BY MS. OLSON:

Q Have you ever seen that document before?

A No.

Q And I repeat my question: Have you authorized your attorney to debrief the White House concerning your depositions?

Mr. Turk. Objection. I will instruct the witness not to answer. It is a totally impermissible question, and counsel knows it.

Ms. Olson. Basis?

Mr. Turk. How about the attorney-client privilege, counsel?

Ms. Olson. Ms. Sherburne is a third party.

Mr. Turk. You didn't ask him whether he has had any conversations with a third party. You asked him whether or not he and I ever had a discussion authorizing me to do something or not. Quite frankly, with all due respect, it is none of your business.

Mr. Kanjorski. What is the germaneness, Ms. Olson? Would there be any violation or improper conduct if there had been a conversation?

Ms. Olson. Yes, sir, there would be.

Mr. Kanjorski. What way? What crime or what improper activity if Mr. Turk or Mr. Livingstone talked to 250 million Americans? That is their right the last time I looked at the Constitution.

Ms. Olson. Yes, sir, it certainly is their right.

Mr. Kanjorski. What would be germane to this hearing?

Ms. Olson. We asked that these depositions remain confidential. We have information that the deposition --

Mr. Kanjorski. You may ask anything, Ms. Olson, but this witness may discuss with anybody in America the content of these depositions. This, to my knowledge, is not a grand jury, and there is no law that seals the lips of anybody in this deposition.

Ms. Olson. Certainly not. However, if Mr. Livingstone is speaking to the White House through his attorney, it would be a breach of the attorney-client privilege, and I think that is germane.

Mr. Kanjorski. That is only for Mr. Livingstone to raise, not for you, Ms. Olson.

Ms. Olson. It certainly is because there are documents being withheld from this committee.

Mr. Kanjorski. What do you have that you can raise if he discussed his depositions or his positions with anybody? What rights do you have?

Ms. Olson. He is under subpoena, and there are documents withheld under attorney-client privilege --

Mr. Kanjorski. He is under subpoena to appear here and testify.

Ms. Olson. He is under a document subpoena also.

Mr. Kanjorski. And he has presented these documents.

Ms. Olson. Deposition Exhibit No. 3 will be the subpoena of Craig Livingstone for the documents.

Mr. Kanjorski. And he has complied with those documents, or he has not complied?

Ms. Olson. He has not complied with the subpoena.

Mr. Kanjorski. Fine, then charge him accordingly. That is nothing to the question of who he discussed, whether he discusses it with his wife, his girlfriend or anybody else. He has a perfect right.

Ms. Olson. I would like to make the record clear. I don't want to charge Mr. Livingstone with anything. I am merely asking a question about documents that the White House has simply waited to turn over until the very late day.

Mr. Kanjorski. The representation of the Chairman of this Committee, who you are acting under his auspices, was that there were several pertinent issues that came up in documents or came up in other testimony that you wanted to inquire of Mr. Livingstone.

Ms. Olson. And this is one of the documents.

Mr. Kanjorski. There is a document that raises a pertinent question of the Travel Office as to whether or not he talked to anyone in this country. Is that what we are going to go through?

Ms. Olson. We are going through a debriefing of Jane Sherburne by Randy Turk of his deposition, which was then relayed to other members of the White House. The Chairman has looked at and has authorized me to ask questions.

Mr. Kanjorski. If he has authorized his counsel to discuss this matter with anyone, his counsel has a perfect right to do so.

Ms. Olson. Yes, he does.

Mr. Kanjorski. And he has a perfect right not to disclose that.

Ms. Olson. If his counsel has made debriefings of the White House, then certainly he has a right to do that.

Mr. Kanjorski. What is the issue here?

Ms. Olson. This committee is asking if, in fact, the debriefings have occurred of all of the depositions that have been taken, not only in the Senate, but also in the Travel Office.

Mr. Turk. I am glad you finally made that distinction, Ms. Olson, because if you hadn't, I was about to. This document seems to me to indicate that I had a brief conversation with Jane Sherburne concerning a Senate deposition. It is hard for me to see how a brief conversation I might have had with counsel at the White House --

Ms. Olson. Is there an objection, Mr. Turk?

Mr. Turk. Would you let me finish, please?

Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, I asked one question. I have now had three different objections that have gone on for 15 minutes.

Mr. Turk. And you testified for 10 minutes putting in your version of the facts, and I will respond.

Ms. Olson. I have got to allow your client to give some response at some point to some of our questions.

Mr. Turk. Give me -- look, Ms. Olson, my client has testified -- now he has been here for 3 hours on top of 86 hours. That makes a total of 89 hours. For you to sit here and suggest --

Ms. Olson. How many hours have you testified instead of your client?

Mr. Turk. How many hours have you testified? Let me respond, would you?

This document has nothing to do with any House hearings, A. B, you have made all of the testimony in the House hearings a matter of public record. How could it matter whether or not anyone told anybody what happened in those House hearings anyway? You have already announced at the beginning of this deposition -- I never made a representation to you one way or the other about a Senate deposition, young lady, and you know it.

Ms. Olson. I have a follow-up which has to do --

Mr. Turk. Do you have a document that suggests I gave debriefings of any House depositions, Ms. Olson? Do you have anything having to do with hearings you conducted?

Ms. Olson. For the record, I would like to ask a question of the witness and not Mr. Turk. If you want to be deposed, Mr. Turk, I am more than happy to put you under oath.

Mr. Turk. You can ask any question you want to that does not raise an attorney-client privilege issue. If you make another speech, I will respond.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q In this document, which is DF781649, Ms. Sherburne wrote a memo to the file that Mr. Turk told her that you were asked what time you arrived at the White House, and the entry logs show you arrived at 8:15. The second page attached to this document, which I will show you and mark as Exhibit Number 3, which is DF 781650.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 3

was marked for identification.]

Mr. Turk. Isn't this a matter that Congressman -- has already covered?

Mr. Burton. Burton.

Mr. Turk. I am sorry, Congressman.

Mr. Burton. That is all right. You will remember it someday.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q It says "Livingstone Deposition," and in that document the morning of July 21st it says, "He arrived at the office around 7:15".

Mr. Livingstone, did you, in fact, discuss with the White House, or were you -- are you aware that the White House was told in July of 1995 that you actually arrived at the White House at 7:15 rather than 8:14, which you stated in your deposition?

Mr. Turk. Could you read back that question, please?

[Discussion off the record.]

The Witness. I have no recollection, I am sorry. I have no recollection of a July 1995 conversation relating to this.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Rather than limiting it to July, have you ever told anyone that you arrived at 7:15 at the White House?

Mr. Turk. Exclude from your answer, of course, any conversations you may have had with counsel.

Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, would you limit that to certain -- within his representation if, in fact, he told counsel, I really arrived at 7:14 , but they haven't asked me the right question yet, would you agree that would be relevant and not within the attorney-client privilege?

Mr. Turk. Yeah, I would agree that would be. The record will be clear that you never did.

Ms. Olson. I would ask to ask your client, not you, Mr. Turk.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q So with that understanding that if, in fact, the person you told was Mr. Turk that you really did arrive at around 7:15, do you have any recollection of ever telling anyone that you believe you arrived at the White House around 7:15 at any time?

Mr. Turk. What have you just asked him? Have you asked him whether he told me that, or are you asking whether he told anyone including me?

Ms. Olson. Which would include you, because you agree that would not be within the attorney-client privilege.

Mr. Turk. What I said, Ms. Olson, was if Mr. Livingstone had told me that he had testified that he had come in at 8:15, but he really knew he had come in at 7:15, and they had asked the wrong question, would that be protected by the attorney-client privilege? I said we didn't need to worry about that because he never said that. If you want to ask him if he ever told me that, I am sure he will tell you that. If you want to ask him generally what he has told me, that is attorney-client privilege.

Ms. Olson. I don't want to ask generally. I want to ask has he ever told anyone, including you, that he arrived at the White House around 7:15 that morning?

Mr. Turk. You may answer that question with the exception of anything you may have told your counsel one way or the other on that matter.

Ms. Olson. So you believe if Mr. Livingstone told you he had arrived at 7:15, that that would be privileged information? Is that the basis of your objection and limitation of my question?

Mr. Turk. No.

Ms. Olson. Then can you please state it for the record?

Mr. Turk. I don't know how I could make this more clear to you, Ms. Olson.

Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, I am assuming he probably did say that to you.

Mr. Turk. Let me try. Communications that occur between an attorney and his or her client are privileged under the law. They are privileged.

Ms. Olson. If they relate to the representation of the client. Certainly "good morning" is not attorney-client privilege. I am assuming you are aware of the attorney-client privilege law as well as I am. There are limitations. It is a limited privilege. I would like to hold it to its limitations.

Mr. Turk. I didn't interpret your question to inquire of exchanges between me and Mr. Livingstone along the line of good morning.

Ms. Olson. I asked if Mr. Livingstone ever said to anyone, which would include you, that he arrived at the White House around 7:15 in the morning. I do not believe that statement comes within the attorney-client privilege, and I -- if you object and believe it does, I would just like to make the record that that is the basis of your objection, that you believe that statement is a privileged statement that he told you that.

Mr. Turk. I believe that any questions directed to my client about what he may have told me about anything having to do with anything relative to matters as to which I represent him are privileged. You may ask him whether he told anybody else that. That is fine.

Ms. Olson. It is obvious that he told --

Mr. Turk. It is not obvious anything. That is a totally inappropriate comment for you to make.

Mr. Burton. If I might interject here, did you tell anyone other than your counsel that you arrived at 7:15 in the morning?

Mr. Turk. Congressman, once again the question suggests that he told counsel that. Let's just leave it this way.

Mr. Burton. Did you tell anyone --

Mr. Turk. Putting aside counsel.

Mr. Burton. Putting aside counsel, did you tell anyone that you arrived at 7:15 in the morning?

Ms. Olson. Around 7:15.

Mr. Burton. Or around 7:15 in the morning.

The Witness. I think I understand the question, but can I confer with my attorney for a second here? Just be a minute.

Mr. Burton. Sure.

[Discussion off the record.]

The Witness. Thank you.

Ms. Olson. May the record please note the conversations with counsel.

The Witness. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to confer with my counsel about the question so that I understood it properly.

Ms. Olson. Certainly.

The Witness. As I recall it in previous investigations into this matter either with the Independent Counsel or another investigative body, I originally testified that I remember going to the Foster home early in the morning after his death. And that what I remembered doing -- I had just a few hours of sleep. It was a very traumatic thing.

I understand your comments that I should remember precisely everything, sir, but I don't use my diabetes as a crutch, but that, the fact that I didn't get much sleep, the trauma of having someone you know -- having gone and identified a body with a hole in the head of someone you know, I don't remember every single thing. But I remember clearly certain things which helped me understand that I arrived when I card-swiped my card.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Have you ever told anyone --

Mr. Turk. Had you finished?

The Witness. I think this will be helpful to you and the Congressman's question. In the process of trying to nail it down, based on what I knew, I testified that I knew I had made a call to someone at the White House, wasn't sure who, before I left the Foster home, and that I proceeded directly to work.

And later through the process of original investigation or original inquiries, my phone logs were subpoenaed, and it showed, I believe, and if counsel can help me with this, I believe it was about 8 o'clock or 7:58, somewhere ballpark around that time; and then somewhere around that point, sir, they checked the Secret Service records, and it showed that, in fact, I had entered on that day at 8:14 and that, in fact, I had left, because I remembered leaving that day as well. And they checked, and it showed I left around 6 o'clock that day with a card-swipe as well.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q The question still remains.

Mr. Burton. Let me get one thing straight. You made a call from the Foster residence that was logged in at the White House at what time?

The Witness. I think around 8:00, sir, a minute or two.

Mr. Burton. How far is it from the Foster residence to the White House? You say you swiped in at 8:14?

The Witness. About 10 minutes.

Mr. Burton. Did you tell anyone, though, that you arrived at the White House at 7:15, or approximately there at 7:15?

Mr. Turk. You may answer that question as long as you don't get --

The Witness. I don't recall specifically, to answer your question directly, and I am trying to be helpful. There was confusion on my part as to when I arrived, and I am trying to explain to you, sir, during the process of these other investigations and inquires, what I knew, what I originally testified in my original depositions that I remember that we pieced together based on my phone calls and my card swipe was -- and based on my card swipe at the end of the day.

Mr. Burton. Did you tell anyone with the exception of your counsel that you arrived at 7:15 or thereabouts that day?

The Witness. I think I tried to answer that question, sir.

Mr. Burton. You haven't given us a specific answer.

The Witness. I don't recall the specific time, but I do recall it was earlier.

Mrs. Olson. Earlier than your card swipe?

The Witness. Earlier than what I had thought based on the facts before I an opportunity to check them.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Have you ever told anyone you arrived at the White House around 7:15, do you recall that, other than your counsel?

Mr. Turk. The question is putting aside any conversations you may have had with counsel, do you recall ever having told anybody that you arrived at the White House around 7:15 that morning?

The Witness. And I have tried to answer that three times. All I can say is I believe I told or talked to people that were talking to me about these issues then that I thought that I might have arrived a little earlier than what, in fact, I did arrive. Based on what I can recall, as the Congressman suggested earlier, I don't recall every single detail. Of the details I remember going to the Foster home early in the morning, making a call just before I departed the Foster home, and driving immediately to work, then going into work, sir, and that is what I base that on.

Mr. Kanjorski. Let me get in here a question.

Mr. Burton. Can we go off the record here a moment?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. Kanjorski. When did you first, to the best of your recollection, arrive at the White House?

The Witness. To the best of my recollection is I arrived at 8:14 when I swiped my card.

Mr. Kanjorski. Is there any possibility that you arrived at the White House prior to that time and left the White House?

The Witness. Based on what I know today, sir, no.

Mr. Kanjorski. There seems to be a memoranda that indicates that you may have told someone, or your counsel may have told someone, or someone got the impression that you arrived at 7:15 , an hour sooner than you previously testified. Is that a possibility?

The Witness. I am sorry, is it a possibility that I arrived an hour earlier?

Mr. Kanjorski. Yes.

The Witness. No, sir.

Mr. Kanjorski. Is it your testimony today that it could have been 8 o'clock or 8:15 or somewhere in there, but no way an hour before that were you in the complex grounds; is that correct?

The Witness. No, sir. Precisely I don't believe I was in the complex grounds until what the Secret Service log shows.

Mr. Burton. Can I ask one more question? Did you come in that morning and leave -- exit the White House grounds and come back?

The Witness. I don't believe so, sir, but I don't know. I have no reason to believe that.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q You just told Mr. Kanjorski that was not even a possibility, and now you don't believe you did?

A I thought he was talking about some other time during the day.

Mr. Burton. Could it have been possible for you to have arrived or at 7:15 and exited and come back at 8:14.

The Witness. I don't believe that happened, sir.

Mr. Kanjorski. Are there logs that would indicate -- are you parked inside the complex grounds when you come in?

The Witness. No. However, during the first year, year and a half of the administration, I did come in sometimes and park. I was not assigned a parking place.

Mr. Kanjorski. If you come through the gate, you get swiped as you say; is that correct?

Mr. Burton. No.

The Witness. No, sir.

Mr. Kanjorski. There is no log indicating.

The Witness. When you drive.

Ms. Olson. When you drive in. There is no record.

Mr. Kanjorski. Where does this 8:15 log come from?

The Witness. That is when I walked in the gate and swiped my card.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you know if it was swiped at the gate, or were you going in between the OEOB and the White House complex?

A I normally arrive at the southwest gate .

Q That day do you know if you swiped your card at the gate or going in between the two complexes?

A I am not sure what you mean by "two complexes."

Q If you were in Mr. Foster's -- hypothetically you were in Mr. Foster's area and walked over to OEOB, would you have to swipe your card?

Mr. Kanjorski. No, those are open travel areas.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Would you have to swipe your card to go in between Mr. Foster's area and the OEOB?

A No.

Q There is no swipe whatsoever?

A That is correct.

Mr. Kanjorski. So the only question is that you were in possession of your card, your card was swiped at the Secret Service at 8:14, and to the best of your recollection, and we are asking you a serious question now, you were not at the White House and did not leave the White House anytime since midnight of that day until 8:14 in the morning when you arrived, to the best of your recollection?

The Witness. That is correct sir. That is correct.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q I am going into a different area because I know time is running.

Mr. Burton. I can't help but ask one more question about this because I think it is important. You are saying then that you did not drive into the parking area in between the White House and the Executive Office Building around 7:15 in the morning, then exit it, then walk back in later at around 8:14?

The Witness. I don't have my memory of that at all, and what I based that on, sir, is the testimony I offered to you earlier that I recall calling from the Foster home to the White House to let them know -- let someone know I was leaving the house.

Mr. Kanjorski. When did you go to the Foster home?

The Witness. Very early in the morning.

Mr. Kanjorski. How early?

The Witness. I am not sure. 6:30.

Mr. Kanjorski. When you went to the Foster home, where did you come from?

The Witness. My home.

Mr. Kanjorski. And where is that?

RPTS COLCHICO

DCMN PARKER

[1:20 p.m.]

Mr. Kanjorski. Where is that?

The Witness. Chevy Chase.

Mr. Kanjorski. You spent the night at your home and at 6:00 in the morning you went to the Foster home before you went to the White House?

The Witness. Or thereabouts. I did that because I thought there would be press there in the morning and I wanted to help the family if they needed any help.

Ms. Olson. I have a document which I have marked as Deposition Exhibit No. 5, Bates stamp number CGE 54255. It's a telephone message to you from Tony Marceca and it's dated 5-12 and the White House has represented to us it's 1994 and the message is, "cannot go on trip to Normandy."

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 5

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Can you tell us if you recognize or recall such a call from Mr. Marceca?

A I don't recall the circumstances around this phone message.

Q Do you know if Mr. Marceca had wanted to go on the Normandy trip that the President was taking?

A I don't know that.

Q Did Mr. Marceca ever mention anything to you about such a trip?

A Well, I think in fairness to me, if I can, Mr. Marceca had talked to me about working on advance in general.

Q During that time?

A I don't remember every specific trip or instance that he had asked to do that.

Q Do you recall what time period he talked with you about working on advance?

A Throughout the administration.

Q So this was after you became Director of the White House Security Office?

Mr. Turk. White House Office of Personnel Security.

Ms. Olson. It was the Security Office in the beginning and then Personnel Security Office.

Mr. Turk. White House Office of Personnel Security is the title of the office, I think.

The Witness. I am sorry. Your question? I am sorry.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Was it after you became director that he talked to you about going on advance trips?

A Well, as you know, Tony and I worked on advance together prior to that so I am just trying to be precise here. Do you mean about the Clinton administration?

Q Any advance trips that you might have taken after you became director of that office.

A Okay, I am sorry. I understand the question now. Yes, I thought I said that. He had talked to me several times.

Q And, in fact, were you the lead advance person on a trip to the -- that included the President's trip to Normandy?

A No, ma'am.

Q I have a document that I am going to mark as Deposition Exhibit No. 6. It's Bates stamp number CGE 54387 and it is a May 16, 1994 and it is from you to Tricia Northcutt saying you will be the site lead for the largest approximately 500,000 people event of the POTUS European trip and it asks for various items such as cuff links, hats and pens and key chains and it states, "I will be departing for Portsmouth, England on May 23rd and then there is writing that says, Berlin, Germany, June 27th, 1994."

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 6

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you recognize that document?

A Yes.

Q And did you, in fact, go on that advance trip?

A Which trip?

Q That's referred to in the document that's Deposition Exhibit No. 6.

A Oh, I thought there were two trips here.

Q I assume that -- is that two trips?

A I never went to Berlin. I went to Portsmouth, England.

Q Did you go anywhere else besides Portsmouth, England?

A In what capacity?

Mr. Turk. The entire time he was in the White House? What do you mean?

Ms. Olson. I am talking about this particular document, that particular trip.

Mr. Turk. On that particular trip, did he go anywhere else besides Portsmouth?

Ms. Olson. Yes.

Mr. Turk. Do you have any travel records from that?

Ms. Olson. I am asking if the witness has any memory of going anywhere else.

The Witness. On this particular trip?

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Yes.

A Meaning did I go to Berlin or any other city?

Q Did you go anywhere else besides that, that you recall?

A No. I worked in Portsmouth or the very near area.

Q Do you know if that was the same trip that the President went on to Normandy?

A I don't know that for a fact. I know that he went to Normandy at some occasion.

Q But you do not know whether that was the same trip?

A I worked on the D Day celebration. If you have knowledge which might refresh my memory that that included Normandy, then that might be the case.

Q Do you know if Mr. Marceca was over in Europe during that period? Do you have any knowledge whether or not he was actually there?

A I have no knowledge of that.

Q Did you have any conversations with Mr. Marceca during that trip?

A I can't possibly remember. That was over two -- almost 2-1/2 years ago. I can't remember. I am sorry.

Q It states that you were the site lead for the President's European trip. As site lead, did you have any discussions with the President during that trip?

A I believe I said, welcome aboard to the President and the First Lady when they got off of the admiral's barge on to a barge -- on to the oldest surviving liberty ship, floating liberty ship. These are men that had sailed in World War II had brought a ship that they had restored from San Francisco, sailed it to Portsmouth or the harbor nearest Portsmouth and the President wanted to visit the ship because it was the oldest surviving liberty ship in the U.S. fleet, Merchant Marine fleet.

With that in mind, the President got off, as I recall, and the First Lady got off with his traveling party. They got off a little barge into rocky seas into a small barge that we had erected to the vessel because the vessel was at sea to be part of an armada.

Q But did you have any conversations, Mr. Livingstone? I know their itinerary.

A You are asking me --

Mr. Waxman. If I could interrupt you. Counsel, what does this have to do with the Travel Office firings, to ask whether he had anything to do with the trip the President took to Normandy?

Ms. Olson. These are advance trips that Mr. Livingstone was the site lead on during the time he was the Director of the White House Security Office. The date of this is May 1994 and the trip occurred toward the end of May 1994.

Mr. Waxman. What does that have to do with the Travel Office?

Ms. Olson. Mr. Marceca had a phone message that he wanted to go on this advance trip and it is relevant to the activities of Mr. Marceca with Mr. Livingstone. It is also relevant that if someone is a site advance lead whether or not they have had conversations with the President of the United States, who has stated that he has not had conversations with Mr. Livingstone. I am asking Mr. Livingstone if he had conversations with the President when he was site lead, and if they were more than, here is the boat, Mr. President. That's why I asked if he had conversations.

Mr. Waxman. Has he responded to that question?

Ms. Olson. He was giving me the itinerary of the President and the First Lady in the rough seas. I wanted to know if he had any conversations.

Mr. Turk. Were you making a representation that Mr. Livingstone said he never has spoken to the President?

Ms. Olson. No. I know he has testified that he has said, Mr. President, the press is in this room; Mr. President, the press is out in the rose garden.

I am asking for this particular trip, if Mr. Livingstone had conversations with the President.

Mr. Turk. I think you made some comment on the record here that someone testified that Mr. Livingstone had never spoken to the President.

Ms. Olson. No. I made a statement that the President has said publicly in the press that he had not had a relationship, a close relationship, as had been alleged.

Mr. Turk. Okay. So if the record reflects that you inadvertently suggested that someone had testified that Mr. Livingstone had never spoken to the President, that wouldn't be accurate?

Ms. Olson. Can the record reflect what it does? I will let Mr. Livingstone make that correction if it makes you happy.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Can you just describe the conversations with the President on this trip that you were the site lead for?

Mr. Turk. Your comment --

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Other than just to say here is the boat, Mr. President?

Mr. Turk. Your comments about Tony Marceca saying he wanted to go to Normandy, I think the only document we have on this is the one that you have shown Mr. Livingstone, which says, "cannot go on trip to Normandy."

Ms. Olson. And Mr. Livingstone has no memory whatsoever of that trip with Mr. Marceca.

Mr. Turk. I don't think there has been any testimony about a trip with Mr. Marceca.

Ms. Olson. Well, he has no recollection of Mr. Marceca asking to go to Normandy.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Am I correct, Mr. Livingstone?

A Yes.

Mr. Turk. I think what he said is he had no recollection of the circumstances surrounding this phone message, period.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Well, I have got two answers; one from his lawyer and from the witness.

Mr. Turk. You already had an answer from him. If the record will reflect he has already answered that question.

Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, can I just go -- I don't want to confuse your witness. Can I get one question answered and I will go back and clarify that?

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Can you just answer the question, did you have conversations beyond just, here is the ship, Mr. President, on that trip, either before, during or after?

A Yeah. I didn't mean to offer a lengthy answer. You are asking me, without any advance knowledge, to talk about a conversation that I had with the President of the United States, and I realize that these documents are going to be made public very soon so I want to be very precise.

Q Certainly.

A So I am reflecting quickly as I can on what exactly I said to the President, if anything, on that particular trip.

As I recall it, I said, welcome aboard. As I recall it, a Mr. Steve Bahar was the lead, and it is our standard procedure that once the lead arrives on the site that the lead takes over and that I brief the lead.

Q So you were not the site lead?

A I was the site lead, but the lead for the whole trip travels with the President. The way it is compartmentalized very briefly is that at each site the President would arrive, would be a site person who's responsible to the lead for the trip. And it's very similar to the way a congressional staff or military office might work. There's a chain of command, and I would talk to that person, who on this particular trip was a Mr. Steve Bahar.

To the extent that I had a conversation with the President of the United States, I don't think it was anything beyond, this is the captain of the ship. By the way, I just want to make sure that someone reminded you that these gentlemen actually served during World War II and came here. Mr. President, we are now going to walk out on to the deck where you are going to see a lot of senior gentleman who actually served, some didn't. Some are citizen volunteers.

Q Did you fly over with the President on this trip?

A No. I flew ahead on a private -- a commercial aircraft.

Q Do you recall if you have ever flown over with the President on any of the advance trips that you did, after you started your job as Director of the White House Office of Personnel Security?

A No.

Q Do you recall if you ever had any conversations or any opportunity to meet in -- with the President, either alone or with a group, during any advance trips that you were on?

Mr. Turk. Wait a minute. Can you break that -- that just covers too much ground. Can you break it down?

Ms. Olson. Certainly.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Have you ever had any opportunity to fly over with the President on any advance trips, either before or after you entered the White House?

A Well, I think I answered part of that question just previously, that during my tenure at the White House I don't believe I was ever on an aircraft with the President.

Q Before your tenure there at the White House?

Mr. Waxman. What difference would that make? I mean, just a minute, before you even answer. I don't understand why you want to ask that.

Ms. Olson. Mr. Livingstone has appeared at the White House through three hearings. We have not been able to establish how Mr. Livingstone actually came to the White House. We have an allegation that the First Lady wanted him there. That has been made under oath by several people and it is on file. So I am asking Mr. Livingstone if, in fact, he flew with the President before going to the White House.

Mr. Waxman. But as I understand the --

Ms. Olson. Which would establish a relationship.

Mr. Waxman. As I understand it, this is an investigation about the Travel Office firings.

Ms. Olson. It is.

Mr. Waxman. If he had anything to do with the President before he ever took the position at the White House, I don't know what that has to do with his performance during the Travel Office.

Ms. Olson. He was asked these questions in our hearing and it was clearly within the scope of our hearing. The file issue is within the Travel Office matter and these are questions that have been asked indirectly at our hearing and I am more directly asking some follow-up questions.

Mr. Turk. If they were asked, why ask them again?

Ms. Olson. They were not asked specifically. The scope of that was gone into prior to the actual coming to the White House. If he had a relationship with the President before coming into the White House it will go a long way to answering who brought Craig Livingstone in.

Mr. Turk. I will let the witness answer, but I am going to make an objection on pertinency grounds.

Ms. Olson. Certainly.

Mr. Turk. And reserve it.

Mr. Waxman. Well, I am going to object to questions that are beyond the scope of the investigation. If there are questions that were asked and no one objected doesn't mean the scope of the investigation is permanently waived and if there are questions that have been asked and answered I don't understand why they are being asked again.

Ms. Olson. It has not been asked and answered in our hearing. I merely said in the hearing there were questions posed to Mr. Livingstone concerning what he did before he came into the White House. The Chairman had a very lengthy series of questions. I am saying my question is within the same time frame as has been posed by Members at our hearing.

Mr. Waxman. Is it your contention that if something was asked beyond the scope of this investigation that opens up the investigation to anything beyond the scope?

Ms. Olson. No. I don't believe whether Mr. Livingstone had conversations with the President prior to starting at the White House is beyond the scope of this investigation, because it goes directly to his relationship and how he came into the White House to become head of that office, and it is certainly relevant to answer whether or not certain statements which have been made about whether the First Lady recommended him or not are truthful.

Mr. Waxman. Why don't we ask those questions if you think they are pertinent.

Ms. Olson. Thank you.

Mr. Waxman. But I fail to see how they are even related to the Travel Office investigation. Even if his mother was a bosom buddy of Hillary Clinton's and called up the President and said why don't you give him this job, I don't know what that has to do with the Travel Office firing. What does that have to do with it? Maybe counsel can inform me.

Ms. Olson. Certainly I will go through that. The Billy Dale file was uncovered in the course of the White House Travel Office document production. Within the Billy Dale file we found out that Mr. Livingstone, through the people that worked for him, had ordered Billy Dale's file 7 months after Mr. Dale had been fired and removed from all access lists.

Therefore, upon that discovery, it became an issue as to how Mr. Livingstone came into that office and the people that he brought into that office, namely Mr. Marceca, who we have phone messages that show advance trips that Mr. Marceca is at least discussing that he cannot go on and other advance trips that I have phone messages.

Therefore, I am asking if Mr. Livingstone had those trips with Mr. Marceca and I am asking Mr. Livingstone if he, in fact, had a relationship with the President that predated him coming into the White House, which will lead us to find out why he came into the White House, which will hopefully lead us to find out why 700 files were in his possession months after these people had left the White House and that there was no legitimate reason for them to have been ordered by Mr. -- people who worked for Mr. Livingstone.

Mr. Waxman. Well, it sounds to me like counsel is reaching conclusions and now you are trying to dig up some testimony that might lead to those conclusions. But the fact of the matter is that these questions have been asked and explored. This deposition is supposed to be a cleanup deposition.

Mr. Burton. Henry.

Mr. Waxman. I don't know why we are pursuing new ground, particularly beyond the scope of the investigation.

Mr. Burton. There's a lot of documents and other information that they just got that they have been going through and the questions that they are asking are relevant and they are trying to piece together a story that's not complete. And I don't know why you fellows are just trying to stop her from asking questions. Just let her ask the questions. If there's nothing to be hidden then what the heck is wrong with the questions being asked in the first place?

Mr. Waxman. I will tell you why, because I don't think that we should delegate to a staffer of our committee the opportunity to ask questions on anything in the world she wants to ask about and hopes that in a fishing expedition she might come up with something.

Mr. Burton. This is not a fishing expedition.

Mr. Waxman. Wait a second. That is why questions have to be within the scope of the inquiry. But if you have new documents that have come to your attention, could you share those with us?

Ms. Olson. I just put one in front of you.

Mr. Burton. That's what he has legal counsel for. It is not for you to stop the questioning.

Mr. Turk. He has answered the questions on that document.

Mr. Burton. Let me say something, Henry. You and I are here if we want to ask questions, but this fellow is here to defend Mr. Livingstone and to raise objections, not you or I. We are here to ask questions. I don't know why you are deliberately trying to slow down the process.

Mr. Waxman. I am not trying to slow down the process. I want to be sure that the process is a fair process and within the scope of the rules and I don't feel that we have delegated that completely to Ms. Olson to determine, because this is a decision for the Members.

Mr. Burton. When I came in, I did nothing but ask questions and I tried to do so in an orderly manner. I think that the same thing should apply to all Members of Congress who come here. I don't think we should try to stop the process and I think that's what you are trying to do.

Mr. Waxman. I am not trying to stop the process.

Mr. Burton. Let her ask the questions.

Mr. Waxman. I will let her ask the questions, but I want her to stay within the scope of the inquiry.

Mr. Burton. By whose definition of scope? You see, Henry, you are defining what the scope ought to be.

Mr. Waxman. I think you are right. The scope is to be determined by the Members if there is a dispute as to the scope.

Mr. Burton. I have no objection to you asking any questions you want, Henry, and ask the questions, but to stay here -- you are an obstruction to getting through this process.

Mr. Waxman. I certainly do not seek to be an obstructionist in getting through this process. I know everybody wants to complete the deposition. Mr. Livingstone has been here for many, many hours. I just want to be sure that the questions are related to the investigation and we don't go far afield.

Mr. Burton. I have listened to this gentleman. He is very competent and a very good attorney. I think he is competent to deal with objections if they are to be raised. I don't think we ought to be doing that. We ought to just ask questions.

Mr. Waxman. I appreciate your suggestions on how you want to conduct yourself and I will decide for myself.

Go ahead with the questions, counsel, but let's keep in mind that this is a cleanup of the investigation, a finishing up of many, many hours of questions that Mr. Livingstone has had to answer and I hope we stay within the scope of the investigation as ordered by the members of this committee.

Ms. Olson. Thank you.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Mr. Livingstone, have you ever had any conversations with the President before coming into the White House?

A Yes.

Q Can you please describe your memory of those conversations? And I am not just asking about the, "here is the boat, Mr. President." But I am talking about conversations that would be more than just that type of thing.

A I don't recall anything other than what I have described to you already, similar conversations that I had at the White House.

Mr. Burton. Let me ask a question. Did you ever talk to the President or the First Lady about possibly working in the White House, or future employment?

The Witness. I don't believe so.

Mr. Burton. Okay. Go ahead.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q And if you could just clarify what you mean by, I don't believe so. Are you not sure whether or not you did?

A I am not sure. I am sure that I never talked to the First Lady about employment, if I could be precise. Thank you for giving me a chance to think about the question.

Q But you are not sure whether you perhaps spoke to the President?

A In the -- if it was, it was in the most general terms, you know, I would like to serve your administration, something along those lines.

Mr. Turk. But you have no recollection of having had a conversation like that?

The Witness. No, sir. That's correct.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q I have a document I am going to mark --

Mr. Waxman. Before you do that, counsel, may I ask a question before we leave this part?

Ms. Olson. Of course.

Mr. Waxman. Did you ever have a personal relationship with the President of the United States, other than working on his campaign?

The Witness. Absolutely not.

Mr. Waxman. Did you have a personal relationship with the First Lady other than working on the campaign?

The Witness. Absolutely not.

Ms. Olson. We should put on the record what your interpretation of a personal relationship is.

Mr. Waxman. Well, I indicated --

Ms. Olson. Mr. Livingstone --

Mr. Waxman. No. My question said other than a professional relationship, other than the White House or in the campaign.

Mr. Livingstone, when I asked the question about a personal relationship, which you say you did not have with either of them, what did you mean by that?

The Witness. I believe exactly what you just described, other than working on the campaign, no.

Mr. Waxman. Okay.

Ms. Olson. I have a document that I am going to mark as Deposition Exhibit No. 7. It's Bates stamp No. CGE 54252. It is a telephone message to Craig from Tony Marceca. We were told by the White House that it was, in fact, on 5-18-94, and the message is, he just got off a trip with Perry. In parens it says, SEC, period. To talk to Craig about what he observed.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 7

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you recall having any conversations with Mr. Marceca about a trip that he had and what he observed?

A I have a recollection that Mr. Marceca told me that he worked on a trip with Secretary Perry.

Q And did he tell you what he observed on that trip with Secretary Perry?

A I don't recall, but to be helpful, I believe I -- I have a recollection that it was about the way the trip was handled. He didn't seem to think it was a very well run trip or something like that.

Q And did Mr. Marceca regularly call you to tell you about what he observes on his trips that he has taken with high-ranking officials that he works for?

A No.

Q Did you receive other similar calls, that you recall, that he would relate other things that happened on trips that didn't go exactly right, as you say?

Mr. Turk. Wait a minute. Do you mean does he recall other --

Ms. Olson. Other conversations similar to this, not necessarily Secretary Perry or high ranking.

Mr. Turk. Where Marceca is traveling with a high-ranking official?

Ms. Olson. Or he is on an advance trip and wants to tell Craig what happened.

The Witness. I am pausing to think.

It's possible. I don't have a particular recollection, though, of him talking about any other particular trips.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Did you ever try to get Mr. Marceca on any advance trips that you were taking while you were in the White House?

A Mr. Marceca, as I stated earlier, had talked to me about working in advance often and -- frequently. And I may have introduced him to one of the advance directors or deputy directors at some point.

Mr. Waxman. Counsel, what does this have to do with the Travel Office firings?

Ms. Olson. These are phone messages that we have gotten from Mr. Livingstone -- from Mr. Marceca to Mr. Livingstone that were in the White House. They show a relationship that went well beyond the detail that we first knew about. This is a detail where files were ordered inappropriately on Republican individuals. These phone messages go to advance trips that were done that were political in nature, and I am going into the contents whether they occurred, whether these are just phone messages that didn't happen and to find out the extent of the relationship between Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Marceca beyond just a detail, where he was ordering Republican files.

I have a document --

Mr. Turk. Just for the record, I would note that counsel's reference to the files that the committee's investigation of being files of Republicans is really an inaccurate and a misleading statement and I believe ought to be corrected. The files, in fact, are of people who had been employed previously in previous administrations. But it is not true at all that they were all Republicans.

Ms. Olson. They were Republican administrations. That is correct.

I have marked this next document as Exhibit Number 8. It is CGE 54254 and it is dated June 28th, 1994, from Tony Marceca to Craig Livingstone and the message is, "wants to go to lunch. Also wants to go on trip with you."

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 8

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you recall what trip or if there was a trip that Mr. Marceca was attempting to go on with you?

A No.

Q Did there come a time where you told Mr. Marceca about these trips or gave him any information that would cause him to continue to pursue wanting to go on trips?

A As I told you, he talked to me often about wanting to do advance.

Q And this was while he was still working as an investigator with the Army?

Mr. Turk. The trouble is these phone messages aren't dated except with a month and day.

Ms. Olson. The White House has given us the year. We called and received representations of what year they were.

Mr. Turk. Well, I see on Exhibit 8, someone has penciled in 1994, not on the document, but near it.

Ms. Olson. Yes.

Mr. Turk. But there's no such date, that I can observe, on Deposition --

Ms. Olson. My copy has 1994.

Mr. Turk. -- Exhibit 7.

Ms. Olson. Yes, it does. The record is clear. I would like --

Mr. Turk. How is the record clear if the exhibit that you are marking doesn't indicate it? You have never provided these documents for me to look at. How do I know what year they are?

Mr. Waxman. I don't think counsel ought to state something is clear in the record when it's a conclusion only.

Mr. Turk. There's nothing in the record to suggest it, as far as I can tell.

Ms. Olson. We have a letter received from Jane Sherburne giving us the year. It was clear in the record because it was stated in the record so anyone reading the record could determine it. The marking was made by staff so I am assuming my statement --

Mr. Turk. Counsel, I didn't know that you were entitled to testify as to these kinds of matters.

Ms. Olson. I am not. Ms. Sherburne made representations of what years these came from so we wrote them on the tops of the documents so that we knew what years they came from.

Mr. Waxman. Ms. Sherburne is not here and so it's your representation.

Ms. Olson. We have the letter. I will put it in the record as soon as we get this letter from Ms. Sherburne.

Deposition Exhibit Number 7 is being replaced with my copy which has the year written down, at Mr. Turk's request.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you know a person by the name of Mel Marin, M-A-R-I-N?

A I don't know. I have difficulty with names. If there's something you can refresh me with a person's name, perhaps I can tell you about the person.

Q Are you currently being sued by a Mel Marin?

A I don't know.

Q Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of any lawsuit by a person by that name?

A I don't have any knowledge of any lawsuit by a Mel Marin.

Q Have you ever had any allegations by a person named Mel Marin that you directed him to acquire improperly information from a Federal agency that was private and confidential about other members of his family?

Mr. Turk. Could we see this document?

Ms. Olson. I would like just the witness' memory. If he does not have memory of this, I will certainly give --

Mr. Turk. I think he has already told you that he doesn't even have any idea who Mel Marin is and now you are asking if he recalls instructing Mel Marin to do things.

Ms. Olson. I am asking if that refreshes his recollection.

Mr. Turk. Could you read back the question.

[The reporter read back as requested.]

The Witness. No. I don't know what you are talking about. If you have something to refresh my memory, I will be happy to look at it.

Ms. Olson. I will make this entire document a part of the record. It is Deposition Exhibit Number 9. It begins with CGE 56041, which begins with a letter from Kathleen Wallman, who is a Deputy White House counsel to the President, to Jamie Gorelick, written on June 24th, 1996, stating that the White House received the enclosed correspondence concerning Marin, M-A-R-I-N, versus Livingstone and that the information was being forwarded to Jamie Gorelick.

Mr. Waxman. Counsel, will you give that to the witness and let him look at it?

Ms. Olson. I am describing it just for the record, and I certainly will.

Mr. Turk. If you are going to make it an exhibit you don't need to read it into the record.

Ms. Olson. The second page is directed to Mr. Quinn, which is from a Mel M. Marin, M-A-R-I-N, which is discussing the lawsuit and it is dated on June 19th, 1996; and the third page is a letter to Bruce Lindsey from Mel Marin and then the following document is the filing with the clerk in the United States District Court beginning on 56044 of -- with the Honorable Paul Freedman of a hearing, and it is a piece of a cause of action which was produced to us. We only have this seventh cause of action. It goes through CGE 56054.

And I will refer you to the allegation that I was just reading from, which is from CGE 56046.

Mr. Turk. Could I see this, counsel? Thank you.

Ms. Olson. For the record, I would like to note that this document was just produced to this committee this morning by the White House, which has been under subpoena since January.

Mr. Turk. Well, you subpoenaed the White House for any files having to do with litigation by Mel Marin against Craig Livingstone? I don't understand how this has any relevance to what it is we are talking about here today.

Ms. Olson. There is an allegation within that document that Mr. Livingstone requested Mr. Marin to do activities which he believed were illegal because they involved getting information on individuals that the White House had no right to. Also within that document --

Mr. Turk. Where will we find these allegations?

Ms. Olson. I directed you to the page.

Mr. Turk. I am sorry. Could you redirect me to the page. It's a fairly lengthy document. This says, "possibly illegal."

The Witness. He doesn't know me very well because he hasn't spelled my name right at all.

Mr. Turk. Yes. He calls him Craig Livingston.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Does this document refresh your recollection at all?

A Not yet, ma'am. I haven't had a chance to read it. I am sorry.

Mr. Waxman. Unless we are playing a game with the witness, you ought to furnish documents in advance.

Ms. Olson. We received this document this morning from the White House after this deposition began.

Mr. Turk. I have a pertinence objection to this matter, and if you want Mr. Livingstone to review this document, which you have sprung on us, you know, this is why I asked you to provide documents in advance.

Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk.

Mr. Turk. I understand you got this this morning, but you didn't provide anything.

Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, the White House delivered this this morning. The White House provided it this morning after this deposition began. I am simply asking if he knows this person. If he doesn't, it may be a totally irrelevant document.

Mr. Turk. It's a 14-page document. Someone has obviously had an opportunity to review it because it's highly underlined with yellow stickies on it.

Ms. Olson. I did that during Mr. Burton's questioning.

Mr. Turk. But you didn't provide us with a copy of it. So if you want to question the witness on it, then would you please let him review the document?

Ms. Olson. If he has no memory, then this is probably a totally irrelevant document.

Mr. Turk. He says he is bad with names and this may refresh his recollection. You want to attach this as part of the deposition. It will be a part of the public record, and who knows who Mr. Marin is?

Ms. Olson. I agree. That's why I asked the witness.

Mr. Turk. He can make any kind of allegations he wants to in a lawsuit.

Ms. Olson. In fact, it may not be a legitimate question.

Mr. Turk. Which is why I wonder why you even made it an exhibit.

Ms. Olson. I am asking the witness if he knows this person and/or ever directed this person to do any activities.

Mr. Turk. I understand.

Ms. Olson. Since Mr. Livingstone is bad with names, I tried to read one of the activities that Mr. Marin claims that Mr. Livingstone directed him to do. If Mr. Livingstone does not know this person --

Mr. Turk. I understand.

Ms. Olson. -- then this may not be a legitimate document at all. We received it this morning. Please understand, we are on a very short time frame. If I had the luxury of time, I would love to be able to review these documents.

Mr. Waxman. Counsel, you received this document this morning. You have had a chance to quickly review it. You have asked Mr. Livingstone if he knows this person. He said he does not.

Ms. Olson. He said he is bad with names.

Mr. Waxman. Excuse me. Let me finish my comments. Do not interrupt me.

Ms. Olson. Yes.

Mr. Waxman. He said he does not know this person. Now, by putting this in the deposition, the public will have something to read that -- from which there is, one, no relevance as to whether this has anything to do with Mr. Livingstone. Somebody has -- I assume you have had no opportunity to check out who Mr. Marin is or whether he is credible.

Ms. Olson. No, sir.

Mr. Waxman. I don't think it's proper to have a document like that in the record that's going to be released to the public. Do you?

Ms. Olson. One of the things that's in this document --

Mr. Burton. Excuse me. It is a lawsuit. I think it is already a public document. Isn't it already filed in the court?

Mr. Turk. Is it filed in the court.

Ms. Olson. The relevance is that there are numerous conversations between the White House and the Justice Department that are attached, which I think is more relevant than the lawsuit, that Jack Quinn and Jamie Gorelick had notice of this information and obviously were communicating back and forth. Mr. Marin makes a comment that they are all Democrats and tried to have it sealed, but he said the court would not allow it to be sealed.

Mr. Waxman. That just seems a little unfair to put something in the record in a deposition that Mr. Livingstone, where you had this paper, this document -- these documents in order to ask him these questions. You asked him if he knew the man. He said he didn't know the man. Then to put in somebody else's accusations in this -- in a public record just seems to me a bit unfair. I am not saying that this couldn't be used at some other time if we checked out Mr. Marin or if we brought in those White House people.

Ms. Olson. Well, I am assuming we have no authority to bring in the White House people. Mr. Quinn would obviously be the person.

Mr. Waxman. I guess my objection, as a member of the committee, is that this should not be in the public record because we know so little about it. You received it this morning. You haven't had a chance to check the credibility of it. Mr. Livingstone was asked about it. He doesn't know about it. I don't think it ought to be in the record.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Does that refresh your recollection at all, Mr. Livingstone?

A Absolutely not.

Mr. Turk. Have you ever seen any of these documents before?

The Witness. Absolutely not.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you know of any person by that name that ever had any conversations with you about any activities whatsoever?

A I don't know who Mr. Mel Marin is. I can't -- it doesn't ring a bell. I know some people at the White House named Mel, but I don't know if -- the few minutes I have had to look at some of these issues don't sound familiar to me at all.

Q He also makes a quick mention that his -- you threatened to have his security clearance harmed if he didn't do what you said.

A What is it that he said? I am trying to find that. I am sorry. What is it that he said that I did that you are talking about? I haven't found that yet.

[Pause.]

No, of course not. I would never -- I would never, as it states -- as stated, I would never --

Mr. Turk. Here is what the document says: The document alleges, in what purports to be the seventh cause of action -- whether it's ever been filed in a court is not at all apparent from this document, at least as far as I can tell.

Ms. Olson. The cover letter said he tried to get it under seal since they were all Democrats, but that the judge would not do that.

Mr. Turk. He being who?

Ms. Olson. Mr. Marin.

Mr. Turk. Mr. Marin tried to do what under seal?

Ms. Olson. Tried to get the documents under seal of his lawsuit.

Mr. Turk. He wanted to file his lawsuit under seal?

Ms. Olson. Yes.

Mr. Turk. But was not permitted to?

Ms. Olson. Uh-huh. So I am assuming because they are discussing it under seal that it was filed. Obviously, I am making an assumption since we just got that.

Mr. Turk. That sounds like a pretty big assumption to me, based upon what I am looking at here.

Mr. Waxman. I object officially for this document to be in the record and I don't know that staff has the right to put something in the record for which --

Ms. Olson. The Chairman, I will present it to him and certainly he can remove it from the record.

Mr. Goldberg. I don't think you can put it in when there is an objection.

Ms. Olson. I can put it in as a deposition exhibit.

Mr. Goldberg. There is no authority to put records into the document -- put documents in the record. Check with the Parliamentarian about the record. If a Member of Congress objects to that, it should not be on the record.

Mr. Waxman. For the record, as a member of the committee, I object to this document being made a part of this deposition.

Mr. Turk. I do think it is appropriate to let Mr. Livingstone respond now that these allegations have been put on the record. What this document says is that the defendant, Craig Livingston, misspelled -- "ston," without an "E" -- required of Marin, who I gather is -- and this is allegation 104 and the page begins at allegation 103.

Ms. Olson. It is paragraph 104. It's the seventh cause of action. Am I correct?

Mr. Turk. Yes. But what's clear is that --

Ms. Olson. It is not allegation.

Mr. Turk. 102.

Ms. Olson. Paragraphs.

Mr. Turk. Well, it's more than 102 allegations, but 102 paragraphs precede this, which we don't have.

Ms. Olson. Which the White House didn't produce. I am not taking documents out. The White House decided not to produce those.

Mr. Turk. Hey, look, fine. All I am telling you is that's what I have got. That's what you have shown me here. Defendant Craig Livingston, it says, required of Marin as part of his background information processing in about October 1993 that Marin solicit and acquire improperly from one Federal agency private and confidential information about other members of his family.

Now, I suppose "his family" must refer to Marin's family.

Ms. Olson. Or Mr. Livingstone. It's not clear.

Mr. Waxman. Do you know where this was filed?

Mr. Turk. Or Mr. Livingstone's family.

Ms. Olson. Mr. Friedman is a judge in the district court in D.C.

Mr. Waxman. Where was it filed? Because if this was after Mr. Livingstone was already in the press --

Ms. Olson. The letters that went from Jamie --

Mr. Waxman. Excuse me again. I am in the middle of a sentence. If this could have been after Mr. Livingstone's name was already in the press with respect to this White House -- the FBI files, then people could think, well, perhaps Mr. Livingstone is out to help get names for their relatives.

We get things like this all the time in our office from people who are a little bit off, and an allegation in a complaint that may or may not have been filed -- we don't even know if this has been filed, but even if it has been filed, unless it has been filed under verification it is not even a statement under oath.

There are lots of statements that are made in pleadings that one wouldn't want in the record, official record, of the government because they are just statements that are made in pleadings. There's no requirement that they be accurate. They later have to prove their case, and if they don't, they don't. I don't know if this is a case against Mr. Livingstone, but anyway this is just all too flimsy and suspect to be in the official record of the committee.

Ms. Olson. Well, one of the reasons --

Mr. Waxman. You wanted to ask him questions.

Ms. Olson. I am asking if he knew the person, he had a history --

Mr. Waxman. He doesn't. We ought to move on.

Ms. Olson. Kathleen Wallman did forward this material to Jamie Gorelick on June 24th, 1996. That's the first page. There was a letter from Jack Quinn to Mr. Marin and so this -- there is also a letter to Bruce Lindsey from Mr. Marin so this document certainly was in the White House and certainly was forwarded to the Department of Justice. I certainly don't mean to say that Mr. Marin is making legitimate claims. I felt it necessary to ask Mr. Livingstone if, in fact, he did know this person and if he could explain who this person was.

Mr. Waxman. I don't fault you for asking the questions. You have asked it and gotten an answer. We ought to move on.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Have you ever had any conversations --

Mr. Turk. Could we let Mr. Livingstone respond to this allegation, please?

Ms. Olson. Certainly, if it will be Mr. Livingstone rather than his attorney.

Mr. Turk. Yes. I would be happy to let Mr. Livingstone do it, but it has been very difficult to get a word in.

Now, please, Mr. Livingstone, what is your response to that allegation?

The Witness. I have never asked anyone to improperly acquire, solicit from one Federal agency private and confidential information about members of family or any other item.

Mr. Turk. Let's take a break. It's 2:00.

Ms. Olson. We are down at 2:00 for a break.

[Discussion held off the record.]

Mr. Waxman. I think we ought to be on the record with this conversation because I think this is important.

Mr. Kanjorski. I would like to suggest that it is my understanding that there were crucial questions that documents received or testimony received by the committee counsel, after the last deposition of Mr. Livingstone, seemed to indicate the potential of a conflict of responses or facts that would be extracted from those documents or that testimony, and that we were particularly going to spend this time to get to those issues so that we could close the report on Travelgate; that we weren't going to use the witness to put in every document subpoenaed from the White House; that we weren't going to go off into extraneous matter and that so the record does reflect it, Members of Congress have spent today in total probably 10 or 15 hours of their time in the last week of the closing of Congress.

I am going to make an offer. I will stay here for the next 10 hours if you are going to ask pertinent questions that this witness should answer and will accommodate --

Mr. Burton. Can I?

Mr. Kanjorski. Yes.

Mr. Burton. The problem, Representative Kanjorski, is who is going to define what is a pertinent or relevant question? You see, you folks have questioned the validity of the process that this attorney is following in trying to get at some facts that we feel are relevant to the entire investigation. And to get -- that we might be able to add to the report. You will be able to add some things to the report. So will the Majority. And if we stay here for another 10 hours and you object to the line of questioning, you object to the relevance of information that she is bringing up, she could be here and only ask another three questions.

Now, the problem is this: There is a subpoena and there's no time limit on that subpoena. Now, we can either go on with the questions and get through this thing or you guys can keep --

Mr. Waxman. You --

Mr. Burton. Just let me finish. I don't interrupt you. Or you guys can continue to obstruct the process, from my perspective, and by doing so you just prolong it. Mr. Livingstone has diabetes, as he said, and his attorney has other things to do. It would be far better for his attorney to object to things he thinks are irrelevant rather than you.

What I ought to be doing and you ought to do is ask questions and following up, instead of saying this is irrelevant. They have worked on this and they need to get through the process.

Now, if you don't want to do that --

Mr. Kanjorski. Dan.

Mr. Burton. If you want to keep throwing up roadblocks.

Mr. Kanjorski. I don't want to throw up any roadblocks.

Mr. Burton. If you want to keep throwing up roadblocks, the subpoena is open-ended and we can go on with this thing.

Mr. Kanjorski. Look, I think that may be the intention, and I hope it isn't. What I am trying to say is, look, I thought that just before I left and Mr. Waxman entered that the germane questions that counsel wanted to extract from this witness as to what time he arrived at the White House were very simple questions, and I felt an obligation to ask those questions as an attorney. It's not hard to formulate those questions.

I think we handled it in about 3 minutes, something that was going on and on here with a -- with inexactitude of asking questions and innuendo and suggestion, and I did that to help accommodate getting this done.

I am perfectly willing to sit with Mrs. Olson, have her give me those files and I will do the extraction of this because I think I can do it in an hour. I think I can clean that whole file up. My point --

Mr. Waxman. Mr. Kanjorski, let me ask Mrs. Olson, you are very good at what you do. I assume what you do in preparation for a deposition is you prioritize what is really important to get to those items first. Isn't that correct?

Ms. Olson. I prioritize, yes, and I have tried to start with the information that I thought followed up on Mr. Burton's questions.

Mr. Waxman. Now, we spent, I don't know, 10, 15 minutes on a memo about Mr. Marin here, asking -- you wanted that memo to be used to ask him about whether he knew about the information. You asked him and he didn't know anything about it. I assumed that was a very important question because it is one we have already disposed of and I assume other questions you have are not as important in priority because you thought a document you received this morning for which you had no verification of its validity was an important one to raise early and that should have been -- I mean, I just -- I assume that was a high priority question.

Is that a correct understanding?

Ms. Olson. This is a document that makes allegations that Mr. Livingstone was telling someone to go and dig up dirt on other individuals and we all are aware of those allegations.

Mr. Turk. That's not what this document says.

Mr. Waxman. But it was a high priority for questions.

Mr. Turk. That is not what this document says.

Mr. Waxman. Excuse me, counsel. Whatever this document says, it was a high priority in Ms. Olson's scheme of questions she wanted to ask, so she raised this one. It has been raised. And it seems to me it has been refuted by Mr. Livingstone as being not much of anything that has anything to do with the matter before us.

Ms. Olson. He does not know about it, of course.

Mr. Waxman. He doesn't know about it and no one here, including Ms. Olson, knows about the validity of the claims that are made or the credibility of Mr. Marin. All we know is what's in these papers.

Ms. Olson. Right.

Mr. Waxman. If this is a high priority question, it seems to me you are off on some issues that are quite far afield and I hope you are not talking about that file that you held up with lots and lots of papers going very far afield just to take up time on a fishing expedition. If this is a high priority question, you have asked it. You ought to get your high priority questions in there and finished so we don't just drag on this deposition.

Ms. Olson. Please understand, this was a document that just arrived. For some reason, the White House decided not to deliver this document until today, until well after they are aware it cannot go into our report. Therefore, although it may not be a high priority document because I am going to believe Mr. Livingstone, obviously, that he doesn't know this gentleman, and that none of these charges are correct, but please understand when a document arrives during a deposition that the committee cannot use in its report, at least I thought the Members deserved that question to be asked to see if, in fact, this person was making any legitimate claims. If he is not, it is disposed of.

But we are at a point now if that question was not asked, it would never be asked. And, therefore, people would be saying, well, why didn't you ask him about that rather than making innuendo.

Mr. Waxman. I have no quarrel with your asking. You had a choice when you got that document. You could have held it later to ask and tried to check some of it out and gone on to some of the other high priority issues that you knew about to ask or you could ask it now, and you asked it.

We spent a lot of time on this document, including a dispute as to whether it ought to be part of the record. I think there's -- the document should not be part of the record and I made my objections to it. But I just illustrate, if this is something you just heard about as a high priority, I wonder what the other priority questions are.

Mr. Kanjorski. May I take up where Mr. Waxman left off. If you just got this document this morning and some of these documents you must have had when we agreed to extend the subpoena power, a series of questions and documents that you thought it was so important that we continue on the authority of the committee --

Ms. Olson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kanjorski. -- let's get those done. Do we have a list of them? Maybe some of them could be written by interrogatory.

Ms. Olson. No, sir.

Mr. Kanjorski. We don't have to sit here and -- you know, my impression of what's going on here is that this will never close, never close. Now, I don't know about everybody else. I understand staff people don't have to bill clients, they get paid regardless of how long it takes. I know Members of Congress have other things to do and we all want to do them. And we are eventually going to get out.

I don't know. Are we in a situation where we are going to go on for days in this deposition or do you have a series of priorities? Or can I lend some assistance in doing the cross-examination. I will be happy to do it.

Ms. Olson. No, sir. I would like to ask the questions. I really have reviewed the documents. I have spent hours going over this material with my staff.

Mr. Kanjorski. I believe you have, Ms. Olson. I believe you are a good lawyer and I think you are trying to do your best, and what I would like you to do is try to sharpen up the document, the question, the document, the question and get us down to the really pertinent material here. Let's get it answered on the record. Let's get everything that's necessary for you to close your report, but let us not be tedious in -- I mean, you know, I have a document now that suggests that --

Mr. Burton. Why don't we just get on with it.

Mr. Kanjorski. -- Mr. Livingstone was selling balloons on July 15th.

Mr. Burton. We are wasting time. Let's go on.

Mr. Waxman. We were about to take a break.

Ms. Olson. We are about to take a break.

Mr. Kanjorski. We were to take a break.

Mr. Turk. It has been an hour and 40 minutes since the last break.

[Recess from 2:13 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.]

Ms. Olson. We are back on the record.

Mr. Turk. I know it will save time if there are questions and no editorializing because every time there's editorializing I feel that I have a responsibility to my client to respond.

Ms. Olson. I understand.

I have a document which I will mark as Deposition Exhibit No. 9.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 9

was marked for identification.]

Mr. Kanjorski. Barbara, if I can make a suggestion, let one of the staff people do the marking. You just go on. You call the number and let them do it. You don't have to do the clerical work here. That will move it along. Just try and see how you can efficiently package it that way.

Ms. Olson. If I can. Sometimes I am choosing documents depending on the answer.

Mr. Kanjorski. When you mark it as such and such, let this young lady grab it and mark it so we can move on.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q This is a phone message which is Bates stamp number CGE 54256. It is dated August 5th and the White House has informed us that's 1994.

At this time, I will make the White House letter from Jane Sherburne, which gives us a year, as Deposition Exhibit 1A, just so that we have this to refer to of where I have gotten the year for each phone message.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 1A

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q In this message Mr. Marceca left, he asked if you wanted to be an agent working for Tony. Do you recall that conversation?

A I recall at some point during my tenure at the White House Mr. Marceca asking me if I would like to be an agent at CID, Criminal Investigation Division.

Mr. Turk. That's the Army CID?

The Witness. Yes, sir.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you know if that was during the time period of August of 1994?

A I don't know what time period it was, but it was certainly when I was at the White House.

Q Was there any particular occurrence or any reason that you -- that he was asking you that, that you recall?

A I took it as a collegial, if I would be interested in the job kind of thing, and I did not pursue it.

Ms. Olson. I have a document here which will be Deposition Exhibit No. 10. It is also from 1994. It is Bates stamp number CGE 54271 and it is from a Marvin. It is from December 16th, 1994, and the message is, we will send over file on Marceca.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 10

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you recall such a telephone call message or a telephone call?

A I don't recall, but my memory has been recently refreshed by being shown this document in other parts of the investigation.

Q Okay. And can you tell us who Marvin is?

A I believe it is Marvin Krislov.

Q With the White House Counsel's Office?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q Can you please describe why he is leaving you the message that he will send over the file on Marceca in December of 1994?

A I'm not positive, but I think it had something to do with a FOIA request Mr. Marceca had submitted.

Q An FOIA request from Mr. Marceca?

A Correct.

Q And did Marvin Krislov have possession of the background file on Mr. Marceca?

A He may have asked for the file.

Q Do you recall?

A No. I'm just reading what the message says.

Q Well, the message is to you from Marvin saying he is going to send over the file.

Do you have any memory or any recollection of that?

A I have a recollection of working with counsel in supplying the file. I believe -- as I understood it, it was because Mr. Krislov handled FOIA requests, but I'm not positive, if that's why he wanted to see Mr. Marceca's file.

Q Okay. Can you tell us what happened with Mr. Marceca's file after he left the White House in February of 1994?

A I'm not sure what you mean by "what happened with."

Q Where did it go? Do you know where it was kept after he left?

A In the vault, and I believe at some point it was reviewed in response to a FOIA request, and at some point I had it placed in the -- are you familiar with my office?

Q I am familiar, through drawings only.

A Okay. While in the office, there was a file cabinet which we used for sensitive communications from the CIA senior White House staff, and I put Mr. Marceca's file in there.

Q Okay. And is that in the vault or actually in your office?

A No, ma'am. That's in the Room 84.

Q And Room 84 being the actual Office of White House Personnel Security?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q There was a deposition that Mr. Marceca gave where he testified under oath that he was able to see his background investigation file in your office in, I believe it was September of 1994. And he testified that it had been on your desk.

Do you have any recollection of Mr. Marceca visiting you in September of 1994?

A Well, I don't have the deposition in front of me of what he said, but as I recall from reading it in the newspaper, he said he read it and it fell off my desk or something like that. He didn't say that he read his file.

Q To be exact, I mean there was a phone call that you went to take and the background investigation files fell on the floor.

A Right.

Q His just happened to be one of them and just happened to fall open and he saw it, according to his testimony.

A Yes, I am familiar with that.

Q And I believe he called it a fickle finger of fate that allowed him to see it?

A Yes. I have no recollection of that at all, whatsoever.

Q Do you have any information or can you provide us with any information, if you know, why -- do you know if his file was on your desk during that period?

A I know that I had reviewed Mr. Marceca's file with him a couple of times.

Q Okay. And do you know if you -- why had you reviewed his file with him?

A It's standard procedure. If someone made an allegation against you and it was noteworthy enough to talk to you about, it was common practice for me or someone in Counsel's Office to pull the file and say, it has been reported that you abused your authority in a former position. Do you have anything to say about that? So you could get both sides of the story.

Q So you would get both sides of the story rather than the FBI?

A If it wasn't -- if someone wasn't convicted or charged, you know, if it was just sort of an open allegation, we would ask about it.

Q Mr. Marceca saw his file in September of 1994. Is it true that he was no longer working at the White House in your office at that time?

A I don't have any knowledge that Mr. Marceca saw his file in September of 1994.

Q Or it fell off your desk in September of 1994.

A I don't have any knowledge of that, either.

Mr. Turk. I think that if you want to ask that question, Mrs. Olson, you should say Mr. Marceca has testified in this lawsuit in Texas that he saw the file in September when it fell off the desk, when he reached for a newspaper and it just happened to open. But I don't think the question should be asked in a way that suggests that you or anybody else in this room believes that story.

Ms. Olson. I understand.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q So do you have any information that it was on your desk in September of '94?

A No, ma'am.

Q Is there any reason that you know why you would have had it out or have reviewed his file after he left the White House working for you in February of '94?

A As I stated earlier, I know of at least one instance when at least counsel requested to review his file and I believe it was because of an FOIA request, but I am not sure.

Q And you believe this December deposition, Exhibit No. 9, refers to an FOIA request?

Mr. Turk. I believe that's what he has testified to.

The Witness. That's correct.

Ms. Olson. I have a document that I am going to mark as Deposition Exhibit No. 11 and it is a phone message that's Bates stamp number 54268. It is also 1994 and it is dated October 6. Mr. Marceca called you that he had gotten a visit from the FBI.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 11

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you recall that telephone call and did you speak with Mr. Marceca regarding a visit he got from the FBI?

A I am sorry. What year did you say this was in?

Q 1994.

A Because I was presented with this and I believe it was represented as being in 1993 to someone else. So I just want to clarify that.

Q Let me double-check.

A And they may very well be wrong.

Q 54268 is within the numbers that Ms. Sherburne has said is 1994.

A Okay. Then I wouldn't have an explanation as to what that phone call might be.

Q Did Mr. Marceca discuss any conversations that he was having with the FBI in October of 1994, concerning his background?

A I don't believe his background was done in 1994. I believe it was done in 1993.

Mr. Turk. I think that's the confusion about other people having asked him about that, and I think everybody was operating on the assumption that that was 1993.

Ms. Olson. Were you aware that in 1994 the lawsuit was going on, or did you have any knowledge of a lawsuit that Mr. Marceca was involved in in Texas?

A I don't know when I first learned of the lawsuit, but I knew of the lawsuit certainly before this matter became public.

Q Do you know if it was in 1994, during the lawsuit when he was being deposed?

A I don't recall, ma'am.

Q In the lawsuit, he listed you as one of his witnesses. Did Mr. Marceca discuss with you the fact that he had listed you as a witness?

A I don't have knowledge, but I have a recollection of him talking to me about it. I just don't -- it's a fuzzy memory. But I seem to remember him saying that he was going to take FOIA action and legal action. But I don't recall if he said he wanted me to be a witness or not. I certainly didn't sign any documents, for example, saying to his counsel or something that I would be a witness or anything like that.

Q Based on your knowledge, did you consider Tony to have been a social friend with Bill Kennedy in any way? Or did you have any knowledge of any social friendship he had with William Kennedy?

A I would say that that would not be the case at all.

Q Did you and, Tony, ever go out with Mr. Kennedy on a social basis?

A I think Mr. Kennedy took me to lunch once outside the White House, maybe, and we had lunch at the White House mess with other staff, and that would be separate from Mr. Marceca.

Ms. Olson. I have a document which I am going to show you I have marked as Deposition Exhibit No. 12 and it's Bates stamp number 54269. It is a phone message to you from Mr. Marceca that says -- it's dated November 14th, 1994, and it says 29 of November, you and Bill Kennedy are invited to shoot with him at 9:00 a.m. in Beltsville, Maryland; should take about an hour.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 12

was marked for identification.]

BY MR. OLSON:

Q Do you know if you all went with Mr. Marceca out to the shooting range?

A I know that I did not go and I have no knowledge whether or not Mr. Marceca and Mr. Kennedy went.

Q Did Mr. Marceca ever discuss any friendship he had with Mr. Kennedy outside of the office, or any social relationship?

A No, and I don't believe that he had any.

Q I have a document which I will mark as Deposition Exhibit No. 13. It is Bates stamp number CGE 54272 and it is a phone message to you from -- we believe it's to you. It was in the same documents that were to you. From Chris Cerf, and it is calling about Anthony Marceca and says, file, and I believe it's A-N-T-H, and then the last name is Marceca.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 13

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you have any recollection, or do you know if Mr. Cerf was calling you about Mr. Marceca's file in December of 1994?

A I have no recollection of that.

Q Did you have any conversations with Mr. Cerf concerning Mr. Marceca's file?

A I don't recall any.

Q I have a document, this is in 1995, I will mark it as Deposition Exhibit No. 14. It is Bates stamp number 54249 and it is a phone message to you from Mr. Marceca. It is January --

Mr. Turk. I think what Mr. Livingstone wants to point out is that these two telephone slips, one is dated -- 54272 the one about Chris Cerf and 54271, Marvin Krislov, are very close in date. Why don't you --

The Witness. Well, the only thing I thought is that possibly Marvin, who I knew handled FOIA requests and external requests regarding FBI files, and Mr. Cerf, who was my supervisor, I only thought that since they are 3 days apart that perhaps they were working on reviewing the file together, which would have been perfectly reasonable for my supervisor to do with the person who handles FOIA requests if that's, in fact, what happened.

Ms. Olson. Did Mr. Marceca tell you he had FOIA'd his file in relationship to the lawsuit he had filed down in Texas.

The Witness. I can answer the first part of that question. I know that I either referred Mr. Marceca to Mr. Saunders, who was a security consultant in our office, or Ms. Wetzl on how to do an FOIA request. I don't know if, in fact, he did that.

Ms. Olson. But other than that, did he have any discussions with you about his lawsuit and the need of the document.

The Witness. As I said earlier -- I am sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. As I said earlier, I believe he did mention he intended to FOIA and seek legal action, if it was appropriate.

Ms. Olson. The document that I was just describing, Deposition Exhibit No. 14, it's to you from Tony. It says, if you are going on, quote, "that trip" he will see you are taken care of. Otherwise, he will talk to you later.

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 14

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you recognize that message or can you describe any conversations you had about "that" trip?

A This is in 1995?

Q Yes.

A No, it doesn't ring a bell.

Mr. Clinger. Can I interject here for a moment and tell you this: When I left we had an arrangement -- I understood an arrangement that you would be here until 3:00. Has that now been extended?

Mr. Turk. Well, Mr. Chairman, we had indicated when we first got here we were going to leave at 1:00.

Mr. Clinger. Right. I understand.

Mr. Turk. You asked if we could stay until 3:00 to finish up. I asked about splitting the difference. It is now 5 minutes to 3:00. My client is in an awkward position. He has got a hearing before the Senate tomorrow that he needs to prepare for.

Mr. Clinger. I understand.

Mr. Turk. But he also, this is his fourth deposition here in front of this committee and he would just as soon not have to come back for a fifth.

Mr. Clinger. I understand. But I guess the problem that we have is that I don't think that we can, indeed, finish by 3:00 and, therefore, that would either -- if you have to leave at that point, then I think it would require coming back and then we can talk about how much more time might be involved. But I think --

Mr. Turk. Did you get -- do you have an indication -- do we have an indication as to how long it will take?

Mr. Clinger. Let me confer with counsel here and just see where we are.

Mr. Turk. Mr. Chairman, it would certainly be my and my client's preference to try and conclude the matter today.

Mr. Clinger. I understand. If that's possible, we can, but it may not be possible.

Mr. Burton. Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Clinger. Yes.

Mr. Burton. As I understand, at 6:00 the full committee is going to meet.

Mr. Clinger. We have a full committee.

Mr. Burton. Everybody has to break for that. So that's going to take at least an hour or two, I would imagine, tonight.

Mr. Clinger. Yes, I think that's a fair assumption.

Ms. Olson. I don't think we can, and I certainly don't want to push right to the limit because I do know there's going to be a hearing you have tomorrow. I don't think we can finish today.

What I was going to do is finish up the phone messages and complete that area, as well as the advance trips, which then leads --

Mr. Turk. It would be our preference to go forward and try and finish.

Ms. Olson. Okay. I don't believe that we can finish. I mean, we do have to stop at 6:00.

Mr. Kanjorski. Why do you have to stop at 6:00?

Mr. Turk. Let's go until 6:00.

Mr. Clinger. Let's go to 6:00 and we will see where we go from there. I think 5:30 is a more reasonable time.

Mr. Kanjorski. Let me suggest something here. I listened to questions about message calls. I don't know where it's headed and I am going to make the assumption that counsel sees that it's going somewhere, but if that's the case why can't they all be written in one interrogatory question or two or three: Do you have any recollection of this? Can you tell us what it is about? And then counsel and the witness can go through it and then we just move on it.

Mr. Clinger. I thought that's what we were doing.

Mr. Kanjorski. This is so tedious. Do you have any recollection? And then well, did you go out for drinks? Did Mr. Kennedy go out to drink? What does it matter? I mean, really, is there something -- if they did -- make the worst assumption that they were friends and they went out for a drink, I don't see anything germane to the issue.

RPTS COLCHICO

DCMN QUINTERO

Ms. Olson. Mr. Kennedy has testified about his relationship with Mr. Livingstone, as well as Mr. Marceca, and we have a phone message on that.

Mr. Kanjorski. Did he say he went out for drinks?

Ms. Olson. It wasn't drinks. It was shooting together in Beltsville, Maryland.

Mr. Clinger. Before we get bogged down, I think it's agreeable to go until 5:30. Let's see how far we get and then we will have a discussion of how much further time will be necessary, if any.

Mr. Kanjorski. Mr. Chairman, the only problem is, Ms. Olson says she has that whole folder with all of those yellow pads and we haven't even touched three of them.

Mr. Clinger. At the end of 5:30, if we are not there, we will confer and we will see where we are and see if we can get any kind of an understanding. I am reluctant to put a finite time limit on by virtue of the fact that there could be things that would slow down this whole process and make it more difficult.

If we can talk about, you know, some way of expediting the questioning process, we will certainly try to do that. I mean, we are not attempting to put you through any more than absolutely necessary, but we really do feel we have a number of questions that have got to be answered.

Mr. Waxman. Mr. Livingstone, this witness has testified probably close to 40 hours for depositions. This is supposed to have been a clean-up deposition.

Mr. Clinger. A lot of it, though, Henry, was based on the fact that since he has last testified we have gotten a whole range of documents that really needed to be addressed.

Mr. Waxman. I made myself available this morning, and a lot of questions have been down alleys that led nowhere. I think that everybody ought to be as crisp as possible, the witness and the questioner, to try to finish this up by 5:30. After that, it seems to me that we ought to have a hearing and let the public see how these questions go, rather than allow unlimited deposition time. I don't think that's fair. I don't think that's discharging our duties as Members.

Let the Members ask the questions and then let's complete this. But I don't think it ought to be open-ended to 40 more hours or 30 more hours or 20 hours or 10 more hours. I think it ought to be finished. I think there's no end to it, quite frankly.

Mr. Kanjorski. I don't think it will ever end.

Mr. Clinger. We will go until 5:30 and see how it goes, and then we will talk about it afterwards.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q I have a document that I will mark as Deposition Exhibit No. 15, Bates stamp No. CGE 54266. It is dated in 1995, October 16th, and it is from Tony Marceca to you. And it has, job for Jim Levy, L-E-V-Y, at U.N., as criminal investigator.

Can you describe that document, or do you have any recollection?

[ Livingston Deposition Exhibit No. 15

was marked for identification.]

The Witness. Sure. I will be very brief.

Mr. Levy is a person that I have known for a while, and he does advance, and he was looking for a job and Mr. Marceca called to let me know that there is a job that he might be qualified for.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q At the United Nations?

A Apparently, from the message. I don't know if there was any follow-up.

Q And had you contacted Mr. Marceca to find him a job or to see if he could search for a job for this Jim Levy?

A I don't know if I contacted him or they may know each other.

Q And Mr. Levy did advance work with you?

A Yes. I have known Mr. Levy for a few years.

Q Did he do advance work with you prior to the Clinton/Gore campaign?

A Yes. I don't believe we did any advance together, at least that I can recall, in the Clinton administration. I seem to remember working with him at one of the Democratic conventions.

Q Do you know if he worked with you at the Hart campaign?

A I don't believe he did. I believe he was a Carter White House person and then became a Mondale person.

Q Did Mr. Marceca ever tell you how he could get someone a job at the United Nations?

A I think I have answered the question. The extent of my knowledge of this is that Mr. Marceca called in reference to Mr. Levy who was looking for a job, gave me a phone number, and I think I may have passed it on to Mr. Levy, and that's all I know about it.

Mr. Turk. There's nothing in this document that indicates that Tony ever told anybody that he could get a job for somebody at the U.N. It just indicates that job for Jim Levy at U.N.

Ms. Olson. As criminal investigator.

Mr. Turk. Yes. But as I read that, it means that there's a job opening and that's something that he might, you know, go for. It doesn't say that Tony can get him that job; does it?

Ms. Olson. No. Just Mr. Marceca has knowledge of jobs far and wide.

Mr. Turk. No, it doesn't say that he has knowledge of jobs far and wide. It says --

Mr. Kanjorski. What --

Mr. Turk. It says he is aware of a job at the U.N. as a criminal investigator, period, Ms. Olson.

Mr. Kanjorski. Let me break in here again. Is this germane to some issue? I mean, I would suspect that the White House provides leads and suggestions for tens of thousands of people. Is there something that is going to bring -- I don't see any germaneness for this.

Ms. Olson. Jim Levy did advance with Mr. Livingstone. Mr. Marceca did advance with Mr. Livingstone. There are numerous calls that are going from Mr. Marceca to Mr. Livingstone throughout '94 an '95, not only about advance trips but putting advance people in as criminal investigators in other parts of government, or at least knowledge of jobs.

Mr. Kanjorski. Okay. Granted all of that, and now come to what's the bottom line? Why is that important?

Ms. Olson. Mr. Kanjorski, I am not drawing conclusions. That is not my job.

Mr. Kanjorski. We are seeking to finalize this --

Ms. Olson. To seek --

Mr. Kanjorski. -- not to get all the facts that exist in the world, Ms. Olson. We are after the facts that are pertinent to the Travel Office problem. The United Nations doesn't affect that. I don't care if they got 10,000 jobs, and I am sure they may have. If you went to my office, I probably put in for thousands, and so did Mr. Burton. We are not going to go through all of that.

Please, what the issue is, why it's important, let's ask those questions.

Ms. Olson. I am attempting to ask Mr. Livingstone about documents that indicate his relationship with Mr. Marceca.

Mr. Kanjorski. Those aren't documents. Those are recorded telephone conversations. Are you going to go through every telephone conversation for 2 years?

Ms. Olson. No, sir.

Mr. Kanjorski. Is that pertinent?

Ms. Olson. I am not going through every telephone conversation. We have selected conversations that concern a relationship that Mr. Livingstone had with Mr. Marceca that went beyond merely someone who came over as a detailee.

Mr. Kanjorski. Is that shocking?

Mr. Turk. Let's move on.

Mr. Kanjorski. I know that. I haven't sat through all of the depositions. They knew each other -- if I can give you the facts, they worked on prior elections together. They were both junkies in politics together, and he was detailed over at the White House. That relationship is public knowledge. I think it has been in the newspaper.

Ms. Olson. And this is after a date when Mr. Marceca has been refused a job at the White House because of his background, and Mr. Livingstone is continuing to discuss advance trips as well as other jobs with him. It is germane to a relationship that occurred while there are FBI files sitting in Mr. Livingstone's vault.

Mr. Kanjorski. And what is germane about that now, the fact that they have a friendship? I don't understand. What issue is that? What is wrong if we make all the assumptions that you are asserting are correct? What is wrong?

Mr. Turk. You need to add one fact, and that is that Mr. Marceca did not have any access to the materials in Mr. Livingstone's office after his detail ended. He was a volunteer at the White House. But that does not mean that he had continuing access to matters in the office. If you have got documents to that effect, let's get to them.

Mr. Kanjorski. I don't want to get into all of that. I want to try and say there are issues here that obviously are important. Let's try and crisply define what those issues are. Let's ask those questions. I don't think we could be -- if we have the 105th Congress, I don't think we can get all the phone messages through that this man in 4 years must have had.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Did you continue to keep Mr. Marceca on a White House access list beyond his leaving the White House in February 1994?

Mr. Turk. I object to the question to the extent it says "you" as opposed to whether or not Mr. Marceca had continuing access.

Ms. Olson. Well, I am asking if Mr. Livingstone had any participation in Mr. Marceca --

Mr. Turk. Why don't you first start with did Mr. Marceca have access, and what was it, and then did Mr. Livingstone have any involvement in it.

Mr. Kanjorski. Get the structure.

Mr. Turk. That's how you ask the questions.

Ms. Olson. I have documents that he had access. If you would like me to ask the set-up questions, I will be more than happy to take the time.

Mr. Turk. If you have got the documents that establish it, why waste all the time? I am sorry.

Let's proceed.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Did you have any participation in having Mr. Marceca continue to have access in the White House after he left in February of 1994?

A Yes. Mr. Marceca continued to be a volunteer. I believe he worked in the comments line of the volunteer office.

Q And were you responsible for the access lists that kept him on?

A My office was.

Q Okay. Do you know how Mr. Marceca obtained his job as a volunteer after he left your office in February of 1994?

A I believe he worked for a woman named Jamie Williams.

Q Do you know how he continued to be accepted as a volunteer? Did you have anything to do with that?

A I believe that Mr. Marceca developed a relationship with some of the people in the volunteer office, but it would not have been unreasonable for me to suggest to them that Tony might make a good volunteer.

Q Did you?

A I don't recall specifically, but I may have.

Q Did Tony come and visit you during the period after he left working for you as a detailee?

A Yes.

Q How often?

A Certainly a few times a year.

Q Two times a year?

A A few times a year.

Q Would you put that at less than five times a year?

A The question is, specifically came to visit me?

Q Or while he was there, came by your office.

A He popped in and said hi quite often when he was at the White House, but he also said hi to Ms. Wetzl, whom he was, I think, good friends with, and other people that worked in the office.

Q And by "quite often," would that be on a weekly basis or do you have any ability to narrow it down?

A I would say monthly, if that. I don't think it was weekly.

Q Did he ever discuss any issues concerning the Office of Personnel Security?

A Can you make that a little more specific for me, please?

Q Any issues either that he left or any discussions about how the office was running?

Mr. Turk. That's still pretty broad. I mean, have you got something in particular or is this just "go fish" here? Did he have any conversations about anything about the Office of Personnel Security? Is that what you are asking? Or do you have something in mind? You say you need 5 hours of examination.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Do you recall your conversations with him, if they were purely social or did they involve matters concerning your office?

A I can tell you what I do recall that we didn't talk about. We didn't talk about the FBI files in question. You know, he may have asked me how things are going in the office. You know, I heard you got a new boss, how is he or she, that kind of thing?

I mean, I have said under oath many times that Tony and I are professional friends and we would have conversations about the normal things that political friends have.

Q The normal things that political friends have?

A Sure.

Q Did he ever discuss any issues concerning the Dole campaign with you?

A I have seen a phone message recently that in the -- I think it was in the Washington Times, either today or yesterday.

Q Is that the only place you have ever seen that phone message?

A No. It may not have been in the Washington Times. It may have been through one of these processes, too. I don't recall specifically.

Q Did you review your phone messages before coming for this deposition or the Senate deposition on Friday?

A No, ma'am.

Q I have a document I have marked as Deposition Exhibit 17. It is CGE 54274. Is that the phone message?

[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 17

was marked for identification.]

Mr. Turk. I would like the record to reflect we asked staff counsel to provide us with copies of the documents that they were going to show Mr. Livingstone before his deposition, and that request was denied.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Is that the phone message that you are referring to?

Mr. Turk. After they had initially promised.

The Witness. I am familiar with this phone message.

BY MS. OLSON:

Q Can you please describe the circumstances under which you are familiar with it?

A Sure; I would be very happy to.

Q And any conversations you had.

A It's a very brief explanation, and that's all I know. Mr. Marceca called and left a message and I either had a conversation with him that, you know, I am not interested in these kind of phone calls, I am not the appropriate person to talk to, either by way of phone or in person at some point, but I know that we did not pursue it, period.

Q You said you talked about the type of things that political friends talk about. Did it include any type of work Mr. Marceca was doing on campaigns in 1996, or any kind of work Mr. Marceca was pursuing for campaigns?

A I don't understand the question. I am sorry.

Q I am trying to figure out what you meant by you talked about the kind of things that political friends talk about.

A Well, are you a Democrat or a Republican or whatever?

Q That's irrelevant.

A Whatever you are, just think of the normal kinds of things that you talk about.

Mr. Kanjorski. Let me interpose here, in protection of the Republican candidate for President. Is this germane to something -- it's a March '96 conversation. The conclusions drawn in that statement I do not wish to see publicized because I don't know whether they have any validity or any facts to support them.

Ms. Olson. It's already been in the Washington Times, I believe.

Mr. Kanjorski. You mean somebody would have put that out?

The Witness. Yes, sir. It was in the paper yesterday.

Mr. Turk. Along with a lot of other documents.

The Witness. Along with most of the documents that I see later.

Mr. Kanjorski. Why would they want to suggest that Senator Dole was involved in criminal activity? Why is that an issue in this investigation?

Ms. Olson. I believe it was Tony Marceca calling to say he had pictures.

Mr. Kanjorski. What if that were the case and he did? Why is that germane to this investigation that we should liable Senator Dole with some conclusion that this rogue made? I resent that. I resent that for Senator Dole.

Ms. Olson. I understand.

Mr. Kanjorski. How is he going to disprove this now when we put this all in the record and it gets published around this town?

Ms. Olson. If Mr. Marceca feels as though he has pictures against a Republican candidate that he wants to share with Mr. Livingstone, we have a situation where Mr. Marceca ordered files on over 700 prior Republican administration officials and I think there is a connection that can be easily drawn.

Mr. Kanjorski. What kind of connection, young lady, when he is in a political year of a presidential year, two political operatives are discussing the potential of something of the opponent, has any relationship to files that were called in 1993 and 1994? This is three-and-a-half years later. I mean, if that isn't far afield.

Now, look, I don't care what you do. I am a Member of Congress and I am astounded that Senator Dole's name has to be alleged here for criminal activity. I am telling you that.

Ms. Olson. That is certainly not --

Mr. Kanjorski. Unless you have an issue to go to that that's germane to, I think that should be extracted from the record. I don't think that should appear across this country.

Ms. Olson. That is not being alleged. No one has alleged such a thing about Senator Dole.

Mr. Kanjorski. In that telephone conversation, it is talking about Bob Dole stealing oil; isn't it?

Ms. Olson. No, it is not. He has pictures of an oil company.

Mr. Kanjorski. Stealing oil?

Ms. Olson. I mean, please. There is no allegation that Bob Dole has stolen oil.

Mr. Kanjorski. What does that read?

Ms. Olson. Nor does that document say that.

Mr. Burton. What it says is that -- it says: Has pictures of oil company stealing $30 million of oil when working with Jim Roe, and Bob Dole shut down the investigation.

Mr. Kanjorski. There's a collusive activity there charged of a Senator closing down an investigation of stolen oil?

Mr. Burton. What is that?

Ms. Olson. Well, he is claiming that we are alleging that Bob Dole has done something, which is not true.

Mr. Burton. I don't think that's what -- I think what she is trying to show is that here was some dirty tricks trying to be utilized in March of '96, and the relevance of this is that these two individuals had 700 and some FBI files and it shows --

Mr. Kanjorski. These two didn't have 700 and some FBI files in '96.

Mr. Burton. It shows a policy that was conducted. At least that's what I think that she is getting at and I think we ought to let her get to it. Otherwise you are right, we are going to be here forever.

The Witness. I answered the question.

Mr. Kanjorski. We are going to be here forever if we go through every political activity. It doesn't shock me at all. I get calls every week alleging that they have evidence of criminality by Democrats and Republicans. You have been in the game long enough, Dan. I am sure you do.

Mr. Burton. Sure.

Mr. Kanjorski. What is the germaneness of that issue to the Travel Office investigation?

Mr. Burton. I really can't tell you, but I can tell you this: We are not going to find out if we don't let her finish.

Ms. Olson. When this issue broke, Mr. Livingstone's resume had that he did work against a political campaign, which was George Bush's, before he went in the White House.

Mr. Kanjorski. No question about that.

Ms. Olson. That's right. However, what the representations have been made is that Mr. Livingstone came into the White House and obviously didn't continue to do that. Now we have a phone message where, for some reason, Tony Marceca is calling Craig about pictures that he has once again of a campaign of a Republican.

Mr. Kanjorski. Ms. Olson.

Mr. Turk. But counsel, you asked Mr. Livingstone about the call and he said he told Mr. Marceca he wasn't interested and didn't pursue it and he wasn't the right -- the kind of person that should be called with that kind of information anyway.

Mr. Kanjorski. There isn't --

Mr. Turk. Aren't we done?

Mr. Kanjorski. There isn't an individual in the White House that doesn't discuss politics.

Mr. Burton. Let me interject. You know the history of the relationship between Mr. Marceca and Mr. Livingstone. You know that back in 1984 they were working in Pennsylvania and they were involved in some activities that some people would question.

Mr. Turk. Some people.

The Witness. No, sir. I am sorry to interrupt you, but that's not either fair nor true.

Mr. Burton. That some people would question.

Mr. Turk. Now you have brought that up. We are going to have to let Mr. Livingstone respond to that allegation.

Mr. Burton. That's fine. But the point I am trying to make is, what I think she is trying to get at here is why --

Mr. Turk. Character.

Mr. Burton. Was this practice continuing?

Mr. Turk. Right.

Mr. Burton. And did it have an impact on why those 700 and some files were taken to the White House from the FBI when these people were not new employees coming in; they were people that were already there or were leaving.

Mr. Kanjorski. Well, you don't have to go off to establish that somebody called, they had pictures. If you want to draw the conclusion that these are partisans that were hired in the White House, I think we should --

Mr. Burton. I don't think anybody is drawing -- we are not drawing conclusions. She is not drawing conclusions. She is following a pattern of questions to get to an answer. And every time you stop this, it just prolongs it.

Mr. Kanjorski. No, no. Dan, this question is in March of '96. I think we were in hearing on this issue in March of '96. It seems to me my life has been spent on this.

Mr. Turk. I think June of '96 is when the issue broke.

Ms. Olson. May 30th is when the whole thing broke. This is before it. This is before --

Mr. Kanjorski. Well, let us concede -- I mean, I think I could stipulate from our side that these people knew each other; they were political operatives in various campaigns. It is likely that they did not sanitize themselves once appointed to the White House; that they probably on every occasion that they saw each other said: How is the office, how is the job, how is politics.

If that's frightening to somebody, it's frightening. If you can draw from that, therefore, they would have committed criminal offenses, that's a leap of logic I don't understand.

The fact that they talked politics, the fact that they are receptors for information or potential information, if that isn't conceded, I don't know what is. We will concede it.

What is that issue? I think we are after an investigation of abuse that borders on or is, in fact, criminal. Isn't that what we are investigating here?

Are we investigating whether or not the White House is politically motivated? I mean, if that's the issue, we will concede it. Let's go home.

Mr. Burton. Representative Kanjorski, I just think that, you know, by going on and on and on like this, you are just prolonging it. Why not let her ask the questions? If it's something that's irrelevant, her attorney can raise the objection. He doesn't have to answer the question, and he can say no and let it go.

Mr. Kanjorski. All I have got to say is I don't think there is a Democratic office in the Congress of the United States that hasn't had an allegation about Senator Dole. If we were --

Mr. Burton. Or about Bill Clinton.

Mr. Kanjorski. Or about Bill Clinton.

Mr. Burton. That's absolutely right.

Mr. Kanjorski. I am not surprised about that.

Mr. Burton. Of course not.

Ms. Olson. I think the issue is whether the head of the Office of Personnel Security, who had possession of background investigation files, was continuing to do work against candidates or was directing others or aware of undercover work being done to dig up dirt on candidates while he was working in the White House.

The Witness. Absolutely not, if that's a question.