BY MS. OLSON:
Q That is my follow-up question. Is there any reason you know why Tony Marceca would call you about pictures that he had that might be harmful to Bob Dole?
A You are asking me to delve into Mr. Marceca's mind.
Q No, just your mind.
Based upon your relationship as a political friend with Mr. Marceca, do you know, have you had discussions with him previously? Is there any reason you know why Mr. Marceca would call you with this kind of information?
A Mr. Marceca respected me and perhaps thought I might direct him to the right person, and I told him I was not the right person to deal with these kind of issues. That's all I can surmise.
Q Did you direct him to anyone else?
A No, ma'am.
Q Has he ever discussed this type of work with you before?
Mr. Turk. What does "this type of work" mean? Oil companies stealing $30 million worth of oil?
Ms. Olson. No, getting pictures and information to harm a campaign, to harm an opposition party's campaign.
Mr. Turk. I think the record will reflect that Mr. Marceca had those pictures from when he worked as a Senate staffer and just dug them out and thought they would be useful because Dole suddenly surfaced.
Mr. Burton. But why would he call Livingstone?
Ms. Olson. Your client needs to testify.
Mr. Turk. This is information all over the newspapers. I get the information -- you tell the newspapers. They write it. I read it.
Mr. Burton. The Post and the Times?
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, I did not tell the newspaper, and that is new information. So if you have received that information from the client or newspaper, I would just like to know.
Mr. Turk. Let's go on.
Mr. Kanjorski. Let us concede what happened. What's the point? Some political guy calls up who worked with him and were friends and they said, hey, I have got pictures. Is there a follow-up to that or from that or will you draw some conclusion?
Ms. Olson. Mr. Livingstone has denied that he has done that type of work.
Mr. Kanjorski. So it is over. Let's go on to the next question.
Mr. Turk. Let's move on.
Ms. Olson. He denied he did that kind of work before we had this phone message. I am just asking the witness --
Mr. Turk. Please ask the question. Ms. Olson, please, ask questions.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Is there any reason that you know why Mr. Marceca would call you with this type of information?
Mr. Turk. You have asked that question and he has answered that question. Let's move on. Let's move on. It's 3:20. We have a Senate hearing tomorrow and you presumably have important work to get done here. Let's do it.
Ms. Olson. I consider this message important.
Mr. Turk. Asking him to speculate about what's in somebody else's mind cannot possibly be an incredibly important question for this committee.
Ms. Olson. If Mr. Livingstone has engaged in other activities with Mr. Marceca, it is relevant.
Mr. Kanjorski. And if he has, if you have evidence of facts of that case, present those, but don't ask whether this man --
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Have you ever engaged in activities with Mr. Marceca previously, which would involve getting dirt on candidates to harm their -- to harm their campaign while you were at the White House?
A Absolutely not.
Mr. Burton. Can you elaborate on the reports from the -- I can't think of the gentleman's name.
Mr. Turk. Casey is his name.
Mr. Burton. In 1984 in Pennsylvania when you and Mr. Marceca were working on, I believe, the Gary Hart campaign?
Mr. Kanjorski. Wait. The only question I have raised here, and I don't know the answer -- I don't know what you are referring to.
Mr. Burton. Wait a minute.
Mr. Kanjorski. Are these new documents or new information that just arrived since July?
Mr. Burton. No, this is not new information.
Mr. Turk. This is old stuff covered in the hearings. But since the hearings, Congressman --
Mr. Burton. Let me finish here because this is only relevant because he has said, no, he has never been involved in that and yet there has been public reports documented --
Ms. Olson. Sworn testimony.
Mr. Burton. Sworn testimony by Mr. Casey that in 1984 he said he wouldn't work with these gentlemen.
Mr. Kanjorski. Is this Casey the Casey, the nut, the fruit case?
Mr. Turk. Yes.
Mr. Kanjorski. Referred to a grand jury. I know the guy. Referred to a grand jury. The guy is a nut, Dan. Do you know him? He is a super-nut.
Mr. Turk. This sworn statement was not given subject to any cross-examination and the head of the campaign that that was -- those allegations related to has since testified under --
Ms. Olson. Everybody is testifying but Mr. Livingstone about this statement.
Mr. Turk. Exactly, but if you are going to continue to --
Mr. Kanjorski. No, no, I am raising the question. I don't have any problem. If that's what you are referring to, you know, that story is old and he is a nut, and I am from Pennsylvania and I know the stories. But that predates July 17th. We are here to find out what documents have been received by this committee or testimony that you did not have an opportunity to depose this witness on; that's what we are trying to get to.
Mr. Burton. I understand that.
Mr. Kanjorski. This all predated July 17th, the last deposition.
Mr. Turk. Covered in the hearing.
Mr. Kanjorski. You are going over and digging new holes.
Mr. Burton. She is asking a question about a relevant phone conversation or phone message, and he said he had nothing to with it and he has never done anything with Mr. Marceca.
Mr. Kanjorski. That's right.
Do you have contrary evidence that that's incorrect?
Mr. Burton. I was citing this testimony from Mr. Casey. Of course, you say he is a nut. I don't know. He probably thinks you are a nut. So who is right?
Mr. Turk. Mr. Livingstone has testified on this subject, Congressman Burton.
Ms. Olson. There was some limited testimony.
Mr. Turk. Not limited. He was asked about this at the hearing and he testified he read it.
Mr. Kanjorski. Let's bring Casey into an open hearing.
Mr. Turk. Subject him to cross-examination.
Mr. Kanjorski. Bring him into an open hearing. I would invite you to do it. I would like to have it.
The Witness. Congressman, I think he also said that he basically had me tossed out of the State, and to his knowledge I never worked again.
I was the co-coordinator for Mr. Hart's second presidential announcement. I worked the very last day of Mr. Hart's campaign. I then went to work for Ms. Ferraro. If I was kicked out of the State, lots of people would know it, lots, not this one individual who I don't know.
Ms. Olson. Mr. Livingstone, you are correct, but one of the things at our hearing that you did not or you were not able to respond to was whether you ever did report on peccadillos or vulnerabilities in the Hart campaign of the opposition. You did state that some of the factual --
Mr. Kanjorski. He was too busy reporting on Hart.
Mr. Turk. Let's get that testimony out, okay? Because given the history of what's gone on today, you will forgive me if your characterization of his prior testimony doesn't serve as a basis for traditional examination.
Ms. Olson. While she is looking it up, I will go on to another question so that we can have some time.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q I have a resume of Mr. Marceca, and I believe in Deposition Exhibit No. 17, there is a mention of a Jim Roe. Do you -- let me mark this Deposition -- I mean, this resume as Deposition Exhibit No. 18.
It's Bates stamped CGE 53685, and it goes through 53686. Do you recognize the handwriting on that resume?
[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 18
was marked for identification.]
The Witness. I can't be positive because I am not a handwriting expert, but by trying to be helpful, it looks like Mr. Kennedy's.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Okay. Did you know who Jim Roe was, or do you know who Jim Roe is?
A Well, if it's the Jim Roe that says Jim Roe, NBC, on here, that would be Jim Roe who was, I believe, Mr. Schumer's Chief Counsel, and also worked in the Senate for some time.
Q Do you know if he worked at the same time that Mr. Marceca did?
A I'm not positive, but I believe that that -- Mr. Marceca worked -- was assigned to one of the committees that Mr. Roe headed as counsel.
Q And on Mr. Marceca's resume of Deposition Exhibit No. 18, it says, child abuse, oil profit and then has some other words I can't read, but then it says Jim Roe, NBC. Do you know what that means or can you show if oil profits and child abuse, how that relates to Jim Roe of NBC, in Marceca's resume?
Mr. Turk. I would like to make a pertinency objection, and I am going to reserve these, but I am going to start to make them because I believe that this is so far afield.
Ms. Olson. I will connect it up.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Is there a reason why this is on Mr. Marceca's resume that was given to Mr. Kennedy to get him into the White House for a detail, Mr. Livingstone?
A I have a very simple answer. I do not know anything about the handwritten notes.
Q I would like to connect it up because I am being accused of not connecting anything up. This is information given to Mr. Kennedy about Mr. Marceca and one of the names --
Mr. Turk. Who says?
Ms. Olson. Well, this is information.
Mr. Turk. Who says that is what it is? You don't have any idea what it is. You are testifying that that is what it is.
How do you know? Mr. Livingstone doesn't know what it is, and I haven't heard any testimony from anybody else about what it is.
Ms. Olson. This is from Mr. Kennedy's files. This is handwriting, we believe, of Bill Kennedy, which is written on Mr. Marceca's resume, and it has the same name that Mr. Marceca is calling Craig about in March of 1996. And I was asking Mr. Livingstone if he knows why that name appears on Mr. Marceca's resume, which is also on a message to Mr. Marceca.
Mr. Turk. Fine. I have a pertinency objection, and I will continue to raise it, if you continue to stray this far. But you may proceed, and I will not instruct my witness not to answer because I will not give you the opportunity to drag us back here again. But I guarantee, if you want to waste our time the way you are doing and take two more hours like this until 5:30, that's fine. But please proceed.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Your testimony is you do not know Mr. Roe or anything about him?
A I didn't say that at all.
Mr. Turk. You didn't ask him that.
The Witness. I didn't say that at all.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q When I was interrupted, you had made some denial statement, and I am sorry.
A No. I didn't make any denial statement. You were talking to me, as I remember quite clearly, about the extraneous markings, which you asked me if I thought, and I said I am not a handwriting expert, but it appears to be handwriting similar to Mr. Kennedy's. And I said, I don't know, however, what the remarks -- the remarks are for or what they pertain to.
Q The document earlier --
Mr. Turk. You also asked him if he knew who Jim Roe was, and he testified that he did, Ms. Olson. So when you state that, he says -- so your testimony is you don't know who Jim Roe is, I don't understand why you do that. That's an objection to the way you are conducting the deposition.
Mr. Burton. Okay.
The Witness. I went at some length to describe where he worked both in the House and the Senate, and I am trying to be cooperative.
Ms. Olson. I apologize. To do a deposition where every word is objected to, I apologize, but my train of thought is interrupted.
My concentration, Mr. Turk, is getting shifted also after numerous objections when I have pending questions. And it isn't fair to your client for that to happen, either.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q There is a document that I believe you went over with Mr. Burton during questions. I am going to mark it so it is in the record as Deposition Exhibit 19.
It is CGE 53677 through 53680, and this is the memo to Mr. Kennedy from you. And the question I wanted to ask you about is the first page.
[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 19
was marked for identification.]
The Witness. Okay.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q In the first page, under Section H, you had said that: "Please note there are many Bush administration employees that still have active badges." And you -- "and USSS," which I am assuming is Secret Service, "informs me that it is the White House's responsibility to deactivate badges."
A I see that.
Q And I believe you have dated this to be in March. I believe you dated it after March 4th of 1993, and before March 15th of 1993.
A Yes, ma'am.
Q What did you do to deactivate badges through the Secret Service after finding that out from the Secret Service in March of '93?
A Well, throughout my whole tenure there we would notify the Secret Service. When we knew an employee had departed, we would notify them to deactivate the pass.
Q So in March of 1993, is it true that you were aware that your office had to notify the Secret Service in order to take a name off the active list?
A This memo certainly indicates that.
Q Okay. Other than this memo, do you have any independent recollection?
A No, ma'am. That's what I was trying to state.
Q But this memo is written by you?
A I know that, for example, later in the administration that was our responsibility, because I remember signing memos. I just don't remember when we began it exactly.
Q But this is a March of '93 memo.
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Signed by you?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Okay. Do you know if you took any other actions to start deactivating people from the access list in March of '93?
A I don't recall.
Q When Mr. Marceca comes in, in August of '93, do you know if you had taken any actions at that point to start deactivating individuals from Secret Service lists?
A I don't recall.
Q You were also asked about the second page of this document by Mr. Burton. And I believe it was part 5, where you were questioned, and I believe you said that Mr. Aldrich's and Mr. Sculimbrene's sole job was to do background investigations at the White House. Have I --
A That was their primary assignment, yes, ma'am.
Q Did they brief you on their activities at the White House at any time during 1993?
A By -- what do you mean "brief"?
Q Their general responsibilities, what they did at the White House, fill you in on why they were there and what types of activities that they took care of.
A I don't recall a specific briefing. I do recall that we all got together with Mr. Kennedy at some point very early.
Q And when you all got together, did they go through what they do at the White House, what type of responsibilities they assume for the FBI?
A I just don't recall the conversation.
Q Was there an incident, that you recall, where Mr. Aldrich and/or Mr. Sculimbrene was handling a petty theft at the White House back in '93?
A No, I have no recollection of that.
Q Do you have any recollection of either Mr. Aldrich or Mr. Sculimbrene handling any type of incidents with employees, small-time thefts or any other issues concerning missing pocketbooks?
A I seem to remember them being a little over-involved in some small personnel issues.
Q Such as someone comes back to their desk, and their purse is missing?
A I don't remember the specifics, but I remember -- if you will give me a minute, I will try and think of a specific, but --
Mr. Turk. I would just register a pertinency objection to this line of questioning.
The Witness. Right now, right this second, I can't think of anything in particular, but they had been there for some time and they had a personal rapport with a number of the employees there.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q But you did not believe they had any other responsibility, except for to do background investigations?
Mr. Turk. That's not what he testified to. He said he thought that was their principal job.
Ms. Olson. Sole job.
Mr. Turk. He said he thought that that was their principal responsibility.
Mr. Burton. I think if you go back to the testimony when I was questioning him earlier, before you even got here, I think you go back and he said the scope of the responsibility was limited to background checks.
Ms. Olson. I wrote down sole job when he was answering, Mr. Turk.
Mr. Burton. Beyond that, because I was asking him about why the White House, and he in particular, might go around them to this gentleman who said that he would do favors for the White House, who was with the FBI. And he said that was not unusual, as I recall, because Sculimbrene and Aldrich were limited to background checks.
Mr. Turk. And more specifically, I believe that what Mr. Livingstone testified to was that Sculimbrene and Aldrich did not have responsibility for name-checks, and that, in fact, there is an office at the FBI headquarters that had responsibility for that and that they would handle that, and that he has no recollection of ever having processed a name-check through John Douglas Seward. So if we are quibbling over the word "sole," whether it's sole or principal, then okay.
Ms. Olson. I am really going into another area of --
The Witness. Ms.. Olson, I am sorry. If I said "sole," I am very tired and I have done this over and over, and if this is going to be "gotcha" on one word, when I said sole, that's what I know their job to be today. What I knew their job to be in 1993, and what they were doing then was then, but when I spoke of sole -- and they are not even there anymore as, of course, I am not, but whoever is there now, that is their job, is to do background investigations.
Mr. Turk. As far as you knew.
The Witness. That's what I meant by sole.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Did you ever have an understanding that they would handle thefts or handle small problems with personnel, such as a missing purse, such as a theft, missing cash, within the White House, that they would be the individuals who would be contacted for those types of problems?
A I seem to remember them being involved in some things early on in the administration, as I said earlier, and both the Secret Service and the FBI thought it inappropriate for them to be involved in those activities.
And when I talked about, sole, sir, I brought that up earlier, that they were involved in other things and they weren't supposed to be, and I gave you an example, one of which was to get that document.
DCMN HERZFELD
Q And to connect this up, obviously these individuals were not contacted by Mr. Kennedy when there was an accusation of missing money in the White House; there were other people who were contacted.
Do you recall if this briefing in front of Mr. Kennedy by Mr. Aldrich, or this meeting -- you haven't called it a briefing -- included that they did those types of activities; if there was a problem or an allegation of some type of wrongdoing or criminality, that they would handle an initial investigation of that?
A An investigation? I don't think it would have been appropriate for them to do an investigation.
Q Or that they would be -- or they would be the point of contact within the FBI if there was a White House incident such as a theft or missing money?
A As I stated earlier, they, I believe to this day, gave the inference that they had more responsibility than their superiors actually wanted them to have. I don't think they -- I don't want to characterize why they felt that as good or bad.
Q Did you get that from their superiors?
A Yeah, yeah.
Q They told you?
A And I gave you the example of the document, the SF-86, for one thing, which is a Privacy-Act-controlled document, as you know, and the headquarters was very upset about that. They said -- and it stopped that day.
I am trying to remember other instances, but I remember being interviewed towards the end of my tenure specifically about Mr. Sculimbrene and Mr. Aldrich, and I believe other agents, on their duties at the White House, what their functions were, what worked, what didn't work, that type of thing.
Mr. Burton. Can I interject something. I talked to Sculimbrene and Aldrich, and when I talked to them -- I can't remember the exact times I talked to both of them -- they indicated during the Bush administration there was a contractor -- they gave me a few examples, but there was a contractor who did work at the White House but ended up overcharging dramatically, and they were the ones that pursued the case, and ultimately the gentleman was brought to justice and prosecuted for that.
So the scope of their duties, during the Bush administration, was much broader than what you are telling us it is under the Clinton administration. And I just wonder if that's a policy change that took place after Bill Clinton took office, and if so, why did that change take place? Because the scope of their responsibilities, even if you looked at the cases that they are talking about, and we could probably dig those out, was much broader. And if they were limited by people at the FBI, and they said that was beyond their scope of duties, did this just occur with the -- with this administration taking office?
The Witness. Sir, I have no knowledge whatsoever of the administration making a decision to relegate if, in fact, Mr. Sculimbrene or other agents were active in the investigations. I don't have any knowledge of that, first of all, in the previous administration.
Second of all, I don't know if at any time that counsel or the administration said to me that we don't want them doing investigations, for example; we just want them doing personnel investigations. I don't believe that discussion ever happened.
Mr. Burton. The reason I bring this up, and I don't want to prolong this, is that we have a gentleman at the FBI, I can't think of his name right now, that said he would do favors for them. We have the gentleman who is the chief counsel to Louie Freeh bringing contents of the book over that Mr. Aldrich wrote sometime beforehand, and -- before the book was published, specifically to the White House, and you didn't have anything to do with that, but it would lead one to believe that they -- that they deliberately did not want to involve the two FBI agents at the White House in some of these things because they would rather go directly to a possible political appointee or someone else that could do them favors at the FBI.
So the policy -- it appears to me the policy changes took place between the Bush and the Clinton administrations. And I just -- my question to you is: Did you have any knowledge of any major policies changes that took place because of the FBI holdovers at the White House?
The Witness. No, sir, absolutely not. And, sir, I -- I mean, you said a lot there that --
Mr. Burton. I know. I was thinking out loud.
The Witness. -- concerns me. I don't think at any time the White House sought to go around people. And I think it's important for the record to show because perhaps people aren't aware of this, and maybe you are not, but I think -- I am sure you are, but there were several other agents other than Mr. Aldrich and Mr. Sculimbrene. So it isn't like they were just going around two agents. There was five agents, I believe, that worked there. And I don't think the issue was to go around them. I think the correct way to state it is that their function -- as far as I know, they reported to a field office, the Washington field office, and their job, their job, was to do the tons of investigations and reinvestigations that are required to keep the White House in compliance with Executive Order 10450. And that was their job. And I don't know how they could possibly have time to do investigations of the nature that you suggest, and if they did, that's news to me. And it is also news to me, sir, if the Clinton administration said, no, we don't want you to do that, because I have never heard of that.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Mr. Livingstone, that's why I was asking about the briefing -- I am calling it a briefing, but the meeting you had with Mr. Kennedy where they described what they did, because we have received testimony that they did describe their activities in the White House which were a little broader than the background investigations, which did include that type of activity. And I was asking if you had a recollection of that -- of that meeting where that type of information was passed on to you?
A If I might ask you a question. Was I at the meeting where they had that specific discussion, because I just don't recall that at all, the nature of what the Congressman discussed.
Q I cannot say specifically that they briefed you. I know they said they briefed everyone, and I believe you were at a briefing where it was described.
A Well, I know, for example, by way of explanation, that there were many times that they talked to Mr. Kennedy about issues that they didn't talk to me, and if Mr. Kennedy thought it appropriate, he being counsel and me being a worker bee, he would either have me at the meeting or fill me in.
Q Following up on the memo that we have made as Deposition Exhibit No. 19, and I want to go back to the point where you were telling Mr. Kennedy that you are the one -- or that your office has to deactivate individuals, on May 27th, 1993, Senator Tower was deactivated by a memo, which was something that came up in our hearing. So obviously there was a deactivation process going on.
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Can you just tell us why the other individuals who were very high level, very high profile, were not deactivated during this time frame when Mr. Tower was deactivated?
A I don't know.
Q Did you look at the list to deactivate Senator Tower in May of 1993?
A Today I don't recall specifically if it was brought to my attention or if I -- if I noticed it myself.
Q Do you know if any other individuals were brought to your attention at that time, such as Marlin Fitzwater, or James Baker or any of the other individuals that were ultimately ordered?
A I don't have an independent recollection related to that memo.
Q Okay. The other follow-up I wanted to do on a document was when -- and I will make it a part of the record -- Mr. Burton was asking you about the May 25th, 1994, letter, which was to you from Director Freeh, regarding Mr. Shapiro's hard pass, and I will make it Deposition Exhibit No. 20.
[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 20
was marked for identification.]
BY MS. OLSON:
Q I believe that you said this was not necessarily an out-of-the-ordinary event?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Are you aware of any other general counsels from agencies that were given hard passes to the White House?
A As I stated in my testimony earlier, I believe it was the policy, for example, that -- the Department of Interior would be the Secretary, and if the -- if Mr. Babbitt decided that it would be his chief of staff or his general counsel or the Under Secretary, that would be up to Mr. Babbitt. But we tried to keep it to two passes per agency or department of the executive branch.
Q So each --
A Unfortunately, it didn't always work that way.
Q Each agency was generally given two hard passes into the White House complex?
A Yes. That was so that they could come to Cabinet meetings. And the idea was if the Under Secretary had it, and the Cabinet Secretary couldn't come, that the person wouldn't be slowed down to come to the Cabinet meeting.
Q But Mr. Shapiro wasn't attending Cabinet meetings; is that true?
A I don't have any knowledge of that.
Q Well, this letter says that he -- it takes him repeatedly to meetings in the OEOB and occasionally to the White House, and that he had no fewer than 14 meetings within the White House gates over the past month.
Did you ever ask if any legal counsel, since they didn't have a general counsel in the FBI, had ever had a hard pass before?
A As I said, it wouldn't be up to me. I mean, as I recall it, and again I don't have a file in front of me, I assume Mr. Shapiro has a file and has paperwork in it that -- and if you have it and can refresh my memory, I would be happy to respond to it, but it probably has other documents other than just that one letter about him getting a pass.
Q Do you know why Mr. Freeh sent the letter to you to get Mr. Shapiro a hard pass?
A Perhaps Mr. Freeh knew that White House passes was part of my responsibility; perhaps his secretary, who I think I had conversations with, and I think I mentioned this earlier, about his detail, his security detail, may have called me as well.
Q Do you recall if you kicked this upstairs to find out if it was appropriate for the general counsel of the FBI to have a hard pass into the White House?
A I'm not trying to be argumentative or unhelpful. I just don't have the file, so you would be asking me to guess.
Q But you have no recollection independent of that event?
A That's correct.
Mr. Turk. Can we take a quick 5-minute break?
Ms. Olson. Sure.
[Recess from 3:50 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.]
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Okay. We are back up on the record after a brief break.
Mr. Livingstone, we got some documents which talk about -- I think there's a memorandum from May of '93, where Mr. Kennedy is requesting you to receive a compartmented clearance. And I think -- did you request compartmented clearances for other individuals who worked for you in your office?
A The procedure for -- you are speaking about SCI clearances?
Q Yes.
A The procedure was that individual offices would call us, and counsel would determine -- ascertain as to whether or not the individual had a need for compartmented clearances, and our office would be directed to make sure that the people had the appropriate background investigation.
Q But I am asking about the people that worked for you directly in the White House Office of Personnel Security. Did you request compartmented clearances for Lisa Wetzl and Ed Hughes?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Okay. Were you aware of anyone below the Director that ever had CIA compartmented clearances at that level before?
A I had no knowledge.
Q What was your basis for asking them to have that clearance?
A Well, it's a fairly straightforward and short answer. We had a list of individuals at the White House who had compartmented clearance, and I was instructed that anyone handling the list or who had access to it would need to have compartmented clearance.
Q So based upon the fact that you felt they needed to handle a list, you requested them to have a compartmented clearance?
A No, ma'am. I think what I stated was that I was told that anyone that handled the CIA's segmented compartmented information list needed to have that SCI clearance for that.
Please understand that just because you have SCI clearance doesn't mean you have clearance to look at various programs. It only clears you for a specific program. That's what the word "segmented" in this particular case means. And in this case it would be just to review the documents and update them and maintain them.
Q And you felt as though Lisa Wetzl and Ed Hughes, I believe Jonathan Denbo, needed to have compartmented clearances for that?
Mr. Turk. Well, you keep asking this question as if this is Mr. Livingstone's, you know, personal decision. I think he twice now has stated that he was instructed that anyone who had access to the list of people who had that level of clearance also needed that level of clearance. So I don't believe that --
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Did you give them access to that list?
A Once they were properly cleared.
Q And you believe there was a need for them to have access to that list?
A Yes, because I had wanted them to maintain the list. When people -- by way of explanation, sir, ma'am, when people depart, part of our responsibility in the checkout process is if someone had segmented compartmented clearance, that they would sign a debriefing form acknowledging their responsibility to the U.S. Government that they would not divulge any information given to them when they had this clearance. And I -- as part of the checkout process, either Lisa or Ed or Jonathan would do that.
Q How old was Lisa Wetzl when she received her compartmented clearance at the CIA?
A I don't know.
Q Was she under 25?
A I don't know. I don't know how old Lisa Wetzl is now.
Mr. Turk. Is that relevant how old she is, Ms. Olson? Wouldn't a better question be how intelligent, how competent, how responsible she is? Are you suggesting that a woman who is under 25 years old is not responsible enough to handle these kinds of matters?
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Did Ms. --
Mr. Turk. Is that the implication of your question? I think if it is, it is totally inappropriate.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Did Ms. Wetzl tell you that this was her first job that she had ever had --
A I don't think she ever said this was her first job she ever had.
Q -- in a thank you note when she left?
I don't have it with me, but I believe she wrote you a thank you note when she left that this was her first job.
A If the purpose of the question is to ask about age, I can tell you in the information given to me by the CIA, nowhere does it say a person must be X age in order to get this clearance. It talks about background. It talks about the CIA's need to review the background, whether it was done by the FBI or some other external agency, and a need to know, and that is strictly what it is, a need to know.
And I have tried to tell you several times now is that she had a need to know, based on that she would be handling the form and checking these people out and signing the nondisclosure agreement that you enter into with the U.S. Government when you are given such a clearance.
Q But did you make the request for them to get the CIA clearance?
A I have said that several times. Yes.
Q Okay. Do you know if this was Mrs. Wetzl's first job out of college to come and intern for you in your office and then subsequently to come full time?
A Yes, ma'am, I believe that's correct.
Q Okay. And I believe Mr. Denbo also?
A Mr. Denbo also what?
Q Was that his first position that he had held?
Mr. Turk. First position that he had held?
Ms. Olson. First job.
Mr. Turk. Ever in his life, his first job in his life?
Ms. Olson. Obviously not from being a teenager, but after finishing school.
The Witness. I think he worked for a restaurant prior to coming to work for me.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q And he -- you asked for a CIA compartmented clearance for him?
A Again, based on his need to know, a demonstrated need to know, and his clearance being done, adjudicated by the FBI and the CIA, when they awarded him the clearance.
Q They adjudicated?
A Yes, the CIA would come in and read the file.
Q Based upon your request for them to have the clearance?
A Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Turk. Did the --
The Witness. Actually, the request came -- be precise, and thank you for asking that -- the request came from the appropriate counsel.
Mr. Turk. Did either the FBI or the CIA hesitate in any way in granting them the clearance?
The Witness. No, never.
Ms. Olson. No, and I --
Mr. Turk. Were they concerned?
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, if I can ask questions. I am not claiming they had any hesitation whatsoever.
Mr. Turk. Did either the FBI or the CIA suggest at any time that the age of Ms. Wetzl was a matter of concern to them as to whether she could handle the responsibilities of that job?
The Witness. No. And I think it's important to reiterate for the record, Ms. Olson, that the only documents that I am aware that they looked at were the lists of -- I mean, that would even remotely be in our office from the list of all people that had the clearance --
Mr. Kanjorski. May I just ask the question, again, is this something that's germane to information received after July 17th?
Ms. Olson. Yes, it is, and I will tie it up.
Mr. Kanjorski. Please, can we get to the tie-up so I understand? I really don't want to hear whether a person --
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Your attorney has asked if the CIA made any -- raised any issues about their age. Did they raise any issues with you about Lisa Wetzl?
A I don't recall.
Q Other than her age?
A I don't recall.
Q You have no recollection whether they raised any problems in Ms. Wetzl's background investigation?
A I don't know if they talked to me or Mr. Kennedy.
Q Are you aware of problems being raised about Ms. Wetzl's background?
A I remember -- I am trying to be precise. Actually, no, I don't remember a discussion in regards to the CIA and Ms. Wetzl's background.
Q There was a reinquiry, a limited inquiry, done of Ms. Wetzl. Do you recall that?
A I sure do.
Q Can you please tell us the circumstances under which Ms. Wetzl had a limited inquiry performed? I believe it was in September of 1995.
A I don't know, but I do know that a limited inquiry was done while I was the director.
Q Can you tell us why you asked for a limited inquiry to be done on Ms. Wetzl back in -- let me give you the exact date. I guess in April of 1995.
A Yeah, I would be happy to.
Mr. Turk. Is this going to get into confidential information about Ms. Wetzl's background?
[Witness conferring with his attorney.]
Mr. Turk. How can we deal with this issue -- you know, what I don't want to do is I don't want to have my client put in a position where you are going to ask him a question that he can't answer, and then you argue that he hasn't -- you know, despite the 90 hours plus, that he hasn't been cooperative.
What I am concerned about, though, is your line of questioning that seeks to get into background information about Lisa Wetzl.
Ms. Olson. Maybe I can guide him through it then more carefully. And I will put a document in the record that will alleviate some concerns.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Lisa Wetzl had a regular background investigation done when she came into the White House; is that true?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And I think the documents provided by Department of Justice, that she had it back -- the results were on September 3rd, 1993, of her background investigation?
A Okay. I don't know, but that sounds about right.
Q And then in April of 1995, you requested a limited inquiry?
A Yes.
Q And I will put this letter in the record. Mr. Shapiro wrote a letter to Chairman Clinger, which basically said that the limited inquiry focused on a discrepancy in her background.
A That's correct.
Q And it had to do with, as Mr. Shapiro put, the discrepancy was regarding drug usage. This is 2 years after her background investigation is completed, and she has been working in the office, and then in April of 1995 a discrepancy is discovered.
If she was cleared in September of 1993, can you just describe why in April of '95 a discrepancy was discovered?
A I would ask my attorney to see if we can go off the record for a moment to ask a question of counsel, because I am concerned that once this information is entered into the record, then people's reputations are destroyed.
Mr. Kanjorski. I want to get in here. We are dealing with an awful lot of people here who can have their lives ruined --
The Witness. Really.
Mr. Kanjorski. -- by the fact that this deposition is going to become public. If there's something terribly germane to the line of this question, I am not aware of it, but it's -- it's very possible that there is because I am not doing the investigation. Counsel is.
Is there any way that we could go off record and have -- I think we have representation of the Majority and Minority here. Let's hear what the question is so we don't ruin somebody's life for 40 years on something that has happened 6 weeks before an election and will be unimportant after the election.
Ms. Olson. Let's go off the record to discuss this, and I would like to tie it up.
[Off the record discussion from 4:15 to 4:30.]
Mr. Turk. I would like to make a pertinency objection to this line of questioning, and I believe it puts my client in an untenable position in the guise or in the pretext of claiming that this is somehow related to the Travel Office investigation. To ask my client to disclose confidential information concerning anyone I don't believe is appropriate, and I request that rather than pursue this line of inquiry, we wait until we get a ruling by the Chairman in consultation with the Ranking Minority.
Mr. Mica. I would be glad to ask a couple of questions, if I may, without using --
Mr. Turk. But if in asking the questions you will put onto the record --
Mr. Mica. I don't have to use --
Mr. Turk. -- the allegations that will be damaging to someone, I hope that you would reserve doing so until such time as we can get a ruling.
Mr. Waxman. Let's put this issue aside and go on to other questions so we can complete the other issues that you want to pursue, unless this is the last issue you want to pursue.
Ms. Olson. No, it is not.
Mr. Mica. What would you like to do? I will be glad to ask questions, but I would like to come back so I can talk about specifics.
Mr. Waxman. Does Ms. Olson have further questions?
Ms. Olson. Yes, I do have further questions.
Mr. Mica. Go ahead, and then we can put the whole matter on the record.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Okay. Mr. Burton had asked you whether or not you ever told anyone in the White House that your mother knew either the First Lady or Mrs. Clinton, and you had said that you had not; is that correct?
A What I said is I don't recall ever talking about that.
Mr. Turk. Rather than do this, Ms. Olson, where you ask a question that says Congressman Burton asked you earlier today about this, and I believe you answered that, is that correct, I mean the record will reflect what the question was that Congressman Burton asked and what the answer was that Mr. Livingstone gave.
If you have an additional question --
Mr. Kanjorski. A direct question.
Mr. Turk. -- why don't you proceed with that.
Ms. Olson. I do. I am getting into the topic of giving your client the benefit of what I am following up on.
Mr. Turk. Fine.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Do you have any information or knowledge of Bill Kennedy telling anyone else in the White House that Mrs. Clinton, or the First Lady, wanted you to have a job at the White House?
A No, ma'am.
Q Do you know if anyone ever communicated that information to Bill Kennedy?
A I don't have any way of knowing that.
Mr. Turk. I believe this was all covered at the hearing before the House in June of this year, when Mr. Kennedy was present and answered the questions on it.
Ms. Olson. We have since taken depositions of individuals who have made statements under oath, and it was covered with Mr. Kennedy, but we also had the agents who have now gone under oath and answered questions.
Mr. Turk. And those -- that testimony was taken after what? Mr. Sculimbrene?
Ms. Olson. Mr. Sculimbrene as well as Mr. Aldrich both went in --
Mr. Kanjorski. Those are two reputable characters.
Ms. Olson. -- and testified under oath in deposition before this committee.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Did you ever have any conversations with either Agents Sculimbrene or Aldrich in your vault concerning Mr. Foster?
A I don't recall. I do recall talking to one or both of those agents about Mr. Foster.
Q And do you recall if you discussed the security system in the White House, i.e., the passes and the security, the status of the security within the White House, with Mr. Aldrich or Mr. Sculimbrene?
A Yes.
Q Do you know if -- do you recall that you suggested any individual who could help resolve the problem?
A I don't understand the question.
Q We had testimony that there was a discussion in the vault -- and I take it that you don't recall the vault, but you do recall conversations -- and that you had said the only person who could resolve the problem was either the First Lady or Mrs. Clinton. Do you recall having that conversation?
Mr. Turk. I would like to object to the question as phrased. I don't believe there was any testimony by Mr. Livingstone about some -- the specific problem is you asked him if he ever talked about the security system at the White House with either Aldrich or Sculimbrene --
Ms. Olson. Right.
Mr. Turk. -- on any occasion, and he said, yeah.
Ms. Olson. And that --
Mr. Turk. Now you have asked him, you know, whether or not the answer to the question in a specific conversation was that Hillary Clinton could solve the problem.
Ms. Olson. I asked him if he ever suggested that someone could solve the problem.
Mr. Turk. What problem?
Ms. Olson. Your client said that he didn't understand the problems with the security system in the White House.
Mr. Kanjorski. What was the problem?
Mr. Turk. Who says that?
The Witness. I said I didn't understand the question.
Ms. Olson. Your client did not understand the question.
Mr. Turk. He didn't understand your question.
Ms. Olson. I was trying to be more specific by saying that the information that we received was that Mr. Livingstone told Mr. Aldrich in the vault, and whether Mr. Livingstone remembers the vault or not is not relevant.
Mr. Turk. Right.
Ms. Olson. Told him the only person who could resolve these security problems would be the First Lady, HRC, Mrs. Clinton, however he referred to her.
Mr. Turk. See, here is the problem with your question: You asked Mr. Livingstone if he ever discussed with Sculimbrene or Aldrich matters about the security system at the White House, and he says, yes. Now you have jumped to --
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Did you ever suggest that Mrs. Clinton or Hillary could solve those problems?
Mr. Turk. Could I finish my objection?
Ms. Olson. What is your objection?
Mr. Turk. You have not ever asked Mr. Livingstone if he ever had any discussions with them about problems with the security system or what particular problems you are talking about. What problems are Aldrich and Sculimbrene talking about?
Ms. Olson. I am asking him a very simple question.
Mr. Turk. No, you are not asking him a simple question.
Ms. Olson. If he ever said to Mr. Aldrich or Mr. Sculimbrene that the only person who could resolve the security problems in the White House was Mrs. Clinton, or he called her Hillary Clinton or the First Lady.
Mr. Turk. Okay. And before you answer that question, I would like you to clarify --
Mr. Kanjorski. What problems?
Mr. Turk. -- this matter: What problems? What problems?
Ms. Olson. Either Mr. Livingstone said that or not, Mr. Turk.
Mr. Turk. What problems did Gary Aldrich and Sculimbrene testify that Mr. Livingstone is talking about in this conversation?
Ms. Olson. It was characterized as security problems, that the system has got problems, that it is, quote, "broken."
Mr. Turk. Could I see their -- a transcript of their testimony?
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, no, you may not. It is not relevant. Either Mr. Livingstone recalls making that statement or not.
Mr. Turk. Making what statement?
Ms. Olson. It is a very simple question.
Mr. Turk. Making what statement?
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Did you ever say to Mr. Aldrich or Mr. Sculimbrene that you knew of a person who could resolve security problems in the White House, and that that would be the First Lady, or Hillary?
Mr. Turk. What security problems?
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Please don't take my exact words. Please, that you thought either the First Lady or Hillary could resolve security problems, whatever security problems that he might have mentioned or might not have mentioned. Maybe he didn't say this.
Mr. Turk. Do you have their testimony here?
Ms. Olson. No, I do not, and I don't think it's relevant. I am asking your client just a question. Did he say that? If he didn't say anything to that effect, then it's not relevant. If he did say that the First Lady or Hillary could resolve or solve security problems that were perceived to be in existence --
Mr. Turk. With all due respect, Ms. Olson, the kinds of questioning that you are now engaging in, I don't see how they could possibly aid the House's inquiry, but I consider them to be hopelessly unanswerable when you ask somebody to testify whether or not they ever said something.
Ms. Olson. He made a statement.
Mr. Turk. What statement?
Ms. Olson. He made a specific statement that he knew a person that could solve security problems was Hillary Clinton, or the First Lady. That's a pretty specific statement, Mr. Turk. Either your client said it or he did not say that.
Mr. Kanjorski. Well, you mean when the mouse ran into the fire alarm?
Mr. Waxman. You know, I think the -- I think it is a proper question. She is not saying that someone said this in another deposition or whether they said it or not is relevant. She is asking whether you said to these individuals that Hillary Clinton is the one who solved --
Ms. Olson. Maybe security problems didn't exist, but did you ever make that statement -- please don't take my exact words, but a statement to the effect that the only person who could resolve problems, security problems, of that type was either the First Lady, Hillary, however you characterized her?
Mr. Turk. Of that type? Once again, what type?
Ms. Olson. Security problems.
The Witness. I think I can answer your question, but not as you characterize it.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Okay.
A I think -- in the conversation that I remember with either Mr. Sculimbrene or Mr. Aldrich or both, was around the time when we were trying, to little avail, to get the administration to start issuing permanent passes. And I recall specifically talking to any number of people about having gone to Mr. McLarty and Dee Dee Myers, and I may have said the First Lady's Office, it would be perfectly consistent, trying to alert people that this is going to become an issue and that we needed to move on it.
So it -- to me it would be not inconsistent that I would have mentioned it.
Q Do you recall specifically pointing out that the only person who could solve the problem would be Mrs. Clinton?
A I don't recall that. But, again, I offer -- I offer that by way of explanation, that as I recall the conversation, the time and the issue, that I was trying to get -- to talk to anybody I could or any office I could about trying to convince counsel to focus on this.
Q Well, there's a difference between the First Lady's Office and Mrs. Clinton. Did you mention that she personally -- or that she would be the person who could solve those problems that you perceived to be existing?
A I just don't recall that, ma'am.
Mr. Turk. Pertinency. I would like to register a pertinency objection to that entire line.
Ms. Olson. Well, we have a statement in a background investigation file that has been denied by people, that is still in Mr. Livingstone's file, that says that he came highly recommended by Hillary Clinton. If Mr. Livingstone believes that Mrs. Clinton can solve problems, it establishes a relationship, and certainly since we have statements under oath by people.
Mr. Kanjorski. Would you suggest that Mrs. Clinton couldn't solve any problem in the White House?
Ms. Olson. I am making a statement neither one way or the other. Perhaps she can. What I am interested in is Mr. Livingstone's relationship and his information.
Mr. Turk. I should have made that pertinency objection.
The Witness. I had no personal relationship with Mrs. Clinton whatsoever.
Mr. Turk. Mr. Livingstone testified on numerous occasions that he had no personal relationship with Mrs. Clinton.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Did there come a time when you conferred top secret clearances on all the telephone operators?
Mr. Kanjorski. Ms. Olson, may I stop you right there?
Ms. Olson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kanjorski. This witness must have testified 10 times today that he doesn't confer anything, he doesn't confer Top Secret clearance. Why do you insist on asking a question like that? He makes a request, it seems to me, of the FBI, and is it a number 86 or something, and they then do background checks, and they confer.
Ms. Olson. That's not what I am asking, though. This is a Top Secret. They have already had their background.
Mr. Kanjorski. He doesn't confer Top Secret clearances.
The Witness. If I can answer the question, sir.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Yes, I think he can answer.
A We were told that by previous administrations that blue passholders had the equivalent of a Top Secret clearance on a need-to-know basis. At some point during the administration, we tried to tighten up that procedure because we realized that the previous administration's security procedures were wholly inadequate. They neither required the people that had these so-called clearances, as they called them, and you can, I am sure, get memos from Ms. Dannenhauer which will say that -- the "equivalent of" is how she used to describe them to other government agencies. In fact, it used to say, as you know, the White House does not grant security clearances. However, upon the completion of a background investigation, a person is considered to have the equivalent of. And I was told by career people that the White House didn't want to do that because previous administrations did not want their senior White House staff to be able to be sued by the government for leaking of classified information. I don't have any knowledge of that, whether that's true or not, but that certainly would be the case if you didn't have to sign a standard form 312, which is a nondisclosure agreement which you have to get.
At some point during the administration, we tried to tighten that up, and all blue passholders were awarded the Top Secret clearance based on that previous administration.
At some point close to my departure, we tried to tighten that up even further based on the President's initiatives to tighten up the intelligence community and access to classified materials, and everybody came to the agreement that we should do a strenuous review of people that actually had a need to know, and the clearance would be based on that, and that's what we were fighting for all along.
Q Insofar as the telephone operators were concerned, during the period where the Whitewater Committee was searching for the telephone number, the mystery telephone number, did you call up and confer or have the -- all the telephone operators sign the paperwork that they had Top Secret clearances?
A I really don't understand that question. I am sorry.
Q Did --
Mr. Waxman. What Whitewater committee is that?
Ms. Olson. The Whitewater telephone number that no one could find that the First Lady -- the mystery number that wound up being Bill Burton's telephone call. We have testimony --
Mr. Turk. I would like to register a pertinency objection to this line of inquiry.
Ms. Olson. I assumed. Top Secret clearances -- I will connect it up. There has been testimony that Craig Livingstone gave Top Secret clearances to telephone operators during a period where a committee was searching for a phone number, and that these operators called the FBI agents and felt as though they were given these clearances to shut them up and that it came from Mr. Livingstone. If, in fact, that is true, if Mr. Livingstone was, in fact, giving clearances to stop a committee from getting information, that is relevant to a cover-up, which has been a topic of this investigation, which has been something the Chairman has looked at and would go to, further, that Mr. Livingstone was helping perpetuate a cover-up.
Mr. Kanjorski. Let me get something on the record. Do you give clearances, Mr. Livingstone?
The Witness. I can answer that question. I absolutely did nothing to prevent, stop, stymie, intimidate by giving those people clearances. I don't even know that I had personal knowledge that they were looking for the phone number at the time, period.
Mr. Kanjorski. Mr. Livingstone, I asked you a question.
The Witness. I am sorry.
Mr. Kanjorski. Did you give clearances?
The Witness. Our office issued clearances based on a completion.
Mr. Kanjorski. Do you offer types of access or do you impart to somebody in the CIA clearance?
The Witness. No, sir. The CIA issues their own clearances.
Mr. Kanjorski. The FBI issues its clearances?
The Witness. The FBI isn't involved in the clearance process.
Mr. Kanjorski. What clearances are you talking about? So that we know for the record what you are talking about, what clearance?
The Witness. In previous White Houses, at least that I know of --
Mr. Turk. Prior administrations.
The Witness. The prior administration, as I said, did not issue formal clearances.
Mr. Turk. The Congressman was interested in knowing what clearances you are talking about.
Ms. Olson. Top Secret.
The Witness. Access to Secret or Top Secret material.
Mr. Kanjorski. You can issue that of your own volition?
The Witness. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kanjorski. Without a CIA check or without an FBI check?
Ms. Olson. Well, the FBI has been done, the background investigation, but then the actual clearance is, if I --
Mr. Kanjorski. You can walk up to a telephone operator and give her a CIA clearance?
The Witness. No, sir.
Ms. Olson. No.
The Witness. The CIA will do that.
Ms. Olson. That is not Top Secret.
Mr. Kanjorski. What kind of clearance can you give her?
The Witness. Access to classified material.
Ms. Olson. Which would be Top Secret.
The Witness. Through Top Secret.
Mr. Waxman. Would you do that without an FBI background report?
The Witness. No, or its equivalent.
Ms. Olson. Which the operators already had the background completed.
The Witness. But I don't understand why that would stymie the issue that you brought up.
Mr. Waxman. You said you could give them the Top Secret clearance with an FBI background check or its equivalent. Did you do that with the telephone operators?
The Witness. Well, without the records in front of me, I am not sure, but I believe that's correct.
Mr. Waxman. That you did?
The Witness. That I?
Mr. Waxman. You did give the telephone operators security clearance?
The Witness. Yes, all people that had blue passes.
Mr. Turk. Why?
The Witness. Because that was the previous policy for the previous administration.
Mr. Mica. Continue the line of questioning.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q You weren't aware that this was during the period where they were searching for the Whitewater -- the number, the mystery number, that the First Lady called?
A No.
Q Okay. Did you ever request any reinvestigations out of order on the White House residence staff?
A I don't know.
Mr. Turk. What does that mean?
Ms. Olson. I will lay a foundation.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Normally people are reinvestigated every 5 years. That's just normal. And your office, I believe, takes care of when that time is up; is that correct? They keep track?
A For the staff, that would come into our responsibility.
Q So every 5 years it's your responsibility or your staff's responsibility to notify that it's time for a reinvestigation?
A It's actually about every 4 years, but within that time period.
Q It's less than 5.
Are you aware of, you or any of your staff, requesting that background investigations be done on individuals before the normal time?
A I don't recall. I know in previous events I have been questioned about this. I don't know if I have a recollection that's independent of the questions that I have been asked on this subject before or that I have a recollection based on the discussions.
As I recall, it's possible that with some of the residence employees that we did them prior to their 5-year update, but I don't know -- have any particular definite knowledge of that.
Q Do you know why residence employees would be done before the regular time for their reinvestigation, any reason why?
A I don't know any particular reason, although I certainly suspect that if there was an appropriate reason to do it, that we would do it.
Q Were you ever given any appropriate reason to do it?
A I don't recall.
Mr. Mica. Was there a new form devised for the White House residence employees?
The Witness. I am sorry. A new form?
Mr. Mica. A form that hasn't previously been used that was devised specifically for that category of employee?
The Witness. No.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q In late 1993, there were -- or in 1993 there were obviously events that occurred that became public in the residence. And there were certain --
Mr. Kanjorski. What events?
Ms. Olson. Leaks of events. Well, we had a leak of a purported lamp-throwing by the First Lady.
Mr. Kanjorski. No, no. You stated that sometime in 1993 events occurred. Do you have any witnesses -- testimony of facts to those events?
Mr. Kanjorski. Other than David Watkins' memo about the lamp-throwing incident, that there would be hell to pay if he didn't follow, that's one document.
Mr. Waxman. You want to know if he knows about the lamp-throwing incident?
Ms. Olson. I want to know if he, as a result of information that became public, did he -- or did he participate in having those individuals reinvestigated at the time?
Mr. Kanjorski. Do we have Mr. Watkins' report that I have never seen anyone substantiate the lamp-throwing? I would like that substantiated.
Mr. Mica. He is the one that brought it up at our hearing.
Mr. Kanjorski. Let's see his testimony.
Mr. Mica. Under my questioning, I believe.
Ms. Olson. The soul-cleansing memo.
Mr. Kanjorski. He says absolutely that he knows that happened?
Mr. Mica. No, he referred to the incident.
Mr. Kanjorski. He said referring to stories that were in the newspaper, and that's exactly what you people are doing.
Ms. Olson. The lamp-throwing incident, and there would be hell to pay.
Mr. Kanjorski. Does he say he has independent evidence of a lamp-throwing incident?
Ms. Olson. He discusses the leak of the incident.
Mr. Kanjorski. He discusses a leak that -- what happens is somebody creates a story in the newspaper, and then somebody discusses the story in the newspaper, and then you take that as fact that that happened. I mean, it's very important that we know if, in fact, that happened. If you have any evidence of that happening, I would like to know as a Member of the committee, because I am just a curious son of a gun, I would like to find out myself.
Ms. Olson. We can ask the witness.
Mr. Kanjorski. If you are continuing this myth by putting a question that makes that a certainty or an assumption of fact, you are now clothing that with certainty, and you don't know that. If you know that, let us know what it is. If not, say "the alleged," say "the reported," say something that indicates for this record that you have no proof, you are merely reiterating what you read in the press.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q For purposes of this deposition, the alleged lamp-throwing event that was reported to the press, did you ever or were you aware of reinvestigations out of order on residence staff that was done in late 1993, early '94?
Mr. Waxman. Connected to that incident, purported incident?
Ms. Olson. Just reinvestigation. I am giving him a time frame. He asked -- there's vagueness going on. There was a lot of events reported in the press that was going on, truthful or not, in the residence, and I am asking Mr. Livingstone if he knows of reinvestigations done out of sequence on the residence staff in that time frame.
Mr. Turk. Well, I think you already asked him that, and he said that he didn't have any recollection of that having happened, but that, you know, if it did happen, it would happen for a good reason. Then you say, now, do you have any recollection of it happening? You are trying to refresh his recollection?
Mr. Kanjorski. Let me go to something now.
Ms. Olson. I would like him to answer, if this is not refreshing his recollection --
Mr. Kanjorski. Let me go to something. Make all the assumptions that they had a fight, the President and the First Lady. What is the germaneness of that question to this witness?
Ms. Olson. Because if Mr. Livingstone, as head of this office, is doing reinvestigations for the political purposes of the First Family in order to find out --
Mr. Kanjorski. That is not political purposes. I think if, in fact, that appeared in the newspaper, I would expect the Personnel Security man to find out.
Ms. Olson. To have the FBI investigate people in the residence staff and have reinvestigations by the FBI?
Mr. Kanjorski. If people in the residence staff are making assertions against the President and his wife, when we have ushers who testified that that couldn't have happened without their knowing it.
Ms. Olson. No one knows where it came from.
Mr. Waxman. I don't think if -- do you know of reinvestigations of White House staff people?
Ms. Olson. Residence staff out of order.
Mr. Waxman. Residence staff people?
The Witness. As I testified, I do not recall whether or not the residence staff were done out of order.
I would like to respond to the Congressman's question about a special form.
There is a form which is called the personal data statement. That was not designed for the residence staff, sir, if, in fact, that's the form you are referring to, and I just wanted to point that out.
Mr. Mica. There was a form that I presented in the hearing that had been crossed out, that had your name on it, that was designed or redesigned to give to career or long-term White House employees, and that's the form I was talking about.
The Witness. Actually, sir, to help make the record a little more precise, that form was developed for all employees. At some point in the administration, the administration decided that it was inappropriate to give that form to career employees, and that practice stopped at some point during the administration.
Mr. Mica. But there was a form, and I think you revised the form, and it was submitted to some of the career employees, is that not correct, before this was withdrawn?
The Witness. I think that's possible, but I don't -- you know, without this stuff right in front of me --
Mr. Mica. Right. I presented that at the hearing.
The Witness. To be completely forthright, I believe that that's possible because we had a discussion at our office that we didn't think it was right because career people were saying -- because one of the questions on it said, what is your political affiliation? And we felt if they are already employees of the government, that it was unfair for this administration to presume to ask that, and at some point counsel said that's absolutely right, or we shouldn't have that to go to career employees, and we stopped that practice.
Mr. Mica. I passed that to our subcommittee staff, and they felt that that was not an appropriate question to be on a form for career employees.
The Witness. Yes, sir, and the White House agrees with you.
Mr. Mica. That practice was stopped?
The Witness. Yes, sir.
Ms. Olson. I think it was given to individuals when they were reinvestigated also. All individuals got it.
I have a document I have marked as Deposition Exhibit Number 21, CGE 53687, dated January 7th, 1994. It is from the FBI SPIN unit, and it is to Mari Anderson, who I believe worked for you, concerning individuals who had been -- whose background investigations were requested out of date.
[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 21
was marked for identification.]
BY MS. OLSON:
Q I ask you if you recognize that document?
A No, ma'am, I don't recognize this document.
Q Do you recognize the individuals that are named there? Who is Pearlena Blake, Janet Virginia Bowen, Chris Emery, Brian Rock and I guess Ivaniz Silva?
A If Mr. Emery is the same Emery that used to work at the residence, I recognize his name.
Q As being a person on the residence staff?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Were you aware that his -- that a request was sent to the FBI to have him reinvestigated, and that the FBI sent it back and said that it was not an appropriate time?
A No. This is the first time that I recall seeing this document.
Q Okay. I am just asking, outside of the document, generally, if that refreshes your recollection of requesting any background investigation -- any background reinvestigations out of date?
A Well, as I stated earlier, I believe that there's a possibility on the residence staff that we ordered some of them early. When we first started the process, I think we did it by office.
Q But this is January of 1994. You have been in office a year.
A I don't -- I think we started the reinvestigations in that fall to that January. I mean, I think that's when we started most of them, if I recall.
Q This was so early the FBI refused to do it until they had further requests.
A Okay.
Q Do you specifically recall being informed of doing residence staff, not just early, but really out of date where the FBI wouldn't even accept it?
A No, ma'am. I mean, do you have a memo from me saying that, please do them after this memo?
Q Did Mari Anderson report to you?
A Yes.
Q And you have no recollection of asking her to send those over?
A No.
Q Did you have any discussion, or did anyone ask you to have Mari Anderson perform reinvestigations out of date for these individuals?
A I just don't have a recollection of this. I am sorry.
Q I do want to make this a part of the record since earlier we had a discussion about the -- Mr. Marin in an action which you didn't recognize his name. And I believe Mr. Kanjorski had asked if the document -- if it was a public filing. One of our staff did go to the courthouse. It is a public filing, and I am going to make this as Deposition Exhibit No. 22 and just ask if this refreshes your recollection. It is an order by the judge.
Mr. Waxman. Before it is made a part of the record, are these the documents you used earlier in the day?
Ms. Olson. No. This is a document we have just received from the court. It is an order for the judge so that the complaint be sent to Craig Livingstone, Director of the White House Personnel Security Office, and it is dated June 21st, 1996.
[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 22
was marked for identification.]
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Do you recall receiving that?
A Well, I don't think I was at the White House.
Q Do you recall ever receiving that document?
A No.
Q Or being notified --
A No.
Q -- of such a document?
A No.
Q And if you didn't receive it at the White House, you have never received that notice?
A No, I wasn't trying to be clever or anything. I was just talking about when I left. No, I don't believe I have ever seen this document, nor am I aware of the lawsuit. I don't even know what the proper format for being notified would be. Are you served like a subpoena, or do they contact your attorney? I know that no one has approached me and said, here is a lawsuit.
Q Well, that document was an order from the judge to personally notify you back on June 21st.
A I didn't mean to ask you a question. I was just trying to be helpful.
RPTS COLCHICO
DCMN GALLACHER
Mr. Waxman. It doesn't mean the order was followed through. It doesn't mean you ever received it or -- it doesn't mean it was ever sent.
The Witness. Okay. That's what I was asking.
Mr. Waxman. The only question you can answer is whether you ever saw it or received it.
The Witness. That's correct, sir. I have not.
Mr. Waxman. Do you have additional questions?
Ms. Olson. Yes, sir, I do.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Do you remember an intern who worked in the White House named Gina Gibson, I think from May to July of 1994?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And do you recall taking her on a White House tour, or not a tour, probably taking her around the White House to show her where the various offices were?
A I don't recall taking Ms. Gibson, but in the effort of trying to be helpful it was my practice when young people came to work for me at the White House, a common complaint from interns is that they never even got to see the West Wing or whatever, and I tried to, A, explain the function of the office to them, B, take them and show them where counsel's office was in the West Wing, introduce them to our supervisor, the associate counsel in the Executive Office Building, that type of thing.
Q And during that period of May to July '94, do you believe that Mrs. Clinton would recognize you on sight by face if she were to pass you in the hall, based upon your relationship with her?
A I believe Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Gore and Mr. Gore were very good at reading the badges that we all, unlike the people here, have to wear every day, and our names are prominently displayed, and I think they are both very good at noticing the names and saying hello to people. That's what I believe.
Q I had a couple of questions for just follow-up. We have gone through the files for the record and limited a lot -- limited a lot of the documents that we were going to ask about. One of these I am going to mark as Deposition Exhibit No. 23, CGE 48523. It is a memo from you to David Watkins on May 18th, 1994, and it is regarding a cellular phone.
[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 23
was marked for identification.]
BY MS. OLSON:
Q In that document, you state that you need a cellular phone because your duties -- I believe the statement is that your duties now require you -- I am sorry, Mr. Turk. Could I have that? -- your duties now require that you be on call during the weekends to assist the President in whatever manner necessary.
Do you recall writing that memo?
A Yes. It's an easy one to answer. I am quite happy to answer.
Q Can you just describe what duties --
Mr. Waxman. Before you do that, were you successful in getting a phone as a result of that?
The Witness. It didn't work. It didn't work.
Mr. Turk. I tried that in my firm, too. It didn't work.
The Witness. No. I -- up until that time, I had a personal cell phone but I couldn't afford it any longer and I from time to time would help with Mr. Clinton when he went to play golf or something like that with advance work.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q That was part of the advance work you also did after you were director in the White House Office of Personnel Security?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Do you recall doing an advance trip to Boston with the President?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And was that after you were director in the Office of Personnel Security?
A Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Turk. Pertinence.
Ms. Olson. The duties of Mr. Livingstone while at the White House, operating this office, this committee is looking at the director of the White House Office of Personnel Security and his activities, which this director's activities included advance work for the President where he was absent from the office during periods of time where there were detailees, as well as young individuals, albeit perhaps responsible, as you have said.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Was Ms. Wetzl left in charge of the office when you were gone, after she was promoted?
A I don't know.
Q Did you ever put Ms. Wetzl in charge of the office while you were on an advance trip?
A Ms. Wetzl would have been my executive assistant when I wasn't in the office, when I would go to the washroom, have lunch or not be in the complex; Ms. Wetzl would be the next person that would be responsible for the office.
Q So if you were out of the office, she would have been in charge of the office during your absence?
A No. She would be responsible for the office. If there were any duties that I needed to perform, sign off on, I would do them. She would wait for my return or confer with me.
Mr. Mica. Did you get into his relationship with Ms. Wetzl?
Mr. Kanjorski. You did get the phone or didn't get the phone?
Mr. Turk. Didn't get the phone.
Mr. Kanjorski. I have to tell you a story.
Mr. Waxman. No. They have 25 minutes to go. Let them finish.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q I have a document which I am going to mark as Deposition Exhibit No. 24. It is a July 14th, 1994 memo -- I mean, I guess it's a letter that we received from Director Freeh to you, thanking you for pictures.
[Livingstone Deposition Exhibit No. 24
was marked for identification.]
BY MS. OLSON:
Q But I want to direct your attention to the bottom, which is a note that says a general thank you because of Fiske investigation into Vince Foster's safe inquiry. Can you just please tell us why Director Freeh is asking to have a general thank you sent to you?
Mr. Turk. Before -- before you answer that, let me --
The Witness. I have never seen this before.
Mr. Turk. Let me first say that this document is a photocopy of an unsigned letter on blank stationery. And there's no indication from this document that it was ever sent to anybody.
Ms. Olson. Except for that it says "approved" and in the space of "Director," and I assume that is Director Louis Freeh, it has an X.
Mr. Turk. Well, if you assume, that's fine. You can assume anything you want to.
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, director -- the only director at the FBI in July of 1994 was Louis Freeh.
Mr. Turk. Ms. Olson, I simply am noting for the record that this is an unsigned draft letter on blank stationery and there's no indication at all that it was ever even sent to Mr. Livingstone. Maybe you could establish a foundation the way a lawyer normally does in examining a witness and ask if he ever received such a letter.
Ms. Olson. The final letter, I assume, would not have a note that -- and this is to Mr. Freeh.
Mr. Kanjorski. Ms. Olson, lawyers aren't supposed to assume. Lawyers are supposed to get facts.
Mr. Turk. Ask questions.
Ms. Olson. Mr. Kanjorski, this final letter would not have the note which says --
Mr. Kanjorski. Don't --
Ms. Olson. It is private information.
Mr. Kanjorski. You mean, I in my office could never have a letter and make a note on it and the letter never goes out? It's absolute that that letter went out as delivered?
Ms. Olson. The note appears to go to Mr. Freeh.
Mr. Turk. Appears to.
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, can I please get a statement out without you shaking your head and making disparaging remarks? I am trying to go very quickly.
The note says that Mr. Livingstone sent the Director two pictures from the swearing-in ceremony. That is a note at the bottom of this letter, which is why it is a draft.
Mr. Kanjorski. Who is the note to?
Ms. Olson. It is to Craig Livingstone. Both were framed, is what the note says. Then it says, a general thank you because of Fiske investigation into Vince Foster's safe inquiry.
Mr. Mica. Down at the bottom --
Ms. Olson. We spoke with Maggie Owens from the FBI.
Mr. Mica. Down at the bottom it says "approved" and there's an initial under it where it says "Director."
Ms. Olson. Maggie Owens says it did not go out with that note. If one reads that in context one would understand that that is a note for Director Freeh to explain what is going on, and if he approved such a letter, which is why there is an X with "approved" next to the Director's name.
My question merely went to Mr. Livingstone if he understands what kind or has any information about a general thank you because of Fiske investigation into Vince Foster's safe inquiry.
Mr. Waxman. I think the question ought to be did he ever receive the letter.
The Witness. This letter? No.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Okay. Do you have any information about anything that you did because of Fiske investigation into Vince Foster's safe inquiry?
Mr. Turk. Wait a minute. But wait a minute. Could you read back that question before you even try and answer it?
BY MS. OLSON:
Q I can read it back. Do you have any information about a thank you because of Fiske investigation into Vince Foster's safe inquiry? Does that have any meaning whatsoever to you?
A No, ma'am. I know for a fact that absolutely under no circumstances did I ever discuss my involvement into Mr. Fiske's inquiry with the Director of the FBI.
Q So you can shed no light whatsoever as to that statement?
A I have absolutely -- no. I know that I know I never talked to the FBI Director about the Fiske investigation.
Mr. Turk. This document doesn't bear any Bates stamp or control numbers. Where did you get it? Is this a document of any authenticity?
Ms. Olson. Yes, it is. It is an FBI document.
Mr. Turk. The FBI just produces documents to this committee without control numbers?
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, I am running out of time. If you would like us to finish --
Mr. Turk. You are the one that is putting these records -- you are the one who is putting documents in the public record, Ms. Olson.
Ms. Olson. Yes, I am. This is a very unusual statement.
Mr. Turk. You not only testify in your questions but you state what you are assuming about it. I believe I am entitled to ask you if you have any basis to believe whether this is even an authentic document. My client has never seen it before and I gather no one else has.
Mr. Waxman. You brought up a document. You asked Mr. Livingstone if he knows anything about it and he doesn't know anything about it. Let's move on.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Mr. Livingstone, you have said that you never discussed the Fiske inquiry with Director Freeh.
A Yes, ma'am.
Q That is a more limited answer than my question. My question is: Can you shed any light on why there would be a general or any kind of writing of a general thank you to you because of Fiske investigation into Vince Foster's safe inquiry?
A You would be asking me to guess and I am not going to do that.
Q I am asking you if you had any involvement. I am not asking if you spoke to Director Freeh about it.
Mr. Turk. Any involvement in what?
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Did you do anything regarding Director Freeh that would prompt a thank you to you?
Mr. Waxman. You are asking him to guess why somebody else might have thought.
Ms. Olson. If he took an action and did not tell Director Freeh -- I received an answer now that Mr. Livingstone didn't say anything to Director Freeh.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q Did you say anything to anyone else at the FBI concerning the Fiske investigation?
Mr. Waxman. I am going to object because your question has to be, does he know why somebody at the FBI, who may have written this letter, what they had in mind and how to interpret what they had in their mind? You asked him whether he received the letter. He has no knowledge of this letter. He has no -- had no conversation with Director Freeh.
Mr. Kanjorski. I would like to raise a further objection. Are you suggesting that what is said as a note here was written on the letter or typed on the letter?
Ms. Olson. No.
Mr. Mica. We don't --
Ms. Olson. My suggestion is that that note -- this is a draft that went to Director Freeh. Attached is the note for his approval, is that there would be -- Mr. Livingstone sent the Director two pictures from the swearing-in ceremony.
BY MS. OLSON:
Q I am assuming that is a true statement, that you sent the Director pictures from the swearing-in ceremony of Janet Reno?
A That I previously testified that I worked on, that would seem consistent but I don't have a recollection of it.
Q Then it says "both were framed." I assume you likely sent him pictures that were framed?
A I don't know if he framed them. I haven't been to his office.
Q The next statement is a general thank you because of Fiske investigation into Vince Foster's safe inquiry.
Mr. Kanjorski. Okay. And that's the note for the Director to know why he would be signing a thank you letter?
Mr. Waxman. That's the guess. That's the guess.
Mr. Kanjorski. At the best, the best guess would be -- clearly this wouldn't be part of the letter.
Mr. Waxman. This is another dry hole. If you have other questions, you have got a limited time.
Ms. Olson. I am asking the witness if he has knowledge. I have a very limited answer that he didn't speak to Director Freeh about the Fiske inquiry. I would like to know if he spoke to anyone else at the FBI.
Mr. Turk. Everything --
Ms. Olson. Or has any information.
Mr. Turk. Everything about this letter that you just indicated, I would like to point out, is a guess. You guess that this is a draft. You guess that it was sent to the Director.
Ms. Olson. No, it is not a guess.
Mr. Turk. You guess that it was approved. You guess what this note is on here. You guess all these things.
Ms. Olson. Mr. Turk, we spoke to Maggie Owens of the FBI. I will let Kristi put it on the record since she did it. It is not a guess. You are making a record on what you think you know.
Mr. Turk. No. I am talking about -- you are saying, I assume this, I assume that and nobody here has any of that knowledge.
Mr. Kanjorski. It's a guess. It says a general thank you because of, and that's whoever wrote this note, because of Fiske investigation into Vince Foster's safe inquiry. Who knows down there who wrote that or whether there's an explanation? And what does that have to do with Craig Livingstone. He didn't get that. He didn't know that those were the two thought reasons why the note was being sent.
Mr. Mica. They are answering all the questions.
Mr. Kanjorski. We are not answering the questions. That's a fact. This is --
Mr. Mica. We are asking him the questions.
The Witness. I answered them.
Mr. Turk. Mr. Livingstone has already answered the questions.
Mr. Mica. Why are you going on?
Mr. Waxman. I think we ought to move on because we have very limited time.
Let me just for the record note that we requested the Chairman of the committee to come here 45 minutes ago and he has not yet appeared.
Ms. Olson. The Chairman is not available.
Mr. Mica. They haven't been able to reach him.
Mr. Kanjorski. Can I ask why the Chairman isn't available?
Mr. Mica. I think he is downtown and not able to get back.
Mr. Waxman. Did he have a fund-raiser?
Mr. Mica. No, he is doing an interview.
Mr. Waxman. Let's move on.