Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122244548
label
FBI – Senate [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122244548
contentType
document
title
FBI – Senate [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Counsel to the President (Clinton Administration)
Jane Schaffner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122244548
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7408719-20061066F-013-003-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1194b0bd46d83826
ocrText
Case Number: 2006-1066-F.
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the Clinton Presidential
Library Staff.
Folder Title:
FBI - Senate [3]
Staff Office-Individual:
Counsel's Office-Sherburne, Jane
Original OA/ID Number:
CF 396
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
Stack:
21
2
10
2
V
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. list
FBI. [partial] (1 page)
06/27/1996
b(7)(C), b(7)(F), b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Counsel Office
Jane Sherburne
OA/Box Number: CF 396
FOLDER TITLE:
FBI - Senate [3]
2006-1066-F
vz3596
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA|
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would/constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
AUG-26 96 16:44 FROM: COUNSEL OFFICE
202-456-2632
TO: 913124251776
PAGE: 02
08/28/96 MON 18:51 FAX 2022281115
SENATE JUDICIARY
E
ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH, CHAIRMAN
STROM THURMOND. SOUTH CAROLINA
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Ja.. DELAWARE
ALAN K. BIMPSON. WYOMING
EDWARD M KENNEDY. MASSACHUSETTS
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA
PATTUCK J. LEAHY. VERMONT
ARLEN SPECTER, PENNSYL VANIA
HOWELL HEFLIN, ALABAMA
HANK BROWN. COLORADO
PAUL SIMON, ILLINOIS
PRED THOMPSON, TENNESSEE
HERBERT KOHL WISCONSIN
United States Senate
JON KVL. AHIZONA
DIANNE FEINBTEIN, CALIFORNIA
MIKE DEWINE, OHIO
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD. WISCONSIN
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
3PENCER ABRAHAM. MICHIGAN
MARE R. Describe Chief Councel
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-8275
MANUS COONEY. Staff Director and Senior Counsel
CVNTHIA C. HOGAN, Minority Chref Counsel
MAREN A. Roas, Minority Brew Director,
August 26, 1996
Ms. Jane C. Sherburne
Special Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. Sherburne:
In Manus Cooney's absence this week, I am responding to your August 23, 1996
letter to him. and your rejection of the protocol earlier conveyed to you. Although I have
not met or dealt with Jim Weber, please convey to him my congratulations on the birth of his
child.
I appreciate your interest in cooperating with Chairman Hatch's inquiry and that you
have assembled material responsive to his request. Such response is certainly long overdue,
the requests having been made on July 3 and July 23. As has been previously communicated
to you, WC are willing to take special steps to protect the security of documents you provide
us, including unusual limitations on access to documents and requiring designated Senate
staff to sign agreements under threat of sanctions. We are not prepared, however, to have the
Committee's procedures micromanaged as a condition of the receipt of documents to which
the Committee is entitled.
Accordingly, I have enclosed a revised protocol. It takes into account the concerns
which I understand you have expressed and which are reflected in your proposed protocol. I
am, of course, willing to explain the rationale for its terms, but I am not prepared to
negotiate further over those terms.
We are prepared to implement the enclosed protocol. Chairman Hatch believes
further delay in the White House's response to him is unacceptable. If we do not receive
responses to Chairman Hatch's request for material by 3 p.m. on August 30, 1996, you may
consider the enclosed protocol as withdrawn. The Committee will, instead, proceed to take
up the consideration of subpoenas for the requested material.
Sincerely,
mark R. Disler
Mark R. Disler
Chief Counsel
MRD:db
Enclosure
cc: Cynthia Hogan, Esq.
AUG-26 96 16:44 FROM: COUNSEL OFFICE
202-456-2632
T0:913124251776
PAGE: 03
08/26/98 MON 16:52 FAX 2022281115
SENATE JUDICIARY
X UUJ
PROTOCOLS FOR ACCESS TO, PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF, AND PUBLIC USE
AND DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE BY THE WHITE HOUSE IN rrs INQUIRY INTO WHITE HOUSE
REQUESTS FOR FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORTS AND RELATED
MATTERS.
1. ACCESS - Senate staff access to all documents submitted by the White House in response
to Committee requests dated July 3, 1996 and July 23, 1996 (the "Documents") will be
limited to Committee Staff designated by the Chairman and the Ranking Member, and one
(1) designated staff person from each Member of the Committee. No other staff for
Members of the Committee, nor any other Senate staff. may review the Documents without
the authorization of the Chairman. All designated staff shall agree to the conditions set forth
in this protocol and shall execute the attached confidentiality agreement.
2. CUSTODY - The Documents will be maintained at all times in a secure fashion. Only
staff designated pursuant to paragraph one (1) shall be permitted to review the Documents.
Copies of the Documents may be made by the Chairman's designated staff to facilitate
review by staff designated pursuant to paragraph one (1). All copies made for such review
will remain under the control of the Chairman. Designated staff may take notes, but may not
make copies of Documents, except as previously provided in this paragraph. or if such copies
are made for the purpose of public disclosure pursuant to this protocol, or for use by
designated staff or Senators in preparation for a hearing.
3. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE - Documents will be maintained in a "Committee confidential"
status and will not be publicly released, except as follows: (1) The Chairman shall have the
authority to decide whether, and how, Documents may be publicly disclosed. The Chairman
shall make such decisions after consultation with the Ranking Member. (2) Documents may
also be utilized, and introduced into the hearing record, at public hearings of the Committee.
No staff of the Committee shall disclose. in whole or in part or by way of summary, the
Documents subject to these protocols unless authorized by the Chairman in consultation with
the Ranking Member. This protocol does not preclude public disclosure of information
derived from other sources.
AUG-26 S6 16:44 FROM: COUNSEL OFFICE
202-456-2632
TO: 913124251776
PAGE 04
08/26/96 MUN 18:52 HAX 2022281115
SENATE JUDICIARY
guus
UNITED STATES SENATE
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE'S INQUIRY INTO THE WHITE HOUSE REQUESTS FOR FBI
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION SUMMARIES AND RELATED MATTERS.
I have read, understand, and initialed the attached document protocols. I will abide
by these protocols. I understand I will be subject to sanctions, including loss of pay or
removal from employment. if I disclose confidential information or Documents in violation
of these protocols.
Signature
Printed Name
Office
Date
AUG-26'96 16:44 FROM: COUNSEL OFFICE
202-456-2632
TO: 913124251776
PAGE: 05
08/28/96 MON 17:38 FAX 2022281115
SENATE JUDICIARY
g 002
ORRIN o. MATCH, UTAH, CHAIRMAN
5
a THURMOND. SOUTH CAROLINA
JOSEPH R. BIDEN. JR. DELAWARE
ALAN K. SIMPSON. WYOMING
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASSACHUSETTS
ES E. GRABSLEY, IOWA
PATRICK J. LEAHY, VERMONT
ARLEN SPECTER, PENNSYLVANIA
HOWELL HEFLIN, ALABAMA
BROWN. COLORADO
PAUL SIMON, ILLINOIS
FRED THOMPSON. TENNEBREE
HERBERT KOHL. WISCONSIN
Hnited States Senate
JON KVL ARIZONA
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA
DEWINE, OHIO
RUSSELL 0. FEINGOLD, WISCONSIN
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SPENCER ABRAHAM. MICHIGAN
Manu R. Dears, Chief Countries
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6275
MANUEL COONEY. Staff Director and Senior Countried
CVNTHM C. HORAN, Minority Chief Countri
KAREN A. Road, Minority Staff Director
August 26, 1996
The Honorable Leon Panetta
Chief of Staff to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Panetta:
As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating the circumstances
surrounding the White House's request for, and receipt and handling of the FBI background files
of a large number of individuals from former administrations. The Judiciary Committee has held
three hearings regarding this matter, and I plan to hold an additional hearing on this subject HM
executive
well as the White House's communications with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Department of Justice regarding these matters and its response to Congressional requests for
documents and information
I request that Mr. Jack Quinn, Counsel to the President, and Ms. Jane C. Sherburne,
Special Counsel to the President, appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September
5, 1996, to respond to questions regarding the White House's involvement in this matter. My
staff will contact them regarding the time and location of the hearing in the near future. Please
confirm that both Mr. Quinn and Ms. Sherburne will appear before the Committee at this hearing
by August 30, 1996. Please also advise me whether Mr. Quinn and Ms. Sherburne are willing
to be interviewed by Committee staff before the hearing. If so, my staff will arrange a mutually
agreeable time.
In addition, I request that the White House promptly provide the Committee with the
documents requested on July 3, and again on July 23, but which have yet to be produced.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please feel free to contact me or
have someone from your staff contact Mark Disler, Chief Counsel, at (202) 224-5225.
Sincerely,
Okrin Hatch
Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman
CC:
Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Member
we
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 6, 1996
BY FACSIMILE
Manus Cooney, Esq.
Staff Director & Senior Counsel
Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Manus:
Enclosed are proposed document protocols for your
consideration. We should be able to produce additional material
responsive to the Chairman's request early next week. It would
be useful if we could agree on protocols by that time. Please
give me (456-5116) or Jim Weber (456-2026) a call when you would
like to discuss them.
Sincerely Here yours,
Jane C. Sherburne
Special Counsel to the President
Enclosure
cc: Cynthia Hogan, Esq. (w/encl)
PROTOCOLS FOR ACCESS To, PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF, AND PUBLIC USE AND
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE IN ITS INQUIRY INTO THE WHITE HOUSE'S REQUESTS FOR FBI
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION SUMMARIES AND RELATED MATTERS.
1. DESIGNATION- All documents submitted to the Committee shall be
designated either as "confidential" or "confidential and
personal". The White House shall make the appropriate designation
in consultation with the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
All documents submitted to the Committee by the White House,
regardless of designation, shall be considered to be within the
confidential business of the Committee for purposes of Paragraph
5 of Rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Any staff
member who violates the confidentiality procedures of the
Committee shall be immediately subject to sanctions, including
removal from employment.
2. ACCESS - Senate staff access will be limited to designated
Committee investigative staff, and one (1) designated staff
person from each Member of the Committee. No other staff for
Members of the Committee, nor any other Senate staff may review
the materials without the prior written agreement of the Chairman
and Ranking Member. All designated staff shall, as a condition of
employment, agree to the conditions set forth in these protocols
and shall execute a confidentiality agreement consistent with
these protocols. (A form of that agreement is attached.)
3. CUSTODY - The documents will maintained at all times within
specially-designated, safe and secure rooms of the Committee
office space. Only staff designated pursuant to paragraph two (2)
shall be permitted to review the documents. Designated staff may
take notes, but may not make copies of documents, or remove them
from the secure office space.
4. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE - Documents will not be publicly released.
No Member or staff of the Committee shall disclose, in whole or
in part or by way of summary, the materials subject to these
protocols unless authorized by the Chairman with the concurrence
of the ranking Member.
Documents that are publicly available at the time of production
to the Committee, or which subsequently become publicly
available, or to which public access is provided, will no longer
be treated as within the scope of these protocols.
Documents identified as "confidential" may be introduced into the
hearing record at public hearings of the Committee on the subject
matter of this inquiry. Although any Member may refer to,
describe, or characterize the documents described as
"confidential and personal" at public hearings of the Committee
on the subjects of this inquiry, documents so designated will not
be made public by the Committee.
The White House will be available to discuss and consider
requests from the Majority or Minority to introduce into the
hearing record documents designated "confidential and personal"
if there is a compelling need shown for its public release at a
hearing.
UNITED STATES SENATE
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S INQUIRY INTO THE WHITE HOUSE
REQUESTS FOR FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION SUMMARIES AND
RELATED MATTERS.
I have read and understand the attached document protocols.
I will abide by those protocols and maintain the confidentiality
of all materials and information of which I become aware related
to the above referenced matter. I understand I will be subject to
sanctions, including removal from employment, if I disclose
confidential information or materials.
(Signature)
(Printed Name)
(Social Security #)
(Date)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 30, 1996
BY FACSIMILE
Manus Cooney, Esq.
Staff Director & Senior Counsel
Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Manus:
Thank you for your letter of July, 23 1996 confirming
and elaborating on the agreements and discussion from our July
11, 1996 meeting. I believe with the clarifications you have
provided we can move quickly to respond to many of the Chairman's
requests. As we explained in our meeting, however, the
Independent Counsel requested that we secure the Office of
Personnel Security and the room in which the Office of Records
Management maintains records archived from OPS. As a result,
many of the records that may be responsive to your requests have
been unavailable for review.
The Independent Counsel recently has permitted access
to the records in ORM and we have begun the process of reviewing
those records for material requested by the Chairman. Responsive
documents will be provided to you as soon as possible. However,
the documents in OPS remain unavailable to us.
With respect to the Chairman's requests for documents
related to the Personal Data Statement Questionnaire, you
misunderstood if you thought we were refusing to provide this
material without an explanation of the Committee's jurisdictional
interest. Rather, we asked you to articulate the basis for the
Senate Judiciary Committee's inquiry into the questions this
White House asks of its employees who serve entirely at the
pleasure of the President.
Mr. Chris Emery, who I assume you have in mind when you
refer to the premature updating of career employees' FBI
background investigations, was not a career employee. Rather, he
was an employee appointed under Title 3 of the United States
Code. Further, we understand that his reinvestigation was
requested in 1993 because records provided to the White House by
the FBI omitted information that Mr. Emery had been
reinvestigated in 1991. When this error was discovered, Mr.
Emery was not reinvestigated in 1993.
Manus Cooney, Esq.
July 30, 1996
Page 2
I apologize for any impression we may have left with
you that we would not provide documents to the Committee related
to the President's invocation of executive privilege over certain
documents subpoenaed by the House Government Reform and Oversight
Committee. Although we did ask that you explain the Committee's
jurisdiction to investigate White House compliance with a
subpoena issued by the other body of Congress, we already have
provided you with documents that describe the history of the
invocation. In addition, I am enclosing with this letter a
description we provided Chairman Clinger of the circumstances
under which we located and produced the Billy Dale FBI file and
related request to the FBI for Mr. Dale's previous reports.
Please let me know if you need anything further in connection
with this request.
Likewise, we have not refused to assist you in locating
potential witnesses. Indeed, we have been providing such
information and will continue to do so. However, you did agree
to provide a description of the subject matter about which you
intended to question these witnesses and the jurisdictional basis
for the particular inquiry.
Finally, we cannot retrieve e-mails spanning the time
period you have identified -- September 1993 through December
1995 -- in anything short of several months at a cost of well
over $200,000. At a minimum, we suggest that you identify the
weeks you consider a priority.
As you know, the Committee's requests for documents are
extensive. We already have provided a number of documents to the
Committee and we are diligently working to provide additional
responsive documents as soon as possible.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
Blue
Jane C. Sherburne
Special Counsel to the President
Enclosure
CC: Cynthia Hogan, Esq. (w/encl)
07/23/96 TUE 16:47 FAX 2022281115
SENATE JUDICIARY
002
ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH, CHAIRMAN
STROM THURMOND, SOUTH CAROLINA
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jn., DELAWARE
ALAN K SIMPSON, WYOMING
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASSACHUSETTS
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA
PATRICK J. LEAHY, VERMONT
ARLEN SPECTER, PENNSYLVANIA
HOWELL HEFLIN, ALABAMA
HANK BROWN, COLORADO
PAUL SIMON, ILLINOIS
FRED THOMPSON, TENNESSEE
HERBERT KOHL, WISCONSIN
United States Senate
JON KYL, ARIZONA
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA
MIKE DEWINE, OHIO
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, WISCONSIN
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SPENCER ABRAHAM, MICHIGAN
MARK R. DISLER, Chief Counsel
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6275
MANUS COONEY, Staff Director and Senior Counsel
CYNTHIA C. HOGAN, Minority Chief Counsel
KAREN A. Ross, Minority Staff Director
July 23, 1996
Ms. Jane Sherburne
Special Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Ms. Sherburne:
Chairman Orrin Hatch transmitted a letter to Chief of Staff Leon Panetta dated July 3, 1996
requesting information and documents related to the acquisition by the White House of personal
information and background reports on several hundred individuals. The letter requests these
documents be made available to the Senate Judiciary Committee no later than July 12, 1996. In an
attempt to accomodate your request for guidance, committee staff met with you and other
representatives of the White House on July 11, 1996. To date, only portions of Chairman Hatch's
request have been complied with. Hopefully, this letter can be of some assistance in your effort to
comply with his request.
At the outset, allow me to respond to your objections to questions (P), (Q) and (R) which relate
to the White House "Personal Data Statement Questionaire" and the assertion of executive privilege
over certain documents subpoenaed by the House of Representatives. It is your position that the White
House is under no obligation to provide the Committee with the documents requested in these
peenli
particular questions. The Chairman does not share your view. Rather, he believes the Committee has
arity
a legitimate interest in this material such that in the absence of an assertion of privilege the White
House must provide it. Accordingly, I trust the White House will either produce the responsive
interest
documents or indicate the basis on which it refuses to do SO.
As you know, the White House has acknowledged that FBI background files were improperly
obtained by the White House on an enormous number of individuals, many of whom were high
ranking officials from former Administrations and from the opposite political party of the President.
The number of files sought was apparently greater than 900, and we have received no assurance that
all improperly obtained files have been identified. For almost a month, executive privilege was
invoked over a document that eventually, when provided to Congress, led to the Administration's
disclosure of this massive invasion of privacy.
The improper obtaining of these files took place at the same time as the White House
apparently was updating some career employees' FBI prior background investigations prematurely and
seeking other sensitive information from these career employees that had never before been requested
of them and that the First Amendment arguably bars the White House from requesting. It also took
place at the same time as the White House had an unusually large backlog of uncleared appointees of
the new Administration whose FBI background investigations had apparently either not been initiated,
or not been fully adjudicated. Chairman Hatch is secking the requested material in order to assist
with the Committee's investigation of these matters. Among other grounds, the Committee's interest
07/23/96 TUE 16:47 FAX 2022281115
SENATE JUDICIARY
003
in these matters stems from its oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Justice and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and its legislative responsibilities with respect to civil liberties, government
information, and civil and criminal proceedings. In that regard, the Committee clearly has jurisdiction
to inquire whether the White House improperly invoked executive privilege in order to conceal the
request for and receipt of background summaries.
More specifically, the existing Executive Branch procedures for responding to Congressional
requests for information were implemented by President Reagan in 1982 and, according to White
House Counsel Jack Quinn, adopted by President Clinton (See, Letter from White House Counsel Jack
Quinn to Congressman Williiam Clinger, May 8, 1996, page 5). These procedures provide that it is
the policy of the Executive Branch to "comply with Congresional requests for information to the
fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch."
(Presidential Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, November 4, 1982 )
It has long been the Executive Branch's legal position that it has a legal obligation to provide
information which Congress requests in appropriate instances. 5 Op. Off. Leg. Coun. 27 (1981); 4B
Op. Off. Leg. Coun, 627 (1980). Accordingly, it is my reading that, absent the assertion of a privilege
or some other legal justification, the White House is obligated to provide the documents requested by
here
the Committee.
refused to
provde
anything
You have also refused to provide these documents to the committee citing the Judiciary
Committee's lack of jurisdcition over these particular issues. Indeed, the White House Counsel's
Office recently notified Committee staff that it would not cooperate in providing White House
witnesses for interviews until "jurisdictional justification" for individual witnesses is satisfied.
Committee staff has previously provided your office with a list of possible Executive Branch
witnesses. The "jurisdictional justification" for interviewing each of these witnesses is that the
Committee has reason to believe that each of them may have information that would advance its
investigation.
As outlined above, the White House is obligated to provide Congress with information related
to incidents surrounding its unauthorized acquisition, use, and handling personal background
summaries. Although the Executive Branch has no standing to question the jurisdiction of a particular
Senate Committee, I want to respond to your suggestion that the Judiciary Committee does not retain
jurisdiction over these matters. Senate Rule 25 provides that the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction
over all matters related to government information, civil liberties, and revision and codification of the
statutes of the Untied States. As well, the Committee has always had primary oversight and legislative
jurisdiction over the Department of Justice - which played a significant role with respect to the
executive privilege matter and its respective agencies, of which the FBI is one.
With respect to your inquiry regarding the scope of material requested in questions (5) and (D)
on page 2, I want to reiterate what you were told during our meeting: namely, that the Committee
never intended that personal information contained, or collected, with respect to the completion of an
SF-86 form or personal data statement questionnaire be considered within their scope. Accordingly,
all requests for documents do not encompass any SF-86 form or similar background check form.
Personal background matters should be redacted from all other documents related to background-check
follow-up communications and personal data statement questionnaires. We do appreciate, however,
07/23/96 TUE 16:48 FAX 2022281115
SENATE JUDICIARY
004
your willingness to construe broadly the Committee's document request, and we hope that you will
follow through on that approach to the Committee's letter.
In addition, we agreed to honor your request that, with respect to question (D), that the White
House not be required to conduct another, duplicative search for documents already requested and
provided to the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Accordingly, copies of
documents previously provided to the House committee pursuant to a request that is substantively
similar to question (D), will suffice. You agreed, however, that the White House would search for
information that was not the subject of the House request and that a search of the files of those
individuals who were not covered by the House request would be conducted (i.e., David Watkins,
Christine Varney, etc.).
With respect to the issue of e-mail retrieval, I appreciate the difficulty the White House has had
in complying with previous requests from other committees. You have requested that the Committee
provide you with a limited number of names during specific time periods in order to more efficiently
comply with our e-mail request. Accordingly, the Committee requests all responsive e-mails to or
from those individuals listed in question (D) of Sen. Hatch's July 3 letter for the period commencing
September 1, 1993, and ending December 31, 1995.
With respect to question (S) relating to the White House computer system, I agreed that this
particular inquiry could be deferred until the search for other documents requested by the Committee
has been completed.
I hope that this settles any questions that you might have had with respect to Sen. Hatch's July
3 letter. As you know, the Committee is seeking to complete its work as expeditiously as possible.
Our original deadline for production has passed. It is necessary that the Committee receive these
documents no later than July 29, 1996. Your continued assistance in this important matter is
appreciated.
Sincerely,
My Manus Cooney
Staff Director & Senior Counsel
MC: mcm
CC: Cynthia Hogan
Minority Chief Counsel
COMM.
USS
84500000
This D The Senate list;
The handwriten
identifi atin is Kellime
DATE
DATE
LAST NAME
FIRS I NAME, IVII.
SENT
OFFIC CATEGORY
French
Cooper, M. - GSA
I
17-Mar-93
22-Mar-93
WH
S
Bischof
Mivictoria - COO3
X
29-Mar-93
14-Jun-93 WH
A
Bartlett
Herbert - GSA
I
02-Apr-93
02-Apr-93 WH
A
Lowry
James. A. - 6SA
HQGI RECEIVED III
02-Apr-93
02-Apr-93 WH
A
Posey
Frank, R. - 6SA
02-Apr-93
02-Apr-93 WH
A
Toyer
William, E. - GSA
02-Apr-93
02-Apr-93 WH
A
Formeman
Clifton
05-Apr-93
05-Apr-93 WH
A
Brown
Emmet, R.
07-Apr-93
07-Apr-93 WH
A
Granados
Juan, R. - GSA
07-Apr-93
07-Apr-93 WH
A
Krause
Walter, G. GSA
X
07-Apr-93
07-Apr-93 WH
A
Nash
Robert, L.
X
07-Apr-93
07-Apr-93
WH
A
Pistorio
Joseph - GSA
I
07-Apr-93
07-Apr-93 WH
A
Riley
Jeffrey, L. - WH
08-Apr-93
16-Apr-93
WH
S
Imes
William, S. GSA
09-Apr-93
09-Apr-93 WH
A
Swann
Wilbert, L. - GSA
09-Apr-93
09-Apr-93 WH
A
Daigle
Sandra, F.
12-Apr-93
12-Apr-93 WH
S
Williams
Alice, T.
12-Apr-93
12-Apr-93 WH
S
Woolston
Ann, E.
I
12-Apr-93
14-Apr-93
WH
S
Harris
Delores, A. GSA
X
15-Apr-93
15-Apr-93
WH
A
Shea
Thomas, J. J. - GSA
X
15-Apr-93
15-Apr-93 WH
A
Chappelear
Thomas - 6SA
X
21-Apr-93
21-Apr-93
WH
A
Focht
Theordore
X
21-Apr-93
21-Apr-93
WH
A
Nash
Robert, L.
I
29-Apr-93
05-May-93
WH
A
Hopcroft
John E.
02-Jun-93
04-Jun-93 WH
S
Zare
Richard N.
02-Jun-93
11-Aug-93
WH
PA
Smith
Matthew D.
29-Jul-93
09-Sep-93 WH
A
Warfield
Agnes C.
29-Jul-93
04-Aug-93
WH
A
Weinmann
John G.
29-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Whitehead
John C.
29-Jul-93
04-Aug-93
WH
A
Cleary
Philip, P. NPS
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93
WH
A
Dufane
Stanley L. - NPS
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93
WH
A
Dyson
James K.
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Eiland
Jonnie L.
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Feeney
Charles W. - PS
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93
WH
A
Haney
Dale F. - NPS
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Lawn
Michael D. - NPS
30-Jul-93
James I. - NPS
04-Aug-93 WH
A
McDaniel
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Parrotte
Willis R. - NPS
30-Jul-93
11-Aug-93
WH
A
Roberts
Kitty L.
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Schneider
Ludwig A.
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93
WH
A
Summerlin
Michael T. - N.P.S
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93
WH
A
Tennyson
Kevin W. 1 NPS
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Thomas
Edward A. NPS
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Thomas
Harold W. - NPS
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Wallington
Alexander
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93
WH
A
Wedge
William J. -NPS
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Whiting
Samuel P.
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
Williams
Irvin M.
30-Jul-93
John O. -NPS
04-Aug-93
WH
A
Wise
30-Jul-93
04-Aug-93 WH
A
6+27-96
03:49PM
FROM
JUDICIARY
#:
94565053
Anderson
Richard, E.
02-Aug-93
05-Aug-93 WH
A
Baker
Jane, E.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
:
S
Bakke
Kyle, D.
02-Aug-93
08-Sep-93 WH
S
Banks
Charlie, W.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Brown
Gregory, P. AT&T
02-Aug-93 09-Aug-93 WH
A
Dudley
Edward G.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
George
Christopher L.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93
WH
S
Green
Wanda R. - AT&T
02-Aug-93
05-Aug-93 WH
A
Hamilton
Walter L.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Harris
Claudia M.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Hartge
Joseph E.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Hennessy
Linda G.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Johnson-Whi Paula C.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Jones
Robert C.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93
WH
A
Kerr
Andrew S.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
S
Little
Stephen C. - AT&T
02-Aug-93
26-Jan-94
WH
A
Orfield
Jerry R. - AT&T
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Shipp
Dennis C.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Simpson
Robert M. - AT&T
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Vance
Thomas B.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Vandevande
Ronald L.
02-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Carter
Tommy, J.
Dean
Bernice E. - C&P
03-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
03-Aug-93 09-Aug-93 WH
A
Edwards
William K.
03-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Hegedus
Andrew C.
03-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Kunysz
D.
03-Aug-93
20-Aug-93
WH
A
Kunysz
J.
03-Aug-93
20-Aug-93 WH
A
Little
C&P
03-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Rodman
Wendy William Joseph Doris Edward Ralph Milton Ennis, Daniel Homer Richard Barbara E. M.
Carl
-
03-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Sewell
N.
03-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Shaffer
E.
R. C&P
03-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Talley
X
03-Aug-93
27-Aug-93 WH
A
Brown
W.
04-Aug-93
09-Aug-93 WH
A
Gibbons
04-Aug-93
06-Aug-93 WH
A
Heinz
J.
04-Aug-93
09-Sep-93 WH
A
Lackman
William F., Jr.
04-Aug-93
27-Aug-93 WH
A
Rhea
M.
X
04-Aug-93
09-Sep-93 WH
A
Showers
W. - WH
04-Aug-93
13-Aug-93 WH
S
Studeman
O.
X
04-Aug-93
15-Apr-93 WH
A
Taylor
James H.
X
04-Aug-93
09-Sep-93 WH
A
Wood
C. Norman
04-Aug-93
13-Aug-93 WH
A
Collins
Laura, J.
05-Aug-93
10-Aug-93 WH
A
Dirolf
Elma S.
05-Aug-93
10-Aug-93 WH
A
Dumm
Claudia A.
05-Aug-93
10-Aug-93 WH
A
Greenhalgh
Dorothy A.
05-Aug-93
09-Sep-93 WH
A
Guton
Anne C. - with
Elizabeth R.
05-Aug-93
13-Aug-93 WH
A
Horel
05-Aug-93
10-Aug-93 WH
A
Leander
Mary S.
05-Aug-93
17-Aug-93 WH
A
Mirabella
Kathy
05-Aug-93
11-Aug-93
WH
A
Olcott
Ellen E.
05-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Rogers
Linda M.
05-Aug-93
11-Aug-93 WH
A
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. list
FBI. [partial] (1 page)
06/27/1996
b(7)(C), b(7)(F), b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Counsel Office
Jane Sherburne
OA/Box Number: CF 396
FOLDER TITLE:
FBI Senate [3]
2006-1066-F
vz3596
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAJ
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA|
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Round
Elizabeth A.
05-Aug-93
13-Aug-93 WH
A
Suntum
Margaret M.
05-Aug-93
11-Aug-93 WH
A
Balod
Patria, G. - WH Credit union
06-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Cohrssen
Noah, P. - NH Credit linion
06-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Conolin
Jenny M.
06-Aug-93
17-Aug-93 WH
A
Ecle
Lerma D.
06-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Esmedia
Magdalena L.
06-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Ghaffouri
Shahrokh A.- WH Credit their
06-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Harding
Teresa L.
06-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Henderson
Frank R.
- WH Credit Union
06-Aug-93
13-Aug-93
WH
A
Kruchesky
Illa L.
06-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Lay
Ang S. 1 WH Credit union
06-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Portanova
Lucia - WH Credit Union
X
06-Aug-93
17-Aug-93 WH
A
Rogers
James R.
06-Aug-93
20-Aug-93 WH
A
Scamihorn
Marsha L.
06-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Smith
Edith M.
06-Aug-93
17-Aug-93 WH
A
Taylor
Joseph L.
06-Aug-93
25-Aug-93 WH
A
White
Sandra F.
06-Aug-93
19-Aug-93
WH
A
Williams
Cynthia B.
06-Aug-93
17-Aug-93 WH
A
Windsor
Barbara A. WH Credit Umon
06-Aug-93
19-Aug-93
WH
A
Ambrose
Douglas, R.
06-Aug-93
18-Aug-93
WH
A
Aldrich
Gary, W. FBI
09-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
17-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
11-Aug-93 WH
S
09-Aug-93 16-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
17-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
11-Aug-93
WH
S
(b)(6), (b)(7)c, (b)(7)f
09-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
09-Sep-93 WH
S
09-Aug-93
29-Sep-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
24-Aug-93
WH
A
09-Aug-93
11-Aug-93
WH
S
09-Aug-93
01-Oct-93 WH
A
[001]
Sculimbrene M. Dennis - FBI
09-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
13-Aug-93
WH
A
09-Aug-93 24-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
26-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
(b)(6), (b)(7)c, (b)(7)f
X
09-Aug-93
10-Aug-93
WH
S
09-Aug-93
17-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
13-Aug-93 WH
A
09-Aug-93
17-Aug-93
WH
A
Ayer
Donald, B.
10-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Bracken
Frank, A.
10-Aug-93
11-Aug-93 WH
A
Covitz
Carl D.
10-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Ferguson
Rogers L.
10-Aug-93
11-Aug-93 WH
A
Jeremiah
David E.
X
10-Aug-93
17-Aug-93
WH
A
Kearns
David T.
10-Aug-93
20-Aug-93
WH
A
Moley
Kevin E.
10-Aug-93
24-Sep-93 WH
A
Roman
Alfonso M.
10-Aug-93
10-Aug-93 WH
A
USS
94565053
P005/010
Romaniello
Eugene
10-Aug-93
13-Aug-93 WH
A
Roskens
Ronald W.
10-Aug-93
13-Aug-93 WH
A
Spurlock
Delbert L., Jr.
10-Aug-93
11-Aug-93 WH
A
GSA
Anderson
John, D.
11-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Anderson
?
Ellis, A GSA
11-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Asberry
Hosea, Jr.
11-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Bagley
Shelton, R. GSA
11-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Bailey
Shirley, D. GSA
11-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Baker
Sarah, L.
11-Aug-93
Patricia, K.
11 16-Aug-93 WH
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Ballard
11-Aug-93
20-Aug-93 WH
A
Baril,
Michael, P. 6SA
11-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Barnes
Joan, M. GSA
11-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Barnett
Edward GSA
X
11-Aug-93
13-Aug-93 WH
A
Barnhart
Roosevelt GSA
11-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Bartlett
Herbert, H. GSA
11-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Beers
James, E. GSA
11-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Bell
James, G. GSA
11-Aug-93
A
Berry
Eric GSA
11-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Johnson
James M.
11-Aug-93
11-Aug-93 WH
S
Boozer
Debra A. GSA
X
12-Aug-93
23-Aug-93 WH
A
Briscoe
Cecil, L.
12-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Briscoe
James, E. Jr. GSA
12-Aug-93
24-Aug-93 WH
A
Brooks
John, H.
12-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Brown
Cornwell, M. GSA
12-Aug-93
17-Aug-93 WH
A
Brown
Steven, L. GSA
12-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Brown
James
12-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Brown
Emmett, R.
12-Aug-93
17-Aug-93
WH
A
Burch
Mary, L.
12-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Butler
Lisa
GSA
12-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Butler
Renea, A. GSA
12-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Canales
Jose, J. CSA
12-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Carter
Russell, E. CSA
12-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Casanova
Bayani, G.
12-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Caton
Roland, H. GSA
12-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Chappelear
Thomas, L. CSA
12-Aug-93
09-Sep-93 WH
A
Argarrin
Jocelyn
13-Aug-93
13-Aug-93 WH
S
Cobbs
Mary, B. 6517
13-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Cobbs
William, N. GSA
13-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Cobey
Lawanda, A. GSA
13-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Cobey
Terri, L. GSA
13-Aug-93
18-Aug-93 WH
A
Craig
Bernard J.
13-Aug-93
17-Aug-93 WH
A
Curley
Alease S.
13-Aug-93
18-Aug-93
WH
A
Davis
Ethel A.
13-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Davis
Reba H.
13-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Davis
Arlene P.
13-Aug-93
24-Aug-93 WH
A
Davis
Carrie L.
13-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Dawkins
Calvin GSA
13-Aug-93
24-Mar-94 WH
A
Deese
William E., Sr. GSA
13-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Blackwell
Virginia, M. Dov
16-Aug-93
16-Aug-93 WH
A
Dehart
Michael E. GSA
17-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Dietz
William D. GSA
17-Aug-93
25-Aug-93 WH
A
Diguiseppe
Richard W.
17-Aug-93
25-Aug-93 WH
A
Dixon
Viola E.
17-Aug-93
25-Aug-93 WH
;
A
Douglass
John S. GSA
17-Aug-93
20-Aug-93 WH
A
Downes
Lawrence C. 6SA
17-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Downs
Ingried M. GSA
X
17-Aug-93
08-Feb-94 WH
A
Dunnington
Janet L. GSA
17-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Edeson
Jean R.
17-Aug-93
25-Aug-93 WH
A
Estevez
James W. GSA
17-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Fisher
James R. GSA
17-Aug-93
20-Aug-93 WH
A
Fletcher
Debra A.
17-Aug-93
15-Apr-94 WH
A
Flower Fowler
Robert A. GSA
17-Aug-93
20-Aug-93 WH
A
Focht
Theodore J.
17-Aug-93
mmm
10-Sep-93 WH
A
Foglè
Joe L.
17-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Foreman
Clifton L.
17-Aug-93
19-Aug-93 WH
A
Gorski
Stanley, P. Jr.
X
03-Sep-93
08-Sep-93 WH
A
Davis
James
09-Sep-93
21-Mar-94 WH
S
Reynolds
Cheryl, A.
22-Oct-93
03-Nov-93 WH
S
Francis
Andrew, J.
29-Oct-93
03-Nov-93 WH
A
Gamble
Alice, M.
29-Oct-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
lone
Gardner
Craig J.
29-Oct-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
Garner
Sonja, H.
29-Oct-93
04-Nov-93
WH
A
Garrett
Charles, H.
29-Oct-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Geter
Thelma, D.
29-Oct-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Gibson
Fannie
29-Oct-93
03-Nov-93 WH
A
Gilbert
Michael, L.
29-Oct-93
03-Nov-93 WH
A
Gillespie
Reves, L.
29-Oct-93
08-Nov-93 WH
A
Grace
Kenneth, E.
29-Oct-93
03-Nov-93
WH
A
Granados
Juan, R.
29-Oct-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
Graves
Eula, D.
29-Oct-93
05-Nov-93
WH
A
Green
Galen, H.
29-Oct-93
03-Nov-93 WH
A
Green
Kenneth, J.
29-Oct-93
03-Nov-93 WH
A
Green
Eva, H.
29-Oct-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Green
Annie, M.
29-Oct-93
04-Nov-93 WH
A
Greenwell
Mildred, E.
29-Oct-93
04-Nov-93 WH
A
Hall
Cleo, E.
29-Oct-93
03-Nov-93 WH
A
Hall
Richard, L.
29-Oct-93
03-Nov-93 WH
A
Hampton
Edward, A.
29-Oct-93
03-Nov-93
WH
A
Handeland
Larry, E.
29-Oct-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Harling
Sallie, I.
29-Oct-93
17-Nov-93 WH
A
Harman
Michael, E.
29-Oct-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Harris
Delores, A.
29-Oct-93
03-Nov-93 WH
A
Harris
Rosco
29-Oct-93
04-Nov-93
WH
A
Hash
Robert, L.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
A
Hawkins
Gladys, B.
03-Nov-93
13-Apr-94 WH
A
Hays
Richard, P.
03-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Head
Mary. L.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
A
Heard
Clayton, L.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93
WH
A
Herr
Charles, F.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93
WH
A
Hill
Mildred, J.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93 WH
A
Hilliard
Loyce
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93
WH
A
Holman
Arthur, J.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
USE
94000000
Honemond
Claria, E.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Hood
Luvenia, P.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93
WH
A
Howe
Morris, E.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Hudley
Cornelious
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Imes
William, L.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Isom
Daryl, C.
03-Nov-93
10-Nov-93
WH
A
Isom
Charles, C.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Jackson
Cynthia, D.
03-Nov-93
09-Nov-93 WH
A
Jackson
Darrell, C.
03-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
Jackson
Raymond, G.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
A
Jackson
Betty, L.
03-Nov-93
10-Nov-93
WH
A
Johnson
Celestine, C.
03-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Johnson
Rogenia, T.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93 WH
A
Johnson
Airel
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
A
Johnson
Barbara, J.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93 WH
A
Johnson
Selena, V.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93
WH
A
Jones
William
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
A
Jones
Harold, J.
03-Nov-93
10-Nov-93
WH
A
Jones
Margaret, M.
03-Nov-93
10-Nov-93 WH
A
Julian
Dominador, T.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Keel
Mildred, C.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
A
Kellerman
Edward, F.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93 WH
A
Kelly
Joseph, L.
03-Nov-93
10-Nov-93 WH
A
Kennedy
Thomas
03-Nov-93
06-Dec-93
WH
A
Kilgo
Deloris, J.
03-Nov-93
10-Nov-93 WH
A
Kinsman
Linda, R.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93
WH
A
Kitchings
Maxine, C.
03-Nov-93
09-Nov-93
WH
A
Krause
Walter, G.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-96 WH
A
Lagana
Joseoh, S.
03-Nov-93
10-Nov-93
WH
A
Lamar
Patricia, A.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93 WH
A
Landis
Allan, L.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
A
Langley
Agnes, L.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93
WH
A
Lattimore
Bessie, M.
03-Nov-93
09-Nov-93
WH
A
Leacraft
Mattie, O.
03-Nov-93
08-Nov-93
WH
A
Lee
Dora
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
A
Lines
William, F.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
A
Littleton
Raymond, T.
03-Nov-93
10-Nov-93
WH
A
Los
Mark, D.
03-Nov-93
10-Nov-93
WH
A
Lowery
James. A.
03-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
Roberts
William, E.
03-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
S
Tipton
Elizabeth, J.
04-Nov-93
15-Nov-93
WH
A
Yound
Patricia, L.
05-Nov-93
05-Nov-93
WH
S
Thorne
Tina, A.
08-Nov-93
16-Nov-93 WH
S
Davis
Samuel
09-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
S
Lindsay
Nicole, R.
09-Nov-93
12-Nov-93
WH
A
Lewandowsk Timothy, W.
10-Nov-93
06-Dec-93
WH
A
Marsh
John, C.
10-Nov-93
23-Nov-93 WH
A
Martinez
Thomas
10-Nov-93
16-Nov-93 WH
A
Matthews
Arthur, S.
10-Nov-93
15-Feb-94
WH
A
McCauley
Dean, W.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
McCray
Fredrick, H.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
McCready
John, B.
10-Nov-93
16-Nov-93
WH
A
McGee
Theima
10-Nov-93
23-Nov-93 WH
; A
Mcintyre
Robert, L.
10-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
McKenzie
Bertha, R.
10-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
McKenzie
Owen, C.
10-Nov-93
19-Nov-93 WH
A
McKnight
John, H.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
McKnight
Estella
10-Nov-93
16-Nov-93 WH
A
Means
Cornella, J.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93
WH
A
Merritt
Oscar, W.
10-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
Miller
Jason, D.W.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Mitrione
Vito
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Monroe
Delores, A.
10-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
Moore
Leatha, M.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Morris
Jeter, A.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Morris
Joseph, B.
10-Nov-93
17-Nov-93 WH
A
Moy
Lawrence, D.
10-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
Munck
Scott, A.
10-Nov-93
16-Nov-93 WH
A
Myers
Joseph, D.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Nell
Kenneth, W.
10-Nov-93
16-Nov-93 WH
A
Nelson
Sylvia
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Newman
Mildred
10-Nov-93
19-Nov-93 WH
A
Oliver
James, W.
10-Nov-93
17-Nov-93 WH
A
Owens
James, W.
10-Nov-93
16-Nov-93
WH
A
Owens
Theodore
10-Nov-93
17-Nov-93 WH
A
Padgett
Frank
10-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
Pair
Baily
10-Nov-93
19-Nov-93 WH
A
Pankey
Herbert, L.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Parker
Diane, L.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93
WH
A
Patten
John, G.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Patterson
Clara, M.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Payne
Ben, D.
10-Nov-93
17-Nov-93
WH
A
Peck
Rose, M.
10-Nov-93
17-Nov-93
WH
A
Perkins
Clyde, R. Jr.
10-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Pistorio
Joseph, P.
10-Nov-93
16-Nov-93 WH
A
Pitchford
Polly, F.
10-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
Pitt
Margaret
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Plakas
James, C.
10-Nov-93
18-Nov-93 WH
A
Posey
Frank, R.
10-Nov-93
12-Nov-93 WH
A
Price
Floyd, L.
10-Nov-93
17-Nov-93
WH
A
Price
Lucille, B.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93
WH
A
Price
Francis, F.
10-Nov-93
19-Nov-93 WH
A
Proctor
Mary, C.
10-Nov-93
15-Nov-93 WH
A
Protor
Carlo, N.
10-Nov-93
16-Nov-93 WH
A
Quicho
Domingo, A.
10-Nov-93
17-Nov-93 WH
A
Rawis
Ondra, C.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Reever
Robert, H.
16-Nov-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
Riddle
Leonard, F.
X
16-Nov-93
21-Mar-94
WH
A
Riggleman
Oscar, E.
16-Nov-93
23-Nov-93 WH
A
Rlggs
Christopher, C.
16-Nov-93
23-Nov-93 WH
A
Rose
Noel, M.
16-Nov-93
23-Nov-93 WH
A
Rosenberg
J. James, D.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
7
Rosenberger James, D.
16-Nov-93
23-Nov-93 WH
A
Rosier
Cassandra, A.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
'A
Rusk
Wayne, A.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Russell
Ronald, E.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Sager
David, R.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Sampson
Rayford, A.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Scott
J. Odell
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Scott
Reginald, A.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Sedlock
Michael, G.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Senn
Sheree, F.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93
WH
A
Seroski
Raymond, J.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Shae
Julie, M.
X
16-Nov-93
21-Mar-94
WH
A
Shaffer
Russell, A.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Shannon
Shirley, M.
I
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Shea
Thomas, J.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Simpkins
Larry, B.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Skinner
Claudia, V.
16-Nov-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
Skipwith
Florine, J.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Slight
Arnette, F.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Smith
James, M.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Spencer
Dana, W.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93
WH
A
Steward
Sean,J.
X
16-Nov-93
21-Mar-94 WH
A
Steward
Donald, L.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Steward
Bruce, L.
16-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Streets
Jennifer
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Sturgess
George, E.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Swan
Marylin,A.
X
16-Nov-93
21-Mar-94 WH
A
Swann
Wilbert, L.
16-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Swann
Melva, D.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Tanis
Matthew
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Taylor
Chinita, D.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Taylor
Dorie, C.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Thoams
John, S.
16-Nov-93
21-Mar-94
WH
A
Thomas
Arthur, S.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Thomas
Gerald, R
16-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Thomas
Richard, A.
16-Nov-93
01-Apr-94
WH
A
Thomas
John, S.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Thompson
Ola, M.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93
WH
A
Thompson
James, E.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Tillery
John, R.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93
WH
A
Tillery
Anthony, Q.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93
WH
A
Toland
Kimberley, T.
16-Nov-93
21-Dec-93 WH
A
Townsell
Milton, T.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Townsend
Joseph, C.
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Toyer
William, E.
16-Nov-93
26-Nov-93 WH
A
Tyler
Florine, G.
16-Nov-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
Underwood
Florence, D.
16-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Vance
Shawn
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93
WH
A
Ventresca
Ponfilio
16-Nov-93
24-Nov-93 WH
A
Grier
Ophelia, L.
23-Nov-93
30-Nov-93 WH
A
Collick
Adam, R.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Vines
Vernon, M.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Wall
Viola, B.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
i A
Wallace
Michael, F.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Walsh
John, F.
26-Nov-93
03-Dec-93 WH
A
Walsh
Peter, H.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Walters
Dianne
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Washington
Maurine, E.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Washington
Ruby, L.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Washington
Anthony, H.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Wells
Michael, A.
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
Westcamp
Mark
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93
WH
A
Whitaker
Dorothy, M.
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
White
Geneva
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
White
Pernell, D.
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
Whitmyer
Rosell
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93
WH
A
Wilkins
Shelia, M.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93
WH
A
Williams
Carroll, B.
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93. WH
A
Williams
Harry, L.
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
Willis
Debbie, B.
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93
WH
A
Wilson
Henry, D.
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
Wilson
Charles, M.
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
Wilson
Waymond, M.
26-Nov-93
03-Dec-93
WH
A
Wingate
Steven, A.
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93
WH
A
Wise
Nettie, S.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93 WH
A
Womack
Shirley, C.
26-Nov-93
02-Dec-93 WH
A
Yates
Emma, E.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93
WH
A
Yost
Ralph, R.
26-Nov-93
07-Dec-93
WH
A
Rutledge
Andrea - OA
01-Dec-93
08-Dec-93 WH
S
Aarhus
Carol,B.
X
06-Dec-93
21-Mar-94
WH
A
Abdoo
Helen, T.
06-Dec-93
14-Dec-93
WH
A
Adair
Douglas, C.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Addington
David, S.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Ahearn
Fredrick, L.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Alderman
Clifford, T.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93
WH
A
Alexander
Cara, L.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93
WH
A
Allison
James, N.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Allison
Melissa, C.
X
06-Dec-93
21-Mar-93 WH
A
Alsobrook
David, E.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Alvarez
Richard. G.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Amend
Deborah, A.
06-Dec-93
21-Mar-94 WH
A
Amend
Deborah, A.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93
WH
A
Amick
Joan, M.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93
WH
A
Amorsingh
L. Linus
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Anderson
Ann, E.
06-Dec-93
15-Dec-93 WH
A
Anderson
Marcy, J.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93
WH
A
Anderson
Debra, R.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Anderson
Rebecca, L.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Anderson
Stanton, D.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93
WH
A
Anderson
Curtis, W.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Anderson
Susan, E.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93 WH
A
Andres
Gary, J.
06-Dec-93
13-Dec-93
WH
A
9
Name
Date
shelli Peterson 9/22/99 Counsel
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 11, 1996
BY FACSIMILE
Manus Cooney, Esq.
Staff Director & Senior Counsel
Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Manus:
I have received copies of your October 1, 1996 letter
to Mr. D.E. Wilson, Jr., attorney for Mr. George Saunders, and
Mr. Wilson's October 3, 1996 reply to you regarding the Judiciary
Committee's request for certain information and documents. As
Mr. Wilson's letter suggests, the materials you requested are
White House records, not personal records of Mr. Saunders, and
Mr. Wilson therefore has asked the White House to respond to your
request.
I think it would be constructive to meet about the
requests set forth in your letter in order that we can better
understand what you need and so that we can determined the best
way to develop that information. As we have discussed in the
past, we also need to do this in a way that does not unreasonably
or unfairly impinge on the privacy interests at stake. In this
regard, your letter requests copies of memoranda written by Mr.
Saunders after interviews he conducted with certain individuals
in connection with background investigations. I am informed that
the memoranda contain confidential personal information-of a type
that the Committee, out of concern for individual privacy, has
specifically stated it does not wish to receive. (And of course,
the release of even the names will implicate the privacy
interests about which the Committee has rightly been concerned.)
One reason I suggest a further discussion is because I
am convinced that, even if the information you request were to be
provided, it would not assist the Committee's investigation. All
of the interviews conducted by Mr. Saunders were done in
connection with background investigations of either new employees
or reinvestigations for those employees with investigations over
five years old. Mr. Saunders' work was not connected in any way
to the so-called "Update Project". Moreover, knowing that Mr.
Saunders may have reviewed a particular file, or group of files,
in a particular period of time would tell us nothing about the
adequacy or completeness of record-keeping in the Office of
Personnel Security.
Manus Cooney, Esq.
October 11, 1996
Page 2
Again, we want to help the Committee complete its work.
To that end, if you agree that it would be useful to discuss this
further, please call me or Sally Paxton at your convenience.
Jane Jack Sincerely Quinn yours, Qui
Counsel to the President
CC: Karen Robb, Esq.
Minority Staff Director
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 11, 1996
BY FACSIMILE
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Hatch:
I am writing to continue discussions regarding your
July 3, 1996 document request for e-mails. Specifically, the
request asks for all e-mails
that related in any manner to the following (1) the
White House Personnel Security Office's "Project
Update"; (2) the White House Personnel Security
Office's procedures for requesting, reviewing,
maintaining, and safekeeping F.B.I. background
information files; (3) the staffing of the White House
Personnel Security Office; (4) access to and the
operation of the White House Personnel Security Office;
(5) meetings between any member of the White House
Personnel Security Office and members of the White
House Counsel's Office, the Office of the White House-
Chief of Staff, the Office of the Counselor to the
President, the Office of the First Lady, and the Office
of Presidential Personnel; (6) visitors to any member
of the White House Personnel Security Office; (7)
communications to or from the White House Personnel
Security Office; (8) reprimands or disciplinary action
taken regarding members of the White House Personnel
Security Office or the White House Counsel's Office
concerning F.B.I. files and confidential background
information; and (9) all individuals serving in the
White House who were authorized to review F.B.I. files.
I understand that Special Counsel Jane Sherburne
explained to members of your staff during a meeting on July 11,
1996 that e-mail has not been retained in a manner that permits
search of "all e-mail" for a particular subject matter. Rather,
I understand that, until recently, we adhered to practices
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman
October 11, 1996
Page 2
followed in the Bush Administration in this regard, and that
these practices did not include retaining e-mail in readily
retrievable form. Instead, e-mail was saved only as part of a
weekly backup of the EOP computer network for the purpose of
system reconstruction in the event of emergency. Pursuant to
court order in the Armstrong litigation, and in cooperation with
the National Archives, the EOP has undertaken a multi-year
project to make e-mail from the Reagan and Bush Administrations
and from the early part of this Administration retrievable.
Pending completion of the Armstrong project, we have
developed methods that permit us to retrieve old e-mails for
specifically identified individuals for particular weeks from the
weekly backup tapes. As we have previously explained to your
staff, this process is both time-consuming and expensive. The
cost and time to complete any request for e-mail will vary
depending upon several parameters. However, we can provide the
following rough estimates:
E-mail created between January 1993 and July 1994
Using a double shift operation at an outside facility,
we can retrieve approximately three weeks of e-mail for
a reasonable number of individuals during one week of
work, at a cost of approximately $22,700, not including
the cost of government staff time.
E-mail created between August 1994 and November 1995 - -
This e-mail is archived in a more readily retrievable
format and is grouped on tapes by EOP component and
month. As a general rule it takes about 60 hours to
search one month of information for one EOP component.
Such searches can be performed at an outside facility
at the weekly cost identified above.
E-mail created between December 1995 and the present
This e-mail is the least costly to search. As a
general rule, it would take about 30 hours to search
one month of information for one EOP component.
Because the data resides there, such a search would
have to be performed at the EOP computer facility
during hours when usage is low.
As you surely understand, we have limited resources
with which we can perform ad hoc searches for e-mail.
Recognizing these resource constraints, other investigative
agencies have limited any requests for e-mail to a few weeks or,
at most, a few months. Satisfying even such limited requests for
e-mail has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman
October 11, 1996
Page 3
During her July 11th meeting, Ms. Sherburne requested
that your staff focus the Committee's request for e-mail by
identifying specific, reasonably short time periods and
individuals whose e-mail should be restored and reviewed. On
July 23, 1996, Mr. Cooney wrote that the Committee would "limit"
its request for e-mail to e-mails to or from the individuals
listed in Paragraph (D) of your July 3 letter for the period from
September 1, 1993 through December 31, 1995 -- a period of 2
years and 4 months. Ms. Sherburne responded in a letter dated
July 30, 1993, that we could not reasonably comply with that
request, and asked the Committee to further limit its request or,
at a minimum, identify priorities. We received no response. In
a letter dated August 30, 1996, Ms. Sherburne reiterated that the
Committee needed to define further its request for e-mail,
informed the Committee that Anthony Marceca did not have an e-
mail account and that Craig Livingstone did not have such an
account until May 12, 1994.
Since August 30, White House staff have had several
conversations with your staff regarding the Committee's request
for e-mail. During the most recent such communication, your
staff asked that we "start" to comply with the request for e-mail
by retrieving Mr. Livingstone's e-mail from May 12, 1994, to the
present, and then retrieving any e-mails for others in the Office
of Personnel Security and for any member of the Counsel's Office
who had supervisory authority over OPS. We have explained that
this broad and open-ended request is infeasible because it does
not limit the time periods for which e-mails would have to be
restored.
We remain completely willing to conduct a tailored e-
mail search. Given that the key figures in this investigation
did not have e-mail accounts during the critical time periods,
however, we are at a loss to suggest a sensible request that
would be likely to provide any relevant information. Please give
me a call if you have any questions or would like to discuss this
further.
Sincerely yours,
Jan Counsel Jack Quinn the Qui President
to
CC: Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 23, 1996
BY HAND
Manus Cooney, Esq.
Staff Director & Senior Counsel
Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Manus:
As agreed between you and Ms. Sally Paxton, we enclose
a listing of memoranda written by George Saunders reflecting
interviews conducted by him in connection with certain
individuals' background investigations for March through
September, 1994 in lieu of the memoranda themselves. As we have
previously stated, these are the only memoranda from that time
period maintained by Mr. Saunders. The enclosed list provides
you with the information I understand you to want without
requiring us to provide sensitive personal information that each
document contains.
Due to the confidential nature of this information, you
have agreed to treat the list in the same manner as the Office of
Personnel Security logs previously provided to the Committee;
that is, the list will be kept in the same manner as documents
relating to judicial nominees with the added protection that only
the designated staff previously agreed to shall have access to
this information.
I am pleased that we were able to resolve this matter.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
Qui
Jack Quinn
Counsel to the President
Enclosure
CC: Karen Robb, Esq.
Minority Staff Director (without enclosure)
News Release
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
United States Senate
Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman
October 4, 1996
Contact: Jeanne Lopatto, 202/224-5225
STATEMENT OF SEN. ORRIN HATCH
PRESS CONFERENCE ON THE FBI FILES INVESTIGATION
The Judiciary Committee has continued its inquiry into the White House acquisition of
FBI file summaries. I had planned to hold another hearing into this matter but have decided
to indefinitely postpone the hearing. Instead, and in light of press accounts of a deposition
taken earlier this week, I would like to report to you today on some very significant
developments regarding the Judiciary Committee's inquiry. There is cause to seriously
challenge the White House's assertion that the improper acquisition of FBI background files
on Reagan and Bush administration officials was an innocent bureaucratic snafu.
As you will recall, Ms. Mari Anderson did not appear for our last hearing on
September 25. Since that time, Committee staff has deposed Ms. Anderson under oath, and I
have personally met with Ms. Anderson and her attorney. I have also reviewed the transcript
of her deposition, which, I believe, sheds considerable light on this entire matter. Ms.
Anderson was Mr. Livingstone's direct assistant between February 1993 and September 1994.
During this period she reported to Mr. Livingstone on the activities and projects undertaken
by the Office of Personnel Security, including what has come to be known as "Project
Update." Her recollection of that Office's activities -- a much clearer recollection than the
dubiously lacking recollection Mr. Livingstone admits to -- suggests several things about the
FBI files matter. First, that the notorious six-month gap in the White House log for FBI files
is the result of pages missing, or possibly removed, from that log; and second, that the White
House's request for and receipt of FBI background materials on certain Bush and Reagan
administration officials was not a mere bureaucratic snafu, as the White House has spuriously
insisted.
As was disclosed in our September 25 hearing, the White House kept a log in a black
loose-leaf binder to record when an FBI background file was taken out of the Office of
Personnel Security. Curiously, there is a six-month gap in the copy of the log that was
provided to the Independent Counsel and to this Committee. The FBI files of Republican
officials were ordered between the fall of 1993 and February 1994. But the pages in the log
covering the period between March 29, 1994, and September 21, 1994, are missing.
1
The White House Counsel's Office, Ms. Wetzl, and Mr. Livingstone have all
suggested that the log simply was not kept during this entire six month period. Ms.
Anderson, however, testified in her deposition that the log was kept during this period, and
recalls making particular entries in the log during the spring and summer of 1994. 1 Her
explanation is that pages must be missing from the log. Ms. Anderson expressly told us --
and I am quoting here from page 48 of her deposition transcript -- that "My version would be
that there are pages not there." Later on that same page, again I am quoting:
"Question: So you are confident, then, that there is some portion of log that is not
included in this copy that we have?
Answer: Yes."
We have also learned that Mr. Livingstone himself would take files from the office
without making any entry in the log.² Thus, Mr. Livingstone could well have taken the files
of prior administration officials without any paper record of having done so.
Third, it now appears that, contrary to what the White House, Mr. Livingstone, Mr.
Marceca and Ms. Wetzl have claimed, the White House ordered files of at least some prior
Bush and Reagan administration officials with knowledge that it had no legitimate basis for
doing so. This is because, prior to the White House ordering these files, the staffers of the
Office of Personnel Security -- Livingstone, Marceca, Wetzl, and Anderson, -- scrubbed the
list Mr. Marceca was ordering files from so as to ensure that he would not order prominent
Republicans' files.³ But such files were later requested.4
For example, Ms. Anderson has testified that she specifically recalls taking a "sharpie"
magic marker and inking out the names of the Bush and Quayle families, and James Baker
and Marlin Fitzwater, from the list Mr. Marceca was using to order FBI files. In fact, Ms.
Anderson told us that Mssrs. Marceca and Livingstone even joked at the time that Ms.
Anderson, a Washington neophyte, only recognized these few names as those of prominent
Republicans, failing to recognize other noteworthy Republicans who should not have been on
1
See Anderson Deposition Tr. at 44, 46, 166. Ms. Anderson
explained that everyone in the Office understood that an entry
was to be made in the log every time a file was checked out. See
Anderson Deposition Tr. at 44, 46, 166.
2 See Anderson Tr. at 52.
3 See Anderson Tr. at 100-101; 151-52.
4 See "Sample Republican Files Ordered after OPS Scrubbed
Lists. "
5 See Anderson Tr. at 99-100; 140-50.
2
the list of FBI files to order.⁶ This list was passed around for the purpose of removing
Republican names.⁷ According to Ms. Anderson, this all was in September of 1993. But
come December 1993 and January, 1994, Mr. Marceca proceeded to order the files of
numerous Republican officials, including none other than James A. Baker (ordered on
December 3, 1993) and Marlin Fitzwater (ordered on January 25, 1994). Ordering these files
was no bureaucratic snafu.
Ms. Anderson's testimony also demonstrates that Mr. Marceca did not innocently rely
on the June 10, 1993, Secret Service list, which the White House, in its effort to explain away
the whole affair as a bureaucratic snafu, has contended Marceca did rely on.¹⁰
Moreover, in contrast to earlier testimony made by others before this committee, Ms.
Anderson testified that Mr. Livingstone, as well as Mr. Marceca and Ms. Wetzl, knew at the
time these files were being ordered during the winter of 1993-94 that the files of Republican
officials who had since left the employ of the White House were being ordered and received
by the Office of Personnel Security.¹¹ In fact, according to Ms. Anderson, when she
mentioned this to Mr. Livingstone, he dismissed her concern by "casual[ly]" assuring her it
was just "part of the process" of completing "Project Update."¹² Contrary to what Mr.
Livingstone and Ms. Wetzl have told us and others, it appears from Ms. Anderson's testimony
that Livingstone and his colleagues in the Office of Personnel Security knew early in 1994
that files of Republican officials had been ordered and were left sitting on a shelf, separate
from other files, for nearly an entire year. Again, I quote from Ms. Anderson's deposition:
"Everybody in the office knew that we had gotten background investigations of people who
were no longer working [at the White House]."
6 See Anderson Tr. at 150-52.
7 See Anderson Tr. at 100-101; 150-52.
8 See Anderson Tr. at 100; 147.
9 See "Sample Republican Files Ordered after OPS Scrubbed
Lists "
10 Ms. Anderson testified with vivid recollection the
process by which at least two subsequent lists were ordered, for
purposes of Mr. Marceca's ordering FBI files in the course of
"Project Update," in the Fall of 1993. See Anderson Tr. at 97-
102; 147-152.
11 See Anderson Tr. at 102-106; 157-63.
12 See Anderson Tr. at 161-62.
13 Anderson Tr. at 157.
3
To summarize, it now appears that the White House ordered FBI files on prior
administration officials, knowing full well that, at least with respect to a number of those
files, there was no legitimate basis for doing SO. According to Ms. Anderson, Craig
Livingstone knew, Anthony Marceca knew, and Lisa Wetzl knew. These files sat in a room
adjacent to the Office of Personnel Security for nearly a year. And it now appears that the
pages in the log where removal of these files would have been recorded, and by whom, are
missing.
In conclusion, I did not call this press conference to announce any final conclusions or
to cast judgment on any of the individuals involved in the affair. The public will have to
draw their own conclusions as to the credibility of particular individuals. I believe it is in the
public's interest that we learn and make public all of the facts. I believe Ms. Anderson's
testimony will help answer important questions about what happened. Unfortunately, many
issues remain unresolved. In the end, I hope that this inquiry, when complete, will have
helped restore public confidence in the FBI, the White House, an in our federal privacy
protections.
#####
4
QUESTIONS/ANSWERS SURROUNDING
MARI ANDERSON DEPOSITION
October 4, 1996
WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MS. ANDERSON'S TESTIMONY?
Sen. Hatch has stated from the outset that the purpose of this inquiry is to learn
and make public the facts. It would be irresponsible for the Committee to make
accusations or final conclusions at this time. Still, the Committee has heard conflicting
testimony from individuals who worked in the Office of Personnel Security. The
conflicting testimony is not over inconsequential details but, rather, details concerning
critical issues surrounding the manner in which files were requested, when the office
knew it was ordering FBI files on Republicans, and how those files were handled.
Specifically, the Committee has heard sworn testimony that:
1. Pages are missing from the log;
2. Files on Republicans were knowingly being wrongfully acquired;
3. Mr. Marceca knew in September of 1993 that there were prominent
Republican names on the list he was using but he later requested and acquired the files;
and
4. Mr. Livingstone did not log-out files he took from the security office.
Ms. Anderson's sworn testimony significantly challenges the White House line
that this was all a bureaucratic snafu.
IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THE IMPROPERLY ORDERED FILES WERE
ACTUALLY MISUSED?
Unfortunately, the avenues by which the Committee could definitively answer
that question are not available to the Committee at this time: 1. Missing from the log
are pages covering a relevant time period, immediately after all these Republicans' files
were received; 2. Mr. Marceca has taken the Fifth Amendment; and 3. Requests for
copies of fingerprint analysis of the files are still outstanding. Given these outstanding
matters, no one can conclude that files were not misused.
WERE REPUBLICAN FILES CHECKED OUT?
The White House spin is that there is no evidence of wrongdoing because Ms.
Anderson cannot recall Republican files being logged out. It is true that Ms. Anderson
does not specifically recall Republican files being logged out but, then again, she told the
1
Committee she was not familiar with the names of many prominent Republicans.
Furthermore, Ms. Anderson cannot confirm that none were ever removed, since she
herself testified that she did not oversee or keep track of all the files that were checked
out. [On page 170 of the deposition transcript, Ms. Anderson confirmed counsel's
suggestion that she "can't tell us for certain which files would or would not have been
taken out during the period for which we have no record."] Since pages are missing
from the log we may never know for sure. In addition, both Mr. Livingstone and Mr.
Marceca were permitted to review files in the office without logging them out. As well,
Mr. Livingstone repeatedly removed files from the office without logging them out.
Which files they were no one knows.
WHY TRUST ANDERSON?
It's clear from the Committee's deposition that Ms. Anderson is still very loyal to
the Clinton Administration and has no desire to harm her former colleagues. She was a
reluctant witness. Frankly, it would have been much easier for her to come and adopt
the Administration's story -- but she did not do so. Mr. Marceca has taken the Fifth
Amendment. Mr. Livingstone's memory is exceptionally vague. Ms. Anderson appears
to be the one person the White House has not been able to reach prior to our
interviewing her. Furthermore, the Committee has been able to independently verify
related portions of her account. For example, the Secret Service confirms that in the
early fall of 1993, Ms. Anderson repeatedly picked up new lists for use in the Office of
Personnel Security. This is consistent with her testimony that the security office knew it
was using lists which had Republican names on it and that Ms. Anderson tried to obtain
more accurate lists for Mr. Marceca's use. She also recalls certain events -- such as
particular names she saw on the list, the brand of pen she used to strike them off, the
stairway she took to get the lists, and so on -- with much greater specificity than these
other witnesses. Accordingly, Sen. Hatch finds her more credible than some of the other
witnesses we have previously heard from.
DIDN'T ANDERSON HAVE A MOTIVE TO CONCEAL THAT SHE WAS SLOPPY
AND SIMPLY LET THE LOG LAPSE?
If she had let the log lapse, one could suppose Ms. Anderson would have had an
incentive not to admit having done so. But if she didn't keep the log and wished to
avoid blame for the gap, why wouldn't she just have adopted Livingstone's suggestion
that he told her not to keep the log?
WHY WAS SHE HIDING / AVOIDING SERVICE?
Her original decision to not appear at last week's hearing is a matter which only
she can answer. Ms. Anderson's attorney, Mark Srere, has expressed a very strong
desire on her part to have her privacy protected. Sen. Hatch appreciates her position.
2
Nevertheless, this is an important inquiry and her appearance before the Committee
may prove warranted. It is her attorney's position that she was not hiding or trying to
avoid service. It should be noted, however, that the Marshals Service tried repeatedly to
serve her over a period of several days and was unable to do so. Further, Mr. Srere was
not given authority by Ms. Anderson to accept service of the Committee's first
subpoena. After publicity surrounding her failure to appear, she realized it was in her
best interest to come in and be deposed. Given what she had to say once she was
deposed, one can appreciate why she may have been reluctant to cooperate.
3
PROMINENT REPUBLICANS WHOSE FBI FILES
WERE ORDERED AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE SCRUBBED
THE "PROJECT UPDATE" LISTS IN SEPTEMBER 1993
Ms. Anderson has testified that in September of 1993 she and
other members of the White House Office of Personnel Security
recognized that there were prominent Republicans on the list Mr.
Marceca was using for Project Update. According to Ms. Anderson, she,
Livingstone, Marceca, and Wetzl removed prominent Republican names
from the list Mr. Marceca was using. She vividly recalls removing the
names of Messrs. Baker and Fitzwater from the list. According to Ms.
Anderson, Marceca knew these files should not be requested.
The following is a random list of prominent Republicans,
including James Baker and Marlin Fitzwater, whose files were
requested, the date their files were sought and when they were
provided.
NAME
DATE SOUGHT
DATE REC'D
DATE PROV'D
BY FBI
TO WH
BAKER, James
12/3/93
12/6/93
12/15/93
Addison
BLANKLEY,
12/9/93
12/10/93
12/17/93
Anthony David
CULVAHOUSE,
12/28/93
1/4/93
1/10/94
Arthur Boggess
DALE, Billy Rae
12/28/93
1/6/94
(charged out to
Craig
Livingstone,
6/6/96)
DREYLINGER,
John Paul
(charged out to
Craig
Livingstone,
6/5/96)
DUBERSTEIN,
1/18/94
1/21/94
1/31/94
Kenneth Marc
FITZWATER,
1/25/94
no other info
Marlin
provided on
form
Contradicting Testimony from the
Staff of the
Office of Personnel Security
Inconsistent Statements on When Staff of Office Personnel Security
Learned that Files of Prior Administration Officials
Had Been Improperly Gathered
Lisa Wetzl:
"[B]elieves she mentioned to [Marceca] that he was not proceeding correctly,
but she did not say anything about this to anyone else in the office as she did
not believe it was her place;" "realized that Tony had made no effort to ensure
that the lists were accurate" when she took over project update in the fall of
1994 [6/11/96 Memo by Sally Paxton summarizing 6/7/96 interview with
Wetzl]
Craig
Livingstone: Recalls that Lisa Wetzl told him that "Tony ordered too many files" at some
point after Wetzl began working on Project Update (in the fall of 1994)
[6/14/96 House deposition at 35-36].
Anthony
Marceca:
"It was my understanding that every person on the lists from which I was
working was properly included on the lists because they had a legitimate need
for access to the White House Complex. I was not told, and had no reason to
believe, that some of the persons on the lists no longer should have been
included on the Secret Service's White House access list. By illustration, for
example, I recall seeing several former Bush Administration officials, such as
[Marlin Fitzwater], in the White House complex during detail at the Office of
Personnel Security. If I saw [Marlin Fitzwater's] name on the access list,
therefore, it would not have struck me as odd." [6/9/96 Declaration]
"I know who James Baker was, but I thought that his name was James Baker
III, and I don't recall typing up specifically a request for James Baker III."
[6/18/96 House Deposition at 109].
Mari
Anderson:
"Everybody in the office knew that we had gotten background
investigations of people who were no longer working [at the White House]"
in the winter of 1993/1994 [Deposition at 157, 158-160]
Specifically told Livingstone and Marceca that James Baker and Marlin
Fitzwater were on list Marceca was using and scratched those names off
the list [Deposition at 100, 150]; testified that Marceca identified
Republicans on the list whose files should not be ordered [Deposition at
101].
Inconsistent Statements on the Gap in the Log
Lisa Wetzl: Mari Anderson "had not been diligent" about keeping the log and "I can only
assume" that she had let the log lapse. [9/19/96 Jud. Cmtee interview at 9, 21]
Mari Anderson "had stopped doing the log." [9/20/96 Jud. Cmtee interview at
6].
Craig
Livingstone: "Vague recollection" that he told "someone in the office" at one point to
discontinue log but later instructed office to use the log [9/20/96 Jud. Cmtee
interview at 17-18]; disclaims having any "definite knowledge that the log was
not kept for a six month period," but "to the best of my knowledge
I
believe [the source of the gap] would be that [the log] wasn't kept" between
3/93 and 9/93. [9/25/96 Jud. Cmtee. Hearing at 36-37]
Anthony
Marceca:
[n/a: left OPS in 2/96 and gap begins in 3/96]
Mari
Anderson:
Was never instructed not to keep entries in the log [deposition at 44, 46];
is not aware of any gaps or lapses in the log [deposition at 166]; has
concluded that "there are pages [from the log] that are not there;" and is
"confident
that there is some portion of the log that is not included in
this copy [produced to the Judiciary Committee]"
STATEMENT
Mark D. Fabiani
Special Associate Counsel to the President
October 4, 1996
Just five weeks before the election, Senator Hatch is
conducting taxpayer-funded opposition research for the Dole
campaign. Despite Mr. Hatch's partisan stunt, the bottom line
remains clear: There is no indication that any FBI files were
misused, and there is every indication that the files were
sought simply because outdated lists were being used.
FACT SHEET:
THE TESTIMONY OF MARI ANDERSON
NO PROJECT UPDATE FILES WERE CHECKED OUT (pages 119-120)
"Q: Would these have ever been files from Project Update?
A:
Not to my recollection. To my recollection, they were
all new background investigations to which we had
received in the office, and there was a question of
something or an issue that needed to be brought to the
attention of the Counsel's Office."
ONLY FILES OF NEW EMPLOYEES WERE CHECKED OUT (page 120)
"Q: Those individuals that you recall specifically were not
carryovers, they were new employees?
A:
Specifically, yes. "
ONLY FILES OF NEW EMPLOYEES WERE CHECKED OUT (page 50)
"Q: Do you personally -- do you recall personally logging
out background investigations of anyone other than new
employees?
A:
No.
Q:
Do you have any knowledge that anyone else had done
that?
A:
No. "
PROJECT UPDATE WAS THE ONLY REASON FILES WERE SOUGHT (pages
115-116)
"Q: Do you know if anyone from the White House ever
instructed anyone at the Office of Personnel Security
to order FBI files of former administration officials
who no longer had access?
A:
As in a specific directive to order? No.
Q:
Any knowledge of something less than a specific
directive, maybe a suggestion or a
A:
None whatsoever at all.
Q:
Do you have any reason to believe that anyone from the
White House ever instructed or suggested that anyone
looked through the files of prior administration
officials who no longer had access?
A:
No, none.
Q:
Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Livingstone
or Mr. Marceca ordered FBI files of prior
administration officials who no longer had access to
the White House for any reason other than to complete
Project Update?
A:
No. "
ONLY SECRET SERVICE LISTS FOR ACTIVE EMPLOYEES WERE SOUGHT
BY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL SECURITY (page 103)
"A: According to what we were working off, they all had
access. They all were active because the important
thing to note is that on this list that we received
from the Secret Service, it listed all active permanent
passes, which means that in the computer, as far as the
Secret Service was concerned, these were people who had
access.
Q: Okay. I'm just trying to clarify. Did the report
actually indicate whether an entry was for an active or
inactive individual?
A:
Active. That's what we requested was all active
permanent passholders."
CAREER EMPLOYEE NANCY GEMMELL OBTAINED THE LIST THAT MARCECA
BEGAN USING (page 145)
"Q: When Tony [Marceca] began the project, did he use the
same list that Nancy Gemmell had been using?
A:
Initially, he did. And if I remember correctly, he
pointed out that the list was a few months old or was a
bit old and that maybe we should get a new one."
THE SECRET SERVICE GENERATED THE LISTS; OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
SECURITY STAFF HAD NO ACCESS TO SECRET SERVICE COMPUTERS
(page 147)
"Q: Now, did anyone at the Office of Personnel Security
have anything to do with actually getting on the Secret
Service system and producing the list that was used for
Project Update?
A:
No, we had no access to their computers whatsoever. "
THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL SECURITY WORKED WITH LISTS GENERATED
BY THE SECRET SERVICE (pages 172-173)
"MR SRERE (Ms. Anderson's attorney) : Once again, I want to
make sure the record reflects this clearly. When the
background investigation of the FBI file was ordered by the
people in that office, their knowledge was that those people
had current active passes, and indeed that's what the Secret
Service told them."
FACT SHEET
FBI FILES
NO EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING:
"No evidence has emerged that the files were misused, and
the White House has said they were obtained in a bureaucatic
snafu." Wall Street Journal (Glenn Simpson), 9/21/96
"So far, however, no evidence has surfaced that Marceca,
Livingstone or anyone else at the Clinton White House
misused the FBI reports." The Washington Post (George
Lardner), 9/9/96
"After weeks of hearings by Congressional committees, no
direct evidence has appeared that points to a conspiracy by
the Clinton Administration to use the files to gain
intelligence on political opponents. Newly disclosed
depositions of officials and a fresh account by the Secret
Service of its records are largely consistent with the White
House assertion that the officials who improperly obtained
the files were using an outdated list of White House staff
members. Those lists regularly included the names of people
who had left the White House, a number of former employees
of the security office say. White House records reviewed
last week, for example, show that in 1993 the Secret Service
continued to list Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security
adviser to President Jimmy Carter, as an active pass
holder. " The New York Times (Neil Lewis and Matthew Purdy),
7/17/96
"A few days of congressional hearings failed to link FBI
file-handlers Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca to
higher-ups, frustrating hopes for a Clinton implosion. By
week's end, neutral and some right-leaners were falling back
on the "doofus" theory (George Will dismissed Livingstone
and Marceca as "incompetent lowlifes") and reducing the
mystery of who hired Livingstone to comic chat-show banter
(Paul Gigot: Maybe Eleanor Roosevelt did) Slate (William
Saletin), 7/1/96
"In fact, it was almost immediately clear that "Filegate"
was probably just what the Clintons claimed it to be: an
act of bureaucratic idiocy
Gradually, even the most rabid
partisans on the committee seemed to understand they were
confronted with a case of serious numbskullery rather than
clever skullduggery " Newsweek (Joel Klein), 7/8/96
THE EXISTENCE OF "BAD" LISTS:
Secret Service officials initially testified that it would
have been impossible for them to produce a list of pass
holders that was so out of date. But several current and
former employees of the White House security apparatus,
including some from previous administrations, have said that
Secret Service lists of people with access to the White
House often includes names of employees who left the
Government years before. Charles C. Easley, a career
security official employed at the White House since the
Reagan Administration -- and who was recently named as Mr.
Livingstone's successor told Senate investigators last
month that when he raised the problem with Secret Service
officials, they responded: "We don't have problems." In
interviews last week, Secret Service officials softened
their position. A spokesman, Carl Meyer, acknowledged that
the agency only deleted names from its master list of White
House pass holders when asked to do so by the White House.
Therefore, a Reagan Administration official could have
remained on the list unless the Bush Administration asked to
have the person's name removed, he said.' The New York
Times (Neil Lewis and Matthew Purdy), 7/17/96
"A Secret Service list of "possible administration holdover
passholders" produced for the Clinton White House in the
spring of 1993 included "President George Bush" as one of
them
The document apparently was not the one that
Livingstone's office used in 1993-94 in wrongly obtaining
sensitive FBI background reports on hundreds of Republicans.
But the accuracy of the Secret Service passholder lists has
become a simmering side issue in the debate over the
improper acquisition of the files. If The Washington Post
(George Lardner), 7/14/96
"Meanwhile, The Post has learned that Marceca's predecessor
at the White House career civil servant Nancy Gemmell
improperly obtained an FBI report on at least one former
official, which may raise questions about the Secret
Service's claim that it couldn't produce outdated lists.
The Secret Service has insisted that it immediately purges
old names from its access list. But in August 1993, Gemmell
apparently using a Secret Service list sought an FBI report
on Daniel Rhea, a national security staffer who had left the
job years before. New York Post (Tom Galvin), 7/17/96
119
1
say hi.
2
MR. SCHANZER: All right. Did either of these two
3
people that you just mentioned--were they ever allowed in
4
the vault?
5
THE WITNESS: Not to my recollection.
6
MR. SCHANZER: Were they ever allowed to review
7
anyone's FBI file?
8
THE WITNESS: Absolutely not.
9
BY MR. HIRSHLAND:
10
Q
Do you know who Betsy Wright is?
11
A
Yes.
12
Q
Do you know whether she ever visited either Mr.
13
Livingstone or. Mr. Marceca at the Office of Personnel
14
Security?
15
A
Not to my knowledge or to my recollection.
16
0
Okay. Could you clarify something for me?
17
Earlier on, you said at some point that occasionally Mr.
18
Livingstone himself would take files out of the office, for
19
example, to Mr. Kennedy, and that would not be indicated in
20
the log that we discussed.
21
A
Uh-huh.
22
Q
Do you know if any record would have been kept of
23
that whatsoever?
24
A
To my knowledge; the only time he did take files
25
out of the office were to either Mr. Kennedy or to Lloyd
MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington. D.C. 20002
120
1
Cutler, if there was an issue that merited discussion. or
2
Craig felt merited some sort of discussion.
3
The reason that-no, I don't remember any log
4
being kept simply because they were in his custody at all
5
times.
2
6
MR. SCHANZER: Would these have ever been files
7
from Project Update?
1
8
THE WITNESS: Not to my recollection. To my
9
recollection, they were all new background investigations to
10
which we had received in the office, and there was "a
11
question of something or an issue that needed to be brought
12
to therattention of Counsel's Office.
13
BY MR. HIRSHLAND:
14
Q
Do you remember specific individuals that Mr.
15
Livingstone would take their files?
16
A
Yes.
17
Q
And those particular individuals--
18
MR. SCHANZER: We're not meaning individuals.
19
BY MR. HIRSHLAND:
20
Q
Excuse me. Thoseindividuals that you recall
21
specifically were not carryovers, they were new employees?
22
A
.Specifically. yes...
23
Q
Dosyou recall the reasons why specifically they a
24
were taken?
25
A
Yes
MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.
507 C Screet. N.E.
Washington. D.C. 20002
50
1
If in that new investigation a question had arose,
2
then there would have been a follow-up.
3
Q
Okay.
4
A
But to my knowledge or to my memory, I should say,
5
all of the people on the first pages that I mentioned were
6
new employees or these were new investigations, and I think
7
if he compared this list with the log that we kept of all
8
background investigations that came in, they' re going to be
9
the same names of the new backgrounds.
10
Q
Backgrounds of new employees?
II
A
Uh-huh.
12
Q
Do you personally do you recall personally
13
logging out background investigations of anyone other than
14
new employees
15
A
No.
16
I
Do you have any knowledge that anyone else shad
17
donerthat
8
A
No
19
Q
Do you recall anyone ever entering the Office of
20
Personnel Security to review a file and reviewing the file
21
in the office?
22
A
Yes.
23
Q
In those instances, would any entry be made in the
24
log?
25
A
What - - not in this log, no. What would be made
MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.
507 C Sueet. N.E.
Washington. D.C. 20002
115
1
Q
Do you know why Mr. Marceca's detail was not
2
extended?
3
A
My understanding was that the Department of
4
Defense Criminal Investigations could no longer afford,
5
because of their case work and the amount of case work that
6
they had - - could no longer afford to have Tony detailed to
7
the White House.
8
&
Do you know if anyone from the White House ever
9
instructed anyone at the Office of Personnel Security to
10
order FBI files of former administration officials who no
11
longer had access?
12
A
As in a specific directive to order? No.
13
Q
Any knowledge of something less than a specific
14
directive, maybe a suggestion or a--
15
A
None whatsoever at all.
16
Q
Do you have any reason to believe that anyone from
17
the White House ever instructed or suggested that anyone
18
looked through the files of prior administration officials
19
who no longer had access?
20
A
No, none.
21
MR. SRERE: Let him finish the question--
22
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
23
MR.
SCHANZER: --so it looks nice on the record.
24
BY MR. HIRSHLAND:
25
I
Do you have any reason to believe that Mr.
MILLER REPORTING CO.,
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington. D.C. 20002
116
1
Livingstone or Mr. Marceca ordered FBI files of prior
2
administration officials who no longer had access to the
3
White House. for any reason other than to complete Project
4
Update?
5
A
No.
6
Q
Did individuals ever visit Mr. Livingstone or Mr.
7
Marceca at the Office of Personnel Security?
8
A
Innumerable times. Could you define what you mean
9
by visit?
10
Q
Well, come to the office to see them.
11
MR. SRERE: Are there specific individuals you
12
want to talk about?
13
MR. HIRSHLAND: No.
14
MR. SRERE: Did people come into their office?
15
MR. HIRSHLAND: It's an open question and--
16
MR. SRERE: Do people come into the office?
17
THE WITNESS: A lot of people came into the
18
office.
19
BY MR. HIRSHLAND:
20
Q
Do you ever recall people other than individuals
21
from the - do you remember individuals from outside the
22
office going into the vault?
23
A
No.
24
I
Can you estimate how often Mr. Livingstone had
-
25
visitors at the office that you would consider on a
MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington. D.C. 20002
103
1
A
Of the files coming into the office of people who
-
2
had not been there.
3
Q
Of people who no longer had access--
4
A
Who were no longer working there.
5
Q
So, therefore, there was no need for the files; is
6
that correct?
7
A
No.
8
Q
Okay.
9
A
According to what we were working off of, they all
10
had access. They all were active because the important
11
thing to note is that on this list that we received from the
12
Secret Service, it listed all active permanent passes, which
13
means that in the computer, as far as the Secret Service was
14
concerned, these were people who had access.
15
I
Okay. I'm just trying to clarify. Did the report
16
actually indicate whether an entry was for an active or
17
inactive individual?
18
A
Active. That's what we requested was all active
19
permanent passholders.
20
MR. SCHANZER: Is there anything on the list that
21
indicated whether--
22
THE WITNESS: Yes. There was a section that said
23
active. There was, like, a column. You had the name. Oh,
24
God, you can configure it to get anything you wanted, but it
-
25
had, like, the name, and I think at the top--I can't
MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
145
1
Q
Right.
2
A
-and doing other things. I don't specifically
3
remember sitting there watching them and listening to them,
4
but I visually saw them going over it.
5
MR. SCHANZER: When Tony began the project did he
6
use the same list that Nancy, Gemmell had been using?
7
THE WITNESS: Initially he did. And if I
8
remember correctly he pointed out that the list was a few
9
months old or was a bit old and that maybe we should get a
10
new one.
11
MR. SCHANZER Okay; now obviously, you remember
12
seeingethevoriginal list the one Nancy Gemmell used.
13
THE WITNESS: I remember seeing many different
14
lists-
15
MR. SCHANZER: Right.
16
THE WITNESS: -that she used.
17
MR. SCHANZER: Do you know what it was dated?
18
THE WITNESS: No, I do not remember that at all.
19
MR. SCHANZER: So, what happened after Tony-- -
20
THE WITNESS: Brought up the fact that it was an
21
older list?
22
MR. SCHANZER: Yes.
23
THE WITNESS: We requested, meaning the White
24
House Personnel Security Office requested, a newer list. We
-
25
received that list.
MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.
507 c Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 546-6666
147
1
recollection, this request for the second list took place
2
when?
3
THE WITNESS: Sometime in September.
4
MR. SCHANZER: And you went to pick up the list- -
5
THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.
6
MR. SCHANZER: --from the Secret Service?
7
Who at the Secret Service would the request have
8
gone to?
9
THE WITNESS: That would have been either J.C.
10
Pearce - - it's either Pearce or Pearson-- or Sergeant - - I
11
believe his first name was Morris Kraft.
12
MR. SCHANZER: Now did-anyone at the Office of
13
Personnel Security have anything to do with actually getting
14
on the Secret Service system and producing the list tha was
15
used for Project Update?
16
THE
WITNESS:
No, we had no access to their
17
computers whatsoever.
18
MR. SCHANZER: So, explain the process that took
19
place when you went to get the list. Where did you go? Who
20
did you talk to? What happened?
21
THE WITNESS: The way that the EOB is configured
22
is that there is a basement, a ground floor, a first floor,
23
a second floor, third floor. We were on the ground floor,
24
and we would go down into the basement, and there is an
25
office down there that contained-- like, it was basically the
MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington. D.C. 20002
(202) 546-6666
172
1
indicated that you were no longer interested in politics and
2
wanted to move on.
3
Were there any other factors that you would say
4
were relevant to your decision to leave the Office of
5
Personnel Security? Were there any other events,
6
considerations, anything else--
7
A
Other than the fact that I no longer wanted to be
8
involved in politics, no; other than the fact that I didn't
9
know what I wanted to do, no.
10
Q
Okay.
11
A
I mean, I'm not real sure what you're asking, but
12
the answer was no.
13
I
I understand it's an open-ended question, but it's
14
designed to be, in case there's anything that you didn't
15
think of that we don't know of in particular.
16
MR. SRERE: Well, she's answered it several times
17
now, SO let's go on.
18
BY MR. HIRSHLAND:
19
I
We just discussed at some length what happened
20
when you--when the office, including yourself, discovered
21
that certain BIs had been ordered of prior administration
22
officials who, in fact, did not have current passes. Did
23
you ever-
24
MR. SRERE: Once again, I want to make sure the
25
record eflects this, clearly
When
the
background
MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington. D.C. 20002
(202) 546-6666
173
1
investigation or the FBI file was ordered by the people in
2
that office, their knowledge was that those people had
3
current.active passes, and indeed that's what the Secret
4
Service told them. Okay? The basis of your assumption
5
MR. HIRSHLAND: You've made that abundantly clear.
6
MR. SRERE: Okay. I want to make sure again--
7
MR. HIRSHLAND: I do not challenge--
8
MR. SRERE: --that you understand that.
9
MR. HIRSHLAND: Certainly.
10
MR. SRERE: Because the way you phrased the
11
question was that they made a realization, oh, we're
12
ordering things for people who don't have passes. Well,
13
they were ordering things for people who had passes, and
14
they found out later that they shouldn't have passes. Okay?
15
And there's a big distinction there, and it's an important
16
distinction.
17
You may ask a question.
18
BY MR. HIRSHLAND:
19
I
Were you ever aware that Mr. Marceca was ordering
20
BIs from the FBI, and at the time he was making these
21
orders, you understood that the individuals whose files he
22
was requesting in fact did not have active passes?
23
A
At no time did I know that.
24
I
Just a couple more questions.
25
We've been talking all about this process when
MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 546-6666