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.]
