COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
:
In the matter of: :
:
FBI FILES : DEPOSITION OF
: CRAIG LIVINGSTONE
:
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
Tuesday, September 24, 1996
Washington, D.C.
The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10:30 a.m.
Appearances:
Members present: Representatives Clinger, Burton, Mica, Waxman and Kanjorski.
Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Barbara Olson, Chief Investigator; Kristi Remington, Investigator; Laurie Taylor, Investigator; Robert Shea, Investigator; Ronald Stroman, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Donald Goldberg, Minority, Assistant to Counsel
For CRAIG LIVINGSTONE:
RANDALL J. TURK, ESQ.
Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, LLP
2555 M Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20037-1302
Ms. Olson. We are on the record this morning for the deposition of Craig Livingstone, which will be administered under oath.
I would like to identify all the people who are present in this room. For Majority staff, myself, Barbara Olson, I am chief investigative counsel. With me is, and will be, Kristi Remington, counsel with the committee, as well as Laurie Taylor, counsel with the committee, and Robert Shea, who is investigator with the committee. We have got Minority counsel here, which is Don Goldberg, who is counsel, and Ron Stroman, who is chief counsel.
Mr. Stroman. Just staff.
Mr. Goldberg. We are staff.
Ms. Olson. Also present are two members of our committee. From Majority is Representative Dan Burton, and Representative Henry Waxman are with us today.
Before you are sworn in, Mr. Livingstone, I would like to provide with you some background concerning this investigation and your appearance here. Although I am aware that you have been here before, I would like to go through it again just to make sure we are clear for the record.
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. This matter refers to all events that led up to the May 19th, 1993 firings of the White House Travel Office employees, and includes all information provided about the White House Travel Office and any employees of the White House Travel Office at any time, from January 1, 1993, to the present day.
Our investigation has also encompassed the activities of Harry Thomason, Darnell Martens, Penny Sample at the White House, as well as all allegations of wrongdoing concerning the Travel Office employees.
The committee investigation has also included a review of all actions which were taken by the FBI and the Department of Justice, both prior to and after the firings, which includes any actions by the field office personnel and any White House involvement in coordination or attendance of interviews.
The investigation includes, but isn't limited to, the investigation and prosecution in the United States v. Billy Ray Dale case, as well as all investigations and subsequent reviews of these firings by any agency. This includes the White House Management Review, the FBI OPR review, the Justice Department reviews, IRS and Treasury Department reviews, as well as the General Accounting Office review and the proposed House of Representatives Resolution of Inquiry, which was considered and voted on in the House Judiciary Committee in July 1993.
We are reviewing all actions relating to or describing the criminal investigations into the Travel Office matter, which included any subsequent action or activities of any kind as a result of these reviews.
Do you understand that your answers should include all information that you currently have and should not exclude any information involved in the above mentioned matters?
Mr. Turk. Well, I would like to suggest that we do here what we have done other times at the outset of these depositions -- this, I believe, is the fourth one -- and that is, I gather there's some dispute about how the -- what the full scope of the committee's investigation is. I think what we have done in the past is you have stated that that's your position, and I believe Minority counsel has stated a position that they don't agree with that, and that Mr. Livingstone has said that he is here to testify truthfully to all questions put to him. And I think we should leave it at that.
Ms. Olson. Okay. Is that correct, Mr. Livingstone?
Mr. Livingstone. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Olson. 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 7th, 1996. Pursuant to Committee Rule 19, which was extended by agreement of the Minority to include this deposition, both Majority counsel and Minority counsel will be afforded an equal opportunity to pose questions. Committee counsels will proceed with equal rounds of questioning lasting up to 1 hour, until both counsel have completed their questioning. The only exception to this is if Members are present, to which they are today. If a Member wishes to pose a question at any time, they will be immediately allowed the opportunity to pose their questions. Once the Member has completed the questioning, at that time committee counsel will resume, and the time will resume at that time.
You are here under subpoena today; is that correct?
Mr. Livingstone. That's correct.
Ms. Olson. You understand this deposition is under oath. You will, of course, be allowed to confer with your attorney. If you don't understand a question, I just ask that you tell me. I will try to rephrase the question.
I do ask that all objections raised by your attorney be stated for the record with the reason for the objection clearly stated. At that point, committee Majority counsel will confer with Minority counsel. If the objection remains outstanding, it ultimately may be presented to the Chairman for resolution.
The chairman has agreed to consult with Ranking Minority Member before issuing his final decision on any objection. The depositions previously were withheld as confidential. By agreement with the Minority on August 1st, all depositions became public, as will this deposition.
Mr. Goldberg. I don't believe that that agreement included any subsequent depositions.
Ms. Olson. All depositions have been public since August 1st.
Mr. Goldberg. That, I believe, only included the ones that had been taken up to that point.
Ms. Olson. Can you state any basis for that?
Mr. Goldberg. The transcript of the markup -- I mean the meeting will --
Ms. Olson. My understanding is that Minority asked that all depositions become public as of August 1st. Therefore, since this is post-August 1st, my understanding is that this deposition will become public as soon as it is completed. There is no confidential authority. If you have any rule that requires confidentiality, I ask that you put it on the record at this time.
Mr. Goldberg. I would refer the Majority counsel to Resolution 369, which covers these depositions. That's certainly not our understanding, and anybody who makes this public will do so at their own peril. Our staff and our Members certainly know how to take it to the Ethics Committee if that's appropriate.
Ms. Olson. Your threat is duly noted.
At this time, I would ask the court reporter to swear in the witness.
THEREUPON,
CRAIG LIVINGSTONE,
a witness, was called for examination by counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Mr. Turk. Before we begin, I would like to point --
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, is this an opening statement?
Mr. Turk. No, this is a response to your opening statement. I would like to point out before we begin here this morning --
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, you can submit this for the record. This is inappropriate.
Mr. Turk. Mr. Livingstone -- excuse me.
Ms. Olson. Can you just explain, is this an objection to the entire deposition?
Mr. Turk. No. I would like to point out before we begin here this morning that to date, Mr. Livingstone has already submitted to a total of 86 hours of formal interrogation and examination --
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, this is inappropriate.
Mr. Turk. -- had concerning his activities as the former director of the White House Office of Personnel Security.
Ms. Olson. I ask that the record stop at this time. Can we go off the record for a moment?
Mr. Waxman. I would like to know why you wouldn't let him make a statement?
Ms. Olson. Can we go off the record, please.
[Off the record.]
Mr. Waxman. Now, I want this on the record.
Ms. Olson. Then I will make a statement. No attorney has been allowed to testify for his client. If Mr. Turk wishes to make a public statement, he certainly can. He is now making a nonobjection. He has no reason for an objection at this time. What he is doing is making a statement for the record that is, I assume, some objection to the entire deposition. It is not appropriate. No attorneys have done that. We don't allow attorneys to testify. If he would like to go under oath, I would be more than happy to depose Mr. Turk, but let's make that after Mr. Livingstone's deposition. He is not under oath, and it's not appropriate for a typed statement.
I will accommodate him by making it a part of the record, but in order for him to read a written statement that he has typed up that is basically an opposition to a subpoena which was agreed to by the Minority is inappropriate.
Mr. Waxman. Excuse me. You have assumed what's in his statement, and I have no idea what's in his statement. You read a written statement as well to start off this hearing, outlining what the rules are --
Ms. Olson. The scope.
Mr. Waxman. -- and the scope of the hearing, which was perfectly appropriate. Now we are going to have the deposition of Mr. Livingstone. His lawyer wants to make some comments which may be pertinent to this deposition. I don't know if he is testifying. If he is testifying, you are absolutely correct, he ought to be under oath, and I don't know that the committee would be particularly interested in his testimony. But if he is representing his client and wants to clarify some points before this deposition begins, I don't see why there should be any objection.
Ms. Olson. Well, the reason -- he started out by talking about 86 hours of deposition. If there are points he needs to clarify during the questioning, then obviously an attorney is allowed to make an objection. I have asked him to state his basis for his objection. This is inappropriate for a deposition.
Mr. Waxman, if you believe a deposition is appropriate to begin by opposing counsel reading an opening statement in a deposition, then that will go on the record, and we will take it to the Chairman. I object at this point for a statement being made when there have been no questions presented. All I have done is stated the scope, which Mr. Turk is well aware of the scope. He has heard it before.
Mr. Turk. I intend to respond to your opening statement, Ms. Olson. And we can sit here and go back and forth on it as long as you want to. You started with an opening statement. I intend to start with an opening statement, and I will proceed to read it.
Ms. Olson. I state the --
Mr. Waxman. Counsel.
Ms. Olson. I am legally required --
Mr. Waxman. Excuse me. If you will suspend. I don't know why you are so adamant against this. It seems to me he has something -- is this something you must read into the record?
Mr. Turk. That's correct. I want to read it into the statement.
Mr. Waxman. I would just request if counsel -- excuse me. I would just request of counsel, I don't know what he has to say, but it can't take a long period of time. Since we have already waited 25 minutes for counsel to show up for the deposition, I am sure the statements will be -- I don't think it jeopardizes anybody to have some information that he wants on the record stated up front.
Ms. Olson. Mr. Waxman, it is four typewritten pages. You waited because Mr. Turk did not come to our office as he has done before.
Mr. Turk. No, no, no.
Ms. Olson. The subpoena stated our office, so I was sitting in the office from 6:00 this morning waiting for Mr. Turk and Mr. Livingstone.
Mr. Waxman. When is it going to --
Mr. Turk. I would like to put on the record that we were here as subpoenaed to be here, and we called at the front door of the building. We called the Government Reform and Oversight Office. They instructed us to go to room 2203, where we came promptly and stood and waited for 25 minutes for counsel.
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, your subpoena didn't say 2203. I think you know how to respond to a subpoena.
Mr. Turk. I did not say the subpoena stated 2203. It said 2157. We asked the person at the front door if that was correct. He did not know. He said, why not call the Government Reform and Oversight office and find out. So we did, and they told us to appear here.
Now I would like to proceed with my statement.
Ms. Olson. I would just ask who you spoke to.
Mr. Turk. These 86 hours of prior interrogation include three previous depositions by the Republican staff of this committee totaling 17 hours of interrogation; a 10-hour public hearing before this committee on June 26th of this year; one deposition by the Republican staff of the Senate Banking Committee that lasted 5 hours; three separate interrogatories -- interrogations, by the Republican staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee lasting a total of 9 hours; a 6-hour public hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 28th, '96; six appearances before a Federal grand jury here in Washington, empaneled by the Office of the Independent Counsel, totaling another 22 hours; and three separate interrogations by members of the Independent Counsel's staff, outside the presence of the grand jury, totaling yet another 17 hours.
These 86 hours of examination do not include the written responses Mr. Livingstone has provided on two separate occasions to a total of 10 pages of single-spaced, typed questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee in follow-up to its June 28th, '96 hearing and in preparation for the hearing -- it is now scheduled for 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, at which Mr. Livingstone has been commanded by the committee's Republican Majority to appear and testify.
I state all of this for the record at the outset here today for several reasons; first, because Mr. Livingstone has to appear at a public hearing before the full Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow morning, he is not in a position to spend the entire day here today being interrogated by the Republican staff of this committee for yet a fourth time. His appearance tomorrow will require substantial preparation time today. Accordingly, Mr. Livingstone will be available here today for questioning by the staff for an additional 3 hours of follow-up interrogation, but no more, due to our need to prepare for tomorrow's Senate hearing.
Second, I make a point of the extraordinary extent of Mr. Livingstone's cooperation today in connection with investigations by the Republican Majority of this and other congressional committees because of recent leaks to the press by this committee's staff claiming that Mr. Livingstone has somehow attempted to stymie this committee's investigation by not appearing for a committee staff deposition on September 16th.
Because Mr. Livingstone and I do not have the easy access to the press the staff of this committee has, I want to note for the record here the unfairness and inaccuracy of that charge. On my advice, Mr. Livingstone did not appear for a deposition on September 16 because the staff of the Republican Majority of this committee reneged on its prior agreement to provide Mr. Livingstone and me in advance of the deposition with access to materials as to which he would be questioned. That agreement was unilaterally breached in a letter to me dated August 29, 1996, which I did not receive until after Mrs. Olson and I had agreed to the September 16 date.
On top of that, the Republican Majority of the committee thereafter issued a facially invalid subpoena for Mr. Livingstone to appear for the deposition on September 16, a subpoena neither the committee staff nor the Republican Majority has ever pretended to defend as valid.
In short, the attempt to paint Mr. Livingstone as uncooperative is belied both by the truly remarkable extent of his cooperation to date and by the staff's tactical refusal to carry through on its promises.
Third and finally, the Republican Majority of this committee has expended substantial energy in seeking to compel Mr. Livingstone to appear here today for yet a fifth separate session of sworn interrogation by the committee or its staff. While this committee presumably does not have transcripts of all 86 hours of Mr. Livingstone's prior testimony, it likely has a substantial amount of it.
I know I need not remind the committee staff it is not a legitimate legislative purpose to subpoena a witness for the purpose of trying to set a trap, to get him or her to make a statement that could later be used to form the basis for an accusation of perjury. Indeed, there are legal remedies available for such conduct.
I accordingly request on the record at this time that the committee and its staff preserve any and all documents dealing with the Republican Majority of the committee's or its staff's intent regarding subpoenaing Mr. Livingstone or the taking of his deposition today, including any drafts of reports the committee may later issue making reference to Mr. Livingstone.
I also request that given the lengthy and grueling gauntlet Mr. Livingstone has already been required to run in this matter, and in light of his need to prepare for the Senate hearing tomorrow, this deposition not be unduly extended by examination of matters previously covered or of matters not clearly pertinent to the committee's wrap-up of this already lengthy and exhaustive investigation.
Thank you. You may proceed with the witness, Mrs. Olson.
Ms. Olson. I would ask that this deposition be made Deposition Exhibit Number 1 since the attorney has decided to testify. I am assuming as an attorney he has a duty to tell the truth. I believe there are materially inaccurate statements that have just been made by Mr. Randy Turk.
Mr. Turk. You may respond.
Ms. Olson. Can I see that document, please? I don't plan to respond. I would ask the document be made a part of the record at this time, Deposition Exhibit Number 1.
Mr. Turk. I will be happy to provide you a written -- a typed-up version of that document.
Ms. Olson. You read from a typed version, Mr. Turk. You decided to make a statement. You are not under oath. You have misrepresented facts.
Mr. Turk. I have not misrepresented anything, Ms. Olson, and I resent and object to your suggestion. If we want to get into who has made misrepresentations, then I think that's a road you do not want to go down with me on the record.
Ms. Olson. Would you like to go under oath, Mr. Turk, and make that statement?
Mr. Turk. Would you like to go under oath, Ms. Olson?
Ms. Olson. I am conducting a deposition, Mr. Turk.
Mr. Turk. Then conduct your deposition. Then proceed to conduct your deposition.
Ms. Olson. I have an attorney who has now made a statement for the record, a rather lengthy one. The attorney is not under oath. The attorney has left out many statements, such as the fact that he requested the date and time for a deposition that he did not show up for; that it was a date and time that a Member flew in, Mr. Burton, from his home State, to attend a deposition; and that I told the Member that Mr. Turk had no other opening in his schedule for that deposition but that Monday at 9:00. Mr. Burton flew in, and Mr. Livingstone didn't show up.
Now, I understand Mr. Turk said it was because he couldn't review our documents. That was a time that was agreed upon, and I was told by Mr. Turk that his client would make it, through David Cohen, who called to confirm that date and time.
There are other misrepresentations. I need the document. I have asked for it to be a part of the record as Deposition Exhibit Number 1. I note for the record the attorney has refused to provide it and, I assume, will provide a later version after he has reviewed it and provided what he has called a typed version from the typed version he has read.
Mr. Turk. I believe --
Ms. Olson. At this time I would like to begin questioning --
Mr. Turk. I would like to respond.
Ms. Olson. -- of the witness.
Mr. Turk. I would like to respond.
Mr. Waxman. May I request that both of you be permitted, and I am sure Mr. Burton would agree, to put in any further statements in response to each other's statements so we can have it all on the record. Members would certainly want to see all the allegations on both sides about all of this. But I assume Mr. --
Ms. Olson. I would ask that it be under oath.
Mr. Turk. If you will be under oath.
Ms. Olson. I would ask that all statements inserted into this record be under oath.
Mr. Waxman. Including yours?
Ms. Olson. If I put a statement into the record, it will be under oath.
Mr. Waxman. Let me further point out, you mentioned that you wanted the committee staff to keep all possible drafts of future committee reports available. I assume you also want them to keep any internal memos or memos from the Chairman or from any outside party or any other further data that would be pertaining to that?
Mr. Turk. That's correct. I meant that without limitation, that request, yes.
Ms. Olson. Obviously the Chairman is in control of this committee, and what drafts are kept and what drafts remain and what drafts are open, and that is the Chairman's discretion. I have never had a witness' lawyer make such a demand of a committee, and I just ask Mr. Waxman if he knows of precedent for such.
Mr. Waxman. Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, I do. In Mr. Dingell's committee it has been done on a number of occasions. It is a way for witnesses to be protected from any abuse by Members of the committee or their staffs, and I think that Mr. Turk is entitled to make that request to the committee, and I would hope that the Chairman of the committee or his staff would not want to destroy any evidence that would go to any allegations that he may want to make. So I think he is entitled to have that information maintained, and I would object strenuously to the Chairman or the staff destroying any pertinent evidence that goes to the enforcement of the rights by witnesses to this committee for any complaints they may have.
Ms. Olson. So we have a record that Mr. Dingell followed an attorney's request to keep drafts. Obviously it will be presented to the Chairman. He will review it and make a decision based upon that information.
Now, can we begin?
Mr. Burton, would you like to start questioning, or would you prefer Mr. Waxman to?
Mr. Burton. If I might ask, do you have a lot of questions, Henry?
Mr. Waxman. No, I don't.
Mr. Burton. Well, if you want --
Mr. Waxman. I don't have questions at this time.
Mr. Burton. If you feel like you want to follow up on any of the questions I want to ask, feel free to do so. Okay?
Mr. Waxman. All right.
Mr. Burton. I have probably a number of subjects relevant to this investigation that kind of cover the waterfront, so bear with me because I am going to jump around a little bit.
Regarding the IRS, in your May 30th, 1995 memo to Abner Mikva, the follow-up to your pay adjustment request, you said that your work included reviewing IRS records. Did all of the IRS records you reviewed include the taxpayers' written consent for the disclosure of this information?
Mr. Turk. Could we have a copy -- the witness have a copy of the document to which you are referring, Congressman?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Turk. Thank you. I think that would make it easier.
Mr. Burton. Okay. I would like to have that back after you are through. We will give you a copy for the record.
Mr. Turk. Yes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Turk. Could you read back the question now that we have had a chance to review the document?
Mr. Burton. I will be glad to restate the question.
Did you review any IRS information that the taxpayer did not, in writing, authorize to be disclosed?
The Witness. Sir, I reviewed IRS -- to be specific, I reviewed not IRS records, I reviewed what's called, I believe, a summary memoranda. It is usually one-page, if not three-paragraph or less. It has been often reported, sir, that IRS records, meaning I believe the public has come to believe that there's some lengthy records that I am looking at. All it is is saying that it goes back 3 years, if my memory is correct, and it tells me whether or not the person appropriately filed and paid their taxes; if, in fact, they were in arrears; if, in fact, they had tax penalties; if, in fact, they were unable to contact the individual; if, in fact, they weren't able to determine if it was necessary for the individual to do a tax filing because they may have been a full-time student at the time.
With that in mind, sir, and I appreciate the opportunity to offer a rather lengthy answer, I believe that at all times that I viewed IRS materials, it was pursuant to my responsibilities as approving a permanent pass.
Mr. Turk. The question, though, was had there been approvals? Did people sign waivers --
The Witness. Yes.
Mr. Turk. -- for the releasing of this information?
The Witness. Yes. I believe that -- I believe at all times that requests were made of the IRS that a document was sent to the IRS asking for the information be released. And the reason I believe that and what I base that on is that I know we got calls from time to time from the IRS stating that it had been more than 30 days, which I remember being the example, that they needed an original signature within 30 days. And they said, would you please have the individual resign this and redate it.
Mr. Burton. Well, I just want to make sure. No IRS files that you reviewed or summaries of files that you reviewed were reviewed without the proper forms being signed, that were in order?
The Witness. Well, I will state for the record, when I reviewed the IRS material that came in via pouch from Counsel's Office, it did not have the attached form of consent from the individual. So I can't state unequivocally that every time I reviewed an IRS form that I checked to make sure that a consent form was sent.
Mr. Burton. Who sent those to you without an IRS release form attached?
The Witness. Well, that's not what I said specifically, if I could just clear that up for you. The reports that came back from the IRS, sir, came to Counsel's Office, and then they would come to our office, and they never had the consent form attached, none of them. That wasn't a procedure that we did. So I just want to make that clear. It wasn't like some came without the consent form.
Mr. Burton. So you don't know whether or not a consent form was signed or requested on each one of those IRS forms that you looked at?
The Witness. As I stated, it was the policy of the IRS not to send the form until they received a properly signed, meaning original, signature form, and dated within 30 days. And the reason I believe that to be true is that we often got calls, for example, if the 30 days had lapsed, or if we sent a Xerox copy rather than the original signature, and they would ask us to resend it.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Did you request information from the IRS on any current or former White House employees?
The Witness. Did I personally request?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
The Witness. No, I don't -- I didn't handle those matters.
Mr. Burton. When those requests -- did you ever request any IRS information on anybody?
The Witness. I followed up IRS information. The IRS would often call me.
Mr. Burton. But did you make the original request?
The Witness. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. Okay. How many people's IRS information did you review?
The Witness. Without my files?
Mr. Burton. Just a rough figure. Hundreds?
The Witness. I would say that for every person that required a permanent pass at the White House in the 3 and a half years that I was in the position, I would have reviewed their IRS forms.
Mr. Burton. Well, who made the request to the IRS to get this information?
The Witness. Our office.
Mr. Burton. But who did it? Was it you?
The Witness. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. Who did it in the office?
The Witness. In my office it would have been Ms. Mari Anderson, and Ms. Lisa Wetzl, Mr. Jonathan Denbo and perhaps Mr. Ed Hughes.
Mr. Burton. So they would have been the ones who would have had the form, the proper form signed by the relevant person and sent to the IRS?
The Witness. Yes, sir, that would be the procedure of the office.
Mr. Burton. So you really had nothing to do with that?
The Witness. No, sir. It was largely an administrative function that was done pursuant to a person's need for continued access to the White House and/or a permanent pass, if they were employed.
Mr. Burton. I guess the point I am trying to get at is where does the responsibility lie for getting that IRS information, and was there always an IRS release form signed when that information came back?
The Witness. Sir, as I recall --
Mr. Burton. You were in charge of that office?
The Witness. Yes.
Mr. Burton. So you were responsible for making sure that the form was signed properly and sent to the IRS, I guess?
The Witness. Well, if I can answer your first question, please?
Mr. Burton. Sure.
The Witness. As I recall, this form is very similar to the form that was used by the previous administration. I am not positive that counsel made some small amendments to it to suit a particular lawyer's need for legal language, but as I recall, the form is very similar, if not the same, that the previous administration used, and part of the instructions that I received from Ms. Gemmell and Ms. Dannenhauer is that it was necessary to submit this form to have the IRS release the information for us.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Were these people that you asked for the IRS information, were they current or former House employees -- White House employees or both?
The Witness. As I stated, the only reason -- the only way that we could send the form from our office to the IRS -- and I am happy that we have a chance to clear this up, because I remember this question during the hearing, and it concerned me -- is if the person were an employee and they -- or had a need for continued access, for example, a National Park Service person who may not be stationed at the White House but comes in and cuts the shrubberies, that would be a good example of a person who didn't work at the White House but had to fill out the paperwork. The only way we could send the paperwork to the IRS, sir, is if we had an original signature and dated it within 30 days. Otherwise, the IRS wouldn't process it.
Mr. Burton. Okay. In your confidential update memorandum to Associate Counsel William Kennedy, under Roman numeral III on the second page, you say, and I quote, "Once the initial rush is over, we will begin to request copies of files from the FBI on carryovers. This will be our first glance at the background of their employees."
What did you mean by "first glance"?
Mr. Turk. If I could look at that?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Turk. Thank you, sir.
Do you have the first page of the memo also?
Mr. Burton. Yes. It's not relevant to the question, but you are welcome to look at it.
Mr. Turk. Just to help the witness familiarize himself with the document and put it in context.
[Pause.]
Mr. Burton. The only -- I have a number of documents that are fairly lengthy, and I am going to be referring to just small parts of them, and I know that you are on a limited time schedule. At least that's what you said.
Mr. Turk. Yes, sir.
Ms. Olson. Mr. Burton, he is under subpoena. I don't consider him to be under a limited time schedule. It is up to the committee to decide. He is under subpoena.
Mr. Turk. We are not going to read the document each time, but I just think it's important for the witness to see the whole document.
You are referring now to Roman numeral III?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
This will be our first glance at the background of their employees. What did you mean by "first glance"?
The Witness. Well, first of all, just to make sure that you are aware, Mr. Kennedy was my supervisor in that office. All background information on new employees or new investigations that were conducted under the Clinton administration would go to Mr. Kennedy first and then come to my office. So he was part of the process of background investigations that I would talk to, just so that's clear.
To answer your question directly, what that means is exactly what it says, that we had no files, we had no knowledge of many of the people that worked at the White House; and by "their employees," I meant previous administration --
Mr. Burton. This will be --
The Witness. -- as in carryover employees into our administration.
Mr. Burton. "This will be our first glance at the background of their employees."
So you just meant it was a casual glance?
The Witness. No, sir, not casual at all. It was my responsibility, as it was Mr. Kennedy's, to know the personnel that are working at the White House. That's specifically our job is to determine suitability for people that had continued employment.
Mr. Burton. Why did you say "their employees" instead of "all employees"? Why did you differentiate?
The Witness. I certainly don't mean to be flip, but I'm not an attorney, and I am sure that that -- there may be a better word to use, but I meant previous employees that were carried over into our administration, is what I meant by "their."
Mr. Burton. I think the average person would probably interpret "first glance" as meaning that there would be an intent to look into this information again, subsequently. When did you write that memo?
Mr. Turk. Congressman, was your first comment about what you think somebody might believe when they read this document, is that part of your question?
Mr. Burton. No, it's not part of my question. It's just a comment.
Mr. Turk. Just a comment by you? I am sorry, what was the question then?
Mr. Burton. When did you write this memo?
The Witness. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Turk. Is it dated?
Mr. Burton. I don't think it is dated. They didn't time stamp those or anything, I guess.
Mr. Turk. Is there anything in the text which might indicate the timing of it?
The Witness. Yes.
Mr. Turk. Sure. Okay.
The Witness. I believe that it was based on items E and F, sir.
Mr. Turk. On what page is that so the record will reflect? Roman numeral II, items E and F.
Ms. Olson. CGE 53678.
The Witness. To give you an idea between those dates, which would be 3-4 to 3-15 -- it would appear that it was before 3-15-93 and after 3-4-93, because item F says, "On 3-15-93," it says, "the green-tan access badge will cease to exist.
Mr. Burton. When you wrote this memo, did you intend it to go for clearing carryovers?
The Witness. I am not sure if I understand the question. I am sorry.
Mr. Burton. When you wrote this memo, did you intend to review information in the carryover employees' files after they had gone through the normal process for clearing carryovers? Did you plan to go back and go through these files again, or did you go back and go through these files again after that?
The Witness. As I stated, I think it was my responsibility to review the background material on all the people that had continued access to the White House or the complex.
Mr. Burton. I guess the point I am trying to make is that you said this was the first glance at these files, the first time you had a chance to look at them, these previous employees or their employees. And what I am trying to get at is after you made this review, did you go back into any of those files later on and rereview them or go into more depth on these people?
The Witness. I don't have any specific recollection of going back in any files -- for a specific reason, in response to GAO inquiries or other types of inquiries that we may have had from counsel.
Mr. Burton. So there were times, if you got a request from somebody, that you would go back into these files?
The Witness. As I said, it's possible that these files might have been part of the GAO inquiry.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Did you go back into any files, that you recall, where there was not a specific request, where you just wanted to get additional information for your own or somebody's purpose at the White House?
The Witness. Again, the only time I would review a file would be pursuant to a specific request for someone to need a special clearance, transfer from job assignments. A counsel might want to review a person's background if there were going to be a promotion, that type of thing.
Mr. Burton. Under Roman numeral V -- are you finished with that?
Mr. Turk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Okay. If you are done with that, I would like to have that back for my records.
Mr. Turk. Yes.
Mr. Burton. If you need a copy, I will have them make a copy.
Mr. Turk. I would like to have a copy later.
Are we finished with that?
Mr. Burton. Yes, for right now.
Okay. Under Roman numeral V of this same memorandum, you say, and I quote -- Roman numeral V, if you want to look that up so you can follow along with me so that will save some time.
The Witness. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. "Our FBI liaison is John Douglas Seward, 324-4634." According to him, he is available to perform, quote, "favors such as expediting a name check."
You go on to say that Seward is separate from Dennis Sculimbrene and Gary Aldrich, who are assigned to the White House.
What exactly do you mean by "favors"?
The Witness. Well, first of all, apparently this memo is sort of an overview for Mr. Kennedy on who the people that we worked with in our office and what their functions were.
Second of all, to answer your question, sir, I believe -- I recall Mr. Seward stating that if we ever needed -- if our office ever needed help expediting paperwork, such as a name check, that we could call him and he could make a call on our behalf, because Mr. Sculimbrene and Mr. Aldrich were not part of that operation. They were part of the field office. And as I recall, Mr. Seward was part of the headquarters office.
Mr. Burton. So it was normal operating procedure to go around Sculimbrene and Aldrich and to Mr. Seward in order to get some information?
The Witness. No, sir. I think that's a completely -- if you will forgive me if the word is inappropriate -- inaccurate characterization of Mr. Sculimbrene's and Mr. Aldrich's roles. They didn't have any contact at all. Their sole job at the White House was to conduct background investigations. If they did anything else besides background investigations, they weren't doing their job properly.
Mr. Burton. If you needed additional information from the FBI regarding individuals, then you felt that you would -- it was logical to go directly to this Mr. Seward instead of going through Sculimbrene and Aldrich?
The Witness. No, sir. I didn't state that at all, either in the memo, nor did I say that today. You said, sir, that I thought it was okay to go around Mr. Aldrich and Mr. Sculimbrene. I said that there would be no reason to go around Mr. Aldrich and Mr. Sculimbrene because it had nothing to do with their job. I merely stated in the memo, back in '93, that Mr. Seward approached me and said that he would be available; I believe he gave me his card and said that he would be available to help us expedite paperwork. I don't think he meant --
Mr. Burton. To perform favors, I think you said in your memo.
The Witness. And I don't think he meant anything untoward by it, nor did I take it that way. To me, it seemed, as there are people in government -- as I am sure you are aware, there are people that can help when there's a logjam with paperwork, can make a call and say, hey, the President is trying to give this person a Medal of Freedom, for example. Can we please get this name check? I understand it's tied up in a GAO warehouse somewhere.
Mr. Burton. So that you might need to go --
The Witness. GSA.
Mr. Burton. -- to someone to expedite it more quickly than if you went through the FBI agents there at the White House?
The Witness. Well, again, sir --
Mr. Burton. I know, that wasn't their responsibility, according to you.
The Witness. I don't -- I don't know how emphatically I can say it. It was not Aldrich's, Sculimbrene's, or any other agent posted at the White House, responsibility. Nor was it their job for them to help us with name checks. We sent them to a Name Check Unit.
Mr. Burton. Did previous administrations go directly to FBI agents outside the White House to get these name checks done?
The Witness. I wouldn't have any knowledge of that.
Mr. Burton. Well, but this was your job to follow up on these things. It seems that you would have known the previous procedures. Was it the previous procedure that you would go through the FBI agents at the White House to get information from the FBI?
The Witness. That was never explained to me as part of their job; nor was it explained to me as part of their responsibility; nor was it my understanding at any time that that was their job.
Mr. Turk. Congressman, you are suggesting in your question that in prior administrations, the FBI officers detailed to the White House were the persons to whom the White House should submit name check requests?
Mr. Burton. I am asking that question. I believe that name check requests and almost any other information requested of the FBI normally went through the FBI channels there at the White House.
Mr. Turk. Through the agents who were assigned there?
Mr. Burton. Through the agents that were there. I think that's what they were there for, background information and also anything else that was relevant to connections with the FBI.
The Witness. Well, if I might, by offer of explanation why I don't think this is the true -- the case, excuse me.
Mr. Turk. At least in your administration.
The Witness. In my administration, Mr. Sculimbrene and Mr. Aldrich told me that it was the procedure of the previous administration, for example, to submit a copy of the SF-86 that the individuals would fill out, give us, and when we would send a copy to the FBI, they told us that it was the procedure to give them a copy so that they could get started to work on it.
I recall specifically talking with Mr. Jim Bourke at the FBI about this procedure in the administration, and they said absolutely not; that that was forbidden; that they were not allowed to have that information; that it was ridiculous; that the information should come directly to headquarters, and headquarters would decide to whom to parse out investigative material to; that this was not to be done anymore, and we ceased that practice. So in light of that, I would suggest that it would be highly unlikely that if done -- I just don't have any knowledge. I don't want to guess.
Mr. Burton. If you had an urgent request for a name check, and the FBI's normal response time was not soon enough, is there a process for formally asking the FBI to expedite this? Was there a formal procedure rather than going to this John Douglas Seward?
The Witness. Well, if I might suggest by way of explanation, sir, I believe this memo was written about a month after I started at the White House and about a month and a half after the administration started. I don't know that we ever called Mr. Seward for any help with a name check. I do recall many, many, many times calling the Name Check Unit directly.
Mr. Turk. Where is that?
The Witness. It's in FBI headquarters.
Mr. Burton. But you would call on the phone rather than sending them any kind of written correspondence?
The Witness. A phone call would follow a faxed memo for the materials, yes.
Mr. Burton. Okay. So normally you would send a written or faxed request to the FBI for a name check?
The Witness. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Was this John Douglas Seward the fellow that you would contact? I mean, it looks like he gave you his phone number there.
The Witness. Yes, sir. As I suggested, he offered it. He seemed like a very nice fellow.
Mr. Burton. Was that his function over there; do you know?
The Witness. I don't know, to tell you the truth. I don't remember -- I don't have his card in front of me. I don't have my things from my office, but as I recall, that's the way he introduced himself as being FBI liaison.
Mr. Burton. The only reason I ask this is why would it be a favor to ask for a name check to be expedited? Does the FBI have to violate its own procedures to speed up the request, therefor resulting in a favor?
The Witness. Again, I wouldn't characterize it as violating anything, sir. To me, working in government, there are logjams with paperwork at times, and sometimes there are people that simply have a more pressing need, particularly if it were something for a Presidential award or something like that, versus someone becoming a volunteer. Obviously you would need the name check quickly as a volunteer.
Mr. Burton. Did you ever call this gentleman for anything?
The Witness. It's possible, but I don't recall.
Mr. Burton. You never called him for a favor?
Mr. Turk. Such as expediting a name check?
Mr. Burton. For any reason. Did you ever call him for any help over at the FBI?
The Witness. I don't know. I don't recall. I know that there are a couple people that I worked with at the White House and the FBI, like Mr. Seward, where we would conduct tours for FBI's personnel family that are visiting Washington. Perhaps we had that kind of discussion.
Mr. Burton. But you just don't recall whether you ever called him and asked him for any help with anything with the FBI?
The Witness. No. As I recall, he left shortly after, within a short period of the memo. I don't recall seeing him much.
Mr. Burton. That's interesting because you don't recall calling him or asking for any favors, but you remember him leaving. How do you remember him leaving?
The Witness. He wasn't there anymore.
Mr. Burton. How do you know he wasn't there anymore if you didn't call him?
The Witness. He never came back to my office again after a certain point.
Mr. Burton. How did you know he left the FBI?
The Witness. I didn't say that, sir. I said I hadn't seen him for a long period of time. I didn't know if he left the FBI. I didn't say that.
Mr. Burton. You don't know whether he left the FBI or not?
The Witness. I don't know anything about Mr. Seward beyond what's in that memo, sir.
Mr. Burton. Was Mr. Seward a political appointee; do you know?
The Witness. I have no idea.
Mr. Burton. And you say -- how was he separate from Sculimbrene and Aldrich?
The Witness. Well, based on this memo, not on an independent recollection, it appears that I thought he was an FBI liaison, based on what he told me. Either that or he gave me a card.
Mr. Burton. And you never checked that out or followed up on it in any way?
The Witness. Checked it out, sir?
Mr. Burton. To find out where is the FBI guy who said he would be happy to do you a favor. What did you know about the guy? Did you know anything about him at all?
The Witness. I didn't think anything untoward about it at all, sir. Why would I check it out?
Mr. Burton. Some FBI officer walks in your office and gives you a card and says, if you ever need a favor, give me a call. There must have been some reason for that.
Mr. Turk. I don't think Mr. Livingstone said, "if you ever need a favor." I think it was qualified by language such as "expediting a name check."
Mr. Burton. I understand. But what I am getting at is how did you two get together? What was the reason for that? I mean, he just didn't walk in off the street to the White House and say, here is my card. How did you meet him?
The Witness. I have no recollection of it. I believe that he came by my office at some point, introduced himself, gave me his card. We had a congenial, very brief conversation, I believe, very much limited to the two sentences in that short paragraph in column 5.
Mr. Burton. But you indicate that he left, and you never heard from him again, and you assumed that he left the FBI?
The Witness. No, I didn't say any of that, sir. I think what I said specifically was that a short period after, meaning within a year, I don't know that I had ever had any more contact with Mr. Seward.
Mr. Burton. In your August 28th, 1995 memo to Abner Mikva requesting a pay raise for yourself and a payroll increase for your office, you say that "I have seen this office through a few storms." What did you mean by "storms"?
The Witness. Could I see the document first, sir?
Mr. Burton. Sure.
The Witness. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Mr. Turk. I apologize for the time it takes Mr. Livingstone to review these documents, but I think it's important that he do it.
Mr. Burton. Sure.
Mr. Turk. That is why we had asked to review these documents in advance of the deposition, to try to shorten the process.
The Witness. Okay, sir. I think I am ready for your question.
Mr. Burton. Okay. What did you mean by "storms"?
The Witness. As you are well aware, early in the administration, the administration did not issue permanent passes as quickly as some people would have liked them to, and I had a very large role in making sure that junior staffers, as much as I could, got their paperwork filled out properly and timely to the extent of, I think, some people would call it bullying. And when the administration began to submit paperwork to the Secret Service for consideration of permanent passes, a lot of that paperwork wouldn't have been ready had I not, in my office, pushed very hard to get --
Mr. Burton. Those are the only kind of storms you are talking about?
The Witness. I think also having paperwork and the appropriate answers and responses in answer to GAO inquiries, being able to respond to the questions that were presented to us in a timely fashion with the correct information.
Mr. Burton. But no storms, aside from things like that subject matter you are talking about; nothing like political storms, or storms over who hired who, and who was going to be hired and things like that?
The Witness. Absolutely not, sir. To me the storms reflected the fact that my office had one less person in it working than the previous administration. In my estimation, we had at least 20 to 25 percent more work to do based on the fact that the administration had many more interns and volunteers working in it and thus requiring us to do paperwork, and that -- and that we dealt with it, and we worked hard and got the work done.
Mr. Burton. On the evening of July 20th, when you were at Vince Foster's home, did anyone speak to you about removing any documents or any other items from Vince Foster's office?
The Witness. Absolutely not.
Mr. Burton. The White House Counsel's Office?
The Witness. Absolutely not.
Mr. Burton. Or anyplace else in the White House?
The Witness. Absolutely not.
Mr. Burton. Were you at the White House the morning of July 21st, 1993, the morning after the death of Vince Foster?
The Witness. I believe that I was.
Mr. Burton. At what time did you arrive at the White House that morning? And I will follow up by saying in your July 10th, 1995 deposition, with the Senate Whitewater Committee, you stated that you arrived at the White House at roughly 8:14 a.m. However, a chronology prepared by Jane Sherburne states that you arrived at the White House around 7:15 a.m.
The Witness. I believe that would be incorrect based on the information that I have learned over the many investigative processes that have taken place on this particular issue.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Where did you park your car at the White House, in between the Executive Office Building and the White House?
The Witness. It depended.
Mr. Burton. Okay. The reason I ask that question is if you came in and parked your car in between the two buildings, there's a check-in procedure, I think, when you come into the White House, isn't there, normally, when you check in, what time you arrive and leave and so forth?
The Witness. If you are asking when people drive in or when they walk in, if you walk in, you wave your pass, pass an electronic wand, and it records the time of your entry and departure.
Mr. Burton. Is there any case where you would go in there and not have to do that?
The Witness. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Okay. And what would that occasion be?
The Witness. The gate could be open.
Mr. Burton. If they saw you coming and recognized you?
The Witness. And they recognized you, they could let you in.
Mr. Turk. Congressman, could I just -- could you explain to me what the pertinence to this is?
Mr. Burton. I will. I think my follow-up questions will answer that.
Mr. Turk. How it takes --
Mr. Burton. Jane Sherburne says he arrived at 7:15. He says he arrived almost an hour later. And so my follow-up questions, I think, will answer your concern.
Mr. Turk. I meant the pertinence to the investigation.
Ms. Olson. I can relate that up for Mr. Burton if he would like me to.
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Ms. Olson. Vince Foster had a Travel Office notebook that was kept away. That Travel Office notebook was removed at one point from Mr. Foster's office, put in different places in the White House, and appeared a year later. There are documents that Secret Service agents testified in Whitewater that they did see Mr. Livingstone carrying boxes. We are curious whether the Vince Foster Travel Office files were in those documents and if Mr. Livingstone has any information concerning documents being removed, which would include the file.
Mr. Turk. All right. I just want -- my only response is that the allegation has been thoroughly investigated by the Independent Counsel, and there was no finding that Mr. Livingstone ever removed any boxes of documents along the lines of that allegation. And I just would note for the record, I gather from what you are saying that the records that you are talking about have been produced to the committee?
Ms. Olson. We have documents that the Fiske Independent Counsel never saw, and I know the current Independent Counsel Starr is looking at the matter, but, of course, we are not asking questions for his criminal investigation. We are asking questions concerning the Travel Office.
Mr. Turk. Sure.
Mr. Burton. Some of this may be redundant. I apologize for that, but I think they need to be asked in order to have continuity of thought here.
Mr. Clinger. Could I interject here just for a moment?
Mr. Burton. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clinger. The question I have is that I understand that you have indicated that Mr. Livingstone can only be available for 3 hours; is that correct?
Mr. Turk. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Livingstone, as you may know, has been subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee to appear at a public hearing tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., and obviously he and I are going to need to spend time today preparing for that. We showed up here for the deposition at 10:00. It didn't start until about 10:30 because there was a confusion on the part of staff.
Mr. Clinger. I understand that.
Mr. Turk. And, you know, we want to work with the committee to, you know, help you get the information you need, but we are -- we are in a kind of a bind that I am sure you can understand.
Mr. Clinger. I appreciate that. I think our concern, of course, is that we would like to be able to conclude today the questioning that we have for Mr. Livingstone, and that's why I came up really to request if we could not continue the deposition until 3:00, at which point that probably would give us an opportunity to complete the questioning.
Mr. Turk. Could we split the difference?
Mr. Clinger. I think I have to defer to my chief investigator here who does have a significant number of questions that need to be pursued.
Ms. Olson. Let's see how your client is holding up.
Mr. Turk. Let's see how you are doing.
Mr. Clinger. I understand.
Mr. Turk. You understand that Mr. Livingstone is a diabetic, and we have those problems we have to deal with as well.
Mr. Burton. I will try to speed up my questions to help expedite this if you like.
Do you have any questions, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Clinger. No. Ms. Olson has all the questions.
Mr. Burton. Okay.
Were you in White House Counsel's Office prior to the 11:00 a.m. meeting with Bernie Nussbaum that morning?
Mr. Turk. This is the morning of July 21st?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Were you in White House Counsel's Office prior to that 11:00 a.m. meeting with Bernie Nussbaum?
The Witness. Today I don't have a recollection of when I was in that office.
Mr. Burton. Were you in Vince Foster's office at all that day?
The Witness. I don't believe so.
Mr. Turk. Counsel, if --
Mr. Burton. The reason I ask -- can you be a little more definitive? You say you don't believe so.
The Witness. I think when I was first asked the question 3 years ago, I probably gave a more definitive answer, but I just -- today I just don't recall.
Mr. Turk. Do you have a copy of Mr. Livingstone's testimony before the -- I believe it was the Senate Banking Committee, wasn't it, where he was examined on these matters? I think they provided a copy of that testimony to your committee.
Mr. Burton. I --
Mr. Turk. It might help. The problem with that, Congressman, I only say is that he gave that testimony, I don't know, a year or 2 ago, and it might make it easier for him to -- his recollections were obviously fresher then. Yeah, this was in July of '95.
Mr. Burton. You know, Vince Foster's body was found at Fort Marcy Park, and it just seems inconceivable that you wouldn't recall whether or not you were in his office on that morning.
The Witness. I am sorry. I didn't understand your -- is that a question?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
The Witness. What was the question? I am sorry.
Mr. Burton. The question is: Were you in his office that morning?
The Witness. I don't believe so.
Mr. Burton. But you don't know for sure?
Mr. Turk. Congressman, I think he is saying his best recollection is he wasn't in -- my recollection, and it's probably in this prior testimony, is that he testified that he wasn't. But -- here it is: Did you look in Mr. Foster's office? Did you go in his office?
No.
I was trying to find it. It says here, did you look in Mr. Foster's office? And he said he didn't recall.
Here it is: I don't recall if I looked in his office or not. I am sure I didn't go in his office.
That's down on page 74 of that transcript.
Mr. Burton. So you --
Mr. Turk. Line 16.
Mr. Burton. You stand by that statement that you are sure you did not go into his office?
The Witness. It doesn't refresh my memory today, sir, but I think that is basically what I just told you, I did not believe that I went in the office.
Mr. Burton. Secret Service Agent Bruce Abbott has stated under oath that he observed you and another man carrying a briefcase and a box of papers out of the elevator that goes to the second floor of the White House in the vicinity of Vince Foster's office on the morning of July 21st. He reported that you both left the building through the West Executive Avenue exit. You were carrying the briefcase. The young man was carrying the box. He was very explicit about this in his description of both the box and the briefcase, quote: "I would describe it as a leather or vinyl briefcase opening from the top, much in the fashion of a litigator's bag or a lawyer's briefcase with a strap over the top. I would describe it as opening in a clam shell fashion on the top. I observed that individual carrying one or perhaps two boxes with what appeared to be loose-leaf binders stacked vertically. That is what they appeared to be."
Did you remove a box, a briefcase or any documents from the White House Counsel's Office that morning?
Mr. Turk. Congressman, what you just read was a quotation from Agent Abbott?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Turk. And did he make that statement to this committee, or -- I am not sure what you are reading from. I see that it's a prepared document for the examination.
Mr. Burton. Yes. He was under oath, and here is his testimony right here.
Mr. Turk. This is testimony -- is this in the House? This is the Senate Banking Committee.
Mr. Burton. Right.
Mr. Turk. And the question is?
Mr. Burton. The question is: Did you remove a box, a briefcase or any documents from the White House Counsel's Office that morning?
The Witness. I don't have any recollection of doing so. I don't believe that I did so. Anything other than pursuant to my normal duties.
Mr. Burton. But you can't categorically say that you did not remove any documents, any briefcase or any box from the Counsel's Office?
The Witness. I can categorically say that I did not remove anything from Vince Foster's office. I can categorically say that --
Mr. Turk. Can you categorically say whether or not you understood that anything that you may have been carrying out of the White House at any time that day, categorically understood, you did not -- you did not understand that anything you carried out of the White House that day was containing anything from Vince Foster's office?
The Witness. I can absolutely categorically state that.
Mr. Burton. That nothing that you took out of the White House or from the second floor that day was out --
Mr. Turk. If he took something.
The Witness. If at all; and I don't believe that's the case.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Did you remove a box, a briefcase or any documents from anywhere else on the second floor of the White House that morning?
The Witness. I have no knowledge of this alleged incident. I can't account for what the officer says he saw, sir.
Mr. Burton. Okay. We will pursue that.
Mr. Turk. Part of the problem is, you may recall, Congressman, is that this allegation surfaces long after the events, and Mr. Abbott made no -- you know, didn't ever report this.
Mr. Burton. There's more than just one or two people that substantiate the statements that he made.
Mr. Turk. Who else?
Mr. Burton. I am going to go into that.
Mr. Turk. Okay.
Mr. Burton. Bruce Abbott's supervisor Secret Service Officer Dennis Martin has stated under oath that Officer Abbott told him that same morning that he witnessed you and the other man carrying this box and briefcase down from the second floor. He did not just make this up later on. These two Secret Service guys have 30 years' combined service. I am giving this for background information.
Park Police Detective Peter Markland has stated under oath that he stopped you in the White House later that morning and asked you if you had taken a box of papers out of Vince Foster's office. He stated again, under oath, that you did not deny bringing a box of papers from the second floor, but you said they came from somewhere other than Vince Foster's office. Is that true?
The Witness. I don't recall the instance.
Mr. Burton. You don't remember this instance?
The Witness. No.
Mr. Burton. Do you know Peter Markland?
The Witness. I don't know Peter Markland.
Mr. Turk. Do you know who he is?
The Witness. I know who he is.
Mr. Burton. But you don't recall being stopped by him and him asking you if the papers you were bringing down came from Vince Foster's office or someplace else on the second floor?
The Witness. I recall having a brief conversation with some Park Police. I don't know if it was Mr. Markland or not. I don't recall what the conversation was about. It was very brief.
Mr. Burton. Okay. And you did not remove any box or any papers from anywhere on the second floor of the White House that morning?
The Witness. I don't have any recollection of that at all.
Mr. Burton. Secret Service Agent Dennis Martin, Bruce Abbott's supervisor, has stated that you called him at home the following February. You demanded to know the identity of the Secret Service agent who saw you leaving with the briefcase. Agent Martin stated that you did not deny removing the box of papers, but that you wanted to know who the Secret Service -- who in the Secret Service had a problem with me.
Did you make that phone call?
The Witness. Well, I think -- I think you -- if I might?
Mr. Turk. I think that here is --
The Witness. That sounded like a statement rather than a question.
Mr. Turk. Congressman, I think here is the problem: You read into the record a summary that someone has prepared for you of what -- how they characterize someone else's testimony, and then you use that as the premise for the questions and say, did that happen?
Mr. Burton. I am giving it as background information.
Mr. Turk. I know, but I think it's -- I mean, I am also aware of background information, that is, that Abbott's first assertion about all of this was that it happened between 6:30 and 7:00 in the morning, and then when it became obvious from the Secret Service records that Mr. Livingstone did not even arrive at the White House until 8:14, he changed his story by over an hour in order to shift it so it could accommodate that time frame as well.
And I have also had an opportunity to look at the Park Police officer's records, as well as you may have -- I don't know -- but they don't indicate anything along the lines of what he testified to a year and a half later, or whenever it was when he testified, to suggest anything like what he later testified about had, in fact, occurred at the time.
Mr. Burton. Okay.
Mr. Turk. These are the problems, I think, with you stating for the record facts as if they are facts, because I don't believe they --
Mr. Burton. I am just stating what they said. And I think that needs to be part of the question, because the question comes out of the comments made by these individuals. Some of these are under oath. They are sworn depositions that we have taken, so that this isn't hearsay. But let me proceed. And first of all --
Mr. Waxman. So it is hearsay.
Mr. Turk. It is still hearsay.
Mr. Waxman. These people are not here to be questioned about their statements.
Counsel, is it your contention that Mr. Livingstone ought to be asked about the facts and should not be asked about conclusions of other people who are not here?
Mr. Burton. Then I will restate the question, the facts as were stated in a deposition, a sworn deposition.
Park Police Detective Peter Markland stated under oath that he stopped you in the White House that morning and asked if you had taken a box of papers out of Vince Foster's office. He stated under oath that you did not deny bringing a box of papers from the second floor, but that you said they came from somewhere other than Vince Foster's office. And you stated --
The Witness. I have no recollection of any conversation like that whatsoever.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Now this Secret Service Agent Dennis Martin, Mr. Abbott's supervisor, said that you called him. Did you call him?
The Witness. Well, I believe what you said, sir, was that I called him and I demanded Inspector Dennis Martin --
Mr. Burton. Let's forget that part.
The Witness. I think it's important.
Mr. Burton. That's what he said, but that's hearsay according to the others, and I don't want to put hearsay on the record.
Mr. Turk. Did he testify that Mr. Livingstone demanded it of him, or is that just somebody's characterization of that in preparing you to examine the witness? I think that's --
Mr. Burton. Do you have the documentation for that?
Mr. Turk. I think it can be very misleading. A word like that can be very misleading, and I don't suggest that you are doing it intentionally at all.
The Witness. And I don't mean to be rude, sir, but this --
Mr. Turk. This is an important matter. Mr. Livingstone is testifying under oath about a matter of some importance here.
Mr. Burton. Okay.
Mr. Turk. I think it's important that we be accurate and precise.
Mr. Burton. Did you call Dennis Martin?
Mr. Turk. Do we have anything to substantiate that word "demanded"? Do you have a transcript here? You are the committee's staff. I don't think it's fair to put the Congressman in a position of having to hunt through those documents.
Mr. Burton. I will tell you what, I don't think the staff -- I think my staff did this, and what I would like to do, if I might, is go back to this question in a minute. I will run out in the hall and find out where they got this information.
Mr. Turk. Okay.
Mr. Burton. But did you make a phone call to Dennis Martin, period?
The Witness. I don't recall if I made a phone call to Dennis Martin or if I talked to Dennis Martin, but I believe -- to be helpful, sir, I believe I did discuss this issue with Dennis Martin.
Mr. Burton. And when you discussed it with him, did you ask the identity of the agent that made these comments?
The Witness. I believe what I asked, sir, was if he had any idea who had made the allegation. I believe, sir, that when I asked the question it was in response to either my attorneys or White House counsel or perhaps the Independent Counsel. I remember being asked a question. I don't know if it was before this or after this, but it was around that time period, would there be any reason why this guy would make this story up, or "person" is I think what I said. And I didn't know.
And I remember talking to Inspector Martin. The reason I said, sir, and I do this out of respect to you, say that I doubt very seriously that Inspector Martin said "demanded," because I thought that we enjoyed a very cordial relationship and a professional one, and I don't think that I ever demanded anything of him. I was very deferential to him.
Mr. Burton. We will follow up on that and try to get the exact language.
The Witness. Okay.
Mr. Burton. Did you have a young man who worked with you, Anthony Aoude, A-O-U-D-E?
The Witness. Anthony Aoude. I think he was an intern or volunteer.
Mr. Burton. When Bruce Abbott said he saw you coming down that morning, which you don't recall, or say didn't happen, he said that there were you and another person, and he said that he recalled that the gentleman's name with you was called Tony. Is that what Anthony Aoude was commonly called, Tony?
The Witness. No, I don't believe so. I think -- I believe -- I believe I called him Anthony.
Mr. Burton. Did he help you carry anything out of the White House the morning of July 21st?
The Witness. As I said, sir, I don't have any recollection of moving any documents, boxes, briefcases, anything other than what I would normally do in the process of my normal daily duties.
Mr. Burton. But you don't --
Ms. Olson. Can we stop for a second? We have got people in here. I am sorry, Mr. Kanjorski, only committee staff can be in the room during our deposition.
The Witness. I am going to have to take a two-minute break.
Mr. Burton. Sure. I will check on that question when you are gone.
Mr. Livingstone. Again, I didn't mean to be rude.
[Recess at 11:42 to 11:47.]
Ms. Olson. We are back on the record.
Mr. Burton. I will get back to that question because I got the deposition of Mr. Martin, and I will let you look at it.
According to a Secret Service log, Betsey Wright, Bill Clinton's long-time chief of staff in Arkansas and a political advisor, was in the White House for a meeting with you on October 6th, 1993. Do you know what the purpose of that meeting was? Do you recall?
Mr. Turk. Do you have a -- Congressman, do you have a copy of that document? I know the committee has got it because I got it sent to me by a reporter after it got leaked to him a couple of days ago.
Ms. Olson. Did you ask if the White House leaked it?
Mr. Turk. Actually, I asked him whether or not he got it from the -- your committee.
Ms. Olson. And what did he say?
Mr. Turk. That's -- I am not going to tell you what he said, but he didn't deny it.
Ms. Olson. If you are going to put on the record an accusation that this committee leaked a document, I think you could at least put the source of that information on the record.
Mr. Turk. I don't think there's much doubt about whether that happens. Every time you guys get documents, you give them to the press and won't let me look at them before --
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk.
Mr. Turk. -- before I bring my client.
Ms. Olson. That is not --
Mr. Kanjorski. You called the Wall Street Journal and showed them a reproduction of your report with the errors in it.
Mr. Burton. All I want to do --
Ms. Olson. Mr. Kanjorski has now joined our committee.
Mr. Kanjorski, the leak of -- I assume you are talking about the stolen copy of the White House Travel Office report that was given to a Wall Street Journal individual. The individual was not from the investigative staff.
Mr. Turk. Do you have a copy of that document?
Ms. Olson. I don't have it with me. It is a WAVES sheet that has Betsey Wright as a visitee with Mr. Livingstone's name, and it has got that date, and there's three different times.
The Witness. If I could be of help, I remember seeing a similar document on the front page of the Washington Times last week, if it's that document you are referring to.
Ms. Olson. It is probably the document your attorney just said he got a copy of.
Did you share that document with your client?
Mr. Turk. I did not show it to my client, no.
The Witness. As I stated, I first saw it in the Washington Times, if that's the same document you are talking about.
Mr. Burton. Let's put the question. She was at the White House on October 6th. Do you recall meeting with her on October 6th? Your name, according to the information we have, was on the log. Do you recall meeting with her?
The Witness. Sir, I have to offer an explanation. I don't know that I recall meeting with her. I do recall being part of a meeting that Ms. Betsey Wright attended.
Mr. Burton. Okay.
The Witness. Along with other individuals, which might be of help. Craig Fuller, the former Bush chief operative, was also at that meeting.
Mr. Burton. Do you remember anybody else that was at the meeting with you and Ms. Wright?
The Witness. Those two individuals I remember. It was in preparation for the President and Members of Congress NAFTA celebration on the South Lawn of the White House.
Mr. Burton. Did you have a relationship with Betsey Wright before that meeting?
The Witness. Absolutely not.
Mr. Burton. Didn't know her?
The Witness. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. Hadn't met with her or anything before that?
The Witness. Don't believe that I had ever met her.
Mr. Burton. How did this meeting get set up, do you know? Do you remember who called you to set up the meeting?
The Witness. As I --
Mr. Turk. I don't believe he has testified that he set up the meeting, Congressman.
Mr. Burton. Do you recall who set up the meeting?
The Witness. As I recall, I was asked to be part of this meeting so that I could help get people that were invited guests in properly to the event because it was going to be a large event on the lawn, and as you are probably aware from attending events at the White House, a lot of times people get stuck at the gate for whatever reason, and my job specifically was to make sure that I got information to WAVES, which is the computer system run by the Secret Service, with the proper information they needed.
Mr. Burton. Okay. To your knowledge, did she see anyone else while she was at the White House outside that meeting that day?
The Witness. I don't recall seeing her at any other point in the White House other than related to the NAFTA event.
Mr. Burton. But you got -- I mean you helped her get the clearance to come into the White House for that meeting, I assume?
The Witness. What I recall specifically, sir, about Ms. Wright, is that there were a number of people at that meeting that we put on what's called a short-term access list. Ms. Wright specifically stated that she did not want to be on an access list; that she didn't want to receive any special treatment; that she wanted to be cleared in as an appointment. And I believe I was charged with that responsibility of clearing her in as an appointment.
Mr. Burton. When you clear them in as an appointment, are they restricted to a given area? I mean, they can't go wandering around?
The Witness. Sure they can.
Mr. Burton. They can?
The Witness. Sure they can, absolutely.
Mr. Burton. They can just go anyplace they want in the White House?
The Witness. Once they are cleared in as an appointment, the officer lets them in at the gate, and the officer, I assume, presumes that they go to their appointment. I have no way of knowing.
Mr. Burton. So do you know if she had any other meetings at the White House that day other than the one you attended?
The Witness. No, sir, nor do I have any reason to believe that she did.
Mr. Burton. Did Betsey Wright at any time mention RTC criminal referrals at this meeting or any time while you were present?
The Witness. Not to me.
Mr. Burton. To anybody else at the meeting while you were there?
The Witness. I don't believe that issue came up. Perhaps you can ask Mr. Fuller.
Mr. Burton. You were in the meeting. Do you recall her mentioning --
The Witness. I don't mean to be smart, but you are asking me questions which I think are of a political nature. Mr. Fuller was a Bush appointee, a senior staffer. I am sure that if discussions came up like that, he would have the better memory than I.
Mr. Burton. I am just asking, do you recall any mention of the RTC during that meeting?
The Witness. I believe I have answered the question, sir, but I will answer it again. No.
Mr. Burton. No.
Did anyone else ever mention criminal referrals to you?
Mr. Turk. Any kind of criminal referrals ever?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Turk. Do you mean while he was working at the White House, did anybody mention these RTC referrals, to help narrow it?
Mr. Burton. That's what I am referring to. I will be glad to narrow it to that degree.
Did anyone else ever mention any criminal referrals of the RTC to you?
The Witness. I don't have any knowledge of that.
Mr. Burton. You don't recall any criminal referrals?
The Witness. I have no knowledge of discussing criminal referrals to the RTC.
Mr. Burton. Did Ms. Wright review any FBI files?
The Witness. Absolutely not.
Mr. Burton. Did you keep in contact with Ms. Wright after the October 6th meeting?
The Witness. I have no recollection of a meeting discussing -- talking with or about her after the NAFTA event.
Mr. Burton. Were there any action items, other than that NAFTA event, talked about or created from the meeting?
The Witness. I am sorry. You are going to have to help me out a little bit. I didn't understand the question.
Mr. Burton. Did you talk about anything else that should be done in the scope of your duties or anybody else's duties at that meeting that day, the NAFTA meeting that you are talking about, that celebration?
The Witness. No, sir. As I stated, the only time I met with Ms. Betsey Wright, to the best of my recollection, was specifically for the NAFTA event, where NAFTA lawn events were discussed.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Did you take any notes at the meeting?
The Witness. I don't recall taking any notes. I believe that I may -- I don't recall.
Mr. Burton. If you took notes, would you still have them?
The Witness. I don't have any of the materials from my office, sir.
Mr. Burton. You don't remember taking any notes at the meeting?
The Witness. To be helpful, sir, to try to be helpful, to answer your question, I suppose that I was -- I know that I was there to help with WAVES requests, which again are to get people in and out of the complex for the event. That also would include vendors who were constructing tents and people that would bring products and supplies that were going to be shown as a result of NAFTA.
I probably made notes based -- my answer is, I probably made notes based on my responsibilities in that area.
Mr. Burton. Do you know where those notes might be now?
The Witness. No. I don't know that I took notes, but I am just trying to be helpful. I am now guessing, but I would think it would be consistent with what I would do, that I need to take some notes, contact a specific vendor.
Mr. Burton. Did Ms. Wright take any notes at the meeting; do you recall?
The Witness. I don't recall.
Mr. Turk. The only thing I would like the record to reflect, Congressman, is you keep referring to the October 6th meeting.
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Turk. We don't have the document here that indicates the dates on which Ms. Wright came to the White House. So I would just like --
Ms. Remington. Someone is looking for that now.
Mr. Turk. I am not saying that it isn't. I just don't want the record to reflect the fact that that is a date on which a meeting took place as to which, as far as we are concerned, there hasn't been any testimony.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Before I finish my question, I want to get back to that question that you were concerned about earlier. It is in a sworn deposition dated June 22nd, 1995. I will read the relevant parts.
And I think he started off saying, do you have legal counsel? And I said I had the Secret Service as my legal counsel. Why are you asking this?
Went on to say that I do -- do I have any knowledge that any officer had a problem with him down at the White House?
I said, no, I do not. I don't know of any officer who has had a run-in with you or had any problem where there was an altercation down at the White House. In fact, one of our routines was for him, if he had trouble with one of our officers at the gate, with his staff, he would call me, and I would discuss that with the officer, get to the bottom of it, and see if it was justified, if it was a justified complaint.
So here he is asking me if he had a problem with one of our officers at the White House and I said, Craig, no, I don't recall any. And then he went on to ask me, who do you think that officer is? And I said, I can't discuss anything about this.
And then the questioner said, who do you think the officer is, the one that ID'd him coming out of the West Wing? And then the question is, I missed the transition. He generally asked you, first of all, whether you had legal counsel; is that right?
Yes.
And then whether or not you were aware of any officer who had a problem with him in the White House; is that right?
Yes.
And you told him you weren't aware of that?
Yes.
And did he bring up the topic of some officer who observed him? How did that topic get introduced?
He just brought it up.
This is a long time ago, I realize, but to the best of your recollection, get as close to the exact words as you can -- and this is the relevant part: I am not sure if he mentioned a particular date or time. All I remember is him saying that some officer ID'd him coming out of the West Wing with some boxes, and it was a concern of his.
He had his own legal counsel to represent him, and he asked you to identify him, the officer; is that correct?
Yes.
And did you do that?
No.
Why not?
Because I discontinued the conversation there, and I changed the subject. I said I wouldn't be talking about -- I said, Craig, I don't talk business like that. That's not up for discussion.
And that was the end of it.
Mr. Turk. So I did not hear you from anywhere from there read the word "demanded," that Mr. Livingstone demanded this information.
Mr. Burton. I think there was some political license taken with that remark.
Mr. Turk. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Let's get back to the question.
The Witness. I apologize. Again, I based it on I thought we had a very cordial and professional relationship.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Now do you recall -- this is a sworn deposition by Dennis Martin. Do you recall that telephone conversation?
The Witness. No. I don't recall whether or not I talked to him on the phone or in person, as I stated earlier. I didn't say that we didn't have that conversation, sir. I said I just didn't recall -- specifically, I said, I knew I didn't demand anything of him ever. I just knew that. I felt very positive about that.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Did you ask him about an officer that said he saw you carrying boxes or files out of the White House, the West Wing, that day?
The Witness. Yes.
Mr. Turk. I believe he has testified to that already here today, Congressman, earlier, before -- the last time we went over this.
Mr. Burton. But that was before we got the actual -- the statement from --
Mr. Turk. The only purpose of getting that, I thought, was because the summary that someone had prepared of that suggested --
Mr. Burton. Let me just make sure that --
Mr. Turk. -- that there had been a demand for information.
Mr. Burton. Let me just make sure I have got it on the record correctly then.
You do recall talking to him?
The Witness. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Do you recall asking him who the agent was that said he saw you with the files that day, leaving the West Wing?
The Witness. No, sir. What I asked him was, did I -- is there an officer that had a problem with me? Because as I recall, the reason this conversation happened, sir, and perhaps why I asked him about counsel, is if he had counsel, I would prefer the attorneys to talk to each other so I wouldn't -- knowing what I know now, I probably should have had someone else talk to him.
But people had asked me in interviews and under oath, did anybody have a problem with me; is there a reason this person might have made this up? And I had never thought of that. And I knew that based on my work at the White House, that I had had trouble with some of the officers at the White House early on, several, and it usually related to a staffer, very similar to here, when I worked here. Some staffers would brush by the officers and not want to show their IDs. This was the same kind of thing.
The officer would call and say, Craig, could you get Mr. or Mrs. So and So to, you know, be a little more courteous at the gate? Or a staffer would say, sir, so and so was disrespectful, the officer was disrespectful to me. And a lot of times I would engage in conversations with both of these parties and try to get it resolved happily so it didn't escalate, because I knew we all had to work there for years to come.
So I had knowledge, A, that there were some officers that I may have -- may have rubbed the wrong way, certainly not intended to. I knew they were just doing their job. B, I had been asked several times, either by counsel or both -- under the investigative process, if it was possible that an officer had a problem with me. C, it seemed to me not inappropriate to ask Inspector Martin, who was the inspector in charge of all the Uniform Division, if, in fact, somebody had made a complaint about me. If he had told me that, I would have referred it to him -- to my attorneys.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Now I want to talk a little bit about the FBI. Besides the occasional ceremony or tour that you would assist the FBI director with, tell me all the contacts that you can recall with Mr. Freeh.
The Witness. I would be happy to. They were limited, and I think that I can recall them. I believe my first interaction, if you will call it that, with Mr. Freeh was at his swearing-in ceremony where I worked as an advance person for the President at the Hoover Building.
Mr. Burton. Did you ever discuss the issue of FBI files with Director Freeh?
The Witness. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. According to Mr. Freeh's letter of May 25th, 1994, to you -- I don't know if you have got a copy of that letter here --
Ms. Olson. Here it is.
Mr. Burton. According to his letter of May 25th, 1994, the Director requested you -- from you a permanent OGA White House pass for FBI general counsel Howard Shapiro. Do you recall receiving that letter?
The Witness. May I just take a moment and read it, sir?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
The Witness. Thank you.
Mr. Turk. I would note this letter is not signed. It's not signed, and it's not on -- it's just on blank paper. It is not FBI stationery.
Ms. Olson. We have got one on White House stationery. Let me see if I can find that copy. It's signed "Louie."
Mr. Burton. You do recall the letter?
The Witness. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. He recalls the letter.
Did you, in fact, issue a hard pass to Mr. Shapiro?
The Witness. I don't recall, but it would be easy to find out.
Mr. Burton. Could you get that for the record for us, find out if you issued a hard pass for Mr. Shapiro?
The Witness. Sure. I would be happy to.
Mr. Burton. If you did issue a hard pass?
The Witness. Can I just make sure my counsel heard that. The Congressman asked me if -- I don't recall if I did, but it would be easy to find out.
Mr. Turk. Could maybe you just read it back to me? I am sorry. I was looking at this WAVES.
[Portion read back.]
Mr. Turk. I don't know how Mr. Livingstone, who does not work at the White House anymore --
Mr. Burton. Could get a hard pass.
Is there any way we have access to finding out if there was a hard pass issued for Mr. Shapiro?
Ms. Olson. There was a hard pass. It has been confirmed.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Would you have been the one that would have issued that hard pass for him?
The Witness. Most likely. If you have the file and you have the form, which I am sure I would be happy to recognize, it would normally have my name on it.
Mr. Burton. Do we have a copy of that?
Mr. Turk. Do you have the file?
Ms. Olson. I don't have it with me. Do you want us to try to find it?
Ms. Comstock. The Secret Service shows that he has a pass.
Mr. Burton. There is a Secret Service record that shows he has a pass?
Ms. Remington. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you know why you would have issued that pass to him?
The Witness. I knew for a fact that it was a policy at the White House to issue passes to individuals, departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. And I believe he was the second individual in Mr. Freeh's office that we issued a pass to, but I don't know that for a fact, but I believe that's why we issued the pass. And I certainly don't know any reason why we wouldn't issue the pass if Mr. Freeh had requested it and it was approved by someone in the White House.
Mr. Turk. The letter, I guess, asks for the pass to be issued because Mr. Shapiro is repeatedly going to the Old Executive Office Building and the White House for meetings.
Mr. Burton. So that was a common practice for him to, I guess, go to these meetings?
The Witness. I don't know. That's what the letter states.
Mr. Burton. Did Mr. Freeh ever ask you to give anyone else a hard pass?
The Witness. I only pause because I am trying to reflect on your question to be precise.
There are individuals that are on Mr. Freeh's detail, for example, who are law enforcement people. I am not sure -- by that I mean they carry weapons. I am not sure if we would issue the pass or the Secret Service would issue the pass for them. Certainly the people that worked at the White House, people that worked at the White House as investigators, had passes.
Mr. Burton. Who did you go to to get this pass for Mr. Shapiro; do you recall?
The Witness. I don't.
Mr. Burton. Would you have had to go to the Counsel's Office, to Mr. Kennedy? Or who would you go to? I mean, would you just do this of your own volition, or would you go to one of your superiors?
The Witness. I suspect that I would go to one of my superiors, but without the file in front of me, I can't tell you. I can't be precise, sir, is what I am trying to be.
RPTS STEWART
DCMN GALLACHER
[12:05]
Mr. Burton. How we could get that information?
Ms. Olson. It is under subpoena as it stands right now, and it should have all been delivered but the White House is still producing -- as a matter of fact, they produced documents this morning. They have been withholding more documents. They have just written a letter to the Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I know you guys have 9 million things to do but could you see if that is in there?
Ms. Olson. No, it probably is in the documents. They have not completed their production.
The Witness. I am not trying to be difficult, sir. I just don't recall.
Mr. Burton. What was the proper procedure to issue a pass to someone? What did you normally do if Louis Freeh asked for a pass, you just talked to somebody in the counsel's office.
The Witness. During the course of the administration, there was a -- I think it was referred to as a 16 or 17 step procedure for issuing a pass to an employee. In this particular case it might go through management administration. I think at that time Ms. Jodie Torkelson or Mr. David Watkins would have been the person that signed off on it.
Mr. Burton. If they signed off on it, you went ahead and issued the pass?
The Witness. Yes.
Mr. Burton. So we need to check the records to see who signed off on it.
Did you get a hard pass for anyone else like Betsey Wright.
The Witness. I am sorry?
Mr. Burton. Did you get a hard pass for anyone else like Betsey Wright?
Mr. Turk. You mean anyone else besides Howard Shapiro?
Mr. Burton. Yes, Betsey Wright came in for a meeting on this NAFTA meeting you said, their celebration.
The Witness. Right. And she did not get a hard pass, to be precise.
Mr. Burton. So you never gave her a hard pass.
The Witness. No, sir. No, sir. I specifically stated that, A, she didn't want to be on any kind of special access list. She wanted to be cleared as an appointment, and I know for a fact she never got any type of a pass other than an appointment and any normal American would have.
Mr. Burton. According to Director Freeh's letter of January 3rd you helped him in some way. Can you tell us in addition to getting this hard pass what other areas you helped him with.
The Witness. Could I see the letter, sir?
Ms. Olson. This is a different one, the January 3rd.
The Witness. Sure I would be happy to answer that question. I remember this letter and I remember the occasion. Now what is it you want to know?
Mr. Burton. You said you helped him in some -- he said he helped you in some way. Do you remember what the help was you gave him.
The Witness. Sure. I gave his very nice wife and lovely children a tour of the White House.
Mr. Burton. The second paragraph of the letter Director Freeh thanks Stephanie. Who is Stephanie.
The Witness. I don't know. I don't know anyone named Stephanie that I know of. I assume it was somebody who helped me give the tour.
Mr. Burton. Okay. All right. Getting near the end here. On page 183 of the House hearing transcript -- do we have a copy of that? We must have it here. Page 183.
Ms. Olson. Are you asking about the testimony?
Mr. Burton. Mr. Cole, yeah.
Ms. Olson. That is the Secret Service hearing. We have Mr. Livingstone's hearing here.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Well, I want to ask a question that is relevant to that. On page 183 of the House hearing transcript, Mr. Cole was questioned by Congressman Horn. In the transcript Mr. Cole stated that he wanted to have a conversation outside of your office because you didn't think it was safe to talk in your office.
Do you recall that conversation?
Mr. Turk. I would like to request that we have a copy of the transcript of that hearing. The problem I think again is that someone has done a summary for you of the testimony. And my concern is that the questioning, based on those summaries that have characterizations in them, may not be the most accurate way to conduct that kind of an examination.
Ms. Olson. We will have it brought up.
Mr. Burton. Do you recall talking to Mr. Cole about wanting to go out in the hall because you thought your office might be bugged? Forgetting the transcript at the moment, do you recall that kind of conversation.
The Witness. I recall a conversation -- I believe is the last conversation I had with Agent Cole where we went out into the hallway and had a conversation.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Mr. Cole asked you if you thought your office was bugged and you didn't give him an answer. Do you think your office was bugged.
The Witness. No.
Mr. Burton. Then why did you want to go out in the hall.
The Witness. I don't know. I really don't. I think I was on my way out of the office to do something else and we talked in the hallway. I do recall saying I would like to talk to him in the hall and him making some sort of a casual comment like that and me responding let's "just talk here." I have no reason to believe my office was bugged.
Mr. Burton. I really need that transcript because according to Agent Cole, he says you didn't think it was safe to talk in your office, and it is in quotation marks. I think that is relevant.
Ms. Olson. It is on its way up.
Mr. Burton. I am just about finished here.
Numerous press accounts -- and of course this is secondhand information -- have stated that people off the record have stated that you told him that your mother and Mrs. Clinton are or were old friends at one time. I know you have heard this before. Did you at any point tell anyone that your mother and Mrs. Clinton were friends or knew each other?
Mr. Turk. Can I, before he answers this question, I would just like to -- you said that numerous persons -- your question begins with numerous persons have reported this?
Mr. Burton. No, I said press accounts, and I think you have seen that in a number of papers around. I don't know if it has any validity other than it has been in the papers.
Mr. Turk. I think the only source of that story as far as I am aware, unless you are aware of other information, is Mr. Sculimbrene who had a severe head injury and --
Mr. Burton. Let's forget the previous statement and say did you at any point tell anyone that your mother and Mrs. Clinton were friends or knew each other.
The Witness. I don't recall having a conversation like that with anyone. I know for a fact that my mother does not know Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Burton. So if someone else tells us that you said that they would be lying to us.
The Witness. I don't recall any conversation like that. I know people -- I can't account for what other people would say.
Mr. Burton. Of course Sculimbrene and Aldrich, both of the FBI agents at the White House, say that you did say this and even have notes to that effect.
Mr. Turk. Does Mr. Aldrich say that Mr. Livingstone said that?
Ms. Olson. Is this an objection, Mr. Turk?
Mr. Turk. You don't need to get argumentative with me, Ms. Olson.
Ms. Olson. I am not. There has just been a commentary going on. There seems to be a question --
Mr. Turk. This is not a typical examination; is it, Ms. Olson? What is happening is there is a reading into the record before each question is asked someone's characterization -- and I don't mean to suggest it is the Congressman's but I believe it was somebody who prepared it for the Congress which makes suggestions --
Mr. Burton. It wasn't the staff here and it was not done for any purpose other than to refresh Mr. Livingstone's memory.
Mr. Turk. That is the only purpose of my commentary is to also just balance things out, because I do not believe that there are any facts to support that Gary Aldrich ever said that Mr. Livingstone told him that. Now perhaps you have evidence of that. My understanding is that Sculimbrene is the only person who has ever made that suggestion --
Mr. Kanjorski. May I suggest if we have evidence of that, the intent of the deposition is to establish facts, not innuendos or suggestions.
Mr. Burton. I will provide that for the record.
Ms. Olson. We have a sworn deposition by Dennis Sculimbrene.
Mr. Kanjorski. Then that should be produced for Mr. Burton to refer to and it could be an addendum to the transcript so everyone who reads this transcript in the future can see the exact import of that sworn deposition, not a characterization.
Mr. Burton. When we do the report I will add in my comments the portions of the transcript that verifies what I just said that Sculimbrene and Aldrich both say that you did say this and that I guess even they have notes to that effect that that was said.
I am finishing up here now so you are about through with me. Who is paying your legal expenses for this?
Mr. Turk. For this deposition here today?
Mr. Burton. No, for this entire investigation.
Mr. Turk. Starting when?
Mr. Burton. I am asking Mr. Livingstone.
Mr. Turk. I know.
Mr. Burton. He knows who is paying his legal fees, doesn't he?
Mr. Turk. I know who is paying his legal fees as well.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Livingstone, who is paying your legal fees.
The Witness. I am not paying my legal fees.
Mr. Burton. I said who is.
The Witness. I am not. I am not trying to be disrespectfull --
Mr. Burton. Do you know who is paying your legal fees?
The Witness. I haven't. I haven't paid my bill.
Mr. Burton. Do you know who has made a commitment to pay your legal fees.
The Witness. I had a group of friends that set up a legal fund for me which I think paid a small amount towards my legal fees, but there hasn't been any activity, to my knowledge, in quite some time.
Mr. Burton. Have there been any agreements or arrangements made to pay your legal bills or to reimburse you for legal fees.
The Witness. As I would expect any contractual arrangement, sir, I would expect the people who provide the service to me expect me to pay the bills, if that is what you are asking me.
Mr. Burton. But you don't know of anybody aside from yourself or some friends or close friends that have agreed to pay your legal expenses such as somebody at the White House.
The Witness. I have no knowledge of that at all.
Mr. Turk. I would sure like to hear about that.
Mr. Burton. I am sure you would.
Is your lawyer --
Mr. Turk. Or anywhere else.
Mr. Burton. How did you pay your legal fees last year when you went before the Senate Whitewater Committee.
The Witness. I didn't pay it.
Mr. Turk. I object to the question.
Mr. Kanjorski. I thought we were here for a deposition.
Ms. Olson. For the record, there is a subpoena that is currently outstanding to Mr. Livingstone. That was issued --
Mr. Turk. Ms. Olson, you don't need to make a speech.
Mr. Kanjorski. As I understand, it was permitted the other day we agreed to permit Mr. Livingstone to complete the examination relative to the Travel Office.
Mr. Burton. Right.
Mr. Kanjorski. Not to talk about Whitewater testimony, not to talk about his adoption, if he were adopted, not to talk about his divorce if he were divorced. We are here on the Travel Office. And any questions should be directed toward that, not the Whitewater hearing.
Mr. Burton. This had been agreed to by the Minority. It is a subpoena that says, "Insofar as."
Mr. Goldberg. We have no knowledge of that subpoena.
Ms. Olson. The Chairman discussed this with your boss before this issue came up. There was a telephone call.
Mr. Turk. We don't need to get into a long to-do here. The fact is it is clear what you intend to do is to ensure that no one ever contributes to Mr. Livingstone's legal defense fund, and Mr. Livingstone can testify to it also that nobody has been paying any legal fees.
Mr. Burton. That is not the case. I think Mr. Livingstone should be able to acquire funds for his legal defense from whatever source he should. What we want to do is know what that source is.
Mr. Turk. Sure, so you can leak it to the press -- not you, Mr. Congressman. I don't mean to suggest that you would do that.
Mr. Kanjorski. He hasn't paid his counsel. On the record, his counsel just indicated he hasn't paid.
Mr. Burton. I will leave the rest of this questioning then to the staff.
There was one question that we were waiting on some information on. What was that?
Ms. Olson. Here is the transcript.
Mr. Burton. Where were we on that, can you help me? Mr. Horn asked this question. I can let you read this.
Mr. Turk. I want to read this.
Mr. Burton. This is what I quoted.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Turk. I noticed that here Cole testified that Craig indicated to him in that conversation he was $80,000 in the hole with lawyer fees.
Ms. Olson. And concerned about the lawyer fees.
Mr. Turk. The other thing he indicated to me -- this is Mr. Cole testifying -- was that he was $80,000 in the hole with lawyers fees. He was somewhat concerned.
Mr. Burton. Can I have that back if you are finished with it, then you could have me out of your hair.
Mr. Turk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. All right. We are going back to that issue about why you, according to Mr. Cole, didn't want to talk in your office. Mr. Cole said:
Well, I went to see Mr. Livingstone and he did not want to discuss anything inside his office. He spoke in the hallway outside of his office. We briefly discussed the case and basically asked me if I saw, without referring to any notes, going from my memory right now he asked me if I saw the press release he left for me concerning the Billy Dale files. I said that I didn't and he didn't want to blame the Secret Service that it wasn't our fault. They had the right stuff. They used the wrong list. They don't know what happened. That was basically what the conversation was about.
He said you didn't want to discuss this in your office. You said a while ago --
Mr. Kanjorski. May I ask you --
Mr. Burton. Just one second -- you said a while ago the reason you went out into the hall was because you were getting ready to leave and thought it would be easier to talk in the hall.
The Witness. No, I said I think that is the way I recall it.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Horn asked Mr. Cole did he think his office was bugged or could people just hear everything going on in his office and Mr. Cole said, "I asked him if he thought his office was bugged and he indicated to me he didn't think it was safe to talk in his office."
The Witness. That sounds consistent with my memory.
Mr. Burton. That is consistent with your memory.
The Witness. Yeah.
Mr. Burton. So you didn't think it was safe to talk in your office.
The Witness. Yeah, but I wouldn't characterize it the way you are.
Mr. Burton. Why did you think it was not safe to talk in your office.
The Witness. It was a flippant comment.
Mr. Burton. But you did go out in the hall.
The Witness. Yes, I said that before.
Mr. Turk. Were there other people in your office at the time?
The Witness. I don't recall.
Mr. Burton. Well, I guess -- you did have a private office, didn't you.
The Witness. I had an office that I shared with Mr. George Saunders , but it was principally my office.
Mr. Burton. Was Mr. Saunders in the office at the time.
The Witness. I don't think so.
Mr. Burton. So there was no one in the office at the time that you recall.
The Witness. I don't recall anyone being in the office.
Mr. Burton. So you went out in the hall --
The Witness. This doesn't have to be a big issue.
Mr. Burton. It does. It is important because, you know, why would you not feel it was safe to talk in your office about an issue like this?
Mr. Turk. I don't think Mr. Livingstone testified he didn't think it was safe. That is Mr. Cole's characterization of what it was that Mr. Livingstone said, and I don't think Mr. Livingstone has ever said he thought it wasn't safe to be in his office or that he thought his office was bugged.
Mr. Burton. I asked him -- Mr. Cole said he thought his office was bugged and he indicated to me that he just didn't think it was safe to talk in his office. Can you tell me why you didn't think it was safe to talk in your office?
Mr. Turk. Objection. I don't think Mr. Livingstone has ever said he didn't think it was safe to talk in his office.
Mr. Burton. Why did you want to go out in the hall instead of talking in your office.
The Witness. I just preferred talking there. I don't know if it was because I was on my way somewhere or if I just preferred talking there. I really don't know, sir. There was no specific reason that I recall.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Cole said, Well, I went to see Mr. Livingstone and he did not want to discuss anything inside his office. He spoke in the hallway outside of his office.
Mr. Turk. Is that a question, Congressman?
Mr. Burton. I am formulating a question right now. Mr. Cole said you just didn't want to talk about anything inside your office.
Mr. Turk. Is that a question?
Mr. Burton. Why did he come to that conclusion?
Mr. Turk. Objection. There is no way Mr. Livingstone can get into the mind of someone else and why he may have come to a conclusion. It is a highly charged political situation and his testimony was given in the midst of that highly charged political situation.
Mr. Burton. I will defer to our counsel now.
Mr. Turk. His agency was under attack for its role in all of this and who knows what affect that has.
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, that is objectionable to state on the record what you believe a Secret Service agent's pressure was under. I would like to continue questioning with that remark that Agent Cole -- Secret Service Agent Cole testified to.
Mr. Turk. Why don't we take a break. It has been an hour and Mr. Livingstone as a diabetic needs to take breaks from time to time.
Ms. Olson. Can we take a 5-minute break?
Mr. Turk. That would be fine.
[Recess taken 12:23 p.m. to 12:35 p.m.]
Ms. Olson. Back on the record after a break.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Mr. Livingstone, within the testimony by Mr. Cole he made the statement that you told him -- and I will quote what Mr. Cole said -- "I said I didn't and he didn't want to blame the Secret Service" -- "he" meaning he is referring to you, Mr. Livingstone -- "that it wasn't our fault. They had the right stuff. They use the wrong list. They don't know what happened and that is basically what the conversation was about."
I will let you look at that. It is on page 183 of our hearing, which we had with the Secret Service.
Mr. Kanjorski. May I ask the date on that?
Ms. Olson. That hearing occurred on July 17th, 1996.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Do you recall having a conversation with Mr. Cole concerning the list that was used by Mr. Marceca?
A As I have testified before, and previously, and today, I don't blame the Secret Service.
If I could try to take this line by line and be of help to you and answer as quickly as possible. To this day I don't believe it is anybody's fault. I thought it was a combination of errors. When it says I said that I didn't --
Mr. Turk. Didn't want to blame the Secret Service.
The Witness. Where he says, "I didn't want to blame the Secret Service," that was I am sure was correct then and it is correct now.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Do you believe that you said something to Mr. Cole concerning the fact that your office had, quote, "the right stuff," and even if you didn't use those exact words, in effect, did you communicate to Mr. Cole that your office had the right list but that they used the wrong list somehow?
A No, ma'am. As I recall, and I recall I think very well, I thought that I said something along the lines of I didn't know why we didn't have the right stuff. Apparently we used the wrong list. I just don't know what happened, and that would be consistent with my memory.
Q So your memory is not that you told Mr. Cole that you had the right list but just used the wrong one?
A Well, yes.
Q How often did the Secret Service in 1993 send you an updated list or your office an updated list of active pass holders?
A I don't know exactly, but to be helpful I believe that we got several lists.
Q Do you know if you received lists on a weekly basis from the Secret Service?
A Well, as I said, I am not precisely sure how many times we got the lists. Normally the lists would go to someone else in my office but sometimes to me, but I would say fairly frequently.
Q Are you aware if your office received weekly lists from the Secret Service?
A I am not aware of it, no, ma'am.
Q As director of the office, do you know how often you would receive active pass holder lists when you were director of that office?
A When we requested them. If you are asking me were they sent on the 15th and the 1st of each month or every Friday or something like that, there wasn't a routine.
Q There was no active pass holder list that was sent to your office on a weekly basis?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q How long were you head of that office?
A I believe you know the answer to that question, but I would be happy to answer it. It is from the first week of February 1993 through June of 1996.
Q And if I were to tell you that Secret Service agents had informed me that you received a new list every single week, would you believe that to be a truthful statement?
Mr. Turk. Wait a minute. Is your question whether he would believe you that someone told you that or is your question --
Ms. Olson. I am trying to refresh his recollection that they received different lists and they would receive lists on a regular basis. They would receive weekly lists and certainly receive active pass holder lists at least monthly.
Mr. Turk. I know. But my question is, are you asking him if he would believe you if you told him that is what somebody told you?
Ms. Olson. No, I am asking Mr. Livingstone if he believes that to be a truthful statement that they received regular updated lists from the Secret Service and that it was not just random but it was on a regular basis.
DCMN HERZFELD
The Witness. I don't know what you mean by "regular." I testified that I knew that our office did, in fact, get lists fairly frequently. I am not trying to couch that in any way, I just don't recall how often. I also stated that they didn't just send the lists to us, that we requested them and --
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Was your testimony that they did not give lists unless they were requested?
A To my knowledge, that is correct.
Q So you would not receive even a monthly list without a request; is that your testimony?
A I believe that was the process. I either call Sergeant Craft, who was one of the WAVES supervisors who would generate the list, or sometimes call room 23.
Q Is your testimony you personally would do the calling sometimes to get the list?
A Sometimes, yes.
Q It is your testimony you did not believe you regularly received lists from the Secret Service absent a request?
A As you described it, on a weekly basis, that would be news to me.
Q How about on a monthly basis?
A Now you are asking me to guess. I thought you were telling me you had knowledge that the Secret Service --
Q I am asking you if you ever received regular lists without requesting them. You said you believe you had to request them. I want to be very clear.
A Sure. I don't mean to be argumentative, but you said would it surprise me if the Secret Service said they sent weekly lists. Now you are saying monthly.
Q I am asking you monthly. Does the Secret Service send -- Mr. Turk, do you have an objection to the question?
Mr. Turk. Yeah, I do have an objection.
Ms. Olson. Please let me clarify.
Mr. Turk. Okay. Did they tell you that they sent them on a weekly basis?
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, I am clarifying my question. Can you please allow me to finish?
Mr. Turk. I would like to make clear on the record what my objection is, and perhaps since you asked me in your opening statement to be sure I made my objections clear on the record you would let me do that, Ms. Olson.
Ms. Olson. Sure. State your basis.
Mr. Turk. Thank you.
When you asked a question of my client that says, what would your reaction be if I told you I have been informed by the Secret Service that these lists were provided on a weekly basis, are you saying by that question that you, in fact, were so advised by the Secret Service, or are you simply creating a hypothetical-type question and asking my client to respond to it?
Ms. Olson. Is that a relevant question?
Mr. Turk. That is a very relevant question.
Ms. Olson. I am not sure in '93. I do know there are weekly lists that are sent over.
Mr. Turk. When, in '93?
BY MS. OLSON:
Q I am going to modify it to include '93, to ask Mr. Livingstone if in 1993 on a monthly basis did you receive lists without requesting them from the Secret Service?
Mr. Turk. Before you answer that question, Mr. Livingstone, I would like to finish my objection, which is to the extent you want to make representations in your questions to my client about what people have told you, I hope that you will be accurate. This deposition, as you have indicated, will be made public, and I think that is very appropriate. But I think it is very important as a result of that, Ms. Olson, when you make representations, or purport to, on the record here in your questions that you be factually accurate, and that is my objection.
Ms. Olson. I would ask the same thing of the speeches of the attorney.
Mr. Turk. These are not speeches, they are objections.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Do you have any knowledge during '93 that any lists were regularly sent to your office by the Secret Service without you requesting them?
Mr. Turk. Objection. Asked and answered.
Ms. Olson. No, it obviously has not, because there have been some objections.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Or do you want your answer to stand -- is the answer to stand that you do not have knowledge that any lists were sent unless you requested them?
A No, that certainly wouldn't be the case. Anybody from my office could request a list.
Q Did the Secret Service send lists to your office without request, to your knowledge?
A Well, I am not trying to be difficult. I am just trying to understand. Do you mean like would they just routinely send me a list without a phone call or letter?
Q Yes.
A Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Turk. Can we get specific about the lists you are talking about, Ms. Olson? What lists?
Ms. Olson. I will ask the questions, Mr. Turk. If you find it objectionable if I broaden it to any list --
Mr. Turk. Any list. Any list. That is what the question was?
Ms. Olson. Yes, it is.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q So to your knowledge, you do not believe the Secret Service sent any list to your office without your request?
A I don't have any knowledge of that ever happening, but I do certainly recall asking the Secret Service to send me lists, as other people in my office did, on a fairly regular basis.
Q Have you ever authorized your attorney to debrief the White House on your depositions?
Mr. Turk. Objection. Any discussions between me and my counsel are privileged -- me and my client are privileged.
Ms. Olson. If it goes to the substance of your representation, debriefings of the white House would not be within the attorney-client privilege, or is that your claim?
Mr. Turk. What -- how would that go to the substance of my representation?
Ms. Olson. You have objected on an attorney-client privilege basis?
Mr. Kanjorski. May I interpose a question here, Ms. Olson? As I recall that the committee met at the early part of this week, the discussion was that you have some very pertinent information that you wanted to depose this witness of that you did not have in your possession the last time he deposed or testified before your committee.
From what I gathered here, we are going back over ad infinitum questions that have long been of record. To my recollection, we have had these questions asked at the full committee hearings what lists occurred. To the best of my recollection, one of the Bush people had been there for 15 or 20 years said, we are working off our own lists. If we are talking about the FBI list -- I don't know what lists we are talking about here. But there is a question here of time, when we are going to complete this. If for the benefit --
Ms. Olson. I have a document Mr. Kanjorski.
Mr. Kanjorski. Fine. Ask the question off the document.
Ms. Olson. Respectfully Mr. Kanjorski, I am asking questions before I present a document. That is the way I conduct a deposition. If I am not within the scope, I will certainly register the objection for the record and let the Chairman look at it.
Ms. Olson. I marked a document as Deposition Exhibit Number 1. It is DF 781649. It is a July 15th, 1995 memorandum to the file from Sherburne, and I believe that is Jane Sherburne, who is the White House counsel to the President. The subject is a Senate deposition of Craig Livingstone, and it begins by Randy Turk briefly reporting on the highlights of the Livingstone 7-10 deposition taken by Kip Johnson.
[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 1
was marked for identification.]