
   under date, it says December 20, 1993, which is on Deposition Exhibit
   No. 3. This one has December 28th at the top above the December 20th.
   
   Have you ever seen that document?
   
   A Not until the last week.
   
   Q Okay. There is a redaction on that document down in the section
   marked "Attachment." It's on both documents, and it says that
   nonresponsive material was redacted. Are you aware of any attachments
   that went over to FBI concerning Billy Ray Dale requesting this
   material -- his materials?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Do you know what nonresponsive material was redacted?
   
   A No.
   
   Q So is it your statement you have not seen this document unredacted?
   
   A That's correct.
   
   Q Do you know of any other documents that were sent out from the White
   House?
   
   Mr. Mazur. Can we just have one second?
   
   Ms. Olson. Certainly.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Are there any other documents, that you are aware of, that were sent
   out during your tenure as counsel to the President under your name
   without you reviewing them?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Can you please describe what those documents are?
   
   A There was an auto pen, for example, over at the EOB. There were many
   letters that we received that I delegated to staff people to respond
   to, and I know letters went out under my signature which I didn't see.
   They were mainly form type of things, responding to requests for
   information, responding -- but I know that happened.
   
   You know, we used to get a large amount of correspondence of sort of a
   routine nature which had to be dealt with by staff members or people
   assisting them. I had great confidence in my associate counsel, sort
   of my senior staff, to ensure that if the auto pen was used and my
   name was used, that it would be appropriate and proper.
   
   But it would be impossible for me to personally respond to everything
   and to look at everything that came into the White House Counsel's
   Office. So that's why I put a premium on getting a very able senior
   staff, and I was very satisfied with virtually all of them.
   
   So, yes, there are other documents that went out of the White House, I
   believe, under my signature, without me ever seeing them.
   
   Q And you said this was regular correspondence. Was this
   correspondence from other executive branch agencies or from individual
   citizens?
   
   A Both.
   
   Q Or is there a distinction?
   
   A Both. Both. Both.
   
   Q And who had authority to put your name on documents in the White
   House; specifically, documents that you didn't see?
   
   A Other associate counsel with respect to routine matters. Whether
   they exercised it or not, I don't know who exercised it or didn't, but
   I do know the auto pen was over there, so I do know it was being done,
   you know, but it was done under the supervision of other associate
   counsel.
   
   Q So there was not a specific person designated who had authority?
   
   A No, there was no one person designated to review, you know -- it
   went from me to the deputy counsel who sort of oversaw the other
   associate counsel. But I -- you know, but I do know the auto pen was
   there, and I do know documents went out under my signature.
   
   Q So is it your statement that all of your associate counsel would
   have some degree of authority to send out documents under your name or
   have documents signed by the auto pen under your name without you
   first reviewing them?
   
   A Yes. I say this was done -- I mean my associate counsel knew that it
   was their obligation to report back to me on anything of any -- on
   anything of any significance which they believed that I should see
   myself, personally, and I know of no document that was ever sent out
   that came back to embarrass me as a result of that, you know. I mean,
   if anything, they bent over backwards to come to me with problems and
   issues.
   
   You know, they were very diligent about reporting back to me, but for
   certain routine things or certain, you know -- after awhile, as we got
   used to each other, letters were sent out using the auto pen over my
   signature, and there may have been other -- for all I know, there may
   have been other forms such as this which we used.
   
   Q Was there any time that you ever reviewed -- I know you said you had
   not seen the form that we have marked Deposition Exhibit No. 3 or 4.
   Is there any time you reviewed forms that were being sent out under
   your name that you were not going to be looking at each and every
   page?
   
   A I don't recall one way or another whether I did that. It's possible
   that somebody -- you know, this was a very busy office. It is possible
   somebody could come to me and say, "Look, we are using these forms."
   But I have no memory of that at this point. I don't exclude that
   possibility.
   
   Q You had said that you had meetings with Mr. Kennedy, certainly
   concerning the new appointees and getting access.
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Do you recall any discussions -- and I don't mean to be repetitive,
   I just want to be clear.
   
   A Sure.
   
   Q Do you recall any discussions about holdover personnel that may have
   caused a problem or may have risen to the level of Mr. Kennedy's
   knowledge and he brought it to your attention or Vince Foster brought
   it to your attention?
   
   A No. I knew we had holdovers. In fact, one of the holdovers worked in
   my office. One of my senior secretaries was a holdover, worked in a
   prior administration. So I --
   
   Q What was her name?
   
   A Linda Tripp. So I knew we had holdovers, you know. It was
   appropriate and proper and, you know -- and I knew our security
   process would want to make sure that, just like new people, you know,
   holdovers would be, you know, properly in the White House and there
   would be no security problem with them.
   
   But I never -- but if you ask me do I remember any discussion with Mr.
   Kennedy about an issue respecting security issues, personnel issues,
   or background issues involving holdovers, the answer to that question
   is no.
   
   Q Okay. We had talked about specifically the auto pen for the routine
   matters, the matters that you felt comfortable with your associate
   counsel handling. What is your understanding of FBI background
   investigation files on individuals?
   
   A That it's a normal part of the process to conduct FBI background
   reports on individuals if there's a good reason to do it; namely, if
   they are going to be appointed to a position and they are going to --
   we want to know the background of these people who are appointed to
   something.
   
   Q Were you ever shown background FBI files or ever review any of the
   background FBI files, either for individuals that were newly coming
   into your administration --
   
   A I certainly didn't review --
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Let her finish the question.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q I was going to say, either for new individuals coming into the
   administration or holdovers?
   
   A I am certain that I never reviewed any FBI background report of a
   holdover.
   
   Q Okay.
   
   A With respect to new people coming into the administration, I do not
   believe I reviewed any FBI background report for any new individual
   coming into the administration.
   
   It is possible that with respect to somebody like the Attorney General
   or if a problem had arisen with respect to a potential candidate for
   the Secretary of Defense, that Kennedy or Foster, if Foster was still
   alive at the time, if there was an issue that arose with respect to a
   very senior candidate, after they looked at their background, they
   might have discussed it with me and might have shown me a portion of
   it. But I have no memory of that. But I -- that I think to be
   possible. As a routine matter, I certainly never looked at background
   reports. I never ever remember reading one myself, but there were
   issues with respect to certain people, very-high-level officials, not
   low-level officials. It's possible that they might have either talked
   to me about it or maybe even shown me a portion of it.
   
   Q Do you know who was regularly looking at those files and the results
   that the FBI came to concerning the new administration people?
   
   A Kennedy.
   
   Q Okay.
   
   A It's my understanding -- you should understand, because we thought
   about this, that in the prior administration, the Bush Administration,
   the deputy counsel -- I think his name was -- I forgot his name.
   Schmidts, I think.
   
   Q John Schmidts.
   
   A The Deputy Counsel's Office was right next to Boyden Gray's. He
   spent all of his time -- a lot of his time, not all of his time, but
   the major portion of his job was to review those FBI reports.
   
   What we did -- I did not want Foster to be spending virtually all of
   his time doing that, and Foster didn't want to spend all of his time
   doing that. He didn't want to play the same role that John Schmidts
   was playing. It was a very important role. I don't want to denigrate
   it. So we organized our office so that that role would be played by
   somebody that we had great confidence in his that it was his integrity
   and his intelligence and his experience, and that is Bill Kennedy.
   
   Q Do you know of any information, training, or briefing that Mr.
   Kennedy received concerning these FBI background investigations?
   
   A Mr. Kennedy is an experienced lawyer. He was the managing partner of
   a law firm in Arkansas, the Rose law firm, which is a respected and
   distinguished law firm. He had worked in Washington in the late
   seventies for a Congressman or a Senator. So he was a -- he had
   Washington experience. I knew that, and I believed he was an able and
   qualified person to perform this task.
   
   Q Did you know specifically if he had ever even seen an FBI background
   investigation before he started his job?
   
   A No, I don't know if he has ever seen -- I don't know if he did or he
   didn't. He may have. He may not have. I think he was as qualified, if
   not more qualified, than John Schmidts, who I say -- whose
   qualifications I also don't call into question.
   
   John Schmidts was a younger person who had this sensitive job as well,
   and, you know, Kennedy was clearly, in my mind, above the category of
   John Schmidts in terms of experience.
   
   I am not saying he is more intelligent than John Schmidts or anything
   like that. I think Mr. Kennedy is highly intelligent and have great
   respect for him and great regard for him, but I think he was well
   qualified to perform the job that he was asked to perform, and I think
   he performed it extremely well.
   
   Q You had mentioned that it was a sensitive job. Were you aware of the
   legal and, in fact, criminal implications involved in revealing any
   FBI background check to any individual that doesn't have authority to
   have those checks?
   
   A Yes, I was aware that there were prohibitions on, you know,
   revealing, improperly revealing, background information, Privacy Act
   considerations and other considerations.
   
   Q Do you know who vetted Mr. Kennedy for his job?
   
   A Vetted Mr. Kennedy?
   
   Q Yes.
   
   A I vetted Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Foster vetted Mr. Kennedy.
   
   Q And is that the point where you learned of his tax problems which
   subsequently became public?
   
   A No, we didn't learn of any tax problems by Mr. Kennedy, and I don't
   believe to this day that Mr. Kennedy has a tax problem that
   subsequently became public.
   
   Q I want to go back and speak specifically to Deposition Exhibit No.
   4, which is the Billy Ray Dale and the issue of other documents around
   the December period. Were you ever made aware that there were
   individuals without clearances and with no involvement in the FBI who
   were typing up these types of forms with your name on them to get
   background checks?
   
   A Repeat that question.
   
   [The reporter read back as requested.]
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. What do you mean by that, "involvement with the FBI"?
   
   Ms. Olson. They are not FBI agents or personnel.
   
   The Witness. I don't know who typed up these forms.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Did you have any general knowledge that volunteers were being
   brought in on a daily basis to sit there all day and just type up
   forms from lists they were handed in order to update FBI background
   files?
   
   A I don't know that to be a fact or not a fact.
   
   Q I was just asking if you ever were informed of that going on in the
   White House during 1993.
   
   A I had presumed -- you know, I knew somebody was putting together our
   forms, and I presumed that they were following the procedures that
   were in force in prior administrations.
   
   Q Do you know a woman named Jane Dannenour?
   
   A Who is she? I have heard that name, I think.
   
   Q She was working -- she was a holdover.
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q And working on personnel files under Craig Livingstone.
   
   A I am vaguely familiar with the name. If she walked into the room, I
   wouldn't recognize her.
   
   Q So you don't believe you had any one-on-one interaction with her?
   
   A I don't believe I had any one-on-one interaction with her. I knew
   there were people who were in the White House Security Office and
   other people who were assisting White House personnel, the White House
   personnel who -- which was Craig Livingstone and Bill Kennedy, and
   they were following procedures that had been in force in the prior
   administration.
   
   Q During your meeting with Mr. Kennedy, did he ever bring up or
   mention any problems Mr. Livingstone was having concerning personnel
   files? And this would go through the January 1994 period.
   
   A No. The only -- the problems -- the answer to that is no. I do
   remember, you know, the need for additional help in this whole
   personnel, slash, security process. I remember the conversation with
   Mr. Kennedy about that, that he needed additional help; the people
   working with him needed additional help.
   
   Q Some of the information that's been reported concerns Secret Service
   access lists. Did you ever look at any Secret Service access list
   during the period that you were White House counsel?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did you ever have any discussions about problems with Secret Service
   access lists during the period you were White House counsel?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Were you ever involved in any discussions concerning problems that
   individuals were having updating lists that they were using to obtain
   FBI personnel files?
   
   A No.
   
   Q When the administration finally was set in place, at least in the
   White House Executive Office, were there any briefings or training,
   that you recall, that you gave or directed to be given concerning the
   laws that apply to activities particular to the Executive Office of
   the President?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Okay. Can you describe -- I can break it down, but it's probably
   easier if you describe it.
   
   A You know, we made a great effort. It's tough for new administrations
   when they come in, especially a Democratic administration after 12
   years of Republican administrations and really 25 years of mostly
   Republican administrations. Since 1968 until 1992, there's only been
   one Democratic administration. There aren't a lot of Democrats who had
   a lot of White House experience because of that. And there's no
   experience that equips you to work in the White House other than
   working in the White House.
   
   And -- but we made a huge effort to hire competent people and for
   those people to educate themselves with respect to the appropriate
   practices and procedures and laws that are followed. And then we made
   an effort to educate other White House personnel and the people I
   brought in, such as Bill Kennedy I mentioned, but somebody like Beth
   Nolan who was associate counsel in charge of ethics and conflicts
   matters, which are a whole area of rules and regulations and laws that
   have grown up. So we brought people with knowledge of those rules and
   regulations. They then educated themselves further to the extent that
   they needed to, and then we had them either conduct seminars or speak
   to other White House employees with respect to those matters.
   
   And also my associate counsel, Steve Neuwirth, became familiar with a
   number of these matters. He is somebody who came with me from my law
   firm who I had confidence in. He was a highly intelligent and able
   person who worked with me on the Department of Justice transition. He
   came to the White House Counsel's Office with me, and he made it his
   business to learn certain areas, such as Presidential Records Act
   preservation of records, things like that, and he issued a series of
   memoranda to the White House staff dealing with some of these issues,
   as well as certain sensitive issues, such as contact with other
   agencies; especially, law enforcement agencies. And they were the
   subject of memorandum.
   
   We spoke to other White House counsel as to, you know, generally about
   what their procedures were, although we didn't have a lot of detail
   with respect to that, and, you know -- and we passed that on when we
   learned that.
   
   So you put good people in place. They learn the applicable rules,
   regulations, and law, and then they pass it on as appropriate, as we
   did to the other members of the White House staff. I think, overall,
   we did a pretty good job at that.
   
   Q You had mentioned Beth Nolan who was in charge of ethics. At any
   time was her job limited to reviewing financial disclosure forms? And
   by "limited" I mean, did she at any time cease to serve as an ethics
   officer and became a financial disclosure --
   
   A She never ceased to serve as an ethics officer. She was hired. She
   never ceased. She was hired. We were very concerned that the
   appropriate ethical restrictions be followed. We hired the best person
   we could find. Foster was extremely concerned about that area, as was
   I.
   
   We got Ms. Nolan to come also about 3 weeks after -- we hired Ms.
   Nolan and Mr. Kennedy about the same time, actually, after making
   strenuous efforts to get them. We knew Ms. Nolan had very good
   experience working for people at OLC and being in the academic world,
   and she was hired as the chief ethics person of the White House to
   work under me on that subject, and I was the chief ethics officer, but
   she was really the one who was acting for me, educating me and on my
   behalf, and I think she never ceased to perform that function as long
   as I was there.
   
   Now, at one point, later on, when Mr. Kennedy had his -- I think under
   Mr. Cutler, after he replaced me, her responsibilities were expanded
   to include other areas. But while I was in the White House, she never
   ceased to act as the chief ethics person, nor do I believe she ever
   ceased to act as long as she was there.
   
   Q And is it your understanding, in her capacity as the ethics person,
   that if there were an ethics issue internally with White House staff,
   would that go to Ms. Nolan as a general course?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Okay.
   
   A Can we take a break?
   
   Q Certainly.
   
   [Recess from 11:13 a.m. to 11:19 a.m.]
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q We are back on the record at -- what is it? -- 11:20.
   
   We have discussed the Billy Dale background check, and I have shown
   you the Deposition Exhibit No. 4 which has his request.
   
   Do you know if there were any other requests for documents during that
   period of time? And that would be from the beginning of your
   administration until about January, which would have included a large
   group of individuals, not only Billy Ray Dale but other individuals
   from prior administrations.
   
   Mr. Mazur. Well, from the beginning of the administration to January
   of '94?
   
   Ms. Olson. Yes.
   
   The Witness. No.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q In January or any time afterwards, up until a week ago, were you
   ever informed of a snafu or mistake that had been made in obtaining
   personnel files from prior administrations from the FBI?
   
   A No.
   
   Q It has been reported that Mr. Livingstone, in January, realized that
   a mistake had been made. Did he or anyone else contact you, or did you
   ever have any discussions regarding the mistake he has described about
   getting FBI background checks on prior administration individuals?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Would it be fair to say then that you did not direct that any prior
   background files be moved into any vault or records within the White
   House?
   
   A That would be very fair to say.
   
   Q Do you know an individual named Anthony Marceca, M-A-R-C-E-C-A?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Have you ever met him or heard of him before a week ago?
   
   A Not until the last week.
   
   Q Were you informed or told that Jane Dannenour had left the White
   House in August of 1993? And my question would include, if you weren't
   informed specifically of her name, that the person who had been in
   charge of the FBI background checks and had supervised that had
   actually left in August of 1993?
   
   A I may have been informed of that. When you first mentioned the name,
   it sort of rang some sort of bell, so I may have been informed of that
   fact.
   
   Q Okay.
   
   A But I have no specific memory of it at this point.
   
   Q And I would like to correct the record. She actually left in
   February of '93.
   
   A February of '93?
   
   Q Yes. So with that correction, had you been told that the person in
   charge of supervising the FBI personnel files on holdovers had left
   the White House in February of '93?
   
   A I may have. In my conversations with Kennedy we discussed that we
   need more people to do this stuff, but I have no recollection of
   particularly the conversation that you are referring to.
   
   Q Did you or are you aware of any conversations Mr. Livingstone had
   discussing any of the information which was contained in any FBI
   background files from prior administrations?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Prior to last week, were you ever made aware or told that someone
   was going through files to obtain derogatory information to report to
   Mr. Livingstone from FBI background files?
   
   A No.
   
   Ms. Olson. Mr. Goldberg, do you have some questions?
   
   Mr. Goldberg. Thank you. I just have a few questions.
   
   EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG:
   
   Q Mr. Nussbaum, were you ever instructed during your White House
   tenure by anyone to obtain any FBI files on individuals not employed
   at that time by the administration?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did you ever instruct anyone to obtain FBI files on individuals not
   then employed by the administration?
   
   A No, I never -- I never instructed anyone to do that, nor would I
   ever instruct anyone to do that.
   
   Q When was the first time you learned that FBI files had been obtained
   by the White House on individuals not employed by the administration?
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. When you say "employed," I assume you also mean employed
   or to be employed or --
   
   Mr. Goldberg. Employed or anyone in need of current access who may not
   technically be employed but be considered someone in need of access.
   
   The Witness. Last week.
   
   BY MR. GOLDBERG:
   
   Q To your recollection, did you have any knowledge of this during your
   tenure at the White House?
   
   A I had no such knowledge. If I had any knowledge of something like
   that, it would have been -- I would have stopped it immediately.
   
   Q Did you have any reason to believe that this had been taking place
   at the time?
   
   A I had no reason to believe it was taking place at the time.
   
   Q Do you have any reason to believe that this incident is anything but
   a bureaucratic mistake?
   
   A I have no reason to believe it's anything but a bureaucratic
   mistake.
   
   Mr. Goldberg. Thank you. That's all I have.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q The follow-up, you said you would have stopped it immediately. What
   would you have done --
   
   A I would have, you know --
   
   Q -- with the files?
   
   A If we received files of people we shouldn't have received, I would
   have had them sent back. That's what I would have done.
   
   Q And by "sent back," you mean sent back to the FBI?
   
   A Absolutely.
   
   Q If, in fact, they came from the FBI?
   
   A Absolutely.
   
   Look, what this administration intended to do and what I intended to
   do and my office intended to do was to act in a proper manner in
   accordance with the highest ethical standards. That doesn't include
   getting FBI background reports on individuals who are not employed by
   the White House or to be employed or who need access to the White
   House.
   
   And I would have, you know -- if I would have known people were doing
   that, even inadvertently, as I believe it was done in this case, I
   would have stopped it and I would have had the files sent back. That's
   right. That's what I would have done.
   
   Q Based upon your experience as counsel to the President, do you see
   any reason why such files would be put in a vault and kept for a year?
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Such files?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Files, the files which allegedly were reported by the White House to
   have been put in a vault.
   
   The Witness. I don't know why they were put in a vault for a year and
   kept for a year. If in fact -- the answer is, I don't know.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Okay.
   
   A I just don't know.
   
   Q Do you know a person named Harry Thomason?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Okay. Can you just tell us when you first met Mr. Thomason?
   
   A I met him -- I met him after I became counsel to the President, and
   I saw him on very few occasions in the White House.
   
   Q When did you first become aware that Mr. Thomason was being
   investigated by the Justice Department regarding conflicts of
   interest?
   
   A I have never become aware that Mr. Thomason was being investigated
   by the Justice Department regarding conflict of interest. I am aware
   that Mr. Thomason -- that there is a Travel Office investigation going
   on in the Justice Department and Mr. Thomason's role, or purported
   role, or alleged role, is the subject of that investigation, but I
   don't recall now any other investigation about conflict of interest
   involving Mr. Thomason.
   
   Q Okay. Let me just take then the Travel Office investigation. When
   did you first become aware that Mr. Thomason was one of the
   individuals that was being looked at by the Department of Justice
   Public Integrity Section?
   
   A Well, I guess I became -- when you say "being looked at," I don't
   want to quibble with words. I mean, Mr. Thomason's role, Mr.
   Thomason's conduct, just like everybody else's conduct, including my
   conduct, is, you know, being looked at.
   
   I know that because people came and asked me -- an investigation
   began. We were told that an investigation would begin into the Travel
   Office matter. People came in and interviewed me from the Justice
   Department and, you know, so I became generally aware that they were
   interested in this matter and they were looking into this matter, both
   what the people in the Travel Office did or didn't do, Mr. Dale and
   others, as well as what people at the White House did or didn't do
   with respect to the Travel Office. I just knew that investigation was
   going on.
   
   Q You did not have any idea that the Justice Department was
   specifically looking at the activities of Mr. Harry Thomason in the
   White House, apart from --
   
   A Apart from the Travel Office?
   
   Q Apart from the actual firings and what information he may have had
   about the firings.
   
   Mr. Mazur. Let her finish.
   
   The Witness. They were looking into his role -- the management review,
   which came out in July 2nd, you know, contains a whole chronology and
   series and report of events involving the Travel Office and mentions,
   you know, Mr. Thomason and what -- you know, lists certain things that
   -- events and conversations that he played a role in. I knew that was
   being looked into by the Justice Department.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Did you know that they were looking to determine whether he was a
   Special Government Employee at any time?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q When did you become aware that Mr. Thomason --
   
   A Well, the travel -- the Management Review, I think, discusses that
   issue as well. That was clearly an issue also as to whether --
   
   Q My question is: When did you become aware, if you recall, when the
   Department of Justice Public Integrity Section was looking at the
   activities of Harry Thomason in the White House, which would include
   Special Government Employee status?
   
   A I became aware that the Department of Justice was looking into the
   Travel Office situation, and I became aware they were looking into Mr.
   Thomason in connection with that situation, and I became aware that
   they were looking into the question of whether he might or might not
   be a Special Government Employee in connection with the Travel Office
   matter.
   
   Q When?
   
   A At about the time the Justice Department announced that it was
   investigating, publicly announced. This was all public, publicly
   announced; it was looking into the Travel Office.
   
   Q Were you ever made aware of the fact that Mr. Thomason's lawyers had
   contacted Cliff Sloan in July of 1993 to get White House documents on
   Mr. Thomason?
   
   Mr. Mazur. Can I have that again, please?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Were you ever made aware of the fact that Harry Thomason's lawyers
   allegedly contacted -- contacted Cliff Sloan around July of 1993 in an
   effort to obtain documents concerning Mr. Thomason?
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. What is "around July of 1993"? Do you have a date?
   
   Ms. Olson. No, I do not. I have a July 1993 date. I don't -- if it's
   end of June, first of August, not to just limit myself to July.
   
   The Witness. I understand. I know the White House was at some point,
   presumably in that period responding -- look, I knew there was an FBI
   investigation going on with respect to the Travel Office. That was
   publicly announced when the Travel Office people were fired in May of
   1993.
   
   I knew that investigation had expanded, because I was interviewed and
   I was told that as part of the interviews, expanded not only to an
   investigation of what the Travel Office people did or didn't do, but
   as to what other people did or didn't do in connection with the
   firings and, you know -- and other activities involving the Travel
   Office.
   
   You know, I knew that. I knew we were -- Cliff Sloan was the person in
   my office at the time who was assisting as one of my associate
   counsel, who I had confidence in, who was assisting in responding to
   inquiries, Department of Justice inquiries, primarily.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q How about inquiries from Harry Thomason's lawyers? Were you aware of
   any such inquiries to Cliff Sloan?
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. I don't think he finished his answer.
   
   Ms. Olson. I am trying to get on point. I am going to be here for 3
   days at this point.
   
   I don't want to cut you off, Mr. Nussbaum, but I really do want to get
   to the point so we can move on.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. We were moving along, and he was responding.
   
   The Witness. In this one, I think I was going to try to respond. I was
   trying to put it a little bit in context.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Yes, sir.
   
   A I was aware -- Cliff Sloan was the person in my office in charge of
   responding and working with me in responding to the FBI inquiries and
   the Department of Justice inquiries.
   
   It may well be, in connection with that -- since Harry Thomason
   obviously was also going to be questioned, it may well be that Cliff
   Sloan could have been in touch with a lawyer for Harry Thomason in
   order to gather facts to respond to government inquiries.
   
   Lawyers often -- we, the White House, were responding to inquiries.
   Harry Thomason had a lawyer. He was responding to inquiries. Lawyers
   who are responding to inquiries normally call each other, talk to each
   other, you know, gather facts so they can respond completely and fully
   and truthfully and accurately to government inquiries.
   
   It may well be in that connection a lawyer for Harry Thomason was in
   touch with Cliff Sloan. It wouldn't surprise me. There's nothing wrong
   with it, nothing improper. But if you ask me if I have any memory of
   it today, the answer is no. If you show me a document, it might
   refresh my memory.
   
   Q I would like to limit all of my questions not to things that are
   possible and that are likely and that you believe might be true. I
   would like to have any specific knowledge that you have about these
   questions. And if you believe it is a possible and an appropriate
   thing to do, I would like to just limit my questions to what you know
   that did, in fact, happen so that we don't have other possibilities
   entered into this deposition.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. I think you may create a very misleading record if
   that's all you do in asking your questions, because the witness ought
   to be in a position to clarify the record and make clear when
   something might likely have happened.
   
   Ms. Olson. And I do not mind a clarification, but we are all aware
   that anything is possible. Mr. Nussbaum is an attorney, and we are all
   attorneys at this table. Everything under the sun is possible to have
   happened.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. That's not true. That's entirely incorrect.
   
   The Witness. That's not true.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. It is not possible that everything happened. That's not
   true.
   
   Ms. Olson. Well, it is not serving the purpose of a deposition if I
   cannot have the recollection and the actual recollection of Mr.
   Nussbaum.
   
   The Witness. You will have my recollection.
   
   Ms. Olson. Thank you.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Did you ever speak to Mr. Thomason's lawyers at the -- while you
   were at the White House?
   
   A Who are his lawyers?
   
   Q He had Carl Rauh, and then he had Bob Bennett.
   
   A I have spoken to Bob Bennett. I don't ever remember speaking to Bob
   Bennett about Harry Thomason.
   
   Q Okay. Do you recall ever having any conversations with any lawyers
   outside the White House concerning Harry Thomason or Darnell Martens?
   
   A I have no recollection. It may have happened, but I have no
   recollection. I have spoken to lawyers for people who -- you know, who
   were responding to Government inquiries.
   
   Q Do you have any recollection of Cliff Sloan talking to you about a
   request that White House documents be turned over to Harry Thomason's
   lawyers?
   
   A I have no such recollection, but it may have happened. And again, if
   there's a document or a note, it helps. If I look at it, it refreshes
   me.
   
   You may not have such a document. I am not saying you do. I am not
   saying you are withholding it or anything like that, but, you know,
   right now I have no recollection of that.
   
   Q Okay. You said it may have happened. As White House counsel, did you
   ever take a position that White House documents could be shared with
   outside lawyers for individuals who were being investigated?
   
   A It depends on the documents you are talking about. Obviously, there
   are certain sensitive, confidential documents that can't be shared.
   There are other documents that may well be shared.
   
   Q If a document is not of a confidential or privileged category, is it
   your position that you -- that the White House counsel could share
   documents with outside attorneys?
   
   A It depends on the document. It depends on the document you are
   talking about. You have got to give me a particular document.
   
   Yeah, I think the White House counsel can share the contents of
   documents with outside attorneys if it's -- if there's no prohibition
   -- if there's no particular, I don't know, sensitivity or, you know,
   we are responding to, you know, invest -- investigators, congressional
   investigators or other investigators, you know, will ask questions,
   and people are trying to do their best to answer the questions
   truthfully and accurately. And if there's a document that helps in
   that process, I see no problem with the White House counsel sharing
   that document or knowledge of that document with outside counsel.
   
   On the other hand, there are certain kinds of documents that are
   obviously very sensitive that it's hard for me to imagine sharing a
   sensitive, secret CIA report with outside counsel or sharing some
   background investigation of somebody and say, "Here, take a look at
   this background investigation." Obviously that document, no. But
   another kind of document, a policy statement that the White House
   issued or something else, sure, you can share that with outside
   counsel.
   
   Q You said you had seen Harry Thomason a few times at the White House.
   What was your understanding of Mr. Thomason's activities at the White
   House?
   
   A Well, he was a -- my understanding was, he is a close personal
   friend of the President and Mrs. Clinton's. He is a dear friend of
   theirs, and he assisted them. He was -- he assisted them in staging
   events during the campaign. He assisted them greatly, I understood, in
   conducting a very successful Inaugural, and he also, I understood, was
   assisting in -- after the campaign -- after the President became
   President, after he took office, in also determining how best to stage
   certain kinds of events for the President. He has that kind of talent.
   He is in show business.
   
   Q Do you know who was responsible for approving or -- do you know if
   anyone was responsible for approving Mr. Thomason to come to the White
   House?
   
   A No, I -- I don't know who was responsible for approving Mr. Thomason
   coming to the White House. He is a good friend of the President's.
   Good friends of the President can come to the White House. They have
   to be checked out, you know, just like anybody else. Nobody can walk
   into the White House without a name check or some background check of
   some sort. He can have access.
   
   I presume either the President, Mrs. Clinton or Mack McLarty did it,
   probably McLarty.
   
   Q Were you involved in any requests for his pass or his access to the
   White House?
   
   A I don't remember personally being involved in that. But my office
   may have been. Beth Nolan may have been. Bill Kennedy may have been.
   
   Q Do you recall any discussions concerning his access to the White
   House or what type of access he should be allowed to the White House?
   
   A I may have had such discussions, but at this time, 3 years later, I
   don't recall any specific discussions.
   
   Q Do you know who, if anyone, Mr. Thomason reported to officially
   while he was at the White House?
   
   A I don't know if he reported -- I don't know who he reported to
   officially. I don't believe he reported to anybody officially. I
   believe he was a friend and an advisor to the President and to the
   First Lady, and I believe he dealt with them and he dealt with other
   aides, other presidential aides.
   
   Q Did you ever review his status during the initial period, before --
   let's say, before July, 1993, at the White House?
   
   A Actually, I believe in the middle of 1993, around July, you know, we
   started taking a hard look at the various categories of people who had
   access to the White House, you know, what categories they fell into,
   you know, what procedures should be followed with respect to them,
   what legal laws and regulations applied to them, particularly
   financial disclosure regulations and conflict-of-interest regulations.
   
   I believe Beth Nolan and others, but particularly Beth, worked on
   that, and I think Thomason fell within that ambit.
   
   RPTS STEIN
   
   DCMN MAYER
   
   [11:40]
   
   Q Was there any particular occurrence or event that precipitated that
   review?
   
   A I guess the -- the answer is, I don't remember at this point, but
   obviously that was after the Travel Office firings and the whole issue
   of Thomason's role in that and then, what was he doing in the White
   House. That may have been one of the precipitating factors, but right
   now I have no memory of that.
   
   Q Did there come a time where you reviewed Mike Berman's activities at
   the White House?
   
   A I knew Mike Berman. He was also a friend and advisor to the
   President and the First Lady. Mike Berman was a former counsel to Vice
   President Mondale and one of the few Democrats who was experienced in
   White House matters, and therefore was a trusted friend and advisor to
   the First Lady, the President and to other people in the White House.
   
   Q At any time did you order any review of his status to see whether
   Mr. Berman should be classified as a Special Government Employee while
   he was acting in that capacity to the President and First Lady.
   
   A I don't recall doing so.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. In that capacity you meant--
   
   Ms. Olson. As described by Mr. Nussbaum.
   
   The Witness. It may have happened. I just don't remember.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q During the Department of Justice days when you were over there, did
   you know a Janice Sposato?
   
   A I don't believe so. What did she do?
   
   Q She is now general counsel at the Department of Justice, and I
   believe she used to handle ethics matters at Department of Justice.
   
   A It sounds vaguely familiar, but I don't believe I knew her.
   
   Q Did there ever come a time when you were aware that the Justice
   Department had designated Mr. Berman as a Special Government Employee
   before he came to the White House to -- before he came to the White
   House to give, as you described, informal advice to the President and
   First Lady?
   
   A No. I don't remember knowing that, if it happened.
   
   Q I believe Mr. Berman was at the Department of Justice advising Web
   Hubbell. Did you have any conversations about his status during the
   period he was at the Department of Justice advising Web Hubbell?
   
   A I don't know whether he was at the Department of Justice advising
   Web Hubbell. I am sure he knew Web Hubbell and talked to Web Hubbell.
   Web Hubbell was a friend of the President and an advisor, too.
   
   Q I believe this advice occurred during the period of Mr. Hubbell's
   confirmation.
   
   A I see. Yes. I thought you were talking about after he was the
   Associate Attorney General.
   
   He actually was at the Department of Justice even before he was
   Associate Attorney General. Now that you refresh my recollection, I
   believe Mr. Berman -- we put together teams when people were of a
   confirmation proceedings, especially if it was anything more than pro
   forma, and there were, unfortunately, many more than pro forma; so we
   put together teams and we tried to put experienced people to lead
   those teams.
   
   Mr. Berman helped us in that process and probably helped us with
   respect to the Web Hubbell confirmation proceedings. He headed up or
   was on the team that assisted Mr. Hubbell in the confirmation process.
   
   Q Were you aware that during that period he was designated as a
   Special Government Employee at the Department of Justice?
   
   A No, I was not aware. If it was the appropriate thing to do, then I
   am happy it was done.
   
   Q After Mr. Hubbell's confirmation, when he began coming to the White
   House, did anyone look at his status at that point, whether or not he
   was going to be a Special Government Employee for purposes of the
   White House and his activities there?
   
   A They may have. I am not sure.
   
   Q Did you direct anyone?
   
   A I don't recall directing anyone to look at his status.
   
   Q Was anyone responsible for looking at the status of individuals who
   were in the White House as informal advisors to the President?
   
   A Sometime in the middle of '93 we tried to set up procedures to --
   you know, the legal issues were analyzed, ethical issues were
   analyzed; we tried to put a set of procedures to deal with that issue.
   
   Q Before the new procedures were set up in July of 1993, before that,
   was anyone responsible for looking at the status of individuals who
   were coming into the White House on an informal basis to advise the
   president, First Lady and/or others in the administration?
   
   Mr. Mazur. Could we hear the question read back?
   
   [The reporter read back as requested.]
   
   The Witness. That was always -- it may have been -- I don't precisely
   recall the date of the new procedures, but that was always an issue
   for the White House Counsel's Office. We were aware of it from January
   20, and certainly from the day Beth came on board, that this was an
   issue; and we always had our eyes open with respect to this matter.
   
   This was, I believe, part of our responsibility, the White House
   Counsel's Office responsibility, my responsibility and Beth Nolan's
   responsibility.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Was anything done concerning Mr. Berman before July to look into his
   status?
   
   A I don't recall whether anything was done with respect to Mr. Berman
   because I don't know that we believed anything had to be done with
   respect to Mr. Berman prior to July.
   
   Q Was a review made to determine that nothing needed to be done with
   respect to Mr. Berman?
   
   A I don't recall now one way or the other.
   
   Q I would like to ask you the same question about Harry Thomason.
   
   Do you know if a review was made of Mr. Thomason prior to July of 1993
   to determine whether anything needed to be done about his status?
   
   A I don't recall one way or another whether it was done. It may have
   been.
   
   Q Was there any individual in the White House during this July '93
   period that you recall was reviewed to determine their informal status
   at the White House?
   
   A I don't recall at this time.
   
   Q Do you have any information or any knowledge of Harry Thomason's
   office space in the White House during this January to July period of
   1993?
   
   A I just don't have a memory right now about that.
   
   You know, now the problem is trying to figure out when you learned
   something. I had heard that Harry Thomason was allowed the use of an
   office, or sharing an office, in the East Wing at one point in time. I
   don't remember when I learned that.
   
   He was allowed use of a telephone in somebody's office. I learned it
   at some time, but I don't know which period I learned it.
   
   Q During the period that you were Counsel to the President, did you
   know if Mr. Thomason had brought in an assistant to help him at the
   White House in his activities?
   
   A I don't remember that.
   
   Q Did you know during that same period if Mr. Thomason had a dedicated
   phone line in the White House?
   
   A I had heard about Mr. Thomason either having access to somebody
   else's phone or maybe having his own phone. I don't remember when I
   heard that.
   
   Q Do you know the proximity of Mr. Thomason's office space that he had
   in the White House during this period to the First Lady's East Wing
   offices?
   
   A I don't know what the proximity was.
   
   Q Were you ever informed --
   
   A The East Wing is not very large. Everything is proximate to
   something else, both in the West and East Wings. If you have access to
   the East Wing, or access to an office in the East Wing, or are using
   somebody else's office, you would be close to the First Lady in the
   East Wing. If you are using the West Wing, you will be close to the
   First Lady and President in the West Wing.
   
   Q Do you have any knowledge, or were you aware of the reporting of
   Harry Thomason in the White House?
   
   A The reporting --
   
   Q The stated reporting chain of Harry Thomason in the White House?
   
   A I have no knowledge of Harry Thomason being in any reporting chain
   in the White House.
   
   Q Did anyone ever inform you, or were you aware that Mr. Thomason's
   pass information said that he reported directly to the President?
   
   A No. I don't remember anybody informing me of that fact, if it is a
   fact.
   
   Q Did you have any conversations with the President concerning Mr.
   Thomason's activities at the White House at any time?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did you have any conversations with the First Lady concerning Mr.
   Thomason's activities at the White House, either formally or
   informally?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did you have any knowledge of Mr. Thomason's contact with the
   President and First Lady during the period he was at the White House?
   
   A Yes. I just knew he was in the White House. I met him. I met him as
   he was walking through the halls. I met him at social events. We
   chatted with each other. He was a friend and advisor to the President,
   so I was aware of his contacts with the President and the First Lady.
   I assumed there was nothing wrong or improper about it.
   
   Q Were there any specific issues, other than those you described,
   about the imaging work he was doing, that you knew he was in contact
   with the President and/or the First Lady?
   
   A He may have been in contact on other things, too, but that is what I
   remember at this point. I do remember at some point his name came up
   when a hard focus was done on who is a Special Government Employee and
   who is not. When we were focusing on those issues, I remember he was
   included with the people we looked at with respect to that and tried
   to reach conclusions about as to whether he was a Special Government
   Employee.
   
   Beth was a superbly competent person who was tasked -- a word I hate
   to use, one of which -- to do that, and I think she did some
   preliminary analysis with respect to that issue.
   
   Q Did you discuss her analysis of that issue concerning Harry Thomason
   or others with the President and/or First Lady?
   
   A I never discussed it with the President or First Lady. I discussed
   it with Beth.
   
   Q Do you have any knowledge of a memorandum Mr. McLarty sent to White
   House staff concerning Harry Thomason's activities at the White House?
   
   A Do you have a copy? I would have to take a look.
   
   Mr. Mazur. I am not sure what she is referring to.
   
   The Witness. I have to look at it.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Do you recall ever specifically seeing a memorandum?
   
   A Vaguely, yes. That is why I would have to see it. I saw a lot of
   memorandums when I was in the White House.
   
   Q We don't have the memorandum, so acting on your memory --
   
   A I have a vague recollection of a memorandum --
   
   Mr. Mazur. You don't possess it, or you don't have it here?
   
   Ms. Olson. I don't possess it. But we have vague recollections of a
   memorandum, which is why I am asking if Mr. Nussbaum has more than a
   vague recollection, so that I can get more information.
   
   The Witness. You and I share a similar vague recollection.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Do you know what an entity called the Hope Foundation is? And this
   would be, to put it in a context for you, with the PIC funds,
   Presidential Inaugural Commission?
   
   A I know there was a Presidential Inaugural Commission, I know they
   raised money and put on a successful inauguration. They had their own
   offices and general counsel and things like that, I know that. I don't
   know what the Hope Foundation is.
   
   Does this come from the place called Hope?
   
   Q I think that is the basis of the name.
   
   A It is the kind of thing I probably would have heard of, I guess,
   then, but I have no memory of it right now.
   
   Q Are you aware of any discussions with you concerning the propriety
   of taking PIC funds to use to hire extra White House staff after the
   25 percent cut?
   
   Mr. Mazur. This is something within the scope of the Travel Office?
   
   Ms. Olson. Yes. Harry Thomason was involved in PIC. He was on the
   board. So was Mike Berman. It was an issue.
   
   The Witness. Yes. I have some recollection.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Did you perform any legal analysis or any advice --
   
   A Vince Foster and I discussed it; and I remember sometime, because,
   you know, there was some discussion between Foster and I as to whether
   or not it would be possible to use, you know, funds left over from the
   inaugural to deal with the need for help in the White House, staff
   help and other help; or for other kinds of things, equipment or things
   the White House needed.
   
   All I remember -- and this is vague -- I remember Foster said he would
   look into it, he would do whatever legal analysis was necessary to do.
   I don't remember any conclusions being reached at this point. Some
   conclusions may have been reached, and it may be reflected in
   documents, but I do remember having that discussion with Vince Foster
   about PIC.
   
   Q This is a March 181993 memorandum to Ricki Seidman from Vince
   Foster. I will mark it Deposition Exhibit 5. It is Bates-stamped CGE
   38441.
   
   [Nussbaum Deposition Exhibit
   
   No. 5 was marked for identification.]
   
   The Witness. I don't recall seeing this memo, but one of the --
   obviously this is a memo from Foster to Seidman, who was in charge of
   scheduling, and one of the cc's is to Cheryl Mills, who is another
   Associate Counsel, another able person on my staff, who was dealing
   with these kinds of issues -- travel, scheduling, things like that.
   And so I would not be surprised if Foster worked with her in trying to
   analyze the legal issues with regard to this matter of using PIC funds
   or any other outside funds for these purposes.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q It says in that memo that Berman was preparing a legal analysis for
   the White House on the issue of using outside funds. Were you aware of
   any requests from Mr. Berman to prepare a legal analysis on that
   topic?
   
   A Was I aware? No.
   
   Am I surprised? No, because Berman is a lawyer, he is a lawyer now,
   has experience in a prior Democratic White House as counsel to the
   Vice President and it is a way of getting help from people on the
   outside to see if they can do a legal analysis.
   
   It is ultimately our responsibility. We can't accept it because
   somebody does a legal analysis. It is like calling a former Republican
   Counsel to the President, saying, give me your ideas on something, or
   do a legal analysis on something, and I will make a judgment whether I
   want to accept it or not or do further legal analysis.
   
   But do I remember now being aware of it at the time? The answer is no.
   
   Was I aware of it at the time? I may have been. Foster and I, our
   offices were right next to each other. We were in constant contact
   with each other.
   
   Q Was there anyone in your office who would review Mr. Berman's
   lobbying activities at the White House to determine whether his
   preparation of legal analysis for the White House posed a conflict of
   interest?
   
   A I don't believe --
   
   Q Were you aware of Mr. Berman lobbying at the White House?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Were you aware of any meetings he had with Bruce Lindsey to lobby
   for aircraft clients during the time he was at the White House?
   
   Mr. Mazur. Could we have the question read?
   
   [The reporter read back as requested.]
   
   The Witness. No.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Was there anyone at the White House designated to review that type
   of activity to see if there was a conflict of interest?
   
   A I don't know if there was any such activity. Conflicts of interest
   and ethics were in the purview of the White House Counsel's Office. We
   would be in charge of reviewing such things if such things happened.
   
   Q Were you aware that he was a lobbyist by profession?
   
   A Yes. I was aware that he was working for a lobbying firm headed by a
   prominent Republican.
   
   Q Were you aware that that was at the same time that he was providing
   informal advice in the White House?
   
   A That is correct. I was aware that he was in a lobbying firm at the
   same time he was advisor to the President -- not advisor to the
   President. He was a friend and advisor to people in the White House.
   
   Q Was there any procedure that you set up whereby Mr. Lindsey would
   seek advice or legal rulings if individuals came to lobby him, that he
   might have questions about?
   
   A We promulgated appropriate ethical conflict of interest and
   financial disclosure rules, and we disseminated that, both orally and
   I believe in writing, to people in the White House.
   
   Q Would that have been prior to July of 1993, or after July of 1993?
   
   A It would have been -- you show up in January and it takes a little
   time to, you know, start doing things. We were doing it from Day One.
   We were highly conscious from Day One of ethical constraints,
   financial disclosure requirements and conflict of interest
   requirements; and yes, the answer is yes, we were doing it prior to
   July of '93. It became more formal and more extensive as time went on,
   which is logical, but we were doing it from Day One.
   
   Ms. Olson. I have a document I will mark Deposition Exhibit 6,
   Bates-stamped CGE 38442. It is on note paper of Vince Foster to Cheryl
   Mills and says, "This looks like your area. Keep me posted." I believe
   it is signed "Vince."
   
   The next page is a memo to Vince Foster, cc to John Podesta, from
   Marsha Scott concerning the subject of financing of correspondence
   projects.
   
   [Nussbaum Deposition Exhibit
   
   No. 6 was marked for identification.]
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q My question is, have you ever seen that document, the two pages, one
   or the other page?
   
   A No, I don't recall seeing it. I may have, but I don't recall seeing
   it.
   
   It is a good example of what I was talking about before, how conscious
   people were -- throughout the period, people were always coming and
   asking, is this right, can we do this or that; and Vince Foster,
   Cheryl Mills, Beth Nolan, a number of people on the White House staff
   were always very conscious of these problems and issues and trying to
   provide the best advice they could give with respect to this.
   
   Ultimately, as time went on, we made it more and more formal.
   
   But the answer is, no, I don't remember seeing this.
   
   Q And that conscientiousness also included people's status as Special
   Government Employees?
   
   A Yes, that was part of it.
   
   Beth was very conscious of that issue. She and I talked about that
   issue, she wrote memoranda on that issue, we did factual analysis of
   that issue, and we made judgments as we went along.
   
   Q Did there come a time when you learned about an imaging project memo
   that Mr. Thomason was working on at the White House?
   
   A About the project or the memo?
   
   Q The memo.
   
   A I don't recall ever learning about the memo. If there is a memo and
   you show me the memo, it might or might not refresh my recollection.
   
   Q This will be Deposition Exhibit Number 7. It is CGE 1461. It is
   entitled White House Project.
   
   [Nussbaum Deposition Exhibit
   
   No. 7 was marked for identification.]
   
   The Witness. Do you know when this was done?
   
   Mr. Mazur. The question is whether you have looked at it and do you
   recall having seen it.
   
   The Witness. I don't recall having seen it, but I recall discussions
   about some of the issues in it. I don't recall having seen the memo
   specifically.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Do you recall discussions concerning the production of that document
   to other investigators?
   
   A No. I don't know what time frame you are talking about.
   
   Q This would have been probably after, certainly after May 19, 1993,
   and throughout your tenure in the White House until you left in '94.
   
   A There was always issues about production of documents and what is
   proper or what is not proper, what is privileged or what is not
   privileged. I don't recall any discussions about the production of
   that document. It is possible it took place, but I just don't recall.
   Not everything is possible, but some things are possible.
   
   Q Can you just tell us what information, what discussions you had
   regarding the Harry Thomason documents that the Public Integrity
   Section was seeking to obtain?
   
   A I don't remember any discussions right now about that. Again, it is
   possible I was involved in such discussions, but I don't remember.
   
   Q There was a period leading up to November of 1993 when the FBI and
   Department of Justice signed an agreement with your counsel that they
   could see Harry Thomason's documents, couldn't copy them, couldn't
   take notes. Do you recall that agreement that was reached?
   
   A Cliff Sloan or Neil Eggleston?
   
   Q Yes.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Those are members of the White House Counsel's Office,
   associate counsel?
   
   The Witness. Yes. I remember an agreement about people coming over to
   look at documents, but I remember such an agreement, I believe, with
   respect to the GAO. I don't remember any such agreement with respect
   to the Department of Justice or the FBI. But it is possible that such
   an agreement was made.
   
   We were concerned then and I was concerned about, you know, privilege
   issues, about -- not only attorney-client and work product, but
   executive privilege issues, and I think it is a sensitive area. I am
   not saying other institutions, such as the Congress certainly, and
   such as the Department of Justice or the executive branch, don't have
   legitimate needs.
   
   So you have to try to balance those things out, and what we were
   trying to do is balance those things out so people could have access
   to the information they needed without unnecessarily waiving privilege
   or confidentiality and setting unfortunate precedents.
   
   Q I want to limit this to the Harry Thomason documents that were being
   sought, and one of the documents that was finally shown to the
   Department of Justice and FBI agents was this imaging project
   document.
   
   Do you have recollection of discussions concerning privilege issues
   over Harry Thomason's White House project document?
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. That specific document?
   
   Ms. Olson. Yes.
   
   The Witness. I have no recollection at this time of any such
   discussions.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Do you have any recollection of any discussions over Harry
   Thomason's documents generally and whether they had privileges
   attached to them?
   
   A There may have been such discussions, but I have no recollection of
   them at this time.
   
   I must say that if my staff, such as Cliff Sloan or Neil Eggleston,
   participated in such a discussion, it is highly likely with respect to
   an issue like that they would come to me and discuss it with me --
   just our practice. I just don't remember that happening at this time.
   It may have or may not have.
   
   They may have more direct memory. I don't think they would take
   positions on privilege issues with respect to Harry Thomason documents
   without coming to me at some point with respect to that matter.
   
   Q Did you ever direct anyone in your office not to turn over documents
   concerning Harry Thomason or Darnell Martens to the Public Integrity
   Section for any purpose?
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. What does "for any purpose" mean?
   
   Ms. Olson. I mean whether he validly thought they were nonresponsive,
   they were privileged, or for any purposes. I want to include
   nonresponsive purposes.
   
   The Witness. Again, issues of production dealt with by associate
   counsel, if they were involved in those issues, I just don't remember
   that at this point. I remember the investigation involving Harry
   Thomason and Darnell Martens, but I don't remember issues of the White
   House producing documents with respect to right now.
   
   If that did arise and Sloan or Eggleston dealt with it, that is
   something that would come to me. I would be surprised if they did
   anything with respect to that without talking to me.
   
   I don't remember that happening right now, if there was a document or
   testimony by them with respect to this thing; but right now I have no
   memory of discussing Thomason, Darnell Martens -- production of those
   documents.
   
   Q Just as a general background, there were requests for Harry
   Thomason's documents. They did go to Neil Eggleston and two documents
   were found after a signed statement was proffered to Mr. Eggleston,
   signed by Mr. Goldberg, who was the prosecutor at the Department of
   Justice, as well as FBI agents that they would only look at the
   documents, take no notes, make no copies.
   
   One of the two documents was the White House project which we have
   marked as a deposition exhibit. My question is whether you recall
   specifically putting those limitations on documents authored by Harry
   Thomason.
   
   A The answer is, if in fact that happened -- and I have no reason to
   disbelieve what you are saying now -- if in fact that happened and
   Neil Eggleston worked out that agreement with the Department of
   Justice with respect to how they should see those documents, I would
   have been involved with it. I don't remember it right now, but I would
   have been involved. Eggleston would not make such an agreement or take
   such a position without discussing it with me.
   
   Q Then I will move on, if you have no present recollection.
   
   A I don't have any present recollection.
   
   Q My only follow-up is the basis for the decision, but if you have no
   present recollection, I assume you can't tell me the basis of a
   decision to not allow the Department of justice prosecutor or FBI
   agents to have those documents.
   
   A I had a number of general discussions during this period with
   Eggleston about production of documents, production of privileged
   material, and there are real issues about work product, about
   attorney-client, but also about executive privilege -- you know,
   presidential documents, documents that are used to advise the
   President, to assist the President in policy-making, there are issues
   as to whether they are covered by executive privilege, whether the
   White House should try to keep those things confidential in order to
   enable it to better function.
   
   There are real serious issues about that, and we believed that
   executive privilege applied not only vis-a-vis Congress, but there are
   legitimate issues, although we could dispute this, as to whether it
   applies vis-a-vis other executive agencies such as the Department of
   Justice. On the other hand, there was a reluctance, just because
   Justice comes and says I want to see all documents that Harry Thomason
   sent to the President, if that is what Justice wants to see, turn it
   over to them. There were legitimate executive privilege issues that we
   were trying to grapple with.
   
   On the one hand, we want to assist Justice in conducting their
   investigation. No one wants Justice to be more accurate and more
   complete than we do. It is our Justice Department. We want a strong
   and independent Justice Department, so we don't want to inhibit their
   investigations. On the other hand, we are faced with this need to
   preserve confidentiality, executive privilege, of White House
   materials.
   
   We don't want to set bad precedents, we don't want willy-nilly to turn
   over documents to other executive branch agencies such as Justice. How
   do we reconcile these two things? It is not an easy issue.
   
   Present White House counsel is facing similar issues now. And one of
   the ways -- although you run the risk of waiver and there are all
   sorts of other issues that arise, one of the ways you do it is say,
   look, we want you to feel comfortable that you are running a complete
   investigation and that nothing is being kept from you. On the other
   hand, we don't want to set a precedent just turning over stuff that
   the Office of Integrity decides it wants that comes from the Oval
   Office or the West Wing or advisor to the President.
   
   So why don't you look at this? We will run the risk of precedent and
   waiver. We will let you look at it to satisfy you that there is
   nothing that is being withheld that is of great use or moment to you.
   If this is of moment or use, then you can take appropriate procedures
   later on. That is the kind of balancing we were trying to do.
   
   I was involved. Eggleston was my senior person in that area once Vince
   Foster was dead in July of '93, and that is the way we tried to handle
   those kinds of situations.
   
   Q You had categorized documents coming from the Oval Office, documents
   coming from your office advising the President and documents coming
   from advisors, all together. Do you see any distinction between
   documents such as the White House project was created by Harry
   Thomason, who was not a government employee, I take it?
   
   A That is a fair statement. I think there are degrees of sensitivity
   and confidentiality. Obviously a document coming from the National
   Security Advisor, Tony Lake, or the Counsel to the President, me at
   the time, may have greater sensitivity than something coming from an
   advisor on events. I understand that.
   
   On the other hand, you know, there is a great desire to encourage
   people to interact with the President, advise the President, provide
   documents to the President and, well, executive privilege is designed
   to cover some of those situations.
   
   I agree, you can make distinctions between kinds of documents.
   
   Q Were such distinctions made during the period when the Public
   Integrity Section was asking for Harry Thomason's documents?
   
   A I think they were. One of the things we did here -- relying on your
   statement, one of the things we did here is, we didn't say, no, we are
   not going to show you these documents. We are standing on executive
   privilege; you cannot see them. If you want to subpoena them, subpoena
   them; we will fight you in court.
   
   We showed people documents. Distinctions were made. I am not saying we
   would do that to every document in the White House.
   
   Q Did there come a time when you realized there were more than two
   Harry Thomason documents in the possession of the White House and the
   two Harry Thomason documents are the two that were initially shown to
   the FBI and Department of Justice under the original protocols of,
   look, but don't take notes or copies?
   
   Mr. Mazur. He took all that on faith from you. You asked him about
   those issues before.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Let me expand my question. Did there come a time when you realized
   there were additional Harry Thomason documents that had not previously
   been turned over to the Public Integrity Section?
   
   A I have no memory of that now.
   
   Q Do you have any memory of any discussion with Neil Eggleston
   concerning problems he was having with Department of Justice
   concerning failure of the White House to turn over documents
   concerning Harry Thomason?
   
   A No, I don't remember such discussions at this time with Neil
   Eggleston. They may have taken place, but I don't remember now; it is
   a couple of years already. I just remember discussions, general
   privilege discussions and general what I will call "balancing
   discussions," how to try to deal with privilege issues, but
   nonetheless satisfy in some respect the Department of Justice. That
   was very important.
   
   I don't remember ever in the final analysis refusing to let the
   Department of Justice have access to a document that they really
   wanted, even though -- I remember ultimately, even though we were very
   concerned about privilege issues, ultimately -- if they asked for
   something and they wanted something, ultimately one way or another, we
   would bend over backwards to reach an accommodation even though we
   felt it might impinge on certain privileges the White House had.
   
   Q Did Mr. Eggleston every relate to you information that the
   Department of Justice was threatening a subpoena to your White House
   from the Department of Justice for your Counsel's Office's failure to
   turn over documents concerning Harry Thomason and Darnell Martens?
   
   A I remember Mr. Eggleston just telling me about discussions with the
   Department of Justice with respect to document production issues. I
   don't remember him telling me at this time that they threatened a
   subpoena. It is possible he did that, because I do remember some times
   when discussions with the Department of Justice became contentious. So
   it wouldn't surprise me if a subpoena was threatened.
   
   Q Are you aware that a subpoena was ultimately issued by the
   Department of Justice demanding all of Harry Thomason's and Darnell
   Martens' documents be turned over?
   
   A Am I aware now, no. If it happened while I was there, would I have
   known it? Yes.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. What was the date of the subpoena?
   
   Ms. Olson. September 1994.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q It was after you left. Were there discussions about the subpoena
   before you left?
   
   A If I were there, I would have known about it.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. So we are clear, September 1994 is long after he left.
   
   Ms. Olson. That was when the ultimate subpoena was finally issued, a
   grand jury subpoena.
   
   Mr. Mazur. You are saying you have information --
   
   Ms. Olson. It was not while Mr. Nussbaum was there.
   
   My question, to clarify, was that there were discussions that we
   believe occurred very early on during the period while Mr. Nussbaum
   was there between Neil Eggleston and the Justice Department
   prosecutors, where they discussed having to go to a subpoena if they
   didn't obtain the documents.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Do you know the dates?
   
   Ms. Olson. The dates went up from about September of 1993 through the
   period when the actual subpoena was issued.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. But that spans a very substantial period where Mr.
   Nussbaum is not at the White House.
   
   Ms. Olson. Which is why I asked Mr. Nussbaum if Mr. Eggleston ever
   discussed those conversations with him during the period he was there.
   
   The Witness. I have no present memory of it now, but it may well have
   happened, because I remember a number of discussions with Eggleston
   about, what is the proper way to proceed with production problems?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Did Mr. Eggleston ever discuss his resignation with you and the
   basis of his resignation?
   
   A At the time he resigned?
   
   Q Or at any time afterwards.
   
   A Yes. I talked to Neil before he resigned. This was -- when did he
   leave? I don't remember -- a year ago something like that. He called
   me and we discussed the issue as to whether he should --
   
   Q September of '95 was his final resignation date.
   
   A They wanted him badly to stay in the White House. He wanted to go
   back to private practice. He came in under me; I was no longer in,
   September '95, so he stayed over a year after I was gone. I left late
   March of 1994, and we discussed whether he should stay or resign. He
   sought my advice and we discussed the pros and cons.
   
   Q Did Mr. Eggleston ever discuss the fact that in a letter to the
   prosecutor at the Department of Justice he turned over some Harry
   Thomason documents that had been in the possession of the White House
   Counsel's Office but not produced? In that letter, he took full
   responsibility and informed the prosecutor that his resignation was
   effective that date.
   
   Did you ever have a discussion with Mr. Eggleston about that letter?
   
   A No. We never had a discussion about that letter.
   
   I don't know what you are suggesting, if I played a role in his
   resignation. He never discussed that with me, and I don't believe I
   played a role in his resignation.
   
   Q Did Mr. Eggleston ever discuss the fact that his resignation was
   connected to the failure to turn over Harry Thomason and Darnell
   Martens documents to the Department of Justice or other investigators?
   
   A No. I had a discussion about his resignation. He never mentioned
   that and it is inconceivable that his resignation was in way connected
   to that. The discussion was whether or not it would be best for his
   career to go back to private practice at this point or to stay in the
   Government.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. There was discussion about the fact that the White House
   was anxious that he stay?
   
   The Witness. That is why he called for my advice. The White House was
   enormously anxious for him to stay, pleaded with him to stay, offered
   him possible promotions in order for him to stay. But he decided that
   it wasn't as much fun; it was time to go home.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q I would like to move into an area of the ICAP documents. Do you know
   what ICAP stands for?
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Before we leave this subject, I would like to comment
   for the record about the question that you asked.
   
   There were a whole series of questions about conversations that Bernie
   Nussbaum might have had with Neil Eggleston in the last half-hour or
   so, and it is entirely unclear from the record when these disputes
   with the Justice Department arose.
   
   There is a very substantial period of time in this roughly year-long
   period where Bernie is not in the White House. He resigned at the
   beginning of March of 1994 and effective the beginning of April. I
   believe that he was not as involved as he had been in the month of
   March in many of the White House activities that he had been involved
   in previously. Lloyd Cutler had arrived in the office during the month
   of March, and while the resignation was effective as of the beginning
   of April, Bernie had effectively left the office about the third week
   of March of 1994, as I recall, and moved out of the White House at
   that particular stage.
   
   So as you construct your chronology of events, I would like to make it
   very clear that Bernie would not have been in a position to have
   discussions about some of these subjects. Obviously, if he were not in
   the White House, those would not have been raised with him.
   
   I don't know how many of the questions that you asked him about
   conversations with Neil Eggleston were with regard to conversations
   that occurred during the period of time that he was outside the White
   House. The record may be read to suggest that if you are asking
   questions about conversations had with Neil Eggleston about a
   particular topic that necessarily Bernie would have been there or that
   you had a basis for believing he was there.
   
   Ms. Olson. I have a basis, or I would not be asking the question.
   
   I agree, these are discussions that did span through Mr. Nussbaum's
   tenure and into Mr. Cutler's tenure. My basis is, they began during
   Mr. Nussbaum's tenure and I would like to ask if Mr. Nussbaum had any
   recollection or any knowledge of those kinds of conversations. I don't
   mean to suggest that he did, or had them. I just know that there were
   discussions between Mr. Eggleston and the Justice Department
   concerning those topics, but I have no reason to believe one way or
   the other whether or not Mr. Eggleston in fact then reported them to
   Mr. Nussbaum and in what fashion he did, other than what Mr. Eggleston
   has told me in his deposition.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. That is fair. And of course you have Mr. Eggleston's
   deposition, and hopefully at some point a clear chronology will
   evolve. I wanted to make it clear that there may be some questions
   that a reporter might read that might suggest that Bernie was involved
   in a discussion where he may not have been in the White House at the
   time.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q I am going to move on to the Harry Thomason-Darnell Martens
   government contract issue, and specifically I wanted to ask you, did
   there come a time where you became aware of the fact that Darnell
   Martens had had meetings with individuals concerning obtaining
   government contracts?
   
   A What I remember now is something to the effect that at one point
   Darnell Martens or somebody connected with Darnell Martens wanted to
   do an audit of the aircraft fleet of the United States, and felt he
   could bring economies, rationalize the process of use of government
   aircraft. When I learned of this, the Travel Office imbroglio had
   already blown up, which it did in May of '93, and a decision was made
   in the White House which I concurred in and urged that nothing, you
   know, be done with respect to going forward with any such project.
   
   And I believe I wrote a memorandum at some point in time, just
   reflecting that decision or memorializing that decision to make clear
   to people, you know, things get lost, that we are not going to go
   forward with any contract with Darnell Martens or anybody connected
   with him to audit government aircraft. That is what I remember.
   
   Sitting here now, that is what I remember happening sometime, I
   believe, in '93. That is all I remember about Darnell Martens and
   government contracts, which is the question you posed.
   
   Ms. Olson. I need to take a 2-minute, 5-minute break. Thank you.
   
   [Brief recess.]
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q I wanted to refer to some of the ICAP documents, and mainly I wanted
   to ask you, there came a time when you said that you decided to stop
   any forward progress on the ICAP project.
   
   Mr. Mazur. He didn't say ICAP. You said ICAP.
   
   The Witness. Is that the audit of government airplanes?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q That is who it was being done through. ICAP is one of the arms of
   the GSA Administration which handles aviation policy, which -- the
   audit, as proposed by Mr. Martens, was going to go through that
   agency, using them as backup. And I will probably refer to it as ICAP
   for document purposes, because my question is, did you become aware of
   a body of documents concerning Mr. Martens' request for -- Mr. Martens
   seeking government contracts that were being requested by other
   investigators?
   
   Mr. Mazur. You are looking for -- he, being aware of a request for
   these documents that were at the GSA?
   
   Ms. Olson. No, they were at the White House, a body of documents
   concerning that matter at the White House.
   
   The Witness. Who was requesting the body of documents?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q These were being requested by Public Integrity, as well as GAO, when
   they asked for Harry Thomason or Darnell Martens documents.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. And the reference to "other investigators" was to
   include those two or exclude those two?
   
   Ms. Olson. I would like to include those, but certainly any others
   that Mr. Nussbaum has knowledge of that had requested documents that
   would come within the purview of those.
   
   Mr. Mazur. Would you reframe the question, please?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Did there come a time when you became aware that the White House was
   in possession of documents being requested by investigators concerning
   Darnell Martens seeking government aircraft contracts?
   
   A I have no recollection of that at this time.
   
   I keep repeating a little bit. I am sorry. If it came up when I was
   Counsel to the President, this is something that Eggleston would have
   handled. He was in charge of dealing with investigations. If it came
   up during when he was counsel, it was something he would have talked
   with me about. I just don't remember now having discussions with him
   about this issue. That is all I can say.
   
   I must say this, because it is clear this ran past my time into
   September, so this may have gotten hot at some time after I left. If
   it had gotten hot when I was there, he would have discussed it with
   me. If it had gotten hot after I left, obviously I would have no role
   in it.
   
   If you are asking, do I remember this issue arising between the two of
   us, the answer is no.
   
   Q At any time did you become aware of conversations between Harry
   Thomason and President Clinton about obtaining these contracts for his
   company, TRM?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Were you ever shown any memoranda that discussed Harry Thomason's
   discussions with the President about trying to obtain these contracts
   for TRM?
   
   A All I remember learning at some point is that Harry Thomason
   believed and conveyed to people in the White House, and conveyed also
   to the President, that in certain areas the government, including this
   aircraft area -- the government could operate more efficiently on a
   competitive bidding basis, they would get better service at lower
   cost, and that he conveyed this up and down the line. He conveyed it
   to people on the White House staff and he conveyed it to the very top
   levels of the White House, to the President and the First Lady.
   
   I remember knowing that, hearing that, reading that someplace. That is
   what I remember with respect to that.
   
   Did I see a memorandum? That is possible. But I remember the subject
   matter and what he believed and the advice -- I know Harry Thomason; I
   know he believed in good faith.
   
   Q Did you or did you direct anyone to review Mr. Thomason's companies
   to see whether he had a conflict of interest in the aircraft area?
   
   A By the time this information -- we were aware of this, the Travel
   Office thing had blown up. It was clear that there were pending
   investigations with respect to that matter -- nothing is going to be
   done with Harry Thomason or Darnell Martens in this area; we made sure
   of that. We stopped any possibility of that.
   
   So I don't remember, in addition to that, looking into the conflict
   situation, although somebody may have. Somebody may have.
   
   Q Do you have any present recollection of asking anyone to look into
   Mr. Thomason's partnerships or ownerships of companies in the aircraft
   area before the firing of the Travel Office employees?
   
   A Before the firing -- I have no recollection before the firing.
   
   After the firing, because this issue quickly came to the fore, I
   remember having discussion with Vince Foster as to -- this is after
   the firing, after the publicity -- as to what, did Harry Thomason have
   any economic involvement in any entity which was looking to do
   business with the government. But I don't remember anything before.
   
   Ms. Olson. I have three memorandums, and I will mark them, all three,
   as Deposition Exhibit Number 8. The purpose for putting them in the
   record and having you look at them is because they are dated.
   
   The first one is a January 29, 1993, memorandum to Harry from Darnell,
   which talks about TRM action items and discusses under subsection D,
   back in January, that they were to determine who controls the
   scheduling of the White House press corps aircraft and says, this can
   be done by TRM much as the campaign aircraft were handled.
   
   The second memorandum is CGE 17424, which is a February 11 memorandum
   which refers back to this January 29th memorandum and once again talks
   about the Federal aircraft fleet, as well as the President stating to
   CNN that savings could be had, to review government aircraft. It also
   has a cover page for action and says the President has seen that
   memorandum.
   
   The third memorandum is CGE 2224, which is dated March 12, 1993, to
   Harry Thomason from Darnell and significantly says -- that opens up,
   Based on your discussions with President Clinton of the February 11th
   memorandum --
   
   [Nussbaum Deposition Exhibit
   
   No. 8 was marked for identification.]
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Those I wanted to show to you to put in a time perspective, which is
   clearly before the May 19, 1993 firing, and put that in the context of
   any review that might have been ordered or any information passed on
   to you that, in fact, these activities were going on by Darnell
   Martens and/or Harry Thomason to secure government aircraft.
   
   A No, I did not know about these activities prior to the firing or
   termination of employment of the people in the Travel Office.
   
   I first learned about some of these activities thereafter, and where I
   really learned about them was when I read the management review which
   was done by Podesta and Todd Stern, which contains a section which
   talks about these January-to-March activities and from March-to-May
   activities,, which was ultimately -- the ultimate submission and
   discussed some of these issues; and that is when I first had an
   understanding of some of these things.
   
   But during the January-February-March period, certainly I did not
   have, you know, knowledge of this.
   
   RPTS COLCHICO
   
   DCMN KRISTOFFERSEN
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Before we leave this, just one brief comment. When you
   read into the record a portion of the third memorandum, the March
   12th, 1993 memo --
   
   Ms. Olson. I read the first sentence, I believe.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Yes. I am not sure that would clearly emerge from the
   transcript the way you read it. That is, the sentence based on your
   discussion with President Clinton, when I heard it, I thought you were
   saying that there was a Bernie Nussbaum discussion with President
   Clinton, and if you -- I just want to make a record that the word
   "your" there apparently refers to discussions between Thomason and the
   President.
   
   The Witness. Right.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Thanks.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Do you recall any meetings after the firings, approximately about a
   week after the firings, which was attended by you in Mr. McLarty's
   office where these events were discussed among White House Counsel's
   Office and Mr. McLarty?
   
   A Which events?
   
   Q The seeking of Government contracts and by Harry Thomason and/or
   Darnell Martens.
   
   A I don't -- it may well have happened. I just don't have a
   recollection right now. I just know I started learning about these
   things thereafter.
   
   That could have been at one of those meetings, and ultimately it, you
   know, led to this memorandum that I wrote at some point saying, you
   know, we should not do anything with regard to the ICAP project or the
   auditing of fleet aircraft is the way I remember it.
   
   Q Was there any discussion that you had with Neil Eggleston or others
   in the Counsel's Office concerning the production of these body of
   memoranda and documents to investigators?
   
   A No. You know, I don't remember that, and the more -- you have been
   asking a lot of questions about that, and I really don't remember
   that. I am beginning to think that this happened after I left, because
   I think I would have remembered it if it happened before I left.
   
   Now, it's possible that I forgot it, you know, and it happened before
   I left, but I don't think it happened.
   
   Now, you know -- you have had access to Neil as to when these things
   took place. This is the kind of thing Neil would discuss with me.
   Maybe we did have some discussion, but I don't remember it, and the
   more these questions are asked, the more I am beginning to think that
   it happened after I left.
   
   Q So you don't have anything that stands out in your mind specifically
   regarding these issues?
   
   Mr. Mazur. Excuse me a second.
   
   Ms. Olson. All right.
   
   The Witness. Excuse me?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q So would it be fair to say that none of the requests for documents
   that might encompass Darnell Martens and Harry Thomason memorandums
   stick out in your mind?
   
   A No, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You are right, they don't
   stick out in my mind, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It doesn't
   mean it didn't start on my watch, and it doesn't mean we didn't have
   any discussions.
   
   Q Do you have any knowledge of any decision to remove references to
   all ICAP or Government TRM seeking Government contracts from the White
   House Management Review?
   
   A Oh, no. No, I have no knowledge of such discussion.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Just so we are clear, are the three memos that comprise
   Exhibit 8 the documents that you were talking about earlier that were
   discovered later by Neil Eggleston? That is, Thomason-related
   documents that were discovered later?
   
   Ms. Olson. No. They are among the documents. There are numerous other
   documents later discovered. There is a chronology of documents being
   discovered continuously throughout the year relating to Harry Thomason
   -- those are some of them -- which were found and produced to the
   Department of Justice leading up to their subpoena.
   
   The Witness. Right. The subpoena of September of 1994.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Did you see early drafts of the White House Management Review?
   
   A I saw late drafts of the White House Management Review, a late draft
   of the Management Review.
   
   Q Do you recall how many drafts you saw before the final draft?
   
   A One or two. That was provided for my comment.
   
   Q And in those drafts, did you read about the ICAP documents and/or
   Harry Thomason or Darnell Martens seeking Government aircraft
   contracts?
   
   A I don't remember if I did or didn't. I mean, I saw a section which
   ultimately was in the Management Review concerning Martens and
   Thomason and what they call the early activities, the January to March
   activities, but -- obviously, I read whatever was in the draft with
   respect to that, but I didn't really concentrate on it. I was more
   focused on the later sections which dealt with the activities of White
   House personnel and my staff in connection with the Travel Office
   people.
   
   Q None of this information remained in the final draft of the White
   House Management Review. Do you have any recollection of any removal
   of any of this information?
   
   A No, I don't. I didn't participate -- I don't believe I -- no, I
   don't have any recollection of decisions with respect to those
   sections, what to put in and what not to put in.
   
   Q One of the Deposition Exhibit No. 8 -- the first one that's the
   January 29th memo, do you recall specifically seeing that document?
   And if you would just take a little time to look at that.
   
   A No.
   
   Q Or receiving it at any time?
   
   A No. No, I do not.
   
   Q Okay. And do you recall any specific actions which were undertaken
   by you or your staff to try to locate that document while you were at
   the White House?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Do you know or do you have any knowledge of McLarty -- Mr. McLarty
   talking to Harry Thomason before the White House Management Review was
   completed and published?
   
   A It wouldn't surprise me, but the answer is no.
   
   Q Did you have any conversations with Harry Thomason before the White
   House Management Review was completed and the conversations would have
   been concerning information in the White House Management Review?
   
   A No, not that I remember. I think I would have remembered. No.
   
   Ms. Olson. I think this is probably actually a good lunch break, if
   that's okay. I am going to go on to another topic.
   
   The Witness. Okay.
   
   [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the deposition was recessed for lunch.]
   
   RPTS COLCHICO
   
   DCMN QUINTERO
   
   [1:50 p.m.]
   
   Ms. Olson. Back on the record after lunch at 1:50.
   
   I have got a document that I am going to go ahead and mark as
   Deposition Exhibit No. 9. It's Bates stamp number CGE 42794 and it's a
   memorandum to Leon Panetta from Mr. Nussbaum, dated August 9th, 1993.
   
   [Nussbaum Deposition Exhibit No. 9 was
   
   marked for identification.]
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Do you recognize that document, Mr. Nussbaum?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Can you just please tell me the circumstances under which you
   drafted that document?
   
   Mr. Mazur. That assumes he did draft it.
   
   The Witness. As I said earlier -- this is related to my earlier
   testimony. First let me say this document, I believe, is a draft. It
   is not the final memorandum. And I don't know if I drafted it or
   somebody else did, but I may have -- if somebody else did, I probably
   revised it in some fashion.
   
   And I don't even know if I ever -- if this ever became final. I'm not
   even positive of that. I have some vague recollection that Roy Neel,
   who was a Deputy Chief of Staff -- I have a question as to who should
   send out this memorandum. Probably Panetta or probably I would send
   it, but maybe not. Maybe Neel could send it.
   
   And this was on the issue, again, of, you know, when we -- we wanted
   to make sure that people were aware, people who were in the chain of
   command, that in view of the investigations that were going on as a
   result of the Travel Office matter, that no action should be taken
   with respect to this issue of an audit of Federal aircraft by TRM. And
   that's how this memorandum or this draft came to be drafted during
   this period of time. I think this went through various drafts.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q I have an earlier draft, which I could show you. It's for John
   Podesta from you, which I am not going to put in the record, but just
   since you mentioned it earlier, and I do have another draft that has
   some handwriting on it that looks like a bit of an edit but not
   substantially.
   
   A This is my handwriting.
   
   Q This is CGE --
   
   Mr. Mazur. 42793.
   
   The Witness. This is my handwriting. It doesn't mean I didn't draft it
   earlier. I could have drafted it and got a copy back and changed it,
   or it could mean somebody else drafted it.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Was there any discussions, that you are aware of, of whether or not
   to turn over these drafts of the memoranda to any of the
   investigations concerning the White House Travel Office matter, that
   you recall?
   
   A I don't remember any discussion with regard to turning over these
   drafts to any investigator.
   
   Q Okay. During this White House Management Review, there were
   interviews going on, and I believe Mr. Foster, as well as Mr. Watkins,
   were interviewed. Did you have any conversations with either Mr.
   Foster or Mr. Watkins concerning their White House Management Review
   interview?
   
   A I don't remember any conversations with Mr. Watkins. I am certain I
   had conversations with Mr. Foster, because we spoke -- we were in
   contact 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, practically. So I -- so I am
   certain I had conversations with Mr. Foster regarding the fact that he
   was interviewed and, you know, and the subject of the interview. I
   mean, we were very close.
   
   Q Were you aware that in Mr. Foster's White House Management Review
   interview, he did not disclose or discuss conversations about the
   Travel Office and the First Lady's activities?
   
   A I don't know whether he did or didn't.
   
   Q Okay. And the same thing, did anyone discuss with you or were you
   aware of whether or not Mr. Watkins --
   
   A At one point, I believe, were there notes -- there must have been
   notes of Mr. Foster's interview. I mean, it would reflect what he said
   or what he didn't say.
   
   Q My question to you was whether you discussed that with Mr. Foster,
   that he did not mention the First Lady at all in his White House
   Management Review interview?
   
   A He didn't?
   
   Q No. That statement I am making is from having reviewed notes. And my
   question to you, though, is whether Mr. Foster discussed with you his
   discussion or lack of discussion with the First Lady --
   
   A No, he didn't.
   
   Q -- during his White House Management Review interview.
   
   Mr. Mazur. Let her finish the question.
   
   The Witness. No, he did not.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Did you have any discussions with anyone concerning whether or not
   David Watkins mentioned the participation of the First Lady in the
   White House Travel Office matter?
   
   A No.
   
   Q These interviews with both Mr. Foster and Mr. Watkins were in very
   early June of 1993. Did you have any conversations or were you made
   aware that in late June, Mr. Foster did disclose his conversations
   with the First Lady concerning the White House Travel Office?
   
   A Well -- well, I was about to say this -- about to jump in but your
   question sort of -- you know, the White House Management Review itself
   discusses conversations between Mr. Foster and the First Lady in -- I
   guess what you are saying is it was -- and it discusses conversations
   between Watkins and the First Lady. So obviously at some point, I
   don't know when, Foster told Podesta and Stern, you know, about
   conversations with the First Lady.
   
   Q But my question is whether you had any discussions about the fact
   that in the first interview Mr. Foster did not divulge any information
   about the First Lady and later on he did? And I believe that was late
   June when he did disclose his conversations with the First Lady.
   
   A No, I had no discussions about that.
   
   Q Similarly, Mr. Watkins also late in June disclosed his conversations
   with the First Lady to the White House Management Review team. Did you
   have any discussions or any information concerning Mr. Watkins' later
   disclosure of those conversations?
   
   A No.
   
   Q There came a time, after late June, that Mr. Watkins hired an
   attorney. Did you have any participation or are you aware in any way
   of Mr. Watkins hiring an attorney following his disclosures?
   
   A Well, I don't --
   
   Mr. Mazur. Is this whether or not it has anything to do with
   disclosures?
   
   Ms. Olson. I just want to know if Mr. Nussbaum had any conversations
   with Mr. Watkins or others about Mr. Watkins hiring an attorney?
   
   The Witness. Well, I am not sure it had anything to do with
   disclosures at all, of his discussions with the First Lady.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Well, then just hiring an attorney, generally.
   
   A Hiring an attorney, yes, just focusing on hiring an attorney, I
   clearly knew -- the answer is, yes, I had discussions. If a Senior
   Assistant to the President is going to hire an outside attorney with
   respect to anything, it would come to my attention and I would have
   discussions about that. And I was aware that Mr. Watkins at some point
   -- I don't remember precisely when and I don't want to relate it to
   this interview, but at some point felt the need to hire an outside
   attorney, and that came to my attention. Was that Ty Cobb? Was that
   the outside attorney?
   
   Q Yes.
   
   A Yes, famous name, so it sticks in your mind, Ty Cobb. He decided
   that he wanted an attorney to represent him because now you had all of
   these FBI investigations which are focusing not merely on just the
   Travel Office people and what they did or didn't do, but also on White
   House people such as Mr. Watkins. He thought it would be best to have
   an outside attorney and, at some point, I agreed with that.
   
   Q Okay. Other than just the general investigations which you have
   discussed, was there any specific reason you agreed that Mr. Watkins
   should hire an attorney?
   
   A Well, it was clear that Mr. Watkins and others were under
   investigation as to whether or not they did anything improper in
   connection with the Travel Office matter.
   
   Q Back in 1993?
   
   A Well, that's a good -- that's -- when was this, June, July?
   
   Q This is June of 1993.
   
   A When did he hire Mr. Cobb? Do you know? I mean, about when?
   
   Q I do not have it down.
   
   A I'm not saying he was the subject or a target of an investigation by
   the Justice Department, but it's clear that the Justice Department was
   looking into his conduct in connection with the firings. I am not
   saying or suggesting he did anything wrong, but one -- when you start
   being the subject of intensive interviews by the Justice Department,
   it has been my experience it is a good idea to have an attorney.
   
   At this point, it was evident that the White House Counsel's Office
   couldn't act as Mr. Watkins, you know, attorney. He should have a
   personal attorney just looking out for Mr. Watkins. Obviously, we
   couldn't do that on our own and I had no problem with Mr. Watkins
   getting his own attorney to go to FBI interviews with him.
   
   I think it's a good idea before a person goes to an FBI interview or
   before any law enforcement or congressional official or any type of
   official, to have somebody with him who is -- who is representing him,
   who has helped brief him, who has helped prepare him and who is
   looking out for his interest.
   
   Q Was that advice you gave to others besides Mr. Watkins who were
   interviewed by Public Integrity and the FBI?
   
   Mr. Mazur. He didn't tell you he gave that advice to Watkins. He may
   have, but you didn't ask him.
   
   The Witness. At some point, I came to that conclusion that it was
   appropriate for Mr. Watkins to have his own attorney. Certainly, if he
   wanted his own attorney, it was appropriate for him to have his own
   attorney. And later on, of course, other people got their own
   attorneys, too.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Well, I want to focus on Mr. Watkins for a second, if I may.
   
   A Uh-huh.
   
   Q Is it correct that the reasons were that he was being interviewed by
   Public Integrity and FBI, or were there any other purposes?
   
   A I know of no other purposes. I don't remember any other purposes at
   this time.
   
   Q Did you have any knowledge of conflicting statements at that time or
   possible problems with statements that Mr. Watkins had already given
   through the White House Management Review interviews?
   
   A No, I had no such knowledge at that time.
   
   Q I know Ty Cobb was working for Mr. Watkins by August.
   
   A Well, that -- yes. That's right. I'm not -- I don't believe by June
   -- that June sounded kind of early, but maybe. I don't know.
   
   Q No, he did not have an attorney in June when he gave his White House
   Management Review interview where he at the first of the month of June
   did not disclose conversations with the First Lady, but at the end of
   the month did.
   
   A Oh, yes. And August was after Foster's death and after the discovery
   of the note in Foster's office, and the note obviously focused in part
   on the Travel Office, including the FBI, you know, lying to the AG
   and, you know, and -- and, you know, the press will never believe the
   innocence of President Clinton's staff and things like that.
   
   There -- and then intensive investigations began with respect to what
   was in the note and the Travel Office situation being part of that.
   Yeah, at that point, you know, obviously people then started thinking
   they should get attorneys to represent them in the course of
   interviews.
   
   Q Did you give advice to anyone else, besides Mr. Watkins, that they
   should hire attorneys?
   
   A At some point -- I don't know at that point but --
   
   Q At this point?
   
   A At this point.
   
   Mr. Mazur. I don't think you established that he gave advice to
   Watkins.
   
   Ms. Olson. Mr. Nussbaum has now said twice that he gave -- I will have
   the record be read back if necessary.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Mr. Nussbaum, did you advise Mr. Watkins or agree that he should get
   an attorney during the June, July period?
   
   A Did I agree? Yes, I agreed.
   
   Q Did you advise him?
   
   A During the June, July period? No, if Cobb was hired during the July
   -- the July, August -- when Cobb was hired, I agreed that Cobb should
   be hired, whatever it was.
   
   Q Why don't you describe it more than just agree. Did Mr. Watkins come
   to you for advice or did you just agree on your own?
   
   A I don't remember. I don't remember. Mr. -- I don't know if Mr.
   Watkins came to me for advice. Mr. Watkins may have told me that he
   was hiring Mr. Cobb and I agreed.
   
   Q Okay. Was there any relationship to the disclosure of conversations
   with the First Lady and Mr. Watkins hiring an attorney --
   
   A No.
   
   Q -- in your mind?
   
   A No, there was no relationship to that. The relationship was to the
   intensifying of these investigations which intensified significantly
   following Foster's death.
   
   Q Is it true that they intensified on everyone following Mr. Foster's
   death, for those who were involved in the White House Travel Office
   matter?
   
   A They intensified -- the investigations intensified. That has an
   impact on everyone, but it has an impact on some people more than
   others because some people were more significant in these matters than
   others.
   
   Q Did you have any reason to believe that Mr. Watkins was impacted
   more significantly than others?
   
   A Yes, because he was the one that did the firing and he was the one
   who made the decision, so he was the one who was being focused on more
   than others.
   
   Q Did you --
   
   A He was an assistant to the President. He was a senior person in the
   White House.
   
   Q Do you recall advising Mr. Foster that he should get an attorney, or
   agreeing with Mr. Foster in any way about getting an attorney?
   
   A Yes. Shortly before his death, Mr. Foster was -- Mr. Foster and I
   discussed whether or not -- Mr. Foster foresaw the possibility of
   congressional hearings with respect to the Travel Office matter
   following the management review report and the censures which he and I
   bitterly disagreed with. And he foresaw that possibility.
   
   He foresaw wide-ranging inquiries into that. Mr. Foster foresaw the
   future with respect to that much better than I did at the time. And he
   believed that the White House Counsel's Office or the White House,
   even beyond the Counsel's Office, should maybe bring in a law firm to
   assist it in responding to these inquiries, particularly congressional
   inquiries, which he believed were sure to come because he believed if
   the White House Counsel's Office tried to do it by itself, it would
   just eat up all of our resources.
   
   We had have the whole office -- it's not a big office. It's an office
   of 10 lawyers. We would spend all of our time just working on
   responding to inquiries on the Travel Office, and this was an
   important subject of discussion between Mr. Foster and I in the weeks
   before his death.
   
   You know, so he said we really should get a firm from outside, an able
   firm with litigating partners and people who knew how to respond to
   investigations and they could handle that and we could handle all the
   other business we were busy with at the White House. I disagreed. I
   said it wasn't necessary.
   
   This was our role. We should -- we are the ones who should represent
   the White House and people in the White House generally, except for
   those who felt the need to get their own attorney on something, and
   that we could do it within -- and if we needed, I would hire other
   people, bring them into the White House Counsel's Office.
   
   Mr. Eggleston actually came as a result -- eventually as a result of
   this. He came on in September. And that's the way we should do it. And
   Foster didn't agree with me and we went back and forth on this.
   
   And we -- I deferred -- I said, okay, let's defer -- we are very busy
   at this point on various nominations, the Supreme Court nomination,
   the FBI situation, the FBI nomination, and the point I made to him is
   we should defer a final resolution of these issues.
   
   We treated each other -- I treated him sort of like as my co-senior
   partner of a little law firm. It wasn't a sense of make a decision and
   you just follow orders. I was going to try to bring him along and
   convince him. I wish in retrospect I had spent more time doing that.
   
   So I said, well, defer it. But at one point in this discussion he
   said, do you mind if I go out and talk to somebody, if I get a lawyer
   on this thing? I said, well, it's up to you, but if you feel
   comfortable doing that, I want you to feel comfortable. I have no
   problem with you going out and talking to somebody else. He said, I
   will call Jim Hamilton to sort of represent me at least initially with
   respect to this and maybe we will extend it to Hamilton representing
   everybody or representing the White House in this thing.
   
   I said, well, he is not going to represent everybody, but if you feel
   more comfortable, Vince, in having a lawyer represent you, you can
   talk to somebody about representing you; feel free.
   
   You know, I agree, you can call Hamilton and then -- I always believed
   after that I would get back to the issue with him at some later time,
   but then it was too late.
   
   Q Did Mr. Foster discuss with you his advising -- whether he advised
   the President and First Lady to get outside counsel?
   
   A No, he never -- I don't believe -- no. I mean, at that point?
   Obviously, there came a point came in time when we did hire outside
   counsel for the President and the First Lady, but that was --
   
   Q This was obviously before July 21st.
   
   A No, we didn't discuss hiring outside counsel for the President and
   First Lady prior to July 21st.
   
   Q Mr. Foster didn't bring it up to you that he believed that that
   should happen?
   
   A I think I would remember that. I don't remember that. Now, they had
   outside counsel for certain -- I am starting to think. They had
   outside counsel for certain purposes. Bob Bennett was their outside
   counsel. Mr. Foster was dealing with outside counsel, something that
   the President -- that the President --
   
   Q Not having to do with the Travel Office?
   
   A I was assuming you were talking about the Travel Office, and Mr.
   Foster never suggested to me, at least I don't remember him suggesting
   to me, that the President and the First Lady obtain outside counsel
   for the Travel Office matter.
   
   Q We have notes from Mr. Sloan of a meeting that he had on August 18th
   with Mr. Watkins' attorney, Ty Cobb.
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Were you aware of that meeting that Mr. Sloan had?
   
   A Undoubtedly, either before the meeting or after the meeting.
   
   Q Do you know if you sat in on the meeting with Mr. Cobb?
   
   A I don't know.
   
   Mr. Mazur. Can we see the notes of that meeting?
   
   Ms. Olson. They are not relevant. I am not going to bring them out.
   
   There are notes and Mr. Sloan has been spoken to by this committee, so
   we are aware of a meeting. I am just asking Mr. Nussbaum if he has any
   information and if Mr. Sloan told him about that.
   
   Mr. Mazur. You asked if he was there.
   
   Ms. Olson. If he was there, I would like to know.
   
   The Witness. Do the notes reflect I was there or not?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Do you recall being at a meeting with Ty Cobb?
   
   A I recall meeting Ty Cobb at some point. I don't know if it was that
   meeting. I have a vague recollection of meeting Ty Cobb at some point.
   I'm not even positive of that.
   
   But, you know, I -- I have a vague recollection of meeting him at some
   point, and if you want to know if it was at that meeting, if the notes
   reflect I was at that meeting, it was that meeting. If the notes do
   not reflect it was at that meeting, I have no recollection if it was
   that meeting.
   
   Q The notes don't reflect who was at the meeting. I am not playing
   games with you.
   
   A Okay.
   
   Q So you were or you weren't, by the notes?
   
   A I don't know. I tell you who would remember; Sloan. He has a
   photographic memory. He would remember if I was at the meeting, but I
   don't remember.
   
   Q We could use someone with a photographic memory.
   
   A I agree.
   
   Q Do you recall any conversations Mr. Sloan had about the meeting or
   any information he divulged to you about the meeting with Ty Cobb?
   
   A I am sure there was a conversation with Mr. Sloan about that
   meeting. I am sure he told me what happened at that meeting, because
   that was our style of working together. That was Mr. Sloan's style of
   bringing things back to me, which is what I wanted, but I don't
   remember what the conversation was.
   
   Q Do you remember any action you took as a result of it?
   
   A No, I do not.
   
   Q Okay. Did Mr. McLarty ever discuss any meetings that he had with
   David Watkins in late September of 1993 --
   
   A I don't recall.
   
   Q -- concerning the Travel Office?
   
   A I don't recall.
   
   Q Mr. Watkins had a December 9th GAO interview, and in that interview
   -- it's the point where he told the GAO that the First Lady said she
   wanted to, quote: "Get these people out and our people in." Are you
   aware of any discussions concerning that December 9th GAO interview?
   
   A No, I don't remember any discussions concerning that interview.
   
   Q Mr. Eggleston, I believe the notes say, was present. Do you recall
   -- did Mr. Eggleston have a habit of coming back and discussing these
   interviews with you?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Okay. And what was the purpose of those discussions of those
   interviews with you?
   
   A To keep me informed. I was the White House Counsel. He was -- we
   were functioning, you know, on these investigations. We were
   responding to inquiries, so we were, you know, trying to be in
   possession of, you know, the necessary information, you know, and to
   -- and I was ultimately in charge, and that's the reason he came back
   to me.
   
   Q And it was -- you believed it was necessary that Mr. Eggleston tell
   you what went on in the interviews with the GAO and others during the
   course of the investigation of the Travel Office?
   
   A To keep me generally informed. He didn't have to come back and read
   a detailed recitation of what happened in the interview but just to
   keep me generally informed. He worked for me. He was on my staff.
   
   He was acting on my behalf by being at these interviews. We felt it
   was better for the White House Counsel's Office to know what was going
   on so we could adequately respond to questions that were being asked.
   
   Q Did you take any action as a result of Mr. Watkins stating that the
   First Lady said she wanted to get those people out and our people in
   at that December 9th, GAO interview?
   
   A I don't remember being -- I don't remember precisely what Neil
   Eggleston told me at that point, and I don't remember taking any
   action.
   
   Q Any specific action?
   
   A Any specific action as a result of that. I believe people were just
   responding to inquiries as truthfully and as fully as they could, and
   that's what was happening.
   
   Q On December 10th, your calendar notes a meeting with Bruce Lindsey,
   and it says: Bruce Lindsey, et al. And I have your calendar if you
   need to look at it.
   
   A No, no, that's okay.
   
   Q And I just wondered, do you recall what the December 10th meeting
   was about with Bruce Lindsey?
   
   A No. I met with Bruce Lindsey continually in the White House.
   Sometimes it was on my calendar; sometimes it was not. You know, at
   10:00? What time was the meeting? What day was the meeting?
   
   Mr. Mazur. Are these the calendars you got from the White House?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q It's at 5:00. It's a Friday, December 1993, December 10th, 5:00,
   Lindsey, et al.
   
   A No, I don't remember. I don't remember. The reason I asked for that
   is because Lindsey and I from time to time regularly scheduled
   meetings with other people, et al., such as Lindsey and I were, in
   effect, cochairing the judicial selection -- the judicial selection
   process at the White House, and we would, ourselves, with also other
   people, were involved in that process, so that's why I asked for the
   time. But we didn't meet Friday at 5:00. We would normally meet at a
   Wednesday or Tuesday at 10:00 in the morning. It was a regular time.
   
   Q Do you recall any meetings during the December period, concerning
   GAO interviews, about the substance you had learned from GAO
   interviews on the Travel Office investigation which would have
   involved the President and/or the First Lady?
   
   A No.
   
   Mr. Mazur. Meetings with Lindsey?
   
   Ms. Olson. No. I asked any meetings in December that would have
   involved the President and the First Lady's attendance concerning the
   GAO interviews.
   
   The Witness. No, I don't remember learning anything at that time about
   that subject. Eggleston was --
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. I am not sure that that question was clear. It sounded
   to me like they were in attendance. The President and First Lady were
   present?
   
   Ms. Olson. Why don't I rephrase the question since I repeated it
   halfway the second time. It's probably better if I re-pose it.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Did you ever attend or are you aware of any meetings in December
   with the President and First Lady where either you discussed the GAO
   investigations or interviews or you directed others to discuss the GAO
   investigations or interviews?
   
   A Did I ever attend a meeting with the President or First Lady in
   which I discussed with them the GAO interviews?
   
   No. It's not something I would discuss with the President and the
   First Lady, GAO interviews. I might have had a discussion with the
   President and the First Lady at some point, you know, there's a Travel
   Office investigations, but I would not go into interviews.
   
   Q I am asking you about GAO interviews, because Mr. Watkins did at
   some point, as well as Mr. Foster, disclose conversations with the
   First Lady. And my question is sort of a follow-up. Did you have any
   discussions with the President or the First Lady about --
   
   A No.
   
   Q -- those disclosures?
   
   A No. That's more precise, and the answer to that is no. Discussions
   with the First Lady at least were disclosed as early as the management
   review report on July 2nd, 1993. There was no secret about discussions
   -- that the First Lady was involved in some discussions about the
   Travel Office.
   
   Q That's true. Her concerns were disclosed. However, the statement by
   Mr. Watkins that she wanted to get the people out was not disclosed
   until GAO. So does that refresh your recollection?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did you have any conversations with her or the President that Mr.
   Watkins was telling GAO about statements she had made concerning
   getting those people out and getting our people in?
   
   A No, I have no such recollection of having conversations with them on
   that.
   
   Q Did Mr. Foster tell you that he had any such discussions with the
   President or the First Lady concerning conversations divulged to GAO
   about her statements of get those people out and get our people in, or
   similar type statements?
   
   A Mr. Foster was dead probably -- well, no. Maybe GAO had already
   started. I don't remember when they started.
   
   Q I am asking at any time, did Mr. Foster tell you that he had had
   discussions with the First Lady about her involvement in the Travel
   Office matter?
   
   A That he had discussions with the First Lady about her involvement in
   the Travel Office matter?
   
   No, he never told me that he had discussions with the First Lady. I
   understood Mr. Foster was meeting with the First Lady all the time.
   The First Lady's office was right down the hall.
   
   It didn't surprise me when I read the management review that, you
   know, that he had had discussions with the First Lady with respect to
   this thing, but I don't remember any conversations with Mr. Foster
   with respect to those discussions.
   
   Q Also on your calendar you have a December 15th meeting with David
   Watkins. And just to put it in perspective, we know that his GAO
   interview was December 9th. Do you recall if you discussed anything
   about his GAO interview in your December 15th scheduled meeting with
   Mr. Watkins?
   
   A I don't -- I have no recollection of discussing his GAO interviews,
   and I think if I had, I would probably remember that. I don't remember
   discussing that with him.
   
   Q Did you discuss the topic of his conversations with the First Lady
   concerning the White House Travel Office?
   
   A No, I don't believe I ever discussed that with Mr. Watkins.
   
   Q Okay. Do you know if you ever discussed Mr. Watkins' statements to
   GAO about the First Lady with anyone else, specifically Mr. Watkins's
   statement that, you know, the First Lady had said she wanted to get
   her people out and get our people in?
   
   A You know, to this day, I'm not even sure the first -- you are
   telling me something that I am not sure of, that Mr. Watkins made that
   statement. If he did, he did. I mean, I don't know for a fact that he
   did.
   
   I have a feeling -- I know I'm now affected by all the things I have
   read and all the hearings and all the newspaper stories, to some
   extent, but I was never, you know, under the impression that Mr.
   Watkins ever really said that.
   
   But in any case, that's not your question. Your question is did I have
   a discussion with him about anyone saying that? The answer is, no.
   
   Q Do you know what your meeting with Mr. Watkins was about on December
   15th?
   
   A No, I don't. I mean, there's a lot of issues that arose in the White
   House involving the administration. I don't know. Maybe some memo,
   maybe his office has it. I don't know. I can tell you, most of the
   meetings I had with Mr. Watkins were on one subject.
   
   Q And what was that?
   
   A We want more people to help us perform the services we had to
   perform, including vetting and things like that. That's what I used to
   fight with Mr. Watkins about. We didn't talk about the Travel Office.
   We talked about the need to get more people on the White House staff.
   
   Q Are you familiar with what has become known as the Watkins' memo,
   which he wrote outlining his views of what happened in the White House
   Travel Office firing?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Did you have any knowledge of that memo before it became public?
   
   A No.
   
   Q After its release, did you have any conversations with the White
   House concerning your knowledge of that memo?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did Mr. McLarty ever have any conversations with you about the First
   Lady putting pressure on him prior to the firings?
   
   A Never.
   
   Q Were you aware of any pressure that the First Lady put on Mack
   McLarty prior the firings on May 19th, 1993?
   
   A I am not.
   
   Q The chronology, one of them that we have looked at, Mr. McLarty's
   handwriting has been identified and has the date May 16th with a dash,
   and it says "HRC pressure."
   
   A Uh-huh.
   
   Q Do you recall having a meeting with the President on that date, on
   May 16th? It would be 3 days before the firings.
   
   A I met with the President fairly frequently during that period. That
   was the period we were selecting a Supreme Court Justice and his first
   appointment, which was an important appointment, and dealing with
   other issues. So I may have met with him on that date. I don't know.
   
   His schedule -- he kept a more precise schedule than I kept, but -- so
   the answer to your question is I may have met with him on that date.
   What did you ask me; what did I discuss with him?
   
   Q Since you don't have a specific recollection of that date, let me
   put it in the period shortly before the actual firings.
   
   A All right.
   
   Q Do you recall any discussions with the President concerning the
   Travel Office prior to May 19th? And this would have been in the
   period leading up to the firings.
   
   A No.
   
   Q There were --
   
   A I am certain that the President and I had no discussions about the
   Travel Office prior to the firings.
   
   Q After the White House Management Review was released, there were
   reports that said that the First Lady was unhappy with Mr. Podesta's
   report. Do you have any information that the First Lady expressed any
   unhappiness to anyone about the White House Management Review?
   
   A That the First Lady expressed unhappiness to anyone?
   
   Q Yes.
   
   A No. I have -- I expressed unhappiness. That's what I am thinking, I
   was the one who went around -- not went around, but I expressed
   unhappiness with the management review from the time I saw the late
   draft until -- until after it came out, at which time I continued to
   express my unhappiness.
   
   I am trying to think, did I ever speak to the First Lady? Because I
   saw the First Lady also, you know, a fair amount and expressed my
   unhappiness, and it's possible I did. That's the thing. I mean, you
   know, I'm trying to remember. It's possible that I did tell her, like
   I told everybody else that I would see, that this was -- this was
   wrong.
   
   This management -- the manage -- what the management review was doing
   and it was foolish. My position was it was wrong, not -- it was
   factually accurate. Podesta and Stern tried to do their best. It was
   factually accurate, as far as I knew. Podesta and Stern were trying to
   do their best to get the facts and to put them in an accurate and
   coherent fashion. I had no problem with their efforts to do that.
   
   I had significant problems with the conclusions reached, this bending
   over backwards to criticize people and to censure people and to
   reprimand people such as Bill Kennedy particularly, who did nothing
   wrong and who acted in good faith and who acted totally properly. And
   I include even other people, such as Watkins, and Cornelius and Jeff
   Eller, the other people reprimanded, bending over backwards while
   factually accurate reaching conclusions which I thought were
   unwarranted.
   
   So I thought it was wrong to do that to people in the White House who
   did nothing wrong. I thought it was foolish to do it, because I
   thought, you know, all you are going -- all this just bending over
   backwards was trying to achieve was to placate political enemies such
   as the -- such as the Minority on the House Administration Committee
   who could never be placated and to try to mollify the press, which has
   a bad news bias and which will never be mollified. So that's the kind
   of opinions that I expressed vigorously with respect to the management
   review.
   
   I had nothing against Podesta or Stern. They are good guys and able
   people. I am certainly not against Panetta or McLarty, who are above
   them. But I thought it was a tragic, wrong thing for the White House
   to do with respect to the -- to these people. I expressed those views
   and I expressed them to everybody I ran across.
   
   I may well have expressed them to the First Lady. I don't recall
   expressing them to the President, on the other hand, but I probably --
   but I may well have expressed them to the First Lady.
   
   Q Do you recall if you expressed them while you were looking at drafts
   of the White House Management Review?
   
   A Yes, I expressed them while I was looking at drafts. I expressed
   them to people. I am not saying I expressed them to the First Lady. I
   expressed them to people while I was looking at drafts of the White
   House Management Review.
   
   Q And do you know if the result of the expression of your views
   resulted in any editing of the White House Management Review that
   otherwise had not been done prior to the expression of --
   
   A No.
   
   Q -- your views?
   
   A No. The only thing I remember resulting in any changes as a result
   of anything I said was something just to get a chronological thing
   straight with respect -- maybe they put in at one point, that when we
   went into Stephanopoulos' office for that now famous May 21 meeting,
   it was made clear at some point in the review, I think, that the
   management review, that we didn't know that somebody from the FBI was
   going to come in to Stephanopoulos' office; Collingwood. I made
   certain clarifying points along those lines.
   
   Some of them were adopted. Some were not adopted. But in terms of the
   conclusions that were reached, nothing that I said changed the
   viewpoint of those who issued the management review.
   
   Q Do you recall if you made any clarifying points concerning the role
   of the First Lady in the White House Travel Office firings?
   
   A No, I did not make any clarifying points.
   
   Q Similarly, do you recall if you made any clarifying points
   concerning any matters involving Harry Thomason's role --
   
   A No.
   
   Q -- in the White House Travel Office firings?
   
   A No, I am certain I didn't make any points involving Harry Thomason's
   role. I thought they were doing a -- you know, that Podesta and Stern
   were very able people and they were doing as good a job as they could
   to get out all the facts. But I did express deep concern about the way
   this thing was heading and the conclusions that were being drawn.
   
   Q Did you have any knowledge that you and/or Mr. Foster were being
   considered for some kind of reprimand?
   
   A Oh, yes -- no, no. I had no knowledge that I was being considered
   for any kind of reprimand, and indeed I had -- I take that back. I had
   no knowledge that Mr. Foster was considered for any type of reprimand.
   
   What I had knowledge of is Mr. Kennedy was being considered for a
   reprimand, and that so infuriated me, because I felt it was just
   terribly wrong to do that, that I stormed into McLarty's office at
   some point, I guess it was either the day before the review was coming
   out or the day the review was coming out, that I stormed into Mr.
   McLarty's office and I said to McLarty, I understand that -- we were
   -- let me just go back a second.
   
   We were kept out of the management review process because of a
   purported conflict of interest, that our office was being looked at,
   particularly Mr. Kennedy, and I had no problem with that. I mean, if
   that's the way they wanted to do it, that's the way they wanted to do
   it. On the other hand, we did see the late draft, so we had an
   opportunity to make whatever comment we wanted.
   
   At first, that wasn't going to be made available. I disagreed with
   that, and I expressed my disagreement with that, and finally I
   received the late drafts, and then, as I told you, I made comments
   about the conclusions, as well as made some minor changes with respect
   to the chronology of events. But then when I learned, near the end,
   that Kennedy, among others, was going to be reprimanded, and I learned
   that, I think, from Foster -- I mean, Foster walked into my office and
   says he understands now as a result of the management review, Kennedy
   was to be reprimanded. I blew up.
   
   I walked down from my office and I walked to McLarty's office, which
   was one floor below mine, and I asked to see him promptly or
   immediately or I just walked in if nobody was in with him, and I told
   -- I asked him whether or not he was considering reprimanding Bill
   Kennedy for what I considered totally proper conduct; and McLarty
   said, yes, they were considering that.
   
   And I told McLarty, basically, two things: One, I said that was a
   terribly wrong thing to do, that Kennedy did nothing wrong, that I --
   you know, that I -- I now am aware of most of the facts, became aware
   after the fact rather than at the time of the facts, that he did
   nothing wrong.
   
   He acted in good faith. He acted totally properly in every respect,
   from contacting the FBI to everything else he did with respect to this
   thing, so it was wrong to reprimand him. But if you are going to
   reprimand him, but if you believe -- and you are the Chief of Staff,
   and you and Panetta were appointed by the President to do this -- if
   you are going to reprimand him, then you have an obligation to
   reprimand his superiors because they are responsible for his conduct
   as the responsible people. So you have an obligation then, a duty, to
   reprimand me.
   
   I want to be reprimanded if Kennedy is reprimanded, and Foster,
   reprimand Foster, too. That's the way you should do it. If you feel
   that Kennedy did something wrong, then I did something wrong and
   Foster did something wrong and we should be reprimanded.
   
   Q Do you know if Mr. McLarty ever seriously considering reprimanding
   you and --
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q -- Mr. Foster?
   
   A Well, I don't know. He said to me -- he listened to me. I was
   speaking in any normal laid-back fashion, and he said to me, you have
   a point and I will consider that. And I believe he did. I mean, I
   believe he did, maybe -- you know, you talked to him yourself. He
   said, I will consider that and, you know, that may be the way we do
   it.
   
   And I had the impression, as I walked out of the office, that I was
   going to be reprimanded and Foster was going to be reprimanded along
   with Kennedy, if there was to be a reprimand. I assumed there would be
   a reprimanded, and I assumed I would be reprimanded.
   
   So I remember walking back up to Foster's office, up to our office,
   and saying to Foster, good news. And Foster said, what's the good
   news? And I said, Kennedy is not being reprimanded by himself. He
   says, oh. I said, yep. I accomplished my mission. You and I are going
   to be reprimanded as well.
   
   He didn't look about it as happy as I did, at that point. I really
   thought -- I really -- I was sort of happy about it. I know it sounds
   peculiar, but it was true. If this crazy thing was going to be done to
   reprimand Kennedy, then Foster and I should be reprimanded, too.
   
   You know, we should stand together on this thing. And I thought that
   was a good result to achieve. I mean, I did not want any reprimands,
   obviously. But as I said, Foster didn't -- he didn't seem that happy.
   
   And then -- although he didn't seem that sad, either, because he
   thought it was the right thing to do. He didn't protest. He didn't say
   it was wrong.
   
   And then -- this sticks in my mind, as you can see, very vividly. And
   then 2 hours later, he walked back into my office, well, Foster walked
   back into the office, after having come, I gather, from McLarty's
   office, and he said, well -- he looked at me and he sort of had a
   smile on his face, a pained smile. He said, you failed.
   
   I said, what do you mean I failed?
   
   He says, you are not being reprimanded. And I am not being
   reprimanded, but Kennedy is still being reprimanded. And I was -- I
   was enormously upset at that point. And he said, they just -- he said,
   they just consider you and me too important, too visible, to be
   reprimanded.
   
   Q Along these same lines that you have mentioned about superiors being
   responsible for actions done by the people who work for them, do you
   believe Mr. Kennedy would have been responsible for any actions taken
   by Craig Livingstone concerning the FBI personnel files?
   
   A Yeah, I believe the -- you know, I believe ultimately that the
   people who run an office are responsible for the conduct, you know, of
   that office. I believe in that respect, you know --
   
   Q It's your statement Mr. Livingstone --
   
   A -- they are responsible.
   
   Q Mr. Livingstone did report to Mr. Kennedy?
   
   A Mr. Livingstone reported to Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy reported to Mr.
   Foster, and later on to the other deputy counsel who was then Joel
   Klein, near December of 1993, and they reported to me, and I reported
   to the President.
   
   And, you know -- and I think, you know, we are all responsible for any
   bureaucratic screw-up that occurs. Ultimately, we are the responsible
   people with respect to this. And so, you know, unfortunate mistakes
   happen, but the senior people should take responsibility with respect
   to those mistakes.
   
   But some mistakes happen in good faith and there's no harm done, and
   that's fortunate. Just like I believe congressional committees should
   take responsibility for their staff. So if the Chairman of a committee
   issues a statement suggesting that the Counsel to the President may
   have committed a felony by having a form with his name sent for FBI
   reports because he lied about it on that thing, I think that's
   outrageous conduct by a Congressman. I think he should take
   responsibility and his staff should take responsibility for feeding
   him that kind of memorandum, for not making a call in response with
   respect to that.
   
   Q Mr. Nussbaum, I don't know if you are making allegations here, but
   that's not the purpose of this deposition.
   
   A We are talking about responsibility.
   
   Q That's fine.
   
   A So I am answering your question with respect to responsibility.
   
   Q I have tried to let you talk and answer whatever you want to.
   
   A I appreciate that.
   
   Q I have got one hour left for today, and I would really like to ask
   some questions. I don't mean to cut you off, but we are now getting to
   where there are accusations being made about some Chairman who made
   some accusation for something that sounds very much like you -- and I
   don't think that's going to get us anywhere today.
   
   A It's true, isn't it? That did happen, didn't it?
   
   Q I want to move on to Patsy Thomasson.
   
   Did you know Patsy Thomasson in the White House?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Do you have any knowledge of any advice by Patsy Thomasson that
   Catherine Cornelius and Clarissa Cerda were to say to everyone that
   David Watkins did not, in fact, read a memo that was given to him by
   Catherine Cornelius?
   
   A That they were asked to lie about something?
   
   Q Yes.
   
   A No.
   
   Q By Patsy Thomasson?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Were you aware that Patsy Thomasson had a conversation with
   Catherine, and Clarissa Cerda, where she mentioned that David did not
   read the February 15th memo written by Catherine Cornelius?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Do you have any knowledge or were you ever made aware of Patsy
   Thomasson trying to get Catherine Cornelius to resign from the White
   House Travel Office after the firings?
   
   A You know, that Patsy Thomasson tried to get Clarissa Cerda --
   
   Q Catherine Cornelius to resign?
   
   A That she tried to get Catherine Cornelius to resign? I have heard
   that, but I don't know -- I don't remember hearing it at the time. I
   have no memory of hearing it at that time, but I know a lot of these
   things have been -- it is very hard for me to separate out what I read
   in the press and all the press with respect to this and what I knew at
   the time. I don't remember I knew at the time that Patsy Thomasson was
   trying to get -- was trying to get Catherine Cornelius to leave the
   White House.
   
   Q That Patsy Thomasson actually told Catherine Cornelius that she
   should resign to save everyone else and specifically to save David
   Watkins?
   
   A I think I would remember that because it's the kind of thing that
   appalls me, as I said earlier, but I don't remember that.
   
   Q Do you have any -- were you ever told about Clarissa Cerda meeting
   with Cliff Sloan for advice concerning Patsy Thomasson's threats?
   
   A See, that I must know about because -- first of all --
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. If it's true.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Do you have any knowledge? Did Cliff Sloan ever tell you?
   
   A If he had that conversation?
   
   Mr. Mazur. Can we get a whole question?
   
   The Witness. Did he ever tell me what?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Did Cliff Sloan ever mention any visit by Clarissa Cerda where she
   went for advice concerning Patsy Thomasson's threats that were made to
   Catherine Cornelius?
   
   A If it happened, Cliff Sloan would have told me about it, and he may
   well have told me about it. I just don't have any memory of it at this
   point.
   
   I just know how I operated with Cliff. If that happened -- and it may
   have happened. I'm not saying it didn't happen. It may well have
   happened. If that happened, Cliff would have undoubtedly come to me
   and told me about it. But right now, independently, I don't have any
   memory.
   
   Q Do you know if anyone asked Patsy Thomasson to ask Catherine
   Cornelius to resign?
   
   A Do I know of anyone who asked Patty Thomasson to ask Catherine
   Cornelius to resign? No.
   
   Q Were you aware that Patsy Thomasson -- if Patsy Thomasson had
   suggested to Catherine Cornelius that she could get a position at the
   DNC if she left the White House?
   
   A No, I don't -- I don't know that.
   
   Q Okay. Did --
   
   A At least I don't remember it now. As I said, the one possibility is
   that if that happened and Clarissa, or Catherine Cornelius, for that
   matter, but Clarissa told it to Cliff Sloan, then undoubtedly it would
   be told to me. But I don't remember that happening now.
   
   Q Okay. Do you have any knowledge of Catherine Cornelius and Clarissa
   Cerda's mess privileges being pulled by Patsy Thomasson as a result of
   this?
   
   A What privileges?
   
   Q White House mess privileges; they were no longer allowed to go into
   the White House mess?
   
   A Did Patsy do that? She pulled their mess privileges? She probably
   wanted to improve their nutrition.
   
   Q Other than that, were you ever told about that?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Or informed of that?
   
   A That's a new fact I have learned today; they pulled the mess
   privileges.
   
   Q Were you aware of --
   
   Mr. Mazur. They allegedly pulled the mess privileges.
   
   The Witness. Allegedly. I am sorry. Go ahead.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Were you told about any tensions between Catherine Cornelius and
   David Watkins where Catherine Cornelius felt as though David Watkins
   had created a hostile environment in his office?
   
   A No.
   
   Q For women specifically.
   
   A No. I -- no. I was sensitive to those types of subjects. I think I
   would remember that. No, I didn't know about a hostile environment for
   women, no.
   
   Q And this was in the White House, not previous --
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q -- to Mr. Watkins starting in the White House.
   
   A Well, Mr. Watkins had a problem previous to starting in the White
   House.
   
   Q That's why I limited it to the White House.
   
   A But in the White House, no, because we were very sensitive to those
   kind of issues in this White House, and I never heard that.
   
   Q Did Catherine Cornelius ever, or Jean Charlton or other secretaries
   of Mr. Watkins, ever express a hostile environment that Mr. Watkins
   created in the White House toward women?
   
   A No.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. That was a question about, to your knowledge.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q To your knowledge, do you have any information?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Were you aware that Catherine Cornelius took a leave of absence in
   July of 1993 due to health problems?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Do you know why she had to leave?
   
   A No. I mean, obviously this thing had become such a brouhaha. Her
   name was in the paper and she was subject to, you know, criticism and
   accusations. And I knew that she didn't feel very good about that.
   Most people don't.
   
   And I, you know, I always assumed that was part of the reason why she
   took the leave of absence at that point.
   
   RPTS STEIN
   
   DCMN KRISTOFFERSEN
   
   [2:45 P.M.]
   
   Q Were you ever told or was your ethics person ever informed that part
   of the reason was because of the harassment of Patsy Thomasson and
   David Watkins?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Did you have an opportunity or ask Beth Nolan to look into
   allegations that Patsy Thomasson had harassed Catherine Cornelius?
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Have an opportunity?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Were you told or did you ask others to look into that?
   
   A I don't remember doing so.
   
   Q Were you informed or did there come a time when you learned that
   Catherine Cornelius had gone to the Chief of Staff's Office about
   Patsy Thomasson's actions toward her?
   
   A I don't recall ever hearing that.
   
   Q Did you speak to Catherine Cornelius any time following her
   reprimand concerning White House Travel Office matters or her problems
   in the White House?
   
   A No. I don't recall speaking to her following her reprimand or seeing
   her. I am not even sure I know what she looks like. I know what
   Clarissa Cerda looks like because she was part of my staff. I am sure
   I met her on some occasion, but I certainly don't remember meeting her
   after the reprimand.
   
   Q Did anyone ever discuss with you Ms. Cornelius's lawyer asking for a
   new job for Catherine Cornelius with an increased salary because Ms.
   Cornelius had chosen to remain silent and a complete team player?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Do you have any knowledge of what Ms. Cornelius might have been
   remaining silent about?
   
   A I don't know if she remained silent about anything.
   
   Q Mr. Braga, who is Ms. Cornelius's attorney, in a letter to Mr.
   Burton, states in his letter that Patsy Thomasson engaged in "repeated
   instances of unethical, possibly illegal, and certainly harassing
   conduct." My question is, were you aware of any such actions, or were
   they referred to your ethics person?
   
   A Not aware of any such actions, and I can't recall whether or not
   they were referred to any ethics person in the White House.
   
   Q Was there anyone else in the White House who would handle those
   kinds of problems other than your office?
   
   A The Chief of Staff's Office would handle it, but if there is a legal
   component it would immediately come to us. Burton was a McLarty aide,
   a senior McLarty aide, who would be a troubleshooter for him and try
   to handle these kinds of problems. I am not surprised if there were
   such a letter it would be sent to Burton.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. Was Burton an attorney?
   
   The Witness. Yes.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q If in fact there were allegations of unethical behavior, would that
   be an area that goes to the White House Counsel's Office?
   
   A Normally, yes.
   
   Q But you have no recollection of being told of any actions by Patsy
   Thomasson toward Catherine Cornelius -- were you ever advised of any
   actions by Patsy Thomasson towards Catherine Cornelius that would be
   deemed to be unethical or illegal?
   
   A I cannot remember now being advised of that. If it happened, it
   would have been by Sloan, I guess, maybe by Nolan. I am trying to
   think. And since Clarissa was in our office and talked to Cliff a fair
   amount, it is possible any such complaint would have been passed on to
   Cliff and perhaps to me. But right now I don't remember. I am not
   saying it could never have happened, but right now I don't remember
   that.
   
   Q Did you know Jeff Eller?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q In his interview he stated that --
   
   A Interview with who?
   
   Q The White House Management Review, I believe.
   
   He stated that he removed himself from this matter after the Travel
   Office firings, and when he did, he destroyed all of his documents.
   
   Were you ever given that information that Mr. Eller had actually
   destroyed all of his documents concerning the White House Travel
   Office matter?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Were you ever told that Mr. Eller saved a computer disk of his
   documents and gave them to John Podesta?
   
   A He didn't destroy all his documents.
   
   Q He destroyed the hard copies.
   
   A But he has the computer disk.
   
   Q Were you ever told that a computer disk was handed off to Mr.
   Podesta by Mr. Eller?
   
   A No.
   
   Q Do you know if there was any action taken as a result of Mr. Eller
   allegedly telling in the White House Management Review interview that
   he destroyed all his documents?
   
   A The answer to that is no, but if a hard disk was kept, then all the
   documents can be rerun and therefore they were not destroyed.
   Destroyed means destroyed, means gone forever.
   
   Q We don't know that a hard disk was kept. I just thought that perhaps
   one was and that you had information that it was actually saved and
   given over to someone.
   
   A Oh, I don't know.
   
   Q When did you first learn of the existence of the Vince Foster Travel
   Office file? By "file" I mean his notebook, spiral-bound notebook that
   he kept.
   
   A On July 22, 1993.
   
   Q Was that when you were going through the documents that were in his
   office?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q It has been reported that documents went into three stacks as you
   went through the documents. Is that correct?
   
   A Documents went into a pile of documents that the investigators
   wanted to look at after I described the document. We were looking for
   a suicide note or extortion or a similar such document. That is all we
   were looking for at that time. Everybody understood that, I believe.
   
   As I went through the documents, describing them, every so often one
   of the people there from the investigating agencies said, "We might
   want to take a look at that," so I would put that in a separate pile.
   
   I also made another pile of clearly personal Foster documents,
   something like an insurance policy, a lease, I don't remember what
   they were at this point, but something like that.
   
   Since Foster's family lawyer was in the room as well, I created a pile
   of documents to give him, and if the agencies wanted to look at those
   documents at any time later, they should get in touch with the
   personal lawyer later. I make that point, and everybody agreed that
   was the appropriate thing to do. That was pile number 2.
   
   There was no third pile, but I, in effect, created a pile which was
   documents which were what I considered White House Counsel's Office
   documents which would have to be distributed ultimately to other
   people in the White House Counsel's Office.
   
   There was a fourth category of documents, which was Clinton personal
   documents, which ultimately that day I had sent over to the Clintons.
   
   So this three-pile thing, there was a basis for that. Those are the
   categories of documents that I was dealing with. Sometimes they were
   separated into piles. Certainly the Foster personal documents were in
   a pile as I ran across them, and the documents the investigators
   wanted to look at as I described them were in a pile. The other things
   were not exactly in a pile. There was a pile of them, but there were
   other such documents around the office too.
   
   Q What did you do with the Vince Foster Travel Office notebook when
   you discovered it?
   
   A What I did, what happened was -- you say when I discovered it. It
   was on July 22nd. As I was going through the files, I came across the
   Vince Foster Travel Office file consisting of a notebook and other
   single sheets of paper and various other documents.
   
   What I did with that was what I did with virtually all the other
   documents. I described it to the people in the room. I remember this
   because of the publicity in connection with the Travel Office, so this
   sticks in my mind. I don't remember describing every document, but
   this sticks in my mind.
   
   I picked them up, this pile of papers, I put them on a desk, and you
   know who was sitting in the room? The Department of Justice, the FBI,
   the Secret Service, the Park Police, Foster's family and lawyer, and
   people from my staff, and Bill Burton was there, too.
   
   I said in front of all these people, I looked at the file and looked
   at the notebook, at the pieces of paper, looked at the management
   review report which was parts of it, and I said, This is a Travel
   Office file that Vince was working on, because I looked at it, and I
   described it to all the people in the room. I said, Do you remember
   the Travel Office situation? It got a lot of publicity. There were a
   lot of criticisms about firings in the Travel Office. Foster was
   working on it. This is his file.
   
   Q Was the file in a red weld or just a manila envelope?
   
   A No. It was bundled together in --
   
   Q File folders?
   
   A I don't think so. Some were in file folders, I think. The notebook
   and the -- it was all together. It was in his briefcase. I pulled it
   out of his briefcase. There were other files in his briefcase too.
   
   I pulled it out, everybody looked as I was doing it, put it on the
   desk, and looked at it, and saw it involved the Travel Office, and
   described that to everybody present, All these files here are the
   Foster Travel Office files. And I described it.
   
   This is reflected in people's notes, in Spafford's notes and Sloan's
   notes, and maybe in FBI notes, for all I know. If you have access to
   them, you can see. I explained that to everybody, and everybody
   nodded. We were looking for a suicide note or an extortion note, and I
   flipped through the file and didn't see a suicide note or extortion
   note.
   
   Q And you remember saying it was a Travel Office file, not a White
   House Management Review file?
   
   A I remember I said this is Foster's file on the Travel Office
   matters, this is Foster's file of the Travel Office matter. The
   management review thing was there too. I said, There was a management
   review of this thing.
   
   I was trying to explain what Travel Office meant to people in the room
   who might not know what it meant. We knew what it meant, and there was
   a lot of publicity on it.
   
   Then I put that file aside, probably in a pile, because it was on the
   desk, because I remember the famous briefcase, so famous I have
   testified a lot about this. I put it on the desk, and I put other
   files there. These were files that were to stay in the White House
   Counsel's Office, because this is the Foster working Travel Office
   file.
   
   There were other Foster working files on other matters which I sort of
   piled up or left in his drawers which I was to distribute to various
   people. This file I distributed to myself because now that Vince was
   dead, this was a matter, there was an investigation going on, I was
   working with Cliff Sloan who was right behind me over my shoulder, so
   Cliff and I would work on it now that Vince was gone. Vince basically
   had been handling the Travel Office matter initially.
   
   Once the publicity started and the newspaper stuff and all these
   investigations started, I got more and more involved because it became
   a very significant matter, and I started working to some extent with
   Sloan on it, but Vince had still been working on it. Now that Vince
   was gone, I would work with Sloan on it.
   
   Having described the file to everybody, including Sloan, who was
   standing there, I took over Vince's role in this thing and I assigned
   this matter to myself to continue to work with Sloan. So this file I
   took with me into my office where I kept it.
   
   Q And you recall that there was a copy of the management review in
   that file?
   
   A I believe so, yes. There was a copy of the management review report,
   the final report, the report that was issued publicly. That was there.
   Various pieces of paper were there with lawyers' analysis, legal
   theories.
   
   I looked at the file eventually. I didn't read every piece at that
   moment. After I took it to my office, a few days later I looked
   through the file in a more detailed fashion, through Vince's Travel
   Office file, having told everybody it was there.
   
   Q The notebook, at the top of each page, which was since received, has
   "Privileged and Confidential in Anticipation of Litigation" on many of
   the pages, and certainly on the first page it is very prominent. Did
   you turn a copy of this over to Mr. Foster's personal attorney?
   
   A No. This was a -- it had nothing to do with Foster's personal
   attorney. This file was created in his role as deputy White House
   counsel. This is a White House Counsel's Office file. It was a legal
   file of the White House Counsel's Office. I didn't turn it over to Mr.
   Foster's attorney.
   
   Q After you took control of the file, did you review it to turn it
   over to Independent Counsel Fiske initially when he was first
   requesting documents on the Foster suicide?
   
   A When I received a subpoena, when I became aware of a subpoena from
   Independent Counsel Fiske, which was in May of '94 -- he had been
   appointed in January 1994 -- but when I received a subpoena after I
   left the White House, with respect to this, I reviewed that subpoena
   and I saw that subpoena would cover, as I read it at least, initially
   this file, and, you know, I talked to Mr. Eggleston about it, I called
   Mr. Eggleston and said, You should be aware this may be covered by the
   Fiske subpoena, this Travel Office file that Foster had.
   
   Q Did anyone else know about the Travel Office file prior to you
   calling Mr. Eggleston after you realized that the Fiske subpoena, in
   what month --
   
   A May of '94.
   
   Q May of '94 -- might have been calling for that file?
   
   Mr. Mazur. Can I hear the question again?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Was anyone else aware that the Vince Foster Travel Office file
   existed until May of 1994 besides you?
   
   A Sure. David Margolis of the Department of Justice, Roger Adams of
   the Department of Justice, the people from the Secret Service who were
   in the room, the FBI people who were in the room, the Park Police
   people that were in the room.
   
   I described a Travel Office file. The people behind Cliff Sloan, Mr.
   Spafford, Mr. Burton, and in September of 1993 I apparently mentioned
   this file or mentioned there were Travel Office materials in the White
   House Counsel's Office to the GAO, and I also mentioned it in an
   interview with Mr. Fiske in May of '94 prior to this conversation with
   Mr. Eggleston.
   
   If you ask me who was aware, all those people were aware that there
   was a Travel Office file or materials in Mr. Foster's office.
   
   Q When you mentioned it to GAO, there was an objection and you refused
   to discuss it in your GAO interview. Do you know why that happened? Do
   you recall when you mentioned the Vince Foster file in your GAO
   interview an objection being raised?
   
   A I don't recall, but apparently when this issue was raised, whether
   or not there were Travel Office files or materials in Foster's office
   at the time of his death, I responded affirmatively, truthfully, yes,
   there are such files. I said there's confidential and privileged
   material in Foster's office and there were Travel Office materials in
   Foster's office.
   
   I don't remember any objection at that point being raised, although I
   do remember discussions with people on my staff, including Eggleston,
   that we are not going to be turning over, as a general matter,
   confidential and privileged material to the GAO unless there was a
   specific request, maybe we can try to work out some sort of an
   accommodation.
   
   With respect to some things we made a determination; we did work out
   accommodations, for example, I think they wanted to see the notes, the
   notes of the Foster interview by Podesta and Stern. Foster was dead,
   so he wasn't available, obviously, to be reinterviewed.
   
   While we considered that confidential and privileged material inside
   the White House, we, as an accommodation to the GAO, because there is
   no other way they can get that information, we turned that over. But
   as a general matter we were not turning over confidential and
   privileged information. That was made clear to them eventually by a
   letter.
   
   Q At this point, had you read through Mr. Foster's notebook to know
   that it was a document that you believed to be White House property
   rather than his personal property?
   
   A Oh, yes.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. The point that we are talking about is the GAO
   interview?
   
   Ms. Olson. At this point, yes.
   
   The Witness. Yes, I had read the Foster file by the time of the GAO
   interview.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q When did you read it?
   
   A I read the Foster file probably three or four -- probably the
   following week, July --
   
   Mr. Mazur. Following what?
   
   The Witness. Following -- the week following July 22nd. July 22nd was
   a Thursday, and on Friday we left for the funeral. I don't think I
   read it the evening of July 22nd. It was a difficult time, because
   Foster had just killed himself. We had to go to a funeral, which was
   going to be difficult. So I didn't get back to the White House -- I
   left on Friday morning to go to the funeral with the President. I
   didn't get back to the White House until Monday morning, and I believe
   I read the file some time that week, the week of July 26.
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q During that period, is the file located in your office?
   
   A The file was located in my office, yes.
   
   Q OPR was investigating the Vince Foster suicide and notes?
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Did you ever disclose to anyone at OPR that there was a file and/or
   notebook that discussed that material?
   
   A I disclosed to David Margolis, the deputy attorney general, to whom
   OPR reports, that there was such a file.
   
   Q Can you describe that disclosure to Mr. Margolis?
   
   A On July 22nd that this was a Vince Foster Travel Office file.
   
   Q Was he ever allowed to look at anything in the file?
   
   A No, but I told him Vince Foster had a Travel Office file. He never
   asked to see the Vince Foster Travel Office file, nor did Mr. Adams,
   nor did the Department of Justice. They asked to see other documents
   in the office that day.
   
   As I said, I made a separate pile. Nobody asked to see the Foster
   Travel Office file on July 22nd, although they were told there was
   such a file.
   
   When Foster -- after this note was discovered on July 26th and turned
   over to the Department of Justice on July 27, which mentions the
   Travel Office matter, no one from the Justice Department, including
   anybody from OPR, ever asked to see the Foster Travel office file.
   They just didn't ask to see it.
   
   Q Did they not ask to see all documents concerning Mr. Foster's -- was
   there not a broader request from OPR for all documents, which would
   include the Foster file?
   
   A No. There was never any request from OPR or anybody that would
   include the Foster file. The first request that ever came, to my
   knowledge, that would include the Foster file, came in May of '94 from
   Independent Counsel Fiske.
   
   That request, I believe later on maybe it was narrowed, maybe didn't
   include it anymore. I don't know. I was out of the White House then.
   The subpoena I saw I believe was broad enough to include that.
   
   But prior to that, to my knowledge, there was no request broad enough
   to include that file and no one asked for that file. When people asked
   if there were Travel office material in Foster's office, as the GAO
   asked on September 24th, 1993, they received a direct response that
   there were Travel Office materials in Foster's office.
   
   Q Is it your position that those who were in the office as you went
   through Mr. Foster's documents realized that there was a Travel Office
   file and not that it was just a White House Management Review copy?
   
   A I held it up. I was holding up a bunch of papers. I said, This is
   the Foster Travel Office file. The White House Management Review was
   just one part of that. He was working on this matter; this is his
   file; there were yellow pieces of paper sticking out; it says;
   "Privileged and Confidential, Preparation of Litigation," that kind of
   stuff. I said, This is his file. This is Foster's Travel Office file.
   There is a management review report, I said, and you remember this.
   They were all sitting there. They all heard it. This was fully
   disclosed to them.
   
   Q Did there come a time when you moved the file from your office to
   another location?
   
   A Yes. When I left, what I did was, I brought -- it stayed in my
   office until I left. It was in a drawer right in my desk, wasn't put
   in a safe or anything like that. And when I left, I just left it in my
   office files.
   
   There was another Travel office file, an office -- a White House
   Counsel's Office Travel Office file with correspondence and things
   like that in the area of my secretary outside my office.
   
   So what I did was, I put the Travel Office file with the other Travel
   Office files. As long as I had it in my office, it was split from the
   other Travel Office files. I didn't normally keep a lot of files in my
   office, but there were some files in my office. This I happened to
   take to my office, and it ended up staying there.
   
   Q This other Travel Office file that was in your secretary's area, did
   it have to do with the White House Travel Office matter or just
   matter?
   
   A No. I think it had to do with the White House Travel Office matter.
   I didn't have in my office all the White House correspondence or other
   things connected with the Travel Office matter -- not White House
   travel, but the Travel Office matter. I had some, including the Foster
   file, so I combined them when I left.
   
   Q Did you tell anyone at that time about taking the file and putting
   it into the secretarial area?
   
   A I didn't tell anyone -- when I left, I sent files here, I combined
   files. There was other things I took out of my office; I don't
   remember what now particularly. I didn't go around telling anybody.
   This was part of the files. I just put them in files. There was nobody
   to tell.
   
   Q There is a file that ended up with Mr. Kendall as part of the Vince
   Foster documents that had to do with the White House project. That is
   the label that was on it. Do you recall any documents or anything
   having to do with the White House project that were in Mr. Foster's
   office or that were specifically sent to Mr. Kendall?
   
   A What is the White House project, do you know?
   
   Q It is one of the Harry Thomason projects.
   
   A No. I don't recall. I have no recollection on that.
   
   Q There was also a file that was called the Bush file index. Do you
   know what was in that file?
   
   Mr. Mazur. This is a file that was in Foster's office?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q Yes, and obviously, with the latest revelations, we are curious if
   there in fact could have been some Bush files in Mr. Foster's office
   concerning personnel records.
   
   A No. I know of no such file in Mr. Foster's office involving any
   personnel records.
   
   Q Do you know of a Bush file index that was in Mr. Foster's --
   
   A No, I don't.
   
   Q Do you know what was in a file entitled "Bush file index" at any
   time in Mr. Foster's office?
   
   A No. This is the first I ever heard of it. I talked to Boyden Gray
   and got some ideas from him on various things. Foster and I met with
   Gray when we first came into the White House, and I think Vince took
   notes of our meeting. He was giving us ideas and the Counsel's Office.
   You know, conceivably those notes could be in that file, but I don't
   know. I am not sure.
   
   Q Was there any specific reason why the Foster Travel Office file
   wasn't indexed with the other counsel files that were removed from Mr.
   Foster's office? I am talking about the July 26 index that Mr.
   Neuwirth did of all the remaining Foster files.
   
   A I don't know, because some of the files -- because I asked him to
   index -- I made -- I had made a determination when I saw the Travel
   Office file at this point that I was going to be handling this matter
   with Sloan, so I took the file into my office and I then worked on the
   matter in the future.
   
   The purpose of sending Neuwirth in to make an index on the 26th, which
   I determined to do, was that we should index the file, so I could have
   a handle on what other files were in his office, so I could make a
   determination as to who to send them to.
   
   I didn't want to go in and spend 2 days in Foster's office, which was
   hard enough to do because of emotional reasons, looking through
   everything and saying, "Here, this is a file on ethics; send this to
   Beth; this is a file on presidential; send this to Neuwirth." I said,
   "Steve, you go in, just give me an index of all the things in that
   office. I will then sit down with the index and I will look at that
   index and distribute the files. I will determine who should get what
   at that particular point." And that was the purpose of the Neuwirth
   index.
   
   I had already assigned and taken out the Travel Office files, so there
   was no reason for it to be on the index. The index was designed -- if
   he had found other Travel Office material in there at that time, which
   apparently he didn't, because I don't believe there were any at that
   point, he probably would have put it on the index. But I had already
   made a judgment to assign that to myself.
   
   He was there. Neuwirth, I believe, was there when I announced -- he
   was one of the people -- This is Foster's travel office file.
   
   It wasn't designed to be a complete index of everything that was in
   Foster's office on July 22nd. It was designed to be an index of what
   remained in Foster's office on July 26 after I had distributed
   personal files to Foster's personal lawyers, after I distributed
   Clinton personal files to the Clintons and ultimately to their
   personal lawyers, Williams and Connelly, and after I removed what I
   assigned to myself. That was the purpose of the index. That is why the
   index wouldn't have to include the Travel Office file.
   
   Q The Vince Foster notebook, on the first page it discusses a meeting
   with Harry Thomason. Mr. Foster discussed a meeting that Harry
   Thomason had. There's also other references to Harry Thomason
   throughout that file.
   
   A Yes.
   
   Q Did you ever discuss the Vince Foster notebook in relation to the
   request being made by the Justice Department in its investigation of
   the White House Travel Office matter? And specifically it is the
   Public Integrity criminal investigation.
   
   A No, I don't believe I ever did.
   
   This was a -- you know, a lawyer -- this was a lawyer's work product
   privileged file. There was no secret about Harry Thomason's
   involvement in this matter. It was laid out in -- to a large extent in
   the management review.
   
   In any event, the answer to your question is no.
   
   Q Did you tell Mr. Cutler about this file prior to your leaving?
   
   A I don't think I told Mr. Cutler about any file prior to my leaving.
   
   Q You said that you told Mr. Fiske about the file. Was anyone at the
   White House that remained told that you had informed Mr. Fiske about
   the Vince Foster Travel Office file?
   
   A I think I told Eggleston that I told -- no, I don't know if I did or
   not. I don't know -- I told -- the only thing I remember telling
   Eggleston is that I just looked at a subpoena and it was covered by --
   it may have been covered.
   
   I don't think I described my interview with Mr. Fiske -- Fiske's
   people actually, not with Mr. Fiske himself -- to Eggleston, but I
   told Fiske about it -- Fiske's staff about it. I never met with Mr.
   Fiske with respect to this thing.
   
   So I told that to Fiske's staff, that there was a White House Travel
   Office -- that there was a Foster Travel Office file, and then I told
   Eggleston that the subpoena may cover that and he should look; the
   file is with the rest of the -- it was in the secretarial area.
   
   Q Did Neal Eggleston or anyone else tell you about a July 10th memo
   that he wrote -- and this is obviously after you are gone, but it is a
   July 10th memo Mr. Eggleston wrote about the Vince Foster file and its
   failure to be produced.
   
   A He wrote it to who?
   
   Q It is a memo to file.
   
   A July 10 what year?
   
   Q 1994. It is after you were gone.
   
   Mr. Mazur. You want to know if he ever saw it?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q If Mr. Eggleston told you about it or anyone else.
   
   A I don't know that Eggleston ever told me about it. I am aware, in
   preparation for this examination, about the possibility of such a
   memo, but I didn't know about the memo at the time or what he said in
   the memo. That is July '94, so this is after my conversation with him
   and Fiske's people about the existence of this file.
   
   Q Did you ever have any conversations with the First Lady about the
   contents of the Vince Foster Travel Office file?
   
   A No, I never did.
   
   Q During the period when Ms. Nolan was reviewing whether Mr. Thomason
   was a Special Government Employee, did you ever inform her that Mr.
   Foster had done -- had taken notes concerning whether Harry Thomason
   was an employee and written cryptic notes about that?
   
   A No, because she was the expert on whether Harry Thomason -- whether
   the facts and the law were such that Harry Thomason would be a Special
   Government Employee. It is like she was the one that he and I were
   looking to with respect to those issues. He had no particular
   expertise or knowledge of that law other than what she told him and
   told me. We hired a very good person, so had great confidence in her.
   It never occurred to me to tell her that Vince had some scrawled notes
   
   on the SGE issue to her. If he scrawled anything, it is probably
   because he got it from her.
   
   Q Was Ms. Nolan provided with any other information other than the
   White House Management Review to use in her determination whether
   Harry Thomason was a Special Government Employee?
   
   A She had free access to talk to anybody she wished in the White House
   about the facts. She wasn't going to base it on -- a determination of
   whether Harry Thomason was a Special Government Employee -- the
   analysis that was being done at some point with respect to that matter
   is not based on a management review report solely. She could talk to
   anybody.
   
   Q You didn't limit it to the four corners of the White House
   Management Review?
   
   A I don't believe so. It doesn't sound -- unless I believed at the
   time that the four corners of the White House Management Review
   contained all the relevant facts. But I didn't limit it, no. I don't
   recall limiting it.
   
   Q Do you know anybody else who told her that she was supposed to do
   her analysis solely upon the four corners of the White House
   Management Review?
   
   A No. I don't know of anybody who told her that. I can't imagine
   saying to somebody, "You determine if somebody is a Special Government
   Employee. " Even if you want to find out additional facts, you must
   make a determination on the basis of the White House Management
   Review.
   
   Q Why not? What would be wrong with that?
   
   A Because it is an artificial -- if the White House Management Review
   didn't ask certain questions or missed certain issues or didn't delve
   into certain things that she wanted to delve into, of course. I want a
   real answer.
   
   On the other hand, if the White House Management Review is totally
   complete and provides every fact that one needs, then you can look to
   the White House Management Review.
   
   But certainly she wasn't instructed that she must limit herself to the
   White House Management Review in making a decision about Special
   Government Employees. I wouldn't give her that instruction, and she
   wouldn't accept that instruction from me, knowing Beth Nolan.
   
   Q I wanted to ask a couple of questions concerning the Billy Dale
   indictment. Did you receive any information prior to his indictment by
   Department of Justice about the internal status of their investigation
   of Billy Dale?
   
   A The answer to that question is no. The White House -- when was the
   indictment?
   
   Q That came down in December of '94. However, it was pushed several
   times.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. I am sorry; pushed?
   
   Ms. Olson. The internal Justice Department documents show that there
   was near an indictment and something would happen and they would move
   the time.
   
   The Witness. And your question is: Was I informed about the indictment
   in advance?
   
   BY MS. OLSON:
   
   Q The status of their investigation prior to the public announcement
   of the indictment.
   
   A No. To my knowledge, the White House had absolutely nothing to do
   and no involvement in and received no status reports on, didn't push
   in any way, shape, or form the investigation of Billy Dale and the
   others by the Justice Department. That was solely within the province
   of the Justice Department. The White House stayed out of that totally.
   It was up to them to make whatever decision they thought appropriate
   with respect to the Billy Dale matter.
   
   Mr. Pedowitz. I know I don't need to remind you, but by April of 1994
   Bernie Nussbaum was no longer in the White House.
   
   Ms. Olson. I think the other section is a fairly lengthy section. It
   would probably be more misleading than helpful to start it then stop.
   
   Mr. Goldberg, do you have further questions?
   
   Mr. Goldberg. No.
   
   Ms. Olson. I sort of skipped through some things, but I think I am
   probably, I would say, 70 percent done. So if we have time, it will
   not be as long. I think I can cull through what I have left and go
   through the answers I have to make a concise conclusion to this.
   
   [Discussion off the record.]
   
   Ms. Olson. I thank you very much for coming up. Our record is off.
   
   [Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the deposition was concluded.]



Back To The Top.

Back To The Political Page.

Back To The Political Page.


Mail to: Michael Rivero

drupal statistics